I hate to bring up such an old thread, but I blame having access to MR archives. =-)
I've been looking at this plan and feel it is pretty good for what I want for operations. I can run Amtrak and Metra trains one night, or I can run a day's sequenc. I like the standalone plan, with a loop. I don't think I can be convinced a point to point layout is a good idea. I like to let my kids run trains too.
so, for this layout, and my available basement area being 13' x 12' should I take Bay Junction and chop it in half and put a curve in it with staging on the opposite side, or should I make it in N scale as the standalone version (HO was roughly 6'x26'). another benefit of N scale would be more Chicago Metra car choices.
what radius curve would you use for the ends in N scale? I'm mostly familiar with HO scale. could you do a 13' L girder with only legs on both ends? Or would you need more? since my basement is unfinished I need to have a freestanding layout. Do N scale engines have DCC/sound?
Any suggestions before I make the switch? I was thinking about ordering a few models to see if I like them.
pastorbob Further on my original post on this thread, I certainly do not intend to incorporate the layout into my Santa Fe layout, but, there are some structures on the layout that I am interested in and my "waiting with bated breath" is simply to see how and what they used to build them. Thus, even though I don't build the layout, I will still get some value from the stories. Bob
Further on my original post on this thread, I certainly do not intend to incorporate the layout into my Santa Fe layout, but, there are some structures on the layout that I am interested in and my "waiting with bated breath" is simply to see how and what they used to build them. Thus, even though I don't build the layout, I will still get some value from the stories.
Bob
Sure, most ppf us will not build it but the point is that we can all learn something from this layout. What we can learn will be different for each of us.
Frankly if you can't learn anything from this article then maybe their is another you can learn from. If you don;'t think you can learn anything, then maybe you should be writing and submiting your own articles.
So if you are complaining about everything you see in Model Railroader, let the powers that be know about and offer suggestions on what can done to change things.
Irv
dknelson The theme this year, if I read the article correctly, deals with adding a second working railroad interchange, where an operable amount of the secondary railroad is actually modeled (as opposed to the Bill Darnaby/Tony Koester style "crossing to nowhere/interchange siding/swapping out cars between sessions" approach).
The theme this year, if I read the article correctly, deals with adding a second working railroad interchange, where an operable amount of the secondary railroad is actually modeled (as opposed to the Bill Darnaby/Tony Koester style "crossing to nowhere/interchange siding/swapping out cars between sessions" approach).
Right-on Dave! And if I may be so bold... I preduct that this project may be a pivotal moment in MRR-ing. Working junctions multiply the operational possibilities many-fold, far beyond the usual passing- siding-with-industries. However, they are seldom modeled, even though they can be effectively done with a single loop that is off-the-mainline and splits to 2 or 3 double-ended staging tracks.
Just as Tony Koester finally herded all of us into seeing staging as an essential, I see this project as awakening the operationally-oriented modeler to the point where junctions become major features on layouts.
Jim
I like the project layout...although it is a little to big for my available room it is nonetheless interesting to read about how such a layout is built....also..reglardless of wether the layout is like mine, there's always something valuable that I can use.
CNJ831 Odie - This idea is first presented in print in, I believe, the December 1953 MR, therein associated with a project called either The Pine Tree Central, or The Yuletide Central. The editorial found in that same issue indicates that this is a layout for the beginner. This is repeated many times in print over the subsequent 50 years.
Odie - This idea is first presented in print in, I believe, the December 1953 MR, therein associated with a project called either The Pine Tree Central, or The Yuletide Central. The editorial found in that same issue indicates that this is a layout for the beginner. This is repeated many times in print over the subsequent 50 years.
I agree that at the outset of many past project layouts, the editors have stated their intent that the series of articles will help novice modelers take their new train set and turn it into a functional model railroad. But, I don't believe the MR staff has ever stated that, "all MR project layouts must be, and always will be, designed, built and described only for beginners"?
