Why no backdrops?

Why I didn't add backdrops (other than the room walls) to my layout can be summarized by this photo. 

 

I got an interesting email on one of my recent video layout updates the other day. ***

Essentially, the email questioned why I didn't include backdrops along behind both peninsulas and behind the "front" section of the layout where the Enosburg Falls and "Junction" scenes are located. An earlier view of the layout from the front "viewing aisle" is shown below for reference:

There's a couple of reasons I didn't include backdrops on those sections of the layout. In no particular order they are:

1. One of the toughest things to deal with in model photography and videography are shadows reflected from the 3-d world onto the 2-d wall, which is supposed to represent sky. Last time I checked, the sky outside my window doesn't reflect anything. 

Adding more backdrops is simply adding more walls - creating more distracting shadows that have to be addressed. 

2. Somewhat related to #1 is the issues with lighting that additional backdrops would introduce. If there's one area where we model railroaders really need to focus it's on thinking through and improving layout room lighting. I really failed in this area on my previous layout, and although I feel the current layout room lighting is better,  it's far short of ideal. 

More backdrops means more light is getting blocked from reaching the layout - the solution of just adding more light fixtures in the hope the problem goes away only goes so far!

3. Multiple peninsulas broken up with backdrops may help create a sense of isolation and distance - and if that's the goal that's fine. But such a benchwork footprint usually means narrow shelves (a few inches on each side of the track has been promoted by some) which may serve the purpose of stretching the mainline length but at the expense of visual impact. The only photo angle available is the "extreme 3/4 wedge shot." Worse than that, when viewing the layout in person you will find it a struggle to achieve the sense of a train in the environment - it usually looks like exactly what it is - a model train running along a narrow shelf with a modicum of scenery on each side. 

The 3/4 wedgie view of a train - you better like this perspective - a lot - unless you include some deeper scenes somewhere on your layout. 

4. The last, and perhaps most important reason I didn't add a bunch of backdrops to the layout room is simply the fact that I enjoy stepping back and surveying the landscape. In person it's pleasant to look at the layout. And, when you drop the camera down to eye level you can achieve some truly deep, realistic vistas. 

If you don't care for my thoughts on rabbit warren layout design, you don't want to hear about my preference for continuous running! 

(***I tried to illustrate some of this in my latest video layout update - you can see that on YouTube by clicking HERE. )

Viral thoughts

As of today (March 13, 2020) due to concerns regarding the Covid -19 virus all of the planned events listed HERE, with the exception of MARPM, have been cancelled or postponed with no new date identified. 
Sorry I'll miss seeing folks at these events, but I hope to be able to post revised dates as things sort themselves out. 
One thought. I've been reading several blogs and message boards today where people are:

(1) Lamenting the cancellation of train meets, shows, and other hobby events, and/or 
(2) Worried about the impact of a global pandemic on the production of model railroad equipment, especially overseas.

With regards to Item #1. Model railroading is a great hobby, but it is just that, a hobby. The organizers of these shows and the owners of venues where they're being held aren't enjoying this situation any more than you. And while it's a bummer that you won't have yet another opportunity to purchase more, perhaps we should all take this opportunity to build some of the stuff we have. 
The answer to #2 is simple - yes, there will be an impact. There will certainly be delays, and I'm sure some of these will be significant. Some model train manufacturing facilities overseas may not survive. Some model railroad companies in the US might not survive. 
Frankly, I could care less. The hobby will go on. Besides, there's little or nothing commercially available in the RTR market suitable for a Central Vermont branchline that I don't already have, so I'm covered.   
We need to keep things in perspective as far as what's truly important, and what's not.  As of today, my office is still open, but I wouldn't be surprised if we are told to work from home at some point, most likely next week. 
If that happens, my plan is take the three hours a day I currently spend commuting, as well as those weekend days I won't be at NMRA and RPM meets over the next month, and try to work my way through my rather extensive stash of kits. 
Here's hoping many of you take the opportunity to do the same. 
For now, please listen and comply with the instructions of health care professionals and take care of yourself and your family. There's no reason to panic, but there's every reason to be prudent. Besides, I'm looking forward to seeing you at an RPM meet at some point in the future - hopefully sooner rather than later!

