Basically just sound it out…
suss (sounds like fuss), kwee (wee with a k), hanna (just like banana but with out the bana and with an H). Lived within 25 minutes of that river all my life…
Thanks for taking the time to analyze the entries and post your coments, TZ
As you say , the Rice influence is fairly obvious. As I was saying to Stein in our PMs, I’d just finished reading a book of his, with the rather long-winded title of “An approach to model railway layout design; Finescale in small spaces”, published in the UK by Wild Swan. Also, I was lucky enough to see his layouts “Butley Mills” and "Woolverstone’ at exhibitions in the UK some years back - they had a profound effect on my thinking about every aspect of layout design. As did having a yarn with him and his mate Bob Barlow at Scaleforum. I rate Rice, Barlow and a few others of their ilk as the leading thinkers in the hobby today, at least as its practiced in the UK and Australia.
But I’m not sure I understand your comments about “curvy” sidings and house tracks being “non-North American”. I’ve seen plenty of both on railroads there. Are you referring to North American model railroad practices?
I agree, Hinaga is an interesting location, but I can’t take any credit for its design - I simply copied what was there before the line was closed beyond Nishi-Hino. These days the branch platform is just a single track, the loop has been removed. (Which is a pity, because it was not uncommon to see four trains at once there…great fun!)
I think if I were to build this layout I probaly would not have the track and benchwork curves so closely aligned, but I didn’t want to spend too much time on the drawing, in case I missed the deadline. And as Chip will confirm, I almost did!
As I said, I’m glad you took the time to think about the designs and offer your comments. I’m looking forward to the discussion after the competition closes. I think we’ll all learn something. [:)]
All the best,
Mark.
[8D]
Chip
Your contest is cool,BUT have you ever throught about a contest where you are given an area that is allready scenic and has hills mountains ECT,ECT then servay an railroad and build it???Like the real thing? We all have built layouts and then add the suroundings.
This might be a chlange??
JIM[:)]
He’s tapping his foot…that scares me [:O]
Wonder what kind of music he’s listening to?
Rap?
Hip Hop?
Lawrence Welk?
It’s quite obvious,… it’s a polka band! [{(-_-)}]
All the entries were excellent, but if I have to pick…
n-scale: Snover & Plover
HO: Buffalo& Susquehanna
Overall:
Snover & Plover
Buffalo& Susquehanna
Kintetsu Utsube Line
I felt the Snover & Plover gave a nice balance of scenery opportunities plus staging.
Buffalo & Susquehanna only lacked more of a sense of distance between destinations but otherwise excellent and included staging.
Kitetsu and Utsube was beautifully drawn and a lot of fun to look at, it just didnt have the the same operating potential the other two did, at least to my taste.
I liked the progressive rail plan too… but felt that it needed better interchange with the mainline to really realize the operating potential. The Appalachian Central was a very nice modification of the original.
My choices all met my preference for walk-in design and good operating potential. I also tend to prefer stuff that is not multi-level and doesn’t double back on itself.
Chris
He’s listening to lumberjack music (logger rythms).
I think this thread has lost its focus and the recent posts are discouraging rather than encouraging others from participating in the voting. hmmm maybe it needs some hampster pictures to attract attention.
We could be bumping it with further comments on the actual entries themselves.
TZ:
Very well. </silly hat>
I think it’s great that these layouts were all so different. This happened last time, too, and it was a surprise both times. I expected more overlap.
They’re all pretty good, too. I’d say I could have a blast running 3/4 of the entries if they suddenly appeared in my 10 x 12 spare room with one door on the left end of one long side. I even think the S & PF could be fit in if the curves and track centers were tightened up. The plan submitted has reasonable HO figures for these dimensions. I feel a bit bad for shortchanging the S & PF in voting; it’s a good railroad, but I would have liked it a little better if it could be run continuously, somehow. (Of course, PR and K-U couldn’t, but…)
The K-U probably got an unfair advantage for the stylin’ art, but it’s also really unusual in being slanted toward passenger trains. It’s pretty much an interurban, with some trolley thrown in, as far as I can tell. To properly run the K-U, you’d need dense, scheduled traffic, and lots of meets. I’d love to see a backdated version, run with small Forneys or other steam tanks. You could remotor and add trailing trucks to some Lifelike Teakettles and come close for cheap.
