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

[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)

[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

[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

[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!

[orsonroy]

I agree, Barrow's new layout is a throwback to the old days. The only thing it's missing is a way to run trains around in circles.

Not that there's anything wrong with continuous running (I have it myself), but there's something about the nrew layout that screams "not impressive enough for print". The layout's large, that's all. It's dominated by switching only, has fairly stubby mainlines (the open staging yard interrupts the mainline), and the layout itself is nothing more than a tabletop.

I think Barrow's going a little bonkers on the "domino" thing. OK, he built a layout that's made up of standardized sections; anyone ever hear of Ntrak? They've been doing that for 30 years. And I've seen MUCH better modular-built layouts than this new version of the CM&SF.

His new layout, with no scenery, all freelance theme, and clunky rails seems to be more of a deliberate attack on the proto-based (or inspired) modelers out there who have created large layouts that feature long mainlines, realistic operations, good scenery, and proto fidelity.

[NevinW]

It is apparent to me that a number of very large, well planned, mainline model railroads have been torn down recently and replaced with very large switching layouts where the layout consists of one large city with more than one yard, often more than one railroad company and much less in the way of scenery. Operation and especially switching locals comes to the front and mainline running is deemphasized. The switch back to code 100 to improve reliability seems to be happening more often, too. Why is this happening? Is it just bordom with a layout that has been around for 20 years?

I kind of understand some of this. Even building a moderate sized railroad takes years to complete and if operation is your thing, that is a long time to wait. These simple modular layouts go up real fast. My railroad takes months of cleaning to operate correctly after a scenery session, even though I am very careful about glue and ballast. My code 55 and code 70 sections don't act quite as reliable as my code 100 staging areas. I recently visited a very large beautiful N&W layout. Incredibly well done. Careful examination of the track revealed that it was Atlas code 100. I think there are some issues about reliability in the smaller sized rail. While I think that part of what Barrows is doing is to get attention, some of it makes sense to me. I don't think his layout looked that bad. - Nevin

[Jetrock]

Model railroading is no less susceptible to the whims of fashion than any other pastime--someone will introduce a good idea and people will go along with it and eventually someone else will run it into the ground.

I suppose that big urban layouts serve as more inspirational for small urban layouts like mine--whereas large scenic-oriented layouts don't translate as well into small spaces (unless you count "Pine Tree Central" type tiny-mountain-with-tunne-lin-the-corner 4x8's.) Since most model railroaders tend to have smaller spaces these days, urban modeling has come to the fore, and with it a focus on switching, and peddler runs.

Maybe it's the more modern focus--I have noticed that pre-1900's equipment is becoming scarcer, and interest in pre-1900's modeling less common. Now, many folks used to model early railroads because of space considerations--little 30-36 foot boxcars and shorty Overton passenger cars, 4-4-0 Americans and other small early locos could handle 15-18" curves without an eye-blink and trains tended to be short. Plus, the "old days" are older than they used to be--what was once "modern railroading" early in the hobby is now history.

As more modern (and bigger) railroading comes to the fore, and spaces get smaller, it gets harder to do mainline railroading accurately--while there are people who don't mind watching their modern diesel chase the FRED on the last 89-foot auto-carrier car around their 4x8, by changing focus to switching one at least has a justification for a train of half a dozen cars.

I've always been a switching nut. While some like to watch their trains go round and round, I like to watch mine go back and forth.

The idea of an un-scenicked plywood tabletop being a "complete model railroad" is definitely alienating. I get into the scenery (whether it's buildings or mountains) and details as much as the fundamentals.

[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.

[BRAKIE]

Gentlemen,Scenery does not a layout make.Nay it goes beyond that.Personally I would not give a cats meow for a layout that serves no purpose other then running trains in endless circles .

