jmbjmbBy all this I'm saying we need a more holistic view of model railroading. Yes, operations is important, but is not sufficient to carry interest alone.
It is, for David Barrow and his crew. He just re-arranges the track.
Maybe that's not for you, but that's not what you said.
IRONROOSTERNeither of their layouts was the first one they built. In John Allen's case it was his third, for John Armstrong it was at least his second
In John Allen's case the G&D line was EXPANDED 3 times---they were not WHOLLY OTHER layouts, as some seem to assume they were. John Armstrong was associated to this little puppy to his Canadaigua Line. And again, it was changed, yes, but it was NOT WHOLLY OTHER. As some like to think it was-----
VSmith: That cover was GOOD LOOKING!!! LOL!!!
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Midnight Railroader,
I'm not saying there is a single right way to do model railroading. In fact, I'm saying the opposite and that those who claim one way is best may be missing something important. For years lately we've been told the goal of any model railroad is operations -- that once you get things running, operations will provide lifetime fun. Yet is seems those who most pursue this path also tear down soon as the supposedly un-fun job of building is done. If you read Tony's adventures of the AM, for years he talked about operations as his goal. When most of the AM was finished, he added the branch in the adjoining room. Then he began to write about how he had done all he could with the current layout and built his NKP. On the V&O, he didn't tear down just to rebuild, but he kept modifying and building just the same. Now we have the CMSF. With no scenary, few structures, and a construction method that allows constant rearrangement, it's a tear down and rebuild every couple of years.
By all this I'm saying we need a more holistic view of model railroading. Yes, operations is important, but is not sufficient to carry interest alone. Same thing for scenary, structures, scratchbuilding locomotives, etc. None of these is sufficient by itself.
blownout cylinderIRONROOSTER Uh, actually John Armstrong's scenery and structures were never finished. Also John Allen's mainline was never finished before he died. The others I don't know how finished they were. This is not to take away from their accomplishments, but to point out that this can be a satisfying life long hobby without the layout being finished, however you define finished.. Maybe the point was that the layouts AS THEY WERE did not get destroyed and redone in a completely different manner as the layouts seem to be today. I saw John Armstrong's layout just improve over time as his TECHNIQUE improved----did he go and demolish and then redo every single aspect of his layout? NO. John Allen was in the same bracket. HE DID NOT come up with a completely new layout/theme/era/geographical location everytime he had a hiccup either. He BUILT on the one he already HAD----no need to throw out/replace. AH----but then we're a disposable bunch--- The point I'm throwing out here is basically that you do not have to demolish the PRR layout to do the Apricot & Southern. You just improve what you have. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As far as DB's theme is concerned I can do what he does with a deck of cards as waybills---who NEEDS trackage if all you're doing is operations?
IRONROOSTER Uh, actually John Armstrong's scenery and structures were never finished. Also John Allen's mainline was never finished before he died. The others I don't know how finished they were. This is not to take away from their accomplishments, but to point out that this can be a satisfying life long hobby without the layout being finished, however you define finished..
Maybe the point was that the layouts AS THEY WERE did not get destroyed and redone in a completely different manner as the layouts seem to be today. I saw John Armstrong's layout just improve over time as his TECHNIQUE improved----did he go and demolish and then redo every single aspect of his layout? NO. John Allen was in the same bracket. HE DID NOT come up with a completely new layout/theme/era/geographical location everytime he had a hiccup either. He BUILT on the one he already HAD----no need to throw out/replace. AH----but then we're a disposable bunch---
The point I'm throwing out here is basically that you do not have to demolish the PRR layout to do the Apricot & Southern. You just improve what you have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as DB's theme is concerned I can do what he does with a deck of cards as waybills---who NEEDS trackage if all you're doing is operations?
Neither of their layouts was the first one they built. In John Allen's case it was his third, for John Armstrong it was at least his second. But my point is that the layout doesn't require being finished to enjoy the hobby. I was actually quite surprised upon visiting Armstrong's layout after his death at how much scenery was not done. He obviously enjoyed running the trains more. He also had some very narrow aisles so he could have a longer mainline run.
