David Barrow's CMSF

[Anonymous]

I got my MRP 2004 today and imiditaly fliped to the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe artical I had heard so much about. I immidiatly thought " what a great layout ! " I think his minimalist aproach gives the layout a nice, clean atmosphere. The trackplan is excelent, I may build my layout using dominoes. Man that layout looks great !

[Anonymous]

I built a layout using the dominoes that Mr. Barrow's describes. It worked very well for a flat layout, but since I want to have mountains and differing elevations, it doesn't work as well. But for yards, and cities....works Great!!

Paul

[Anonymous]

exactly how do dominoes work ? can the modules be interchanged to make different track plans, or is it just a way to make things portable ? Thanks !

[orsonroy]

The "dominoes" concept is nothing new or exciting. It's just any other portable layout. The sections aren't easily interchangeable like on true modular layouts. I built a sectional layout several years and one house ago, and really didn't like it. There were too many track joints (one every four feet), expansion/contraction played havoc with my trackwork, and the overall material cost was higher than if I built a traditional layout. And as with almost every other portable home layout, my old layout wouldn't fit into my new basement, so it ended up in the dumpster (a big dumpster, considering the layout was 15x26!)

[CNJ831]

Orsonroy is absolutely correct, there in nothing revolutionary, new, nor original about the so-called Barrows "domino" concept for HO model railroading. In fact, it is very old-hat as the design had fully evolved long, long before David Barrows ever came on the scene. The idea of domino construction dates back to Ntrak's modules more than 30 years ago and was adapted for HO scale by HOtrak (and related groups) at least as far back as 1980. I had built several such 6' sections by 1984 to use in conjunction with a modular club I belonged to.

While very useful for portable public display layouts, the concept really has little logical advantage for layouts intended to be permanent and can actually prove very limiting. As orsnroy so clearly indicates, there are definite drawbacks in using "dominoes" in such an application.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

Wow, CNJ831, Your venomous opinions of Mr. Barrows fairly oozes drippingly from the electronic letters of your post! I just don't get it?

Oklahoma Train Nut, I feel there is a lot to be said for Mr. Barrows design concepts. Keep an open mind and do what you like and don't be impressed with what other people think! Have fun with the hobby and allow for other folks ideas.

[CNJ831]

Deschane, how in the world do you construe my post above to be venomous when it simply states historical fact? In it I simply concur with orsonroy that Barrows' "dominoes" ideas are absolutely not new, innovative, or unique to him. The concept has been around a very long time, pre-dating Barrows by decades. And, also just as orsonroy commented, layouts composed of small, modular, sections suffer from a surprising number of shortcoming - as I know from personal experience. Can you speak from either an extensive knowledge of the hobby's history or from having built a modular layout to refrute what I've posted on this thread rather than just making rash accusations?

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

Well, historically domino's is not "modular" in construction but "sectional."

Two, the original idea as related by David Barrow was in Germany a long time ago.

Thirdly, it is a GREAT misconception that domino's sections have to be flat, in one of his articles Dave shows how build a domino, kind of like L girder so that you can have height.

Fourthly, Domino's can be double decked

Fifthly, Dave B himself has gone through phases and unfortunately each phase becomes associated with domino theory. By this I mean:
a) Dave went through a "representational" phase; the layout prior to this one was representational - it used domino theory
b) This layout uses minimalism but that has nothing to do with domino theory.
c) You could just as easily do a very detailed "realistic" layout using domino theory.

The domino theory itself is designed to:
1) Simplify wiring by using hand throws and DCC
2) Allow the builder to do just about everything at the work bench before adding the section to the layout
3) Be easily portable in case of moves or changed ideas
4) Allow a new person to the hobby a "faster in" into a better layout and by pass the normal wretched 4 by 8; the person can pick and chose track plans that have been proven.
5) A person can modify domino so that for example, it could be an around the room layout.

