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!"
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?
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/
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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,
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.
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!!!
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.
jmbjmbYet is seems those who most pursue this path also tear down soon as the supposedly un-fun job of building is done.
Again, you overlook the fact that many well-known layouts were operated for years before they were torn down. Yes, Tony K added to his, but he ran it for a very long time before starting over. The original CM&SF was operated for ten years or so in an essentially "finished" condition before being demolished.
I don't see where you get this assumption that they tear down the layout "as soon as" the layouts are complete.
Here's Tim Warris's blog: http://www.bronx-terminal.com/
Tim's the guy behind Fast Tracks. There's a video of his Bronx Terminal in operation on the site. No scenery, a mock up of the freight house and it's a roundy-roundy with sidings. What's worse, it's a spaghetti bowl of trackwork, or more to the point, the spaghett's done lapped over the sides of the bowl.
Oh, the horror of it all.
At least he's got hand laid trackwork.None of this flex track garbage for him.
Andre
Good night, Gracie
Bob
andrechapelon Here's Tim Warris's blog: http://www.bronx-terminal.com/ Tim's the guy behind Fast Tracks. There's a video of his Bronx Terminal in operation on the site. No scenery, a mock up of the freight house and it's a roundy-roundy with sidings. What's worse, it's a spaghetti bowl of trackwork, or more to the point, the spaghett's done lapped over the sides of the bowl. Oh, the horror of it all.
Gee, Mike, and here I thought it is closely based on the prototype. However, I won't be able to go to sleep tonight until knowing what's this has got to do with the Barrow's layout/article.
Mark
What! Do I need to reexamine my life?! In the mid-1960s, I built three different layouts with dramatically different trackage (although all had the continuous-mainline-point-to-point-branchline scheme) on the same 5-by-10-foot-donut-shaped-layout framework. None were ever finished, but they taught me a lot and allowed following my joy and explore hand-laid track, dual-gauge trackage, and double-deck. construction.
Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761The 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. Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus.
I will grant this. The article itself shows a suprising lack of focus, and does not deliver on its promise at all. It seems to be missing a good deal of detail as well.
"What is it about?"
I'm not really sure.
When I saw the cover I thought ok, he finally had enough of the plywood pacific. But, then I turned to the article and gee whiz...the same old thing and it's getting worse. I totally agree that it's his thing and he can do what he wants but was there one thing that helped or inspired YOU? And does it really need to be put to print? He only gets published and takes space away from other talented people just because he is friends with the staff. Well, i'm sorry but if they keep wasting space on this concept I might not renew my subscription next time. I mean come on...code 100 AND no scenery???? Are we going backwards in time? No offense to code 100 being used on layouts people, but when his first CMSF layouts were featured they were great, something I would drive hundreds of miles to see. Now?? I wouldn't WALK 100 feet to look. I know, "It's a shame you can't find someting of value..." blah blah blah. I believe the time of D.B.is done and future articles should be scrutinized for actual value to the modelling community and not just a "hey lets get good old Dave in print again". Ok, one good thing to say. Atleast they didn't waste space in Great Model Railroads again. sorry if I re-hashed others thoughts previously posted, but I had to vent and didn't take time to read them all :)
Midnight Railroader I will grant this. The article itself shows a suprising lack of focus, and does not deliver on its promise at all. It seems to be missing a good deal of detail as well. "What is it about?" I'm not really sure.
I'm almost tempted to suggest that maybe the focus is on a certain aspect of play?
As in----WHEEEEE!!! Let's just throw some dominoes here and throw some track there!!
Sheeesh. Not much fun here
riogrande5761 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. Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus.
Well just don't count me in with your numbers..I found the article refreshing and 3 steps down from the normal gauntlet of $30,000 layouts with scenery that looks fake or doesn't exactly follow Mother Natures plan with a track plan that has no real prototypical meaning or reason for being.
I suggest what the article is really saying its ok if you don't follow the sheeples and do things your way and there lays the rub..David is going against the grain in conventional layout thoughts that we been taught over the years.
Food for thought.
