Large Scale Central

Model RR NEW Track Plan Book -- sans "G" gauge

General Discussion
#1

Continuing to be puzzling is Model Railroader once again offering their Track Planning Book – with N, HO, S and O gauges. Significant is their omission of “G” gauge. Not one or two pages of photos with a track plan. Nothing. Ironic, Model Railroader consistently runs ads encouraging MR readers to subscribe to Garden Railroad Magazine. So here, once again, MR is insisting garden railroading is a non-visual activity and it need not be considered.

Yes, I remember the PR tweekies proclaiming years ago that “garden railroading was the fastest growing model railroad hobby in the world!” Apparently, there was no consumer motivation to buy, so the slogan was dropped. Now, consistent with that plan is dropping reference to “G” being a REALLY visually active arm of the hobby.

Your take?
Wendell

#2

It all falls back to G being primarily OUTDOORS, while everything else is primarily INDOORS. Its that basic difference that seperates them. N thru O all use primarily the SAME constructions technics and as such cross reference each other on many different levels, its very easy for a modeler in HO to relate to a technic in O than can relate to a technic in N and as such there is a common base level understanding that crosses across all these scales. G though being mostly outdoors uses contruction and planning technics that are completely unique to the scale, theres no cross referencing between benchwork and building real retaining walls, between track fastening to plywood and pouring real ballast. Thats why GR gets almost all the garden RR business.

#3

Yup. Indoors = home handyman construction methods.

Outdoors = mostly home-builder construction methods.

tac
www.ovgrs.org
Supporter of the Cape Meares Lighthouse Restoration Fund

#4

I bought one of those back when I first got bit…had 2 LGB layouts …since their demise, and the loss of the numbered track sections/switches…etc . the powers that be may think anything a little tougher on the consumer would just scare them away?

lots more thoughts, just no time to vent :slight_smile:

cale

#5

Hi Wendall ,

I think Kalmbach uses the fact that they have a magazine devoted entirely to Large scale trains. Don’t know if it meets the consumers needs, but I would imagine that is how it is justified in the board room. Does Kalmbach have a magazine exclusively for any of the scales mentioned?

#6
Ric Golding said:
Hi Wendall ,

I think Kalmbach uses the fact that they have a magazine devoted entirely to Large scale trains. Don’t know if it meets the consumers needs, but I would imagine that is how it is justified in the board room. Does Kalmbach have a magazine exclusively for any of the scales mentioned?


Nope, MR covers everything from Z to O.

BTW how many times have I read “I adapted that from XYZ trackplan in ABC magazine” and that’s when I start to grin. Ahhhhhh one more “SmartGuy” who tries to duplicate an indoor layout in the garden.

Since most of our gardens differ considerably from one another, it is best to plan for the given situation. However those who read Model Railroad Planning are probably aware that one can always use “Design Elements” and place them were possible, then to be connected by stretches of mainline.

Seems to me that’s how most railways, in already settled areas, were built: determine the location of the station(s) and lay the mainline track accordingly. Naturally there have been many exceptions to that “rule” :wink: :), but most places were/are more like our gardens than the flatness of the floor in the basement. :wink:

#7

"Nope, MR covers everything from Z to O. "

HJ that should be ammended just a little. MR does cover Z to O but Klambake also has “Classic Toy Trains” to cover 3 rail O gauge layouts which mostly fall under the High Rail catagory. When MR does an O layout it is almost always a fine scale 2 rail layout. I cannot ever recall seeing a 3 rail O layout in MR.

I have been reading CTT more as I finish up the indoor layout as I find that my G indoor layout has alot in common more with some High Rail layouts than I would care to admit.

#8
Victor Smith said:
"Nope, MR covers everything from Z to O. "

HJ that should be ammended just a little. MR does cover Z to O but Klambake also has “Classic Toy Trains” to cover 3 rail O gauge layouts which mostly fall under the High Rail catagory. When MR does an O layout it is almost always a fine scale 2 rail layout. I cannot ever recall seeing a 3 rail O layout in MR.

