Being a Logging fan has anyone been following along with the On3 Hangman Creek Lumber layout ?? There's plenty of info on the 2012 Narrow Gauge Convention site.....under layout's and Video's on Y-tube. Id post a link if i knew how :(
It was in the Gazette. What they've done looks pretty good but it's essentially a caricature of the Australian Muskrat Ramble layout; another example of how so many model railroaders copy rather than create. -- Russ
muskrat rambling is heaps better.
i have never heard of this' hangman' logging model-it looks like at lot of others with big trestle.
regards kim
I cannot agree this layout is a caricature of the Muskrat layout but a layout on is own right, maybe an development of current and past logging layouts but has no link to Muskrat, or tries to. I view Muskrat as being a caricature to some degree of an enviroment, some of the detail lacks fine realistic execution as often shown on this Forum.
It has no swamp or fishing village, and is not set on the flat without many trees. It stands by its name Hangman Logging and the builders can be commended on their result. There can always be improvement but it is a layout that depicts a logging enviroment.
Les
http://www.narrowgaugebuilder.com/home
This layout is influenced heavily by "Red Stag", not "Muskrat Ramble" (same general crew of Aussie modellers though)...the builders of Hangmans Creek even state in their introduction how the Red Stag inspired this project (as I'm sure it has for many attemts at logging layouts). I like what they have done with this piece, in the way that they have kept it fairly simple and open, and allowed some length to the runs (in a similar way to the feel of Jacq's logging layout). It has some nice scenes, and I enjoyed the overall colouring they have achieved with the trees and ground work. It will be very well received and admired at the Seattle NGC, and no doubt be compared heavily to the former Red Stag. Same same, but different.
I can certainly appreciate the journey they have travelled with the construction of this layout.
Cheers,
Dan
Sorry...was thinking of trying to write something constructive, and insightful, but the whole idea went to pot when I saw the pic of the lame crossing bridges/trestles, and the complete misunderstnding of what type of log loaders operated where (in what kind of forest/region).....I can overlook and/or appreciate a lot of charicature and improvisation but lame, overused, "tricky" bridge scenes and a complete lack of understanding of logging equipment and practice (if your modelling a logging scene), is to me inexcuseable.
So basically its just another toy choo-choo layout. Snooze.
Well, the photos on the website definitely look a lot better than what was in the Gazette. It's also interesting to see people working on the layout, gives a good idea of the size -- everything is a lot bigger than I was picturing it in my head. (I'm too used to seeing HO layouts.)
Sorry for confusing the names of two Australian layouts (same builders notwithstanding). Not sorry for being unexcited about the American layout in question, despite its positive aspects. (Is it possible to admire execution more than concept and consider the latter hackneyed?) Marc and I seem to coincide on many of these evaluations.
Maybe we've been around too long and have become jaded.
On the other hand, maybe we have become sophisticated enough to understand fully what we're looking at. I consider Jacq's layout to be in an entirely different league in both concept and execution.
But, after all, we're all just tossing around opinions and ideas. The evaluation of art always is subject to individual perception.
Russ
Oh cr*p...there's a tunnel too!...of course, what choo-choo operation would be complete without a tunnel (especially sad since I know of only one logging operation that ever had a tunnel on it's line)
...and of course....it has the obligatory wharf/waterfront and town.
*sigh*
It will please the visitors, but not my piece of cake.
Jacq