Alternative

I prefer firecrackers to chainsaws...

Sections

I would suggest planning your layout in sections, and then start out by just building one section of it at a time. As time goes on you can replace the older sections and/or rebuild them without having to tear the whole thing down. The added benifit is that if you move, you can dismantle it and reuse the sections in the new house.

You could also consider building part of it to one of the modular standards, then you take that section out and take it to a modular show!

Brent

I still get shocked looks

I still get shocked looks when I tell vistors my 2x4' "practice" layout will be dismantled for parts when its done.

I am a big fan of the "throw-away" or perhaps "recycle" layout as a learning tool. I have encountered what I found surprising amount of resistance to the idea. I guess it takes all kinds.

One other aspect of the Chainsaw Railroad that works for me is it frees me from rgw ravages of chronic perfectionism. Several times I have been able to move forward because I knew the preceived imperfections would not be a permenant part of my life. I have experienced more aspects of the hobby by not getting mired down in any one step.. I can learn and move on without having to live with my mistakes for long..

Chris

Chainsaw Railroads

As the "proponent" of Chainsaw Railroads, I must put in "my 2-cents worth".

I believe the point Joe missed in his editorial was the use of a chainsaw was not an "end in itself", but a crucial "new beginning".  I've been in the hobby since 1949, and HO since 1959, and building railroads ever since - perhaps 20 to 30, depending on how you count the "chainsaw" effects in between.  For me, and I fear to many of us, we get stumped on "what to do next" when the design or concept we've spent months if not years on stops meeting out objectives.

I'm simply advocating to "move on".  You can try to "paper over" mistakes, or missteps, or misfortune, but the better approach is to start anew with the lessons you've learned firmly in mind.  My best example is my third version of the Montana Pacific in my California garage.  Elements were great, closely following the prototype BN's Yardley in east Spokane.  The yard was GREAT, the mainline was a mess.  The more I messed, the worse it got.

So with the help of my friend Rich Forst we "chainsawed" the RR one Saturday and started my Camas Prairie (see MRP 1998), which eventually evolved into a second version in the livingroom (2000 NMRA National participant). Each step forward was not just better, but LOTS BETTER than the last because I came away with the knowledge that if something was "wrong", I had the freedom (and discipline) to recognize I no longer was going "to be stuck".  If it doesn't work, relieve the modules or elements of the construction which are "outa wack" and move on.  DON'T JUST STOP.

My current IMR&N (MRP 2007) is a perfect outgrowth of the concept.  Each step of the way since the mid-1970's has been a step in the right direction.  In Milpitas, there were three versions of my Montana & Flathead, the last two better "walk-around" versions of the predecessor.  In Renton, there was just one MT Flat, and it was darn good, but just ran out of time when we came back to California.  Fremont saw three MTP's, and two CSP's.  Now six years in Rocklin has found just one IMR&N.

Is it perfect?  Well not quite.  The aisles are more crowded than I'd like, but the benefit is 90 more feet of mainline in-lieu of more elbow room.  Am I satisfied?  You bet!  And nearly every Thursday evening when the RR comes to life with a half-dozen operators in attendance, my HEART SKIPS A BEAT.  Yeah, the Chainsaw RR in Fremont was worth every saw-dusty moment.

And if it wasn't???  You can bet the chainsaw would be on "ready standby..."

Try it.... I think you'll like it!

Dave Clemens

I am the King Chainsaw Modle RRer.

Joe,

Grande Pacific RR started Oct 2008 is my 13th layout.  Grande Pacific Orginal layout started Nov 1999 demoed Oct 2007 was a big setp up for me but I could see before I finished what I could improve on it and did.

I built the biggest layout in the Atlas Custom RR book in Killeen, TX. in 1969 and I was stationed their for only 6 months.  The fellow 2nd Lt who work with me remained a friend to this day.  Took the second bedroom and  filled it up.  Took it down in two nights when I got my orders to go to Vietnam and brough back in a trailer to Louisiana.

Talk is chep, ACtion speaks louder than words.   RUN TRAINS

Arthur Houston

Grande Pacific.

Do something!

I whole hartedly agree you learn by doing. I can't speak for others only my own experence in this journey of model railroading.  I have built to some dregree of compleation and excellence (or not so excellent) six layouts and I have always gained a higher level of expertise with each experence. My sence is one of the fears in this hobby is making mistakes. I have made a boat load of mistakes however I have learned much from each and every one, and my work always gets better. I am starting on #7 (That has a nice ring to it.) The Chaffee Branch which is nothing like where I thought I would be at this stage of my life. There are so many great model railroads out there it is easy to become paralized with awe. Well don't, just do it, do something! Build a switchig layout, small point to point, or a piece of track on a board you can pratice your scenery work or just look at that new 2-8-0 Consoladition you just bought and inspire thoses dreams of better and grander things to come.

L. Lee Davis

That "official" definition of "expert" is goofy, IMO.

Five years doing something is all it takes? The world is rife with examples disproving that assertion. Look at the financial messes all around this country, brought on by those whom that definition would proclaim "experts" in the economy, for example. Five years is hardly enough time to even become a journeyman in many trades, let alone some sort of expert at it. There are probably more things that you have to spend a lifetime doing to become anything near a true "expert" than not.

If you accept input as "expert" just because someone has five years in it, you're going to get a lot of very bad advice!

Expert is a dangerous word

Mark,

I agree.  My father always defined the term expert in an off-beat way.

X, is the unknown quantity and a SPURT is a drip under pressure. )

Take all advise given witha grain of salt.  Go into all things with your eyes wide open.  Educate yourself and be aware that "experts" can be and often are, wrong, but most importantly the expert may also have his own agenda and goals in mind when he gives you advice.  Buyer beware, so to speak.  Just my 2 cents, milage may vary.

The TED's

I agree whole heartedly, don't be afraid to tear it down and redo it.

A few years ago I lived in a rented house I knew was a temporary situation.  I forged ahead and built a railroad I called the TED, the Temporary, Experimental and Disposal railroad.  Later it was renamed the Temporary, Experimental and Demonstration railroad when I was preparing to have it reviewed for the NMRA Achievement Program Electrical certificate.  Unfortunately my landlord wanted his house back before I could complete the wiring and documention for the certificate.  Even though a lot of work ended up in the dumpster I felt it was worth it for the lessons learned and the pleasure of building.

The TED II was started in the livingroom of the next rental house.  Other model railroad projects stalled that until another moving day was upon me.

Last May I moved into my own house with a dedicated train room and I still build with an eye toward taking it apart someday.  It has already paid off when I decided I needed to lower a 23' section of benchwork to give more clearance over the staging tracks.

Ted

Chainsaw layouts

I would like to see a section of MRH devoted to small  "chainsaw" or just small layouts.  Most train publications feature  pictures of large and beautiful layouts but I suspect most modelers have small layouts and  have not yet reached perfection.   

Small layouts ( a flexible definition- depends on scale etc.) are not only learning tools but can be our primary layout.  In spite of  their small size they can provide a lot of enjoyment in building and operating and - like the man says - when you get tired just pull out the recylable stuff and chainsaw the rest.

Artarms

What did you think of the Hoboken layout?

Artarms:

Did you notice our Hoboken layout plan? That's not exactly huge ...

Funny thing about articles in magazines - you can only print what you get sent. Most small layout owners don't send in anything because they think its too humble.

So you want more small layout articles in MRH? Our first shot out of the cannon was a small layout plan. Want to see more actual small layout features? Then every one of you guys start telling all your small layout friends to send us an article.

If you haven't told at least one person you know who has a small layout to send us an article then how can you say we need to print more small layout articles?

Repeat after me: they can't publish it if they don't get it!

Smal lLayouts

HI Joe -

I did see the hoboken layout - it's very nice.  No, I would not call it huge either but we are back to definitions.  I would not call it a small layout either.

13'7" by 11'11" in HO is not small in my eyes.  I think it depends more on things like

• how many trains can you run simultaneously
•  what's the longest train you can sensible work with
• does it have continuous running
• would any kind of passenger operation be possible
• does it have a reverse loop or a Y (space consumers)
• how much open space  scenery (compared to urban/industrial)

Perhaps small is the wrong adjective - how about switching layout?

I have told every one I know with a small layout that you want articles - so far that's just me but I will work on it.  First I have to overcome my humble nature. It's easy to be humble when you can pick up and carry your layout under your arm.

Thanks for the interest - and the incentive.

Artarms 

I had a small 9.5x10.5 foa 

I had a small 9.5x10.5 foa  while.  I tore it down and Finally threw ou tht e last few remenants.  IT FELT GOOD!