Regarding the K-U, I also think that a fork pointing the other way somewhere around Tomari would be a good addition. Perhaps it could serve a very small station in the UL corner. This would detract a little from the elegance of the plan, but it would allow four different routes for trains or MU cars. A double back-to-back fork is a classic trolley plan.
One thing that detracts, in my mind, from the K-U, that I did not notice before, is the presence of corner view-block backdrops. I know why they’re being used, but I find them to be visuall
Don’t be an old stick in the mud! I vote for more HAMPSTER PICTURES!
To bump, or not to bump, that is the question…[;)]
Turns out it actually was designed as a H0 scale layout, hence curve radii and track spacing. At least according to the submitter, who mentioned this over in the Layout forum. So it probably should have been listed in the H0 scale section instead of N scale section.
But I agree with TZ that it could have been changed to N-scale, curve radii and spacing reduced, and then it should have fit fine in a 12x10 foot room.
Smile,
Stein
Status voting Saturday 23:59 hrs Central European time:
34 people have voted this far (at this time the last to vote was ChristNH). As of now, there are four layouts running neck and neck in the overall category (within a spread of 5 points - ie one single #1 vote can change who is in first place). Voting will continue until 23:59 hrs EST Monday (05:59 AM Tuesday Central European Time).
Not everybody has followed SpaceMouse’s voting instructions, so a quick recap of his voting instructions: “Vote first for your overall #1, #2 and #3 favorite, then add which layout was your favorite H0 scale layout and which was your favorite N scale layout”, ie:
Overall #1:
Overall #2:
Overall #3:
Best H0:
Best N:
Here is a link to Chip’s web page with all the layouts (right click on link & select “open in new window” in several web browsers, if you want to leave this window in this thread in order to vote after you have studied the designs).
http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/10x12Contest.html
Smile,
Stein
I’m about to head off to work, and I’d like the time to reply to your post properly, but in the meantime, here’s a quick comment. The Utsube line did start out as a steam tramway, with trains powered by these little engines,
A Japanese-language page on the early days of the line is here:
http://www2.cty-net.ne.jp/~muramasa/index.html
I realise most of you won’t be able to read it, but you can all enjoy the pictures!
Cheers,
Mark.
Overall #1: Kintetsu Utsube Line (HO #5). This trackplan seems very versatile. With just slight changes in scenery, it could be a European tramway, or a turn of the century American interurban or county seat trolley line. Being narrow gauge, you just add one switch somewhere for an interchange and turn it into an industrial narrow gauge or Maine two-footer. Anyway you do it, it’s definetely a detailers layout.
Overall #2: Altoona & Jonestown (N #2). Modeling mainline operation in a bedroom with it looking like a spaghetti bowl, even in N scale, is a tough job, and he tackled that hurdle nicely.
Overall #3: Buffalo & Sesquehana (HO #3). IMHO, I feel the staging needs some rethinking, but overall a real nice switching layout.
Best in N: Altoona & Jonestown
Best in HO: Kintetsu Utesbe Line
And some real good ideas all around to everyone
So as they say in Chicago: “Vote early. Vote often.” [swg]
I figure I should probably vote.
First of all, I want to say that there were a couple designs I liked but figured there were problems with the execution. I liked the Lower Susquehanna Works, and would have ranked it high, but I didn’t think the small diseil switcher could make the 5% grade with any kind of load especailly on a helix. I liked the Progressive, but it did not take advantage of the space. Nor did River Valley. In the end, it worked out this way for me.
Of all the layouts, The Kintetsu Utsube Line is probably the best thought out, but it lacks the two elements I like about model railroading, continous scenic running and the ability to make or break trains. I could live without one but not both. In the end, the few switching moves would become monotonous. I does however, make for some great modeling.
The Snover and Port Fuller is an nice plan despite the fact that it uses 20% more space than the guidelines calls for.
Okay, enough jabbering
N-Scale: Altoona and Johnstown
HO Scale: Buffalo & Sesquehana
G Scale: Drunken Trolley
Overall:
- Buffalo & Sesquehana
- Altoona and Johnstown
- Kintetsu Utsube Line