I am looking for information on the above subject. I have decided to build my own layout and have been studying different articles and ideas on how to build it. I have seen a lot of people referring to the David Barrows domino approach, but I can not find any articles or books on what his method is. I do know they did a article in M.R. September 1999 on his CAT mountain layout but I can not locate this article. Any help would be a great help.
Thank You
Dominos?
That’s just a fancy name for modular approach without following set NMRA guide lines…
http://www.nmra.org/standards/modules/ms_intro.html
I think the domino method is a tad better since it leaves the modeler with choices.
I don’t have the issues handy, but looking at the MR index, I believe David first introduced his domino concept in a pair of articles in the June and August 1995 issues. He followed up with a domino project layout, the South Plains District, featured in the Sep thru Dec 1996 issues. It seems to me that David has also written articles on the concept in Model Railroad Planning, but I’m not sure which issues.
Here’s a link to the index results page when I did a search under “Barrow”. http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=S&cmdtext=barrow&MAG=MR&output=3&sort=A
My own layout borrows David’s domino concept for sectional benchwork, but my sections are not interchangeable end-to-end as many of David’s plans were.
Tom
You may want to join the Yahoo HOmodules forum. It’s not a real active group but they discuss modules, dominos and similar construction techniques. I have some photos of the supports and framing there that may be helpful.
John Timm
Basically he has a standard set of benchwork tables with legs that he joins together to form a layout. Each unit is self standing and has a grid construction. As I recall his basic unit was 18"x4’, but you could follow his plan for any size. Unlike other module systems, there are no requirements on where the track crosses the ends or how many cross - it’s a bench work system as opposed to complete layout system.
One advantage to such a system would be standard cutting on a table saw, radial arm saw, miter saw, etc, allowing you to fabricate a lot of components quickly.
Another advantage is being able to arrange/rearrange the dominoes until you had a pleasing shape.
Personally, I didn’t like his system of legs. They seemed a little flimsy to me and you need an awful lot of them (4 legs per 4ft domino). My current layout follows a similar idea except I used 28"x8’ modules. I made L shaped legs (made from two 1x3’s) for every other module diagonally braced. Modules without legs are bolted to those with.
Enjoy
Paul
Barrow’s domino has some merit, depending on your needs or wants. It seemed to me that he is one who is never satisfied and keeps looking for the impossible dream. Now that is not all bad, and I admire his desire and drive to keep changing, it just isn’t for me at my age. The layout I have now is large, three decks, has some wall shelf units, has other areas that require a pop up hole to reach everything. I am not about to tear down a layout I started in 1984 and which has grown every which way, because I am not “seeking the holy grail”, I am satisfied with what I have.
BUT, if I were younger and thinking rebuild, I would certainly entertain dominos as the solution.
Bob
My decision to use the domino method of construction was predicated on the fact that I have moved several times in my adult life and the next move will no doubt come with retirement. In the past I have only been able to save a couple of layouts and that came about because I built them with eventual dis-assembly in mind. Incidentally, that is one reason why I have never built another layout using the L-girder method.
Dominos are especially handy for garage layouts since most modern garages are at least 20’ deep with stalls that are 9’-10’ wide. My garage is 24’ deep so that I can have more storage and a workbench area… The layout is 9’ X 18", leaving lots of room behind it but still permits 30" curves.
I raised the layout surface on risers, not unlike with L-girder so that I could include rivers, embankments and other landscape features cookie-cutter style. To me it incorporates the best of all three approaches.
John Timm
I like the idea of a point to point “DOMINO” type layout.
I model a freelance bridge RR the Missouri & Arkansas Railway used by the CB&Q & MKT that takes place in Eastern Missouri. The line starts out at Old Monroe Mo on the Cuivre River at MO. State Highway 79, then west to Hawk Point then south along MO. State Highway 47 across the old Wabash / Norfolk & Western RR line near Warrenton Mo. thru Missouri Wine Country to connect with MKT near Marthasville Mo. on State Highway 94. Since this is “my” railroad most places will have the “flavor” of this area but may not be perfect to the prototype. Time is pre Burlington Northern (1970). The location & time frame gives me a lot of room of equipment I can use plus freight cars from so many different Railroads from all over the country. As with many railroads built in the 1800’s they never reached all the way as planned. So they never made it all the way to Arkansas.
#1 This will be a point to point RR built on Hollow-core doors along two walls, so it will be in sections.
#2 It’s going to
Here are 2 “Cat Mountain & Santa Fe” You Tube videos w/apx. 7 minutes…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zd6qKumAdE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu9Qt1oGaMY
…the layout is much bigger than you would think!
The idea is a good one…I use something similar. However, Barrow’s method uses twice as many legs as needed. Plus the specialized, complex corner dominoes aren’t really needed at all. I also prefer my open grid arrangement to his solid top.
