wjstix wrote:I'm not sure "being the first" has to do with it exactly. The point being made was that it's harder to model a real railroad in exact detail than it is to make something up. In modelling a real railroad, you have a target you have to hit with your arrow. When you're freelancing, you can shoot your arrow into the wall and then draw a target around it.
NEMMRRC wrote:All I know is my experience in this hobby. When I started in 1993 I read about Allen, Furlow, Sellios, Olson and the like. I also read about Koester, McCleland and those like them. I was hooked by the former even thought the latter have influenced many.Today young kids have Grand Theft Auto, iPods, iPhones and who knows what other whiz-bang gadgets and stimulus shoved at them all day long. I believe that Koester is not going to tickle many of those kids' fancies today.
I have been to train shows and club meetings and the youngest attendee I've seen is not exactly young. I was 25 when I got bit by the train bug. I was the youngest guy in our club. Maybe that is a topic for a different thread.
Gazoo wrote:You think it's more difficult to go look at something standing in plain view for all to see, and then recreate it?
Who would you say had the harder job: the person who invented the light bulb or the person or built the 400th factory in the world that produced them? You're (basically) arguing that it's the person who built the factory because he had to study all the elements of those other factories. Off-the-shelf solutions from former workers (MRR magazine as a reasonable analogy here), purchased equipment from existing suppliers (Atlas, etc.), and flat-out looking at examples doesn't make his job easier, it makes it harder? That's harder than the question "what would glow without burning up?" Or for that matter, "what does "glow" mean?" If you disagree, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Being the first is almost always harder than copying something that already exists.
That's harder than the question "what would glow without burning up?" Or for that matter, "what does "glow" mean?"
If you disagree, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Being the first is almost always harder than copying something that already exists.
vsmith wrote:...I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...
tstage wrote: vsmith wrote:Ahh, true to a piont, but I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...Victor,While I'll agree with you that George Sellios' work is indeed mindboggling and amazing in detail, I personally don't consider it as "realisitc" in appearance as Cliff Powers' MA&G layout. To me, Cliff's layout is much more "believable" than the F&SM layout, which - to me, again - is more fantasy/reality-based. Tom
vsmith wrote:Ahh, true to a piont, but I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...
Victor,
While I'll agree with you that George Sellios' work is indeed mindboggling and amazing in detail, I personally don't consider it as "realisitc" in appearance as Cliff Powers' MA&G layout. To me, Cliff's layout is much more "believable" than the F&SM layout, which - to me, again - is more fantasy/reality-based.
Tom
Unless one is modelling a ghost town, heavily weathering and 'dilapidating' all of the structures looks as false as having everything look brand new, like a movie set. As several folks have posted already, reality lies somewhere in between. Uniformity just does not look convincing, there has to be variation, usually quite a wide margin of it to 'feel' right.
Researching could prove endless unless one has personal memories of all places being modelled in the relevant time period. So since I've never experienced the actual years I wish to represent, I'll try to convincingly model the important structures in key scenes from period photos, at least as close to it as availability will allow, as long as I find the results visually appealing, otherwise I'll change whatever effects (weathering, etc.) I don't like and substitute what I want to see.
After all, if I don't find it pleasing to view my own layout, why would I want to leave it that way? I'm not going to model something I don't like just to be perfectly historical. True, it could not be called 100% realistic, but that's a compromise I can live with. Others will have their own very personal preferences, and that's what gives such diversity in our modelling attempts. I can gain inspiration from anything I find visually appealing.
Geared Steam wrote: So you want this thread locked? Why?Seems like a perfectly civil conversation/debate, I see no forum rules being broken.Now back on topic. (psst, is that you Malcolm?)
So you want this thread locked?
Why?
Seems like a perfectly civil conversation/debate, I see no forum rules being broken.
Now back on topic.
(psst, is that you Malcolm?)
I really don't care, just we have been down this path a lot before and it gets old after a while.
