M.F. Back in the day did

M.F. Back in the day did great scenery (but a bit more along the lines of "Disney" scenery then I care for). In some respects he really was the follow up to John Allen. However on things he did work on he paid little to know attention to reality (buy this I mean looking/operating like a real railroad) and he was not very good at track planing.

But did I mention is scenery was nice?

Personally I never understood how much attention he got in the hobby back in the day, but he may have been the ultimate expression of a modeler using "artistic license" vs reality based. He was definitely into Model Railroading as an art form (to the point of caricature)  And the way he just kind of fell off the face of the earth was strange also.

-Doug M

The "story" behind the scene

The "story" behind the scene is what's important.  Finding the story is as much fun as modeling the railroad.

Add the Austin & Northwestern Railway to your list of HOn3 roads.  The A&NW was a narrow gauge railroad from 1882 to 1891.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eqa12 

Along the way you will discover interesting, though not significant stories.  For example, the lower 6 feet of the Marble Falls station was painted with mixture of paint and sand to keep the loafers from leaning against the station.

Cely

Putting the "San Juan " to Middle or South America - in Nn3

Hello,

I read this article and the comments. Me, I am into Nn3 and since only the D&RGW steam engines as well as those passenger cars and the freight/caboose of those Colorado roads are for sale in Nn3, I decided not to model another Colorado NG scene. There are just too many of them around in all scales.

But what to do with these given models? Well, cut out the name D&RGW/C&S/RG/RGS and apply new ones. I shall letter mine as "Rio Barbara", name the (only) station "Puenta  Barbara" and built it on a heavy rock outcropping from the steep mountain side into the river Barbara. Since the bridges all went out after huge floodings, they rebuilt the line and stayed on the rocky side of the river (north) instead of the south side with huge swamps, bogs and tropical forests (it´s close to the equator ).

The trains from the West shall enter with the engine heading the train, while those from the East will have to pass the mainline switch, reverse and push their trains into the station. Leaving the station will be vice versa.

I think this will be quite a challenge of operation, lots of switching and once a week a paddle steamer will arrive and depart the next day.

Am open for comments.

Rex

...

If you try to approach Malcolm Furlow through the operations/prototype/serious paperwork /serious history/serious track planning lens, you will never understand him nor the work that he did - nor why that work gets so much recognition.

You have to start with the understanding that Malcolm is first and foremost an artist who chose model railroading as his medium of expression, and he did a phenomenal job doing it.   In a lot of ways he was a bit of the Bob Ross of model railroading, he made it look easy, and produced scenes that are the entire back story to the railroad without any exposition whatsoever.  No histories, no operating schemas, no grand stories written in the text; just track, buildings, and a collection of scenes that together and alone tell the story, no further explanations necessary.  For those who cannot figure things out without the full dissertation behind the railroad ["I'm modeling the New York Central between Albany South and Albany North on December 2nd, 1934 from 12:08 to 15:62 but NOT 15:63"] his approach is very frustrating indeed - what do you mean, you can have a layout without all those other parts???

Malcolm left the spotlight after he became frustrated with the  Koester crowd - that's the easiest way I can put it, from what I can collect reading what Sam Posey wrote in "Playing with Trains."  And by frustrated, I mean, tired of having people show up on his lawn in the dead of night to argue with him about how his way was wrong and detrimental to the hobby.  Now you have Reverse Runnings like the one Joe wrote last month about the Era Police, repeating the common [almost rhetorical, at this point] question "has it all become Too Serious?"...

If you want the full story, I'd suggest picking up a copy of "Playing With Trains."  It's a really enjoyable reading; you'll pick up on things you may not have noticed before.

Now about the San Juan Central, I've read in places that Malcolm didn't necessarily use any of the track planning guides most people use; he started with a sketch of an idea that looked good in his head, ignoring things like even curve radius, and built it.  The result is the San Juan Central and the railroads that appeared after it.  They're the sort of work that frustrates the logical sequential mind where everything has to be connected to a sublying plot, but if you are willing to unhinge yourself from that anchor, you may find his work to be a real joy, intellectually.  

