Great addition to MRH!

I think the 'Imagineering' column will be a great addition to MRH. It will provide interesting insights on where imagination can meet with realism, from varying perspectives.

As for my Estrella & Sonora Grande RR, I have never thought of it as 'total fantasy'. Located near the site of the world's second-largest open pit copper mine, it is a 'what if' extension of the region of Arizona set in the days of hard rock copper mining. The trains are based on mining prototypes in the region, and scenery and structures accurately reflect the Sonoran Desert. So, while I use it as a vehicle to tell some humorous stories that ARE fantasy, it has roots and origins common to most free-lance model railroads. And, it's a heck of a lot of fun!

But, the most important point - different people will look at any layout and come away with something different. So, I look forward to seeing more on this topic, and thanks to Joe for suggesting this great idea!

...

Verne, if there's anything I've learned, it's that reality is often stranger than fiction...your railroad and the stories you tell aren;t that far off!   

Adding Imagination

   Im a long time fan of the LD SIGs concepts, and an adamant MRH reader/sharer- but this is my first comment, so I will TRY to be succinct..

  My first reaction to this great column idea was similar to Mr Verne Niner's comment about his [FANTASTIC] E&SG RR- getting really creative with places, names and backstories just doesn't really seem THAT far removed from prototypical operation to me.  "Micro layouts" (of ALL sizes/scales) scrapbooked by the late Carl Arendt; or those "Food delivery layouts" featured in a few bars or restaurants; or that ride-on Monorail that someone built in his back yard might fit that category even more.  I well recall [MRs] 1982 track planning contest pulling in 2 layouts that won "Special Imagination Awards" for some unique -and doable ideas [published in MR- April 1983] (-one of which actually was prototypical.  As my OTHER lifetime hobby has been things Spaceflight related, ~this~ (then) High School geek was really excited to see someone design a model of the VLA Complex [remember those big Radio Telescope dishes in 1997 film "Contact"?]  I still only dream of some prototype layout modeling the movement of rocket boosters at one of [Russia's] Space Launch Centers...)

  Although you likely want to keep "freelancing" out of the outlandish, there are lots of ways of thinking outside the box.. or IN it [diorama?]  I heard that Lego Trains were a huge seller this Christmas.. I wonder what some of THOSE imagineering kids (and adults) will come up with.  We ALL started somewhere

-S l o w l y  shifting from design to building stage on my (yet untitled) Coffeetable RR, a not-quite Strict Freelance in Z 

Joe, another winner. Great

Joe, another winner. Great idea for a feature with what should be plenty of variation to keep it from getting stale. Eventually, there will be a shortage of true prototype info that is new and not repetitive or of broad enough interest to appeal to the entire readership. As an example of things that have little appeal to me are any articles dealing with Amtrack, so no matter how nice a prototype feature dealing with Amtrack is I am likely to skip it. The free-lance thing will bring lots of guys into the pages who do things slightly different or a lot, and they may follow a fair amount of the prototype stuff as well.

For me it's all about....

.....capturing a feeling or modeling an "atmosphere". That's what I try to do and in my world imagination plays a large part in that.  I've never ever set out to convince anyone that my modeling was a real thing.  I think I'm skilled enough to do so if I tried but that's just not my thing.  The railroads that whet my appetite for more and make me want to attack modeling with a fervor are those that have that special "atmosphere". It's almost an undefinable quality that I can't quite put my finger on but I know it when I see it.  Of course everyone knows of my love affair with the Gorre and Daphetid so that's my main fallback example but , as already mentioned, the Estrella and Sonora Grande has it too. That certain " something".

Lest anyone think that all that appeals to me is layouts like the above that have a bit of whimsy to them I would also mention layouts like Mike Confalone's Allagash or Marty McGuirks' Southern New England which are more of the "protolance" variety but each still has the "atmosphere" or that "it" factor.

There are many layouts out there that have some fine modeling for sure but they just appear so antiseptic  and boring to me personally.  I don't know what it is about them that makes me feel that way either. It's as hard for me to put my finger on as it is to define what that special quality is that draws me to the layouts I like.

Michael

Thanks Michael,

One thing I try to do with the layout is to evoke the feeling of a specific time and place - without expending too much effort on details and minutia. 

I think Bob Hayden described it perfectly - his file cabinets full of details and photos of the Maine Two-Foot railroads, his particular interest were upstairs in his study. 

