DoughlessI never understand why what the future of the model railroading hobby will be is important. I only got invovled when I thought people were overreacting to an article, but who cares what one person's opinion of the future is?
I generally agree, but more along the lines of taking in Lance's, Sheldon's, and anyone else who offers an opinion as worth considering. But the future belongs to those who will be around for it. That will be me for awhile longer (knock on wood) and then it won't matter too much anyway -- to me at least. So I agree let's not worry too much about the data point someone offers and more about sustaining an interesting conversation, which I think you've helped contribute to. That's when we're all winners, really, and the hobby is as you point out big enough for us all.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
riogrande5761Me neither, but I'm an old phart too. It's mainly a generational thing - you typically see youngsters walking around with earbuds or headphones. Older people, not as much.
Actually I use earphones a lot even when railfaning a ear phone in a scanner clears things up and the volume lower. My laptop is headset equipped as is all four of my game consols..
I would be highly interested in wireless headsets for sound equipped locomotives.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
mlehman Doughless But just intuitively reading between the lines, the article would be appreciated by the younger technology interested person that would be interested in more technologically advanced products, who might think that present day DCC and onboard sound is the technology his parents would choose. I suspect that's why Tony did NOT write the article. Nothing against Tony, I like reading his stuff, but him, me, and some of the rest of us are old school. Better to have a fresher perspective or at least a different one here for this task. What task? That same thing we often hear a lot of hand-wringing over, the Future of the Hobby...sorta like the title of this thread, don'tcha know? The future is made by the young and inventive. Yet when that future of the hobby is often addressed as something we, umm, more mature folks need to do SOMETHING about, it usually turns on some gem of philosophy that worked for us and must be handed down as the precious thing we always thought it was...and that may be exactly the problem...we can't see the forest for the trees. Let those kids do their thing and welcome it...that's the future of the hobby, even if it doesn't jibe with your experience.
Doughless But just intuitively reading between the lines, the article would be appreciated by the younger technology interested person that would be interested in more technologically advanced products, who might think that present day DCC and onboard sound is the technology his parents would choose.
I suspect that's why Tony did NOT write the article. Nothing against Tony, I like reading his stuff, but him, me, and some of the rest of us are old school. Better to have a fresher perspective or at least a different one here for this task.
What task? That same thing we often hear a lot of hand-wringing over, the Future of the Hobby...sorta like the title of this thread, don'tcha know?
The future is made by the young and inventive. Yet when that future of the hobby is often addressed as something we, umm, more mature folks need to do SOMETHING about, it usually turns on some gem of philosophy that worked for us and must be handed down as the precious thing we always thought it was...and that may be exactly the problem...we can't see the forest for the trees.
Let those kids do their thing and welcome it...that's the future of the hobby, even if it doesn't jibe with your experience.
I never understand why what the future of the model railroading hobby will be is important. I only got invovled when I thought people were overreacting to an article, but who cares what one person's opinion of the future is? And if you don't like his scene composition presentation, or even his definition of real or cute, so what? Take what you can from both articles...or threads...and ignore the rest.
MR includes all interests. This article I see as a modern present day modeler talking about the future of his hobby being impacted most significantly by computer related technology. A younger-minded car enthusiast can say the same thing.
Same article, different magazine. Same audience. Same critics.
- Douglas
mlehmanLet those kids do their thing and welcome it...that's the future of the hobby, even if it doesn't jibe with your experience.
I agree with Mike. I still use DC block control at home, DCC at the club. I am not the future of the hobby, the twenty and thirty somethings are. If they spend their money a certain way, those items will continue to be produced.
If item X is not bought, item X-type will not be produced.
Dave
DoughlessBut just intuitively reading between the lines, the article would be appreciated by the younger technology interested person that would be interested in more technologically advanced products, who might think that present day DCC and onboard sound is the technology his parents would choose.
Since my subscription lapsed when we moved I spent the 10 DOLLARS this "controversial" issue cost and read the OP article "The Future of Model Railroading".
