Ideas for the next Model Railroader Project Layout

[Kyle]

The N scale Red Oak layout looks great and I can't wait to read about it. I am sure that there will be a lot of new information I can use.  

However, I model the modern era in HO scale.  For the next project layout, I would like to see an HO scale modern era layout that is practical for small spaces.  There were a few modern HO scale project layouts completed for the MR&T (MRR Staff layout), but the plans where a bit large.  I was thinking something that would fit in a spare room.  Maybe even a shelf layout.  For a prototype, I would suggest a branch line that would have a few GP38-2s, GP40, GP40-2s, or maybe an SD40-2.

What are your ideas for the next Model Railroader Project Layout?

[JDCoop]

I think it would be cool to combine a layout design contest with the project layout series.  In the past MR would have readers submit layout designs based on a set of constraints. They could do this again and then the winning design would be built by MR staff as the next project layout. 

[jmbjmb]

For the last few years they have done pretty well at  hitting a good mix, including the styles of railroading I'm interested in.  For the project layouts, I love seeing a mix of scales and subjects just to see alternatives to what I'm doing (1950s SR branch)  Last year's seaport hit one of my desires, as does this years midwest.  I believe they did a modern HO shelf layout a couple years ago with the WSOR, but I agree with you that it was a bit on the large size. 

Because I love variety, personally I'd like to see the next layout be narrow gauge around the turn of the previous century (say 1890-1910).  Perhaps in On30 to explore that scale/gauge combination.

But I could go with the modern shelf as well.  The one thing I'd really like to see in a project layout is for them to take a typical room, much like the standard "spare room" that MRP has used and build in it.  I know it's a stretch, but mock up the walls, windows, closets, and doors and build around them.  Would love to see how they approach common contraints and problems.

 

jim

[rrinker]

 The did just do On30, except it was only on MR Video Plus, not in the magazine. ANd it's a nice small layout that would fit just about anywhere.

 As for using reader submitted track plans for a project layout, well, it seems most of the tiem, the reader submitted plans are plans for the layout they've already built. At least, the winning ones. Couldbe why they win - they are actual practical track plans that work when actually built, vs ones that may indeed fit int he space but have sneaky issues like grade clearnaces or just not fun to run trains on.

                   --Randy

[mlehman]

I've got an idea for the next project layout. "Moving In: The Model Railroader Reality Show." People enter their names and one lucky winner gets a different member of the MR staff every week for 16 weeks to help them finish their layout for the big reveal.

There will be Cody in his wifebeater t-shirt and Bugs Bunny slippers at breakfast. It turns out Neil snores...a lot...so you have to ask him to sleep out in the camper or your wife will renounce the contract. Steve O. went to graduate school with Julian Assange for a semester...lots of hijinks ensue when they spend an afternoon Skype-ing to catch up.

This could be fun...

[BRAKIE]

As a former  N Scaler I am not impress at all with that 2'x7' track plan since there are better plans that would work far better in that space...

Maybe MR should allow its  N Scale readers to design such future  N Scale  project layouts?

[Kyle]

I have been thinking about this more.  For the next Model Railroad Project Layout, I would like to see:

• HO scale
• Modern Era (2000+)
• Short line/branch line
• Located in 1)North Carolina and/or Virginia or 2) Midwest
• Fits in at most a 10x10 spare room
• Interchange with a Class 1 like Norfolk Southern
• Uses four axle locomotives (GP38-2, GP40-2) and six axle locomotives (SD40-2)
• Maybe have a U shaped layout consisting of three modules, but make each module independent, so you don't have to build all three.

[angelob6660]

MR project layouts are supposed to be short enough for the average person before you decide to make that dream layout.

My idea for the next project layout would be Conrail in N Scale on a door probably set in the 1980s. The scenery and location doesn't bother me, as long they have everything else under control.

[ACY Tom]

Mike:

You been breathing those paint fumes again?

Tom

[rayw46]

jmbjmb

For the last few years they have done pretty well at  hitting a good mix, including the styles of railroading I'm interested in.  For the project layouts, I love seeing a mix of scales and subjects just to see alternatives to what I'm doing (1950s SR branch)  Last year's seaport hit one of my desires, as does this years midwest.  I believe they did a modern HO shelf layout a couple years ago with the WSOR, but I agree with you that it was a bit on the large size. 

Because I love variety, personally I'd like to see the next layout be narrow gauge around the turn of the previous century (say 1890-1910).  Perhaps in On30 to explore that scale/gauge combination.

