Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Malcolm Furlow in recent issue?

37393 views
193 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 83 posts
Posted by NEMMRRC on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 5:43 PM
 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.

Mark,

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.

The hobby has developed a lot of neat gadgetry in the last years. I am so glad there is now DCC and affordable realistic sound for locomotives. That stuff was pretty new 15 years ago. I recall fighting with the old codgers in my train club to even consider DCC let alone buy a Digitrax set for the club. We eventually got one and even the most hardcore codger relented to DCC's magic.

All some of us are saying is that we like Furlow and his modeling. It's clear yo do not. That is fine. I am prepared to venture a guess that there is something you and those of us Furlowians have in common about this hobby. For starters, we are both willing to read this far into this thread about a most controversial toy train topic.

Jaime
  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Dayton, OH
  • 84 posts
Posted by Gazoo on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 4:35 PM
 CNJ831 wrote:
 vsmith wrote:

Yep, that particular engine is now available as a resin kit in Britain somewhere in the 7/8" scale vicinityWink [;)], 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 courseBig Smile [:D].

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.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 1:02 PM

 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.

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...Shock [:O]

...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 againSmile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

Sorry I couldnt resistDunce [D)]Laugh [(-D]

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 10:13 AM
 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.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Wednesday, September 3, 2008 10:06 AM
 vsmith wrote:

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.


I can see why it would. That website is a ripper, I'm glad you posted that. It's answered a few questions I had about NZ logging locos.

Class A's are interesting beasts, too. The Australian publication "Light Railways" has had articles recently on the Class A's that ran here. I was surprised to learn that one once ran not far from where my wife grew up.

http://www.lrrsa.org.au/index.html

All the best,

Mark.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 10:52 PM

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.

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 83 posts
Posted by NEMMRRC on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 9:31 PM
Please forgive me for reviving this thread. But, I was watching the Republican National Convention on TV and decided I had had enough controversy so I began to read this entire thread from start to finish.

We miss you Malcolm Furlow! Please come back!

When I first got involved in the hobby back in 1993 Malcolm Furlow and George Sellios were some of the modelers in the press that impressed me the most. Somehow when I saw their stuff it tickled my railroad zone just the right way.

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.

Jaime
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:35 PM

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.

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:04 PM
Very nice, Vic. I'm rather envious!

The Price locos are a rather obscure prototype, something I would have thought were not well known outside NZ. How did you find about them?

All the best,

Mark.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Monday, August 25, 2008 11:42 PM

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-gunWink [;)]

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Monday, August 25, 2008 9:32 PM
 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.

Vic, I think that's arguable. To equate building a loco this way to kit-building assumes that all of the components you need are available commercially - in my experience, at least in HO scale, that simply isn't true. The obvious examples are frames and boilers, much less other smaller parts. As I wrote earlier, I think that while the skills & talent required in either case are considerable, they're not quite the same.

BTW, I REALLY like your Price 16-wheeler!

Cheers,

Mark.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Monday, August 25, 2008 9:23 PM
Yep, that particular engine is now available as a resin kit in Britain somewhere in the 7/8" scale vicinityWink [;)], 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 courseBig Smile [:D].


Vic, I agree 100% - it does take talent. I'm just not sure whether it takes more talent than to model a real loco. More like different talents, I think.

Cheers,

Mark.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Saturday, August 23, 2008 10:23 PM

 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

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

Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 3,150 posts
Posted by CNJ831 on Saturday, August 23, 2008 8:45 AM
 vsmith wrote:

Yep, that particular engine is now available as a resin kit in Britain somewhere in the 7/8" scale vicinityWink [;)], 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 courseBig Smile [:D].

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.

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.

CNJ831

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Friday, August 22, 2008 10:46 PM

 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.

Yep, that particular engine is now available as a resin kit in Britain somewhere in the 7/8" scale vicinityWink [;)], 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 courseBig Smile [:D].

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Carmichael, CA
  • 8,055 posts
Posted by twhite on Friday, August 22, 2008 10:05 PM
 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.

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! Tongue [:P]

Tom Smile [:)]

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: New Zealand
  • 462 posts
Posted by robengland on Friday, August 22, 2008 9:05 PM

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

Rob Proud owner of the a website sharing my model railroading experiences, ideas and resources.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Friday, August 22, 2008 8:51 PM
 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.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:38 PM
 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.

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" Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Dayton, OH
  • 84 posts
Posted by Gazoo on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:30 PM
 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.

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 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.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:22 PM

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.Thumbs Up [tup]

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.Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:00 AM
If the continuation of this thread bothers you, there's a simple solution. Don't read it.

Mark.
  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,207 posts
Posted by stebbycentral on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:52 AM

"Is it dead yet, George?" Dead [xx(]

"Don't poke it, it might just be sleeping!" Mischief [:-,]

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!

