Paul3 The way some folks are carrying on here, you'd think he was in every issue. Sheesh.
The way some folks are carrying on here, you'd think he was in every issue. Sheesh.
It sure as heck seems like it. Shuffle the dominoes, and tuh duh, a "new" layout design!
Mark
cuyama,Model Railroad Planning is not Model Railroader. I subscribe to MR, and I've never gotten a copy of MRP because of it. I buy MRP on the newstand if I buy it at all.
But look at Bob's title of this thread: "Got my new MR, see it is that time again." Sounds like it's just dripping with, "Oh, boy, just what we don't need because he's in MR every single month" kind of thought. He goes on to say that Barrow builds a new layout every 5 years, and that he lost interest after the first two layouts, blah, blah, etc. From what I can tell, he's had 4 layouts in 4 decades (1974, 1984, 1996, and 2009 are the dates referred to in the Index), and hasn't published a CM&SF article in MR since the Clinton Administration.
Then you have Mark saying, "I'm tired of the too-frequent articles on his repetitive layouts." Again, it's been 10 years. How long does Barrow have to wait before he puts in another article? 20? 30?
You folks don't like his layouts. Fine, I get it. But let's keep the hyperbole down to reasonable levels, shall we?
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Well, I just got my new MR today, and I looked at the story of David Barrow´s new layout. It will be, in some yeras time, certainly a fascinating layout to report on, but, IMHO, not now - way too early.
Why is MR publishing stories on layouts that are years away from being finished to a degree which makes it worthwile to write a story?
I guess it is the lack of contributions, so it is up to us to solve that problem, guys!
Sir Madog Why is MR publishing stories on layouts that are years away from being finished to a degree which makes it worthwile to write a story?
Sir, you're missing one point. There is no intention of "finishing" his layouts. I'll bet you right now he is reshuffling the dominoes for his next layout. (Me? I like hyperbole.)
Message received and understood, Mark.
Here is a new German word for you: Saure Gurkenzeit - meaning the time of sour gurkins - a phrase used in the media business, when there are no news to report...
Are we entering the "who-built-the-most-working-layouts-in-a-lifetime-contest?
Sir Madog Message received and understood, Mark. Here is a new German word for you: Saure Gurkenzeit - meaning the time of sour gurkins - a phrase used in the media business, when there are no news to report... Are we entering the "who-built-the-most-working-layouts-in-a-lifetime-contest?
Well gee whiz Herr Ulrich if we are in a contest I will be in the top 10 as far as ISLs..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Folks:
I liked the article. Mr. Barrow thinks outside the box. He's taken the elements he likes, and boiled his railroading style down to just those elements. It's a railroad simulation done with actual scale models. The article challenges our preconceived notions of what a model railroad must be, and that makes it worth writing about. That's also why we're seeing a certain hostility in this thread, I think. :D
Another thing we shouldn't miss is that, while his scenery is simpler than most, his track layouts are very carefully designed and researched, much more than most.
I think we can like his style or not like it, and we can talk about our reasons, but the one thing we can't do is say that he's doing it wrong, because he's obviously having fun with his trains. I also think that if we look at something like this with an open mind, even if it's not something we personally would copy, we can come away with ideas and insights we wouldn't otherwise have.
Now wait a minute... Where are all the guys crying that they only ever see museum quality layouts in MR? Here's a great example of an operations based layout with a track plan ripped right from the prototype, so the owner can enjoy "running his trains" the way he wants without regard to how photogenic it is.
I found the track planning approach fascinating, and I'm sure his crew has a ball running long freights over those long stretches of track.
Like most of you guys, I'd be busy cutting foam and spreading plaster and ground foam, but that's my bag.
Finally, you guys with a sheet of plywood and a bunch of sectional track have a real icon of the hobby on your side!
Savor the moment!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
I'm in the DB camp. Having lived all my life in the Midwest, I always think long, linear, relatively flat when I think of railroads. And I like the domino approach because I like the flexibility of reworking track plans without totally trashing an entire layout when / if things evolve.
