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!