Orsonroy, If you have a current layout, what is it built of? I can’t see how the problems you describe with sectional layouts wouldn’t effect a regular layout. If it’s built of wood, there will be swelling and shrinking or “movement”. However, as Barrow’s layouts have been built with mostly plywood table tops, there would be less movement than a splined or solid wood road bed. Because plywood’s grain is Bi-directional, it is more stable.
And you wouldn’t be alone. MR ran a short article a few years ago on Japanese modular layout meets, and this is how they have developed their version of Ntrak. They can pop a layout module into a briefcase and take it on the subway with them. All the track is Kato Unitrack for tight mating. The modules don’t have legs. Rather, they set up the modules on tables or on the floor.
It appears your dimensional stability scenario isn’t from the type of construction as much as it is from not sealing the wood before construction which is one of my paramters this time regardless of method of construction.
ndbprr, I would have to think sealing the wood would go along ways towards minimizing material shrinkage or growth.
Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case. All the lumber was mid grade pine with as tight a grain as you can find (these days…). Everything was sanded and sealed with two coats of latex paint before it was assembled. Didn’t help. The problem is that wood will move dimensionally no matter WHAT you do to it. With over 20 joints on the longest side butted up to each other, if every piece swelled 1/32" of an inch (not an unreasonable amount) I’d have 40 pieces of lumber moving for a total of 1-1/4" of movement, and THAT’s enough to pop a lot of track!
Frankly, I’m pretty fed up with using porus natural materials for layout construction in general, mostly from my last layout’s issues, which is why I’m such a big supporter of all-foam layout construction. Yes, I still use wood as an underlayment, but if I could find anything better and as inexpensive and easy to use, I’d try it.
Hello, have you folks checked out the spec’s for Free-mo modules? A lightweight but rigid frame of Birch plywood with a 1 1/2" or 2" foam deck. This makes for an easy to move module, light enough for one person to handle and set up even an 8 footer! Carry the structures, hills, etc in a separate box and put them in place after setting up and levelling. Nice large radius eased curves to show your equipment at its best! Check it out, and leave the bitterness in the closet, it has no place here! While we may all have a slightly different perspectve we are all friends when it comes to trains! John Colley Port Townsend, WA
I THINK THAT EVERYONE SHOULD DO WHAT THEY FEEL IS COMFORTABLE FOR THEM.I.E. SKILLS,COST,APPROACH YOU ARE FIGHTING OVER DOMINO LAYOUT THAT THE MAN IS JUST TRYING TO SHOW OTHER PEOPLE HIS IDEAS,THAT WORK FOR HIM AND JUST TRYING TO SHARE WITH OTHER PEOPLE.NO WONDER OUR HOBBY IS SO VAST AND APPEALING… EVERYONE HAS A IDEA THAT WORKS FOR THEM.I PERSONALLY LIKE MR. BARROWS ARTICLES,AND HIS IDEAS.JUST TAKE WHAT WORKS FOR YOU AND REMBER TO ALWAYS HAVE FUN RUNNING TRAINS PAUL CHESSIE SYSTEM
I agree that using dimensional lumber is not the way to go with module/domino construction. But please check David Barrow’s specs for his dominos. He uses 3/4" Birch plywood for all his dimensional pieces. True this method of construction is more expensive than dimensional lumber (even “A” grade birch dimensional lumber will warp over time), but the laminated plywood properly sealed is much more stable than any dimensional lumber. Direct quote from David Barrow’s Cat Mountain and Santa Fe Soutnplains Switching Distric article on Domino construction in the September 1996 Model Railroader “The domino frames and tops in my construction are 3/4" Birch plywood. I stopped using 1 x 4 white pine for these frames because even the best lumber I could get would occasionally warp.” “This allows you to save the significant towns & yard in a move to a new home.”
My new layout will be using dominos built with 3/4" Birch. Yes, it will cost me more money than using conventional construction methods but it also allows me the freedom to work on specific sections at the bench & also allows me to rearrange the layout without loosing the major portions if I choose to. In the MRP 2004 article, it appears that David may have saved parts of his staging yard & Mesa yard in this latest rendition of the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe.
Orsonroy, you might try some 3/4
It would be better to refer to the layout as the South Plains District, which is quite a bit different than the original Cat Mountain and Santa Fe. However, it is all moot as the layout in MRP is GONE. David is starting over again, doing a section of ATSF prototype modeling. I really look forward to see what he’s doing, with his penchant for detail and design, I’m sure it’s going to be great.
In the October 1995 issue of MR David Barrow wrote an great article on operating, and refered to his ‘blocking instructions’ which were supposed to be shown in ‘fig. 6’…but there is no fig. 6…I don’t know if MR reprinted the blocking instructions in a subsequent article; if not, perhaps if DB reads this message he could post the missing ‘fig. 6’?
Thanks’
Bob Burke
While it is certainly true that a “domino” does not have to be flat, or even symetrical, I think the name “domino” does the idea a dis-service, and all the examples David has ever shown are flat, flat, flat. Pictures speak louder than words.
So what else are you going to expect people to think unless they really read things closely?
I think Mr. Barrow (or someone), to break the mold, ought to do a domino article that shows non-symetrical sections with mountainous scenery. Anyone?