Philosophy in Practice?

I started building the Richford Branch last summer - early August to be exact (see this post). Even though I've done a pretty good job of sticking to the script (ie., the plan Lance Mindheim designed) I have been tempted a time or three to "Add just (chose one) <more track//more industries//a spot for that structure kit that looks cool but doesn't really fit with the rest of the layout>." 
The only one of these changes to make it to the plywood stage is the staging yard. Lance designed the layout with a deliberately simple, small staging yard. I added an extra eight inches or so of benchwork and added a few more staging tracks.  
That was, in itself, fine. 
But it also put me firmly on the precipice - It was like the those devil vs. angel arguments from classic film and television: 

Devil: "Add a couple more tracks and sidings and the Canadian Pacific interchange could be a "live" one, and create an another operator position or two."
Angel: But you're not a CP modeler - the CP tracks are there to provide context. Besides, where does the devil think these "live staging" tracks will be? 
Devil: Along the narrow walls at both ends of the layout  - you could screen it with hills and trees. After all, you'll never need to access them. There's almost 4 whole inches between the CV line and the wall. Plenty of room!" 
Angel: So a CP train is just going to be sitting there behind the scenes you want to build - you know, the ones that inspired this whole project in the first place?" 
Devil: "Plans are made to be broken."
Angel: "You discussed with this with Lance when you were designing this thing. And he made some really valid points about not needing to add more operating capacity - there's plenty there already."
Devil: "That guy ruins all our fun!"

Okay, enough of the silliness. 

I'll summarize all this by saying even though I wish I hadn't added extra tracks (and benchwork) to the staging yard, it's in place and working so I'm not going to change it out now. 
And, other than some roadbed, which is easily removed or scenicked over, I didn't get that "live staged" CPR connection in place before I stood back and realized how silly it would look.
That takes care of adding additional track and more "operating interest."*
What of the temptation of adding things that really fit the theme of the layout? One perfectly valid approach is to say "It's a hobby, I like it!" and simply be done with it. Perhaps if it's not around, there won't be a temptation to use it? 

Seeing what my friend Bernie Kempinski is dealing with this week has given me pause. He's had to pile all his stuff in the center of the room, and he's amazed at how much stuff was living under the layout. I know some of it he hasn't seen in years.  
Of course, there's no universal standard defining too much, or too little, stuff . It varies from person to person. 
And it's not because I'm a hoarder, or have some sort of psychological disorder (see the last comment on this post for one of the oddest comments I've ever received on this blog!). 
I've come to realization the very presence of things I know I won't use on this layout are actually impeding progress. They're just "in the way" - even if they're stashed under the layout or in the back room. 

* Of course, the added operating position would have consisted of running a short train from behind a row of trees, setting off and picking up some cars at a feed mill, then the CV interchange, before heading into another stub ended track at the other end of room. Hardly engaging, especially compared to the CV Richford local job!

100% Started?

The June 10 "Benchwork Started By" date is looming closer. 
But that begs the question - exactly when does construction start? 
I've gotten a good start at the Phase 1 benchwork/framing plan - basically the Richford peninsula and it's approach tracks. In fact, I'm at the point where I could start assembling open grid "boxes."
Of course, benchwork building will require some wood - as I mentioned previously Bernie was getting some 3/4" "plywood ripped into 3" boards (essentially creating strong and straight 1x3s at less cost than dimensional lumber). So he was kind enough to tack on some to his order. A whole bunch of it in fact. 

The final photo I took of the previous layout showed the scrap in the back of a truck on its way to the recycling center, it seems fitting that the first photo of the new layout mimics that - in this case the wood in Bernie's wife's car.

Having seen some local modelers use the IKEA Ivar shelving system as a base for their layouts I decided to adopt the same approach for the Richford peninsula and the "front" section of layout running the length of the room. So yesterday I drove to IKEA and managed to completely fill a Mazda6 with a bunch of Ivar components. I also picked up some stain. Next step will be staining those legs and shelves. 

