Thanks, Karl and Charlie. Right now I'm leaning toward it being an end-user issue, vis-a-vis the tablet. I either need to experiment more or just break out an older but decent-quality digital camera and tinker around a bit. Best Regards,
Thanks, Jim - miles to go but it's slowly taking shape. The blue structure is actually based on a structure from your neck of the woods: it was built off of a photo of "Al's Confectionery" in Old Greeneville, MO that I saw in the Wayne County weekly newspaper 20-some years ago. So, while it's not prototypical for Olathe, it does give the railroad crews a place to go for beans. I'd tried using a bathroom tile mastic for the concrete roads, and was really happy with the results after scribing expansion joints and weathering. I used drywall compound between the tracks after my mastic dried up, and while I've used the drywall mud in the past, the mastic has more concrete-like "tooth" to it. The wood timber crossing was made out of individual scale ties. It's a bit of work but I like the results. I think using one of Blair Lines' crossing kits might be a LOT easier. The so-called trees are what I call "mañana trees," after a John Armstrong quote from Model Railroad Planning in 1995. As in "Maybe after enough mañanas, I'll get around to finishing them." Best Regards,
Trying another photo. This is just north of the location in the previous photo, looking south. Also, a couple of the Olathe depot. Best Regards,
Thanks, gang. If nothing else it shows that I'm attempting to model and not just talking about it. A few things I'm learning: (1) The code 100 flextrack looks exceedingly clunky and out of scale. Gonna try Code 70 next time and give handlaying a try. I'd thought that code 100 would look good enough and would be more forgiving of flaws. It'll do, but when it comes to flaw, it doesn't really matter if one doesn't put down a sturdy enough subroadbed. Lesson learned. (2) The rust color rails were based on what I've photographed and seen myself. In hindsight, I now realize that a grimy/oily black is more appropriate for the steam/journal bearing trucks era. I do like the painted rail better, in any event. (3) Tablet photography is still very much a work-in-progress for me. (4) Even with the slipshod photography, it's always good to help one identify flaws and shortcomings in one's modeling in the constant quest for improvement. I've pretty much decided to operate Olathe as a stand-alone layout for now. I'm still really working toward doing up some version of Clinton/Leaky Roof Line for the next go around. As an aside, did any of you MU or ku guys get to go to the game today in Kansas City? I ended up playing soccer mom today to/from Overland Park, but it was much fun listening to it on the radio. At least in Columbia, it was a very, very hard ticket to come by. Best Regards,
Rail. Rust looks good if you are modeling a branch line or siding. Mainline would look more black on curves because of the curve oilers. Out on straight main line track gunmetal blue, looks like mill scale. Around round houses, service tracks , diesel track should be grimey black. Yard tracks are sometimes the color of the comodities switched into them, white being color in small areas.
More from the Kansas City Sub, in the heart of Johnson County, Kansas. Tried to include the waybill boxes and agent's "desk." Motive power is an IHC object of partial fantasy. It's prototypical in that the Frisco did roster a 2-8-0 #957, ex-StLM&SE that seems to have spent most of its time at Springfield's North Yard (Collias). No physical resemblance otherwise. It'll need some work.
A New Year Layout update from my corner of the KC Subdivision. The operational portion of Olathe is pretty well done. Some remaining buildings and scenery are needed, but I'm not inclined to invest any further time in it for the following reasons: (1) I don't have near enough motive power or rolling stock to simulate traffic c. 1943. As I operate, any traffic other than my extras or locals are all conceptual: they should be there and I pretend they are, but it's not very satisfying. (2) I really like the idea of passenger operations, but through Olathe, the best I think I'd be able to do is run passenger trains N and S more for aesthetics and interference. Strike 2. (3) Strike 3 and beyond: the benchwork is really too wide to be practical. I knew this going in and thought it would be workable. See the photo in the post above: the ATSF mainline is waaaaay back. I also didn't have room - or didn't plan well enough to find room, really - to include the fully wye that leads to the industrial tracks and ATSF interchange. During our operating trials, that really seems to cause problems. I think I've listed other reasons elsewhere why the satisfaction is lacking, but I've reached the conclusion that I need to go smaller. That's a global statement: smaller in terms of traffic density for the locale. Smaller in terms of benchwork width. Smaller in terms of track code: I was grossly mistaken that Code 100 flextrack would be more forgiving of errors and sloppy tracklaying. I've also always wanted to handlay track and am proceeding in that direction, in the hopes that it'll slow me down a bit. I am finding my initial practicing to be quite rewarding and relaxing. Conclusion: there'll soon be a new thread for new layout ideas. Thanks for reading/listening. Best Regards,
I "liked" your post, but I like what you've shown, so I'll be sorry to see it go. Are you sure it's time for the chainsaw? Any chance to save what you've got?
Gary, thanks for the kind words. I'll hopefully elaborate soon on why I am planning on moving on, and why I don't see me saving any of the existing set. That being said, it wont' go away anytime soon. I tend to make modeling progress over eras or epochs, rather than weeks or months. Clinton might very well be a retirement project. Best Regards,
Chris, In your previous comment about laying Code 100 flex track is not less forgiving for errors and sloppy track laying, let alone any flex track in any various codes is misleading. Laying flex track makes it easier but it still takes the time and patience to do the job correctly and neatly. My previous layout was Code 100 and never had any problems with it, I was meticulous about laying it down making sure there where no kinks and it was gauged throughout. There where some derailments not due to faulty track laying, but by the certain rolling stock was cursed. My present layout is Code 83, Why did I change? It looks a lot better, the ties are more pleasant to my eyes. Some of the rolling stock have plastic wheels that came with the modern day rolling stock kits and they work just as good as the replacement metal wheels. You might want to give it some thought before handlaying track. I hand laid some track for the engine service facilities and to the round house lead. My thought during the process was I will die of "old age" before I get this done! It got done but I vowed never to do it again. The old saying is "Don't knock it until you've tried it" I tried it and the story speaks for itself. Best Regards, John
John, thanks very much for the insight. This is the type of feedback and input that I find to be exceedingly valuable, which makes me all the more grateful for this site and its service as a conduit for this type of feedback. At any rate, it is something I've always wanted to try. And I have trouble seeing how it can slow down my modeling efforts any more than they are with using flex track. I do plan on starting with a small "module" of the Clinton depot trackage area. I can build that while leaving my current Olathe intact, and if I decide that it's really not for me, I don't have a lot of resources invested. Best Regards,
