I finally had time to open the Jan issue and read. I am a little dissappointed with this years project. The last two projects were great, something an average person like myself would consider building. This years project just kinda seems like they wanted to focus on the club layout rather then inspire us regular folks into starting a layout. Also, I don't feel that writing a few hundred words and adding a sketch on how you could build it as a stand alone project is good enough, or suggesting Nscale if you don't have a 30ft long wall cuts it either.
I will still continue to read and enjoy MRR but IMHO think the staff could have came up with a better project.
Jon
I'm sorry to say I feel the same way. Hopefully some of the tips and techniques will be inspiring, but the layout plan certainly is not. More than anything it is mostly un-achievable for most all readers.
I also watched the first 4 videos that document the build and also felt let down compared to videos/projects past. 4 minute videos can't possibly contain enough to keep me interested and they spend the first 30 seconds playing the intro, the next 30sec to a minute saying hello and that they don't have a name and they will take us to the workshop. Quick tip, several seconds of credits and then it's over.
I certainly found more inspiration in the beer line concept and even last years N scale project seemed better to me.
Chris
I agree that's a poor choice for a project-unless one has a Godzilla size basement layout..Even in N that would be a space eater even as a interchange yard switching layout .
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Unfortunately, I can only agree to the disappointment voiced so far. This year´s project just fills space in the mag, there is nothing in it for me, not even the slightest inspiration.
Not a good choice this year, I am afraid.
I liked it a lot. Everything doesn't have to be a little beginners ring around the rosey every year. There will be a lot to learn from this for people really building layouts.
JonMN I finally had time to open the Jan issue and read. I am a little dissappointed with this years project. The last two projects were great, something an average person like myself would consider building. This years project just kinda seems like they wanted to focus on the club layout rather then inspire us regular folks into starting a layout. Also, I don't feel that writing a few hundred words and adding a sketch on how you could build it as a stand alone project is good enough, or suggesting Nscale if you don't have a 30ft long wall cuts it either. I will still continue to read and enjoy MRR but IMHO think the staff could have came up with a better project. Jon
I don't feel that way. I like the fact that they finally decided to tackle something that really is a layout expansion project. Sure it is using the existing layout but many of those who have an existng layout are often in search of something to either enhance or expand an existing layout, so what is so wrong with this? I don't see anything.
Frankly expecting somethingeach time they go through this process isn'tr reasonable any more. Just how many new and different possiilities are there? Only afe and until a new idea comes up, I am very content to see what they are doing even if it really isn't new.
Irv
I like it. I have felt that the last few projects were a little lame and not of much interest to me. However, this little layout kind of talks to me. Granted I will not be building it, as my layout is pretty much done and will not change much now, but I still liked it. Kinda nice to get away from the little desert/out in the boonies projects done recently.
So, that said, I enjoyed the first article and look forward to more, especially the grain elevator article that I believe they said was forthcoming.
I can't say that I was particularly enthused by this year's project layout, either. It's way too big and linear for probably 95% of the readership and too specific in its intent. Most previous project layouts allowed for a broader scope of scenery and operations. This new project is just a shelf layout grown all out of proportion in my book and likely to garner little interest among average readers. I would have much rather seen the page space devoted to what David Popp was doing with his home layout's latest extension than this.
As a big fan of the MR&T, however, I might have found the project layout more acceptible as part of a multi-issue piece updating readers regarding the entire layout, rather than a stand alone feature.
CNJ831
Hi Irv,
I respectfully disagree with you. I understand that we all have different expectations, but please understand that the "expansion project" is probably larger then most layouts. Sure I like to see what they are doing too and I think that articles such as "How to build a canyon scene" in the Oct issue Step by Step do that very well. Did you notice what layout was the focus of Step by step in the Jan 2011 issue? I think Dana even wrote that they were going to be tight on time in the article, and that is with a team of modelers. In my opinion, this would have been better as the center fold for one issue, not four.
As far as possibilitys...................they are endless. They get paid to do what most pay to do. Don't you think they could spend an afternoon with the team and come up with something?
