I see it is that time again...to retire another Barrows thread. Hey, let's go and spend some time with our layouts - however we desire (or not desire) to enjoy them...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
blownout cylinderIRONROOSTERNeither of their layouts was the first one they built. In John Allen's case it was his third, for John Armstrong it was at least his second In John Allen's case the G&D line was EXPANDED 3 times---they were not WHOLLY OTHER layouts, as some seem to assume they were. John Armstrong was associated to this little puppy to his Canadaigua Line. And again, it was changed, yes, but it was NOT WHOLLY OTHER. As some like to think it was----- VSmith: That cover was GOOD LOOKING!!! LOL!!!
IRONROOSTERNeither of their layouts was the first one they built. In John Allen's case it was his third, for John Armstrong it was at least his second
In John Allen's case the G&D line was EXPANDED 3 times---they were not WHOLLY OTHER layouts, as some seem to assume they were. John Armstrong was associated to this little puppy to his Canadaigua Line. And again, it was changed, yes, but it was NOT WHOLLY OTHER. As some like to think it was-----
VSmith: That cover was GOOD LOOKING!!! LOL!!!
I suggest you check the book Model Railroading with John Allen and Model Railroader January & March 1971.
Enjoy
Paul
Dave VollmerLOL... Andre versus CNJ... Glad to see some things NEVER change!
Well, we are a rock of stability in the midst of an otherwise chaotic and insane world.
Andre
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
I wonder if MR would accept my semi-sorta/kinda--half finished pink/blue foam layout? They redefined the term; "layout" for Dave Barrows---but not for others?
----------but but but-------WHY!?!?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
When I got the magazine I thought "It's nice to see a layout not in the finished state for a change." Then I looked at the track plan and did some comparisons to the old version of the layout. I don't remember a whole lot of the text though, and as others have mentioned I didn't care much for the wire nuts. Still, if that works for David, then I've got no problems with it.
I suspect a number of the dissenting opinions on this thread would have no interest in having David critique their layouts and let them know what they were doing wrong. I would imagine however that David would at least get their last names correct. Somehow I find the criticisms a bit more hollow if you don't take the time to get the name correct
pastorbob Gee guys: my original post was to call attention to the change, and to state that it wasn't my cup of tea, but I still recognize Barrows as a talented modeler. I did question the periodic changes of direction he has made, which seemed a little strange TO ME as a modeler who took a concept, developed it, and continue to improve(I hope) on my original layout. The fact I am still happy with it after 26 or so years says it MET MY NEEDS, and then I posed the question, what do others think? Nothing more, nothing less. I would hope no wars were fought, no casualities were suffered, no prisoners taken over it. Perhaps when the smoke clears, MR and Kalmbach will still be in their offices, and the sun will continue to shine. Bob
Gee guys: my original post was to call attention to the change, and to state that it wasn't my cup of tea, but I still recognize Barrows as a talented modeler. I did question the periodic changes of direction he has made, which seemed a little strange TO ME as a modeler who took a concept, developed it, and continue to improve(I hope) on my original layout. The fact I am still happy with it after 26 or so years says it MET MY NEEDS, and then I posed the question, what do others think? Nothing more, nothing less.
I would hope no wars were fought, no casualities were suffered, no prisoners taken over it. Perhaps when the smoke clears, MR and Kalmbach will still be in their offices, and the sun will continue to shine.
Bob
I've always said "theres no wrong way to build a model railroad" meaning if your happy with the results then thats all that matters, The only "wrong" way is what others consider wrong mostly because its not what they are use to, whether its Furlow's over-the-top scenery or Barrow's bare-bones domino approach, its all just "one more way" to build a layout, how others percieve it is ultimatly irrelevant if it suits your goals.
Have fun with your trains
Perhaps when the smoke clears, MR and Kalmbach will still be in their offices, and the sun will continue to shine.
Continue to shine? Lord, Bob, where do you live? Out here in the wilds of Maine, the sun has only made brief appearances for the last two months and then gone into hiding for days at a time. Current weather forecasts call for about 3 days of sun (I count partly cloudy, mainly because we need any day when there's actually some light).