Now there may be many who gripe about his lack of adherence to "reality," the lack of "proper railroading background" to his premise, but consider this: In a span of about 3 years, or perhaps even only 6 months, from when he started the San Juan to when he sent in his first submissions, he went from a virtual nobody with seemingly little experience at all with the hobby to John Allen successor/protege. He published articles month after month on end in the most serious of model railroading publications, he gave clinics, he produced a whole line of publications to support others in their pursuit of the hobby, he became as well known around our kitchen tables as any of the well established Old Guard.  And he made it look easy, by and large due to his background - the same background John Allen claims.  Engineering and fine drafting may make perfect structures and perfectly sound designs, but it is art that makes perfectly weathered images of what may very well appear to be a real scene - even if only on a planet imagined by Dr. Seuss or Lewis Carroll - that all together conveys a complete experience.  You've just found that steamer trunk full of old photographs, and alas, there's no text on a single one about where they came form or what is in the pictures, they're just pictures with no "historical" analysis...

He left the spotlight because quite frankly, he get a lot more appreciation from the art community than he ever did from the model railroading community, and they pay him Very Well for his efforts.  They don't line up to tell him how he's doing it wrong and how to do it right; they line up and hand him money for what he puts on canvas, be it 2D or 3D or whatever medium he decides to work in. 

For a more detailed biography, you might look here: http://www.tracksahead.net/Travel/TA6-Trip4.htm Program 613 is a ways down, but it's a very good read, and it may clarify things for you.

Hah Hah....I like that Benny...

"The Koester crowd" But you know now that you have offended the proto police and will incur their fierce wrath now!

Michael

SJC

Reading Benny's comments one has to think about the original post's premise.

That may be missing the point or possibly require a rephrasing of the question.  I would maintain that today's standards are not that far from the standards then and while layout design has changed it is not that much different.  The SJC was not prototypical because it wasn't intended to be prototypical.  So from that standpoint, a "modern" redesign would not necessarily "improve" the design if the original intent was maintained.  It may be the real question is how do you convert the SJC to a prototypical layout or what prototypical design fits in that footprint.  It may be better just to scrap the whole design and start over with a clear prototypical premise.

Fixed link

I'm not sure why Benny but I clicked your link and got a "404 not found"

Although my link appears to be same, it worked for me? 

http://www.tracksahead.net/Travel/TA6-Trip4.htm

Anyway I am interested in Malcom Furlow and I enjoyed the SJC. To me it was less a "Disney" like railroad than his last model railroads he built. But regardless he was "hot" when I decided to rejoin the hobby. Admittedly mostly an armchair modeler for I had no room to build much. I had went from reading John Allens work as a pre-teen to seeing Malcolm in Model Railroader in the 90's. I thought "wow" the hobby has come a long way. (John Olsen also caught my attention as well)

Regardless of how some view his modeling, it was interesting to look at, unlike many layouts I view that are /were "prototypical" ,,,,,,which in many cases, (sorry) very boring to look because usually the scenery is not done well or they lack anything interesting. But I admit I not a "foamer" when I see a modern day trains. They all look the same to me.  

...don't take My word for it!

Oh, I'm just the messenger this time...

I'm not really saying anything new when I say "The Koester crowd." 

Thanks Geared, for the link repair...though neither link now works for me...Let me try it again...

http://www.tracksahead.net/Travel/TA6-Trip4.htm

If that link does not work, start here:

http://www.tracksahead.net/Travel, click on "Western US", then "Arizona & New Mexico, 2004."  Scroll down to 613.

