Thoughts for the MR layout after next project

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

Ok, MR just started the Virginian series and has the Webcam up for next year’s project. Not intending to start a ruckus since I like both, but wanted to throw out some suggestions for a different approach on the next one.

The first suggestion is to take a published track plan for a room size railroad (say for example the San Jacinto or one of MRP’s room size plans). And then build it from finishing a room for model railroading to a complete sceniced railroad and room. Instead of trying to do in 4 or 5 months, go ahead and spend a year on it.

The second suggestion is somewhat like the DIY Blog Cabin concept. If you haven’t seen it, viewers vote each week on suggestions for design and contraction until a finished project emerges. In MR terms you could take a few weeks and start with picking a theme/era/prototype. Then vote among track plans. And so on until all the decisions for building a model railroad are made. That brings us the readers right in as part of the project from the beginning.

Just my 2 cents, before taxes, and new railroad purchases.

2

Anything, repeat anything but another 4 x 8 or another roundy go roundy!

How about a project model railroad designed from the start for prototypical operation and not one where some operations are created to justify a roundy go roundy.

The designed should be for a medium sized room, say 12 x 16 feet or so. It should include a suitably sized yard with engine facilities, at least two en-route “stations” with sidings and some industrial switching and at least one interchange, preferably an active interchange. Some form of staging, either stub ended or even run through staging, to keep the roundy go roundy crowd happy is a must.ended.

It may even be interesting to see if a reasonable double decker could be fitted into the space.

The layout should be able to run way freights, through freights and some form of passenger service.

Oh, and not another diesel era nor even a coal hauling road, please. I think we’ve had enough of those for a while. How about one set firmly in the steam era for a change?

A design based on a prototype line or a freelanced design to fit the space, it doesn’t matter.

Prototype railroad or a freelance railroad, it doesn’t matter, though freelance gives a wider choice of rtr steam power.

As another poster wrote, it could be a project layout that runs over multiple issues, perhaps for even longer than 12 months until it is reasonably complete.

That’s my choice but I’m not going to hold my breath… I’d lay odds that the next one will be yet another roundy go roundy 4 X 8. [:(].

3

A few years back I suggested on this forum that I think a really cool idea would be for MR to hold a layout design contest. Then the experts would build the winning design as the next project layout. They could set the parameters of layout design contest like the previous ones with the sq. ft. restrictions etc… It gives the magazine a different approach to the project layout and also 3 months of layout designs (3rd, 2nd, and 1st place) and then several months content for the actual build. Just an idea whether it be good, bad, or indifferent.

4

Room sized layouts are a bit beyond what the MR staff can do as a project railroad. THAT is you to you do do and submit to them. They do not want to intimidate new modelers, and us old hands are going to do what we want anyway, and are less likely to tear down and start over just to follow them.

The LION’S modeling methods are hardly exemplary, but it does build a railroad which occupies the LION much to the relief of the local wildebeests (if any).

They did hold a contest and the LION did submit an entry, but apparently his entry was of little interest to them. (I wonder why). [LION filled the room with a six story helix.]

It might be nice to do a scenery or building project. Perhaps they could build a 60 story glass and steel building. LION would like to see one of those before he tries it on his own only to make a mess of things.

ROAR

5

I agree with you too. I have no interest in small layouts and to be honest I’m getting a little tired of MR pushing these things on us. I don’t care what kind of layout you can build on a 4x8 sheet of plywood. Now after saying that I have picked up a couple useful tips on how they do things while they were building their mini layouts so they do serve some purpose.

6

Hi All

I tend to agree with the above posters; and I understand that MR has a mag to produce. I wonder if the pages could expand to both concepts? Sure, MR wants to capture the new and/or armchair modellers, but what about the ton of folks out there that have produced a ( or many ) layout(s)? Their experience; both right or wrong would also help those new/armchair folks and the wisdom of what is done right or done wrong could surface for the betterment of all. Betterment ??? hmmm, is that a word?

