Of course, with unlimited time and resources, any of us could build one like this:
http://archibase.net/archinews/14281.html
(Caution - lots of pics.)
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I have yet to see a "World's Biggest" model railroad with much in the way of detail or demonstrated modeling skill.
I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems that in the pursuit of the right to claim quantity (size), the builder inevitably sacrifices quality (detail).
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
Mark, indeed you are correct. There are some things that I think would be very interesting to learn from this layout and others like it.
1. Bullet proof track techniques. To run something of this magnitude for the hours that it runs is an impressive feat in itself. They can't exactly have derailments and other operational issues effect the display on a regular basis.
2. Maintenance. I wonder what they do on a regular basis to maintain the track and rolling stock cleanliness.
3. Animation and lighting. There are clearly things to be learned from what they do here also.
On second thought - Nevermind.
This "layout" was featured in one of the Tracks Ahead episodes on PBS last year. It's purely for public entertainment purposes, not an example of model railroading.
The owner's stated intent is to build the world's largest exhibit of the world's major cities and attractions. This year he is reportedly adding the major attractions of the western United States. The eastern United States was already part of the exhibit when the TV show was filmed.
Critiquing it as an example of model railroading is not right because that is not what it is meant to be.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
marknewton wrote:Simon, I couldn't agree more, which is why I get a little peeved when commercial creations like this are held up as examples we should try to emulate. As far as I can see it's not a model railroad as such, but a large diorama that employs trains and road vehicles to animate various set-piece scenes.Cheers,Mark.
What you describe is exactly what a model railroad is. They just didn't build it your way. Pooh, Pooh. Gimmie a break!
You should be thanking the model railroaders that have the wherewithall to finance such displays. These kinds of displays inspire countless newcomers to the hobby. They contribute a lot to keeping our suppliers in business, (they purchase more stuff than hundreds of your "so-called" modelers do in 5 years).
As to commercialism and the hobby, most of the celebrated modelers in the hobby have made money from the hobby, John Aleen short catalog photos for Varney, George Selios manufactures kits, just to name two. I'm a custom builder and painter, so according to you, we're not modelers because we make money through our hobby and our clients aren't hobbiests because they hire us. Please take your narrow minded head out of your board by board built outhouse.
The hobby is all about entertainment, that's what they're all about, entertaining yourself, your friends and others, if it isn't then why are you in it?
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
modelmaker51 wrote: You should be thanking the model railroaders that have the wherewithall to finance such displays.
You should be thanking the model railroaders that have the wherewithall to finance such displays.
So if I get a warehouse, put up benchwork, fill it with a bunch of plastic kit-built structures, runs a lot of track around it, and then plop three dozen trains on that track, that's something you should thank me for doing?
Sorry, my standards for what this hobby is about are a littler higher than, "Wow, it's huge!"
modelmaker51 wrote:What you describe is exactly what a model railroad is.
What you describe is exactly what a model railroad is.
You should be thanking the model railroaders that have the wherewithall to finance such displays. These kinds of displays inspire countless newcomers to the hobby.
They contribute a lot to keeping our suppliers in business, (they purchase more stuff than hundreds of your "so-called" modelers do in 5 years).
As to commercialism and the hobby, most of the celebrated modelers in the hobby have made money from the hobby, John Aleen short catalog photos for Varney, George Selios manufactures kits, just to name two.
I'm a custom builder and painter, so according to you, we're not modelers because we make money through our hobby and our clients aren't hobbiests because they hire us.
Midnight Railroader wrote: modelmaker51 wrote: You should be thanking the model railroaders that have the wherewithall to finance such displays. So if I get a warehouse, put up benchwork, fill it with a bunch of plastic kit-built structures, runs a lot of track around it, and then plop three dozen trains on that track, that's something you should thank me for doing? Sorry, my standards for what this hobby is about are a littler higher than, "Wow, it's huge!"
Someone still had to layout the trackwork, design the scenery, make everything fit together in a believable way and make it look really great. So what if all the buildings are plastic kits, its a modern layout, they have to use plastic kits to make modern buildings (i have never scene those large buildings offered as kits), unless they can now make small bricks and concrete these days.
If you look at the world (the thing they modeled) its big and trains take up a really small part of it (but they can still be the focus of a scene), i mean my car crosses a railroad crossing in about 2 seconds everyday. We build models of railroads and place them on a shelf or a table and have tons of trackage and then scenic it with a couple hills, half a highway or a small building or two and a backdrop of painted clouds and trees and call that good? Its fine if that works for you, but when you go and call a setup like this a low standard just because it is a well rounded display that is just not setup for operations or modeled after a real world railroad, thats just not right.
SunsetLimited wrote:when you go and call a setup like this a low standard just because it is a well rounded display that is just not setup for operations or modeled after a real world railroad, thats just not right.
So if the buildings were all cardboard with windows and doors drawn-on with crayon, that would be just as good for you? Because someone would have had to do all the drawing and cutting, right?
SunsetLimited wrote: Someone still had to layout the trackwork, design the scenery, make everything fit together in a believable way...
Someone still had to layout the trackwork, design the scenery, make everything fit together in a believable way...