Besides some folks just like building layouts so they can try out a different ideas. Sometimes you have to demolish what you have, to build something you like better. This is a hobby, go with what interests you even if it means tearing the layout down and starting over - maybe even change scales. The saddest words I hear are "I'd like to do ... but I have too much invested in ..." If you want to do something do it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as scenery is concerned I can do that with a bunch of pictures taped to the wall--who NEEDS a layout if you're not doing operations?
(Thar be humor here matey sooo don't nooobody go gettin thar knickers in a twist. )
Enjoy
Paul
Midnight Railroader jmbjmbby focusing too much on the narrow benchwork, some, especially newer, modelers may never experience detailed scenes, scratchbuilding, scenary, or such. Why do you think narrow benchwork precludes having detailed scenes, scenery, or scratchbuilding? I can show you dozens of examples that prove this idea wrong.
jmbjmbby focusing too much on the narrow benchwork, some, especially newer, modelers may never experience detailed scenes, scratchbuilding, scenary, or such.
Why do you think narrow benchwork precludes having detailed scenes, scenery, or scratchbuilding?
I can show you dozens of examples that prove this idea wrong.
I didn't say it precluded having detailed scenes. I have some narrow benchwork on my own layout. What I said was it limited what you can do. Not every industry is parallel to the tracks. Structures have shape and size which can quickly get larger than the few inches between the track and wall or track and aisle. Tracks themselves are not arrow straight, but do curve and turn. Heck for many years most track planning giants have been telling us to not do everything in pure straight lines for better appearance. Terran also has verticle dimension. It goes both above and below the track level. Yes, I know dominos can be built to accomodate it, but they become an overcomplex engineering solution to a simple problem. I also said there are pros and cons. Everyone needs to consider both when looking at dominos or L-girder, or whatever for what they are trying to accomplish for their layout. We can't just always assume domino good, wider bad or vice versa.
pastorbob But bottom line, I don't really care what Barrows does to enjoy the hobby, but I can't help but feel there are some modelers who are never satisfied and who continue the search for the holy grail. For me, the current layout started in 1984 filled my need then, has undergone a few changes, but is still the same layout today. And yes, I still miss his old Cat Mountain.
But bottom line, I don't really care what Barrows does to enjoy the hobby, but I can't help but feel there are some modelers who are never satisfied and who continue the search for the holy grail. For me, the current layout started in 1984 filled my need then, has undergone a few changes, but is still the same layout today. And yes, I still miss his old Cat Mountain.
Bob, I don't really think any of us actually cares one way or another what Barrows does to personally enjoy the hobby. That's always been the individual's choice and the same goes regarding what may be the driving force behind those hobbyists who tear down layout after layout. However, I don't see that as the main thrust of the discussion in this thread.
The query voiced by many posters here appears to be, "Is what Barrow's has been doing of late (track on bare plywood layout designs) actually worthy of multiple feature articles in the magazine?" As far as I can tell, his latest submission seems to be simply a story of his search for a new prototype trackplan and provides nothing new, or particularly helpful in the way of modeling methods, ideas, or even in layout design concepts. In fact, as was pointed out by someone earlier up-stream, Barrow's recent modeling is a decided throwback to a much earlier age, not something reflecting any advancement of the hobby. In that sense, I believe folks have every right to question the reason for the appearance of this sort of article in MR. Certainly, it baffles me.
Incidentally, based on an e-mail exchange I had with a former MR editor some years back, I have good reason to believe the original, fully scenicked, and impressive CM&SF may not have been Barrow's own work, at least beyond the trackplan stage.
CNJ831
Ah Barry, exactly what I was trying to say. I stated my current layout was started in the early 1980,s. Certainly there have been changes/upgrades, but I am generally happy with what I started with. Incidentally, I started counting layouts I have had, not counting the Lionel layout I shared with my dad until I went to college. I built the first one in college which slid under the bed in my room. After graduation I moved in 1960 to Topeka KS, had a basement appt. and the second layout. Year later, moved to a duplex, third layout, which lasted 5 years until I married and bought a house. Fourth layout then lasted until 1970 when work took me to Kansas City. Then came another change, another house in 1976, and the that was the beginning another freelance railroad which was then in turn rebuilt into a Santa Fe layout set in 1989. So 6 layouts covering mid 1950's until today, but all but 2 were the results of moves and changes in living situations.