As has been stated by previous posters, there have been several notable MR project layouts that defy the generalization of a beginner's layout: the Washita & Santa Fe, the N-scale BN layout from the early '90's, the Wisconsin Central layout from the late '90's, etc . . . Even the most eager beginner would have been greatly challenged to follow along with these more elaborate layouts. As perceptive as the MR staff is, they must have known this when they commissioned these layouts, thus proving that not all project layouts are inteded for first time efforts by beginners.
Some may feel that all project layouts should be beginner layouts, but the current MR staff has plenty of precedent for stepping outside this box and doing something different.
Tom
Since none of us has the MR&T to add on to, it stands to reason that an article about just such an addition is not going to be any other modeler's project, at least not on an as is basis. I assume that is never actually the purpose of these project layouts. Rather they are an excuse to go through the entire catechism from track laying on up to wiring and scenery.
Most project layouts over the years have some central idea -- whether an experiment in using Kato prefab track, or a layout that can be arranged in different ways, showing how L girder works, showing what can be done with the flat table top + cookie cutter changes, that sort of thing.
I always thought one of the most interesting project layouts was in the 1960s: the Sierra Pintada. It was itself rather large and while it could be operated as is as a switching layout, it was intended as part of something even larger that was never actually built. It really showed the flexibility of L girder.
The theme this year, if I read the article correctly, deals with adding a second working railroad interchange, where an operable amount of the secondary railroad is actually modeled (as opposed to the Bill Darnaby/Tony Koester style "crossing to nowhere/interchange siding/swapping out cars between sessions" approach). And the lesson conveyed is that this takes a considerable amount of space. There is clearly layout planning/design SIG interest in interchanges (and an entire Kalmbach booklet), so it is useful to see a project railroad that tries to really do it up right. Those who simply don't have the space will have to ratchet back their planning accordingly. As an educational demonstration that probably makes more sense than to start with the compromise and have the reader imagine how it could be made bigger or more complete.
Dave Nelson
Hmmm. I knew that I was encountering proplems with the system when I entered my latest post last night, but! It appears that each of my attempts to edit the original in fact generated a separate new posting! Sorry 'bout that!
CNJ831
Odie CNJ831: Odie, you, like a number of other posters I believe have missed what the intended objective of MR's annual "Project Layout" is. Where is this supposed objective stated in print? Is this the perceived objective, or a stated one? I didn't see anything about the layout being specifically for beginners. In fact, the front cover of the magazine says "Learn beginner and advanced how-to techniques from the MR staff"
CNJ831: Odie, you, like a number of other posters I believe have missed what the intended objective of MR's annual "Project Layout" is.
Odie, you, like a number of other posters I believe have missed what the intended objective of MR's annual "Project Layout" is.
Where is this supposed objective stated in print? Is this the perceived objective, or a stated one? I didn't see anything about the layout being specifically for beginners. In fact, the front cover of the magazine says "Learn beginner and advanced how-to techniques from the MR staff"
The justification for these project layouts is presented as the introduction of folks who happened to obtain HO train sets at Christmas to the world of adult model railroading. The layouts presented are purposely relatively simple in concept and design. Step-by-step instructions on how to build them are presented over the course of the January, February and March issues. It was logically concluded by the MR staff that if the potential hobbyist could quickly create an operating layout his interest in the new found hobby would not quickly ebb. The choice in size of 4x8, or 5x9, allowed the hobbyist to see rapid progress and have his trains running within weeks of starting.
For more than 50 years MR has continued this tradition with the same purpose in mind, although the sophistication of the annual project layouts has steadily increased to match the range of products available to the hobbyist. At other times of the year more challenging project layouts for the more experienced have occasionally been presented, but the example starting in the January issue has alway been directed toward those new to layout building. The Bay Junction is the first to break with this long tradition, the article being really nothing more than the byproduct of a modification project to a section of the MR&T by the staff, not a layout specifically designed for the first time layout builder.