I have been reading CTT more as I finish up the indoor layout as I find that my G indoor layout has alot in common more with some High Rail layouts than I would care to admit.


Vic,

MR does model trains! Leaves the rest to different mags in the same house i.e. GR and CTT. The same goes for their trackplan books and the MRP: geared to the modelrailroader.

BTW to toot my own horn, I had several of my trackplan articles published by GARTENBAHNprofi. All of them, for good reason, based on flat terrain and it’s up to the builder to pile up the dirt for the required mountains. Which leaves the builders free to run a mountain railway on perfectly flat ground i.e. have a small bowl of spaghetti instead of a railroad. :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

PS And while I’m at it; doing a realistic (reasonably proto based) garden railway will most likely involve quite a bit more physical labour than an indoor layout of comparatively similar size. The guys who tend to build the “ring around the roses” variety have probably built umpteen 4x8ft HO layouts and are still wondering why, doing the same in the garden, doesn’t get to be any more interesting than the variety they built in the house. :wink: :smiley:

#9

Is it because we are just TOO GOOD? Just had to say it!

#10

Most indoor scales build a railroad, then add “mother nature”.
Most outdoor scales have to deal with “mother nature” as they build.

Granted, some folks just lay track on their level lawn…but some of us have to deal with REALLY sloped yards, buildings, trees, etc., and have to work around and ito the terrain.

#11

In the great out doors, I look for what Tony Keester :lol: calls Layout Design Elements (LDEs) to copy or modify, then run some main or branch line to connect them together.

Right now, I am copying LDEs from the Washington, Idaho and Montana Ry Co.

I found an challenging LDE called White Rock that I stole fair and square from TOC. I did the honorable thing and filed off the serial numbers, though.

#12

You filed off the serial #'s!!!
:slight_smile:

#13

Yeah, that made it a legal theft. :lol:

#14

To “retracK” the topic:
– Model Railroader advertises indoor train hobbiests to go outdoors and subscribe to Garden Railroad Magazine
– MR reviews “G” locomotives
– “G” has been acclaimed by MR pr articles as the fastest growing part of the model railroading hobby…
Outcome:
Ironically, MR publishes a track plan book with ALL scales – except “G”. This in spite of the fact that “G” is a VERY visual aspect of the hobby mixing both gardening and model trains – no less visual than N, HO, S, or O. Does not the omission of any print reference or photos make a contradictory statement to the above data.

Your analysis?

Wendell

#15

Actually it doesn’t; if memory serves one of the few instances when MR ran something related to LS was Tony Koester’s modular, urban style layout quite some time ago. That was right along the general MR line of thought. And no, publishing a few LS track plans alone will not fill the bill, neither for the indoor nor the outdoor modeler. OTOH one could always try to convince MH at GR to publish a few extra track plans, if possible with 3D views from all sides, since - believe it or not - this is what it will take.
Reason? Most people have a very, very hard time to visualize a trackplan in three dimensions complete with how the rolling stock and the structures or any of the other man made features will actually look. Just think of the “WOW” comments that surface on this forum every time someone actually builds some structure to scale instead of the “cute” dimensions that seem the preferred rule. General consensus of “just throw down some track” planning not withstanding, building in the garden takes a bit more thought … or … a hell of a lot more muscle and elbow grease when doing it over a few times, not to mention money :wink: :D.

#16

I remember that article.
HORRIBLE, and as a Clambake Advertsier, I called and complained.
You don’t want yo show folks what you can’t do in LS…rather what you CAN do.

Remember that, what, Mustang on the street that looked like it was on a Jeep 4X4 chassis?

And the photo of the USA Coupler, stating they started with Aristo and now are using all KD’s?

If they can’t even get the captions right, geez, what a bunch of maroons.