I got my new issue of MR, did I get the same issue as everyone else???
Have to talk to my newstand guy...
This is a perfect case of Damned if you Do and Damned if you Dont...I consider Dave Barrow the polar opposite of modelers like George Selios and Malcomn Furlow, yet I'm reading similar criticisms, "It's not what I do, so I dont like it" which just goes to show that theres no pleasing everyone...no matter what you print, someone is going to be put off by it. Its not what I do by a mile, but I find it very interesting
Have fun with your trains
There is another reason however...... I just turned 65 and realize building a new layout now is probably my last chance to have what I want.
ENJOY,
Mobilman44
-----------------
Very true.
On the other hand..
I am 61 and in so/so health with good/bad days and in that light I took another look and decided I may not be around enough to build a complete layout so,I will use Kato's Unitrack and a bare amount of scenery(less then I used on any of my past ISLs) and by cutting the scenery I will be able to enjoy operating my N Scale a lot sooner which is my #1 hobby enjoyment.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I am getting confused...
I have seen so many excellent articles in MR on h2 operate a layout, with a detailed descriptions of train and car movements etc., but I do not see this in the article in question. I do see a layout which is purely designed and build for operation - certainly an impressive layout, just by sheer size, well designed for its purpose.
Don´t get me wrong. I do not mean to put DB´s work down. It is just that I could have done without MR´s article, because it did not trigger my interest in any of the three categories I mentioned in my earlier post.
Maybe my Englsh is getting poorer day by day, as I still have the feeling that I missed to understand something in this article...
Again Paul, I am sorry you didn't understand. I grew up in a time when people didn't put little smiley faces on their writings to show they were being humerous. In fact, it was hard to draw smiley faces when you were having to chisel in stone.
As far as any comment on my part, life is too short to engage in debates and arguments over a few words. So, I think (having been in the hobby since the 50's and in Lionel with my dad before that), that the new Cat Mountain represents a step backwards, but since he really doesn't go into the philosopical reasons for going a new direction, I can't really judge. Sometimes a trend starts and Model Railroader jumps on it like the holy grail. But in the long run, what MR thinks I should do, or any other model thinks I should do doesn't change the layout if I don't want it. I do have a lot of visitors over the years on tours, and I am sure some disagree with my way and that is fine with me. Will let it go at that, but since I probably not live long enough to build a new layout, will be happy and content with what I have.
I really have said all I have to say (yeah) so I will move on to more pressing things, like a mainline alignment on the garden railroad I need to do thanks to Kansas rain.
Bob
Hi!
I loved looking at photos of Barrow's earlier layouts with postwar era timing. As a devout ATSF fan, I still like his modern stuff but that is just not my prime interest. Regarding his minimal scenery, it is probably pretty prototypical for the area modeled. Trust me on that!
Insofar as replacing layouts, I am doing just that after having the same one for 14 years. I do have my reasons, which include correcting the 4 "fault areas" that existed on the old one, going to 2 levels from 3, and converting to DCC. In summary, I am putting to practice all the skills and knowledge I have gained during the design/building/operation of the previous layout. So far, it is coming along just fine.
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Ulrich wrote:Now,where does MR´s article on the DB layout fit into? I maybe missing something here...
Absolutely..
This says it all.
How to operate a layout
------------------
I think what we are seeing in this topic is the builders vs. the operators that uses minimal scenery.
Both are valid approaches to the hobby.
I hate space eating mountains,rivers,creeks and streams that does nothing to enhance my operation pleasure...Instead I perfer large industries on a ISL.
Others perfer to spend years hand laying track,building scenery,rivers etc.When the layout is finish some become bored and rip everything out and start over-look at how these kind folk reply when a topic is about a finish layout..Rip it out and start over,remodel some of the areas and under the guise of that age old argument: "A layout is never finish"..
My personal thought.
Guys,I have hundreds of dollars in N Scale and still buying the needed items. I still have 2-3,000 dollars in HO..
Now with all of that investment I want a return in operation enjoyment after all I didn't buy all my stuff just to eyeball.
Uh, actually John Armstrong's scenery and structures were never finished. Also John Allen's mainline was never finished before he died. The others I don't know how finished they were. This is not to take away from their accomplishments, but to point out that this can be a satisfying life long hobby without the layout being finished, however you define finished..