 Again, as I said before, if you really want to understand the San Juan Central, one should start by understanding about the builder.  Take the passages above in conjunction with this passage below:

Such a railroad would have never existed.  The reason the San Juan Central is what it is, is because Malcolm designed it that way.  Malcolm had no more or less access to prototype information and the design tomes in the 80's as we do now; he simply chose not to use that information, and I suspect he never would - and in the face of the original, I dare say Malcolm proved such information is quite simply unnecessary.  Those sharp curves and steep grades is just what makes the pictures as dramatic as they appear - it's not an optical illusion!

There was a layout tour in one of these magazine [It might have indeed been MRH!] a little ways back about a railroad that is in essence a replication of the original San Juan, but the builder went ahead and applied these construction philosophies to the original -better curves, better grades - and the end railroad is indeed gorgeous to look at too. The track plan is a fun arrangement, but if you were to embark on the project, I wouldn't be so bold as to dismiss the original in the manner that you have.  It all goes back to understanding the artist...

If you haven't picked up a copy of 'Playing with Trains," every self-respecting model railroader should.  Sam Posey has really done a good job of putting our hobby - the people - into one book.

It is one thing to not follow

It is one thing to not follow a prototype. It is another thing to ignore such practical matters as grades and curves. For most folks the hobby is about running a train. If you build a layout that can not practically be ran then this is a badly designed railroad as far as many folks (I would say most) are concerned.

Also keep in mind that contrary to some of the things said here M.F. was a big name before he did the S J C.  He did something I think he called the Rio Chama or some such. The RC was his personal layout as far as I remember where the SJC was a project layout. The RC was an interesting layout to look at in photos, But what little could be determined about his personal layout it was a strange track plan that seamed to have curves way to tight and grades way to steep. The SJC was a much much improved track plan compared to the RC.  

Back in the late 70's and early 80s MF was very popular.  However he did have folks that did not like his style. Keep in mind that the SJC was a much much more realistic layout then his personal layout was.  His personal layout had some amazing sceans but they where way way out there in that they depicted a world that can not exist with hills and buildings that are impossible. So while it was beautiful it was not realistic. Kind of like comparing the Lord of the Rings to a story about real events. Is one better then the other? No. But some folks may like one better then the other, depending what they like.

But frankly JA and the G&D was a much more realistic looking layout that had a much more functional track plan. Not saying this is bad, just say it is so do not dump on me. 

Personally I was a fan of MF. I personally would not have used that much modelers license in my modeling. But to each there own, This is why not everyone is modeling the C&O

Still the truth is he did not model a railroad as much as he made a caricature of one. A pretty caricature, but a caricature non the less.

As for the comment about TK, I question that a bit. The SJC pretty much the last thing that I recall MF doing was started in 1983. And IIRC TK started his Trains of Thought  in or around that time.  But he was just another person with a column at the time. He did not really start becoming a "force" in the hobby that soon.  It is not like TK staged a palace coupe

Now as for personal interactions between the two, who knows.  But I would personally give little credit to the "Tony is the root of all evil" type comments. I think these are a result of his being a very visible target and a vocal proponent of prototype modeling.   I have never figured out what those that do not want to model "prototype" have against TK. But man do you see a LOT of comments with very outspoken anti TK points of view. 

If you don't want to model a prototype or if you want to do a MF type caricature. Go for it. IF you do as good a job as MF I am sure someone will publish you.  On the other hand I don't see the point of bashing TK all the time.

And while I like Sam P (I am a big race fan) The fact is the books is called playing with trains so I think the author may have a bit of a bias there.

So I say live and let live. Neither side is "right" as there is no right or wrong in this hobby. Do what ever YOU like. 

But the fact is that MF was about the "look" and to him everything else be it prototype or reality or practical things like being able to actually run the trains is secondary. On the other Hand TK is a huge supporter of Prototype based modeling. So these two ARE about polar opposites.  Still I do not think that either of them should be bashed. So live and let live, and lets leave off with the TK is the root of all evil because he says you should model based on Prototype. Personally I have talked with TK a bit here and there at conventions and such and I have read most if not all of what he has written and I do not ever recall him suggesting that His way and "prototype" is the ONLY way. It is just HIS way. I would no more expect TK to write something about MF's style of modeling then I would expect MF to write an article about how to faithfully model a prototype scene to exact scale. This does not make either of them wrong or right.

