I know there was a post awhile ago about the buildings and new offerings from menards. I tried to search for it and couldnt find it though. I have a question if anyone has these up on their layout now and how they like them? Please post photos if you can. I am considering buying the HO 30-sign maintenance shed as they have the Alaska RR as an option in the light up sign, and i am currently working on my yard area. Looks like they are starting to sell out of some O-gauge varieties so i wanted to see how people liked them before i bought the HO online.
I was just at a Mendards store today (New Years Day) because the morning paper had a “15% off anything you can fit in the bag” paper bag and I was in need of a new cordless screw driver (obeying the October 2016 editorial by Neil Besougloff). While I was at it I wandered through their train aisles (and they have a Christmas village sort of aisle that also might have some usable stuff for the modeler).
They have some nice trains for the Lionel-size crowd, including some flat cars with loads on sale, and even true scale 1/4" modelers would not sneer at some of the structures I saw, including a farm house and a lit up Red Owl food store with interior that was really quite impressive. Not quite so impressive in terms of fineness of detail was a cast resin quonset hut painted for US Army. The sheets of “corrugated steel” were cast far too thick.
The HO models strike me as nicely put together and solid looking, if somehow just a bit “bulky” in appearance, and in that sense remind me of the Ertl HO collectibles of a couple decades ago, and also of the Woodland Scenics built-ups of today. Had I not had a specific purpose in mind for my 15% off bag I might have been tempted. I am not keen on their external light plugs and switches but there would be ways to deal with that. The interior lighting per se looked good in the Menards store lighting which was somewhat dim in that area.
Menards is surely not aiming at the Fine Scale Miniatures crowd but I have seen some guys compare their stuff to HO Plasticville and I think that is way off – the Menards stuff is well suited to a scale modeler (not that there are not some useful items in the Plasticville lines). To me it looks fairly priced.
The link has to end in .JPG or some other photo format. In Photobucket, ont the right, under share this photo: to the right are 4 choices, click in the direct box and it should copy, then select the photo icon above and
A bit off topic here, but I was surprised to see Menards enter this market. I assume that their stuff is all made in China. Could it be the same company that makes Walthers and others??? You can now buy a fair amount of groceries in the larger stores.
Those of us here in the midwest US where Menards is located no doubt remember “that Menards guy” on their TV and radio commercials. His name is Ray Szmanda and he no longer does the commercials, I believe for health reasons or something of that nature. Check out this short ad from you tube. Their ‘jingle’ has not changed all these years.
So here is a challenge for you modelers who have purchased one of these Menards buildings. Put an HO scale Ray Szmanda out in front of your building with that smile and holding the paint brush, and then post it to this forum!
We don’t have Menard’s here in Canada so my point is kind of moot, but I just can’t get past the positioning of the smoke stacks on the power plant. As has been pointed out in previous threads, there are several problems with the design of the chimneys. To begin with, one of the chimneys is directly over the the loading bay. That is a glaring error! Chimneys of that size have to be built on a solid foundation. They weigh tens of thousands of pounds. They can’t be tacked on to the side of a steel building. In addition, even if the chimney could be supported in the manner that the model shows, the convoluted ducting needed to get from the heaters, around the loading bay and to the bottom of the chimney would seriously impact the exhaust flow. Further more, if that isn’t condemnation enough, the chimneys are far too short. If the wind was coming in the right direction the chimney exhaust would be sucked right back into the plant by the enormous intake duct on the roof.
I’m all for selective compression. It is essential to the hobby. However, I can’t support the sort of inaccuracy that the Menard’s power plant represents. Granted it is a nice looking toy, but if I had one on my own layout the first thing I would do with my hypothetical grandchildren is point out how utterly dumb it is and why.
Now, if you like the general appearance and size of the power plant, it wouldn’t be very difficult to scratch build one yourself to get the chimney arrangement a bit more accurate. Industrial chimneys are readily available and the rest can be made from Evergreen styrene sheet stock:
I agree about the power plant, the passenger station is very nice and looks great. But to tell people to just scratch build one without knowing their skill level is just not right. I would not assume others have scratch building skills when you may have them.
Been in the hobby for 40 + years and never scratched built any building. Why? Because I was lousy at it and the same goes for kits. Good thing I had friends with those skills. I would hand lay track for them and in return I got buildings. A good trade off if you ask me.
I understand your point. I did not assume that the OP had any scratch building abilities at all. What I was trying to suggest, however poorly worded, was that this might be an opportunity for the OP to explore another aspect of the hobby. I fully understand that scratchbuilding is not something that everyone can do. You have tried it and you weren’t happy with the results. I am not trying to suggest that you are wrong or inadequate in your modelling abilities in any way! However, I strongly feel that before the OP assumes that he can’t scratchbuild, he owes it to himself (and no-one else including me) to give it a try. I’ll admit that my post implied that the power plant would be a nice easy project. I should have suggested trying some easier things first, but my posts are often too long already[:$]. The bottom line is that he won’t know whether or not he can scratchbuild until he tries and I was simply trying to encourage him to try.
