First I’d like to say, I like roundhouses. So maybe its just my imagination, but , for at least the last year or more in Model Railroader, they never have pictures of roundhouses in there featured layouts. Everytime I open a new MR and look at the layout diagram and see a roundhouse, I quickly flip thru the pages to see if any of the photos are of the roundhouses.Nope. Does the guy taking the pictures have something against roundhouses? Think Im crazy, look back at back issues and see how many roundhouses there where on layouts with no pictures of them. Before someone mentions it, there is a roundhouse picture in the latest MR , but its an ad for some locos, not of a featured layout. Check it out, how many issues do you have to go back to, to find a roundhouse in a picture of a featured layout.
I have been reading MR for many years and I have seen roundhouses. Not an issue.
Rich
I have often wondered how they select the photos they pick to display the layout.
SOmetimes it seems to me they pick the dullest part of the layout to feature in a pic or focus in on some seemingly stupid one little detail. {like who cares that the "bum’ leaning against the back wall of the town pub ACTUALLY has a scale cigarette in his mouth and an actual scale rat knawing at his shoe-neat maybe but really?}
Sometimes I wonder if those really are the “best pics” of all the pics they took of the layout or were those the ONLY pics they took?
Write a letter to the editor and mention that you would like to see more pics of roundhouses on the layouts they feature that have them and see what happens. Or suggest they do a whole article on feature layout roundhouses if they have the pics for such an article.
{I am sure somewhere in the past they probably have}.
I dont want to make a federal case here folks, just noticed something and was wondering if anyone else noticed it to. I know they’ve had roundhouses in the past, but going back a while now, none. Galaxy, it does sometimes seem like Im saying 'why didnt you take a picture of that" alot. Oh course this is all subjective, some like senery more, some maybe structures, its hard to please everyone I suppose.
Variety is the spice of life and roundhouses aren’t it for me. In fact I don’t think most of us can afford the space any steam facility requires. I’d bet a decent engine terminal requires a quarter or more of most layout space. I prefer pictures that show realistic scenery and settings.
Oh, so you’re saying you don’t want them to just tell you about them, you want them to “show me” eh!!! (LOL!!)
Had to get that out of the way first, I understand what you are saying, it seems to me that as more and more time goes by I see less and less of what I’m interested in in the pages of MR and more and more of the stuff I have absolutely no interest in what so ever. It’s becoming more and more of a RTR magazine and less and less of a craftsman magazine, or so it appears to me.
I see more and more of the modern era and less and less of the transition era, I also see way too much space being devoted to DCC, again, no interest there, and an extraordinary amount of advertising. I already “had” a subscription to “Model Railroad News” and let it expire for those very reasons.
As Model Railroader moves farther and farther away from the “craftsman” articles that they used to feature I have less and less interest in a subscription and move closer to checking it out at the newstand for those ocassional issues that have something of interest to me.
For now my new issue of RMC arrived today and there are a couple of really neat looking articles in it so I am going to go spend some time checking those out.
Maybe one of the “N” Scale magazines might have some neat stuff in it, one person in particular does some very nice work in “N” Scale and I’m sure there are others which would offer some inspiration as well.
Mark
Months ago, I asked a similar question, and was told that many times, the featured layout is still under construction. I’m sure the owner of the layout would rather they didn’t take pictures of the unfinished roundhouse area.
I for one definitely enjoy roundhouses. I think they’re a really fun way to “store” your locomotives while still having them out to see. Although they do take up a considerable amount of space, I would love to build one sometime in the future.
Hi!
I believe there are two reasons why you might not be seeing all the roundhouses you (and I) would like to see…
-
First, those of us that model the “roundhouse era” are getting to be the minority as compared to those that model the more modern era.
-
Roundhouses with their turntables are relatively expensive and eat up a lot of layout space. I have always wanted one, but just didn’t want to sacrifice the “acreage” to do it right.
That was my thought too, it could be they just happened to have shown some layouts where the builder has planned a RH/TT but hasn’t got it fully installed and scenicked yet.
I agree that many an interesting facility/feature/scene shown on the layout diagrams are not included since they are not finished (or perhaps even started) - which sometimes stinks as the diagram has something cool looking listed (“oh, hey, a quarry w/ a huge electric excavator and an overhead aerial bucket tramway”) and no photo is shown of the scene, because this quarry exists only as CAD files in the modeler’s computer - such a tease!
I think both MR & RMC have gotten away (somewhat) from those ‘Vignette’ images of a police car pulling over a vehicle or a bear stalking a pooping hunter or a hobo camp etc. - those shots used to be pretty common IIRC, but now that you can buy such scenes ready made from Woodland Scenices, Life-like, Busch etc probably not all that interesting to feature.
I agree that roundhouses are a neat thing to have on a layout if you can afford the space. They have real potential for detailing and it’s fun to see a stable of large and small engines sitting around on the garden tracks. As for the content to be found in the most popular model railroading magazines, the editors have their work cut out for them trying to bridge the gap between beginners, intermediate and advanced modelers. I’ve noticed that the more advanced I become in the hobby, the harder it is to find stuff that I can use in the mags. It’s the same with train shows. I used to be fascinated with everything but now my basic needs are long since met and I’m looking for that very particular item I need to give a Pennsy M1 just the right airscoop behind the whistle. I get more out of one issue of the Keystone Modeler that any twelve issues of MRR or RMC. It’s not their fault, just the way we progress through the hobby. But, I agree. Any layout article featuring a pike with a roundhouse should have at least one picture of said roundhouse!
