New MR Project layout

[superchief]

I think the key here that this is a "PROJECT" layout, we are all aware the pros of N scale with space. I would like to see more "larger" layouts in n scale in MR and I can see where some think MR looks at N scale as a "starter" scale or worse! I always look at that we(n scalers) have TWO n scale only mags!!!! as where the HO'ers have to deal with n and o ads in MR. I have a 30 foot run which is only 18" wide thru Kingman Canyon with a single main and I always get a response for the HO operators when the 40 car trains roll thru that they wished they could no that, and I just SMILE   Gordon/ Santa Fe - All the Way

[unittrain]

Large or small as long as its good modeling thats all I care the HCD layouts on this forum are examples of top modeling with attention to detail and prototype and make for great train watching videos  MR has to build small layouts because they dont keep most of them I think they have a contest giveaway to make space for more project layouts. But they hopefully have made this new layout well detailed and prototypical to display the true potential of N instead of toy like modeling. The Clinchfield was an awesome layout hopefully they go back and build on that modeling philosophy.

[conrail98]

Large or small as long as its good modeling thats all I care the HCD layouts on this forum are examples of top modeling with attention to detail and prototype and make for great train watching videos  MR has to build small layouts because they dont keep most of them I think they have a contest giveaway to make space for more project layouts. But they hopefully have made this new layout well detailed and prototypical to display the true potential of N instead of toy like modeling. The Clinchfield was an awesome layout hopefully they go back and build on that modeling philosophy.

Right, most of their project layouts are 4x8 or modular or HCD, etc., with the exception being the couple rehab's they've done for MR&T which had elements you could use on any layout,

Phil

[Rich_S]

Okay, this ain't strictly scientific, but comparing my current annual salary to the 1968 median and then multiplying that by the $19.98 Atlas starter set, from back then, gets you up to $116.77 today's cost. A bit short of the $149 for the "Stallion". However... keep in mind the overwhelming improvements to quality since 1968. How many of those Atlas starter sets wound up tossed under the bed after the train managed to successfully make it 1/3 of the way around the oval... before derailing?

As for this latest MRR project? Two thumbs up from me. I like smaller, more manageable layouts. I'm way to lazy (and lack the talent) for an empire. This is right up my alley. (Though I wonder if I could change the local to North Dakota/Montana? And the prototype to Great Northern? Nothing against the "Q", mind you. Just partial to the GN.)

HCD's unit!!!

Thank you for that less than scientific answer  I would say we are still in the ball park   I also agree that the set available 46 years ago is no match in quality to the current Bachmann train set. The GN and the NP would also work for this project layout. The plus side of doing a GN inspired version of this project railroad would be, instead of trying to hide the holes though the backdrop with trees, you could use honest to goodness GN tunnel portals piercing a hillside.   

[nkalanaga]

I don't know how many tunnels the GN had in the plains.  It was rare to find a tunnel and a grain elevator in the same small town.  Not unheard of, but still quite rare.  I'd stick with the trees if building the layout more-or-less as designed.

One scenery item one might want to consider is the highway underpass.  If modelling a late 60s or newer period, that 12' 6"bridge is going to catch a lot of 13'6" truck trailers, which is what most of the 40 ft trailer models made today are.   I see  three options:
1:  Leave it.  The Interstate has bypassed the town anyway, so trucks go around.
2:  Leave it, with a road crew busily digging up the road to increase the clearance.  Good place to use your bulldozers and excavators.
3:  Model it with greater clearance, 14'0" or greater.  Still a "Low Clearance" bridge, but modern trucks will fit.

[Rich_S]

I don't know how many tunnels the GN had in the plains.  It was rare to find a tunnel and a grain elevator in the same small town.  Not unheard of, but still quite rare.  I'd stick with the trees if building the layout more-or-less as designed.

One scenery item one might want to consider is the highway underpass.  If modelling a late 60s or newer period, that 12' 6"bridge is going to catch a lot of 13'6" truck trailers, which is what most of the 40 ft trailer models made today are.   I see  three options:
1:  Leave it.  The Interstate has bypassed the town anyway, so trucks go around.
2:  Leave it, with a road crew busily digging up the road to increase the clearance.  Good place to use your bulldozers and excavators.
3:  Model it with greater clearance, 14'0" or greater.  Still a "Low Clearance" bridge, but modern trucks will fit.

I can tell you from personal experience, I use to drive over the road trucks, there are still plenty of low underpasses in this country and not just in small towns, plus remember the layout in set in a 1960's time frame.  As for the tunnels, I do not model the GN, but when I think of the Great Northern, I think of the Northwest and the various mountain ranges the railroad had to cross to reach the Pacific Northwest coast. In my opinion, if you're going to make this a GN inspired layout you are probably going to be transplanting it from the mid west plans state like Iowa, to a more northern location, maybe Montana. But then again if you were just going to transplant the layout to North Dakota, then yes you'd probably want to keep the tree lined openings in the back drop. It's like the old saying, it's all about location 

[nkalanaga]

Yes, I think of the GN in the Northwest as well, since that's where I grew up.  But even there, much of eastern Washington (my country) is fairly flat, looking more like the rolling hills of the Midwest than rugged mountains, and basically treeless, unless someone has planted them. 