#17
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Actually it doesn't; if memory serves one of the few instances when MR ran something related to LS was Tony Koester's modular, urban style layout quite some time ago. That was right along the general MR line of thought. And no, publishing a few LS track plans alone will not fill the bill, neither for the indoor nor the outdoor modeler. OTOH one could always try to convince MH at GR to publish a few extra track plans, if possible with 3D views from all sides, since - believe it or not - this is what it will take. Reason? Most people have a very, very hard time to visualize a trackplan in three dimensions complete with how the rolling stock and the structures or any of the other man made features will [b] actually[/b] look. Just think of the "WOW" comments that surface on this forum every time someone actually builds some structure to scale instead of the "cute" dimensions that seem the preferred rule. General consensus of "just throw down some track" planning not withstanding, building in the garden takes a bit more thought ... or ... a hell of a lot more muscle and elbow grease when doing it over a few times, not to mention money ;) :D.
But...but...but... that's what makes it so much fun... the do-overs. Where's the fun in getting it right the first time?

Even if I got it right the first time, I probably wouldn’t be satisfied. I will always be saying, “Ya know…, I think I can do that better.”

I’ll bet that even HJ, with all of his “attention to details,” either has, or will have, “ovaries.”

'Fess up, HJ.

#18

I remember Koesters LS layout, I remember thinking thats a nicely detailed layout but what a lot of foam, for so very little track. It really emphisised the the problems LS has when hard-core prototype modelers try to make the transition to LS and bring all their proto-fetish rules and practices with them, a 2’x8’ module sheet that effectivly models one single urban block…???, also he insisted on using no smaller than 5’ diameter track and wanted to use wider but it wouldnt fit on the foam boards so to make anything anywhere usable you ended up needing 5 or 6 modules and a small warehouse to stretch them out once set up. Huh? indoors LS layouts often require using smallest diameter curvatures, scenery compression, foreshortening, stacking, all those ideas were parriah on this layout, and I’m sorry but, wow, room for one engine and 3 boxcars!.. it didnt look like much fun to operate.

#19

Well, that’s what happens when you try to take Half Zero protocols and force it into Gauge 1 size. Just as when 1:1 is squeezed into the basement, when you try to do what Tony did, somethings got to give. I’m not sure that he realized that. I found his whole exercise less than satisfactory. It probably turned off more folks from Large Scale than it inspired, which may have been it’s subliminal message.

Heck, I have to forget about Half Zero when I work on my Zero Gauge 3-Rail layout in the basement. It’s a completely different animal.

#20
Curmudgeon said:
I remember that article. HORRIBLE, and as a Clambake Advertsier, I called and complained. You don't want yo show folks what you can't do in LS...rather what you CAN do.

Remember that, what, Mustang on the street that looked like it was on a Jeep 4X4 chassis?

And the photo of the USA Coupler, stating they started with Aristo and now are using all KD’s?

If they can’t even get the captions right, geez, what a bunch of maroons.


Hehehehe, I was just waiting for that! :lol: Wasn’t that fun taking the magnifying glass to every aspect of that layout? :smiley: :wink: Would you happen to remember the editor for that issue? :open_mouth: Or do we have to dig out that issue from “The Library”?
Anyway, if that was The Best on offer as far as LS is concerned - from TK, no less, who really should know better - than I, for one, gladly forgo LS track plans in any of Clambake’s publications. OTOH that’s not a surprise given my snotty, cynical, nit-picking attitude, eh!?! :wink: :slight_smile:

Victor Smith said:
......... Huh? indoors LS layouts often require using smallest diameter curvatures, scenery compression, foreshortening, stacking, all those ideas were parriah on this layout, and I'm sorry but, wow, room for one engine and 3 boxcars!.... it didnt look like much fun to operate.
Precisely! But it can be done. Matter of fact work on the 7.5ft x 7.5ft segmental layout is finally progressing. Spending less time on the fora will do that and getting a little help for the projects doesn't hurt either. Who knows what will be next.

Completely OT; posting from the shop, test cutting all kinds of material on the laser machine. The most “interesting” so far is engraving photographs on 3mm and 1/8" hardboard. :cool: