Shaun - If you can leaf through a copy at your local hobby shop first, that would be my advice. In recent years I've found MRP largely a publication containing some good general ideas, elements, or concepts but not one filled with guidance regarding creating an actual layout. To be honest, not since the 1990's have I seen any particular installment of that publication that addressed complete layouts. A few years back they actually did do a complete issue supposedly centered around "small" layout ideas. However, what was included therein was, to my mind, mostly small, rather pointless, very short shelf "dioramas" rather than anything in any way worthy of the title layout, even in the widest sense. Many were downright silly ideas.
In my opinion, if you're looking for layout ideas and concepts, you'd be better off purchasing several of Kalmbach's regular books specifically addressing the building small or intermediate-sized layouts taken from the pages of past MRs..
CNJ831
Hi Shaun
Personally, I didn't find MRP very helpful, in fact I was quite disappointed. The two books I found the best of all were John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation and Andy Sperandeos's MR Guide to Freight Yards. The late John Armstrong was THE planning guru and this book proves it. It contains real practical information about planning a layout that will work. Information of easements and standards alone is worth the price of the book. I have dipped in and out of this book so many times, I 've lost count.
As I'm building a double decker with a freight yard on one level and a staging yard on the lower level, I found Andy Sperendeo's book reaily helpful too. Diagrams and knowledge of building a ladder different ways to take up minimal space yet with an eye on prototype useage are invaluable.
I must also admit that the NMRA standards, data sheets and Recommended Practices are also a great help. It's worth the joining fee just to acquire those as a reference library.
Hope it helps.
Cheers
Barry
CNJ831 wrote: A few years back they actually did do a complete issue supposedly centered around "small" layout ideas. However, what was included therein was, to my mind, mostly small, rather pointless, very short shelf "dioramas" rather than anything in any way worthy of the title layout, even in the widest sense. Many were downright silly ideas.
A few years back they actually did do a complete issue supposedly centered around "small" layout ideas. However, what was included therein was, to my mind, mostly small, rather pointless, very short shelf "dioramas" rather than anything in any way worthy of the title layout, even in the widest sense. Many were downright silly ideas.
An example of "your mileage may vary." That particular MRP is probably my favorite: the whole point is to show how very small layouts can be practical and fun. Any of those plans would serve as components in a larger layout but the accompanying text showed, fairly clearly I thought, that even a tiny layout can be fun to operate. In much of Europe, that kind of 3 or 4 foot "micro layout" is the rule, and the 4x8 foot plywood sheet considered the bare minimum to call your layout "tiny" in the US is considered unimaginably vast. Which sounds a bit like saying there are starving children in China who would love to have your broccoli, I suppose, but the point is that MRP issues tend to be of different use to different people. An MRP dedicated to 4x8 track plans and club layouts wouldn't be as useful to me as one focused on shelf layouts small and large.
It really depends on what you are looking for and what you expect. MRP is a good publication, but it will not really give you the "all you need to build a layout" that you seem to be looking for. It will give you ideas on specific aspects of layout planning and building. I agree with Ironrooster above, you should definatily find a copy of John Armstrong's book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". It is by far the best single reference I have seen on planning and designing a model railroad. But even it will not design your layout for you. That creative work you will have to do yourself.
Ron
Owner and superintendant of the N scale Texas Colorado & Western Railway, a protolanced representaion of the BNSF from Fort Worth, TX through Wichita Falls TX and into Colorado.
Check out the TC&WRy on at https://www.facebook.com/TCWRy
Check out my MRR How-To YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/RonsTrainsNThings
If you do not have Armstrong's book mentioned above, you should certainly get that before MRP. Then get any of the Kalmback specialty books that are relevant, such as Sperandeos yard design mentioned above. I found the Loco Service Facility design book very useful myself. MRP would be a fine supplement/add-on to the basic items I've mentioned, but isn't really a standalone resource, I think.
I have purchased all of the issues of Great Model Railroads and Model Railroad Planning. Some have been better than others, but they do inspire me to push ahead in the hobby.
JIM
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
If you are having a hard time figuring out what scale to use, you might look for one or more of the following Kalmbach books: "N Scale Model Railroad That Grows" by Kent Wood and Ric LaBan; "A Realistic HO Layout For Beginners" by Lou Sassi; "HO Railroad From Start To Finish" by Jim Kelly. These will give you some ideas of how to go about starting and then adding to a small layout. There are also a multitude of books with lots of layouts and layout ideas. I guess I would get some of them first, before MRP or GMRR. I like MRP and GMRR because they give me some ideas I might want to incorporate, but I have never seen a track plan that I felt fit me.
Have fun with your ideas.
FT
12'x24' is quite a bit of space for a layout, American or not! I just moved into a new home and have roughly that much space for my layout, and it seems like a mighty empire compared to my one-foot-deep shelf layout in an overcrowded 8x18 foot garage (which had to share space with more mundane garage-type items.) In HO, you can build a comfortably large layout in that space. In N, you can build a veritable empire.
Despite the impression that some European modelers may have, giant basement-spanning layouts are the dramatic exception, rather than the rule, for American model railroaders. The more typical size is the prosaic 4x8 foot layout.
