QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005 If Tony Koester and Andy Sperandeo felt that this was worth the space taken to publish it, there must be something that they saw that CNJ doesn't. There is no right or wrong way to do things in this hobby, and I suspect that they felt that this was a novel approach that might work for other modelers, if they were exposed to it. Like everything else, everyone is entitled to his opinion, but there is no need to fight over somthing like this!
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate Great thread, guys. Fun read. Having done intense operations on an unfinished layout (my own Siskiyou Line) I can certainly can say I don't even notice if the loco has hand rails most of the time I'm concentrating on the switching moves, much less if there's scenery on the layout. But having said that, I do find the lack of scenery and nice detailing wears thin after a while because there are lots of railfanning moments in between the times of serious concentration. Its in those moments that having nice scenery and details makes all the difference! But that's my preference.
I'm back!
Follow the progress:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
QUOTE: Originally posted by CBQ_Guy QUOTE: Originally posted by clinchvalley It's all moot now. DB has since torn down that layout and is building a completely new one based on a prototype division of the ATSF. See, even he didn't like it! [8] But will the new one have scenery?! [?]
QUOTE: Originally posted by clinchvalley It's all moot now. DB has since torn down that layout and is building a completely new one based on a prototype division of the ATSF.
Have fun with your trains
QUOTE: Originally posted by CBQ_Guy Originally posted by clinchvalley It's all moot now. DB has since torn down that layout and is building a completely new one based on a prototype division of the ATSF. See, even he didn't like it! [8] But will the new one have scenery?! [?] Probably. Since he is prototype modeling a section of the ATSF in Texas, he'll probably do it. Question - how important is scenery anyway if a layout is designed for operations? I know a few of the layouts I operate regular on haven't started scenery yet and when operating, you never notice. Larry http://www.youtube.com/user/ClinchValleySD40 http://www.flickr.com/photos/52481330@N05/ http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/8745/sl/c Reply CBQ_Guy Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: North Central Illinois 1,458 posts Posted by CBQ_Guy on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:25 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by clinchvalley It's all moot now. DB has since torn down that layout and is building a completely new one based on a prototype division of the ATSF. See, even he didn't like it! [8] But will the new one have scenery?! [?] "Paul [Kossart] - The CB&Q Guy" [In Illinois] ~ Modeling the CB&Q and its fictional 'Illiniwek River-Subdivision-Branch Line' in the 1960's. ~ Reply ClinchValleySD40 Member sinceJune 2001 From: Holly, MI 1,269 posts Posted by ClinchValleySD40 on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:55 AM It's all moot now. DB has since torn down that layout and is building a completely new one based on a prototype division of the ATSF. Larry http://www.youtube.com/user/ClinchValleySD40 http://www.flickr.com/photos/52481330@N05/ http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/8745/sl/c Reply Fergmiester Member sinceFebruary 2004 From: Out on the Briny Ocean Tossed 4,240 posts Posted by Fergmiester on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:10 AM Though I really enjoy good scenery I have to say I really like Dave's no MESS approach. It really worked for me and if I was into operations to me this would be the right way to go. http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5959 If one could roll back the hands of time... They would be waiting for the next train into the future. A. H. Francey 1921-2007 Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 22, 2004 11:37 PM Both Matisse and Picasso went the minimalist route later in their careers. Just saying is all. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, March 12, 2004 9:47 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman I really rather doubt that Barrow had anybody build the layout for him. If you have been reading his articles over the years, this is just the evolution of his design philosophy. For him, tweaking the trackplan is an important aspect, therefore he has designed his layout to support that desire. The things that inhibit his ability to do that have been eliminated. Dave H. Not to spread what may be a rumor, but I heard some Texas model railroaders say that Barrow actually does have someone do a lot of the work for him, much like a contractor to the architect that he is in "real life>" According to my friend, he conceptualizes, others execute. Again, I can't confirm this, and he may not get any more help than the next guy building not one, not two, but now 3 layouts in a 24 X 36 room! Reply Edit BRAKIE Member sinceOctober 2001 From: OH 17,574 posts Posted by BRAKIE on Thursday, March 11, 2004 6:13 PM Rules of layout building? LOL! Who needs stinking rules? I have said for years and will continue to do so that a layout is a personal thing that must be pleasing to the one who builds it..I have my standards and disciplines I follow and you have yours.You see what may please you I may not like and what pleases me you may not like and in the end it does not matter as we bulid our layouts to please us. Larry Conductor. Summerset Ry. "Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!" Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:37 AM CNJ, Your position on this subject is certainly untenable from my point of view! Mr. Barrows has been and continues to be, an inovator! As for me, I will continue to do what pleases me, when it comes to model railroading! If this means building a layout without scenery, or one which is only scenery, I shall do so and not be interested in your opinion one IOTTA! I assume, your position means you shall not be purchasing MRP next year. For to do so shall mean a loss of face for you and a vote for the continuance of inovative thinking with the articles included in MRP. Reply Edit DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:37 PM Originally posted by CNJ831 Apparently many of you guys don't appreciate what the complaining is all about. I, and I supposed most others who have posted here so far, wouldn't care one iota if Barrows did operations with Lego or Brio trains on the carpet - good for him if that's what he enjoys. But when we lay out hard earned cash for a publication that has previous centered around excellent, clever, new ideas and concepts for model railroading, it is more than a little annoying to see a toy-like layout presented instead. ................ As if Barrow's Senility Central wasn't bad enough, most of us also agree that, overall, this year's entire issue was dramatically substandard. And please don't suggest if we didn't like it we shouldn't have bought it. quote] There are operating "model railroads" made from Legos. Some of the locos and cars are quite realistic. http://www.baylug.org/train/ I remember a article (In Model Railroader) on a layout that was so crowded with track there was no room for scenery. It featured very realistic operation in a very small space. Model Railroad Planning 2004 doesn't have the visual appeal of previous issues, but it is ful of useful ideas and infotmation. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply JDCoop Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Southern Illinois 67 posts Posted by JDCoop on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:21 PM Now look what MR's gone and done. They've published an article in MRP that has 2 sides facing off. And the result of this facing off? Discussion. Thoughts. Debate. For those that have participated in this thread, the discussion had led to having to defend your position. You've had to think about why you dislike or like it. You've debated your thoughts and ideas. In my opinion, that is exactly what the publications should be doing. I don't want to be spoon-fed. I want to think. I want to be challenged. I want them to attempt to change my point of view; for if they do this, I will either cement my position more with facts or I will change my opinions because of the facts. And in the end, aren't articles that inspire this type of discussion, thoughts, and debate a good thing? I personally don't care for the new CM&SF, but hey, I've had to stop and think about why I don't care for it. Good discussion. Keep it up. [2c] Jeff Reply Paul W. Beverung Member sinceDecember 2003 From: North Central Texas 2,370 posts Posted by Paul W. Beverung on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:36 PM MRP, MR, and the rest of the publications are presenting ideas to us. We read and study these ideas and determine wether those ideas are useful to us. I've done a "layout" that was a switching layout. There was only the "scenery " was the factory buildings and other related items. I enjoyed it so much that it is a part of my present layout. A number of years ago MR ran an article on the "Beer Line" in Milwaukee. That would be another good prototype for a minamal layout. There is one problem. There is a lot of scenery detail in that switching layout. My point being, read, dream, plan, and enjoy. Heck, "Model railroading is fun". Paul The Duluth, Superior, & Southeastern " The Superior Route " WETSU Reply cp1057 Member sinceMay 2003 From: CA 170 posts Posted by cp1057 on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:34 PM Hi folks, An operating layout without scenery, eh? Well you have to bake the cake (layout) before you add the icing (scenery) I certainly wouldn't stop there myself but right now my primary goal is to get my layout to the operation stage before adding scenery. There are areas crossed by flextrack on top of styrofoam where one day bridges will be crossing river valleys. Right now I'll be happy with something that operates. I've also noticed a particular allergy to code 100 track among the purists. Sure its not to scale. It doesn't look that bad when painted though and for some reason it's much less expensive than the code 83,75,55 etc track. Charles Hillsburgh Ontario Reply conford Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: US 155 posts Posted by conford on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:21 PM I am a fan of David Barrow's and find his current layout interesting. I plan to have scenery, but the minimalist approach makes me feel a little better about the fact that my layout has very little scenery. Plus he maximizes use of layout space for industrial sidings.. That gives me some ideas about how to improve my present track plan. It is ironic that Tony Koester and Co have been taken to task for promoting a somewhat doctrinaire view of model railroading correctness (vis a vis operations) and now this!!! Cheers Peter Modeling Grand Rapids Michigan, C&O, PRR and NYC operations circa 1958. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 8, 2004 6:48 PM I think that Mr. Barrow's new layout is a very nice alternative to the highly scenic super layouts that many modelers strive for. Additionally, I think that he has created an architecturally pleasing room for the layout. The wooden benchwork, backdrops and lighting all work nicely together to create a space that I would be happy to spend time in. I feel he has created a piece of art that has to be appreciated, if not emulated. I was pleased to see this different vision of what a model railroad experiece can be. Reply Edit XG01X Member sinceJuly 2003 From: IL 209 posts Posted by XG01X on Sunday, March 7, 2004 11:29 PM I love it and the fact that someone hates it makes it better. I am planning to build Fig. 4 as a side layout and if you notice the plans have scenery added. So he wants to build his layout w/o scenery-It's his so why not; it would be simpler for beginers(as I recall my own experiences). Besides what is he going to do dump sand on it, its in Texas! He built it for switching, not scenery Reply 123 Subscriber & Member Login Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more! Login Register Users Online There are no community member online Search the Community ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Model Railroader Newsletter See all Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox! Sign up
Originally posted by clinchvalley It's all moot now. DB has since torn down that layout and is building a completely new one based on a prototype division of the ATSF.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ClinchValleySD40
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52481330@N05/
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/8745/sl/c
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5959
If one could roll back the hands of time... They would be waiting for the next train into the future. A. H. Francey 1921-2007
QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman I really rather doubt that Barrow had anybody build the layout for him. If you have been reading his articles over the years, this is just the evolution of his design philosophy. For him, tweaking the trackplan is an important aspect, therefore he has designed his layout to support that desire. The things that inhibit his ability to do that have been eliminated. Dave H.