What if MR's next "Golden Boy" pushes the idea of the minimalist approach by using ready made track like Unitrack?
I am sure many will see it as a break through in layout design(remember the newest "Golden Boy" says its good) while others will see it as a complete break down.
BRAKIE riogrande5761 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. - CNJ831 Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus. I suggest what the article is really saying its ok if you don't follow the sheeples and do things your way and there lays the rub..David is going against the grain in conventional layout thoughts that we been taught over the years. Food for thought. What if MR's next "Golden Boy" pushes the idea of the minimalist approach by using ready made track like Unitrack? I am sure many will see it as a break through in layout design(remember the newest "Golden Boy" says its good) while others will see it as a complete break down.
riogrande5761 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. - CNJ831 Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus.
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. - CNJ831
I'd suggest that if MR were ever to follow such a path, they'd lose another 70,000 subscribers...and in a lot less time than the 15 years it took to forfeit the last 70,000!
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Barrows, except for the lack of scenery, the fact that it's designed for operation and the fact that there's a big brouhaha about the whole thing. I was just getting a big kick out this particular tempest in a tea pot and decided to throw in a typhoon of my own.
I'm not crazy about Barrows's style either, but I'm not going to waste energy by complaining about it. His approach seems too mechanical, his track configurations resemble a geometric drawing and he uses far too many switchbacks to be plausible let alone prototypical.
There you have it. My objections to Barrows in 1 sentence (the second) without all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the frequency (way over estimated) of his appearances in MR. We are both old enough to remember the outraged letters to the editor about the incredible frequency with which John Allen appeared in MR's pages (again, way over estimated).
Maybe I'll write an outraged post when the September issue comes out. After all, Pelle Soeborg has appeared WAY too frequently in the pages of MR with his articles that are basically nothing more than a propaganda ploy to convert everyone to modeling modern desert railroading. Come on, guys, enough is enough!!!
At least we can all breathe a sigh of relief now that it's likely that guy Fugate will never appear in MR again.
Oh God, I shouldn't have written that. I made myself spew coffee all over the monitor.
andrechapelon Gee, Mike, and here I thought it is closely based on the prototype. However, I won't be able to go to sleep tonight until knowing what's this has got to do with the Barrow's layout/article. Mark It has nothing whatsoever to do with Barrows, except for the lack of scenery, the fact that it's designed for operation and the fact that there's a big brouhaha about the whole thing. I was just getting a big kick out this particular tempest in a tea pot and decided to throw in a typhoon of my own. I'm not crazy about Barrows's style either, but I'm not going to waste energy by complaining about it.
I'm not crazy about Barrows's style either, but I'm not going to waste energy by complaining about it.
Perhaps, Andre, you don't fully appreciate that such threads as these, on sites sponsored by the magazines themselves, serve as the modern equivalent of the old letters to the editor column. The difference here is that you get all the feedback in one concise listing, rather than in a scattering of conventional letters (of which only the K.A. sort get fully read and published). I'm sure that someone on the MR editorial staff has been checking in at regular intervals to see what the pulse of the MR readership is in this matter. That's a critical part of the business.
-------------
Reckon?
I kinda doubt that..
Looking back over all of the past "Golden Boys" that had different approaches that has been copied-there's always a "new method" that gets approved by the masses-please don't ask..I don't understand it either.
Even Malcolm Furlow's whimsical modeling style has a stamp of approval awarded by the masses..
You assume facts not in evidence (no surprise there), CNJ. I'm well aware of the fact that the staff check these forums by the fact that they occasionally chime in. They've got to be reading the site a great deal more than they're posting. You seem to think that I'm not swift enough to have figured that out. I hate to disabuse you of a cherished delusion, but circumstances and a preference for the truth compel me to do so.
A lot of what appears in these forums amounts to little more than sour grapes and making mountains out of mole hills (e.g. the MTH Challenger brouhaha). As another reader pointed out, Barrows hasn't been around MR as much as some people think he has. He has, however, appeared fairly frequently in MRP. Of course, frequent is a relative term given that MRP and GMR are annual publications.
