The Tangled Webs We Weave...

To quote a great thinker, Jack Nicholson, "There ain't that many shopping days til Christmas."

I know a guy that has been working on an HO layout for twenty years and it's only half scenic-ed.

Relatively speaking, you can do a nice O gauge layout in an hour and a half. HaHa

I like this topic.  Thanks for sharing.

Everyone is different, so you do have to trust your gut.  But, I will share my experience. 

A few years back I got this bug for super duper realism.  It made me start to unreasonably dislike my o scale layout and lead me into dabbling in HO.  I got a couple DCC locos, DCC system, a few pieces of rolling stock, and even set up, with the help of a friend, L girder layout benchwork.  Never got the track laid.

Then it sat, I didn't want to go down there.  Both layouts just sat there.  Doing the HO layout itself somehow felt like work, and the trains themselves did not elicit any real strong emotion from me, mostly because I grew up with Lionel.  I fell away from trains altogether for a couple YEARS, thinking meh, I don't have "enough room" for O, and HO isn't my cup of tea.

Then Christmas last year, I put up a loop and ran some PW.  Then, went downstairs and got back into my O scale layout, big time, and got so much done in 2018 on the layout and hobby in other ways as well.  Now I still strive for realistic scenery, but also realize that for me the train hobby is 3 rail O scale equipment and accept and even embrace the necessary compromises as "reality checks" that these are toy trains.   I even view those compromises as warm reminders of my PW train origins, even on my detailed "realistic" layout.  So instead of, meh that straight into an 072 without an easement on my lower level no longer bothers me as not realistic, but I now literally see it as a much broader more realistic curve compared to my traditional trains.  Its an upgraded PW type layout, not a downgrade of an HO layout.  All a matter of perspective.   

I love real trains, and study locomotives, rolling stock, routes, railroads, etc., and want some realistic scenes, but I love toy trains too, and that ultimately is what my layout is, its a place to run toy trains, call them what you will, scale models, whatever, it is my hobby, my play, my toys.

Another thing I have done that has been helpful, is I jump around on projects.  I do what I feel like doing.  Some hardscape scenery here, paint backdrop there, underbrush there, trees, redo some track work, rewire something, work on a locomotive, weather a car.  I use my feelings as a guide so as to avoid it ever feeling like work.  (of course there are some things that are not as enjoyable as others that you need to get done as prerequisites, but you do what you gotta do).

The HO layout was torn down at some point over the last few years and I have not regretted it at all.  But again, everyone experiences the hobby in different ways.

GV:

You full well see what I'm seeing: Time's a' wastin'.

At THIS POINT, I have the dexterity, eyesight, and physical ability to make good progress on my proposed HO layout. The layout is to be 19' x 15' L-shaped w/peninsula. However, how long before I DON'T have the dexterity, or the eyesight, to continue in HO? I know that time may be coming, 'cause like you say, there's only so many shopping days 'til Christmas... but none of us know "when" reduced abilities will begin, or if we'll even get to that point before the old ticker gives out.

Case in point: My best model railroading friend is in his mid-80s. There's not a realistic way he can model in the demanding size of HO scale. Now, he CAN piddle with 3-rail... but he would struggle with the stamina required to start, and build, a new layout. His "life situation" is that he's pretty much captive to the house caring for his wife of 64 years. (They are a wonderful couple. Best friends you could ever hope for.) His Lionel layout is out in a two story garage, up a set of STEEP pull-down stairs. I helped him build it some 15 or so years ago. But the fact remains that he's separated from his hobby, and doesn't really have the physical ability to start a smaller Lionel layout within any available space within his home. (I will be offering to help him do so next time I've over there to see him.)

So... I'm taking the time NOW to try to figure out which direction I want to go, and begin heading there.

All fer this 'un.

Andre

best get building and painting,

life isn't a dress rehearsal, there is no extra time or penalty shoot out at the end. 

I'm a few years before full retirement but I am deliberately concentrating my interests and get my locomotives as I want them, turning the wheelsets down to scale tire, DCC and weathered where appropriate. If it doesn't fit my interests the it goes to eBay or forum sites here. 

Hi Jeff!

You're welcome on the topic start. Selfish purpose, though it is.   (And thanks for your input!)

Your thoughts concerning 3-rail is EXACTLY what the path I would pursue if it ends up being 3-rail.

However, my path to this crossroad I'm at is quite different than yours. I come from a long history of scale modeling. That scale modeling history is what derailed (pun!) my 3-rail attempt back in the early 2000s. Simply put, I started off with traditional trains and was having a lot of fun. Then I began to make the attempt to make it into what it can't be for me: Up-sized HO. That is, I started going toward scale sized 3-rail equipment, etc, and in so doing 3-rail lost the appeal it had for me (i.e. toy trains among a nice setting). Instead, I was becoming frustrating with it not looking "scale" enough for me. Trying to make it "scale" in my mind, well, then that third rail finally urked me and I poop-canned the 3-rail idea. I then spent lots of time and money trying to model in the scale side of S scale... only to become frustrated with the lack of variety/etc in that scale... went back to HO diesels... then decided to at long last go ahead and try a 19th century steam layout. (I've got a heavy side interest in 19th century railroading that I've had since the early 1990s.) That pretty much where it sits now: Nothing tangible has been done, layout wise, even though my out building has been ready for a layout for two years now.

So as I (we) can see: Something is definitely amiss.

Thus, my rethinking of what the future of this hobby is for me.

It a bit I'll talk about what I'm tempted to do with 3-rail, but that's all for this one.

Andre

Limey:

Yup, you see it too!  Essentially it's time to poop or get off the pot.

Andre

Greetings,

For many years I was a die-hard HO scale model railroader.  I also engaged in the pre-retirement “stocking-up” on everything I thought I would need to hit the ground running when the “Big Day” arrived.   Guess what?  It didn’t happen the way I planned!   I was told that as one gets older, things get easier.  NOT TRUE!  There are doctor visits, taking care of aging parents (if you’re lucky enough to still have one or both parents around), lots of “honey-do” stuff, Blah, Blah, Blah (you get the picture).   Sooooo, I started liquidating all of my HO train stuff and that was that.   Not quite.  While in the process of liquidation, I found “O” scale trains.  Big, heavy trains that smoked, made a lot of noise, and you could run ‘em with a little gadget that looked like a TV Remote.   How cool is that?  The rest, as they say, is history.  This a great hobby but sometimes I think we lose sight of what it’s really about.  There have been days, or even weeks when I did nothing on my layout because I didn’t have the right frame of mind.  I would often go to the train room and spend time just looking at the layout waiting for an idea to pop into my head.   Heck, there were even times when I felt like tearing everything down.   I believe we all go through these “phases” but the bottom line is, It’s A Hobby And Hobbies Should Be Fun!  If ya don’t feel like working on your layout, don’t.  Take a break and come back later, it will still be there.  Besides, who said there was a completion date on your hobby.  Just sayin’.

Chief Bob (Retired)

For me, doing something as creative as building a model railroad starts with a dream.

Everyone's dream is different.

Mine had a lot to do with my young children at the time, and the trains I treasured that I had, and didn't have, as a child. For me, converting from traditional tubular track 027 (what I had and liked as a child) to traditional tubular track O Gauge (what I didn't have as a child and loved) was very fulfilling.

Designing the layout for me was fantastic. I loved pouring over track plans and layouts in model train books and magazines, especially OGR Magazine, and mulling over my own handwritten drawings of track plans and deciding where I would put this or that accessory and other structures. The design phase was a labor of love.

Building the benchwork was scary for me because of my fear of power tools, but I knew it was very important, so I studied and followed a publication on building solid, sturdy benchwork.

Though I am far from being an expert on scenery, that is another labor of love for me. Scenery for me is never finished.  It's fun to tinker with it for a lifetime.

The backdrop is something that should be planned and done early in the process. You don't need to be an artist to do it, I'm not, and painting the backdrop can be an exhilaratingly creative thing to do.

By the way, it's been good for me to be a pack rat with my OGR Magazines. I have over 25 years of them. They are great to refer back to when doing any train related project. Of course, this Forum is another tremendous source of expert advice.

Electricity is very challenging for me. I only know the very basics, and if I was going to do it over again, I would do it differently. But, my mess of wires miraculously works!

I bet there are some Forum members that may die laughing after seeing the above photo. LOL

This proves that if I can build a layout, anybody can do it. LOL

Most importantly, take action and have fun. No one's layout is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes and any mistake can be corrected. For instance  I could correct my mess of wires, but it has stood the test of time (20 years) so I don't need to. My trains slow down at the ends of my layout because the wiring is not perfect, but I want them to slow down at those places.

One more thing. It sounds like you have plenty of equipment to get started. I would start with what you have, which will preserve your resources until you get some experience and then find out what your ultimate model railroad dream is.

I bet that most of the best layout builders on this Forum would agree that they needed to build at least 3 or 4 layouts before they knew what the ultimate layout for each of them would be.

Arnold

laming posted:

Hi Jeff!

 ... 

I've got a heavy side interest in 19th century railroading that I've had since the early 1990s.) 

...

Andre

Yes, a 19th century layout would be terrific.  I share the interest.  I recently listened on Audible to the unabridged audiobook Nothing Like It in the World by Ambrose (and another audio book Iron Rails, Iron Men)  both about the transcontinental Railroad.  Fascinating stuff!

Take some of what you have and build a small portion of a layout.  You may find that putting some trains into action will be enough to jumpstart the creative juices.  OR you may decide that something isn't working right.

If so, the next question is to determine what that something is.  Era?  Scale?  Maybe you end up doing a O2R 19th Century layout.  Maybe you end up back with HO diseasels.  Maybe you go with P48 diseasels.

But actually doing something in a small way will possibly help sharpen your focus without wasting too much time or money.

You have been on this forum for quite some time even before there were sub forums for smaller scales. Do you have 1/48 stuff? Your concerns seem to be about dealing with smaller models in the future. Could you just transition to On30? Basically the same track and power requirements. I would think there is enough motive power than could pass for 19 century. Everything except the track would be larger.

Pete

Great topic. I've been a heavy O scale leaner over the years and did make attempts at smaller scales. An HO experiment and an N gauge one came to nothing. I've gradually come to the "good enough" philosophy as championed by Tony Koester and others, and I'm gathering items for a 10' x 14' L-shaped  3R O gauge layout. I've had my share of fussy little projects that never got finished, and now feel happy with something that looks reasonably good, isn't rivet--counter accurate and RUNS. (And on 027 profile track, 042 minimum radius to boot.)

“The more fiddly you make doing everything on your layout, the more you make it unlikely it will ever happen,” he wrote. “For a large layout, Allen McClelland’s good enough principle is not just a good idea—it’s the key to actually accomplishing something.”

Just my $0.02 or less. Best of luck and don't pet the swe.....  no, don't sweat the petty stuff.

GVDobler posted:

 

I know a guy that has been working on an HO layout for twenty years and it's only half scenic-ed.

 

HA!  Got him beat.  I gots me a 30 year old S Scale railroad that's only about 1/3 scenicked...  At least it runs reliably...

PUFFRBELLY posted:

For many years I was a die-hard HO scale model railroader.  I also engaged in the pre-retirement “stocking-up” on everything I thought I would need to hit the ground running when the “Big Day” arrived.   Guess what?  It didn’t happen the way I planned!   I was told that as one gets older, things get easier.  NOT TRUE!  There are doctor visits, taking care of aging parents (if you’re lucky enough to still have one or both parents around),

Sorta what I ran into.  I retired in January and it's been a little rough sailing for most of the year.  Nothing tragic, fortunately.  It's just situations and events that sapped my time and/or enthusiasm.

Things have finally calmed down and I've recently begun to get serious on some of my projects.

Rusty

From reading your description, it sounds to me like you have gotten overwhelmed with the what ifs, in effect saying "well, I really would love to be able to build a detailed HO layout that is Colorado mountain railroading, but that is going to require building the benchwork, going to require modifying equipment, laying in scenery, and then as time goes on I am going to have to deal with small, tiny details, putting the equipment on the track, etc", and then another part of you is saying "you will get the layout to near where you want it, then won't be able to run it".  It is far too easy to get caught up in the what ifs, problem with that is the what ifs turn into the shoulda, woulda, couldas, too. 

It is true that as we get older that it gets harder and harder to do things, eyesight and arthritis and the like take their toll....but you also can't know how you will age either. Tony Koester that someone quoted is not that young, well into his 70's I believe, and he is still very active with his modelling, and there are others who are in their 70's and 80's still very active, and if you base it on the idea "I'll be too decrepit in a couple of years", you won't even start, maybe the attitude should be "I'll enjoy building the layout, enjoy the path, get done what I can, when I can, and in the end if I have to hang it up, I tried and had a load of fun doing it".

Likewise, the "good enough" quote comes to mind.  OP mentions that if he is going to do the Colorado mountain layout in the 19th century, that it will require modifying equipment (I assume to make it more prototypical), building kits, etc...why not build the layout, do the trackwork, wiring,get that going, run the equipment you have for now (even if it is unprotypical) while you do scenery, and then spend time making the equipment "prototypical", maybe it wouldn't be so daunting. Trying to work on detailing equipment while also building the benchwork, laying track, doing scenery is a monster task. One thing I do know from project management, when you look at a large project in its potentially finished state and try to plan for that (top down), rather than looking at the steps needed to get to that final state (bottom up), top down can be very, very unmotivating. 

I tore down my old 3-rail converted to 2-rail BPRC layout at the beginning of the year.  I decided I wanted Atlas 2-rail track and Signature Switch switches, on Mianne benchwork.  Still BPRC (no wiring) and all my engines and rolling stock still have their Hi-rail wheels (no middle rollers).  I got the layout up and have had trains running for a few months now.

I turned 67 in August and have arthritis in my hands, I want to build more old craftsman type kits like Ambroid, Athearn, etc, but man my hands hurt.

I also haven't done any scenery yet, intentionally.  I wanted to give my track plan a chance, to make sure it was what I wanted before I made it "permanent".  Just don't feel like doing things more than once.

I have all my old Athearn and other HO stuff in plastic boxes, I doubt I could handle that gauge as well as I do O anymore.  S scale may be a good compromise if you are looking to change scales.

I would suggest thinking about getting Mianne benchwork, but if you've already got the lumber then it may not be something you want to spend more $$$ on.

I'm to the point that a bit of scenery will do me some good, although I still haven't decided if I'll lay ballast.  I may try spraying some textured paint on the sides of the roadbed and be done with it.