As he said, some of that information "trickled" down the stairs to the C&DR layout in the basement - but only enough to evoke that feeling of time and place - 

Best idea I have seen in the

Best idea I have seen in the hobby press for years!  I can appreciate those who strive for absolute fidelity in time and place, but my favorite modelers are more the likes of John Alan, Malcolm Furlow, and John Olson, 

Model Railroading is Magic

A model railroad, if done well, can be like a window to another world. It can tell a story that takes the viewer away to another place and time. It doesn't really matter if the tale is hide-bound history or a complete flight of fancy, the joy is in creating something that entertains and delights. A column focused on the skills and stagecraft required to successfully pull off the illusion of a miniature world is a terrific idea. I think it fills a need that has gone un-addressed in the model press for quite some time.  A model railroad can realistically represent a transportation system in miniature, but it can also be so much more. It can be magic.

Modules and operating

There are some specific compromises made, in order to fit a prototype into a module.  It would be nice to have a column on all the nuances of modules.

Similarly, operating has its own set of "givens and druthers".  Possibly a column, but operations is a big part of most layouts.  Perhaps a postcript in every column, with a slant towards operations.

Of course, my preference is that both be in one column, but I'll take what I can get.

cheers,  Mike O

Like!

Well Said, Marty!

"Although you likely want to

  That sounds like it could be another column called "I thunk it up"  showing really bad layouts or models each month? subtitle could be "it's my railroad so there is no wrong"    Maybe yahoo would pick it up to go along with  their cars with wooden fenders or wrought iron gates replacing missing doors series?  :> ) ........DaveB  

Great idea for a column!

Great idea for a column!  Lately I have been lamenting the lack of "press" that imagination gets in the industry mags.  One well know proto modeler once said that "if you want to be realistic, don't model the unusual, model the mundane."  I appreciate the skill that goes into proto modeling, but to be honest, I can get the mundane by stepping out my door.  Even here in Costa Rica, if I go to the local Mall, I see all of the same stores I would see in the U.S.  Mundane just does not stir my soul.   I am saddened to think that John Allen's G&D, which so stirred my soul as a teenager, would not get as much respect today as it did back then.  Fortunately, the hobby is big enough for all of us and I am glad to see MRH making an effort to bring back some attention to the imagination!

Outlandish

I've always been kind of partial to the outlandish. Even if it's not something I'd personally want to model, those outlandish ideas still get me thinking about things in a different way. That's a good thing. Sometimes we need a dose of the outlandish to push us out of our little boxes and engrained ways of thinking. Let's face it, model railroaders can be a conservative bunch and the conventional wisdom can sometimes get hardened into dogma. "Model the mundane" is a good example. Sure, you should model the mundane if a mundane, average look is what you are after. If you're after something different, model the unique. At a certain point every modeler needs to ask who they're doing it for; who's the audience for your creations? Is it the general public, your family and friends, yourself, or a bunch of other modelers and self-appointed experts who might judge what you are doing as outlandish? Creativity and imagination needs no defense, only more defenders. Just go build something cool and keep a weather eye open for those outlandish notions. They often grow into something amazing and utterly original.

"Model the mundane"

I think this philosophy has translated into the "antiseptic and boring" layouts I spoke of in my first post in this thread. It's worth noting that just as you can overdo things to the point of being " outlandish".....you can also overdo "mundane" to the point of there being no "visual interest" to your layout.

Michael

 "I am saddened to think that

John would get the same respect today but he'd be building a much better layout than the old G&D. John was like today's Lance Mindheim or  Mark Dance, pushing the envelope ever forward. If you think he'd be stuck in 1957 you don't understand what John was about, he was an innovator  not a traditionalist......DaveB

Leave room for some mundane?

May not be a bad thing to leave a little mundane here and there. Is every structure on a layout is a show stopper, it rapidly devolves into a jumbled mess. If that's your goal, fine, but the best paintings and photographs have a strong focal point - other parts of the picture the artist creates can be quite general and mundane - the point is to use the mundane to garner the greatest impact with the central focal point. 

Even George Sellios knows this - although it may be subconscious in his case. It is with most artists. 

Mundane

Maybe that was a bad example. I certainly understand the need for balance in composition. In the visual arts it's called giving the eye a place to rest. You are absolutely correct, Marty, a little mundane here and there helps the special stuff stand out. It's not an either or proposition, good design includes both.

