What's in a Name, or, Location, location, location

When I first began planning for my own model railroad as a teenager, I was captivated by the Great Northern's mountain goat logo. In those days (the end of the 1960s and the early 1970s) there wasn't a lot of prototype modeling going on yet. The typical model railroad was freelanced, even if it might be heavily influenced by or even based on a particular real-life line. So I didn't try to research the Great Northern and adopt it as my model -- I just figured out a way to rip off the logo, sort of.

Instead of the GN's rocky mountain goat, I opted for a western bighorn sheep. Then I decided to call it the Bighorn Central. (The Pennsy and the NY Central were just merging at the time, so "Central" in a railroad name seemed timely.)

Perusing maps of the west, I discovered that there really is a Bighorn Mountain Range in north central Wyoming. Without much contemplation I settled on that as the setting for my railroad. I conceived of a basic route for it across the range, although connecting imaginary communities rather than real ones.

Within a couple of years I saw a lot of flaws in my concept. Still attached to this mountainous area of Wyoming (or to my imagination of it), I discovered that there was another mountain range to the west of the Bighorns: The Bridger Range. I modified my imaginary railroad some and the fictional prototype became the Bridger Range and Northern. That was the concept I was building when I was working on the layout that I wrote about here.

Before much track had been laid, that layout came down and instead I began developing a simple shelf layout -- 8 feet by about 18 inches or so. The plans was just for a station scene, siding and a few spurs.

And for some reason -- I don't recall why -- I had abandoned the entire Bridger Range & Northern scheme. Instead, this was to be called the Cedar Creek & Western. I think I even played with a logo idea in which the C, C, and W all interlocked in such a way as to resemble the wheelset of a freight car (the truck).

I don't recall having decided where that was set, but it probably was also intended to be a western themed railroad. And set back in the first third of the 20th century --smaller equipment and all that.

In the time since then, when I've contemplated building layouts, I haven't given any thought to a name. I have contemplated location, however.

Generally I've been imagining northern Wisconsin, suitable for logging and some kind of mining operation. (Ore, probably not coal.) Now that I've finally got a track plan, I'm trying to nail that down a bit more. But I'm not quite ready to firmly commit yet, and I don't think I have to either. Still, Wisconsin, since I live here now, is pretty close to a certainty. Maybe an imaginary prototype, maybe a real one. Maybe some amalgam of the two.

But it's time, again, to think about a name. Cedar Creek & Western appeals. So does Cedar Creek & Northern. I may look over specific locations I want to include and arrive at another name. And I've been perusing books on Wisconsin railroading for other ideas, too.

Then, finally, there's time period. All along I've though I'd make it in the teens, 20s or early 30s. Maybe even in the first decade of the 20th century.

Lately, I'm rethinking that, too. The expanded possibilities for setting it in, say, the '40s and early '50s -- still lots of steam in use, but also making it possible to employ some older diesels (cheaper to buy) -- intrigue me. Again, I don't have to commit quite yet, not until I'm actually investing in rolling stock. Yet another alternative is to model multiple periods -- run 50s rolling stock one day, 'teens rolling stock another.

One time I won't do: the '20s. I want to have a brewery somewhere on the layout. And it's no fun if they can't brew real beer.

Measure twice, cut once.

I was panicking a bit this week, trying to make detailed plans from drawings of the track plan I am using for my layout. Somehow my drawings just didn't match up with the original, no matter how hard I tried.

Then I looked more closely and saw that I was working from a width that was 6 inches too short, in two different spots.

Once I realized that, it all made a lot more sense. So I've now worked up the benchwork plan. The layout will be in 4 sections: Two that measure 2 feet by 6 feet-9 inches, and two measuring 3 feet by 4 feet.

I plan to get all the framing from 3-inch strips ripped from a single 4 x 8 x 1/2 inch sheet of birch plywood, using a combination of Jim Hediger's plywood frame in Basic Model Railroad Benchwork and the benchwork design that David Popp came up with for the Beer Line sectional layout. I will use self-leveling feet rather than casters. While the framework will be assembled with glue and nails, the legs will be bolted to the frame/table assembly. Angle braces and I-bar shaped lower cross braces also will be bolted in place. The point is to allow for easy moving of the finished layout to a new location as the opportunity and need arise.

The table tops will be 1/4-inch plywood topped with 2-inch insulation foam.

I'll make L-shaped legs, also from ripped plywood. The remaining as yet unsettled question is, how high do I want it? As I explained to DairyStateMom this evening, it's a matter of finding the height that optimizes ease of work with interest of angle in viewing.

But I will give myself some time on that question, and I won't buy the leg lumber in all likelihood until I have actually built the table tops themselves.

Still more on track

Wow, do I feel like a newbie...