I agree with your thoughts concerning MR. I see it as a tool to sell more specific MR mags and thus increase their profit margin. While the old (1950’s) MR.s are hard to read with these old eyes, they just seemed to be more friendly and usefull. The blog concerned the lack of roundhouses and yet no one mentioned the fact that Diesels are the rule today and they don’t need the turnaround capabilities the old steamers required. John Armstrong would have devised a way to get a roundhouse and table somewhere in any plan, or the space for it anyhow, for future consideration.
Jim
As has been mentioned, they take up a lot of space and are complicated. The same reason the prototypes didn’t like them, either - but they had to have them most of the time, we don’t.
I don’t know about that but I’ve noticed in the last issue or two some articles have been lackadaisical at best. Just looking back at the January issue, I felt C.G. could have gone a bit more in depth in his ground cover article. I think Tony Koester’s article could have had a bit more sustainance, and Al Skinners article of modeling a demolished house in N scale, well it could have went missing from the issue with no affair. I am an N scale modeler, I instantly fell in love with the small scale a few years ago when I became interested in the hobby, but that article wasn’t much to read.
However, three articles I particularly liked were Jim Lomison’s servo motor turnout control article, Lance Mindheim’s modern roof modeling article, and Sten Sweatt’s HO trackplan on page 72. There were also some product reviews I liked but more whimsical than anything (so am I dropping off this 4 car set of Husky stack cars at the team track with the old 2-8-0 or the newer RS1 Mr. Yardmaster?).
Good responses folks. As far as roundhouses taking up alot of space, model railroaders pack alot of scene into a certain area all the time. I think the entire maintenance facitlity would take up alot of space, but a 3 or 6 stall roundhouse no so much. What do model RRers do to get alot into their limited space?, they compress, chop off or leave somethings off. Many of times people just chop off half a building when it gets to the facia/wall etc. I have a shelf layout in HO and Im planning on a 6 stall roundhouse in a corner with the mainline passing behind it.
There have been a number of good reasons presented in this thread for why MR’s feature article layout tours skip over shots of layout roundhouses. I would tend to agree with just about every one. However, I’ll offer something else to consider, from the perspective of someone who was associated with a hobby magazine for many years.
MR, like any similar publication, has to make every attempt to draw in and maintain its readership, especially these days. Particularly over the past 20 years, “popular” magazines have increasingly turned to printing many, “Oh, wow!” photos. These can’t be repetitive in subject matter, so the editor strives to keep showing new and ever more spectacular scenes. Diversity is key here and given that there are relatively few commercially made roundhouses in HO and even scratchbuilt versions usually look very similar, roundhouse scenes will only very occasionally make the cut and appear in the magazine. Face it, one roundhouse shot usually looks pretty much like another!
CNJ831
A true life experience. My dad was a switch engineer for the Santa Fe in Enid Oklahoma while I was growing up. He actually completed just over 50 years before retiring. Enid is on a branch line of the Santa Fe running from Guthrie to Kiowa Ks. Enid was/is a major grain location, many large elevators were/are located there. A steam switch engine had to be turned, but there was no turntable, no roundouse, just a track called the roundhouse, plus some tracks for fuel tanks, etc. and a wye. Road engines coming in on grain trains could turn there, but the facilities remained sparse up to the merger with BN. In all those years, no turntable, no roundhouse, no engine house, just what I discribed. I have recreated that trackage on my Santa Fe in Oklahoma layout, along with the elevators, etc. It remains the main engine facility on the layout with the exception of Oklahoma City and serves quite well in my 1989 setting.
Bob
May I add a few more thoughts…
-
As I wrote earlier, IMHO a roundhouse with turntable and all the service structures takes up a lot of “land”. Yes, there are ways of reducing the footprint, but if I can’t do it reasonably “full size”, then I will just not have it on the layout. As a guy who spent many years in various refineries, that is why I model an oil terminal as opposed to a refinery. This is just my personal opinion for me and my layout - and not an argument for that train of thought or criticism of others intended.
-
The coolest roundhouse/turntable setup I have ever seen - both in MR and on a video, was the gentleman who has the huge UP layout staged in Wyoming (as I recall). I apologize for not recalling his name or the exact location - but if you have seen it, you will remember it.
Well here is the problem. Nearly everybody wants big steam. I once built an 18" turntable which required 18" leads plus 18" on the entry side. That’s 4’ 6" right there so it could hanlde a Big Boy, Y6b and other steam. In real life none of this steam was serviced or kept in two or three stall roundhouses. They were mainline engines run between mainline division points. My first trip to Cheyene in 1957 the roundhouse was nearly a full circle and could service anything UP had. even saw a 4-12-2 being serviced. To anybody knowledgable a two or three stall roundhouse with those kind of engines smacks of toy train not realism. It’s kine of like Waltrhers rolling mill for a steel mill that is 6" square when a real one is 3/4 of a mile long ( about 51 actual feet modeled in HO) My OPINION (Note the word opinion) is that engine terminals are better left out and just off the railroad. Staging tracks can hold engines as well as trains. Modeling a division point gives adequate reason to switch motive power brought into the scene from staging. Then the engine terminal can be as big as your imagination can envision and cost you virtually no space. For example going east your railroad runs across flat land. Going west it hits the hills. There is a way you can justify taking off 2-8-2 or 2-8-4 steam going west and add that articulated for the grades to come. Reverse it coming back by retrieving the engine from the staging yard and all you need is a ready track on the railroad for it to wait for its assignment. A lot more realism and more railroad to operate.