David Barrow's Layout in MRP 2004 - what's the deal?

[Anonymous]

That's exactly what it reminded me of - layouts from the old days. I have some very old model railroad books that my Dad bought in the 50's or so. With pictures of entire model railroads without scenery.

Then there will be a picture of one with scenery with a caption about how some model railroaders actually add "realistic" scenery to their railroads.

Why would someone purposely go that direction? Better yet, why would it be in an MR publication?

It's so odd because I'm such a fan of the CM&SF. It looks extremely odd seing a nice weathered diesel sitting on a shiny piece of atlas flextrack - on top of plywood!

[CNJ831]

It's an example of where an obsession with operations can lead you. This "layout" Barrows has created is certainly not a new or revolutionary concept either, as some have suggested. In reality it is nothing more than a throw-back to the layouts that appeared in the pages of MR's from the 1940's - a level of modeling that everyone tried purposely to distance themselves from in the 1950's because of its toy-train-like appearance. One thing for certain, it is far out of step with today's level of modeling aspirations.

If one wants to take things to such an absolute extreme for the sole purpose of operations, why not just go play on Trainsim and save a lot of money? My guess is that this minimalist layout in fact cost big bucks since, from what I hear, Barrows likely had it mostly built for him by outsiders. What's the point?

CNJ831

[IRONROOSTER]

I think what Tony Koester (the editor) was trying to do was show an alternative to the highly detailed scenic railroad. What David Barrow is doing is concentrating on the operational aspect and using only minimal props to set the scene so to speak. I remember years ago seeing layouts where there was no scenery at all and arguments about whether or not it was needed or beneficial. I think an important point here is that whatever you do, do it well. Barrow's layout may be minimalist, but it is neatly done. I found it refreshing to see a different approach.
Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

Did I read that article correctly? Is David Barrow now making layouts with virtually no scenery? No ballast, etc.? Bright & shiny atlas code 100 track - on purpose? Bare plywood?

I noticed a trend a few years back when he did a room sized layout in MR with his "domino" system - where his track was starting to not be ballasted very much.

I have to say his CM&SF covered in 1989 or 1990 was one of the first layouts that made a huge impression on me. (Interestingly, he also pointed out in that article how correctly shaped ballast can greatly enhance a model railroad).

What's going on here? I'm seriously surprised by intentional lack of scenery on a model railroad featured in a magazine. Did I miss something?

(Again, his CM&SF is amazing - probably my favorite model railroad I've read about - which is why I'm left dazed & confused)