marknewton wrote: NEMMRRC wrote:I wonder myself if MR ever followed up with Furlow. I am confident that Furlow's style is the jumpstart the hobby needs to interest some young fry in model railroads.Why do you think that? Come to that, what exactly do you mean by that statement? Why does the hobby need a "jumpstart"?The hobby has developed a lot in the last 15 years, now even relatively inexperienced modellers can build layouts that are far more realistic than Furlow's efforts ever were. Why take a step back?Cheers,Mark.
NEMMRRC wrote:I wonder myself if MR ever followed up with Furlow. I am confident that Furlow's style is the jumpstart the hobby needs to interest some young fry in model railroads.
CNJ831 wrote: vsmith wrote: Yep, that particular engine is now available as a resin kit in Britain somewhere in the 7/8" scale vicinity, but I used it as it to me illustrated what I was getting at, someone actually had to take the fantasimical 2D drawing and model it in a 3D reality, then make molds and castings if it to make models that could be actually run,...that takes alot of talent to take something so fanciful and make into a hard resin object, IMHO of course.Ah, but definitely requiring nowhere near as much effort and talent as replicating a real steam locomotive to any degree of accuracy and scale. The same goes for fantasy scenery vs. realistic representations. Anything-goes modeling is far easier to do than attempting to match scenes from the real world in a believable manner. This is simply because any mistakes, poor modeling, even violations of the laws of physics, can simply be passed off as "I meant to do that" whimsy. Without any question, I could render a fantasy loco, or scene, far more easily than the effort it took me to capture a degree of realism in my current HO layout.
vsmith wrote: Yep, that particular engine is now available as a resin kit in Britain somewhere in the 7/8" scale vicinity, but I used it as it to me illustrated what I was getting at, someone actually had to take the fantasimical 2D drawing and model it in a 3D reality, then make molds and castings if it to make models that could be actually run,...that takes alot of talent to take something so fanciful and make into a hard resin object, IMHO of course.
Yep, that particular engine is now available as a resin kit in Britain somewhere in the 7/8" scale vicinity, but I used it as it to me illustrated what I was getting at, someone actually had to take the fantasimical 2D drawing and model it in a 3D reality, then make molds and castings if it to make models that could be actually run,...that takes alot of talent to take something so fanciful and make into a hard resin object, IMHO of course.
Ah, but definitely requiring nowhere near as much effort and talent as replicating a real steam locomotive to any degree of accuracy and scale. The same goes for fantasy scenery vs. realistic representations. Anything-goes modeling is far easier to do than attempting to match scenes from the real world in a believable manner. This is simply because any mistakes, poor modeling, even violations of the laws of physics, can simply be passed off as "I meant to do that" whimsy. Without any question, I could render a fantasy loco, or scene, far more easily than the effort it took me to capture a degree of realism in my current HO layout.
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.
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 again
Sorry I couldnt resist
Have fun with your trains
vsmith wrote:Oh it has its fans in the narrow gauge crowdI came across it by accident, I was researching my 1st Class A Climax and came across a website devoted to New Zealand geared locomotives, it had several photos and I even found a sideview plan. http://www.trainweb.org/nzgearedlocomotives/Some members on a large scale site later contributed pics of another large scale model. I was originally thinking of a Johnson or Davidson 8 or 16 wheeler, but the Price really grew on me.
Oh it has its fans in the narrow gauge crowd
I came across it by accident, I was researching my 1st Class A Climax and came across a website devoted to New Zealand geared locomotives, it had several photos and I even found a sideview plan.
http://www.trainweb.org/nzgearedlocomotives/
Some members on a large scale site later contributed pics of another large scale model. I was originally thinking of a Johnson or Davidson 8 or 16 wheeler, but the Price really grew on me.
Personally Malcomn is one of several "old timers" I wish I could find for information on, theres not alot of publications dedicated to older layouts, if you cannot find the old mag articles your kinda stuck. Heres my short list of other modelers I wish I could find books or old articles on.
