Contracted Layout Building in MR

[Dave Vollmer]

There seems to be an idea that having a layout featured in MR is an award of some kind, attesting to the owners achievements as a model railroader. I'm afraid I don't see it that way.  It's a good article or it's not - this one I thought was good. 

If you're interested in an achievement program and awards then you should join the NMRA.  They have such a program where your work is judged and awards made.  Get enough and you get awarded "Master Model Railroader" and can put MMR after your name.

For me, if you think you are a model railroader, then you are and welcome to the club. 

as usual just my

Enjoy

Paul 

I've thought about doing the MMR thing.

But I also don't want folks to think I'm looking for accolades myself.  I'm not.

When I first came in the service 12 years ago I was obsessed with earning awards and medals.  But I had a crusty old station chief, a man I greatly admired (and whose funeral I went to earlier this month), who taught me two things about that.  Number 1, if I'm good, I don't need to tell anyone.  They'll see for themselves.  Number 2, if the troops (or in this case, you guys) see me obsessed with my own advancement and not their welfare, they'll lose all respect for me.  Soon enough I had decided to focus on my people and on my job.  You know what?  That's when the accolades came.  Since then I have always been careful to pass my accolades and recognition on to my troops rather than to keep them for myself.

And so I pass along credit to those who've inspired me in the hobby when that recognition is due.

I understand that my position on this has probably caused me to lose some respect among you guys.  I hope not, but I'm realistic about it.  I can't say I'll wake up tomorrow and feel differently about custom model railroads; I still don't care for the idea.  But I will concede, as I have in the past, that my opinion in the matter doesn't invalidate anyone else's sense of enjoyment of the hobby, no matter what role they play in it.

EDIT:

FWIW, I'll try to gently and quietly back away from this thread, and leave you all to your regularly scheduled forum!  I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus...  Every now and then a thread presses one of my buttons so hard it sticks, as did this one.  My apologies to the OP for nearly hijacking the thread.

[andrechapelon]

Dave V says:

My personal opinion is that what is gained by seeing beautifully constructed custom layouts in MR is outweighed by the loss caused by (a) the lack of insight into how that custom layout was contracted, designed, and built (which is what I want to know, anyway) and (b) the percetion that new people might get that the only way to have those beautiful layouts is to buy one.  Point (b) goes hand-in-hand with that other hot-button issue of the decrease in true hands-on articles in MR.

If this makes me judgmental, then I guess I'm guilty.  We are all judgmental about some things in our lives whether we wish to be or not.

My own feeling, Dave, is that this whole thread is a tempest in a teapot. To a certain extent I agree with you. OTOH, I don't see any harm in the occasional article about someone's custom built layout, especially when the owner had considerable input into the process (conceptual, if not actual construction). I really don't see how people can get the idea that the only way to get a beautiful layout is to have one built as long as such articles only appear every so often. Someone upstream mentioned the FEC layout that appeared (IIRC) in MR in 2001. In remembering that article, I don't see any way that the actual builder could have come up with the layout without massive input from the purchaser, up to and including massive documentation on the line. Someone knew the FEC cold and I think we can rule out the contractor simply because the contractor wasn't likely to be an FEC expert. Lance Mindheim could probably build someone a great Monon layout with minimal input from the purchaser, but would need extensive documentary input if building, say, Southern Pacific's climb out of San Luis Obispo or Santa Fe's Peavine line. Were Mindheim or any other builder to build such a layout for me, you better believe that I'd be a very nitpicky customer and that the design would be my baby even if most or all of the construction were undertaken by someone else.

