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.
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...
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
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.
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?
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!"
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?
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.)
Mark
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.
I guess it is the lack of contributions, so it is up to us to solve that problem, guys!
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*******************
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!
Paul, I think you missed a couple of articles in Model Railroad Planning. But I think the larger reason some folks are becoming fatigued is that some of these designs (touted as new) are so similar to ones that have come from Mr. Barrow before and the concepts don't change much. Little new ground is being broken.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
As a somewhat minamalist modeler myself, I can certainly appreciate the approach of "Operations First, Scenery Last". That doesn't mean I'd want to look at such a layout for too long because it is visually boring. I currently have no scenery on my layout other than buildings plopped down next to sidings. I freely admit that if I was visiting my own layout, I'd be bored to tears within 10 minutes. However, my layout is operational, and while my layout is boring to look at, it's fun to operate. It routinely takes 3-4 people to run my layout for 2 hours to complete an operation, and we all have fun while doing it even tho' there isn't a scrap of ground foam to be found on my layout for the moment. Scenery is planned for the future, but I'm not too hot to trot to get it all done since I know my 25' x 50' layout is not permanent and will someday need to be moved (it's in the basement of a retail store).
Meanwhile, I have been to several layouts and seen many modular layouts that I can spend a lot of time staring at. Visually, they are very fun to look at with a lot of detail and things that catch the eye. But I would never want to run on these layouts as they are just loops of track. There's no fun in that, at least for me. Sorry, but if all you can do is set the speed of your train and let it run in circles unattended for hours, that's a boring, lame layout.
BTW, for all those complaining about how much coverage Dave Barrow's CM&SF gets in MR, let's take a look at the MR issues that has his layout featured in it:August 2009: A Look at the Newest Cat Mountain & Santa FeSeptember 1999: 25 Years on the Cat Mountain & Santa FeOctober 1997: The South Plains District RevisitedDecember 1996: Build the Cat Mountain's South Plains District Part 4November 1996: Build the Cat Mountain's South Plains District Part 3October 1996: Build the Cat Mountain's South Plains District Part 2September 1996: Build the Cat Mountain's South Plains District Part 1August 1989: Line Change at Summit - Cat Mountain & Santa FeMay 1984: Rebuilding the Cat Mountain & Santa FeMarch 1980: Passenger Trains on the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe
So in the past 30 years, he's had exactly 10 CM&SF articles published in MR, and it's been 10 years since the last one. Wow. Call me underwhelmed.
The other 5 issues that David Barrow is credited as author are:June 2007: Domino Backdrops & SkirtsJuly 1998: One Reader's Opinion: Realistic or Represenational?October 1995: How to Operate Your Layout (with a shelf trackplan)August 1995: How to Build Your Layout, Sectional ConstructionJune 1995: How to Plan Your Layout
Yikes. How can he keep up this torrid pace? Why, he's averaging an new article in MR every other year.
Puh-leeze. Give the guy a break. He's had exactly two pieces published in MR this century. The way some folks are carrying on here, you'd think he was in every issue. Sheesh.
riogrande5761 I have to agree with Pastor Bob, I really liked David Barrow's earlier layouts but his obsession for the past 10+ years with his domino's has got me yawning. Its been nothing but domino's now for a long time and well, it doesn't do much for me I guess.
I have to agree with Pastor Bob,
I really liked David Barrow's earlier layouts but his obsession for the past 10+ years with his domino's has got me yawning. Its been nothing but domino's now for a long time and well, it doesn't do much for me I guess.
I won't yawn(well maybe a little) since Dave been thinking outside of the usual layout design box that the majority uses.
I have learn several lessons from his articles over the past 10 years that would be useful for modular design layouts base on operation rather then endless 3 track loop display running.Of course one of the benefits of the domino/modular layout would be the ease of moving our layout to a new home.
As far as the minimalist approach...
I have use that approach on my past(and more then likely future) ISLs and use only scenery found in a industrial area*..I have even use a cardboard mock up till the type of structure need was found and built or in some cases the right structures needed to kitbash the structure was located..
*Realistically detailing a ISL is more complicated then it sounds and there are disciplines to be learned and use which also involves a minimalist approach and a different way of modeling track..