We get 12 pretty large detailed layouts a year and don't forget GMR too. It just seems reasonable to do something that us armchair modelers could get into doing.
I sort of stand in the middle on this debate.
It's a refreshing "out of the ordinary" project layout that doesn't focus on the adverage loop of track with more, but it's also a large layout in it's own right, and not that many people have the space to build it.
However, I'm sure there will be something everyone can pick up and learn. Who knows? The more that I look at the drawings, I see more possibility of someone builfing it as a doubble-decker (or tripple-decker) layout.
I like it. Here is a project that "breaks" into an existing layout right down to the frame. How many folks have been on the fence about making changes to a layout but maybe were not sure how to go about it or maybe just needed a kick in the pants to get going - tear into that part of the layout that didn't come out right the first time. Or maybe the layout has grown stagnant and needs some changes. Rather than tearing the whole layout down take part of it out and rework it.
Not all MRR projects should be starting from the ground up. They have done several layouts the last couple of years - the beer line and the N scale. Both terrific in there respective scales and how to's. And I do not understandthe objection as to the size the layout is. I do not have a large area to work with but I sure have learned quite a bit over the years studying the layout plan and how the owner overcame an obstacle, track work, scenery, etc. There's a lesson to be learned every time a layout is published - no matter what size it is.
In the end it's the modeler's layout and his/her choice as to how to go about it. There are a million ways to do things and no one has the "absolute right way" to do it. Time, money and interest all figure into the mix. I think they've covered very well the basics on how to get started with the last two projects. And who doesn't want to see what's new on the MRR Layout?
Look forward to seeing the rest of the projects.
Enjoy
Bill from very cold New Jersey
I really like this year. Last years project I had no interest in since I am in HO and I focus in the northeast and not the southwest. This year's project will have some interesting parts with the kit bashing of some cool industries and I am always a fan of interchange operations.
Check out my railroad at: Buffalo and Southwestern
Photos at:Flicker account
YouTube:StellarMRR YouTube account
I mostly agree with the OP. The first article is interesting, and I will follow the future editions, but in reality, as has been said before, few of us have the space or resources to manage such a project. I think that MRR could take a few leads from these forums to help them find articles that will be of interest to a larger base of readers. For example, we all have space limitations. Perhaps a few articles on selective compression might fill a need. There was a very well done recent post which really showed what could be done in a small space:
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/183323.aspx
The model is very tight, and perhaps not to everyone's standards, but the creativity deserves full applause, and the ideas therein I'm sure will inspire a lot of modelling.
Perhaps if we make a few suggestions on this thread, and some of us show support, we could influence MRR to publish articles closer to our needs, not that they have been doing a bad job in the past.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Wow, what a multitude of opinions!
As I stated earlier, I don´t think that it is a good choice for a project layout. Large layouts are pretty well covered during the year and those of us, who already have a large layout and want to expand it, already know how to build the benchwork, lay track and add the scenery.
Has MR not understood the writing on the wall, I am inclined to ask. In times, when money is getting tighter for us, and space is getting even tighter, running a feature on building a monstrous extension on an already club-sized layout may not be the right thing to do. Who of us has the extra cash to the tune of $ 5,000 for tackling such a project, who of us (still) owns a home of a a size that could house such a large layout?
MR leaves the field of interesting and rewarding small layouts pretty much uncovered, also in their regular monthly features. Small layouts don´t have to be the set track type, round the rosie layouts, as one of the posters so eloquently stated. There is much more to small layouts and I would like to see MR going into this field much more. The Beer Line was certainly a step in the right direction, although I would not call it a small layout anymore. But its modular design and different ways of configuring it, just like dominoes, made it an excellent source of inspiration for own layout design. Add to that the feature on how to operate the Beer line, and this project layout was excelling all others I have seen. Too bad that MR decided to go back to the old way of "big is beautiful", instead of showing us how to enjoy MRRing with little budget and small space.