Philosophical query of the day: 
Can you ever be less than 100% started on benchwork?
Does obtaining the wood count as "starting construction?"
And, if not, does staining the legs and shelves count as "starting?"
Or, does sawdust actually have to be produced to be considered 100% started? 

New railroad = New Blog???

One of the first photos on this blog - almost eight years ago. Time for a fresh start? 

As I start (in earnest) the process of planning and eventually building my new layout I wonder if I should put this blog aside and start a new blog, one either focused on the new railroad or a more general "modeling" blog. 

Why?

• I started this blog in December 2010, as I was starting construction of the layout. So this blog has always been about that layout.
  
• I don’t want readers seeing posts and photos from the old layout and confusing them with the new railroad.
• There’s something to be said for a fresh start. 
• I've learned a little about blogging in the last 8 years - to the point that I cringe at some of the earlier posts. A new blog would make it easy to implement those lessons. 
• Currently I have three blogs, although I really only update this one on a regular basis. 

A new look for a fresh start? 

Why Not?

• This is an “established” blog – with a 8-year history and over 500,000 unique visits.
• People know where to find it, and therefore, me.
• Starting a new blog may require more effort and time than I want to devote to it at this point. 

Another approach would be to not tie the blog to any one prototype or layout and instead to create a new, more generic "My Model Railroading Blog" (obviously the title needs some work). 
That way if the next layout, or the one after that, is based on some other prototype/region of the country it wouldn't seem odd to have a Carolina railroad described on a blog with the "centralvermontrailway" in its URL. 

I could simply retain this blog and cull through the old posts and photos to remove those specific to the old layout (photos of benchwork and the like, such as the one shown above!), retaining the true modeling, prototype information, and photo posts. 
But that sounds a lot like effort.

Just something to contemplate on a dreary Thursday. 

Story Telling and Layout Design?

The space in the basement for the new layout has been roughly defined, meaning it’s sufficient to start some rough sketches of potential benchwork shapes and the like. Or so I thought.

These sketches are nothing more than doodles … and attempts to apply the John Armstrong’s by the squares and “givens and druthers” approach proved equally unsatisfying.  It simply wasn’t working for me. 

Mike Cougill and Trevor Marshall have written extensively about their model railroading and layout design philosophy on their respective blogs.  Rather than attempting to review it all here, I’ll suggest you read them for yourself (See here and here for some examples, but be sure to look around at both of these excellent blogs while you're there).  
I believe the essence of what they’re saying can be boiled down to “What story are you trying to tell?”  While this is a novel approach to thinking about model railroading, military modelers and miniaturists have done for years. Meaning we might be able to learn something from them.

Typically we jump right into layout design by figuring out how to fit the longest possible run into the space.  The question of “why” is left unanswered.  Instead, thousands of gallons of ink are spilled on explanatory text “I’m modeling the XY&Z railroad from Town A to Point B…” I’ve edited and you’ve read more than our share of such exposes so I won’t belabor the point.  Instead I’ll simply ask shouldn’t the story we’re telling be painfully obvious with nothing more than a single glance?  For example, see Sheperd Paine’s “How to Build Dioramas” – a book that should be a part of every modeler’s library.  Paine was a master at crafting a storyline for each of his dioramas. Check out the cover photo of the diorama depicting an aircraft assembly line in WWII – what stories does that one image tell? 

Truly gifted artists and craftsman imbue their work with an indelible stamp.  And, while I think most model railroads fall well short of being “art” some model railroads do indeed cross that threshold.  These are the layouts built by excellent craftsman with a strong, well defined theme – a story they’re telling.  

Mike Cougill frequently refers to model railroading not as a hobby, but as “the craft.”  And I think it’s no accident that defining the story you’re trying to tell, not only about railroading but about yourself and your relationship to “the craft” extends far beyond the trains, curve radii, dispatching methods or other minutia that bogs us down way too early in the design process.

While it may be a little too philosophical for some, all this resonated with me to a certain extent.  I should add these same ideas are applicable individual projects as well as the layout. 

