http://frankoburns.proboards.com/index.cgi...amp;thread=7480 . The post by rgs87 is the one. Starts off by saying it is good for the price, then tears into it. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, just thought you might like to see this one.

You have to be a registered member before you can read on that forum.

For those of you that do not belong to the forum, if you're interested in what was being discussed, below you'll find the post in question and my reply:

>>>

"It is a good route for the cost, the equipment is great. However the route has many flaws. Many places along the rout. there should be a river right next to you, and low and be ho there is not. Many of the depots are wrong and almost all of them are the same with a different town name on them. The bridge at Beaver, Arkansas has a wood truss approach, that is right. Now it has a slight curve to is, but not as dramatic as the one in the route. I would give the creator a C+ in a basic grading scale. The trains are in the B, B- range, but it is better to have it then not at all. I am more into the last years of running so I am rebuilding the route to fit 1955-1962-the total end and running branch line power as seen in that year. I work on it in my free time so when I get a chance I will put a few photos up here with the modified version of the Missouri and Arkansas (the last owners in freight business) Railway. thanks for reading and happy holidays."

>>>

And, here is a copy of my reply:

>>>>

Hello:

I am Andre Ming, creator of the St.LNA route.

rgs87 brings up some valid points.

My data during the time of creating this route (2004, as I recall) was scant at best.

Essentially, I had one North Arkansas book. Undaunted, and long an admirer of the M&NA, I thought it would be challenging fun to create something that had not been done before in MSTS: A commercial steam route, based in 1903, no less.

Given the sparce data I had at the time, a relaxed approach was taken in the creation of the StLNA. In addition, I took a few liberties and "enhanced" some of the tracks/industries at towns to afford better "play value" for the customer/end user/player. (Frankly, I have learned since the creation of the StLNA route, that the prototype St.LNA was somewhat boring, operationally, with very little or no industry to switch at the simplistic towns.)

As for the supplied freeware equipment, those were used by permission from their creator, John Fowlis. John was very gracious to allow me to repaint and share his work with other enthusiasts for free. Later, a bit more engine data surfaced, and a more accurate commercial equipment pack was commissioned and created by Jon Davis.

Obviously, MSTS has come a looong way since the little StLNA was created and released.

In the many years since the release of the StLNA, my North Arkansas data base has grown by leaps and bounds by virtue of the internet. Along the way I learned of many inaccuracies (where I thought I had been accurate) of my original effort on the StLNA. Of such is progress and continued expanding of a data base and knowledge thereof.

That said, at $18.95, the route offers something like 35 miles of mainline, over 40 hours of play value in activities alone, as well as some of the best steam sounds available to date.

Thus, the little StLNA is still available to anyone that would like a very inexpensive way to try their hand at a steam powered route with "point and click" minimal effort expended.

Lastly, it is great news that rgs87 is going to significantly upgrade the route and bring it up to today's standards. I look forward to seeing his results.

Sincerely,

Andre Ming
V Scale Creations
http://www.vscalecreations.com

>>>

Now, having said all of the above, let me comment further on some North Arkansas items that you may, or may not, find interesting:

It is absolutely true that the North Arkansas has been one of my very favorite roads for a long time. (Since the mid-seventies?) In fact, after releasing the StLNA, and as my data base increased (maps, photos, additional books, etc, etc), I SERIOUSLY thought of creating the entire section of the St.LNA from Seligman to Harrison (prior to the trackage agreements that put them into Joplin/Neosho.) As I enthusiasticlly laid the track to match the prototype as closely as practical, ever so slowly something begin to dawn on me: A favorite railroad doesn't necessarily make a great subject to convert into MSTS.

Like I said up above: There was VERY LITTLE to do on the prototype, and likewise the MSTS version. I was putting out all this work to lay track, and later to create the needed towns, and when completed there would be PRECIOUS LITTLE to actually "do" once finished and operational. (The prototype did, after all, suffer from lack of business.)

The sparse operational interest disheartened me to the point the entire project was scrapped and I went looking for something else to keep me occuppied.

As for what was accomplished: The rails are in place from Seligman all the way to Harrison. Harrison Yard and shop tracks are probably about 80% complete. Still needed was to pull/relay Eureka Springs, Berryville, and relocate the mainline to the prototypical alignment between Seligman and Pender. Plus, there were other odds and ends still to be done. However, the expanded route is archived, and I doubt I'll ever try to further it. Too much work for so little "play value" in return.

So, NOW you know... the REST of the story! Good DAY!!!

You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but........

