In the August 2009 edition of Model Railroader, David Barrow has an article entitled "True to prototype Texas Main Line." In the article, he informs us that he used Atlas Code 100 tunrouts for his layout. He described those turnouts as "hot switches" Atlas turnouts. He used these because they also simplified the use of the CVP products Easy DCC Digital Command Control with wireless throttles.
Does anyone know why David used Code 100 Atlas turnouts instead of Atlas code 83? I was just wondering.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect because they are more robust. Also, he does a lot of minimalist layouts and the higher profile may look better for that.
Enjoy
Paul
i am not sure why he uses these , but i am sure i was really disappointed seeing his new layout.. Granted everyone has the right to do their layout any way they want, but his previous layouts were just so darn pretty , i was looking forward to more of the same ... Sorry , but I have been a David Barrow fan for ages and think his layouts were as good as it gets
There was an extensive thread about Barrows and his current layout a few months back. You might search for it. I, like many others, thought his early layouts were great, but I lost interest with the bare bones, minimal layout. Certainly his right to "model" the way he wants, just hated to see the old Cat Mountain go away.
Bob
Dave uses Atlas Code 100 track because it's more robust. He reuses it each time he redoes his layout.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
The old Cat Mountain & Santa Fe was awesome. I remember being amazed by it as a teen in the 70's and 80's... his later more modern layouts up to around the early 90's were great too. Then game domino's and his newest phase.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
At his age he probably figured he should go with code 100 or step up to "O" scale railroading.
I also agree that the old Cat Mountain was impressive, but I do not care for this minimalist approach. It makes me think of all those who insist that a linear track plan is the only way to go. These "standards" can be to restrictive if over emphasized.
John
When I first saw the domino's and after several of those articles by David Barrow, I wondered to myself if this was his approach to "downsizing" his layout for retirement. Many people as they reach 70's and 80's, down size and model railroaders to it too. My own parents seem to be an exception, and at 78 and 79 they are still in a large Fairfax VA home and I wonder how much longer at their age they will be keeping that up. I suspect in the next year or two they will sell and move into something smaller. Anyway, I kind of assumed this was the situation for Mr. Barrow and modules would lend themselve well to this kind of situation. I could be total wrong.
Hi,
Those who've written that David Barrow uses code 100 track because he thinks it's more robust are correct. I'm well aware of his thoughts on this, as he and I have had a friendly argument on this point for years. (I think any difference in sturdiness between Atlas code 100 and the same maker's code 83 track is negligible, if it exists at all.)This is probably already a moot point, however, because David has already rebuilt at least part of his railroad with "scale track." He'll likely want to write about the changes he's making at some point, so I won't try to explain them here.
In the interest of politeness, allow me to add that David doesn't like to be called "Dave," and that his last name is "Barrow," with no "s."
So long,
Andy
Andy Sperandeo MODEL RAILROADER Magazine
riogrande5761 The old Cat Mountain & Santa Fe was awesome. I remember being amazed by it as a teen in the 70's and 80's... his later more modern layouts up to around the early 90's were great too. Then game domino's and his newest phase.
Actually the domino/modular method has merits if a person has a tenancy to relocate because of their careers.
As far as C100 why not? IMHO once the track is painted and ballast it appears smaller-as does C83.
I can see value in the minimalist approach if one changes address a lot or layouts.
Truth be told I suppose I been using the minimalist approach on some of my ISLs long before David wrote about it in MR.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE riogrande5761 The old Cat Mountain & Santa Fe was awesome. I remember being amazed by it as a teen in the 70's and 80's... his later more modern layouts up to around the early 90's were great too. Then game domino's and his newest phase. Actually the domino/modular method has merits if a person has a tenancy to relocate because of their careers.
Absolutely. My first sizable layout was built in my garage in Indiana and I built it in a modular format. I expected to move since I was a college student so this allowed the layout to be dismantled and moved. In fact I ended up selling it to someone who could use it. So modular construction certainly has its place in the hobby.
As far as C100 why not? IMHO once the track is painted and ballast it appears smaller-as does C83. I can see value in the minimalist approach if one changes address a lot or layouts. Truth be told I suppose I been using the minimalist approach on some of my ISLs long before David wrote about it in MR.
Well, a minimalist approach gets you a railroad up and running more quickly and you can fill in as time allows.
Sperandeo This is probably already a moot point, however, because David has already rebuilt at least part of his railroad with "scale track." He'll likely want to write about the changes he's making at some point, so I won't try to explain them here.
This is probably already a moot point, however, because David has already rebuilt at least part of his railroad with "scale track." He'll likely want to write about the changes he's making at some point, so I won't try to explain them here.
