Starting to have doubts as to the long term interest in the area I’ve chosen to model. Definitely not into changing prototypes, but instead switch to a differen region, or else go prot-freelance with a more generic track plan but based on Reading prototype.
The driving force behind these feelings is seeing a rather interesting operating track plan in a 1968 MR, Greenbriar Central, May 1968, pg 34. It’s just a small L shaped corner of a room layout but it has decent oeprating possibilities and a nice 2 level design with a one loop helix (not hidden) int he middle. That’s the only reach-compromised area. The real thing is the fact that there are many operating possibilities, and this is what I want to make sure any future layout has plenty of. I don’t think the area I have selected is going to have enough sustainable operation to maintain long term interest.
I think we all do that, so you have to follow where your heart takes you. Over the last 30 years I’ve migrated from an HO scale freelance coal hauling shortline feeding an undefined railroad (SR, L&N, etc) in Kentucky/Tennessee. Then to a short lived N scale UP/BN Pacific Northwest, to a series of N scale shelf modules of a freelanced regional somewhat akin to the Clinchfield, but running from Spartanburg to Chattanooga instead of Kentucky, and finally to my current proto freelanced HO subsidary of the SR in the Carolina Piedmont. One factor favoring that scheme is the SR held several shortlines that used SR paint schemes, but with their own names - C&NW (that’s Carolina & Northwestern, not that other little known route named after that small mid western town what’s it’s name).
Sorry for all the rambling, but just trying to show we’ve all been there and back again.
You probably don’t plan to build this exactly as drawn, but note that the grade is pretty stout. Transitions from level to grade were apparently not planned in … and the grade on the steep side of the 22" radius circle in the corner is on the order of 4-5% once you allow for the vertical transitions – and that’s before considering the extra drag of the 22" curve.
Interesting idea, but as with many “theoretical” plans of the era, not always practical as drawn. And as you note, access to the far corner is very difficult in the published plan.
Personally, I’ve never been big on the idea of trying to model an actual section of a prototype. I feel it is way to limiting in most cases and the effects are often lost in selective compression.
I designed a layout some years back for one of our group members, he models the B&O. The layout gives the “feel” of the B&O mainline coming and going from Brunswick, MD, but with no attempt to capture specific scenes or duplicate exact track arrangements - yet the effect is very convincing.
My own freelanced track plan is based on the operational and scenic features that interest me, with of course consideration for good scenic flow and believability. And I have interchanges/trackage rights senerios with the three real prototypes I model - B&O, C&O, and WM.
This “protolance” approach is one main reason I have not gotten “bored” with my layout concept in nearly three decades of modeling it.
I have to agree with Sheldon. We all have to make some compromises on our layouts, even if we do try to model the prototype. The main reason is our limited space for our layouts. Once you limit your space (we all have to) everything else is automatically limited whether we actually see it that way or not.
I agree with Sheldon…The few times I modeled a prototype railroad it was always free form protolancing while retaining the general feel of the modeled prototype as far as signals and railroad structures.
Oh I wasn’t planning ot building the Greendrier Central layout. It’s just that when I came across that article and looked it over, it seemed quite interesting for a small layout. Idid notice the rather steep grade as drawn, although my first thought was to extend the bottom side and make it not a coal dock but an interchange, lessening the grade. ANd th depth of the corner would definitely mean some sort of access hole to make it practical. The operational posisbilities of switchignt he small town plus th emien branch are what really caught my eye. I’m thinking for any large long term layout to holdmy interest there must be several switchign areas liek that - obviously each one different, and no contrived puzzles - I’ll build a standalone Timesaver if I want to play puzzles, although with several virtua online ones there’s little need.
I’m pretty sure I’m not headed back to completely freelancing. I did have a concept I came up with over 20 years ago, even had written up a complete corporate history for my ficticious railroad. I actually found the file and read it not too long ago, and while it had a few holes I probably could revise it. But I’m pretty set that my railroad will be the Reading, even if I transition my ideas form strictly modeling the prototype to more of a ‘flavor of’ concept.
The biggest problem with pure prototypical modeling in my case is the huge percentage of bridge traffic. On a double track main. Not too much challenge there.
For me, taking the protolance approach has allowed/forced me to learn how my railroad (and railroads in general) operated. Since I’m not modeling a specific section of the NYC, nor do I currently have the space to even attempt that, I’m free to incorporate what a freight house and NYC-operated service terminal would look like around a small town in the early 40s.
I can enjoy through trains. I can enjoy switching full and empty coal, sand, and cinder hoppers and gondolas for my service terminals from two separate yards. I can also enjoy minimizing the amount of scenic-compression needed if I were modeling a specific place.
Without the space, protolancing is the best of both worlds for me: Confining my efforts, interests, and resources to one specific prototype with the freedom to model that prototype but not a specific part of it. Like Sheldon, it has kept me from losing interest with my current layout.
I to am on the edge of should I or shouldn’t I. I have been into HO for 40 yrs but from time to time I think about switching scales. I like the look of On30 stuff still HO but with the big O scale buildings, cars & trucks. But I always say no I have just to much HO stuff and I would lose my butt if I sell out. Then I picked up the new MR with the 3rd place winner for the yearly track planning contest and I thought this layout would be great in On30. I will let you know how this story goes.
I actually started to build the Greenbriar Central back in the early 70s. Had most of the track laid and even did a little scenery. Back then I was using brass track and the switch kits, all with fiber ties. It was nightmarish trying to keep the track in gauge in a basement. I did modify the plan somewhat but don’t really remember now how I did it. Interesting to see that the plan actually caught someone else’s eye. Good luck on your venture.
I’ve generally found that for me, once I seriously begin thinking about doing something, it usually works out best to go ahead and do it. If I’m really thinking a lot about something, it’s usually something I do really want to do, but am trying to talk myself out of because of the time involved etc. It normally works out that the change ends up being easier than I thought, and worth the trouble.