WHY???

There is an old comedy routine called "Why Do I wear Sneakers". The routine is obscure, at best, and I doubt if anyone would recognize the comedian's name even if I could remember it. He splits the question into two parts. Suffice to say he goes on for fifteen minutes on the question of "Why?" through the ages. The punch line is "Do I wear sneakers?"..."Of course" he replies and holds up his footwear.

Having said that, let me just comment that this has nothing whatsoever to do with this article.

In another section of this website, there is an article on why virtual modeling is my favored aspect of model railroading. I spend a paragraph or two "dissing" analog modeling (the real three dimensional stuff). You'll notice this attitude in several other areas of the site, especially Milepost 15, where I tend to rant against the current state of analog model railroading.

Which brings us to Why? again.

Why would I choose to return to analog modeling at all? I wish there was a straightforward answer to that question. I'm afraid there isn't. Perhaps the primary excuse would be simply because I wish to to do so. I've found that in a great many endeavors, at least the ones that aren't a question of survival, that's why we do anything. You can explain all day your motivations for buying a Ford, but the bottom line is because you wanted one. Since it doesn't ultimately affect you or your family's welfare to any great degree, you have a real choice in the matter. You like Ford's so you bought one.

How's that for philosophic insight?

In that vein I guess I did the same thing. I got a hankerin' to do some analog modeling. As I mention elsewhere I took a shot at 1:64th (S scale) scale models and found it quite interesting and enjoyable. When it comes to actually building a layout, however, it has limitations. I am interested in Class 1 railroading. Modeling Class 1 operations can take a good bit of space in any scale. In 1:64th I'd be hard pressed to model a section of a small town. There would be no space for realistic curves unless I circumnavigate the garage and cause other problems for myself. 1:87 (HO scale) isn't much different. A larger scale like 1:48th (O scale) or bigger is definitely out of the question. 1:220 (Z scale) allows you to put a lot of railroading in any space, especially half of a two car garage. In Z scale the Pennsylvania's Horse Shoe Curve is about 5 feet across. While an installation such as Altoona still can not be modeled full size in 1:220 whatever took it's place could certainly be spectacular.

The problem with our hobby in general  (here comes a rant) is that everything is quite expensive.  This is especially true in Z scale. I have definite problems with justifying spending several hundred dollars on HO scale steam (or even some diesel) engines. The idea of spending an equal amount on something as miniscule as a Z scale steamer will not enter my consciousness. Modeling a significant chunk of Pennsylvania real estate in 1:220th is quite a costly undertaking. What's more there are very few ways, in my mind at least, of saving real money. I'm pretty sure hand laying Z scale track is outside my skillset. So is scratchbuilding in such a small scale. I have trouble seeing full size objects thru these bifocals. There also doesn't seem to be any second hand equipment available at "reasonable" cost. Everything is a collectors item and "very dear" as my parent's used to say.

So I want to model the Pennsy and it's fight against the mountains of central Pennsylvania. I need a compromise. Something that's relatively inexpensive, doesn't require a bunch of space, and something I can actually work with. The lot fell with 1:160th (N scale). I have been able to buy lots of equipment second hand and "cheap". It enables me to model Class 1 in half the garage. I can model Horse Shoe half size (still pretty spectacular at five feet across). My version of Altoona, while VERY compressed, will still be a fair representation of a small town. The layout will be large enough to operate 50 car trains which, while somewhat short in the real world, look realistic enough in N scale. Better yet, such a train actually requires a four unit diesel to move it about. A very realistic way to operate over the mountains.

If there is one serious drawback to all this, it's the fact that grades are actual challenges to operation. While that could be considered a benefit, having the trains actually "battle the hill" as it were, it's also possible the trains will NOT be able to climb the hill at all. I've noticed during tests that even a slight rise in elevation with 50 cars in tow can be real work. What will happen when the layout goes to multi-level? I know it can be done, there are photos in the magazines to prove it. I think it takes a great deal of careful tuning of engines, cars, wheel sets and track to pull it off.

I guess we'll find out.