I hope you will forgive me for pointing this out, but it looks to me like y'all are frightened by anything "different." You don't seem to be able to tolerate a model railroad as art. Personally, I think that Mr. Barrow has a mighty fine lookin' train room and a very good layout to operate. My only beef is that the "dominos" are way overbuilt.
Texas Pete
"Jeff Sc."
Good one Jeff, and oh so true.
-- Cheers Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
Dang it! Now I HAVE to purchase it to see what the fuss is all about! :o) ...Bill
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:45:58 UTC, "Woodard R. Springstube" wrote: 2000
Accept my sympathy: :-)
From sunny Phoenix. BTW I like the heat.
Not frightened in any way. What we are is very disappointed to see a layout featured in a planning/new ideas magazine that's basically built to the standards of 1940's layouts. This concept of track nailed on bare plywood was abandoned by _everybody_ well before the mid 1950's, so why should it be taken seriously now?
CNJ999
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:03:58 -0800, "Roger T." shared this with the world:
I'd heard that some people do that. I just hadn't met any. Until now.
I stand (well, sit really) corrected.
As to my other points.. any comment? Anyone?
So I see that *you* (are you sure you represent "we"?) like to "go along with the crowd" because the concept was "abandoned by _everybody_" at an earlier time. But the main question is - if you didn't like the planning annual why did you buy it?
Texas Pete
WEll, not ~everybody~... Right now that's literally all my layout is, but for the puroses of operation, that's all that's needed.
I operate on a couple of others that aren't much more than that right now, either.
You must remember that the book is Model Railroad ~Planning~, not Great Model Railroads. It doesn't need to meet any particular standard of "pretty" to illustrate good planning principles.
Jeff Sc. Pretty Ugly, Ga.
Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed.
Texas Pete posts:
Yes, I'm sure about the "we". Just read the many threads concerning Barrow's layout around the net. This concept of layout building (raw track on bare plywood) was abandoned by hobbyists long, long ago because it was childish and toy-like, exhibiting a failure to employ any modeling skills whatever. Hardly something to aspire to.
My copy was pre-ordered, as has been my practice for some years now. But, believe me, I won't make that mistake next year! However, to be fair, I note that most of the earlier issues of MRP were quite good. It's only this year's offering that was a real stinker.
CNJ999
I got my issue yesterday. And I don't quite understand the disappointment of many. The only complaint I would have is that only ONE small layout (S-scale variations) is present.
Barrow: A different approach. As you note, several other large layouts in the issue still have the plywood look, but I think Dave's view of focusing on operation in his way is as valid as any other approach. Less is more. Think about it!
Bill Darnaby: always learn something from his growth of the Maumee route
Ray Persing's Dayton Traction: excellent article. Not my modelling interest but a great article.
Dolkos article on size: no issue for me, but made me think... I still have too much stuff.
Charlie Comstock: Large layout, but you EASILY could pick items from his outstanding work and make a small layout. That's the whole point of the magazine! Learn and get ideas and inspirations!
Steve Lynch: Long Island Oyster Branch: Another "Design element" layout. That's all I have room for, so I'm very happy about that article. Agian: how was this location transfered into three "scenes".
The other articles are interesting in their own rights as well.
SO in a nutshell, what's wrong with this issue? I think it is a succession of the ones in previous years. Maybe a little more abstract and making one think about the mess one has worked oneself into... but overall: I'll keep mine :-)
Martin
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.