I think David mentioned in the first of the video blogs that one reason they chose this as their project layout was that they wanted to have a significant new scene on the layout to show all the visitors on layout tours during the NMRA 75th in Milwaukee last summer. Since it took the staff most of the spring to bring Bay Junction (or whatever it's called) to a near finished state, I think it's only fair to cut them slack in choosing to present their efforts as their annual project layout.
The main purposes of project layouts, as I understand it, are to demonstrate new techniques and to encourage both new and veteran modelers to get of their duff and build SOMETHING (anything!). Choosing something different from previous years - in this case a layout remodel rather than starting from scratch - is only fair. Maybe this project will convince some of us who have existing layouts (of any size) to make some progress on that next town/yard/scene, and if it has that effect, then it has accomplished its purpose.
Eventually, it's up to the individual to find their own inspiration in the project layout. If a modeler chooses not to find some inspiration in the project because it doesn't fit their idea of what a project layout "should be", it will be their layout that doesn't get worked on, and they're the ones who will be missing out on the fun.
You can probably guess by now that I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the project, expecting that at least something new on my layout will result from it.
Tom
Well, I don't know. I feel I learn something from pretty much every layout or track plan I see.
Case in point - have a quick look at tracks for the Kelly Appliance factory. Not too deep a scene, and yet they get the tracks to curve off and go into the building instead of running parallel to the yard - by applying the trick that the industry track can extend a little under the view block and scenery on the other side. Simple, and I had seen it before, but a useful reminder of a trick for a double sided layout with a view block.
They are illustrating partial buildings along a backdrop. Some people have not considered that.They will be illustrating scratch building and kit-bashing buildings - some people haven't done that before.
They illustrate using an overpass as a scenic separator between the Williams Bay station and the Bay Junction yard. Some people have not considered that.
They illustrate an interchange yard, and probably introduce a few people to the concept of interchange - making operations more interesting.
And you don't actually need a 30 feet wall to create a layout based on the core of this layout. You could make a nice little switching layout based on Bay Junction (the junction, not the whole layout) in H0 scale in say 14-16 feet or so - which in N scale would be about 7-8 feet of length.
Here is e.g.a quick sketch for a 14 x 2 foot H0 scale switching layout inspired by the Bay Junction plan - (roughly backdated to the 1950s, to make cars 40-footers mostly) - you would either have to fiddle trains between switching sessions, or add staging - fixed or cassette, but it would allow quite a bit of switching fun:
The trick is that you can take inspiration from any track plan, without building an exact replica of the plan. Make it your own.
Grin, Stein
How much time do you think the staff has. If your layout was on tour for a national convention would you show it as is or would you spruce it up. So after it took them all spring to spruce the layout up for all the visitors how much time do you think was left. i am guessing that to have an issue come out in december, it has to be done in by late september or at latest early october. That would leave them 2 months to complete it or start the publication with out completing it first. To me that is a big risk.
On to the project layout. I will not build it because my layout is mostly downtown chicago. But i still like it for what i can learn from it. Like the beer line there is thing to learn from this build. There is so much from layouts feaured in model railroader that i put in the back of my mind for possible future layouts. My layout designs might have features that i found interesting on multiple layouts/scales.
JonMN Hi Irv, I respectfully disagree with you. I understand that we all have different expectations, but please understand that the "expansion project" is probably larger then most layouts. Sure I like to see what they are doing too and I think that articles such as "How to build a canyon scene" in the Oct issue Step by Step do that very well. Did you notice what layout was the focus of Step by step in the Jan 2011 issue? I think Dana even wrote that they were going to be tight on time in the article, and that is with a team of modelers. In my opinion, this would have been better as the center fold for one issue, not four. As far as possibilitys...................they are endless. They get paid to do what most pay to do. Don't you think they could spend an afternoon with the team and come up with something? We get 12 pretty large detailed layouts a year and don't forget GMR too. It just seems reasonable to do something that us armchair modelers could get into doing. Jon
Feel free to disagree with me. I do understand that this expansion project is biger than most layouts but so what? Does it make worthless? I don't think so because it shows the possibilities that are available in a finished layout or even one that is semi-finshed. The MR&T dates back to 1987 from what I understand but not every area was completed because of various reasons including the fact that soem of the people who worked on the layout back then have left Kalbach for various reasons.
