Thinking Out Loud - Part 4

Steve Boyko (Confessions of a Train Geek) asked me in the last installment of Thinking Out Loud when I knew the moment was right to switch from design to building. He referenced the too well-known problem faced by so-called armchair modellers. Steve, you ask a very good question! Which I can only provide a part of an answer…a lenghty one indeed!

To be fair, I believe some armchair modellers are fundamentally spectators of this hobby. They are fascinated by it but I’m pretty sure building something themselves isn’t so much important to them. Why I say so? Because you can’t stay in a hobby which doesn’t prompt you to take action for a long time, excepts if you are a spectator. That kind of people is the same as sport fans. They love the game, think about it a lot, make predictions, but in the end, they will never run to the court and play it to their heart content. In my mind, it isn’t a bad thing. They have their own way of participating to the debate. In my case, the urge to build and participate in the hobby is too much strong to stay sitting at my desk doing nothing. When working on Hedley Junction took a break a few weeks ago, I had no other choice to put my energy on Harlem Station and now I’m planning what will come after this one is done.

But back to the question. The particular moment you switch from planning to building is not cast in stone. It’s far to be a rational process, but I think at some point you reach a level when the operational aspect of the layout is well-defined and working nicely. Lots of people reach that level but feel they absolutely need to know the exact minute detail of everything... or worst, they think the layout won't support interesting operation. This is a slippery slope because there’s no end to that and new information flowing in can paralyze you until exhaustion. This is why I believe many things should be determined in 3D because they are much more about composition than pure design. When done in 2D, they use up a lot of time without providing adequate answers. Lance Mindheim stressed that point more than once and I totally agree with him.

Down to the basics, a layout is an intricate board game. You must design workable rules first before committing yourself to a design (which is nothing more than giving shape to the rules). You must decide what kind of trains, traffic and consists length you want to run. You have also to determine the length of time you play the game (building and operation are equally “playing time”). Once you have that in mind, you can start to make provision for your future physical plant (siding lengths, track arrangement, etc.). That’s exactly where your effort should be put to make sure the tracks reflect what you want to accomplish with your trains. Mark my words, this is exactly how a real railroad do things and it’s probably why the choice of a prototype or inspiration source can have a huge impact on what you can realistically achieve.

When you follow a prototype, it’s easier because the real railway engineers did the work for you. By example, Temiscouata’s Connors terminal was designed for train consists no longer than 7 cars. When I reproduced the track plan, I was careful to not compress the prototype to make sure I could run the same consists on the layout. Remember, this is layout “design”. We make sure the board game is viable in the long term. Once you got to that point, you are ready to jump into the 3D world.

That step is scene composition where you tweak your draft into something more definitive. Doing it in 2D is hard. We always underestimate or overestimate how things will look in real. Even for people in the design trade (architecture), it can be extremely tricky. This is the reason why we test bench ideas in 3D (mockups, models, digital modelling, etc.). For most folks, working with a real-life mockup is easier because what you see is what you get. There’s no place for interpretation and misrepresentation. When I was a teenager, I often resorted to this design process intuitively. My recent Quebec South Shore (QSSR) switching layout was designed directly on the benchwork with few pieces of track, some rolling stock and the structure I wanted to use. The game board was designed on the spot using common railroad practices.

It’s interesting to note that when I designed the Temiscouata track plan a few months ago, I found it absolutely boring. I came up with other “spiced” ideas and built scale mockups for all of them. In the end, the real Connors was the most attractive in 3D. From a very plain 2D plan developed a sweet rural station where you could imagine the mainline crossing a natural meadow. There are a lot of lessons to learn here because I could have missed the opportunity to make an iconic scene if I had stuck myself in the 2D design. In the case of QSSR, the composition and design process all occurred at the same time. It’s probably why the result was extremely convincing and not forced. Remember, it’s only when a scene is rendered in 3D that you can start to compose it. Composition is hard to describe because it’s based on perception which is greatly affected by the viewing environment. You play with mass, colors, solids and void. Yes, void, which is the essence of railroading.

