tstageI don't think you can instill that with just "bells & whistles". Eventually the novelty wears off and the person starts looking for something "newer" that will push their buttons. Either trains will draw interest...or they won't. Tom
Absoluetly. The years I spent in various clubs I've seen my far share come and go.They're red hot in the hobby today they buy the best models available.
Then several months later on meeting night.
What happen to Billybob?
He quit the hobby and sold his stuff and now he's into R/C boats..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I confess that I've read very few responses to this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else might have already stated.
Even if the electronic wonders of MRRing drew someone into the hobby, I truly think their sojourn would be short-lived. The draw of trains - to me - seems to be an innate one; albeit exhibited early on in one's life...or latent until the kids come along or leave the house.
I don't think you can instill that with just "bells & whistles". Eventually the novelty wears off and the person starts looking for something "newer" that will push their buttons. Either trains will draw interest...or they won't.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Howard ZaneI sure did not. When folks see a truly great layout, they have two choices.........intimidation or inspiration.
No..There's a third choice..
Says it nice and move on. I have never been intimidated or inspired by anybodies layout simply because their interest and mine are different. I may like looking at photos of the old V&O and AM but,neither inspires me.The same can be said about the UB,the Maumee Route or any of those famous layouts that once grace the pages of MR on a routine bases.
One of the best all time layouts was Ben King's TC&NW. A small museum quality master piece.
Years back, the there was a magazine called "The Scale Coupler". It was geared for mid level to beginner HO railroading. The magazine was well done, but I mentioned to the editor, Frank Pearsall....I'm not sure that folks want to rise to the heights of medioocrity. I sure did not. When folks see a truly great layout, they have two choices.........intimidation or inspiration. I'd like to think that most will choose the latter. I will never critize others work or skill level, but I have been somewhat disappointed with most model railroad magazines today, but not enough to stop purchasing them.
HZ
PRR8259 But But But, Larry: If I want to run 1970's freight cars behind a Soo Line steam engine, which would have been scrapped at least 13 years or so before the '70's cars were built, then I'm going to do just that, and I'm going to like it, because I remember those freight cars if not the steam... I also, living in relative gondola paradise in Central PA, have seen numerous swaybacked mill gondolas loaded with revenue loads and going somewhere, that were not removed from service for being swaybacked, and I'm not talking about old tie service, but steel or scrap loads. So if somebody wants to swayback their Tangent goodies, then fine by me. Many of the pre-CR gondolas were pretty ragged by the late '80's. Respectfully submitted, not trying to flame anyone, so please don't take it that way.-- John Mock
But But But, Larry:
If I want to run 1970's freight cars behind a Soo Line steam engine, which would have been scrapped at least 13 years or so before the '70's cars were built, then I'm going to do just that, and I'm going to like it, because I remember those freight cars if not the steam...
I also, living in relative gondola paradise in Central PA, have seen numerous swaybacked mill gondolas loaded with revenue loads and going somewhere, that were not removed from service for being swaybacked, and I'm not talking about old tie service, but steel or scrap loads. So if somebody wants to swayback their Tangent goodies, then fine by me. Many of the pre-CR gondolas were pretty ragged by the late '80's.
Respectfully submitted, not trying to flame anyone, so please don't take it that way.--
John Mock
John,first those swayback gons would be in violation of FRA rules unless they are used as plant cars.
About steam pulling modern cars.. I'm confuse.What's wrong with that? I seen that at some train shows. I seen a very nice collection of 36'( IIRC I was told 60) beer reefers being pulled by a sound equipped SD70MAC not my bag but,as long as the owner is happy.
Then..
How about two of my Seaboard System GP38-2 pulling IPD boxcars from the IPD era-not exactly correct seeing the IPD era ended before Seaboard System existed. I was all smiles. I also ran two BB GP35 lettered for SCL and one in Family lines. Those 35s fall way short of today's so called "standards".
The hobby has grown up and there is no denying that. I never said one still can't have fun in what he or she allows.
Excuse my french, but bullcrap!
Electronics, as sweet as they might be, doesn't evoke the spirit in a human as art does!
To lure someone into the hobby you have to first touch their inner core. The feelings so to say....
That I think is what art does.
A plywood pacific with a load of fancy gadgetry might interest the most hardcore geeks. But the general population? Nope....