(I am not Malcolm but it would be interesting to see what he would say)
CNJ831 wrote: tstage wrote: vsmith wrote:Ahh, true to a piont, but I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...Victor,While I'll agree with you that George Sellios' work is indeed mindboggling and amazing in detail, I personally don't consider it as "realisitc" in appearance as Cliff Powers' MA&G layout. To me, Cliff's layout is much more "believable" than the F&SM layout, which - to me, again - is more fantasy/reality-based. Tom Addressing the two cited posts, let me say that as someone who grew up in the northeastern U.S. in the years immediately following the Depression, I can tell you that no major city therein ever looked anywhere near as filthy and dilapidated as depicted on the F&SM. Rail yards and trackside, perhaps, but certainly not universally. While one can find photos of individual buildings in any region - at any time in history - that are falling down wrecks, that does not serve to indicate that this was the universal state of things at the time. Such a concept of the Depression Era goes against logic to begin with. The 1920's had seen the greatest boom in American history, with everything neat as a pin. How then, in just 6-8 years, does everything suddenly appear to age 50 years? Something that must also always be kept in mind in discussing Depression Era photographs is, what was the message that the original photographer intended to convey? From my own research (I model this era), I can tell you that two distinctly different outlooks existed among 1930's photographs, many of whom were given jobs by the government and provided with only vague assignments as to what to shoot (or even left totally to their own desires).One group sought out mainly scenes of grime, poverty and hopelessness to photograph. The other group depicted glimpses of a shining future of pristinely clean cities, redeveloped infrastructure and happy children. In their photographs you saw two totally different worlds presented. There was a PBS documentary that illustrated this in reference to Depression Era NYC some years ago. Viewing it is a real eye opener as to how people can be misled by viewing only selected photos of an era!Most certainly, the real truth is somewhere in the middle of these extremes. For true glimpses of the period, I would suggest consulting moviehouse newsreel footage. These generally shows relatively neat city scenes as a backdrop but with lots of suffering humanity - their intended subject. The streets may appear a little dirty (the street sweepers had been laid off) but most buildings look just a presentable as any today.That said, I definitely agree with Tom that Ciff Powers' layout is an excellent example of highly realistic modeling. Even a quick glance gives you the impression you are looking at a real place. George, on the otherhand, while outstanding in his work, is strictly a caricature modeler. The sad fact, however, is that so many believe that his layout is a precise reflection of some actual past time in urban New England.CNJ831
Addressing the two cited posts, let me say that as someone who grew up in the northeastern U.S. in the years immediately following the Depression, I can tell you that no major city therein ever looked anywhere near as filthy and dilapidated as depicted on the F&SM. Rail yards and trackside, perhaps, but certainly not universally. While one can find photos of individual buildings in any region - at any time in history - that are falling down wrecks, that does not serve to indicate that this was the universal state of things at the time. Such a concept of the Depression Era goes against logic to begin with. The 1920's had seen the greatest boom in American history, with everything neat as a pin. How then, in just 6-8 years, does everything suddenly appear to age 50 years?
Something that must also always be kept in mind in discussing Depression Era photographs is, what was the message that the original photographer intended to convey? From my own research (I model this era), I can tell you that two distinctly different outlooks existed among 1930's photographs, many of whom were given jobs by the government and provided with only vague assignments as to what to shoot (or even left totally to their own desires).
One group sought out mainly scenes of grime, poverty and hopelessness to photograph. The other group depicted glimpses of a shining future of pristinely clean cities, redeveloped infrastructure and happy children. In their photographs you saw two totally different worlds presented. There was a PBS documentary that illustrated this in reference to Depression Era NYC some years ago. Viewing it is a real eye opener as to how people can be misled by viewing only selected photos of an era!
Most certainly, the real truth is somewhere in the middle of these extremes. For true glimpses of the period, I would suggest consulting moviehouse newsreel footage. These generally shows relatively neat city scenes as a backdrop but with lots of suffering humanity - their intended subject. The streets may appear a little dirty (the street sweepers had been laid off) but most buildings look just a presentable as any today.