We all have things that we find unacceptable for ourselves. For instance, there was an article in GMR 2008 on the Bona Vista. Just looking at the pictures, my own opinion was that it wasn't up to the level of Tom Johnston's Logansport & Indiana Northern or Jay Miller's Panhandle & Santa Fe. Compounding that impression was the excruciating (for me) anachronism of using a lettering font that screams 80's or later on a layout supposedly set on 1953. I look for layouts that, at a very minimum, have to be nitpicked to find era anachronisms. If something obvious destroys the illusion, that's it for me and it doesn't belong in GMR. However, except for here, I'm not going to comment on it because I think that for the most part GMR lives up to its name. GMR 2008 was one of the better ones as far as I'm concerned. OK, it had a dud in it (from my point of view). I suppose if it had been a custom built layout, that would be adding insult to injury, but the guy built it himself. It just wasn't my cup of tea. Whether or not it would inspire someone else to do likewise, I don't know. In any case, the builder obviously enjoys his layout and that ain't bad. He scratchbuilds and that ain't bad. He likes to operate, sort of, and that ain't bad. Now, if he'd just strip everything and letter his equipment using a font like Railroad Roman, the world would be a better place (from my perspective). Of course, the guy does have a working layout and I don't so he's way ahead of my game. Who am I to judge? Right now, I have nothing to show. Everything's packed away for at least the next several months.

And you are right, we are all judgmental to one degree or another. We just don't have to be vocal about it. My own internal standards are such that no layout that isn't designed for operation or adapted for operation, is not uniformly era specific and doesn't show at least an informed layman's knowledge of the prototype is of little value to me personally. It doesn't have to be based on a specific prototype, but if it's freelanced it should project a unified theme. Eric Brooman's Utah Belt comes to mind. Anything less is, for me, just a glorified train set even if it's a pretty one. However, this is the only public place you're going to hear that from me

I earlier mentioned Tom Johnson's Logansport & Indiana Northern. Of all the layouts in GMR 2008, that one raises the bar (Jim Six's photos certainly don't hurt). Ironically, it's scenically "boring" with no mountains, no bridges of any kind and it's of an era and location that do nothing for me. It's also very simply constructed. If ever there was an inspirational layout, however, that one is it. I wish it had appeared in MR instead of GMR, although it certainly belongs in the latter and raises the bar a bit.

I've rambled too long and I have a drip irrigation system to build. I suppose I could get it custom built, but I like doing things like that. Besides, they sell complete kits now. Can't even call them "craftsman" kits, either. I really don't care if the elitist editors of "Classic Sprinkler Systems" insist that if you don't use iron pipe, a pipe threader, iron nipples, tees, plugs, caps, brass sprinkler heads and pipe dope, then you ain't a "real" sprinkler system builder because any idiot can use plastic kits from Home Depot or Lowes. It's my system and I'll build it any way I want to. Besides, if it gets water to where it's needed I'll be satisfied.

Andre

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave Vollmer]

That reminds me...

I forgot to order GMR through MR...  But my LHS still doesn't have it.  When did it hit the shelves?

[wm3798]

 

I highly doubt MR is "cheapening" our work. The magazine is about MODEL RAILROADING. No qualification is in the magazine title such as "Model railroading only for those that build their own layout and scratch build everything on it". MR readership is wide and varied. The editors know this and have to provide content that appeals across a broad spectrum. Just because they feature a professionally built layout I fail to see how they cheapen the hobby?

Guess they'll have to change the magazine's motto again... "Dream It, Plan It, Buy It."

Lee 

[SilverSpike]

Guess they'll have to change the magazine's motto again... "Dream It, Plan It, Buy It."

Lee 

Or how about "If we Build it for you....they will come!"

[wm3798]

Or how about - "Save Space, Buy the Video"

More Cynical by the Minute 

[andrechapelon]

That reminds me...

I forgot to order GMR through MR...  But my LHS still doesn't have it.  When did it hit the shelves?

Last October.

Andre

[ChrisNH]

The only problem I have with these layouts is you don't get much "how to" info in the article.. the construction portion is something like "I paid Bob who did a bangup job!". I remember one layout from Great Model Railoads a guy had built where most of it was how they moved it into the train room after it was built. About as exciting as an article about how to move a couch.

Chris 

[Dave Vollmer]

I spent some time on the ropes today in several arenas.