Annie may have been right that the sun will come out tomorrow, but tomorrow took its own sweet time about coming.
Bob said: would hope no wars were fought, no casualities were suffered, no prisoners taken over it.
-------------
Hmmm..I thought I heard " El Deguello" being played softly in the background..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Guys,Does it really matter when the masses enjoy the hobby their way without anybodies approval?
It doesn't really matter to me how people enjoy the hobby. I say the more the merrier, unlike those who would define whole segments of the population out of the hobby.
But unlike somebody else, I've never said (albeit not in these exact words) that there is no model railroading but model railroading and I am its prophet.
Now if you'll excuse me. I need to go write "I will not thumb my nose at <insert name here> ever again" 500 times. It's something I really need to do, not in order to be a nicer person, but to avoid wasting my time. Don't know if it will really help. Tried the same thing with See's truffles. Still eat 'em when I get a chance.
andrechapelon What modeling content the hobby publications may include now and in the future may be of no concern to the non-participating armchair segment but it clearly is of significance to the majority of practicing model railroaders here. CNJ831 What model railroaders? According to what I've seen you write, there only seems to be ONE model railroader. Everybody else is just a "dabbler" or "armchair" type. I actually am doing some modeling. However, since I'm doing it for myself and not for your approval, the decision as whether or not to post pictures can wait. Andre
What modeling content the hobby publications may include now and in the future may be of no concern to the non-participating armchair segment but it clearly is of significance to the majority of practicing model railroaders here.
CNJ831
What model railroaders? According to what I've seen you write, there only seems to be ONE model railroader. Everybody else is just a "dabbler" or "armchair" type.
I actually am doing some modeling. However, since I'm doing it for myself and not for your approval, the decision as whether or not to post pictures can wait.
As I said many times before forum participants doesn't speak for the hobby in general..
I have no doubt there are unknown thousands that enjoyed Barrow's article as I did.Oh I am sure some whiners will fire off fiery letters to the Editor lamblasting the article..I suspect there will be "atta boy" letters as well.
Another thought.
Maybe,just maybe new modelers will finally realize they need not sink tons of money into scenery before they can enjoy their layout.
Whoa!
What a scary thought!
andrechapelon Perhaps, Andre, you don't fully appreciate that such threads as these, on sites sponsored by the magazines themselves, serve as the modern equivalent of the old letters to the editor column. The difference here is that you get all the feedback in one concise listing, rather than in a scattering of conventional letters (of which only the K.A. sort get fully read and published). I'm sure that someone on the MR editorial staff has been checking in at regular intervals to see what the pulse of the MR readership is in this matter. That's a critical part of the business. CNJ831 You assume facts not in evidence (no surprise there), CNJ. I'm well aware of the fact that the staff check these forums by the fact that they occasionally chime in. They've got to be reading the site a great deal more than they're posting. You seem to think that I'm not swift enough to have figured that out. I hate to disabuse you of a cherished delusion, but circumstances and a preference for the truth compel me to do so. A lot of what appears in these forums amounts to little more than sour grapes and making mountains out of mole hills (e.g. the MTH Challenger brouhaha). As another reader pointed out, Barrows hasn't been around MR as much as some people think he has. He has, however, appeared fairly frequently in MRP. Of course, frequent is a relative term given that MRP and GMR are annual publications.
Perhaps, Andre, you don't fully appreciate that such threads as these, on sites sponsored by the magazines themselves, serve as the modern equivalent of the old letters to the editor column. The difference here is that you get all the feedback in one concise listing, rather than in a scattering of conventional letters (of which only the K.A. sort get fully read and published). I'm sure that someone on the MR editorial staff has been checking in at regular intervals to see what the pulse of the MR readership is in this matter. That's a critical part of the business.
