New Blog Post

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Because I know you all are so into my inner monologue, I've posted a new post on The Truth About Model Trains blog

http://ttamt.blogspot.com

[up1950s]

Thanks Ed , some good info there . I am so unconnected ... a blog is then like a forum without other people to ruin the content ?

[tom mann]

Thanks Ed , some good info there . I am so unconnected ... a blog is then like a forum without other people to ruin the content ?

A blog - binary log - is like a forum where the same one person starts the threads.  Sometimes, others can leave comments at the bottom.

[3rdrail]

Ed, it's obvious that your education dollars weren't wasted. You do an excellent job of organizing your thoughts cogently, expressing them clearly, and contributing to the advancement of the hobby.

If you can do the same in a business environment you will go far. Your blog is excellent! 

[ryourstone]

Interesting thought - traditional model RR's can definitely be compared to Baroque art like Rubens. Things swirling all over, impossibly contorted and intertwined, with dozens of things going on in one picture. Rather then Post Modern I'd consider our goals more along the lines of Vermeer, simple and ordinary in subject but designed and executed with almost inhuman skill. Post Modern would be more like building something roughly in the shape of an engine out of DCC boards glued together with elephant dung, and displaying with a long description of how it represents how the hobby is headed for disaster through the exploitation of third world countries and over technologization forced on us by evil, selfish manufacturers blah blah blah.

[DKS]

Ed, congratulations on a well-articulated and thought-provoking editorial. It provides a refreshing new take on the application of a philosophy of thought ("post-modernism") usually reserved for endeavors other than model railroading. It certainly struck a chord with me, as it has been a point with which I've struggled for a long time.

Back when I was in my 30s, and had my first (and so far only) shot at creating a "basement empire," I crammed everything including the kitchen sink into the plan--five railroads, four eras, four seasons--it was absurd. Years later, as I made plans for a new albeit smaller empire, I went in exactly the opposite direction, toward minimalism. My not-so-original idea was to adapt part of the Black River and Western into a layout, with the Ringoes yard built more or less foot-for-foot at one end of a single line that meandered through relative nothingness to a passing siding in front of a station at the other end. As you've noted elsewhere, however, the real world is really big, and when I measured out the Ringoes yard (which appeared to be "tiny" in person), I discovered to my dismay that it would consume better than half of the layout space. That idea was shelved for some distant future point to revisit when I had more room.

As I piddle with my current 1 x 3 foot Z scale shelf layout, I still struggle with plans for my next major N scale layout (even though there is the possibility that I may never have the opportunity to build it). I still like the idea of minimalism, but I now wonder how well a layout that is predominantly "full of nothing," as real railroads are, would sustain my interest? I certainly think it is (still) novel enough to be quite interesting, but for how long? I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself I think it might lose a certain level of involvement after a while. I have the nagging sense that the best approach for me would be to strike a balance in the density of objects and details: a few relaxing areas of "negative space" to break up areas of clutter sufficiently dense to satisfy my vaguely "Sellios" tendencies to crave loads of detail.

This is probably way more prattle than anyone would care to digest, so I'll just close with, well done, Ed, and please keep that fertile mind churning on new perspectives.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Oh man, David, you truly are a man after my own heart with the BR&W thing... I love that road. This has nothing to do with it being the first place I rode behind a steam locomotive, and I think that might've been the FEC pacific too.

I feel like Z scale increases the opportunity to pursue this type of thing, but that I also feel a lot of the detail of "nothing" can escape with it. I also feel like most Z scale enterprises I've seen don't even try to accomplish this, usually being more of a "how much can I fit in a suitcase" kinda deal.

[DKS]

Oh man, David, you truly are a man after my own heart with the BR&W thing... I love that road. This has nothing to do with it being the first place I rode behind a steam locomotive, and I think that might've been the FEC pacific too.

I feel like Z scale increases the opportunity to pursue this type of thing, but that I also feel a lot of the detail of "nothing" can escape with it. I also feel like most Z scale enterprises I've seen don't even try to accomplish this, usually being more of a "how much can I fit in a suitcase" kinda deal.

Yes, the BR&W remains the core of my modeling world. I, too, rode behind a steam loco there first--it was #60, the year they launched operations (yikes, that was a long time ago). But the BR&W offers so much more, especially if you wander north along the Delaware and see their freight operations.

I totally agree about Z scale, too. I have been attempting to do more "nothing" than most modelers have with my Z scale layout. But being smaller than a suitcase, a lot of nothing still isn't much. It started out with considerably less than it has now--originally Crooked Creek was three houses and a tool shed. Then I went through several "but I really want to have..." cycles, and now it's got some pretty dense areas. It's tough to have it both ways. As it stands, about half of the layout is still just scenery. But this is about to change, too, I'm afraid.

The other problem I find with Z scale is that, unless you lay your own track, it's not very convincing.

By the way, you finally got to me:

http://1-160.blogspot.com/

Sorry to be using the same template, but to be honest, it's the only decent one they offer, IMO.

[Mark5]

Because I know you all are so into my inner monologue, I've posted a new post on The Truth About Model Trains blog

http://ttamt.blogspot.com

Ok, I gave in and read it. Oh the struggle - ops vs scenery ...

One of my goals in building a model railroad is to recreate the "vistas" that inspired me in the first place, so yeah, gotta have nothing!

My current layout is a compromise, though I really resisted the spaghetti gravitational pull.

The next layout, which will come with the next house, in say 10 years or so, will have lots of nothing. But when I look at my layout now, I see lots of nothing. Oh yeah, that's 'cuz it's only benchwork at the moment.