But playing golf and shooting guns has encroached on my train play time, I can do all 3 in a day but I'm beat at the end!

Looking at my engines and rolling stock, I almost wish I didn't have any diesels, I prefer running my Williams/Samhongsa brass engines along with a MTH 0-6-0,  two 2-8-0, and a Lionel 4-8-2.  And I almost wish I could bring myself to whittle down those to maybe 6 or less.  I have my favorites and could do it if I set my mind to it.

It's all up to you , like I've always said...The hardest part is getting started, making that 1st cut, the rest is easy after that.

Hi All:

Thanks for some thought provoking replies.

In a few minutes I've got to start the process of prepping for my responsibilities at church tonight. (Shave/shower, fix n' eat supper, etc, then load up my music stuff and off to church w/practice following service.) So, no time to dive in and type out some replies.

Bear in mind the "next one" would make my fifth layout. Actual layout construction to the functional stage doesn't hold any mysteries or skills that will need to be developed. Some of my past layouts were quite expansive For example, one was a tri-level in a dedicated RV trailer with 79+ switches (turnouts), and over 200' of main line (90% hand laid track on main/visible yards) w/stages on each end, all of them HO diesel. I say that to let you see that I have the needed skills to get a layout up to the functional stage, even some scenery. However, in view of a Colorado theme layout, I WOULD need to develop the scenic skills to pull that off to my satisfaction. I think that lack of "Colorado scenery" skill sets is also a factor in my paralysis.

Oops... outta' time. Got to get started.

All fer now.

Andre

Speaking of the physical challenges of building a layout and even running trains as we get older, sometimes when I have to crawl under the train tables to get to a derailment or for other reasons, I think of it as a form of yoga.

Physical activity, if it doesn't kill us, is often good for us. Arnold

Hi Andre, I have been building my layout for twenty two years and it's still not done. I guess it never will be because I keep changing things every time I come up with another brilliant idea.

Let me tell you that I have been at this very same impasse as you and there is only one way to get through it, just do it!

My point is to make sure you work on it every day for at lest an hour. I guarantee you that hour will turn into three or four with out even trying.

I have a friend who is a writer and he had a dead line that he feared would come and go before he even got his outline completed.

I told him to just start typing,  gibberish if need be but throw  ideas on paper and see where it takes him.  Well, he laughed and showed me the door, but I heard typing as I walked out.  

In short, Just do it!  

Andre, I think the problem is something most of us face. We are interested in so many different types of model railroading, that it is very difficult to choose just one. We have limited time and resources, so we don't want to make the wrong choice. If this is indeed the issue, I really don't have a good answer. In fact, I often struggle with this myself. I currently model in 3 rail O scale, but I previously modeled in HO. Every now and then, I feel drawn to the HO scale side. An HOn3 layout would be interesting too. I even once considered N scale after seeing some great layouts at a train show. It would be ideal if we could have multiple layouts, each representing our various interests, but unfortunately, this usually isn't an option for most of us. I have to admit that I don't really have any advice or suggestions, but I can say that you are not alone.

Andre;

First, congrats on retiring... I was fortunate to take slightly early retirement 6 years ago and couldn’t be happier.

I may be simplifying things a bit (or totally missing something), but two things stand out to me in your original post - a reluctance to start cutting the lumber and questioning your era of choice/scale. On the first problem, I fully understand - I am not a carpenter, so I purchased benchwork from Mianne. The base of my first (and, hopefully last) layout took little time. On the second problem, you stated that you were using “HO standard gauge equipment”. That being the case, if you build a layout, wouldn’t it be relatively easy to modify it in the future to use more modern, later steam or deisel equipment - possibly excluding a roundhouse???

In my case, I kept making changes, and continue to do so, as the build progresses. So my recommendation would be dive in!!!

P.S. the best line I’ve read in quite a while... “mired in the odoriferous muck”  

Banjoflyer has very good ideas.

Consider having an even higher table top. Mine is 48 to 52 inches above the floor. 

Home!

Thanks for all the input, let me see if I can get caught up...

Chief Bob:

Yes, retirement time fills up. I'm seeing that! I do have several interests to spread my available retirement time across. Right now it's my dual sport motorcycling season: Autumn, during the winter when I can, on into late spring. As well, I'm wrapping up reburishing a 1971 Zundapp GS125 trail/sport bike. Waiting in the wings after the Zundapp is either a CZ 175 Trail to restore, or a DKW GS125 to get running/trail worthy.

Arnold:

Lands I've got more dreams that I can accomplish! As recently as a year or so ago, I figured I could work on my out building Colorado 19th century layout when in the mood, or my small computer room around the walls HO urban diesel theme... or tinker on the computer in V scale. Big dreams... but it ain't happenin'! As for needing 3-4 layouts: To hone one's skills, yes. However, one can't foresee the evolution of one's tastes and such. You discover those as you progress along the way. (As well as circumstances changing.)

Jeff:

Even if I poop-can the 19th century layout idea, I still have my many 19th century V scale "routes" (virtual layouts) in which I can indulge into my 19th century "thing".

PALALLIN:

Your idea has merit, mainly in the Colorado scenery idea. That is, in the past I've considered taking a 2'x4' sheet of hardboard (Masonite) and seeing if I can paint acceptable (to me) Colorado background mountains thereon. IF I can produce acceptable background mountains, then try my hand at painting some foreground hillsides w/trees and such. IF I pass the backdrop test, then see if I can create convincing 3D rocks, and a white water creek, etc. Will I actually do this? We shall see.

Norton:

I do not have any "scale" 1/48th items. I still have a handful of 3-rail "traditional sized" rolling stock and a couple of un-assembled engines left over from my past foray(s) into traditional 3-rail. I have considered On30, and that would address some of the "size" concern, but doesn't do much for the modeling intensity required for what my personal "good enough" On30 modeling would likely be. There would be a lot of kitbashing, repainting, lettering/weathering and such as that to accomplish what I would want to accomplish modeling the 19th century. BUT... the trains WOULD be bigger.

Firewood, you said:

"I've had my share of fussy little projects that never got finished... <snip>"

That is a VERY salient point. I'm notorious for that. In regards to tedious projects, my "projects started to projects finished" ratio is not good at all. This IS a factor in my trepidation in continuing forward within any theme that is going to require small, tedious "labor intensive" endeavors by the scads. By "labor intensive", I mean extensive kitbashing, tedious kits, lots of paint/decal/weathering work, on and on. I'm afraid my resolve for such modeling is in jeopardy of fading away.

BIGKID:

Bench work I don't fear, modifying equipment I can do, basic scenery I can do, I have the skills needed to hand lay track if needed (I wouldn't need to, I have cases of all the needed code 70 flex track on hand and all the Shinohara switches I need), and so forth. The SKILLS to build a layout, at this point, is not what I'm concerned about. It's the DRIVE (tenacity) to stay at it long enough to get it functional enough to enjoy in an operational state that's got me concerned. As for the rolling stock, I'm doing to bare minimum: Converting them to body mounted Kadee couplers, modifying the trucks as needed to accept code 88 wheel sets, and adding a few details so they don't look like train set cars. Paint/decals will be required to get rid of the garish colors of the plastic bodies, as well as to have different numbers/etc for operation. Bottom line: There is a lot of time consuming, tedious, work required to have even a "good enough" HO scale layout. I'm doubting my ability to stay hooked up for the required time to do so. WHEN I am sufficiently motivated, I've tackled much larger layout projects. BUT... that's what has me concerned: The needed motivation. It ain't there right now.

Bob Delbridge:

Sounds like you've figured out where your happy place is found. That's what I'm trying to figure out: Where I'll get the best bang (enjoyment) for my buck (effort).

GG1MAN:

Yup... just DO IT.  It's a simple matter of me trying to figure out what my "DO IT" will be.

Karl S:

Boy... birds of a feather. Maybe we need to join "Interests Anonymous" and enter their 12 Step program?

Paul:

You observed a "reluctance to start cutting the lumber". Yup. 'Cause if I'm going to change my direction, I want the lumber uncut so it can become what it needs to be. Not that I fear bench work, not at all, just don't want to cut up the 10' lengths of dimensional lumber until I'm truly settled on what direction I want to go.

You also observed that I'm "questioning your era of choice/scale". That is the crux of the matter right there.

And offered this: "...if you build a layout, wouldn’t it be relatively easy to modify it in the future to use more modern, later steam or deisel equipment <snip>"

Well, in this case, no. IF I go forward with a 19th century Colorado theme, then the bench work will be along two walls with a peninsula. There will be different levels of bench work, depressions for gulches, cookie cutter tops, and other such intricacies. However, IF I choose to up size to traditional 3-rail AND simplify in the process, the bench work will be around the wall, and pretty much table top style (with possibly a couple depressions for an underpass or creek, etc.)

So, IF I get a ways along on a 19th century Colorado theme, THEN decide it's not the direction I needed to go, I would not have much bench work at all that could be re-purposed. This basic issue is that neither of my possible directions would mix well, bench work wise.

All:

See? Quite the tangled web I've woven for myself into!

I'll figure it out... even if I figure it out wrong!  (I guess I can assume that I could change boats and press on?)

All fer now.

Andre

Oops. Looks like BANJOFLYER (now THERE'S a curious nickname) posted while I was typing all the above out!

B-FLYER:

I'll look over your post more thoroughly sometime tomorrow and get back to you.

All fer tonight!

Andre

Andre,

When I was into HO, I wanted to model the Seaboard Air Line.  At the time, there wasn't a whole lot of stuff lettered and accurate for that RR.  When the squirrels took over my 12x16 shed layout, I called it quits for a few years.

Then I decided to build in the garage, this time in O scale.  I was going to keep it simple, I had actually found a RailKing RS3 lettered in SAL a couple of years before and finally committed to building another layout.

I wanted it to be simple and 3-rail, not worry about "scale" and just have a good time.  That lasted for a few years then the "scale" aspect hit me again, I really hate looking at something that is labeled as SEABOARD AIR LINE when I know it ain't so.  I've been buying/modifying stuff ever since.  When I found I could convert to battery power remote control I really went off the deep end!!!

Here's my suggestion...DON'T model a specific RR, I love my SAL but I'm sick of having to hunt down decals and prototypical rolling stock/engines.  Actually, I'm just about done buying those things, got more than I can run at any one time as it is.

If you have to, make up a RR and get some things painted and lettered in that name.  Decals are hard to find for certain RRs, but getting them made (not in white) may be easier to do.

Better yet, find out what aspect of the hobby you like best.  If it's building car kits do that, if you just want to run trains, quick build a "simple" layout and run those trains.  If you like building your own turnouts, same thing.

I attempted building turnouts, built 7 of them then found it more beneficial to buy them from Brad Strong at Signature Switch.  Ready-built turnouts are not cheap, but Brad makes a fine product and I have had ZERO problems with the 12 #6 switches I got from him.  When I look at my hand built turnouts and compare them to the Signature ones, well there's no comparison.  Mine work, but I've got my fingers crossed every time something rolls across them.  They remind me of trackwork you see laid all crooked on purpose.

Oh, welcome to the retirees club!  I've been retired from civil service for 12 years this coming January, I don't think I have it in me to work 40hr weeks anymore.  I do work 1 day/wk at a local golf course (down from 2) on a 6 hour shift, that's plenty plus I get free golf!

Bob Delbridge posted:

Here's my suggestion...DON'T model a specific RR, I love my SAL but I'm sick of having to hunt down decals and prototypical rolling stock/engines.  Actually, I'm just about done buying those things, got more than I can run at any one time as it is.

If you have to, make up a RR and get some things painted and lettered in that name.  Decals are hard to find for certain RRs, but getting them made (not in white) may be easier to do.

 

I've been doing "Private Roads," "Freelancing," "Fantasy," whatever you want to call it since the 1970's in HO, N and now S.  Frankly, I've got tired of having to paint and letter everything. 

My interests have slowly shifted to using prototype railroads and the magical "close enough."  If it had a presence in Kansas, where my railroad is set, there's a good chance it'll make an appearance now and then on my pike.  There's also the occasional "no-way-in-heck" railroad that will show up.

If and when I tear down and replace the Great Plywood Glacier, the odds are I'll be leaning more towards a prototype railroad.  With my accumulation, I have a variety of directions at my disposal to head off into.

As far as equipment, nowadays I may or may not add some extra road-specific details to ready to run stuff depending on how I feel, with occasional dives off into the deep end of fantasy-land.

I admire folks that can stick to a single cohesive plan for their railroads, but my model railroad DNA is somewhat scrambled.

Rusty

Another question to consider is, what kind of operating do you want to do? Not all types are equally possible with different sorts of equipment. I see from your other threads that you have been thinking about postwar trains. Your answers to the operating questions may help you to eliminate them as a possibility, or confirm that you can make them do what you need them to do.

Obviously, with an O gauge layout you will have less mainline, and thus less room for mainline operations, and as a result it is even more important to run slowly, to maximize what mainline you have. This is a major strike against using postwar, since they can only go so slow. I have, however, gotten the impression that you are a "lone wolf" modeler, and so maybe you are not scheduling meets on your main line, but just looking for room to run the trains between their destinations (that is my case: I will just run trains sequentially). In that case, postwar runs as well as anything else, and maybe better. Also, if you go with a smaller minimum curve, say O-54 or O-42, you can get a little more mainline into the same space. Of course, this locks you into "traditional" 3-rail trains. It also removes the temptation to buy a huge and expensive Northern or articulated!

I observe that, to many "lone wolves", operating mostly means spotting cars at industries in ultra-slow motion. You can certainly do switching with postwar O, but you can't do it at realistic speeds. As a railroader, can you turn on your "suspension of disbelief" and convince yourself that it is OK to couple at 25 mph, since it is, after all, only a toy train? If yours is to be a switching layout only, I would say 'no' to postwar. But postwar also doesn't mean it has to be only 'loop running.'

If you are trying to model something specific, then you already know that O, in any form, is going to be frustrating, unless you really enjoy custom painting. With postwar, it is even more frustrating, since there are so few road names. Even if you add in the mechanically and visually similar trains by MPC / LTI, there are huge gaps. For example, as far as I know, prior to 2000, Lionel only ever offered three locomotives lettered for M-K-T: the postwar NW2, a ubiquitous 4-4-2 starter set loco, and green / yellow GP which is always offered at ridiculous prices because it was a J. C. Penney item and therefore "rare". But if you just want to run trains, as opposed to running a railroad, then a NYC Hudson in Frisco territory won't bother you. Say it's leased, and pull whatever you want with it. But again, you have to decide what you, being a railroader and knowing better, can stomach.

