CSXDixieLine After reading the article, it seems he has met this objective and is enjoying layout operations along with his operating crew. While I want to go "all the way" with the scenery on my current layout and can not imagine going with the "bare table" approach, it seems to suit him and his crew just fine--yet more proof that model railroading is many different things to many different people.
After reading the article, it seems he has met this objective and is enjoying layout operations along with his operating crew. While I want to go "all the way" with the scenery on my current layout and can not imagine going with the "bare table" approach, it seems to suit him and his crew just fine--yet more proof that model railroading is many different things to many different people.
I agree, but that's not the point. I'm tired of the too-frequent articles on his repetitive layouts.
Mark
His stated goal for this incarnation of the CM&SF was to faithfully reproduce a section of prototype railroad in both track layout and operations. After reading the article, it seems he has met this objective and is enjoying layout operations along with his operating crew. While I want to go "all the way" with the scenery on my current layout and can not imagine going with the "bare table" approach, it seems to suit him and his crew just fine--yet more proof that model railroading is many different things to many different people. Seeing that he has also done "all the way" scenery on his previous layouts, this also illustrates how model railroading can be many differnt things to the same person at different times. The best example of this is the way he is using red, yellow and green wire nuts to simulate CTC signalling--even though he has previously built a layout with a fully signalled CTC system. More reasons for me to agree that this is the greatest hobby ever! Jamie
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
I think that the whole point of his dominos benchwork and the code 100 flextrack/Atlas # 6 turnouts is to be easy to modify, revise or start over. It is clear that David Barrows is far more interested in operations than scenery and wants to keep things simple and easy otherwise. Not my cup of tea, but clearly it is where his interests lie. For some people scenery and wiring is chore not a hobby. - Nevin
chatanuga I've always enjoyed all of Mr. Barrow's layouts.
I've always enjoyed all of Mr. Barrow's layouts.
They all look boringly the same to me. What keeps MR to continually publish "new" versions? Once a decade would be more than sufficient. I must be missing something.
I'm not too keen on that 'style' of doing things.
But I'm not quite into quibbling over whether one approach is better than another either.
But I will suggest that the idea of changing layout locales every couple of years is wearing a little thin on me----
ADD/ADHD? Who knows, but the idea that one should jump from one era/location/prototype/freelance into another is something that probably will keep certain RTR mfgr's going for quite some time I suppose
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've always enjoyed all of Mr. Barrow's layouts. While the original (and expanded versions) of the CM&SF was my favorite, I enjoy reading about and seeing his modeling. As long as he's not putting himself in the poor house by building a new layout every so often, then he should do what makes him happy. After all, it is his layout.
For me, a layout is a major investment of my time and money, and I wouldn't redo it unless I needed to (like for a move, disaster, etc.) or seriously wanted to (redesign, change of railroad/era/locale, etc.).
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
Midnight RailroaderpastorbobDon't get me wrong, I think he is a talented modeler, but I can't buy the bare table, no ballast approach. I am still operating the layout I started in 1983 or 1984, I forget, and I am still happy with it and have no interest or intent to replace it. What do you guys think about the replace every X number of years? While I enjoyed the "original" CM&SF layouts much more, it's up to Barrow as to what he wants for his own layout. (Remember, the philosophy we're supposed to promote is, "It's his layout, he can do what he wants.") If he wishes to tear it up over and over, more power to him.
pastorbobDon't get me wrong, I think he is a talented modeler, but I can't buy the bare table, no ballast approach. I am still operating the layout I started in 1983 or 1984, I forget, and I am still happy with it and have no interest or intent to replace it. What do you guys think about the replace every X number of years?
While I enjoyed the "original" CM&SF layouts much more, it's up to Barrow as to what he wants for his own layout. (Remember, the philosophy we're supposed to promote is, "It's his layout, he can do what he wants.") If he wishes to tear it up over and over, more power to him.
I don't think pastorbob was attempting to imply that at all. The way I read it, it was more "to each his own, and that's not my style."
I too, really liked the original CM&SF, with the open staging yard and finished scenery. But since then...well... Don't get me wrong, I love operations, and so far I've spent several hundred dollars and invested many hours planning and building a staging yard addition to my layout. But the total minimalist style, up to the wire nuts as signals - just doesn't do it for me. I like operations that look nice as well!
Again, to each his own...
Is it ADD or ADHD ? Short attention span. I am a tight wad and would not spend the money to keep redoing entire layouts. I was very surprised to see that in the mag , an unfinished layout at such an early stages with out progress photos. I still found points of interest.
New issue of MR arrived, and in it, a story that David Barrows has built another new railroad. Seems like he builds a new one every 5 years or so. I really liked his first two Santa Fe layouts, after that, I lost interest. So when I saw the new one this time, with a color photo on the cover of a sceniced mainline, I got excited. Then I read the article and see that he still prefers minimal scenery and the cover was of one spot that had been scenicked.
Don't get me wrong, I think he is a talented modeler, but I can't buy the bare table, no ballast approach. I am still operating the layout I started in 1983 or 1984, I forget, and I am still happy with it and have no interest or intent to replace it. What do you guys think about the replace every X number of years?
Bob