Never downplay the existence of the mundane when planning a scene because nothing makes a train stands out better than a mundane but faithfully depiction of scenery. Thus, you should compose and execute them with care because they have the potential to become signature scenes without resorting to artifices such huge bridges, tunnels and mountains. I think our Maizerets scene on Hedley Junction speaks a lot about telling a story without too many “words”.

The good thing about composition is that it can be grasped easily by most people because of its tridimensional nature. Most model railroaders and railfans have a good knowledge of real railroads and developed an instinct about what’s right and what’s wrong. Unfortunately, that instinct is too often burdened by unrealistic needs and optimistic perception of what can be achieved. There’s a race to implement too many features that clouds their natural judgement.

I’ve seen too often people submit ideas on forums about a specific track plan. They reach a certain level and stall. Sorry, but at some point, you have to make a leap of faith if you want things to take shape. Most of the time, I believe the composition aspect of layout planning come in handy to test and refine ideas beyond the armchair. The fact you play with trains, mockup structures and tracks is extremely motivating and much more efficient than doodling 2D lines for eternity. It costs almost nothing and makes use of whatever you have on hand. It’s another step that helps to move beyond the design block.

On the other hand, some projects require very little planning. It was the case with Harlem Station because I was following an existing track plan to the letter. There was no space for interpretations; I only had to follow the instructions. I knew the prototype was great, there was no place for hesitation. In that respect, the planning stage took a few days and I started to build the layout in less than three weeks.

We can say trying to cram a lot of ideas is the best way to hit a wall during the design process. You are flooded by conflicting information which is hard to deal at once. At this moment, you have to hierarchize your priorities which can be tricky too. It’s the time when you go back to designing your “board game” rules. “How you play the game” is a benchmark to decide if things should stay or not. You’ll then have a clear mindset that will allow you to see that many things can hardly be pieced together into your grand scheme. They should simply be abandoned for the sake of having the chance to play the game… a fun game that makes sense to you.

Space and TIME will also dictate the amount of scenes you can realistically model. By time, I mean time to build, but also time to operate. With experience, we get an idea of what we can do with our free time. Personally, my output is erratic at best (like most other modellers). We are fuelled by passion, we burst in great ideas to later fell into hibernation. If understood correctly, that’s not a bad thing because it gives us the chance to step back and reevaluate our work. Only a handful of persons are clockwork mechanism with a steady output. Most aren't.

In that regard, Rick De Candido is a good example. He's an organized man which can tackle highly organized tasks such as running an engine terminal. He found exactly what suited his personality. This is the first step in human psychology: “Know Yourself”. Once again, we should compute the fact we aren’t superhuman when dealing with layout design (if you are one, that’s another thing!). Personally, it means I love to build structures but not on a regular basis. If you look at Hedley Junction, you’ll see I kept the number of structures extremely low. I made sure I had enough interest to feel a challenge to build them or that they meant something special for me and the layout concept. Be aware they aren’t exceptional prototypes; most are mundane in fact, but they do tell a story about the layout setting and its rules.

Thus, we learn another lesson: plan what you can truly do and wish motivate you. It’s the best way to make sure your design will translate into a fine looking and running layout instead of frustration. That advice may sounds extremely miserable and low key, but this is the true essence of achievable layouts. It will probably mean that out of ten good ideas, you’ll probably keep one, but that’s OK. You’ll probably build other layouts in your life time and you’ll have plenty of occasion to revisit these ideas in due time.

And take my advice, you can come up with any workable game rules, maybe it’s a clear indication you are trying to play a game not set for you. Design process that takes an eternity to come to fruition without no tangible results is a good indication you're playing the wrong game. Nobody starts a game of Monopoly or Risk when there’s only 30 minutes left before they leave. Be coherent with yourself and your limitations, the answer will come easily. Anyway, I highly doubt you are only fascinated by ONE prototype and ONE specific location, there's always options left! It’s time to try one of your other 9 ideas you flushed the first time just as I did with a Charlevoix-themed layout (cool, not playable, cumbersome…).