One of the problems of magazine articles is the false impression they give of the layout as a whole. Many (most?) of the layouts are not finished, but the pictures would have you believe that a highly detailed, fully scenic layout, completely finished everywhere is the norm and by implication, what you need to have, to have an enjoyable layout. Not true, getting some track down and running trains is the goal for a lot of people.
As for Dave Barrows, he's like a breeze of fresh air blowing in some new ideas. If nothing else, he reminds us that there are many ways to enjoy model railroading. And that's what is great about this hobby. You can pick and choose how to enjoy it. It's a hobby, do the fun parts all the time. Do only as much of the non-fun parts as needed to do the fun parts.
As long as trains are involved somewhere you are a model railroader - there is no entrance test.
Midnight Railroader jmbjmbYet about every major proponent of the operations grail has torn down his railroad AFTER the scenary & structures were done -- just when it should really be getting down to full time operations -- to build a new one. Also untrue. Anyone on this board can name several well-known layout owners who did no such thing. I'll start with Chuck Hitchcock, who operated his Argentine Division for years before tearing it down and rebuilding it. And Barrow operated his (fully-scenicked) CM&SF incarnations for many years before rebuilding. Then there are the Reid Brothers. And Allen McClellan. John Armstrong. John Allen. For starters.
jmbjmbYet about every major proponent of the operations grail has torn down his railroad AFTER the scenary & structures were done -- just when it should really be getting down to full time operations -- to build a new one.
Also untrue. Anyone on this board can name several well-known layout owners who did no such thing.
I'll start with Chuck Hitchcock, who operated his Argentine Division for years before tearing it down and rebuilding it.
And Barrow operated his (fully-scenicked) CM&SF incarnations for many years before rebuilding.
Then there are the Reid Brothers.
And Allen McClellan.
John Armstrong.
John Allen.
For starters.
There are at least 3 people I know up here who still have their original layouts, one going back to the 60's---just up graded the scenery or rejigged the trackage-----but still kept to the original plans.
The only reason for the current trend-----lack of patience
Sir Madog: DB's "Layout" fits in the category-----speculative layout. It only gets 'up to a point' then---PTOOF!
Pardon me for pouring some more oil into the flames here.
For me, reports on layouts can be categorized into the following:
The first category gives me inspiration and motivation for my own layout. The second category teaches me how to operate my layout and get the most out of that and the third category educates me how to achieve what I have been dreaming of.
Now, where does MR´s article on the DB layout fit into? I maybe missing something here...
I didn't see this starting as a flame war, but a discussion of the concept pros & cons. I've been a fan of the CM&SF since first read about it years ago. Like I said earlier, I've even used dominos on my own layout after learning about them in the South Plains series (in fact, I still refer back to that series). I also consider the MRP plan for a spare room a classic, if somewhat over crowded and would love to see that as an MR project road (perhaps since the space, including the door locations is identical to my own).
But now can we separate the discusion and talk openly about the pros & cons of dominos? I see the value from reusabilty, but am also seeing limitations in flexibility for modeling (you have to plan the domino and scenary very well before it's built). Yes I know that most any layout can be built a multitude of ways, but I'm pointing out the tradeoffs. The other big negative I see with dominos is in the linear thinking. Ok, flame war time I know, but lets look at this. Yes, real lines are "linear" and don't spaghetti themselves, but at the same time the linear focus can take us toward only what fits in a domino and away from some other equally fascinating aspects of model railroading. Again, we know everyone has his or her own perspective, but what I saying is by focusing too much on the narrow benchwork, some, especially newer, modelers may never experience detailed scenes, scratchbuilding, scenary, or such.
Here's another thought to think about. Operations is held up by many as the ultimate goal for a model railroad to avoid boredom. Yet about every major proponent of the operations grail has torn down his railroad AFTER the scenary & structures were done -- just when it should really be getting down to full time operations -- to build a new one. Since he doesn't build scenary, the CMSF gets torn down and rebuilt a lot more often. Perhaps operations isn't the grail of model railroading, but merely one aspect of the whole. Perhaps the grail is the journey, not the destination.
