In praise of Pelle Soeborg

[reklein]

I like mark Newtons point about the mundane. Whats mundane to us americans is not mundane to a Dane or any foreigner for that matter. Pelle has a talent for observation andthe ability to translate it to 3-D art,then back to 2-D in his photos.Good modeling indeed. We should take some lessons.

[jktrains]

Well Mark, in your time spent chopping up my post your failed read the part that said there are exceptions and that if you're modeling an area that specifically contains those unusual features then they should be included because it helps to located the setting.  Unfortunately, far too often modelers choose to include the unique and unusual, not because it helps to locate the setting, but because they feel that need to something unique that will make their layout stand out from the rest or because they have to to make a certain track arrangement fit.  Without that double slip switch in the mainline through town only 2 industries could be served instead of 4 mentality  The other thing that many modelers stumble on is they end up modeling what someone else haas modeled and what they see in model railroading magazines.  Each successive occurance of this leaves the scene one step away from being reailty based.

Regarding those imbiquitous scenes of the train crossing some vast canyon on a bridge in front of a waterfall, too many people seem compelled to include that type of scene on their layout.  As I saw one well known modeler wire, its like they feel the need to include such a scene to prove their scenery skills.  The same can be said about the rail line through the mountains.  Pelle's scenery captures something completely different - desert scenery.  Dave barrows CM&SF did desert scenery just as well.

The point Pelle made not once, but twice, was to avoid modeling the unusual.  It reminds me of the old photo column MR ran years and years ago called "It Ain't Prototypical."  It featured some picture of a prototype settings that went against conventional modeling norms like having a turnout in the middle of a bridge.  And as others will point out, you can find a prototype for anything if you look hard enough.  Unfortunately, people start to find that one of a kind thing as reason to justify most of how their layout is designed or operated or their rolling stock.  The result is a layout filled with one of a kind things that don't lend themselves to being realistic.

What it comes down to is research, which is what Pelle does.  If your prototype puts double slip switches in the middle of a bridge in front of a waterfall, then go for it.  But is it a common occurance or just the only example of it?

[Mailman56701]

Great modeler but,needs to study more..His roadways are to clean-no oil drops.rubber tracks etc...I thought one photo( the one with the Denny's restaurant) was a picture of the real thing on the first look..A closer look revealed it was indeed a model due to the street surface

 

I used to live in Lancaster California about 20 miles south of Mojave and visited that Denny's many times while shooting pictures around that area.  His model is very good and his skill at building the models is fantastic.   If I remember correctly, the Denny's restaurant planted some of the trees that Pelle had on his model layout since they saw the layout pictures and planted the trees to enhance the real prototype.

Not only is he a great modeler and artist, but he is a great landscape artist also if that story is true.

  Actually, the palm tree info. pertained to another modeler, and involved a hotel......but I too have to add iirc.

[Mailman56701]

Great modeler but,needs to study more..His roadways are to clean-no oil drops.rubber tracks etc...I thought one photo( the one with the Denny's restaurant) was a picture of the real thing on the first look..A closer look revealed it was indeed a model due to the street surface

Folks identify the pics of my projects as models in about a nano-second.  I can't wait until the day when someone has to take a closer look to determine my projects are indeed models. 

  Well, if it helps, you have to remember how and who is taking a photo can make a huge difference.

  No different than this hobby; there's different levels of quality equipment, etc. in that industry too.

[tomikawaTT]

Well Mark, in your time spent chopping up my post your failed read the part that said there are exceptions and that if you're modeling an area that specifically contains those unusual features then they should be included because it helps to located the setting.  Unfortunately, far too often modelers choose to include the unique and unusual, not because it helps to locate the setting, but because they feel that need to something unique that will make their layout stand out from the rest or because they have to to make a certain track arrangement fit.  Without that double slip switch in the mainline through town only 2 industries could be served instead of 4 mentality  The other thing that many modelers stumble on is they end up modeling what someone else haas modeled and what they see in model railroading magazines.  Each successive occurance of this leaves the scene one step away from being reailty based.

