Did I read that article correctly? Is David Barrow now making layouts with virtually no scenery? No ballast, etc.? Bright & shiny atlas code 100 track - on purpose? Bare plywood?
I noticed a trend a few years back when he did a room sized layout in MR with his “domino” system - where his track was starting to not be ballasted very much.
I have to say his CM&SF covered in 1989 or 1990 was one of the first layouts that made a huge impression on me. (Interestingly, he also pointed out in that article how correctly shaped ballast can greatly enhance a model railroad).
What’s going on here? I’m seriously surprised by intentional lack of scenery on a model railroad featured in a magazine. Did I miss something?
(Again, his CM&SF is amazing - probably my favorite model railroad I’ve read about - which is why I’m left dazed & confused)
I think what Tony Koester (the editor) was trying to do was show an alternative to the highly detailed scenic railroad. What David Barrow is doing is concentrating on the operational aspect and using only minimal props to set the scene so to speak. I remember years ago seeing layouts where there was no scenery at all and arguments about whether or not it was needed or beneficial. I think an important point here is that whatever you do, do it well. Barrow’s layout may be minimalist, but it is neatly done. I found it refreshing to see a different approach.
Enjoy
Paul
It’s an example of where an obsession with operations can lead you. This “layout” Barrows has created is certainly not a new or revolutionary concept either, as some have suggested. In reality it is nothing more than a throw-back to the layouts that appeared in the pages of MR’s from the 1940’s - a level of modeling that everyone tried purposely to distance themselves from in the 1950’s because of its toy-train-like appearance. One thing for certain, it is far out of step with today’s level of modeling aspirations.
If one wants to take things to such an absolute extreme for the sole purpose of operations, why not just go play on Trainsim and save a lot of money? My guess is that this minimalist layout in fact cost big bucks since, from what I hear, Barrows likely had it mostly built for him by outsiders. What’s the point?
That’s exactly what it reminded me of - layouts from the old days. I have some very old model railroad books that my Dad bought in the 50’s or so. With pictures of entire model railroads without scenery.
Then there will be a picture of one with scenery with a caption about how some model railroaders actually add “realistic” scenery to their railroads.
Why would someone purposely go that direction? Better yet, why would it be in an MR publication?
It’s so odd because I’m such a fan of the CM&SF. It looks extremely odd seing a nice weathered diesel sitting on a shiny piece of atlas flextrack - on top of plywood!
I agree, Barrow’s new layout is a throwback to the old days. The only thing it’s missing is a way to run trains around in circles.
Not that there’s anything wrong with continuous running (I have it myself), but there’s something about the nrew layout that screams “not impressive enough for print”. The layout’s large, that’s all. It’s dominated by switching only, has fairly stubby mainlines (the open staging yard interrupts the mainline), and the layout itself is nothing more than a tabletop.
I think Barrow’s going a little bonkers on the “domino” thing. OK, he built a layout that’s made up of standardized sections; anyone ever hear of Ntrak? They’ve been doing that for 30 years. And I’ve seen MUCH better modular-built layouts than this new version of the CM&SF.
His new layout, with no scenery, all freelance theme, and clunky rails seems to be more of a deliberate attack on the proto-based (or inspired) modelers out there who have created large layouts that feature long mainlines, realistic operations, good scenery, and proto fidelity.
It is apparent to me that a number of very large, well planned, mainline model railroads have been torn down recently and replaced with very large switching layouts where the layout consists of one large city with more than one yard, often more than one railroad company and much less in the way of scenery. Operation and especially switching locals comes to the front and mainline running is deemphasized. The switch back to code 100 to improve reliability seems to be happening more often, too. Why is this happening? Is it just bordom with a layout that has been around for 20 years?
I kind of understand some of this. Even building a moderate sized railroad takes years to complete and if operation is your thing, that is a long time to wait. These simple modular layouts go up real fast. My railroad takes months of cleaning to operate correctly after a scenery session, even though I am very careful about glue and ballast. My code 55 and code 70 sections don’t act quite as reliable as my code 100 staging areas. I recently visited a very large beautiful N&W layout. Incredibly well done. Careful examination of the track revealed that it was Atlas code 100. I think there are some issues about reliability in the smaller sized rail. While I think that part of what Barrows is doing is to get attention, some of it makes sense to me. I don’t think his layout looked that bad. - Nevin
Model railroading is no less susceptible to the whims of fashion than any other pastime–someone will introduce a good idea and people will go along with it and eventually someone else will run it into the ground.
