minimalist approach

[CBQ_Guy]

I'd recommend Brio trains. Can't get much more "minimalist" than that, unless you wan't to draw on shoeboxes you push around the floor! [V]

[jfugate]

I spoke at length with David about his minimalist approach at the National in Seattle.

His primary goal is to be able to make changes quickly, and for that, his approach succeeds admirably. In fact, if you are new to the hobby, doing a few incarnations of a minimalist layout could be an excellent idea until you figure out what you really want.

I applaud David and his "reaquainting" us with this idea, and adding the new twist of deliberately taking this approach to be able to change the layout frequently. I essentially did the same thing by building four small test bed layouts before starting my dream layout, the Siskiyou Line, which is my 5th layout.

Nothing like trying out various ideas to help you find out what you prefer in the hobby. And keeping those trial efforts small until you know from experience what will satisfy long term is wise, especially if, like me, realistic and detailed scenery is a preference.

[vsmith]

Also Barrow's is an Operation type of modeler who is more concern with the realistic operational aspects of his RR than with a RR that recreates a specific time or place. The layout is mearly a chess board or stage set if you will, for the operator to act on.

I would say definitly try it, you can always ADD scenery later on if you want too.

[dknelson]

Remember that one reason David Barrow employs the minimalist approach is that he constantly changes his layout. Also, go back to prior articles of his and note how he has been gradually working towards his current level of minimalism (going from handlaid Code 70 track to commercial Code 100 flex track for example). You might prefer prior stages short of pure minimalism, such as when he used a little loose ballast scattered on the track, and buildings were in loose material so the gap at the bottom did not show.
Not only is Barrow's work exceptionally clean and neat, which I think makes a better case for minimalism than the average modeler could hope to accomplish, but also note that the photos you see are beautifully planned and lit. I think Barrow is on to something here but I also think the average modeler would be disappointed if the minimalist approach is not matched by his clean well lit room and perfectly symmetrical benchwork, etc
Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

No matter how pretty the scenery it's all a waste of time if the trains won't run. Once the trains are running well the rest is easy.

[FThunder11]

I sya, if scenery is easy, then go for it.

[on30francisco]

When I was growing up I was influeced by Lynn Westcott, who was editor of Model Railroader in the 60s. I also read some of the books he wrote (HO Railroad That Grows, HO Primer). He would always stress the idea of "growing a railroad." In other words after the benchwork is built, lay out the main part of your trackplan - enough track to get the traing running - omitting some turnouts, sidetracks, and other secondary tracks. You can always add these later. You can also add some scenery at this stage. When you're ready, you can gradually add additional trackage, turnouts, industries, structures, scenery etc. at your leisure. I have always followed this approach and like it because no one task is overwhelming and the layout always looks "finished."

[Jetrock]

Personally I'd rather have a small detailed layout than a big expanse of plain ol' plywood. Details, painting and scenery are my favorite parts of model railroading and it would ruin much of the fun to do without them. A nicely detailed engine deserves a layout worthy of its appearance!

[Anonymous]

It depends on what you want. i for one, want lots of scenery, but my friend likes the color of plywood. Whatever you want. The advantage to the minamalist is that you can change the layout and add scenery later on if you want.

[Anonymous]

just remember that you are the RR tycoon in your home, do it your way.

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Oklahoma Train Nut

after reading about David Barrow's CMSF in MRP I am considering building a layout with a minimalist aproach. It is appealing because: layout would be up and running fast, easy constuction, would not be hard to add sencery if i did not like this approach. What do you think, is this a wise approach?

As you state it, yes, it would be a wise approach...for a start. Remember a model RR is never finished! (And mine's not even started!)

[Anonymous]

I was just glancing thru that artical. I was very impressed, but it reminded me of an artists gallery, it was just so clean[:D]. But i looked very very nice. I am in the ground work phase of my layout and am praticiting on a 5 foot section. This section has been ripped out twice now because the results were not to my liking. THe work i've done now is much more in line in what i desire. His design is great looking, and can have trains running up and quickly. Also i applaud him for taking a chance and thumbing his nose at the conventional wisdom.
My 2 cents, do what you enjoy.

Bill

[BRAKIE]

Sure! Why not?? Of course Dave's approach is not new..Modelers been doing that for years!!! So,Dave just brought a old idea back to the surface.No big deal or nothing new under the sun about his idea..All Dave did was give it a fancy "catch" name that new or other less knowledgeable modelers would used thinking its a all new concept in layout design.

[Big_Boy_4005]

Anything that you can operate trains on, that you like, is cool. You can always add scenery. This approach makes sense, even if some people don't like the way it looks. You have to start somewhere, why not with a working railroad?[swg]

[IRONROOSTER]

First step is always get the bench work up and the track work down so you can run trains - where you go from there is up to you.
Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

Absolutely! Do what you want. I wouldn't pay much attention to nay-sayers. I have found in life that even if something doesn't work as well as you hoped when you started, with simple changes you can generally overcome the problems incountered. Perserveance and patience will overcome all! As far as stability and moisture are concerned, The least stable would be dimensional lumber, followed by plywood, then metals and foam insulation board. Location will have something to do with how stable the layout will be, also. Basements are prone to higher concentrations of humidity, however their temperatures are more stable. I would think in a garage would be the worst place, unless converted to a living space. I would think the best might be a bedroom or other main floor living space. The living room would be ideal, however other family members will likely object.

[dano99a]

Well, sure if that's what you want. It's taken me forever to get my layout to where it is now, BUT I had the track laid and operating first (including switch machines) so I could operate while adding scenery. And I'm not afraid to show people photos of it when it was flat pink foam landscape [:)]

[Anonymous]

after reading about David Barrow's CMSF in MRP I am considering building a layout with a minimalist aproach. It is appealing because: layout would be up and running fast, easy constuction, would not be hard to add sencery if i did not like this approach. What do you think, is this a wise approach?