In conclusion, I’d like to stress out an achievable layout have nothing to do with size or theme. Mike Confalone is a good example of a man who had experience in model railroading and had a clear idea of what kind of board game he wanted to play: long consists, dispatching, big time railroading. Mike is visibly an energic and enterprising man which could have been a railroad CEO back in the late 19^th century. Not only he was up to the challenge, but visibly, this is his own nature. His layout fill an entire basement, but take a look at his design and you will find he didn’t cram a lot of stuff in it. However, he was clearly aware of what was required to play the game by the rules. In his case, moving large trains meant he needed “destinations” for his traffic. Thus, the number of on line stations and towns on the layout is abysmally small for such a large empire: only two “real” towns and they are backwood locations at best. On the other hand, there are a lot of destinations: customers, off layout staging towns and interchanges.

Mike was also careful to model void. A lot of void, because the nature of Maine is empty, beautifully empty, and this is why long consists looks great against nature’s wonders. Allagash’s most iconic scenes are all dull non-descript locations beautifully crafted. Even Holmann Summit, which is a masterpiece, isn’t overwhelming because it is naturally blended in a forested layout. We are bound to believe any railroad running in such a mountainous area is bound to have a dramatic rock cut.

Another interesting thing is that Mike did the basic 2D planning to make sure the track arrangement was coherent with the game rules he set. But he didn’t care to waste his time deciding exactly where each track should be precisely located. He’s a man of action. Have he waited to set every detail before building something, he probably would have given up the hobby and pursued other more proactive interests of his. On his own account, he made a lot of mistakes in the process – he was bound to – but he also learned a lot. And the reason he learned all that was because the goal to achieve was clear to him and he had enough humility to revisit the means employed to reach it. Sure his layout isn’t perfect – there is no such thing – but it’s going somewhere, it has a clear and well-defined purpose and suits the man who built it. It’s why I consider he has a good influence for down-to-earth people and others too: yes, you can achieve significant things without walling yourself in endless design if you care enough to set achievable rules. Does it mean we must build an empire? No. It only means he’s a good example because what he did was a practical answer to his needs and aspirations. Yours are probably different and will lead to a different result… just like many other great layouts of all size out there. This is why I consider model railroading is such a fascinating hobby, it reaches far beyond building and playing with models.

And beware: excellence and perfection are too different beasts: excellence is achievable while perfection isn't. Too many people stall in the design process because they want to attain a chimeric perfection. Excellence has more to do with practice making you "perfect".

Thinking Out Loud - Part 3

So far, the "Thinking Out Loud" series have been quite interesting. I've explored many ideas over the last week, trying to turn them into workable layouts.

Earlier I listed a list of potential ideas. Out of them, many are unworkable because the available space doesn't fit the operation requirements. And no, it doesn't mean there isn't enough space but that the geometry of the room with its inherent obstacles prevents the design of an efficient and nice looking layout.

We often think a layout plan is driven by the space available, but in fact, most of the time what drives the plan is down to earth things like doors and windows, or just the shape of the room. In that respect, Trevor Marshall did a nice job when he explained how he settled on S scale for his Port Rowan layout. He had space - and quite enough - but some basic design elements such as curve radius had the last word. In his case, it meant moving from a Southern Pacific O scale layout to a Canadian National S scale layout. In the end, shaping his ideas accordingly to the physical space and to the type of operation he wanted made the answer crystal clear.

In my case, I prefer a uncluttered room were I can have enough space to move around. It thus means the idea of a continuous run layout isn't implementable without seriously making the room hard to navigate (duck under, removable parts, etc.). It also means the idea of building a steam era Charlevoix layout is dead for the moment. But the good thing is that clearly Baie-Saint-Paul is a great prototype for an operable diorama that can fit a 18" x 10 feet shelf.

