Author Topic: MRP Discussion Thread  (Read 2492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ian MacMillan

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11936
  • Gender: Male
  • Learn to use the god damn search feature!
  • Respect: +65
    • Conrail's Portland Line
MRP Discussion Thread
« on: February 01, 2007, 10:44:11 PM »
0
As not to detract from Phil's great layout in MRP 2007....post your shiznite about the mag here.

I personally felt that it was lacking prototype tack arraignments compared to previous years. Even on Mike Confalone's HO layout preview they only TOUCHED on the reason that layout looked good in 1' of depth.
I WANNA SEE THE BOAT MOVIE!

SAH

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 890
  • Respect: +348
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2007, 10:23:29 AM »
0
I have all the MRPs and found I spent less time studying this one that any of the others.  Except for the //Learning Points side bars and the under construction layout photos, many of the layouts could have been featured in the Great Model RR issue.  That's not a bad thing, just not what I've come to look forward to when I dig into MRP.

Maybe there are not all that many ground breaking ideas out there anymore relative to layout design.  Maybe they are all being posted on the web now.  ;)

Maybe my own interests and expectations have changed over the last dozen years.

Steve

amato1969

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 936
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +159
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2007, 10:51:18 AM »
0
Yeah, I too was underwhelemed by this year's MRP.  Just not a lot of meat compared to previous years.

up1950s

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9101
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +971
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2007, 11:07:16 AM »
0
With the exception of Phil's stuff and that thin 1 foot wide New England layout , the mag was not worth much .

Ian MacMillan

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11936
  • Gender: Male
  • Learn to use the god damn search feature!
  • Respect: +65
    • Conrail's Portland Line
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2007, 11:43:45 AM »
0
Steve...thats a good point. I too have been getting MRP since day one...and now all the kick a$$ detail and drawn out points they used to have are now fit into that tiny //Learning Points sidebar.
I WANNA SEE THE BOAT MOVIE!

SAH

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 890
  • Respect: +348
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2007, 12:59:19 PM »
0
The Koester and Rice articles covered the traditional Layout Design fare.  Love him or hate him, Tony K is always provocative.  That's a good thing when it comes to pushing the LD envelope.  He's an NKP guy too, so he can't be all bad in my book.  :)  Mr. Rice's plans sometime get beat up re: constructability, but I've never had an issue with the N scale versions.  I don't think in any other scale constructability wise.

I always enjoy Paul Dolkos work but his writing talents did not really show through in the turnout article.  Good data though.  "Spokane to Palouse Plateau" was interesting.  I'm sure he could have written volumes but there is space for only so much nitty gritty detail in a glossy mag.

I think we're at a turning point with layout design.  Many folks are starting to model a specific prototype at a specific location(s).  The folks in Roanoke, Baltimore, Philly, Cleveland, Chicago, etc. long ago did the "design" for us.  The challenge as I see it is to figure out how to condense the essence of the prototype into our layout space, preserving all the things that attracted us to the prototype in the first place. 

Steve

pbrooks

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Respect: +1
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2007, 08:09:04 PM »
0
I think this issue had the "nuts & bolts" stuff covered in the planning guide, so they were more interested in finished layout photos than usual for the insides.

I think Tony has a tough line to walk... if there is too much esoteric design theory, he gets beat up as an elitist. Too much benchwork, and he gets asked why these guys can't finish a layout. If he focuses too much on small layouts, people want to see the monsters.

I was part of the issue on "bookcase" layouts in 2003. You should have seen some of the comments on the LDSIG list! You would have thought he was stealing first-borns...

I think the other reason there's no earth-shattering cutting-edge stuff is that the ideas are now accepted in the modeling majority. For instance, LDEs, linear layout design, sincere schemes, including staging. These are norms now, not cutting edge.

Well, I'm rambling tonight!

I'm curious, though... what kind of articles are you guys MRP favorites?
Mine have been the freight yards issue, and the one about interchanges and crossings of 2 railroads.

Next issue is going to deal with designing around train length, so should be pretty useful.

There's a lot of good info flying around the web. Maybe send some of it in for MRP, or at least write them a note or two on what you might like to see in next year's.

Lots of good observations in this thread!

Take care,

-Phil ;D
http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a140/pbrooks137/Model%20Portfolio/

"I GOT INTO model trains for the groupies, but STAYED IN for the huge financial rewards...

cv_acr

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2394
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +25
    • Canadian Freight Railcar Gallery
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2007, 10:27:57 PM »
0
This scene on my RR club's layout is only a foot deep.


SAH

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 890
  • Respect: +348
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2007, 05:20:51 PM »
0

I think the other reason there's no earth-shattering cutting-edge stuff is that the ideas are now accepted in the modeling majority. For instance, LDEs, linear layout design, sincere schemes, including staging. These are norms now, not cutting edge.

I'm curious, though... what kind of articles are you guys MRP favorites?
Mine have been the freight yards issue, and the one about interchanges and crossings of 2 railroads.

Next issue is going to deal with designing around train length, so should be pretty useful.


The Layout Deisgn SIG's Journal really broke the ground with the nuts and bolts stuff and laid the foundation for where we are today.  MRP came a number of years later and opened the layout design process up to a wider audience.  The LDJ is having a tough time getting articles too now.  Phil is right, many of those early "revelations" are common now.  What the Next Big Thing is the question.

Well written and illustrated pieces about translating a prototype operation into a model version are always of interest to me.  Early MRPs and LDJs excelled at that kind of thing.  Train length should be good topic.

So Phil, are you bringing anything to blow the large scale guys away to Atlanta (Cartersville) in May?  ;)

Steve

3rdrail

  • Guest
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2007, 05:49:15 PM »
0
I bought one and glanced at it last night. Other than Phil Brooks' and Mike Confalone's layouts, I don't recall much else except that Paul Dolkos screwed up the N scale switches royally. If he included Atlas' Code 55, why did he not include PECO's and Micro-Engineering's? If the spec's are the same as the Code 80 PECO and Code 70 M-E, he should have included that information.

Now, I use M-E Code 70, but to leave out two major track lines is a major goofup...

RS-27

  • Guest
Re: MRP Discussion Thread
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2007, 03:43:13 AM »
0
The fourth letter in //Reader Forum seems strange, starts out enthusiastic about the past decade, then says he didn't like 2003 MRP's little layouts, doesn't like warehouse-sized layouts either. 

The last paragraph has me scratching my head: "Maybe, just maybe, we're starting to take our hobby too seriously.   ???  Is this hobby really worth redesigning a new home to allow the railroad to extend under the garage?"      ;D    Hell, yes.

If the sale of my old property had gone thru before the boom ended, it was on my radar for this house.  Adding a ground level garage was being kicked around anyway. My question would be if I could get additional space cheaper another way.

But the whole issue of taking the hobby too seriously (i.e.: spend too much).  Is it any more ridiculous than buying a $25K ski boat and a $35K F350 diesel to pull it?  :o  If you're not depriving your family (spending their inheritance doesn't count as depriving, IMHO  ;D), why not.

Bob in IDaho, who should clean out the 19x19 basement room first, if the truth were known.