I saw in the December 2006 MR that next month they’ll start the annual MR project layout. Once again, it looks like a fairly standard HO scale 4x8. Here’s my suggestion…
I understand the 4x8. It’s easy. But why HO every year? I know most modelers are in HO, but N has a very healthy following. There have only been a few N scale project layouts in the past decade (the A&M, Carolina Central, and the Appalachian Central come to mind). Now, what was great about the Carolina Central was that it was actually smaller than 4x8, and a great size for beginners. Most N scalers would drool at a 4x8.
Why not take a break from the standard HO 4x8 and try it in N? You can do so much more in that space. After all, many new modelers will probably want to use modern-day equipment (it’s what they see every day), and it’s darned hard to run 89’ cars and 6-axle diesels around a 4x8 in HO. You can do broad, sweeping curves in N in the same space. Anyone agree? Is it perhaps time to break from the standard HO oval with sidings in a 4x8?
Quite honestly, Dave, HO is 70%+ of the market last I heard and probably 90% of MR’s readship, to judge by comments one sees on-line. Tie these facts together with absolute newbies or first time model train buyers most likely to choose an HO-scale department store set for initially running around the Christmas tree or through a Dickens Village scene and you’ll appreciate why MR chooses to do a basic HO 4x8 annually. I’d be willing to bet that the December and January issues of MRs far outsell any other months…due mainly to Christmas-time newbies picking up the magazine at the local drugstore or newstand to see what can be done with their trains post-holiday.
I am all over this one!! I agree whole heartedly there needs to be more N-scale articles and a project layout in MRR. I know there are a couple N-scale only Mags I get them on a regular basis. But MRR is the only monthly mag. As well there is so much potentional in a n-scale 4’x8’ ( I have a 30"x48" and wish I had a 4x8 space). N scale has a lot of followers and is getting bigger.
MRR PLEASE DO A N SCALE PROJECT LAYOUT!!! I KNOW I WOULD BY THE MAG AND THE BOOK THAT WOULD FOLLOW!!
I know that the HO is the largest part of the hobby And that is what MRR caters too. But again being the only monthly Publication I am dissapointed in not seeing more N-scale. I will still follow MRR as what they show for an ho layout can be used in n-scale with out a problem. just my thoughts.
The purpose of the various project railroads is to demonstrate different construction techniques and design concepts. It isn’t necessary to change scales to do that.
Any HO scale plan can easily be adapted to N. The converse is not true so it makes sense for the project layouts to be in HO.
On that note, that is when things really pick up at the LHS I go to, and a lot of folks are looking into HO. Of course that is the first thing that you see when you walk into the store, and seems to serve true for most hobby shops I have been to. That is also the bulk of the inventory. They buy that first train set for Christmas, and come back right after Christmas asking , “What now?”.
it was a nice surprise to see that the recent ‘layout you can build’ series was an O narrow guage layout . you can’t really expect to see another surprise like an N scale feature so soon [:)]
i don’t model in N myself , but i agree it would be kind of fun to see what they could do with a 4x8
A resounding “yes” I agree, Dave. I don’t think you take it far enough, though. Just doing a 4x8 N-scale would please the n-scale world, but I think the problem is far deeper… The problem is that it’s yet another 4x8 period. At the end of the day, what you’re going to get is a roundy-round oval with a siding or two - the track basically becomes an excuse to show off scenery & structures. Oh yeah, and is this one going to be outsourced to a professional layout contractor (again)… ?
Mind you scenery and structures are critical, and the barn-raising scene on last year’s layout (for example) was very nice. But there are other critical elements: benchwork, tracklaying, layout design, wiring, control systems and operation to name a few. By going with the 4x8 repeatedly, MR is effectively ignoring these items (or dealing with them in a very rudimentary way). So we end up with a layout that has master-level structures and scenery, and entry-level everything else…
So don’t JUST go to N-scale (though I vote thumbs on that). Please do something other than a 4x8 rectangle. Do what almost every layout design book (including the Kalmbach ones) and use an alternative. Split the sheet down the middle and do an L-shaped switching layout. Take the plywood and make a 2x16 and do an urban scene… Something!
