marknewton wrote: stilson4283 wrote: 3) Kintetsu Utsube Line - Like many said it has great lines and has some great curves. Plus you got to love a layout that you cannot pronounce.LOL! I can pronounce it - badly! The lady who teaches me Japanese pulls some great faces when I mangle words... But then again some might find Susquehanna hard to pronounce.You're not wrong - I wouldn't attempt it!All the best,Mark.
stilson4283 wrote: 3) Kintetsu Utsube Line - Like many said it has great lines and has some great curves. Plus you got to love a layout that you cannot pronounce.
3) Kintetsu Utsube Line - Like many said it has great lines and has some great curves. Plus you got to love a layout that you cannot pronounce.
But then again some might find Susquehanna hard to pronounce.
Basically just sound it out...
suss (sounds like fuss), kwee (wee with a k), hanna (just like banana but with out the bana and with an H). Lived within 25 minutes of that river all my life...
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Your contest is cool,BUT have you ever throught about a contest where you are given an area that is allready scenic and has hills mountains ECT,ECT then servay an railroad and build it???Like the real thing? We all have built layouts and then add the suroundings.
This might be a chlange??
JIM
SpaceMouse wrote:
He's tapping his foot...........that scares me
Wonder what kind of music he's listening to?
Rap?
Hip Hop?
Lawrence Welk?
Driline wrote: SpaceMouse wrote:He's tapping his foot...........that scares me Wonder what kind of music he's listening to?Rap?Hip Hop?Lawrence Welk?
It's quite obvious,... it's a polka band!
I have figured out what is wrong with my brain! On the left side nothing works right, and on the right side there is nothing left!
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
He's listening to lumberjack music (logger rythms).
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
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.
Texas Zepher wrote: 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 wrote: 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!
Texas Zepher wrote: 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.
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
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
Autobus Prime wrote:I'd love to see a backdated version, run with small Forneys or other steam tanks.
I'd love to see a backdated version, run with small Forneys or other steam tanks.
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
steinjr wrote: 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.htmlSmile,Stein
So as they say in Chicago: "Vote early. Vote often."
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
1. Buffalo & Sesquehana2. Altoona and Johnstown3. Kintetsu Utsube Line
TrainManTy wrote:Lets count up the votes! Who wins!
Voting ends Monday Night Midnight
SpaceMouse wrote: TrainManTy wrote: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.
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.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
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
If this was Chicago, I could have voted 2 or 3 time by now
Have fun with your trains
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