Malcomn of course, I really want to know how his last layout turned out
John Olsens Mescal Lines, a terrific layout
Joe Crea's Pitkin Tram
Bob Hegges Crooked Mountain, also a terrific layout, I have a book that has a small article of this layout in it.
I have the John Allen book, very worth the price, Kalmbach could make a killing republishing it. they should also update their book on Sellios.
Lets face it, most of the Older Guard are not going to be with us forever, be nice to have some sort of collection of dedicated books on them before the layouts end up only memories.
Mark, I can agree with both your points. Glad you like the Price, it was a real blast to build, heres finish pics before weathering;
Looks better in person than in pics, with 4 motors, it pulls like a son-of-a-gun
vsmith wrote:If you mean by milling every part and detail out of raw brass or blocks and sheets of styrene or casting all your own detail parts from resin, then YES. but if your talking about using any of the 100's of commercially available plastic, resin and plastic parts, drivetrain components, wheels and other MYRIAD of parts and materials out there, then NO, because all your doing is essentially building locomotive from a kit of commercially avalable parts.
CNJ831 wrote: Ah, but definitely requiring nowhere near as much effort and talent as replicating a real steam locomotive to any degree of accuracy and scale. The same goes for fantasy scenery vs. realistic representations. Anything-goes modeling is far easier to do than attempting to match scenes from the real world in a believable manner. This is simply because any mistakes, poor modeling, even violations of the laws of physics, can simply be passed off as "I meant to do that" whimsy. Without any question, I could render a fantasy loco, or scene, far more easily than the effort it took me to capture a degree of realism in my current HO layout. CNJ831
CNJ831
If you mean by milling every part and detail out of raw brass or blocks and sheets of styrene or casting all your own detail parts from resin, then YES. but if your talking about using any of the 100's of commercially available plastic, resin and plastic parts, drivetrain components, wheels and other MYRIAD of parts and materials out there, then NO, because all your doing is essentially building locomotive from a kit of commercially avalable parts. To build something like Nellie which has NO commercially availabel parts available takes at least as much skill to create. The process to take a fantasy engine like Nellie from "prototype" to finish model, is exactly the same as any other real locomotive, one still has have drawings, measured or not, to work off of, all the main body component parts have to be created, all the detail parts cast located or otherwise created, exactly the same as any other model locomotive.
PS I have built locomotives from scratch and kitbash, so I feel I know what I'm talking about.
Some examples under various stages of construction.
4-2-0 early american steamer under construction
Class A Climax
New Zealander AC Price 16 wheeler
Based on a logging locomotive in Light Iron Digest, yes, I did change the sideframes.
Based on a Pacific Northwest logging locomotive
this whats currently on the slab in the lab:
Class A Climax vertical boiler
This discussion brings to mind the last layout John Olsen (whose modeling I normally revered, way back when) did for MR. It was pure Disneyesque fantasy and sort of led into the Furlow era (who was also a "Mouseketeer" at one time). You wanted to look at the top of John's Southwestern rock towers for the spinning, about-to-topple-onto-the-tracks, boulders! Perhaps one can accept such modeling with a pound of salt as "amusing", in a juvenile sort of way but it is a far cry from any accurate, realistic, depiction of the real railroading world. There simply exists no frame of reference with which to compare such work. Is it really well done, or simply just too far outside any frame of reference you have to know just what level of true quality it exhibits?
