I just received my copy yesterday, and am somewhat disappointed with it. I have kept my copies of the last several years; the 2009 is short on content and pages in comparison. In addition, most of the focus (in fact all of it except for the last article on On30) is of large to huge layouts.
I was a lot more interested in problem solving for small to medium size layouts. However, this seems to be the focus of Model Railroader so I should have expected to be disapponted. I think it would be interesting to get a survery going:
Raise your hand if your layout is:
Under 100 sq. ft.
Under 250 sq. ft.
Under 500 sq. ft.
Under 1,000 sq. ft.
If this has been done before on this forum, maybe somebody could direct me to the results. My thinking is that MR is directing its content to an audience that has a large layout or might aspire to having one, but most of us either have room for only a smaller layout, or maybe have none at all.
I'm Under 100 both in age and size of layout.
I completely agree on MR, but haven't been subscribed for very long. Some people aren't interested in a large layout, because of time, monetary, and space concerns, or some combination of the three.
Hope this helps
MadSinger
I'm not sure on the sq. for my layout. Its a 8x12, so I am guessing less than 250sq.
"Rust, whats not to love?"
I am currently under 100 Square feet . I would like a larger layout , but I agree that there should be more focus on smaller layouts .
750, 320 and 28 respectively G, O, and HO. I understand the frustration of "solutions" to small to medium layouts as represented in the press. It's easy to have a water feature when you have over 1000 ft2 for an HO layout, more difficult by far in 30 ft2. I encounter the same with "Pool Life" magazine, it shows million dollar pools and all the stuff you can do with underwater grottoes etc, but little to nothing about the average homeowners' 20x30 backyard.
I don't know what the press is thinking. Sure, it's great to see the mega layouts, but most people have the mini layout. Size is irrelevant to quality, there are hundreds of well executed small layouts worthy of print. Let's see some of them.....
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
MRRSparky I was a lot more interested in problem solving for small to medium size layouts. However, this seems to be the focus of Model Railroader so I should have expected to be disapponted.
I was a lot more interested in problem solving for small to medium size layouts. However, this seems to be the focus of Model Railroader so I should have expected to be disapponted.
Maybe you got a different print run than I did. Mine has a compact LDE article on page 54, the On30 layout that shares a 10X15 room beginning on page 58, a 6X15 HO layout on page 66, an N scale layout that shares an 11X13 room with a bed, desk etc.on page 76, a 3X11 N scale layout that could stand alone or grow into something larger on page 84, and a 4X7 HO LDE on page 90. So out of maybe 12 articles with track plans, 5 are 100 sg. ft or so or smaller, plus the On30 plan is the equivalent of about a 5.5'X8' HO layout. Plus Dolkos on making narrow (i.e., small) scenes look realistic,
It's certainly true that some of the layouts are larger, like my own design for the Visalia Electric. But even my article showed how an HO 4X8 (which I'm no fan of) can be incorporated later into a larger plan.
And it's true, there are no four sq. ft. standalone designs this issue. But there are ideas for sharing space in a room with other uses and laying out prototype elements in a given space, which I should think would be useful for anyone.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Robby P. I'm not sure on the sq. for my layout. Its a 8x12, so I am guessing less than 250sq.
Actually, its under 100 sq ft, 96 sq ft to be specfic
No big plywood pikes in my world - she's 16' x a yard and a bit wide, 39" actually. Anything much bigger and I'd be stranded in paradise and my occassional headaches would never go away.
Mostly the big pikes we see in the modeling press are viewed, or photographed, just small segments at a time, but I take your point.
The same goes for the boating magazines I buy - they always seem to feature all the top end craft - I know it's not really the same as model RR magazines and that with boats the magazine publishers tie in deals with advertisers, and all that kind of commercial stuff.
