Just got my April 2008 MR, and wonder why the AM is a landmark layout. It was a nice layout but it contained nothing groundbreaking. Others have done "proto-freelancing", which most of us have done for years, so that can't be what makes it special.
Well?
Harold
hm:
Koester has said as much. It was in one of his recent columns; he wrote that the only really unusual feature was that he used a lot of stub-end staging.
However, I think his layout is still a landmark just because he has written so much of its story in those columns, over the years...we know more about that story than we do about many other layouts. I am speaking of the history of the layout and its builder, not the fictional history behind the AM.
Compare it to the shipwreck described here:
http://www.ipa.min-cultura.pt/pubs/TA/folder/18/318.pdf
The ship is not special at all - it was a common product of the period. However, we know about it, and can learn from it, and that makes it valuable.
Its a landmark layout because the Staff of MR feel they need to give a pat on the back to one of their own.
James
NevinW wrote:I think it is because it was one of the earlier V&O inspired, large, operations oriented, layouts that was complete, fully functional and operated on regularly. It was around for actually decades. It was also very well documented in MR and MRC. - Nevin
DITTO! Additionally, Tony's layout provided him a learning experience which he shared with us, and he has evolved as evidenced by his current layout. I wish I had his energy.
Mark
Master of Big Sky Blue wrote: Its a landmark layout because the Staff of MR feel they need to give a pat on the back to one of their own.James
Thank you for the right answer. You win a ground foam coated puff ball for your effort.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
The trackwork alone, made me do a double-take the first time I saw it. Remarkably realistic. Easy to see that a lot of planning, time and effort went into the AM railroad. Tony helped raise the bar years ago.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
hminky wrote: Just got my April 2008 MR, and wonder why the AM is a landmark layout. It was a nice layout but it contained nothing groundbreaking. Others have done "proto-freelancing", which most of us have done for years, so that can't be what makes it special.Well?Harold
A large part of the groundbreaking/landmark effect of the AM is that the owner of the AM has spent a lot of time documenting and describing his layout, how he designed it and built it, how he operates it (including interchanges with other layouts, the use of staging etc), using it as a vehicle of popularizing and teaching protolancing and operations in a large number of articles and several books, inspiring a large number of modellers.
That makes it pretty special. Was it the first layout based on the idea "protolancing" - ie an imaginary RR company very strongly influenced by a real prototype ? Possibly not.
For all I know your layout could have used this idea years and years before Tony Koester made the AM.
I am aware of having seen at least three or four shortish articles by you (Harold Minkwitz, right ?) in both Kalmbach and Carstens publications over the last years. No doubt you have published more articles I haven't read yet.
Unfortunately, I cannot quite recall what your layout was called. Pacific coast something ? Pacific Coast Airline ?
Anyways - while I am sure your layout also is protolanced, and also has been a source of inspiration to a great number of people over the years, I suspected that perhaps it has not had quite as large an impact on the general modelling population as the AM has.
And that makes the AM a bigger landmark than your layout, even though you may very well have been there first with protolancing (for all I know).
It is not just a matter of being pals with the current editor of MR (as I suspect you might be implying) - the AM actually has deserved to be labelled a landmark, by the right of having been a great teaching/inspiration layout.
If you put in a similar number of hours as Tony Koester has done teaching and popularizing hobby concepts, then your layout (if used as a teaching example) probably also would qualify as a landmark layout.
Smile, Stein
I've studied the photo's in MR over the years . It's land mark because it looks right . It's not a detailed copy down to the nut's and bolt's of a real railroad yet it screams real railroad in the photos . Its a fine piece of work . Reguardless of who says so .
Pretty weak, Harold. Nice sour grapes, James.
Landmarks are things that show the way or provide a guide or inspiration to others.
The AM put a lot of things together in a great balance and showed how a design could evolve successfully over the years (changes in operations, in eras, etc.). One could quibble if it's in the top 5, top 10, or the top 20, but it's hard to argue with it being among the landmark layouts.
Maybe someday there'll be an award for rubber-gauge 4X8s ...
So what exactly is the purpose of this post?
Let's get a bunch of people angry at our benefactor.
Let's all go on strike. We can stop reading the magazine and stop posting on the site.
Seriously, what good is this thread?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote: So what exactly is the purpose of this post? Let's get a bunch of people angry at our benefactor. Let's all go on strike. We can stop reading the magazine and stop posting on the site. Seriously, what good is this thread?
Well said .
I posted the question because there are more innovative layouts, that is what a landmark layout means: something the jumps the hobby forward. Like Jim Hedigers X benchwork for double decker or Joe Fugate's lighting system. More space could be devoted to layouts that developed new ideas and how we got to where we are. It is not about inspiration but advancement of layout building that makes a landmark layout.
hminky wrote:...Others have done "proto-freelancing", which most of us have done for years...
...Others have done "proto-freelancing", which most of us have done for years...
hminky wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: So what exactly is the purpose of this post? Let's get a bunch of people angry at our benefactor. Let's all go on strike. We can stop reading the magazine and stop posting on the site. Seriously, what good is this thread? I posted the question because there are more innovative layouts, that is what a landmark layout means: something the jumps the hobby forward. Like Jim Hedigers X benchwork for double decker or Joe Fugate's lighting system. More space could be devoted to layouts that developed new ideas and how we got to where we are. It is not about inspiration but advancement of layout building that makes a landmark layout.Harold
Harold, you don't seem to understand that what makes a layout great doesn't necessarily mean that it comes up with some new technical wrinkle. Tony Koeter approaches the hobby as a whole rather than as a series of sub-specialties like scenery, lighting, weathering, loco painting and decaling, etc. His contributions have very little to do with technical advances and more to do with the conceptual framework of the layout. Yeah, it has to be realistically scenicked. Yeah, it has to have good looking and decent running motive power. Yeah, it should should have well constructed benchwork and good lighting. The problem is, you can have all that and still end up with something that's totally unsatisfying. Tony's real contribution has been combining all the technical stuff and subordinating to the concept of the layout as part of the larger world of rail transportation. No one has written as extensively on the subject as he has and the AM has served as a test bed of his concepts.