That said, I definitely agree with Tom that Ciff Powers' layout is an excellent example of highly realistic modeling. Even a quick glance gives you the impression you are looking at a real place. George, on the otherhand, while outstanding in his work, is strictly a caricature modeler. The sad fact, however, is that so many believe that his layout is a precise reflection of some actual past time in urban New England.
CNJ831
There was a documentory on PBS a few years back about teenage hobos during the depresion. It included some great interviews , photos, and film from the era. One thing they metioned is that there were 2 worlds during the depression. One was poverty stricken and living in junk yard cities and the other tried to pretend there was no depression. In the documentory they mentioned a film that was made with railroad help in 1933 . It shows the contrast between the selios look and the clean cities. It's called "wild boys of the road". Horrible movie but quite a few vintage train scenes. When I see selios work It appears that he took all the bad parts of all the US cities and made on bad city out of them. Cliff on the other hand modeled a dead world devoid of humanity. It is IMHO prettier to look at since I like the clean look.
Geared Steam wrote: CLiff's layout is beautiful but not realistic. It is a dead layout with out enough life to it. That is what appeals to some though. Some poepl like trains and not the people and life surrounding them others like trains for their emersion. It seems to have plenty of life to it. Not a train in site. http://magnoliaroute.com/magnolia%20route_196.htm
CLiff's layout is beautiful but not realistic. It is a dead layout with out enough life to it. That is what appeals to some though. Some poepl like trains and not the people and life surrounding them others like trains for their emersion.
It seems to have plenty of life to it. Not a train in site.
http://magnoliaroute.com/magnolia%20route_196.htm
...but to me, not a thing out of place, not a mar, compared to:
http://www.horailroad.com/fsm/fsmlayout0.html
Have fun with your trains
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
wjstix wrote: I'm not sure "being the first" has to do with it exactly. The point being made was that it's harder to model a real railroad in exact detail than it is to make something up. In modelling a real railroad, you have a target you have to hit with your arrow. When you're freelancing, you can shoot your arrow into the wall and then draw a target around it. As a freelancer I can say that the Athearn bay-window caboose is an exact model of the cabooses my railroad used; if I'm modelling say a CNW bay-window caboose I would have to either live with the Athearn or Walthers bay-window caboose as they come, and be satisfied with a good CNW paint scheme, or I'd have to do some changing of windows and other details to make it exactly right. I think the point too is that much of Furlow's work - incredible as it is - sometimes borders on the cartoonish. Actually, in that regard, his work isn't really the first, as he clearly was influenced by John Allen, who also wasn't beyond stretching reality by more than a bit to get a desired effect.
I'm not sure "being the first" has to do with it exactly. The point being made was that it's harder to model a real railroad in exact detail than it is to make something up. In modelling a real railroad, you have a target you have to hit with your arrow. When you're freelancing, you can shoot your arrow into the wall and then draw a target around it.
As a freelancer I can say that the Athearn bay-window caboose is an exact model of the cabooses my railroad used; if I'm modelling say a CNW bay-window caboose I would have to either live with the Athearn or Walthers bay-window caboose as they come, and be satisfied with a good CNW paint scheme, or I'd have to do some changing of windows and other details to make it exactly right.
I think the point too is that much of Furlow's work - incredible as it is - sometimes borders on the cartoonish. Actually, in that regard, his work isn't really the first, as he clearly was influenced by John Allen, who also wasn't beyond stretching reality by more than a bit to get a desired effect.
The athearn caboose analogy only works for some people. Many free lancers will not settle for that . Many have to have equipment from a specific parent railroad ect.. They then have to blend that with there vision of the country their railroad runs through and then compress it.
It's much easier to compress a known quantity than something that is only in you're head . U think you mistake the Mickey mouse northern layout with freelance.