Lastly, at this point in your modeling career, which trains do you really like more? What gets you excited? Realistic HO, or big, fanciful O? Which ones make your smile bigger when you daydream, and see them running on your layout in your mind's eye?

(Yeesh, that got long!)

Andre, Excellent topic that as is obvious, many of us can relate to, having gone through the same thing or going through it with you now.  I think what I have gleaned from the commentary so far is that your trepidation is scale, era, and maybe roadname.  

Many of my initial thoughts have been addressed, so I am just going to throw out my experiences, and see if any of it hits home for you or another forum member.  I am another who modeled in HO and N scales.  I had a decent Western Maryland - B&O N scale layout at one time.  I then went back to HO buying some Western Maryland equipment, then when those seemed too small, tried On30 on my HO track while building a couple building kits.  In my early to mid 50s I realized I liked 1:48 scale for the size; eye and handling problems; but I didn't want a layout that had the normal narrow gauge flavor.  I liked late steam to early diesel transition on a small Class 1 branchline type railroading.  I even tried 1:48 switching layout, but I like to see trains run from one place to another, and not just stay in the industrial district all the time.  I knew I didn't have the space for those wide of curves in O scale 2-rail, and was at a bit of a loss.  I had always viewed O gauge 3-rail as postwar toy trains on traditional Lionel track.  Back in the spring of 2012, I saw for the first time an O Gauge Railroading magazine on the rack.  It wasn't even a hobby shop; it was in a Giant Eagle grocery store.  The issue that was on display was the one of Dave Minarik's Mercer Junction Train Shoppe in Mercer, Pennsylvania.  I live 45 minutes from Mercer, so the next Saturday I went to Dave's shop and came out with a RailKing train set.

I really liked the size, sound, lights, and control of that O gauge train, so I bought some more with no particular theme in mind.  I had become tired of trying to replicate my trains and layout in a prototypical manner.  I had thoughts of running both O gauge 3-rail along with On30 on the same layout, but finally decided I didn't have the space to pull it off the way I would like.  I sold all the On30 equipment.  Almost two years ago, I started a layout design topic that I have a link to in my signature line.  I really threw out some basic ideas and the 11x11 room size.  After a few comments, it became clear that I would not be running big steam engines on 072 curves, It wouldn't be much more than some circles of track around the room.  Soon John C came in with a proposal of a mountain branch point to point theme with a rough drawing of a plan.  He then put in links too the Elkins-Black Fork line of the Western Maryland Rwy as a prototype to loosely follow.  How did he know it was that very prototype I had been planning to build an HO layout with that theme when our girls were small.  That layout never got built, but I had a lot of the information John was sharing.  It was almost immediate that I had a theme for a layout.  We started developing the plan on the aforementioned topic, I started selling engines that didn't fit the theme and buying ones that did.  This past January I started building the layout.  After I got about half the benchwork built and laid some track (that isn't much in an 11x11 room), my wife observed I was really cramped in that room.  She then said since our girls are married, we never use the family room any more, and we should get rid of the almost worn out furniture.  She suggested I use about 2/3 the space for a layout and 1/3 would be her sewing/crafts area.  So I halted construction, and we expanded the concept for the 11x11 room into the 12x18 space available.  I hope to start building in January.

As far as my position in life goes, I am 62 and have been what I guess would be called semi-retired for a little over a year.  I didn't work at all for 6 weeks in the summer, and this is now my 4th week off in the fall.  I see I may be falling into retirement though I had planned to work until 65 or 66.  Things don't always work out as planned.  I do have 4 elderly relatives to help with, and my parents empty house and grounds to care for, since they are now in a personal care home.  If it wasn't for the time off work, I don't know how I would keep up with the family obligations.  It is all in God's hands.  In the past year, I have seen my physical mobility decrease with knee and sciatic nerve issues, so I am glad I have have been planning for around the walls, fairly high benchwork.  I am in the process of getting medical care for those issues, but realize it doesn't get resolved quickly.  Otherwise, I am in good health.  The oldest member of my men's Thursday morning Bible study just mentioned this morning about his issues with sciatic nerve problems.  He is a man who, like my dad has kept very active in retirement, but eventually the body starts to wear down as my did's finally did.

Well I hope something here strikes a note with you.  I will keep up with your topic and see how things go.

There is no dipping the toe in the pond on this one... you either jump in or go to a different lake.

You are going to have to find something that motivates you and quick! I put music on in the layout room and let her rip! I come up for air 2 to 3 hours later.

I would start noodling up some designs with a wish list of plus and minuses. You may even start one section and take it to completion to see if its what you want.

If smaller scale is an issue now, don't even think about going down that road. I went from HO to O and never looked back. But if HO is what you decided on than stick with it.

If you are building your layout with grid modular bench work, you will be fine no matter what scale you choose. I used my HO bench work for my HO layout ,than my S gauge layout... then my O layout. 

I would map out the usable space in your room for you layout. This will not change regardless of scale.

Good Luck! And we are all rooting for you.

Can you show us pictures of your layout room? Design thoughts? ETC...?

My suggestion:  Get or find someone with similar interests and get them to help you.

The social aspect of model railroading can be very motivating.  Plus having someone to bounce ideas off is valuable.  You will make better and faster progress and have more fun doing it.

Best,

George

Hm. Looks like my thread has been moved. I guess I didn't articulate adequately enough that the real question is: Will I stay in HO or move to traditional 3-rail?

Hope the 3-rail guys will find this thread down here in the HONGZ section. Oh well.

Now... off to some replies!

BJ FLYER:

The bench work for my proposed HO 19th century theme, and what I would want in its place if I go 3-rail, would be totally different. I could possibly reuse some of the basic individual L-girders, but that would be about it. Think: One (HO) would be purpose built with flowing edges, different elevation levels, lowered bench work sections for a gulch, etc., the other (Traditional 3-rail) would essentially be table top design to accommodate a "bottoms land" urban look. Totally different animals.

Bob D:

You said:  "I wanted it to be simple and 3-rail, not worry about "scale" and just have a good time."

That is exactly the approach I would take if I make a go with Traditional 3-rail. Trying to move my 3-rail into the "scale" realm (scale equipment, not scenery) with my 3-rail led to its demise. I felt like I was trying to make a purse out of a swine's ear. (That center rail REALLY began to bug me, and I realized I was trying to make my approach to 3-rail into something it can't do for me.) In other words, as long as I had traditional sized trains: I was playing with toy trains, the center rail wasn't an issue. When I started moving toward scale, then several inherent elements about 3-rail began to really bug me (that center rail, the "faster than it should be" engine performance, oversized rail, etc, etc), so I went back to two rail modeling.

Rusty:

Yes, if I go with HO (either 19th century OR diesels), then the primary road would be freelanced. I would use what is available for a Traditional 3-rail theme layout... and later repaint/reletter acquisitions to suit my preferences.

NICKAIX:

You said: "Another question to consider is, what kind of operating do you want to do? Not all types are equally possible with different sorts of equipment."

And THAT is my number one concern with a return to Traditional 3-rail. CAN I give up the ability to do some meaningful operation that can adequately look "real" (performance wise) when the mood is there to do so? I'm sufficiently convinced that I can create a "look" and "feel" for an early 1950s era layout, even using Traditional equipment. That has been amply proven to me by members here on the 3-rail forum. (Oops... I forgot, I've been moved to the HONGZ forum!)  With apologies to those that originally shared the photos quite some time ago, I offer the following...

Here's Traditional equipment on a broad curve among realistic scenery. I think the effect is VERY convincing:

And here's a couple of pictures I stole off one of "Christopher's" posts a long time ago. Again, when Traditional equipment is set among realistic type scenery, the Traditional stuff look very good and is convincing enough to my eyes:

The above pictures and more illustrated to me that I could have scenes my mind accepted as "real looking", which in turn added tremendously to the plausibility of the Traditional trains. (Just think how good a layout would smell with all that ozone and hot grease aroma!)

BUT... I know me well: I would also want to switch in the yard some, as well as switch some industries out there when in the mood. THAT is where my I began to have concerns about my Traditional 3-rail idea. Now, my last effort at 3-rail, I obtained one of those RMT "Bang" diesels (traditional sized "Alco S-type" switcher.) Surprisingly, it ran "good enough" to use for a switch engine, even with a PW ZW transformer. Even though it is quite compressed in size/appearance, I "THINK" I could be happy with a couple of custom painted/lettered "Bang's" for switch engines (using my PW steam and Alco's for main line moves)... but that is only an assumption at this point.

So, as you can see Nick, you have certainly hit one of my concerns squarely on the head.

As for the limited amount of road names in Traditional: I was going to go with Lionel Lines for the steam engines, and the factory liveries that were offered on the cast frame Alco FA's to get started with. Later, I was going to pick up unwanted/unloved Alco FA sets, and refurbish, repaint, re-letter for ?? roads of my choosing that would fit with my overall layout theme. (Whether that turns out to be the KC area, or some eastern city, etc. Likely reuse my "KC Lines" theme.) FWIW, I do enjoy tinkering with PW at the workbench. I also enjoy repainting into a different liveries, as I have done in the past.

Mark B:

I understand on the elements you articulated. One of my concerns for HO 19th century modeling is the tiny size of the equipment. Not a problem now... but what about later?  It would suck to reach a point that I have a layout that I wasn't dexterous enough to actually enjoy. However, how can I know that?  I can't, so either plan ahead for it and go larger now, or move forward with my current plans and face the issue if/when it gets here.

JDADDY:

Good points, all. Yes, I need to poop or get off the pot. That's the reason for this discussion. As you can see, I do have concerns about the tiny trains later on, but I also have concerns about a switch to simpler/bigger trains via Traditional 3-rail. Yup: The tangle webs we weave!

I already have the room size mapped to within 1/8" or so.   (What can I say? I'm a planner.)

You asked: "Can you show us pictures of your layout room? Design thoughts? ETC...?"

I don't have the current means to digitize the old fashioned "pencil n' templates approach" to track planning that I still prefer. (I like the tactile nature of it as opposed to designing digitally.) If I eventually get my scanner up and going, I can scan the sheets, stitch together, and share my track plan. In regards to the HO 19th century layout theme: I have enough equipment converted to scale and on hand to get started. I have all the needed flex track and switches (turnouts), and I have the first round of lumber sitting on the floor. It's a matter of taking the plunge and getting started... or switch horses and start down a different path.

Now, I can fix you up with some pictures of my space I have to work with. Here 'ya go...

Here's an exterior pic of it. Exterior measurements are 16' x 20':

Here's a view looking to the left (in proximity to entering) that shows my work bench, storage shelves, paint booth, sound system, and HVAC. Sharp eyes will note some control line combat model airplanes hanging on the rack in the corner:

And here's a view from the work bench area, looking at the right hand side of the structure. The bulk of the 19th century layout would occupy much of that space:

And here's a look at my work bench area. (Note: It is a bit "busier/cluttered" looking now):

Lastly, here's the view I get looking out the window in front of the work bench:

I've got it made in regards to my own personal "man cave/layout room"... but I hope to build a layout therein that will turn my crank for my remaining years.

Wow... THAT was a long one.

Thanks all for your input and encouragement. Feel free to continue with input.

I'll get this sorted one way or the other.

All fer now!

EDIT: MANY typo's!

Andre

Hi George!

Unfortunately, I live in a model railroader's wasteland: No active modelers, no hobby shops, nothing. IF I was still into huntin' n' fishin', there's plenty of that, though.

I have to turn to this forum (and other such forums) for any social aspect within model railroading. My model supplies acquired via online purchase.

I've long ago accepted this aspect of being a model railroader in Redneck Land. It simply is what it is.

Good ideas, though!

Andre

laming posted:

Lastly, here's the view I get looking out the window in front of the work bench:

I've got it made in regards to my own personal "man cave/layout room"... but I hope to build a layout therein that will turn my crank for my remaining years.

Andre

Andre, with a view like that at your workbench I don't see how you're going to get anything done...

Rusty

Rusty:

I hear 'ya!

I'm looking forward to sitting out there during a snowy day, cozy warm, hot cup of coffee at my fingertips, and piddlin' with a train project.

Andre

Andre,

That is a fine looking building for a layout and workshop!!

Yes, I see that your title 'Tangled Web..." is very apropos!  Now I get it; 3-rail traditional with pretty realistic scenery, versus 19th century HO does make for different benchwork configurations.  If you change your mind after building benchwork, you would want to take it apart and reconfigure or you would never be happy!  And that is what we are looking for at any age, but especially for us retired guys who don't know if we will have the ability or months and years to pull  off that change, or if we would want to.  I also understand what you mean about the model train wasteland, having gone through the lone wolf phase, and not knowing other modelers when we lived in West Virginia before the Internet came into common use.

Unfortunately, only you can make the decision.  All we can do is pump out ideas, questions, suggestions.  Also, I am amazed at fellows who have two layouts.  They can follow different themes on their layouts.  You and I don't have the luxury of time, space, funds, or probably years left to us.  

I'll follow along, and maybe yours or someone else's comments will trigger something I can suggest that will be of help.

BTW: That view...

A view became a FIRM "given" this time around. Over the previous decades, I've had small workbenches crammed under the layout's bench work, or a workbench serving double duty with a computer (which meant all the computer stuff had to be moved aside, and the hobby stuff pulled out in order to work on trains/etc.), with said double duty workbench facing a blank wall. It was those type of work environs that made me determined that THIS TIME around, I wanted a WINDOW so I could see the seasons passing by, and such as that. Working like a champ, so far.

Andre

laming posted:

Rusty:

I hear 'ya!

I'm looking forward to sitting out there during a snowy day, cozy warm, hot cup of coffee at my fingertips, and piddlin' with a train project.

Andre

Sounds like heaven!

Mark:

Indeed, you see where I'm at.

AT THIS POINT: I'm sort of thinking that I will make some moves forward with the 19th century Colorado theme, with a caveat.

That caveat being: Perhaps I need to get me an honest-to-goodness "blank canvas" (i.e. that's not a figure of speech!) and try my hand at painting a "good enough" (to me) Colorado type backdrop before I start cutting lumber. The only real question marks in regards to the required skill sets for such a theme is would be it's unknown whether I'll have the ability to paint Colorado onto the backdrops and creating Colorado scenery. You see, my hope is to create a surreal impression of what Colorado railroading means to "me", and my modeling urges for same. I think I would enjoy a fanciful Colorado-ish world that I've created that even leans a bit toward the "funky-fantastic". (Think: John Allen and Malcolm Furlow as inspirational fodder.) Doing so will require (seems to me) a painted backdrop and NOT photograph based backdrops.