Maybe the real problem is that the lessons to be learned from a David Barrow layout are not best conveyed with pretty pictures with captions versus meaty text. There is usually something of interest in each version of a Barrow layout, but I am not sure it is something learned from the photographs, and we need more textual guidance in grasping the point.
Any of his layouts COULD be developed into the dream layout more commonly seen in the magazines. For example on his Lubbock switching district layout, the structures were correctly sized but were basic forms neatly constructed of pure white foam core board -- just as an architect lays out a floor plan or footprint of a proposed structure but doesn't include the bricks or wood or other details. Over time he could have replaced each with a detailed model of the building, but his point was to switch those structures. They were in essence symbolic structures not model structures. As a picture story it made for a sort of laboratory-like coldness. As an instructional article it made more sense.
Similarly all that unballasted Atlas Code 100 could be replaced by the beautiful handlaid track of his earlier layout. But you know, once you ballast really nice track, including the more realistic and expensive brands of flex track, the work involved and the time and the nice appearance all conspire against making even necessary changes. It creates its own paralysis. Evidently Barrow wants none of that. He wants no reason, no investment of time or energy or attractive appearance, NOT to change.
So his point now is, does the layout provide for interesting and challenging operations. And that is something you aren't going to grasp during the traditional NMRA convention layout tour, but only during an operating session or more guided tour from the layout builder. And again nor am I sure you grasp that point in the "layout tour" type of article. So maybe in the last analysis, the kinds of things Barrow is doing now belong in Model Railroad Planning.
I feel the same way about those very narrow shelf double deck layouts. There is much to be learned from them, but they do not make for the most compelling personal layout tour visits or the most compelling picture story type articles.
There are superficially nice looking, but wildly unprototypical or even hardly operational, layouts that look great during tours but which the owner hardly touches because he's bored by it. I can tell you that at least one local layout made MR repeatedly, including a gorgeous cover shot, but that those who really knew the layout said it hardly ran and certainly was not designed for operating sessions, just to run trains around on, but that the owner wasn't even really interested in doing the work to make it reliable on that narrow goal either.
Dave Nelson
I've also enjoyed his design philosophy articles. In fact, the layout I'm building right now is essentially two "dominoes", plus a return loop for continuous running / stagint.
His South Plains project layout was a huge influence for me. I mean huge - like that's where I went from crazy dreams of huge layouts as a kid (which would never be built of course) to realizing a small layout could likely be very satisfying (I just had to wait a few years through college / dating / marriage / house buying / etc. before getting back into it). The whole time, that layout was on my mind.
His concepts are great. The thing is though, once he's stripped down the scenerey to literally Zero, I just don't quite get why the layouts are featured in MR. They're more like "concepts".
Alright, maybe I'm just dissapointed, because when I saw the "next month" thing in MR the previous month, and saw a scenicked David Barrow scene, I was thinking, "yeah baby, the man is back at it!!!". Nope. Shuffled the dominoes around, new track plan.
Come on David, your fans need a full-blown layout man!!!
It doesn't have to be huge. The one in the 1996 MRP with 3 layouts to fit in a bedroom (David Barrow, Michael Tylick, and Allen McClelland each drew up one) was awesome. How about creating that layout, fully scenicked - your fans (like me) will be ecstatic!!!!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I see it as starting to close the circle. The operations concept is getting back toward where he started. CTC is starting to come in. Now starting to scenic parts of the layout. Wouldn't be surprised when the next article comes out about installing CTC & signaling on the CM&SF.
I've really enjoyed his articles over the years on design philosophy. I have a couple of dominos on my layout that I designed based on his original domino article years ago. While they have benefits, I also find them too confining, and I don't just mean for scenary, but track layout. They fit very well for a linear main line, but lack the flexibility for spurs and tracks that serve industries off the main line with more complex environements as in many eastern areas.
I think he's taken the linear track plan designed for operations to its logical conclusion. After the major modeling press has followed the leaders in operations to the end of the line, maybe we're moving back to some medium in design between "pure" and "spaghetti bowls."
Of course I also won't be surprised when Koester tears down the NKP to do a large scale main two footer or a branch line to Peterboro.