First of all, the fact that Lance Mindheim wrote an article about the future of the hobby is a bit out of his normal focus. He normally writes about modeling, so I wouldn't consider him an expert in the field of hobby philosophy. I'd think Tony Koester would be a better choice.
It is one man's opinion, clearly stated as such as to what he views, primarily, the "game changing" technological advances to be in the hobby.
Overall, I think its a fair article that is generally unbiased. But it is tech heavy, and my observation is that there is a natural tendency towards tech heavy publications to view tech customers as smart and hip and noncustomers as stooges scared or philisophically opposed to change.
He says, "I think the biggest thing holding the hobby back is complacency with the status quo. It's a lack of demand for superior products. This isn't my own gut opinion, but feedback I consistently get hear from manufacturers and leaders in the hobby. " Personally, I think he, well, the hobby leaders, are simply wrong.
LM gives two areas that he thinks, in his opinion, will be "game changers" in the hobby. And its not another release of an F unit. Its battery power and off board sound, which is where the headphones come in. He he pretty much slams onboard sound since he says the pathway from the decoder to the ear was limited from the start.
He thinks using smart phones as a throttle is a push.
He believes static grass will get better, yet he is told that the good products that are available now sit on the shelves. He implies that other modelers don't put as much importance upon accurate scenery than he would. (That's probably because a lot of people in the hobby never get to the scenic stage of a layout, if I had to guess).
As far as era: "The structure and detail market has been slow to embrace the trend towards the modern era. At some point, it will become so obvious that the suppliers will catch up to demand." And illustrates this point with a picture of a Summit Customcuts CVS pharmacy.
As far as the future of layout design, he mentions the change from the 4x8 to the Allen McClelland/Tony Koester mainline run layout...to a smaller but more "operationally sophisticated" shelf-style switching and branchline layouts. I don't know what that means, but I think its amusing because of the smoke coming out of some ears as they read it.
"This trend...also allows participation by the more sophisticated (LOL) modeler who may not want to devote the time necessary to build a larger layout."
Other than a couple of misguided comments, I thought the article was presented as being one man's opinion about where he thinks the hobby is going presented as one man's opinion. Some of it I agree with, some I don't. But hardly offensive.
But just intuitively reading between the lines, the article would be appreciated by the younger technology interested person that would be interested in more technologically advanced products, who might think that present day DCC and onboard sound is the technology his parents would choose.
Bayfield Transfer Railway Don't like Lance Mindheim's articles? Write some of your own. * crickets *...
Don't like Lance Mindheim's articles?
Write some of your own.
* crickets *...
I'll bite. So you're saying if people don't like an article they have to write one of their own? Self fullfilling prophecy - are you enjoying yourself there? Ain't going to happen of course and people are still going to voice their opinion anyway.
I don't walk around with ear buds and a phone full of music. I don't listen to my 1700 vinyl records with headphones, it is just a non starter for me. Sheldon
I don't walk around with ear buds and a phone full of music. I don't listen to my 1700 vinyl records with headphones, it is just a non starter for me.
Sheldon
Me neither, but I'm an old phart too. It's mainly a generational thing - you typically see youngsters walking around with earbuds or headphones. Older people, not as much.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I just don't think that battery-powered trains offer the quantum leap of improvement that we got from DCC over DC. Thus, I see no great advantage. I seldom have trains that stall, and even those problems are now being addressed with keep-alive capacitors. To me, it's easier to clean my track a few times a year than to charge each of my locomotives several times a week or to worry if they have enough charge to last through the evening.
DCC, even before sound, had obvious advantages of running multiple trains independently withou complicaced blocking. I don't see that kind of advantage with battery power.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
slammin Bayfield Transfer Railway Wow, this really is a tempest in a pee pot.Also, I don't have the April issue yet, but if people are interpreting this article as badly as they interpreted Lance's articles on scene composition, it should be interesting. Also, some people need to get off the Net and stop reading conspiracy theory sites. The offending article is on page 28 of the March issue.