That sort, or style, of modeling has far more in common with 3-rail Lionel and bobbing giraffe cars - or perhaps sci-fi fantasy creations - than it does with what Model Railroader long ago characterized as adult scale model railroading. It's also akin to the Lunar Railway MR presented as an April Fools joke in its pages long years ago. Maybe the modeler himself can get a kick out of doing such modeling just for fun and a certain naive element in the hobby may aclaim it as great but that doesn't mean that it really is "good." And don't expect it to be accepted among those serious about their own modeling efforts - any more than anticipating Jasper Cropsey to have been enamoured by some child's finger paintings.
marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:How much more skill was needed to bring something like this fantasy locomotive to reality from scratch than simply painting and weathering an RTR locomotive?Maybe not the best example to use in support of your argument, Vc. Isn't this one of Rowland Emmett's engines?Cheers,Mark.
vsmith wrote:How much more skill was needed to bring something like this fantasy locomotive to reality from scratch than simply painting and weathering an RTR locomotive?
Gazoo wrote: CNJ831 wrote: I find it just a bit laughable that Furlow should be quoted by Posey as saying that "reality is a crutch", since the fact is that fantasy modeling (the only way to honestly characterize Furlow's style) is exactly the approach to use to cover/excuse any and all errors, or deviations from accuracy and realism in modeling. I know a lot of 8th graders taking their first literature class who make much the same argument as you are making when they read the Great Gatsby for the first time.
CNJ831 wrote: I find it just a bit laughable that Furlow should be quoted by Posey as saying that "reality is a crutch", since the fact is that fantasy modeling (the only way to honestly characterize Furlow's style) is exactly the approach to use to cover/excuse any and all errors, or deviations from accuracy and realism in modeling.
I find it just a bit laughable that Furlow should be quoted by Posey as saying that "reality is a crutch", since the fact is that fantasy modeling (the only way to honestly characterize Furlow's style) is exactly the approach to use to cover/excuse any and all errors, or deviations from accuracy and realism in modeling.
I know a lot of 8th graders taking their first literature class who make much the same argument as you are making when they read the Great Gatsby for the first time.
Gazoo--
Don't mean to get this off-topic, but EIGHTH graders reading "Gatsby?" That's a LOT to throw at them at that age, even if they were studying at a private, accelerated Academy. I didn't read "Gatsby" (my favorite novel, BTW) until college, and at the high school at which I teach, we introduce it in Junior English--though I'm glad to hear that most of the students love the novel at around sixteen or so. And this is a private College Prep high school.
Wow, I bet those eighth graders are BOGGLED!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
I was gouing to mention David Barrow too. Furlow, Barrow (and Allen in his day) cause dissent. And they do it because they are pushing the envelope, which is what keeps the hobby interesting.
Long may people like them stimulate us
So...?
To many "reality" simply is a crutch. I mean seriously, if you've ever tried to model something from your head and not from merely from a kit you'll find its actually FAR more difficult and requires a much greater degree of skill to successfully bring it to reality, as almost everything has to be custom made or modified.
How much more skill was needed to bring something like this fantasy locomotive to reality from scratch than simply painting and weathering an RTR locomotive? Lets be square here, there are very few true scratchbuilders on this forum that I am aware of, it requires a much wider breadth of vision. For Freelancers, to create an entire layout enviroment from your own vision requires a greater imagination, along with the technical skill required to create that vision, where IMHO merely copying something from the proto-reality perspective, while also requiring a great amount of technical skill and planning, to me requires very little actual imagination.
What your falling back to only one side of the same argument about reality -vs- vision we've been discussing here all along.
Furlow is like sushi, to some (like me) its a tasty delicacy, to others its simply raw fish, and for some of those others no amount of cajoling about how tasty it is, we may never convince them to take that first bite, com'on now, try the "Spicy Tuny Roll"
That's true. But are you willing to admit that it's also true that sometimes artists INTENTIONALLY deviate from established norms to convey something they feel is important?
Isn't it equally possible that the guy spent countless excruciating hours creating a layout that matched exactly what was in his head, including throwing away hundreds of models that didn't meet his standards, reworking scenery elements that were accidentally too realistic, etc?
I think this thread has progressed remarkably well, its full of a great deal of insight and each person has managed to convey their opinion while respecting the opinion of others they obviosly disagree very much with, this has been a great discussion. Thumbs up to fellow forum members here.
