I enjoy operating toy trains. The construction of a layout is merely an inconvience and a delaying factor to my enjoyment of the hobby. so I would make a perfect client for someone like Mr. Dunham. Unfortunately, I do not have the income to have him build me a layout. However, since I have to build my own, I wi***o wiew as many layouts as possible regardless of whether they are operated by their builders or by someone who is fortunate enough to have the wherewithal to have someone else do the chores. To those who enjoy building layouts, you should glean as much information from articles about ANY layout, regardless of wether the operator built it or not. We are ALL railroaders. I heve had railroad related experiences that NO AMOUNT OF MONEY COULD RECREATE. I am JEALOUS OF NO ONE. Learn from the pros, I do.
Dennis:
I read dlagrua’s second post and he’s entitled to his opinions.
If you’ve read diagrua’s posts on OGR, I’m sure you’ve noticed that he’s very enthusiastic about modern day pro-Ellison style classic layouts. No doubt that his pro-Ellison enthusiasm has effected his tolerance of any other style of layout.
I’m sure we can agree on one fact and that is to thank CTT for providing this forum as a means to share our ideas and opinions and the opportunity to voice our disagreements in a gentlemanly fashion. Now, that’s a fact!
BillFromWayne
www.modeltrainjournal.com
out of sheer curiosity, does the cost include the tracks, trains, wiring, benchwork, etc?
I’m guessing now yes, except for the trains.
Dennis: My comments were directed at Allan, who was castigating those who took the viewpoint that self-built is best, lableing it as “envy”.
I apologize to you and any others who perceived to be otherwise.
Bill,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And yes, I agree with your assessment of Dennis views. I also concur with you about this forum.
Respectfully, however, I do believe you have missed my point.
Dennis Brennan
There is no right way to enjoy a hobby. I like to RUN TRAINS, Others like to BUILD LAYOUTS. Fine. Both those who LIKE to build and those (like me) who HAVE to build because of economics can learn a lot by reading about a well built layout. ANY professionally built layout can teach much about building techniques. If I could afford to, my layout would get the chain saw tomorrow to make way for a pro built layout. In the meantime, I like to look at well built layouts, regardless of whether they are owner built or not. That is how you get ideas for your layout regardless of whether you or a professional builds it. and if anyoue doesn’t like the way I approach my hobby, THEY, not I have some serious issues to deal with.
I look at this layout which I believe was built by a fellow across the street and am blown away. I learn from the photos he graciously posts.
or this one:
more:
and dave’s fabulous tequila sunrise layout:
just a few of the layouts I have seen - all of which appear to be self built. I’m inspired by this work.
Dennis:
You are right. I’ve been missing the point for 62 years now and I guess it’s too late to change. But I’m sure having fun!
BillFromWayne
www.modeltrainjournal.com
It doesn’t matter whether the layouts were built by the operator. I admire the builder’s talent and consider the operator a fellow railroader.
If a person has the money and inclination, by all means have a custom built layout. It will be ready to run with the wiring and track work bugs (supposedly) ironed out.
My philosophy about layouts is like that about locomotive purchases (see posts about $140 locomotives). I like a hands on approach that allows me to be creative and have fun with a minimum of cost. Used lumber, scrounged or donated wiring, and natural materials for scenery are part of the equation for me.
I greatly admire the work of Dunham and other custom builders. But I would not buy one even if I had the money. It just would not be fun for me.
It all depends on what the person who commissioned the design wanted. If the person wanted a toy train layout and Dunham delivered what you describe, they failed.
It’s only fair to judge Dunham’s abilities to deliver a scale-like layout if that was what the person asked for in the first place. And even when you go down that path, it’s all subjective. Some people will object to that third rail. Some people will object that the track is five scale feet wide. (4’8.5" in 1:48 isn’t 1.25 inches!) Some will object to the size of the layout–even if it fills the basement, it only represents a handful of square miles and no Class 1 railroad would operate on something that small. If someone’s willing to look hard enough, it’s possible to find fault with any layout.
All model railroads involve some degree of compromise. For some people, perfect scale appearance and real railroad operations is the ultimate. But it bores other people to tears. If someone is bored with that type of a layout, then why should it be forced on them? Layouts are a very personal thing.
Personally, I’ve thought the Dunham layouts I’ve seen looked pretty good, but as far as capturing a “perfect blend of toy and hi-rail,” as CTT has called them…? Personally, if I were commissioning a layout from them I’d want to go with a lot more toy and a lot less hi-rail.
For $35,000 you could have 16 and one half Lionel Acela sets or that layout in OGR. This is a rich man’s hobby as are most other hobbys don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
I myself can’t afford one of these Acela sets or even one of those regular priced $300 engines that seemingly everyone in this hobby has. I don’t gripe about this I am happy with my one Lionel Docksider and soon will get a K-line Porter to (If anyone wants to donate a K-line Shay I will happily accept it I don’t even care about the livery.). As space is an issue this is fine by me.
I like looking at others work and I have always liked Dunhams work since I saw the Citybank layout in my first MR magazine(Dec 1988 I think). I thought one of the most interesting passages in the article was on page 62 where it was stated that layouts take 2 to 3 months to build. With a year backorder (now more I am sure with the publicity). I dont think most people could make a layout this well in this short a period of time. To top it off the actual installation on site was done in one day.
The one off structures that some people want take much longer than a timetable like this one would allow. If time is more important these can be added later replacing temporary stand-in structures. This hobby has a long history of never ending rebuilds. I don’t see why one built this way is any different. Dunham himself even replaced whole sections of the Citibank layout.
