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.
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
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
Have fun with your trains
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
...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
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.
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.
Hey Mods!
It's time...
Seriously, look at the first post, and compare it to what the thread has turned into.
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?)
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
santafe347 wrote: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
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.
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
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!)
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.
Similarly, those layouts built for their owners by someone else always seem to have a sort of sterile quality, to me, anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
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 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).
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.
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.