Thats admirable considering the rankorous flamethrowing that occured back in '03 when the MF issue first hit the stand, whats funny is that about the same time, the same rankorous flamethrowing happened discussing Dave Borrows minimalist 'Domino" system of layout design. I consider Borrow the polar opposite of Furlow, yet I admire the idea behind the system. Guess we are all getting a bit maturer as we age.
"Is it dead yet, George?"
"Don't poke it, it might just be sleeping!"
I have figured out what is wrong with my brain! On the left side nothing works right, and on the right side there is nothing left!
That's it in a nutshell, I suppose.
After more thought, it's Furlow's scenery I like, not any potential operation possibilities (if indeed there are any) or the relation, or lack thereof, to reality.
Art evaluation is something so individual, it really can't be qualitatively argued, IMO, but to each his own I say.
That said, a fully integrated layout (realistic scenery, structures, details, and operation) will certainly be more influential and interesting to most, yet virtually all layouts worthy of publication will have something that can inspire most of us.
Is Furlow up to the caliber of John Allen? Certainly not, and he shows no such dedication to the hobby, either, but I still enjoy his work for what it is.
In the end we all have to follow our own heart and build what we want to see, not what anyone else prefers.
vsmith wrote:...if you think about it, EVERY layout falls into this catagory. EVERY layout is an expresion of personal vision, not objective reality. The simple logistics of scale and space prevent the accurate scale depiction of real world locations for all but the very smallest railroads, so each modeler must compromise the reality of a layout and make decisions of what they are going to depict, what they are going to exclude how they are going to depict it, and how it is going to fit into a given space for it.
As a result you can have 10 layout of the same subject yet no two of them are alike, each is a singular vision of the same scene. I have seen this phenomenon over and over again in narrow gauge modeling, good example being the Rio Grande Southern Ophir line which has literally had dozens of fine scale highy detailed highly accurate layouts built of it, yet none of them look alike, some model diffferent eras, different scales, and differing installations, even the engines and rolling stack are modeled vastly differently, some heavily weathered others like new. Dont even get me started on how scenery can vary from layout to layout. Each yeilds a uniquely personal expression of the same subject, so in a sense, none of them offer an "objective reality" because that goal is a moving target and dependant on many variables that correspond to the modelers individual tastes. Hence to me, while an individual layout may strive to represent a specific time or place an "objective reality" if you will, no matter how accurate it is, the collective result though will always be that unique personal vision. Just something to think about.
shawnee wrote:... I wish I had the overall modeling skills that he has in one fingertip. The man can build a model.
A layout that really blew me away when I saw it, simply as an example in comparison, is Lance Mindheim's CSX South Florida layout in the 08 Great Model Railroads. What incredible depth and detail, such a fascinating reflection of life. Stunning in just a 16 foot layout, but so much more interesting to check out, to me so much more engrossing than something more fanciful. Well, i guess that's just MHO. To each his/her own.
vsmith wrote:PS in regards to Olympic Level Sports...Baseball will be eliminated after this summers games, yet badmitten and trampoline remain...go figure.
Midnight Railroader wrote:Any layout that claims to be a "objective representation of reality," will fail if put to scrutiny on that point, because every layout built is, of necessity, the builder's interpretation of reality. If you don't accept that...
then you must believe that two people building a realistic interpretation of a scene would generate identical results.
...and the world's largest participation sport, bowling, still isn't in the Olympics!! Ironically it was in a couple of Olympics, and would have become a permanent sport (a sport I believe has be in three consecutive Olympics to move from a demonstration sport to a permanent sport) but L.A. dropped it for the 1984 Olympics in favor of I think beach volleyball or kayaking??
BTW as to the original post...I didn't read every posting so might have missed this but it seems to me a picture by Malcolm Furlow - not an article, just a picture - was in a recent MR (say within the last year??)