New issue of MR arrived, and in it, a story that David Barrows has built another new railroad. Seems like he builds a new one every 5 years or so. I really liked his first two Santa Fe layouts, after that, I lost interest. So when I saw the new one this time, with a color photo on the cover of a sceniced mainline, I got excited. Then I read the article and see that he still prefers minimal scenery and the cover was of one spot that had been scenicked.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he is a talented modeler, but I can’t buy the bare table, no ballast approach. I am still operating the layout I started in 1983 or 1984, I forget, and I am still happy with it and have no interest or intent to replace it. What do you guys think about the replace every X number of years?
Is it ADD or ADHD ? Short attention span. I am a tight wad and would not spend the money to keep redoing entire layouts. I was very surprised to see that in the mag , an unfinished layout at such an early stages with out progress photos. I still found points of interest.
While I enjoyed the “original” CM&SF layouts much more, it’s up to Barrow as to what he wants for his own layout. (Remember, the philosophy we’re supposed to promote is, “It’s his layout, he can do what he wants.”) If he wishes to tear it up over and over, more power to him.
I don’t think pastorbob was attempting to imply that at all. The way I read it, it was more “to each his own, and that’s not my style.”
I too, really liked the original CM&SF, with the open staging yard and finished scenery. But since then…well… Don’t get me wrong, I love operations, and so far I’ve spent several hundred dollars and invested many hours planning and building a staging yard addition to my layout. But the total minimalist style, up to the wire nuts as signals - just doesn’t do it for me. I like operations that look nice as well!
I’ve always enjoyed all of Mr. Barrow’s layouts. While the original (and expanded versions) of the CM&SF was my favorite, I enjoy reading about and seeing his modeling. As long as he’s not putting himself in the poor house by building a new layout every so often, then he should do what makes him happy. After all, it is his layout.
For me, a layout is a major investment of my time and money, and I wouldn’t redo it unless I needed to (like for a move, disaster, etc.) or seriously wanted to (redesign, change of railroad/era/locale, etc.).
But I’m not quite into quibbling over whether one approach is better than another either.
But I will suggest that the idea of changing layout locales every couple of years is wearing a little thin on me----
ADD/ADHD? Who knows, but the idea that one should jump from one era/location/prototype/freelance into another is something that probably will keep certain RTR mfgr’s going for quite some time I suppose[:-^]
They all look boringly the same to me. What keeps MR to continually publish “new” versions? Once a decade would be more than sufficient. I must be missing something.
I think that the whole point of his dominos benchwork and the code 100 flextrack/Atlas # 6 turnouts is to be easy to modify, revise or start over. It is clear that David Barrows is far more interested in operations than scenery and wants to keep things simple and easy otherwise. Not my cup of tea, but clearly it is where his interests lie. For some people scenery and wiring is chore not a hobby. - Nevin
His stated goal for this incarnation of the CM&SF was to faithfully reproduce a section of prototype railroad in both track layout and operations. After reading the article, it seems he has met this objective and is enjoying layout operations along with his operating crew. While I want to go “all the way” with the scenery on my current layout and can not imagine going with the “bare table” approach, it seems to suit him and his crew just fine–yet more proof that model railroading is many different things to many different people. Seeing that he has also done “all the way” scenery on his previous layouts, this also illustrates how model railroading can be many differnt things to the same person at different times. The best example of this is the way he is using red, yellow and green wire nuts to simulate CTC signalling–even though he has previously built a layout with a fully signalled CTC system. More reasons for me to agree that this is the greatest hobby ever! Jamie
For a variety of reasons, I always seem to be building a layout and rarely get to the scenery stage. I have one under construction right now that will never get to scenery. It is a trial layout to see if I like point to point before committing myself to the “Big” one in retirement. In my case when I retire in a couple of years I will also be moving, so I am building this one as a minimalist layout I’m also building it to be able to reuse most of the materials on the next one.
While I plan to scenic my retirement layout, my first priority will be to get all the track in so I can run trains. And if I don’t make it to scenery that will be okay.
So I understand where David Barrows is at. So little time and so many ideas to try out.
Pure operations with no interest in scenery. Must want to satisfy the huge left side of his brain by executing the most efficient plan of moving blocks of freight cars from place to place, according to a preset schedule, without necessarily enjoying watching them move from place to place.
Couldn’t just spend his money on a good Sodoku puzzle book?
The idea that the Left side of his brain gets satisfied by operations isn’t too far off, all things considered. But, like Mark said, it is rather boring.
Me. I’d rather get the layout finished. With ALL the constituents thereof
Just a thought: David Barrow is an archchitect and as such, has a thing about trying new things and pushing the envelope. That also provides the finances. Likewise, if memory serves, he and Andy Sperando share a fondness for the AT & SF and when Andy was at UT they struck up a friendship.
The driving force behind Dave’s domino method was how often he wanted to rearrange things. I will admit his minimalist approach to modeling doesn’t light my fire, but he does have a keen mind for planning and operations.
I have always enjoyed reading about the CM&SF - in fact, it is probably one of my favorite layouts I’ve seen in the pages of MR.
But I really don’t get why they keep featuring the “minimalist” style layouts. Another set of tables arranged with atlas code 100 track on them, with a description of the operation.
It seems like MR constantly pushes creating a fully scenicked layout, yet they feature every new David Barrow table top with some tacked down track on it. I really don’t get it.
Again, I was a HUGE fan of his earlier layout, and I do appreciate his minimalist approach. But the minimalist approach layouts are truly a “you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all” scenario.
The way I would approach the minimalist thing would be VMR. Virtual Model Railroading. Set up a bunch of PC’s, netowrk it together, and install your favorite train simulator. That would be the ultimate expression in flexibility for the sake of operations. Much more powerful, efficient and realistic way to approach that scenario.
I always been a “minimalist” since I never like mountains,rivers,unrealistic grades,creeks and streams and would rather operate on a urban ISL then any other type of layout…
I saw this style of MR on a tour once and the over all opion I heard expressed was “yuck”. And there were a lot of people who got down the stairs and went back up in 5 min or less. It took me 10, I spent some time trying to figure out what kind of RR it was suppose to be, And without scenery it was very nearly impossible.
The info sheet was more about how operations were done and not what the layout was about.
That experience though got me to start adding scenery to my own layout and not just build structures to fill in the holes at sidings. And you know I discovered that the more scenery you add the more I want to keep building and detailing. And if I don’t I find myself getting bored with it.