A superbly designed and executed layout with a lot of artistry on the other hand almost always gets a lot of attention (even from the ones you would least expect it).
You must cater for both groups nevertheless.
Sure, if you look at the magazines today, there are many articles about both art and electronics. But, and this is a big but (heheee), there seems to be a bias against the most artistic layouts.
I have even heard that the reason for not publishing the more extensively detailed and finished layouts is to "not scare the beginners"?!?
For me the layout is a whole concept with both art and electronics.
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
Mike,The hobby has indeed grown up over the years compare today's models,layouts with those of 20,30,60 years ago no comparison.
If there wasn't enough knowledgeable prototype modelers think we would have those highly detailed and accurate cars and locomotives?
Today's hobby isn't the one I started in 60 years ago it has changed.We no longer have to build or detail our diesel locomotives.Now they come RTR and highly detailed. My Dad,Linn Westcott,John Allen and a host of others from that era would be amazed how much the hobby grew up and how the current layout looks. Even if your skills is so/so you can still turn out a well scenic layout. Want instructions on scenery,installing a decoder? Hello You Tube.
Today's modeler is more knowledgeable then before.Instant information by computer instead of piles of magazines,a library of books and personal field notes..
We no longer make hills with painted on green grass and glue a gob of Lichen on a painted round stick and call it a tree.
If one has enough spare cash he can have his layout custom built.
The hobby has grownup.
Good, bad or plum ugly-your call.
Mike,
Extremely well said! I do take exception, however with the comment about the hobby being half the size if it depended only on prototype model sales. My guess would be considerably less.
BRAKIELike I said the hobby grew up.You decide if that's good,bad or down right ugly. I will endorse as good for the hobby just for today's more accurate models,DCC and better railroad and scenery knowledge.
Larry,
If the hobby depended solely on the sales to prototype modelers, it wouldn't be half the size it is today. In fact, depending on how closely you define "prototype modeling" -- and many who do it want to define it quite sharply -- they might constitute 10% of the active model railroaders.
Am I saying that's a bad thing? Not at all.
It is a rather unhelpful thing to suggest that those who haven't joined in as "not yet grown up" though. Because even the most ardent prototype modeler probably started with something rather toy-like or perhaps Lionel if the lucky sort, worked their way through varying degrees of fidelity, then finally figured out what the prototype is and why some find satisfaction in modeling it closely. Some continue like that to the end of their lives.
Some eventually exhaust what they find compelling about the prototype and branch into ahem, shall we say, "less accurate" but still rather entertaining and attractive efforts.
Yes, the demand for accuracy is there, but it's not just prototype modelers who want it and not just for the reason prototype modelers state that they do. For some of us, that's just the starting point to doing something creative, but which doesn't necessarily have a 1:1 prototype. They seem to do plenty well creating scenes and builds of things that are pretty darn convincing despite never having existed.
So it really takes all kinds in our mature hobby. I don't see any of us as expendable, not worth considering the views of, or less a modeler than I am when I do happen to enjoy building to match historical documentation. I enjoy the prototype, but it doesn't limit me to only what was real either.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Howard ZaneI do agree that all tastes in scale model railroading can be successful and believable
Russell
Howard Zane To hell with rules.............this is my railroad and I make the rules!!! Actually I loved the swayback cars on the G&D. I built a few myself and not only did they look interesting, but they provided several hours of enjoyment building them. I do agree that all tastes in scale model railroading can be successful and believable. I have seen several Hi-rail layouts and retro Lionel layouts with 3 rail tracks and trains going everywhere..some even occupying almost every square foot.............realistic? Not a chance! Fun for the builder? You bet..........and that is his taste and that is fine! HZ
To hell with rules.............this is my railroad and I make the rules!!! Actually I loved the swayback cars on the G&D. I built a few myself and not only did they look interesting, but they provided several hours of enjoyment building them.
I do agree that all tastes in scale model railroading can be successful and believable. I have seen several Hi-rail layouts and retro Lionel layouts with 3 rail tracks and trains going everywhere..some even occupying almost every square foot.............realistic? Not a chance! Fun for the builder? You bet..........and that is his taste and that is fine!
Like I said the hobby grew up.You decide if that's good,bad or down right ugly. I will endorse as good for the hobby just for today's more accurate models,DCC and better railroad and scenery knowledge.
