George Sellios' layout

In general this thread just cracks me up.

My wife and I look at the pictures referenced below and, more or less, with our jaws bouncing off the desk, utter sounds that come out sounding like "WOOOOWWW".

Then we look at Roger's site with pretty much the same reaction.

Roger, one thing you might not be taking into account is that the pictures referenced below are also ads. So, of course, they will take on a bit of the "movie presentation" look.

Q: What is the one quality of the great works of the painting masters vs the less great works?

The best answer I've ever heard is: something about the picture jumps off the canvas and into your mind. Something about the picture reaches out and grabs you. The less great are just interesting looking canvas. Not every picture jumps into every mind and just because it jumps into your mind doesn't mean it's pleasant.

So, go on nit-picking. We are going to ignore the nit-picking and go straight to the pic's.

Paul

"Paul Newhouse"

Thank you, but I wouldn't put my work up against George's.

There's just no comparison, his just blows mine out of the water.

-- Cheers Roger T.

of the Great Eastern Railway

Ok, be modest.

There are dozen's of other layout's that we can compare. To yours and George's. They aren't supposed to be the same.

I like this orange because ... I like this apple because ... I like this tangerine because ...

Oh look, here is a potato[e] ...

If it's impressive, well then it's impressive. Ok, I take all the works that impress me and I can pick one that is "most" impressive. That doesn't relegate the others to the world of crap. They are still impressive. So we put a list together and you are on it and you don't win "best of planet" ... so what? Just don't tell me it's all a virtual reality layout.

Paul

I would very much like to see what Selios could do working in that medium. For example: I would like to see a George Selios creation of Gotham City for a Batman Movie. I have no doubt whatever that it would "destroy" all the Gotham Cities that have preceded it. I've seen the movies, and I think Gotham City is the most mind-numbingly depressing cityscape I have ever seen. It looks like a hybrid of Nazi Germany and Medieval depictions of Hell.

GOOD!! The first time I looked at it I thought, "That's some amazing graphics ... hmm, look a that detail ... that's really incredible graphics ... maybe this is a picture of a real layout!!??".

Others have expressed there disappointment to hear that. While I will agree that it will be sad to see it go, it's yours and many have enjoyed it.

Ok, you have our expectations at a high level now so we are expecting something MORE spectacular this time. Closing the gap on "best of planet" by no less than half.

Paul

a big building in real life. The Flat Iron building in NYC built in 1902? is twenty. It's not a big building.

Yes, lets take this one. 16 or so stories in a brick building? It's a

*brick* building. Not a flatiron building, not a skycraper

How do you define a skyscraper? It's changed from when they started being built in the late 1880s.

Many structures in NYC are similar as they transform into brick a few stories above the street where people can't see them. They usually have a more impressive top than Sellios'.

It's reminiscent of the Coca-Cola building at 711 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan that was built in 1927. It has a similar box on top of a large box look.

And the Roosevelt Hotel of 50 East 46th Street in Manhattan, erected in 1924 by the New York Central Railroad.

Yes, the Disneyesque look. Notice how it looks like a G&D type building?

There's nothing wrong with the look of the building. It's the placement. On the end of a wharf it would have been perfect. Conversely an interlocking tower might have been a better choice in this scene.

There are two issues when critiquing a model on a railroad. Is it realistic? and is it appropriate for where it's placed.

The placement is where Sellios fell down.

You do? It's too small to be any good to anyone, it's just too darn "cute" and again, Disneyesque and very G&D looking.

What's wrong with a team track for a business that's not on-line. Trucks or teams come in and transload the milk cans to or from the reefer.

Now my turn. This one.

the pitch of the roofs looks far too steep?

For New England? No way. The roof looks to have about a 12 unit rise for each 10 units of run. About right espectally for a shingle roof.

The over all, over done clutter?

What clutter? All I see is a few cars, some crates and pallets. A lot of weeds but it IS the back side of the structures. Seagulls on the rail? Actually there's probably not enough.

The porch on the top of the tower?

That would be a Widow's Walk. Very common in New England. Where are you from anyway? Definately not New England.

If this were a real bulding I'd venture that it had been a house that was converted over to industrial use.

It's a movie set for Popeye or Dick Tracy.

Nope. For that it'd all be painted in shiny happy colors.

Now these on the other hand look great but somehow they still don't look real.

I think part of the problem you're having is the pictures 'hovering helocopter' point of view. It's an unrealistic way of viewing buildings and trains. If the picture had been shot level or slightly upwards it would have resulted in more realistic views.

Eric

Eric, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the style of the layout.

We both agree that it is excellent modelling though.

-- Cheers Roger T.

of the Great Eastern Railway

This is all the work of Anton Furst, production designer who died a few years back. He based alot of it on fact, like the Trinity church at Wall and Broadway and some huge church in Spain somewhere. Fabulous stuff. He did some comic book work and there are collected portfolios of his designs. It gives me ideas. He also did some lame comedy ghost movie called "High Spirits" with Peter O'Toole. (getting OT here, I know).

-John

It sort of reminded me of DiLaurentis' depiction of Giedi Prime in "Dune".

Jay Modeling the North Shore & North Western C&NW/CNS&M in 1940-1955 E-mail is now open snipped-for-privacy@aol.com

FIRST, one has to define 'Model Railroader". We, and many others, have been arguing over this for YEARS.

But, **I'd** have a hard time finding any common definition that would NOT include George and his fine model railroad. YMMV!

