Jon Gwinnett Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Got this in WH Smith today. Not as impressed as in some previous years (Must admit I prefer the planning special anyway). I need to read it properly having only skimmed through. There's a 1:29 proportion version of the Mindheim school of Miami switching which looks interesting, and the final page has a cracking N gauge single photo. Other than that, the article which grabbed my interest most was a modular Coke Plant - looks very good, and the whole setup brought to mind the Union RR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1 Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Doesn't that UK-outline one look just like one of those seaside display layouts? Mind you, it's amazing to see anything non-US in MR. steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Williams Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Got this in WH Smith today. Not as impressed as in some previous years (Must admit I prefer the planning special anyway). Likewise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointstaken Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Agree. One or two plans might be useful, or taking bits out of others, but I can't really get excited over a 6ft model of a B&O coal dock, impressive though it may be. More plans would make it more useful. Dennis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 2, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2011 Yes, very disappointing this time round. And clearly the guy with the British outline layout has not been very well 'advised' by his expert or he might have started with the fact that our trains run on the left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Graff Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I just ordered the "operation special" that comes in May 2012... In both regular and digital editions mind you . I agree that this years Great MRR wasn't so great..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Scottish Modeller Posted December 3, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 3, 2011 Hi all, This one just came through the letterbox this morning. Now I've had time for a look - I agree..... Too many of the Model Railroader derived magazines are exactly that. Extracts from the normal magazine - some with more photos, most with exactly the same photos that appeared the first time around. Overall rating? Sorry production team - below average - need to try harder. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 3, 2011 Author Share Posted December 3, 2011 I think perhaps the issue is that these are "Great" model railroads rather than great models of a railroad. The lead B+O article for instance - his chosen prototype sounds fascinating, but then he adds in all these generic B+O features such as the towers. What frightens me about the UK outline layout is if our US attempts look as toylike to US observers? I also recognize that with only a generic shunting plank to my name, I should be less critical of those with large finished layouts! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Klyzlr Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I think perhaps the issue is that these are "Great" model railroads rather than great models of a railroad. The lead B+O article for instance - his chosen prototype sounds fascinating, but then he adds in all these generic B+O features such as the towers. What frightens me about the UK outline layout is if our US attempts look as toylike to US observers? I also recognize that with only a generic shunting plank to my name, I should be less critical of those with large finished layouts! Dear Jon, In order of statement: - Just as with the average exhibition manager, the editor of such annuals has to try and keep an "even keel", and have "something that appeals to everyone" (remember, GMR is a "coffeetable picture book", not a "hardcore modellers" book). As such, the "hardcore prototype" work is likely to be kept at bay, or "watered down" until it "feels comfy" to most anyone who may be browsing thru. ("visual WOW factor" beats "proto-accurate" modelling in these particular cases). - Your fears (That US-based modellers may "look down upon" non-US modellers who are modelling US-themes/outlines/prototypes) are unfortunately justified in many cases, although it must be noted that a degree of said "toylike" perception may be attributed to differences in approach/attitude to the hobby on the continents involved, and the degree of "perochial self-importance" placed on the model/layout in question. ("...No one models US outline like US modellers..." "...true, but does that inherrently mean that non-US modellers efforts at modelling US subjects are somehow automatically "incapable of being as good, or better"???..." Here's a hint, google "Red Stag Lumber Company" or "Muskrat Ramble Narrow Gauge"). To take a recent example, a UK layout of an Eastern US terminal of which the prototype is quite recognizable, but totally ignores the keynote "skewed angle" of the yard throat and turnouts, (GoogleMaps provides reasonably clear overhead views of the terminal in question, from which trackplans can be derived with +/- scale 2' accuracy in most scales. Many photos of the terminal are also freely available online, covering many eras). Same sports a small roster of locos, which have obviously been painstakingly custom painted in the appropriate RR livery. Only issue is that the model locos in question are "1-ton too heavy", when the _correct_ locos, RTR, are just as easily and readily available in the same scale from the same manufacturer. For the same ammount of time, effort, and $$$ a "more proto-appropriate" roster could have been obtained (IE sooo close, and yet sooo conspicuously far). - "Shunting Plank" as a term (despite the derogatory implications) is a very apt description