Of course I could console myself by assuming that it probably wasn’t very good anyway. There’s at least some evidence to support this sour-grapes theory: as I reported last year, I was disappointed by their 2006 show in Marlborough. But my complaint about that one was that it was [...]]]> Barbara and I just came back from a model railroad exhibit at the National Heritage Museum, sponsored by the HUB Division of the National Model Railroad Association. This was the same exhibit that I missed three years ago because of a snowstorm. Here’s what I wrote about missing it at that time:

Of course I could console myself by assuming that it probably wasn’t very good anyway. There’s at least some evidence to support this sour-grapes theory: as I reported last year, I was disappointed by their 2006 show in Marlborough. But my complaint about that one was that it was too commercial, and it seemed likely that one at the National Heritage Museum wouldn’t be. Oh, well.

Now, of course, you’re wondering whether it was commercial, and whether it was any good. The answers are that it definitely wasn’t at all commercial and that it was fairly good. Perhaps I’m being unfair here: it suffered from being too small and from being too crowded with small kids, but neither flaw was the fault of the Hub Division or of the museum. On the positive side, there was a nice variety of rolling stock and quite a bit of convincing scenery and structures. Here is an example:

I also liked the “new run-down industrial exhibit” and the baseball game:

But the best scenery was probably Sachem Gorge, which I had already seen a year ago and wrote about at that time:

So why hadn’t we known about this wonderful historical museum, especially given my interest in model railroads? I guess it’s because it is indeed an undiscovered gem. Anyway, along with temporary exhibits, there are only three types of permanent [...]]]> What an astonishing museum! “An undiscovered gem” was how the docent at the desk described it on our way out, and she is right. Barbara and I visited the Wenham Museum yesterday — our first time in Wenham for either of us, despite the fact that Barbara has lived in the Boston area for 28 years and I’ve lived here for 44!

So why hadn’t we known about this wonderful historical museum, especially given my interest in model railroads? I guess it’s because it is indeed an undiscovered gem. Anyway, along with temporary exhibits, there are only three types of permanent ones here, two of which very much interested me, and the third of which might well interest you (depending on who you are):

• First and foremost (in my unbiased opinion) is a collection of model railroad layouts, including several well-done ones of various scales on permanent exhibit. When we went, there were also several extra ones being shown for the past three months, including a stunning one built entirely out of Legos! You can see images at the New England Lego Users Group gallery. Observe that everything in this huge layout was made from Lego pieces, including not only scenery and buildings but also the fully functioning trains and amusement park rides. The other layouts were all conventional ones, including a lot in N scale and even some in Z. But the majority were in HO, one of which contained truly excellent structures and scenery, especially the lovingly crafted hills and rocks.
• Second is the Claflin-Richards House (not actually in the museum, but physically attached to it), a 1690 house with various rooms restored to different periods of its history from then to now. If you are interested in local history, social customs, architecture, etc., you should definitely see this fascinating house.
  
• Finally, the museum houses a huge collection of dolls (over 5000, of which only 1200 or so can be displayed at a time) from many countries and over several centuries. These included the Ralph Waldo Emerson family dolls, adding a sense of local history. Not my cup of tea, but impressive and clearly worth seeing by anyone interested in dolls and what they represent.

But I’ll bite the bullet soon and will show some [...]]]> One of my students asked me why I haven’t yet posted any photos of the model railroad I’m building. One answer is that it’s still in such an early stage that I don’t have much to show yet. Another answer is that I’m intimidated by videos like the stunning Route 6 HO Scale Model K-Car Trip around Philadelphia, which is so much like the urban, transit-oriented layout I am trying to accomplish (except for being Philadelphia rather than Boston) and yet so far from what I am really going to achieve.

But I’ll bite the bullet soon and will show some of my progress.

Why am I so unusually interested in this geeky document? Perhaps it’s because I’m a math teacher — or maybe it’s because I’m building a model railroad based [...]]]> Take a close look at the yellow bars in this bar chart:

Much to my surprise, it turns out that subway fares in Boston have remained nearly unchanged for 110 years when adjusted for inflation, especially when you ignore the short-lived drop to ten cents in 1950. This chart comes from a fascinating document entitled “Report on the Proposed 2007 MBTA Fare Restructuring and Fare Increase,” published by the MBTA in July of 2006.