Scenery comes in all flavors.I for one do not like unrealistic grades and mountains that look like a upset down meatloaf pan or mountains that is suppose to represent the Appalachian mountains but look more like the Rocky Mountains..I never cared that much for mountains on my layouts in fact I avoid them and use rolling hills instead painted on the back drop..I also prefer urban scenery.To my mind urban scenery brings out the true meaning of railroading at it core roots..

Dave Barrow's domino theory is a quick and easy way to build a layout.Sure it goes against what most modelers consider is the "correct" way to build a layout .There is no rule stating one must have grades and mountains on his/her layout nor does the layout need to please or be approved/disapproved by anybody.

To my mind operation must be included in the layouts that I design.In fact I would not even think about designing a layout without operations being the very core of the layout design..Of course I know and understand that this approach is not for everybody.I have preach for years that a layout is a personal thing built to the modelers given and druthers.[:D]

I have found that most modelers that talks against operation as 3 things in common
1.They don't understand operation and therefore they feel they must talk against it.
2.They have no real idea what the prototypes does for a living.
3.They feel that anybody that builds a layout base on operations is a extremist and a disciples of Tony Koester.

Of course all of those reasons is far from the truth.Modelers like myself has taken the next step in the hobby..[:D]

In closing let me make it perfectly clear..There is room for all in this hobby since it all boils down to our very modeling styles.[:D]

[Anonymous]

Ok, it sounds different ( in my opinion nuts ! ) to build a layout with no sencery, but it is his layout and if it is good it belongs in MR.

[dehusman]

He has buildings and has painted the surfaces a desert tan. That's more scenery then many people have. At least you can't see through his benchwork to the floor and its a uniform color.

I rather doubt that if you operated on it you would, at the end of the day, really care wether ther was ballast and ground foam or not.

Dave H.

[StillGrande]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

He has buildings and has painted the surfaces a desert tan. That's more scenery then many people have. At least you can't see through his benchwork to the floor and its a uniform color.

I rather doubt that if you operated on it you would, at the end of the day, really care wether ther was ballast and ground foam or not.

Dave H.

That is Lubbock!! When I first saw it, I thought he nailed it. I lived in Lubbock for 6 years and if you look off in the distance, you can see the back of your head! FLAT!!

Roads and tracks are basiscally at the same level. Not much elevation change. Nothing. I'd say he got Lubbock right on the nose.

[Anonymous]

When I first glanced at the trackplan and photos, my reaction was, "Wow, now this is an incredibly boring model railroad!" But then after reading it and discovering it was a deliberate artistic intent, I appreciated it more. I still wouldn't play with my trains that way. But having a strong background in theatre scene and stage design, I don't see why a deliberate minimalist approach should be shunned. Its a good question -- What are the minimum elements needed to set the scene?

I don't know if I like it, but it's art! [:P][:P]

Cheers,
Mo

[Roadtrp]

I'm new at this, and must have missed a memo somewhere.

Could someone please list the rules for being a Proper Model Railroader?

Thanks [;)]

[vsmith]

Roadtrp said it best and I'll second it...
THERES NO WRONG WAY TO DO A MODEL RAILROAD

I'm surprised by the opinions that seam to say "If it isnt what I like , It shouldnt be in MR..." Isnt that a rather selfish attitude? Is it a LAW that there HAS to be scenery? Not everyone loves doing scenery, some HATE it.

I think this is a terrific way to do a railroad that specificly addresses its planned use, which is Operation. Why spend the next 5 years doing scenery just because someone thinks he "has to" do scenery or its "not a real model RR" . Why should the builder give any concern about scenery if he wants to run trains and hang the foam trees and ballast. He can also move it on a whim, how many of us can say that?

This is his railroad and he can build it anyway he wants, he wants a reliable system, not a pretty sceneic picture. Hence the heavy duty track and plywood surfaces and there are buildings where buildings need to be.