Being a former railroader I know what rules is important for believability so,for me there's no "its my railroad" excuse...
Howard ZaneOne of my favorite quotes came from Allen himself.........."No matter how strange or bizzare your model may be, rest assured a prototype once exisisted"
Only if it fits the operation,safety and interchange rules. Some of John's swayback cars would never be allowed to be loaded and would be rejected by the shipper as unsafe..
Back in the day we thought such cars was ok and fun to model but,as modelers learn more and more about the prototype they started to know better.
In short the hobby grew up and today the model is supposed to represent the prototype and that can be proved by today's ultra detailed layouts and attention to correct prototype details on cars and locomotives on our models.
Freelancing a railroad is a horse of a different color from a protolance and and there's the strict prototype modeling. All three styles can be successfully modeled well within believability.
Years back in Jersey, I once visited an incredible HOn3 layout depicting the Keeler branch of the Southern Pacific. It occupied a 1500 square foot basement and went on for a seemingly endless number of scale miles. What was so incredible was the scenery.............nothing but sand, cactus and a few hills, but done to perfection and extremely believable. You bet I'll cover western pikes. After all John Allen's pike was of a western theme, but quite the extreme of southwest stlye mountain railroading.
Folks, I have heard many critisims of many great pikes....like Allen's was Disney like, Sellios' pike was to overcrowded with details, and so forth. My own layout has been victimized also by many negative comments as not being accurate. Accurate to what??? I once tossed out a butthead who literally laid into me as runining his work with a local historical society, because I was modeling equipment that was never on the prototype railroad.
Hell's bells....I thought this hobby is about unlimited imagination as should any fine art be. I recognize fully that many are serious prototype modelers and and that is fine. I am supportive of historic accuracy, but I am also a serious fan of the established term....freelance protoype. There is nothing even close to a prototype on my pike except for locomotives and rolling stock. This works well for me. The counter of this is a fellow I know, now in his 50's who is modeling a section of the New York Central in the Albany area exactly as it appeared in 1942. I don't even think his parents were alive then. He has researched all structures, rolling stock, and just about everything else from that era and in that area. Will my book cover layouts like this.....you betcha!! There is something for everyone in this hobby... be it modeling with every rivet and bolt in the exact place as was the prototype, or fantasy modeling such as Allen, Furlow and others.
One of my favorite quotes came from Allen himself.........."No matter how strange or bizzare your model may be, rest assured a prototype once exisisted"
For those who have not had the pleasure of seeing Howard's last book, I can assure you that the photos were absolutely stunning. I don't recall any being out of focus or grainy unless it was on purpose, as a chapter frontispiece?
I would think that a similar book that shows the art of what some people have accomplished, with similar high quality photos, would do ok.
I also have to ask: have you ever personally talked to Steve and Cinthia Priest? Because I think they may have started out self publishing with their very earliest efforts? In any case, their publications on the Santa Fe have done very well, with most being a sellout, and good copies of The Santa Fe Diesel Volume I and II now commanding big bucks. They have managed to do some "off the beaten path" type books that sold well, I think due to the quality images in them, and their reputation for putting out a quality product.
I do think that the book should cover all types of scenery, not just say the eastern U.S. I'd like to see what the best desert modelers have managed to do, as really good desert vegetation is not so readily available. Some folks have done great with pipe cleaner Joshua trees...Also winter scenes for some have been a cliche due to the spray can snow...but how many folks have done winter really well???
John
Well, I think there's a lot to the idea, Howard. I can remember the place and event that brought me headlong into the hobby, and that was when the librarian at my elementary school handed me the May, 1976 MR, and said "if you like trains, you might like this."
Was she ever right! That was the issue with John Olson's Mule Shoes Meadows diorama, and the photography and modeling were memorable. That led to an MR subscription at a moment when MR was dominated by the guys whose principal interest in the hobby was artistic: Malcolm Furlow, Bob Hayden, Bob Hegge, Dave Frary - you probably know their names better than I do! The point is, they were making something that was intrinsically interesting, and beautiful (I admit you have to be a railfan to find a locomotive servicing terminal beautiful - but still, they did a great job of depicting these places). It wasn't just rendering everything in perfect miniature (which is hard to do, but doesn't necessarily "work" as art) - it was creating a small, coherent world where everything seemed to fit together in a harmonious way.