Part of why I'm able to post during the day is that I'm writing my PhD dissertation, and it's nice to take periodic breaks to keep the head clear.

Well, today things were going pretty badly with some of my data...  and now I'm within 2 months of defending.  Fortunately, late this afternoon I was finally able to break through a stumbling block.

I hope everyone in this thread will understand that part of my defensiveness in this thread was borne of frustration.  This will hardly be the first time I've let external pressures affect my posts.  Wish I could swear it would be the last...

So, although I lost a day due to computer and scripting issues, I'm back on track in terms of writing.

Steinjr PMed me that he was offended by what he saw as my attempt to exclude other people from the hobby who don't view things the way I do.  I want to make it clear that's neither what I meant nor how I feel.

My favorite part of the hobby is building things with my own two hands (even though I do have lots of RTR cars and some RTR locos).  So I have trouble identifying with someone who choses not to obtain his layout by his own labors.

...but would I exclude such a person from the hobby?  No.  Not even if I had the power to do so.  We are bonded together by our love of trains, big and small...  I have my opinions, as do all of you, but when it comes to recreating railroads in miniature, the only thing that matters is that we have fun doing it, no matter how we come to it.

[Lillen]

Hi Dave,

 

I've been following this thread ever since it started with great interest. I would just like to say that although I do not agree with you. I think you have handled your self very nice. I read with interest on how you defend your stand point and argue for it politely while other disagree. This forum would be a boring place if people didn't disagree and said so while still being courteous to each other.

 

My opinion of this topic is that as long as a layout is inspirational it doesn't really matter how people reached their goals. Some guys are professional carpenters and produce excellent bench work for themselves and others, some are electricians and some us have no usable knowledge what so ever when it comes to building a layout. I liked that layout, it was nice and it's focus was very narrow but could be useful when designing just such a segment of their personal layout.

 

Anyways, it's to late and I'm not interested to get in to this discussion. I just wanted to make my own opinion clear. And then of course, still say that I think that you, Dave have handled your self nicely and have nothing to be apologetic about. You just don't agree with some of us.

 

Thanks for an interesting read.

 

Magnus

[camaro]

I spent some time on the ropes today in several arenas.

Part of why I'm able to post during the day is that I'm writing my PhD dissertation, and it's nice to take periodic breaks to keep the head clear.

Well, today things were going pretty badly with some of my data...  and now I'm within 2 months of defending.  Fortunately, late this afternoon I was finally able to break through a stumbling block.

I hope everyone in this thread will understand that part of my defensiveness in this thread was borne of frustration.  This will hardly be the first time I've let external pressures affect my posts.  Wish I could swear it would be the last...

So, although I lost a day due to computer and scripting issues, I'm back on track in terms of writing.

Steinjr PMed me that he was offended by what he saw as my attempt to exclude other people from the hobby who don't view things the way I do.  I want to make it clear that's neither what I meant nor how I feel.

My favorite part of the hobby is building things with my own two hands (even though I do have lots of RTR cars and some RTR locos).  So I have trouble identifying with someone who choses not to obtain his layout by his own labors.

...but would I exclude such a person from the hobby?  No.  Not even if I had the power to do so.  We are bonded together by our love of trains, big and small...  I have my opinions, as do all of you, but when it comes to recreating railroads in miniature, the only thing that matters is that we have fun doing it, no matter how we come to it.

Dave,

While I'm not working on a PhD dissertation, I did complete my Masters of Science in Microbiology and Scanning Electron Microscopy.  My orals were two hours and totally exhausting and I did drink afterwards. I think exchanging points of view is healthy, no matter what the outcome.  Good Luck.

 

Larry

[camaro]

Dave V says:

Lance Mindheim could probably build someone a great Monon layout with minimal input from the purchaser, but would need extensive documentary input if building, say, Southern Pacific's climb out of San Luis Obispo or Santa Fe's Peavine line. Were Mindheim or any other builder to build such a layout for me, you better believe that I'd be a very nitpicky customer and that the design would be my baby even if most or all of the construction were undertaken by someone else.

