Yeah, what’s wrong with rubber-gauged 4x8’s[soapbox], there is lots of space outside the box to be explored. My rubber-gauged 4x8 isn’t a landmark but my efforts in presentation have inspired at least a few people[:D].
Harold
The Reid’s layout was one of the major landmark layout, showing N scale as a viable scale that could deal with prototypical subjects.
Hmm. Earlier you wrote “It is not about inspiration but advancement of layout building that makes a landmark layout.”
Then you wrote “The Reid’s layout was one of the major landmark layout, showing N scale as a viable scale that could deal with prototypical subjects.”
What the Reid’s did was inspire people, as you yourself have just noted. They didn’t advance layout building.
Time to stop digging, I reckon. You’re deep enough. [:D]
Cheers,
Mark.
Layout building? The Reid’s layout took N scale out of it’s 2x4 layout mentality and demostrated that a large layout with multiple prototypes could be constructed.
Harold
Olsen’s Mescal Lines was the introduction of surreal exagerrated scenery, usually credited to Malcom Furlow, sorta John Allen on “Mescaline”.
Harold
First, I was not heavily influenced by the concept of Tony Koester’s Allegheny Midland. The master plan to which I have been building was set in concrete years before Tony’s layout ever appeared on the printed page. If anything, his ideas merely validated my own.
I was impressed by the scenic treatment of the Allegheny Midland - mainly because I am modeling a place which has a similar geography and general appearance. Once again, his work served only to validate my ideas. Here, however, some of his methods for constructing scenery found their way into my, “To be used later,” files.
The operating scheme of the AM interested me, but did not cause changes in the daiya or written (in Japanese) timetable I was then and am now determined to use.
What the Allegheny Midland DID do was introduce the above to later generations of modelers in much the same way that Frank Ellison had introduced them to me. THAT is why it is a landmark layout.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
If N scalers had a 2x4 mentality it was self-imposed. Anyone with sufficient space, time and money could have built a large N scale layout. The Reid’s didn’t advance construction techniques. What they did was build a large, well integrated layout and did it in N scale. Just like other people did in HO, O and S.
Besides, the MR Clinchfield project layout series (1978 or so, IIRC) amply demonstrated that a reasonably large, operationally integrated and prototype based layout could be built in N scale.
I have no problem with the Reid layout being considered a landmark layout, but not for the reasons you ascribe to it. What’s your beef with Tony Koester?
Andre
I would argue that Allen McClelland’s V&O was probably more of a landmark than the AM; after all, TK himself rarely misses an opportunity to point out how much the V&O influenced the AM. In many respects, the V&O was almost the “prototype” for the AM.
I hope MR will show the V&O as well.
The AM and V&O both went to great lengths to follow prototype practices inspite of being freelanced. It went beyond painting all the locos the same. Hard to explain. But both just seemed so incredibly plausible.
While my cynical side is inclined to believe MR was giving a “shout out” to one of its own (will David Popp’s NH show up as a “landmark?”[swg]), I think the TK has really been able to use the AM as an incredible teaching school. He’s authored so many books and articles using the AM as an example… Tooting his own horn? No, not really. The guy knows his stuff. I agree with a lot of his points.
So even now that it’s dead and gone, the AM continues to teach principles of layout design and operation through TK’s many publications and articles. So, yes, I think it qualifies as a landmark.
I don’t think TK’s great just beacuse MR says so. I think he’s been an enormous help in advancing prototypical (not prototype) model railroading. I don’t agree with his every diatribe, but overall I think he’s been a hobby great, up there with Allen and Findley and Larsen etc.
Personally I can’t wait to see the posts here when MR showcases Malcolm Furlow’s work as a landmark layout…
-G-
The AM gave me info & inspiration to accomplish what I’ve done & have yet to do with my Allegheny & Cumberland. As for any building techniques it offered… did he ever talk about that ???
Because it is everything most of us aspire to, and he has shared with strangers (like me) most of what can be shared by explaining and teaching his choices, decisions, and compromises in the magazine while producing something both satisfying and encouraging.