Regarding those imbiquitous scenes of the train crossing some vast canyon on a bridge in front of a waterfall, too many people seem compelled to include that type of scene on their layout.  As I saw one well known modeler wire, its like they feel the need to include such a scene to prove their scenery skills.  The same can be said about the rail line through the mountains.  Pelle's scenery captures something completely different - desert scenery.  Dave barrows CM&SF did desert scenery just as well.

The point Pelle made not once, but twice, was to avoid modeling the unusual.  It reminds me of the old photo column MR ran years and years ago called "It Ain't Prototypical."  It featured some picture of a prototype settings that went against conventional modeling norms like having a turnout in the middle of a bridge.  And as others will point out, you can find a prototype for anything if you look hard enough.  Unfortunately, people start to find that one of a kind thing as reason to justify most of how their layout is designed or operated or their rolling stock.  The result is a layout filled with one of a kind things that don't lend themselves to being realistic.

What it comes down to is research, which is what Pelle does.  If your prototype puts double slip switches in the middle of a bridge in front of a waterfall, then go for it.  But is it a common occurance or just the only example of it?

Mark beat me to it, so I'll make my basic point again.  Mojave, CA (a town which I knew well in the mid-60s and have visited more recently) is NOT the Broad Way with wall-to-wall Belpaire-fireboxed steamers filling the sky with smoke while slamming across innumerable crossing diamonds is NOT the Upper Kiso Valley of Central Honshu at ANY time.  The rules have to be adapted to the prototype, not vice versa.

As it happens, the Upper Kiso Valley differs from Mojave in that the railroads make their way through terrain that resembles a forested miniature of depths of the Grand Canyon.  Even the little logger that replaced 4-drivered steam with 4-wheel diesel 'critters' had BIG steel bridges, and a number of hard-rock tunnels (features unheard of on American timber operations, but standard for the Kiso Rintetsu.)  That switchback station with the double slip was forced on the locating engineers by topography, not by a desire to enrich the specialwork manufacturers.  As for mountains - if your prototype runs through the mountains, you model mountains!

As for doing the research, my footprints are all over the area I'm modeling.  My work is being planned with my own photos and field notes in hand.

I notice that Pelle has avoided the unusual at Mojave - the rows of obsolete airliners parked wingtip to wingtip, the Scale Composites hangar and Space Ship One.  I also plan to avoid modeling the huge concrete power dams and generating plants along the Tomikawa, my version of the Kiso River.

Sometimes near-vertical topography covered with second-growth cedar IS mundane.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[Anonymous]

Great modeler but,needs to study more..His roadways are to clean-no oil drops.rubber tracks etc...I thought one photo( the one with the Denny's restaurant) was a picture of the real thing on the first look..A closer look revealed it was indeed a model due to the street surface

 

I used to live in Lancaster California about 20 miles south of Mojave and visited that Denny's many times while shooting pictures around that area.  His model is very good and his skill at building the models is fantastic.   If I remember correctly, the Denny's restaurant planted some of the trees that Pelle had on his model layout since they saw the layout pictures and planted the trees to enhance the real prototype.

Not only is he a great modeler and artist, but he is a great landscape artist also if that story is true.

  Actually, the palm tree info. pertained to another modeler, and involved a hotel......but I too have to add iirc.

 

The palm tree story is true and it did involve the Best Western Motel.  Pelle delivered an color enlargement during one of his stays in Mojave to the management and the next visit that Pelle made the palm trees had been imported and planted.  Simple story.  

[Mailman56701]

Great modeler but,needs to study more..His roadways are to clean-no oil drops.rubber tracks etc...I thought one photo( the one with the Denny's restaurant) was a picture of the real thing on the first look..A closer look revealed it was indeed a model due to the street surface

 

I used to live in Lancaster California about 20 miles south of Mojave and visited that Denny's many times while shooting pictures around that area.  His model is very good and his skill at building the models is fantastic.   If I remember correctly, the Denny's restaurant planted some of the trees that Pelle had on his model layout since they saw the layout pictures and planted the trees to enhance the real prototype.