Yes, the MR&T us a club layout but many have asked to see it in more detail and this one of getting to see it. So I am happy to see that the Model Railroader staff found a way to incorporate it in the magazine.
It is also and HO layout which some might find offputting. I am an N- Scaler and I knoe many N-Scalers won't be interested in it for that reason alone. Frankly, I don't see that as a good excuse since many of the techniques that are going to be demonstrated can be applied to any scale. Fort example Neil Besougloff kitbashed the station using parts from at least two kits. Who says it can't be done in N or O or S?
Finally, publishing usually works on a six month lead time so what we are seeing in the January issue was probably worked on last winter and spring. Given this lead time factor and the fact that planning a new project is like a black hole in that it will absorb time, effort and talking it ove and you have real problem getting anything done in the time allotted. And there is one thing more. The folks who built this project have real jobs they have to do as well. While it may seem they get paid to do this stuff, that probably isn't true. Being and editor means you have to get things done such as the physical effort of putting each issue to gether so it can go to the printers and that the printers can then get it to the fulfillment house that mails these completed magaziens to each and every subscriber and to the company that actually distributes the copies to the newstands and hobbyshops so they can be sold. These take time and I'll bet Kalmbach is more interested in this part of the business than in having the staff spend their valuable and limited time building a layout. In other words, the layout building is secondary.
steinjr Well, I don't know. I feel I learn something from pretty much every layout or track plan I see. Case in point - have a quick look at tracks for the Kelly Appliance factory. Not too deep a scene, and yet they get the tracks to curve off and go into the building instead of running parallel to the yard - by applying the trick that the industry track can extend a little under the view block and scenery on the other side. Simple, and I had seen it before, but a useful reminder of a trick for a double sided layout with a view block. They are illustrating partial buildings along a backdrop. Some people have not considered that.They will be illustrating scratch building and kit-bashing buildings - some people haven't done that before. They illustrate using an overpass as a scenic separator between the Williams Bay station and the Bay Junction yard. Some people have not considered that. They illustrate an interchange yard, and probably introduce a few people to the concept of interchange - making operations more interesting. And you don't actually need a 30 feet wall to create a layout based on the core of this layout. You could make a nice little switching layout based on Bay Junction (the junction, not the whole layout) in H0 scale in say 14-16 feet or so - which in N scale would be about 7-8 feet of length. Here is e.g.a quick sketch for a 14 x 2 foot H0 scale switching layout inspired by the Bay Junction plan - (roughly backdated to the 1950s, to make cars 40-footers mostly) - you would either have to fiddle trains between switching sessions, or add staging - fixed or cassette, but it would allow quite a bit of switching fun: The trick is that you can take inspiration from any track plan, without building an exact replica of the plan. Make it your own. Grin, Stein
I think Stein has the right idea. How many people actually build a project layout as it stands. I doubt if any. And this is really not that big of a layout. Just look for ideas and new ways to do things, I do and get something out of every one. Sorry if you think it's too big, scale things down and keep what you feel is the best part.
Stein, I printed your plan and looking seriously at stealing it for a section of my layout. I'll let you know what I come up with.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ClinchValleySD40
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52481330@N05/
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/8745/sl/c
Stein, those are good points, for a vetern modeler such as your self. However, everything you said is already covered in the many excellent articles published year round. I could have never come up with a plan such as the one you presented in this post and I believe that it reinforces the point that I am trying to make.
I guess I looked forward to the project layout as a "layout for dummies" sort of article. Everyone that has disagreed with my original post has only pointed out things that we get in every copy of MRR already.
Simply put, I am not saying you should not enjoy reading the article or will not learn anything from it. I will still read it and enjoy it, because I like trains. It just feels a little redundent to me.
Put me on the side of mildly disappointed. For some of the reasons already mentioned and some different.
The biggie is that there doesn't seem to be any "Wow that's neat" to this. Especially compared to some of the other projects they've done over the years.