The only other real concern in regards to my 19th century Colorado layout idea is the size of the equipment itself. HO standard gauge 19th century equipment is far more tiny than diesel era equipment. Check out this side by side picture of an HO scale Alco HH660, one of my 19th century steam engines, and a 40' steel "PS-1 type" boxcar:

Now, IF painting/modeling Colorado is a "go"... then start the layout. I'll most definitely know within a couple years if I've made the correct choice. (Such as the size of the equipment.) If it's NOT the correct choice for the long term, then it wouldn't be too late to tear down and go back in with a very quick-to-build (comparatively speaking) 3-rail layout for Traditional trains. What I have in mind is something along the lines of what I experimented with years ago like this:

Only it would be larger in scope (because I have more room!), yard tracks more tightly compressed together so as to look more realistic, (that will require modifying the GarGraves 072 switches used in the yard), and finished out with nice ground cover/etc, a few nicely detailed/weathered foreground structures, etc. I would still lean heavily on the photoflats that I can create for the back drop. I honestly believe I could have such a layout up to the "looks complete" stage within a couple years or less. I can then go back over it for  improvements and betterment's, while working on some custom equipment along the way.

I'll probably end up with this eventually being a win-win either way I go, just that either direction (19th century Colorado OR Traditional 3-rail) may prove to be a false start at this point.

Jeff:

Re: My view...

It does sound rather inviting, no? That's why I want to get this "direction" issue addressed and get on with it. Perhaps I'm catalyzing a path now.

All fer now!

Andre

Andre, 

As soon as I read 'surreal impression' I immediately thought Malcolm Furlow and John Allen, before getting to that line.  The backdrop painting first does sound like a good idea to test the waters on your Colorado scenery ability, and it is practical in that you put it up before the benchwork gets in the way.  If that doesn't work out, you could start on the O traditional layout.

I do see the small size of the 19th century HO locomotive.  I was just at the Greenberg show last Saturday, and I took in the the following layouts; O gauge 3-rail, S scale switching, American Flyer S operation accessory layout, HO, N, Z, and LEGO.  I have trouble viewing the N and Z, and I only spend a little time on the HO because I quit HO for vision and handling issues.  I spend most of my time with the O gauge and S layouts.

This is what is so great about this Forum, for decades all the feedback I ever had was reading magazines.  If I couldn't get it to work, tough luck.  I wrote letters to the magazines (not OGR- I didn't know they existed until 2012) with questions and sometimes I heard back, and sometimes I didn't.

BTW, your photographs look great!

Andre I'm about 4 1/2 hours from you in Fort Worth (which compared to Pennsylvania, IS an O-gauge wasteland.)  Our stories are similar. 

I have 11'5" x 18' to work with.  Originally I planned to do a open modular double oval of wide radius, and be content with short trains of scale-sized equipment.  But lately I feel that there would be more long-term play value by using traditionally sized rolling stock on sharper curves with multiple alternate routes.  With the newer LionChief Plus, or the polarity based independent control for Pullmor motors that I mentioned on the other thread, this could be a LOT of fun, and potentially suck in even my non-train friends!

I also wanted a workbench in the layout room, but  I'm not willing to sacrifice layout size or complexity for it.  One of the good tips I received is to make the benchwork high, and roll my workbench underneath it.  Maybe you've seen those low, roll-around stools that doctors sit on in their exam rooms.  That's what I'm thinking of, to work comfortably at a lower height.

My car is pretty old, and not up to long trips right now.  But if you're ever in the Fort Worth area let me know.  I would love to get together and talk trains!

One thing to put on the decision scale (no pun intended) is what would you like to run. What entertains you in running trains?

Industrial switching with tall buildings in O with large sound, dark alleys, rusty box cars and may be a engine facility?

Or running a short combine train of the ole west, some DRGW ole wooden freights and maybe a galloping goose?

Does modeling mountains, trestles, tall pines, cliff walls, and tall trestles appeal to you? 

You may feel the O scale industrial yard type layout is not challenging enough?  Or you may finish too quickly?

Its all what you really think will get you kiester going...

Malcom Furlow sure was a great inspiration and his San Juan Central was a great layout.

I really like the western rockies but a bit north of Colorado… a few trips to Montana really steered me in this direction. And with the GN,NP,UP, and Milwaukee RR's as big players there, it was an easy choice....

Andre, You just need to take one of your cl planes out for a lap or two and that'll clear your mind. I myself am scattered all over the place as far as my hobbies. I've built a building like yours that's 24x24 for my hobbies. I built a ceiling track through my house that has both O and HO tracks that I run on DCS and DCC.

I use the building to build model cars, dioramas and rc airplanes the airplanes are mostly giant 1/4 scale gas. At the moment I have about thirty 1/4 scale planes rtf in that building so work space is getting tight.

Hi again!

Thought I'd get caught up on this thread, and maybe share some drivel along the way. 

Mark said:

"As soon as I read 'surreal impression' I immediately thought Malcolm Furlow and John Allen, before getting to that line."

You're very perceptive, Mark!

"The backdrop painting first does sound like a good idea to test the waters on your Colorado scenery ability...<snip>"

More on that backdrop thing down below.

"I do see the small size of the 19th century HO locomotive."

The small size and the Colorado backdrop/scenery are my only concerns with this theme. The small size in view of the aging process, and the Colorado backdrop/scenery as to seeing if I can gain those skills. The work required for the rest of the theme is plenty "do-able" at this point in my life. (But it will take a lot of tedious modeling.)

"BTW, your photographs look great!"

Thanks, but which ones? Not all of the photos in this thread are mine. The three photos I used to illustrate traditional 3-rail among realistic-type scenery were from two other forumites, one name lost to memory (the two FA powered trains), the other two by "Christopher2035".

TED S:

First off, thanks for the kind offer on the train BS'n! The last time I've been down your way was a few years ago when the wife and I went to purchase a dual sport motorcycle for her that I'd found on Craigslist.

As for your workbench idea: We really have to do whatever it takes to meet our needs on an individual basis. I've done that too as needed in the past. This time, I have purposely chosen to limit the layout so as to have an inviting work atmosphere even after a layout is in place.

J DADDY asked:

"One thing <snip>... What entertains you in running trains? <snip: lots of scenarios>"

Yes.

Seriously: I like so many aspects of model railroading (and prototype historical railroading) that I can pretty much say yes to all of your options!

Trying to be concise, I would say that the two scenarios (themes) that could be entertaining for longer term play value would be:

* Colorado 19th century, with a helper grade and some interesting towns/mines to switch. The emphasis on this theme would be creativity, and the "drama" of running trains (operation) in a rocky mountain railroad.

* Urban/industrial, either early 1950s (if 3-rail) or early 1960s (if HO). All of my track plans for such have incorporated double track mains for giving the impression of heavy "city type" traffic, a good yard, and lots of industrial spurs/sidings for industrial switching. The emphasis of this theme would be the trains of my childhood and the fun of some challenging operations.

The "operations" part of the equations in regards to traditional 3-rail's ability to for same, was the reason for my questions in my "PW Questions" thread.

IF any of the above becomes the "final" direction for me, I could be satisfied, but there is a caveat.

That caveat being: For decades I've toyed with the idea of a TOC19 (Turn Of the 19th Century) steam set amid a mountainous layout. Every time I was poised to take the plunge, I would chicken-out and return to diesels. SO, I'm sort of thinking that I owe it to myself to at least make the ATTEMPT. I suspect I will know within a couple years if it's the right direction. BUT, this thread has reinforced the idea I've had previously to address the Colorado backdrops/scenery question mark before I start cutting lumber. That I feel I really ought to do. (More on that below.)

"Malcom Furlow sure was a great inspiration and his San Juan Central was a great layout."

Yes, he was. He certainly wasn't a rivet counter (I'm trying to NO longer be a rivet counter), but in spite of his rivet counting irreverence's , the overall feel and atmosphere he was able to create was magic.

RUSTYRAIL...

"Andre, You just need to take one of your cl planes out for a lap or two and that'll clear your mind."

Those old combat planes will HAUL the MAIL. Even on paltry 10% nitro they're good for over 100 MPH... and on 60' lines that can be quite exhilarating! Trouble is, my C/L years seem to be winding down.

Sounds like you've found your "happy place" in regards to making your hobbies work for you!

All:

Next time I'm in Fort Smith (AR), I will be swinging by Hobby Lobby and picking up a canvas. Upon that I will start trying to paint Colorado backdrop that I can accept. I've tried painting Colorado in the dateless past, in fact, I even have a picture I snapped of my attempt. I wasn't too pleased with it at the time, but I DO see ways to improve it. Ways that I think I can do. Here's a pic of one such attempt back when I was poised to take the "19th century Colorado steam" plunge, but wienie'd out and went back to diesels.

Just noticed that there are some of my unfinished experimental "horse hair" spruce and pine trees in the photo.

Anyway, this was painted some 20 years ago. IF I can improve upon that... then there's hope for an attempt at my 19th century Colorado theme layout.

Humph... nice shadows from the foreground trees on the painting.

All fer now!

Andre

Well pooh. I was concerned that moving this thread to the HONGZ forum would likely cause it to loose visibility, hence lose input from the 3-rail side.  Sure 'nuf, it's died. Or, it could be that the thread has simply run its course. Either way... it is what it is, I suppose!

FWIW: While in Fort Smith this past Saturday, I did indeed pick up a 24" x 48" canvas. It's out in my out building primed in white. I'll be going out there after my coffee n' crusin' (forums) and get the sky blue on it.

The process of "to be or not to be, that is the question" on my HO 19th century theme has begun.

All fer now.

Andre

I am still watching.  I just want to see how your experiment in canvas turns out before deciding whether I need to chime in again.

I'm watching too, Andre!  I did have a reply I never got to over a busy weekend.

"BTW, your photographs look great!"

Thanks, but which ones? Not all of the photos in this thread are mine. The three photos I used to illustrate traditional 3-rail among realistic-type scenery were from two other forumites, one name lost to memory (the two FA powered trains), the other two by "Christopher2035".

I got it.  I think I mixed those photographs with some from another topic in my mind.    Not hard for me to do any more.  Yes, I have always liked Christpher's work whether he is modeling a postwar flavor layout or a more Hirail layout.  He does exceptional work.

I'll be watching for what you put on your canvas.  Now, this last photograph of your painting of the mountains with the trees and locomotive sitting on the table top in the foreground looks great to me.  I know your new work has to satisfy you before you commit to the Colorado scenery.

I spent some time in your neck of the woods.  My father-in-law spent the last 10 of his working years in Fort Smith.  We went down to see them 7 or 8 times and knocked around Eastern Oklahoma as well.  Nice country and affordable housing even compared to here in Norhtwestern Pennsylvania.  I would say this was during the 1986 to 1997 time period.

Well... what 'cha think? Huh? HUH?

Didn't I do a masterful job of painting on that coat of box stock "Wild Yonder Blue" (Glidden brand)?         

From seeing this result, no doubt I'm well on my way to topping John Allen or Malcolm Furlow. No problem.

BTW...

Paint can instructions say that I'm to wait FOUR friggin' HOURS before a re-coat.

Let the thumb twiddling begin.

Mark:

My previous attempt...

Thanks for the kind words. I "think" I could be "okay" with it, but I want to do a better job of representing the randomness of nature, as well as some other elements. The things I wasn't (am not) please with:

* Too many cookie cutter (too much alike) pointy mountain peaks in the foreground, and to a degree, the background mountains, too.

* Need more contour definition to give more impression of 3 dimensional form.

* Need to tweak my colors mixes.

In addition the the above, I need to:

* Learn how to paint impressions of rock outcroppings.

* Learn to reflect timberline separation.

* Learn to paint acceptable background and foreground spruce and aspen trees.

Mucho experimentation ahead.

Your exposure to Hillbilly Country...

Fort Smith is behind the times... but I'm okay with that.

If you ventured down to Poteau, OK, that's been me stompin' grounds for decades!  The nearby Ouachita Mountain range is where I spend a lot of time aboard my dual sport motorcycle:

You are correct: The cost of living IS considerably below MANY other locations. However, residents pay the price in job selection opportunities and pay rates. I was very blessed in that for the past 3 decades my pay rate has been considerably above average for this region. Thus, my comfortable (but modest) RR retirement income is doing well for us.

All fer now!

Andre

Andre,

Yes, having an artist daughter, I understand completely what is unsatisfactory to your painting of the mountain peaks.

Well, we lived in West Virginia for a while, so we understand about hillbilly country.  My father-in-law was transferred there by his Pennsylvania owned company, so his wages were above average like yours.  

I went through Poteau on my way to the Talamena Scenic drive!  Beautiful!  Reminds me of hills back here and in West Virginia.  I work with another engineer who grew up in Poteau, but has lived in Lufkin, Texas since he got out of the Navy.  Yes, it's one of those employers now where you have coworkers scattered all over the country and almost no one left in the office here in Pennsylvania.  Well I may be at the end of a 42-year career with power and telecom utilities, since I'm semi-retired, and right now off for I don't know how long until they may need me again.  Sorry to go off topic.

The blue looks good. Shouldn't be underestimated because some blues look great in person but look too white in photos.

Jeff:

That Glidden color "Wild Blue Yonder" looks as good or better in reality as it does in the above cheap camera photo. I will likely go back and purchase a gallon of the stuff. Whatever direction I go: 19th century Colorado, or 3-rail traditional in an urban setting, or HO diesels in an urban setting, I will be using this blue. In the past, I've always liked to have lots of paint left after getting the blue onto a backdrop for any "do-overs" or touch-ups later. Downside to using latex house paints: If you like a color, better buy enough NOW to cover your butt for the future, 'cause a company's paint colors are constantly evolving and your favorite color (for whatever application) will eventually be dropped.

IF I go forward with my funky-fantastic Colorado theme... then I'll eventually want to pick out a good "typical" earth colored canned latex to use for painting the Homasote prior to track laying, as well as using it as a base for the scenery later on. Over time, having an earth colored base saves despair in the case of a scuff, nick, etc. If I go the urban diesel route, then I'll select an off-black as a cinder looking base.

All fer this 'un!