Andre

 Andre,

 

Unfortunately the Monon is gone.  Lance tore it down to put up a new Miami, Florida based produce district CSX HO switching layout.  This new plan and Voodoo & Palmettoes layout can be seen at www.lancemindheim.com.  My layout is my rendition of his "Voodoo & Palmettoes layout.  I can only hope its half as good as his.

 

Larry

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jackn2mpu]

My thoughts:
Featuring pro-built layouts in MR? Okay, but go into details as to how the design came about and techniques on how the manufacturer built it. I'm sure there are techniques that each of us could learn. It'd be like watching Norm Abram on New Yankee Workshop build something - there's tools and techniques he uses that I'm sure not everyone knows and would be great to learn about.

As someone else in this thread said, why not have a special issue that has some of the various custom builders in it and how each of them approaches a layout design. Maybe also have them do a layout based on certain design constraints, whether they do it as a real layout or an artist's (computer's) rendering. That way, people that are in the market for something like this would have a convenient source. Just like audio magazines do with gear shootouts.

A thought does occur: I wonder how many of these pro-built layouts are actually run? And regularly? And how soon would someone with such a layout get bored with it and want something on it changed? I doubt the original builder would come in and do alterations.

[jackn2mpu]

I spent some time on the ropes today in several arenas.

Part of why I'm able to post during the day is that I'm writing my PhD dissertation, and it's nice to take periodic breaks to keep the head clear.

Well, today things were going pretty badly with some of my data...  and now I'm within 2 months of defending.  Fortunately, late this afternoon I was finally able to break through a stumbling block.

I hope everyone in this thread will understand that part of my defensiveness in this thread was borne of frustration.  This will hardly be the first time I've let external pressures affect my posts.  Wish I could swear it would be the last...

So, although I lost a day due to computer and scripting issues, I'm back on track in terms of writing.

Steinjr PMed me that he was offended by what he saw as my attempt to exclude other people from the hobby who don't view things the way I do.  I want to make it clear that's neither what I meant nor how I feel.

My favorite part of the hobby is building things with my own two hands (even though I do have lots of RTR cars and some RTR locos).  So I have trouble identifying with someone who choses not to obtain his layout by his own labors.

...but would I exclude such a person from the hobby?  No.  Not even if I had the power to do so.  We are bonded together by our love of trains, big and small...  I have my opinions, as do all of you, but when it comes to recreating railroads in miniature, the only thing that matters is that we have fun doing it, no matter how we come to it.

Dave:
First off, thank you for your service to our country.
Second: you're military - you'll make it through you doctoral defense no problem. Just think how nervous you were on your first patrol in Iraq - you made it through that and you'll make it through this.
Third: You've handled yourself well with such a hot-button issue as this. I never thought you were trying to exclude anyone from the hobby with your comments. It's just a sad statement of the times we are in when someone has an honest opinion about something, states it, and gets taken to task for it. Political correctness run amuck. I've run into the same thing way too many times myself. I have my opinions, state them, and if someone doesn't like them, tough fecal matter. If I caved in to those people, I wouldn't be true to myself. That's why you'll never see me use acronyms like IMO or IMHO. I ain't humble about any opinions I have. It's like a hot-button issue for me - guns on campus. If you have a valid carry permit, I say go ahead and let students, teachers and others on campus carry ON campus. Some won't like that, but that's part of what I believe. Just like your thoughts on pro layout builders - that's part of what you believe.

[shayfan84325]

i would be more impressed if it was a article on the layout building company, that sounds interesting.

I agree.  I'm not so interested in a guy who bought a layout, but I'd like to hear from the folks who built it.