I don't know how much all of this will impact the ultimate layout design, but asking yourself “What Story do I want to tell?” is worthwhile. I know I’m going to come up with an answer before I cut the first piece of lumber for the new layout. And I'm going to keep the answer in mind throughout the process of designing and building the railroad.

Lessons Learned

An important lesson all sailors learn in bootcamp - ways to stop water from getting into the people tank.

Lessons Learned are a big thing in my work life.  We’re perpetually looking at things that didn’t go as planned (and even those that did) in an effort to identify and repeat the things that worked and to avoid repeating those times, as one of my old bosses was fond of saying “The water got into the people tank.”*

So, although I was pleased with the layout’s scenery and performance (once the initial teething pains were worked through) I find myself asking if the layout was “successful?”

The stated purpose of the railroad was to “model the equipment, structures, operations and setting of the Central Vermont Railway in the late steam-to-diesel transition era.” 
Measured against that standard, I’m not sure the railroad didn't fall short.
Here's just a few of the lessons learned:

Focus: I need more of it, and I need to stick with something once I drive the stake in the ground. "Modeling the Central Vermont of the 1950s..." is a large canvas. As I've relayed in this blog, I started modeling the Southern Division of the railroad on a double deck layout, then tried to shoehorn White River Junction and the Northern Division (with it's larger engines) into a single-deck railroad, only to later remove WRJ and install Essex in its place. The basic footprint of the layout never really changed all that much, but I think we built, and rebuilt, every section of the layout at least twice. 

My approach to layout design?

In essence, I was chasing the ever illusive squirrel - the hope of a "perfect" layout design to overlay on my theme. In the end, "perfection" became the enemy of decisiveness. That's all on me, and I truly appreciate the grace and tolerance shown by my friends throughout all this! 

Modeling the Operations:  In general, the individual operating sessions were a success (I always had a good time).  But let’s look at it from the viewpoint of return on investment.
I started construction of the layout in December, 2008.  It took several years of building (and yes, rebuilding) the layout.  In total, I ended up hosting 17 “official” operating sessions throughout the railroad’s 8.5 years of existence.  That’s averages out to a session about every 7 months.  An aside, if you really want to depress yourself, consider the following formula:

Total Cost of the Layout (in $) / Total # of Sessions = Cost/per session ($) 

No matter how it's broken down, it doesn’t seem like the time, effort, and money to build the layout was worth it when you consider the total time spent performing its main function was a fraction of the time it existed.

We didn't operate as much as I'd hoped, but Christine made sure no one left hungry!

Modeling the Equipment:  It’s great fun to tell yourself you’re going to model the railroad’s operations, six or seven towns, complete with scratchbuilt replicas of all the buildings, and run through them trains populated by accurate, detailed cars pulled by equally accurately detailed locomotives.

If you asked me what my favorite part of the hobby is I’d tell you it's building detailed freight cars. 

The one resin car I've gotten built in the last 24 months...and it's not even lettered yet!

If that's the case then why I have gotten exactly one – that’s one – resin car kit built in the last two years?
 Instead of doing what I wanted to do when I wanted to do it, I’ve been stuck in a do-loop of sorts - “feeding the monster” – that large layout looming in the basement that required track, wiring, static grass, structures, trees (my God, the trees!), in massive quantities.  I kept telling myself I’d get the thing to “looking finished” and then turn my attention to the projects I wanted to work on.  But there was always another bunch of trees to install – or some piece of track to ballast.

I'll conclude with this. I'm not "down" on large layouts. I'm also not "down" on small layouts, or anything really. I don't think  the layout was an absolute failure. I had fun, shared some good times with friends, perfected some techniques and learned a lot about myself. My purpose in writing this is not discourage anyone else from pursuing their approach to the hobby (Lord knows, the above isn’t going to encourage anyone to do anything other than take up knitting!). Instead, I'm trying to quantify the good and bad and hopefully apply those lessons learned to the next railroad. 
 *To get the joke it helps to understand he was a submariner. And the #1 rule of all submariners is to keep the water out of the people tank…(Hey, it’s not my line, submariners are weird, everyone knows it.)