In the case of Jérôme, he has space but no wall space to install a shelf layout. The choice of Harlem Station as an island layout in the middle of a room à la "board game" suits particularly is space but also his requirement in hard and complex operation. Jérôme loves mind games and realistic operation. Like everybody, he loves nice scenery, but it's not his top priority while it is to me. With Harlem Station we cover all our bases.  A reader recently commented how it was amazing this "boring track plan" was in fact very inspiring.

Limoilou Shops in 1950 (Natural Resources Canda, Air Photo Library)

Talking about small island layout, I cannot forget to talk about Fillmore Avenue Roundhouse by Rick De Candido. Rick loves yards, locomotives and passenger trains. But he also knows he doesn't have the space for all that in his apartment. While gathering information on engine terminals, he found out there was enough action going on at a roundhouse to keep a man occupied... In fact, to keep 5 men occupied over a 30" x 12' island layout. Far to be a compromise, his layout truly shines as a credible rendition of something too often modelled but rarely operated.

While discussing with Jérôme about Fillmore, we came back on that subject. In the past, we often wanted to make a version of Limoilou Shops in HO scale for our previous version of Hedley-Junction. Lack of space prevented this... and to be honest, I'm not sure it would have looked good. Anyway, using the same space than Rick, I tried to see if the venerable and long lost Limoilou roundhouse, car shops and store houses could become a worthy diorama or layout. The answer speak for itself, I guess we've got a winner! With the help of a transfer table about 3 feet long, it doesn't require too much turnouts to make this dream come true. And there's a good provision of switching: coal tower, sand tower, ash pit, machine shop, coal to the boiler house, store house, oil house and car shop. Unfortunately, informations about Limoilou roundhouse is extremely rare. I've never seen a good picture of the building itself. I only know it was a concrete structure built circa 1912 by Canadian Northern (a common occurence at that time). A picture of the coal tower does exist and the machine shop is still standing though in bad shape. Fortunately, two sets of insurance maps provide enough information to make a good plan. But at this point, the big gaps in data would prevent this layout to come into existence. And let's face it, Rick is a very well-organized man that can make such a layout works perfectly. I'm no such man and for the time being, I'll continue to admire his inspiring work.

By the way, I'm truly impressed to see the amount of people following and commenting my several model train blogs. I never expected that. Getting feedback, discussing ideas, exchanging information and swapping material is a great part of the hobby I didn't had a change to experiment in my previous two decades of modelling. Each month, I see mention of these blogs on other peoples' blogs. Recently, there was again these obligatory articles about the hobby dying. I honestly don't share this opinion at all. What I see is a great number of people getting involved again or for the first time in this hobby. Most of them are dedicated to a more pragmatic approach to model railroading. Many concentrate their efforts on smaller but better designing layout with a greater care to details and operation potential. Just following the links of my visitors, I discover new great layout discussions each month and learn about obscure branches or prototypes I would have never heard of in the past. The most fascinating thing is that many of these layouts are built by teenagers! Back then, I was paralyzed believing I could never build a worthy empire. They are quite ahead of their time and at least, they work for REAL on REAL layout, learning many skills, bashing stuff, painting their backdrop or detailing and weathering their locomotives. This is extremely inspiring and the proof there is still a lot of new branches sprouting from the old trunk.

Thinking Out Loud - Part 2

I'm actually in the process of selecting a contractor and shopping building materials for the new garage to be - hopefully - build later this summer. I've secured the municipal authorization and permit thus the project can move forward.

I've had a few discussions with Jérôme about the subject of the new layout. Simon Dunkley's recent comments are also similar in substance. In fact, everytime I bring out the subject of Temiscouata I meet a lot of enthusiasm. No wonder, Connors is the epitome of North American steam branchline that could be found anywhere and it can be easily turned into a fine layout.

A few months ago, I had a similar discussion on Big Blue Trains forum and on my other blog (Quebec South Shore Railway) .

Original discussion

To give some tooth to the discussion, I made a crude mock up that was used to see if a switching layout was feasible.

Connors mock up (as a switching layout)

I've explored many possibilities, but so far, the Connors Branch fit the space without having to bang my head on the walls for months trying to fit things I want.