Bayfield Transfer Railway Wow, this really is a tempest in a pee pot.Also, I don't have the April issue yet, but if people are interpreting this article as badly as they interpreted Lance's articles on scene composition, it should be interesting. Also, some people need to get off the Net and stop reading conspiracy theory sites.
Wow, this really is a tempest in a pee pot.Also, I don't have the April issue yet, but if people are interpreting this article as badly as they interpreted Lance's articles on scene composition, it should be interesting.
Also, some people need to get off the Net and stop reading conspiracy theory sites.
The offending article is on page 28 of the March issue.
Completely different article. Some of us have digital subscription, and already have our April issue.
Taken from Doughless' quote in his reply to me on previous page of this thread:
"It's also important to focus on ordinary structures rather than the extra ordinary, or cute, ones. For example, rather than modeling a candy factory, a pickle factory, and a Victorian mansion; model a fuel dealer, a non-rail served industry, and a few one-story clapboard homes, as shown in Fig 3." (which also show a haunted house, a saloon (old west?) and ice cream stand and a park (with an octagonal bandstand near the edge of the park)
I agree with Mindheim, or at least with what I feel he wants us to take away. Don't spend so much time on the "Ooooh, loooook...!!!" cuties at the expense of what will first come to the viewer's/visitor's eye, or what is likely to create that first important impression and anchoring. By all means, do let the viewer find them as she/he looks deeper and spends more time sharing your creation with you, but don't be hasty in creating the more prominent and possibly key components of the scene you are attempting to duplicate in scale.
It almost sounds like he has adopted a variation of the minimalist approach where he says to spend the time making the big stuff, the more obvious stuff "correct" or right, and don't clutter what's in between with things that are out of place or rare that might command attention for the wrong reasons. However, even there we invited judgement and dissent; who is to tell either the creator or the viewer that their attention is on the 'wrong' thing or for the 'wrong' reasons?
Where did Mike Buonarotti go wrong in his Sistine Chapel painting?
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
So appropriate, that xkcd comic deserves a hotlink
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
https://xkcd.com/386/
DoughlessWell, if he directly said that people who don't embrace new technology are holding the hobby back, I would disagree with that.
Nah, that's not what he wrote. I think Sheldon is giving a bit of spin on it that makes it sound that way. Mindheim makes it clear it's, first of all just like it's Sheldon's, too, it is HIS opinion. He further qualifies that the market will decide, he just has his own opinion on what would help the hobby most and market success of that may not follow.
Lance is certainly not calling for people to do away with anything, but to instead realize the advantages of thinking small and simple, more bang for a limited hobby buck. Sheldon probably has more in common with Lance than it seems, but that's just my opinion.
The headphone thing is Lance addressing the same issue of limited sound fidelity that Sheldon reminds of often. Except that Shedlon is just pretty much a "No sound, please..." sort of guy, while Lance wants to rock out, just needs better (not perfect, better) fidelity to enjoy it. That's OK either way, as far as I can see. I rather suspect if we're talking "future" as the article clearly does, we'll be hearing more, not less sound. The market expects it. I just don't see growth in no-sound gear due to both limited demand and the fact that any sound gear becomes non-sound simply by turning the volume to zero.
I do like the headphone idea myself, in part because it helps establish an environmental ambiance conducive to operating. You can adjust the sound to your preference and not intrude on anyone else's choices. Integration of crew radio systems also quites that down and allows similar choice in preferences. An attractive feature to add would be a facility to let someone trying to speak F2F with you to break into the headphone feed, making it still easy to speak with other crew directly. Lots of good here in this idea and very little negative (headphones are hard on your pompadour, for instance.)