I look at this in the same way that I look at Northlandz - lots of WOW factor for the mundanes, but only the little Simon mentioned for the serious modelers of railroads, prototype or imaginary.
One photo that got my attention was the street, crowded with rush-hour traffic, and not one motor vehicle on the tram tracks! Talk about an imagination!
Having lived in Rapid City for a while, the sorry-looking depiction of Mount Rushmore turned me off completely. In real life, that National Monument is HUGE - and several miles from any railroad.
This gentleman shot for the biggest. Take a look at Mark Newton's modeling if you would like to see the best.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Midnight Railroader wrote: SunsetLimited wrote:when you go and call a setup like this a low standard just because it is a well rounded display that is just not setup for operations or modeled after a real world railroad, thats just not right.So if the buildings were all cardboard with windows and doors drawn-on with crayon, that would be just as good for you? Because someone would have had to do all the drawing and cutting, right?
Theres no wrong way to build a model RR. Just ways others dont like.
If it works for the modeler, whats wrong with that? Wheres the harm?
It always cracks me up how some people will look at a nicely done model RR like this that just happens to different from what they like and so have to poop on it.
Have fun with your trains
(sigh).
Did anyone else notice that fabulous bridge that had one rivet missing just under the support arch? Tsk!
vsmith wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: SunsetLimited wrote:when you go and call a setup like this a low standard just because it is a well rounded display that is just not setup for operations or modeled after a real world railroad, thats just not right.So if the buildings were all cardboard with windows and doors drawn-on with crayon, that would be just as good for you? Because someone would have had to do all the drawing and cutting, right?Theres no wrong way to build a model RR. Just ways others dont like.If it works for the modeler, whats wrong with that? Wheres the harm?It always cracks me up how some people will look at a nicely done model RR like this that just happens to different from what they like and so have to poop on it.
And to address your point, this isn't someone's home layout, built to their desires. It's a public display. Fair game for anyone to critique.
Midnight Railroader wrote: vsmith wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: SunsetLimited wrote:when you go and call a setup like this a low standard just because it is a well rounded display that is just not setup for operations or modeled after a real world railroad, thats just not right.So if the buildings were all cardboard with windows and doors drawn-on with crayon, that would be just as good for you? Because someone would have had to do all the drawing and cutting, right?Theres no wrong way to build a model RR. Just ways others dont like.If it works for the modeler, whats wrong with that? Wheres the harm?It always cracks me up how some people will look at a nicely done model RR like this that just happens to different from what they like and so have to poop on it. I notice you replied to my post but didn't answer my question.And to address your point, this isn't someone's home layout, built to their desires. It's a public display. Fair game for anyone to critique.
What do cardboard buildings have to do with my statement? Your calling a nice display low because it contains plastic kits and some fantasy aspect, which some of those buildings were not. It would take someone a very long time to scratch build all those buildings and since the goal is to build a believable display that people can come see without needing two lifetimes to do it kits are a great choice. Could they have done some stuff better or different? Of course they could, no layout is perfect (sorry to break that to all you type A people out there). I appreciate layouts of all types, prototype, fantasy (no dinosaurs), anything in between so don't think im biased towards one type of style. If that makes me a cardboard building type, tough.
Ahhem..in red, was my answer. What if it was snap-track on Life-like grass paper and sceniced with cardbaord and crayon buildings, what they were made by kids with cancer as a public display to raise charity funding, would you still gripe about it? Its still a model RR, and it works for what its ment to be.
Home or public doesnt make a difference in my eye, and true, because its on public display means that while you or I may offer an opinion over it, that it just that, an opinion, and is no more right or wrong that the next guys. It was built by someone for someone, and if the the guy or guys who built it and the guy or guys or corporate or public entity loves the results, who gives a what you or I or anyone else says about it. Its just us pissing our opinions into the wind. I just try to accept things on their own accord and leave out the judgement calls of right or wrong.
I've been to certain club model RRs that have never been completed simply because all the overlords of holy judgement couldnt decide amonst themselves just what the correct solution would be since they were all adament in their belief that only thier opinion was correct. So they fight and squabble over whos correct for YEARS, and it never gets done. I learned that kind of mindset was more damaging to the hobby than any circle of track on lifelike paper with cardboard & crayon buildings ever could be.
Quoth Charlie Brown: "Good grief!"
It doesn't put me to shame at all. That's not what I was trying to achieve.
Nevertheless, I think it's silly to debate the merits/demerits of this. If it helps people get interested in model railroading I'm all for it, professionally built or whatever. But it's not meant either to appeal to seasoned model railroaders nor is it meant to be the standard by which we hold ourselves.
The only source of shame in this game is the kind we bring upon ourselves if we fret endlessly over how someone else's layout is bigger, better, farther along, etc., or worse yet, how someone else's modeling goals differ from ours.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
SunsetLimited wrote: the goal is to build a believable display
Shame? Not hardly... I think its just a plain layout that would be a little fun, not much I liked. If someone did a detailing overhaul and added some personality, it would be much better...
-beegle55
Wow! Did I just see all the buildings from Faller and Vollmer catalogue combined?! LOL
Can't imagine how much time it would take to build all those buildings...I am building a 8X5 now in N and I am struggleing to do a couple of buidlings a week. I am now at leat 4 weeks behind with just track laying! LOL