Odie - This idea is first presented in print in, I believe, the December 1953 MR, therein associated with a project called either The Pine Tree Central, or The Yuletide Central. The editorial found in that same issue indicates that this is a layout for the novice, or beginner. This is repeated many times in print over the subsequent 50 years.
The justification for these layout projects is the introduction of folks who happened to obtain HO train sets at Christmas to the world of adult model railroading. The layouts presented are purposely relatively simple in concept and design. Step-by-step instructions on how to build them is usually presented over the course of the January, February and March issues. It was logically concluded by the MR staff that if the potential hobbyist can quickly create an operating layout his interest in the new found hobby would not quickly ebb. The choice in size of 4x8, or 5x9, allowed the hobbyist to see rapid progress and have his trains running within weeks of starting, an ideal situation.
For more than 50 years MR has continued this tradition, although the sophistication of the annual project layouts has steadily increased to match the range of products available to the hobbyist. At other times of the year more challenging project layouts have occasionally been presented, but the example starting in the January issue has alway been directed toward those new to layout building. The Bay Junction is the first to break with this long tradition, the article really being nothing more than the byproduct of a modification to a section of the MR&T by the staff, not a layout specifically designed for the first time layout builder.
Odie - This idea is first presented in print in, I believe, the December 1953 MR, therein associated with a project called either The Pine Tree Central, or The Yuletide Central. The editorial found in that same issue indicates that this is a layout for the beginner. This is repeated many times in print over the subsequent 50 years. The justification for these projects is the introduction of folks who happened to obtain HO train sets at Christmas to the world of adult model railroading. The layouts presented are relatively simple in concept and design. Step-by-step instructions on how to build them is presented over the course of the January, February and March issues. It is logically concluded that if the potential hobbyist can quickly create an operating layout his interest in the new found hobby will not ebb. The choice in size of 4x8, or 5x9, allows the hobbyist to see rapid progress and have his trains running within weeks of starting.
For more than 50 years MR has continued this tradition, although the sophistication of the annual project layouts has steadily increased to match the range of products available to the hobbyist. At other times of the year more challenging project layouts have occasionally been presented, but the example starting in the January issue has alway been directed toward those new to layout building. The Bay Junction is the first to break with this long tradition, being really nothing more than the byproduct of a modification project to a section of the MR&T by the staff, not a layout specifically designed for the first time layout builder.
Odie - This idea is first presented in print in, I believe, the December 1953 MR, therein associated with a project called either The Pine Tree Central, or The Yuletide Central. The editorial found in that same issue indicates that this is a layout for the beginner. This idea is repeated many times in print over the subsequent 50 years.
The justification for these project layouts is, according to MR, the introduction of folks who happened to obtain HO train sets at Christmas to the world of adult model railroading. The layouts presented are relatively simple in concept and design. Step-by-step instructions on how to build them is presented over the course of the January, February and March issues. It is logically concluded by the MR staff that if the potential hobbyist can quickly create an operating layout his interest in the new found hobby will not ebb. The choice in size of 4x8, or 5x9, allows the hobbyist to see rapid progress and have his trains running within weeks of starting.
For more than 50 years MR has continued this tradition, although the sophistication of the annual project layouts has steadily increased to match the range of products available to the hobbyist. At other times of the year more challenging project layouts have occasionally been presented, but the example starting in the January issue has alway been directed toward those new to layout building. The Bay Junction is the first to break with this long tradition, the article being really nothing more than the byproduct of a modification project to a section of the MR&T by the staff, not a layout specifically designed for the first time layout builder.
Completely agree, Jon.
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
Looking back over the years I don't think that the MR project railroad was ever intended to always be a beginners or a simple 4X8 project. The Washita and Santa Fe was for example a pretty complicated model railroad. Personally, I like this one much better than the two previous ones. - Nevin
Looks to me like this years MR Project is off to a roaring start.
The thing is that if this series gets modelers to talking and thinking, even if it disappoints some, it will have served it's purpose.
