More recommended reading

[RhB_HJ]

Model Railroader Jan 2013 Page 90  Tony Koester's Train of Thought   "An easier approach to freelancing."

[RhB_HJ]

Spring 2013 "Classic Trains". A big write-up on what was on the rails in Philly between 1967 and 1974. Along with many pages of stuff about the UP Big Boys and Challengers in Wyoming anno 1956.

[Mike from CT]

Spring 2013 "Classic Trains". A big write-up on what was on the rails in Philly between 1967 and 1974. Along with many pages of stuff about the UP Big Boys and Challengers in Wyoming anno 1956.

1967-74 is "classic"?  I must be getting really, really old.....

Right at the start of that period the truly great classical railroads, were all merged and gone (and so was the Pennsy....)

[RhB_HJ]

Our layout is '69 - '75 and we consider it Classic.

BTW I used to be young and foolish, now I'm just foolish.

[Mike from CT]

If I had a layout left over from '69 - '75, I'd consider it classic, too.  It's nicer than calling it "antiquated".

But we're talking 1:1 scale here.

(I know, HJ.  I know.  I just couldn't resist....)

[KaiL]

What I always wonder is to what extent can the ideas of Model Railroader and other north American magazines be applied to European scenarios?

Kim, I read Model Railroader and often find some articles or ideas useful. I am, most importantly, influenced by the RR concepts (walk around, etc.) many ideas about landscaping and then, to a lesser degree, electronics and general tips. In addition, I like looking at pictures of powerful, modern NA trains. Unfortunately, it seems, MR is trending more and more towards the piddly stuff of yesteryear...

[KaiL]

If I had a layout left over from '69 - '75, I'd consider it classic, too.  It's nicer than calling it "antiquated".

But we're talking 1:1 scale here.

(I know, HJ.  I know.  I just couldn't resist....)

Mike, what's the problem? I am 1:1 scale, older than that and am very classic.... that's my excuse and I stick by it.

[Mike from CT]

Mike, what's the problem? I am 1:1 scale, older than that and am very classic.... that's my excuse and I stick by it.

Yeah, I used to think I was classic, too.  Then I realized that the classic composers are long dead and I'm not ready for that -  but talk to me after I finish my layout.

In the meantime, "Vintage" works.  Especially if one likes a fine vin.

[BritsTukker]

-  but talk to me after I finish my layout.

'Finish' ? Just how are we supposed to communicate with the afterlife?

[Mike from CT]

-  but talk to me after I finish my layout.

'Finish' ? Just how are we supposed to communicate with the afterlife?

Dorian Gray got a picture, I got a layout.....

[RhB_HJ]

-  but talk to me after I finish my layout.

'Finish' ? Just how are we supposed to communicate with the afterlife?

Dorian Gray got a picture, I got a layout.....

Yeah, yeah ... and Bob Dylan wrote a song. 

PS to postpone getting old I add "User objects" to the libraries. For a while it was N scale and more N scale, but, by George, there is a lot more to life than N scale.

[RhB_HJ]

BTW it isn't often that I plug MR, but .... in the January 2013 issue they had four different layout plans based on the 4x8ft island principle. Along with whatever else is in their layout DB there should be enough to steal, modify and combine for anyone to get away from the utterly boring oval on a 4x8ft sheet.

BTW the same applies for any scale! Just because most of us started out with a simple oval wayback at the dawn of time doesn't mean we can't to something more imaginative. RANT OFF!   

[Mike from CT]

Warning:  This is a serious response....

HJ earlier (in a different thread) has suggested placing structures (at least place holders) to get a sense of what actually fits.  I'd like to kick it up a notch and suggest that you add many of the scenic items.   My own suspicion (and that's all it is) is that we tend to try to get all of the track we can not because it actually gives us more operating possibilities, but because the track plan without scenery looks so bare and banal.

What make me think of that?  Those 4 plans HJ referred to - they're all a single track loop with one passing siding and a few industries.  No reversing loops, not even a yard.  (Three have, at least, what could pass for an interchange point.)  That's all.  (In fact, for those who don't get MR, they're really nothing but variations on a single plan, although with different scenery each has a different feel.)

Anyone planning his /her first layout on a plain of grain (a sheet of 4x8, or what's becoming popular for N-scalers, a hollow core door) and is depressed by how little actually fits might try adding scenery before trying to add more track.

(With AR, you can put the scenery in a separate level and just turn it on and off to see how much better your plan looks with it than it does without it.)

That's my 2 cents, anyway.  And please pay now.  The penny is disappearing and I'd feel guilty raising the price to a nickle, when I'm already over-charging at 2 cents....

[kimbo]

Would you guys have some recommended reading for me? I model European, but have decided to make life complicated for myself by placing my layout in an imaginary European country  , I want to go the whole hog and make a custom livery.

I already have a custom logo designed by a professional as a present for me.

I'm currently purchasing mostly Piko trains which don't cost an arm and a leg 'cause I would be terribly upset if I ruined a 300 EUR loc on a bad paint job...

Thus the question, do you guys know of good articles covering this topic? I know North American layouts are much more likely to use custom liveries, but then the manufacturers there even sell undecorated rolling stock (wish they did that for Europe too!).

[RhB_HJ]

Must read if you're interested in the 1950s transition period: Classic Trains Special2013 - Trains of the 1950s.  Very interesting stuff for all those who missed out because they were too young or didn't live in NA. I sure would have liked to go cross-country on the Empire Builder.