An interesting way to go about a Barrowsian minimalist approach to ops without hanging a huge expense around the neck would be to put together a whole bunch of waybills and etc and play it out like a card game-----no need for a dang computer even------
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 see Barrows layout as a virtual railroad,a step up from a computer game. The object is to move tonnage from one point to another,while making sure empties get back to the places where they're filled, in the manner of a real freight moving system. The simplified signals are a way to get started and learn how real signals work. They may or may not progress on to a real electronic signal system.But with his new old machine ,I would guess he will eventually will have an operating system.
My own style of modeling is more a flight of fancy,with a much more casual operating "system".
BILL
JackhI saw this style of MR on a tour once and the over all opion I heard expressed was "yuck".
Lucky the owner only has to satisfy himself, not visitors or guests, huh?
I saw this style of MR on a tour once and the over all opion I heard expressed was "yuck". And there were a lot of people who got down the stairs and went back up in 5 min or less. It took me 10, I spent some time trying to figure out what kind of RR it was suppose to be, And without scenery it was very nearly impossible.
The info sheet was more about how operations were done and not what the layout was about.
That experience though got me to start adding scenery to my own layout and not just build structures to fill in the holes at sidings. And you know I discovered that the more scenery you add the more I want to keep building and detailing. And if I don't I find myself getting bored with it.
Jack
Hmmm...
I wonder..
Could it be?
It's possible..
Yes!
Come to think of it..
I always been a "minimalist" since I never like mountains,rivers,unrealistic grades,creeks and streams and would rather operate on a urban ISL then any other type of layout..
But it's DAVID BARROW! As we all know, you can't reject one of the hobby masters' articles.
The way I would approach the minimalist thing would be VMR. Virtual Model Railroading. Set up a bunch of PC's, netowrk it together, and install your favorite train simulator. That would be the ultimate expression in flexibility for the sake of operations. Much more powerful, efficient and realistic way to approach that scenario.
I have always enjoyed reading about the CM&SF - in fact, it is probably one of my favorite layouts I've seen in the pages of MR.
But I really don't get why they keep featuring the "minimalist" style layouts. Another set of tables arranged with atlas code 100 track on them, with a description of the operation.
It seems like MR constantly pushes creating a fully scenicked layout, yet they feature every new David Barrow table top with some tacked down track on it. I really don't get it.
Again, I was a HUGE fan of his earlier layout, and I do appreciate his minimalist approach. But the minimalist approach layouts are truly a "you've seen one, you've seen them all" scenario.
The driving force behind Dave's domino method was how often he wanted to rearrange things. I will admit his minimalist approach to modeling doesn't light my fire, but he does have a keen mind for planning and operations.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
Just a thought: David Barrow is an archchitect and as such, has a thing about trying new things and pushing the envelope. That also provides the finances. Likewise, if memory serves, he and Andy Sperando share a fondness for the AT & SF and when Andy was at UT they struck up a friendship.
You've got to admit, David does it differently!
John T.
DoughlessCouldn't just spend his money on a good Sodoku puzzle book?
Crosswords?
The idea that the Left side of his brain gets satisfied by operations isn't too far off, all things considered. But, like Mark said, it is rather boring.
Me. I'd rather get the layout finished. With ALL the constituents thereof
Hmmm:
Pure operations with no interest in scenery. Must want to satisfy the huge left side of his brain by executing the most efficient plan of moving blocks of freight cars from place to place, according to a preset schedule, without necessarily enjoying watching them move from place to place.
Couldn't just spend his money on a good Sodoku puzzle book?
Doug
- Douglas
For a variety of reasons, I always seem to be building a layout and rarely get to the scenery stage. I have one under construction right now that will never get to scenery. It is a trial layout to see if I like point to point before committing myself to the "Big" one in retirement. In my case when I retire in a couple of years I will also be moving, so I am building this one as a minimalist layout I'm also building it to be able to reuse most of the materials on the next one.
While I plan to scenic my retirement layout, my first priority will be to get all the track in so I can run trains. And if I don't make it to scenery that will be okay.
So I understand where David Barrows is at. So little time and so many ideas to try out.
This is a hobby so I do the fun parts first.
Enjoy
Paul