There is really little need to choose between a switching/operation oriented layout and continuous running at the size you have available. There are plenty of ways to have a train running in a continuous loop The only possible fuss would be choosing between grain and coal: typically coal comes out of mountains and grain comes out of the plains, although with careful planning you could certainly model both types of terrain in the space you have available.
As mentioned above, MRP is really more about sharing good ideas to inspire one's own layout designs than a start-to-finish guide to completing a specific model railroad. Perhaps that's the best thing to know about any issue of MRP before buying it.
Hi whywaites
In the UK, go to www.mgsharp.com for Kalmbach books (and BLI + Athearn + NEC + etc, etc....) I get my MR every month direct from Kalmbach. I also but Kalmbach books directly. (OK, you have to pay extra for post and packaging, but I always buy a couple of titles to make the postage worthwhile.)
Also, what I don't buy at MG Sharp I buy over the internet. I've bought through www.internethobbies.com and www.standardhobbies.com and of course www.walthers.com but allow for VAT as it comes into the UK. You'll have to pay the 17.5% on top. Of course, the alternative is to give a friend who is visiting the States a shopping list and get them to bring it back for you. Yes, US Railroad modelling in the UK is an expensive hobby!
Hope this helps.
Hi again Whywaites
Another one ........... go to www.amazon.com (try the UK one too) you can usually get all the Kalmbach books there AND used ones too, so they're cheaper. If you go to the UK Amazon, I think you'll find that postage is free.
Jetrock wrote:Despite the impression that some European modelers may have, giant basement-spanning layouts are the dramatic exception, rather than the rule, for American model railroaders. The more typical size is the prosaic 4x8 foot layout.
I'd like to see some of those 4 by 8s sometime. Seriously, nobody ever posts pictures of theirs. I guess being ashamed of one's layout has something to do with it. It doesn't help that the smallest one I've seen featured in MR lately was, IIRC, 9x11 feet.
Agamemnon wrote: Jetrock wrote:Despite the impression that some European modelers may have, giant basement-spanning layouts are the dramatic exception, rather than the rule, for American model railroaders. The more typical size is the prosaic 4x8 foot layout. I'd like to see some of those 4 by 8s sometime. Seriously, nobody ever posts pictures of theirs. I guess being ashamed of one's layout has something to do with it. It doesn't help that the smallest one I've seen featured in MR lately was, IIRC, 9x11 feet.
Indeed, I've seen it pointed out in various hobby publications over the years that perhaps 90% of all the layouts ever built have been of approximately the 4x8 variety.
However, I think that one sees so few postings concerning 4x8 layouts mainly because, even at this small size, few ever get beyond the track-on-plywood stage and their builders feel they have little in the way of any scenes worth sharing with others. At least with the (far, far less numerous by percentage) larger layouts, one generally can come up with a few small, relatively complete, scenes that can be imaged with pride, even if the rest of the layout is still largely unfinished. You'll notice a decided lack of pictures of the overall appearance of layouts, even in the magazines, largely for that very reason.
And when it comes to actual magazine worthiness, it appears that no more than 1%-2% of all layouts, regardless of size, seem worthy of making that grade.
I agree with what some others have said, John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation is the best investment one can make for learning about layout design. And I'm prejudiced, since I have had three articles published in MRP, but I think it's worth the money.
As with any other hobby magazine, there won't always be something in every issue that suits your interest, that's why the Armstrong book is a better buy as a general reference.
Just to give you an idea, here are the three designs that were part of my articles. These happen all to be N scale, I have an HOn3 design article submitted that may appear in a future issue.
All three of my articles in MRP so far have been based on real railroads. There's typically a lot of material in the articles besides the trackplans.
This N scale 4X8 was in MRP 2002. http://www.modelrail.us/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/mr_ptra.jpg
This larger N scale layout was in MRP 2004. This one was actually built and operated before the owner moved -- it was a lot of fun.
You can read about this layout here:http://www.modelrail.us/gallery/id20.html
This small N scale switching layout was in MRP 2005. Despite the negativity about this series of small layout articles displayed in this thread, a couple of people have contacted me to tell me they have built this one (without the folding features) and they enjoy it.
Regards,
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Agamemnon wrote: I'd like to see some of those 4 by 8s sometime. Seriously, nobody ever posts pictures of theirs. I guess being ashamed of one's layout has something to do with it. It doesn't help that the smallest one I've seen featured in MR lately was, IIRC, 9x11 feet.
You mean, besides the Jan-April 2006 series on building a 4X8. And the 42" X 60" plan in the Feb issue. And the On3 layout series that's running in the July-December issues that would be the equivalent of about 4'X8' in HO with an extra shelf.
Nope, MR never runs anything on smaller layouts.
Agamemnon wrote:Well, when your local newsagent orders something like three issues of the magazine every month and sells them at extortionate prices, you're bound to miss one or two.
Sounds like a subscription might be helpful.
Agamemnon wrote:I'm actually far more interested in average home layouts than magazine-quality ones, to boot. I'm looking for something to emulate, not to admire.
Check this linkhttp://cwrr.com/nmra/
Chose the the "Layout Tours" links on the left-hand side and you may look at dozens of layouts. Some high quality, some merely enthusiastic. All the owners seem to be having fun.