I agree with what you say about furlow and allen though. Both are/were fantasic artist and I enjoy seeing their work. I don't care to mimic either style for myself because they don't capture my vison of railroading and what railroading is to me personaly.
Thats just my opinion and you know what harry says about opinions
marknewton wrote: Gazoo wrote:I think you're having difficulty separating the concepts of "random" and "determined". Example 1: imagine the most fantastic MRR scene--something never done before and not really even possible in this dimension. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. Example 2: imagine your favorite actual railroad. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. The only difference is that someone could go visit example 2 and compare it to your model. That does NOT, in any way, make example 1 any more or less difficult for you the modeler who has a specific vision of what you'd like to create. Now, to the "lazy" (lack of a better term) modeler, neither example presents a problem. Each will be equally simple. Buildings made of painted shoe boxes look just as crappy on example 2 as improperly made buildings on example 1. Except, only the modeler knows if that was exactly what his aim was on example 1. But that's not the point--it's no easier or more difficult.Nah, I can't agree. Example 2 involves a lot of research, learning about the prototype, maybe site visits if that's possible. There is more discipline involved in the concept, the execution and the operation. Example 2 by definition will be more difficult, I think.Cheers,Mark.
Gazoo wrote:I think you're having difficulty separating the concepts of "random" and "determined". Example 1: imagine the most fantastic MRR scene--something never done before and not really even possible in this dimension. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. Example 2: imagine your favorite actual railroad. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. The only difference is that someone could go visit example 2 and compare it to your model. That does NOT, in any way, make example 1 any more or less difficult for you the modeler who has a specific vision of what you'd like to create. Now, to the "lazy" (lack of a better term) modeler, neither example presents a problem. Each will be equally simple. Buildings made of painted shoe boxes look just as crappy on example 2 as improperly made buildings on example 1. Except, only the modeler knows if that was exactly what his aim was on example 1. But that's not the point--it's no easier or more difficult.
Example 1: imagine the most fantastic MRR scene--something never done before and not really even possible in this dimension. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT.
Example 2: imagine your favorite actual railroad. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT.
The only difference is that someone could go visit example 2 and compare it to your model. That does NOT, in any way, make example 1 any more or less difficult for you the modeler who has a specific vision of what you'd like to create.
Now, to the "lazy" (lack of a better term) modeler, neither example presents a problem. Each will be equally simple. Buildings made of painted shoe boxes look just as crappy on example 2 as improperly made buildings on example 1. Except, only the modeler knows if that was exactly what his aim was on example 1. But that's not the point--it's no easier or more difficult.
My experience has been just the opsoite. Because you can research something real it makes it easier. I have yet to model anything I made up that I was happy with. I can never capture what I imagine in my head . There is no wat to record it long enough with enough detail to recreate it properly. Proto makes things much easier and allows one to focus amd not go off in tangents that slow the whole process down. I think it might depend on how much imagination one has though.
