More nostalgic searches: 4x4 MR layout

Linn Westcott's "101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders" has numerous nostalgic track plans:

It's alwas been one of my favorites.

Bill Bill's Railroad Empire N Scale Model Railroad:

History of N Scale: Railroad Bookstore: to 1,100 sites:

Bill spake thus:

Yes, but does it have the particular one I'm asking about? I can't tell from the Amazon listing. And since it was originally copyrighted in

1956, it likely doesn't have what I'm looking for anyway. The one I'm interested in was from somewhere between 1960-1965.

>

Dave, your description of the MR layout, beyond it being maybe 4x4 (an oddly small size for HO, if actually correct), is really too vague to be of much help in a potential search of 70+ issues of the magazine. Do you remember any details at all about it - theme, era, special features?

CNJ999

CNJ999 spake thus:

>>

Nope, sorry; I just remember the time it appeared in the mag and the size. It was definitely a 4x4 layout (yes, small, and of course making very tight curves necessary). But just packed with stuff--scenery, structures, etc.

Well Dave...this morning I glanced through all the issues of Model Railroader for the interval cited. While not going page by page, I did look at the table of contents for each issue and examined any article whose title suggested it might fill the bill. As I rather expected, with dimensions so unusually small for HO, over the entire span of six years only two potential candidates turned up. Unfortunately, neither seems to match what you described very well.

The first was A Changeable Railroad by R.R.Gilbert, in the June 1962 issue. It was a little flatlands layout 3' 2" by 4' in size, consisting of a simple loop of track (having 16" radii !) with two short spurs, fully scenicked, with some interchangeable, early 20th century rural scratchbuilt structures.

The second possibility was The Grey Burro Lines by G.N.Baustert, appearing in the August 1962 issue. It was just a detailed trackplan for a 4' 2" by 4' 2" layout with a turn of the century, rugged Rock Mountains theme. There was no actual layout, just the diagram. The trackplan indicated a significant amount of trackwork for so small a layout plus the drawn-in locations for quite a number of buildings, as such pencil-and-paper-dreams often do.

I suspect that neither of these is the layout you refer to. Memory can play some strange tricks on us after more than 40 years and I have to wonder if your layout might not actually be outside the time frame you cited. Unfortunately, I have no way of copying the articles in question as they are in bound volumes that could not even begin to be laid out flat on a scanner without damaging the spines. If seriously interested, I'm sure photocopies of the articles could be obtained through MR or the NMRA Library.

CNJ999

>>>

Well, the first two entries in "101 Plans" are 3x4 in HO. #1 is a two-lap oval with two-track "yard" plus one siding. #2 is a two-lap oval with single passing track. There are several plans for 4x5 and 4x6 and many for 4x8.

-- Bill McC.

CNJ999 spake thus:

[...]

That one rings a bell. In fact, I remember running across it earlier when I searched the MR archive a few years back, but unfortunately had no way to actually see the article. This sounds like it might be the one. Does the article have any drawings in addition to the plans? I seem to remember at least some renderings which gave an idea of what the layout looked like.

By the way, thanks for rummaging through those issues.

Indeed, Dave, in addition to the trackplan, which indicated structure placements, there was a single illustration of a supposed "God's eye" view of the layout scene and surrounding mountains. Unfortunately, it appeared to me to be drawn more as if it were scaled to something like

6' x 6' or even larger in size, rather than actually 4' by 4'. But that's always the problem with articles concerning hypothetical layouts...what's simply designed often can't be built to the plan! Regardless, try contacting MR for a photocopy of the article, as I expect you'll find it interesting and perhaps even the one you recall from so many years ago.

It might interest other readers here as to what I noted in reviewing these old magazines in search of Dave's layout (and an aspect of MR that I had almost forgotten). Forty years ago the magazine was all about personal modeling/construction projects, not largely layout tours, as it is today. Most issues carried but a single layout review (some issues had none!), the remaining content being mainly useful how-to's and projects. Although I expect that today's readers are more interested in looking at MR's pretty pictures, the magazine is now far, far less of a useful modeling and learning tool than it once was. And no, the advanced state of the hobby today has not superseded the need for the sort of material that was published way back when!

CNJ999

Hear, for CNJ999 saith truly:

CNJ999:

I know it. I like reading those old articles, too. Does anybody out there know how hard it is to get published? I inquired once, and they emphasized the 'good photos' I would need...it seems in the old days they were content with less photography if the article was useful...does anybody know if this is still the case? The trouble is, I don't really know any decent photographers, and I can't see buying a ridiculously expensive camera and negotiating the steep learning curve required to use it.

Cordially yours, Gerard P.

snipped-for-privacy@gannon.edu spake thus:

If you're serious about trying to get published, here's what I might do: get ahold of Bob Hundman who publishes _Mainline Modeler_. He's far more accessible than anyone connected with the Big 3 (or is it Big 4?) model RR mags, and can probably tell you what you need to know about both writing and photography in order to get published. (Like it or not, photography *is* an integral part of model RR articles. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.)

Besides, you might just want to take a look at his magazine, which last time I checked (it's been a while) was just gorgeous.

On 15 Nov 2005 05:53:04 -0800, "CNJ999" purred

Hear, hear! That is the reason I finally let my MR subscription lapse. The pics were lovely but the content was so skimpy it had become useless.

cat