Not only is he a great modeler and artist, but he is a great landscape artist also if that story is true.

  Actually, the palm tree info. pertained to another modeler, and involved a hotel......but I too have to add iirc.

 

The palm tree story is true and it did involve the Best Western Motel.  Pelle delivered an color enlargement during one of his stays in Mojave to the management and the next visit that Pelle made the palm trees had been imported and planted.  Simple story.  

  Ah, so it was a motel, thanks.

[marknewton]

Well Mark, in your time spent chopping up my post...

Why is that objectionable? You made a number of separate points, which I responded to individually.

your failed read the part that said there are exceptions and that if you're modeling an area that specifically contains those unusual features then they should be included because it helps to located the setting.

I read it. You continue to miss the point both Chuck and I were making. The general principle espoused by Soeberg - model the mundane, not the exceptional - is a good one, and one we both embraced long before Soeberg was published. It's the specific suggestions about achieving that goal that we differ with. As Chuck has noted, not all prototypes are alike, and the "rules" need to be applied in context.

Unfortunately, far too often modelers choose to include the unique and unusual, not because it helps to locate the setting, but because they feel that need to something unique that will make their layout stand out from the rest...

We choose to model Japanese railways in a minority scale and gauge, and we do that modelling outside Japan. That alone makes our layouts stand out from the rest. We don't need to do anything else unique.

or because they have to to make a certain track arrangement fit.  Without that double slip switch in the mainline through town only 2 industries could be served instead of 4 mentality...

My prototype had exactly that mentality, due to the constraints of geography and existing land-use patterns. If it's good enough for them...

The other thing that many modelers stumble on is they end up modeling what someone else haas modeled and what they see in model railroading magazines.  Each successive occurance of this leaves the scene one step away from being reailty based.

Mate, I can't count the number arguments I've started by being critical of this style of modelling. The last thing I want to do is build someone else's model railway. Like Chuck, I'm basing my work strictly on personal observation, experience, and research from primary sources. As much as I enjoy what I see in RM Models and Tetsudo Mokei Shumi, I don't copy it.

Regarding those imbiquitous scenes of the train crossing some vast canyon on a bridge in front of a waterfall, too many people seem compelled to include that type of scene on their layout.  As I saw one well known modeler wire, its like they feel the need to include such a scene to prove their scenery skills.  The same can be said about the rail line through the mountains.  Pelle's scenery captures something completely different - desert scenery.  Dave barrows CM&SF did desert scenery just as well.

Good on them. Trouble is, there aren't too many deserts in Japan, so modelling them is not an option. Plenty of vast canyons with bridges, waterfalls and what have you, though. So I'm only "compelled" to model them because that's what there.

The point Pelle made not once, but twice, was to avoid modeling the unusual.

And the point Chuck and I made twice is that what's unusual is entirely dependent on the prototype you're modelling. The specific rules don't apply across the board, only the general idea.

What it comes down to is research, which is what Pelle does.  If your prototype puts double slip switches in the middle of a bridge in front of a waterfall, then go for it.  But is it a common occurance or just the only example of it?

I'm tempted to respond by suggesting that you should do a bit of research as well, and find out for yourself. But I wouldn't want to challenge your parochialism too much, so I'll say yes, double slips on bridges are common in Japan. Why would you think otherwise? You don't think the US way is the only way to do things, do you?

Cheers,

Mark.

[Dave Vollmer]

Mark and JK...

What exactly are you guys disagreeing about?  Seems to me like you both agree that research, and the right details, make or break the layout.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that California details are universally applicable.  Less is more is certainly subjective.  But having been to Japan (briefly) I get the impression that Japan is very neat and well-kept, so that again, gobs and gobs of clutter from the bits box would be just as inappropriate for a Japanese application.

