Last Day: 10 x 12 Layout Contest: We need your vote: Close race.

[marknewton]

Mark,

Congratulations.

Thank you, Chip. I really appreciate all your effort in mounting this competition, and it's good to see others do, too.

For what it's worth, I could see operational possibilities, however, what there was seemed to few in number and limited in what you can do. A fiddle track would have made a lot of difference operationally.

However, I know that is not what interests you as a modeler. I get the impression you could work months on your layout without ever running a train.

Guilty as charged!

For that reason, your design is an excellent one.

Again, thanks. I'm glad you liked it. I'm just a bit surprised that so many others did, as well!

All the best,

Mark.

[C&O Fan]

 Twin Peaks -  I think the two almost symetrical blobs attract all the attention.  Seems like with this much space a logging and mining road with geared locomotives could have been executed better.  Where are the sharp curves, switch backs, and 6-8% grades?  No mill pond, or saw dust burners?

 

The two " almost symetrical blobs" are supposed to grab your attention as you enter the room

As is the chin high bridge

This design is influenced by a local MR layout

Jim Lemmons HO layout

You can see more of it here

http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2100191635

 

 

 

There's something really cool about being able to walk up to a bridge and watch a train run right passed your nose

I thought about the steep grades and using switchbacks but that would have limited

the layout to JUST a logging line

As i stated it is a Logging AND Ore Mining theme with Passenger service using Steam other than Shays so i opted for the Helixes

As for the sawdust burners and mill pond

These are easy add ons BUT-------not all sawmills had ponds

 

[SpaceMouse]

Mark,

Congratulations.

For what it's worth, I could see operational possibilities, however, what there was seemed to few in number and limited in what you can do. A fiddle track would have made a lot of difference operationally.

However, I know that is not what interests you as a modeler. I get the impression you could work months on your layout without ever running a train.

For that reason, your design is an excellent one.

[marknewton]

SpaceMouse wrote:

Of all the layouts, The Kintetsu Utsube Line is probably the best thought out, but it lacks the two elements I like about model railroading, continous scenic running and the ability to make or break trains. I could live without one but not both. In the end, the few switching moves would become monotonous.

G'day Chip!

The lack of continuous running has been mentioned by a number of posters. It's something that's a low priority for me, which is why I didn't include any provision for it. But I can understand why many people like having that option. I reckon the design could be altered to include it without too much being changed. One way around it would be to include the former street trackage that ran from Yokkaichi to Yokkaichi-ekimae. This could cross the doorway and connect with the neck at Utsube. With the layout up around eye-level, and the track threading it's way between the buildings, it shouldn't be too obvious.

If anyone's interested, I'll be more than happy to redraw that part of the layout and include the connection. I might even decide it's something I'd want as well!

Your comments about switching are interesting. They highlight just how much our ideas and expectations about operations differ. I'm assuming that when you talk about switching you mean moving a large numbers of freight cars in a multi-track yard, or amongst numerous big industries. That's something this layout can't provide, but there is provison for freight traffic between the freight houses and the tranship platform. Like many Japanese lines, the Utsube often tacked a freight car or two onto a passenger car, or ran the loco-hauled trains as a mixed. So there's a bit of potential for switching there.

As well, there is a requirement for switching the MU cars themselves, which you may not have been aware of. On the Utsube, there are motor cars, driving trailers and plain trailers. The train consists were frequently changed, with cars being attached or detached according to traffic and maintenance needs. During the peak, trains ran with three or four cars, but during quiet times a single car would provide the service, so the others would be detached and stabled in the depot or the yard at Utsube. I agree that what I'm describing is not the same as switching a big yard or freight terminal, but it does have it's own apppeal.

All the best,

Mark.

EDIT: I've just noticed Stein's post announcing the end of the voting, and the tabulation of results. Can I just say:

I'm gobsmacked!

I didn't think a layout design based on something as obscure as the Utsube line would appeal to many people at all, so to all those who took the time to look at the entries, cast their votes and offer their comments, I say thank you very much, indeed.

And I'd also like to offer a big thank you to Chip for organising and mounting the competition, and to Stein, for keeping count of the results.

