History and the art of compromise

One of the fascinating aspects of model railways is establishing a sense of history. This is usually accomplished by setting a time and a place. However, if you read layout articles in any of the major model railway magazines, you will invariably come across the introductory "history" of the layout that sets both the time and place, but most importantly, the history and thus the rationale for the layout. 

 

The layout owner is providing an historical context from which the layout comes to life. Modeller's license is a broad registration of bending or recreating history to give credence to the model railway.  Indeed, creating a believable history (accurate or otherwise) is almost as important as creating the layout itself.

There are some layouts that have a very distinct and specific history, (including Jack Burgess and his Yosemite Valley layout, Tony Koester's Nickel Plate St. Louis Division, and Tony Wright's wonderful Little Bytham in rural Lincolnshire (check out Tony's book Modelling the East Coast Main Line in the British Railways Era). 

There are other layouts with a prototype history based on real railroads (such as the Rock Island Lines,  and Everard Junction) or fictitious railroads (such as Allen McClelland's Virginian and Ohio Railroad). In that broad category there are proto-freelancers and plain ol' freelancers. What unites them is a shared view of creating a history for their layouts encompassing time and place.

The combination of time and place has always been important to me which is why I love the historical context in model railway layout articles. Studying maps and researching towns and industries is great fun. I have taken considerable time and research to establish the historical bona fides of my US prototype layout set in southern Minnesota but which includes some significant "what ifs" just the same. That said, recent changes to my home layout have forced me to reconsider some of this history. 

For example, the new simplified layout has changed direction. The previous version had east to the left and west to the right (which therefore had some intrinsic problems) but now direction is reversed, with east to the right and west to the left. As a result, the traffic pattern has also changed. And, because the main line is much shorter with less towns, the sense of "going somewhere else" is somewhat reduced as a train has only three towns to traverse instead of seven.

All this has meant a slightly different story to the previous version of history I had so assiduously developed over time. At first, this irked me a lot. I had done all this research and now it was being compromised. But hang on - I'd already "compromised history" with my "what if" scenario. My layout is based on a "what if" the CNW had not abandoned a particular branchline and had actually maintained it until purchase by the DME in 1986. 

I'd already compromised history by extending my layout period from 1995-96 to 1995-2000. That's a five year gap in which a lot happened in the real world with consequences for my layout. CNW joined Union Pacific, and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe merged. There were also some locomotive lettering changes - DME became Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern. If I was modelling a later period, I'd have to include the addition of the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern (ICE) with the DME in 2002 allowing for a new combination of locomotives. I'd been running unit trains out of Marshall (MN) from the Minnesota Soy Co-operative (MSC) complex with Archer Daniel Midland (ADM) and MSC tank cars despite the fact that ADM didn't purchase MSC until 2002, albeit with a 30% stake in MSC in 1997. And Vera Sun (founded in 2001) with its ethanol facility at Aurora (SD) hadn't been built yet but I run a few of those cars as well.

So where does that leave things?

I think where this leads to is the fact that railway modelling is a set of compromises. Even prototype purists have had to compromise somewhat. No matter what, there are compromises. What is different, however, is to what extent is the compromise and does it make sense to both the layout builder and the operators? And it is here where the historical context for the layout becomes critical.

I confess that creating a believable history within the geography and economics of railroading in model form is one of the most encompassing aspects of the hobby for me. Perhaps it's more in the "thinking space" than the "doing space" (something that close railway modeller friends will chide me for), but it also gives me a greater sense of realism (in my mind) and purpose to what I am doing. And this is what adds to the enjoyment of model railways more than anything else.

How important is "history" to your layout?

Back in the saddle

Firstly, thanks to everyone for their kind words of encouragement after last month's post. It was very pleasing to receive such support and sage advice. As a result, I have made a number of changes to the layout (and continue to do so), removing the second deck and much of the overall complexity to make things much more achievable, albeit at the loss of a significant length of run. I took the advice of a number of people, as well as from this publication by noted model railway builder, Lance Mindheim.

I was initially going to give a book review (something one would expect from the armchair), but I'll just comment on a couple of points that were relevant to my situation. The first thing I had to change was what I had initially thought of as my vision for the layout.

Essentially, my vision was based on my experiences in the US visiting and operating on very large layouts (some exceedingly large by Australian standards) with lots of operators. These layouts had long runs, often double-decked, and in massive basements. They had lots of towns and industries and many were wonderfully scenicked and landscaped. Even some of the "smaller" model railroads had lots of operating potential, with regular operating sessions (well, before Covid-19 struck), and a regular crew of good mates to run trains with. Lastly, and I conveniently forgot about this, all of these layouts had many helpers in the construction and operation of their basement empires. 

For example, Stephen Priest's massive layout, the Santa Fe St. Louis Division (see Railroad Model Craftsman, April 2019), had regular mid-week sessions where ten to twenty modellers would turn up to work on the layout. Can you imagine that? Ten to twenty people each week coming over to help you build and scenic your layout! Of course, Stephen is a NMRA Master Model Railroader and so are some of his friends, but still, building a HUGE layout (50' x 78') required a LOT of work. All those helpers certainly increased the achievability of the layout within a shorter time frame than otherwise the case.

Clearly, all of the above circumstances did not translate to me. It was what I wanted and it was my vision for the future, but it was not realistic or achievable within the context of my situation.

As Clint Eastwood famously said, "A man's gotta know his limitations". And this also crosses over to time, ability, and capacity to construct a model railway given that all three have inherent limitations. In Lance Mindheim's book, he warns of being bogged down as the modeller becomes "engulfed and overwhelmed because they underestimated the magnitude of their dreams". Quite....

The other problem compounding the enormity of the task was the garage itself, not an ideal environment especially in winter. While I do have insulation in the roof with a ceiling, some draft prevention around the garage doors, and an Aldi reverse-cycle air conditioner that I think I have fixed for some reliability (RTFM....ahem), it takes a while to crank up the heat to work in the garage comfortably. Consequently, stepping into the garage for the odd 15-20 minutes of work rarely happened. In addition, all the garage tools and paraphenalia added to the visual clutter (along with the modelling clutter on my second deck) to give the room that air of utter despondency!

Lastly, sometimes we can be too clever by half. I had a good idea of the trains and sequencing I wanted to run and this involved a lot of trains and some yard complexities which I figured I could sort out without too much trouble. There were four hidden staging areas and while I have the cameras and a screen to deal with this, I was never fully confident it would actually work in practice without causing undue stress. That was one thing I should have remembered from operating on layouts in the US - it can be very stressful at times and this was, and is, a truly unpleasant feeling. Sure, the hidden staging could have been overcome with cameras and informative control panels, but was all this complexity and possible angst actually necessary? Was I trying to find solutions to problems I actually didn't need? The answer was a resounding yes. I have removed two of the four hidden staging yards with one more to go! The fourth staging area will remain, but no longer totally hidden. In addition, I simplified the main classification yard, going back to Google Earth to check on a similar classification yard on my prototype to make sure my simplified version was believable...and yes it was!

I could go on but I'll finish up now. Suffice to say, I have been spending more time on the layout on weekends and in the evenings than ever before. It is still cold at times but I am more prepared to set up the heating beforehand knowing that I will go into the garage and actually accomplish something instead of being stuck by the enormity of the task. Reducing the complexity of the layout, and making the layout more manageable and achievable within the accepted limitations, means more time and energy (both physical and electrical) to progress the layout for a more enjoyable outcome.

This blog isn't really about building my layout, but I think my experience might be of value to others who are considering building a large layout and who may also need some encouragement. So, thanks everybody.