Model Railroad Planning 2004

[mjchern]

I don't know if this right forum for this topic, but I can't find anything else that comes closer. If you have a better idea, point me in the right direction.

I just received Model Railroad Planning 2004 in the mail. Overall, I think it is one of the best issues that they have published. I particullarly enjoyed Paul Dolkos story about lauout size, and Steve Orth's UP layout.

One story deserves special note - David Barrow's new CM&SF. As a track planning story, I have absolutely no problem with it. David put a lot of thought into the plan, and it appears to accomplish his objectives. It's certainly as good as other new industrial switching layout featured in the past such as Chuck Hitchcock's and Jim Senese's.

What astounded me was David's no scenery approach. How did this story ever make it into the pages of an MR sponsored magazine? When was the last time you saw a photo of an unsceniced layout in MR? Did you notice that all the photos accompanying the story were taken at a distance or at such a low angle that it was hard to tell the layout was little more than a Plywood Pacific? I can't remember the last time MR made no scenery sound like a virtue.

Would I enyoy operating on David's layout? You bet! Does it belong in Model Railroad planning. Maybe - but only if other such scenery-challenged layouts make it into future issues. Or is this priviledge only open to Tony Koester's inner circle of friends?

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the article so I'm defending something I haven't read yet, but does the layout talk about dominoes as a system David used to track plan. If the answer is yes, I'm guessing that is one of the reasons it is MRP. In fact, if he does talk about dominoes, then that is the big reason I will be buying the mag.

[mjchern]

Dominos are mentioned only in passing as being the basis of the benchwork. Reference is made to past stories by David about this construction technique.

[Anonymous]

What no secencery ?[:(!][:(!][V][:(][*^_^*][tdn][tdn][:O][:O]

[dknelson]

The last time Dave B wrote about his layout he mentioned that he was converting to a minimal scenery idea -- just a few grains of ballast, not glued down, so that he could change the track often. This did make MR or MRP. That was the same article where he said he was converting from Code 70 rail to Code 100 for its greater structural strength and less need to fasten it down.
Dave Nelson

[ClinchValleySD40]

As Dave says, this is a continuation on a theme that D Barrow has been discussing for some time. I believe MR might using it to show how you don't need a ton of great scenery to have a great operating railroad. As far as why they don't show more, this one has other great points not found in other Plywood Centrals.

[bcammack]

I suppose it may have something to do with the title of the publication not being: "Model Railroad Scenicing 2004" :)

[vsmith]

I just got this issue and I thought it was a really interesting idea.

Not everyone loves doing scenery, some people loath and hate it, they'd rather be running trains than slapping down hydrocal. Given that he's goal is the running of trains, I thought it was a great way to go.

BTW for those who havent seen the article, the track does have cork roadbed, it is fastened down, there are many structure, many switches, sidings, yards, lots and lots of track, just no grass, no hills, and no trees. He gets round this by intentionally modeling an industrial urban setting where the lack of these items isn't missed. To top it of his layout is in the cleanest trainroom I've ever scene, its like it was in a museum gallery it was so clean. Big thumbs up for the High Art presentation of it.

[DSchmitt]

Years ago Model Railroader featured a small table layout (basicly a oval) that had so much track that there was no room for scenery. It was desiged for operation.