Research does it.  Honestly, I enjoy the research aspect of model railroading.  There are many that swear by the mantra of "there's a prototype for everything," and research often turns up the unusual.  But at the same time, if it was so unusual that you had to look up multiple references to find it, well...   maybe it's a stretch?

To me, the ultimate test of realism is very simple...  Does it look like what someone would see in that time and place in real life?  Even freelancers can pass this test (i.e., V&O, AM, and Pelle's Daneville, to name a few).  If it doesn't (i.e., towering mountains on a Florida East Coast layout or steamers hauling 86' auto parts boxcars), then it won't ever quite have that same "smack you in the face" realism that the cover photo of the April MR has.

Everything works in concert, from the locos and scenery to the little details, to stitch together the theme.  A stitch of a different color makes the theme less clear.

[Autobus Prime]

To me, the ultimate test of realism is very simple...  Does it look like what someone would see in that time and place in real life?  Even freelancers can pass this test (i.e., V&O, AM, and Pelle's Daneville, to name a few).  If it doesn't (i.e., towering mountains on a Florida East Coast layout or steamers hauling 86' auto parts boxcars), then it won't ever quite have that same "smack you in the face" realism that the cover photo of the April MR has.

DV:

But if the time or place are also fictional, then what?  This isn't purely whimsy.  I'm talking about a scene that is real as real can be, and with everything going for it except existence.

I do agree...that cover shot makes me think "that model looks real", not "that's a great model". 

(Much more realistic than the model on SI's current cover, for that matter. ) 

I still wonder about the places of connotation and depiction in our MRR philosophies.  To some, perfectly-modeled F units can look like toys, remember?   I think a lot of us think it's all what you see, and underestimate the importance of the mental associations formed while looking.

 

[Dave Vollmer]

To me, the ultimate test of realism is very simple...  Does it look like what someone would see in that time and place in real life?  Even freelancers can pass this test (i.e., V&O, AM, and Pelle's Daneville, to name a few).  If it doesn't (i.e., towering mountains on a Florida East Coast layout or steamers hauling 86' auto parts boxcars), then it won't ever quite have that same "smack you in the face" realism that the cover photo of the April MR has.

DV:

But if the time or place are also fictional, then what?  This isn't purely whimsy.  I'm talking about a scene that is real as real can be, and with everything going for it except existence.

I do agree...that cover shot makes me think "that model looks real", not "that's a great model". 

(Much more realistic than the model on SI's current cover, for that matter. ) 

I still wonder about the places of connotation and depiction in our MRR philosophies.  To some, perfectly-modeled F units can look like toys, remember?   I think a lot of us think it's all what you see, and underestimate the importance of the mental associations formed while looking.

You misunderstand me...  Even a fictional place has a general locale.  The towns on my layout are fictional, but are based on real Pennsylvania towns.  But I don't put a Wild West saloon or a massive grain elevator in the middle of my central PA town.

That's what I meant.

[Autobus Prime]

To me, the ultimate test of realism is very simple...  Does it look like what someone would see in that time and place in real life?  Even freelancers can pass this test (i.e., V&O, AM, and Pelle's Daneville, to name a few).  If it doesn't (i.e., towering mountains on a Florida East Coast layout or steamers hauling 86' auto parts boxcars), then it won't ever quite have that same "smack you in the face" realism that the cover photo of the April MR has.

DV:

But if the time or place are also fictional, then what?  This isn't purely whimsy.  I'm talking about a scene that is real as real can be, and with everything going for it except existence.

I do agree...that cover shot makes me think "that model looks real", not "that's a great model". 

(Much more realistic than the model on SI's current cover, for that matter. ) 

I still wonder about the places of connotation and depiction in our MRR philosophies.  To some, perfectly-modeled F units can look like toys, remember?   I think a lot of us think it's all what you see, and underestimate the importance of the mental associations formed while looking.

You misunderstand me...  Even a fictional place has a general locale.  The towns on my layout are fictional, but are based on real Pennsylvania towns.  But I don't put a Wild West saloon or a massive grain elevator in the middle of my central PA town.