I regularly dig back into my archive of old MR magazines, and it’s amazing how much variety their 1980’s- early 90’s project layouts used to display versus today’s “what will the 4x8 be named this year…?”
I think MR does pretty well by the other scales. But considering that almost every hobby store with trains has HO (I have yet to see one that doesn’t although I suppose there are some) and considering that a 4x8 sheet of plywood table is the easiest benchwork, I am not suprised that most of MR project layouts are HO 4x8’s. It’s the easiest way to get started.
Even though I am in S, I still enjoy the project layouts and even learn some new tricks from them.
Now this is a good discussion! I know that HO represents the vast majority of model railroaders. Is it just because there’s more HO “stuff” to be had, or is it really because it is the ideal compromise between detail and size? Don’t get me wrong, I love HO (I was in it for 20 years)! But I could never do what I wanted to do in HO becuase of space limitations. After reading several MR articles on N I was convinced I could switch and finally be able to accomplish what I didn’t have room for in HO.
Another hypothesis might be that HO is so popular because it gets the most exposure in the magazines as opposed to the magazines hitting HO the hardest because it’s so popular. Chicken or the egg? Maybe if MR gave N a bit more exposure (i.e., layouts, not just small projects articles), N might gain a few more followers, just the way it did when they built the Clinchfield in the 70s. The same might be said for finescale O. In the interim I also read N Scale Railroading and N Scale Magazine.
Bravo to MR by the way on the On30 layout. That was a welcome break. Would have like to have seen a few more shots of the finished layout.
Who knows… If I one day get the basement I want I may sell all my N and go back to HO (not what the wife wants to hear!). But then, I’ve really fallen in love with the scenery-to-train ratio N has to offer. It more than makes up for the loss of detail in my book.
Personally, I think HO is the biggest chunk because it’s a good compromise between detail and size. Small enough to have hope of a decent home layout, big enough to show fine details…
HO became and is dominant in the hobby by virtue of the timing of its appearance and the demographic to which it appeals.
Way back when (the 1930’s), HO was starting to gain in popularity. Initially it was rather crude and it took until about WWII to become a real challenger to O. But it was the cost and space-hogging aspects of O that doomed it at the end of the war as GI’s interested in model railroading returned home and began purchasing small new homes on a scale never before seen. Such homes would easily accommodate HO or O tin-plate but not O-scale layouts.
HO, which had corners better than three-quarters of the hobby market by 1960, had no serious competition throughout the fifties and sixties, early N being considered too operationally finicky, european, and toy-like. So THE hobby’s generation, the returning GI’s and their Boomer kids, grew
CNJ831,I am a boomer and the first engine I ran was a 2 rail O Scale 4-6-0…The first diesel was a All Nation NW2.The first club I became acquainted with was the Columbus(Oh) O Scale club located at the Columbus Union Station.I would not run my first HO engine till 1954 when Dad change scales from O to HO.I was 6 years old and recall rushing home from school to see the “new” trains.I can even recall it was a brass 2-6-0…I ran this engine back and forth on 2 sections of flex track on the kitchen table till Mother told me to clear the table for supper…
As far as HO IMHO it will always be the dominate scale with N Scale second…Although I have seen a rebirth of O scale modeling in On30.
I suspect the reason MR choses a 4x8 layout thats what the average modeler started with and many still use it.
Personally I found the ideal compromise to be S. Large enough to work with easily, small enough to have a layout. I started in HO which is too small, move to O which is too large, settled in S which like Baby Bear’s porridge is just right. Of course others settle elsewhere. If there were more model railroaders, there would probably be more commercially supported scales.