However, being a guy who likes to model the South East I am particularly aware of the amount of column inches given over to layouts featuring, scenery that is more dramatic with big hills and big rivers and big bridges - all that wonderful dramatic scenery that is easy to enjoy. I guess that model train magazines publish stuff that is reflective of it's readership. I think that in amost situations readers are going to find that there is never enough of their specific interests - scale, location etc., that kind of thing and unless a magazine spesializes in one aspect of our hobby, the alternitive will be a magazine that has something for everybody without the depth a specialist magazine can provide. It's all good though, I think.
Bruce
What about those of us that have over 1000 sq. ft. layouts? Mine is 25'x 50' (1,250 sq. ft.). And my club layout is going to fill a 6300 sq. ft. room (our club building is 10,000 sq. ft.).
I'm sure that the majority of model railroaders have small layouts (say around 100-150 sq. ft.) or smaller on average. However, I think that Model Railroader is chasing the bucks, just like any business, and people are drawn to "bigger, better, bolder" items in life. I mean, you don't see fat people in fitness magazines, you don't see too many station wagons in auto magazines, you don't see too many C-47's in classic Warbird magazines, so why would anyone expect to see "average" layouts in MR?
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Mines about 130 sq ft. 3 smaller islands connected by narrower shelf type.
I like the features of large layouts. The give me something to drool at and I can get some good ideas from them. However it would be nice if they gave equal print to smaller layouts so those of us can see what is happening in the smaller worlds (mine) and how others are making use of smaller spaces. There are probably more small great layouts than big ones. It shouldn't be that difficult. Usually they only photograph small parts of the big ones anyway. My
Todd
Central Illinoyz
In order to keep my position as Master and Supreme Ruler of the House, I don't argue with my wife.
I'm a small town boy. A product of two people from even smaller towns. I don’t talk on topic….. I just talk.
I come in at about 17.5 sq ft HO. (3.5' x 5')
Do I win a prize for the smallest HO?
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
MRRSparkyRaise your hand if your layout is: Under 100 sq. ft. Under 250 sq. ft. Under 500 sq. ft. Under 1,000 sq. ft.
FWIW, my current (HO) layout is under 100 sq. ft., and my design for eventual expansion is under 200 sq. ft.
Jim in Cape Girardeau
How does one measure the size of a layout?
Is it the space the benchwork occupies? Thus a 4x8 layout would be a 32 sqft layout, and an around-the-walls layout averaging 2 feet wide in a 20x30 room be a 184 sqft layout.
Is it the space the layout occupies plus that needed to operate it? Thus a 4x8 layout would occupy 110 sqft assuming three-foot wide operating aisles on three sides, and the 20x30 around-the-wall layout would occupy 400 sqft assuming three-foot operating space adjacent to the benchwork.
Is it the outer dimensions of the framework? A 4x8 would be 32 sqft and the 20x30 around-the-waller would be 600 sqft.
Or is it the size of the room the layout occupies? Thus a 4x8 layout could be any size accommodating the layout and access, and a 20x30 around-the-wall layout would be 600 sqft.
Mark
How about a 14 year old w/ ye old 4x8 sheet o' ply. So add me to the under 100 bar, only 32 sq. feet here.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
the large layouts are very inspiring and leave me drooling all the time. honsetly though, my favorite layouts in the past few years were in no perticular order, Lance mindheim's miami shelf layout, and Mike Confolone's 1 x 16 5th season layout. those layouts represent the space of what an average person is most likely to have. those layouts are amazing!! the detail level is what has made me switch scales back to HO scale. I am in the process of building a 1' x 5' LDE diorama layout. 5 Sq.Ft. so after reading the reviews, im sure i will still buy MRP anyways just for some ideas, and to see what other people have!!
Joe
Modeling:
Providence & Worcester Railroad
"East Providence Secondary"
HO scale
I'm right at 100 sq ft. To me that's more than enough as far as money and timewise
Santa Fe All The Way
I'm running between two layouts, In my own house it is a hair under 100 sq. ft. and in one that will be operated and built between myself and a disabled child's father approx. 650 sq. ft.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
MR makes small layout beginners seem like they are all alone, because of the lack of small layouts in the magazine. There are some, but only once and a while. I think it should not matter the size of the layout, if the modeling is good.
tangerine-jackIt's easy to have a water feature
Are we landscaping or building model railroads here?