I've also noticed the way MR is leaning more and more toward RTR.  The editor chimed in on a similar post about the way MR is changing and he acknowedged that the magazine is changing with the hobby (I wonder if the hobby is changing because of the magazine).  Regardless, I don't look forward to MR like I used to; my subscription runs out in three issues, then it's good-bye to MR (I doubt that they'll miss me, but I have better ways to spend my money).

[RedSkin]

To All:

As the guy who started this thread, I just want to say thank you to all that participated in it.  I was just looking to start a healthy debate on this topic and to find out what the general consensus was on this sort of thing.  I guess to me it's was just a shock that MR would feature something like these in there pages.  I am one of those guys that look at the layouts feature thinking, "WOW what a great layout that this Modeler has built."  I've been interested in this hobby since I was a teenager, and my Grandfather was very instrumental in encouraging my interest.  Due to a lot of factors, I'm still plugging away at my first honest attempt at a layout.  I can remember one of the first experiences with my Grandfather, when I asked how he had laid the turnouts on parts of his layout, his explanation was to give me a soldering iron a scrap piece of wood and some rails, and showing my how to build my own frogs.  Now I've never hand laid track or claim to be a suburb scratch builder or anything even remotely close to that, but I'm challenging myself to one day be at that level.  I guess I have just carried that idea of "do it yourself" on though my whole time in this hobby.

Dave - You have my respect, a true officer and a gentleman.

Thank You All,

Brad

[hornblower]

I think most of us agree that we can all learn a thing or two from professionally built layouts, regardless of who bought it or how it came to be.  However, I personally get turned off by the MR articles that feature a professionally built layout but focus on the owner rather than the builder.  I believe all MR readers would have enjoyed (and learned from) the article far more had the focus been on the builder discussing the design and construction of the layout.  Forget who bought it.  That information isn't important to the modelling experience.  MR and it's readers would get far more information visiting the professional builder's shop instead of the buyer's house.  Model Railroader staff, are you reading this forum thread?

[Dave Vollmer]

I think it got buried in the midst of the debate, but I'd like to repeat a point I made yesterday:

If MR wants to run articles about professionally-built custom layouts, I'd love to learn more about the process.

The article can be in several parts (heck, they could even spread it over several issues just to keep the readers hanging).

First part deals with the process of designing and arriving at a contract.  I hope this would also disclose information about cost.

Second part deals with construction at the custom builder's location and talks about the team and what each person does as well as how they do it.

Third part deals with delivery and installation.

Fourth part visits the owner and new layout, discusses the whole experience, and operations on the new layout.

What do you guys think about that?  I think that would scratch everyone's itch.  For those of us more interested in construction, we get that in the beginning.  For those looking to draw inspiration from the finished layout, they get that in the last part.

Then we all get some insight into the process.  It's possible my opinions on the whole subject are flawed simply because I don't know enough about the process.

BTW, if you guys ever get to the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania in Strasburg, PA, you can see a beautiful custom HO layout built by Chris Comport of the Pennsy 4-track Middle Division in the 50s.  There's also a custom-built layout at the Altoona Railroader's Memorial Museum.

I can definitely support building custom layouts for museums 100%.  I think they go a long way into explaining how the static displays worked together in motion as a whole railroad.

[SpaceMouse]

I've been a might busy the last few days and so I've only just read through this...well, nevermind.

I agree with Dave V. If pros are going to build layouts for MR for goodness sakes shows how you did what you did.

On the other hand, I don't begrudge people with money buy what they want. In the best of all worlds, I'd hire a contractor to lift my house, quadruple the size of my basement, set the house back down and build a layout to my specifications so I can start hosting ops sessions.

Then at my leisure, I go back through and build the structures, locos, rolling stock, scenery and and scenes the way I think they should be built.

In 20 years, the one built by the contractor and modified by me will look exactly like the one I took 20 years to build. But with the self-built one, I would I  have lost 10 or so years of ops sessions.

[selector]

Dave, you make a very sensible suggestion to my view. 

-Crandell

[challenger3980]

I think it got buried in the midst of the debate, but I'd like to repeat a point I made yesterday:

If MR wants to run articles about professionally-built custom layouts, I'd love to learn more about the process.