Ok, the wire nuts are a little too minimalist for me, but I do hate ballasting, so...
wm3798Now wait a minute... Where are all the guys crying that they only ever see museum quality layouts in MR?
I suspect they're in the same place as all those people who, whenever someone complains about MR's content, launch into the "submit articles yourself if you don't like it" speech.
markpierce I'll bet you right now he is reshuffling the dominoes for his next layout.
..and based on his record, we'll see a story on that one in about 2012.
And then we'll get a thread about how his stories show up "every month."
nucat78 I always think long, linear, relatively flat when I think of railroads.
I always think long, linear, relatively flat when I think of railroads.
We are fed a steady diet of layouts with track laid directly on flat, broad sheets of plywood or foam, as if trying to model the Great Salt Flats or other dried lake. I see no innovation in that respect. "Relatively" is the key word. It is rare (examples already given) where the land is absolutely flat. I'd like at least to see a culvert or two, or maybe wishing for a short trestle over a small dry wash is too much.
Sir Madog Why is MR publishing stories on layouts that are years away from being finished to a degree which makes it worthwile to write a story? I guess it is the lack of contributions, so it is up to us to solve that problem, guys!
I seem to recall an update several years ago on Jim Hediger's Ohio Southern (Sorry to bring your name into the middle of this debate, Jim! ) when he was rebuilding it where work in progress on his layout was shown with unballasted flextrack on cork roadbed, unfinished scenery, etc. I remember people saying at the time how good it was for Model Railroader to show layouts in progress and not just finished layouts. Why is it that there was no complaining about Mr. Hediger's layout not being finished back then, but when Mr. Barrow has an article on a layout-in-progress, people start coming out of the woodwork to put it down?
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
wm3798 Now wait a minute... Where are all the guys crying that they only ever see museum quality layouts in MR? Here's a great example of an operations based layout with a track plan ripped right from the prototype, so the owner can enjoy "running his trains" the way he wants without regard to how photogenic it is.
However, Lee, what Barrow is doing is NOT model railroading in any terms I've ever seen it outlined. One might rightly consider it building a 3-D representation of a concept trackplan, or perhaps just playing with miniature trains in a formal manner on a crude train board that wouldn't do justice to some kid from the 50's with his Lionels. Nevertheless, it's a far, far cry from actually being any sort of classical "model railroading".
I'm well aware that MR has pushed layout "operations" in its pages for better than 50 years now, but I also appreciate that to this day formal operations remains very much just a niche pursuit among hobbyists. So the question for me becomes just when the decision was made to make operations for operations sake a complete hobby unto itself, requiring only track and trains running on bare boards, as it seems to be from a number of Barrow's articles in recent years. Last I heard operations was just one of a multitude of possible diversions to try once your layout was just about complete, not the ultimate purpose.
Yes, I do formal operations on the HHRR from time to time, but in no way is it anything like an all consuming pursuit, or the sole objective I built the layout for. Working on the layout and the trains, the revamping of existing sections of the layout, experimenting with new methods and techniques of modeling to enhance the HHRR's realistic appearance and its photographic impression, is what drives me and I really think most other layout owners who regard themselves as model railroaders. Leave running trains on bare sections of plywood to the kids.
CNJ831
chatanuga I seem to recall an update several years ago on Jim Hediger's Ohio Southern (Sorry to bring your name into the middle of this debate, Jim! ) when he was rebuilding it where work in progress on his layout was shown with unballasted flextrack on cork roadbed, unfinished scenery, etc. I remember people saying at the time how good it was for Model Railroader to show layouts in progress and not just finished layouts. Why is it that there was no complaining about Mr. Hediger's layout not being finished back then, but when Mr. Barrow has an article on a layout-in-progress, people start coming out of the woodwork to put it down?
While some people said they don't like or want to emulate Barrow's style of model railroading, they weren't saying his style was wrong or that he and others shouldn't like it. Also, I see nothing wrong with showing railroads in progress (they can be educational). The fact Barrow's layout is essentially finished looking "incomplete" also isn't the point or central to the discussion at hand. Some of us believe, like when mother served Brussel sprouts once a month or every few years, it all (B. sprouts and Barrow's repetitive-looking layout plans) seems so much more often than that.
