MR's Winter Hill Project Layout

With the lastest issue of MR we were introduced to their Winter Hill Project Layout, and I personally like so what do you think of it?

 

I'm hoping for some different insights into constructing multiple operational levels -- as opposed to multi-level layouts like were espoused by Koester, Armstrong, McCelland, Chubb, et al. It's one thing to offer varying scenic levels on a single section, but yet another to engineer interactions between railroad and streetcars (for example) where streets and track have to work together. What are the dynamics of cookie-cutting such an arrangement?

 

If memory serves, this is the third time in the past few years that the MR staff has employed a minor modification to the MR&T as a front for an "annual layout project". The Winter Hill effort is one I'm not at all keen on as it presents nothing more than a industrial spur, not really a branchline, and is lacking in the sort of creative thought that usually made earlier true beginner's project layouts often thought provoking. I see really very little to this year's project overall as it cannot honestly be said to represent either a complete beginner's layout project, nor anything that the more experienced hobbyist wouldn't already be quite capable of executing far better. What segment of the readership is this project aimed at?

I'm also particularly unenthusiastic over having the MR&T's mainline running right along the edge of the branchline quarry's cliff. To my mind this would never be a situation found on the prototype because of the inherent ground instability it potentially creates for the RR right-of-way. You might see a branch lead perched in such a manner, but never a heavily trafficked main. I appreciate that one always has to make some compromises in creating a trackplan, but this one looks more like a glaring mistake to me.

NYW&B

 

NYW&B: I think the first paragraph of your post is a bit negative. While it may not be a full railway (and while I may not have the issue handy for reference) the operations of it struck me as inventive, having it served by two separate railroads for one small industry. What makes it different from a switching puzzle with a couple of staging tracks?

 

Indeed, it is a bit negative and that's hardly surprisingly, Trainboy. As someone who has read MR for the better part of half a century I can tell you that MR's current "projects" offered the readership have become pale shadows of what they once were. What was once an eagerly awaited creative annual "project" feature has become about mundane minor layout additions. The newer editorial staff, nearly all newcomers since about 2000, writings I find largely unimaginative and lacking in creativity compared with their predecessors, save perhaps for David Popp.

Back in the day, when incidentally MR's page count was better than twice what it is today, hobbyists awaited each new issue with great anticipation to see what new magic the magazine's writers would present. I'd often spend hours poring over those creative, informative, cutting edge articles, even though already an experienced modeler. In contrast, these days I rarely more than glance through my latest MR in a just few minutes and then put it aside. It has become far more of an "entertainment" publication than an informative hobbyists' magazine. And I cannot say that I'm alone in my opinion either, just look at how MR's readership has declined over the past dozen years (down by ~40%).

NYW&B

 

There is always a prototype http://binged.it/12Ayqtm

CSX mainline in Gates NY runs just south of Dolomite stone quarry.

 

Thanks for the trip down memory lane! I grew up in Greece and my Aunt lives right by there, off Pixley Rd. Lots of memories back in Rochester...

 

I tend to learn *something* from just about every article I read in MR, and overall I think it is a great mag. Sure, there are periods where they're not on top of their game, just like almost every periodical. Anyway, I am enjoying the Winter Hill series having grown up around an area in Texas with some quite large rock quarries.

 

I like that whole issue, because i was toying with freemo designs on multi levels and seeing the mine gave the kickstRt i needed. Plus the 4x8s gave me some switching ideas. Does't quite work in a 1x4(*2) setup, but inspiration in all frms! I do wish they'd shown the junction though where the two tracks actually meet.

Far S quarries and edges, the INRD skirts some rather large pit mines for coal. And there's an infamous coal mine that surrounds on three sides an old historic family cemetary on 3 sides. Also, numerous signs that alert to roAds ending due to mines having removed the ground...

 

I grew up in Gates and live in Churchville now -> 1000 feet north of the main line with clear sight of trains from my livingroom! I spent many hours running along those tracks in my high school days!

 

I think my house is about 500 feet from the tracks.

 

I wonder if the criticisms (taken in the broadest sense of both negative and positive) of the Winter Hill project "layout" imply that some model railroad author (one of us?) should query Kalmbach with a proposal to write a better layout project article or series?

 

I really think MR should have called the Winter Hill article a "Layout Project" rather than a "Project Layout" as benchwork, wiring and some cosmetics were already in place so I have a hard time thinking of this as a "start from nothing, Project Layout". It's more correct to call it a "Layout improvement project" as that's really all they're doing.

Just my 2 cents
2slim