The article can be in several parts (heck, they could even spread it over several issues just to keep the readers hanging).

First part deals with the process of designing and arriving at a contract.  I hope this would also disclose information about cost.

Second part deals with construction at the custom builder's location and talks about the team and what each person does as well as how they do it.

Third part deals with delivery and installation.

Fourth part visits the owner and new layout, discusses the whole experience, and operations on the new layout.

What do you guys think about that?  I think that would scratch everyone's itch.  For those of us more interested in construction, we get that in the beginning.  For those looking to draw inspiration from the finished layout, they get that in the last part.

Then we all get some insight into the process.  It's possible my opinions on the whole subject are flawed simply because I don't know enough about the process.

BTW, if you guys ever get to the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania in Strasburg, PA, you can see a beautiful custom HO layout built by Chris Comport of the Pennsy 4-track Middle Division in the 50s.  There's also a custom-built layout at the Altoona Railroader's Memorial Museum.

I can definitely support building custom layouts for museums 100%.  I think they go a long way into explaining how the static displays worked together in motion as a whole railroad.

Dave,

     We do agree on this, I had to disagree that it should not even be in MR at all. There are many segments of the hobby that most of us have little or no interest in( but each has differing interests) so each should enjoy what MR offers in their interest range and quietly ignore that which doesn't interest them, because surely it will interest someone else.

   I like your multi-part suggestion and also, including the cost of going this route. Most other businesses advertise their price in their ads, and in a way this really is an ad for the custom builder's product that they don't have to pay for, hard to beat that deal.

   I do think that custom built layouts have a place in MR, though they should be identified as such. Almost any well planned and built layout will have some element that will inspire another modeler in some way, be it  a scenery method, or the layout of the track work for an engine servicing facility or some other aspect of the hobby.

                                                             Doug

[tomikawaTT]

Let me get this straight.

John Bruno designed a layout, including an interesting staging arrangement that I, personally, had never seen before.  Then, due to time constraints (about which neither I nor anyone else has a clue, and therefore about which we are in no position to judge,) he hired a professional model building firm to do the 'grunt work' of assembling and installing his dream layout in his home.  The name of the firm appears in normal size print in the last sentence of a second-page paragraph in a section of the article titled, Assisted Development - and nowhere else.

I'm sure that MR printed the article because the layout design (the author's creation) was a good change of pace from the usual, 'whole railroad in a gymnasium,' we have been griping about.  (The magazine contains one of them, too; 25x37 in a basement.)  I can't see one mention of the contractor's name being, "A three-page ad," for that firm, any more than naming the maker of a sedan would make an article about a cross-country railfanning safari into an ad for that carmaker.

While all the sound and fury was venting in this thread, did anyone notice that another thread had been started by someone who was looking for this exact concept?  When I finally re-read it, I noticed that no one had pointed its OP to this layout.

Seems that we were so busy chopping down the tree that we completely ignored somebody who wanted to gather its fruit.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[andrechapelon]

I'm sure that MR printed the article because the layout design (the author's creation) was a good change of pace from the usual, 'whole railroad in a gymnasium,' we have been griping about.  (The magazine contains one of them, too; 25x37 in a basement.)  I can't see one mention of the contractor's name being, "A three-page ad," for that firm, any more than naming the maker of a sedan would make an article about a cross-country railfanning safari into an ad for that carmaker.

No, it's not a three page ad, just a casual mention giving credit to CMR for doing the "grunt work". This is only common courtesy. CMR actually regularly advertises in MR (page 14 lower left in the May issue) and I would presume money flows from CMR to MR. The fellow who owns CMR occasionally posts here and if he read this thread, I would imagine that he got a laugh about it. CMR also has a number of kits they manufacture. Judging by their website, they're not finicky about doing the whole job **, but also invite the purchaser to participate in those things that he/she enjoys and has the time to do. As you point out, there were time constraints on Bruno. Had he had the time, I rather imagine he would have done the job himself.

