No, I am not thinking anything of the sort. I am thinking of a model railway as being a representation of reality in miniature. I am thinking that Allen's layout was an animate fantasy object. Why is that such a contentious statement? Am I the only person to see past the hype?
It was a visual representation of a fantasy railway.
Operationally, it was no more realistic. An article about operations on the G&D that appeared in an early 60s issue of MR confirms that.
Yes, if I ever need advice on how to lay 6 foot of cork road or produce a badly drawn trackplan, you'll be the first person I ask.
You're doing a great job of killfiling me then, eh moose rooter?
Can any "model railway" be anything more than a fantasy?
The best that could possibly be achieved would be a short section of railway track with suitable trains passing a point at representative moments.
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 and be operationally as boring as hell. I suggest that any model railway we construct is in fact a fantasy to a large degree. Mine certainly is, in spite of having a defined prototype location, time period and all rolling stock present being correct to that prototype.
Regards, Greg.P.
Gregory Procter wrote: >
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.
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.
More nonsense. The size of the model would be entirely dependent on the prototype, a smallish location would give a smallish model.
An entirely subjective opinion, again it would depend on the prototype, and the preferred operation style of the builder.
Fantasy, as in fantastic, or fantasy as in a product of one's imagination?
operationally
I would have to agree with you Greg, one fellow up here wanted to model the Orangeville Yard in HO, it took 3'x25'. Orangeville is a small town north east of Toronto, it was the yard for the Toronto, Grey & Bruce Railway. Modelling the yard in Toronto would take about 4-5 times that area. I have selectively compressed the Orangeville yard into a 24"x60" area in N Scale.
ALL model railways are "fantasy", they are the creators artistic representation of their interests. Some like point to point operations, some like merely switching in a yard, some such as myself , like the look of a single mainline coursing through beautiful landscape.
My CVR will feature a single mainline ranging in height from 1" to 6" above the river that it passes over/near 9 times. It will compress 17 miles of track into about 34' of mainline.
All one has to do is simple math to realize that ALL model railways are fantasy.
Take HO: 1 mile would need 60.5' of HO track N Scale: 1 mile requires 33' of track.
"Real" railroads do not loop back on themselves, therefore every model RR layout that is continuous running is a "fantasy".
Point to point layouts would need to be run in a straight line to be realistic, so any that run around a room would be a "fantasy" representation of a real railroad.
I have seen a couple of museum layouts which accurately represented the yard area of the town that modelled it. all of these layouts were static displays and not working layouts.
Face facts...
I know this and am at ease with it.
It looked like a few bits of New Zealand.
I think you're confusing your imagination with some ability you haven't got.
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. A small station on a main line is going to be much the same length as a major station on the same line.
Sure, but the prototype of my layout runs 6 trains per day (3 out and back)
That would depend upon one's imaginative abilities.
17m x 5280' = 89760' / 160 = 561' 34' / 561' = 1 : 16.5 of the scale length. While not wanting to demean your modelling, that's a pretty savage compression! I've managed to represent 25 miles of mainline in 12' (plus the hidden bits) in HO - reality just doesn't come into the equation in my case.
HEY! My trains are _not_ toys, and anyway I enjoy playing with them. ~8^P
The track plan is on my website, I know it is a rough track plan, my skills do not lie in computer graphics, but in model building.
You have stated my point exactly. My layout is a "fantasy" representation of a railline that was around over 100 years ago. I admit it is fantasy and have no problems with it.
I have a problem with my own representation of the prototype - not enough space!
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.
Eh? Could you repeat this sentence in English, please?
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.
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.
Yes, what is your point?
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.
What models? More like laying 6 foot of cork roadbed. And moose rooting.
Wrong. There are real railways that do just that. That's the problem with being insular and parochial. You don't know much about anything outside your own little corner of the world, so you assume that what applies in Moosecooker applies universally. It doesn't.
Why is that a prerequisite for realism? Are you now claiming that real railroads only run in a straight line? I'd have sworn there was some place in Canadia(TM) where the railway loops back over itself - between Field and Lake Louise, no? Obviously the builders of the CPR didn't consult you beforehand.
You know, at first I thought this was just a personal pissing match between you and Terry Flynn, I had some sympathy for your position. Juvenile insults like the above make that evaporate rapidly.