That's what I meant.

DV:

Oddly enough, I have seen a lot of very Wild West-looking buildings in my rambles across PA. 

I didn't misunderstand you.  In fact, I'm trying to do roughly the same thing myself, only with the PA oil region.  Nevertheless, realism could also be achieved by a skilled creator whose setting was completely original - an island somewhere, perhaps in an ocean on another planet.  Science fiction can be realistic in its own way.

[CAZEPHYR]

 

In all fairness to most model layouts, it is really hard to get compressed detail into the space we normally have to work with.  If you have visited Balboa Park in San Diego and looked the La Mesa club layout, you will tend to think it is the closest to scale layout in the world.   There are actually five layouts there that are very large.  Their climb from Bakersfield over the loop actually climbs from the base level to the second story summit. 

 Even so, I have to admire Pelle's work since his work looks so great and is on what is really a shelf type in the sense it is a loop that is viewed as two scenes.  One is Mojave and the other is the Hill over the pass if I remember correctly.   

The large layout on the web site below is very interesting in the sense they have a very large space and the large areas are hard to get detail to look like Pelle's work.   The large space does give the impression that it looks real since the compression is much less.

 http://lamesaclub.com/

 http://www.sdmodelrailroadm.com/tehachapi_pass.html

 http://www.sdmodelrailroadm.com/tehachapipics/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

[marknewton]

Mark and JK...

What exactly are you guys disagreeing about?  Seems to me like you both agree that research, and the right details, make or break the layout.

Absolutely. I think we may be at cross-purposes to some extent, but I disagree with JK's statement that:
" there may be different places, but the same rules apply, not different rules"
He made specific reference to things like double slips and freight car rosters made up of one type of car to support his position, but both of these things are commonplace on our prototype.

And, truth be told, I wanted to show support for Chuck - we modellers of Japan have to stick together!

All the best,

Mark.

[SBCA]

Alright, I still haven't gotten this issue.  I can't wait!!!

Are the pictures in the newest MR article from his layout, or from new dioramas for the new book?  (The cover appears to be from his layout).

Pelle Soeborg and Lance Mindheim for President and Vice President, I say!!!  (or could be the other way around - doesn't matter to me!)

These guys would be great for running the country (just suspend the fact that Pelle is not an American for a second...  with western scenery like that, he's American enough - I think he should be an honorary Southern Californian for goodness sakes!).

They balance each other out perfectly.  Their modeling is the most realistic I've ever seen in MR, and Pelle is a continous running railfan type, while Lance Mindheim seems to be an operation oriented kind of guy, and has built several of his personal layouts now without continuous running.  They'll be able to keep the left and right wingers of our hobby happy.

Speaking of, I noticed on Lance Mindheim's website that he's got a trackplan of his new HO Layout online in the FAQ Section.  Yeah!!

www.lancemindheim.com

[NittanyLion]

I've never heard of this Lance Mindheim (probably from being out of the loop for years), but wow.  Looking at the picture of the Canal on that site, I could practically feel the warm breezes of Miami.  The white coral-y look of the ground, the faded pastel-like colors, and some of the best grass I've ever seen in model form that happens to look exactly like sawgrass or whatever its called down there.  All look like the rundown parts of Miami. 

Ha, now I notice a Spanish H&R Block billboard with the Clearchannel logo on it.

It all looked very familiar with me until I clicked on the prototype pictures and realized I probably actually have seen some of them.  Haven't spent a lot of time in Miami, but I happened to spend part of in the less than nice parts northeast of the airport.

[selector]

I hesitate to presume to speak for either Mark or Jerry, but reading both their posts suggests to me that they agree with Pelle's guideline about modelling the mundane rather than what is unique.  It was the specifics that got them into the tree bark instead of being able to see the forest.  Let me try to explain, please.