If you find something in the design that you can use, adapt, copy or whatever, then it's worthwhile. Take it as a challenge to dig ideas that are useful to you out of the articles.
OK, back to making trees out of weeds.
Mark Gosdin
.
Hmm...
"MR is full of nothign but beginner stuff. Repeatimg the same thigns over and over again"
So now they come up with a follow along project that is anything BUT the same old same old beginner 4x8 and we have a bunch of people saying the compelte OPPOSITE "OMG not enough beginner material!"
How many people actually build the project layouts exactly as shown? I remember in older issues when they ran a project layout they encouraged submisison of photos from readers on how they built theirs - there were a few published, but it wasn't like half the readership was following along here step by step and making exactly what was shown. It's not the layout building - it's the TECHNIQUES and IDEAS they are teaching. Sure, 6x26 is a bit large, unless you have a basement, but it's doable. But again, I don't think the expectation is to build an exact duplicate. It's the concepts and ideas. The idea of an interchange and junction can be applied to most any size layout. If you have a bit more than minimal space, a branch line. Scenery, operation concepts, it all follows regardless of how big a layout you actually build.
The Beer Line was like a breath of fresh air - something finally not a rectangle 4x8. That would be like the intermediate layout - this one is the more advanced one. There's a logical progression here over the years, rather than the constant rehash that is often complained about.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
CNJ831 Odie, you, like a number of other posters I believe have missed what the intended objective of MR's annual "Project Layout" is. The aim has traditionally been (and should always be) to INSPIRE THE LESS EXPERIENCED HOBBYIST TO BUILD A LAYOUT LIKE IT.
Odie, you, like a number of other posters I believe have missed what the intended objective of MR's annual "Project Layout" is. The aim has traditionally been (and should always be) to INSPIRE THE LESS EXPERIENCED HOBBYIST TO BUILD A LAYOUT LIKE IT.
I suspect we all agree that the Bay Junction layout is not a suitable first layout for your average beginner. Which means, unless you think that everybody working for MR magazine has suddenly taken leave of their senses at the same time, that the MR team also know this.
Which means that their actual goal for this year's layout was apparently not to entice your average armchair modeler into thinking "Hey - I could build that layout in a corner of my spare bedroom".
You may feel it still should be the primary goal of the magazine every year. Could very well be.
Personally I feel it probably would be smarter to just offer all new subscribers (or all purchasers of the January issue) a decent deal on an introductory "how to build a layout from A-Z" type of book.
That way they don't have to wait for four months to get all the issues, and you can give them quite a bit more information than you can in four magazine articles.
But whatever - if MR feels that it is necessary to do yet another classical 4x8 foot H0 scale loop of track with a passing siding, and two industry spurs, using sectional tracks, and featuring a road crossing, a bridge over a stream, a tunnel in one of the rear corners, a mid-western small town main street, a grain elevator, a depot and a freight house, then they can off course do that.
Grin, Stein
The fact is that the novice, or even modestly experienced, modeler's eyes are likely to simply glaze over after looking at the Bay Junction's trackplan and considering its dimensions. It is longer than some modern homes! Folding it to create 40% staging is a waste to most hobbyists and the around-the-wall approach is even a worse use of available space. Overall, the layout is rather boring in my book as a stand alone design and certainly not as inspiring, or exciting as a great many past project layouts.
----------------------
John,As I mention that design would be a space eater in N Scale..I don't know what MR is thinking unless its to showcase Godzilla size layouts in separate buildings or homes with super size basements.
I can see that as a project for a club with a large layout.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Odie, you, like a number of other posters I believe have missed what the intended objective of MR's annual "Project Layout" is. The aim has traditionally been (and should always be) to INSPIRE THE LESS EXPERIENCED HOBBYIST TO BUILD A LAYOUT LIKE IT. This means the project layout should be within the size and complexity range of the average hobbyist, novice, or perhaps even the armchair guys, AS IT STANDS. It should not require the wouldbe builder to totally rethink, redesign and compress it. He's typically Joe Public, not John Armstrong. These layouts are supposed to generate a response from the novice, or modestly experienced, hobbyist of, "Hey, I can build that!" Does the Bay Junction?