When I first started reading MR ( July '64 ) I had a full basement but no money, so a couple of cookie cutter layouts appeared and I could run trains, but not much in scenery, buildings and extra track work. Today I have money but no basement, so an ‘out building’ was built to house the pike. I have asked questions on this forum ( and others ) and using those answers, I think that I have a better plan to go with. I have been through 3 iterations of a track plan that meets what I want to do and the physical fit into the space because of those answers. I am getting there!

Of course, assuming that MR has some warehouse with a small corner to actually build a 12x16 room ( akin to a big bedroom ) could be another story. I do like the idea of starting from the bare studs and building all the infrastructure as there seems to be more and more posts on the subject. Remember to add fake windows and other possible …um… problems. I also think that this railroad theme or concept would need to be the prototype from now to a few years back as that is what you see in real life. My reminiscent of steam running is mine and nobody else can remember it like I. I guess on the other hand MR could do something in the steam era and some sort of ‘protolancing’ as for the most part all there is left is memory and pix of those era’s.

On the other other hand ( I have three…right? ) I also wonder if the whole thing is moot? Older

7

I think MR builds 4 x 8 layouts because it’s a convenient excercise in model railroad construction from soup to nuts which they can then easily transport to shows to demonstrate and promote the hobby. Such a project can be completed in a reasonable amount of time and encompasses all of the facets of layout design and building. I am sure that everyone who is involved with bringing the readers these annual forays into Layout Creation 101 at Kalmbach are well aware of the possibilties of a better use of space than plunking a 32-foot square chunk of layout in the average spare room.

They show you the basic techniques. It’s up to each individual modeler to decide whether the 4 x 8 suits their needs or if they would prefer a slightly more ambitious design to better make use of their space.

8

Older people have more time and money, and generally more crafty skills. They also tend to have accumulated more experience by the time they agree to the label ‘older’. MR has them as interested fans, but we hardly do more than enjoy flipping the pages of the magazine and looking for new products or product reviews. Any how-to’s are going to interest those with less time, money, and fewer well-developed skills, and probably less space in a younger family’s domicile. It makes abundant sense for their staff to demonstrate how easy it is to put one’s mind to the problem of space and limited finances. One needs only to plan a bit, be creative, and one can soon have an inexpensive but complete model train set/layout. Joe Blow with 2.3 kids, a $200 mortgage, two cars to maintain and insure, and in a 1400 sq. ft. home is unlikely to be doing more than dreaming of lofty things such as medium sized room layouts. If he’s smart, he’ll build something that will survive repeated slidings under one of the beds. The family would probably agree to that, especially the wife.

What will fit under a bed, or in a closet, or in a corner of the garage?

Crandell

9

While having a project layout article that starts with an unfinished room and progresses to a finished layout would really be nice to see in MR, it would take several years to complete. Just look at how long it takes us to build our model railroads. Sure, they have a staff that means there is more than one person working on it, but my last model railroad took me 15 years to complete. With a staff of three it would have taken five years. That’s a long time in magazine terms.

However, MR has always left the door open to Model Railroaders to submit articles on how they went about various things related to Model Railroading, like finishing a room and building a layout. Perhaps they could dig through their submissions and find some things that would be appropriate for a series of articles.

On the other hand, if there were an experienced modeler or two that had to “start from the beginning”, and took the time to document their work with photos, and write several articles as the work was being done, this would also fill the bill, and also result in compensation to the modeler for his extra work. Look at the previous works of John Allen, Malcomb Furlow, and others. They may be well known now, but when they first started they weren’t. They also had a love of sharing the hobby of Model Railroading with others.

Actually writing an article isn’t that hard. It just takes some time that most modelers would rather use in building their layouts. You also have to have a hard skin, be prepared for some rejections, and don’t take it personally. The biggest drawback up to now has been how to get quality photos that MR would accept. But now since the inexpensive high quality digital camera is more available, that is not the issue it once was.