[Anonymous]

CNJ831, I couldn't possibly refRute you, you are the living epitome of all Model Railroad Knowledge! Do you notice, in your own defense of your position, you still attack Mr. Barrows! My problem with you, has nothing to do with defending Mr. Barrows. I'm quite sure he can do this on his own. My problem IS your attitude!

[Roadtrp]

Not all layouts are going to appeal to everyone, so I have no problems with some folks saying that the CMSF is not their cup of tea. The personal nature of the disputes, bordering on personal attacks, does surprise me though. I suppose the next thing we will hear is that Mr. Barrows beats his wife... [%-)][%-)]

[CNJ831]

Rick - Thanks for your input. Having read Barrows articles on the subject and having built many quite similar layout components over the years, with the exception of your points 2 and 4, I've really found no difference in the theory, design or construction methods between them. Likewise, the same advantages and disadvantages are shared equally by each. When HOtrak first came into use in my area these layouts were called sectional layouts, not modular, so even the names appear to have been used interchangable in the past.

Unlike the infantile rants by Mr. deschane, I am not trying to start arguments but simply attempting to clarify the historical point that nearly all of Mr. Barrows' ideas, that so many seem to want to accept as amazingly fresh and innovative, are very old and in many applications, just as orsonroy indicated, will not work nearly as well as you might think.

CNJ831

[lupo]

I got my MR planner last week and I agree with the OTN aka TB, nice clean and wide looking atmosphere, with long stretches of straight tracks as in the real world, even the structures are detailed but no overdose of "DisneyDetailing" must be great operating on that lay-out !

[Anonymous]

Do you use a "double 6" or "double 12" set of dominos?

[DavidH]

A few comments. Firstly, his last name is Barrow, not Barrows. Secondly, his message is about a different approach to track planning, facilitated by sectional construction that he calls dominos. I've been reading his stuff for years, and I don't recall him ever claiming to have invented anything. He is just trying to communicate ideas for the benefit of his fellow modelers. You can take them or leave them. I often wonder why anyone bothers exposing themselves to public scorn and criticism when they try and share some of their thoughts with the hobby at large. Seldom do you see their detractors publishing.

David

David

[Anonymous]

CNJ831, My "infintile ranting" point is, I feel you come off in this forum as someone whom feels his ideas are the only legitimate point of view and that the rest of us are all to stupid to have our own opinions! Whether this is truly your point of view or a manifestation of how you communicate with your fellow man, I can not tell.

I have refrained from name calling. I'm taking you to task over how you present yourself on this forum. At all times you have had the option of contacting me directly through email. Possibly if you communicate directly with me we can come to some understanding of each other.

[ndbprr]

Could someone explain please how modular construction leads to more track problems? I would think that having expansion joints (read track joints) at fixed distances would minimize those problems. Since I am planning to make 6' modules for most of the railroad so I can move it in 5-10 years I'd like some further details as to why this is worse than a standard open grid construction. thank you

[Anonymous]

I like the CMSF more and more, so I am going to build a small switching layout with some track i have on a peice of plywood and I f i like It I will build a layout, without sencery !!!!!

[Anonymous]

ndbprr, When built as a perminent lay-out, I can't see how there can be any problems. You do not have to have your track connections directly at the interface between two dominos or sections, you simply lay track like you would normally. I do not see these layouts as being layouts that will be disassembled and reassembled on a regular basis. The idea I like about them is that at some future point, the whole layout can be taken apart and broken down into easily handleable sections for moving to a new location, or a particular section replaced with another totally differant section or multiple sections. I also don't care if this is new or old technology, it is technology I like and would now use, if I wasn't so deeply commited to what I have now. As far as the objection to them being flat table tops, I don't recall seeing this rule written anywhere. I think any scenery which could be used on any shelf layout, could be used on dominos.