Midnight Railroader tangerine-jackIt's easy to have a water feature Are we landscaping or building model railroads here?
How else do you get scenery except by growing it?? A water feature is relaxing and allows one to have fish and aquatic plants. It provides a nice backdrop to the trains when done properly.
Over 250, under 500 sq ft. 12x23 with a 4x6 alcove. HO.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Under 100 sq. ft. for me. I have a shelf type switching layout in progress; 10 ft. X 18 inches.
Jimmy
ROUTE ROCK!
Current layout under construction is about 300 sq ft. This is a walk around layout and counts operating aisles up to 3 ft wide. The overall space is 14' x 23', but a few sq ft won't be included til the next section. The second section will double it to about 600 sq ft, if and when it is added (I hope to retire first and move).
Personally, I like large layouts and hope to have one in the 1200 to 1500 sq ft range when I retire in a couple of years.
Enjoy
Paul
Mine is around the walls of a spare room and is just under 100 sq. feet. Plenty big for my budget, time, equipment and ambition.
About 200 sq ft ((about a third is two levels so call it just over 250) in a 500 sq ft room.
The mind is like a parachute. It works better when it's open. www.stremy.net
Mine is a robust 48 sq ft. and it has a 1/1 furnace right in the middle. I think MR should consider a compilation article about layouts built in spite of such utility/structural elements of the building. John allen had his solutions to the posts in is basement. My guess is that I'm not the only one working around a furnace or water heater. It could be a fun "real world" model railroading article.
Regarding the large layouts we see so often in publication, I'm fine with them. They use the same kinds of techniques that small layouts use. Besides, I don't think many of us really have the space to depict an uncompressed model of a railroad (even the big layouts have to be compressed - a scale mile in HO is 60 feet). We all deal eith the same issues - tighter curves and sharper turnouts than the prototype, the key is to make it credible in spite of our constraints. MR is getting better at helping us with that.
My .
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
Mine is a shelf, 1x9 on two walls and 2x8 on the other. That makes about 34 square feet. I like to see the larger layouts but would also like to see more on small layouts. I bet there are a lot of highly detailed ones out there that we could be inspired by. For example, the current Beer Line series, even though it's not my prototype, looks like one of the better project layouts since the Clinchfield and KR&D. But taking it further, what I would really like to see are not just photos, but concepts for designing, building, and operating a small layout. How do you visually separate scenes? How do you acheive balance between scenary, towns, and trains when there isn't room for a transition area? How do you deal with train lengths of only a few cars and passing sidings only 4-5 cars long? Many operating schemes seem designed for multiple people working like a team to move a train over the line, but what about the layout that only accomodates a single train (or if we really stretch things, 2). Train 1 comes from behind the scenes to the station and stops on the siding. Then we bring train 2 out. Then it stops and we send train 1 back to staging. Now go back to step 1 and repeat. How does one do timetable and train order ops on a small layout?
These are the types of questions I'm contemplating as I move ahead on my layout. Some of my decisions break or at least bend the rules. For example, my prototype ran only a single mixed train daily. I'm probably going to run a freight turn and passenger turn just to add some interest to the operations.
I'm 14 and i have a 12x20ft. layout, it is a around the room shelf layout. It is still under construction.
The n-scale existing layout is 2' x 8', or 16 square feet. Its enough for the little people, a town, farm, tunnel, bridges, and interesting landscape. The door layout I've started is a little larger, but still under 36 square feet, which, again in n-scale, will have room for small engine facility with a turntable & roundhouse, a viaduct, and other nice scenery. Still, all told, under 100 square feet combined. I love n-scale, for this reason.