Well, this contest could have gone smoother, but worked out well in the end. A couple of things I learned from this.
Post the consequences of not following the contest parameters,
Get everyone to identify their scale when they submit. I’d say about half did not and obviously, I got one wrong.
Have a standard method of submitting layouts and a method of confirming that I got them so that you know I did. This was perhaps the biggest issue for me as standardizing the submissions took more time than actually getting them up on the site.
Now at least one person wanted to discuss each of the submissions, would that something that would be useful?
I reckon it would. I’m about to head out the door and pilot the crew of the Canberra oil train over to Robbo, but when I get back I’d like to continue the discussion.
One would think most people could figure that out…contest rules. While I have not participated I think I still get the point.
Probably easiest to add this to the rules. No scale identified…disqualified.
I voted on one of these contests once. Since then I have not because “to me” it is a lot of fooling around to vote and I’m just not that motivated to vote on anything. If voting could be simplified I would vote more often. Just my [2c]
I find it interesting none of the top 4 plans got half the votes even when adding up 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. And 15 of the 38 voters had something other than one of the top 4 as their favorite. We seem to be a diverse lot in our preferences.
(Right click and chose “open in new window” in your browser to see linked contents and this post at the same time).
Submitter description: "This plan is based heavily on Model Railroader’s project railroad “The Appalachian Central” which was published in the January and February 2000 issues. I took that plan and increased the minimum radius, double tracked the main, and switched the staging around. I also swapped out some of the industries.
There is no prototype for this layout, but it is based on CSX’s coal operations in the Tennessee/Kentucky U.S.A. area. Modern 6 axel locos are used to haul coal on the mainline, while smaller 4 axel locos are used on the branch line."
Voting results: Overall: 14 points, no 7 out of 16, voted best N-scale by 4 voters
Comments offered during voting:
My own comments - it shares with most island type layouts the disadvantage that you need space around it to operate it, and that space cannot really be used for much else.
I got the impression that I spent more time evaluating the layouts before casting my vote than some of the entrants did on their submissions.
This is a symptom of several things. 1. Not enough voters to get a statistically significant sample across all modelers. I still puzzel about this considering all the people who frequent this forum. Perhaps the comment above has something to do with it. Much easier to just cast 1 vote for 1 layout.
2. Having everything so loosy goosey in the rules makes voting comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. The rules need to be much tighter so it doesn’t take 8 years to evaluate and judge the entries. Something like here is the space available, here is the era, here is the theme, here is the scale - designers provide the concept. Eliminating those variables leaves only one for the author to be creative with and one for judge to consider.
3. The sillyness of some of the posts in both the preliminary, the entry, and the voting drives a lot of people away. I think they write off the whole thing as a silly waste of time.
I didn’t offer more comments because I did not have the time to look up the original so that I could see how much of the design was this authors and how much is from the original.
(Right click link above in your web browser, select “open in new window” if you want to see both layout plan and this post at the same time - does not necessarily work in all browsers)
Submitted description of layout:
I believe that N-scale is superb for Big scenery and long trains. The Altoona and Johnstown is a railfan layout that runs the PRR mainline through Horseshoe Curve.
Visually, there is a single level, but the towns at the base level are 16" below the mountain ridge mainline. With the dual main, and the helices consuming 55 feet of track each, 6 trains can run simultaneously, three in each direction, without looking over-crowded or worry of contact between trains.
Both yards are meant to be staging. The Johnstown American shops can store brand spanking new unit trains without looking out of place. The Altoona Yard can be worked, but as there are few industries, the engine service area and the Johnstown shops, Altoona is de facto staging as well. In Johnstown the PRR mainline divides across the Conamaugh River with the Main to Pittsburgh heading on the west side and the Conamaugh Branch running along the shops and heading north. The bridge across the river to the right is a famous stone arch bridge and should be duplicated.
The layout is set up for the Norfolk Southern, but you can run the Pennsy, Penn Central, or Conrail. If you run the older lines, the Johnstown American Shops would be the Bethlehem Steel Freight Car Division .
The areas without vegetation are meant to be urban areas and both the prototype shop and yard are in urban areas. So these areas, although not drawn should be streets and structures.
The separation between levels is close in some places, but the prototype in the area of Horseshoe cu
I don’t have the 2000 MR, but I had a couple issues with the Appalachian Central. Like Stein said, there were extreme reach issues and in fact a good portion of the layout was virtually hidden. I think that because the walls were not drawn in, this was not readily apparent.
The Altoona and Johnstown was a little bit of a risk for me because I favor operational layouts with lots of action. Moving the Horseshoe Curve to the lower right corner would have allowed me to bring in Gallizan Tunnel and the Junction on the other side. Probably a good move, but then it would have taken center stage and I like the curve in that position. Still, I hurried to get it done and I as I was finishing, saw what TZ pointed out. It was simply too late to play with.