Last years N scale job showed what can be done with a basic starter kit and emphasized the use of double sided backdrop to make things seem bigger, likethe train actually traveled somewhere. An old trick but modernized and rehashed for a small layout, not just a peninsula of a basement empire.
The Beer lines claim to fame of sections that can be put together in a different arrangement was ingenious, not to mention the option of building extra sections for more operation as time progressed. True, modular guys have been doing this for years but usually as a club, not single persons. Using casters is a bit of a gimmick but a functional one that can be useful.
The old Clinchfield was groundbreaking in many ways and need not be discussed here for space reasons.
Frankly I think this years project is just a large scale version of Popp's 4 weeks to a bigger layout series from last year or before. I also feel that one was better written and more indepth on the how to. And the suggestion that this expansion can be a stand alone layout doesn't sit well with me, not sure if it's the size or operational abilities yet...
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
.
JonMN Stein, those are good points, for a veteran modeler such as your self.
Stein, those are good points, for a veteran modeler such as your self.
Jon - I am not a veteran modeler with 30+ years of experience in the hobby. I am a middle aged guy who has been in the hobby about 4 years, and still have not gotten my first real layout (being the third one I have started on) to the stage where I have grass on my layout and ballast on my tracks :-)
JonMN However, everything you said is already covered in the many excellent articles published year round. I could have never come up with a plan such as the one you presented in this post and I believe that it reinforces the point that I am trying to make. I guess I looked forward to the project layout as a "layout for dummies" sort of article. Everyone that has disagreed with my original post has only pointed out things that we get in every copy of MRR already. Simply put, I am not saying you should not enjoy reading the article or will not learn anything from it. I will still read it and enjoy it, because I like trains. It just feels a little redundant to me.
However, everything you said is already covered in the many excellent articles published year round. I could have never come up with a plan such as the one you presented in this post and I believe that it reinforces the point that I am trying to make.
Simply put, I am not saying you should not enjoy reading the article or will not learn anything from it. I will still read it and enjoy it, because I like trains. It just feels a little redundant to me.
Well, I guess it depends on what the project layouts are supposed to be - whether they are supposed to be "A to Z on how to build your first layout" or "some ideas for a layout".
There are several good books out on "how to build your first layout".
Marty McGuirk's "N Scale Railroading: Getting Started in the Hobby"
Jim Kelly's "H0 Railroad From Start to Finish"
David Popp's : "Building a layout step by step"
Ian Rice's "Shelf Layouts for Model Railroads"
Lance Mindheim's "How to design a switching layout" and "How to build a switching layout" (http://www.lancemindheim.com/bookstore.htm)
And many, many more.
The nice thing about the project railroads is (IMO - we can disagree on this) not that they do an A-Z. It is that they may give us some new ideas. Some ideas presented these last few years:
L-shaped point to point shelf layout in H0 scale. N scale double track island layout with curved view block down the spine Modular layout in H0 scale And now - double sided peninsula, modeling a junction & an interchange between two railroads
What next? Perhaps a doughnut shaped layout or and around the walls layout in a small room. Or an N scale hollow core door layout. Or another 4x8 in H0 scale. Or a traction or interurban layout.
They cycle through presenting various ideas.
Smile, Stein
Odie, you, like a number of other posters I believe have missed what the intended objective of MR's annual "Project Layout" is. The aim has traditionally been (and should always be) to INSPIRE THE LESS EXPERIENCED HOBBYIST TO BUILD A LAYOUT LIKE IT. This means the project layout should be within the size and complexity range of the average hobbyist, novice, or perhaps even the armchair guys, AS IT STANDS. It should not require the wouldbe builder to totally rethink, redesign and compress it. He's typically Joe Public, not John Armstrong. These layouts are supposed to generate a response from the novice, or modestly experienced, hobbyist of, "Hey, I can build that!" Does the Bay Junction?
Neither is it the intent of project layouts to expose and educate the more experienced hobbyist to new concepts. This is the province of regular feature articles in the magazine. There, specific subjects can be dealt with properly in much greater detail. Yes, one might perhaps snatch a concept for kitbashing some particular structure from a project layout story. However, such ideas are once again handled in a far more enlightening fashion in articles like those written by Art Curren as magazine features in years past, where step-by-step instructions were provided.