To so readily dismiss this layout is wrongheaded, its like the Malcomn Furlow bashing we had here a few months ago, same mentality, "it doesnt look my layout therfore is worthless and a waste of magazine space." Well maybe you didnt like it, maybe you did. The magazine editors job is to show a wide variety of solutions, not just the same old boring layouts that seam to blend one into the other. This gives those who want to operate trains but loath doing scenery a good methodology to follow.

[acpardo]

I have been in the previous CM & SF and I liked very much.
I do not have the guts to discard the layout and make a newer one with less scenery and details, but remember that this is the 8th CM & SF.
Perhaps Andy who is a close friend with David could give us more info on that.

Adrian

[Anonymous]

I agree with vsmith, there is no wrong way to model a railway. For myself, I feel my railway must be there for a purpose, to move either people or goods from here to there. Therefore, I must have scenery. In the layout I am building, I'm trying to depict a land where I would like to live but this is my preference and to have a railroad to serve it. Mr Barrows has the perfect right to build his layout to do what he wants it to do just as we all have that same right to build ours.

[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. There was nothing of Barrow's layout worthy of it appearing in MRP - his idea for this layout has its basis in the 1940's, not today or tomorrow. I'm sure that if anyone on this forum had submitted an identical article to MR you would have been laughed out of their editorial offices.

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. Most of us pre-order MRP with our subscription renewals - a mistake I definitely won't make next year.

CNJ831

[FJ and G]

I think it is refreshing to have a change of pace for once. Proto 48 and 87 and obsessive attention to detail--all of which I happen to like--have been in vogue of late in the magazines. Not everyone models that way.

Variety is good.

[Roadtrp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FJ and G

I think it is refreshing to have a change of pace for once. Proto 48 and 87 and obsessive attention to detail--all of which I happen to like--have been in vogue of late in the magazines. Not everyone models that way.

Variety is good.

I agree! [:)]

Last night I was reading Rogue Bluffs Part 7 in the current issue of MR. The author explained why he didn’t use the standard window panes from a kit. It was because REAL double hung windows have glass on the top window that is further out than the glass on the bottom window – so he made two smaller panes and glued one to the OUTSIDE of the frame on top and the other to the INSIDE of the frame on the bottom.

I sat there shaking my head in disbelief, thinking this guy must have WAY TOO MUCH time on his hands.

I think it is kind of nice to see the other side to model railroading -- a layout that is presented without such obsessive attention to detail.

My bet is that if everyone on this board rated the scenery on their own layout from 1-10 with 1 being no scenery and 10 being the Franklin and South Manchester, the average would end up being somewhere between 3 and 5. My feeling is that most people don’t have the time, the skill, or the desire to create the extraordinarily detailed scenery presented in many MR articles. Not that we don’t LOVE looking at it and reading about it – just that we don’t come close to that level on our own layouts.

[CBQ_Guy]

Unbelievable . . .

Mr. Barrow is certainly free to "model" and build/operate his layout in any manner he sees fit, and I sincerely hope he is enjoying what he has created immensely.

Having said that I must admit I was actually offended that a magazine of MR's status, and supposed role of a leader in the hobby, would even seriously consider trying to pass off a layout of this type as a "real" layout.

Operationally, of course, it is acceptable, as at least you CAN operate on it, but being touted as a legitimate, alternative "minimalist" method of modeling to the masses frankly insults my intelligence. The only thing more ludicrous, in my opinion, would have been to include it in GMR! People have been struggling and working hard, and MR has been making money for decades motivating them, to build layouts to a high state of completion and which have included scenery as part of the definition of a model railroad layout. If not so then where did the statement that "a layout is never finished" come from? It takes a lot of time and money to get a layout to that state, a state which the railroad mags and the "names" in the hobby have been overtly presenting as the "proper" way to build a layout. This basically is a slap in face to all those who have "bought into" that idea, promoted by MR and others. Frankly, I feel that the folks at Kalmbach owe them/us an apology for actually offering this type of, basically what's derisively been labeled as a Plywood Pacific by those in the hobby press, "layout" as a valid, sanctioned, appropriate "complete" model railroad. If there ain't no scenery, there's something lacking...period. Call it what you want, but don't call it complete. My car will operate and fulfill my needs just find without body panels and a roof on it, but don't call it a complete, "finished" car, either.