The catch, as I see it, was that MR was run at the time by a guy who made his name as the hobby's great technician, Linn Westcott. I think his particular contribution was the realization that the magazine could usefully serve two purposes: teaching, and inspiration. He did a great job both of finding and poularizing great modeling, and of teaching the necessary techniques to make it all work. So I think that people come to model railroading because they love trains, they get inspired by great modeling, and they use whatever technology is available to them to build the layout they want. Trains and technique may be the fuel: inspiration is the spark.
BTW, as a describer of technique, Linn Westcott was an underestimated genius. When I first built a control panel, I literally wired it up with copies of "HO Primer" and "HO Railroad That Grows" open on the layout in front of me. I had never wired a model railroad before - but when I put a locomotive on the track and threw two switches, it ran on the first try.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
Howard Zane About the book, my plans were to travel around the country and possibly to Australia and Europe interviewing builders and photographing their pikes that could be construed as fine art...many still unknown to the model railroad press.
About the book, my plans were to travel around the country and possibly to Australia and Europe interviewing builders and photographing their pikes that could be construed as fine art...many still unknown to the model railroad press.
I like this idea. There are lots of layouts out there that would make good examples of Model railroading as art. Plus it would be fun to do a "world wide layout tour".
Howard Zane I do know of several pikes that are of extrodinary quality, but the builders are not interested in general coverage, and most definitely do not want to write articles about themselves and their work. My dad was just this person. His pike was excellent and quite large, but he did not want to share it...almost to denying there was a model railroad in the basement when asked. I'm just the opposite beleving that art has little meaning if it is not shared
I do know of several pikes that are of extrodinary quality, but the builders are not interested in general coverage, and most definitely do not want to write articles about themselves and their work. My dad was just this person. His pike was excellent and quite large, but he did not want to share it...almost to denying there was a model railroad in the basement when asked. I'm just the opposite beleving that art has little meaning if it is not shared
I have list of great lesser known layouts the SF Bay area if you are interested. I think there are many modelers who don't want to put up with the hassle of writing, shooting and editing articles for the hobby press. I also agree that art/layouts should be shared. That is why I am on layout tours when they are in my area.
Howard Zane "The Fine Art of Model Railroading" is intended to be an art book with excellent and large photos backed with interesting stories about the builder.... his ideas and techniques....coupled with his approach to the art of the hobby. My intended market would be the general public hopefully inspiring many to enter the hobby as I was with the John Allen articles and other greats from the past and present. My first book, which now over 4000 copies have been sold, went as far as I can see mostly to model railroaders. I actually intended this book to be available to the public, but I never once presented it that way. Perhaps if I do another printing, I'll try the "other" market. Initially I offered my work to several well known publishers, but they all wanted to reinvent me, and make many changes that I did not like, so I self-published and I would have to do the same with the new book. This is a costly endeavor, and I do not like losing money, so still much marketing research must be done.
"The Fine Art of Model Railroading" is intended to be an art book with excellent and large photos backed with interesting stories about the builder.... his ideas and techniques....coupled with his approach to the art of the hobby. My intended market would be the general public hopefully inspiring many to enter the hobby as I was with the John Allen articles and other greats from the past and present. My first book, which now over 4000 copies have been sold, went as far as I can see mostly to model railroaders. I actually intended this book to be available to the public, but I never once presented it that way. Perhaps if I do another printing, I'll try the "other" market.
Initially I offered my work to several well known publishers, but they all wanted to reinvent me, and make many changes that I did not like, so I self-published and I would have to do the same with the new book. This is a costly endeavor, and I do not like losing money, so still much marketing research must be done.
4K copies isn't too bad for a specialty book. I know that Jack Burgess' book on the YV is sold out, so there appears to be markets for smaller runs of specialty hobby books. I think the project will have wide appeal if the photos and production quality are good. You could draw in the Modeling community by featuring layouts that aren't well known. Keep us posted on your decision.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Howard,I will add this. Today's young modelers prefers DCC in its simplest form because wiring a old fashion DC panel is to complicated especially when all one needs in DCC is 2 wires to the rails. Soldering skills isn't really needed like in the old days-simply buy the DCC equipped or DCC/Sound equipped locomotives or use that "instant" solder glue or whatever its called. It does work quite well.
