Gregory Procter wrote:
>>> Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy?
>> Yes. You're just being deliberately obtuse in your interpretation
>> of the word "fantasy". Allen's railroad was completely implausible,
>> and like no real railway that ever was. A fantasy, in other words.
> It looked like a few bits of New Zealand.
Really? Which bits of New Zealand feature five separate levels of track
strung along the sides of a near vertical-sided chasm??? The bits of New
Zealand which were designed and built by Disney??? In truth, it looks
nothing like any bits of anywhere.
>>> The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section
>>> of railway track with suitable trains passing a point at
>>> representative moments.
>> Nonsense. You're confusing your inability to imagine how it may be
>> done with the idea that it can't be done. And it can be, and has
>> been done many, many times.
> I think you're confusing your imagination with some ability you
> haven't got.
Eh? Could you repeat this sentence in English, please?
>>> If one's model did accurately portray a section of actual railway
>>> at an instant in history it would take a vast amount of space
>> More nonsense. The size of the model would be entirely dependent on
>> the prototype, a smallish location would give a smallish model.
> Any location is going to relate to the length of the train being run
> and almost any railway is going to be in the business of moving
> people or goods considerable distances.
Still more nonsense. With the stroke of a keyboard you dismiss the many
railways that only move people or goods short distances, or run short
trains. You also ignore the many instances where, for example, a
crossing loop is considerably shorter than the longest trains that use
it. Or there is a car-length halt on a main line. I would have thought
you'd be less parochial, and more observant than that.
> A small station on a main line is going to be much the same length as
> a major station on the same line.
Complete and utter nonsense. I can walk out my front door and stand on a
station that is just long enough to accomodate an eight-car suburban
EMU. There are no loops or sidings, just two platforms and plain track.
Two stations away in the up direction is a branch junction station,
which is at least twice as long as my local station. Two stations away
in the down direction is a station that is the terminus for suburban
electric services on our line. It is twice as long again. Your statement
makes no sense, unless you narrow your definition to mean only the
platforms, and even these vary in length.
>>> and be operationally as boring as hell.
>> An entirely subjective opinion, again it would depend on the
>> prototype, and the preferred operation style of the builder.
> Sure, but the prototype of my layout runs 6 trains per day (3 out and
Yes, what is your point?
>>> I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a
>>> fantasy to a large degree.
>> Fantasy, as in fantastic, or fantasy as in a product of one's
> That would depend upon one's imaginative abilities.
In other words, you have no sensible answer.
Why don't we simply agree to disagree on this subject? Obviously, the
G&D appeals to you. That's great, terrific, more power to your elbow.