So can we cut back the bashing a bit?

Doug M

Some Context

Note that Koester was editor of Railroad Model Craftsman before that, and was instrumental in popularizing his friend Allen McClelland's V&O layout along with various ideas on design and modeling philosophy.  He was a known quantity in the hobby long before he started the "Trains of Thought" column in MR.

Yes, this.  Furlow's Rio Chama home layout was 3-D art that was reputed to never run well due to the overly tight curves, too-steep grades, and questionable trackwork.  It may have been interesting visually, but unlike John Allen's G&D wasn't much of an example to follow for a satisfying home layout, unless you didn't care if it ran or not.  There are stories that the SJC project layout also had issues with construction quality that interfered with reliable operation.  I can't independently confirm that, and the SJC survives today - plus it's been restored.

The SJC might not be the best starting point for a layout having another theme, as by the time you iron out all the bugs in the design with regard to curves and grades you might as well start over.  Most modelers do want their creations to run instead of being artistic but non-functional static displays.  That being said, however, there have been plenty of narrow gauge layouts inspired by the SJC, and some have turned up in the pages of the "Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette."

...

See, you may say one does not say the other is "doing it wrong," but then I recall an editorial by another prominent author in the hobby extolling the virtues of Operations, and as he wrote it, he basically said something along the lines of "running your railroad is all good and well, but you will never get full satisfaction of this hobby unless you do operations - the very best way to pursue the hobby is to Operate the layout.  The juxtaposition in this column pitting A against B was blatant, with no apology offered by the author.  The more prominent an author is, though, the more calculated you can presume their responses will be - they are well gifted and trained in speaking without being obvious.  Hence, now you will see "A is the very best way to do it" with absolutely no discussion lent to B, or perhaps even a hint of dismissal towards any other method.

Sam Posey's book details TK in the same chapter as his visit with MF, and it is indeed juxtaposed as it is - they are polar opposites in the spectrum.  Yes, you can detect that Sam is somewhere to the left of center.  Here's his words about how he describes TK:

Mind you, MF earns this anecdote:

I guess you could say that while SP is somewhere left of center, he's not an extremist of either camp. And I would contend that there is a very large silent majority who are in this hobby, just "Playing Trains," somewhere center or left of center with him.

The bashing, though, will not cease, for you have fanatics on either end of the spectrum who look down their nose at the opposite end.  Some come right out and say it, other's find creative language to disguise it.  As I see it, a fair number are simply not open enough to accept more modes than the ones they like, simply because of where they came into the hobby and how they have been taught.  If the instructor in your school of thought has been TK and the right, then your world is operations, exact replication and a stiff adherence to rules.  If the instructor is MF and the left, your world is centered on grand scenery, loose definitions and overall impact.  If you were lucky, you had professors from both disciplines in your school.  But for some, a single voice of doubt against the maxims they've held near and dear are, well...heresay, or blasphemy, at best!!

If the past 15 years of internet debate have taught us anything at all, it is that model railroaders are, generally speaking, as rigid and unforgiving as the rails they ride on, be it in philosophy, practice, or even prototype.  We learn one way of doing things, tune our frequencies to the local consensus, and THAT is IT.  We are as decisively divided as a hobby as perhaps any political landscape or theological interpretation has ever has been!  There is a grain of truth to the fact that what one side says in objective truth can indeed be a bash on the other side.

Take a good look at how November's Reverse Running has gone, for example...

There is no other way to say this than to come right out and say it: The strict railroaders hold the like of MF in contempt, while the strict artists hold the like of TK in contempt.  The right feel the left is a waste of time, and the left feel the right is ruining the hobby.  The hobby, meanwhile...well, it's still quite fun!!