But I could go with the modern shelf as well.  The one thing I'd really like to see in a project layout is for them to take a typical room, much like the standard "spare room" that MRP has used and build in it.  I know it's a stretch, but mock up the walls, windows, closets, and doors and build around them.  Would love to see how they approach common contraints and problems.

 

jim

 

Yeh, but they would insist on calling it On2 1/2.

Ray

[stokesda]

If you like the track plan and the basic concept, I'm sure it could easily be adapted for any era. Just change the scenery and some of the industries, and voila... Really the only thing that would need to change is the scenery portion of the layout. The trackwork, electrical, benchwork, etc would still be the same. Maybe MR could address this in future project layouts by publishing suggested "alternative era/location" diagrams with different industries and scenery to fit a particular theme. IIRC, I've seen a similar thing done with some of Ian Rice's designs in some of the Kalmbach books.

[mlehman]

ACY

Mike:

You been breathing those paint fumes again?

Tom

 

Heh, heh, heh.

Tom, you know I'm always thinking outside of the box. I figured the reality show format is pretty acceptable, warts and all, so MR might as well plug into the way people think about the world when they entertain themselves.

I would expect them to File 13 this idea, of course, except for the "improve my layout" part. Now there's the kernal of a new way to look at the project layout theme, although I'm not sure it's really original to me. Wasn't there a recent thread about some folks going and doing a makeover on someone layout? If not, if your wife watches enough HGTV or you something similar but more tool oriented, the "makeover" is also an idea that people could latch onto.

People could enter the contest with a pic or two and a short eassy describing why the layout is so lame, while extolling its potential for improvement. Best sob story wins.

[Burlington Northern #24]

BRAKIE

As a former  N Scaler I am not impress at all with that 2'x7' track plan since there are better plans that would work far better in that space...

Maybe MR should allow its  N Scale readers to design such future  N Scale  project layouts?

 

*3 x 7* What you didn't like about it?

I thought it was a good plan. It don't look like a spaghetti bowl, there's atleast 5 industries and hidden staging. If I had the space I'd be building a copy of it right now but based on a different geographical area. (David designed ithe's an N scaler.)

[BRAKIE]

Gray,One can incorporate a decent layout with industries,small yard and still have room for scenery on a 3x7' layout.I wouldn't waste any space for stagging since I would build it as a branch line or short line centered around that type of operation..

I wish I had photos of my 36" x72" hollow core door layout I had in the 80s.

[Burlington Northern #24]

BRAKIE

Gray,One can incorporate a decent layout with industries,small yard and still have room for scenery on a 3x7' layout.I wouldn't waste any space for stagging since I would build it as a branch line or short line centered around that type of operation..

I wish I had photos of my 36" x72" hollow core door layout I had in the 80s.

 

I think I could see that, I think they put staging on the layout though so they could make it seem as if trains are coming and going. 

[rrinker]

 But if you fill up the entire door with your branch line, where does all the traffic come from? That's what the staging is for. And the way they set up this layout, not only do they have staging for beyond the layout on the main line, they also have a junction, with staging for that.

 Unlike some of their other layouts, this one is designed to be included completely within the dimensions of the door, instead of using a fold down shelf for staging.

                  --Randy

 

[mactier_hogger]

rrinker

 But if you fill up the entire door with your branch line, where does all the traffic come from? That's what the staging is for. And the way they set up this layout, not only do they have staging for beyond the layout on the main line, they also have a junction, with staging for that.

 Unlike some of their other layouts, this one is designed to be included completely within the dimensions of the door, instead of using a fold down shelf for staging.

                  --Randy

 

 

[BRAKIE]

rrinker

 But if you fill up the entire door with your branch line, where does all the traffic come from? That's what the staging is for. And the way they set up this layout, not only do they have staging for beyond the layout on the main line, they also have a junction, with staging for that.

 Unlike some of their other layouts, this one is designed to be included completely within the dimensions of the door, instead of using a fold down shelf for staging.

                  --Randy

 

 

Stagging is good for large layouts.

The cars on my old CD&B arrived and departed by interchanged which IMHO is far better then  stagging for the type of layout I was talking about.

Here's a rub with stagging..One usually uses the same cars each operation session causing that age old saying-gee whiz there's that dented B&O gon again sine stagging a train is easy..

With interchange  one may do the same as above or far better is the outbound interchange cars is removed from the layout and replaced with inbound cars.