vsmith wrote: tstage wrote: vsmith wrote:Ahh, true to a piont, but I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs...Victor,While I'll agree with you that George Sellios' work is indeed mindboggling and amazing in detail, I personally don't consider it as "realisitc" in appearance as Cliff Powers' MA&G layout. To me, Cliff's layout is much more "believable" than the F&SM layout, which - to me, again - is more fantasy/reality-based. Tom A very well done layout, but for my personal taste, if your talking realism, its lacking. For me its too idealised, everythings too perfect, its sterile in many scenes, wheres the trash? By that I mean wheres the "lived in-ness" that convinces me this is a real place and time. While one may make an aurgument about Selios being perhaps too densely detailed, one of the things I love about Sellios is that his alley's, look well, like alleys...there trash, bottles, boxes, bums, all the things I see in alleys today that would also have been there in the depression. There are weeds growing in the cracks of the sidewalks and curbs. There are random pieces of detail strewn thru the layout reflecting the same things I see driving around neighborhoods today. One thing both Sellios and Furlow convey is that "messy vitality" that one finds in any real place. To me these are irregardless of whether its proto or freelance.I mean the referred layout is a terrific one, but my eye sees easy things that could be added that add layers of realism, auto parts and junk that could be stacked along the side of the service station, dogs running loose in front of the farm, along with old abandoned farm equipment in back with weeds growing thru them. One very noticable thing to me, the grass and weeds along the cow pasture should be taller outside the pastures fence, I know this because I grew up next to a dairy farm and know cows are big mowing machines and will eat everything with in there reach, so the grasses were always chewed out about 2-3 feet outside the fence, about as far as where a cow could stick its head out of, in fact even modeling a couple of cows doing just that would add a real world realism that to me is missing. But thats just me, and I suspect its my eye for things like that that makes layouts like Selios and Furlow so appealing to me, that "messy vitality" of detail. Like oil stains in parking stalls.I look at things very differently from alot of modelers I've know, I suspect I'll be one of those guys who never finishes his layout because I'll alway be looking at better ways to add detail to it.
A very well done layout, but for my personal taste, if your talking realism, its lacking. For me its too idealised, everythings too perfect, its sterile in many scenes, wheres the trash?
By that I mean wheres the "lived in-ness" that convinces me this is a real place and time. While one may make an aurgument about Selios being perhaps too densely detailed, one of the things I love about Sellios is that his alley's, look well, like alleys...there trash, bottles, boxes, bums, all the things I see in alleys today that would also have been there in the depression. There are weeds growing in the cracks of the sidewalks and curbs. There are random pieces of detail strewn thru the layout reflecting the same things I see driving around neighborhoods today. One thing both Sellios and Furlow convey is that "messy vitality" that one finds in any real place. To me these are irregardless of whether its proto or freelance.
I mean the referred layout is a terrific one, but my eye sees easy things that could be added that add layers of realism, auto parts and junk that could be stacked along the side of the service station, dogs running loose in front of the farm, along with old abandoned farm equipment in back with weeds growing thru them. One very noticable thing to me, the grass and weeds along the cow pasture should be taller outside the pastures fence, I know this because I grew up next to a dairy farm and know cows are big mowing machines and will eat everything with in there reach, so the grasses were always chewed out about 2-3 feet outside the fence, about as far as where a cow could stick its head out of, in fact even modeling a couple of cows doing just that would add a real world realism that to me is missing.
But thats just me, and I suspect its my eye for things like that that makes layouts like Selios and Furlow so appealing to me, that "messy vitality" of detail. Like oil stains in parking stalls.
I look at things very differently from alot of modelers I've know, I suspect I'll be one of those guys who never finishes his layout because I'll alway be looking at better ways to add detail to it.
It's not just you.
vsmith wrote:Ya'all sure model trains can't be art?http://carendt.com/scrapbook/page76/index.html
Ya'all sure model trains can't be art?
http://carendt.com/scrapbook/page76/index.html
Here is the definition of art
"Art is the expression of creativity or imagination. The word art comes from the Latin word ars, which, loosely translated, means "arrangement". Art is commonly understood as the act of making works (or artworks) which use the human creative impulse and which have meaning beyond simple description. While art is often distinguished from crafts and recreational hobby activities, this boundary can at times be hard to define. The term creative arts denotes a collection of disciplines whose principal purpose is the output of material for the viewer or audience to interpret. As such, art may be taken to include forms ranging from literary forms (prose writing and poetry); performance-based forms (dance, acting, drama, and music); visual and "plastic arts" (painting ,sculpture, photography, illustration); to forms that also have a functional role, such as architecture and fashion design. Art may also be understood as relating to creativity, æsthetics and the generation of emotion."
Much of what is in this description is also in model railroading, so yes , for some people MR is art and for others it is not. For some only certain aspects are art while others are not.
I probably fall into the certain aspects catagory since I dislike the electrical portions of the hobby enough that I cannot be expressive with them.