I will document my 3x9

but I can't say the quality would be good enough to publish.  I hope to be starting scenery by early spring, so we'll see how it goes.

Joe, I hear you, but a good

Joe, I hear you, but a good editor is also going to seek out pieces/authors he needs to balance his publication. Can't sit there hoping something will show up in the mailbox.

You're right of course ...

Joe:

You're right of course. But we also can't conjure up things from thin air. So we will beat the bushes and find some switching layouts that we can feature on our pages. But if there's not enough such articles to suit some people, just keep in mind that we depend on submissions to fill our pages.

There's also another interesting dynamic that Marty told us about. He said MR would do an article on a topic - N scale trees, let's say - and then over the next year they'd get 12 more submissions for N scale trees!

It seems people see an article and then they think that's what you need more of. WRONG!

We need more of a topic we HAVEN'T done. And that's the hard part. People can deal easily with the concrete (an article that has been run) but they have a very hard time imagining in the abstract (and article that has not been done).

Such is the life of an editor. Right now with MRH, we haven't got a huge backlog, so we're interested in just about any subject as long as it's scale model railroading-related. And especially if it's not the same as something we've already run (which is pretty easy right now, with only one issue under our belts).

I would love it if over the next few weeks we get dozens of offers to do an article on just about anything!

Reverse running-Chainsaw Railroads

I would like to see articles and photos of layouts, especially smaller ones, showing how the builder eschewed the temptation to fire up the chainsaw and instead took the time to figure out ways to improve and fine tune his work. In a time like the present where hobby money can be scarce, it seems a shame to throw all those expensive materials away to start over from scratch. I recall an article I read and reread, because it really inspired me, submitted by a guy who worked over 40 years on an HO scale diorama that spanned one end of his hobby room. Everything about it was done to perfection and was a sight to behold. I can't remember his name (bad me!) but I couldn't let loose of that permanence concept he so aptly illustrated in his article and photos.

As for my own layout I'd rather stick with the rough model world I began creating nearly two decades ago (and moved once--successfuly!) to see what I can eventually make of it. I have asked several people over the years for advice, some of it pretty good, and many improvements have been made thanks to them. I guess I'm curious enough to wait and see what will emerge from my efforts. So, no chainsaws for me!

I agree it would be

I agree it would be interesting to see how people have incorporated their original work into a new layout. However, I do not think that one has to throw out expensive materials when starting over. Just about everything can be salvaged, even the benchwork. At least, thats the theory. I will be interested to see just how much I am actually able to save when the time comes.

Chris

Chris is right ...

Chris is right, we use the term "chainsaw railroad" to mean the layout as an entity that's a sum of the parts. The layout as a whole may cease to exist (get the chainsaw as it where), but many of the parts are reusable.

I'd expect to save the turnouts, the structures, the trees - maybe even some things like sections of scenery that turned out especially nice, and so on.

The most expensive part of any layout project is what goes on the track, and obviously, the rolling stock and the locos will all be reusable on a new layout.

Finally, any electrical parts will be salvageable - tortoises, long runs of wire, toggles - and the power packs or DCC system itself.

Thanks for the reminder

Every once in a while I have to be "reminded" about the concept of "Throwing the first one away".  As a matter of course, no matter what I try, it seems to go:  First one - horrible; Second one - show to a supportive friend; Third one - No embarrassments.

My first "layout" since getting back into the hobby was a 6 inch X 8 foot, HO Scale, dual track with switches, both DC and DCC (via alligator clips).  Not much invested, but I learned a lot.

My second layout was a 2 foot X 4 Foot Atlas plan in N Scale.  Seven switches, DCC, first time foam scenery, prototyping the layout using cardboard.

Third layout not yet started...

Cheers->

Gordon

A busy chainsaw!!

The chainsaw has been very active in my house!

Since moving over from N scale (German) in 1999 to HO, I've been through 5 layouts and now on my sixth! Admittedly some of them are due to house moves or relocating within the house, but each time I've learnt more. The current one is still only temporary as the house needs rewiring in the near future, but I've already got plans based on something similar but with (hopefully) improvements. And they've been all smallish layouts, the current one is 13' x 6'.

For example, I started with Code 100 track and Peco Insulfrog switches. I'm now on Code 83 track and Peco Electrofrog switches, but have been looking at making the sidings / spurs ME Code 70 track. Then there are various scenic improvements such as using tufts for long grass (only ever used scatter material before).

Its all part of the learning process.

Brian