Trevor Marshall was kind enough to send me very interesting information that comfort the idea Temiscouata can be turned into an Achiveable Layout (I just love that expression!).

In fact, I now have photographic evidence about the small flag stop that existed at Pelletier Mills (Little River Mills). And this is very interesting because that location served a saw mill, had a siding and a small station.

It means the layout would be a compression of the line, but a rendition of the last two stops on the branch. No need for psychological shortcuts. What you see is the real last few miles of the run.

I've made a very crude track plan based on these two locations.

The Art of Weathering

I recently completed the weathering of a fleet of Roundhouse 40ft boxcars for my Harlem Station project.


I didn't attempt to improve the car details but decided to improve my skills with weathering powders. Once again, I want to say the best weathering results are always obtained by using several layers and technics. Most of the time, I like to fade the color before weathering the car.

You can see the results here.

Thinking Out Loud - Part 1

While our vacations are continuing, I’m going back reading railway-related literature of all kind. In fact, the basement renovations are taking more time than anticipated and thus very little progress is done on the layout.  This is a good opportunity to step back, relax and seeking new ideas before returning once again to our never ending task!

For loyal followers, I’d suggest reading this sharp series of articles about the historyof Murray Bay Subdivision published in Canadian Rail. The help of Denis Fortier – a well-known railfan in Quebec and Charlevoix areas – really show. For followers of this blog, I believe it is a good gateway to understand a part of our layout.

Sure, I have a major reason to do many searches right now. I’m in the planning stage of building a new garage and that means layout-dedicated space for the first time in my life. I’m entertaining the possibility to use a 9.5’ x 19’ room only for that purpose. I consider an around the wall layout would be the best bet and I’m not against the possibility of continuous running. While the space is relatively vast, I don’t believe I can cram more than two small locations and maybe a decent amount of scenic area between them (probably a substantial bridge scene). To be honest, I think I have a fair idea of what I can achieve in that space. I’m also well aware I’m interested in building prototypical structures and reproducing real-life location. While I want my trains to have a purpose, I’m not obsessed in filling the place with track and operation opportunities. I’ve learned a long time ago I preferred small town with a few siding than large industries and I love when there’s a fair amount of single track main line blended in well-crafted scenery. In that respect, I feel we too often try to incorporate too much specific locations on our layouts and not enough mundane situation.

As usual with most modellers, I’m struggling in determining which prototype I’d like to reproduce and which era. Over the last decades, I accumulated a lot of rolling stock and locomotives from various eras and roads. I can classify them in five coherent categories:

-Non-descript branchline steam era

-Canadian National steam era

-Canadian National diesel era (1960-1993)

-Canadian Pacific diesel era (1960-1985, mainly Multimark)

I feel each of them have a lot of opportunities and I’ll describe want I think of each ones.

CN diesel era:

I have a lot of cars and locomotives that have actually no purpose on our current club layout. I feel it is a real shame to not be able to use them. Among the interesting prototypes I’d be interested to model, I feel the area near Drummondville and Aston-Junction is very promising. As a continuous run, you can stage large freight manifest with 6-axle power and also various passenger trains between Québec and Montréal. Industries are very limited with a few feedmills and some interchange work with Bécancour. There is also a local freight train than handle such traffic. Of interest is the fact this train has its own small locomotive facilities which is a very interesting fact for a medium sized layout. Add the fact that extremely scenic bridges exist in the area and you have a winning concept.

Canadian Pacific Diesel Era:

I always loved the CP Rail with its mismatched consists of locomotives and rundown appearance. Add to this the weird beauty of the colourful Multimark brand and you get a very attractive concept. Finding a suitable prototype in Quebec is however extremely challenging. The best candidate is the International Railway of Maine in Southern Quebec. Industries are very small yet interesting and very scenic. Among the most iconic locations on the line are Cookshire, which I often used as inspiration in the past and other smaller locations like Milan. A nice bridge scene exists in Cookshire over the Eaton river. Another option would be to model the line between Jackman, ME and Greenville, ME. This would make a terrific layout from a scenic point of view.

