Malcom Furlow to Sam Posey.
He goes on to say that the trend towards realism ala Tony Koester, will kill the hobby. That new people are not attracted by schedules and time-tables, they are attracted by scenery.
I know I was attracted by scenery. When I saw my first pike I imagined small steam winding through giant redwood trees. I was inspired like so many others by John Allen and his floor to ceiling scenery. It was only after six months to a year into the hobby that I discovered operating.
When I see photos of the uber layouts like those by McClellan and Fugate, I don't think, I'd love to operate on that layout. I see the scenery and imagine my favorite engine running through their countryside. I know I would like to participate in one of their ops sessions. But that is not my first impression.
Now back to that accuracy thing. All modelers have an artistic muse or we would not be creating these mini-universes--although some modelers will never admit it even when faced with a grizzly death. If you look at MR from an artistic stand point where our pikes become 3d representations of the world as we would like it to be--mine a return to yester-year where a mans word was bond, you lived with integrity, you created the world from your sweat and ingenuity. Others try to recreate the innocence of their childhood, while others create an ordered world as a relief from the chaos of daily life.
When you look at it from that perspective Furlow is right. Why do we confine ourselves to "reality" and "accuracy" when what we are creating is a fantasy anyway. 'Why not let out the stops and really express the "reality" we want our railroads to be.
If we suppress our drive to create our universe by clinging to accuracy and "reality" does it not become a cage that traps us in the world we are attempting to escape from and at the same time denies the very urge that drives us to model in the first place?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Can we not have both great scenery and realism on the same layout?
I am modeling a railroad. Therefore, I do not find it confining to follow the conventions of a railroad.
If Furlow wants to build a fantasy, that's his right--but those of us striving for realism won't "kill the hobby" any more than artists who create realistic landscapes "killed" painting by not becoming impressionists.
Just playing "devil's advocate" here.
One could say that "modeler's license" is a crutch for modelers who lack the skill and/or discipline to accurately model real prototypes and prototypical operations.
Let the Great Debate Begin!
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
Just playing "devil's advocate" here. One could say that "modeler's license" is a crutch for modelers who lack the skill and/or discipline to accurately model real prototypes and prototypical operations.Let the Great Debate Begin! -George
..and I'll reply that slavish adherence to prototype is a "crutch" for those who lack the imagination to dream up thier own creations. Long Live Malcomn!
Have fun with your trains
Wow, Chip's getting all philosophical and what-not on us guys!
Chip, it's just a hobby man! Relax, have some fun! (just messin' with ya man! )
Furlow is #1!
(but the "timetable" guys have good stuff too; just not as good as Furlow. He's the best of the best)
PAERR wrote: Just playing "devil's advocate" here.One could say that "modeler's license" is a crutch for modelers who lack the skill and/or discipline to accurately model real prototypes and prototypical operations.Let the Great Debate Begin! -George
I don't think anyone could say that either Furlow or Selios lack skill or discipline.
What I propose is that there is a sliding scale, based upon our personality or consciousness, that determines how far we let loose the muse, or how rigidly we adhere to our perception of "reality."
Chip,
I have to strongly, strongly, strongly disagree here.
First off, if you will remember from Furlow's San Juan Central series in MR, he actually did set up an operating scheme. Granted, it wasn't as detailed or accurate as, say, Tony Koester's style, but it was operation nonetheless.
Secondly, I think many people would look at Furlow's stuff and say, "Wow, that looks really neat! ...but it doesn't look like any railroad I've ever seen."
Thirdly, the only thing that will kill this hobby is insisting that there's only one ay to enjoy it and that any other way will kill the hobby.
I know you're just trying to stir the pot!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
ah Chip , you do love to stir it up don't you ?
that's why the cover of MR always has some gorgeous scene on the front , to attract people to buy it , rather than a photo of some little detail that took the author 5 years of research and 40 hours of work to recreate accurately . now that might be extremely interesting to anyone who's actually in the hobby , but it would scare off joe public in a heartbeat . after all , when you're starting in this hobby you don't want to be thinking it will take the next 5 years just to learn enough to lay the first piece of track (although us armchair modellers feel comfortable with that!)
