Lucky the owner only has to satisfy himself, not visitors or guests, huh?
I see Barrows layout as a virtual railroad,a step up from a computer game. The object is to move tonnage from one point to another,while making sure empties get back to the places where they’re filled, in the manner of a real freight moving system. The simplified signals are a way to get started and learn how real signals work. They may or may not progress on to a real electronic signal system.But with his new old machine ,I would guess he will eventually will have an operating system.
My own style of modeling is more a flight of fancy,with a much more casual operating “system”.
BILL
An interesting way to go about a Barrowsian minimalist approach to ops without hanging a huge expense around the neck would be to put together a whole bunch of waybills and etc and play it out like a card game-----no need for a dang computer even------
I see it as starting to close the circle. The operations concept is getting back toward where he started. CTC is starting to come in. Now starting to scenic parts of the layout. Wouldn’t be surprised when the next article comes out about installing CTC & signaling on the CM&SF.
I’ve really enjoyed his articles over the years on design philosophy. I have a couple of dominos on my layout that I designed based on his original domino article years ago. While they have benefits, I also find them too confining, and I don’t just mean for scenary, but track layout. They fit very well for a linear main line, but lack the flexibility for spurs and tracks that serve industries off the main line with more complex environements as in many eastern areas.
I think he’s taken the linear track plan designed for operations to its logical conclusion. After the major modeling press has followed the leaders in operations to the end of the line, maybe we’re moving back to some medium in design between “pure” and “spaghetti bowls.”
Of course I also won’t be surprised when Koester tears down the NKP to do a large scale main two footer or a branch line to Peterboro.
I have to agree with Pastor Bob,
I really liked David Barrow’s earlier layouts but his obsession for the past 10+ years with his domino’s has got me yawning. Its been nothing but domino’s now for a long time and well, it doesn’t do much for me I guess.
I’ve also enjoyed his design philosophy articles. In fact, the layout I’m building right now is essentially two “dominoes”, plus a return loop for continuous running / stagint.
His South Plains project layout was a huge influence for me. I mean huge - like that’s where I went from crazy dreams of huge layouts as a kid (which would never be built of course) to realizing a small layout could likely be very satisfying (I just had to wait a few years through college / dating / marriage / house buying / etc. before getting back into it). The whole time, that layout was on my mind.
His concepts are great. The thing is though, once he’s stripped down the scenerey to literally Zero, I just don’t quite get why the layouts are featured in MR. They’re more like “concepts”.
Alright, maybe I’m just dissapointed, because when I saw the “next month” thing in MR the previous month, and saw a scenicked David Barrow scene, I was thinking, “yeah baby, the man is back at it!!!”. Nope. Shuffled the dominoes around, new track plan.
Come on David, your fans need a full-blown layout man!!!
It doesn’t have to be huge. The one in the 1996 MRP with 3 layouts to fit in a bedroom (David Barrow, Michael Tylick, and Allen McClelland each drew up one) was awesome. How about creating that layout, fully scenicked - your fans (like me) will be ecstatic!!!
Maybe the real problem is that the lessons to be learned from a David Barrow layout are not best conveyed with pretty pictures with captions versus meaty text. There is usually something of interest in each version of a Barrow layout, but I am not sure it is something learned from the photographs, and we need more textual guidance in grasping the point.
Any of his layouts COULD be developed into the dream layout more commonly seen in the magazines. For example on his Lubbock switching district layout, the structures were correctly sized but were basic forms neatly constructed of pure white foam core board – just as an architect lays out a floor plan or footprint of a proposed structure but doesn’t include the bricks or wood or other details. Over time he could have replaced each with a detailed model of the building, but his point was to switch those structures. They were in essence symbolic structures not model structures. As a picture story it made for a sort of laboratory-like coldness. As an instructional article it made more sense.
Similarly all that unballasted Atlas Code 100 could be replaced by the beautiful handlaid track of his earlier layout. But you know, once you ballast really nice track, including the more realistic and expensive brands of flex track, the work involved and the time and the nice appearance all conspire against making even necessary changes. It creates its own paralysis. Evidently Barrow wants none of that. He wants no reason, no investment of time or energy or attractive appearance, NOT to change.
So his point now is, does the layout provide for interesting and challenging operations. And that is something you aren’t going to grasp during the traditional NMRA convention layout tour, but only during an operating session or more guided tour from the layout builder.&
I won’t yawn(well maybe a little) since Dave been thinking outside of the usual layout design box that the majority uses.
I have learn several lessons from his articles over the past 10 years that would be useful for modular design layouts base on operation rather then endless 3 track loop display running.Of course one of the benefits of the domino/modular layout would be the ease of moving our layout to a new home.
As far as the minimalist approach…
I have use that approach on my past(and more then likely future) ISLs and use only scenery found in a industrial area*…I have even use a cardboard mock up till the type of structure need was found and built or in some cases the right structures needed to kitbash the structure was located…
*Realistically detailing a ISL is more complicated then it sounds and there are disciplines to be learned and use which also involves a minimalist approach and a different way of modeling track…
As a somewhat minamalist modeler myself, I can certainly appreciate the approach of “Operations First, Scenery Last”. That doesn’t mean I’d want to look at such a layout for too long because it is visually boring. I currently have no scenery on my layout other than buildings plopped down next to sidings. I freely admit that if I was visiting my own layout, I’d be bored to tears within 10 minutes. However, my layout is operational, and while my layout is boring to look at, it’s fun to operate. It routinely takes 3-4 people to run my layout for 2 hours to complete an operation, and we all have fun while doing it even tho’ there isn’t a scrap of ground foam to be found on my layout for the moment. Scenery is planned for the future, but I’m not too hot to trot to get it all done since I know my 25’ x 50’ layout is not permanent and will someday need to be moved (it’s in the basement of a retail store).
