YT VID of Model RR layout. 1:22.5 scale, narrow and standard gauge. Rio Grande and UP RR. Everything scratchbuilt

[Brian Austin]

From Rio Grande 3 foot gauge to Standard Gauge Big Boys and EMD F Units and Krauss Maffai diesels.

 

 

[Brian Austin]

Here's an older gallery of build photos of some of his steam locomotives.

https://www.cumberlandmodelengineering.com/BogsSteamLocomotives.html

 

Some of his diesel locos

https://www.cumberlandmodelengineering.com/BogsDieselLocomotives.html

 

Some of his freight cars

https://www.cumberlandmodelengineering.com/BogsFreightCars.html

[Ace-Garageguy]

Wow. That's really something. Sure would be fine fine fine to have the room to work in that scale. Fantastic stuff. Thanks  

EDIT: The thing I particularly like about Hyce and his channel, besides being very enthusiastic about modeling, is his in-depth knowledge of the engineering, function, and greasy bits of REAL railroad equipment and practices.

Lotsa guys on YT doing model train stuff seem to have, at best, limited knowledge of the full-scale counterparts, and this always kinda makes me wonder "how do you build good models of anything if you don't know much about what you're modeling?"

Different strokes I guess, but one of the things that always attracted me to railroad modeling was the tendency among the majority of RR modelers in the past to be concerned with what was "prototypically correct"...not necessarily slavishly accurate models of everything, but enough understanding of reality that their models could represent it reasonably well.

Edited July 31, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy
CLARITY

[Brian Austin]

I remember the layouts in the old hobby magazines with cutesy names and loose connection to reality.  ?

[Ace-Garageguy]

2 hours ago, Brian Austin said:

I remember the layouts in the old hobby magazines with cutesy names and loose connection to reality.  ?

If you mean layouts like John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid...

...the guy (and a very few of his peers) was a master modeler among masters, and though he "freelanced" many of his rolling pieces (meaning they didn't represent any specific prototype exactly), they were all made with respect for prototype engineering and obvious understanding of how things functioned mechanically in the real world.

Understanding and correctly representing prototype mechanical function was one of the central themes in the old model RR mags, in case you missed it.

Frankly, I don't see the point in bashing those guys. They were the equal of anyone working in the model RR hobby today.

The guy in the video you posted is absolutely one of the best, a skilled machinist and engineer, most definitely another master of the craft, but what's gained by tearing other people down, or making fun of them with terms like "cutesy"? (EDIT: My remark about many of the YT clan of RR modelers not knowing much about prototype operation, mechanics, or history isn't the same thing. At all.)

Even John Allen himself regretted using that name after a while, but there has always been an element of subtle humor attached to rather a lot of model railroading endeavors...as in Emma the Stegosaurus, "Engine #13" on the G&D.

https://greatdivideline.com/unearthing-"emma"

And a friend of mine locally has an extremely unusual and complex glass electronic tube lashed down as a flatcar load. When hard-tech-clueless visitors to his HO layout ask what it is, he explains (with a straight face) that it's a model of a very early flux-capacitor, before they were miniaturized down to being able to fit in a DeLorean. Some of the looks on the onlookers' faces are priceless.  

Edited July 31, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy
CLARITY

[Brian Austin]

Relax.  You missed my point.

I wasn't casting shade on Mr. Allen, in fact I was always a fan of his. Nor was I casting shade on the layout featured in the video I posted.  I'm not even sure where that criticism might have come from.

I was just contrasting the mindset of correctly detailing every item on a model railroad vs what I recalled from the old magazines, the do whatever you feel approach (can't think of any particular names, sorry).  Judging from various forums, some modelers today consider the wordplay railroad names to be quaint or even cringe-inducing.  One could criticize one approach as too-frivolous, and the other as too serious, but I'm not going to.  To each his own.  As far as my own efforts go, I have a motley collection of vintage O Scale equipment, with no particular road theme. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

14 hours ago, Brian Austin said:

...Nor was I casting shade on the layout featured in the video I posted.  I'm not even sure where that criticism might have come from.