As for the shelf layouts, it's his thing -- and probably needed to balance out the monthly load of medium to largish room-fillers. Just getting to a better balance in that is probably one reason why the MR team stuck Lance's article in just behind the big and much-anticipated MR&T article, for instance. But Lance isn't dissing large layouts, just encouraging people to consider the merits of an limited footprint. I'm pretty certain there are far fewer small shelf layouts abandoned in place than the basement octipuses that are still the all too often fully unrealized dream for many of us. Be realistic, is about what the message is here in many ways - and it's a good one to promote the hobby, BTW, even though I tend to be more old school than Lance.
I watch science programs. In one, a lady found a way to have rechargeable batteries last for years. A normal rechargeable for a cell phone only lasts 3 years and needs to be replaced. In the future a battery could be recharged many times for 100 years.
In another, a man replaced the lithium gel used in lipo batteries with a lithium based plastic which prevented fires from overcharging or having a hole punched. Perhaps in 10 years batteries would last 100 years of recharging and never start a fire.
Small lipo batteries put out 3.7 Volts and are able to power 3 Volt motors. Would this combo work in an N-scale galloping goose?
I tried Large Scale "modeling" (using the term loosely regarding the various compromises of scale versus gauge involved) more than a decade ago. I became friends with some wonderful people that had neat, really excellent outdoor layouts, and even helped them move several tons of gravel (Roger Cutter, near Bel Air, Maryland, for one). Roger and his club of Rio Grande narrow gauge associates were very pro-battery and were moving toward deadrail at that time. These were folks who had, well, more hobby funding than I'll ever have--and they were spending the funds to go to battery power then, when it was a few hundred dollars per each loco.
Funny thing happened: some of them eventually decided the outdoor trains were too much hassle or too much to maintain, and actually dismantled their layouts. (I know gearbox failures were relatively common due to the tremendous forces on large scale train gearboxes--that was why I gave it up--and my older son also stopped playing with it outside--and HO was just much much more cost effective).
So here we are, more than 10 years later, and some guys that write for a magazine actually think that battery power is the future?
Let me put is simply: This is exactly why I do not read Model Railroader. This is exactly why I don't even touch it to look at product reviews or advertisements anymore. The possibility exists that they might be out of touch with at least some of the people in this hobby. I'm sorry if this reads as harsh, but when I have looked at the magazine in recent years, every single time I was very turned off by the opinion columns in the magazine. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with those guys on...many things.
It seems like this is in many ways becoming a hobby for tech-heads who love electrical gadgets, and less and less people who focus on modeling. I'm only good with track and scenery, not building trains, and will never be a Master Modeler, but I can appreciate the fine work done by others when I see it.
John Mock
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The April ariticle makes a big push for dead rail, layout based sound with headphones, and his favorite, small shelf layouts. And he suggests somewhat strongly that the time old reluctance of model railroaders to replace technology they already own is holding things back. You keep commenting about that loco he uses in his photos, so what? I have 50 or more of those Proto locos, mine still run on DC. Lance does use DCC and make reference to that fact in the April article. Things like DCC and sound or dead rail are easy to imbrace if your goals only include a few locos. Not everyone has the same goals or interests. It is a very diverse hobby. Like I said, I would get out of this hobby if my only choice was a 12' shelf and three locos........ Sheldon
The April ariticle makes a big push for dead rail, layout based sound with headphones, and his favorite, small shelf layouts. And he suggests somewhat strongly that the time old reluctance of model railroaders to replace technology they already own is holding things back.
You keep commenting about that loco he uses in his photos, so what?
I have 50 or more of those Proto locos, mine still run on DC. Lance does use DCC and make reference to that fact in the April article.
Things like DCC and sound or dead rail are easy to imbrace if your goals only include a few locos. Not everyone has the same goals or interests. It is a very diverse hobby.
Like I said, I would get out of this hobby if my only choice was a 12' shelf and three locos........
Well, if he directly said that people who don't embrace new technology are holding the hobby back, I would disagree with that. Not that it isn't true in some aspects, but its not our responsiblity as consumers to propel the hobby.
