"I've seen that. I suspect some of your YECish don't like it because there are then no mountains for the rising flood to cover, which makes it un-literal. That's obviously not my objection, so I'll mention it only in passing."
As a nitpick, you are confusing literalism (and actually, literalism isn't really the correct term either) with inerrantism. I am not a strict inerrantist -- I wouldn't view a few mountains here and there not being covered by the flood as surprising. However, I don't think that they existed, at least to the heights they are now.
"If you're using a Walt Brown-type model for post-flood continental drift, the energies involved would have melted the crust. Even at lesser speeds, the catastrophes involved would have merited as much ink in Genesis as the flood itself rather than being unmentioned.
Clearly, nothing like that ever happened."
What is clear to me is that we don't have all the knowledge needed to construct a complete model. That's not really surprising, nor does it cause the model to fail in light of the confirming field evidence and the nearly universal historical evidence.
It's more like you don't have the knowledge to construct a remotely plausible model. However, if it's any consolation, there's no reason to think that such should be possible at any level of knowledge.
Every YEC model I've ever seen ignores away features of the real world which are better answered by a straightforward Occam's Razor approach. That is, the world looks old because IT IS old, we don't see the sediments of a world-wide flood because there WASN'T one, and we find evidence for common descent of organisms because common descent IS the nature of the relationship.