PS - I hope no one responds saying I have offended motherhood or Brussel sprouts.
As I said in my post that started all this fuss, I have great respect for David Barrows as a modeler, and his earlier layouts in MR caught my eye and those issues are still on the keep pile in my reading area. But I also think of all the other modelers like Eric Brooman and those who seem to move us along to inspire to greater things, and I was disappointed when I saw the cover of MR and then saw the content of the story. None of us has to like everything every one else does all the time, but it did hit me kind of hard. I have every MR, as I said, that had stories of Barrows and the Cat Mountain. This copy I simply will discard when its time is up.
I am sorry that Paul took my comments the way he did, but Paul and I often disagree, in fact, more than we agree and everyone has their opinion. On my 26year old and more Santa Fe, I am looking at making a change and hoping the whole layout won't collapse of old age when I have to cut into it. The change is not something new, but a maintenance fix to a section that no longer performs the way it should. But I will not destroy the whole thing to fix it. Right now we are using a work around (or maybe I should say a fun around) until I get the nerve up, after a lot of looking and thinking and planning, to tear in. But that is me. I personally don't have a desire at age 73 to build a new layout, but I don't begrudge anyone else who wants to. I simply made an observation in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek maybe but since everyone is so sensitive anymore, I will refrain from sudden outbursts again. I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood.
Bob
pastorbob I simply made an observation in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek maybe but since everyone is so sensitive anymore, I will refrain from sudden outbursts again. I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood.
I simply made an observation in my post, somewhat tongue in cheek maybe but since everyone is so sensitive anymore, I will refrain from sudden outbursts again. I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood.
Bob, don't apologize. I was having fun.
I fully understand how Bob feels and am on the same wave length. I have noticed here and in other forums people have been on a major "intolerance" binge lately. I don't know if they are in the summer dulldrums or if this hobby is just filled with grumpy old men. I like to think that model railroading is supposed to be fun, but latey it seems to be filled with people who'd just as soon stab you with a knife rather than use that knife as a tool to work on trains or a layout.
Like I said, I really enjoyed David Barrows articles pre-domino's, and I have great respect for his past work. About all I can remember published by David Barrow in any magazine (MR and whatever else) for the past 10+ years now is its all been domino's. I originally wondered if the purpose of the domino's was that David was preparing for down sizing as he was looking to retirement years etc and the domino's was something which could fit into smaller spaces of retirement homes etc. He seems to be going strong still and so are domino's. Hyperbole wasn't on my vocabulary list so I'll pleed ignorance to that - depite my having masters degree, I stay away from vocabulary words. Lets say, I didn't really think David Barrow broke any real new ground in his most recent article, that I could see.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Bob,If your post was meant to be humorous, you should have used some "smilies". You've been here long enough (6+ years) to know that raw text is lousy at conveying intent. If you write something like, "Seems like he builds a new one every 5 years or so," and don't put down any qualifying statements or smilies, then you leave the entire statement open to interpetation. Couple that to the thread title, and what are we supposed to think?
You talk about me being "sensitive", try looking at your own most recent post on this thread. "I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood." What is that about? You and several others complained about Barrows, and I disagreed and explained why Suddenly I'm "cramming things down your throat"?
Pot, kettle, black.
Paul3 Bob,If your post was meant to be humorous, you should have used some "smilies". You've been here long enough (6+ years) to know that raw text is lousy at conveying intent. If you write something like, "Seems like he builds a new one every 5 years or so," and don't put down any qualifying statements or smilies, then you leave the entire statement open to interpetation. Couple that to the thread title, and what are we supposed to think? You talk about me being "sensitive", try looking at your own most recent post on this thread. "I guess I thought a forum was to exchange ideas and thoughts freely without having it crammed back down my throat. Sorry I misunderstood." What is that about? You and several others complained about Barrows, and I disagreed and explained why Suddenly I'm "cramming things down your throat"? Pot, kettle, black. Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Boy, ev'body's gittin' a might tetchy lately.