The fact is that the novice, or even modestly experienced, modeler's eyes are likely to simply glaze over after looking at the Bay Junction's trackplan and considering its dimensions. It is longer than some modern homes! Folding it to create 40% staging is a waste to most hobbyists and the around-the-wall approach is even a worse use of available space. Overall, the layout is rather boring in my book as a stand alone design and certainly not as inspiring, or exciting as a great many past project layouts.
----------------------
John,As I mention that design would be a space eater in N Scale..I don't know what MR is thinking unless its to showcase Godzilla size layouts in separate buildings or homes with super size basements.
I can see that as a project for a club with a large layout.
CNJ831 Odie, you, like a number of other posters I believe have missed what the intended objective of MR's annual "Project Layout" is. The aim has traditionally been (and should always be) to INSPIRE THE LESS EXPERIENCED HOBBYIST TO BUILD A LAYOUT LIKE IT.
Odie, you, like a number of other posters I believe have missed what the intended objective of MR's annual "Project Layout" is. The aim has traditionally been (and should always be) to INSPIRE THE LESS EXPERIENCED HOBBYIST TO BUILD A LAYOUT LIKE IT.
I suspect we all agree that the Bay Junction layout is not a suitable first layout for your average beginner. Which means, unless you think that everybody working for MR magazine has suddenly taken leave of their senses at the same time, that the MR team also know this.
Which means that their actual goal for this year's layout was apparently not to entice your average armchair modeler into thinking "Hey - I could build that layout in a corner of my spare bedroom".
You may feel it still should be the primary goal of the magazine every year. Could very well be.
Personally I feel it probably would be smarter to just offer all new subscribers (or all purchasers of the January issue) a decent deal on an introductory "how to build a layout from A-Z" type of book.
That way they don't have to wait for four months to get all the issues, and you can give them quite a bit more information than you can in four magazine articles.
But whatever - if MR feels that it is necessary to do yet another classical 4x8 foot H0 scale loop of track with a passing siding, and two industry spurs, using sectional tracks, and featuring a road crossing, a bridge over a stream, a tunnel in one of the rear corners, a mid-western small town main street, a grain elevator, a depot and a freight house, then they can off course do that.
Hmm...
"MR is full of nothign but beginner stuff. Repeatimg the same thigns over and over again"
So now they come up with a follow along project that is anything BUT the same old same old beginner 4x8 and we have a bunch of people saying the compelte OPPOSITE "OMG not enough beginner material!"
How many people actually build the project layouts exactly as shown? I remember in older issues when they ran a project layout they encouraged submisison of photos from readers on how they built theirs - there were a few published, but it wasn't like half the readership was following along here step by step and making exactly what was shown. It's not the layout building - it's the TECHNIQUES and IDEAS they are teaching. Sure, 6x26 is a bit large, unless you have a basement, but it's doable. But again, I don't think the expectation is to build an exact duplicate. It's the concepts and ideas. The idea of an interchange and junction can be applied to most any size layout. If you have a bit more than minimal space, a branch line. Scenery, operation concepts, it all follows regardless of how big a layout you actually build.
The Beer Line was like a breath of fresh air - something finally not a rectangle 4x8. That would be like the intermediate layout - this one is the more advanced one. There's a logical progression here over the years, rather than the constant rehash that is often complained about.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Looks to me like this years MR Project is off to a roaring start.
The thing is that if this series gets modelers to talking and thinking, even if it disappoints some, it will have served it's purpose.
If you find something in the design that you can use, adapt, copy or whatever, then it's worthwhile. Take it as a challenge to dig ideas that are useful to you out of the articles.
OK, back to making trees out of weeds.
Mark Gosdin
Looking back over the years I don't think that the MR project railroad was ever intended to always be a beginners or a simple 4X8 project. The Washita and Santa Fe was for example a pretty complicated model railroad. Personally, I like this one much better than the two previous ones. - Nevin