To my fellow contestants, congratulations to you all, for entering, participating, and being part of something worthwhile.

Mark.

[marknewton]

snagletoothwrote: Overall #1: Kintetsu Utsube Line (HO #5). This trackplan seems very versatile. With just slight changes in scenery, it could be a European tramway, or a turn of the century American interurban or county seat trolley line.

I think the layout concept could be readily adapted to model a European tramway or US interurban, but I wouldn't use the trackplan as is - I'd makes some changes to that as well as the scenery. Features such as the runrounds are specifically intended to accomodate loco-hauled trains, whereas a European tramway using only self-propelled cars might have balloon loops, and a US line a stub track or wye, depending on whether they used single or double-ended cars.

The scissors crossover connecting the shunting neck and the main line at the depot at Utsube is a distinctively Japanese type of track layout, again I would use a more typical US or European layout if I were modelling another prototype.

But I do like the idea of adapting the design to other prototypes.

Being narrow gauge, you just add one switch somewhere for an interchange and turn it into an industrial narrow gauge or Maine two-footer.

There is an interchange, or more properly a tranship track, already on the layout. The isolated siding on the far left at Yokkaichi, drawn as a hatched line, represents a standard gauge siding that runs along one side the tranship platform, with the narrow gauge on the other. The passenger interchange is only hinted at by the stairs leading up to the standard gauge platforms at Yokkaichi, which are not modelled.

I'm glad you liked the layout,and that you took the time to post your comments, thanks,

Mark.

[steinjr]

 The voting has ended, result tabulated, and posted in a thread of it's own. Here is a link to the results:

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1332632/ShowPost.aspx

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[vsmith]

If this was Chicago, I could have voted 2 or 3 time by now

[SpaceMouse]

[beegle55]

Some very interesting trackplans... Here's my vote

Scale:

N-Appalachian Central

HO-Philadelpia & Erie

Top 3:

1.) Appalachian Central

2.) Philly & Erie

3.) Big Fork & diehl... very interesting trackplan to say the least

 -beegle55

[SpaceMouse]

[DigitalGriffin]

My votes:

Overall

#1 Big Fork & Diehl

#2 Philadelphia & Erie

#3 Appalacian Central

For Scale:

HO-Big Fork & Diehl

N- Appalachian Central

Honerable mentions: (I know these don't count)

Kintetsu Utsube Line - It's a model in simplicity emphasizing scenery.  Problem is I'm a continous loop kind of guy.  Sometimes you just want to watch the trains go.

Lower Susquehanna Works - I really like steel ops, and I think this is a clever layout.  I know how really hard it is to get a full steel works into a small space.  I've gone through no less than 6 plan redos myself.  But two levels is a bit much for a 10x12 room. 

[SpaceMouse]

Your vote counts.

[steinjr]

Lets count up the votes! Who wins!

Voting ends Monday Night Midnight

Or to say the same in a totally non-ambiguous way - voting ends at 11:59 pm Eastern Standard Time on Monday Jan 21st - not quite 24 hrs from now.

 By request from SpaceMouse, I am keeping a running score. 36 people have voted so far. Top three layouts are still within 5 points (1 single best layout) vote of each other.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[SpaceMouse]

Lets count up the votes! Who wins!

Voting ends Monday Night Midnight

[Anonymous]

Lets count up the votes! Who wins!

[SpaceMouse]

I figure I should probably vote.

First of all, I want to say that there were a couple designs I liked but figured there were problems with the execution. I liked the Lower Susquehanna Works, and would have ranked it high, but I didn't think the small diseil switcher could make the 5% grade with any kind of load especailly on a helix. I liked the Progressive, but it did not take advantage of the space.  Nor did River Valley. In the end, it worked out this way for me.

Of all the layouts, The Kintetsu Utsube Line is probably the best thought out, but it lacks the two elements I like about model railroading, continous scenic running and the ability to make or break trains. I could live without one but not both. In the end, the few switching moves would become monotonous. I does however, make for some great modeling.

The Snover and Port Fuller is an nice plan despite the fact that it uses 20% more space than the guidelines calls for.