A lot of railroading can be designed into that same 3'x7' area without the needless stagging.

Of course one would need to know about branch line or short line operation and think outside of the layout planning box.

Did you know that same 3'x7' would yield a decent point to point urban industrial branch layout?

[Kyle]

stokesda

If you like the track plan and the basic concept, I'm sure it could easily be adapted for any era. Just change the scenery and some of the industries, and voila... Really the only thing that would need to change is the scenery portion of the layout. The trackwork, electrical, benchwork, etc would still be the same. Maybe MR could address this in future project layouts by publishing suggested "alternative era/location" diagrams with different industries and scenery to fit a particular theme. IIRC, I've seen a similar thing done with some of Ian Rice's designs in some of the Kalmbach books.

 

Sure you can change the scenery and industries on a track plan you like, but MRR has a lot of articles on the scenery, industries, and rolling stock.  While all the articles can help you, the ones with your era/location are the best.

I started this thread to see what everyone's thought was on what should the next MRR project layout be based on. I would prefer to stay away from "well you can change ....."

[rrinker]

 Yeah, but they just did a point to point switching layout (depending on config) - the Beer Line.

 Unless you jam it up against the wall, someone can play in the staging yard and swap cars around, take some off, put new ones on.

             --Randy

 

[Kyle]

BRAKIE

 

 

rrinker

 But if you fill up the entire door with your branch line, where does all the traffic come from? That's what the staging is for. And the way they set up this layout, not only do they have staging for beyond the layout on the main line, they also have a junction, with staging for that.

 Unlike some of their other layouts, this one is designed to be included completely within the dimensions of the door, instead of using a fold down shelf for staging.

                  --Randy

 

 

 

 

 

Stagging is good for large layouts.

The cars on my old CD&B arrived and departed by interchanged which IMHO is far better then  stagging for the type of layout I was talking about.

Here's a rub with stagging..One usually uses the same cars each operation session causing that age old saying-gee whiz there's that dented B&O gon again sine stagging a train is easy..

With interchange  one may do the same as above or far better is the outbound interchange cars is removed from the layout and replaced with inbound cars.

A lot of railroading can be designed into that same 3'x7' area without the needless stagging.

Of course one would need to know about branch line or short line operation and think outside of the layout planning box.

Did you know that same 3'x7' would yield a decent point to point urban industrial branch layout?

 

Different people have different needs and preferences.  I would like to see a layout built in a few modules, that each individual can slightly modify to us taste. 

I think a U shaped layout would be cool. It can be broken up into three "modules".  Each module could be used by itself.  If you want a shelf layout along a wall, use one of the modules.  Have a lomger wall, use a second module, or all three for a really long wall.  Want a L shaped layout, use two or three modules.  You can pick and choose by rearranging the modules, and changing the track work on the ends of te modules so they fit together in your arrangement.  Breaking the layout into more modules will allow for more flexibility. You could stretch the modules (or slightly shorten) to fit your space.  If you have extra space, you may choose to add more staging.  If you are tight on space, then you may choose to get rid of the staging.

The Rice Harbor was able to be reconfigured, but it only has two shapes and probably would require some planning to lengthen it.

[russ_q4b]

1950s downtown somewhere USA with trolleys running in the middle of the major streets.  It either be a shelf layout, the

classic 4x8 or the hybrid L shape or rectangle layout that David Popp likes to do.  Lunde Studios, CMR, Walthers, Scale

Structures and DPM offer alot of good downtown buildings.  Maybe someone could do a seperate kit-bashing project to have a

unique building.  There are plenty of super detail products to make this project look like a bustling downtown somewhere

USA.

[Jimmy_Braum]

A version of the "SWP" ( south western Pennsylvania) in ho/N scale. Modern class 2 or 3 shortline, goes through towns, servers an industrial park, mountain scenery, interchanges with NS and W&LE,etc. 

[Doughless]

The MR project layouts are usually a small table top layout.  That's fine.  I think they have time and space constraints that limit the ability to build an around the room layout.

In MRP 1995, there is a trackplan of a potential layout representing Wingate IN.  One half of the layout is the town, and the other half staging.  It has a curved center backdrop and building flats too; something that could be educational for when a modeler builds a large layout.

I think something that shows operating potential of a layout would be beneficial rather than a scenery based roundy round.  The article could show how an operating schematic and plan could be wrapped into a 4x8 (approximately)...which is typically the size MR uses for its project layouts.

