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

[Anonymous]

David Barrow provokes thought.
His approaches always have.[8D]
His CM & SF layouts always featured fairly stark, minimalist backdrops, painted by his wife.

His recent offerings, dominos, and this layout, are extensions of a modelling philosophy that not all others will share.He has skill and talent, and continues to contribute something constructive, and meaningful, to the hobby. His approach will appeal to those aspiring modellers who may realize that a simple format has appeal for them.
vsmith, and others here, realize the intrinsic value of choices, and of differing approaches.[:)]

The malcontented individuals who feel the need to severely criticize and berate David Barrow's current approach, are contributing exactly WHAT to the hobby ? Their "first among equals" mentality ? Their "my way or the highway" methodology ?
I suggest these critics would do well to Put a Sock in It....and they may feel free to ensure that the chosen sock is ballasted, and has some plaster and ground foam added, so that it is more palatable to them.[;)][;)]
Mike

[Anonymous]

For years I have been envious of those model railroaders that provided their model railroads with tunnels to run through, valleys to bridge across, and detailed towns and villages to host the various industries that make a model railroad vital. I never tire of looking at pictures of well landscaped models in the pages of MR, MRP, etc.

I was therefore amused when I read Dave Barrow's article "A Domino Industriql Railroad" in this year's MRP. Wow, a retro 50s model railroad updated with DCC.

In fact, there is really nothing in the new CM&SF that is new, not the bare plywood, not the "domino" construction technique, nothing. The new CM&SF is just another model railroad that does just what it's owner wishes and we cannot ask more or it.

Steve

[brothaslide]

My first thought was, "He tore down his layout to build this boring thing?!?". After a little more thought and digging deeper it seemed apparent to me that he was experimenting with methods for producing an operational layout with minimal effort and a minimization of materials.

This was a great example for those of us who just keep putting off building a layout because we may be feeling overwhelmed so we never start. The article on the CMASF-8 has given me inspiration and new directions to go in starting a layout.

Overall, the article was excellent and had a positive impact on me - but you have to dig a little deeper and read between the lines.

Sean

[AggroJones]

I thought the track plan was too "neat". Track all had the same curved radi and ran exactly parallel to the layout edge. Not very realistic track flowing.

[XG01X]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[conford]

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

[cp1057]

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

[Paul W. Beverung]

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".

[JDCoop]

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

[DSchmitt]

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