Just got my April 2008 MR, and wonder why the AM is a landmark layout. It was a nice layout but it contained nothing groundbreaking. Others have done “proto-freelancing”, which most of us have done for years, so that can’t be what makes it special.
Well?
Harold
hm:
Koester has said as much. It was in one of his recent columns; he wrote that the only really unusual feature was that he used a lot of stub-end staging.
However, I think his layout is still a landmark just because he has written so much of its story in those columns, over the years…we know more about that story than we do about many other layouts. I am speaking of the history of the layout and its builder, not the fictional history behind the AM.
Compare it to the shipwreck described here:
http://www.ipa.min-cultura.pt/pubs/TA/folder/18/318.pdf
The ship is not special at all - it was a common product of the period. However, we know about it, and can learn from it, and that makes it valuable.
I don’t know if I would go that far, especially since it wasn’t preserved, which is what one does with landmarks, eh? However it was a great operations based layout that was very inspirational to a lot of people, myself included. In fact, my desire for operating on big curves, beautiful trackwork, and turnouts despite my own very limited space and resources is what got me started in the Free-mo movement! For which I am thankful to Tony and others like him who, justifiably, proudly write about and discuss their layouts for others to enjoy and learn. In that vein I especially praise Joe Fugate and Charlie Comstock out here on the West Coast. jc5729 John Colley, Port townsend, WA
I think it is because it was one of the earlier V&O inspired, large, operations oriented, layouts that was complete, fully functional and operated on regularly. It was around for actually decades. It was also very well documented in MR and MRC. - Nevin
Certain layouts in spite of their short comings have a way of making us think outside the box of model railroading and think railroading. It started with Frank Ellison and his Delta Lines. Then we had John Allen and the Gorre and Daphetid, Allan McClelland’s Virginian and Ohio and on to Koester’s layout. I think it is the overall result. Good to great in all areas with no glaring weaknesses that makes layouts stand out. A prototypical feel in which we can imagine ourselves operating in that environment. the interchange with other model railroads was unique at the time. It may the ability of the story teller or it may be the layout but when one hears the name of one of those railroads a picture forms in our minds immediately of railroading not model railroading.
Its a landmark layout because the Staff of MR feel they need to give a pat on the back to one of their own.
James
DITTO! Additionally, Tony’s layout provided him a learning experience which he shared with us, and he has evolved as evidenced by his current layout. I wish I had his energy.
Mark
Thank you for the right answer. You win a ground foam coated puff ball for your effort.
Harold
I recently acquired some old MRs from 88, 89,93,98. One had an article on the Allengheny Midland. It looked like it was a really good layout.
The trackwork alone, made me do a double-take the first time I saw it. Remarkably realistic. Easy to see that a lot of planning, time and effort went into the AM railroad. Tony helped raise the bar years ago.
A large part of the groundbreaking/landmark effect of the AM is that the owner of the AM has spent a lot of time documenting and describing his layout, how he designed it and built it, how he operates it (including interchanges with other layouts, the use of staging etc), using it as a vehicle of popularizing and teaching protolancing and operations in a large number of articles and several books, inspiring a large number of modellers.
That makes it pretty special. Was it the first layout based on the idea “protolancing” - ie an imaginary RR company very strongly influenced by a real prototype ? Possibly not.
For all I know your layout could have used this idea years and years before Tony Koester made the AM.
I am aware of having seen at least three or four shortish articles by you (Harold Minkwitz, right ?) in both Kalmbach and Carstens publications over the last years. No doubt you have published more articles I haven’t read yet.
Unfortunately, I cannot quite recall what your layout was called. Pacific coast something ? Pacific Coast Airline ?
Anyways - while I am sure your layout also is protolanced, and also has been a source of inspiration to a great number of people over the years, I suspected that perhaps it has not had quite as large an impact on the general modelling population as the AM has.
And that makes the AM a bigger landmark than your layout, even though you may very well have been there first with protolancing (for all I know).
It is not just a matter of being pals with the current editor of MR
I’ve studied the photo’s in MR over the years . It’s land mark because it looks right . It’s not a detailed copy down to the nut’s and bolt’s of a real railroad yet it screams real railroad in the photos . Its a fine piece of work . Reguardless of who says so .
Pretty weak, Harold. Nice sour grapes, James.
Landmarks are things that show the way or provide a guide or inspiration to others.
The AM put a lot of things together in a great balance and showed how a design could evolve successfully over the years (changes in operations, in eras, etc.). One could quibble if it’s in the top 5, top 10, or the top 20, but it’s hard to argue with it being among the landmark layouts.
Maybe someday there’ll be an award for rubber-gauge 4X8s …
So what exactly is the purpose of this post?
Let’s get a bunch of people angry at our benefactor.
Let’s all go on strike. We can stop reading the magazine and stop posting on the site.
Seriously, what good is this thread?
Well said .
I posted the question because there are more innovative layouts, that is what a landmark layout means: something the jumps the hobby forward. Like Jim Hedigers X benchwork for double decker or Joe Fugate’s lighting system. More space could be devoted to layouts that developed new ideas and how we got to where we are. It is not about inspiration but advancement of layout building that makes a landmark layout.
Harold
Highly contentious post, Harold. I reckon that most of us haven’t done anything of the sort. What most of us have done is not proto-freelancing, but simply buying whatever locos and cars took our fancy at the time, and slapping our private roadname on them.
Whereas blokes like Koester adopted a methodical, plausible and knowledgable approach to proto-freelancing. Koester in particular helped promote the concept. Perhaps that’s the reason the A&M is special?
All the best,
Mark.
Harold, you don’t seem to understand that what makes a layout great doesn’t necessarily mean that it comes up with some new technical wrinkle. Tony Koeter approaches the hobby as a whole rather than as a series of sub-specialties like scenery, lighting, weathering, loco painting and decaling, etc. His contributions have very little to do with technical advances and more to do with the conceptual framework of the layout. Yeah, it has to be realistically scenicked. Yeah, it has to have good looking and decent running motive power. Yeah, it should should have well constructed benchwork and good lighting. The problem is, you can have all that and still end up with something that’s totally unsatisfying. Tony’s real contribution has been combining all the technical stuff and subordinating to the concept of the layout as part of the larger world of rail transportation. No one has written as extensively on the subject as he has and the AM has served as a test bed of his concepts.
If and when the Monterey Branch of the SP gets built in my garage, much of the conceptual framework for it will owe a lot to the influence of Tony Koester. He synthesized a lot of concepts in this hobby that
If nothing else, it’s good for those who want to acknowledge how TK has inspired them, or edcuated them, or both. Take me as an example - I was never going to model an Appalachian coal road with NKP overtones, but I still learned a lot of things from TK over the years which were applicable to what I’m doing. It’s all good.
All the best,
Mark.
No, that’s simply your definition of the phrase. So we’re heading towards an argument about semantics, apparently.
That’s one man’s subjective view, one not shared by many others on the forum, it seems.
By your definition, Olsen’s Mescal Lines*, or the Reid brothers N scale layout aren’t landmark layouts, either. And yet you offered no comment on them. So I can’t help but wonder what you have against TK?
Cheers,
Mark.
*Disclaimer: John Olsen’s layouts did nothing for me, but I know full well that it did inspire many, many others. As such, it’s worthy of mention as a landmark layout.