A couple of weeks ago, Trevor Marshall mentioned Jonathan Jones’s intriguing article in the 2023 issue of Model Railroad Planning, specifically Mr. Jones’s* assertion that if everything is important, then nothing is important. I’ve been wanting to write about this article since it came out, as it is the most innovative thing I’ve read in the hobby in a long time.
If you’ve not read it, I suggest you get a copy and read for yourself, but here is my synopsis (from memory). In an effort to focus the viewer on the railroad and to reduce visual clutter, Jones, who I believe is an architect, has taken the approach of an architectural modeller. He has modelled only the right of way and the rail-served buildings in full detail and colour. Other buildings and the surrounding neighbourhood get only rough grey shapes to indicate the general size and shape. Features like roads have labels right on the model to help orient the viewer.
Model railroads are huge multi-year projects. So, to pursue a new path rather than following the crowd takes a lot of courage; putting it out there for others to comment upon takes even more. For this, Jones deserves our commendation and our thanks. However, I hope this treatment does not catch on.
Unfortunately, there is some danger it might. Model railroaders have been using similar reasoning to abdicate on parts of their layouts for decades. How often have we heard there is only a suggestion of a backdrop because they do not wish to distract from the trains? Now Mr. Jones takes it to the next level, giving license for more layouts with massing models where they could have real models.
My disagreement with the approach is not only with the lack of realism away from the track, but also with the assertion that the trains are the most important element of the scene. That may or may not be true, depending on the purpose of the scene. Pembroke, for example, aims to tell the story of an upstart city in an upstart country. Trains are only part of that story. I hope to see more layouts that tell engaging stories about the world in which our trains run.
Architectural models do not tell a stories: they are bludgeons designed to raise investment in a construction project. A model railroad is at its best when it relates not only the presence of the railway, but the bigger idea that inspires us. To convey our stories we have a host of compositional techniques, such as leading lines, rhythm, contrast and movement. Such a nuanced treatment will not only look more realistic, but will also leave room to explore secondary subjects within the scene.
So, while I agree with Jones’s fundamental statement that some elements of the scene must be emphasized while others recede, I disagree with the approach he has taken to achieve it. His execution looks flawless, and it will be tempting to follow his lead. As a hobby, though, I hope we continue to explore pathways cleared by the fine arts, and that there will be no more matte black backdrops and neighbourhoods of grey blocks.
* I’ve not met Jonathan Jones, and I’d like to convey respect for him and his ideas, so I will refer to him by surname in this article.
** This sentence originally read “A model railroad should do more, relating not only the presence of the railway, but the bigger idea that inspires us.” Simon Dunkley suggested the better wording.
Pembroke:87 
And this:
“Architectural models do not tell a stories: they are bludgeons designed to raise investment in a construction project.” Really, that’s all? Yikes.
I do appreciate that you close with “…I hope…” but do you really mean to discourage folks without your fine arts orientation to neglect their own perspectives?
Absolutely love your work and your blog about it, keep it up.
Thank-you Jeffrey.
I don’t know if I would want to dissuade folks from pursuing their own perspectives. On the contrary, I am delighted that Jonathan Jones pursued this idea and shared it with the world! I hope more authors will pursue other novel ideas in the future.
However, many modellers do not spend time thinking about their perspective, and simply aim to build layouts (which I applaud because at least they’re doing something). An idea that is easily copied, like the simplified backdrop, can quickly become fashionable and then we see it everywhere; thank goodness photo backdrops became an alternative. For the architectural model approach to become as popular as the simplified backdrop was would be a misstep for our hobby.
I think that what story(ies) you convey on a model railway has three limiting factors, time, space and personal abilities. I try to tell a story in the scenes on my layout without being perfectly realistic because of those constraints. For example, I have arthritis and working beneath the table top is difficult and has to potential to cause injury. However, I try to work around it and distract from the switch machines using scenery and operation.
There is a view in the O Gauge hi-rail community that scenery gets in the way of making changes to your track plan. I don’t agree with it, but it suits the purposes of those who only want to see the trains run.
In other conversations we’ve had you have noted that these choices are personal and how I choose to do things is my business, but I want to tell the story of the Canada Atlantic Railway and seek to do that. I would be remiss if I didn’t add that I find inspiration in your very detailed documentation of the Canada Atlantic Railway.
Incidentally, I met Trevor Marshall on line at a virtual meeting of the Niagara Branch of the Canadian Railroad Historical Association and he has a few irons in the fire which I look forward to seeing in the future.
I love that you think independently about how you practice the hobby, rather than following the (easier) community practices, Richard.
That is exactly what I hope everyone will do as they consider their own goals and constraints.
I was actually very taken with Jones’ approach. I feel both his and your sentiments are valid. I can see real value in the isolation value to highlight a particular narrative, cutting away extraneous parts to really focus on one element. That approach though might not tell enough of the ‘story’ and if too restrictive lose the impact of the intended focus. I felt he’d achieved a good balance between the traditional approach and the focused (minimalist?) style. It certainly has had me thinking about ‘presentation’ and how I might put a few ripples into that pond with a future project!