Andre

laming posted:

Jeff:

. . I'll eventually want to pick out a good "typical" earth colored canned latex to use for painting the Homasote prior to track laying, as well as using it as a base for the scenery later on. Over time, having an earth colored base saves despair in the case of a scuff, nick, etc. If I go the urban diesel route, then I'll select an off-black as a cinder looking base.

All fer this 'un!

Andre

I got a nice result of dry dirt using the basics acrylics bronze yellow, and raw umber, mixed to taste with joint compount. 

Jeff:

Yup, that's what I have in mind: Neutral base coat underneath/etc.

FWIW:

From the grins n' giggles department...

IN the event of going traditional 3-rail with an early 1950s urban/industrial theme, do you remember me mentioning that for a switcher I thought I could probably be happy with the RMT "Bang" (Marx) S-2?

Well... have you looked at the prices of those little suckers?? They're currently "on sale"... at a whopping $239.95! I think I recall purchasing the one a few years ago from RMT for something like $69 on sale!  WOW quite an increase. Hm: A "modernized" old mold toy train for $239.95? Whew. I'd have to find something on the secondary market.

Backdrop:

Been piddlin' off and on painting clouds. Trying to make better looking (to me) clouds than I've used on past layouts. So-so results so far. Pics eventually.

All fer now.

Andre

Cloud putzin'...

Pic doesn't do the blue justice.

Different approaches used between the two clouds. One or right is faster to produce.

More putzin' ahead.

Andre

I'm just catching this thread now and can say that I have spent way more time than I'd like to admit over the past 8 years switching between O, HO, and N layouts.  In my heart, I always wanted to build a 3 rail O gauge layout running mostly scale equipment.  

I've acquired and sold off items from all 3 scales during that time and have reacquired items that I've sold.  It is maddening to a degree (more so to my wife).  Back in 2012 I started to build a permanent layout using Fastrack to run traditional sized equipment.  I had track laid, mountain completed, and a few building/structures in place.  I tore it down once my son was born for space considerations.

At this point, I have 8 x 16 layout that I'm working on and have finally starting acquiring O scale locomotives and rolling stock.  However this time last year, I was buying traditional O (Railking) items.  At the end of the day, I just like the look of scale models over traditional size.

I hope that you are happy in what you are modeling.  I found that my mind was racing so much, I wasn't having much fun which is why I love the hobby so much.  Good luck!

Drelo, We have so many choices these days, we just can't decide.  

I'm with you on scale 3-rail.  I bought Railking when I first started in O gauge, and now all of it is gone except for a few pieces.  Once I bought Premier and other manufacturers scale cars and engines, the traditional just looked out of place.  I think it has to do with 45 years of modeling scale equipment, whether HO, N, On30, and I just remembered, I did some HOn3 way back when also.

First I am not a wealthy man just an average bloke living in an average suburb in Perth, West Australia.

I live a simple life not a boring one with four kids and nine grandchildren I am never bored just broke hence the simple life I would rather buy a train than go to a fancy restaurant or buy a nice bottle of wine I can't have everything so I have managed to build a reasonable Railroad on a limited budget.

It is hard to find the perfect layout that suits you almost impossible but I did!

Yes, at 71 years old (I am now 75) I finally worked out what I wanted and how to go about it.

I like operation, moving cars, switching, always have what I don't like is moving cars off and on the layout all day long maybe OK if I had endless space which I don't so I looked around for some kind of industry or Railroad that I could move cars from A to B without removing them from the layout and found what I wanted in a Steel Mill. A big project for a person that builds everything himself made even harder by advancing age yet somehow I stuck with it and the results even though nothing is finished speak for themselves.

I can honestly say I am for the first time in my life 99.9% happy with my model railroading every Friday we run trains me and a couple of mates and I really look forward to it.

I expect to be building and operating this till the time comes when they carry me out on a stretcher with a controller leads dangling in one hand and a hobby knife in the other!

The point I'm making is sit down and list your likes and dislikes read books, talk like here, then make a decision and get things going make changes on the way but start, I can't advise what scale to model in because I have been in O scale for forty years and never regretted it I don't know anything else but look at that list and say this is what I enjoy doing with trains and make that start don't be afraid of making mistakes that's part of the fun. I won't try to tell you what type of layout to build either because to me it's a personal thing like the car/bike you drive the clothes you wear, only have tried here to tell you briefly of my own experiences with model trains.

Good luck for the future mate. Roo.

Thanks DRELO and ROO for the words of encouragement.

Actually, I AM moving forward with the 19th century Colorado theme. I'm in the first phase: Tackling Obstacle #1.

Obstacle #1: I'm in the process trying my hand at painting an acceptable (to me) funky-fantastic Colorado backdrop. This phase is my first obstacle to building a 19th century Colorado layout. But it's where I need to start, I can't skip it and move on to Obstacle #2. (Lest I have on my hands a partially built layout with NO suitable backdrop.) Now, IF I can paint funky fantastic Colorado to my liking, then it's time for the next obstacle...

Obstacle #2: Get a bit of layout up (likely an entire wall) and piddle with the small trains to see what my impressions are in regards to dealing with them on the long term. (Keeping diminished dexterity and eyesight in mind.)  Hurdle #2 will make or break the idea. IF I quickly find the small trains too fumble prone, too finicky, etc, then I will have learned what I need to learn, and at that point it will be time to SERIOUSLY reconsider my long term direction.

However, I can't know any of the above without MAKING AN ATTEMPT... hence the painting has begun.

As of now, I am satisfied that I can create clouds that I can be "okay" with... maybe not as good as what I had hoped for, but "good enough" to proceed to the next portion of Obstacle #1.

Thus, tomorrow I will start painting distant mountains.

All fer now!

Andre

Gee, and l thought from the title this posting would be about spaghetti junction track plans ....

Hi All!

Thought I'd revisit this thread and update.

COLORADO HIRAILER:

I'm not immune to designing spaghetti bowl layouts. In fact, I built one of them back in the mid-70s! Actually, the HO scale TOC19 Colorado layout being discussed could possibly be called a "simplied spaghetti bowl" in that it utilizes a loop in it to gain elevation, but in this case, I'm plenty fine with that. (Desired same, actually.)

Backdrop Test Painting...

I'm currently stalled after getting the base color up for a distant mountain range. I'm stymied as to how to start producing the effect of contour along with some snow caps. Don't know what I did on that 20-year old paint scene to produce the effect of contour. Unfortunately, the only jpeg I have of it (above in this thread) is too lo-res to glean anything. (The pic being too lo-res means I can't zoom in and see detail.)

I was actually out in my hobby room yesterday. I stood there and stared at the picture... looked at the paint tubes... paced... stared some more... sat on my padded (and swiveling!) bar stool and stared even more... eventually to just let out an exasperated sigh and went back into the house.

Frankly, it's quite sobering how imagineering a backdrop scene is SO much easier than actually producing it with paint and brushes.

Admittedly, being under the weather (The Crud) probably hasn't helped my creative energy, but still, the impasse remains.  As mentioned elsewhere in this thread: If I can't get past this first hurdle, the second hurdle is moot.

I find my mind wandering toward 3-rail.  Not a good sign in regards to my TOC19 Colorado idea. 

All fer now.

Andre

Say... how does the MTH Railking F3 (their shortened model) match up to 6464's in height?  How do they match up with Lionel's Alco's, cast and stamped frame? Are they in the ball park, proportionally speaking, with traditional 6464's, Alco's, Berkshires, etc?

Hm. Gotta' stop this. Can't keep flirting with evil 3-rail. Sin, oh, sin.

Focus son, focus. Get out there and make some progress on the backdrop painting.

In view of evil 3-rail perhaps I need to...

"REPAINT! And THIN no more!"

Andre

Andre, I can empathize with you on the problems with the difference between imagineering a backdrop scene and actually producing it with paint and brushes.  Somehow, I have trouble getting in a groove and really accomplishing what I imagine.  Then I step back and do something simple.  Sigh!

laming posted:

Say... how does the MTH Railking F3 (their shortened model) match up to 6464's in height?  How do they match up with Lionel's Alco's, cast and stamped frame? Are they in the ball park, proportionally speaking, with traditional 6464's, Alco's, Berkshires, etc?

Andre

Andre, I really can't help you other than the old RK F3's are neat little spuds.  I always intended to get a couple, but never did.  Shot this at a local show 8 years ago:

Personally, I would put them in "the ballpark" with Lionel's cast and stamped frame Alco's.  I'm going from memory, but I recall Lionel's stamped frame Alco's also sat a little higher than the cast frame one's.

Also something worth considering if you decide to go down this dark path are the RailKing PA's and E-units.

Rusty

Hi Mark!

You said:

"Then I step back and do something simple."

And you, my kind sir, have hit the nail squarely on the head. That is the ENTIRE reason that pesky 3-rail keeps calling to me. My approach (and for sure the trains) would be SIMPLER in all respects.

Rusty:

Thanks for your input! I probably really don't need to learn that they mesh quite well with 6464's and Alco's and 736's and...

However, a nose to nose pic with a RK Rugged Rails F3 coupled to a cast frame Alco would tell the tale in short order, I'd bet!

Oh, and you are correct: The PW cast frame Alco's ride just a skoshie bit lower than their stamped frame Alco counterparts. Compared to the overall stance of the prototype, the cast frame PW Alco's are a better match. However, I like both cast and stamped frame PW versions.

All:

I've returned to my painting... and have the first round of shadows added... leaving my computer room in a bit and headed out to my train room to make more progress on it.

Andre

Well, my creative education is all of three years of high school art, but I remember a few things. The most important thing I remember is the mantra, "draw what you see, not what you know!" What my teacher meant by that was that you have to look at your model as though it is not a mountain, as though it is just a two-dimensional collection of colors and shapes. Then copy the colors and shapes. In the end you get a mountain, or rather, you get a collection of colors and shapes that your brain believes is a mountain.

On this backdrop, I think what you may have done to get the contours is to paint the mountains (the foreground ones that is) one at a time from left to right. After completing each one, you misted it with white spray paint á la Dave Frary. When you painted the next mountain to the right it was darker--and therefore closer, since closer things appear darker--than the one to the left. Overspray from doing further mountains softened the hard edges and gave the impression of a gentle contour. The contours on the mountains themselves look like two different shades of the same color paint. Possibly you just added black to what you were already using. That's my guess, anyway.

NICKAIX:

Very likely you are correct. I know I did do some spray painting to add some fog/drama... however, I don't know if I want to do that this time around. Once (if) the actual backdrop starts going up, maybe use some light mist/fog on one scene in the background... but think I would tire of it if used on the entire 30-something feet of backdrop.

All:

I've spurred myself into action (SOME action, ANY action is better than remaining stalled it seems to me) and started experimenting with light/shadow to give some definition to the flat painted grey background mountains.

I will say that there are times I enjoy trying to paint scenery... but typically that is tempered somewhat by my disappointment (slight or otherwise) in the results.

So, I think it is going to be imperative to remind myself that I may need to accept that the fact that my hand-painted backdrops will likely NOT be able to come up to the standards I've seen (and been impressed with) on other modeler's hand-painted backdrops.

It could be argued that such trepidation builds a huge case for the use of photo backdrops... but I just don't want to go there. (Besides, that has its own pitfalls.)

Anyway, here's where I'm at as of a few minutes ago:

(Edit: You can click on the pic and see a larger version.)

I'm pausing and regrouping at the moment, but will soon head back out to my train room and continue. Still need more randomness in contour, then its time for some snow on the peaks and upper slopes.

I already see that I will want to pick out commercially available "stock" interior latex colors to use as the base color for:

* Distant mountains
* Intermediate mountains
* Foreground mountains
* Distant forestation
* Intermediate forestation

Using the above I can lighten (for highlights) and darken (for shadows) using acrylic tubes or white/grey (or blue) interior latex.

If/when the time comes to actually start on a backdrop, I think that will speed up the process a ton.

Oh, and you'll just have to overlook the foreground clouds I was working on being in behind the distant mountains. It IS a test shot, 'ya know.

All fer now!

Andre

 

 

Humph... nice shadows from the foreground trees on the painting. 

Andre

I thought those were background trees partially obscured in the mountain mist.  

Paul:

Yeah, that's the ticket! Pretty good effect, eh? Had you fooled they were shadows!

All:

Experimentation continues. I've added snow. Not too pleased with the results. IF this was the actual backdrop, I would be repainting this section and trying again. Instead, I think I'll try to doctor up the parts I don't care for and move on.

(As before, you can click the pic to see a larger resolution of it.)

So, as you can see, trying to climb Obstacle #1 (painting Colorado) continues.

And now for something different...

I thought you might get a kick out of a picture I also snapped that vividly illustrates my concern about Obstacle #2 (tiny trains):

Keep in mind, the little boxcar doesn't represent the smallest boxcars that will be on the layout! The HO TOC19 car that is pictured is 30' long... there would be cars as small as 24' long on the layout!

All fer now.

Andre

All:

In view of the above painting effort, I'm tempted to just paint over all of it with white, then blue, and start over.

However...

Frankly, I'm at a very low point in my model railroad journey. Without trying, I've got myself into a situation where I really don't know what/where I need to invest my time in regards to long term enjoyment, and that in view of the aging process that is sure to come.

It's not just painting Colorado, but it's also the tiny trains. I think the above picture comparing their size amply illustrated my concerns with that issue.

As you can see from the picture in discussion, when one decides to do TOC19 in HO scale... you lose a lot of bulk. The tiny trains are a plus for a layout... not so much in view of aging (unsteady) hands.

In fact, I now have come to think I've been getting the cart before the horse. That is, I now think the FIRST real questions I need to address would be: Can tiny HO TOC19 be a part of my future? Or even HO at all?

This now seems to be the primary question I need to address. After all, painting Colorado may, or may not, be in my future... but no sense taking anymore time NOW to determine painting Colorado.

That so, then IF the answer to HO TOC19 is "NO, I can't see fiddling with these tiny trains when I'm 75", then painting Colorado is moot.

Likewise the HO diesels. IF I can't see small HO diesels as a safe path for the long term... then the time is NOW to seriously explore options, not after I've wasted several months trying to paint Colorado, putting up some bench work to "try" for the Colorado layout/etc.

Wow. The above is some heavy poop for this old modeler.

BUT, at least it gives me an immediate direction: As of now I'm done with trying to paint Colorado.

INSTEAD, I'm going to invest my available model train time cleaning off the bench work on this small shelf layout that is here in my computer room (make no mistake, owing to the ridiculous amount of junk and clutter it has gathered over the years, that goal is no small project).  Once that is done, my track-ready bench work from my previous gauge/scale experimenting will be uncovered and accessible again.

