Lance seems to be amoug a group that would like to think they can reshape the hobby in their own image, example, the thread about his last article and structure selections.
Sheldon
Sheldon,
IMO, that thread about the last Mindheim article was off base in many ways. The article was mainly about how to build a scene, not really even about trains. He is known for his realistic representations of places that exist today, or in the near past. And many people want to learn more about how to achieve more realism in their scenes. I don’t think he was telling people who may not care about it that much, that they should care about it more.
I think his article about using lots of white/off white paint for structures, building the boring and not the eleborate, cropping a scene instead of compressing a scene, etc. all help to make the total layout LOOK more realisitic. I think that is a major goal for many in the hobby.
And as I said earlier, the photos of his layouts usually include a locomotive that is a nonDCC ready Proto 2000 CSX GP38-2 that Walthers stopped making 15 years ago, albeit updated for dcc ditchlights and possibly sound, which would be consistent with accurately representing a railroad scene. He doesn’t strike me as the type of modeler who is inherently concerned about manufacturers technological innovations in motivating a locomotive down the rails.
It seems more likely that most contributors to MR nee
The odd thing with the latest article telling us that Victorian homes are unrealistic is that I live in a Victorian home (1890) near the tracks (when the leaves are down, I can see the trains go by). But if that’s not close enough, at the old train station just up the road from my house is a Victorian mansion (complete w/ turret and conical roof) that not only faces the track, it is so close that if you slipped going down their front steps you may get run over by the Acela.
WRT unrealistic bandstands and parks, over in Warren, MA there’s an H.H. Richardson granite block station next to the town green that has a bandstand. In Mansfield, MA, there’s a station, a town green, and another bandstand. I guess Lance Mindheim has never been to New England?
Edit:
Doughless,
Um, that’s exactly what he said. By saying that Victorian homes and bandstands are unrealistic, he’s saying not to use them. If you do, you’re not being realistic, according to Lance. You’re modeling an “amusement park” as compared to copy of an actual railroad scene. He’s pretty clear about it. He’s also dead wrong as there are plenty of Victorian homes up here in Massachusetts today, some are right near the tracks. And yes, they don’t always face the road but the tracks.
Not to count the the 30 years that command control kicked around before the standards were developed.
I seriously doubt that battery power will occupy anything other than a niche in the market. It doesn’t add anything new in capability. The only problem it solves is for folks whose model railroad operates in harsh conditions. Otherwise all it does is relieve you from some pretty simple wiring. And you have all the inconvenience of battery power.
Sure, it’s a fun new thing and I might get one or two myself down the road just to play with. But my layouts will continue to be DCC, DC, and AC (I run some 3 rail just for fun)
Your example of a victorian home and depot, in its fancy glory, are close to each other…suggesting a concentration of commercial buildings where there is a lot of foot traffic. Yes, that example is all over America, then and now. Lots of foot traffic incent businesses to build their buildings fancy, and homeowners to build their houses fancy, to show them off.
Figure 3 is not meant to be a place where there is a lot of people foot traffic.
I was merely pointing out it seemed odd that the guy who builds layouts that would operate fine with two wires in DC, and uses a 15 year old non DCC ready locomotive in his publshed photos, would be the same guy who would be worried about the next technological step in model locomotive power.
So when people are suggesting that he is trying to get others to confomr to some sort of new-age philosophy, his actions certainly wouldn’t suggest it.
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.”
The exact quote from the article (we’re OT now talking about the March article and not this month’s article which is the subject of the 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)
This has gotten interpreted as the author saying that Victorian mansions aren’t/weren’t near railroad tracks.
And in the context of the article, that quote is preceded by the concept that scene composition is a major component of a realistic scene moreso than the (expensive) superdetailed items within the scene…and… that there is a tendency to “drift” towards acquiring structures based upon how they look individually, then later putting them together to make a scene; rather than acquiring buildings to
Thanks for making that clear, Doughless. I see we are adrift…which is typical when the topic becomes impregnated with personal variance and exceptions. [:-^]
You know, when Linn Westcott (long time editor of MR, and even longer time associate and assistant of Al Kalmbach at KalPubCo) retired, he told Russ Larson that when he became editor around 1960 he thought the hobby had only about 15 more years to go.
Lance Mindheim is a fine enough modeler that any thought he cares to express about the present state or future of the hobby is certainly worth hearing out. But most predictions of the future - even the fairly recent future - are nonetheless pure opinions and as with any opinions, one can like 'em or lump 'em.
Seems to me there is a bit much heavy breathing gone on here in this particular thread, but that is just my reaction (so, see above).
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. [swg] 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
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
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.
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. Me
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…