(no subject)
Dec. 18th, 2019 11:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
psipsyAlrighty so instead of jumping right away into the "dream model train layout fully loaded with everything on it", I'm gonna do the smart thing and start small. There was one I built when I was about 18 but that ended up getting lost when I didn't get it out of my mother's basement in time. I also have the one I had when I was 8 or 9, but the base will need extensive work to save.
So, I'm going for about 4'x6' in size, and I'm thinking of something with tight turns and steep hills (15" radius and 3% inclines). It would have something of a mountain theme, where such conditions are more likely to be found. I wouldn't be able to run super-long trains of double-stack container cars or long rolling stock or 6-axle modern diesel locomotives and that's ok. That can come later.
Or I might get a different idea. That happens. Or I might make two smaller layouts that can connect to each other. I have some track planning software that I can plot out layouts with, so I can plug some ideas into it and see how it looks. At this point the benchwork itself isn't complete so the whole thing is rife with options and potential.
The benefits of starting small are obvious beyond the cost. It would be small enough for me to move around as needed, I would be able to add scenery at a mellow pace and still see some progress, if I make a fundamental mistake then I wouldn't lose too much progress, and so on. Or, if it's in the way of my ambitions of a larger layout later on, I could go as far as donating it.
It's also going to run on plain DC, not the DCC that's available. The idea is that the layout would be small enough that I would only have 1 train at a time going anyway. Also fully equipping all my stuff to work with DCC would cost more than the layout itself. For much larger layouts, where there can be multiple trains going at a time, at different speeds, and in different directions, then DCC makes a lot of things possible. That can come later.
The most important thing about this is that it needs to be fun. I'm not going to worry about being historically accurate, or obsessing over details, or trying to reproduce a specific existing place. The fun is more important than the accuracy. If it's not fun then there's no point. I think that's something a lot of seasoned model railroaders have forgotten. Most of them got into it the same way I did; getting a train set as a kid, playing with it, having fun, expanding from there. Then 30-40-50 years later, some of them are all snooty and snobby about details and accuracy, forgetting that maybe the cheaply made stuff is still the way to bring youngsters into the hobby.
It doesn't help that a lot of would-be newcomers don't have enough surplus living area to support a layout in any scale. In one of my trips to Japan, I did find various hobby shops selling model train stuff, but over there, it was all in N-scale (about half the size of HO). That's all they have the room for.
Anyway. It may seem that I'm overwhelming myself with so many projects and interests, and maybe I am. That's ok. I'd rather have that than not being able to do any of it. I cannot emphasize enough how important that is.
So, I'm going for about 4'x6' in size, and I'm thinking of something with tight turns and steep hills (15" radius and 3% inclines). It would have something of a mountain theme, where such conditions are more likely to be found. I wouldn't be able to run super-long trains of double-stack container cars or long rolling stock or 6-axle modern diesel locomotives and that's ok. That can come later.
Or I might get a different idea. That happens. Or I might make two smaller layouts that can connect to each other. I have some track planning software that I can plot out layouts with, so I can plug some ideas into it and see how it looks. At this point the benchwork itself isn't complete so the whole thing is rife with options and potential.
The benefits of starting small are obvious beyond the cost. It would be small enough for me to move around as needed, I would be able to add scenery at a mellow pace and still see some progress, if I make a fundamental mistake then I wouldn't lose too much progress, and so on. Or, if it's in the way of my ambitions of a larger layout later on, I could go as far as donating it.
It's also going to run on plain DC, not the DCC that's available. The idea is that the layout would be small enough that I would only have 1 train at a time going anyway. Also fully equipping all my stuff to work with DCC would cost more than the layout itself. For much larger layouts, where there can be multiple trains going at a time, at different speeds, and in different directions, then DCC makes a lot of things possible. That can come later.
The most important thing about this is that it needs to be fun. I'm not going to worry about being historically accurate, or obsessing over details, or trying to reproduce a specific existing place. The fun is more important than the accuracy. If it's not fun then there's no point. I think that's something a lot of seasoned model railroaders have forgotten. Most of them got into it the same way I did; getting a train set as a kid, playing with it, having fun, expanding from there. Then 30-40-50 years later, some of them are all snooty and snobby about details and accuracy, forgetting that maybe the cheaply made stuff is still the way to bring youngsters into the hobby.
It doesn't help that a lot of would-be newcomers don't have enough surplus living area to support a layout in any scale. In one of my trips to Japan, I did find various hobby shops selling model train stuff, but over there, it was all in N-scale (about half the size of HO). That's all they have the room for.
Anyway. It may seem that I'm overwhelming myself with so many projects and interests, and maybe I am. That's ok. I'd rather have that than not being able to do any of it. I cannot emphasize enough how important that is.