Upon the track-ready bench work I will use the HO code 83 sectional track and switches I have on hand to assemble a yard/spurs and actually SWITCH cars using my HO TOC19 stuff and also do likewise with the HO Diesel stuff I have. Doing so SHOULD make it apparent if there is any noticeable difference between handling the equipment in respect to their size. By doing this, hopefully,  I can make a better determination as to IF I would want HO scale (in any form) in my future.

So, there you have it. I thought this out as I typed and I seem to see a direction now that may help me determine where to best invest my future time.

All fer now.

Andre

Andre, I think you have the right immediate action plan.  Decide by running HO or HO narrow Gauge on a blank Benchwork, if it is large enough for you.  Then go from there.  For me, I decided to go larger because of eyesight and handling problems, and give up what I could do in a certain space with smaller scales.

You need motivation. I've been in the same boat.

This is an interesting thread. I can state that I've been the victim of the same malady. I found that the problem, at least for me, is (or was, and probably will be again at some point) motivation. As you can see from my signature, I have a lot of other hobbies, some of them quite expensive and while money isn't the problem, I tend to fall in and out of love of all these activities months or sometimes even years at a time. (I haven't ridden my bike seriously in about a year.) Like you I get "gung-ho" for awhile and then lose interest and go onto something else. Eventually, I circle back but sometimes it takes awhile.

When it comes to the trains, I found that it was my 5 grandchildren who motivated me. The youngest, age 2, loves large trucks, planes, and yes, TRAINS. Not too long ago on a visit he took his first foray down to my basement and when he saw my layout, dormant for about 18 months, his eyes nearly popped out of his head and he started babbling "Twains! Twains!" and implored me to "make them go." I flipped the switches and without cleaning the track or even checking to see if all the wheels of the cars were still on the tracks advanced the handle on my old ZW and miraculously, they started moving! He was beside himself with excitement. His five year old sister then came downstairs, I handed her a Lion Chief + remote and she got excited. The next day, I started cleaning track, fixing old dysfunctional locos and am currently planning to do some scenery and build a yard.

In your case, maybe you need to start on something simple.  A Colorado type layout is certainly more ambitious and difficult, both from a construction and scenery point of view than a "Sonoran Desert" layout, so maybe, subconsciously, you realize that and that's preventing you from starting. I'm not sure if anyone here on this forum is going to be able to provide the kind of motivation you'll need but my advise is to start simple and then expand from there. Remember John Allen. The original Gorre & Depheted was basically just a double loop with a couple of side tracks. 

laming posted:

All:

In view of the above painting effort, I'm tempted to just paint over all of it with white, then blue, and start over.

However...

Frankly, I'm at a very low point in my model railroad journey. Without trying, I've got myself into a situation where I really don't know what/where I need to invest my time in regards to long term enjoyment, and that in view of the aging process that is sure to come.

I know the feeling, Andre.  I've been trying to pick up on some latent projects, but events occurring this past year and family responsibilities have put a damper on my enthusiasm.

It's not just painting Colorado, but it's also the tiny trains. I think the above picture comparing their size amply illustrated my concerns with that issue.

I know you once considered S, but I'm not going to try to talk you back into it.  One thing I've discovered is that size is relative.  I set up some N scale on my coffee table a few years ago and was shocked at how small it was compared to the S and O I own.  However, once isolated from larger scale equipment, I got used to the size to where it felt natural in it's own right.  Neat stuff, But I don't perceive a future with it right now.  I guess the trick appears to stop comparing scales one on one.

As you can see from the picture in discussion, when one decides to do TOC19 in HO scale... you lose a lot of bulk. The tiny trains are a plus for a layout... not so much in view of aging (unsteady) hands.

It took me a while to figure out what TOC19 meant, (Turn of century 1900.)  I don't know if you defined it earlier, maybe I just wasn't paying attention...

In fact, I now have come to think I've been getting the cart before the horse. That is, I now think the FIRST real questions I need to address would be: Can tiny HO TOC19 be a part of my future? Or even HO at all?

I can say I've "toyed" with TOC19 decades ago when I was in HO, (I still have the stuff in boxes buried in the catacombs under the Great Plywood Glacier...) but there wasn't sufficient "pull" to keep me interested.  Same for some other aspects of the hobby.  One thing for sure is I'm a hardcore 1950's-60's shortline/mainline kinda guy.  Fortunately, that's what most of my "accumulation" is.  It's just a matter of considering what kind of changes (and change is coming, I just don't know when) will be made in the future.  I try not to think too hard about it right now...

This now seems to be the primary question I need to address. After all, painting Colorado may, or may not, be in my future... but no sense taking anymore time NOW to determine painting Colorado.

That so, then IF the answer to HO TOC19 is "NO, I can't see fiddling with these tiny trains when I'm 75", then painting Colorado is moot.

Likewise the HO diesels. IF I can't see small HO diesels as a safe path for the long term... then the time is NOW to seriously explore options, not after I've wasted several months trying to paint Colorado, putting up some bench work to "try" for the Colorado layout/etc.

Wow. The above is some heavy poop for this old modeler.

Heavy poop is what old modelers do best...

BUT, at least it gives me an immediate direction: As of now I'm done with trying to paint Colorado.

INSTEAD, I'm going to invest my available model train time cleaning off the bench work on this small shelf layout that is here in my computer room (make no mistake, owing to the ridiculous amount of junk and clutter it has gathered over the years, that goal is no small project).  Once that is done, my track-ready bench work from my previous gauge/scale experimenting will be uncovered and accessible again.

Upon the track-ready bench work I will use the HO code 83 sectional track and switches I have on hand to assemble a yard/spurs and actually SWITCH cars using my HO TOC19 stuff and also do likewise with the HO Diesel stuff I have. Doing so SHOULD make it apparent if there is any noticeable difference between handling the equipment in respect to their size. By doing this, hopefully,  I can make a better determination as to IF I would want HO scale (in any form) in my future.

Sounds like a good plan, Andre.

Rusty

So, there you have it. I thought this out as I typed and I seem to see a direction now that may help me determine where to best invest my future time.

All fer now.

Andre

Hi All!

Thanks for the input, Mark, XRAYVIZHEN, and Rusty!

I've got my dual sport motorcycle loaded up and getting ready to head out for Bates, AR, to unload... and spend the day out in the mountains until ??? thirty this evening!

When back and unloaded/etc, looking forward to sitting down and digesting what you all had to say.

All fer now!

Andre

Excellent plan!  Take the motorcycle out for a long spin, and unload!!

Hi again fella's!  Back safe and sound, let's talk trains...

Mark:

This old experimental bench work is 24" deep around the room (on three walls) that measures 12' x 9.5'. The entire surface of all the shelves have Homasote installed. I used to have a drop-down bridge across the doorway so continuous running was possible.  However, in view of the bench work not being used for several years, I removed the doorway drop-down bridge and rehung the door so it would again open in the normal way (into the room). Once I get all the junk off of the shelves, I will have access to all of the shelves along those three walls.

Also, the tiny stuff isn't HOn3, it's HO std, just that it's 19th century equipment, so all pieces are very small compared to HO trains of the 1950s/etc.

XRAYVIZSHEN:

Correct on the motivation part. Right now, though, the first objective is to make a decision as to whether HO is in my future or not, which will require some effort. I have sufficient motivation for the project-at-hand: Clean off the bench work. And I THINK I'll be sufficiently motivated to set up some track for test runs. Where I'm going to need motivation will be once the dust is settled, the direction is selected, and its time to start cutting lumber!

Rusty:

Yup, I'm sure my (direction/motivation) malady is quite common. In the past, I recall having layouts up to the point that the layout was 100% operational, but not "finished" (structures/scenery/etc), only to stall out, and spend what hobby energy I had operating the layout... and thus very little additional "progress" was being made on the actual layout.

I understand about scale being relative. However SOME things aren't. Take for example re-railing a car/engine: That is FAR more meticulous in N scale than, say, S scale. To me, the thought of re-railing an N scale steam engine with lead and trailing trucks (and attached tender, no less!) sounds like a lesson in frustration.

So, yes, the SIZE (or lack thereof), you get used to. (I long ago re-acclimated to the size of HO after leaving S scale.) But seems to me there certainly IS an advantage to larger trains.

TOC19:  You figured it out! Turn Of the 19th Century! You be's smart.

Change:  Like you, I do know that change is going to come... how much that change will impact me, well, no way of really knowing that, I suppose.  I think I'm to the stage in life that I am wondering if it would truly be worth it to put forth a lot of effort for an HO layout... only to see those changes take place and said changes DO impact (negatively) my ability to enjoy such small model trains?  In view of that unknown, I then wonder: Would I be best served to bid HO adieu and upsize/simplify now, so I can enjoy model trains significantly longer? (Albeit at the expense of giving up the idea of a TOC19 Colorado mountain layout.)

I can't help it, my personality type is one that really overthinks things. To boot, I'm a bit OCD* about planning for the future, so such thoughts as I've articulated happen. I can't seem to stop them, and they DO impact my decisions.

* Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

My plan: It does sound like a good plan, Rusty. Likely, considering what all is going through my mind, a needed plan. I'm hoping it will accomplish the following:

1. Help me see if there are any differences between handling HO TOC19 or HO diesels.

2. Help me to see if I even want to deal with HO.

Bear in mind, it's been over TWENTY YEARS since I've had an operational HO layout. Thus, for over twenty years I have NOT had any experience operating in HO, which entails uncoupling, rerailing, handling, etc. This part of the HO equation (i.e. "can I, do I, want to handle such small trains?") is a huge part of this stall point I've been at.

However, The Plan may help me figure that out.

All fer now!

Andre

Andre,

Chosen size/scale matters not only for handling, but also for the "see" factor.  True, as we get older, it becomes harder to handle the smaller scales, whether that means re-railing, detailing, upgrading, painting, weathering, or just fixing the inevitable problems that will come up.  Add to that our increasing inability to see what we are doing as our eyes age.  Are those wheels all on the track after fumbling around with a derailment?  Did I really solder that tiny wire to the right location?  Did I apply that tiny detail right-side up?  Is that switch thrown in the proper direction?  Will I have to wear magnifiers over my bifocals just to have fun with my trains?

Boy, this sounds so depressing.  For me, I have some N scale, some HO scale, some O scale and some O gauge stuff.  I enjoyed the N and HO while I could (and still do to some extent), but I now focus on the larger scales/sizes to maximize enjoyment and minimize frustration.  Sometimes, that's all we can do with this hobby.

Chuck

Chuck:

Very wise observation, there. I may be trying to pull the trigger too soon as to the demise of HO... but I can't help but wonder how long before the HF* exceeds the FF*, so here I am at this crossroad.

* Andre's Official Fun Factor Scale: When the "HF" (i.e. HASSLE Factor) exceeds the "FF" (i.e. FUN Factor) on the Fun Factor Scale by several points, stagnation and/or frustration with one's chosen avenue of pursuing "fun" will exist. The key to longevity is keeping the F factor several points higher than the H factor.

All:

The old bench work is ready for track!  To wit:

Gonna' be a stretch to imagine HO TOC19 in the mountains of Colorado setting in that obviously urban setting... but hey... I've got a good imagination.

After a break to get caught up on some threads here and yon, as well as eat a bite of lunch, I reckon it's time to get out the code 83 stuff and start snapping track together.

All fer now.

Andre

BTW: You have no idea the monumental effort that's been expended on that previously junk filled bench work to get it to that state!!

I'm amazing.

Andre

Well, this is the best way to go:  get something running.  The effort will tell you a bunch.

Your HF vs. FF scales are a concise way of describing something I have been feeling for a long time.  It is why I am moving in the direction of getting OUT of command control:  the HF is far higher than the FF for me (YMMV).  But I didn't know that until I tried.

PALALLIN:

I hear you loud and clear.

All:

Not off to a good start. Just re-discovered that the rail profile of Atlas code 83 and Peco code 83 are different (the foot of the rail is wider on the Atlas), so the Atlas rail joiners won't readily engage the Peco (too loose on the Peco). Conversely, a joiner that will work fine on Peco's finer profiles is a monster to work onto an adjoining Atlas section. 

Also, to avoid having to cut the Peco switch's headblocks, I'm going to have to cut sections of Peco flex in order to put the needed space between the switches in order to construct a yard ladder of sorts.

AND... I've noticed these silly rail joiners have shrunk since I've last worked with them ??? years ago. 

This test bed idea is going to do exactly what I need it to do. 

Andre

Heck, if your existing backdrop is going to interfere with your enjoyment, why not just cover it with some plain white poster board hung by some tacks.  Easily removable later on, not too expensive, and should really let your imagination run wild after you get some track down.

Chuck

LOL Chuck!

Yup, I could do that... or simply pull them down. (They're held in place by reusable "Tacky Tack", except the big one is covering a window so I used Velcro on it.)

BUT... that would take from the business at hand: After many years of absence from hands-on layout work in HO, see where I'm at NOW with HO at age 66.

As I type, I just noticed the DCC/sound equipped diesel idling on the powered track has a noticeable "loop" in the idling sound. I find it a bit distracting after a hearing it for several minutes. Boy... I am really in a "Review Test" mode!! (Can't be TOO critical... I just need to be practical and determine what elements I can be okay with, and what elements can be deal-breakers.)

Andre

Yes I can attest to the fact that HO rail joiners have shrunk over the years.  In fact all HO has shrunk to the point where I question whether it is 1:87 anymore!  More like 1:120!  LOL

NOTE: Fasten your seat belts. You have now been warned.

Well, this test layout idea has proved to be a very sobering and enlightening endeavor. It also proved to be rapid in delivering input data.
 
I've quickly learned a lot about "where I am" now with this hobby in view of my current stage of life. I think I've also learned a lot about what I want out of this hobby.
 
I'm going to try to keep this from becoming a novel, so I'll try to hit the high points:
 
* Working with HO track is NOT like it used to be. The smallness and fiddling nature of it (think small rail joiners that don't fit easily/etc, having to cut/file flex into small track pieces, etc, etc) creates frustration very quickly in me now. I used to hand lay track for relaxation and work with HO flex track, and it was  "fun". It is no longer fun.
 
* The little steam engines are more finicky than I expected when actually trying to operate. VERY sensitive to rail contact. Trying to improve the contact situation will require more tedious work on all engines. (Adding additional contacts, wipers, etc.)
 
* The steam era cars were more susceptible to derailing. I think that's because of the pop-in trucks on the offending train set cars. To fix all cars with pop-in trucks will be yet more time consuming (and tedious) work.
 