You assume facts not in evidence (no surprise there), CNJ. I'm well aware of the fact that the staff check these forums by the fact that they occasionally chime in. They've got to be reading the site a great deal more than they're posting. You seem to think that I'm not swift enough to have figured that out. I hate to disabuse you of a cherished delusion, but circumstances and a preference for the truth compel me to do so.
A lot of what appears in these forums amounts to little more than sour grapes and making mountains out of mole hills (e.g. the MTH Challenger brouhaha). As another reader pointed out, Barrows hasn't been around MR as much as some people think he has. He has, however, appeared fairly frequently in MRP. Of course, frequent is a relative term given that MRP and GMR are annual publications.
Andre, by your own previous admissions you are a non-modeler who has had no ties to, or familiarity with, the publishing industry. Thus, its not the least unexpected that I would question your ability to appreciate/understand subjects related to those being posted about. And I'd ask how can a non-modeler such as yourself critically assess whether a thread posted to by actual modelers is sour grapes, or truly of concern to them?
As for the MTH Challenger parenthetically mentioned above, get over it folks. It's just the re-branded Lionel. MTH got the tooling. They might as well use it.
I'd suggest that if MR were ever to follow such a path, they'd lose another 70,000 subscribers...and in a lot less time than the 15 years it took to forfeit the last 70,000!
Reckon?
I kinda doubt that..
Looking back over all of the past "Golden Boys" that had different approaches that has been copied-there's always a "new method" that gets approved by the masses-please don't ask..I don't understand it either.
Even Malcolm Furlow's whimsical modeling style has a stamp of approval awarded by the masses..
andrechapelon Gee, Mike, and here I thought it is closely based on the prototype. However, I won't be able to go to sleep tonight until knowing what's this has got to do with the Barrow's layout/article. Mark It has nothing whatsoever to do with Barrows, except for the lack of scenery, the fact that it's designed for operation and the fact that there's a big brouhaha about the whole thing. I was just getting a big kick out this particular tempest in a tea pot and decided to throw in a typhoon of my own. I'm not crazy about Barrows's style either, but I'm not going to waste energy by complaining about it.
Gee, Mike, and here I thought it is closely based on the prototype. However, I won't be able to go to sleep tonight until knowing what's this has got to do with the Barrow's layout/article.
Mark
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Barrows, except for the lack of scenery, the fact that it's designed for operation and the fact that there's a big brouhaha about the whole thing. I was just getting a big kick out this particular tempest in a tea pot and decided to throw in a typhoon of my own.
I'm not crazy about Barrows's style either, but I'm not going to waste energy by complaining about it.
I'm not crazy about Barrows's style either, but I'm not going to waste energy by complaining about it. His approach seems too mechanical, his track configurations resemble a geometric drawing and he uses far too many switchbacks to be plausible let alone prototypical.
There you have it. My objections to Barrows in 1 sentence (the second) without all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the frequency (way over estimated) of his appearances in MR. We are both old enough to remember the outraged letters to the editor about the incredible frequency with which John Allen appeared in MR's pages (again, way over estimated).
Maybe I'll write an outraged post when the September issue comes out. After all, Pelle Soeborg has appeared WAY too frequently in the pages of MR with his articles that are basically nothing more than a propaganda ploy to convert everyone to modeling modern desert railroading. Come on, guys, enough is enough!!!
At least we can all breathe a sigh of relief now that it's likely that guy Fugate will never appear in MR again.
Oh God, I shouldn't have written that. I made myself spew coffee all over the monitor.
BRAKIE riogrande5761 The query voiced by many posters here appears to be, "Is what Barrow's has been doing of late (track on bare plywood layout designs) actually worthy of multiple feature articles in the magazine?" As far as I can tell, his latest submission seems to be simply a story of his search for a new prototype trackplan and provides nothing new, or particularly helpful in the way of modeling methods, ideas, or even in layout design concepts. In fact, as was pointed out by someone earlier up-stream, Barrow's recent modeling is a decided throwback to a much earlier age, not something reflecting any advancement of the hobby. In that sense, I believe folks have every right to question the reason for the appearance of this sort of article in MR. Certainly, it baffles me. - CNJ831 Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus. I suggest what the article is really saying its ok if you don't follow the sheeples and do things your way and there lays the rub..David is going against the grain in conventional layout thoughts that we been taught over the years. Food for thought. What if MR's next "Golden Boy" pushes the idea of the minimalist approach by using ready made track like Unitrack? I am sure many will see it as a break through in layout design(remember the newest "Golden Boy" says its good) while others will see it as a complete break down.