But the GN had a lot more track in the Plains than in the Rockies and Cascades.  Minnesota, North and South Dakota, and eastern/central Montana are all open country, although the Minnesota portion has some forested areas.

As for low bridges, I know there are a lot of them left.  My thinking was that if that was the only road on the layout, and the modeler wanted "modern" trucks, it might be wise to change it, simply to keep people like me from asking how the truck got into town.

And then there are the "not so low" bridges that catch trucks.  Huntington, WV has several "viaducts", underpasses by another name, under the CSX mainline and yard.   The clearance is quite good, at least 14 feet, but they still had trucks stuck under them regularly.  Why?  Because the track is at street level, and the road goes down sharply to go under the tracks.  A truck might be low enough to fit, but with the tractor on the uphill side, and the trailer wheels on the down side, the middle of the trailer is more than 14 feet above the road!  They finally relabeled then "12 ft" and banned trucks.

Incidentally at least two of the viaducts still have streetcar tracks in them.  I have no idea when the streetcars last ran, but it was long before we moved back here in the late 70s.  It looks like they were originally paved over, and the pavement has worn off.  In both cases they stop as soon as the street levels off on either side.  Too much work to dig up the street and take them out?  But they took out all the other tracks in town.  Or maybe they thought they might bring the streetcars back, and it would be too much hassle to put those sharp vertical curves back in?

[Kentuckian]

The large CSX yard in Russell, Ky has multiple long underpasses that are too low for modern trucks.  I know at least one of them, on the Raceland end of the yard, has a tuck bypass.  The trucks climb a pretty steep grade to cross the tacks at grade, and then down the other side.  I don't know how this works with the railroad, if special permission is granted and trains are flagged, or something else.  Most of the truck traffic is probably railroad related.

There are also two underpasses in Raceland that have a sharp S curve in between.  There is enough vertical clearance for trucks, but 53' trailers chord the curve, and the rig gets stuck between the vertical walls of the two underpasses. 

[nkalanaga]

Kentuckian:  I've been through those underpasses.  A very tight fit, or at least it seems so, even in a small car.

Also, in my last post, I left out that the GN actually did serve Iowa, with a branch to Sioux City, in the northwest corner.  I imagine that Red Oak, in the southwest, wouldn't look much different than the flatter portions of the northwest, away from the Missouri and Big Sioux rivers. 

[mcjaco]

Grabbed my Dad's copy last night and page through the article.  I like the track plan. 

Heck, I walked in the door and my Dad said, "the new MR is here, and has a N scale project in it.  It's built on a door!  Have you thought of that?"  So clearly even a subscriber for over fifty years had never even though of it. 

I like the timing of the article.  Right at the holiday season, when people are looking at train sets ("Train Sets" was in the top ten trending searches yesterday on Yahoo). 

[Scottl]

I tried to buy a copy but was out of luck, so I tracked down a scan on the web. 

I think it is quite an interesting layout and something that would be a lot of fun to build and operate.  I find all of these smaller layouts very interesting and I squirrel them away for a future time when I might not have as much space for a layout. 

Ironically, the 5'X9' in the project takes more space than what I have currently due to the access space needed around the HCD, but that is a problem common to all layouts like this.  I still prefer shelf and  peninsula configurations for their efficient use of space and good visual separation of the layout elements.  My current layout is basically a 5' X 10' oval (not much larger than the MR project layout) with central access, but with room in a yard for six 70" trains, a few sidings to switch, and some larger scenic elements. 

Where the project layout shines is the ease in getting up and running and I think many readers of the magazine would appreciate that.

[peteski]

I like the timing of the article.  Right at the holiday season, when people are looking at train sets ("Train Sets" was in the top ten trending searches yesterday on Yahoo).

I'm pretty sure that the timing was no accident.    Just like they have done for years, this is their annual holiday season project layout. It just happens to be N and HCD.

[kalbert]

Straying slightly off topic, along the low clearance sidebar, http://11foot8.com/. There's a prototype for everything.

[nkalanaga]

Kalbert:  I've seen that site.  Don't visit it often, but have seen it.  I liked the video several years ago of the city bus going under the bridge.  It didn't fit, but went anyway...

I also like the beam across the road before the bridge.  Even if the truck is too high, it won't damage the bridge, because the "crash bar" will get it first.  Another idea for the modeler who wants the low bridge.

[kalbert]

I got my April issue today, and if I'm not mistaken, it is the last of the Red Oak series. Spoiler alert: no mention of operation. I was really looking forward to some description of how the funky staging would be used. I can pretty well guess based on the diagram, but was really hoping for some clever idea that isn't obvious. Still a neat layout, and turned out pretty nice. I like that it isn't crowded with track and that the scenes are deep.