* The diesel era equipment performed as expected: Essentially flawless, even though the wheels on the diesel have never been cleaned since ownership. (3 years?)
 
* Placing cars on the rails was easier with the diesel era cars. (The code 88 wheels on the steam era cars are more finicky.) There were no derails switching with the diesel era equipment.
 
* Looking at HO diesels and HO rolling stock again was rather bland. Been there, done that... for decades.
 
Summations:
 
* The thought of putzing with HO scale track no longer looks like fun. (I think it is much easier for things to frustrate me now than it was twenty years ago.)

* The time spent with the steam theme was, overall, a downer. I can't imagine facing such daunting "track and wheel hygiene" standards for a layout/equipment that is intended for relaxation.

* The thought of going back to HO diesels doesn't really sound like fun. (I would be insufficiently motivated to do the sizeable work ahead that would be needed to produce a layout-ready roster, a layout ready fleet of cars, and even the layout itself.)
 
* The tedious work needed to produce a "scale" layout no longer appears to be fun to me. Instead, there's a sense of dread about MANY of the aspects of same. I don't think a hobby is supposed to create the feeling of dread within one's self.
 
* The hassles of DCC don't look like fun. (I don't WANT to HAVE to learn how to program, okay?)
 
I think I'm to the point that:
 
* I want to simplify my hobby of model trains. I'm tired of all the tasks I still face that needs to be done in order to do the things I had hoped to do. Tasks that will require LOTS of tedious work with significant magnification, tiny drills, bending tiny little brass wire (like drills and brass wire .009 thousandths of an inch, etc, etc.), ad naseum. Apparently 40+ years of such modeling is enough. I think I've got my gut full of it.
 
I'm to the point I'm going to kick back from my current situation and seriously consider the implications of all of the above.
 
Frankly, at this point I don't think it will involve HO "SCALE" modeling.
 
We shall see.
 
Andre

Andre, I hear you on all counts.  I tried my hand at N scale steam in the ‘80s because of space constraints.  A disaster for reasons you cited.  A diesel era only roster doesn’t excite me either.  I’m 62, and I don’t want to work with tiny parts all the time either.

Well take a look at it tomorrow or in a few days and see how you think then.

I'm with mark and Andre on this one.  I had more patience when I was young.  Thoughts of building a highly detailed layout, like I did forty years ago are a non-starter now.  I too tried my hand at N scale when I was in my 30s.  It didn't last long for all of the reasons pointed out by Andre.  Now that I am in my 70s more play time gives me the relaxation I need.   

Hi fella's!

Mark:

Absolutely: It will be given a "test of time", I always do.

However, I suspect nothing will change. I've been sensing for quite a while now that the passing of time had caused some changes in me. Deep down inside, I begin to suspect that it was very possible I no longer possessed the patience and perseverance to dutifully accomplish what it takes to build "fidelity" type scale models and layouts.  That I can do so is not a question to me. (I still have the first/second place plaques I can remind myself of!  )  However, the ability to build such models really means squat to me now.

Simply put: I miss the fun that can be found in model railroading. Back when my life was before me and time was infinite, I had time to explore, experiment, and do lots of dreaming. Along the way I got four layouts up to the operational stage, most had some form of scenery on them. The last three all involved hand laid track, contest winning models/etc.

It was fun then.

It's not now.

Sadly, I haven't been able to sustain the Fun Factor in model railroading for nearly two decades. It wasn't until the past year or so that I began to wonder if model railroading was over for me.

However, now I don't wonder that. Instead, I now think what has been needed is a radical change in my approach to the hobby of miniature trains. BUT, it took me a while to face up to that. Putting it to the test via this switching layout simply exposed and confirmed the problems I was feeling internally.  It didn't take long today to see what I needed to see.

Frankly, I've already given this a LOT of thought, but I always figured such a change would be "one of these days when I get too old". Well, as we can see, "one of these days" arrived quicker than I thought, but the upside is it happened while I still have the energy and resources to make the change.

Dan:

I was a bit surprised at how much less patience I have. Yes, I still have the skills to ACCOMPLISH the work needed to produce "fidelity" models/layouts... but I no longer ENJOY the process. I get frustrated too quickly now.  Just the THOUGHT of all the small tedious work needed to produce fidelity models and a fidelity type layout makes me want to run out the door in a wild-eyed screaming fit. I guess it goes back to that patience thing.

Simply put: The Hassle Factor had risen WAY above the Fun Factor.

All:

What I want to do now is step back, and look at how I want to SIMPLIFY my approach to model trains. I've elaborated on this thought previously here (and in other threads), so I won't go into it in detail again at this time. Suffice to say that I don't want to drill tiny holes with itty bitty pin vise drills/etc, and I don't want to hand form .009" pieces of brass wire to make railings and such for my models. Been there, done that... apparently I'm sick of it.

Sure, I want some "piddle factor", for I enjoy SOME piddling... just not in the quantities it takes to produce "fidelity" models and layouts, and certainly not at the intensity/tedium levels that my previous approaches to modeling have required.

SO... it's time to kick back... look at my options... and formulate a plan of attack.

Hey, I've got a 16' x 20' out building that needs a railroad in it. Not just any railroad, mind you, but one that is aimed at fulfilling what I want model trains to be for ME, one that is aimed at being laid back and relaxing, and most importantly, one that is aimed dead square at shooting my personal Fun Factor up off the scale. It's like this little illustration I saw for the first time as a lad so many long decades ago.

Yes, this little illustration from Bantam Book's small paperback "Model Railroading" book stirred my imagination and stoked the fires of my dreams and schemes. I simply couldn't fathom someone having an ENTIRE basement to fill with trains! That the trains are 3-rail simply added to the appeal...

Well... I may not have a basement... but I've got a building! And I just might put some 3-rail in there!

All fer now!

Andre

Hey..I'm 67..used to do the HO thing but way below your level.  Now I do pre/post war 3 rail with halfway decent scenery. K.I.S.S. is my mantra.

If 3 rail is your future, you have the artistic ability and License to do it your way. Make it unique.

Have a good one.

Fendermain

Hi Fendermain!

Decent indeed!

I basically think we're all wanting to find our "happy place" in this hobby. Sounds like you've found yours.

My new "happy place" is still out there waiting for me to create it.

You also said:

"If 3 rail is your future, you have the artistic ability and License to do it your way. Make it unique."

Very insightful, there Fendermain.

It will likely be unique. I don't think I've really seen anyone doing what I'm thinking about doing. I'm not thinking about doing it "my way" intentionally to be different... but instead, if there's any uniqueness in what I create, it will be the result of me trying to mesh the things I like about trains with traditional 3-rail in  a layout environment I would enjoy creating and playing within.

I foresee a mixture of PW, PW-wanna be's, some custom painted stuff... shucks, maybe even some kit-bashed stuff... and some of it (eventually a lot of it?) may be weathered.  BUT one of the really neat things about 3-rail is that one can start running some trains pretty quick using what one has available, and the layout can continue to grow, and when a change of pace is desired, well... pull off a piece equipment and do your thing... put it back and grab another, repeat.

Now that I'm seriously considering pitching my hat into the 3-rail ring... I'm pretty excited about what it can lead to.

OH... and I already have created a scale render of the building dimensions... and some basic bench work confines scaled in. I'm just now starting to think towards the design process. The design phase may be a while. BUT, again, IF I commit to this... there will be quite a bit of time to design and plan, for there will be LOTS of selling-off to do for I intend to only retain keepsakes from my expansive HO hoard. Fully 99% will hit the auction block. Now, if I go all way through with my intentions (as of this minute), when the selling off is done, I will only have a handful of HO for wall displays, so I will be tearing down this bench work that's in this computer room and reclaiming the entire room for reading material, and my computer/etc. I'll then have WALL SPACE again in which to display some of my favorite railroad art, too!

Lots ahead of me now.

Andre

Andre

My layout was converted from HO about two decades ago...just last month I took two boxes of remaining HO to a train show...swapped it for some prewar.                                                                                                       Everyone has different ideas about what they like about their trains...it's all good.  I don't have the skills to do super fine detail work like some folks here...instead I view mine as semi-abstract art in an off white frame.

Fendermain

laming posted:

Now that I'm seriously considering pitching my hat into the 3-rail ring... I'm pretty excited about what it can lead to.

Andre

I can tell you one thing Andre, back in the 1980's I built a "traditional" display layout.  It was designed to take to train shows, but I left it set up in my parent's basement in between shows.  We would run Lionel/MPC,(some of it repainted)  Postwar and Williams on it.  It was the most fun I had with Model Railroading either before or since.

My dad also enjoyed it...(He really enjoyed my rebuilt 736 because it could lay down a smoke screen.)  When I came to visit on Saturdays, I would always find the trains in a different spot than the previous week.

Good morning everybody!

I've slept on this idea... and I think I'm doing the right thing. I think that IF I want to truly enjoy model trains (and a layout) again in my lifetime, such a change is needed. It's a shame it's taken so much time (many years, literally) for me to finally ACKNOWLEDGE that I simply no longer have the patience for "fidelity" modeling... but perhaps it TOOK that (years of no meaningful progress) in order for me to finally connect the dots and accept the results.

Fendermain:

You've done an excellent job creating a layout and environment that reflects your own personal "fun" place. Your overall picture of your room/layout looks very inviting and like a place that can pull you toward wanting to spend time there. Well done!

Rusty:

Love the pics, and LOVE those repaints! The baby Hudson and the Berk look fantastic.  This statement you made really grabbed me:

"It was the most fun I had with Model Railroading either before or since."

Hm. I had to think on that one. So far, each layout I've built has been more fun than the previous. Mistakes learned were corrected, and new mistakes discovered. However, overall, I would have to say that each one surpassed its previous ancestor.

I hope that will be case yet again.

Without trying, I managed to make model railroading quite complicated: DCC, torn between two lovers (HO TOC19 vs HO Diesels), on and on, and amidst all that, somewhere my patience level got up and flew 'da coop on me. It's been a real soap opera. ("And now it's time for ANOTHER episode of"... enter corny organ music here... "As The WHEEL Turns!"... organ music crescendos.) Spare me, please. What a drama queen I've been.

Now I want to vastly simplify and get back to the basics of having fun with miniature trains.

Seems do-able.

All in good time.

Hm (again). It might be time for me to resurrect my "PW Questions" thread, 'cause I've got a ton of questions about some things I need to relearn and/or learn.

All fer now!

Andre

Quick question:

What's the LONGEST PW combination for a PW Berk? That is, the engine and the 6 axle PW traditional size tender? (I guess over the wheels... 'cause it will need to fit onto a turntable.)

Need to know the length over the engine/tender wheels so I can allow for same during the track planning stages ahead.

Thanks.

Andre

Andre, Yes it seemed this would be the direction you would start to emphasize soon.  Back in the ‘80s when fighting N scale trackand steamers, I did a good bit of scratch building.  I have a diorama of what I call the Boyce Homestead where I grew up and we still own.  Two story frame house, three out buildings, and all the trees and hedge from what it looked like when I was growing up.  There is no way I could do it now.  Bigger models are better.

I can’t help on the PW question, but you will soon get your answers 

I like reading your comments.  Keep them coming.  Both daughters would ‘discuss’ a problem at college or now work with me, and I would hardly reply.  They worked it out just talking to a listening ear.

Hi again Mark!

Yup, it helps to talk it out. Lots of good input was received along the way.

In retrospect, the biggest impact came from that idea of a test track w/hands on switching.

I'm still floored about what I learned about myself, and my previously chosen mediums, while performing those experiments. I was also shocked at how quick it happened!

All fer now.

Andre

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

Andre, I can relate to the issue of scale GPs and RSs.  I bought a Railking semi-scale diesel when I first got into O gauge 3-rail.  I don't even remember what it was now, but I soon realized I was not into shrunk down semi-scale.  I do have a couple Railking diesels, but they are scale.  

I'm glad you have good support from your wife and long time friend.  My wife is a great support to me!  Yes, I agree, you need to keep evaluating this and not make any purchases yet until you get a good handle on it.  On the other hand, I know you realize you don't want to get into analysis paralysis either.  I tend to be the same way!

I, too, am addicted to GPs.

Lionel did make several types of rolling stock which are in the neighborhood of 1:48. Most of them were introduced in the mid-50s, and therefore were not produced in great quantities in the postwar era, but that tooling was well utilized by MPC and LTI. There are two sizes of refrigerator car, and even the smaller one is noticeably larger than a 6464 boxcar. There is the quad hopper, the large stock car, the chemical tanker and the 3 dome tanker (and the early postwar single dome tank car lettered for Sunoco). Flatcars and gondolas would be about 40' long in 1:48. Even the tiny 2-bay hoppers are not that much undersized compared to the tiny real hoppers of the time, at least in terms of length, though they are definitely too narrow.

Even the 6464 boxcar could pass as a scale-ish 36-foot car: MoPac, for example, resheathed a large number of old 36' boxcars in steel and painted them for LCL service. These cars were only 9 feet wide at the eaves, and 12'10" from the rail to the top of the roof walkway. They served until 1960. The MPC 6464 clone boxcars (all I have) are only about 3 scale inches shy of these numbers. I don't have stats for length, but the Lionel car scales out to 39' (including the roof walk), which I imagine is about right for the 36'6" interior length of the real car. So, in overall dimensions if not in detail, the 6464-150 MoPac Eagle car is actually close to scale.

If you want a scale 40' boxcar, you could use Menards'. Or use older Lionel Standard O, though these sit annoyingly high - I've often contemplated lowering them by replacing the "detailed underframe" with a recessed block of wood, but I'm too much of a "collector" at heart.

Cabooses will be a little tougher, since you can't use the ubiquitous SP type. The porthole and bay window cabeese are close to 1:48 (though the bay window is based on an Erie prototype, which is admittedly narrower than many other real bay window cabooses). You would definitely have to go with modern Lionel (or even non-Lionel) to get a 'typical outline' caboose that really looks right with a GP.

But, unless you need to have all your rolling stock be Postwar, there are plenty of options which will look good with Lionel diesels, other than the FAs. Of course, all your steam engines will be undersized then. Still, real steamers came in a lot of sizes, after all...

Mark:

I'm hoping this time I will not get "analysis paralysis". 

For examples, owing to my findings with the "hands on" experience, I have definitely eliminated a big source of distraction: TOC19 steam in HO. That has been a distraction for decades. Way too finicky. It would most certainly be a source of constant frustration when trying to run/operate the trains.