As for my own scratchbuilding, not all of my attempts have been the successes I had hoped they would be. Some of my first attempts will be done over because I can see too many flaws and dumb mistakes in the original designs. The critter in my avatar is one example. The design came out of my head without paying enough attention to prototype switchers. I mistakenly mounted the headlight on the roof. Headlights are not generally mounted on roofs because of the shadows that the cowling and other items can cause. When the headlight on my critter is on, the exhaust stack casts a very obvious shadow and the track immediately in front of the locomotive is not illuminated.[banghead][:(!] I did better on the second critter.
I agree the stack position is a valid point of criticism. But APL is a RTR building subject to certain realities of size and packaging, which I suspect had something to do with the way it was designed. Stacks rising far above the roof line would make that difficult and more costly.
As it is, one can position the building so that the stack issue is less obtrusive. Henry’s first pic above is a good example. Can’t really tell much about where the stacks rise above in his first pic, for instance. And one could retrofit the building with taller and/or differently positioned stacks…but that’s probably not going to be the average customer for this item, I suspect. Even then, you can find nicely detailed stacks (Walthers), even RTR stacks (like my Cibolo Crossing stacks) and guess what? They’ll be no taller overall than the ones mounted on the APL building.
Like a lot of things in the hobby, what looks wrong to us may work just fine visually for others. I tend to angst over such compromises on my layout, too, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the things that bother me seem to pass unmentioned by my operators. The APL model does have some compromises, but its overall effect is rather pleasing in many ways.
I bought the Menards buidling and those two pics are how I have them positioned on my layout. I never gave any thought to the ‘prototype’ aspect of the model, nor does it really matter to me. I’ve had a couple of operating sessions with ‘rivet counters’ and they all loved the model. Whether or not it seems like a ‘toy’ to others is a matter of personal opinion. Now, it’s not to say the people who saw it were being nice and not saying anything, but the guys in our group have never had a problem stating whats on their mind.
That being said, there’s something in the hobby for everyone. Many people like their buidlings and the lights, etc; others who are more into the prototype amy not. This is what makes the hobby enjoyable for everyone. No, I don’t scratchbuilt, and no, I don’t have the true ‘patience’ to do so. I do kitbash structures, and that I enjoy.
Menards does do mail order. Takes a little searching on their website.
I happened to be out at our local store just now. No APL left in HO scale, they had one in O on the shelf. Looking online, APL is GONE, ZERO, ALL SOLD OUT. Someone must’ve liked it[:)]
I guess I came across like a bit of a rivet counter with my comments about the power station chimneys. My apologies to those whom I may have offended. I don’t consider myself to be a rivet counter. I have done plenty of “that’s good enough” modelling. Please understand that I was expressing my own feelings about having the power station on my layout. I do not have any problems with others using it, and I agree that it is actually a nice looking structure upon first appearances. Most people wouldn’t look beyond that and I am fine with that. If they’re happy then I’m happy.
As for the chimney height, Menards could have supplied modeller installed taller chimneys. Just sayin’.
Now Dave, if they did that, someone would complain it wasn’t truly RTR[;)]
Nothing wrong with giving your opinion on this matter, either. I think Menard’s is listening to the feedback they’re getting on this relatively new venture for them, as I’ve seen improvements that seemed designed to satisfy both the average RTR-around-Xmas folks, as well as more advanced modelers.
All kidding aside, your suggestion about user-installed stack extensions is actually spot on. If one hasn’t seen the packaging on these, it’s a clear shell to make displaying the whole thing easily 360, but also stackable into a case. They way the stacks sit on APL keeps the top line of the structure rather even so the packing of them in cases is both strong and in minimum cubage. Having the stacks stick up higher would lead to a larger case and/or weaker case lot, which would increase costs, but removable stacks might actually be a cheaper way to deal with that and the expectations of more modelers.
I’m not offended. Folks can have whatever they want on their railroad. But my opinion is that structures should have some structural reality. To me, unsupported smoke stacks are just as non-realistic as bridge shoes located improperly in the middle of a bridge beam.
They also offer some substations that could be altered or combined to look more like a power plant. But at those prices a certain fear about attacking one of their models with a Zona saw would be expectable. At list price the Menards building would be less scary. The stacks would be easily moved/replaced. In any event it is clearly a selectively compressed model, but how many of us have room for a full size model?
We all have varying goals and varying space. And we ALL make compromises to achieve what pleases us. Yeah, APL is crunched down to a minimalist powerplant to be sure, but that may be all most of us have to devote to such an industry.
And if you think this is a concern in HO, APL in O is humungous – with exactly the same set of issues that bother some of us in HO.
I really like your idea of using APL as a starting point for hacking something better suited to the needs of many of us. The stacks are probably no big deal to remove, then you could easily replace that with something else and put bigger stacks where it would do the most good. A very easy bash, even for a novice, I’d guess. In fact, has anyone gotten creative with APL, as it’s very suitable for that to be sure?
If you think about it, because of many factors (era, roadname, weathering, DCvsDCC, etc), it’s a rare model railroad product that is ideal for everyone’s needs. But most of them give you a good 90% of what you need for your money, if you add a little creativity and elbow grease you can get to 100% satisfaction most of the time. It’s easy to find the 10% that’s unsuitable for you, but so often in doing so we should remember that the 90% that’s great shouldn’t be dismissed. And something that’s in your 10% of yecch may very well be in someone else’s 90% great.