Originally posted by CNJ831 Apparently many of you guys don't appreciate what the complaining is all about. I, and I supposed most others who have posted here so far, wouldn't care one iota if Barrows did operations with Lego or Brio trains on the carpet - good for him if that's what he enjoys. But when we lay out hard earned cash for a publication that has previous centered around excellent, clever, new ideas and concepts for model railroading, it is more than a little annoying to see a toy-like layout presented instead. ................ As if Barrow's Senility Central wasn't bad enough, most of us also agree that, overall, this year's entire issue was dramatically substandard. And please don't suggest if we didn't like it we shouldn't have bought it. quote] There are operating "model railroads" made from Legos. Some of the locos and cars are quite realistic. http://www.baylug.org/train/ I remember a article (In Model Railroader) on a layout that was so crowded with track there was no room for scenery. It featured very realistic operation in a very small space. Model Railroad Planning 2004 doesn't have the visual appeal of previous issues, but it is ful of useful ideas and infotmation. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply JDCoop Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: Southern Illinois 67 posts Posted by JDCoop on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:21 PM Now look what MR's gone and done. They've published an article in MRP that has 2 sides facing off. And the result of this facing off? Discussion. Thoughts. Debate. For those that have participated in this thread, the discussion had led to having to defend your position. You've had to think about why you dislike or like it. You've debated your thoughts and ideas. In my opinion, that is exactly what the publications should be doing. I don't want to be spoon-fed. I want to think. I want to be challenged. I want them to attempt to change my point of view; for if they do this, I will either cement my position more with facts or I will change my opinions because of the facts. And in the end, aren't articles that inspire this type of discussion, thoughts, and debate a good thing? I personally don't care for the new CM&SF, but hey, I've had to stop and think about why I don't care for it. Good discussion. Keep it up. [2c] Jeff Reply Paul W. Beverung Member sinceDecember 2003 From: North Central Texas 2,370 posts Posted by Paul W. Beverung on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:36 PM MRP, MR, and the rest of the publications are presenting ideas to us. We read and study these ideas and determine wether those ideas are useful to us. I've done a "layout" that was a switching layout. There was only the "scenery " was the factory buildings and other related items. I enjoyed it so much that it is a part of my present layout. A number of years ago MR ran an article on the "Beer Line" in Milwaukee. That would be another good prototype for a minamal layout. There is one problem. There is a lot of scenery detail in that switching layout. My point being, read, dream, plan, and enjoy. Heck, "Model railroading is fun". Paul The Duluth, Superior, & Southeastern " The Superior Route " WETSU Reply cp1057 Member sinceMay 2003 From: CA 170 posts Posted by cp1057 on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:34 PM Hi folks, An operating layout without scenery, eh? Well you have to bake the cake (layout) before you add the icing (scenery) I certainly wouldn't stop there myself but right now my primary goal is to get my layout to the operation stage before adding scenery. There are areas crossed by flextrack on top of styrofoam where one day bridges will be crossing river valleys. Right now I'll be happy with something that operates. I've also noticed a particular allergy to code 100 track among the purists. Sure its not to scale. It doesn't look that bad when painted though and for some reason it's much less expensive than the code 83,75,55 etc track. Charles Hillsburgh Ontario Reply conford Member sinceFebruary 2001 From: US 155 posts Posted by conford on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:21 PM I am a fan of David Barrow's and find his current layout interesting. I plan to have scenery, but the minimalist approach makes me feel a little better about the fact that my layout has very little scenery. Plus he maximizes use of layout space for industrial sidings.. That gives me some ideas about how to improve my present track plan. It is ironic that Tony Koester and Co have been taken to task for promoting a somewhat doctrinaire view of model railroading correctness (vis a vis operations) and now this!!! Cheers Peter Modeling Grand Rapids Michigan, C&O, PRR and NYC operations circa 1958. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Monday, March 8, 2004 6:48 PM I think that Mr. Barrow's new layout is a very nice alternative to the highly scenic super layouts that many modelers strive for. Additionally, I think that he has created an architecturally pleasing room for the layout. The wooden benchwork, backdrops and lighting all work nicely together to create a space that I would be happy to spend time in. I feel he has created a piece of art that has to be appreciated, if not emulated. I was pleased to see this different vision of what a model railroad experiece can be. Reply Edit XG01X Member sinceJuly 2003 From: IL 209 posts Posted by XG01X on Sunday, March 7, 2004 11:29 PM I love it and the fact that someone hates it makes it better. I am planning to build Fig. 4 as a side layout and if you notice the plans have scenery added. So he wants to build his layout w/o scenery-It's his so why not; it would be simpler for beginers(as I recall my own experiences). Besides what is he going to do dump sand on it, its in Texas! He built it for switching, not scenery Reply 123 Subscriber & Member Login Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more! Login Register Users Online There are no community member online Search the Community ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Model Railroader Newsletter See all Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox! Sign up
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.