An article on how one upgraded a layout could be interesting/informative. But please, no more repetitive domino layouts in any Kalmbach publication for at least another five years. They have become as un-interesting as watching someone fiddling with poker chips.
Besides my "oh, not again" initial reaction to Barrow's August article, I didn't think the article's title "True-to-prototype Texas main line" was fulfilled. Particularly; there was little discussion how specific prototypical track arrangements were translated/incorporated in the track plan other than the naming of locations. Also, I was amused if not befuddled when contrasting the "main line" aspect of the title with the track plan where half of the main track length was contained in the town of Lubbock.
Mark
riogrande5761 When I first saw the domino's and after several of those articles by David Barrow, I wondered to myself if this was his approach to "downsizing" his layout for retirement. Many people as they reach 70's and 80's, down size and model railroaders to it too. My own parents seem to be an exception, and at 78 and 79 they are still in a large Fairfax VA home and I wonder how much longer at their age they will be keeping that up. I suspect in the next year or two they will sell and move into something smaller. Anyway, I kind of assumed this was the situation for Mr. Barrow and modules would lend themselve well to this kind of situation. I could be total wrong.
Not necessarily, my ATSF three deck layout was started in 1983, is still going strong today, and I am 73, not quite as strong, but still giving it a good go. My layout has a lot of code 100, simply because when it was started in 83, that was the choice. Certainly have no interest in tearing out all that main just to "look better" with code 83. However, in later years I did use 83 as well as 70 on redo area, and have several switches that I built as part of the NMRA achievement program for my MMR which still are in use today.
But as I expressed before, I was a big fan of Mr. David Barrow in the early days, but not with the new approach. But, to each his own.
hi,
A lot of folks apparently don't like David's new style. Why is he so much involved in the "less is beautifull" approach? Obviously it is working for him.
I always loved the MR-"railroads you can build" articles, information (and trackplans) about the prototype and how to model it. Just stating that you were close is a missed opportunity. Even David has to compress selectively; let him make his own choices. but also let him him explain why he took them. Is it MR's-choice not to give much prototype information in the IT era and not to be to specific in the disign process?
I always felt that, even more now I am sixtyfour, that time is limited. If you want big time operation on a big layout and if your attention span is limited in time also you must pay a prize. Lance Mindheim has the same kind of problem, only he dicided to build a "small" layout.
David has the eye, professionaly developped; I always found his pictures very railroady. He can build a convincing scene with so little.
I referred to two MR-project railroads (Wisconsin Central? and the other from David himself, with all the switchbacks; BTW both were great). More in general; it would be nice if it was possible to ask questions about layouts presented in MR.
When so many have different opinions about David's pikes MR obviously missed another chance.
Paulus Jashi, A lot of folks apparently don't like David's new style. Why is he so much involved in the "less is beautifull" approach? Obviously it is working for him.
Perhaps let me speak on behalf of some of the other folks who have chimed in about the latest David Barrow article. I don't think it is fair to say all us these people don't like the dominos and the "less beautiful approach". What I think is when we see "yet another" domino article, the novelty had worn off. It could be the same if any other thing was repeated often like this. I haven't kept count, but it has been my perception that there has been numerous articles on the domino's over the last 10-15 years so most of us by now have gotten the, "been there, done that" feeling went another article like this is published, and seems to have broken little new ground. Maybe fine tuning or musing more philospically about the domino style layout.
I always loved the MR-"railroads you can build" articles, information (and trackplans) about the prototype and how to model it. Just stating that you were close is a missed opportunity. Even David has to compress selectively; let him make his own choices. but also let him him explain why he took them. Is it MR's-choice not to give much prototype information in the IT era and not to be to specific in the design process?
I like the building articles too. Again, I think it's the sense that we feel that its kind of a more of the same thing. Maybe our eyes glaze over when we see yet another domino article. Its true, that maybe when that happens we may miss some good things.
When so many have different opinions about David's pikes MR obviously missed another chance. Paul
Its hard to say Paul. Its no body's fault. And lets face it, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Paulus Jas hi, A lot of folks apparently don't like David's new style. Why is he so much involved in the "less is beautifull" approach? Obviously it is working for him.
It is the repetitive shuffling of same-looking modules that bores.
markpierce Paulus Jas hi, A lot of folks apparently don't like David's new style. Why is he so much involved in the "less is beautifull" approach? Obviously it is working for him. It is the repetitive shuffling of same-looking modules that bores.
I will agree with the boring shuffling of the dominos/modulars.
Now,if rearrange the track(easy to do using the minimalist approach with C100) I would think the articles would have better appeal.
The only thing David ever did that really upset me was when he removed the roundhouse from the old Cat Mountain and Santa Fe. But even at that I realized its his layout, not mine!
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."