I just received my copy yesterday, and am somewhat disappointed with it. I have kept my copies of the last several years; the 2009 is short on content and pages in comparison. In addition, most of the focus (in fact all of it except for the last article on On30) is of large to huge layouts.
I was a lot more interested in problem solving for small to medium size layouts. However, this seems to be the focus of Model Railroader so I should have expected to be disapponted. I think it would be interesting to get a survery going:
Raise your hand if your layout is:
Under 100 sq. ft.
Under 250 sq. ft.
Under 500 sq. ft.
Under 1,000 sq. ft.
If this has been done before on this forum, maybe somebody could direct me to the results. My thinking is that MR is directing its content to an audience that has a large layout or might aspire to having one, but most of us either have room for only a smaller layout, or maybe have none at all.
I completely agree on MR, but haven’t been subscribed for very long. Some people aren’t interested in a large layout, because of time, monetary, and space concerns, or some combination of the three.
750, 320 and 28 respectively G, O, and HO. I understand the frustration of “solutions” to small to medium layouts as represented in the press. It’s easy to have a water feature when you have over 1000 ft2 for an HO layout, more difficult by far in 30 ft2. I encounter the same with “Pool Life” magazine, it shows million dollar pools and all the stuff you can do with underwater grottoes etc, but little to nothing about the average homeowners’ 20x30 backyard.
I don’t know what the press is thinking. Sure, it’s great to see the mega layouts, but most people have the mini layout. Size is irrelevant to quality, there are hundreds of well executed small layouts worthy of print. Let’s see some of them…
Maybe you got a different print run than I did. Mine has a compact LDE article on page 54, the On30 layout that shares a 10X15 room beginning on page 58, a 6X15 HO layout on page 66, an N scale layout that shares an 11X13 room with a bed, desk etc.on page 76, a 3X11 N scale layout that could stand alone or grow into something larger on page 84, and a 4X7 HO LDE on page 90. So out of maybe 12 articles with track plans, 5 are 100 sg. ft or so or smaller, plus the On30 plan is the equivalent of about a 5.5’X8’ HO layout. Plus Dolkos on making narrow (i.e., small) scenes look realistic,
It’s certainly true that some of the layouts are larger, like my own design for the Visalia Electric. But even my article showed how an HO 4X8 (which I’m no fan of) can be incorporated later into a larger plan.
And it’s true, there are no four sq. ft. standalone designs this issue. But there are ideas for sharing space in a room with other uses and laying out prototype elements in a given space, which I should think would be useful for anyone.
No big plywood pikes in my world - she’s 16’ x a yard and a bit wide, 39" actually. Anything much bigger and I’d be stranded in paradise and my occassional headaches would never go away.
Mostly the big pikes we see in the modeling press are viewed, or photographed, just small segments at a time, but I take your point.
The same goes for the boating magazines I buy - they always seem to feature all the top end craft - I know it’s not really the same as model RR magazines and that with boats the magazine publishers tie in deals with advertisers, and all that kind of commercial stuff.
However, being a guy who likes to model the South East I am particularly aware of the amount of column inches given over to layouts featuring, scenery that is more dramatic with big hills and big rivers and big bridges - all that wonderful dramatic scenery that is easy to enjoy. I guess that model train magazines publish stuff that is reflective of it’s readership. I think that in amost situations readers are going to find that there is never enough of their specific interests - scale, location etc., that kind of thing and unless a magazine spesializes in one aspect of our hobby, the alternitive will be a magazine that has something for everybody without the depth a specialist magazine can provide. It’s all good though, I think.
What about those of us that have over 1000 sq. ft. layouts? Mine is 25’x 50’ (1,250 sq. ft.). And my club layout is going to fill a 6300 sq. ft. room (our club building is 10,000 sq. ft.).
I’m sure that the majority of model railroaders have small layouts (say around 100-150 sq. ft.) or smaller on average. However, I think that Model Railroader is chasing the bucks, just like any business, and people are drawn to “bigger, better, bolder” items in life. I mean, you don’t see fat people in fitness magazines, you don’t see too many station wagons in auto magazines, you don’t see too many C-47’s in classic Warbird magazines, so why would anyone expect to see “average” layouts in MR?
Mines about 130 sq ft. 3 smaller islands connected by narrower shelf type.
I like the features of large layouts. The give me something to drool at and I can get some good ideas from them. However it would be nice if they gave equal print to smaller layouts so those of us can see what is happening in the smaller worlds (mine) and how others are making use of smaller spaces. There are probably more small great layouts than big ones. It shouldn’t be that difficult. Usually they only photograph small parts of the big ones anyway. My[2c]
Is it the space the benchwork occupies? Thus a 4x8 layout would be a 32 sqft layout, and an around-the-walls layout averaging 2 feet wide in a 20x30 room be a 184 sqft layout.
Is it the space the layout occupies plus that needed to operate it? Thus a 4x8 layout would occupy 110 sqft assuming three-foot wide operating aisles on three sides, and the 20x30 around-the-wall layout would occupy 400 sqft assuming three-foot operating space adjacent to the benchwork.
Is it the outer dimensions of the framework? A 4x8 would be 32 sqft and the 20x30 around-the-waller would be 600 sqft.
Or is it the size of the room the layout occupies? Thus a 4x8 layout could be any size accommodating the layout and access, and a 20x30 around-the-wall layout would be 600 sqft.
the large layouts are very inspiring and leave me drooling all the time. honsetly though, my favorite layouts in the past few years were in no perticular order, Lance mindheim’s miami shelf layout, and Mike Confolone’s 1 x 16 5th season layout. those layouts represent the space of what an average person is most likely to have. those layouts are amazing!! the detail level is what has made me switch scales back to HO scale. I am in the process of building a 1’ x 5’ LDE diorama layout. 5 Sq.Ft. so after reading the reviews, im sure i will still buy MRP anyways just for some ideas, and to see what other people have!!
I’m running between two layouts, In my own house it is a hair under 100 sq. ft. and in one that will be operated and built between myself and a disabled child’s father approx. 650 sq. ft.
MR makes small layout beginners seem like they are all alone, because of the lack of small layouts in the magazine. There are some, but only once and a while. I think it should not matter the size of the layout, if the modeling is good.