Cutting straight to the chase:
I'm following advice I've received by several. I've slept on all this heavy cogitating (ad naseum) for several days, now.
I have a long time friend that started out as a model train friend, but our friendship long ago left "train friendship" behind. Over the decades of our friendship, we have used each other as sounding boards in which to bounce our ideas and decision points off each other, both model trains and life in general. Over those years, his input has proven very valuable. My friend knows my train likes, dislikes, habits, tendencies, etc, as good (or possibly better) than my wife. (As a wonderful helpmate in life, she also offers good input, by the way.)
They BOTH raised some VERY valid points about my impending decision to try again with traditional 3-rail. The points they raised caused me to stop in my tracks (sorry for the unintended pun, there) and seriously rethink what I was intending to do.
They are correct: It will be DIFFICULT for me to accept on the LONG TERM, that there isn't a realistic possibility for traditional sized Geeps (GP7/9) and RS Alco's. (Geeps have been a diesel modeling essential for me since forever, and RS's have become the same to me over the course of the last 30+ years.) The only options for GP7/9's and RS's that I see are SCALE proportioned, even though marketed as "traditional", or under the "Railking" label. SO... obtaining "traditional" sized GP7/9's and RS Alco's are NOT a "realistic" possibility. To create examples of traditional GP7/9's and RS's (models that would fit proportionally with 6464 type boxcars, Lionel PW cast frame Alco's, and RK's F3's) would be absurd:
* GP7/9: Take a donor Lionel GP unit and HEAVILY kit bash the hood/cab AND frame into a traditional sized Geep that will look proportionate beside Lionel FA's, 6464's etc.
* Alco RS series: Ditto above by use a donor Lionel or MTH RS and HEAVILY kit bash the hood/cab and frame.
Uhh... I don't think so on either count. One of the KEY reasons for moving to traditional 3-rail was to SIMPLIFY, wasn't it? So, traditional sized GP's and RS's are a wash.
In time, I can GUARANTEE the lack of traditional sized GP's and RS's would be a SERIOUS blow to my enjoyment of traditional model railroading, for I could be satisfied looking at PW-type Alco's and RK F's for only so long. (To say nothing of the actual shortage of truly traditional sized recently marketed engine offerings.)
In addition to the above, more valid points by both were raised that eventually sunk into my thick skull and caused me to take pause with a long "hmmmmmm."
SO... essentially I'm almost back to almost where I was at the start of all this. EXCEPT...
I have learned the following by virtue of my hands-on experimenting:
* There are reliability issues with my TOC19 equipment "as is". More time and tedious work would be required to address said issues.
* I would dread trying to paint/create Colorado backdrops and scenery.
* I didn't exhibit the patience I used to have when working with HO track the other night.
* Handling the HO diesel era cars/engines resulted in ZERO issues for my dexterity.
* As mentioned in a previous email/post: The HO diesel era equipment performed flawlessly. (And sounded GREAT.)
* Though barely into the impending decision to retry traditional 3-rail, serious doubts concerning committing to same have already surfaced with a vengeance.
Yes, there IS the 3-rail "Hi-Rail" approach... but I'm so leery of that because "back then" that's what caused me to leave 3-rail to return to scale 2 rail. How can I know that wouldn't try to happen again? I can't. So... I have SIGNIFICANT trepidation as to following the "Hi-Rail" option.
Result: I am not going to do anything for a while. (i.e. Selling off HO diesel stuff or acquiring 3-rail.) Instead, I'm am giving this the time it needs before committing to a direction.
I will say AT THIS POINT... I'm considering trying one more time for an HO diesel layout, but a layout and approach that is more simplified. Also, a layout that would be built using readjusted sets of "exacting/fidelity" standards. Standards that will be adjusted to be more in keeping with the paramount goal of "FUN". (As opposed to trying to make everything as "realistic" as possible, or feeling self-imposed pressure to keep up with today's modeling standards/etc.) So, IF I go back to HO diesels, I will need to discover what my NEW level of "good 'enuf" will be. (A new "good 'enuf" level that keeps the "Fun Factor" several points above the "Hassle Factor" on the "Fun Factor Scale".)
As for testing with time: I will need to revisit my previous out-building HO diesel track plan to see if I can simplify it as well as reconfigure it into something that I could more easily attain, as well as something that I could enjoy more. IF it turns out that the resulting bench work for same could be usable for either the HO diesels OR 3-rail... then so much the better. (But dual-purpose bench work would NOT be a "set-in-stone" goal.) The track plan process in itself will result in more time being spent (and no money) up until I'm ready to commit to something and begin doing it.
So, there you have it.
Sometimes it really sucks overthinking things. Wish I could keep from it. It's that darn "personality type" thing again.
All fer this 'un.
Andre