More commentary on photo vs. painted backdrops

In my Getting Real column in the current issue of the online magazine "Model Railroad Hobbyist" I presented a review of how I used a photo to extend the foreground scenery into my painted backdrop. The point I was trying to make was photos can be used in combination with painted backdrops to address things that are harder to paint - roads, buildings, rivers and the like. 
The comment section has become an interesting series of comments on the relative merits of photo or painted backdrops. Kind of like the discussion we had in this post back in December. 

Prototype Modeling and the blogosphere(??)

I end my clinics with a slide showing the header and URL of my blog with the invitation "For more details see … " Like most clinicians I follow this up with a Q&A session. I've noticed the last few presentations I've gotten questions not about the layout, or the clinic, but about blogging in general. 

My original blog header

This seems like a good subject to cover in my Getting Real column for Model Railroad Hobbyist since blogging has become a small,  but important part of my hobby.  
To add some additional viewpoints to the column besides my own I'm reaching out to some other model railroad bloggers to ask them the following questions (these are some of the questions I've received from attendees at clinics or readers of my blog):

1. What type of blog engine do you use (bloodspot, Wordpress, etc…) and what are any advantages/disadvantages that you've identified? 
2. Why did you start your blog? 
3. How did you choose a theme for your blog? Have you stuck with that theme or has it evolved? 
4. How much time per week (on average) do you spend blogging? 
5. How important are comments/feedback? How do you handle comments? Also, have you ever received negative feedback or had any issues with resulting from the blog? 
7. What's one piece of advice you would give a modeler thinking about starting a blog? 

I'd like your feedback as well, even if you're not a blogger or planning to start a blog. So, for blog readers, I'll add the following questions: 

8. How many model railroad blogs do you follow or read regularly? 
9. Any particular reason you've chosen those? 
10. Do you leave feedback or comments? If so, what was that experience like? 
11. Do you read only the newest post or do you use the blog Search function as a research tool?
12. Do you prefer posts dealing with Prototype information, opinion pieces on the hobby, or modeling how-to? Any I've missed? 

I look forward to hearing from you. 

Marty

Magazines - Aspirational Clutter?

It's no surprise that my blog post "Hoarding, Collecting or Savvy Buying" is one of the most popular on this blog. Most model railroaders I know (including me!) are buried in inventory. This time around, the "inventory" I'm talking about is not those yet-to-built kits, detail parts and endless stacks of "someday" projects.
Instead, I'm talking about what to do about the one common element that unites virtually every model railroader - the seemingly endless stacks (or boxes, or shelves...) of old model railroad magazines.
To understand my point you need to realize the publishing industry sees a magazine as nothing more than an advertising delivery system. - The goal is to tempt consumers with editorial content to read and enjoy and for them to (hopefully) buy stuff from the advertisers, and then dispose of the magazine just in time for the next issue to arrive and tempt them with more wonderful products and services.
Model railroaders seem to have missed the "dispose" part of the equation - it's truly remarkable how many old magazines are sitting under model railroads. I remember when I worked at Kalmbach the non-hobbyist employees were always surprised when a reader would come by the office for a tour and more often than not quip "I've been getting MR and Trains since I was a kid, and I still have every issue!" (I should add they often had similar collections of RMC, Mainline Modeler, Narrow Gauge Gazette, et al....)
Two events coincided to bring this up as a blog post. I don't as a rule spend a lot of time reading non-railroad blogs (though there are a few finance/investing bloggers I follow) but recently came across this blog while searching about the internet for storage ideas for my wife's art room. 
You can read the full post here (http://www.365lessthings.com/magazines/). 
It's an interesting post but these two paragraphs really resonated with me. Read them and see if this doesn't remind you of a model railroader (or three) you might know:

"Then there is the futile exercise of saving magazines for those few articles that you might want to refer back to later on. Or cutting them out and filing then in plastic sleeves in a folder somewhere. My experience of this is, without proper, time consuming indexing, it is difficult to find those articles again when, or if, you ever do want to reference them. This is another form or aspirational clutter. And once again it is so much easier to find this information on the internet, with a few key words typed into your computers search bar."