MR has been criticized repeatedly over the years for mainly showing "pretty" shots of layouts when many readers have stated they would also like to see more of the bare bones and unfinished (as in un-sceniced!) areas included in photos. They continyally have refused, but now all of a sudden it's OK? And not only is it OK but it's also being promoted as a valid way to "model"?! Un&*%#$-believable! If a "no name" contacted them with an article/layout idea of this type in years past, I'm sure they all would have had a good, hearty laugh over the nutty submission. But now because one of the "good old boys" in the in crowd has actually done it, they have to scramble to find a way to legitimize it and put it in print rather than risk offending one of their buddies. Talk about spin! A comparison to the old story of the Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind. I would have expected something like this appearing in the April issue of MR, but NEVER as a serious and sanctioned method of modeling a railroad -- someone is getting their leg pulled here, and I think it's US.

I've got an empty basement which at this point has NO layout in it yet. I wi***o submit this as the "ultimate minimalist" method of modeling as a service to all the arm chair and mouse click modelers who will be happy to know they've been ahead of their time and doing it validly for years; no need to aspire to anything more, after all. I'll be waiting for the folks at Kalmbach to be contacting me to include this cutting edge "layout philosophy" in the next edition of MRP. I can't wait...(yeah, right!)

[BNSFNUT]

I have had a few layouts that did not have scenery, just never got that far before it had to be moved or somthing. I now have a layout that the main area has scenery but the branch line is bare plywood right now just track and structures and it is fun to operate.
Yes David's layout has the bare look that most of us do not like. But the railroad is easy to get built and operating. I wounder if it will stay that way or will he get around to adding scenery at a later date. Remember we all start with a bare looking layout. How far we go in adding scenery is a personal choice.
I have operated a many a fully sceniced railroad that was a total bore to run and have run on some unsceniced layouts that where a blast to operate.
I feel that getting a layout up and operating quickly is the way to keep the interest high and to finish with scenery each area as the track is put in place just takes to long.
There is still no right or wrong way to build a model railroad. The ONLY thing that counts is if it makes you happy.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: 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. There was nothing of Barrow's layout worthy of it appearing in MRP - his idea for this layout has its basis in the 1940's, not today or tomorrow. I'm sure that if anyone on this forum had submitted an identical article to MR you would have been laughed out of their editorial offices.

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. Most of us pre-order MRP with our subscription renewals - a mistake I definitely won't make next year.

CNJ831

This is exactly THIS attitude I was so shocked at ..."It doesnt look like anything I like therefore it shouldnt be published because I dont like it..."[:(]
Just because YOU dont like something, doesnt mean EVERYONE dislikes it...[V]

I thought it was a very interesting solution, so have many others hear on the forum based on the posts and BTW I wasnt AROUND in the 40's so myself and everyelse under the age of 60 have NO IDEA why your being so negative about it....Sheeesh!

The POINT of a MRP guide is to EXPOSE people to the VARIOUS ways of doing a layout. this is the first time I have seen something like this, i thought it was a cool way to build a operational layout and might give someone who likes trains but HATES scenery the impetous to start there own layout. It is NOT just to showcase PRETTY layouts but the PLANNING aspect, and if that means Barrows bare bones approach is to be included, then I say good! I'm glad MR editors had the guts and decided to put it in because whats old to you is new to others. and I said it before...

THERE"S NO WRONG WAY TO BUILD A MODEL RAILROAD!!![;)]

I'm not trying to come down on you CNJ, I'm just asking you to be a little more open minded...

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE:

THERE"S NO WRONG WAY TO BUILD A RAILROAD!!!