I have been submitting things on and

10

agree with everything you say here. MR is about all levels and wants to introduce the hobby to new people and encourage them to continue.

that being said, they could do a shelf switching layout where they cut it from a 4x8…being a shortline fan i would also recommend that too hahaha

11

The MR layout series ought to be aimed at convincing newcomers that a layout is possible for ordinary mortals and does not require unreasonable woodworking skills, and can be fitted into a regular sized house or apartment. Something to bring them from the armchair railroading phase into the running home layout phase.

I’d be interested in a “takes no space” layout such as an under-the-bed project. It would roll out from under the bed and somehow (don’t ask me how) legs would unfold to support the layout at reasonable operating height. Or a stand up against the wall layout. Or a unique construction techique, such as a 4 by 8 built on foamboard with no plywood bottom. Or a dorm room layout. Or a round-the-walls layout with a lift out/swing out section across the doorway. Or a 4 * 8 with a view block. Anything unique and different and buildable.

The idea should be something beginners can successfully finish and in which old hands can find clever new techniques.

12

Actually, Model Railroader is, and always has been, quite good about showing readers how to plan, build and construct all of these types of layouts. As you may be aware, it takes them awhile to plan and build one, while suitably documenting it with pictures and associated commentary, so they can only crank out a few a year. That said however, if you have a local library, or some spare cash and can plunk down for one of their “whole collection” DVD’s, or maybe a nearby model railroading club, or a friend who’s in the hobby-- who may have back issues to peruse-- you’ll find great examples of all of the types of layouts you mentioned, both in demonstration layout form, as well as in countless articles and discussions of their various pros and cons, and the myriad issues involved in their construction and operation.

Personally, I would recommend to anyone who hasn’t already done so-- invest in an annual subscription to Model Railroader, and become active here in the forums. Many of the Model Railroader / Kalmbach staff hang out here, and of course you can always contact them directly (see the links at the bottom for more info on that) to tell them what you think and what you would like to see in the magazine. I can attest that they are very approachable (and nice too).

John

13

Hi,

I have read all the remarks of this post and it seem it’s enough whith the 4x8 format

Even if all the MR projects are always interesting to read,and give us something to learn, I beleive it’s time to change the small 4x8 format which was used, reused and may be used again in the future.

A medium sized layout could offer more lessons to learn, more diversity and make dissappear the rounding theme.

Whith that kind of layout you can forget the congested area.

Bigger layout mean also a different type of construction, no more door table but open grit or L girder construction, roadbed whith the cookie method or the spline method.

Bigger electrical hardware, local panel and centralized control whith big staging and good signaling system, DCC whith powered district.

No matter about the company, but a good theme in the most answered period.

Like most of the MR project chance it was never constructed by one of us,but the lessons learned would be so valuable and I beleive it’s the purpose of MR. In consequence no reason to say it’s too big, it’s too expensive, The purpose of such project is to show and learn how to do a layout; these methods are ok for all the size.

The scale could be Nscale because the emphasis could be greater in a medium sized layout whith a smaller scale but at the end the methods of construction remain the same for all scale.

Forget also the just overview of a step of construction; but go deeper in each step; I feel since a few projects MR would finish it in a hurry; we have time an one year story certainly don’t hurt us.

I have not the answer of whath will be the next layout but we can dream.

Four years ago I posted on this forum the following question:

Is MR too basic?

Marc

14

No, no a thousand times no to the “local panel and centralised control”!

That’s old fashioned. These days there’s no centralised control, that’s outdated thinking and fit only for train sets, not model railroads. These days, it’s all about follow your train, walk around control. A centralised control panel should be as extinct as the Dodo!

Is MR too basic? Many times I think “Yes”.

15

Huh? Railroads are moving more and more to centralized control. Ft. Worth controls the entire BNSF system. (The could do it from Bangladesh if they wanted to.)

That said, MR did have that one layout that was fully computerized. It had more computers on that layout than we have on our small business network. Most of us cannot afford that, and even thought I have dabbled long in computerdom, I could not make that work.

That said, most of us model different eras. Ought not our control systems reflect the period that we are modeling. Mine does.

