Seeing as you insist on quoting me again
, i'm going to put the full passage of text you are referring to here....
My honest opinion is this. As it is, it leaves me uninterested, but not enough not to comment.
I like small layouts and I like the process of building them and seeing pics of them..but only when they are highly detailed and with a high level of finish/skill or modelling ability.
I've seen another 3 of your layouts and again being honest they leave me cold. I know they have been well received by shows and the modelling press, in the case of your pier layout, but to me they fall short.
For this layout to work I would hope to see scenic detailing that can surpass previous work. For me the pier layout had a few flaws, I didn't like the use of hornby piers, they were spaced too far apart, had no interconnecting braces and were not convincing as gnarly old sea pier supports.
The tram layout's scenics were too simple, they did not convince me they were real. it felt too clinical and tidy for the real world.
The pier layout, tram terminus and the US shed layout lacked any operational interest, now I know that may not be the point and you certainly had a very commendable reason for the shed scene. However, as someone who, as well as being a modeller, goes to exhibitions as a DWK [dad with kids] your 3 previous layouts would have been walked past, i want to see trains moving.
Another point would be weathering, the US shed scene had none, the colours were garish and unrealistic. It felt like a collection of items glued to a piece of wood. Please I hope I am not offending you in terms of this being part of your recuperation, as i said I admire that, but in terms of this being a public model displayed at a show, I cannot understand how a little painting would not be possible as part of the healing process for your arm and thus making the model more realistic.
Finally, the positives so far with this plan.. LOL for me it's points!! I am pleased to see that you have a greater operational potential, but as I have said already, when it is limited, for me it needs to be backed up by some proficient modelling, at this size that means scratch building, weathering, realistic scenics and some sort of interesting scene to capture the mind/eye/heart
I hope you can appreciate my comments are from a constructive position and not a critical angle, I hope to see you be able to develope a potentially interesting and original idea into a high quality small layout
you are clearly upset by certain words I used and for that I am sorry, as it seems to have distracted you from some simple observations and you are now misleading people as to what was said. And they are just my observations. I'm nothing special or anything of the sort, but if you post on forums what you are doing you can only expect a certain amount of feedback. I took time to comment; not that I thought your layouts were crap, [your word] but that there were certain things that stopped them from being of the highest quality. This was a post completely unrelated to any other forum or comment you may have recieved about your inglenook plan and I feel you have jumped on my post as some sort of conspiracy to belittle you. I owned my feelings about you layouts as being my reaction to them. I did not project that onto your work as being crap or rubbish. Modelling is subjective and my experience was merely proffered so as that you might think,;might think, hmm, thats a fair point, maybe I can do better.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and unfortunately I was wrong to think a few suggestions and personal observations about your layouts would be helpful to you.