I suppose that big urban layouts serve as more inspirational for small urban layouts like mine–whereas large scenic-oriented layouts don’t translate as well into small spaces (unless you count “Pine Tree Central” type tiny-mountain-with-tunne-lin-the-corner 4x8’s.) Since most model railroaders tend to have smaller spaces these days, urban modeling has come to the fore, and with it a focus on switching, and peddler runs.
Maybe it’s the more modern focus–I have noticed that pre-1900’s equipment is becoming scarcer, and interest in pre-1900’s modeling less common. Now, many folks used to model early railroads because of space considerations–little 30-36 foot boxcars and shorty Overton passenger cars, 4-4-0 Americans and other small early locos could handle 15-18" curves without an eye-blink and trains tended to be short. Plus, the “old days” are older than they used to be–what was once “modern railroading” early in the hobby is now history.
As more modern (and bigger) railroading comes to the fore, and spaces get smaller, it gets harder to do mainline railroading accurately–while there are people who don’t mind watching their modern diesel chase the FRED on the last 89-foot auto-carrier car around their 4x8, by changing focus to switching one at least has a justification for a train of half a dozen cars.
I’ve always been a switching nut. While some like to watch their trains go round and round, I like to watch mine go back and forth.
The idea of an un-scenicked plywood tabletop being a “complete model railroad” is definitely alienating. I get into the scenery (whether it’s buildings or mountains) and details as much as the fundamentals.
I really rather doubt that Barrow had anybody build the layout for him. If you have been reading his articles over the years, this is just the evolution of his design philosophy. For him, tweaking the trackplan is an important aspect, therefore he has designed his layout to support that desire. The things that inhibit his ability to do that have been eliminated.
Gentlemen,Scenery does not a layout make.Nay it goes beyond that.Personally I would not give a cats meow for a layout that serves no purpose other then running trains in endless circles .
Scenery comes in all flavors.I for one do not like unrealistic grades and mountains that look like a upset down meatloaf pan or mountains that is suppose to represent the Appalachian mountains but look more like the Rocky Mountains…I never cared that much for mountains on my layouts in fact I avoid them and use rolling hills instead painted on the back drop…I also prefer urban scenery.To my mind urban scenery brings out the true meaning of railroading at it core roots…
Dave Barrow’s domino theory is a quick and easy way to build a layout.Sure it goes against what most modelers consider is the “correct” way to build a layout .There is no rule stating one must have grades and mountains on his/her layout nor does the layout need to please or be approved/disapproved by anybody.
To my mind operation must be included in the layouts that I design.In fact I would not even think about designing a layout without operations being the very core of the layout design…Of course I know and understand that this approach is not for everybody.I have preach for years that a layout is a personal thing built to the modelers given and druthers.[:D]
I have found that most modelers that talks against operation as 3 things in common
1.They don’t understand operation and therefore they feel they must talk against it.
2.They have no real idea what the prototypes does for a living.
3.They feel that anybody that builds a layout base on operations is a extremist and a disciples of Tony Koester.
Of course all of those reasons is far from the truth.Modelers like myself has taken the next step in the hobby…[:D]
In closing let me make it perfectly clear…There is room for all in this hobby since it all boils down to our very modeling styles.[:D]
He has buildings and has painted the surfaces a desert tan. That’s more scenery then many people have. At least you can’t see through his benchwork to the floor and its a uniform color.
I rather doubt that if you operated on it you would, at the end of the day, really care wether ther was ballast and ground foam or not.
That is Lubbock!! When I first saw it, I thought he nailed it. I lived in Lubbock for 6 years and if you look off in the distance, you can see the back of your head! FLAT!!
Roads and tracks are basiscally at the same level. Not much elevation change. Nothing. I’d say he got Lubbock right on the nose.