Meanwhile, I have been to several layouts and seen many modular layouts that I can spend a lot of time staring at. Visually, they are very fun to look at with a lot of detail and things that catch the eye. But I would never want to run on these layouts as they are just loops of track. There’s no fun in that, at least for me. Sorry, but if all you can do is set the speed of your train and let it run in circles unattended for hours, that’s a boring, lame layout.
BTW, for all those complaining about how much coverage Dave Barrow’s CM&SF gets in MR, let’s take a look at the MR issues that has his layout featured in it:
August 2009: A Look at the Newest Cat Mountain & Santa Fe
September 1999: 25 Years on the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe
October 1997: The South Plains District Revisited
December 1996: Build the Cat Mountain’s South Plains District Part 4
November 1996: Build the Cat Mountain’s South Plains District Part 3
October 199
Paul, I think you missed a couple of articles in Model Railroad Planning. But I think the larger reason some folks are becoming fatigued is that some of these designs (touted as new) are so similar to ones that have come from Mr. Barrow before and the concepts don’t change much. Little new ground is being broken.
It sure as heck seems like it. Shuffle the dominoes, and tuh duh, a “new” layout design!
Mark
cuyama,
Model Railroad Planning is not Model Railroader. I subscribe to MR, and I’ve never gotten a copy of MRP because of it. I buy MRP on the newstand if I buy it at all.
But look at Bob’s title of this thread: “Got my new MR, see it is that time again.” Sounds like it’s just dripping with, “Oh, boy, just what we don’t need because he’s in MR every single month” kind of thought. He goes on to say that Barrow builds a new layout every 5 years, and that he lost interest after the first two layouts, blah, blah, etc. From what I can tell, he’s had 4 layouts in 4 decades (1974, 1984, 1996, and 2009 are the dates referred to in the Index), and hasn’t published a CM&SF article in MR since the Clinton Administration.
Then you have Mark saying, “I’m tired of the too-frequent articles on his repetitive layouts.” Again, it’s been 10 years. How long does Barrow have to wait before he puts in another article? 20? 30?
You folks don’t like his layouts. Fine, I get it. But let’s keep the hyperbole down to reasonable levels, shall we?
Paul A. Cutler III
Weather Or No Go New Haven
Well, I just got my new MR today, and I looked at the story of David Barrow´s new layout. It will be, in some yeras time, certainly a fascinating layout to report on, but, IMHO, not now - way too early.
Why is MR publishing stories on layouts that are years away from being finished to a degree which makes it worthwile to write a story?
I guess it is the lack of contributions, so it is up to us to solve that problem, guys!
Sir, you’re missing one point. There is no intention of “finishing” his layouts. I’ll bet you right now he is reshuffling the dominoes for his next layout. (Me? I like hyperbole.)
Mark
Message received and understood, Mark.
Here is a new German word for you: Saure Gurkenzeit - meaning the time of sour gurkins - a phrase used in the media business, when there are no news to report…
Are we entering the "who-built-the-most-working-layouts-in-a-lifetime-contest?
Well gee whiz Herr Ulrich if we are in a contest I will be in the top 10 as far as ISLs…[:O]
Folks:
I liked the article. Mr. Barrow thinks outside the box. He’s taken the elements he likes, and boiled his railroading style down to just those elements. It’s a railroad simulation done with actual scale models. The article challenges our preconceived notions of what a model railroad must be, and that makes it worth writing about. That’s also why we’re seeing a certain hostility in this thread, I think. 
Another thing we shouldn’t miss is that, while his scenery is simpler than most, his track layouts are very carefully designed and researched, much more than most.
I think we can like his style or not like it, and we can talk about our reasons, but the one thing we can’t do is say that he’s doing it wrong, because he’s obviously having fun with his trains. I also think that if we look at something like this with an open mind, even if it’s not something we personally would copy, we can come away with ideas and insights we wouldn’t otherwise have.
Now wait a minute… Where are all the guys crying that they only ever see museum quality layouts in MR? Here’s a great example of an operations based layout with a track plan ripped right from the prototype, so the owner can enjoy “running his trains” the way he wants without regard to how photogenic it is.
I found the track planning approach fascinating, and I’m sure his crew has a ball running long freights over those long stretches of track.
Like most of you guys, I’d be busy cutting foam and spreading plaster and ground foam, but that’s my bag.
Finally, you guys with a sheet of plywood and a bunch of sectional track have a real icon of the hobby on your side!
Savor the moment!
Lee
I’m in the DB camp. Having lived all my life in the Midwest, I always think long, linear, relatively flat when I think of railroads. And I like the domino approach because I like the flexibility of reworking track plans without totally trashing an entire layout when / if things evolve.
Ok, the wire nuts are a little too minimalist for me, but I do hate ballasting, so…
I suspect they’re in the same place as all those people who, whenever someone complains about MR’s content, launch into the “submit articles yourself if you don’t like it” speech.