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 !
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
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 !
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!)
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
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.
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
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:
- Simplify wiring by using hand throws and DCC
- Allow the builder to do just about everything at the work bench before adding the section to the layout
- Be easily portable in case of moves or changed ideas
- 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.
- A person can modify domino so that for example, it could be an around the room layout.
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!
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… [%-)][%-)]
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
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 !
Do you use a “double 6” or “double 12” set of dominos?
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
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.
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
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 !!!
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.
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.
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!