Neither is it the intent of project layouts to expose and educate the more experienced hobbyist to new concepts. This is the province of regular feature articles in the magazine. There, specific subjects can be dealt with properly in much greater detail. Yes, one might perhaps snatch a concept for kitbashing some particular structure from a project layout story. However, such ideas are once again handled in a far more enlightening fashion in articles like those written by Art Curren as magazine features in years past, where step-by-step instructions were provided.
JonMN Stein, those are good points, for a veteran modeler such as your self.
Stein, those are good points, for a veteran modeler such as your self.
Jon - I am not a veteran modeler with 30+ years of experience in the hobby. I am a middle aged guy who has been in the hobby about 4 years, and still have not gotten my first real layout (being the third one I have started on) to the stage where I have grass on my layout and ballast on my tracks :-)
JonMN However, everything you said is already covered in the many excellent articles published year round. I could have never come up with a plan such as the one you presented in this post and I believe that it reinforces the point that I am trying to make. I guess I looked forward to the project layout as a "layout for dummies" sort of article. Everyone that has disagreed with my original post has only pointed out things that we get in every copy of MRR already. Simply put, I am not saying you should not enjoy reading the article or will not learn anything from it. I will still read it and enjoy it, because I like trains. It just feels a little redundant to me.
However, everything you said is already covered in the many excellent articles published year round. I could have never come up with a plan such as the one you presented in this post and I believe that it reinforces the point that I am trying to make.
I guess I looked forward to the project layout as a "layout for dummies" sort of article. Everyone that has disagreed with my original post has only pointed out things that we get in every copy of MRR already.
Simply put, I am not saying you should not enjoy reading the article or will not learn anything from it. I will still read it and enjoy it, because I like trains. It just feels a little redundant to me.
Well, I guess it depends on what the project layouts are supposed to be - whether they are supposed to be "A to Z on how to build your first layout" or "some ideas for a layout".
There are several good books out on "how to build your first layout".
Marty McGuirk's "N Scale Railroading: Getting Started in the Hobby"
Jim Kelly's "H0 Railroad From Start to Finish"
David Popp's : "Building a layout step by step"
Ian Rice's "Shelf Layouts for Model Railroads"
Lance Mindheim's "How to design a switching layout" and "How to build a switching layout" (http://www.lancemindheim.com/bookstore.htm)
And many, many more.
The nice thing about the project railroads is (IMO - we can disagree on this) not that they do an A-Z. It is that they may give us some new ideas. Some ideas presented these last few years:
L-shaped point to point shelf layout in H0 scale. N scale double track island layout with curved view block down the spine Modular layout in H0 scale And now - double sided peninsula, modeling a junction & an interchange between two railroads
What next? Perhaps a doughnut shaped layout or and around the walls layout in a small room. Or an N scale hollow core door layout. Or another 4x8 in H0 scale. Or a traction or interurban layout.
They cycle through presenting various ideas.
Smile, Stein
Put me on the side of mildly disappointed. For some of the reasons already mentioned and some different.
The biggie is that there doesn't seem to be any "Wow that's neat" to this. Especially compared to some of the other projects they've done over the years.
Last years N scale job showed what can be done with a basic starter kit and emphasized the use of double sided backdrop to make things seem bigger, likethe train actually traveled somewhere. An old trick but modernized and rehashed for a small layout, not just a peninsula of a basement empire.
The Beer lines claim to fame of sections that can be put together in a different arrangement was ingenious, not to mention the option of building extra sections for more operation as time progressed. True, modular guys have been doing this for years but usually as a club, not single persons. Using casters is a bit of a gimmick but a functional one that can be useful.