for the Lance M-style layouts. Indeed, if Lance M lived in the UK, I dare say he might use the term himself. Ergo, one well-executed "Shunting Plank" ("switching shelf"?) can easily be the equal or dare-I-say-it, _better_ of a basement or attic full of "blah"... (As our dear departed Carl A said on more than one occasion "...One can fit more pure Pennsy atmosphere in a well-done Micro than in a basement-full of "Keystone Cliches"..."). - Don't be misled, just because it's bigger, don't necessarily mean it's better, and being bigger, it's far more likely to _not_actually_ be "finished". In many cases in previous editions, the trackplans in GMR show scenery and completed layout where such does not yet actually exist. (check the photo location callouts, are they all grouped together around a given part of the layout? Why are there no pics of the other areas?) Even if it is "finished", ask yourself how many years the builder/modeller has been at it? (and comparatively, how long does it take to model a "proto-nook" in "shunting plank" format?) Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
signalmaintainer Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Yes, very disappointing this time round. And clearly the guy with the British outline layout has not been very well 'advised' by his expert or he might have started with the fact that our trains run on the left. The OO layout in GMR was attractive and well-built to be sure, but there's a lot of wasted space. Also, I can't seem to purge my adversion to using US outline track on a purportedly British layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
signalmaintainer Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 What frightens me about the UK outline layout is if our US attempts look as toylike to US observers? In your case, no, Jon. And I can say the same for several others on this forum who model the US. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 - Your fears (That US-based modellers may "look down upon" non-US modellers who are modelling US-themes/outlines/prototypes) are unfortunately justified in many cases, although it must be noted that a degree of said "toylike" perception may be attributed to differences in approach/attitude to the hobby on the continents involved, and the degree of "perochial self-importance" placed on the model/layout in question. ("...No one models US outline like US modellers..." "...true, but does that inherrently mean that non-US modellers efforts at modelling US subjects are somehow automatically "incapable of being as good, or better"???..." A lot of it may be the non-US inclination for the "shunty plank" or the "Inglenook". Many US modelers just don't "get" those trackplans or operations. On this list there have been many extraordinary efforts to force operation onto those trackplans or to view any place that has two or three switches in a row as an Inglenook (such as the lead of a recieving or departure yard of a hump yard). - "Shunting Plank" as a term (despite the derogatory implications) is a very apt description for the Lance M-style layouts. Indeed, if Lance M lived in the UK, I dare say he might use the term himself. Ergo, one well-executed "Shunting Plank" ("switching shelf"?) can easily be the equal or dare-I-say-it, _better_ of a basement or attic full of "blah"... (As our dear departed Carl A said on more than one occasion "...One can fit more pure Pennsy atmosphere in a well-done Micro than in a basement-full of "Keystone Cliches"..."). From my perception there is a difference betwen a "Lance M" layout and a 'shunting plank". Having grown up in Pennsylvania around the Pennsy, I would have a hard time agreeing with the idea that a mico layout would capture the atmosphere of the Pennsy. It might in a magazine where all you see is one picture. - Don't be misled, just because it's bigger, don't necessarily mean it's better, and being bigger, it's far more likely to _not_actually_ be "finished". You are missing the point. In the US in most cases the "operations" are the point, not the scenery. Scenery is a nice to do and adds to the atmosphere, but isn't required to have a successful layout. I operate on a half dozen layouts, none of which have full scenery. We consider a railroad "ready to go" when cars can be moved around prototypically. A railroad can be operated on and have a thousand operating sessions before the scenery is 50% complete. Actually I can't think of a layout that I have operated on that had complete scenery. I have operated on several dozen "functional" layouts and not one was fully sceniced. In many cases in previous editions, the trackplans in GMR show scenery and completed layout where such does not yet actually exist. (check the photo location callouts, are they all grouped together around a given part of the layout? Why are there no pics of the other areas?) Even if it is "finished", ask yourself how many years the builder/modeller has been at it? (and comparatively, how long does it take to model a "proto-nook" in "shunting plank" format?) I have operated on several of those layouts that were in GMR and all the photos were in of one spot. Yes, the rest of the railroad was unsceniced. Yes, there were a couple areas not finished. But it was operations. Myself and a dozen other people spent 3+ hours running the railroad, Regardless of the amount of scenery, it was a "great model railroad". Whether or not it had scenery or still had some areas to finish was beside the point. Actually in one case we operated on a GMR layout and then hijacked the owner's tools and track supplies and installed a yard for him. 6-8 times a month local modelers in my area open their home layouts to area modelers and anywhere from 4 to 20 modelers spend 3-4 hours operating a model railroad. Only a couple have anything approaching complete scenery. Most are doing good if they have kraft