In almost every issue we see these huge beautiful layouts that are beyond the scope of most people…would you guys maybe mix in some smaller layouts that more of us can relate to?
Model Railroad Planning features some smaller layouts. And of course the MR project layouts are always small. More to the point, every large layout is a connected series of smaller scenes. Don’t let lumber envy distract you from that.
But I wonder about your fundamental assumption. There are not many layouts smaller than the late Ben King’s was. But every structure was a piece of scratch built perfection, every inch of track a marvel of realism, the colors of his scenery and the overall feel of the layout were all amazingly realistic. His photos were similarly amazing, and he built his own cameras sometimes taking a year to construct a camera just to take one particular picture. Speaking for myself, I can “relate” to a huge layout eight times the size of mine but built to my … shall we say … casual standards far more than I can “relate” to a gem of perfection like Ben King’s.
And having said that. I have little interest in seeing a published layout built to my standards and I doubt if any of you would want to see it either. For that I can go downstairs, or go on local layout tours.
Dave Nelson
Dave,
I agree wholeheartedly , Ben King and his model railroad were great (not huge), an incentive to all model railroaders and he was in the MR on more than one occasion. He’s missed.
I think that there have been a lot of articles on great things in small places. The final result is up to our own imagination.
Dennis
I would agree with Ulrich about having trouble relating to the larger layouts (now, if they have close-ups of interesting smaller sections, okay…). But I very much enjoy the small layouts - such as the ones Iain Rice has had in MR from time to time (e.g., the Roque Bluffs series, which was only about 2’ X 8’ or so). Even the awesome layouts like Pelle Soeberg’s (excuse my misspelling if you read this, Pelle) aren’t too far beyond the space and capabilities of a lot of us. The Cat Mountain & Santa Fe layout (by Dave …?..) also wasn’t highly intricate, so I could find something to draw from that. Now Rod Stewart’s MR spread was less useful for me (partly because I will never have that much space, nor all those helpers, and partly because his RR is set in a time period earlier than I model). But there may be others for whom that layout really got their creative juices going, too.
Takes a variety of styles - for me, so long as they have some closer-in photos (not encompassing the whole basement-sized layout), I can find something useful. My [2c]…
Jim in Cape Girardeau
The larger layouts provide so many more photo opportunities than the smaller ones so they make for better featured articles. There is also more to write about as far as construction and operation. That’s not to say interesting articles couldn’t be written about the smaller layouts and am always interested in saying outstanding layouts regardless of size. It just seems to me it would be difficult to fill a multi-page spread with an article about the smaller layouts. Maybe once or twice a year, MR could feature one or two page articles on several outstanding small layouts instead of one big one.
Remember, MR can only publish what is presented to them. Are the builders of the outstanding small layouts not submitting them because they don’t think MR will publish them or does MR not publish them because no one is submitting them?
The one thing I would like to see more of is to show that not all parts are necessarily completed. I don’t mean huge closeups on a piece of empty plywood but just some general pictures showing us that there might be work left to do. Kind of encouraging I think.
Magnus
There have been quite a few smaller layouts of late. This month has a shelf layout. Last month has a layout that was just an engine terminal. Before that was that small less then 4x8 merrimac valley. There was that Steel Mill layout… the great northern in N that was very small… I really dont see a bias.
What does irk me though is they do not feature enough track plans for a 13x13 basement space with a 3 foot aisle on two adjoining sides in n-scale featuring northern new england railroads. I am really sick of it!
Chris
I got to operate on one large layout that had a feature article in MR several years ago. The only part that was sceniced was literally the 4 feet of benchwork featured in the opening shot. The rest was bare benchwork (and track).
It was still a good layout and a heckuva lot of fun to operate.
Dave H.
[#ditto] Same thing with HO scale! I think it’s a conspiracy! [}:)]
From what I see, every issue provides enough material for someone to complain about…[:D]
Every month, I look mine over in an evening, then it goes on the night table, and each night for about a week, I’ll read over the articles more thoroughly. Then for another week, I’ll rummage through the ads to see what’s out there and who’s got a good deal or a new website.
I think there’s a really good cross section of layout articles. Granted, there are probably more big layouts featured than small, but I think what does get featured is almost always of good quality.