Canadian National Steam Era:

I’ve never been a fan of large steamers though I do like them! I’m talking from a layout perspective indeed! Over the year, I kitbashed several models into CNR steamers, including 0-6-0, 2-6-0 and 2-8-0 and have built a substantial fleet of rolling stock fitting that era. Finding a prototype would be too hard and I must admit steam operation over the Murray Bay Subdivision is extremely engaging. That would be a nice complement to our modern layout and it would be a great opportunity to model locations that we left out because they were of little interest during the diesel era. Among the chief location is Baie-Saint-Paul which sported a small but dense rail operation. Imagine 2 stub sidings serving a freight depot, an oil dealer, a team track, a cattle pen and a lumber yard. Add a large water tank, a passenger station with covered platform, a section house, a grade crossing and a substantial bridge. Now, take in account this scene takes only 9 feet to model without any selective compression and you got an idea why I feel this prototype is great.


Now move to La Malbaie were the regular trains reached the last station on the line. You find there a very long freight and passenger depot, a weird two stall engine house, a turntable, a coaling facility using hoist and drop bottom gondolas, a few section house and a water tank. Better, the line doesn’t end in Murray Bay but continues up to Clermont which means you indeed have a terminal, but it isn’t too much unprototypical to make this a continuous running layout. Structures to model aren’t too numerous, but I can testify they are all very interesting to build. Also, must I stress out the fact that if Rapido release its CNR 4-6-0 in HO, that would be the most amazing thing since this very locomotive was the main power on Murray Bay Sub back in the steam days.

Non-descript steam era aka Temiscouata Railway:

This generic name could imply a lot of thing but it mainly means this material can be easily kitbashed in a vast array of prototypes. What I have in mind is Temiscouata Railway’s Connors Branch in New Brunswick. I’ve often talked about that great prototype. The terminal in Connors is the epitome of small steam operation. The traffic on the line was substantial enough to not look moribund. Connors only take about 12 feet in HO, so no need for selective compression. Also, several small but industrious saw mills and feed mills were rail served in the area. Just a few miles east of Connors was the picturesque Little Mill River, a seven-car stub ended siding. Switching opportunities are numerous and making and breaking trains in Connors could be very interesting since many trains were scheduled out of Connors and maintained there. I can already imagine the scenic vistas of small trains crawling on the shores of St. John River. Also, it’s interesting to note Temiscouata made extensive use of small wood trestle all over the line to span brooks and rivers.

At this point, I haven’t settled on any ideas. I think they all have strong points. On the other hand, I must admit the two small steamer scenarios are my favourite. I remember a few years ago to have acquired a Bachmann Alco 2-6-0 sound equipped locomotive. For a while, I used it to switch a part of Hedley-Junction depicting St. Joachim (were Montmorency is now located). I had the time of my life and I was well aware the model wasn’t that great and the sound decoder was minimal.

What will make a prototype more interesting than another will be the possible traffic. Murray Bay enjoyed first class passenger trains and freight trains but not mixed. On the other hand, Temiscouata pulled very short trains, including passengers, freight and mixed.

Imagine a Murray Bay layout. While you have interesting activity going on in Baie-Saint-Paul, there’s very little to do in La Malbaie except turning engines and reordering the passenger cars for the return trip. To my knowledge, freight activity in La Malbaie was almost inexistent (no dedicated sidings). It means freight trains would originate and go to locations out of the layout. Is it a bad thing? I don’t think so, but it means two staging areas, which isn’t optimal. At least, there’s a provision for continuous running because, as a matter of fact, the two staging areas could be merged together.

On the other hand, a Temiscouata layout wouldn’t require provision for a continuous run. Most action occurs in Connors, both freight and passenger. It’s also the originating point for half the trains.

That said, I have still many months in front of me to decide but I can already say that a CP Rail switching layout (the one with the feedmill I once build) would be enough for this theme. It would mean a steam era layout would be the most likely outcomes.