Something that must also always be kept in mind in discussing Depression Era photographs is, what was the message that the original photographer intended to convey? From my own research (I model this era), I can tell you that two distinctly different outlooks existed among 1930's photographers, many of whom were given jobs by the government and provided with only vague assignments as to what to shoot (or even left totally to their own desires).
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Ahh, true to a piont, but I have seen freelanced railroads that are realisticly detailed to such a level as to be mindboggling, George Sellios comes to mind, granted its made up but it is dead on accurate in its depression era level of detail if you refer to old photographs, while I have also seen hard core prototype layouts that have virtually no detail at all, Dave Barrows Domino approach for example, which to me is as "cartoonish" in its own way as Furlows, like a bare stageset, so it can be aurgued either way.
Gazoo wrote: marknewton wrote: Gazoo wrote:I think you're having difficulty separating the concepts of "random" and "determined". Example 1: imagine the most fantastic MRR scene--something never done before and not really even possible in this dimension. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. Example 2: imagine your favorite actual railroad. Imagine it in excrutiating detail. Now, go model it. No, don't model something like it, model IT. The only difference is that someone could go visit example 2 and compare it to your model. That does NOT, in any way, make example 1 any more or less difficult for you the modeler who has a specific vision of what you'd like to create. Now, to the "lazy" (lack of a better term) modeler, neither example presents a problem. Each will be equally simple. Buildings made of painted shoe boxes look just as crappy on example 2 as improperly made buildings on example 1. Except, only the modeler knows if that was exactly what his aim was on example 1. But that's not the point--it's no easier or more difficult.Nah, I can't agree. Example 2 involves a lot of research, learning about the prototype, maybe site visits if that's possible. There is more discipline involved in the concept, the execution and the operation. Example 2 by definition will be more difficult, I think.Cheers,Mark.You think it's more difficult to go look at something standing in plain view for all to see, and then recreate it? Huh.Who would you say had the harder job: the person who invented the light bulb or the person or built the 400th factory in the world that produced them? You're (basically) arguing that it's the person who built the factory because he had to study all the elements of those other factories. Off-the-shelf solutions from former workers (MRR magazine as a reasonable analogy here), purchased equipment from existing suppliers (Atlas, etc.), and flat-out looking at examples doesn't make his job easier, it makes it harder? That's harder than the question "what would glow without burning up?" Or for that matter, "what does "glow" mean?" If you disagree, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Being the first is almost always harder than copying something that already exists.
You think it's more difficult to go look at something standing in plain view for all to see, and then recreate it? Huh.
Who would you say had the harder job: the person who invented the light bulb or the person or built the 400th factory in the world that produced them? You're (basically) arguing that it's the person who built the factory because he had to study all the elements of those other factories. Off-the-shelf solutions from former workers (MRR magazine as a reasonable analogy here), purchased equipment from existing suppliers (Atlas, etc.), and flat-out looking at examples doesn't make his job easier, it makes it harder?
rrebell wrote:You ever notice though that the best layouts, the ones that stand the test of time are by people of not great wealth.
Similarly, those layouts built for their owners by someone else always seem to have a sort of sterile quality, to me, anyway.
vsmith wrote:Mark, Its just a different way to approach model railroading, I think alot of modelers admire Furlow, but when they build their own layouts they are generally much closer to proto in form, I personally have seen several layouts that claim Furlow as a source of inspiration, only a very very few of those layouts that were truely Furlowian in execution, and almost all of those were built by seasoned modelers, not a newbie among them, so I wouldnt call it a step back, maybe a jump to the left......and then a step to the right, with your hands on your hip, you put your knees in tight, but its the pelvic thrust that really drives you insa-a-a-ane, Lets do the Time-Warp againSorry I couldnt resist
...and then a step to the right, with your hands on your hip, you put your knees in tight, but its the pelvic thrust that really drives you insa-a-a-ane,
Lets do the Time-Warp again
Sorry I couldnt resist
But what you say makes sense. I can't see many newbies starting out building a "Furlowian" layout, which is why I put the question to the OP."Furlowian", that's a great word, I might pinch that for use myself!All the best,Mark.(Oh yeah, check your PMs please!)
santafe347 wrote:Hey Mods!It's time...Seriously, look at the first post, and compare it to what the thread has turned into.