riogrande5761 The query voiced by many posters here appears to be, "Is what Barrow's has been doing of late (track on bare plywood layout designs) actually worthy of multiple feature articles in the magazine?" As far as I can tell, his latest submission seems to be simply a story of his search for a new prototype trackplan and provides nothing new, or particularly helpful in the way of modeling methods, ideas, or even in layout design concepts. In fact, as was pointed out by someone earlier up-stream, Barrow's recent modeling is a decided throwback to a much earlier age, not something reflecting any advancement of the hobby. In that sense, I believe folks have every right to question the reason for the appearance of this sort of article in MR. Certainly, it baffles me. - CNJ831 Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus.
The query voiced by many posters here appears to be, "Is what Barrow's has been doing of late (track on bare plywood layout designs) actually worthy of multiple feature articles in the magazine?" As far as I can tell, his latest submission seems to be simply a story of his search for a new prototype trackplan and provides nothing new, or particularly helpful in the way of modeling methods, ideas, or even in layout design concepts. In fact, as was pointed out by someone earlier up-stream, Barrow's recent modeling is a decided throwback to a much earlier age, not something reflecting any advancement of the hobby. In that sense, I believe folks have every right to question the reason for the appearance of this sort of article in MR. Certainly, it baffles me. - CNJ831
Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus.
I suggest what the article is really saying its ok if you don't follow the sheeples and do things your way and there lays the rub..David is going against the grain in conventional layout thoughts that we been taught over the years.
Food for thought.
What if MR's next "Golden Boy" pushes the idea of the minimalist approach by using ready made track like Unitrack?
I am sure many will see it as a break through in layout design(remember the newest "Golden Boy" says its good) while others will see it as a complete break down.
riogrande5761 The query voiced by many posters here appears to be, "Is what Barrow's has been doing of late (track on bare plywood layout designs) actually worthy of multiple feature articles in the magazine?" As far as I can tell, his latest submission seems to be simply a story of his search for a new prototype trackplan and provides nothing new, or particularly helpful in the way of modeling methods, ideas, or even in layout design concepts. In fact, as was pointed out by someone earlier up-stream, Barrow's recent modeling is a decided throwback to a much earlier age, not something reflecting any advancement of the hobby. In that sense, I believe folks have every right to question the reason for the appearance of this sort of article in MR. Certainly, it baffles me. Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus.
The query voiced by many posters here appears to be, "Is what Barrow's has been doing of late (track on bare plywood layout designs) actually worthy of multiple feature articles in the magazine?" As far as I can tell, his latest submission seems to be simply a story of his search for a new prototype trackplan and provides nothing new, or particularly helpful in the way of modeling methods, ideas, or even in layout design concepts. In fact, as was pointed out by someone earlier up-stream, Barrow's recent modeling is a decided throwback to a much earlier age, not something reflecting any advancement of the hobby. In that sense, I believe folks have every right to question the reason for the appearance of this sort of article in MR. Certainly, it baffles me.
Well just don't count me in with your numbers..I found the article refreshing and 3 steps down from the normal gauntlet of $30,000 layouts with scenery that looks fake or doesn't exactly follow Mother Natures plan with a track plan that has no real prototypical meaning or reason for being.
Midnight Railroader I will grant this. The article itself shows a suprising lack of focus, and does not deliver on its promise at all. It seems to be missing a good deal of detail as well. "What is it about?" I'm not really sure.
I will grant this. The article itself shows a suprising lack of focus, and does not deliver on its promise at all. It seems to be missing a good deal of detail as well.