** Quote from CMR website:

If you would enjoy building part of the railroad, that is no problem. You can do the railroading you enjoy, while we do the rest of the work for you. For instance, you may want us to assemble the benchwork, track and wiring, while you finish the scenery and structures yourself.

Here's one partially built by CMR and partially by the client: http://www.cmrtrain.com/ho1.html

Home page for anyone interested in what CMR does even if not in the market for their products and/or services. http://www.cmrtrain.com/index.html

It's not an either/or situation but a continuum.

Of course, Carl Appel's OO scale "Norfolk & Ohio"  that appeared in one of the 1958 issues (November, I think - I don't have the issue anymore) featured a lot of scratchbuilt locomotives, cars and buildings, so I guess the hobby really has gone to hell in a handbasket in the last 50 years. IIRC, Appel was a machinist and his locomotives were equipped with ball bearings.

Andre

[steinjr]

I'm sure that MR printed the article because the layout design (the author's creation) was a good change of pace from the usual, 'whole railroad in a gymnasium,' we have been griping about.  (The magazine contains one of them, too; 25x37 in a basement.)  I can't see one mention of the contractor's name being, "A three-page ad," for that firm, any more than naming the maker of a sedan would make an article about a cross-country railfanning safari into an ad for that carmaker.

 Good summary. I agree with you. To me too, it seems like the editors of MR made a reasonable call when they included this layout presentation in the May MR. 

 The layout contains interesting concepts and ideas applicable for other model railroaders too, no matter whether they are considering the use of a custom builder or not. 

 Custom builder or not was not a core point of the article anyways. As you observe, that was just mentioned in passing. 

 I also feel a wee stitch of envy for John being able to afford something I will probably never be able to afford, but how I deal with my feelings is my problem, not John's or MR's fault.

  I also agree with some of the points raised in Dave Vollmer's last post. I also feel that the article maybe tried to cram in a too much in a little too few pages, and thus the coverage of several potensially interesting subjects got too skimpy.

 An expanded treatment of at least some of subjects touched upon in the article might have been interesting to read. More on any (or all) of these subjects would have interested me, even though I am not planning either to build an engine terminal nor use a custom builder:

  1) More details about how John Bruno arrived at his engine terminal track plan
  2) More details on the process of working with a custom builder
  3) More details on how a custom builder constructs, delivers and installs a layout
  4) More details on John Bruno's operational scheme for his engine terminal

Edit/clarification: Point 3 above is applicable also to people who have no plan whatsoever of ever using a custom builder - because learning more about tried and proven methods of modular/moveable layouts construction probably would be an interesting subject for many model railroaders totally independent of who builds the modules. Point 2 probably only would be interesting for people who would be willing and able to use a custom builder. So I would have prioritized 1, 3 or 4 ahead of no 2 if I was going to decide on a subject for a followup article.

 My opinion. Other people's mileage may mary.

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[sundayniagara]

A few years ago MR had an article about a layout that was based on Flager's Florida RR through the Florida keys.  The layout was very well done and used many insightful techniques.  I learned some things from that article and I very much enjoyed the layout.  I would not have wanted to have missed that article.

The layout was professionally done.

-John

 

 

It was built by the late Ross Allen who owned a company called RailServe.  It's a beauty and I am fortunate to have operated on it. 

[ham99]

To each his own.  I didn't read the article after I found it was a custom job, because I find the fun in building.  I don't understand paying someone else to have my fun.  But then, I don't understand paper operations, either.  Or extreme rivet counters.  So if someone else likes them, they are legitimate topics for MR to include.

[jecorbett]

For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would object to someone contracting out the building of their layout. Some people enjoy the process of layout building while others either don't enjoy it or don't have time to do it themselves. Why does any one else care how somebody goes about getting their layout built?