Yeah, there is!!!!!... but I keep reading statements like the above, so I guess standards have gone out the window as they seem to have in so much of society in general nowadays. Pity.

[vsmith]

Please provide a list of what those "standards" are, and who wrote them, and what authority they have to dictate those terms? Please tell me how I'm supposed to detail my layout, what trees I should be placing, the correct ballast, and the correct roster and rolling stock.

...and dont just say "Well everyone knows what they are!"

I have NEVER seen an Official Manifesto of the Peoples Party of Model Railroaders that tells WHAT my railroad should look like, and HOW I should build it. It is entirely up to the builder. Would you like someone to come over and point out whats wrong with your layout or stand over your shoulder ready to criticize evrything you do that they dont agree with? I dont think so.

[bcammack]

Good lord... and I thought I was in this hobby to please myself!

It seems to me that if a spread devoted to that style of layout motivates somebody who has been paralyzed by the thought of creating a traditionally scenicked to the point that they have track tacked to plywood and no more, then it has been of benefit.

As I've observed previously on this subject, the issue is called Model Railroad Planning 2004, not Model Railroad Scenicking 2004.

[CNJ831]

vsmith - I suggest you take a look in MR, RMC, RMJ,MRing, or any of the other magazines out there and give me a count of the number of totally unscenicked/track on bare plywood layouts that you find presented therein. Obviously none of the magazines (save MRPin this one instance) considers anything like Barrow's Senility Central as acceptable practice nowadays. Likewise, you will find no model railroading guides that suggest the building of a layout should, for any reason whatever, stop at the tracks-laid-on-bare-plywood stage. If Barrow's concept was maginally accepted by even a few percent of modelers today then certainly other examples would have appeared in the literature - and they simply haven't for decades.

So, if the magazines don't accept it, and the author's of modeling railroading how-to books don't accept it, doesn't that begin to suggest to you that nearly all the modelers today are going to regard this minimalist idea as an absurdity? My reference to layouts from the 1940's implied that they were pitiful and totally unrealistic, just as Barrow's is, even by comparison to today's most mediocre layouts. If he wants a layout like that, fine, but please don't try to pass it off as a viable or innovative concept for other modelers to follow today. I doubt _any_ of the posters that claimed it wasn't an unreasonable idea would be willing to only go as far as Barrow's did and never any further. Talk is cheap.

CNJ831

[Roadtrp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

I doubt _any_ of the posters that claimed it wasn't an unreasonable idea would be willing to only go as far as Barrow's did and never any further. Talk is cheap.

CNJ831

Wow!

Talk about getting your shorts in a wad... must be the result of inhaling too danged much scenery-making materials over the years.

Would I be willing to duplicate Barrow's layout? I'm not sure... I haven't read the magazine so I don't know the details. But right now I am very happy with my railroad, which has minimal scenery. I've got about a half dozen built-up buildings, a 'value pack' of Woodland Scenics trees scattered about, and a cheesy pre-fab tunnel which I've been able to make look half-way decent by using a bunch of the Woodland Scenics trees. I've also laid Life Like 'Grass Mat Paper' over my extruded foam base. It's a little better than green paint, and much better than pink foam. The good folks who make EZ-track supplied the ballast for my track, and I think it looks just fine for now.

I had originally planned to do the whole scenery thing with pink foam, but I realized that probably meant that I wouldn't be able to run my trains for several months. Sorry... at this stage of the game I'm just not willing to do that. I felt a certain amount of guilt (which was really STUPID) over not proceeding the way a "Good Modeler" would, but now I am happy with my decision.

At this point I still want to acquire a lot more rolling stock and additional buildings. That will take money, and that will take time. When I'm satisfied with my equipment I may start building scenery using the glue-shell method. I figure that way I will be able to do small sections at a time that will not keep me from operating my railroad.

But then again, I may not. I might just figure Minnesota is pretty darned flat and not worry about it. Sure, I would do some more work with trees, cover my grass paper with ground landscaping foam of various colors and build some roads. But whatever I do I will do because THAT IS THE WAY I WANT TO DO IT... not because someone tells me that is how I should do it.