It seems as if Dave Barrows name can almost start a flame war just by going----"Dominoes!". Could we be heading for the same territory as what happens with Malcom Furlows name?
The problem with Barrows dominoes I find is that it becomes rather old rather fast. If he was just interested in operation why couldn't he just set the dang thing up as a board game? Waybills and such as a deck of cards?
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/
I didn't see this starting as a flame war, but a discussion of the concept pros & cons. I've been a fan of the CM&SF since first read about it years ago. Like I said earlier, I've even used dominos on my own layout after learning about them in the South Plains series (in fact, I still refer back to that series). I also consider the MRP plan for a spare room a classic, if somewhat over crowded and would love to see that as an MR project road (perhaps since the space, including the door locations is identical to my own).
But now can we separate the discusion and talk openly about the pros & cons of dominos? I see the value from reusabilty, but am also seeing limitations in flexibility for modeling (you have to plan the domino and scenary very well before it's built). Yes I know that most any layout can be built a multitude of ways, but I'm pointing out the tradeoffs. The other big negative I see with dominos is in the linear thinking. Ok, flame war time I know, but lets look at this. Yes, real lines are "linear" and don't spaghetti themselves, but at the same time the linear focus can take us toward only what fits in a domino and away from some other equally fascinating aspects of model railroading. Again, we know everyone has his or her own perspective, but what I saying is by focusing too much on the narrow benchwork, some, especially newer, modelers may never experience detailed scenes, scratchbuilding, scenary, or such.
Here's another thought to think about. Operations is held up by many as the ultimate goal for a model railroad to avoid boredom. Yet about every major proponent of the operations grail has torn down his railroad AFTER the scenary & structures were done -- just when it should really be getting down to full time operations -- to build a new one. Since he doesn't build scenary, the CMSF gets torn down and rebuilt a lot more often. Perhaps operations isn't the grail of model railroading, but merely one aspect of the whole. Perhaps the grail is the journey, not the destination.
jmbjmbby focusing too much on the narrow benchwork, some, especially newer, modelers may never experience detailed scenes, scratchbuilding, scenary, or such.
Why do you think narrow benchwork precludes having detailed scenes, scenery, or scratchbuilding?
I can show you dozens of examples that prove this idea wrong.
jmbjmbYet about every major proponent of the operations grail has torn down his railroad AFTER the scenary & structures were done -- just when it should really be getting down to full time operations -- to build a new one.
Also untrue. Anyone on this board can name several well-known layout owners who did no such thing.
I'll start with Chuck Hitchcock, who operated his Argentine Division for years before tearing it down and rebuilding it.
And Barrow operated his (fully-scenicked) CM&SF incarnations for many years before rebuilding.
Then there are the Reid Brothers.
And Allen McClellan.
John Armstrong.
John Allen.
For starters.
Pardon me for pouring some more oil into the flames here.
For me, reports on layouts can be categorized into the following:
The first category gives me inspiration and motivation for my own layout. The second category teaches me how to operate my layout and get the most out of that and the third category educates me how to achieve what I have been dreaming of.
Now, where does MR´s article on the DB layout fit into? I maybe missing something here...
Midnight Railroader jmbjmbYet about every major proponent of the operations grail has torn down his railroad AFTER the scenary & structures were done -- just when it should really be getting down to full time operations -- to build a new one. Also untrue. Anyone on this board can name several well-known layout owners who did no such thing. I'll start with Chuck Hitchcock, who operated his Argentine Division for years before tearing it down and rebuilding it. And Barrow operated his (fully-scenicked) CM&SF incarnations for many years before rebuilding. Then there are the Reid Brothers. And Allen McClellan. John Armstrong. John Allen. For starters.
There are at least 3 people I know up here who still have their original layouts, one going back to the 60's---just up graded the scenery or rejigged the trackage-----but still kept to the original plans.
The only reason for the current trend-----lack of patience
Sir Madog: DB's "Layout" fits in the category-----speculative layout. It only gets 'up to a point' then---PTOOF!