All this going on and on about Dave Barrow’s “dominoes”, for what? If you don’t like it, don’t do it, that’s easy! If you are interested to see what can be accomplished, check out Free-mo.org It is a great concept for those who don’t have space for a large layout. The curves are big and beautiful, the trains look and are run realistically, and you can have terrain, tunnels, gullies and bridges, galore. What more can one ask? And yes, I think the term dominoes instead of modules is misleading. John Colley Port Townsend WA
Has anyone heard news about this? I would love to see what he’s up to now.
I have tried the domino approach and ran into problems related to my layout room. David Barrow’s layout is built in a room above his garage. Mine is built in a basement with a cement floor. The floor of his room above the garage tends to have a nice flat surface. My basement floor is a bit irregular to the point that the T-nut adjusters on the ends of the domino legs cannot compensate in some instances. Therefore an open grid or so called “L” girder approach works better for my situation because the roadbed surface can be leveled by raising and lowering risers without regard to adjusting the legs themselves. Also the more traditional construction results in fewer legs. In addition, I have no plans to move and work for myself so don’t have to consider a work related relocaton so the portablility of the layout does not concern me.
By the way, David Barrow’s layout is called “The Lubbock Industrial District” NOT the Cat Mountain and Santa Fe. The old layout in it’s many incarnations was THE Cat Mountain and Santa Fe. From his more recent articles it appears that Mr. Barrow (NOT BARROWS) considers the layout to be the Lubbock Industrial District of the Cat Mountain and Santa Fe. He has some well thought out and inovative approaches to the hobby and is not afraid to tear something down and start over to test his latest approach. Building domonos, however, does tend to use up a lot more wood than an L girder or open grid layout would use if building the same track plan.
For more on dominos do a search on the magazine article database on this website for “David Barrow” and you’ll turn up a number of articles which will answer any questions you might have on the subject. Mr. Barrow is a good writer as well as a good modeler. His articles are enjoyable reading.
Cheers,
Ed
I see there’s a post earlier about the South Plains District. The South Plains District is NOT DAVID BARROW’S CURRENT LAYOUT. The South Plains District was a domino based layout created by David Barrow specifically for a series of construction articles he did for Model Railroader about ten years ago. The South Plains District co-existed with the CM&SF. I believe it was in the CM&SF’s crew lounge. My current layout is based on the published track plan for the South Plains District. As I stated earlier I began using dominos and encountered problems specific to my train room. Plans are to add extensive staging and other features to the basic South Plains Division layout…
Cheers,
Ed
BARROW is incorporating ideas that the likes (and uses) in a hot Texas Garage . When he rebuilt the CM&SF he rearranged the sectional pieces easily. I gather that he is a person that like’s to change things.
HE LIKES
A ‘representational’ RR.
A ‘walk along’ design.
radio control
Buss wiring
Integrating overhead lighting to dramaticly show off the RR and scenery.
Wood sub roadbed
HE DISLIKES Homosote for vertical expansion reason’s.
He is an Achitect that incorporate’s construction techniques with asthetic’s. To my knowlege he has never claimed to ‘invent’ building a house - (or a model RR) He did give the nickname “Domino’s” to his stand-alone sections, since they could be configured widthwise and lengthwise, like their namesake.
As for 'bridging gap’s - and he is a nut on vertical vagaries - I have to think the good practice rule of ‘not putting track joint over a wood joint’ would apply.
The original concept of the Domino was to give a flexible form of benchwork that could be moved or rearranged as required. The actual design of the benchwork is called open grid. The other major concept which has not be discussed as far as I can tell in this thread is that the Domino is designed to be removed and the work done on it at the workbench. You don’t crawl under the layout to wire switches and hook up linkages, You pull the piece out of the layout, set it on the work bench and comfotably seated upright work on the wiring, etc. Same with the track. No trying to fit things in awkard reaches, you pull the section out and can turn it to get whatever access you need.
Another part of the concept that has been lost in the shuffle was that there was (in the original concept) a sub benchwork that supported the Dominoes. That’s where the leveling took place. The original concept didn’t use 2x2 legs attached to the frame of the Domino like an N-Trak module, it had 1x4’s built in a framework that supported the Dominoes.
While I was very critical of the concept when it first came out (it was like somebody was trying to patent open grid benchwork) the more I read about it the more I understood what the purpose was.
The whole concept is flexibility. It is designed for the person that likes to change his mind and try new track arrangements (whether due to moving or just getting bored with the first attempt). The latest incarnation is totally driven towards a short term layout. I wouldn’t be suprised if any layout Mr. Barrow builds, well actually more correctly, any trackplan Mr. Barrow builds, lasts more than a couple years. The whole system and concept is geared to letting him build a trackplan, then tear it apart and reconfigure both the benchwork and trackplan in a minimum of time with the maximum of recycling of benchwork and track. i have never read where he said this was a good approach for everybody. If you are a person who likes to switch from railroad to railroa
Good greif people, can’t you just give a piece of good advice without such harsh critisizm of eachother. You know in some cases the domino layout would be a great solution for many people, although I fully agree that if you want grades to climb and decend this is not the way to go.
If you love to do switching and solving puzzles then this is for you, but if you enjoy running long trains you should reconsider.
Its that simple.
There is no requirement in the construction of a Domino that it be a flat table top. You can build Domiones with grades, valleys, etc. People have been building open grid benchwork for years with grades. The last 3 layouts I have had were all open grid and I have had up to 8" in elevation difference. The people that say it has to be flat are looking at the last couple itterations of Barrow’s layouts, not the original articles on the Domino concept.
Dave H.
Dave H.
Oh there you go letting fact get in the way of opinion!
Dave