Why am I so unusually interested in this geeky document? Perhaps it’s because I’m a math teacher — or maybe it’s because I’m building a model railroad based loosely on the T, though I think there’s a lurking variable there that explains both phenomena. In any case, the general public should also become aware of it, especially with all the recent complaints against the MBTA. Many, perhaps even most, of those complaints are certainly justified, but isn’t it interesting that the fare hasn’t actually risen significantly in real dollars in over a century? Using my trusty TI–83 Plus calculator, I computed a linear regression for the data, with years since 1900 as the input values and the fares in 2005 dollars as the output values, excluding the anomalous dip in 1950. The slope indeed turned out to be indistinguishable from zero — actually 0.0013 to two sig figs. Even when I included the 1950 fare it was still only barely higher, being 0.0017. The correlation coefficient wasn’t good, but it’s still quite compelling that the best-fit line should be nearly flat.

It didn’t help that the [...]]]> OK, so why on earth should you care about a review of a model railroad show? More generally, most of my readers aren’t the least bit interested in model railroading, so why should they bother reading this post? The answer is that any performance — whether it be a play, a concert, a translation, or a model railroad — requires a passing grade on the creation of a willing suspension of disbelief, and this weekend’s exhibit by the Northeast NTRAK Modular Railroad Club at the National Heritage Museum in Lexington, MA, did poorly on the test.

It didn’t help that the adults at the show were outnumbered by the 4- and 5-year-olds. I suppose it’s nice to see that there are still young kids who are interested in model railroads — maybe there’s a future to the hobby after all — but it made it hard to concentrate. Actually, however, made it did help in the suspension-of-disbelief department, since the young kids tended to ooh and aah loudly about the trains and the bridges, not the quality of the representations, thus encouraging belief in the reality of the model. Otherwise the issue was the constraints imposed on modules that can be interchangeably connected mean that the total layout looked like what it was: a sequence of unrelated modules. There was no overall theme, no sense that this could be a real layout. Sure, a canyon or a truss bridge or an industrial area might look authentic, but it’s not part of an authentic whole. It all reminds me of the typical Algebra II course, which consists of several vaguely related modules instead of a unifying theme — in other words, instead of a course. A model railroad should reflect some consistent big ideas; it shouldn’t just be independent modules that happen to meet at each end.

I have to admit that it will appeal strongly only to readers who are fascinated both by cartography and by railroads, and mostly to those whose railroad interests are focused on urban transit. I am a member of that small band.

I’m delighted to learn that I was wrong about the narrowness of the audience. The author has written to me from across the Pond and has let me know that “it reached number 110 on the general Amazon Sales Ranking and as [...]]]> In my review of Transit Maps of the World a couple of days ago, I made the following observation:

I have to admit that it will appeal strongly only to readers who are fascinated both by cartography and by railroads, and mostly to those whose railroad interests are focused on urban transit. I am a member of that small band.

I’m delighted to learn that I was wrong about the narrowness of the audience. The author has written to me from across the Pond and has let me know that “it reached number 110 on the general Amazon Sales Ranking and as high as Number 1, 2 and 5 in categories like Mass Transit, Atlases and Travel books.” That’s wonderful!

A participant in the HO Railroading Yahoo newsgroup asks the following: Is there any known formula for converting a N-Scale track layout to a HO track layout?

Where do I begin in explaining [...]]]> OK, this is just one example. It’s purely anecdotal evidence, and therefore it doesn’t prove anything. But it’s still indicative of a problem with adult attitudes toward math. A bit of background first: if you don’t have the good fortune to be a model railroad enthusiast, you will need to know that “HO Scale” (not gauge) is 1/87 and that “N Scale” is 1/160. Now here’s the quick anecdote:

A participant in the HO Railroading Yahoo newsgroup asks the following:

Is there any known formula for converting a N-Scale track layout to a HO track layout?