Uh, actually John Armstrong's scenery and structures were never finished. Also John Allen's mainline was never finished before he died. The others I don't know how finished they were. This is not to take away from their accomplishments, but to point out that this can be a satisfying life long hobby without the layout being finished, however you define finished..
One of the problems of magazine articles is the false impression they give of the layout as a whole. Many (most?) of the layouts are not finished, but the pictures would have you believe that a highly detailed, fully scenic layout, completely finished everywhere is the norm and by implication, what you need to have, to have an enjoyable layout. Not true, getting some track down and running trains is the goal for a lot of people.
As for Dave Barrows, he's like a breeze of fresh air blowing in some new ideas. If nothing else, he reminds us that there are many ways to enjoy model railroading. And that's what is great about this hobby. You can pick and choose how to enjoy it. It's a hobby, do the fun parts all the time. Do only as much of the non-fun parts as needed to do the fun parts.
As long as trains are involved somewhere you are a model railroader - there is no entrance test.
Enjoy
Paul
Ulrich wrote:Now,where does MR´s article on the DB layout fit into? I maybe missing something here...
-----------------
Absolutely..
This says it all.
How to operate a layout
------------------
I think what we are seeing in this topic is the builders vs. the operators that uses minimal scenery.
Both are valid approaches to the hobby.
I hate space eating mountains,rivers,creeks and streams that does nothing to enhance my operation pleasure...Instead I perfer large industries on a ISL.
Others perfer to spend years hand laying track,building scenery,rivers etc.When the layout is finish some become bored and rip everything out and start over-look at how these kind folk reply when a topic is about a finish layout..Rip it out and start over,remodel some of the areas and under the guise of that age old argument: "A layout is never finish"..
My personal thought.
Guys,I have hundreds of dollars in N Scale and still buying the needed items. I still have 2-3,000 dollars in HO..
Now with all of that investment I want a return in operation enjoyment after all I didn't buy all my stuff just to eyeball.
Hi!
I loved looking at photos of Barrow's earlier layouts with postwar era timing. As a devout ATSF fan, I still like his modern stuff but that is just not my prime interest. Regarding his minimal scenery, it is probably pretty prototypical for the area modeled. Trust me on that!
Insofar as replacing layouts, I am doing just that after having the same one for 14 years. I do have my reasons, which include correcting the 4 "fault areas" that existed on the old one, going to 2 levels from 3, and converting to DCC. In summary, I am putting to practice all the skills and knowledge I have gained during the design/building/operation of the previous layout. So far, it is coming along just fine.
There is another reason however...... I just turned 65 and realize building a new layout now is probably my last chance to have what I want.
ENJOY,
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Again Paul, I am sorry you didn't understand. I grew up in a time when people didn't put little smiley faces on their writings to show they were being humerous. In fact, it was hard to draw smiley faces when you were having to chisel in stone.
As far as any comment on my part, life is too short to engage in debates and arguments over a few words. So, I think (having been in the hobby since the 50's and in Lionel with my dad before that), that the new Cat Mountain represents a step backwards, but since he really doesn't go into the philosopical reasons for going a new direction, I can't really judge. Sometimes a trend starts and Model Railroader jumps on it like the holy grail. But in the long run, what MR thinks I should do, or any other model thinks I should do doesn't change the layout if I don't want it. I do have a lot of visitors over the years on tours, and I am sure some disagree with my way and that is fine with me. Will let it go at that, but since I probably not live long enough to build a new layout, will be happy and content with what I have.
I really have said all I have to say (yeah) so I will move on to more pressing things, like a mainline alignment on the garden railroad I need to do thanks to Kansas rain.
I am getting confused...
I have seen so many excellent articles in MR on h2 operate a layout, with a detailed descriptions of train and car movements etc., but I do not see this in the article in question. I do see a layout which is purely designed and build for operation - certainly an impressive layout, just by sheer size, well designed for its purpose.
Don´t get me wrong. I do not mean to put DB´s work down. It is just that I could have done without MR´s article, because it did not trigger my interest in any of the three categories I mentioned in my earlier post.
Maybe my Englsh is getting poorer day by day, as I still have the feeling that I missed to understand something in this article...