I’ve always admired Koester’s work, his dedication to research and accuracy, and his penchant for realistic operations. I’ve learned an awful lot that advanced my enjoyment of the hobby by reading his articles.
There’s no question that his name sparks lively conversation, though. The roundy roundy “run what I want” contingent typically think he’s a rivet counting snob, and the hard core operators tend to think he’s some sort of god… I think the fact that he generates debate, regardless of what side you fall on, is good for the hobby. Since the Allegheny Midland was tangible evidence that fuels that debate, it has earned its place as landmark.
Groundbreaking? Probably not. But as others have mentioned, Tony has no illusions about where the ideas that went into it came from. He openly and respectfully credits the work of Allen, Armstrong, McLelland et al. That alone earns points in my book.
And I’ll also jump on the Reid’s bandwagon while we’re at it. If you question the status of N scale before and after the first Cumberland Valley article was published, you need to get your head examined. There were some pretty good models before 1980, but not many. There were some interesting N scale layouts, too. The Clinchfield comes to mind. That was a landmark in and of itself, but maybe more as a portable modular design than as an N scale layout.
But after 1980, N scale really came into it’s own. N Scale Magazine appeared, fueling craftsman level modeling in 1:160. N trak exploded from it’s germination stage, and Atlas rolled out the RS-3, the first high quality split frame engine available. Things have only gotten better from there.
The Reid Brothers showed the way, and showcased the key advantage N scale offers, scenery:train ratio. They broke the mold, and freed N scale from the coffee table and secured its rightful place in th
And what if they do? They could do worse than the AM. I don’t always agree with Mr. Koester; he has a tendency to tunnel vision which is perhaps understandable in a C&O fan. I certainly can’t say the AM isn’t one of the great model railroads, and then there is the point that it’s one of the best-documented, as has been stated.
But if there is some element of favoritism, so what? Mr. Koester has contributed a lot to the magazine. Why shouldn’t he be given recognition, if the staff wants to? It’s their magazine,and they probably have lots of photos on file.
Landmarks are a personal thing, anyway. Everybody’s list is going to be different, especially in a hobby where people have been rediscovering the same things over and over and over for sixty years. What I want to know is, where is the Moonlight & Violins?
Andre C. gets twenty olde pharte points for remembering the Clinchfield project. Quite right, AC.
I think what describes a landmark layout is an unusually awe inspiring layout that shows up in Model Railroader one day. Everything about it looks right and in it’s place. It provides realistic flowing track work and signaling, beautiful scenery and structures, intricate detail, and hours of interesting operation. Model Railroader gets rave reaction from readers and the layout gets talked about amongst just about every train head circle for months.
The layout may not inspire everyone but inspires enough people that it becomes a landmark. If western desert railroading is your idea of an ideal layout, then the east coast mountain flavor of the A&M may not appeal to you. Wait till Lorrel Joiner’s Great Southern comes along and feast your eyes on that.
I’ve read Tony Keoster’s commentarys and as far as I’m concerned, he’s just doing his own thing. He has his own views as to what he thinks is right. A lot of people love his work and want to hear his views so he writes about them. He is quick to point out the mistakes he’s made, has a sense of humor, and doesn’t seem to push his views on anyone. You often run into self appointed experts who impose themselves as model railroad authorities. Keoster doesn’t strike me that way.
You’re dreaming. If anyone deserves credit for introducing surreal exagerrated scenery, it’s John Allen. Furlow was nothing more than a devoted follower.
Please point to a published N scale layout that’s the size and scope of the Reid Bros that pre-dates it. And if you can do that, find one that’s still in existence and still operated regularly.
I think you’ll have a hard time doing that. I’ve been picking up MR since the mid 1970’s, (not every issue, mind you) and I can’t think of another N scale layout that has made the impression or is as oft refered to as the Cumberland Valley System.
Maybe it isn’t ground breaking as a large operations oriented layout, as you say it’s been done in every other scale, but without a doubt it signaled the coming of age of N scale both in terms of aesthetics and operations.
