Hediger's Ohio Southern in August MR

Did anyone notice that Jim Hediger's Ohio Southern has never been fully scenicked? I have always thought his OS was an interesting road operationally... but I could not recall any town names or spectacular scenic effects that stood out in my mind. Was Hediger's the first practical application of John Armstrong's double-decker-plus-helic design? I was expecting an update in scenery, locomotives, something. Instead, I just saw more of the same railroad I saw in 1987 (I think that was the last time MR ran an article on the OS). That was the impression I got from the August issue of MR. What did you all think?

i have to agree, he didn't have to many scenery things in there, but its a big layout. then again he had 25 years to do it. the area of track on the cover looks like it was worked on, but its ok. besides its a big layout, and he may not have had any recent oppertunites to get down there. and think of all the money you would need for that layout. i could see it takeign a long tiem especialy if he only works on it when he has spare time and money. i think he just likes operateing the trains in the end though. he probably wasn't going for the ultra realistic scenes, rather than putting hopper 1 from point a to b.

there also weren't many pictures of the upper deck which may have been more finished.

however i finaly figured out why the building kits i was looking for were always sold out, they are all on his layout, i recognize the parts!

I agree, I was kind of expecting more. It seems his forte is on operation vs. scenery. But that's not a bad thing. My N-scale layout is over 10 years old and only half of it is complete with scenery. The other half is ballasted track running on bare wood with roads, towns, etc. just penciled in. I just figured that a layout from an editor of MR would be more complete looking than it is.

In the end its all about running the trains.

I figure a layout like that is not a one-man operation. I'm assisting in the construction of a large layout over here, and it's certainly a team effort. Is no one on Hediger's team a scenery guru? Now I know why we dont see many photos of OS action. It's too bad, because it seems like there is a lot of potential there!

-otto-

My complaint with that article (and several others in recent issues) is that the lighting and shadows in the photos look too harsh, making them seem like amateurish snapshots with flash. It's the same way with Tony Koester's "Claremont & Concord" project layout, where there just seems to be too much dark space in the photos. Maybe it's just a result of the lighting conditions in their layout spaces, but the pictures really aren't as nice to look at as you'd expect. Also, the fact that the Ohio Southern's track is totally unpainted adds to the amateur appearance. Sorry, but real railroads didn't lay shiny nickel-silver rails on black plastic ties!

Anyway, yeah, I definitely had the immediate impression that Jim Hediger's focus was on perfecting the double-deck arrangement and operation schemes, rather than finishing out the scenery. This isn't the first time I've been disappointed with his work, though - the Amtrak F40PHs that he built and decorated in 1988 were pretty bad, due mainly to some ignorance and major assumptions about the underbody arrangement. Granted, Amtrak is my main interest, but if I were an editor with the leading model railroad magazine, I'd be sure to do my research very carefully before writing an article on detailing a freight locomotive!

The one feature of the OS that stands out in my mind is the huge Huron Steel complex. It's not shown in this article, but a few years back he described how he built some of the huge mill buildings. It was fairly impressive to see scratchbuilt styrene structures in such a large size, so I give him credit for his abilities there. But considering that Eric Brooman can totally demolish his fantastic Utah Belt layout, yet have complete-looking scenery for a trackplan almost the size of the Ohio Southern just 4 years later, I'd say Jim has some catching up to do where scenery is concerned!

He mentioned in the article that about 10 years ago he decided to go with a "just good enough" approach. I interpreted that to mean operationally complete with minimal or no scenery nor superdetailing.

Calling it "good enough" hardly stretches enough to overcome things like failing to insert ties where the pieces of flex track meet.

snowplough

To each his own- Hediger decided a long time ago to concentrate and excel in the areas he enjoys- such as operations. I think so many of us expect a model railroad to be a complete package- just, it should RUN as well as it LOOKS... but what if it only RUNS? (or, like so many of my layouts in the past, only good to LOOK at?). I remember Sam Posey's Colorado Midland in Model Railroader- thought it looked great. I assumed it ran as well as it looked. Had the chance to visit in real life- still an awesome model- but when you take a hard look at the layout, you realize it's a display piece, and not an operator's layout (very few functional customer sidings, or yards) [and the same could be said for the Franklin & South Manchester- all chrome, no zoom]. Does that diminish either project? Who knows. I do know that when Model Railroader spends a lifetime pumping spectacular model photography into our, I expect a *little* bit more from one of its editors when they showcase his layout....

-otto-

I thought the same thing when I first looked at it, but after you read the article you'll see that sometime in the early 1990's he had to tear out part of it. He also admits that the scenery is not complete and is a long way off.

My dad and I have been working on a layout since 1998 - 1999 and we only have one corner of scenery complete, the rest is the Plywood Pacific (Rather then the Canadian Pacific). Like said every one has things they focus on, my dad puts most of his modeling time working on kitbashing projects, myself? Yaping about what we should do next.. and weathering.

-Justin

Personally, I was glad to see MR feature a layout that didn't have completed scenery. After all, how many of us do? Truth of the matter is that most layouts featured in model railroad magazines only show the areas that are completely scenicked anyway. I say good on MR for being willing to show a layout that looks like most of the ones we own--even if the OS is bigger than most.

The OS inspired me to build my own double-deck layout. I didn't use Jim's methods, but it helped guide me. I was glad to see it again.

John Longhurst, Winnipeg
Visit the CP Rail Manitoba & Minnesota Sub. at http://members.shaw.ca/Longhurst4

I was delighted to see the article. It was like visiting an old friend and getting a run down on what he had been doing.

'Sorry 'bout your luck' in seeing a missing tie. I saw a railroad that met the builders ideas AND I never visited a layout that I didn't find something there that I liked. I guess it's all in what you're looking for.

I was actually excited to see a story on the OS- I too felt like it was an old friend that we only hear from every few years.

Good grief- I just read in this month's RMC that Hediger's wife passed away in July at the start of the NMRA national in Cincinnati.

-otto-

A couple of years back, in Great Model Railroads (or was it the planning issue) they featured Barrow's domino layout. All code 100 flex track nailed directly to plywood. He called it a "minimalist" approach. Thing is, the more I studied the track plan the more operationally interesting it became. I think it is the same way with the Ohio Southern. I could have hours of fun just switching the Huron Junction steel plant.

What makes the layout great is not the double decking. It is the combination of what is best about shelf switching layouts and mainline operations. The Washington Court House, Jeffersonville, Shaon and Huron Junction areas have enough operational integrity to be a stand alone layout in their own right. I've seen larger layouts but only a handful have the operational interest of the Ohio Southern. This is why it has lasted so long without all the scenery.

First, I not a fan of multi-level layouts, but in defense of Hedger's lack of scenery on his layout, I have found by experience, that a highly detailed and scenic layout is very difficult to operate efficiently if you have to constantly work around and/over scenery. If a layout is run anywhere near prototypically, using basic and unobtrusive scenery is virtually a must and during operating sessions, will not even be missed by the operators. I've run my 24'X25' "Plywood & Homosote" layout with VERY minimal scenery for 10+ years and the operators enjoy operating in the stark environment.
I guess to each his own, someday maybe I'll finish the scenery--or-- maybe I'll just leave the unbuilt building kits on the layout where each industry belongs!! Model RRing IS fun!!....Jerry.

From what I see, Jim has taken the OS from paper to reality. His ideas are certainly different then mine or yours, but that is what makes this hobby fun.
Never having been one that followed the OS, I found it interesting in what he considered close enough. Seeing the OS for the first time was interesting.
I guess it shows you how much can change in layout building over 20 years.