MR's N Scale Salt Lake Route

[asciibaron]

is there trackplan of the MR layout somewhere?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

My life just got a LOT easier!

[Dave V]

is there trackplan of the MR layout somewhere?

Yes...  In MR. ;D

[bsoplinger]

is there trackplan of the MR layout somewhere?

Yes...  In MR. ;D

Which issue?

[flight2000]

is there trackplan of the MR layout somewhere?

Yes...  In MR. ;D

Which issue?

It started with the January 10 issue.  Here's a link to an ad for the set Kato is putting out.  I know, it's kinda on the small side, but it gives the general feel.

http://www.modeltrainwarehouse.com/zoomify.asp?catalogid=2436&image=http://www.modeltrainwarehouse.com/assets/images/slr.jpg

Brian

[AlkemScaleModels]

Bernie,

I would respectfully submit that several of the examples you're referring to happened under a different regime at MR.

Sure, go ahead. make me feel like an old geezer!  ;D

Anyway, I don't agree. As I heard a million people say, MR and the other mags can only publish what people send them (and to a much lesser extent projects that they commission.)

[Robbman]

I'm not sure I get the Unitrack hate either.

Cringe all you want at the thought of building a detailed scene with Unitrack destroying the cred....can't say that I don't, either.  I use code 55 exclusively for visible trackage like many of you. (and I'm considering some code 40 on a few sidings if I can get my hands on some.)   But if you are only looking at Unitrack as a permanent part of your visible trackage, I think you're being a little shortsighted, and here's why:
-Functionally, the stuff has no equal.  You hear the words bulletproof, etc...well it's true.   As such, it's almost a no-brainer for staging and/or hidden trackage.  (you can even make a killer helix with the doubletrack viaduct trackage!)  It lets you easily reconfigure or add trackage, too...and if you have to replace a turnout...well you get the picture.
-It's great for track planning.  Setup yards and sidings before setting them in stone, so to speak.  Test for siding/yard capacity, switching problems, or other "you just gotta do it to see" kinda design issues.  Check specific radii for operational issues, or to ensure those autoracks can negotiate the lead track into the unloading facility for example.  Also good for testing uncoupling magnet locations, if you're into that.
-Good for testing detection and signalling as well.  If you've seen the Digitrax setup they have at shows you get the idea.
-It's FUN!  I have a small stash that I can setup just about anywhere and have a functional layout in minutes.  Makes for great "PR" moments.
-Testing.  This should be obvious, but Unitrack is a natural for testing locos, decoder installs, doing burn-ins, etc.  Can use it to test coupler behavoir too although Unitrack may be more or less forgiving depending on the situtation.

So yes, if you don't want it in front of the camera, fine.  But, the stuff has value, even in the "hoity toity" model railroading community.  

Great for hidden staging yards too.. though avoid the #4s.

[Dave V]

Bernie,

I would respectfully submit that several of the examples you're referring to happened under a different regime at MR.

Sure, go ahead. make me feel like an old geezer!  ;D

Anyway, I don't agree. As I heard a million people say, MR and the other mags can only publish what people send them (and to a much lesser extent projects that they commission.)

Bernie,

Call it a cop-out if you will, but what's scared me off of submitting to MR is their photography standards.  I'm barely competent with a point-and-shoot....  I don't have the inclination and money to take up photography as a second (or fifth) hobby.

Overall I'm not passing judgement on MR's recent trends as much as I'm just making observations.  I do think the magazine has started a slight rebound.  And again, I refer just to the monthly here, not the special books.

[ednadolski]

Just for grins, I thought I'd put together this version of the Salt Lake plan based upon Atlas C55 flextrack.  It still fits in the same 4x9 space but I used a minimum radius of 16.25".  Most of it uses the Atlas sectional track, including the #7 and #10 turnouts, and the 30" sections as curve easements.   I also tried to include some flextrack to create a less rigid, "flowing" sort of look.  It includes some slight variations, such as the interchange track leading to a staging area off the lower left corner.  I also wanted to be allow for building it out of two 2'x9' sections, for portability.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Speaking from experience, that "U" shape at the top there is awfully tight. I'd make that a bit more gentle if I were building it.

I've often thought that MY similarly shaped curve is too tight, and that looks twice as bad, and very "not mainliney" to me.

[ednadolski]

Speaking from experience, that "U" shape at the top there is awfully tight. I'd make that a bit more gentle if I were building it.

I've often thought that MY similarly shaped curve is too tight, and that looks twice as bad, and very "not mainliney" to me.

I think you're right, tho the Unitrack version on the cover of MR looks pretty tight to me as well.  Since there's no grade, it may perhaps work out OK.   Anyways, here is another go at it, I've increased the lowest radius on the bottom of the "U" to 20" (bounded by 30" easements).   I also added another foot to the length to accommodate the wider curves





Ed N.

[AlkemScaleModels]

I'd add a crossover on the valley side and a extra yard track as shown in red.

[conrail98]

Guys, take a look at Shaun's site, http://www.upmodelrailroad.com/. He's building a code 55 version of it and did modify the design some, http://www.upmodelrailroad.com/2010/01/03/plan-finalized-and-printed/,

Phil

[sirenwerks]

Anyway, I don't agree. As I heard a million people say, MR and the other mags can only publish what people send them (and to a much lesser extent projects that they commission.)

They don't exactly go out of their way to advertise that they're looking for articles. I would surmise the contribution process is a tad mystical to many readers and not the easiest to find. That may be a good thing but...

[ednadolski]

I'd add a crossover on the valley side and a extra yard track as shown in red.

I think the  crossover would fit NP, even a #10, tho the yard track would want a handlaid, curved turnout.

One could take the opposite approach as MR do the whole thing in Code 40 rail, with hand-laid turnouts.  That would be easier with Andy Reichert's N-scale photo-etched frogs, which you can even order assembled  (and yes, those bottom two are Z scale):