Getting back to the subject at hand, The San Juan Central is a very useful design, even with it's deficiencies - and the deficiencies are real.  Rather than imagining what it might have been like had the builder set about using a more Right centered approach, if Picasso had been Da Vinci, perhaps, I think it may be more functional to consider the track plan as a starting point for planning a new railroad, without subjecting the original San Juan to the scrutiny of "modern standards," and to pick up the brush there.

Anyhow...back to the daily grind - my day starts now!

MF to TK: a universe

Hey - what´s happened to "MODEL RAILROADING IS FUN" (A.C.Kalmbach )?

Is there a war of sorts going on? These letters above read for an oldtimer i- nto US model railroading mags from 1959 onwards - like some political race for ballots.

So you are hitting two extreme positions way out on both sides of the model railroad scale. But what about the less talented modellers building their railways "between" those left-and-right-wing positions? Thas the rest of us, and I believe this "rest" is the majority!

Was it not MF and his SJ model in 1:24 at the  LGB display in the offices of LGB at Nuernberg/Germany and at the world famous LGB counter at the Nuernberg Toy Fair? I am aware, that MF did some in HOn3 as well as in Sn3-scale. I  have read and seen TK putting the story of the V&O into print. 

But I have read the stories by Ellison, Armstrong, Allen, Larson, Chubb, Rau, Westcott, Hegge, Yunkurth, Moore, Col. Carsten, Wesolowski, Russell, Schopp, Wagner, Kalmbach, O´Heran, Mcclanahan, Small, Towers, Odegard, Hediger, Olson, Koester, Furlow, ....

As a final thought: has not one John Olson "copied" MFs work sort of and has "bettered" it by  by building the "Mescal Lines RR" ?

Best regards by one of the "million-in-the-middle" od model railroading.

MODEL RAILROADING IS FUN !

Rainer from Germany

Yes there is a war going on...

But should there be?

I don't pretend to know the answere but it does make an interesting read.

Malcolm Furlow is an artist and no one has any right to claim otherwise. But is what he produces model railroading? In a sense it is but no likes to run on any layout that doesn't really operate that well and from what I have read most of what Furlow has done falls into that category due to mistakes in track laying and design. But I have never seen anything he has created except for the photos of his layouts in the magazines. So that tends to leave me with a big question. Does Furlow's work demonstrate anything? I will have to say I don't know and leave it at that until I either win big in the NYS lottery or get to meet the man and visit his layouts in person.

As for Tony Koester, I have never met him but I have spoken to some of his buddies who run on his layout. They don't impress me either as people or  as model railroaders. But that may be more egos at work than it is knowledge. One thing I can and will say. When I go into model railroading  in the late 1970s Tony was the editor of Railroad Model Craftsman and he sort of introduced me to the hobby through his writing and his discussions of model railroading in hat magazine. So I do get some sense of how he thinks even if it is the Tony Koester of the late 1970s and not the one of today.

People do change and so do their ideas but there is no need to dig trenches and line them the verbal equivalents of machine guns and cannon. Things can and should be discussed as civilized human beings and we should never lose sight of the fact that model railroading is supposed to be fun.

Irv

...

Aha - but you see, Talent has nothing to do with whether your focus is art orientated or protocol orientated. And yet this is indeed one of the Appeals both sides use, of course - snob appeal - if you're not doing it their way, you're some how less talented, or less of a Model Railroader or simply something less than they are.  You and I both know the answer, but the question persists...

That's the one! At least I think that's the one! I knew I've seen it before, indeed, I believe it was featured in Shortline & Narrow Gauge Gazette - just don't ask me which one! And it is a very fine railroad indeed! May that be the answer to the question, "Does Furlow's work demonstrate anything?"!

Ego, perhaps that is all of it.

Alas, as long as we are human, there will be egos.  As long as there are egos, this war will exist - Particularly if the war is over whose Creation is finest...  Hence perhaps why so many polytheisms [clubs] turn into monotheisms? As the old joke goes, if you have three model railroaders in one town, how many model railroad clubs are there? TWO!