Those young modelers will have a interest in trains and electronics as far as DCC and maybe DCC/Computer interface but,old DC panel and block wiring nope. I know of one young modeler that tosses the Athearn BB GP38-2/GP40-2 and SD40-2 handrails and replaces them with the easy to install plastic handrails and follows up by adding DCC decoders.That amounts to a quick and easy method without the need to install then paint the metal handrails..
John,
I can answer this rather well as I know many of these folks, but Let's not take this topic off message. I'll comment briefly. Some I know are most afraid of security issues, some just don't care about publicity, some are afraid of stupid critisims, and some will not allow editing....me being now in this category. My last article that appeared in MR in 2004, was so dumbed down, that immediately when a fellow I know got his copy, he called......."Damn, Zane...'read your article and somehow I thought you went beyond the eighth grade!" In my last publications in RMC ...2006 and 2007, I offered no pay to me if they print every word just as I wrote, but of course correct spelling and grammer. They did just this and I was quite happy with it. Also back to the 2004 article in MR, Lou Sassi showed me the photos and I asked please do not print nine of the batch of twenty five...They printed eight them. this is why you will never see anything from me in MR again. Still, I'm a fan and always will be............and now RMC is greatly improving even though I always thought it was quite good!!!
Howard--
Are the individuals you've spoken with hesitant to publish in magazines because some of the editing, at least in the past, was rather heavy handed? Or is it more a personal security issue?
I know of one individual who had what I considered to be a very well done layout, who was most unhappy when it was featured in a magazine, because they rather heavily edited his writing (which was already dumbed down to a 5th grade reading level) to the point of eliminating painting suggestions that he believed strongly in.
For instance, my friend recommends completely stripping a brass model prior to painting or else the bits of underlying paint will definitely show through the finished work. At the time, the editors of the train magazine disagreed and completely eliminated that section of his article, along with other useful suggestions.
Just curious. Or is it that they don't want to put their layout out there for folks to criticize? What's their thinking?
Of course trains are the crux of the hobby. Anyone who loves trains and model trains can be satisfied by building a simple layout with a mess of tracks going everywhere or become a collector/accumulator of model trains. Personally I have always loved railroading....grew up with my dad's pike, often rode with my two uncles who ran steam until I was 16, worked once on the SP, but I made my living doing other things that I also loved. Great layouts as mentioned were the inspiration for me to go beyond the basic 4'x 8'.
I believe it was Frank Ellison who said the actor/stage/scenery bit....but Frary would most definitely would agree.
I, like many others on this thread, believe that the interest in trains is what must be at the heart of this hobby. I must also say, the electronics part of it is very significant. After all, the trains run on electricity, and if we can find better ways of harnesing and and controlling that electricity, the better running railroads we have, not to mention running them more prototypically.
I believe art is, for most of us a major component as well. I believe it was Dave Frary who said that the trains are the "actors" on our model railroads; the scenery is the stage and set that they act on.
Today's young model railroaders have to first be attracted to the trains, then the electronics. For that matter,They can work with electronics on just about anything else; they don't have to be interested in trains to do that.
Guy,
Any thoughts and ideas will be greatly appreciated.
Maybe not excellence in every single field would be art, but I do believe that excellence in many fields constitutes art.
Perhaps I'm biased: I was once a college music major, but decided I wanted to eat, and switched to engineering. I can see both the technical and the artistic side of both disciplines. College level music theory (how chords resolve and lead from one to the other) is every bit as challenging as calculus. There's a certain mathematical logic to music, just as there is in algebra.
Most people would say engineering is not art at all, but I absolutely disagree with them. Engineering is so much more than blindly solving equations (as some think that's all we do) or even developing new processes. We have to balance the technical requirements of a given challenge against aesthetics (what we build will be around for 50 or 100 years or more, and people will have to look at it whether they want to or not) and against the client's wishes and needs to come up with the best possible design.
There is no once size fits all solution. What worked on the last project won't work for this one...I'm currently leading the roadway geometric design team trying to come up with a new interchange on I-95 in Philadelphia that will safely convey the very high traffic flows, without taking much right-of-way (we are allowed to take business parcels but not residential in this case), and it's absolutely the hardest thing I've ever tried to do.
In reality, I draw pretty pictures for other people to build, after I figure out the pay items and quantities they need to build the job. That's what I do. But don't tell me it's not art, because it is.