paper or foam board over the benchwork to suggest land forms and mocked up buildings. Guess what? We don't care. We're running trains. Just a totally different approach. Its the car and train movement that is king in the the US. Dave H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Disappointing this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Arnold Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I too bought GMR but I do not usually buy it because I prefer MRP - GMR used to inspire me but there is too much emphasis on Eastern roads and many in transition and steam eras. I too was not impressed by it - why did I buy it? Well I was on holiday and needed something to keep the hobby burning. As for other comments about the reality and quality of US layouts built over here in Europe, all I will say is that most that I have seen have attempted to be faithful representations of the treal thing, whatever the era. Some though do put Operations first and thus much might be crammed into pint pots - whatever floats your boat. For me it is realism in looks then put operations in place. I have been fortunate enough to have visited Pelle Soeborg and he is one of the reasons why I have maintained my subscription for MR. His modelling is superb; his last layout was superb and I have no doubt his new rendition of it will be even better. I also love Lance Mindheim's work - he looks to match realism with operations. Many of here are emulating his style. Yes that UK layout did have its failings for me too - Derby is not a two road station but at least the train was on the left hand track in that photo. Each to his own. I was again fortuante to be able to go to the NMRA Convention in Sacramento this year and visited many layouts - very many were excellent renditions of real locations and still managed to have operations. Some were focused primarily of operations and scale reproduction of locations was scarificed in a few cases. Yes it is a major focus in the USA and holds joys yet to be discovered by many over here but it is not the key driver. Most modellers everywhere build layouts to have fun. As someone told us all on one of the layout tours, there are a few rules on this layout but the first rule is it's MY LAYOUT and so should it always be. It's a hobby; enjoy it however you wish but we should not overly criticise the work of others. My two cents. Mike Arnold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Most modellers everywhere build layouts to have fun. As someone told us all on one of the layout tours, there are a few rules on this layout but the first rule is it's MY LAYOUT and so should it always be. It's a hobby; enjoy it however you wish but we should not overly criticise the work of others. I guess that's what I am trying to figure. What is the "fun" part of an Inglenook? How does it work? How do you switch it "prototypically"? If you have 3 sidings with a capacity of 7 cars and only 3 cars of tail room how do you switch it prototypically? The last article I wrote was published was in the 2003 MRP. It was 1x3 and 1x4 switching layout variation for a college dorm room. MRP required me to assign it to a prototype location and required me to specify industries for the tracks (haven't written anything for them since) but my original concept was that industries wouldn't be permanently assigned. The surface would be either painted plywood or gravel so any industry can be plopped down by any spur. That way the switching can be varied so different cars can go to different tracks and it won't be boring. There was a runaround so it wasn't just pull and shove, it required som thought to navigate cars around the layout. Prototypical? Nope, not in the least. It was a switching puzzle plain and simple. Its along the same lines as the John Allen Timesaver. The sole purpose was to be fun to operate and to give somebody a place to use their equipment. Is the purpose of an Inglenook just a switching puzzle? Just a casual amusement to shuffle a few cars back and forth? That I can understand. Everybody seems to take them so seriously. Why the effort to force fit some prototypical situation on top of them? What am I missing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I'll try to explain - the original Inglenook was a 5:3:3 - in fact the original was a oval with 2 interior spurs but we'll ignore that one - and an Inglenook is a space beside a fireplace (The layout was intended to fit in this) Each spur will hold only the stated number of cars and clearance for cars to pas. The Headshunt is the length of the shortest siding+ a loco. Eight cars, each with a different coloured dot, and a loco are randomly placed on the layout and the object is to sort 5 into a predetermined order - originally with a tiddly-wink computer where all the counterrs were different colours and placed as they were drawn from the holder. 8 cards could be used also, with each car being assigned a number. The 5 cars were assembled on the longest siding with the loco at the head. It cane keep you quite busy for a while. There are other variations 3:2:2,, 7:4:4 etc Scenics and decoration to suit owners taste Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Graff Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 As I'm building a freelance US style layout in a smaller space, I had to make it interesting to operate. Realistic? not at all, but very enjoyable! Would it be suitable for GMR? Probably not, as it's rather small and freelanced..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 Is the purpose of an Inglenook just a switching puzzle? Just a casual amusement to shuffle a few cars back and forth? That I can understand. Basically, yes, and I'm glad you can see that. Everybody seems to take them so seriously. Why the effort to force fit some prototypical situation on top of them? What am I missing? Perhaps this is more of a UK "thing", and it boils down to space, again - or the lack of it... many of us here are great fans of real US Railroads, for myself it's the Soo Line (in case anyone's forgotten!! ) BUT we don't have space to do real justice to our chosen favourite... so we have to combine accurately modelling Prototype locos & stock with a small layout - it's a compromise, like a lot else. If there's a modicum of reality that might just be tweaked a bit (or force-fitted, to put it another way) then it makes us feel a bit better about our efforts. You might then end up with a bit of fanciful whimsey like this... A total nonsense of a trackplan, BUT I've had very favourable feedback from US modellers about my F-Unit with the masking tape on the front door as per the original... It's a compromise, as I said.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