"I am speaking from experience here. I once used to save every issue of several paper crafting magazines and save clippings from catalogues etc. Now I find all the inspiration or information I need with the tap of a few keys. No, heavy lifting, no allergy issues from the dust when dragged out after long periods, no having to dust them in between times, no big bulky bookcase to store them in, no wasted money, no wasted trees, no frustrating advertising, no agonising over if and when to declutter them, and no constant aspiration of actually doing something with the information in those articles I once thought I couldn’t live without."

Reading this post coincided with an online discussion several model railroaders were having of the best way to store old magazines. I, like many of you, have tried the "cut out the articles of particular interest" approach, placing all those articles neatly in file folders that I never look at.
The consensus from the online discussion was to keep the magazines intact - after all your interests may change in 10 years and you don't want to be stuck without a one-page article from the April 1948 MR  or whatever. 
The "ideal" solution was to keep the magazines intact and invest in a series of large, heavy open side file cabinets kept under the layout and mounted on wheels. 
I've taken the opposite approach - and have decided that our home, and to a greater extent the layout room, is no longer going to look like a public library and storehouse for stacks of paper that I rarely, if ever, use. To that end, many of the magazines have gone - and likely more will follow.
I found the premise that magazines represent aspirational clutter to be interesting. The word "aspiration" is an interesting one - it always seemed far more pessimistic to me than the similar-sounding "inspiration."
Aspiration, to me, smacks of dreams that are reached for, but never quite achieved. 
Inspiration expresses a more positive outlook on things.
I  think it's interesting that the blogger quoted chose the word she did.
Instead of providing inspiration the magazines represent clutter - something that can easily impact the creative process.
I can say that having disposed of a lot of magazines over the last couple of years I truly don't miss them. I still find inspiration in what other modelers are doing, but more frequently that inspiration is neatly stored in a box on my desk  connected to the internet and not in magazine files underfoot.

"Ours is not to reason why, but instead to do …."

The type of thing one reflects on during really long commutes

It's been a long journey to get here - and the road has never been this wide open!

Model railroading is many things, but one thing it's not is some sort of epic struggle for the hearts and minds of men.  But you might think that's the case after reading some chat lists, blogs, and forums. Allow me to summarize:
"How much detail is enough for any one particular model on the layout?...Does every element have to be "hyper" detailed, or is "super detailed" sufficient?...If we're not approaching all this as true artists then we're just wasting time...Every project should somehow advance the state of the art…Oh, and while you're at it….Get more kids involved in the hobby."
You'd think we were splitting the atom or creating the next Mona Lisa ….

I get the model-building aspect of model railroading, I really do. And I even enjoy the challenge of working a local freight or switching the yard during formal (or even informal) operating sessions. 
But I am puzzled by those who believe we need to duplicate every nuance of the prototype, including work rules, with the same fidelity we once reserved for locomotives. The latest buzzword seems to capsulize this approach as "recreating jobs." Frankly, I'm not sure I fully understand it. And please, don't bother trying to explain it to me. 
Of course, that's fine, if that's your game, but frankly I think there are many equally valid reasons for building a model railroad that have nothing to do with "recreating jobs." 

My goal that drives the considerable investment in time, energy, and money I've made in this hobby is to recreate, in three dimensions, several key scenes and the equipment from my prototype. Every time I've gotten further away from that goal - even a little bit - I ended up spending (wasting?) resources.

There was a point where I was getting advice from some very seasoned modelers/operators to do things that simply didn't sit well with me - but even when the advice started to seem at odd with my goals and I could sense things were going astray, I kept with it - for a while.  I did it since I figured this was my first large home layout and they'd built successful railroads - so they must know "truth."

This advice ranged from considering another prototype to model 

- since that would offer more operating interest to the operating crew - 

to focusing on a different era 

- which is "easier" to get RTR equipment for than the one I chose - 

to adding more infrastructure and additional trains 

- to support a larger operating "crew" that may or not ever show up -

to the aforementioned focus on recreating jobs 

- since that's what the "serious" modelers are doing ….