Where do I begin in explaining why this question bothers me so much? The most obvious reason is the writer’s inability to deal with fractions, even when he has a computer and therefore a calculator; he clearly can’t figure out what operation to perform on 1/87 and 1/160. Some of my ninth-graders in Weston couldn’t do that either, so I suppose it should neither surprise me nor bother me. But the main reason the query upsets me is the opening five words. “Is there any known formula?” Most formulas are the wrong way to go, as they tend to replace thinking with algorithms. Sometimes we do need formulas, but why look for one here? Surely an experienced model railroader knows that multiplying N-scale lengths by 160 gives you real-life scale (prototype, as we call it). And then dividing the real-life lengths by 87 gives you HO scale. Who needs a formula?

The full title of the book is Transit Maps of the World: The World’s First Collection of Every Urban Train Map on Earth. Wow! Author [...]]]> This gorgeous book — I might even call it stunning — must have a rather limited audience. Although I’m tempted to add it to my list of favorite books (see my profile in this blog), I have to admit that it will appeal strongly only to readers who are fascinated both by cartography and by railroads, and mostly to those whose railroad interests are focused on urban transit. I am a member of that small band.

The full title of the book is Transit Maps of the World: The World’s First Collection of Every Urban Train Map on Earth. Wow! Author Mark Ovenden and editor Mike Ashworth have done an amazing job of compiling the comprehensive collection described in the subtitle. The frontispiece promises beautiful cartography within, and the book delivers on the promise. (But there is one small glitch. What the frontispiece shows is a stylized map that at first glance looks like the London Underground, but a second glance shows that the “stations” are really cities. These are all the cities represented by maps in the book, and they’re linked together by fanciful subway lines. The commentary says this:

This captivating diagrammatic view of the cities included in this book is in the style of Harry Beck’s classic London Underground diagram. It was conceived by the author and executed at LS London by Alan Foale, who is responsible for updating the London diagram. It is also available as a full-size wall poster from London’s Transport Museum shop or online.

But, alas, I searched through the London [no “’s”] Transport Museum site to no avail.)

Anyway, among the treats awaiting the specialized reader are beautiful contemporary maps from hundreds of cities, historical maps for many of them, great photographs of stations and transit vehicles, and crisp explanatory text. Among the most attractive maps are those of obvious cities (e.g. London, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Montreal), those of less obvious cities (e.g. Madrid, Budapest, Barcelona, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Osaka), and those of thoroughly unobvious cities (e.g. Bucharest, Kiev, Prague, Cairo, Stuttgart). The blurb from The Guardian points out that the explanatory text provides a lot of background on the history of mass transit and remarks that this book is “the ideal gift for the most challenging relative.” Well, I suppose…as long as your most challenging relative is an urban-transit-and-cartography enthusiast.

Unfortunately a few of the maps did not scan well and are decidedly fuzzy. If they were printed in a larger size they might have been easier to read, but then I suppose the fuzziness would have been more obvious.

Finally, as I observed in a much earlier post (two and a half years ago in fact), my interests in cartography and model railroading share something with my interests in certain parts of mathematics: representation. Although Transit Maps of the World doesn’t deal with model railroading per se, the two topics are deeply intertwingled for those of us who model urban transit. And transit maps are especially interesting for math teachers and mathematicians, not because they are scale model of reality (similar, as we say in geometry) but precisely because they are not scale models. Riders almost always want a map to be topographically correct, but they don’t want it to be made to scale. Indeed a scale map of an urban transit system would be nearly impossible to use: either it would be much too tightly crammed together in the downtown area, or the entire map would need to be much too big. Applied geometry isn’t as simple as they taught you back in ninth grade (or tenth grade, if you’re above a certain age).

If it’s an art, you should see it in museums, right? Well, I almost saw it in a museum today — and if it weren’t for the storm, I would have. But there was no way I was going to drive to Lexington at midday today. Our excellent National Heritage Museum was sponsoring an unfortunately timed model [...]]]> Is model railroading an art, or is it a craft? Or is it just a hobby, as most people believe? Surely some would admit that it’s not only a hobby but also a craft, and perhaps there’s someone somewhere who thinks it’s an art.