The old Clinchfield was groundbreaking in many ways and need not be discussed here for space reasons.
Frankly I think this years project is just a large scale version of Popp's 4 weeks to a bigger layout series from last year or before. I also feel that one was better written and more indepth on the how to. And the suggestion that this expansion can be a stand alone layout doesn't sit well with me, not sure if it's the size or operational abilities yet...
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Stein, those are good points, for a vetern modeler such as your self. However, everything you said is already covered in the many excellent articles published year round. I could have never come up with a plan such as the one you presented in this post and I believe that it reinforces the point that I am trying to make.
Simply put, I am not saying you should not enjoy reading the article or will not learn anything from it. I will still read it and enjoy it, because I like trains. It just feels a little redundent to me.
Jon
steinjr Well, I don't know. I feel I learn something from pretty much every layout or track plan I see. Case in point - have a quick look at tracks for the Kelly Appliance factory. Not too deep a scene, and yet they get the tracks to curve off and go into the building instead of running parallel to the yard - by applying the trick that the industry track can extend a little under the view block and scenery on the other side. Simple, and I had seen it before, but a useful reminder of a trick for a double sided layout with a view block. They are illustrating partial buildings along a backdrop. Some people have not considered that.They will be illustrating scratch building and kit-bashing buildings - some people haven't done that before. They illustrate using an overpass as a scenic separator between the Williams Bay station and the Bay Junction yard. Some people have not considered that. They illustrate an interchange yard, and probably introduce a few people to the concept of interchange - making operations more interesting. And you don't actually need a 30 feet wall to create a layout based on the core of this layout. You could make a nice little switching layout based on Bay Junction (the junction, not the whole layout) in H0 scale in say 14-16 feet or so - which in N scale would be about 7-8 feet of length. Here is e.g.a quick sketch for a 14 x 2 foot H0 scale switching layout inspired by the Bay Junction plan - (roughly backdated to the 1950s, to make cars 40-footers mostly) - you would either have to fiddle trains between switching sessions, or add staging - fixed or cassette, but it would allow quite a bit of switching fun: The trick is that you can take inspiration from any track plan, without building an exact replica of the plan. Make it your own. Grin, Stein
Well, I don't know. I feel I learn something from pretty much every layout or track plan I see.
Case in point - have a quick look at tracks for the Kelly Appliance factory. Not too deep a scene, and yet they get the tracks to curve off and go into the building instead of running parallel to the yard - by applying the trick that the industry track can extend a little under the view block and scenery on the other side. Simple, and I had seen it before, but a useful reminder of a trick for a double sided layout with a view block.
They are illustrating partial buildings along a backdrop. Some people have not considered that.They will be illustrating scratch building and kit-bashing buildings - some people haven't done that before.
They illustrate using an overpass as a scenic separator between the Williams Bay station and the Bay Junction yard. Some people have not considered that.
They illustrate an interchange yard, and probably introduce a few people to the concept of interchange - making operations more interesting.
And you don't actually need a 30 feet wall to create a layout based on the core of this layout. You could make a nice little switching layout based on Bay Junction (the junction, not the whole layout) in H0 scale in say 14-16 feet or so - which in N scale would be about 7-8 feet of length.
Here is e.g.a quick sketch for a 14 x 2 foot H0 scale switching layout inspired by the Bay Junction plan - (roughly backdated to the 1950s, to make cars 40-footers mostly) - you would either have to fiddle trains between switching sessions, or add staging - fixed or cassette, but it would allow quite a bit of switching fun:
The trick is that you can take inspiration from any track plan, without building an exact replica of the plan. Make it your own.
I think Stein has the right idea. How many people actually build a project layout as it stands. I doubt if any. And this is really not that big of a layout. Just look for ideas and new ways to do things, I do and get something out of every one. Sorry if you think it's too big, scale things down and keep what you feel is the best part.