The rest is just discussing recomendations to enhance a chosen style of modeling. I don't see that as an endorsement of a style. Just like a George Sellios written article, or a David Barrow article, or a Bruce Chubb article; where the article reflects the type of layout they have and how they prioritize things.
As for battery power. I don't care about track cleaning or wiring. I can see it helping slow speed sound switchers crossing long frogs. I'll never buy it, but I can see why others would. I don't see the advantage to operations if the layout is based on multi-wheeled long locos sailing through frogs at 20 mph.
Headphones and sound? I have no problem wearing them...if it helps. I've always preferred listening to music with headphones on..real headphones not earbuds, so I'm not tossing the concept aside.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL mbinsewi Actually, it started out with the Lance M. article in the April MR, then, because some people haven't gotten the April issue yet, it morphed into the Lance M. article in the March issue. It's pretty much back to where the thread on the March issue left off. Mike. The April ariticle pretty much came right out and said that people like me still using old approaches, technolgy and techniques are holding the hobby back. You attract more flies with honey....... Sheldon
mbinsewi Actually, it started out with the Lance M. article in the April MR, then, because some people haven't gotten the April issue yet, it morphed into the Lance M. article in the March issue. It's pretty much back to where the thread on the March issue left off. Mike.
Actually, it started out with the Lance M. article in the April MR, then, because some people haven't gotten the April issue yet, it morphed into the Lance M. article in the March issue. It's pretty much back to where the thread on the March issue left off.
Mike.
The April ariticle pretty much came right out and said that people like me still using old approaches, technolgy and techniques are holding the hobby back.
You attract more flies with honey.......
I have not read the April article, so I'm only comenting on the article by what I gather from others' comments.
I find your interpretation of what he said to be a bit inconsistent with how he builds his layouts...so he must have written something odd, IMO.
They are extremely DC friendly, uses a 15 year old Walthers non DCC Ready locomotive, and uses digital photographs of building facades affixed to foam board as his preferred method of building structures...and prefers solid blue backgrounds as opposed to expensive photographs that some prefer..or simple swtches of gray paint and steel wool for low relief hills...lgoing back to his old Monon Southern Indiana based N scale layout. He uses standard ME track as oppossed to hand laid....which is odd for a guy who thrives on up close photos of his detailed scenes.
Nothing about his methods are high tech or particularly modern, so I'm baffled by that interpretation. From what I gather, the last thing he does is buy expensive RTR stuff from a hobby shop (except maybe rolling stock), but rather builds and modifies simple products to suit his needs. I thought that approach was old school.
And that is because more than a few people saw both articles a little bit as "the world acording to Lance".
I've been at this 47 years, helped a lot of other modelers build their layouts, worked in this business.
Lance is a skilled and knowledgeable modeler, but the tone of his articles is a little too "this is the best way" for my taste.
The April article pretty much came right out and said that people like me still using old approaches, technolgy and techniques are holding the hobby back.
My You Tube
BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL Larry, houses from that period came in all sizes, but even many smaller more modest homes included turrets, bays, gingerbread trim, decorative cedar singles, and the other features of the various "Victorian" styles. I can show you hundreds of examples here that still exist. Maybe in the East but,Ohio Vics was built by rich folk like Doctors,lawyers,bank presidents,CEOs etc--no $15.00 a week factory worker could build such homes.A Sears house maybe with payments. Another thing a lot of those smaller Vics was built for "Gentleman's clubs" or for middle management. Any layout that features a town or city should have some Vics. A bandstand would be optional depending on era. I have no idea what Lance was thinking.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Larry, houses from that period came in all sizes, but even many smaller more modest homes included turrets, bays, gingerbread trim, decorative cedar singles, and the other features of the various "Victorian" styles. I can show you hundreds of examples here that still exist.
Maybe in the East but,Ohio Vics was built by rich folk like Doctors,lawyers,bank presidents,CEOs etc--no $15.00 a week factory worker could build such homes.A Sears house maybe with payments.