I feel the guideline is sound...such as it is.  But as Mark has pointed out, the mundane in Japan is not going to be mundane in Wyoming.  So, when in Japan, do as the mundanity demands...model it, and if that includes stacked double-slips, and one wants to capture the feel and look of this prototype, then by gosh it has to be done.  For his part, Jerry, I believe, is assuring Mark that Pelle has it right.  No stacked double-slips in Wyoming because there actually only may be one in a prototype's case, and that would be unique, not mundane...model what the average Joe is going to see from the driver's seat because that is what will twig him to the model when he sees it.

So, I think you both agree, but comparing specificity between models is obviously problematic because it draws too much attention to the disparities between them, which makes their "uniqueness", and not their mundanity, more salient.

I don't know it that helps in any way?

[CAZEPHYR]

One thing I noticed with Pelle's article was the right of way beside the tracks.  Thats something I've never seen or noticed on other layouts.  Something that seems so simple really stood out.  I think I will be adding that feature to my new section I'm building.

His observation of the right of ways and modeling them on the layout is very important if you want the model to look like a prototype.  Most layouts are so compressed that adding any more space along the tracks is really hard to plan and install.  These access roads are the key to maintenance of the right of way and we have used them also for access while shooting pictures. 

Some of my best pictures came from using these roads before the increased security.     

 

[JimRCGMO]

Interesting thread here!

One thing I didn't see mentioned that others might not (or might) know, is that Pelle's layout (and possibly another earlier version) has appeared before. Where? In Woodland Scenics' catalogs (and how many of us have deciduous trees we got from WS?!). I'd have to get home to tell you which year's WS catalogs, but some of the recent ones include shots of the current layout Pelle shows in his current book and on his web pages. I look forward to buying both of Pelle's books (once the new one comes out), but then again, I model the Southwestern US area for my protolance RR. Since my RR is set in the late 1950's, I won't be using the Denny's, but the scenery will pretty much apply in similar ways. I believe it was an architect that said "Less is More," which could summarize some of Pelle's approach. (Just not carried to extremes...)

 

Jim in Cape Girardeau 

[Pruitt]

I hesitate to presume to speak for either Mark or Jerry, but reading both their posts suggests to me that they agree with Pelle's guideline about modelling the mundane rather than what is unique...

I feel the guideline is sound...such as it is. 

Just to throw another twist into this - modeling the mundane is fine for freelancers, but speaking as one of those trying to model particular locations and prototypes, you can take your mundane guideline and toss it into the trash!

I'll model what was/is there, whether mundane or exceptional. For example, the Wind River Canyon,

with it's rock tunnels and wooden debris-deflecting portals is anything but mundane, but I'll be modeling it anyway.

In modeling specific locations and prototypes, everything is unique, and focusing on modeling only the mundane will likely lose the prototype identity for which you are striving.

[selector]

Again, Mark, in what way do we disagree?  We're all saying the same thing...if you are going to model anything about what is real, whether or not it is part of a purely prototypical model or part of a free/proto-lanced whole, model what you see and what "does it" for you.  In your case, you have identified the rock tunnels....gotta have 'em.  They won't appear on any other layout unless that builder also wants them for a particular reason.  In the meantime, Pelle says don't model those tunnels on the bald prairie, even if you can somehow make them fit, because they don't belong...they're not there in context to begin with, and won't be seen or appreciated by those who know the region.  He also says don't model farmer Dan's unique hand-built windmill pump because the ones that Fairbanks-Morse sold in far larger numbers back then would have been more "mundane".

-Crandell

[tomikawaTT]

Before I start, I want to reiterate that I think Pelle Soeberg has captured the hot, dusty, sprawled-out feeling of Mojave, CA, in a way that I can only dream of equalling on my layout.  More power to him.

I'm going to comment that Mark B. has a valid point, but I'm going to re-state his thesis changing only one word:

If you model a prototype location, what is actually there is mundane.  Mark's tunnels, my heavy steel bridges supporting featherweight trains and Pelle's dry, dusty town with its Denny's and ARCO signs are all equally honest.  Mark's tunnel in Mojave, my Japanese ryokan in the Wind River Valley or Pelle's Denny's in Central Japan would be sufficiently anachronous to immediately destroy the sense of place each is striving for.

