I’ve
written critiques of many things over the years; meetings, courses,
speakers, even model railroads, but never one where the subject of the
critique was something that I had done myself. I was concerned that I
might have problems being objective, but it was suggested that not only
would I be able to extoll the virtues of my handiwork, but to also
point out some things that I would do differently were I to build it
again – things that might not be evident to the casual visitor. So
viewing it from that perspective, what would I keep and what would I
change?
I
would definitely keep the original concept. When I started the
Berkshire Air Line in the 1970’s I had a good idea of what I wanted; a
rural New England railroad utilizing mostly New Haven and Boston and
Maine equipment with the emphasis on the surroundings - more fields,
trees, hills, buildings, animals, and people, and less railroad (i. e.
filling the space with as much track as could be accommodated), and the
biggest problem, the one thing I was unable to change at the time, was
the space. A 30 foot long room seemed (and is) more than adequate, but
the 12 foot width proved problematic for someone who wanted a minimum
main line radius of 30” for running full length passenger
cars,
large steam locomotives, and multiple unit diesels hauling long trains,
but with walk-in access (no duck-under). To do that, I had to build it
on the long walls instead of my initial plan of running back and forth
across the room. But I still kept the concept of a bridge route between
the NH and the B&M that interchanged with the B&A/NYC
and the
Central Vermont. I grew up on the New Haven, and to see those I class
Pacific’s, Alco DL109’s, PA’s, and RS-3’s, Osgood Bradley “American
Flyer” coaches, even the Comet, all running again, if only in HO scale,
reminds me of a time long past because the New Haven, always pressed
for funds, scrapped everything.
One
of the bigger things that I would change would be to make one of my
grades more gradual than the other. I have some steam locomotives that
can’t pull trains up the hills because the two equal gradients are too
steep for them. Another big change is that I would build it as a two
level railroad. A peninsula down the center of the room wouldn’t have
been wide enough for my 30” main line radius. Two levels would have
given me more main line running and switching opportunities for
operating sessions which are so popular now days, and space for more
staging tracks; none of those are really practical right now. I would
also minimize the amount of hidden trackage because I’ve learned from
personal experience that if you’re going to have problems they will
almost always occur in areas where you can’t get there from here. Nor
would I hand lay track today; the commercial varieties are much more
realistic than when I built my layout, but mine has held up quite well
considering its age. Additionally, I realized that my original five
T-12 light fixtures were no longer adequate so I installed five
additional T-8 light fixtures that increased the brightness of room
substantially and contributed to the high quality of the photos that
were taken that day and are now on the division web site. My next
“improvement” will be to get some thick carpeting or those large sponge
pads to stand on for those of us with back problems. Finally, I would
keep the space under the bench work clear of “stuff” as Frank Benenati
and others have done; it just looks better that way, even though my
seamstress daughter did an outstanding job of making the skirting to
cover it.
A
Potomac Division member once suggested to me that many of my problems
with the BAL are because it’s my first railroad. He’s right, of course,
since I never built a second railroad where I could have corrected
them, but the thought of re-building it at this point in my life (or
hiring someone to re-build it) is not appealing to me at all, so it
will stay pretty much as it is, at least for the foreseeable future,
warts and all.