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

Could someone explain please how modular construction leads to more track problems? I would think that having expansion joints (read track joints) at fixed distances would minimize those problems. Since I am planning to make 6' modules for most of the railroad so I can move it in 5-10 years I'd like some further details as to why this is worse than a standard open grid construction. thank you

Simple: when you build a sectional layout, you generally end up with a lot of wood butt joints that just sit next to each other. Wood likes humidity, and will swell and contract like mad. Not all wood expands/contracts at the same rate, even from the same piece of lumber, so you've got a layout that wiggles all over the place. And yes, wood will move even if stained or painted. There's no way around it, unless you're using petrified wood!

With all that shaking going on, your track joints are moving too. Usually, you get pieces that are too far apart, creating a gap and dead spot on your mainline (and what good is a mainline that won't work?). In extreme and really interesting cases, track sections will be forced closer together, shifting the track and making for all sorts of cool roller-coaster contours. I finally gave up on the sectional layout idea after I came down to a damp basement, only to find that my mainline looked like a Hot Wheels loop-de-loop!

In addition, sectional layouts are meant to be portable. That means keeping the weight down so you can carry the pieces up and down a flight of stairs on your own. THAT means that the layout pieces aren't heavy enough to be stable unless you've got some really major legs (and I mean 4x4's; Barrow's legs are about what I had built, and they weren't enough for lateral stability). Operating on a layout that moves from side to side when someone bumps into it is like trying to play pool on the deck of the Titannic.

[vsmith]

As an avid fan of the Micro Layout I got the nasty idea of using the "Dominoe" principle to create an A4 paper sheet sized MicroLayout or better a series of A4 paper sheet sized Microlayout vignettes tied together to create one large layout. I think the idea of many small peices that can be built then added on as time and money allow is a great idea!

And to CNJ831...it will be sceniced!

[Anonymous]

Orsonroy, If you have a current layout, what is it built of? I can't see how the problems you describe with sectional layouts wouldn't effect a regular layout. If it's built of wood, there will be swelling and shrinking or "movement". However, as Barrow's layouts have been built with mostly plywood table tops, there would be less movement than a splined or solid wood road bed. Because plywood's grain is Bi-directional, it is more stable.

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

As an avid fan of the Micro Layout I got the nasty idea of using the "Dominoe" principle to create an A4 paper sheet sized MicroLayout or better a series of A4 paper sheet sized Microlayout vignettes tied together to create one large layout. I think the idea of many small peices that can be built then added on as time and money allow is a great idea!

And you wouldn't be alone. MR ran a short article a few years ago on Japanese modular layout meets, and this is how they have developed their version of Ntrak. They can pop a layout module into a briefcase and take it on the subway with them. All the track is Kato Unitrack for tight mating. The modules don't have legs. Rather, they set up the modules on tables or on the floor.

[ndbprr]

It appears your dimensional stability scenario isn't from the type of construction as much as it is from not sealing the wood before construction which is one of my paramters this time regardless of method of construction.

[Anonymous]

ndbprr, I would have to think sealing the wood would go along ways towards minimizing material shrinkage or growth.

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ndbprr

It appears your dimensional stability scenario isn't from the type of construction as much as it is from not sealing the wood before construction which is one of my paramters this time regardless of method of construction.

Unfortunately, this wasn't the case. All the lumber was mid grade pine with as tight a grain as you can find (these days...). Everything was sanded and sealed with two coats of latex paint before it was assembled. Didn't help. The problem is that wood will move dimensionally no matter WHAT you do to it. With over 20 joints on the longest side butted up to each other, if every piece swelled 1/32" of an inch (not an unreasonable amount) I'd have 40 pieces of lumber moving for a total of 1-1/4" of movement, and THAT's enough to pop a lot of track!

Frankly, I'm pretty fed up with using porus natural materials for layout construction in general, mostly from my last layout's issues, which is why I'm such a big supporter of all-foam layout construction. Yes, I still use wood as an underlayment, but if I could find anything better and as inexpensive and easy to use, I'd try it.