Personally, I like having diversity. It would be pretty boring if we were all modeling HO, Sante Fe, 1955, on a 4x8 sheet of plywood. I enjoy articles on layouts in all scales and like to see a variety when I go to train shows.
Enjoy
Paul
I would like to see Model Railroader move away from the 4’ x 8’ foot project layouts. The issues of Model Railroad Planning show examples of cutting that 4’ x 8’ sheet of plywood into sections. If you do an around the walls shelf layout you still get to use the room and can move beyond 22" radius curves (HO scale). I modeled for years in an apartment with an around the walls modular layout. When I moved, I could reconfigure the modules to fit the new location. Modular sections are easier to move over a 4’x8’ table, and with an around the wals layout you can still use the room for other things.
Why doesn’t the magazine issue a yearly supplement, maybe a six pager in a separate cover, doing one of these projects in various scales? Heck, they could do it twice a year to cover two scales.
The way I see it, the magazine is sort of an ambassador, even a teacher/leader in the hobby. At least, it purports to be so in view of all its commentary and reviews, not to mention printing letters from its readrship. So, it should be leading, and if N-scale is likely to be a hefty part of the hobby’s future, especially in view of population growth and its resultant decline in living space due to market costs, then it should be close to “imposing” more of that scale on us.
I am squarely HO, and intend to stay if my senses can serve me well enough at that scale, but I sure as heck won’t go N-scale over time. Still, maybe it would be better in the long run for more of us to get a decent bit of a start, and educated encouragement, in the scale that could very well overtake HO.
I agree with Jim, I know 4x8 is a standard sheet of plywood, but how about cutting two sheets down to 5x4 and making a 5x8. Then you could incorporate large radius track for the newer larger equipment. Also, as an aside, a branch or yard/staging area with the leftover pieces. MR did a few N scale layouts in the 70’s.
Is it really necessary for them to do a 5x8. If that’s what a modeler wants, he can easily expand the plan to fit that space. Most modelers want something simple for their first layout and starting with a 4x8 platform is as simple as it gets. I’m sure the idea of these project railroads is to get new modelers into the hobby and running trains as quickly and easily as possible. A 4x8 HO layout seems to me to be the best way to do that.
I agree Dave. I’m currently in HO but am seriously considering changing to N because of the space limitations.
I have a 24’x19’ area to build my layout. Because some of the space is needed as an isle to get from the stairs to the rec-room and to the basement exit door the space is cut to 18’x14’. In that space I also have to include the area for my work bench. There is also a 1 foot square pillar that for layout purposes is in a bad spot.
These limitations will make it hard for me to build a layout where I can run some long passenger trains. Making 30" radius curves is only possible if I build it with a duck under or lift out which I don’t want to do.
Switching to N will allow a fair sized layout where I can use wide sweeping turns without having to make a duck under of lift out
I wonder if the 4x8 is derived from the idea that a novice might be reluctant to cut down a shet of plywood…? Seems silly, since the WGH video even showed a table built by dimensional lumber created by a ripped-down 4x8 sheet of plywood… A 4x8 is clearly not the optimal use of room space, but its popularity can’t be denied. I think either a change of table size/arrangement or scale would be a welcome change. I was still left wanting to see more of the On30 New Mexico Central project layout. Somehow I never did get a good sense of how it all went together as a whole.
Even though I work in HO, I’ve gotten lots of good ideas from MR’s articles about other scales. Two cases in point are the ‘O’ scale Canandagua Southern by John Armstrong and the N scale version of the New York & Quebec by John Hyatt, and the Kalmbach Class of 1968! Scale really isn’t that much of a consideration as long as no special trackwork, etc. unique to one scale are used.
Let’s look at cutting up the 4 x 8, or adding an extension, and working with shelves, peninsulas, and the like. A ‘panhandle’ gets us involved with wyes, reversing sections, and out-and-back operation–a little advanced for a first railroad, but interesting and useful to a wide audience. Remember the motto of the poor architect: there is no shortage of space, just a shortage of creativity.