Nowhere did I say you were "casting shade" on the guy in the video.

What I said was:

On 7/31/2024 at 2:14 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

The guy in the video you posted is absolutely one of the best, a skilled machinist and engineer, most definitely another master of the craft, but what's gained by tearing other people down, or making fun of them with terms like "cutesy"? (EDIT: My remark about many of the YT clan of RR modelers not knowing much about prototype operation, mechanics, or history isn't the same thing. At all.)

That was in response to:

On 7/31/2024 at 1:14 PM, Brian Austin said:

I remember the layouts in the old hobby magazines with cutesy names and loose connection to reality.  ?

Terms like "cutesy" and a "loose connection to reality" aren't particularly positive.

Anyway, the model RR hobby has pretty much always had two schools of thought about prototypical-correctness, and the one I gravitated to was the one concerned more with technical correctness (as in: could it work in the real world), but not necessarily slavish, rivet-counting representation of particular prototypes. John Allen, for instance, scratch-built many steam locomotives for which there has never been a 1:1 prototype, but every one employed arrangement of components and mechanical motion that would work in full scale. 

He was also known to stretch reality on occasion, to create a more evocative scene. Several of his dramatically swaybacked truss-rod cars were sagging WAY beyond what any real railroad would allow...and the full-scale truth about truss-rod cars is that they mostly tended to be humpbacked after the turnbuckles were over-tightened by overzealous maintenance guys. But Allen's severely sagging-in-the-middle rolling stock instantly evoked cash-strapped shortline operations where maintenance was "deferred", perhaps indefinitely.

Due to the realities of space limitations, layouts have always had to employ techniques like "selective compression" and various types of intentional, often highly artistic optical illusion to achieve the desired effect, which further loosen them from "connection to reality", even though the primary desire IS to represent reality.

Other compromises, like truck-mounted couplers that allow longer equipment to navigate smaller-than-scale-correct-radius-curves, also abound...in every scale. The guy in the video describes how he engineered articulated trucks under his "centipede" tender to allow IT to negotiate his obviously much-sharper-than-scale curves as well. And the front-engine overhangs on curves his Big Boy achieves is, again, WAY beyond what could possibly occur in reality.

The widespread lack of awareness of "could it work in the real world"...or just plain ignoring the concept in the name of "fun"...is something that bugs me about car modelers too, even though some of the most visually striking models I've seen have gone so far as to cut the tops of wheels and tires off to achieve the desired stance.

Far as I'm concerned, "could it work in the real world" is one of the primary ideas that separates "models" from "toys", or "art". And I personally enjoy the added challenge that comes with pursuing that idea. It's a large part of my "fun".

Modelers don't necessarily need to ADHERE to the idea that something should accurately represent functional reality, but in my opinion, in order to be GOOD, modelers should at least be AWARE of functional reality, and make CONSCIOUS DECISIONS when they choose to ignore it.

EDIT: However, that is the way I  approach the hobby. Nobody else has to comply, or even agree.

Rant ends... 

 

Edited August 1, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy

[Little Timmy]

Years ago ( 1981 ) I decided to call my railroad  the " Demon's Hollow & Pacific.

( loosely based on the Southern Pacific, and John Allen's narrow gauge road  "Devils Gulch & Hell -N - Gone .)

Cutsy  name, Yes. But after  a few years it did become kinda cringy.  A few years after that, I suddenly felt " zen" about the name and now I'm  happy that I stuck with it.

As a matter of fact, I added a few more " cutsy" roads to the roster.

The Wylers Gulch & Wesyern.

The Tomahawk  Tramway.

Attic Lines. ( actually it turned out to be a popular  name that I thought I came up with all by myself... not so. I only built one diesel locomotive and three gondolas in my custom paint scheme, that I sold off to a friend back in the 90's. )