MR Planning Annual

I glanced at a friend's copy the other night; I agree. Almost couldn't believe it was the CMSF at first. I can go for a variation of the dominoes bit, but I want my 'world' to look a few steps above the Plywood Central...

Matt

Thought it was a joke when I first glanced at the article. But then, how many folks today are justifying the purchase of RTR rolling stock by using the claim that these save them lotsa time they can devote to their layout. Well, here's the next step: do away with all that time consuming scenery so you can devote _that_ time to running your trains. Next year MRP will be composed of Trainsim articles so you won't have to waste time building any layout at all!

P.S. I didn't think much of the rest of MRP this year either, although I've very much enjoyed it in the past.

CNJ999

=>I glanced at a friend's copy the other night; I agree. Almost couldn't =>believe it was the CMSF at first. I can go for a variation of the dominoes =>bit, but I want my 'world' to look a few steps above the Plywood Central... =>

=>Matt =>

=>> -John

The landscape that Barrow models isn't much above "plywood central" in appearance. Besides, Barrow wants to operate. That's probably why he chose that type of landscape - minimal effort to produce authentic scenery.

Anyhow, there is no best style a model railroad. There are only different goals, and how well people have achieved them. You should be able to appreciate how well a person has achieved his or her goals whether or not they are the goals you would aim for. On that principle, Barrow is one of the most successful model railroaders around.

As someone once said when asked what was his favoirte type of music - c/w, jazz., rock, classical, whatever: "The best."

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

I remember a Marklin Z scale catalog that had the same arty approach with the stainless steel lighting fixtures and white backdrops, along with mountains made of stracked cuts of some sheet wood or something. On that it looked good, largely because of the lack of earth tones and ALOT of lttle pine trees......but on amercian HO......................... Maybe there is another reason he did this, like his vision is going or something.

Standard disclaimer alert: This all isn't a put-down. Just trying to spur some discussion.

-John

.......now if we could just get rid of that BUSH MUST BE IMPEACHED topic...........

-John

As a follow-up to my earlier post, I'd honestly have to say this level of modeling is what I would expect of a young teenage kid just starting out in the hobby: cheap code 100 track straight from the LHS laid directly on bare plywood with a couple of free-standing buildings thrown in here and there, with the whole thing completed in about three weekends. Considering the pleasing layouts he's done in the past, I think Barrow's domino thing finally went to his head. And I can't imagine the noise created by running trains on all that thin veneer plywood surface!

While I'm quite willing to accept that this design fits Mr. Barrow's very peculiar needs, it is most definitely not the sort of "layout" (and I'm almost ashamed to use the term in this instance) that should be allotted six valuable pages in a layout design magazine.

CNJ999

So far the responses to this posting have focused on the lack of scenery on the layout. But I know the real reason people are upset with that train layout. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING, under the train layout. No boxes, no stools, no scraps, no hanging wires, nothing stored under there, nothing at all. That is just obscene! Who can afford enough space for a train layout and have nothing pushed under the layout? It's just unnatural. Every layout I have ever seen has stuff shoved under it, and skirts around the edges to hide it. It just looks wrong to have it be so bare under there.

Jim Bernier wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@nospam.hotmail.com:

There is another factor to consider. I spent nearly ten years working in a PVC plant in Oklahoma City. Within the plant fence, essentially nothing was allowed to grow, except for some scroungy bushes next to the office as a poor excuse for landscaping. The major portion of the plant grounds was covered by grey gravel similar to track ballast in size. The grey expanse was broken only by concrete sidewalks and asphalt roads and parking lots, except for a few places where there was bare ground. There was some grass by the effluent ponds and a bit more on the back side of the plant. Occasionally, a weed would poke up through the aggregate on the ground, but about twice a year, they would get somebody in to spray and kill even the weeds.

Industrial settings have very little in the way of scenery beyond buildings, parking lots, and bare ground. That said, I didn't like that layout very much either.

Woodard Springstube

I remember one day years ago that I drove from Amarillo to Austin. To this day it was the most boring drive I ever made. I would describe that landscape as plywood so maybe Barrow is right on for the area he models. Marty Hall

I challenge you to show me a real railroad where the layout of trackage in the switching districts of each and every town is virtually the same, as is the case here in all but one location. The whole thing smacks of a lack of any originality or prototype fidelity to me. Good for operations it may be but believable as representing the real world it sure ain't!

CNJ999

Same here, but when I put down the trackage, I left it somewhat loose to make sure the plan actually worked before I spiked everything down and scenicked the bare spots. The plan was OK, I did make a few changes.

But, it's still not spiked or scenicked; I just hooked up my NCE system and run trains. I have a few buildings out there, plus some dummy signals, but the main thing is running trains.

Kennedy (Minimalist, MI)

Its unusual and has a modern wide open look too it. It seems that Dave Barrows minimalist layout is at the opposite end of the scale model railroad spectrum from the F&SM. I think that Dave needs one of Georges "Clutter Kits" and George needs a Walthers "Built Up". That should shake them up a little. At least both Dave and George have very nice fully operating layouts and that's more than I can say for myself. Bruce

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Marty Hall) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

It must have been in August. By then, all of the greenery has dried up most summers. But, we don't have to shovel snow in Austin in the winter.

You are correct, it was August and it was hot Marty Hall

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:14:25 -0500 (EST), "Wolf Kirchmeir" shared this with the world:

I haven't seen the article yet, but a couple of things spring to mind..

1) This is the MR Planning annual, not the Great Model Railroads annual. 2) Just because it's operational, doesn't mean that it's a "completed" railroad yet. Don't we all get our layouts operating before we go all out on the scenery?

Kent

"Kent Ashton"

No, we "all" don't. Some of us scenic as we go.

Build some benchwork, lay some track.

Build some more benchwork, lay more track, go back and scenic the first part.

Repeat as required, in any order that satisfies your wants and needs.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

Gah!

You mean participate in thsi hobby to please myself, and not a bunch of magazine editors and whinging gits on r.m.r?

Surely you jest!

(You know I'm kidding, Roger...right?)

Jeff Sc. MRIF, Dammit!, Ga.

Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed.

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Marty Hall) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

I thought so. About two years ago, we had something like 40 days in a row of highs above 100 degrees. Last summer, it hit

108 one day in early August.