|
|
Post by trainworm on Oct 11, 2017 1:15:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Oct 11, 2017 1:39:42 GMT -8
Fantastic. The early 1980's edition of the UB was probably my all time favorite. The KATO SD40-2's look great.
|
|
|
|
Post by peoriaman on Oct 11, 2017 5:02:39 GMT -8
The decals are from a guy on the Utah Belt historical sociert facebook page. He sells sets from time to time, but he tries to make sure that people don't use then to build models to sell. Hey, that's my get-rich-quick scheme! Especially the earlier(?) paint scheme like on the SD40s... Anyone could do that one with some stripes and Microscale alphabets. |
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Oct 11, 2017 5:07:27 GMT -8
Interesting project.
|
|
|
|
Post by tankcarsrule on Oct 11, 2017 8:05:31 GMT -8
Great looking models!
Bobby
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Oct 11, 2017 8:10:39 GMT -8
Who makes the box cars? Atlas?
|
|
|
|
Post by trainworm on Oct 11, 2017 8:56:23 GMT -8
Who makes the box cars? Atlas? Yep, they are atlas cars |
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Oct 11, 2017 9:19:41 GMT -8
Looking good! Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Oct 11, 2017 9:47:28 GMT -8
Who makes the box cars? Atlas? Yep, they are atlas cars Ah hah. After staring at them for a while, I recognized them as the CP "pacman" and GT Atlas NSC box cars. |
|
|
|
Post by graftonterminalrr on Oct 11, 2017 15:21:57 GMT -8
To each his own I guess. I'm one that doesn't understand the wild market for Brooman's castoffs, let alone why you'd want to make multiple clones of same, but if that's your thing, rock it. Nice modeling you've done.
I always thought the UB was one of those, if not *the*, grandly overexposed layouts. It gets featured in MR every five years or so with a cover pic every decade. The shtick was a new one - the layout was always set in the present day, so motive power was always being updated and rebuilt. Beyond that, it wasn't much different in execution and theme than any other feature layout, so the only reason why it constantly gets revisited is to see "what Brooman's running now". Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe not. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Oct 11, 2017 16:03:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on Oct 11, 2017 17:29:29 GMT -8
graftonterminalrr,
MR revisits UB because the readers want to see the updated layout. I'm one of them and I don't even model the modern day (I stop at 1969). I just like to see what's new and how he did it. It also helps that it's good copy, photographs well, and the modeling is pretty darn good. Sure, the layouts are not record breaking, earth shattering, or particularly unique...other than the fact that the modeling target is not just modern but "today". Which can mean that many of the new models have to be custom made because it can take so long before a model company will create the latest loco or rolling stock. It also means that every time they revisit it, something is new and something is gone. And that's not something one can say about many "finished" layouts.
BTW, total number of times the UB has been in MR? Ten times in 31 years. First one was in '86 about the layout with another in '90. There have been four articles on UB locos always being upgraded and discarded ('87, '98, '05, '11). There was an article about his new layout in 2003 after he tore the first one down. There was one article on snow fighting ('08), one on trackwork ('08), and one more about the new UB being a "Landmark Layout" in '08.
John Pryke, OTOH, has been in Model Railroader 38 times in 21 years. I've never heard of John being called "overexposed"...
|
|
|
|
Post by graftonterminalrr on Oct 11, 2017 18:01:51 GMT -8
Meh... again, I'm not denigrating. It's good modelling, the OP did decent work. Not my thing, but as I said, it seems to be his, so good on him.
I just never was a big fan of Brooman's shtick. Every time I saw another article on the UB, I was all "Again? Aren't there other, more deserving features?". And since you mentioned Pryke, I felt the same about him (Hmm, a New Haven feature? Gotta be Pryke. No one else modelled the New Haven, it seemed) He was the first modeller I'd ever heard of doing a specific month in time, I believe it was October of 1948. Another shtick that was great, once or twice, but he constantly felt the need to beat his readers over the head with it.
I'm honestly not trying to be negative or derail the thread, so I apologize for my aside. The UB just never sat right with me for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Oct 12, 2017 3:07:44 GMT -8
So you thought you'd post a comment that you don't care for UB. Thanks but I agree with Oddball.
Paul has a point, it isn't like UB has been over done. It hasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Oct 12, 2017 3:35:45 GMT -8
I've never heard of John being called "overexposed"... ANY author who models something I'm not interested in is overexposed.  My "overexposed" list has a lot of very popular authors/modelers. I try to keep my mouth shut. But, I'm not too good about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on Oct 12, 2017 11:56:35 GMT -8
graftonterminalrr,
Just for the record, other modelers of the New Haven appearing in MR in this century: Mike Tylick, Rock Abramson, Bill Aldritch, Kathy Millat, Lou Sassi, and David Popp. So while John Pryke was a prolific NH modeler & writer, he certainly wasn't the only one appearing in MR.
BTW, John didn't just do a specific month/year, he did a specific day. And that had nothing to do with his 4-part Union Freight article, or even the last dozen articles in had in MR. His last ten MR articles were: superelevating track, photo backdrops, building a roundhouse, train sequence lists, build a turntable, weathering coaches, flextrack tips, modeling a waterfront, build laser kits, and build a parlor car. Not one of these had anything to do with modeling a specific day/month/year except maybe the sequence lists, but that method could apply to anyone.
If you don't like layouts that model today, and you don't like layouts that model a specific day/month/year, then what do you like?
|
|
|
|
Post by kentuckysouthernrwy on Oct 12, 2017 16:50:19 GMT -8
To each his own I guess. I'm one that doesn't understand the wild market for Brooman's castoffs, let alone why you'd want to make multiple clones of same, but if that's your thing, rock it. Nice modeling you've done. I always thought the UB was one of those, if not *the*, grandly overexposed layouts. It gets featured in MR every five years or so with a cover pic every decade. The shtick was a new one - the layout was always set in the present day, so motive power was always being updated and rebuilt. Beyond that, it wasn't much different in execution and theme than any other feature layout, so the only reason why it constantly gets revisited is to see "what Brooman's running now". Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe not. Just my opinion. I am sure a lot has to do with the layout creator writing up an article and sending it and it's new photos in to MR. A little self promotion can go a long way. It is obvious that Utah Belt is a well followed layout. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 18:32:57 GMT -8
I am sure a lot has to do with the layout creator writing up an article and sending it and it's new photos in to MR. A little self promotion can go a long way. It is obvious that Utah Belt is a well followed layout. [/quote]
You hit it dead center they send their pics and articles more than I can say about most including myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by sd80mac on Oct 14, 2017 14:58:17 GMT -8
As much as I don't really care for freelanced railroads, I would definitely run a run-though Utah Belt locomotive on my layout if I ever had one. Same with V&O or AM.
|
|