Yeah. That’s why.
Sour grapes???
Tony has always been an eloquent spokesman for the hobby and he has a sense of humor as well. The AM showed me how if there is a unified plan based on prototype practice but not copying it exactly, the railroad will have a much more realistic feel. His work in the protoype modeling field and in operations has been influential as well. On the AM His trackwork was killer. His scenery was well done and made a very good case for the “good enough” rule. I’ve stolen… Er ahhh… been influenced by lots of his ideas over the years.
He also has always seemed to me to be a regular guy. And this has been inspiring because I felt if he could build a great layout, so could I.
The Model railroad scene is not that big. I suspect that most of the possible choices for inclusion in this series are (or were) personal freinds of, or at least well known to, the staff at MR and thus most choices could be seen at some level as giving a nod to “one of their own”.
Harold you certainly are entitled to your opinion and I can see how you might not agree with MR on all of their choices for this series. I probably will not agree with all of them myself.
BTW: I have used your Kadee spring pick up idea several times now…
Guy
Thank you, why the AM and not the V&O. I have nothing against TK, I feel that MR missed the point on landmark layouts. TK’s presentation of the V&O in RMC was his Landmark in the hobby.
Harold
I think MR is doing a year’s worth of these shorts and the real problem is that there really aren’t 12 standout landmark layouts. I count the G&D, Delta Lines, Canandiagua Southern, Sunset Valley, and V&0.
G&D - scenery
Delta Lines - theater
Canandiagua Southern - walk around
Sunset Valley - operations
V&0 - putting it all together.
The rest are padding to get to 12 and many layouts could fill that bill depending on your own rememberances. And we can (and will) argue endlessly about them.
Enjoy
Paul
Paul, that would be my list except I would add:
Canandiagua Southern - walk around and operation, hard to believe it was designed in the late 1940’s and is still a great trackplan
G&D - scenery and operation, a point missed by most
Delta Lines - theater as it relates to realistic operation great individual elements of design, too bad it is the old style 1940’s “prarie dog” pop-up layout.
Sunset Valley - operations
V&0 - putting it all together and operation
Harold
Talk about sour grapes.
At least I have some legacy, someone 50 years from now will pick up a yellowed old RMC and say, “Geeze, this was some dumba**, who would be stupid enough to do this crap”.
The Pacific Coast Air Line Railway was done as a disposable 4x8 to practice scenery and promote On30. It spun into a rubber gauged circus to find what I was really looking to model, there have been so many developments that needed to be explored. E-bay made rubber gauging so much fun. The original PcalRwy has been torn down and we have made our final decision on theme and scale.
Harold
I give up, what is a rubber guaged 4x8?
Jarrell
I think these landmark layouts are really finely crafted layouts. It doesn’t need to Cotribute anything to the hobby. The AM was a greatly crafted layout. And lkike they said, Koester spent so much time documenting the AM, it has had a lot of chances to help out other modelers.
It comes from my documenting my adventures of model railroading on the internet. I have used my original 4x8 for many gauges and scales:
http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/main_page/
Some people seem to take offense to this idea but it has been fun.
Thank you if you visit
Harold
Wee bit touchy today ? I was not saying that your layout was not nice. I was saying that your layout is not as well known (at least not to me) as the Allegheny Midland, and that you have apparently not published quite as many articles and books as Tony Koester.
I honestly did not remember out of hand exactly what your layout was called - despite the fact that I must have scanned right past the signature at the bottom of your post where you refer to it by name just a few seconds prior to clicking on “quote” - signature lines apparently are not quoted.
But I got reasonably close - I remembered it from layout plans I have seen as “Pacific Coast Airline”. The correct name apparently was “The Pacific Coast Air Line Railway”
All taken into account, it should not be taken as a personal insult by you that someone living on the other side of the world actually happen to kn
I second that. Malcolm’s work was landmark back when he was into it…[2c]