SpaceMouse wrote:If you look at MR from an artistic stand point where our pikes become 3d representations of the world as we would like it to be--mine a return to yester-year where a mans word was bond, you lived with integrity, you created the world from your sweat and ingenuity. Others try to recreate the innocence of their childhood, while others create an ordered world as a relief from the chaos of daily life. When you look at it from that perspective Furlow is right. Why do we confine ourselves to "reality" and "accuracy" when what we are creating is a fantasy anyway...
If you look at MR from an artistic stand point where our pikes become 3d representations of the world as we would like it to be--mine a return to yester-year where a mans word was bond, you lived with integrity, you created the world from your sweat and ingenuity. Others try to recreate the innocence of their childhood, while others create an ordered world as a relief from the chaos of daily life.
When you look at it from that perspective Furlow is right. Why do we confine ourselves to "reality" and "accuracy" when what we are creating is a fantasy anyway...
ereimer wrote:ah Chip , you do love to stir it up don't you ? He goes on to say that the trend towards realism ala Tony Koester, will kill the hobby. That new people are not attracted by schedules and time-tables, they are attracted by scenery.that's why the cover of MR always has some gorgeous scene on the front , to attract people to buy it , rather than a photo of some little detail that took the author 5 years of research and 40 hours of work to recreate accurately . now that might be extremely interesting to anyone who's actually in the hobby , but it would scare off joe public in a heartbeat . after all , when you're starting in this hobby you don't want to be thinking it will take the next 5 years just to learn enough to lay the first piece of track (although us armchair modellers feel comfortable with that!)
Dave Vollmer wrote: Secondly, I think many people would look at Furlow's stuff and say, "Wow, that looks really neat! ...but it doesn't look like any railroad I've ever seen."
thats preciscly why I like him...
Dave Vollmer wrote: Thirdly, the only thing that will kill this hobby is insisting that there's only one ay to enjoy it and that any other way will kill the hobby.
My motto is: "Theres no wrong way to build a model RR"
... only ways that others will disapprove of, if it works for you thats all that matters. Be it a massive detailed operations layout all the way to a circle of snap track on a sheet of Life-Like grass paper
Au contraire, fellow modeler of yesteryear in the West. I used to be blown away with the fanatsy of Furlow and Allen. But I have come round 180 degrees after seeing Harold Minkwitz's and especially Pelle Seborg's work. I drive I-80 up Donner Pass and back about 10-12 times a year. Never have I seen anything so accurately depict the feeling of the terrain climbing up the West side of the Sierras to Donner Pass as the pictures of Pelle Seborg's layout in Model Railroader. Every time I look at those 2 photos, I feel like I am right there on the grade. A fantasy, no matter how well done, doesn't compare to a realistic impression of a real and recognizable scene.
But these are my tastes and preferences. I can't be bothered with modern "art". Yet, the hobby would be rather dull if we all thought and modeled the same way. So why do we spend so much time trying to convince others that our point of view is superior?
Fred W
Chip,There is far more discipline in using LDEs in layout designs and following a given railroad and era.You would be surprise-nay shocked at the discipline in designing a BELIEVABLE free lance railroad based on real railroad principles..On the other hand fantasy modeling requires no real principles or disciplines.
I place Furlow as a fantasy modeler nothing more nothing less.Is Furlow wrong in his modeling style? No..Thats the way he enjoys the hobby.Koester enjoys the hobby by being as accurate as possible..
Know what these guys have in common? They enjoy the hobby in their own styles.
Frankly I consider myself in Koester camp as far as prototypical operation railroad design and solid LDEs. BUT,within my style of operation based on my 9 1/2 years railroad experience..
I can sit down with the great layout thinkers and be right at home..
I can sit down with the best prototypical operators and be right at home..
I can sit down with average modelers and feel at home.
I can sit down with fantasy modelers and feel at home.
I can help beginners in the hobby..
What I am saying once a hobbyist(general speak) open their minds and learn the different ways of the hobby then they will fully understand the many avenues of hobby enjoyment and will be able to talk with any style of modeler on their level..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
SpaceMouse wrote: PAERR wrote: Just playing "devil's advocate" here.One could say that "modeler's license" is a crutch for modelers who lack the skill and/or discipline to accurately model real prototypes and prototypical operations.Let the Great Debate Begin! -George I don't think anyone could say that either Furlow or Selios lack skill or discipline.
vsmith wrote: My motto is: "Theres no wrong way to build a model RR"
...Unless you want to do something crazy like build your bench work out of cheese.