Likewise, the rolling stock one models must be appropriate to the place being modeled.  Unit coal trains would be unlikely to polish the rails through Mojave.  In the Powder River Basin you won't see much else.  Somebody modeling the oil refineries of the Gulf Coast would raise eyebrows if there were no humongous tank cars in sight.  Even that heavyweight depressed center flat might be appropriate if one of your on-line industries ships or receives machinery massive enough to justify it.  Bear in mind that something that is ubiquitous at point Alpha would be unusual at point Beta and absolutely unknown at point Gamma, and assemble your freight car roster (and passenger roster, if your road still carries passengers) accordingly.

Even freelancers have some real place in mind when they begin planning - and it isn't that difficult to maintain plausibility by following the same basic rules.  It's only when somebody tries to insert examples of incorrect practice that hackles rise.  One size does NOT fit all.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[Dave Vollmer]

All yuse guys (in my best New York accent) listen up!

Mundane is situational.

There.  Don't we feel better?

I think the word "mundane" may be too awkward because it has certain baggage...

Let's say "model the common features of your period and locale instead of the highly unusual."

Then I imagine we're all in agreement.

[selector]

I tell you, it's six.  No t'isn't, Man, it's only a half-dozen.  Look see for yourself.

[tomikawaTT]

I tell you, it's six.  No t'isn't, Man, it's only a half-dozen.  Look see for yourself.

Yup.  And the glass is half full/empty.

Of course, the contents of the glass will depend on the location:

1. Kentucky - Jim Beam.
2. Tennessee - Jack Daniels.
3. Colorado - Coors.
4. Mecca - water.  Or, maybe, tea.

Has anyone ever modeled the St Louis Union Terminal with its most famous neighbor included?  After all, those folks invented the ice reefer!  (Had to keep the Budweiser cool!)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[jktrains]

One last comment - look up mundane in the dictionary.  The word and the concept has been used correctly; baggage or no baggage.

For those without a dictionary - mundane means characterized by the ordinary or commonplace. How that translates to Aussie or to Japanese, I don't know, but in America, that's what it means. 

[Anonymous]

[quote user="tomikawaT

Likewise, the rolling stock one models must be appropriate to the place being modeled.  Unit coal trains would be unlikely to polish the rails through Mojave.  In the Powder River Basin you won't see much else.  Somebody modeling the oil refineries of the Gulf Coast would raise eyebrows if there were no humongous tank cars in sight.  

 

Well Mojave DOES have a unit coal train.  Mojave supplies the Trona Railroad with coal to fire up the furnaces out at Searles Lake.  But people, Pelle is not modelling Mojave.  His town is a generalization of small town, USA ( desert style ) and his interpretation of such.

 

[marknewton]

One last comment - look up mundane in the dictionary.  The word and the concept has been used correctly; baggage or no baggage.

For those without a dictionary - mundane means characterized by the ordinary or commonplace. How that translates to Aussie or to Japanese, I don't know, but in America, that's what it means. 

It means the same here and in Japan. But then, no-one is arguing the meaning of the word, that's just a bit of obfuscation on your part. What Chuck and I have been trying to make you understand is that what was commonplace or ordinary in Japan during the 1960s is not the same as what is commonplace or ordinary in the US west today. It's a simple and uncontroversial idea, but one you seem to have great difficulty comprehending.

As an aside, when people refer to dictionary definitions in discussions that have nothing whatsoever to do with language or semantics, it usually means they are arguing from a very weak position.

Mark.

[cjcrescent]

Yup.  And the glass is half full/empty.

Of course, the contents of the glass will depend on the location:

1. Kentucky - Jim Beam.
2. Tennessee - Jack Daniels.

....

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

Chuck;

Lynchburg, where the famous JD is made, is located in a dry county! Now, ain't that terrible?