My sections are 6 feet long which allows for simple butt joints between straight sections at the corners. Depending on the configuration, only one or two sections has four legs. The remaining sections are supported by the adjoining section and have 2 legs or none at all.
The oldest sections are 15 years old and are now supporting their 4th layout.
Nick
No actually its not at all a modular approach.
One thing you have to realize is that “David Barrow’s Dominoes” is a concept that has evolved over the years. The original design from decades ago was more of a benhwork design, a variation of open grid benchwork. The concept was that you built a standard set of benchwork sections that fit on a standard sub benchwork, that could be removed from the layout and worked on out of the layout.
It has evolved into an open grid tabletop design that allows rapid reconfiguring of the layout.
Many people have used the term "dominoes’ to describe many things. To some it means set peices that are interchangeable . To some it means purely an open grid tabletop benchwork, it has all sorts of usage. For some it means modular, although it was never described that way by Barrow (modular meaning totaly interchangeable with the same track positions and interfaces between each individual module). If anything it is sectional but not modular.
I started building domino benchwork not long after David Barrow’s original 1995 article on the concept appeared in MR (part of a three part series if memory serves). It freed my mind of the paralyzing notion that I somehow needed to wrassle 4x8 sheets of plywood into the basement; instead I could buy 2x4 ft handipanel plywood (and homasote) sheets and lengths of 1x4" lumber that fit easily into my car and easily down the basement steps. That may seem obvious but it came as a revalation to me at the time.
Once your layout is up then, yes, it does seem like the domino approach uses way more legs than is necessary; 4 legs for a small 2x4 foot domino that once bolted or screwed to a second domino, now you’re talking 8 legs where 4 would do, and so on.
BUT “economizing” on legs misses out on three key virtues of the domino/Barrow approach. First of all, once you have built an inventory of dominos but before you have started putting pencil to paper for a track plan, you can actually move them around the room trying out different ideas. I used Barrow’s idea of paper dominos on a scaled drawing of the floor plan, but even so, being able to visualize real dominos in this corner or around that column was crucial to my planning, since even the best drawing of the layout room and layout plan ends up looking rather different once you have real benchwork.
With domino planning you can do the traditional order of track plan first and then arrange the dominos to fit the plan, OR you can see what kind of benchwork arrangement your work space can actually accept, and then draw a plan to match the available space. The latter is what I did. My layout consists of Tony Koester-type LDEs (layout design elements), meaning I copy prototype track arrangements as closely as I can for each siding, spur, crossover, and significant industry. Having the
These are not the “domino” layout–they are from David’s “big-permanent-layout” days.
Midnight Railroader is exactly right. I have been studying David’s domino concept for almost two years now in preparation to use his concept for my simple home layout.
I have read and have kept copies of David’s articles on domino building for my personal reference. In one of David’s last MR articles on dominos, he recommended using Atlas Code 100 turnouts because he liked them better than code 83’s because of what David called “vertical deflections” (I wonder what he is talking about when he uses that term.)
When I watched the YouTube videos, I kept straining my eyeballs to see what kind of turnouts he was using. They didn’t look like no Atlas Code 100 turnouts to me. I am fairly confident that they were Shinohara.
With all that being said, Midnight Railroader is absolutely correct. Those Shinohara turnouts were what David used to build his original Cat Mountain & Santa Fe not the domino modules discussed in the MR articles.
I still love his layout![:)][:)][:)][:)]
Oops!
In the 1996 layout series (I know this because the issues are on my desk right now), he explains this. Vertical deflection is an up and down warping caused by expansion and contraction of the homosote. So there are high and low spots in the deformed roadbed, which in turn causes deflection in the track. He says the code 100 rail is strong enough to resist deformation and code 83 is more susceptible to it. I believe the article in the 2004 MRP says he replaced all turnouts that deformed, but left the rest of the track in place, to help break up the general flatness of the dominos.
Thanks Nittany Lion for the explanantion. That is exactly why I will stay away from homasote. I like lauan plywood for my domino backdrops. I have been totally pleased with the way it holds track nails. David suggested lauan plywood for roadbed in his domino backdrop articles. In my opinion, it is the way to go.
I am new to this group, I would like to thank everyone for all the information on david barrows. I am still trying to find my way around this site. I am not sure if I answer 1 person that it is sent out to everyone who answer I hope so.
Again Thank You
Zippy376
I’ve been through a domino phase when he first presented the idea and my current layout has a couple of them. It has a lot of advantages for the shelf concept that my current room limits me to. However, if I had the freedom of a basement, I would probably use a merged system of dominos for parts of the layout with L girder in between. That would give me more flexibility to route the between towns portion while still keeping the more complex scene in manageable parts.
Being open to all the possible techniques available is an excellent way to approach building a layout.
John Timm