"May not be a bad thing to

   It also depends on what one is trying to convey. Many railroad scenes are pretty mundane. If I was modeling the SP yard where I hung out as a kid I'd need the bakery where I bought a custard filled eclair, then a short walk to the depot where I sat waiting for the crew to come on duty at 8am, the loco track with unused water tower, a partially full yard with a freight house, a team track and quite a few weeds. A section house and a few supplies over on the west leg of the wye, a ready mix plant and cannery off to the west of the yard and the drive in near the depot parking lot where I listened to "who wrote the book of love" while waiting for the watsonville turn to arrive later in the morning. Noting flashy about the scene and to spice it up would spoil it for those who were there.........DaveB

The mundane - when it matters and when it doesn't

I don't disagree....

that there is a place for the mundane. My point was that you can overdo it just as easily as you can overdo the spectacular. I also don't disagree with what DaveB said but that's almost the whole point of the debate. My style is such that I'm probably  not going to be able  to do the scene he describes without the urge to spice it up. Yes I may "mess it up" for him because he was there but for me, my "eye" is going to try and add something imaginative to give more visual interest. Probably best then that I stay away from that scene and do something entirely from my imagination.  It is all about the goal in mind.

Michael

Oh the mundanity of it all

Here's a scene I modeled after the edge of the Great Salt Lake desert, showing the salt flats receding toward the horizon.  The backdrop is based on the view south of Wendover, on the NV/UT border, with considerable rearrangement as necessary to fit the available space.  The fill, culvert and watercourse are based on typical examples, but are basically made up to fit too.  I pictured a whole bunch of sights from railfanning and prototype photos in my head, and created a scene to fit.  

A fill across a dry wash, surrounded by dormant grass and scrub brush, may be a rather mundane thing.  While I suppose I could have worked in some more spectacular elements, they wouldn't have fit the layout.  They also wouldn't have involved any more creativity, artistry, or fun, so I'm plenty satisfied with this as a result.

Contrast is the key

I agree that the mundane is an essential part, but too much and it becomes a dull playbook. And, I have seen some layouts that 'overstimulate' the viewer with scenes packed together with loads of detail and eye candy. I usually prefer a balance that allows the two to contrast. Just like in a great photo, there need to be key features that draw the eye in, places for the eye to rest, feature scenes that tell their own complementary stories, and a few spashes of the dazzling here and there.

The greatness of Rob's scene is that he made the mundane a signature scene with such a believable touch, while trading away an  opportunity for some splash to buy the illusion of space. That choice is critical to successfully creating the theme and mood he has chosen. A good call, considering his design criteria and preferences.

Now...here is what will make my mind explode if I'm not careful...

Exhibit A: Documentary. Rob has chosen high scenic fidelity and 'realism' with effective scenes that re-create his vision of a real railroad in place and time. The typical is an essential element here, and is your friend if used wisely.

Exhibit B: Fiction. Dave M goes to the opposite end of the scale, and dares to employ splashy eye candy with his Thunder Mesa...pulling together scenes that delight the eye in a different way. Here, the real world is by comparison a rather dreary, boring place. The mundane is absolute buzzkill.

Which is better? Does one approach get bragging rights over the other? Do we need to apologize for either?

More modelers can figure out how to pull off an A than a B with great results. Therefore, it makes sense to explore how to do the B well, and share that knowledge. We can all use a bigger bag of tools and tricks, no?

Finally, I want to keep in mind that 'fun with trains' means just that, only that, and all that. It's ok to embrace the wonder of our hobby with the wide eyes of a kid again...in whatever flavor we choose.

PS: That wonder, for me, was re-discovered when I saw this month's cover, with Vic Roseman in a roundhouse with those beautiful GS locos. It took me back to the excitement I had for trains as a kid. Well done!

Mundane?

I should point out that the train DaveB was waiting for went to Santa Cruz. Here's a view from the train:

This photo of Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk is courtesy of TripAdvisor

pqe

Re: Verne

I think you stated your views well.  Thanks for the kind words too.

This is no doubt a rhetorical question, with the answer a resounding "no."  Dave's Thunder Mesa exemplifies fine modeling.  Not an approach I'd personally employ, but I still like seeing what he's up to.  Ditto the dearly departed E&SG, among others.

Ya know, I'm not sure.  It seems to me less-experienced or non-hobbyists are more attracted to B, with A being something of an acquired taste among those who've been around for a time.  Maybe A just attracts those with more experience, siphoning off some of the folks who might continue with path B otherwise?  Either way, more good ideas and improved techniques are welcome, no matter which approach the individual uses.