As it relates to trains, the people who visit my home tend to think I'm some kind of artist even though my (mostly still desert) scenery pales...greatly...when compared to what Howard achieves. I hired an actual artist to come in and fix the backdrop that I started painting...but many of you all would probably not care for the bright colors of the sunset against the dark blue night sky of my backdrop...the colors are still too strong even after the artist "fixed" things.
Respectfully submitted--
Howard Zane I was/am planning on writing a book on the fine art of model railroading or model railroading seen as a fine art.
I was/am planning on writing a book on the fine art of model railroading or model railroading seen as a fine art.
Great idea. Have you started writing it yet?
Howard Zane I may shelve this project, even though I have found several who still see this hobby as an art. I now think it would be easier to sell gefilte fish to Arabs or rubbers to monks than to sell a book like what I have been planning to newer modelers. I just now do not think the market is there for this kind of effort.........I could be wrong which is often the case, but still I could never sell enough to come close to breaking even.
I may shelve this project, even though I have found several who still see this hobby as an art. I now think it would be easier to sell gefilte fish to Arabs or rubbers to monks than to sell a book like what I have been planning to newer modelers. I just now do not think the market is there for this kind of effort.........I could be wrong which is often the case, but still I could never sell enough to come close to breaking even.
As I tried to insist before, no one wants to hang the "artist" tag on anyone who doesn't embrace the idea.
And even if you do dabble in art, not everything we do as model railroaders is what we would consider art. I like the form my benchwork takes, but it's not really art in my book, it's too utilitarian.
Same thing with most electronics. It's functional and most who mess with it are simply trying to accomplish something entirely practical, from controlling trains to signals...but I will say, never having much use for signals (I'm mostly a narrowgauger) when I did install a crude signal system to control a junction recently, it started to feel like art. The signals certainly convey a very business like image and intent, but the execution and ongoing effect of that light way up ahead seems more like art now.
Then there's lighting on the layout for the night scene...
So a lot of the time, yes, just a craftsman, but then there are times where I slip over the line into art, when I take a medium and use it for self-expression.
That is really all that's needed to define art.
Far too often, people think of art as something rarefied, done only by "experts" who are out of touch with the practice of life itself. Well, it can be, and that sort of thing is probably what's driving a lot of the "I'm not an artist and don't want to be..." comments. But it's a really bad definition of art, at least in my eyes, because everyone has the potential to create art, whether they realize it or not.
In essence, all being an artist is about is someone using a medium for self-expression. Dressing it up in fancy clothes may suit some, but doesn't apply to much of the art found in model railroading.
I'll paraphrase a former Supreme Court Justice, "I'll know art when I see it."
John Olson had some really interesting layouts in MR; I would call them artistic, but then, he was a Disney imagineer (or whatever they call it).
I think a model railroad can be artistic in many ways, in terms of theme, content, and/or execution. The fact that a model railroad operates adds another level of interest; much the same way a book can come to life as a movie.
I would be interested in Mr. Zane's book; I think it is a great idea.
How about this as a thought....what really is the definition of art? Years back I had dinner at the Auto Pub at the Chrysler Building in New York.My companion was so impressed with our waiter (and he was indeed quite excellent), that she referred to him as taking the art of service to a new height. Could excellence in any field be construed as art? I really do not know.....could be an excersise in semantics or definition.
Most folks see art as either drawing of painting or sculpture. but what about music and drama...and similar fields that are considered to be "the arts".
Model railroading to me is multi dimensional art made up of 6 dimensions...possibly more to come. One and two dimensional would be drawing or painting, three would be relief, four would be movement, five would be sound, and once a sixth dimension would be smell. Remember Olafactory Airs, the company who produced orders in a can? It did not work, but I found it quite good as coal smoke orders around my loco yards was quite effective and realistic. The smell of timber in my lumber yard fielded quite a few comments.
I like the different medium analogy. Personally, I find the work of Barrow, Koester, Mindheim, etc. to be inspiring; mostly because it is realistic, based on what is seen on the prototype. As a teenager, I was amazed at some of the layouts I saw in MR and RMC, layouts I would describe as spagetti bowl. The first time I saw David Barrow's Cat Mountain & Santa Fe layout in person in 1981; I knew that I wanted a layout that was realistic, walk around, and one scene per view. I haven't had the space to build that layout, but when I do, that is what will get built.