Jersey City Industrial Railroad Micro-Layout

[DKS]

I may have missed it, but are you still planning a dual-era pike?  That sounds really tough to pull off, especially for a traveling layout.

I'm still on the fence about it. I discuss the issue here.

[basementcalling]

I'm still on the fence about it. I discuss the issue here.

Like the ideas a lot, David. Dual era seems to me would be very hard to pull off in an urban setting, as the store signs, automobiles, clothes on figures, and many other details would have to change.

I remember reading an old article in MR about a guy who had a constantly changing era on his railroad. Every so many operating sessions represented passage of a decade. He build new industries designed to fit over top of the older era buildings and scenes. A different article was about a scene designed to flip. The benchwork rotated  180 degrees to bring up a new scene, and the old one would hang upside down under the layout.

If the dual era is possible, it would be on a small layout, seems to me anyway. I know there is no way I would want to try to faithfully duplicate two separate eras in any kind of fidelity on a design the size of what I'm building right now. I might wind up setting for a wider time span to model instead of a specific year.

Peter

[DKS]

Dual era seems to me would be very hard to pull off in an urban setting...

Actually, I think an urban setting makes it easier. A solid row of buildings makes an ideal view block. With a backdrop that encloses three sides, visibility is well controlled; rotate the layout 180, and the other era is visible. Of course, there would still be some small areas that constitute "leaks" (such as the ends where the track curves around), and these would need to be handled in such a way that they worked for either era.

It's a tempting challenge to me, so I'm still considering it.

[robert3985]

Of course, there would still be some small areas that constitute "leaks" (such as the ends where the track curves around), and these would need to be handled in such a way that they worked for either era.

It's a tempting challenge to me, so I'm still considering it.

Era leaks...that's an interesting concept!

I have "era overlap" as my buildings and track are built to a single year's standard...1951, but motive power, rolling stock, automobiles, people are allowed to exist on the layout if they comply to any year between 1947 and 1957...meaning those two years form the era border that isn't crossed, especially nothing into 1957 or beyond.

1951 was arrived at for two reasons.  It was the height of coal fired steam power between Ogden and eastward on the UP, and it was the last year the SP roundhouse and turntable in Ogden was functional...got torn down in 1952, and I want to model it.

1956 as the last year allowed to be modeled was for the simple reason that I really like '56 Chevy Belaires...so they get included.  I also like Baby and Veranda Turbines with tenders, but they get excluded since tenders didn't appear on them until 1957.  Hard choices!

I like the possibility of having one side of your layout being labeled "1956" and the other side being labeled "2001" (or whatever) with the different eras only visible (except for the era "leaks") from the respective sides. 

COOL!!

[Lemosteam]

Actually, I think an urban setting makes it easier. A solid row of buildings makes an ideal view block. With a backdrop that encloses three sides, visibility is well controlled; rotate the layout 180, and the other era is visible. Of course, there would still be some small areas that constitute "leaks" (such as the ends where the track curves around), and these would need to be handled in such a way that they worked for either era.

It's a tempting challenge to me, so I'm still considering it.

David if there's anyone on the planet that can pull this off- it's you (well maybe M.C. Fujiwara as well).  Stop considering- rip the challenge to pieces and blow us all away with your (already demonstrated) creativity. 

Can't wait to see graffiti on one side of the building and pristine, well-kept Americana storefronts on the other.  This concept should be quite possible given the fact that you have angled the streest to the natural viewer's perspective.  Might also help if the track were near eye level, so one does not have a "God's-eye view" of the streets.

[eric220]

David if there's anyone on the planet that can pull this off- it's you (well maybe M.C. Fujiwara as well).  Stop considering- rip the challenge to pieces and blow us all away with your (already demonstrated) creativity.

This.

Do it.

[GaryHinshaw]

Not this.  Too gimmicky.  Don't do it.   

[Jesse6669]

Pick one (with props to Gary). 

[DKS]

Not this.  Too gimmicky.  Don't do it.

Just curious, what makes it "gimmicky"?

[GaryHinshaw]

I haven't though deeply about this at all, so don't take anything I say too seriously.  My gut reaction to the idea is that it forces you to project an inherently 3-dimensional object onto two separate 2-dimensional images.  The illusion only works from a very limited set of directions, while from any other direction, it is liable to seem contrived (hence gimmicky).  And since you can't really run dual-era trains, you must restrict sight lines to make the illusion work.

On the other hand it could be quite magical, and if you really don't mind restricting sight lines, my points are moot.  It seems to me that you don't really need to commit to this until fairly late in the game.  In the meantime, you could mock up a structure with the dual-era treatment and see what you think.

-gfh

P.S. My initial suggestion was for two separate layouts, outright.  Easy for me to suggest since I didn't have to build them.    I'll follow with interest regardless of your choice!

[DKS]

On the other hand it could be quite magical, and if you really don't mind restricting sight lines, my points are moot.

I had in fact planned on restricting lines of sight. I'd mentioned earlier about making a three-sided backdrop, so that the layout can only be observed from one side. Granted, if one leaned way over at one corner, one might be able to catch a glimpse of something out of the ordinary, but that's an extreme circumstance. Also, I'd mentioned that changing eras would involve replacing all of the rolling stock and turning the layout 180, so there would be no circumstance of seeing rolling stock that didn't belong in a scene.

I am still on the fence about it, so it may or may not happen. As you say, I don't need to commit for a while yet. My decision may be helped by seeing some of the structures mocked up. There are a heck of a lot of them for such a small layout!

[GaryHinshaw]

Roger that - I recall that you intended a 3-sided backdrop.  To me, I think limiting the viewing angles is too high a price to pay for the extra era.  But it's hard to tell for sure without trying it.   

[basementcalling]

Ok, I get it now. I thought you meant being able to change eras on the layout: having one scene but decorating for multiple eras, not having each side have a separate era. to me the latter would take getting used to because a train that fits in on one side would be anachronistic on the other while you run it.

If I remember right, Art Curren did a kitbash article on a viewblocking downtown type row of buildings where the front and back of each structure were totally different businesses depending on which side of the peninsula you looked at.

You might try something akin to that to help with the multi era idea. Otherwise, call a plummer to help stop those ERA leaks.

[Dave V]

I'll be honest, I'm not a big fan unless you swap the structures too.  I just don't think it'll make much sense.  Half the time the train will be anachronistic with the scenery it's rolling through.

Even in my scenery-dominated layout, the "dual-era" thing isn't really effective.  I have a 1956 PRR layout on which I sometimes run Conrail 1980 stuff.  It's never truly a 1980 Conrail layout.

This layout, on the other hand, will never be truly in any era unless you keep the modern trains on one side and the steam on the other.

I agree that DKS is probably the only one who could pull it off, but at what price?  I would fear that at shows it will elicit more confusion than inspiration.

I think this is an awesome little layout that could really be a great demonstration of either era of urbanization.     I would recommend chosing one.

[DKS]

I'll be honest, I'm not a big fan unless you swap the structures too.  I just don't think it'll make much sense.  Half the time the train will be anachronistic with the scenery it's rolling through.

Um... I guess folks aren't catching on. You can't see both eras at once, because you can't see both sides. The layout has to be rotated 180 degrees, and the rolling stock all replaced.

To me, I think limiting the viewing angles is too high a price to pay for the extra era.  But it's hard to tell for sure without trying it.

Well, about the only thing you'd lose is end views.