New MR Project layout

[nkalanaga]

Bill:  Your mention of the E&O got me wondering:  Adjusted for inflation, how "affordable" was that layout, compared with their new one?  Not just on the Consumer Price Index, but relative to actual median incomes?  Anyone have the wage/price data from 1966, and want to try to do the math?

Basically, what I'm interested in is how many hours a person, earning the median income for 1966 and 2014, would have to work to buy the parts.

[wazzou]

Anyone want to post the plan?

[Chris333]

Don't have that issue, but it looks like it's on the cover:
http://trc.trains.com/Train%20Magazine%20Index.aspx?view=ViewIssue&issueId=504
Found a pic on ebay:


If I was a midwest guy I'd be all over this new project layout 

[Philip H]

 

It must be the post- turkey and dressing comas, because it appears we are debating which MR project track plan in N scale is BETTER . . . . and how to adjust them for use . . . . as opposed to just trashing the place out of hand . . . .

/

[sirenwerks]

Another HCD for N scale?  Is that what they think of us? 

I still think the Clinchfield is the gold standard N scale MR project.  It would be more challenging to redo it in a Midwest theme, but the notion of a significantly sized N scale layout with scratchbuilt structures and custom painted rolling stock at shows does more for N scale than a door and a bunch of commercially available small industries and straight out of the box cars and locos.

I like that they selected the Q but, as has already been stated, it had some unique rolling stock, especially waycars.  I thought it was funny though, how they wanted to do something different scenery-wise and it looks like all the others, ground foam and readily available hardwood trees. I'd prefer they put some effort into it, model an NE12, add nose headlights to that GP20, model more than one variety of auto actually built in the 1960s, weather that stockyard.

[Rich_S]

We`re forgetting the Holy Grail here..The one MR layout that proved N scale was a viable scale to model in.. The Clinchfield

I second the Clinchfield. That was the layout and article that really opened my eyes on what could be done with N scale. The first N scale project layout I remember in MR was the "East Glasstop"

http://trc.trains.com/Train%20Magazine%20Index.aspx?articleId=13714&view=ViewIssue&issueId=552

After the Clinchfield the next project that caught my eye was the Carolina Central. The layout that sealed the deal was David's Naugatuck Valley.

http://trc.trains.com/Train%20Magazine%20Index.aspx?articleId=8890&view=ViewIssue&issueId=37

The latest N scale project railroad "The Red Oak Route" with it's branch line that ducks behind the backdrop looks interesting.  You could probably eliminate the curved turnouts if you changed the minimum curve radius for the route. Of course I'm thinking they wanted the larger radius for the CB&Q passenger equipment, without having to reduce the size of the passing sidings. As for price, when I entered the hobby you could purchase a Atlas 3 car diesel freight set with a E8 diesel, hopper car, boxcar, caboose, 11 sections of curved track, 1 re-railer track, 1 straight track section and a power pack for $19.98. In the Nov-Dec 2014 NSR there is an ad for "The Bachmann Stallion" train set for $149, which is pretty much the modern day version of that Atlas N scale train set of 1968. Also back in 1969, Atlas N scale remote turnouts were $3.50 each and manual turnouts were $2.50 each. According to the Census department Median household income rose to approximately $7,700 in 1968, I'll let someone else figure out the math on weather it's more expensive today to build a small layout.     

[basementcalling]

We`re forgetting the Holy Grail here..The one MR layout that proved N scale was a viable scale to model in.. The Clinchfield

That and the Wisconsin Central layout they did are hands down the two best N layouts the magazine staff has organized, even though the WC was contracted out to a local club. Both were more than a starter layout, and showed that actual prototype based modeling was possible in N and that there were advantages to choosing N over HO to do so.

I also really liked the Beer Line layout for it's urban industry focus and creative ways to configure the plan.  Chase your tail designs on hollow core doors or 4x8 plywood sheets don't do much  here, though they will get a beginner into the layout, once the construction is done, what is left to enjoy on those style layouts?

Glad to hear that MR is getting a bit meatier on their N scale subjects. I lost the ability to preview each month's issue when my local Wal Mart rearranged the magazine section and reduced it to GQ, Cosmo, and Glamour type mags only instead of an aisle of different focused issues.

[w neal]

I enjoy the MR "project layouts" a lot. Through the years they have always been great to pour over in my armchair moments.

It was the BN project layout that taught me about prototype "simulation". I took the the time to drive to the real towns and locations in Wisconsin that that group decided to model on the layout. As I drove around those places, I thought to myself "Hey, this place looks like the layout."  They taught me that their type of simulation (including believable representations of key industries and structures) created an easy way to prototype model without a need for specific "rivet counting" or exact scene recreation. Just having those key elements is enough to create a believable scene in one's mind. And, as others have said, N scale was the perfect medium to do it in.

Their teachings are evident in my own simulation of portions of the Wisconsin Central visible on other locations of this website.

Thanks for the inspiration MR. I look forward to seeing your version of Red Oak. Maybe it'll inspire me to recreate portions of the Galesburg Division - (always a pipe dream of mine).

[davefoxx]

Another HCD for N scale?  Is that what they think of us?

I don't know about them, but it's clear what you think of us.   

Sincerely,
The HCD Collective

[nkalanaga]

"Another HCD for N scale?"  Yes.  Not only are there more modelers with room for a door than for the Clinchfield layout, but most people who get a "train set" for Christmas are more likely to start small than to jump into a major project.  How many beginners today have the tools to build the benchwork for a Clinchfield-size layout?  And would be permitted to do it in their apartment?

[wcfn100]

I seem to remember other project layout bringing something new or interesting to the conversation (or maybe those are the only ones I remember).

At first glance this looks like an N scale layout just for the sake of doing an N scale layout (and, of course, pimp their advertisers) but maybe there's more to it.   I'll probably look at it on the stand and see what it's all about, but I'm sure the 20 year old random and un-prototypical rolling stock they dusted off for this will probably make me put it back (I did see at least one FMV rib side car, so that's good).

Jason

[MichaelWinicki]

I think it's a terrific layout.

Luv the track plan.  It offers a lot of operating potential in a small space, without creating a "spaghetti" look.

[Dave V]

Another HCD for N scale?  Is that what they think of us? 

 

God forbid you think about your audience before you type stuff.

[tom mann]

I got the issue yesterday and I agree that the trackplan is a little odd.  So odd that the lead photo on page 52 had to be staged - it is probably not what you would see during operations (i.e., too long of a train for the branchline and sidings).   If you just want to run trains, you're left with an oval. The amount of track and turnouts required are disproportional to the amount of interesting operations that are possible.

[auburnrails]

I got the issue yesterday and I agree that the trackplan is a little odd.  So odd that the lead photo on page 52 had to be staged - it is probably not what you would see during operations (i.e., too long of a train for the branchline and sidings).   If you just want to run trains, you're left with an oval. The amount of track and turnouts required are disproportional to the amount of interesting operations that are possible.

That's what I thought as well.  It was pretty unrealistic to stage a train of that size coming off of the branch when there's virtually no way a train that size would be possible off the branch.  Ironically, the branch operations are what add interest to the pike but they aren't nearly as usable as you'd want. 

I also agree with the amount of track/switches that the layout has relative to the amount of operations going on normally.  Having said that, I thought the low photo looking down the mainline with a train in the distance looked pretty cool.

-Dave