Moving Closer to an Idea
It's the mid 1970's in a downtown industrial area in a big Canadian city (most likely Toronto, but perhaps Hamilton, Vancouver, or Montreal), and a run-down CP Rail S2 pulls a single 50 foot boxcar to the last industry on the industrial spur. The car sways wildly over rundown track as it trundles past empty industrial buildings and across, and sometimes down, streets. The train barely even gets to five miles per hour. It's very clear that this branch does not have much time left to live.
This is the sort of feel that I want for my next layout. While I haven't decided on a particular location, I am sure that I want a general theme of a run down industrial spur for my next layout. Most likely, I'll end up modeling the CPR Toronto terminals, or rather, some small section thereof. The most appealing part of the Toronto terminals, in my opinion, is the waterfront wharf areas around Queen's Quay. There is a good article about the area here (scroll to the bottom of that page to see what I think are the most particularly interesting areas). I've never actually been to Toronto, so I make no claims to have any real knowledge of the area, but the photos that I've seen online are certainly inspiring. I've also considered the King Street or Cherry Street areas, or the Scarborough Industrial Spur, which Trevor Marshall has written an excellent post about on his Achievable Layouts blog (do you italicize blog titles like publication titles?). Of these, though, the Queen's Quay wharf area stands out to me as particularly interesting, what with its street running aspects.
On a more philosophical note, I received an interesting comment on my last post that really made me think about my ideas about the hobby. I thought that it warranted more than a reply in comment form, so I'm addressing it here. In the years that I have been seriously involved in the hobby, which admittedly isn't a very long time given that I'm a high school student, I've always tried to approach layout construction in the way that the big US model railroading (and, in particular, Model Railroader) advocate. I've never had a huge layout space (my biggest space was about 12 by 14 feet, a good size, but not extravagant). But in that layout space, however, I always tried to cram layouts depicting whole towns, with open country running as well, all in HO scale. Needless to say, it only led to layouts overly filled with track and other elements that never got past the track laying stage. I even tried to build a layout like that when I first moved to my current house, but that didn't even have the benchwork finished.
The reason for those failures is that I tried to apply a layout design philosophy, if you will, that was inappropriate for my needs, space, and budget. And to some extent, I knew this, but I was sort of convinced that this was the only proper way to model railroad. At first, I thought that because it was the only thing I knew about, but recently I've still been stuck with that philosophy even though I knew of alternatives. This, in my opinion, is a large part of the reason that I've never had a layout approach a reasonably presentable state or last more than a few months - fundamentally, I've always been stuck building the wrong layout for me.
'Wrong', is, I know, a strong word to use in relation to the hobby and some may take issue with its use, contending that there is no 'wrong' way to engage with the hobby, and while I agree that, generally, you can't make sweeping statements about what's 'right' or 'wrong' in the hobby, in this case the approach of building a large layout really was wrong for me. It prevented me from fully enjoying or engaging satisfactorily with the hobby, and in my opinion, if something lessens your satisfaction from the hobby, then it is the 'wrong' thing to do. (Note I say 'satisfaction', not 'fun'. But that's a whole separate minefield that I have no desire to walk into).
At any rate, only recently have I come closer to finding a better approach to the hobby for me. I certainly haven't found it yet, but I have clearly eliminated some approaches. The mega-layout philosophy is not an option for me, and it probably never really will be, considering current housing trends, and that's fine with me. I've realized that that's not an approach to the hobby that works for me, and even if it were possible in terms of space and available time its not an option I would choose. I still haven't found the approach to the hobby that works for me, but I feel like I'm finally on the right track (pardon the pun) to finding a way to engage with the hobby that works in my life. I'm not particularly close, but at least I've finally moved on from the American hobby press mega-layout paradigm.
So where does this all leave me in the hobby? I'm not sure, to be honest. I still don't yet have a layout, though this afternoon I built a small 5 by 1 foot baseboard where I can tack own a few pieces of flextrack to hopefully get some ideas (I'll post something about this soon). And I might start trying to draw up some track plans for the locations that I am considering as possibilities for my next layout. On a more concrete level, I have a kit for a CP boxcar that I might put together soon to help get back into actually participating actively in the hobby, and I’m considering scratchbuilding some sort of CP shed that could work on any of the layouts that I’ve listed as possibilities. I'm still not quite sure what to do,though, in terms of a layout. Without a doubt, however, I think that I'm closer to having an idea.
For one so young, you write well and I've found some of your modeling themes compelling. I don't think you've gone down a "wrong" path at all, but you are just experiencing the frustration every model railroader faces. We all dream bigger than our room dimensions, spare time and pocketbooks allow!
ReplyDeleteHave you considered building a loft bed? A twin bed represents a 39" x 75" area, above which the space is usually wasted. Raising the bed to a height of 60" off the ground would allow enough room to comfortably sit under the bed and have a layout at chest height (~42") with enough room above it for some decently tall structures. When you go to college, a desk will also fit nicely under such a bed, so the effort has a future. Just a thought...
It's very true that we all dream bigger than practical constraints allow, and it often tends to lead to some frustration. I think, though, that this approach (though not generally "wrong") can become detrimental if it stops one from engaging with the hobby as much as one can. I think that that is the idea that I was trying to get at in this post.
DeleteI have at one point considered the idea of a loft bed. It's a good idea, though I'm not sure of its practicality in practice. Among my main concerns about this would be my three cats, who are rather difficult to keep out of a bedroom and tend to cause all sorts of damage. It's easier to keep the storage room where I store my model railroading equipment pet-free, which makes it easier (and safer) to build a layout there. I think I may have found a solution to layout location in a similar vein - building a layout on top of the shelving units that in my storage/layout room. This gives me about a 6 foot long area to work with, with possibilities for 4 or 5 more feet of layout space.
I'm glad that you enjoy the blog!
-Sam
Your thinking is advanced, and your progress in model railway "philosophy" astounding.
ReplyDeleteI agree that "wrong" is a strong word, how about the phrase, "not right for me" as an alternative?
Simon
"Not right for me", as you suggest, would be a better phrase for what I was trying to describe. "Wrong", I think, was perhaps to strong a word, and the intent of its use was along the lines of indicating that the mega-layout approach to the hobby does not work for me, both because it is impractical in my situation and because it involves a dedication of time and resources to a single layout that I have no interest in. Certainly, the use of "wrong was only meant to apply to myself,and not to other hobbyists.
Delete-Sam
Unfortunately, Sam, a lot of modellers - much older and supposedly much more experienced and therefore wiser - find what works for them, and cannot see that it might well not work for others.
DeleteAs George Bernard Shaw commented on the so-called "Golden Rule":
Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Their tastes may differ.
I still think your Penobscot Street plan was a cracking idea. Startlingly original, with scope for progressive upgrades of, well, virtually everything: buildings, scenics, rolling stock, engines and even track and wheels.
What you mention at the start of your comment is, in my opinion, one of the greatest challenges that the hobby faces. Those who advocate large layouts as the only way to approach the hobby are often, it seems, those who worry most about the hobby shrinking. Perhaps they would have to worry less if they would accept, and possibly embrace, the idea that the are multiple legitimate approaches to the hobby?
DeleteOnly a thought...
- Sam