AND, it looks like the 3-rail allure may be sorting itself out, too.

What would remain is to decide to return to my love of Ozark railroading, or return to my childhood roots and reflect Kansas City. I'm confident I could enjoy either. That will help to be decided with pencil and templates (track planning), as well as weighing my pros and cons of the two themes.

NICKAIX

You have just outlined what my concerns were, and are about trying again with 3-rail. It is very likely that I've played with scale trains too long to move to 3-rail at this point in my life.

Shame we can't do it all... ain't it?

Off to ship a couple packages of standard S scale rail bundles I've sold to a couple of acquaintances!

Andre

Okay... "I feel the need... the need to UPDATE!" (Said with no apologies to that flake Tom Cruise.)

After I experimented, and decided that the finicky nature of the small TOC19 trains would lead to more frustrations than enjoyment, and after giving the thought of 3 rail a very serious look...

I have ended going back to my HO "Kansas City & Gulf" theme. Upon making that decision, the first thing I "assumed" was that I'd pick up my "KC Lines" theme for my layout theme, and model a layout loosely based on Kansas City's West Bottoms area and all would be good. That decided it was "Outta' the way! Move it! Move it! KC in the early-to-mid 1960s here I come!"

NOT so fast there, bud...

Since I essentially have a "clean sheet of paper", so to speak (no lumber has been cut as yet)... then... wonder if I could cram the Ozarks into my available space and return to mountain railroading (that I've loved for a long time)?

The more I kicked around the idea of returning to the KC&G's "Ozark Sub" as a layout theme, it kept sound more attractive. Now, upfront, I'll let you know that IF I wanted to literally fill my out building with LAYOUT, then I wouldn't foresee any issues creating an "Ozark Sub" layout. However, that is NOT what I would be willing to do by a far stretch. No, there are certain things that must be. Those things in mind, I compiled a list of "Givens n' Druthers", to see what I could come up with for a track plan that will be in line with my "Givens n ' Druthers.

The crucial "Givens" are:

* I want open space for my work desk/station. I absolutely DO NOT want to have a small desk under bench work and all the pains in he arse that involves. (Been there, done that. Don't want no more of dat.) Plus, I've learned that (for me) IF my work station is PLEASANT, then I tend to enjoy the work station experience more.

* I want plenty of space BEHIND my work station. I detest scooting back my chair and bumping (usually my head) on the benchwork that's too close BEHIND me. I do NOT want a "cramped feeling" around my work station. In a nutshell, I want my work station area to feel like a small "room" and not something that's crammed into a tiny, tight space that it has no business being crammed into in the first place. (That's basically what my work stations have been in the past.)

* There is ONE window in the available layout space that must be accessible and allowance must be made for it to tilt inward for cleaning/maintenance.

* The HVAC of my lower wall mounted unit (think: like a motel room's HVAC) must be easily accessible for filter/coil cleaning/maintenance AND the airflow cannot be obstructed.

The above pretty much dictates that the BULK of ANY layout I design THAT INTRUDES into the inner portions of the building MUST comply with the above "givens". That pretty much means that all the room intrusive stuff must be to the right of the entryway, for my work station area is on the left.

So, I was essentially looking at having access to: The right front wall (8'), the right side wall (15') the back wall (19') and IN MODERATION, the left side wall (15'). The left front wall is where my work station is located. (All this will become more readily assimilated once you view the track plan.)

My "Druthers":

* Decent staging that can accommodate at least 4-5 trains each way during an operating session.

* An acceptable "crew change" point w/town at the "southern" exit point (where the layout track heads for the stage) of the layout. This would (hopefully) include a couple tracks for any "shorts" that are going to arrive/depart the layout, and (again, hopefully) a very small engine service area. (Think: A sheet metal one  unit engine house IF space is available, or at the least a sand/diesel/tie up track.)

* Acceptable curve radii for the visible track.

* Tighter track radius on the hidden/unseen track if needed.

* Acceptable mainline run length.

* Enough small mountain towns (w/pass tracks) along the way between the "southern" stage area and the "northern" stage area to offer some variety in "meet" locations, as well as adequate "local work".

* Some decent mineral-based industry such as a gravel plant, and maybe a lime plant.

* Provisions for smaller ("peckerwood") sawmills along the way and/or other small operations of some type.

Armed with the above, I used a 3/4" = 1' scale and began trying to see what I could do in regards to a mainline alignment that I could be happy with. IF I could accomplish that goal, then it would be time to migrate over to 1.5" = 1' scale, and start designing in sincerity. (Note: Won't do you any good to suggest a track planning software. I've tried some, and I MUCH prefer the tactile experience of designing on paper with a pencil, compass, templates, etc.)

The idea is: See if I can come up with "Definite Maybe" Ozark Sub layout I could enjoy for the long term. IF I'm successful at doing so, then next would be to push the plan aside for a "test of time, and in the meantime return to the track plan for my KC Lines concept and finish it up.

When a KC Lines track plan reaches the "Definite Maybe" status, I will then take the two track plans and compare the pros/cons of each before I make a final decision. I think I will find:

* The "KC Lines" layout will likely offer more pure "operation" in regards to yard switching and industrial switching, etc. It will also offer the ability to see all kinds of different railroads represented thereon because of the fact there was something like 13 Class 1 RR's in KC back in the early-mid 60s. Bottom line: It is a great concept and would translate into a fun layout. The track work needed for a KC Lines theme would take a bit longer to lay because of the complexity of the design. Typical motive power for operating sessions will comprise heavily of switcher-type locomotives.

* The "Ozark Sub" layout would get me back to my mountain railroading, and in so doing would offer helpers, local work (freights), "turns", small town settings (that I also like) and through traffic on a single track main through the mountains. The fact that it's mountain railroading also brings in the "drama" of same that can be capitalized upon. (Note: Mountain railroading has been my "home" in model railroading since about 1974.) The bench work needed for an "Ozark Sub" theme will be more involved than the bench work for a KC Lines theme, but I suspect it will consume notably less switches than the KC Lines theme. Typical motive power for an Ozark Sub theme would be road and road switcher units. Not much demand for a switcher-type engine, or engines.

So there you have it! This is where I'm at at the moment. Soon to come will be a tentative "Definite Maybe" track plan for the Ozark Sub.

Andre

Almost sounds like the "Circle of Life" Andre...

Rusty

Rusty:

LOL!

Well, it's certainly like coming home. There's a familiarity when I look at my diesel models: It's the railroading world I grew up among, and worked among. (Though it's been DECADES since I've been aboard a high-nose GP7/9. Not so long ago since running chop nosed versions, though.) Love TOC19 as I do, there never was such a "real life" connection with the models.

Off and on the past few days, I've been taking inventory of where I'm at in diesels and rolling stock. I'm finding stuff I didn't know I had! I'm taking inventory in advance of determining where my modeling priorities need to be once a firm direction is selected. As I've been un-boxing, evaluating, and test running select examples of my engines... man... I simply love the lines of some of them. F's have got to be some of the coolest old diesels ever conceived. This one in particular really hit a chord with me...

Just love the lines of it, and that gaggle of ladder grabs, rails, the MU hoses... all of it. Close as I can determine, that engine is ready for paint!  Wild.

I do know that as I'm slinging templates and drawing pencil squiggles, one of my immediate priorities that I need to start accomplishing is to start sending off my non-DCC KC&G engines in batches of two to my guy that installs DCC/Sound into them. The first pair to get sent off will be the KC&G GP7's #409 and #412. Gonna' get Tsunami 2's installed in them.

OH... and I've assembled all the decorated rolling stock kits I had on hand! Yup, done gone and put six of them together. True, some were "shake the box", but others required time filing, fitting, and fiddling. Ain't I sumpthin?

Ah... typed too long. Need to cut this one off.

Later!

Andre

Old habits will not go softly into the night, will they Andre? 

Looks like you've found your "happy place" again. 

I've admired your modeling skills, which are much better than mine.  I tend to get a little frustrated when I try to reach beyond my "good enuf" point.  Heck, I still haven't put handrails on my 30+ year old FP7's, let alone all the nose grabs.

Rusty

No, they won't, Rusty. Good OR bad habits.

My biggest issue in all my years of model railroading could be summed up in one word: "Distractions".  Traditionally, it's be the urge to model some form of TOC19 layout. But you can also through other scales/approaches into the mix. (S scale, 3-rail, Sn3... even G scale "way back when"!) Guess when it came to model railroading, I had ADD! (Attention Deficit Disorder!)

However, as I said, diesel mountain railroading has been my "happy place" since about 1974. This is not to say that my KC Lines concept couldn't be quite entertaining for me, but just a comment on the fact that since 1974, fully 80%-90% of my model railroad piddling was diesels pulling trains in mountains. The little 3-rail "KC Lines" concept back in the early 2000's launched the idea of modeling urban/industrial KC (and it's a great concept IMHO), and carried over into S scale, and at the first, was carried into my return to HO. The out building caused a rethink, and the TOC19 Colorado & Pacific, was the result: A return to mountains, this time giving in to that siren song of TOC19. Of course, we know how TOC19 in Colorado idea has turned out for me.

SO... I'm am HOPEFUL that I've returned to a dependable "happy place". It would be great if in one year, I have some bench work up, and some track down, and MAKING GOOD PROGRESS.

Modeling...

In the past I've taken modeling to some pretty silly levels. I think I recall back in the 1970s, when the detail parts that were available at the time were very basic, I scratch built "prototype correct" MU stands for the ends of my Frisco GP7's. Each stand had 11 parts, I think I recall... and each unit had 4 such stands. NO WAY now. I try to hit the high spots and add the features that I really want to see... and call it good. The beauty of my KC&G theme is that I can use basic engine types and simply personalize them for the KC&G. Gone SHOULD be the days of extensive kit bashing in order to replicate a specific prototype engine. I'm PLENTY fine with that. (But it probably DOES behoove me to get my engine modeling done within the next few years before Geezerdom really sets in!)

The cool thing about my KC&G is that it can cater to the things that I came to like over the many decades I've been around railroading. For example, I always found junky IN SERVICE engines much more interesting  than relatively clean engines. Sure, brand spankin' new engines are a sight to behold... but it's the junky ones that take on so much more interest/character to me. (NOTE: This "junky" engines appreciation does/did not carry over to my decades of running engines for a living!   Yeah, yeah, so I'm a hypocrite!)

So, it should come as no surprise that I've incorporated many elements of well worn and patched up engines into my KC&G "bankrupt" theme. Here's an example of some of "little things" I notice:

See that missing louver panel?  Saw such a unit on the Frisco "way back when". Thought it interesting and could be an eye candy feature for a model. SO, the above is the result. There needs to be an air valve and some piping inside that cavity, so I will use a plastic triple valve and some brass wire to simulate that.

I've seen slides of tatty old KCS F3's that had various height fans on the roof. No doubt, a high fan failed, and they simply replaced the unit with an available low fan. No biggie... but makes for some variety and interest. Here's the result of that on one of my KCS F's...

(The fading paint comes from pictures of Mop engines, KCS engines, B&M, engines, etc!)

Oh... and there's that replaced number board still in primer, the result of a light "cornering" (see the rusting scratches on the corner?)... to me that's the the sort of "patch up and make do as cheaply as possible" railroading that I came to appreciate "back when".

Wow... done typed another novel. Need to cut this one off and move along!

SO... reckon that's all fer now!

Andre

Got room anywhere for a small RR museum operation?  You can at least have some of those TOC19 engines and a few pieces of rolling stock sitting around for your layout's railfans to visit  as the diseasals rule the high iron across the road ;-)  Maybe one could even make an excursion from time to time. . . .

PALALLIN:

Well... that COULD be a way to indulge my fetish for TOC19!  (I will always have V scale, though.)

Have to think that over. I've got a lot of $$ (street value) in TOC19 stuff that I was going to use to offset the upcoming expenditures. Plus, I'm wondering (given my tendency) if keeping some of it would be a periodic temptation and even to the point of causing me to second guess myself on my decision?

Definitely food for thought.

Andre

Wow. Sort of forgotten about this thread.

I've lived two life times (in HO scale "fast time"!   ) since the last post!

In a nutshell (IF that's possible for me):

* Proceeded with my HO scale KC&G in the Ozarks layout theme. It's been up and 100% functional for many months. Still at the Plywood Pacific stage, but that will be changing soon: Time to install the backdrop boards, seal/smooth them, paint it sky blue, then install lighting and valance, lastly fascia on the layout edge. Once I have all that accomplished (1-2 months), it will be much more pleasant to the eye, and then scenery can happen as mood inclines.

* Before the Covid mess, I was hosting 3 person operating sessions semi-regularly. Recently I've had a long time model railroad and railroading friend over for some operating sessions. The layout theme is working out EXACTLY like I conceived. (That doesn't always happen.) Enjoying operating, either with others or solo, is the reason the backdrops and stuff mentioned above keeps getting procrastinated!

* Had decided to let the Ozark layout host a dual era with careful thought about structures and scenic features, one being the diesel era (Autumn of 1964) the other the late 1880s. (Thus scratching that 1880s itich) Also decided to re-purpose the existing unused bench work in this computer room for a small shelf switching layout in HO based on the Kansas City West Bottoms area. (Thus scratching the KC Lines itch!) So far no real progress on either the 1880s or KC Lines idea.

THAT brings you up to date. BUT...

As of recently: The conundrum being discussed here has reared its head again, but this time I think I have it better thought out.

Now, for a random pic before I shuffle off to other things...

A pair of KC&G GP7's clears the north switch at Piney. Biscuit's already swapped ends and he's ready to ease 'em back south on the main and drop down The Mountain to get the rest of their train. Things don't always go as planned on the KC&G's Ozark Sub. Battling those tough Ozark mountains with power that's might nigh plum worn out'll do that. Should'a had enough power for the pull... but that depended on the tired old Geeps being able to blow their guts out one more time to get up that wretched mountain. Too bad about the governor reset kicking out on the #409. That caused 'em lay down an' even though Biscuit kin work wonders on the throttle... there was no way they he'd have a fightin' chance to get started again on that back breakin' grade. SO... only thing left was for Stringbean to start poundin' the chat to go back and make the cut so's they could double 'em up. Ain't no doubt about it, North Extra #412's day is gonna' be a whole lot longer, now.

(Pic taken on my HO scale "Kansas City & Gulf: Ozark Subdivision" layout.)

All fer now!

Andre

I figured you were just standing around scratching that other bottom itch the whole time 

1. At least you had something to run during this "vacation".