[Steven S]

BRAKIE

Stagging is good for large layouts.

And small ones.

 

Here's a rub with stagging..One usually uses the same cars each operation session causing that age old saying-gee whiz there's that dented B&O gon again sine stagging a train is easy..

You run into the same problem without staging (one 'g'.)  Without staging you're just running the same cars around in circles.  Staging at least allows you to have two or three different trains hidden away to mix things up.

Steve S

 

[dknelson]

Staging has little or nothing to do with whether the same cars are on the the layout and in the same trains over and over; that is a function (or can be) of the car forwarding system.  Even simple card forwarding methods can provide for a car to go off the layout and as practiced by a friend of mine, a car going off the layout was matched by one being put back on (using cards, back to front, in a file card box so that the car now coming onto the layout had perhaps not been used in some time), with its own forwarding routines, which nicely prevented the feeling that you had run that very same train before.   [Edited post: the swapping out of cars can of course be done in staging.]  

It is a long time since MR had a really large layout as their project layout.  Perhaps the old Sierra Pintada of the 1960s?   One nice feature of smaller layouts, in addition to the idea that the entire layout can be completed during the months they set aside for it) is that they can bring it to Trainfest because they are of a portable size.  This year they brought the Olympia Logging layout to Trainfest so that we could actually check out the sector plate and how it worked, and David Popp gave us a detailed view of the other features including the lighting and the construction of the "box" and legs. 

Dave Nelson

[BRAKIE]

Steven S

Without staging you're just running the same cars around in circles. Staging at least allows you to have two or three different trains hidden away to mix things up. Steve S

Steve,Staging(with one "g" lol) and interchange track is good but,not a fix all since both depends on the modeler's ambitions or the lack there of..

Here's my method..I remove outbound cars from the interchange track and replace with the next rotation of cars(might do a topic on that some day).My current 1x10' ISL has 12 different rotations not including the "days" where there is only outbound cars.

A example would be that dented gon may not show up again for several operating sessions if its not removed from the rotation box and place in storage since it draws attention to its self by being dented..

Even with several trains in staging one can say "Gee,there's that dented gon or that pink WSOR boxcar again" as the train rolls across the layout..

Of course unit trains,auto rack trains,stack and piggyback trains blend in without being overly noticed.

 

[Bob Schuknecht]

BRAKIE

Here's my method..I remove outbound cars from the interchange track and replace with the next rotation of cars(might do a topic on that some day).My current 1x10' ISL has 12 different rotations not including the "days" where there is only outbound cars.

A example would be that dented gon may not show up again for several operating sessions if its not removed from the rotation box and place in storage since it draws attention to its self by being dented..

Even with several trains in staging one can say "Gee,there's that dented gon or that pink WSOR boxcar again" as the train rolls across the layout..

You seem to be making the assumption that modelers will only rotate cars in interchanges and not rotate cars in staging. On my layout I rotate both. Every car sent to an interchange or to staging gets rotated off the layout.

 

I even rotate unit coal trains so the same train doesn't continually return to the power plant.

[jmbjmb]

Regarding the discussion why they do 4x8, more or less.  As we discuss all the time a 4x8 isn't that small when put in a room.  It's 32 square feet of surface.  Whereas a shelf layout, in a 12x12 room, assuming no more than 2 feet shelf, is less than 80 depending on the door opening.  And that's assuming using 2 feet all the way around.  Instead, as Tony has often mentioned, the width can vary in and out.  Spreading out the layout doesn't require any more complexity in trackwork but more open space, and besides, why do the articles have to finish within a quarter?  Why not spread them over a full year and do a bit more, from beginner design, flex and handlaid track, RTR, kit, kitbashed, and scratchbuilt for both cars and structures, and finally signaling, and some form (TTTO, CTC, whatever) of ops.  They could pull a whole book out of such a series and engage every skill level of reader.

In a conversational manner much like the old Up Clear Creek on the Narrow Gauge series in I think NGSLG.

jim

[BRAKIE]

Bob Schuknecht

You seem to be making the assumption that modelers will only rotate cars in interchanges and not rotate cars in staging. On my layout I rotate both. Every car sent to an interchange or to staging gets rotated off the layout.

Bob,I have operated on several home layouts over the years and based my comment on those observations I can safely say the majority uses the same cars and locomotives even though they may have dozens of locomotives and three or four hundred or even more freight cars.

You and I are no doubt in the minority that rotates cars and maybe locomotives between operation sessions.