http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQfCdwjk048
AG.
I know what you mean, when I was growing up that was all I saw. My dad and I would go to the local LHS which was Hills Hobby Shop and at that time they were in Park Ridge,IL. I was in heaven...heck what kid isn't when they are surrounded by trains and being out with dad. I must admit that I really was not exposed to the 2 rail market in any great fashion until I joined this forum and saw the amazing work being done....and even then I wrestled back and forth with it but ultimately realizing I was just trying to "talk myself" in to 3 rail being ok, and while it is for many it wasn't for me...so I switched and since that point I have never been happier, I love the satisfaction I get from it.
My kids have a smaller 3 rail layout I am working on with them and I have my 2 rail layout....I have both worlds and it's a funny thing, with both layouts being right next to each other I can easily look back and forth at them, side by side...and in that setting the differences leap out and my kids are actually drifting over to the 2 rail layout more and more.....am I happy they are drifting that way?...Oh yes....why? So I can have the space their layout is eating up...
Originally Posted by Dave Hikel:
Originally Posted by christopher N&W:
Proto OPS is not essential to modeling.
Several of my 3-rail and 2-rail clients would STRONGLY disagree. John Armstrong aptly described model railroads as a "model transportation system." A model transportation system that can't operate anything like its prototype isn't much of a model.
The question is not who is and isn't "modeling." It's a question of what compromises a modeler is willing to make in order to achieve other modeling goals. Many, if not most, folks in 2-rail O have long been willing to compromise functionality, prototypical operating, prototypical sound, reliability, quality of decoration, scenery, and more for the sake of more realistic track. The good news is that year after year modelers in both 2-rail and 3-rail have to make fewer and fewer compromises.
I would like to remind everyone that John Armstrong's was not two rail but outside 3rd rail.
Originally Posted by Jim Scorse:
I would like to remind everyone that John Armstrong's was not two rail but outside 3rd rail.
Only because that was the way O scale was done when John started. He felt it wasn't worth the trouble or expense to convert to true 2-rail.
As I recall, he did a small section of 2-rail that served a mine/powerplant combo and used a trio Atlas Plymouth MDT's for power.
Rusty
Originally Posted by John Sethian:
Does this mean this thread has finally run its course and its safe to come back to the 2 rail forum?
It's safe for all not being pursued by DHS, John.