I wouldn’t doubt Popp’s terribly over exposed layout will achive some kind of ‘landmark’ status. Popp’s and Stewart’s Chooch are the only two N layouts I personally can identify as N. I’m not inclined to believe it is a bias in the modeling press, but I do think it is harder to do a ‘great and wonderful’ job in N than in HO. Last night I had the opportunity to contrast an O and HO layout and IMHO, the HO was just so much more detailed.
Personally I don’t think Popp’s layout measures up to the exposure it has gotten, but then, nobody asked me either. [8D] And I certainly don’t think it achieves the same level of excellence with Tony’s AM or the V&O for that matter.
Come to think of it, John Widmar’s N does measure up from a visual appearance perspective, but it is not nearly as operationally capable as the AM, V&O or Popp’s layout.
Probably the most awe inspiring N scale layouts I’ve ever seen that deserve to be labled “landmark” have been published in N Scale Railroading magazine. It’s only natural because NSR is devoted to N scale where MR is primarily HO. Being an N scaler, David Popp’s layout has been an inspiration for me. I’m quick to pick up any issue that features his work. As far as terribly over exposed, I think that has more to do with the layout being a convenient showcase for the editor’s how to’s.
Personally, I really like Popp’s New Haven. It is a managable size and scope, is very coherent, and while it doesn’t offer the operational “capability” of a larger layout, it has plenty of interest for a layout its size.
In fact, given the fact that David’s layout is small to mid-sized, I think it may be one that more modelers can readily identify with and learn from than a basement filler like the V&O or even the Cumberland Valley… Not a landmark by any stretch, but a very good compact design with a plausible operating schematic.
I believe Malcolm’s layouts were a landmark in that he had a positive attitude about toward the hobby and was inclusive of beginners and advanced hobbyists. His scenery and concepts were top notch. He promoted freelancing, innovation with different scales, gauges, and non-mainstream ideas for those of us who found prototype modeling too restrictive or anal. He definitely put the FUN back in “Model Railroading is FUN.”
Wow way to Read WAYYYYYYY to much into what I said. I was mearly making a facetious comment that the selection process of such a series is entirely arbitrary and a myriad of criteria are used for selection.
As for the Exposure of David Popp’s Layout. Its easy to understand said level of Exposure when one remembers that it was originally started as a Project Layout in the Step by Step column. And then has grown and expanded into its present form.
Copenhagen Field springs to mind, as well as some European efforts, but no matter.
You’re barking up the wrong tree, Lee. I absolutely agree that the CV is a landmark layout, for precisely the reasons stated. I’m using it as an example to highlight Harold’s contradictory arguments and apparent double standard.
Malcolm Furlow is to model railroading what Elvis on black velvet is to art.
I know he had fun, and I know he was doing his own thing yaddah yaddah… But it was purely charicature. Very well executed charicature… just not my cup of tea.
Amen to that, Lee. Scenery:track ratio is high, but I use N-scale because of not haveing a big space. To get back on topic, the Cumberland Valley was awesome (at least I think according to the landmark layout article it is.) Anyone know if the Gorre&Daphetid is going to be a landmark layout?
The individual elements in Malcolm’s world look realistic by themselves (i.e., rust looks like rust and rotting wood looks like rotting wood), but as a whole it always looked more like a Disney World ride than a functioning railroad enterprise (and yes, I know John Olsen’s the Disney guy, not Malcolm). Malcolm simply out-Allened John Allen when it came to fantasy. Malcolm’s stuff was cool-looking but didn’t look anything like the real Colorado narrow gauge. The real narrow gauge railroads were businesses. Marginal ones, yes, but businesses nonetheless.
John Allen did great things for the hobby, but his layout is not really one you’d want to emulate for capturing the essence of a realistic railroad (except for operations; John was a real pioneer there). Nevertheless it was great fun to look at and run.
I was always fond of Dick Taylors Hempstead and Marysville N scale layout…it was featured in the N scale primer book…that thing even had an operating hump yard…Dick now runs Raildreams…