Misleading layout design in March 2003 MR

[Anonymous]

Hello Mike,

Your best bet is to e-mail MR editor Terry Thompson directly at [e-mail] with your concern. Trains.com has nothing to do with the editorial or art content of Model Railroader, so it wouldn't be appropriate to comment on it. The staffs don't overlap in those areas.

Regards,

Paul Schmidt
Contributing Editor
Trains.com

[BRAKIE]

I also saw that boo-boo.Nothing new under the sun here as I have seen this type of problems in times past...I have gotten use to the boo boos by the "experts" on layout designs though and no longer pay any attention to those layouts since most don't have no real meaning as far as operation goes and some even lack reason for being as far as railroads go.

[Anonymous]

I am throwing this back up to the top of the page in hopes of getting a response from MR or trains.com staff.
regards / Mike

[Anonymous]

Mayber it's in that new HO-N scale. You know, the new one. Then it would fit. Jamie

[Anonymous]

Actually, John, I was going by the incorrect info in the TEXT and pretty much ignoring "The Layout at a Glance" box.
The text, under "Track Plan", plainly states that the layout as built could have a minimum 27" width, with a 12" inner track radius.
To me, this info would be equivalent to an article appearing in MR that claimed you could build a double-oval layout, with 24" and 26" radius curves, on a 4' x 8' sheet.
regards / Mike

[joseph2]

The layout looks like it has a reverse loop.I am surprised the author didn't mention how he wired it and what it is used for.

[CNJ831]

Well, Mike, you're right...at least to a degree. The dimensions contained in the "layout at a glance" box are out of wack. In fact they don't even correspond to the dimensions of the adjacent layout trackplan. The trackplan indicates the dimensions of the layout to be 31"x65" and thus is probably correct relative to info in the text, or very close to it. I'd hope anyone considering building a layout appearing in MR would lean toward the actual trackplan diagram rather than the simplified data tables.

John

[Anonymous]

I was interested in building a coffee table type HO layout as featured in the Hans D. Rudolph article in the March 2003 Model Railroader, beginning on page 106.
I'm a bit put off by the inaccuracy of the layout size vs. the minimum radius given. It might have been a good idea to proofread this article. It is physically impossible to contain that layout on a 27" wide table, if the inside track radius is at 12". A 12" radius requires a diameter of 25 1/8" to the outside of the ties. Assuming 2" track spacing, the outer track ties would have an outside diameter of 29 1/8". There is yet another loop going to that front siding track which would need additional width...probably out to at least 31 1/8". Then one requires clearance from the edges, which probably means a table 34" feet wide, not the 27" width indicated.
This may not seem like much on a layout, 7" in width, but it is a lot on a coffee table unit, about 25% of an error. Perhaps the author meant the minimum radius was more like 9"?
regards / Mike