signalmaintainer Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Would it be suitable for GMR? Probably not, as it's rather small and freelanced..... Au contraire! Please see your PMs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highpeak Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 Just a totally different approach. Its the car and train movement that is king in the the US. Dave H. I seem to recall (and it's 35 years ago now) that once I discovered car card type operating ideas scenic development of my layout rather slowed to a crawl It didn't bear any real resemblance to Brunswick, ME but it borrowed the operating ideas from there and as Dave has said, car and train movement just took over and somehow the lack of scenery on two thirds of the layout didn't really matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 In the US in most cases the "operations" are the point, not the scenery. ... I operate on a half dozen layouts, none of which have full scenery. .... Actually I can't think of a layout that I have operated on that had complete scenery. I have operated on several dozen "functional" layouts and not one was fully sceniced. These comments remind me of a wonderful "Herman" Cartoon that I saw years ago (and cannot find again!!)... A guy is standing by a model train, throttle in hand, and the voice in his headset crackles - "Spot the Boxcar at the Canning factory and the Tanker at the Brewery"... On the benchwork, the "Canning Factory" is a tin of beans, and the "Brewery" is a Beer Bottle..... I take it "Herman" must be a Model Railroader..!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 The different approach between the two countries is shown by the posts that Craig puts on showing the modular setups where the train-cam shows that many of the modules are simply boards with track (often unballasted), an occasional building and nothing else - granted that some of those boards have been very nicely seniced - and the layouts that are exhibited here, and seen on many of the exhibition posts. In fact a lot of the US shows are just that, tables with models on them, for other modellers to admire. Taking intomind that even many clubs in UK do not have room to assemble huge layouts, and the average UK modeller lives in a fairly small, cramped house with little spare space for set5ting up a layout - that is the main reason why small layouts like Inglenooks have developed here in UK, and many attemts have been made to develop scenery to make the best use of them. A stage full of Lionel rack with locos running on what is effectively a floor layout in UK, will attract less attention from anyone but the kids, than a beautifully modelled, and sceniced layout where you will frequently find crowds 3 deep around it, Haston at Glasgow as an example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 While I understand Dave's point that ther is more emphasis on running trains from and to places with US layouts, I would argue that while a barely sceniced basement empire layout might be great fun to operate, it is not a 'Great' model railroad. Possibly a potentially great model railroad. While I suspect that that there are far more people in the US with space to build a basement empire, there must be millions living in smallish apartments, and from trawling various US forums it seems that there are a fair few building small shelf layouts. What does seems to be missing (compared to the UK) is the mid sized portable layouts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted December 5, 2011 Author Share Posted December 5, 2011 Its horses for courses isn't it. I'd love a basement empire, or at least I think I would. Imagine running trains like those great parallel stack trains Martyn posted. But I don't have a basement, and with the limited time usually available to me doubt I could fill it if I did (I wonder how the guys in the US find the time?) Dave is absolutely correct that my tiny switching layout isn't prototypical, in real life the switching lead would be long enough to shunt everything at once. But I can operate it in a mannner which at least imitates the prototype, as shown in the other Dave's Chicago video link, even though I'm having to make far more moves than the real thing would. It keeps me amused, will hopefully look good (at least in still photos) and is way better than no trains at all. And if, one day, I find the secret to making more time then I can build something bigger in the loft or on a modular basis. I guess we're trying to make the best of what we have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted December 5, 2011 Share Posted December 5, 2011 I find large layouts so difficult to take in. The sheer vastness is so intimidating to me that I miss the fine detail. Whereas small layouts can be very jewel-like and exquisite. Personally I enjoy the modelling aspect but operations leave me cold, I'm afraid - maybe because it is too much like hard work? Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.