When I first glanced at the trackplan and photos, my reaction was, “Wow, now this is an incredibly boring model railroad!” But then after reading it and discovering it was a deliberate artistic intent, I appreciated it more. I still wouldn’t play with my trains that way. But having a strong background in theatre scene and stage design, I don’t see why a deliberate minimalist approach should be shunned. Its a good question – What are the minimum elements needed to set the scene?
Roadtrp said it best and I’ll second it…
THERES NO WRONG WAY TO DO A MODEL RAILROAD
I’m surprised by the opinions that seam to say “If it isnt what I like , It shouldnt be in MR…” Isnt that a rather selfish attitude? Is it a LAW that there HAS to be scenery? Not everyone loves doing scenery, some HATE it.
I think this is a terrific way to do a railroad that specificly addresses its planned use, which is Operation. Why spend the next 5 years doing scenery just because someone thinks he “has to” do scenery or its “not a real model RR” . Why should the builder give any concern about scenery if he wants to run trains and hang the foam trees and ballast. He can also move it on a whim, how many of us can say that?
This is his railroad and he can build it anyway he wants, he wants a reliable system, not a pretty sceneic picture. Hence the heavy duty track and plywood surfaces and there are buildings where buildings need to be.
To so readily dismiss this layout is wrongheaded, its like the Malcomn Furlow bashing we had here a few months ago, same mentality, “it doesnt look my layout therfore is worthless and a waste of magazine space.” Well maybe you didnt like it, maybe you did. The magazine editors job is to show a wide variety of solutions, not just the same old boring layouts that seam to blend one into the other. This gives those who want to operate trains but loath doing scenery a good methodology to follow.
I have been in the previous CM & SF and I liked very much.
I do not have the guts to discard the layout and make a newer one with less scenery and details, but remember that this is the 8th CM & SF.
Perhaps Andy who is a close friend with David could give us more info on that.
I agree with vsmith, there is no wrong way to model a railway. For myself, I feel my railway must be there for a purpose, to move either people or goods from here to there. Therefore, I must have scenery. In the layout I am building, I’m trying to depict a land where I would like to live but this is my preference and to have a railroad to serve it. Mr Barrows has the perfect right to build his layout to do what he wants it to do just as we all have that same right to build ours.
Apparently many of you guys don’t appreciate what the complaining is all about. I, and I supposed most others who have posted here so far, wouldn’t care one iota if Barrows did operations with Lego or Brio trains on the carpet - good for him if that’s what he enjoys.
But when we lay out hard earned cash for a publication that has previous centered around excellent, clever, new ideas and concepts for model railroading, it is more than a little annoying to see a toy-like layout presented instead. There was nothing of Barrow’s layout worthy of it appearing in MRP - his idea for this layout has its basis in the 1940’s, not today or tomorrow. I’m sure that if anyone on this forum had submitted an identical article to MR you would have been laughed out of their editorial offices.
As if Barrow’s Senility Central wasn’t bad enough, most of us also agree that, overall, this year’s entire issue was dramatically substandard. And please don’t suggest if we didn’t like it we shouldn’t have bought it. Most of us pre-order MRP with our subscription renewals - a mistake I definitely won’t make next year.
I think it is refreshing to have a change of pace for once. Proto 48 and 87 and obsessive attention to detail–all of which I happen to like–have been in vogue of late in the magazines. Not everyone models that way.
Last night I was reading Rogue Bluffs Part 7 in the current issue of MR. The author explained why he didn’t use the standard window panes from a kit. It was because REAL double hung windows have glass on the top window that is further out than the glass on the bottom window – so he made two smaller panes and glued one to the OUTSIDE of the frame on top and the other to the INSIDE of the frame on the bottom.
I sat there shaking my head in disbelief, thinking this guy must have WAY TOO MUCH time on his hands.
I think it is kind of nice to see the other side to model railroading – a layout that is presented without such obsessive attention to detail.
My bet is that if everyone on this board rated the scenery on their own layout from 1-10 with 1 being no scenery and 10 being the Franklin and South Manchester, the average would end up being somewhere between 3 and 5. My feeling is that most people don’t have the time, the skill, or the desire to create the extraordinarily detailed scenery presented in many MR articles. Not that we don’t LOVE looking at it and reading about it – just that we don’t come close to that level on our own layouts.