The hobby of "Model Railroading" is many things to many people. There's NO one 'right' way to do it. That's one reason it's lasted so long.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Mark Mathu wrote:

What is the minimum track required to have a model railroad? How many train movements do you have to have? I have no idea what the track plan of George Sellios' layout is, but I suspect that he has a larger layout and more track and more possibilities of train movements then I do. I'm sure I have a greater track to structure percentage than he does. I only have room to put in a few train maintenance facilities and just a couple of industries. I suspect that George has much more of each of these than I do. So, if he doesn't have a model railroad, how much more track, industry sidings, etc does he need----------- and more importantly, how much more do I need before I can be a model railroader? Bob in Kalamazoo

...

Basically, you're saying that if you don't run trains by train orders or schedule, waybills, or what have you, it's a diorama, or am I putting words in your mouth?

I can go along with that definition, although I tend to call that railroad modeling rather than model railroading. It's a fine semantic difference to me. Model railroading to me is the scenery aspect of reproducing a place in time, be it imaginary, real, or based on reality with trains running through it.

Those who run trains willy-nilly on plain wooden tables are, by my definition and Froggy's, sort in a Never-land of it being neither a model railroad nor a railroad model.

By Froggy's definition, I *think* the Granite Gorge & Northern layout discussed last week could never be model railroad because there's no yard to make up or break down trains, or again, did I misunderstand the definition?

No need to get in a pissing match over this, everyone. Just throw opinions out there and see if we can arrive at some sort of minimal consensus or majority opinon such as:

1) What constitutes a model railroad? 2) How does this differ from a railroad model? 3) What are the minimum constraints to be considered either 1 or 2?

Jay CNS&M Wireheads of the world, unite!

"JCunington"

Mine.

It doesn't.

Who gives a rat's arse?

-- Cheers Roger T.

of the Great Eastern Railway

It was written:

[BIG SNIP]

OK . . . and suppose you spend the next few weeks arguing and yapping about the of the term "model railroad". And, in the extremely unlikely event that a definition is arrived at that people reading the "George Sellios' layout" thread can agree on.

What exactly will you have accomplished? A basis for telling other folks that their layout isn't a "true" model railroad?

How will the hobby of model railroading be improved? Will we all be better off if we can divide people into two groups -- those who have (in your opinion) "real" model railroads, and those who don't?

If you don't have a "real" model railroad, does that mean that you're not a "real" model railroader?

I can tell you this much -- anyone who spends his free time sending email messages arguing about the definition of the term "model railroad" is not getting any "real" model railroading done.

And anyone who wouldn't be happy to have Mr. Sellios' creation in his basement is a rare individual indeed.

JR Hill MadTown

How many rivets? Sounds like you've a "vested" interest in this . . .

I think that the problem with coming to a decision on what you're asking is hindered by the fact there's no track plan to look at. The framed photos are vignettes that provide an image of a scene from a railroad and then the mind fills in the rest.

With a track plan we could see where the trains go and how they go. This would give the ability to decide between diorama and model railroad.

Eric

Froggy wrote:

"I maintain steadfastly that the Franklin & South Manchester is not a model railroad. It is a diorama, which is an entirely different animal. No one EVER SAID that it was not a work of art or that its creator was anything but a superb model builder. It is an interesting sideline to the hobby and is an exquisitely executed piece of work. However it is not a model railroad. It is a model of a cityscape through which a railroad happens to run. It is a diorama

In a diorama, once you have seen a train run through the scene, there is nothing left. You're through, it's over, come again soon. It's the same as a portrait of the Mona Lisa that can wink it's eye. Once you've seen it, that's it. You've seen it. How long do you want to stand there and watch the train run through the city. How many times do you want to watch a painting of Mona Lisa wink at you.

A model railroad does more than showcase models, whether they be models of trains or models of structures. A model railroad is a dynamic thing that replicates in miniature the entirety of railroading. It has operational aspects. It has train movements, it has the breaking-up and assembling of trains or sections of trains. It has locomotives and places to take care of those locomotives. It has customers that ship and receive goods and that require the use of railcars to do so. A model railroad is a model of part of the transportation industry. It moves goods and people from one place to another. Trains do not appear from purgatory, run through town and then return to purgatory in real life. The sole exception to this is when the trains are models operating in a diorama. And I have already said that a diorama is NOT a model railroad.

A model railroad has life, movement and purpose. A diorama is a three dimensional photograph which may, or may not, have moving parts.

If anyone can make a case otherwise, I want to hear it. If all you want to do is tell me to kiss your butt, don't bother. All that means is that I'm correct and you don't have a case.

ANYONE........define a "model railroad" and qualify what is and what is not the same.

First: I did not mention anything about the "Qualifications" to be a "model railroader". We'll get to that in another thread when the flames from this one die down.

Second: What I asked was: What is, and what is not, a model railroad? Not every model that has tracks and trains in it is a bona-fide model railroad. It is both a physical AND a philosophical issue such that- and I'm sure that many of you guys will be happy to hear this- Truly, truly size does not matter.

A model railroad can be huge, and a diorama can be just as big. The difference is in how the idea is executed, not in how large it is. Boring and static is the same in any size or scale. The San Diego Model Railroad Club is an outstanding example of a truly Gargantuan model railroad, while Northlandz is an example of a truly Gargantuan NOT model railroad.

While I cannot cite an example of a small model railroad with which everyone is familiar, rest assured that they are out there. So are the small dioramas that are not model railroads. ................................F>

Sort of, yes. While that is an aspect of the thing that appeals to me, it is by no means that rigidly definable. I can, and have, enjoyed operating on railroads that were not regimented, and that did not have train orders, schedules and waybills. I have operated on others that had train orders and schedules that were not model railroads, but that were merely dioramas with trains running through them. Not enjoyable to operate

Sorry, I don't know anything about the Granite Gorge & Northern. So I can't comment.

.....................F>

That's because you are not reading what I'm writing. You're reading what you want to see.