Hey Mods!
It's time...
Seriously, look at the first post, and compare it to what the thread has turned into.
vsmith wrote: CNJ831 wrote: I might also suggest reading the Furlow article that appeared in the Taos Daily News back in '05 to gain a better insight as to how he views fellow model railroaders.CNJ831 Looked it up and found only one quote in that otherwise very interesting article."He went into business for himself, specializing in model railroads, "because basically what I saw was a bunch of old, rich guys who liked to play with trains". ..." Yes, and...? Having been involved in model railroading for most of my live and deeply for the last 8 years, if you are going off what gets published most, which is what most outside people first see, I cant disagree with him, can you? Ever price brass models? or the high end models that get alot of ad space in the mags?How much investment does a large basement size layout involve? A fleet of prototypicaly corrct locomotives and rolling stock for your roster?I mean com'on, I'm not talking about your average Joe Sixpack that has a 4x8 layout in the Rec Room, those never get published, I'm talking about the full room layouts, the ones that stretch out 20 or 40 feet, the ones who have pockets deep enough to afford to have a professional builder install their "dream layout" (kinda defeats the purpose IMHO) and spare no expense doing so.I'm in large scale, ever price that? I'm just a poor sharecropper compared to most of my landed gentry contemporaries in terms of my buying power, yet I read over and over about people who think nothing about dropping 2K on a new brass loco or have multiple versions of the same engines, I mean were talking fleets worth near or over 6 figures, and I'm sure that happens in HO and O also, so what he says does hold some weight, its just something most dont want to aknowledge.I'm older now, rich enough now to afford to accomodate my hobby, and I love to "play" with my trains, guess I'm guilty link to articlehttp://www.taosdaily.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.viewarticle&article_id=741
CNJ831 wrote: I might also suggest reading the Furlow article that appeared in the Taos Daily News back in '05 to gain a better insight as to how he views fellow model railroaders.CNJ831
I might also suggest reading the Furlow article that appeared in the Taos Daily News back in '05 to gain a better insight as to how he views fellow model railroaders.
Looked it up and found only one quote in that otherwise very interesting article.
"He went into business for himself, specializing in model railroads, "because basically what I saw was a bunch of old, rich guys who liked to play with trains". ..."
Yes, and...?
Having been involved in model railroading for most of my live and deeply for the last 8 years, if you are going off what gets published most, which is what most outside people first see, I cant disagree with him, can you?
Ever price brass models? or the high end models that get alot of ad space in the mags?
How much investment does a large basement size layout involve?
A fleet of prototypicaly corrct locomotives and rolling stock for your roster?
I mean com'on, I'm not talking about your average Joe Sixpack that has a 4x8 layout in the Rec Room, those never get published, I'm talking about the full room layouts, the ones that stretch out 20 or 40 feet, the ones who have pockets deep enough to afford to have a professional builder install their "dream layout" (kinda defeats the purpose IMHO) and spare no expense doing so.
I'm in large scale, ever price that? I'm just a poor sharecropper compared to most of my landed gentry contemporaries in terms of my buying power, yet I read over and over about people who think nothing about dropping 2K on a new brass loco or have multiple versions of the same engines, I mean were talking fleets worth near or over 6 figures, and I'm sure that happens in HO and O also, so what he says does hold some weight, its just something most dont want to aknowledge.
I'm older now, rich enough now to afford to accomodate my hobby, and I love to "play" with my trains, guess I'm guilty
link to article
http://www.taosdaily.com/index.php?fuseaction=home.viewarticle&article_id=741