Notice a trend here? 

All of this advice was well-meaning, but inherently wrong since it was predicated on what others thought I should be doing. And it was grounded in their goals and motivations, not mine.  And the further down this path I went the less and less I liked my layout. 

In the end I decided to make whatever changes were needed to create the layout I wanted. Getting from there to here has required lots of thinking, planning, demolition, rebuilding, and tweaking - most of which I've shared through this blog. Think of it as "layout design with plywood and plaster" instead of pencil and paper. 

The process is starting to pay dividends. Although it certainly has not been "fun" I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel and this post represents a turning point in that I've at last finished the last of the major "rebuild" efforts that started close to three years ago. 
That means there will hopefully be a lot more countryside and less raw plywood and styrofoam in the coming months. 

So, what's next? 

There's a lot of prototype research I'd like to do, and a lot of  modeling projects that have been on hold way too long while I've been screwing around building a layout designed to please a whole bunch of someones other than me. 
As for everyone else? If they enjoy the layout enough to come look at it and/or operate it, that's fine.  If they don't, well, that's okay too. I'm not building it for anyone but myself. For me it's not high art - nor is it an attempt to "recreate jobs." Frankly, it's something between a craft/art project and a giant game board. Really, it's my own time machine, giving me a window into the past colored with my point of view of what I think it was like "back then."

And I'm at long last content with how things are shaping up. 

It's taken me a LONG time to get to this point. - Marty 

Told you it was a long commute ….

Lessons Learned

I've built four relatively large model railroads (more accurately, I've started construction, only two have ever reached operational status) in the last two decades. Here's what I've learned from the process of building them:

- Large home layouts are not for everyone. 
- Just because you have the space, filling it is not always wise.
- Plan your resources (time, space, and money). Make sure you have all three in sufficient quantity to ensure success before starting the project. 
- Too many "shortcuts" can produce a ‘Catalog’ layout - give your layout a personal stamp, even if it means making it smaller.
- There’s nothing worth watching on television (except the New England Patriots, of course . . .). So commit to doing something on a regular schedule (Even 15 minutes a night can result in real progress!)
- Consider trading money for time for certain tasks (decoder installation). 
- Fewer, less intense scenes can look more realistic AND often require less time per square foot.  
- If you have a “work crew” the ideal is have each member specialize.
- Minimize the mess

White Space and the Model Railroader



This is clearly a working business – anyone can open a bunch of packages of “bits,” paint them and scatter them about the countryside. Purposeful placement of details is much, much more difficult. I especially like the half barrel planters – a very common site at many industries both in the 1950s and today. When was the last time you saw those modeled?

Negative or “White Space” is a concept familiar to graphic designers and fine artists. I think it’s a concept that more model railroaders should grasp.
As I continue building, and rebuilding, my layout I’m finding that less is usually more. The whole idea of not cramming every available square inch with track, structures, and the like is foreign to many modelers. But as I do the final planning or get the initial scenery completed on an “open country” scene I’m finding the less I include the more impactful the finished scene will be.
Two New England modelers, Mike Confalone (Allagash) and Jim DuFour (B&M Cheshire Branch) are prime examples of how state-of-the-art New England modelers are approaching modeling our favorite region and railroads in 2014.

Florence, Vt., on Randy Laframboise’s HO scale Rutland.

