Best Of New Brass EP-2 assembly & Mod clinic

[nkalanaga]

Bob:  I agree the track looks toy-like, but as for "crappy", that's prototypical for the MILW, at least in later years.  By the 1960s the Coast Division track was in poor shape, and by the time the line was abandoned it was all but unusable.

[robert3985]

Bob:  I agree the track looks toy-like, but as for "crappy", that's prototypical for the MILW, at least in later years.  By the 1960s the Coast Division track was in poor shape, and by the time the line was abandoned it was all but unusable.

Hahaha!   Excellent retort!  However, for my cars and engines that I've spent hundreds of hours working on, I have a special section of track on my layout that's hand-laid code 40, painted, weathered, ballasted with "grass" on either side.  I think it greatly improves the photographs I take to document my models.

Interestingly, it looks pretty prototypical so it doesn't draw attention away from the model.

IMO, the bright, oversize rail and non-USA tie spacing draws attention away from your obviously fine work.  I don't know...call me anal...maybe nobody else cares.  But, for me...it detracts from your work which you've spent all that time and effort attempting to get as close to prototypical as anybody I've ever seen.

[TiVoPrince]

Unless
you use the toy like Unitrak each and every photo would require disclaimers that it was not original Railfair content. Using a known common item like Unitrak is not remarkably different than placing a US quarter in a photo as a size/scale comparison. Using track that directs viewers back to the fine modeling in this case is appropriate. Short of painting the track segment entirely  flat black it would be hard to get a less distracting base for a model...

[robert3985]

Unless
you use the toy like Unitrak each and every photo would require disclaimers that it was not original Railfair content. Using a known common item like Unitrak is not remarkably different than placing a US quarter in a photo as a size/scale comparison. Using track that directs viewers back to the fine modeling in this case is appropriate. Short of painting the track segment entirely  flat black it would be hard to get a less distracting base for a model...

We shall agree to disagree... 

[peteski]

Unless
Short of painting the track segment entirely  flat black it would be hard to get a less distracting base for a model...

My favorite beauty photos of a model are taken trackless, model sitting on a mirror, with a neutral dark (even black) background.

[u18b]

I think there is a perspective that is missing from this discussion.   Let me try to explain.

It doesn't matter to me that code 80 looks less than wonderful.  At least here in this venue.

The real issue is partially publishing.

You see, we are in a new day and age in publishing.  Now, people can post the same exact stuff on the net that they submit to a magazine.  And so there is really no need to buy the magazine for that article if you had followed the thread.

And this is very frustrating to some publishers.  They think it hurts their business.

So, in this case, I'm providing y'all with some good photos of what the model looks like- for y'all my friends.

But these are not the photos I'll use for a magazine article.

As many  of you know if you follow my articles through the years that I have two photo modules.

The first has code 40 rail.  This is the oldest.  Made it in the early 90s.






The newer one has two tracks simulating a main line, code 55, foreground.
And code 40 simulating a siding in the background.



In my case with the EP-2, I might possibly use a few selected construction shots in the article that came from this thread, but the final good quality shots for the article will not be shown here as part of my partiality to the publishers.

[u18b]

Oh!

And I hate to break this to some of you....

But when I make my diorama of the Railroad Fair, I might be using code 80 rail.

........ buried in gray dirt!

In this photo..... there are three tracks.... but you can barely see them.




EDIT:    Reader- if you have made it this far, there is another thread where I built the second EP-2.  Building on what I did in this thread, I made several more enhancements that made a dramatic difference.

Oh.... and that thread is shorter than this one.
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/?topic=36215.0

[wcfn100]

Oh!

And I hate to break this to some of you....

But when I make my diorama of the Railroad Fair, I might be using code 80 rail.

........ buried in gray dirt!

In this photo..... there are three tracks.... but you can barely see them.

You can barely see them because they're only 2" across the rail head.  Code 80 would be double that.  Code 40 rail only gets you down to 3.2" but htat's still 20% smaller.  I could argue that since it's just a diorama, you don't need metal rails and should use .015" stock and contour the head and paint it.

But using code 80 isn't really as bad as it sounds in this case, as Atlas c55 is actually wider across the head than the c80 stuff.

Jason

[superturbine]

I think you have done a great job Ron!!

[mmagliaro]

I think there is a perspective that is missing from this discussion.   Let me try to explain.

It doesn't matter to me that code 80 looks less than wonderful.  At least here in this venue.

The real issue is partially publishing.

You see, we are in a new day and age in publishing.  Now, people can post the same exact stuff on the net that they submit to a magazine.  And so there is really no need to buy the magazine for that article if you had followed the thread.

And this is very frustrating to some publishers.  They think it hurts their business.

So, in this case, I'm providing y'all with some good photos of what the model looks like- for y'all my friends.

But these are not the photos I'll use for a magazine article.
...
...
...

In my case with the EP-2, I might possibly use a few selected construction shots in the article that came from this thread, but the final good quality shots for the article will not be shown here as part of my partiality to the publishers.

Indeed, I do the same thing.  I don't think it's unreasonable of a publisher, either.  After all, why should they pay for an article and
a set of photos if it has all been distributed for free already on the internet.  They are in business to sell magazines, and
they are presumably paying you (or me) for material that they believe will help them accomplish that goal.

I always considered the fact that magazines would still print my pieces even though they knew I had put some of it
on the internet a necessary fact of life for them, but gracious all the same.
Not only do I try to give them some nicer or alternate photos, but especially for my intense "how to" pieces, I add
photos and additional detailed explanations of the steps in the project, so that you really do get something for your
money beyond what was on the internet.

It just doesn't seem fair to not do that.

//////////////////

And now, back from the thread drift.

And by the way, Ron, your engine is magnificent.