Crisis of Scale

The first post on this blog noted the transition of my modelling interests from heavy mainline coal hauling action to short industrial spurs and switching.  I'd previously been fairly dedicated to acquiring equipment to support the former and luckily my era interests (mid-70s to early 80s) haven't changed so some of it is reusable for the latter.

However, my recent internet wanderings have led me down the path of potentially switching to O scale (specifically P:48) for this Frisco Hill Track endeavor.  Why you ask?

A few of the more interesting blogs that I follow (Lance Mindhiem, Mike Cougill, Trevor Marshall, et. al.) have posted in the past about what drives anyone in this hobby.  Most build a model railroad to have something "come alive" for them and that something varies for everyone.  Often it is childhood memories or the thrill is derived from having 12-15 people execute T&TO operations across a long mainline.  I've found that what I seem to most enjoy is the close-up simulation of the switching.  Almost as if I could be the conductor or engineer without having to get up at 2am and work in the freezing cold.

In thinking about how to recreate that for my own enjoyment, there are a few aspects of the larger scale that are appealing to me:

• The overall mass of the objects conveys a greater sense of realism
• Greater detail
• Sound -- specifically the opportunity for larger speakers to generate more bass
• Potential for battery power -- Imagine being freed from feeders!
• There's a greater detail one could put into the track if it weren't required to be electrically operational.
• http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/products/deadrailsystem.html
• Working handbrakes -- Think accessory decoder and small actuator to engage brakes on each car.
• http://www.robotshop.com/en/flexinol-en.html
• http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/5835
• The Hill track is all grades, though spurs appear to be mostly level.  Stopping anywhere else requires a braking solution, and while I've used benchwork-mounted hill stops successfully, one is limited by their positioning
• Room for batteries and speakers aren't a problem if combined with powered trucks.
• Kato recently brought them out on the GE P42
• NWSL also has the Magic Carpet

None of these things require the larger scale, but most are made easier by it.  One thing I remain perplexed about regarding O-scale is the scaling  Seems most rolling stock produced today follows 1/4" (except for wheelsets, but Protocraft has the solution there), though I'm unsure if the concessions made by the manufacturer to simultaneously release a 2-rail and 3-rail model affects this aspect.

Well, that's all from the armchair (keyboard?) modeling department this evening.

The "Why" of Railroad Modeling

One of the great aspects of this hobby is that each individual can choose where on the various spectrum they want to be.  You can be an extremely serious modeler of equipment and simply like to watch trains run "in circles", or a savvy student of operations bent on recreating the feel of the prototype to the fullest with un-weathered equipment spotted at cardboard boxes vaguely resembling buildings.  OK, those are extreme examples and presumably the serious operator would get around to weathing the cars and building actual structures.

Personally, I fall more towards the railroad modeling end of the overall spectrum and seek to recreate the operations of the prototype.  There are an infinite number of ways to achieve that, ranging from basement-sized empires recreating a many miles of territory down to smaller layouts focusing on just a few industries.

The smaller has become very appealing lately.  The trend began for me with the design and construction of the Beer Line (that was published in Nov 2011 Model Railroader).  Even though the Beer Line soon grew to three times the size shown in the magazine and became a representation of the entire six-mile branch line, it still feels small in the scope that it sets out to capture.

I hope to achieve the same with this Frisco spur.  At less than two miles in overall length and with just a handful of industries, it feels achievable.  I'm probably still a ways off from building (space acquisition), but the research has been just as much fun -- figuring out "how it used to be".

Along the way I keep coming across more and more great ideas that follow this same theme.  The most recent I discovered was a series of feature-length articles by Mike Cougill of OST Publications.   I recently read Vol. 5 about switching operations and it's message about studying the prototype, understanding the  "why" behind its operations and using that as an input to model railroad design is a much more elegant presentation of my own thoughts.  Go read it.  When I get to more building, I'll also probably get a copy of the book on detailed track construction.

Also top-notch is Lance Mindhiem's Blog.  His thoughts and writings have been a big influence on and reinforce the way I think about building something that I can "finish" and derive maximum enjoyment from.