John Allen, George Selios, and Malcolm Furlow are often referred to as examples of fantasy modelers. That is somewhat accurate although I think Furlow is the only one that is over the top. Most people, whether modelers or not, would look at the FSM and their first thought would be that looks like railroads probably looked like 70 years ago. It's only after looking at some of the scenes more closely that some would start to think that some of the effects are slightly over done but I don't think that is a bad thing. I think you can add a little character without making a layout a caricature. I think the same would apply to much of the old G&D although John Allen did add a few whimsical touches as well, like his dinosaur switcher. I think only Malcolm Furlow's work would be a caricature. None of his scenes ever looked real to me, but that wasn't what he was trying to do so I'm not trying to be critical. It's just that his approach doesn't have much appeal for me. My layout is a freelanced railroad but I want it to look as realistic as possible, as if it could have been a model of a real place. The setting is fictional, the road is fictional, but it interchanges with real railroads and and real places, so it has plausibility for me. That is what I am trying to accomplish.
Oh, No!
Next someone will bring up the old "It's an art form" argument again!
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
MAbruce wrote: vsmith wrote: My motto is: "Theres no wrong way to build a model RR" ...Unless you want to do something crazy like build your bench work out of cheese.
What's wrong with that, then!?
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
I never thought I'd come racing to Tony Koester's defense, but...
What TK is doing is not ruining the hobby. He's trying to help us get more out of our trains. Scenery may attract new folks, but once you've got scenery and trains running well, you may (or may not) start to wonder if that's all there is.
I think my scenery's pretty good (mind you, this is as close to conceit as I'll let myself get, and I feel ashamed for saying even that), and my layout runs reliably. Now what? Watch 'em go in circles? That's fun sometimes, escpecially for my young kids. But I want something more.
Tony has helped me get more by explaining in his several books about how I can make my layout look and operate like a railroad and not like an animated fantasy diorama.
Tony has not ruined the hobby for me. He's actually made it better for me.
(Boy, Chip. You sure have been on a philisophical bent lately.)
Yes, in all reality, what we as MRRers are actually doing is creating a fantasy world of reality to temporarily escape from the reality of this fantasy world we live in. (Whoa! I think I just hurt my brain.)
When it comes to MRRing, you have two choices:
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
marknewton wrote:Chip, you're assuming that everybody is trying to create a fantasy. I'm not, nor are many of my modelling mates and associates. I personally have no desire whatsoever to make my layout a "3d representation of the world as (I) would like it to be". I want a representation of the world as it actually is. So accuracy is my whole reason for modelling.Cheers.Mark.
Mark,
I know we could go round and round on this as we have in the past. But my argument would be that you are modeling your perception of reality and nothing more. You can not know what is real any more than anyone else can.
The reason I say this so directly is that in any given instance we take into our senses approximately 4,000,000 pieces of information. Our mind filters this down to approximately 2000. The criteria that our mind uses is that we filter the information is to reconstruct our perceptions to align with view of the world--that is what works for us and keeps us sane. Your world is very solid and rigid. Mine is less so. Mine works for me; yours works for you. However, each of us through mental processes of deletion, generalization, and distortion filter out over 99% of our sensory input. And even that doesn't question whether or not our senses are accurate or factor in that we cannot sense a dog whistle or micro-waves.
The best we can do is agree to call our sensation of a particular frequency of light "red" and that math done in a base-10 is accurate. We also develop standards such that the more people that experience something, the more real it becomes. Gravity is an example of an accepted "law" while levitation is an example of a less accepted "law."
So I propose that you are modeling your perception of reality--the degree to which others view it as fantasy depends how closely they are aligned with your perceptions.
In the end, the only thing that really matters is that your pike is yours because you created it. It is yours to be whatever you want it to be. If your pike is accurate, so be it.
For those of you arguing that fantasy lacks the discipline of modeling accuracy, I would suggest that the oppose is true.
Good fantasy holds true to the vision of the fantasy. There is an internal consistency that must be adhered to. The difference between a good fantasy layout and a bad fantasy layout is how well the modeler stuck to the vision. Since is is so easy to say, well, it's my vision, no one will know but me, it is easy to diverge from the consistency of the layout. When you do, it diminishes the layout. In that light, takes more discipline to see the vision through than it takes to adhere strictly to accuracy.