I dropped in to browse at one of the larger hobby shops in our area yesterday -- my first visit in a very long time, and first ever in their new (to me) location. And I took a look at the Atlas Code 83 flex track. I had no idea...

Boy, this is not your father's Atlas.

The subject came up because I have a very cheaply purchased IHC 040 switcher boxed away with flanges that well exceed the RP-25 standard. I asked the guy in the RR dept of the store about replacement drivers or grinding them down. He's who steered me to the Code 83.

And the price, at under $5 per 3-foot section if bought in lots of 10 or more, is very appealing to my Inner Scotsman. At $1.66 a foot (less than that actually) it's a lot cheaper than the Shinohara and notably cheaper than the ME track, too.

I don't think I'll use CV hand-laid track after all.

I might try a hand-laid CV turnout, though. I see by the Walthers catalog they're about 1/2 the price of a standard turnout by any of the Mfrs, including Atlas. I'd be willing to try one.

So I'm not 100% sure if I'm ready to abandon Code 70 track entirely. (As the store guy pointed out, I could use it on spurs and sidings, which would be prototypical.) But the temptation to go to Code 83 is definitely there.

Fascinating and Creepy

Google's ads, that is.

Google has figured out I'm into model railroads. No surprise there.

So at the top of my Gmail in-box is an ad that says:

"Model Railroad - TheFutureNeedsUs.com - The Crescent Corridor Means More Jobs & Cleaner Air. Learn More."

Here's where it leads: an ad for the Norfolk Southern Ry. The real-life one, not a model.

(Crossposted at DairyStateDad)

A follow-up note on track

A little further investigation led me to the Micro Engineering product line of track. Based on Walthers' prices, it's about $1.80-$1.90 a foot or so. A lot cheaper than Shinohara's $2.33/foot.

On the other hand, CV tie strip is $.84/foot, and they sell rail to go with it at $.25/foot. So that's $1.09/foot altogether, just 60 percent -- or less -- of Micro Engineering's product. (If I buy ME rail, it's $.60/foot, for a total of $1.44/foot for the CV handlaid.)

I'm just not sure whether I'm up to the additional challenge of hand laying, although the CV tie strip does seem to be a lot easier than the old spike-it-yourself approach.

Well, I do have time to sort that out. CV sells a sample pack, and I am likely to try that out. I might do it on a separate board (my friend Keith has a "posing board" he takes outside and gets amazing pictures with). Meanwhile, I'll use the Shinohara track I already have mostly in hidden areas, I think.

"Not to scale"

Now that I've got a serious track plan and I'm motivated to build it, comes the hard and tedious part: Making sure it will work.

There's a handy little note on the August 2005 Model Railroader article that contains the track plan I've settled on: "Not to scale."

Boy is that ever true. I measured it to see if I could just copy and reduce it. Don't think so. 4 feet in one direction doesn't seem to be consistent with 4 feet in another direction. Sigh.

So now I'm working on a first rough onto graph paper. Actually a photocopy of graph paper, outlined for the dimensions of the layout's perimeter. Trying to decide if I should get a full fledged draftsman's compass or not. And the part that I really dread: drawing turnouts to careful scale. I know some templates exist and I might end up getting one.

It also means that I probably won't get started on the benchwork quite as soon as I had planned. I really want to be confident of those dimensions before I start sawing and nailing and glueing.

Speaking of benchwork -- went over to Home Despot Depot the other day to price lumber.

I'm thinking for the first stage of benchwork I'll need about 80 feet of dimensional lumber (provisionally, 1 x 4). The best quality I could find is about $8 for an 8 foot piece -- and even then my son and I could see numerous pieces that were warped or otherwise out of shape.

Then I checked the price of high-quality plywood. My alternative is to have plywood ripped and then assembled into the framing, following an approach used in Model Railroader's Basic Model Railroad Benchwork book, tweaked some with ideas from the "Beer Line" framing system for sectional layouts.

It's less than half the price. So Plywood framing it is.

And speaking of pricing...

I have a package of several Shinohara flex track lengths. Not sure how many off the top of my head. And a whole bunch of cork roadbed. But I was pricing track today and Holy Heisler! My inner Scotsman is starting to rebel.

Then I spotted the web site for Central Valley tie strip and rail. At first glance it looks a lot less expensive, and not that much extra work. I might go that route, but only after some further investigation. If I do, though, I still expect to purchase turnouts fully made. That, too, will require some further invetigation.

(If anyone out there stumbles across this blog and has something to contribute in the way of advice on the subject, feel free to do so in the comments. Spammers, this does NOT mean you. Read the comment warning.)

All of that is down the road, though. First stop: the drawing supplies.

I found it!

I can't believe it's been nearly 4 months since I posted here. But I know why.

I've been dithering on my layout plan for even longer.

I most recently decided to get serious about a layout early last year. I was inspired in part by the Model Railroader "Beer Line" project layout. My friend Keith, who's among the area's premier modelers, encouraged me to look at that as a first real, full-fledged layout.