The war is not all bad, mind you, for as long as it persists, Joe has unlimited employment writing Reverse Running columns!!!

Who's Copying Whom?

I'm pretty sure Olson's byline preceded Furlow's by some time. Remember the Jerome & Southwestern project layout in MR?  The style of scenery modeling later adopted by Furlow (with all the natural rock material) was popularized by the likes of Olson, Paul Scoles, Lonnie Shay and others in magazines like the "Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette" and others before it appeared in MR.  These guys were the influences on Furlow, not the other way around.

Another reason why the SJC may not be entirely practical as a starting point for a layout using a different theme was how it was designed around using a particular scenery style.  If that specific look isn't for you, or you want the layout to look like it belongs in another region, you'll be fighting the compromises inherent in the SJC that existed due to a desire for a certain aesthetic.

This has been an interesting discussion.

I see what Benny is saying.  There are people with extreme views on how Model Railroading should be done and they can get quite militant about it.  It is the same in any hobby, life style or religion.  Waiting outside my house to argue about it is another thing all together.

At one time I was building the SJC to the exact size of the bench work, but instead of HO I was modeling it in N scale.  The N scale right away followed the same path of the HO right away.  I added a few more sidings for more mines.  It was another layout that never got finished due to an unplanned moved across the country.  Every time I started a layout an unplanned move popped up into my career.

But, lets get back to the original post.  Is the SJC viable?  So, what about the SJC as an N scale layout?  Comments?  How about a redesign of the Montrose yard?  How would you guys do this?  Could mine operations be done on it in N scale?

@ Benny,  I think I want to read that book now. 

Den

Did a little research on the San Juan Central....

Minimum radius was 15" and maximum grade was 3%. I don't know what the standards are in narrow gauge. The minimum radius gives me a bit of pause but I don't really see anything wrong with a 3% grade for that type of railroad. I have deliberately built 3% and even 4 % grades into some of my past layouts in order to make them  a challenge to get across. You either had to add helpers or "double the hill", both of which real railroads do.

Michael

SJC

The 15" radius was acceptable if you wanted to run old-timey HOn3; the grades would have put a big limit on train lengths given the locomotives available at the time.

Furlow was producing 'look at me' eye candy -- his own interpretation of something. Iain Rice track plans are the same kind of model railroading -- more fun to read about than to build and run.

Seeing the cartoon or caricature modeling seep into Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette was kind of disappointing to me personally, but it fills up the hall at narrow gauge conventions these days.

Fortunately there aren't any 'look at me' attention-getters around here.

Sam Posey's book is an entertaining read, but it's kind of stretched in places to fit a point of view.

Myself, I got away from narrow gauge except for dabbling in a little bit of Euro 76cm-gauge stuff. There are lots of good narrow gauge layouts around, many in SN3, or On3 and On2.  But I can't think of new projects that have gotten much publicity.

Joe B.

...

These are the numbers that were published.  Rumor has it, The actual numbers were perhaps a bit less generous - perhaps a couple 12"s!  MY HOn3 colleagues prefer a 24" radius, which is the minimum radius for most of the brass K36/K37s.  I keep in mind though, that it was these curves and grades that gave the route such a dramatic appearance in pictures.

What rework that has been done shows it's viable depending on how you rework things to your druthers.  N scale reduces the overall grade separation requirement, which then gives a more generous run and thus grade to get from level to level.  Reworking the curves can be a bit of a challenge, as you may still find some areas where you want a wider curve, if possible.  Montrose yard, it can be reworked...hmm, now that I think about it, it would perhaps be valuable to find that article on the railroad built after the SJC!

I hate those words in the context of model railroading

It's fine if Malcolm Furlow or John Allen style railroads aren't everyone's cup of tea. I get that because the 8 inch wide shelves with a static grass prairie and building flats slapped against the backdrop  aren't mine. But the thing is, I still consider all of them model railroads, they are just different approaches to the hobby. Calling anyones modeling a caricature or especially a "cartoon" is derogatory in my opinion, it irks me every time I hear it or see it written.