"What is it about?"
I'm not really sure.
I'm almost tempted to suggest that maybe the focus is on a certain aspect of play?
As in----WHEEEEE!!! Let's just throw some dominoes here and throw some track there!!
Sheeesh. Not much fun here
When I saw the cover I thought ok, he finally had enough of the plywood pacific. But, then I turned to the article and gee whiz...the same old thing and it's getting worse. I totally agree that it's his thing and he can do what he wants but was there one thing that helped or inspired YOU? And does it really need to be put to print? He only gets published and takes space away from other talented people just because he is friends with the staff. Well, i'm sorry but if they keep wasting space on this concept I might not renew my subscription next time. I mean come on...code 100 AND no scenery???? Are we going backwards in time? No offense to code 100 being used on layouts people, but when his first CMSF layouts were featured they were great, something I would drive hundreds of miles to see. Now?? I wouldn't WALK 100 feet to look. I know, "It's a shame you can't find someting of value..." blah blah blah. I believe the time of D.B.is done and future articles should be scrutinized for actual value to the modelling community and not just a "hey lets get good old Dave in print again". Ok, one good thing to say. Atleast they didn't waste space in Great Model Railroads again. sorry if I re-hashed others thoughts previously posted, but I had to vent and didn't take time to read them all :)
riogrande5761The query voiced by many posters here appears to be, "Is what Barrow's has been doing of late (track on bare plywood layout designs) actually worthy of multiple feature articles in the magazine?" As far as I can tell, his latest submission seems to be simply a story of his search for a new prototype trackplan and provides nothing new, or particularly helpful in the way of modeling methods, ideas, or even in layout design concepts. In fact, as was pointed out by someone earlier up-stream, Barrow's recent modeling is a decided throwback to a much earlier age, not something reflecting any advancement of the hobby. In that sense, I believe folks have every right to question the reason for the appearance of this sort of article in MR. Certainly, it baffles me. Wow, you crystalized my thoughts very well in the above comments. "track on bare wood layout designs" Again, I have great respect for David Barrows tallents and past work, but the "track on bare wood articles for those of us who have been in the hobby for 30+ years is just strange. Now for new folks in the hobby, there is probably something new and instructive. I suppose that is where the older folk, and I include myself in that crowd at 50, need to step back and humor MR and David Barrow's current focus.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
What! Do I need to reexamine my life?! In the mid-1960s, I built three different layouts with dramatically different trackage (although all had the continuous-mainline-point-to-point-branchline scheme) on the same 5-by-10-foot-donut-shaped-layout framework. None were ever finished, but they taught me a lot and allowed following my joy and explore hand-laid track, dual-gauge trackage, and double-deck. construction.
andrechapelon Here's Tim Warris's blog: http://www.bronx-terminal.com/ Tim's the guy behind Fast Tracks. There's a video of his Bronx Terminal in operation on the site. No scenery, a mock up of the freight house and it's a roundy-roundy with sidings. What's worse, it's a spaghetti bowl of trackwork, or more to the point, the spaghett's done lapped over the sides of the bowl. Oh, the horror of it all.
Here's Tim Warris's blog: http://www.bronx-terminal.com/
Tim's the guy behind Fast Tracks. There's a video of his Bronx Terminal in operation on the site. No scenery, a mock up of the freight house and it's a roundy-roundy with sidings. What's worse, it's a spaghetti bowl of trackwork, or more to the point, the spaghett's done lapped over the sides of the bowl.
Oh, the horror of it all.
Good night, Gracie
At least he's got hand laid trackwork.None of this flex track garbage for him.
jmbjmbYet is seems those who most pursue this path also tear down soon as the supposedly un-fun job of building is done.
Again, you overlook the fact that many well-known layouts were operated for years before they were torn down. Yes, Tony K added to his, but he ran it for a very long time before starting over. The original CM&SF was operated for ten years or so in an essentially "finished" condition before being demolished.
I don't see where you get this assumption that they tear down the layout "as soon as" the layouts are complete.