In that context, accuracy is a crutch.
Art imitating life <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Life imitating Art
Dear Modeler, please place your personal approach to modeling at a place on this continuum that best represents your own approach to the hobby. Note that you may change your mind at any time as the whim and/or need arises.
Thank-you.
selector wrote: Art imitating life <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Life imitating ArtDear Modeler, please place your personal appraoch to modeling at a place on this continuum that best represents your own approach to the hobby. Note that you may change your mind at any time as the whim and/or need arises.Thank-you.
Dear Modeler, please place your personal appraoch to modeling at a place on this continuum that best represents your own approach to the hobby. Note that you may change your mind at any time as the whim and/or need arises.
Admit it--you're just trying to stir the pot.
I'm totally torn here: I love modeling UP, I truely enjoy trying to recreate a specific part of the prototype rail, I want people to look at it and say I know where this is, or I've been there, and lastly, I hope to be able to operate it and have people enjoy that as well:
But, I routinely hope that the next cover of model railroader will have a picture of the latest Furlow project. Although I do not doubt that in the long run I wouldn't have fun running those creations, I sure do like the way he can take you there and give you the feel of his chosen landscape.
Somebody find Furlow and tell him we need him back.......for those of you who love the whole where is this hobby going and why aren't there more people in it discussion, you want to fix that; have more projects and pics by Furlow et al
Accuracy is a foundation.
What you choose to erect on that foundation is a very personal choice!
What do we all have in common?
If a modeler isn't having fun, THAT MODELER needs to reassess that personal fantasy. Others may offer suggestions, but the final decision remains personal.
A couple of comments on previous posts and thoughts they raised:
Model Railroader covers didn't always feature "Beautiful Scenes." Earlier covers featured people at control panels (including one with a huge, prototypically accurate air brake control!) and close-ups of models by such masters as Thornburgh and Hoffmann. There was even a cartoon - a cutaway apartment building with a different modeler doing something MR in every room, from an elegant coffee table layout under a crystal chandelier to large scale live steam in the basement. IMHO, the present crop is far less interesting!
There was once a suggested layout designed for the train-watching purist, inspired by WP in the Feather River Canyon. The tracks (mainline and one passing siding) were at a low level, viewed from the top of the canyon across the river, and consisted of the main and a passing siding - period. Undoubtedly, the scene would have been a railfan's dream (and possibly useful to give non-modelers something to look at,) but would have driven any operator right up the wall! I don't know if it was ever built, or, if built, how long it lasted. (In my scheme of things, it would have had a half-life of about a heartbeat!)
The big draw toward the hobby for me was the civil engineering aspect - specifically the elevated trains of New York's IRT and the grandeur of the Hell Gate Bridge. I grew up in the concrete jungle and my interests were set in stone long before I actually saw any real 'scenery.'
Above all, have FUN!
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - for my own reasons)
Here's the good ol' now-win argument. Which way is better?
Fanatasy is the crutch. Fantasy allows someone to run articulated autoracks behind a 4-4-0; a SD90MAC to pull a string of 36' cattle cars through the mountains. Fantasy allows a manufacturer to make inaccurate models. It allows a mfg to issue a steam engine painted for CSX. And what's worse it that there will be people who will buy and find a reason to justify it.
Accuracy and modelers like TK have caused manufacturers to up the quality of what they produce in the last decade. It's the accuracy modelers who have demanded better locos, rolling stock (both dimensional accuracy and detail ), buildings, scenery products, etc. that the fantasy modelers are enjoying. These high profile modelers work with manufacturers to make certain accurate models are produced.
To be an 'accuracy modeler' doesn't mean counting every nut, bolt or rivet on the real thing and then replicating it; it means taking you cues from the prototype so that what you create is a believable representation of the prototype. It means modeling the common and not the unusual. If seen to many layouts or modelers who can point to cars that they own and say that XYZ RR had only one of those and one of those and one of those. When you do that what you end up with is not something that looks like what you see outside, but a train/bldg/ scene, whatever that is made of many one of kind elements that have never come together as one.
For people just entering they hobby, they're better served by trying the following the common day sights they see and avoid the fantasyland of engines climbing 4% grades along steep rocky cliffs with a river at the bottom of a 4ft deep canyon. Leave fantasyland to Disney.
jktrains