Michael

Design considerations....

I have not seen an actual plan of the SJC, just an overhead shot of the layout so I wonder if it has passing sidings and what length they are. People sometimes forget about passing siding length when they worry over grades but the two are related. If your longest passing siding will only hold a loco and 8 cars then there's no reason to worry over the fact that your loco won't haul 10 over a grade. It's pointless. As far as the SJC in N scale, I don't see why it's not viable. That 15'' minimum radius is fairly decent for N. 19" would be better of course. I think in HO you would have to bump the minimum radius up to 18" or even 22" but then the layout is going to take up a lot more real estate. Yard design is not my forte so I'll leave others to comment on that.

Michael

Viable Layouts

Using the same space, the SJC plan would likely be more viable in N, as the grades could be less due to reduced clearances, and the curves more generous in the smaller scale.  The plan is a simple loop configuration, so there are a lot of different ways to arrange something similar for a given space.  Look at something like Byron Henderson's "Layout Vision" site for more ideas.  Replacing Montrose with a more prototypical yard would help, but again once you start doing that you might as well be starting over.  You could keep the basic arrangement of the mainline and graft revised towns onto it.

Man, that photo in Trains of Thought really struck a nerve!  You know the scene involved was unfinished (hence the flats leaning against the wall).

Just as "cartoon" is a perfectly valid form of artwork, it also serves as an apt description of certain approaches to modeling. If it's intended to be exaggerated, with expressive but not necessarily realistic features, maybe the best descriptor is "cartoon."  A lot of talented artists do cartoons, and many of us love 'em.  Just thinking...  maybe those taking that approach to modeling should embrace it.  It's not just freelanced, it's a cartoon!  After all, isn't that a built-in defense against the prototype police? 

Just as "cartoon" is a

The only problem is, "Cartoon" is a pejorative word, as it has been so commonly used, a word meant to detract from an effort, to somehow diminish the result as a lesser form.  You'd basically have to remove 100 years worth of built up stigma first before that phrase becomes something that won't strike a nerve.

It's like calling the fat kid fat - the connotation of "fat" goes beyond just descriptor, it too has become one of these stigmatized pejorative words to the point where we barely dare call people such words, unless we're poking fun, or we're purposely trying to get a rise/insult them.

There is a rather large number of such trigger words - some that come to mind include Toys and the phrase "Playing with Trains."  Granted, I personally believe when the hobby can uniformly look in the mirror and say "I'm just playing with trains," perhaps that is when we will see cartoon and caricature become acceptable terms and you won't see Huns gathering on the lawns of the local Heretics.  As it is, so many of these terms have been so often used to dismiss and de-emphasize work that I dare say it's never going to happen.

The way a word is used can give it different meaning....

I don't agree. In the way the word is being used by prototype modelers, it's derogatory in my opinion. Like many things, we just have to agree to disagree. I just don't understand why people can't appreciate things for what they are. Regarding the photo in Trains of Though, what struck the nerve is that it was being used as an example of so called "fine modeling" which I didn't really agree with. Never the less, I appreciate it for what it was in that it accomplished the builders purpose of putting as much railroad as possible in a space so he could operate TT&TO realistically.  If he's happy then that's all that really matters and that's the bottom line for anyone.

 I will say though that judging by some of the venom and vitriol I've gotten right here on this forum for daring to suggest that there are other ways to model besides an overwhelming obsession with prototypical accuracy, I have no doubt that some of the Koester crowd showed up on Malcolm's doorstep to argue with him. Anyway, I'm not going to continue going round and round on this, it's pointless.

We are in agreement about the SJC as a viable N scale plan in that space. I do not think it can be done in HO, narrow guage or otherwise, without a drastic increase in space requirement. At that point, the space may be better used with another design. I still want to see a trackplan just for my own curiosity, I think I'll search the trackplan database over at MR.

Michael