There are many improvements i could have made. It was in essence a first draft and has the flaws of a rushed layout.
Theme is diesel era on a short line sandwiched between two class 1s. This line is similar to the Adrian and Blissfield RR in SE Michigan. The Snover and Port Fuller RR connects two class ones with bridge traffic beween Snover and Port Fuller, about 10 miles apart.
The railroad serves customers on the line with lumber, sand, manufactured goods and other commodities such as grain and fuels. Bridge traffic comes from interchange tracks in Snover with the class 1 RR.
Typical operations would be a yard switcher switching out the interchange from the morning set out and making up the train for Port Fuller and towns along the way. All trailing point sidings will be switched as needed enroute. On the Port Fuller turn the train will exchange cars in the staging yard and prepare for the afternoon trip back to Snover, and again switching all trailing point spurs enroute to Snover.
The Snover Yard job will switch out any industries in Snover as needed. This is a purely point to point layout with no continous run options. Two operators could fit into a session at a time, but not much more than that. All curves are a minimum of 24.5" on the main line. All turnouts at #5 except in Snover Yard where indicated where #6 TOs are present.
Voting result: Overall 46 points (no 3 out of 16), but was withdrawn by submitter because layout accidentally had been made oversize (12x12 instead of 10x12), due to a misunderstanding. Also - layout was incorrectly labelled an N scale layout by Chip, but was really a H0 scale layout.
Some of the comments offered during voting:
[quote user=“Texas Zepher”]
Snover & Port Fuller - DQ for being too large HOWEVER, it certainly looks like this is HO scale. The turnouts
Stein, I’m with you 100% on that. I liked the actual track arrangement of this layout. I wonder how well it would work if it was redesigned as an around-the-walls/shelf layout?
I thought this entry maintained a good balance between track/structures and scenery. Although many N-scalers tout the idea of trains “overwhelmed by the landscape” as a virtue of their scale, not all that many seem to practice what they preach.
I think this one has some potential, but at the same time it’s the one I’d personally make the most changes to. It’s a layout that would appeal more to an operator than a modelbuilder like me, so perhaps I’m not the best one to offer a critique?
It would seem to the Old Mutt that a helix is NOT a critter that one would want to bury in the back corner of the room where it is difficult reach when problems occur.
With a 20" radius, it would be difficult to crawl under the layout, then stand up inside the helix , and have much room to work. That’s assuming the framing is to the outside of the helix.
If the framing is inside the helix, there is very limited aisle space around the helix.
First, the Dog must point out that this layout includes area where there may be access problems.Some of the track appears to be five or six feet from the aisle.
Second, perhaps this layout tries to do too much, just having one station, say Corry might give better results.
Third, and more important (to the Old Dog), this layout leads to a basic question. If one models a real town on a real railroad, how close to the prototype should one attempt to get. The Dog has seen layouts where one can recognize the building in the town. Consider Chip’s Indiana Branch project.
The first point in regard to Corry, is it was and is a two railroad town. The Erie and Pennsy ROW’s cut through the center of town side by side. In fact, they cross at grade at MS Tower east of town.
The second point in regard to the Pennsy, is that there are two lines, the Chautauqua Branch merges with the P and E west of town, then splits off again west of the Union passenger station (1923). It would appear that any Chautauqua Branch passenger train would have ahd to back in or out of the station.
An additional item would be the selection of era. By moving back to say 1920, the Climax Locomotive Company could be added to the mix. A geared engine company should be a interesting industry.
Overall a very nice compact layout, at first I was concerned that as depicted there didn’t appear to be enough walk around space for the layout. This was due to the fact that the layout is depicted independent of the actual room making it confusing to look at. I was confusing the sheet edge with the room edge, but after reading the description I determined it was small enough to fit in the center of the room with walkaround space on each side.
As for the track plan it has a nice combination of yard and mainline, the dividers break the layout into three distinct areas, though I personally would have modeled the staging area as a detailed urban rail yard.
If I had one caveat, it’s that given the space available, I would have preferred to stretch the layout along the three available walls as I personally dislike having to walk around a layout placed in the middle of a room, plus it effectively eliminates any other uses or activities inside the room.
Altoona & Johnstown
This is the N layout I voted for, I really like the idea of really long trains around a historical place. I guess it would be like doing the Tehachapi loop for us westerners. The layout still includes some yards and industry for operations although N rarely lends itself well to operations IMHO. It’s the scope of this layout that wins.
Snover & Port Fuller
Another very nice track plan, and point to point to boot. Its an operations layout, but I feel it would lend itself better to HO rather than N, plus the fact that its 12’ x 12’ and not the 10’ x 12’ posted in the rules.