Paul3 Bob,If your post was meant to be humorous, you should have used some "smilies". You've been here long enough (6+ years) to know that raw text is lousy at conveying intent. If you write something like, "Seems like he builds a new one every 5 years or so," and don't put down any qualifying statements or smilies, then you leave the entire statement open to interpetation. Couple that to the thread title, and what are we supposed to think? You talk about me being "sensitive", try looking at your own most recent post on this thread. "I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood." What is that about? You and several others complained about Barrows, and I disagreed and explained why Suddenly I'm "cramming things down your throat"? Pot, kettle, black. Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Bob,If your post was meant to be humorous, you should have used some "smilies". You've been here long enough (6+ years) to know that raw text is lousy at conveying intent. If you write something like, "Seems like he builds a new one every 5 years or so," and don't put down any qualifying statements or smilies, then you leave the entire statement open to interpetation. Couple that to the thread title, and what are we supposed to think?
You talk about me being "sensitive", try looking at your own most recent post on this thread. "I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood." What is that about? You and several others complained about Barrows, and I disagreed and explained why Suddenly I'm "cramming things down your throat"?
Pot, kettle, black.
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Boy, ev'body's gittin' a might tetchy lately.
It seems as if Dave Barrows name can almost start a flame war just by going----"Dominoes!". Could we be heading for the same territory as what happens with Malcom Furlows name?
The problem with Barrows dominoes I find is that it becomes rather old rather fast. If he was just interested in operation why couldn't he just set the dang thing up as a board game? Waybills and such as a deck of cards?
I fully understand how Bob feels and am on the same wave length. I have noticed here and in other forums people have been on a major "intolerance" binge lately. I don't know if they are in the summer dulldrums or if this hobby is just filled with grumpy old men. I like to think that model railroading is supposed to be fun, but latey it seems to be filled with people who'd just as soon stab you with a knife rather than use that knife as a tool to work on trains or a layout.
Like I said, I really enjoyed David Barrows articles pre-domino's, and I have great respect for his past work. About all I can remember published by David Barrow in any magazine (MR and whatever else) for the past 10+ years now is its all been domino's. I originally wondered if the purpose of the domino's was that David was preparing for down sizing as he was looking to retirement years etc and the domino's was something which could fit into smaller spaces of retirement homes etc. He seems to be going strong still and so are domino's. Hyperbole wasn't on my vocabulary list so I'll pleed ignorance to that - depite my having masters degree, I stay away from vocabulary words. Lets say, I didn't really think David Barrow broke any real new ground in his most recent article, that I could see.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
pastorbob I simply made an observation in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek maybe but since everyone is so sensitive anymore, I will refrain from sudden outbursts again. I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood.
I simply made an observation in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek maybe but since everyone is so sensitive anymore, I will refrain from sudden outbursts again. I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood.
Bob, don't apologize. I was having fun.
Mark
As I said in my post that started all this fuss, I have great respect for David Barrows as a modeler, and his earlier layouts in MR caught my eye and those issues are still on the keep pile in my reading area. But I also think of all the other modelers like Eric Brooman and those who seem to move us along to inspire to greater things, and I was disappointed when I saw the cover of MR and then saw the content of the story. None of us has to like everything every one else does all the time, but it did hit me kind of hard. I have every MR, as I said, that had stories of Barrows and the Cat Mountain. This copy I simply will discard when its time is up.
I am sorry that Paul took my comments the way he did, but Paul and I often disagree, in fact, more than we agree and everyone has their opinion. On my 26year old and more Santa Fe, I am looking at making a change and hoping the whole layout won't collapse of old age when I have to cut into it. The change is not something new, but a maintenance fix to a section that no longer performs the way it should. But I will not destroy the whole thing to fix it. Right now we are using a work around (or maybe I should say a fun around) until I get the nerve up, after a lot of looking and thinking and planning, to tear in. But that is me. I personally don't have a desire at age 73 to build a new layout, but I don't begrudge anyone else who wants to. I simply made an observation in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek maybe but since everyone is so sensitive anymore, I will refrain from sudden outbursts again. I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood.
chatanuga I seem to recall an update several years ago on Jim Hediger's Ohio Southern (Sorry to bring your name into the middle of this debate, Jim! ) when he was rebuilding it where work in progress on his layout was shown with unballasted flextrack on cork roadbed, unfinished scenery, etc. I remember people saying at the time how good it was for Model Railroader to show layouts in progress and not just finished layouts. Why is it that there was no complaining about Mr. Hediger's layout not being finished back then, but when Mr. Barrow has an article on a layout-in-progress, people start coming out of the woodwork to put it down?
