Warren Mumpower said:
I generally think of my story as a blueprint for my railroad. It's what I use to build by..or as others may think, an excuse to do what I'm going to do anyways...a justification for my eccentric behavior. I really don't usually share my story because I doubt too many people really want to hear it. It's like building a fantastic model and showing off the plans. People may be interested in the model but rarely give a hoot in the plan that built it. . .
Some . . . HO’er came by and had the nerve to tell me I wasn’t a modeler because it wasn’t an exact replica of a real locomotive…and besides my rails were too close together. . . I was glowing a bright red. They were ready to tackle me if I did try to throttle him…as I really wanted to do. Stuff like that doesn’t stop me from modeling what I want to, but it does have a negative effect on my willingness to share my thoughts and creations.
Interesting story. We large-scale modelers are not, after all, a society of architectural engineers whose job is to accurately reproduce a specific process. In this sense I can really identify with those who just want to “run trains,” because, after all, this is supposed to be fun, NOT a high school science project with an exam to follow.
I don’t know about the HO hobbyists. I do know that SOME people seem to insist on accurate reproductions of everything, without ever taking into account that the moment one begins to compress a model, as is inevitable in large-scale, one must ALTER the prototype on which the layout is modeled. Now that I think of it, I cannot bring to mind ANY model that even approaches something that is historically correct. I have never seen one on line nor in the Garden Railways magazine. The closest model that I am aware of that actually comes remotely close to that is my own Kennecott mill site model (which includes elements of three REAL historic towns), but that model is definitely not an architectural reproduction.
I am not one who is skilled in alteration of model rolling stock to create something different yet prototypical, either, although we all are aware of some who are. That is fine. I believe we call them “rivet counters.” Good for them. I admire the skill and patience behind all of that work, BUT even THEY do not use layouts that are historically correct. If you KNOW an exception, it would be RARE.
We are in effect making a railroad in our own image–a vision that is uniquely ours based on our own experiences in life that go well beyond our preferences for a particular road name or specific type of engine, for example.
THUS, any criticism of one’s failure to be totally accurate in a choice of portrayal of a particular railroad is not only totally bogus but wholly and unabashedly hypocritical. The only realistic conclusion is that it is well past time to move past the snobbery of how a particular railroad SHOULD be modeled in the gospel according to Mr Self-Appointed Railroad Expert, and go about creating a miniature railway layout that suits who we really are as model railroaders.
And, finally, it is my contention that the more detailed the story behind any particular layout–both the part which is historic and the part which is not–the more interesting the model. This ESPECIALLY holds true for people who are NOT model railroaders. I know this from operating this model here in Copper Center as a historic INTERPRETATION of something which really did occur. THOSE people–tourists from all over (almost NONE of them knowing much of anything about railroads, much less MODEL railroads) LOVE the story behind the story. THAT is what really brings it to life.
