The Tangled Webs We Weave...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi again!

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

Mark said:

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

You're very perceptive, Mark!

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

More on that backdrop thing down below.

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

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

"BTW, your photographs look great!"

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

TED S:

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

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

J DADDY asked:

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RUSTYRAIL...

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

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

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

All:

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

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

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

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

All fer now!

Andre

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

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

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

All fer now.

Andre

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

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

"BTW, your photographs look great!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW...

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

Let the thumb twiddling begin.

Mark:

My previous attempt...

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

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

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

* Need to tweak my colors mixes.

In addition the the above, I need to:

* Learn how to paint impressions of rock outcroppings.

* Learn to reflect timberline separation.

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

Mucho experimentation ahead.

Your exposure to Hillbilly Country...

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

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

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

All fer now!

Andre

Andre,

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

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

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

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

Jeff:

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

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

All fer this 'un!

Andre

laming posted:

Jeff:

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

All fer this 'un!

Andre

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

Jeff:

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

FWIW:

From the grins n' giggles department...

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

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

Backdrop:

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

All fer now.

Andre

Cloud putzin'...

Pic doesn't do the blue justice.

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

More putzin' ahead.

Andre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck for the future mate. Roo.

Thanks DRELO and ROO for the words of encouragement.

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, tomorrow I will start painting distant mountains.

All fer now!

Andre

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

Hi All!

Thought I'd revisit this thread and update.

COLORADO HIRAILER:

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

Backdrop Test Painting...

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

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

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

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

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

All fer now.

Andre

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

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

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

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

"REPAINT! And THIN no more!"

Andre

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

laming posted:

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

Andre

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

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

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

Rusty

Hi Mark!

You said:

"Then I step back and do something simple."

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

Rusty:

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

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

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

All:

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

Andre

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

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

NICKAIX:

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

All:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All fer now!

Andre

 

 

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

Andre

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

Paul:

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

All:

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

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

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

And now for something different...

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

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

All fer now.

Andre

All:

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

However...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All fer now.

Andre

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

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

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

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

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

laming posted:

All:

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

However...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heavy poop is what old modelers do best...

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

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

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

Sounds like a good plan, Andre.

Rusty

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

All fer now.

Andre

Hi All!

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

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

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

All fer now!

Andre

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

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

Mark:

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

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

XRAYVIZSHEN:

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

Rusty:

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

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

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

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

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

However, The Plan may help me figure that out.

All fer now!

Andre

Andre,

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

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

Chuck

Chuck:

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

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

All:

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

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

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

All fer now.

Andre

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

I'm amazing.

Andre

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

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

PALALLIN:

I hear you loud and clear.

All:

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

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

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

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

Andre

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

Chuck