Trouble was, I wasn't really enthusiastic about an all-urban, all-operating layout. I think the Beer Line is a great project layout, and I love the execution of it in the magazine. But my principal goal for a layout is one with rugged, rural scenery for logging and mining operations. I'll never be John Allen, but I do want to be able to be inspired by him.

For a while, I warmed to the idea of the Beer Line track plan, but repurposed for a rural setting. On the Humboldt Yard side, it would be a small town with yard and engine servicing facilities. The other side (the one with the long, curved siding) would be a logging camp scene. Instead of a river down the middle, I'd do a center 2-sided backdrop.

I think it could be a great way to reimagine the Beer Line plan, but I just couldn't get excited about it.

I thought about the old folded dogbone design from my youth and ruminated about employing it in some variation.

But one thing had happened as a result of my Beer Line flirtation: I had become deeply intrigued by a sectional layout.

Now, the Beer Line's design is especially ingenious because it can be rearranged in a variety of configurations. My interest in sectional layouts wasn't so much for that, however. It was more basic: I hope to move someday, and if I do, I don't want to have to tear down the layout and start over. I've waited this long to finally get to building a layout; once I actually get started I don't want it to be for naught.

I also wanted a layout that while small would lend itself to reasonable expansion in the future, in that new dream home.

And the old C.B. Baird-inspired design doesn't look like it lends itself very well to sectional construction. It also felt like it would take too long to actually get going with running trains. And my attempts to doodle expansion ideas went nowhere. The whole thing just didn't quite set right with me.

So it went over the last several months, as I dithered more between the Beer Line and the Baird line. The Beer Line did strike me as having expansion potential. But try as I might, I still couldn't get excited about it.

Then in December's MR I spotted a great layout that opened up another possibility.

The full layout depicts a section of the Boston and Maine. What caught my eye, however, was the center peninsula, about a 6-by-12 segment of the layout. I don't know for sure, but it looks very much to me like that segment was the starting point for this railroad, and that the builder then built on the two extensions on either side of it.

It had the capability for a lot of scenery, including a branch up over the mainline. The layout as built used the upper level there for an urban setting; I would make that a mountain, probably with a mine up there.

I began to commit myself to this design (the center section, that is), and began working out ways in which I might sectionalize it. I mulled the possibility of a two-sided backdrop down the center.

Still, I dithered. 6 by 12 -- that was pretty big. It might squeeze down to 5 by 10, but at 4 by 8 it would certainly be cramped. My enthusiasm flagged. I went back to looking at the Beer Line track plan. Maybe, I thought, there was some weird way I could tweak that design to have the elements that appealed to me about the B&M layout.

But I just was not that into it.

Somehow, all this rumination came to a head this week.

I've been working on a magazine article for a city lifestyle magazine I write for about the model railroading hobby. I've interviewed a lot of local modelers and seen some interesting, fun and in some cases gorgeous layouts. I've met a lot of railroaders and enjoyed talking with them. And I've been feeling vexed with myself for having kept my toes out of the hobby for decades. Why, oh why, I've been asking myself, didn't I actually DO something with it way back right after college?

I pulled out my copy of 102 Realistic Track Plans and paged through it several nights running this week. I saw a number of possibilities, but nothing that quite grabbed me. What I saw was either just a little too simple, or else too complex. I couldn't get excited about any of them. I got depressed.

And then...

There was a while a few years ago when I was going to gut all of my MR magazines, cutting out the articles that interested me and filing them by topic. I didn't get very far with that before I decided it was too much work, that I liked paging through the magazine issues and seeing the stories in context. But I did save the stuff I had clipped.

And then, there it was, in the file folder for track plans.

I clearly had been intrigued by it the first time I saw it -- intrigued enough to clip it, anyway. Now, though, I saw it with new eyes. And this time, it was love at first sight.

The design is one that the builder made to fit in a very limited, small space. I don't have quite the restrictions he does, but its simplicity is highly appealing. At the same time, it's got potential for rolling scenery, even in the small area it fills. And it's got multiple points of interest. It GOES somewhere. It's got track over and under, but it doesn't look like a spaghetti bowl.

Here it is:

It allows for continuous running, a must for me. It's got lots of scenic potential. It's simple enough to start out with, but can get more complex over time. The size is perfect for my space. And it was designed as a sectional layout.

Just how enthusiastic am I about it?

For months my basement work bench has been filled with clutter, and thus completely unusable.

This morning I hopped out of bed before 6 a.m. At 8 we went out for breakfast, and I was back working by 9:30. By 1 o'clock, it was completely cleaned off, and all the clutter in the area round it sorted and stored away as well.

Now I'm ready to build the benchwork. If I don't get the lumber tomorrow, I'll be getting it by the end of next weekend.