So laugh at my crappy little layout if you will. I don't care. I like it. And to tell you the truth, I bet my layout gives me more joy than your layout gives you. Because if you had much joy in your life you probably wouldn't be so gosh darned crabby and judgmental.

[:p]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

...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. There was nothing of Barrow's layout worthy of it appearing in MRP - his idea for this layout has its basis in the 1940's, not today or tomorrow...

Just because something harkens back to the past doesn't mean that it's worthless, does it? It shows a serious approach to the hobby that is rather unique. In that manner, I feel that it is certainly worthy of appearing in MRP.

---jps

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

vsmith - I suggest you take a look in MR, RMC, RMJ,MRing, or any of the other magazines out there and give me a count of the number of totally unscenicked/track on bare plywood layouts that you find presented therein. Obviously none of the magazines (save MRPin this one instance) considers anything like Barrow's Senility Central as acceptable practice nowadays. Likewise, you will find no model railroading guides that suggest the building of a layout should, for any reason whatever, stop at the tracks-laid-on-bare-plywood stage. If Barrow's concept was maginally accepted by even a few percent of modelers today then certainly other examples would have appeared in the literature - and they simply haven't for decades.

So, if the magazines don't accept it, and the author's of modeling railroading how-to books don't accept it, doesn't that begin to suggest to you that nearly all the modelers today are going to regard this minimalist idea as an absurdity? My reference to layouts from the 1940's implied that they were pitiful and totally unrealistic, just as Barrow's is, even by comparison to today's most mediocre layouts. If he wants a layout like that, fine, but please don't try to pass it off as a viable or innovative concept for other modelers to follow today. I doubt _any_ of the posters that claimed it wasn't an unreasonable idea would be willing to only go as far as Barrow's did and never any further. Talk is cheap.

CNJ831

WOW, This is unbeleivable, what a herd mentality!

Just because RMC or the other mag's are to narrow minded to consider anything outside of the mainstream and being worthy of sharing does not negate that others might find value in this approach. thats a herd mentality and I'm glad MRP has the balls the publish it.

The 1940's bare bones layouts were a reaction to the christmas display layouts of the period, they wanted to distance themselves from the "toytrain" layout so they purposefully left out the cheesy scenery of the period because they to show that they were serious and there to "run trains". Well, why isnt that approach valid now?

What got my shorts in a bind is this damned "Its ouside of what everyone else is doing therefore i dont like it and dont want anyone else to see it published" attitude. WHY? Does it treaten you? I dont think so? BTW there IS scenery on the layout, its called BUILDINGS ! Just because he doesnt cover the rest of the layout with stupid foam and lichen doesnt negate the fact that this IS a valid approach to an operational based layout.

Is scenery NECESSARY? No, its not.

Is scenery DESIRABLE? Yes. of course it is. But not everyone loves it.

But how many people in this hobby have started a layout, gotten track down, then got totally frustrated doing the scenery and gave up? and dont give me that "well they shouldnt be in this hobby then" bullcrap! This hobby has enough problems getting people interested in it, we dont need this evil rivet counter attitude excluding those who do not do as the herd does, keeping them out. If more people realized they could take a minimalist approach and exclude the foam, hydrocal, and lichen scenery, they would still be buying trains, track, buildings etc, etc, etc. And that is still good for the hobby.

And that is why I believe they published this layout, to show another approach to model railroading, its a magazines job to dpread informantion as well as showcase the best layouts. So you dont like it, fine, but others do, and like it or not , you will probably see more of this type of layout in the future, not many, to be sure, but it will happen. I say good, and again I say "There's no wrong way to build a model railroad".

Only wrong headed people who will put down anything which they disagree or disapprove of, those people are often refered to as rivet counters. Are you so willing to pee on other peoples corn flakes?