Another thing a lot of those smaller Vics was built for "Gentleman's clubs" or for middle management.
Any layout that features a town or city should have some Vics. A bandstand would be optional depending on era. I have no idea what Lance was thinking.
Larry, I'm just going to leave you with this one thought. There are/were lots of people with incomes in between Doctors/Lawyers/Bank Presidents and those working in a factory. And even most Doctors and Lawyers have to go to work every day to pay their bills........
ATLANTIC CENTRALLarry, houses from that period came in all sizes, but even many smaller more modest homes included turrets, bays, gingerbread trim, decorative cedar singles, and the other features of the various "Victorian" styles. I can show you hundreds of examples here that still exist.
Paul3 IRONROOSTER,I agree with you on battery power. The difference between DC and DCC is vast; to get even close to DCC's ability with a mere two wires would require a lot of fancy wiring...and perhaps a degree in electrical engineering. But the difference between batteries and track-power isn't that much: no reversing loops and not cleaning track or wheels (unless you use the track to charge the batteries, then you're still cleaning track). It doesn't seem worth it, not at a price point that is much, much higher than DCC. And then there's that whole continuous battery replacement problem... Doughless,How am I reading into it? Is he saying that we should use Victorian homes and bandstands to be more realistic? Or is he saying the opposite?My example was actually a station and a bandstand in close relation, but that's incidental. The point was that there's at least two bandstands near the tracks that I could think of right off the top of my head. It is not unrealistic (or like an amusement park) to have one on a layout near the tracks. How do you know that Fig. 3 isn't supposed to have a lot of foot traffic? Look as his "realistic" version (lower): it's got a 2-story brick retail store and a service station. What's on the 2nd floor of most retail buildings? Either offices or apartments, both bringing in foot traffic. And why are you bringing up a different article? It's not referenced at all in the March issue. Taking this month's article by itself, I can't see what he's modeling other than "realistic" vs. "unrealistic" (in his eyes). He's got a Florida phone number with palm trees and a CSX loco on page 28, then a picture of Los Angeles, CA on page 30. Meanwhile, all the other modeling photos don't have any palm trees and just low rolling hills on the backdrop that are neither in Miami, Florida or L.A., California. Bandstands have to be in the middle of the town green? News to me. Perhaps you might want to use Bing Maps and take a look at the home of the New England Patriots (sorry, free plug for the SB LI champs), Foxboro, MA, AKA my home town. Take a look at the town common. It's got a good-sized bandstand (that has 7 sides) located at one extreme end of the common (the north end). The bandstand actually has three walls against the street, and the town holds concerts on the green every summer. It is a block away from the tracks, but it's there all the same. Also, the 7-sided bandstand in Warren, MA and the 8-sided one in Mansfield, MA (near the station) aren't in the middle of their town greens, either. Heck, Mansfield has a second common with a larger 6-sided bandstand...it's also located near one end of the green. Around these parts, the middle of the common is ususally where the flagpole is; the bandstand is normally off to the side. Why should we focus on ordinary structures when what we want to model doesn't have ordinary structures realistically? I'm modeling Boston to Providence. That Victorian home is there next to the tracks; I drive by it every day (located at the end of Community Way, Foxboro, MA). But according to Lance, that's unrealistic and I should not model it. Instead, I should use a one-story home. How is that more realistic? More from this article:"Without forethought, it's easy to drift more toward something that looks like an amusement park as opposed to a miniature copy of an actual railroad scene." Well, that's a tad insulting, isn't it? "...The structures (either individually or in groups) don't match what we're used to seeing in real life." But we do see some of these things in real life...every day. They exist.
IRONROOSTER,I agree with you on battery power. The difference between DC and DCC is vast; to get even close to DCC's ability with a mere two wires would require a lot of fancy wiring...and perhaps a degree in electrical engineering. But the difference between batteries and track-power isn't that much: no reversing loops and not cleaning track or wheels (unless you use the track to charge the batteries, then you're still cleaning track). It doesn't seem worth it, not at a price point that is much, much higher than DCC. And then there's that whole continuous battery replacement problem...