StL&NA, and it's later counterpart the A&O Sub, has probably been used to represent more branchline railroads - other than those two! - than any other routes developed to date. Both freelance operations and prototype have run here. I know of several persons who use the route to represent Santa Fe branch lines. I know of at least one who uses it to represent the "out on the island" portions of the Long Island RR. I myself have used the A&O to represent the northern half of the Ma & Pa.

Bottom line, it is good basic railroad with all the trimmings. It is fun to run as originally intended and useful for other projects. I love it!

I like what Herb said about using these 2 routes to represent other roads...The A&O just screams FRISCO at me sometimes....I thought about admonishing that individual for what I thought was a bit of overbearing criticism of the St.L & NA, but Andre chimed in and took care of it quite effectively. I own both of these routes and am quite happy with both of them. Sometimes I forget that there are folks out there who want to try and "rivet count"...most times that is too bad, because as in the case of the above mentioned routes, they will miss all of the fun of running them.

One complaint caught my eye, was that all of the depots were the same.

Well many (most?) railroads built structures to a standard set of plans. So unless you have zero photos of each structure (and the route I dream of building one day has zero photos of anything), it's safe to use a "standard plan" to put the structures in. Because depending on the railroad, you have a high chance of getting it right with the standard.

Thanks for the voices of support. It is very much appreciated.

He DID have some valid points. After all, my knowledge base/data base grew by leaps and bounds AFTER the StLNA was released. Oh well.

The depot statement was a bit of a puzzle. Offhand, I recall four different depot models:

Seligman
Eureka Springs
Freeman
Beaver

I only recall the following additional towns w/depots:

Berryville
Pender
Walden
Grandview

The smallest depot was used 4 times, so that must have been what he was in reference to. Three of the locations had no photographic evidence to go by... so I used the small "standard" depot.

Right you are Spin about there being "standard" depot blueprints, the North Arkansas being one of the roads that used such. Again though, it was a case of NOT KNOWING what some of the depots looked like at some of the obscure towns along the way. Sooo... I used clones of KNOWN North Arkansas depots.

Ah well... no biggie!

Andre, I thought that your reply was brilliant, and very polite! A gentle nudge in the ribs (the route was done in 2004 - 5 years is a looong time in the MSTS world) followed by a challenge.

That route, and its sequel, is among my all-time favourites - great fun to run, but it can also be challenging. Long may trains run on it!!

And as I do not live in North America, I do not mind how close, or not, it is to being prototypically correct. :>)

That's what cool about VScale proto-lancing: For those of us who don't know every nook and holler, it''s as good as it gets! However, I have seen routes that were close to home. It is easy to be disappointed when one carries a certain image in one's mind of "how it was."

Andre, you were gracious in your reply.

Apologies for digging this thread up after a few months break. If that's frowned upon, please say so and I'll refrain from doing so again.

Andre, you really are an incredibly kind and restrained person. Your reply was a model of positive and helpful explanation when I can imagine so many others would have allowed their frustration to show in their reply.

It is my own (somewhat bitter) experience that it's often the case that a routebuilder's harshest critics are the local people - those who know the area, worked on the line or run it today in preservation. Some are not of course and applaud you for adding details they recognize but who is to know what drives some people to go into internet-print in a critical way so publicly and for what purpose. Such a comment as this persons doesn't add anything helpful, he points out errors yet doesn't offer advice to correct them. Yes, some depots were duplicated but did he stop and pause to think why the route builder did that? If he had he may have been able to answer his own question, and if he had data on the duplicated depots that were incorrect did he offer it to the route builder so as to make the product better (via an upgrade?).

And yes, its been a practice of companies since forever to standardise. My own small British rural branchline route based on a prototype built in 1880 had four stations on it - the small buildings were identical (other than signboards) for three of them while the fourth used the same basic building but lengthened it at one end with an extra bay and with an added awning on the platform side. Lacking any photo or plan evidence the only sensible way to do this is to use a "standard" structure. What is the alternative? Make up different ones without any evidential basis for doing so and possibly waste effort when the correct data comes to light?

I understand your thoughts on the 'best' way to get data on a route: release it, then sit back and wait for the data to pour in from the community or elsewhere on the web. Why one is unable to find this data before one does all that work is one of those strange puzzles that always repeats.

Sometimes people do post comments for unknowable reasons and apparently with only negative intention. Your response Andre was perfect and did not insult or belittle the person raising the queries but allowed him to withdraw from the conversation without being insulted or, if he chose, to come forwards with helpful information himself.