If it’s an art, you should see it in museums, right? Well, I almost saw it in a museum today — and if it weren’t for the storm, I would have. But there was no way I was going to drive to Lexington at midday today. Our excellent National Heritage Museum was sponsoring an unfortunately timed model railroad exhibit sponsored by the HUB Division of the National Model Railroad Association. But I missed it.

Of course I could console myself by assuming that it probably wasn’t very good anyway. There’s at least some evidence to support this sour-grapes theory: as I reported last year, I was disappointed by their 2006 show in Marlborough. But my complaint about that one was that it was too commercial, and it seemed likely that one at the National Heritage Museum wouldn’t be. Oh, well.

But I’ve been to three other model railroad shows this year that were (at least partially) successful from my point of view. One showed model railroading as a hobby, one as a craft, and one as an art. Let’s start with the hobby first. Greenberg’s Train and Toy Show is a 30-year-old tradition that ropes in the whole family by not limiting themselves to model railroads (as you can tell from the name). This was my first visit — on November 18 in Wilmington, MA — and I was pleasantly surprised. Although there was a lot of junk, and too many tables were selling the same merchandise, there were also several high-quality layouts and a few choice vendors. It was definitely worth going to, as long as I was willing to invest a few hours to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Next comes the craft. The New England Prototype Modelers Meet — on June 3 in Collinsville, CT — was very impressive, but unfortunately over my head. No problem with chaff here! Just the opposite: I was clearly an amateur among professionals. There was amazing attention to detail, as you can see from the photo gallery. I can hold out this level of craft as an ideal, but I’ll never come close to it.

Finally, model railroading as art. The DeCordova Museum in Lincoln is hosting an elaborate exhibit called Trainscape, in which 12 artists created original works of art, all interacting with and linked by a fully functioning model railroad that passes through them:

Trainscape addresses a vital issue in the art of the early twenty-first century. Currently, many artists are actively engaged in the creation of imaginary worlds, not only with sculpture and installations, but also with painting, drawing, and photography. This impulse reflects philosophical ruminations about alternate realities, escape from the current world situation, and the use of place as an emotionally expressive device. A major theme within this exploration of parallel universes is a wide expansion of the idea of landscape sculpture (as opposed to the far more familiar “landscape painting”). Trainscape presents many alternative worlds, united only by the physical — and often conceptual — presence of the trains that travel throughout the exhibition.

The use of a miniature railroad enables DeCordova Museum to effectively present twelve separate works of contemporary installation art in a limited space, and to allow these works to be considered both separately and in juxtaposition. The miniature is also the perceptual cousin to the colossal. Tiny objects and images demand close examination, so that they fill one’s optical field in much the same way as very large visual phenomena. This close looking at small things allows for deep mental immersion as well. Trainscape thus provides enveloping journeys to cities, mountains, deserts, technological landscapes, and places of pure imagination.

Certainly their words, not mine, and surely not the way most of us think of model railroading, but it dramatically emphasizes the idea of miniature worlds and alternative representations. It’s there only through January 18, so be sure to go soon!

…affluent online gamers who lack the time and patience to work their way up to the higher levels of gamedom are willing to pay the young Chinese here to play the early rounds for them.

“For 12 hours [...]]]> According to the New York Times and NPR, wealthy online gamers are outsourcing the playing of games to Chinese workers! At first glance this sounds ridiculous: surely people who play online games enjoy playing them, so it makes no sense to outsource that activity. It still sounds somewhat ridiculous, but it turns out that there’s a method to this madness. From the NYT article:

…affluent online gamers who lack the time and patience to work their way up to the higher levels of gamedom are willing to pay the young Chinese here to play the early rounds for them.

“For 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, my colleagues and I are killing monsters,” said a 23-year-old gamer who works here in this makeshift factory and goes by the online code name Wandering. “I make about $250 a month, which is pretty good compared with the other jobs I’ve had. And I can play games all day.”

…

As they grind through the games, they accumulate virtual currency that is valuable to game players around the world. The games allow players to trade currency to other players, who can then use it to buy better armor, amulets, magic spells and other accoutrements to climb to higher levels or create more powerful characters.

I guess if you can hire someone to build your model railroad layout for you, you can also hire someone to play games for you. That’s logical, isn’t it?