Since I first began reading about feature layouts in MR or RMC, it is not uncommon at all to hear a modeler say so-and-so did his electrical work, or his benchwork, or painte his backdrop. How is it cheating to paying someone to do the part of the hobby you either don't lile to do or don't have time to do. What I want to see in MR is outstanding layouts and I wouldn't care if somebody built his layout by having his wife Samantha twitch her nose and make it suddenly appear.

[Capt. Grimek]

Hi, I'm the OP on that other thread. I agree 100% with Dave and would love to see that kind of thorough follow up now that the short article has been published. There were times while I was working days and grading and planning lessons way into every night that I would have loved to have had someone do the "grunt work" (at least benchwork and wiring) for me so that I could "get going" but couldn't afford that.

I started a snap track layout (Plan 210 "The Big Panhandle") in my cellar which floods these days :-0 (completed bench work and track work) and never got any further due to working constraints even with the best intentions. Now that I'm retired the cellar is out and I'm looking to move upstairs. Still can't afford to
have anyone else do the work for me and might not want to, but sure can understand why others do and would!

Chuck, thanks for your tact, not specifically naming names, but the points you made about the other thread
are right on :-) It was kind of "fateful" that just as I had discovered the idea of a steam loco servicing yard
as a "total" concept for a small layout being valid and just starting to wonder if such a thing had been modeled, the May issue's plan with Mr. Bruno's layout appeared. That led me to seek out the Kalmbach book
"Model Railroader's Guide to Locomotive Servicing Yards" and now I'm on my way!

So, yes, articles about custom designed layouts do have a place in MR magazine in my opinion. They've inspired me to build my own. They affirmed that the idea was even valid and had precedence in the hobby
and the magazine.

I didn't feel that the custom builder's mention constituted (much) of a free ad. In fact the lst time I excitedly and speedily read the article I missed that it WAS a professionally built layout. When I saw
Custom Model Railroad's name mentioned it was so "generic" that I wasn't even sure that was the name of the actual company until I did an internet search, so it was all done in pretty good taste and even handedly, I thought.

Anyway, if you look at their site, there are a couple more photos of that (and other layouts) that didn't appear in the magazine including one that shows it in more of a "real life" sized shot which answered some questions for me that the beautiful close ups didn't in the magazine.

The site further led me to a layout which was divided into a continuous run passenger side and a freight yard side by a central divider. Something that hadn't occured to me and might give me BOTH (or even 3)
concepts in a small area that I desire to have.

So, yes, the article was very useful to me in several ways. I hope that Dave Vollmer's suggestions will be seen by Andy S. and other MR Magazine staff members and that a follow up of that sort will be entertained!

Thanks Chuck, for reading my other thread and helping me out with info.

Cheers, Capt. G.

[alco49]

TomikawaTT/ Chuck: you raise a good point in this discussion. I certainly agree the article was not a " three- page ad". However, if the model railroad was built by CMR, then it should be from the perspective of CMR. As it is, the article would be better off in Model Railroad Planning. or at least should focus more on the planning of the railroad, since that's just about all John Bruno did. (or maybe, How to fill out a check? O right, no sarcasm, sorry) 

[HEdward]

I don't think that I would PAY for help building a layout, but I'm no scratch builder.  I've yet to paint any models save a few tiny people that came with some tiny paints.  Time, money, and what a person's idea of fun is, are all to be taken into account.  Yes, building the layout is fun.  I like to wire my layout as I go.  I'm no scenic genius, yet.  Still no reason for me to job it out to a pro.  I would like to work on it with a better modeler or two, but I'm in no particular rush.  As far as putting a pro built layout in MR, there seems to be one every year or so.  As long as they are upfront with who built it, I see little problem.  The vast majority of the publication is still on the individual hobbyist and club layouts and projects.  Now I'm sounding like a shill for MR, or maybe justifying my subscription.  Oh well.  If I find a modeling partner with fantastic scenic skills, maybe my layout can get published.  I'll be sure to take alot of pictures of each stage.