If and when the Monterey Branch of the SP gets built in my garage, much of the conceptual framework for it will owe a lot to the influence of Tony Koester. He synthesized a lot of concepts in this hobby that may have originally and separately been the ideas of others, but when combined in an integrated manner end up being greater than the sum of their parts. The Monterey Branch will be oriented to operation and will be connected to the outside world at Watsonville Jct (staging). It will strive to capture the feeling of the Monterey Peninsula in the late 1940's to the extent possible without becoming snarled in "analysis paralysis".
Andre
SpaceMouse wrote:So what exactly is the purpose of this post? Let's get a bunch of people angry at our benefactor. Let's all go on strike. We can stop reading the magazine and stop posting on the site. Seriously, what good is this thread?
hminky wrote:I posted the question because there are more innovative layouts, that is what a landmark layout means: something the jumps the hobby forward.
It is not about inspiration but advancement of layout building that makes a landmark layout.
alco_fan wrote: Maybe someday there'll be an award for rubber-gauge 4X8s ...
Yeah, what's wrong with rubber-gauged 4x8's, there is lots of space outside the box to be explored. My rubber-gauged 4x8 isn't a landmark but my efforts in presentation have inspired at least a few people.
The Reid's layout was one of the major landmark layout, showing N scale as a viable scale that could deal with prototypical subjects.
marknewton wrote:What the Reid's did was inspire people, as you yourself have just noted. They didn't advance layout building. Time to stop digging, I reckon. You're deep enough. Cheers,Mark.
Layout building? The Reid's layout took N scale out of it's 2x4 layout mentality and demostrated that a large layout with multiple prototypes could be constructed.
marknewton wrote: By your definition, Olsen's Mescal Lines*, or the Reid brothers N scale layout aren't landmark layouts, either. And yet you offered no comment on them. So I can't help but wonder what you have against TK?Cheers,Mark.*Disclaimer: John Olsen's layouts did nothing for me, but I know full well that it did inspire many, many others. As such, it's worthy of mention as a landmark layout.
Olsen's Mescal Lines was the introduction of surreal exagerrated scenery, usually credited to Malcom Furlow, sorta John Allen on "Mescaline".
First, I was not heavily influenced by the concept of Tony Koester's Allegheny Midland. The master plan to which I have been building was set in concrete years before Tony's layout ever appeared on the printed page. If anything, his ideas merely validated my own.
I was impressed by the scenic treatment of the Allegheny Midland - mainly because I am modeling a place which has a similar geography and general appearance. Once again, his work served only to validate my ideas. Here, however, some of his methods for constructing scenery found their way into my, "To be used later," files.
The operating scheme of the AM interested me, but did not cause changes in the daiya or written (in Japanese) timetable I was then and am now determined to use.
What the Allegheny Midland DID do was introduce the above to later generations of modelers in much the same way that Frank Ellison had introduced them to me. THAT is why it is a landmark layout.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
hminky wrote: marknewton wrote:What the Reid's did was inspire people, as you yourself have just noted. They didn't advance layout building. Time to stop digging, I reckon. You're deep enough. Cheers,Mark.Layout building? The Reid's layout took N scale out of it's 2x4 layout mentality and demostrated that a large layout with multiple prototypes could be constructed.Harold
If N scalers had a 2x4 mentality it was self-imposed. Anyone with sufficient space, time and money could have built a large N scale layout. The Reid's didn't advance construction techniques. What they did was build a large, well integrated layout and did it in N scale. Just like other people did in HO, O and S.
Besides, the MR Clinchfield project layout series (1978 or so, IIRC) amply demonstrated that a reasonably large, operationally integrated and prototype based layout could be built in N scale.
I have no problem with the Reid layout being considered a landmark layout, but not for the reasons you ascribe to it. What's your beef with Tony Koester?
I would argue that Allen McClelland's V&O was probably more of a landmark than the AM; after all, TK himself rarely misses an opportunity to point out how much the V&O influenced the AM. In many respects, the V&O was almost the "prototype" for the AM.
I hope MR will show the V&O as well.
The AM and V&O both went to great lengths to follow prototype practices inspite of being freelanced. It went beyond painting all the locos the same. Hard to explain. But both just seemed so incredibly plausible.
While my cynical side is inclined to believe MR was giving a "shout out" to one of its own (will David Popp's NH show up as a "landmark?"), I think the TK has really been able to use the AM as an incredible teaching school. He's authored so many books and articles using the AM as an example... Tooting his own horn? No, not really. The guy knows his stuff. I agree with a lot of his points.
So even now that it's dead and gone, the AM continues to teach principles of layout design and operation through TK's many publications and articles. So, yes, I think it qualifies as a landmark.
I don't think TK's great just beacuse MR says so. I think he's been an enormous help in advancing prototypical (not prototype) model railroading. I don't agree with his every diatribe, but overall I think he's been a hobby great, up there with Allen and Findley and Larsen etc.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Personally I can't wait to see the posts here when MR showcases Malcolm Furlow's work as a landmark layout......
-G-
Because it is everything most of us aspire to, and he has shared with strangers (like me) most of what can be shared by explaining and teaching his choices, decisions, and compromises in the magazine while producing something both satisfying and encouraging.
Yeah. That's why.