LOL while relatively modest in scope, I find it hard to use the word "small" for a 44x25 layout..

Great website though, thanks for sharing!

Chris

It's also in S scale (which tends to make track plans look smaller). I'm sure there are folks who will tell me otherwise but while there's quite a bit of stuff available for S scale, there's nowhere near the amount for O or N let alone HO.

Someone who completes 44x25 S scale layout has probably done some serious work (and scratchbuilding).

That said, S seems like a good compromise between the heft and detailability of O and fits-in-smaller-spaces of HO.

I'm with Joe though. If the owner of that layout wants to be in MRH I think that would be GREAT!

Cheers,

Charlie

Yeh, well, modest scope is maybe a better way to phrase it.

I'd love to feature some "S" scale anything in the magazine. So far, our article backlog has nothing S scale it it. Nada. Zip.

We won't be doing any S scale articles if we don't get any submissions - and if anyone says we're not doing "S" due to editorial bias on our part, they're wrong!

>Another fine layout!  Just out of curiosity, what dose everyone use to veiw the Monday Movies with?  I'm using Wimpy FLV player and makes it a little grainy, especially when I make the picture size bigger than 4"x 4".<

I use the real player, it plays .flv videos just fine, its also useful for downloading youtube and many other videos, its a free download from realplayer.com

Until last year, I had a virtual version of East Kentucky, this layout was a great reminder of that, taking a cue from a DVD I have entitled, "Union Pacific's Clinchfield Challenge", in which the UP 3985 was used as Clinchfield 676, or some such number, and it pulled the Santa Special for that year, I did something similar with the Auran Big Boy on the East Kentucky Route

The point is not that the layout is S scale - 44X25 in S is 32X18 in HO - with some twitching it would fit in a two car garage - not uncommon for layouts.  The point is not even the geometry of this layout.

The point is the design and operation capabilities contrasted with the extra demands of the mega-layouts featured most often.  This size layout is within the capabilities of many of the people subscribed to this publication.  An achievable goal and a buildable project.  No need to wait for the dedicated barn and multi-level layout dream - and no need to organize an operating team.

Artarms

Betsy662 are you useing the VLC Media Player alot of people here are using it and even full screan were having no troubles

Just goggle or Yahoo VLC Media player and down load it is freeware and will play FLV files very clearly and sharp enough to see the details on the engines.

...in layouts, or are there other factors at work?  Although I have neither the space, time or inclination to build a layout that large, I do operate on one that's about 3,000 square feet.  The owner had lots of help building it and continues to use lots of operators.  Even though this layout would be too much for me, every time I operate on it I find myself learning something that I can use.  There are other smaller layouts whose owners have the bad judgment to let me operate on them, and I learn things there as well.  Sometimes the only real difference is one of scale.  I don't mean HO versus O scale, either, but rather seeing the 40-car train on the larger layout become the 15-car train on the smaller layout, with the operating principles staying the same.  A small layout is not for me, either, but I like to see what the owner has done with the space and how everything fits together.  I thought the Beer Line series recently in MR did a great job of showing how, with a little forethought, the puzzle can be assembled in different ways to have the same modules create several distinct layouts.  I wouldn't build it, but there are some great ideas in there.

Bottom line for me is that I don't pay as much attention to the size of the layout as I do to how the session is run, what car-forwarding system is being used, and how trains are dispatched and controlled.  The size of the layout is secondary.  It's supposed to be fun, and in that regard my experience is that size usually doesn't matter as much as how well the layout is planned.

Thanks for allowing an old man his daily rant...

>Betsy662 are you useing the VLC Media Player alot of people here are using it and even full screan were having no troubles<

No, I use the Real Player, its also a free download, and I have very little trouble with it.........

Dave,

I think you hit it right on the nail on your comments. It is not the size but but how the session is run. I've been on both sides of the spectrum and in reality it is not the size or the scale but how effective and interesting the operation is.

You might think realistic ops is something of a pain, but it's all done in a light hearted way - and all the prototype procedures makes it into something of a chess-like game.

I've had people drive over 500 miles or fly in to one of my op sessions. Realistic ops seems to attract modelers like bees to honey.

And once you learn the ropes, visiting other layouts who likewise do serious ops becomes a real treat.

It can be intimidating if you've never done realistic ops before. That's why I like to do two person crews with a conductor and an engineer. The conductor is in charge of the train (just like the prototype) and the engineer simply runs the throttle and take orders from the conductor.

We have visitors take the engineer position because you don't need to know anything besides "here's the throttle - just do what the conductor says to do" ... and that's it.

This kind of operation has become so dang fun for me it's the reason I do everything else in the hobby. It's all to make the realistic ops part into the ultimate experience. And let me tell you, when the guys come over and bring the layout to life in this way, it's a total blast!