[johncolley]

Hello, have you folks checked out the spec's for Free-mo modules? A lightweight but rigid frame of Birch plywood with a 1 1/2" or 2" foam deck. This makes for an easy to move module, light enough for one person to handle and set up even an 8 footer! Carry the structures, hills, etc in a separate box and put them in place after setting up and levelling. Nice large radius eased curves to show your equipment at its best! Check it out, and leave the bitterness in the closet, it has no place here! While we may all have a slightly different perspectve we are all friends when it comes to trains! John Colley Port Townsend, WA

[Anonymous]

I THINK THAT EVERYONE SHOULD DO WHAT THEY FEEL IS COMFORTABLE FOR THEM.I.E. SKILLS,COST,APPROACH YOU ARE FIGHTING OVER DOMINO LAYOUT THAT THE MAN IS JUST TRYING TO SHOW OTHER PEOPLE HIS IDEAS,THAT WORK FOR HIM AND JUST TRYING TO SHARE WITH OTHER PEOPLE.NO WONDER OUR HOBBY IS SO VAST AND APPEALING.................. EVERYONE HAS A IDEA THAT WORKS FOR THEM.I PERSONALLY LIKE MR. BARROWS ARTICLES,AND HIS IDEAS.JUST TAKE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU AND REMBER TO ALWAYS HAVE FUN RUNNING TRAINS PAUL CHESSIE SYSTEM

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

Unfortunately, this wasn't the case. All the lumber was mid grade pine with as tight a grain as you can find (these days...). Everything was sanded and sealed with two coats of latex paint before it was assembled. Didn't help. The problem is that wood will move dimensionally no matter WHAT you do to it. With over 20 joints on the longest side butted up to each other, if every piece swelled 1/32" of an inch (not an unreasonable amount) I'd have 40 pieces of lumber moving for a total of 1-1/4" of movement, and THAT's enough to pop a lot of track!

I agree that using dimensional lumber is not the way to go with module/domino construction. But please check David Barrow's specs for his dominos. He uses 3/4" Birch plywood for all his dimensional pieces. True this method of construction is more expensive than dimensional lumber (even "A" grade birch dimensional lumber will warp over time), but the laminated plywood properly sealed is much more stable than any dimensional lumber. Direct quote from David Barrow's Cat Mountain and Santa Fe Soutnplains Switching Distric article on Domino construction in the September 1996 Model Railroader "The domino frames and tops in my construction are 3/4" Birch plywood. I stopped using 1 x 4 white pine for these frames because even the best lumber I could get would occasionally warp." "This allows you to save the significant towns & yard in a move to a new home."

My new layout will be using dominos built with 3/4" Birch. Yes, it will cost me more money than using conventional construction methods but it also allows me the freedom to work on specific sections at the bench & also allows me to rearrange the layout without loosing the major portions if I choose to. In the MRP 2004 article, it appears that David may have saved parts of his staging yard & Mesa yard in this latest rendition of the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe.

Orsonroy, you might try some 3/4 inch Birch Plywood ripped into 3 1/2 inch wide boards. You might find some of your dimensional stability problems will go away no matter what construction you use (especially in a damp basement). Good luck & remember Model Railroader's OLD motto Model Railroading is Fun!

BTW, using extruded foam for benchwork tops is a very good idea in a damp basement.

[ClinchValleySD40]

It would be better to refer to the layout as the South Plains District, which is quite a bit different than the original Cat Mountain and Santa Fe. However, it is all moot as the layout in MRP is GONE. David is starting over again, doing a section of ATSF prototype modeling. I really look forward to see what he's doing, with his penchant for detail and design, I'm sure it's going to be great.

[Anonymous]

In the October 1995 issue of MR David Barrow wrote an great article on operating, and refered to his 'blocking instructions' which were supposed to be shown in 'fig. 6'...but there is no fig. 6...I don't know if MR reprinted the blocking instructions in a subsequent article; if not, perhaps if DB reads this message he could post the missing 'fig. 6'?
Thanks'
Bob Burke