An interesting comparison between this article and the Sam Posey Book may be interesting. In the really great read and clear, somewhat distanced take on this hobby as a whole “Playing with Trains” Sam Posey wanted a layout but couldn’t do some very necessary things like wireing and track laying. So he hired somone from his hobby shop to help him and team built the layout. Is this looked down upon by others here. Does everyone have to do every thing themselves for it to be thier layout? Does every hobbyist have to invent thier own wheel design. It is not as
Here’s a Dunham creation for the North Creek Depot Railway Museum. Check out Dunham’s website http://www.dunhamstudios.com for other examples of this talented designer’s work.
DennisB:
What I see in Dunhams work is again my opinion, just like everything else here… Must I agree with you or am I permitted to have my own opinion.? If you like Dunhams work so much, send him your money!!
I am very familiar with Clarke Dunham, having met him and his wife in NY at their Citicorp center display during Christmas Time. They are certainly nice folks. I’ve also been to his website a few times.
Quite frankly the layouts of Ellsion, Allen, Botzow, & Miller were all better than what Dunham has built… I’m only a mediocre modeler but most everything on my layout is built from scratch. ( at 1/50th the price) and later this year you will see what I mean when I unvail the new Delta Lines.
Dunhams layouts are colorful, well designed and operate well but he advertises himself as " the expert" an authority on layout building so to speak. When you put the spotlight on yourself as an expert, and charge for the best , people must expect exactly that. I see NOTHING in Dunhams work that is indicative of a Broadway set designers work. Rather I see a lnice ayout built with many of the same items and techniques that the basement model railroader would use, neatly arranged perhaps with nice carpentry, but just a nice toy “plasticville” style train layout with minimal art. Most of Dunhams layouts employ a cartoon "Wizard of Oz "style backdrop, so please tell me where are pictures of the realistic original backdrop art that you mention exist. My point is simple, if you pay for a Rolls Royce, shouldn’t you expect one?
“What I see in Dunhams work is again my opinion, just like everything else here… Must I agree with you or am I permitted to have my own opinion.?”
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, even if the logic is flawed and the reasoning distorted. After all, opinions are like that well-known part of the human anatony: everyone has one.
You don’t like Clarke Dunham’s work–that is obviously your take on it, and it’s certainly your right. But all that really matters is that those who have retained Mr. Dunham to construct a layout for them like his work and feel that they got their moneys worth. To date, I’ve yet to see, read, or hear of an owner of any Clarke Dunham layout that was dissatisfied with his work or the final result. That speaks volumes!
Not if what you wanted was a Lamborghini. You seem to be defining “good” as “realistic.”
For you, Frank Ellison was the pinnacle of model railroading. Other people may have other ambitions.
I admire your work. I think your execution is superb and I think it’s great that you are able to build such good-looking buildings so inexpensively. But they would look out of place on my layout (which, incidentally, makes Dunham’s stuff look photorealistic by comparison). That doesn’t make your buildings bad. Maybe that makes my layout bad in your mind. But, like you’ve said, you’re entitled to your opinion.
If time is valuable to you then a scratch-built building at a fraction of the price is a misnomer. If you think of your time as worth say $25 an hour that building is going to get expensive fast no matter the cost of material. Even drawing up the plans and deciding what you want takes time.
I would like to see more people making their own fantasy of a layout and not copying someone elses. I really feel that the variance in individual solutions are much more interesting. Frank Sellos’ FSM is amazing to me but it does seem like a pretty rotten place to live. The model politicians must be dreaming of urban renewal.
The two major philosophies in this hobby when it comes to layout building are absolutely following the prototype and making it all up. Some people get upset when there model engine is one scale foot too long and ignore the massive compression of their basement transcontinental layout. This is a hobby full of compromises (the most blatant being the fact that it is a model and not real) and individual fantasies lived out on a small scale that’s the best part about it.
The Dunham layouts and those like it are an interesting hybrid of the customer and builders visions. It is interesting to see that played out. It is like one person was chosen and their ideal amusement park was made for them by Walt Disney. It is like that person’s idea but different, as seen through someone who has more experience making parks.
Sorry -duplicated post-
Gee, I thought the posted picture was a fine example of a realistic original backdrop on a scale detailed layout. This layout is a period recreation of a D & H Branch line with all historically accurate scratch built structures. The price–$100,000.00. Obviously, you see it differently.
One other thought–Ellison was a pioneer in this hobby. His layout was built for prototypical operation. Through his imaginative writings, he was able to convey a realism to his Delta Lines that went far beyond the plaster scenery, hand drawn art board structures and the minimalist painted backgrounds.
Echoing Dave’s sentiments, I think it’s great that you are recreating his buildings using the methods and materials that were then available to Ellison back in the 40s. There’s a certain charm to that very basic style of scratch building. Your talents complement that methodology quite nicely and I look forward to seeing the finished layout.
But I’m in the same situation as Dave–that style would be out of place on my hi-rail layout. That doesn’t make one approach better than the other–just different. That’s what makes this hobby so great. We are all free to enjoy our own miniature world in whatever manner we choose. <
Just one last point -the backdrop on the Mistretta layout looks nearly identical to the one on the Dunham layout built for Ralph Fasano.
In closing Dennis B , Frank , Bill and all others: I would like to thank everyone for their comments and I enjoyed this post immensely. There is nothing wrong with divergent opinions or challenging a point that was made and we’ve all had the opportunity to freely express our views here. You guys are truly the best and a special thanks to trains.com for giving us the opportunity to have a little fun.