Stein, I printed your plan and looking seriously at stealing it for a section of my layout. I'll let you know what I come up with.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ClinchValleySD40
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52481330@N05/
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/8745/sl/c
JonMN Hi Irv, I respectfully disagree with you. I understand that we all have different expectations, but please understand that the "expansion project" is probably larger then most layouts. Sure I like to see what they are doing too and I think that articles such as "How to build a canyon scene" in the Oct issue Step by Step do that very well. Did you notice what layout was the focus of Step by step in the Jan 2011 issue? I think Dana even wrote that they were going to be tight on time in the article, and that is with a team of modelers. In my opinion, this would have been better as the center fold for one issue, not four. As far as possibilitys...................they are endless. They get paid to do what most pay to do. Don't you think they could spend an afternoon with the team and come up with something? We get 12 pretty large detailed layouts a year and don't forget GMR too. It just seems reasonable to do something that us armchair modelers could get into doing. Jon
Hi Irv,
I respectfully disagree with you. I understand that we all have different expectations, but please understand that the "expansion project" is probably larger then most layouts. Sure I like to see what they are doing too and I think that articles such as "How to build a canyon scene" in the Oct issue Step by Step do that very well. Did you notice what layout was the focus of Step by step in the Jan 2011 issue? I think Dana even wrote that they were going to be tight on time in the article, and that is with a team of modelers. In my opinion, this would have been better as the center fold for one issue, not four.
As far as possibilitys...................they are endless. They get paid to do what most pay to do. Don't you think they could spend an afternoon with the team and come up with something?
We get 12 pretty large detailed layouts a year and don't forget GMR too. It just seems reasonable to do something that us armchair modelers could get into doing.
Feel free to disagree with me. I do understand that this expansion project is biger than most layouts but so what? Does it make worthless? I don't think so because it shows the possibilities that are available in a finished layout or even one that is semi-finshed. The MR&T dates back to 1987 from what I understand but not every area was completed because of various reasons including the fact that soem of the people who worked on the layout back then have left Kalbach for various reasons.
Yes, the MR&T us a club layout but many have asked to see it in more detail and this one of getting to see it. So I am happy to see that the Model Railroader staff found a way to incorporate it in the magazine.
It is also and HO layout which some might find offputting. I am an N- Scaler and I knoe many N-Scalers won't be interested in it for that reason alone. Frankly, I don't see that as a good excuse since many of the techniques that are going to be demonstrated can be applied to any scale. Fort example Neil Besougloff kitbashed the station using parts from at least two kits. Who says it can't be done in N or O or S?
Finally, publishing usually works on a six month lead time so what we are seeing in the January issue was probably worked on last winter and spring. Given this lead time factor and the fact that planning a new project is like a black hole in that it will absorb time, effort and talking it ove and you have real problem getting anything done in the time allotted. And there is one thing more. The folks who built this project have real jobs they have to do as well. While it may seem they get paid to do this stuff, that probably isn't true. Being and editor means you have to get things done such as the physical effort of putting each issue to gether so it can go to the printers and that the printers can then get it to the fulfillment house that mails these completed magaziens to each and every subscriber and to the company that actually distributes the copies to the newstands and hobbyshops so they can be sold. These take time and I'll bet Kalmbach is more interested in this part of the business than in having the staff spend their valuable and limited time building a layout. In other words, the layout building is secondary.
How much time do you think the staff has. If your layout was on tour for a national convention would you show it as is or would you spruce it up. So after it took them all spring to spruce the layout up for all the visitors how much time do you think was left. i am guessing that to have an issue come out in december, it has to be done in by late september or at latest early october. That would leave them 2 months to complete it or start the publication with out completing it first. To me that is a big risk.
On to the project layout. I will not build it because my layout is mostly downtown chicago. But i still like it for what i can learn from it. Like the beer line there is thing to learn from this build. There is so much from layouts feaured in model railroader that i put in the back of my mind for possible future layouts. My layout designs might have features that i found interesting on multiple layouts/scales.