If you mean spiral tunnels and similar, then read what he wrote again: he explictly talks about "continuous running". Not many railroads loop their east end back to join their west. Of course, "there's a prototype for everything" as they say. You can probably find some road that does exactly that, just as you can find short-short lines with track mileage in the low single digits, that could actually be modelled in no-compression, no-compromise entirety in a small scale and a large basement.
But the roads that most people model don't have those convenient features, so the best we can do is an abstraction (IOW, a "fantasy") that preserves the essential concepts.
-- Kizhé
I could find you three levels and quite a few spots where tracks run along the sides of near vertical chasms. Disney probably got a lot of his ideas from NZ terrain. cf Lord of the Rings.
Just read it more slowly and carefully, it makes full sense.
Can you give examples of grade one railways that have routes of under one mile? Can you give examples of railways that _only_ run short trains?
You used "trains" rather than "train" - care to explain how two trains longer than the crossing loop can pass? (I know the answer but your model layout is going to be tied up for a long period!)
A car length halt isn't going to make an exciting operating layout!
That's a halt, not a station.
Try narrowing my definition to the lengths of tracks between throat turnouts.
Should I limit my operating sessions to 5 minutes each at 7am, 12:30pm and
6pm - boring!
John Allen had more imagination than I do and I probably top several other people in that category. Where do _you_ draw the line between "fantastic" and "a product of one's imagination". For example, the slopes of the gorge on my model are steepened by about
33%-50% over the prototype but they are about 10% of the height, the clearances and the road are narrowed. The result is recognisable as a model of the prototype.OK, we disagree! :-)
So why buy into it?
(Juvenile??? What is it with posters to this newsgroup? Is that the default term of opprobium? FWIW, I've just celebrated my 44th birthday - I'm a little long in the tooth to be classed as juvenile.)
Blanket statements such as the one above, particularly when they are flatly wrong, make my patience evaporate just as rapidly.
His ill-informed comment about continous running appears to be separate from his nonsensical comments about point to point lines. Either way, the road from Field to Lake Louise point to point, and gets there by looping over itself. A reasonably accurate model of that line run around the walls of a room - no amount of sophistry or semantic wrangling will alter that.
Yes, I can. I travel on one such line daily. And it's not the only line here that forms a loop. It's by no means as uncommon as you believe it to be. But I'm guessing that you're posting from the USA, and as such you may be unaware of what takes place in the rest of the world.
Which many people do. And in doing so they invalidate the various claims made here that "it can't be done".
Again, a statement based on parochial ignorance. There are a many, many folks throughout the world who do just that - model short-short lines with these "convenient" features. When you say "most", you are ignoring large numbers of modellers whom you are blissfully unaware of. You don't know what they're up to, so you can't unequivocally state what they can and can't achieve.
Bullshit. I've seen enough of NZ to know there's nothing remotely like the terrain that Allen modelled there. And as for LOTR, how much of what you see ISN'T special effects? (For that matter, how much of what you see is even remotely watchable?)
Nah. It doesn't.
A grade one railway is?
You're joking, aren't you? Any suburban commuter operation, for a start.
Me too. But I don't care how long it takes. That's the kind of operation I like. And the kind of operation which is prototypical, particular if the crossing loops locally have not been lenghtened to handle the traffic.
Well, that comes down to your subjective opinion. I have no idea what you personally reagrd as exciting.
No, it's a station. It and a few hundred others hereabouts all have the same characteristics, and nobody for a split second considers them to be halts.
Makes no difference. The distance between turnouts at the throat will vary widely as well. As you are well aware.
Raurimu spiral. (North Island main Trunk) Otira Gorge. (SI West Coast line) Manawatu Gorge. (NI)
In LOTR the special effects were the additions of habitation to existing scenery.
Ewww- sour grapes!
Hmmm, we found the limitations of your cognitive abilities so soon and so easily!
Sorry, I thought that was a normal US term - main line.
You can find a suburban commuter operation of the order of length of the average model railway scaled up??? Why would they bother to build it, most people could walk that far to work.
Yeah, and you probably spent many happy hours watching your grandmother crochet doilies for the sideboard. ;-) If you block the main line with two trains for half an hour then nothing else can run, which gets very boring for the rest of the operators.
Depends what you're modelling - it's pretty certain you're not modelling that ultra-short suburban commuter line.
Moving your passenger train forward two coach lengths at a time so everyone on board gets a turn at the platform doesn't do it!
Of course!
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.