I agree that there should be more “context” shots that show how the layout fits in the room, and I think it would be motivational to include shots of unfinished sections. This would be useful to explain how benchwork is built, and how the builder approaches scenery construction. (Two areas that a lot of us struggle with, if frequent questions to these forums are any indicator).
Lee
Photo coverage of most layouts in MR is usually limited to very small scenes, and never really show the vastness of how the layout would appear if one was there visiting it in person. So big layout or a small one all seem to appear to be the same in the magazine with the exception of the trackplan. That’s the way it is.
I used to wonder why you’d see all the photos taken in a 2’x3’ area when the track plan shows a 30’ x 54’ basement empire… The illustration typically shows the layout appearing to be scenicked. Of course, now I understand that 2’x3’ section is probably the only part that’s finished.
MRP shows plenty of work-in-progress shots, which I like. I kinda wish MR’s regular features would show the occasional part of an unfinished layout. It’s one thing to read about how it was built; quite another to see it.
Every now and then I see a small layout in MR. Often they look either cluttered or cutsey. But I think they’re still an important part of the hobby, and can be as inspirational (in a different way) than an uncompressed version of Raton Pass.
The photos also don’t give a very good idea of how the layout would look in person. The photos tend to be the same scale distance from the subject whether it’s N or O or in between. Looking at an N scale layout is very different than looking at an O scale layout.
Frankly, a lot of the photos make the models look like they’re S scale - probably because that’s the size that fits on the page (same reason a lot of the old monthly drawings, esp. rolling stock, were in S). It’s probably one reason I’m in S - the models look like the same size as the pictures in MR. So if you like what you see in MR you need to move to S scale. [:D]
But still, the layouts are my favorite articles in MR.
Enjoy
Paul
Sometimes smaller layout articles (when they do appear) are a “missed opportunity” too. A perfect example, as Dave V. so eloquently laid it out in another thread, is the “Loco Servicing Yard/Layout for a small pace” article in this May’s issue.
Although there was some disagreement about whether or not a custom/commercially built (though owner designed) layout should be featured, it WAS a unique small layout and deserved a longer or follow up article describing the process involved in designing it (owner?) and what it’s like in some detail to work with a custom builder from a long distance, etc.
I think a follow up with even more pictures (maybe some of them showing the “real” appearance of the
layout rather than the usual “beauty/artsy” shots for a follow up) would be very well received. There is one pic on the
builder’s site that shows the table from a distance like you’d experience it in your own layout room. I’d like to see more of that in any small layout feature article.
I go to round robin operations sessions over a 100 mile geographical spread and there has been a LOT of talk and interest in John Bruno’s Loco Servicing Yard small layout.
There is still room for detailed approaches to small layout article writing that is out of the ordinary and hasn’t been done before.
My layout was featured in the Nov 2006 issue. It measures less than 100 sq feet, and was inspired from a MR project article: John Olsen’s Jerome and Southwestern.
Given the practical realities of even the larger layouts, a photo of a layout that tries to be a “let’s pretend this is a prototype shot” tend to focus on that small area if they want to leave out the fascia, the overhead lights, the doors, the windows, the turnback curves and other “give aways.”
Years ago MR would run this same kind of photo (and it looked more “real” because it was generally in black and white!), but also used to try to feature more of the “what it’s like to step into the guy’s basement” type of photo, showing the floor, the overhead joists, the lighting fixtures, and – a specialty back in pre-DCC days – the control panel, often a subject of envy and display all of its own, with the cover pulled back to show how neat the wiring was. In many of these types of photos the proud owner would be photographed running a train, and in a surprising number of cases, he was smoking a pipe.
Conclusion – bring back pipe smoking and all will be well again …
Dave Nelson
The best article EVER, was the one about Fort Myers, Florida, in which NOTHING even vaguely resembled Fort Myers, Fl.
[#ditto]
Yup, that’s what I do with my copy too! [:)] Really I could care less what layout is featured each month. What I like to see is detail on how things were built, painted, wired, etc. The “how-to” features are what really drew me to the magazine after I got my fill of looking at pictures of layouts.
Thanks for the overview shots Bob… very nice.
Having overview shots and shots showing wiring and such would be great “online extras” for futiure layouts.
Regards,
Chris
My thanks also. Those are the kind of pictures I would like to see MR include. They really provide a sense of what the layout looks like. And the fine modeling still comes through.
Enjoy
Paul