Doughless,How am I reading into it? Is he saying that we should use Victorian homes and bandstands to be more realistic? Or is he saying the opposite?My example was actually a station and a bandstand in close relation, but that's incidental. The point was that there's at least two bandstands near the tracks that I could think of right off the top of my head. It is not unrealistic (or like an amusement park) to have one on a layout near the tracks.
How do you know that Fig. 3 isn't supposed to have a lot of foot traffic? Look as his "realistic" version (lower): it's got a 2-story brick retail store and a service station. What's on the 2nd floor of most retail buildings? Either offices or apartments, both bringing in foot traffic.
And why are you bringing up a different article? It's not referenced at all in the March issue. Taking this month's article by itself, I can't see what he's modeling other than "realistic" vs. "unrealistic" (in his eyes). He's got a Florida phone number with palm trees and a CSX loco on page 28, then a picture of Los Angeles, CA on page 30. Meanwhile, all the other modeling photos don't have any palm trees and just low rolling hills on the backdrop that are neither in Miami, Florida or L.A., California.
Bandstands have to be in the middle of the town green? News to me. Perhaps you might want to use Bing Maps and take a look at the home of the New England Patriots (sorry, free plug for the SB LI champs), Foxboro, MA, AKA my home town. Take a look at the town common. It's got a good-sized bandstand (that has 7 sides) located at one extreme end of the common (the north end). The bandstand actually has three walls against the street, and the town holds concerts on the green every summer. It is a block away from the tracks, but it's there all the same.
Also, the 7-sided bandstand in Warren, MA and the 8-sided one in Mansfield, MA (near the station) aren't in the middle of their town greens, either. Heck, Mansfield has a second common with a larger 6-sided bandstand...it's also located near one end of the green. Around these parts, the middle of the common is ususally where the flagpole is; the bandstand is normally off to the side.
Why should we focus on ordinary structures when what we want to model doesn't have ordinary structures realistically? I'm modeling Boston to Providence. That Victorian home is there next to the tracks; I drive by it every day (located at the end of Community Way, Foxboro, MA). But according to Lance, that's unrealistic and I should not model it. Instead, I should use a one-story home. How is that more realistic?
More from this article:"Without forethought, it's easy to drift more toward something that looks like an amusement park as opposed to a miniature copy of an actual railroad scene." Well, that's a tad insulting, isn't it? "...The structures (either individually or in groups) don't match what we're used to seeing in real life." But we do see some of these things in real life...every day. They exist.
If you model a specific scene, you model what's there. No arguments.
Fig 3 is an illustration of how to make a generic rural-ish railroad scene look more realistic by modeling what we "expect to see".
Anything can be anywhere...and nobody has said otherwise. Sorry, I expect to see railroad related structures next to the tracks moreso than victorian "mansions" or octagonal bandstands. I would expect to see MORE smaller, less fancy, homes than elaborate large ones in rural-ish places next to the tracks..where the tracks are designed to switch industries, not drop off a bunch of travelers....any place...any era.
Downtown..not rural-ish....next to the depot, where the track arrangment reflects passenger ops, maybe there would be more "mansions" back in the day, and they still exist today.
I wouldn't devote layout space to model the less common and more whimsical structure.....after structure, after structure, after structure, if my goal was to present realism in a freelanced, non specific, rural-ish, freight-ish scene.
BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL PS - I made this comment in the previous thread with no comment from others - Lance uses the term "Victorian Mansion", yet most Victorian homes are not "mansions" by any stretch. My house is just under 4000 sq feet on 2-1/2 floors, 5 bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths, and has about 900 sq ft of wrap around porch - not small, but not a "mansion" by any measure. I suppose back when those Victorian homes was built they were indeed mansions for the rich folk since the working class usually lived in more smaller modest homes. Bucyrus has several of those Victorian mansions that was built by the more affluent folk of that era. Even today the folks that lives in those houses are rich folk except one that is the local historical society. Now,a Victorian home or band stand would indeed look unrealistic on my ISL even a truck stop would look out of place.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL PS - I made this comment in the previous thread with no comment from others - Lance uses the term "Victorian Mansion", yet most Victorian homes are not "mansions" by any stretch. My house is just under 4000 sq feet on 2-1/2 floors, 5 bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths, and has about 900 sq ft of wrap around porch - not small, but not a "mansion" by any measure.
I suppose back when those Victorian homes was built they were indeed mansions for the rich folk since the working class usually lived in more smaller modest homes.
Bucyrus has several of those Victorian mansions that was built by the more affluent folk of that era. Even today the folks that lives in those houses are rich folk except one that is the local historical society.
Now,a Victorian home or band stand would indeed look unrealistic on my ISL even a truck stop would look out of place.
Larry, houses from that period came in all sizes, but even many smaller more modest homes included turrets, bays, gingerbread trim, decorative cedar singles, and the other features of the various "Victorian" styles. I can show you hundreds of examples here that still exist.
My home was originally owned by a "white collar" professional, so OK, call them "upper middle class", but not "rich" by any measure I would use for that word.
Rich people are people who have enough money to not work.......and typically live in houses much bigger than mine........then and now.
ATLANTIC CENTRALPS - I made this comment in the previous thread with no comment from others - Lance uses the term "Victorian Mansion", yet most Victorian homes are not "mansions" by any stretch. My house is just under 4000 sq feet on 2-1/2 floors, 5 bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths, and has about 900 sq ft of wrap around porch - not small, but not a "mansion" by any measure.
selector I'm just going to make one comment and then continue to read. I don't know if Mr. Mindheim actually made a categorical proposition of the variety, "All X are Y" in his article, but if he did, it invites disagreement. We're not all the same. As indicated in at least two replies from two different posters already, at least two of 'us' live in Victorian era homes, and at least one of them is very close to tracks that have doubltessly been there for over 130 years. I would have nodded were I to have read, "A Victorian era house is out of place on my layout. None exist in the location I am representing on my layout at present, and haven't for about 30 years."
I'm just going to make one comment and then continue to read.
I don't know if Mr. Mindheim actually made a categorical proposition of the variety, "All X are Y" in his article, but if he did, it invites disagreement. We're not all the same. As indicated in at least two replies from two different posters already, at least two of 'us' live in Victorian era homes, and at least one of them is very close to tracks that have doubltessly been there for over 130 years. I would have nodded were I to have read, "A Victorian era house is out of place on my layout. None exist in the location I am representing on my layout at present, and haven't for about 30 years."
Just for the record, my Victorian house was originally on an 8 acre parcel that backed right up to the Maryland and Pennsylvania RR mainline, putting the tracks about 700 feet behind the house.
Our house was built in 1901, the trains rain from the late 1800's (3' gauge first, later standard gauge from 1900 on) until the 1950's.
The 1914 station still stands, and is only about 1500 feet from our home....next to the station is a park and a cemetary.......and a school, several churches, several small commercial buildings......and several dozen more turn of the century houses......
The best modeling is done by copying what you see in real life.........
Having architectural and historical training, it is easy for me to look at existing structures and picture what an area looked like in 1900, or 1950, or just 20 years ago.
Again, I feel Lance seriously "dumbed down" or over simplified the information he was trying to express....possibly in both articles. It is one of the traps of the sound bite age. Go back to the 1970's or 1980's, read some of the "text intense" articles that appeared in MR then......
PS - I made this comment in the previous thread with no comment from others - Lance uses the term "Victorian Mansion", yet most Victorian homes are not "mansions" by any stretch. My house is just under 4000 sq feet on 2-1/2 floors, 5 bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths, and has about 900 sq ft of wrap around porch - not small, but not a "mansion" by any measure.