16

I think that the next project railroad should be a 12x31 ft point to point layout in S scale.

As all the polls have shown in the last two years this is the most popular scale/size/type of layout that is being built these days - some 50.482% of all modelers. [bow] [bow] [bow] [bow]

Personally, I haven’t followed a published track plan since my first layout 39 years ago which was…

Wait for it…

,

,

,

,

,

,

A 4x8 layout.

[(-D] [(-D] [(-D] [(-D]

Paul

17

Lion.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here.

When I said no to central controls, I was talking about the 1950s/60s style of model railroad train control where the operators all ran their trains from a central control panel that had all the throttles and controlled all the electrical from one place on the railroad. From the “Operators’” platform or from the “Operators’” pit kind of thing.

These days we control the speed and direction of our trains by walking around the layout with them. Not from one central location with a bank of throttles. That’s old fashioned and outdated.

The photo you showed was of an interlocking plant’s “levers”, not what I was discussing. Neither was I discussing the centralisation of prototype railroad controls of dispatching, signalling and interlocking from a CTC plant hundreds of miles from the location being controlled. That’s not how I use the word “control” in a model railroad context.

How we “control” our trains means how we set speed and direction.

We dispatch our trains from a centralised CTC plant hundreds of miles away either with a CTC plant, or track warrants or in the old days, via the dispatcher writing train orders.

Hence the confusion over terminology. We all must speak the same railroad language. :slight_smile:

18

Well, lot of discussion I’ve missed today. Been at pinewood derby all day, and I do mean all day. Started at nine this morning and got home about 830.

I agree with a lot of the comments, esp someone who said perhaps doing a double deck layout. It does seem like MR does a 4x8 every other year, but they have done a lot of room size layouts as well. KR&D for example, or Andy Sperandeo’s Washita and SF, or even the Williams Bay from last year.

There were a lot of comments about either beginners or experienced, but I propose there is a third type of model railroad out there, a type that perhaps could really use something between a 4x8 and basement empire. That person is the model railroader who is ready to transition from the tabletop roundy roundy as someone called it to a slightly more complex railroad. Transition realistic operations. Transition from shake the box and RTR to craftsman kit and scratch building.

It seems we do that with a lot of things, look at them from two extremes, without providing a path from beginner to expert. That transition is where we lose them, by making the chasm between beginner and expert to big. I suggest MR give show them the path across.

Afterall, why does the project layout have to complete in only four issues?

19

I am not sure anybody actually builds the same layout as in the MR project layout or any other layout article, nor do I think MR really expects anyone to, except perhaps for the simple World Greatest Hobby layout and the old HO Railroad That Grows, which are aimed at first timers who desire to follow instructions exactly to the same end result so that they have some basis for knowing that they “got it.”

If you need to know how to build basic benchwork, lay track, wire a layout, put in some scenery, and start in on basic operations, and basically need to know all of those things at the same time, a project layout does all those things and it in theory shouldn’t matter whether it is an oval or point to point or point to loop or whatever. It is a teaching tool, and all with the bigger idea of there being a “theme” or prototype behind all the effort - that might not occur to a beginner. Having it take the form of a complete operating layout is in the nature of a proof of concept.

There is also the long tradition of taking the project layout out on the road to train shows where the trains run while the staff chats with visitors. Like it or not an oval of some sort of a size near to 4x8 (the Virginian which I saw at last November’s Trainfest is a bit smaller than that) fits that bill. And given the talents on the MR staff even more advanced modelers with no interest in an oval of any sort still end up examining the annual MR project layout very closely.

Now there have been some more advanced layouts over the years. The Beer Line was a good example. Back in the 1960s they had a project layout called the Sierra Pintada that was point to point with a sort of 1895-1905 period, and intended in essence as a large corner of a much larger layout. And perhaps their most glorious project layout ever, the N scale Clinchfield of years ago, was in esse

20

How bout really doing something different and doing one of Milwaukee’s fine traction lines? Lakeside power plant ? Number 10 car line? North Shore line? East Troy line in 1949?

Randy Stahl