Okay, enough jabbering

N-Scale: Altoona and Johnstown

HO Scale: Buffalo & Sesquehana

G Scale: Drunken Trolley

Overall:

1. Buffalo & Sesquehana
2. Altoona and Johnstown
3. Kintetsu Utsube Line  

 

[stebbycentral]

Status voting Saturday 23:59 hrs Central European time:

34 people have voted this far (at this time the last to vote was ChristNH). As of now, there are four layouts running neck and neck in the overall category (within a spread of 5 points - ie one single #1 vote can change who is in first place). Voting will continue until 23:59 hrs EST Monday (05:59 AM Tuesday Central European Time).

Here is a link to Chip's web page with all the layouts (right click on link & select "open in new window" in several web browsers, if you want to leave this window in this thread in order to vote after you have studied the designs).

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/10x12Contest.html

Smile,
Stein

So as they say in Chicago:  "Vote early. Vote often."

[snagletooth]

Overall #1: Kintetsu Utsube Line (HO #5). This trackplan seems very versatile. With just slight changes in scenery, it could be a European tramway, or a turn of the century American interurban or county seat trolley line. Being narrow gauge, you just add one switch somewhere for an interchange and turn it into an industrial narrow gauge or Maine two-footer. Anyway you do it, it's definetely a detailers layout.

Overall #2: Altoona & Jonestown (N #2). Modeling mainline operation in a bedroom with it looking like a spaghetti bowl, even in N scale, is a tough job, and he tackled that hurdle nicely.

Overall #3: Buffalo & Sesquehana (HO #3). IMHO, I feel the staging needs some rethinking, but overall a real nice switching layout.

Best in N: Altoona & Jonestown

Best in HO: Kintetsu Utesbe Line

 And some real good ideas all around to everyone    

[marknewton]

I'd love to see a backdated version, run with small Forneys or other steam tanks.

I'm about to head off to work, and I'd like the time to reply to your post properly, but in the meantime, here's a quick comment. The Utsube line did start out as a steam tramway, with trains powered by these little engines,





A Japanese-language page on the early days of the line is here:

http://www2.cty-net.ne.jp/~muramasa/index.html

I realise most of you won't be able to read it, but you can all enjoy the pictures!

Cheers,

Mark.

[steinjr]

Status voting Saturday 23:59 hrs Central European time:

34 people have voted this far (at this time the last to vote was ChristNH). As of now, there are four layouts running neck and neck in the overall category (within a spread of 5 points - ie one single #1 vote can change who is in first place). Voting will continue until 23:59 hrs EST Monday (05:59 AM Tuesday Central European Time).

 Not everybody has followed SpaceMouse's voting instructions, so a quick recap of his voting instructions: "Vote first for your overall #1, #2 and #3 favorite, then add which layout was your favorite H0 scale layout and which was your favorite N scale layout", ie:

 Overall #1:
 Overall #2:
 Overall #3:
 
 Best H0:
 Best N:

 Here is a link to Chip's web page with all the layouts (right click on link & select "open in new window" in several web browsers, if you want to leave this window in this thread in order to vote after you have studied the designs).

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/10x12Contest.html

Smile,
Stein

 

[steinjr]

Snover & Port Fuller - DQ for being too large HOWEVER, it certainly looks like this is HO scale.  The turnouts are almost 9" long, the track centers on parallel track is 2".  I believe if this was done using 6.25" long #6 turnouts, and making the parallel track on 1.25" centers, reduce the radius of the curves to 15" or so and it would easily fit into the given space.  Why is the staging yard double ended on a point-to-point operating scheme?  Seems a lot more could be fit with stub ended yards.  Maybe make one run around for use when making up the trains before the operating session.

 Turns out it actually was designed as a H0 scale layout, hence curve radii and track spacing. At least according to the submitter, who mentioned this over in the Layout forum. So it probably should have been listed in the H0 scale section instead of N scale section.

 But I agree with TZ that it could have been changed to N-scale, curve radii and spacing reduced, and then it should have fit fine in a 12x10 foot room.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[stebbycentral]

To bump, or not to bump, that is the question...