Another, perhaps less well known example is Randy Laframboise’s Rutland. Randy, along with his friend Mike Sparks are, it’s safe to say, experts on modeling not only the Rutland but Vermont.
If model railroading can be an art form (and I think it can be) then we need to approach it like an artist. And one thing an artist must have is a respect for his or her subject. Some, or perhaps a lot of this, is about modeling “home.” Mike, Jim, Randy, and I all either lived in, or live in New England. And there’s some things that are very special to each of us about that region, it's history, and railroads that compel us to recreate it in miniature.
This isn’t fantasy modeling. By that I mean you won’t find dozens of overly compressed structures, most sporting an assortment of unusual (and often implausible) architectural elements scattered throughout the countryside.
But it’s not “rivet counting” either.
The buildings are, as a rule straightforward, purposeful, and close to scale size. The familiarity and respect for the subject matter extends beyond the trains to the buildings, fields, farms, trees, fencelines, and a host of other details.
Make no mistake about it. The trains and structures are, by their very nature, the stars of the show. But they are incorporated into the scene with breathing room around them.
You focus on one building in its natural habitat, and, as your eye scans the landscape some “negative space” - a stand of trees, or a field, or even a country lane – gives the eyes, and brain, some respite before you focus on the next “star.” All the while through this agrarian landscape you might catch a glimpse of a train.   
Randy was kind enough to allow me to share a couple of photos to illustrate this post. These photos show the Florence, Vt., section of his layout.  He estimates the distance between the street on the left and creamery building on the right is about five feet. When was the last time you saw a layout that had that much “negative” space? It is accurate to the prototype, as he measured the distance.  

Bulding Waterbury - 1: Intro

What’s the best part of a large layout? The variety – you can work on anything from benchwork to scenery to wiring as interest dictates. What’s the worst part of a large layout?  The variety – you can work on anything from benchwork to scenery to wiring as interest dictates.

 The problem of course, is while you get a lot of variety you can really only do one thing at a time. Too many things half-done means nothing looks finished. Potential large layout builders heed my words – the lack of focus caused by having too many things started and nothing finished has killed off lots of large layouts and is nothing to sneeze at!

Enough editorializing.

In an effort to overcome the “everything started nothing finished” syndrome I’ve decided to focus my attention on the structures in and around Waterbury. Why? Well, several of them are “half-started” and I have the information necessary for most of them. Perhaps most important Waterbury is the first scene you see when you come down the stairs into the layout area. Finally, this Phil Hasting’s photo of Waterbury is the one image that got me started modeling the CV of the steam era.

We’ll get started with the feed mill visible to the right in this photo. Here's what the same feed mill looked like the first time I saw it (sometime in the late 1980s, as I recall).

Layout Work Sessions - Beneficial or Too much like, well, work?

I've had several local modelers volunteer to come over and help with various aspects of the layout. Several have indicated they would be willing to stop by and help next time I have a "work session." 
While I appreciate the gesture, and have certainly accepted help on the railroad from time to time from friends, I've been a little hesitant to declare "Every other Tuesday night" or whatever is a work session and invite a half dozen people over to work on the railroad. I seem to do okay with one or two folks at a time.  I also do okay when it's a group project - something like building benchwork comes to mind. Or it's something where I know the results will meet my vision (Bernie's backdrop painting, like that shown HERE, jumps to mind.)
My main hesitation stems from the fact that the few times I've had more than one person over to work on the layout I get really stressed out looking for tools, materials, and the like, answering the "is this what you wanted?" type questions, and all the rest. Frankly, it brings the hobby dangerously close to the kind of stuff I deal with all day at the office. And that doesn't sound like fun. 
But the whole process is fraught with peril of another sort. Someone might be the nicest guy in the world, but he's all thumbs when it comes to modeling - or certain aspects of modeling. Such things can easily lead to hurt feelings - "Gee, Bill, thanks for taking the time to make all those trees last work session. They looked like garbage . . . which is where you'll find them if you want them . . ." 
Hardly seems friendly. 
But I do know some modelers who manage to host what amounts to a private club in their homes - and they seem to get a fair amount accomplished. I'm not sure, but my guess is they know to play to each person's strength - and in some cases may find that honesty, even brutal honesty, is the best policy. And there's a clear understanding that "This is my layout, and if something doesn't meet my expectations I reserve the right to change it." 
Another key would be to have the "work assignments" in mind before everyone shows up at the door - and tell them what they will be working on and ask they bring their own tools. That would cut down a little on the need to spend an entire evening or afternoon rushing around the basement looking for all the tools and materials needed. 
Any thoughts for people who host, or attend work sessions? No need to mention specific names.