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • From: Amherst, N.S.
  • 248 posts
Posted by kcole4001 on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:06 AM

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.

"The mess and the magic Triumphant and tragic A mechanized world out of hand" Kevin
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,486 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:53 AM
The problem that is being argued is not one of black and white but value judgement and will never be resolved. That is why cars come in different colors and some people drive cars that I wouldn't be caught dead in.  Does that make it right or wrong?  Only for me.  We are in a small fragmented hobby.  Five or six major scales subject to counting Z as a major scale (value judgement).  Trains running from Thomas through exact scale models.  Layouts ranging from modules through huge clubs in their own buildings.  Consensys isn't about to happen.  I don't like Furlow. He roared onto the scene and roared off to be a musician then he switched to painting and now he is back. I think most of us try to move toward more prototype operations and equipment as we learn more about railroads and equipment.  There is a vst difference between "scale" model railroading and toy trains running through a scene.  If that is what somebody wants that is fine with me.  MR had a staff in the late 40's through about the mid 60's that elevated the hobby from toy trains status to scale model railroading with an emphasis on realistic modeling of every component.  The detail on todays over the counter rolling stock would have won any NMRA contest in that era.  Is that good or bad?  Well on one hand criticism of equipment not detailed to the last rivet is being given alongside the work of an individual whose reality base is highly skewed to say the least.  So which direction are we going?  Do we go down the realism trail or the  trains in a scene where the scene is the most important item?  For me it is the realism trail. My mother never did understand why I was embarrased by that third rail in the Lionel system or the sharp curves and why HO was the way to go.  My problem lies with people who will not listen to any viewpoint or allow it but their own.  Furlow is setting the hobby back over 50 years in many ways.  You can't argue that because it is my opinion and opinions are not fact based.  I don't care for his work or his superior attitude.  Time will tell if his work is on the calber of John Allan not instant reviews or admiration.  I think in the long term he will not be viewed well. Tolerated for his scenery but not his railroading. 
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:52 AM
 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.

Vic, I see this argument put forward time and time again, but I strongly disagree with it.

Here in Australia, and in the UK and Europe it is quite common to model a specific location such as a station, yard or depot with great scale accuracy, without selective compression, compromise or exclusions. I think that's one of the traits that distinguishes our approach to modelling from that practiced in the US. It probably seems a valid argument to you, since so much of US modelling is predicated on depicting an entire division, or all of a branchline or shortline. But it's worth noting that such an approach is not universal outside the US. My own layout includes a yard and depot that scales down to under 8 feet in HO, so absolutely no compression is needed. At the other end of the spectrum, the last exhibition I visited featured a layout that was of a real junction not far from where I used to live. That layout is about 50' long, and again there is no compression or compromise.

In short, every layout does NOT fall into this category.

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.


I don't see any contradiction inherent in my position. All 10 layouts based on the RGS Ophir line, regardless of how they may vary, are still all grounded on the objective reality of the prototype, aren't they? They're not fantasy layouts.

Although, I've often thought that all the RGS layouts you see in the model press and on layout tours look remarkably alike, regardless of scale or era.

Cheers,

Mark.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:30 AM
 shawnee wrote:
... I wish I had the overall modeling skills that he has in one fingertip.  The man can build a model.

Well, I'll stick my neck out again and say that Sellios is not a bloke whose modelling skills I rate all that highly, either. I do think there are many more talented modellers around.

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.


Indeed.

But FWIW, I've always been impressed by Lance Mindheim's work. Some years back MR featured his Monon layout in HO. It was simple, but very elegant and effective, I thought.

Cheers,

Mark.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:22 AM
 vsmith wrote:
PS in regards to Olympic Level Sports...Baseball will be eliminated after this summers games, yet badmitten and trampoline remain...go figure.

I'd be happy if the entire Olympic Games were eliminated.

Mark.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Sydney, Australia
  • 1,939 posts
Posted by marknewton on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:20 AM
 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...

No, I don't accept that. At first I was uncertain whether "objective" was the word I wanted to use, so I consulted the dictionary:

1b: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact.

And that was the idea I wanted to convey, so I stuck with "objective".

then you must believe that two people building a realistic interpretation of a scene would generate identical results.

From what I've seen, yes, I would tend to think that. I know two blokes modelling the same NSWGR branchline, in the same period - one in HO, one in finescale 7mm. Granted, they're not absolutely identical, but apart from the difference in scale, there is a great similarity between the two layouts. Others have assumed that they have collaborated on their projects, but until very recently the two have never met. I've seen many other examples of such convergence, as well.

Cheers,

Mark.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Tuesday, August 19, 2008 8:03 AM

 vsmith wrote:
PS in regards to Olympic Level Sports...Baseball will be eliminated after this summers games, yet badmitten and trampoline remain...go figure.

...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??)

Stix

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!