[Driline]

I think this thread has lost its focus and the recent posts are discouraging rather than encouraging others from participating in the voting.   hmmm maybe it needs some hampster pictures to attract attention.

We could be bumping it with further comments on the actual entries themselves. 

Don't be an old stick in the mud! I vote for more HAMPSTER PICTURES!

[Autobus Prime]

We could be bumping it with further comments on the actual entries themselves. 

TZ:

Very well.  </silly hat>

I think it's great that these layouts were all so different.  This happened last time, too, and it was a surprise both times.  I expected more overlap.

They're all pretty good, too.  I'd say I could have a blast running 3/4 of the entries if they suddenly appeared in my 10 x 12 spare room with one door on the left end of one long side. I even think the S & PF could be fit in if the curves and track centers were tightened up.  The plan submitted has reasonable HO figures for these dimensions.  I feel a bit bad for shortchanging the S & PF in voting; it's a good railroad, but I would have liked it a little better if it could be run continuously, somehow.  (Of course, PR and K-U couldn't, but...)

The K-U probably got an unfair advantage for the stylin' art, but it's also really unusual in being slanted toward passenger trains.  It's pretty much an interurban, with some trolley thrown in, as far as I can tell. To properly run the K-U, you'd need dense, scheduled traffic, and lots of meets. I'd love to see a backdated version, run with small Forneys or other steam tanks. You could remotor and add trailing trucks to some Lifelike Teakettles and come close for cheap.

Regarding the K-U, I also think that a fork pointing the other way somewhere around Tomari would be a good addition.  Perhaps it could serve a very small station in the UL corner.  This would detract a little from the elegance of the plan, but it would allow four different routes for trains or MU cars.  A double back-to-back fork is a classic trolley plan.

One thing that detracts, in my mind, from the K-U, that I did not notice before, is the presence of corner view-block backdrops.  I know why they're being used, but I find them to be visually jarring.  When I'm running a train, my focus is continuously on the train.  Discontinuities in the scenery are distracting.  I think this sort of vignette scenery is popular today because it looks good in photos.  However, the view-blocks could easily be removed, and the scenes blended together in some plausible if abbreviated why.  Imagination can gloss over the compression.

The LS Works, which I didn't vote for, would be a really neat layout to build in portable form, on one level, and take to train shows.  You would really wow the rubes and experts alike with something like that, with trains going every which way switching cars from point to point in the mill.  To increase the action a little, a fast clock could be used to schedule movements and plant operations, but these themselves would take closer to 1:1 time.  I think animation of mill equiment and lots of lighting would do a lot for this layout.

I'll see if I can collect any more thoughts... 

 

 

 

[Texas Zepher]

I think this thread has lost its focus and the recent posts are discouraging rather than encouraging others from participating in the voting.   hmmm maybe it needs some hampster pictures to attract attention.

We could be bumping it with further comments on the actual entries themselves. 

[SpaceMouse]

[steemtrayn]

He's tapping his foot...........that scares me

Wonder what kind of music he's listening to?

Rap?

Hip Hop?

Lawrence Welk?

He's listening to lumberjack music (logger rythms).

[SpaceMouse]

 

[ChrisNH]

All the entries were excellent, but if I have to pick.. 

 

n-scale: Snover & Plover

HO:  Buffalo& Susquehanna

Overall:

 Snover & Plover

 Buffalo& Susquehanna

 Kintetsu Utsube Line

I felt the Snover & Plover gave a nice balance of scenery opportunities plus staging.

Buffalo & Susquehanna only lacked more of a sense of distance between destinations but otherwise excellent and included staging.

Kitetsu and Utsube was beautifully drawn and a lot of fun to look at, it just didnt have the the same operating potential the other two did, at least to my taste. 

I liked the progressive rail plan too.. but felt that it needed better interchange with the mainline to really realize the operating potential. The Appalachian Central was a very nice modification of the original.

My choices all met my preference for walk-in design and good operating potential. I also tend to prefer stuff that is not multi-level and doesn't double back on itself. 

Chris