I seem to recall an update several years ago on Jim Hediger's Ohio Southern (Sorry to bring your name into the middle of this debate, Jim! ) when he was rebuilding it where work in progress on his layout was shown with unballasted flextrack on cork roadbed, unfinished scenery, etc. I remember people saying at the time how good it was for Model Railroader to show layouts in progress and not just finished layouts. Why is it that there was no complaining about Mr. Hediger's layout not being finished back then, but when Mr. Barrow has an article on a layout-in-progress, people start coming out of the woodwork to put it down?
While some people said they don't like or want to emulate Barrow's style of model railroading, they weren't saying his style was wrong or that he and others shouldn't like it. Also, I see nothing wrong with showing railroads in progress (they can be educational). The fact Barrow's layout is essentially finished looking "incomplete" also isn't the point or central to the discussion at hand. Some of us believe, like when mother served Brussel sprouts once a month or every few years, it all (B. sprouts and Barrow's repetitive-looking layout plans) seems so much more often than that.
PS - I hope no one responds saying I have offended motherhood or Brussel sprouts.
wm3798 Now wait a minute... Where are all the guys crying that they only ever see museum quality layouts in MR? Here's a great example of an operations based layout with a track plan ripped right from the prototype, so the owner can enjoy "running his trains" the way he wants without regard to how photogenic it is.
Now wait a minute... Where are all the guys crying that they only ever see museum quality layouts in MR? Here's a great example of an operations based layout with a track plan ripped right from the prototype, so the owner can enjoy "running his trains" the way he wants without regard to how photogenic it is.
However, Lee, what Barrow is doing is NOT model railroading in any terms I've ever seen it outlined. One might rightly consider it building a 3-D representation of a concept trackplan, or perhaps just playing with miniature trains in a formal manner on a crude train board that wouldn't do justice to some kid from the 50's with his Lionels. Nevertheless, it's a far, far cry from actually being any sort of classical "model railroading".
I'm well aware that MR has pushed layout "operations" in its pages for better than 50 years now, but I also appreciate that to this day formal operations remains very much just a niche pursuit among hobbyists. So the question for me becomes just when the decision was made to make operations for operations sake a complete hobby unto itself, requiring only track and trains running on bare boards, as it seems to be from a number of Barrow's articles in recent years. Last I heard operations was just one of a multitude of possible diversions to try once your layout was just about complete, not the ultimate purpose.
Yes, I do formal operations on the HHRR from time to time, but in no way is it anything like an all consuming pursuit, or the sole objective I built the layout for. Working on the layout and the trains, the revamping of existing sections of the layout, experimenting with new methods and techniques of modeling to enhance the HHRR's realistic appearance and its photographic impression, is what drives me and I really think most other layout owners who regard themselves as model railroaders. Leave running trains on bare sections of plywood to the kids.
Sir Madog Why is MR publishing stories on layouts that are years away from being finished to a degree which makes it worthwile to write a story? I guess it is the lack of contributions, so it is up to us to solve that problem, guys!
Why is MR publishing stories on layouts that are years away from being finished to a degree which makes it worthwile to write a story?
I guess it is the lack of contributions, so it is up to us to solve that problem, guys!
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
nucat78 I always think long, linear, relatively flat when I think of railroads.
I always think long, linear, relatively flat when I think of railroads.
We are fed a steady diet of layouts with track laid directly on flat, broad sheets of plywood or foam, as if trying to model the Great Salt Flats or other dried lake. I see no innovation in that respect. "Relatively" is the key word. It is rare (examples already given) where the land is absolutely flat. I'd like at least to see a culvert or two, or maybe wishing for a short trestle over a small dry wash is too much.
markpierce I'll bet you right now he is reshuffling the dominoes for his next layout.
..and based on his record, we'll see a story on that one in about 2012.
And then we'll get a thread about how his stories show up "every month."