As for the MTH Challenger parenthetically mentioned above, get over it folks. It's just the re-branded Lionel. MTH got the tooling. They might as well use it.
andrechapelon Perhaps, Andre, you don't fully appreciate that such threads as these, on sites sponsored by the magazines themselves, serve as the modern equivalent of the old letters to the editor column. The difference here is that you get all the feedback in one concise listing, rather than in a scattering of conventional letters (of which only the K.A. sort get fully read and published). I'm sure that someone on the MR editorial staff has been checking in at regular intervals to see what the pulse of the MR readership is in this matter. That's a critical part of the business. CNJ831 You assume facts not in evidence (no surprise there), CNJ. I'm well aware of the fact that the staff check these forums by the fact that they occasionally chime in. They've got to be reading the site a great deal more than they're posting. You seem to think that I'm not swift enough to have figured that out. I hate to disabuse you of a cherished delusion, but circumstances and a preference for the truth compel me to do so. A lot of what appears in these forums amounts to little more than sour grapes and making mountains out of mole hills (e.g. the MTH Challenger brouhaha). As another reader pointed out, Barrows hasn't been around MR as much as some people think he has. He has, however, appeared fairly frequently in MRP. Of course, frequent is a relative term given that MRP and GMR are annual publications.
Andre, by your own previous admissions you are a non-modeler who has had no ties to, or familiarity with, the publishing industry. Thus, its not the least unexpected that I would question your ability to appreciate/understand subjects related to those being posted about. And I'd ask how can a non-modeler such as yourself critically assess whether a thread posted to by actual modelers is sour grapes, or truly of concern to them?
What modeling content the hobby publications may include now and in the future may be of no concern to the non-participating armchair segment but it clearly is of significance to the majority of practicing model railroaders here.
What model railroaders? According to what I've seen you write, there only seems to be ONE model railroader. Everybody else is just a "dabbler" or "armchair" type.
I actually am doing some modeling. However, since I'm doing it for myself and not for your approval, the decision as whether or not to post pictures can wait.
andrechapelon What modeling content the hobby publications may include now and in the future may be of no concern to the non-participating armchair segment but it clearly is of significance to the majority of practicing model railroaders here. CNJ831 What model railroaders? According to what I've seen you write, there only seems to be ONE model railroader. Everybody else is just a "dabbler" or "armchair" type. I actually am doing some modeling. However, since I'm doing it for myself and not for your approval, the decision as whether or not to post pictures can wait. Andre
Guys,Does it really matter when the masses enjoy the hobby their way without anybodies approval?
As I said many times before forum participants doesn't speak for the hobby in general..
I have no doubt there are unknown thousands that enjoyed Barrow's article as I did.Oh I am sure some whiners will fire off fiery letters to the Editor lamblasting the article..I suspect there will be "atta boy" letters as well.
Another thought.
Maybe,just maybe new modelers will finally realize they need not sink tons of money into scenery before they can enjoy their layout.
Whoa!
What a scary thought!
It doesn't really matter to me how people enjoy the hobby. I say the more the merrier, unlike those who would define whole segments of the population out of the hobby.
But unlike somebody else, I've never said (albeit not in these exact words) that there is no model railroading but model railroading and I am its prophet.
Now if you'll excuse me. I need to go write "I will not thumb my nose at <insert name here> ever again" 500 times. It's something I really need to do, not in order to be a nicer person, but to avoid wasting my time. Don't know if it will really help. Tried the same thing with See's truffles. Still eat 'em when I get a chance.
Gee guys: my original post was to call attention to the change, and to state that it wasn't my cup of tea, but I still recognize Barrows as a talented modeler. I did question the periodic changes of direction he has made, which seemed a little strange TO ME as a modeler who took a concept, developed it, and continue to improve(I hope) on my original layout. The fact I am still happy with it after 26 or so years says it MET MY NEEDS, and then I posed the question, what do others think? Nothing more, nothing less.
I would hope no wars were fought, no casualities were suffered, no prisoners taken over it. Perhaps when the smoke clears, MR and Kalmbach will still be in their offices, and the sun will continue to shine.