Why is Koester's Allegheny Midland a Landmark Layout?

[Autobus Prime]

Randy,I will split hairs here..I believe Doug Smith's layout may have been the first on prototype style operation with waybills/car cards while Tony's and Allen's layout was the first true freelance railroads based on prototyical disciplines and prototypical operation.I can't recall anybody that introduce those freelance railroad disciplines before those two.

B:

Oh, come now.  There was this man named Frank Ellison, and I don't recall the Delta Lines being in the Handy Railroad Atlas.  And Ellison didn't invent Operations, either. 

Prototypical disciplines and prototypical operation have been around for a long time.  A lot of things in this hobby that seem new aren't inventions but reinventions.  Nothing wrong with that.  Still, we shouldn't forget the earliest practitioners.

 

 

Not even close here.We are talking 2 different things.Freelance railroads following strick guide lines based on prototype principles as well as prototype operation far more then Frank's theory..

 

http://users.foxvalley.net/~osn/FrankEllison1995.htm

 

B:

What you describe is refinement, but in the post I was replying to you were speaking of invention.  Between Ellison and Smith there was a lot of refinement, too.  Nor did Ellison invent realistic operation.  I think if we were able to dig every last bit up, we'd find out that it's as old as the hobby.

Some of the guidelines for operation, fifty-odd years ago, were even stricter than are common today. 

Doesn't anybody read the old books any more?  They're still out there.

Were all these guidelines commonly accepted by most MRR'ers then? Good question.  Probably not.  Is realistic operation commonly accepted by most MRR'ers now? Also a good question. Probably not. 

 

[BRAKIE]

Randy,I will split hairs here..I believe Doug Smith's layout may have been the first on prototype style operation with waybills/car cards while Tony's and Allen's layout was the first true freelance railroads based on prototyical disciplines and prototypical operation.I can't recall anybody that introduce those freelance railroad disciplines before those two.

B:

Oh, come now.  There was this man named Frank Ellison, and I don't recall the Delta Lines being in the Handy Railroad Atlas.  And Ellison didn't invent Operations, either. 

Prototypical disciplines and prototypical operation have been around for a long time.  A lot of things in this hobby that seem new aren't inventions but reinventions.  Nothing wrong with that.  Still, we shouldn't forget the earliest practitioners.

 

 

Not even close here.We are talking 2 different things.Freelance railroads following strick guide lines based on prototype principles as well as prototype operation far more then Frank's theory..

 

http://users.foxvalley.net/~osn/FrankEllison1995.htm

 

[andrechapelon]

Andre

I apologize for misreading your post, and misrepresenting you and your opinions of the MR staff.  I still agree with both you and George - complaining in a serious manner about somebody else's opinion of a third party is on the comical side, but an all too common human trait.

No problem.

Besides, since this forum is about model railroading, you'll never see my rants about the editors of Golf Digest. Calling THEM morons is actually praising them.

Andre

 

[fwright]

"Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!"

"But you have heard of me!"

-George

 

That and Andre's comment about the moronic staff at MR choosing the wrong "landmark layouts" are what has made this thread worth wasting the 10 minutes it took me to wade through it.  Thank you, gentlemen.

Fred W 

Well, it's not gentlemanly to call someone a moron.  That's rough.  I for one think the folks at MR are highly talented, creative, thoughtful people...and obviously intelligent.  Try editing a magazine sometime. 

 

Er, uh, I was referring to the editors of Motor Trend  as "morons" and I was being thouroughly tongue in cheek when I did it. I don't really care who makes the "Car Of The Year". Nor do I particularly care if Model Railroader picks TK's AM as a landmark layout. What I find funny are the complaints about who MR has or has not chosen to qualify as having a "landmark" layout.

Andre

I apologize for misreading your post, and misrepresenting you and your opinions of the MR staff.  I still agree with both you and George - complaining in a serious manner about somebody else's opinion of a third party is on the comical side, but an all too common human trait.

True, it's not gentlemanly to call someone a moron.  But we all tend to think it in our blackest of hearts when another person(s) hold an opinion in opposition to ours for what appears to be less than brilliant reasons.  And a very few of us (could that be me?  ) can't seem to stop those dark thoughts from escaping at times. 

Wish I was witty enough to leave this thread on a high note, but I'm not, so I'll just leave.

Fred W 

[shayfan84325]

As I recall, the Landmark Layout series is part of the MR 75th anniversary celebration.  It seems that they are looking back at 3/4 century as a journey and telling us about some of the noteworthy sights along the way.  If someone travels across Wyoming and tells folks how spectacular Old Faithful is, but they don't mention Devil's Tower, does that mean Devil's Tower is not as good?  I don't think so.

When the NBA celebrated their 50th anniversary, they named the 50 best players in order - now that started some arguements!

I think MR is wise to call them landmarks and leave it at that.  I don't think they ever intended it to be the MR Hall of Fame, but rather a collection of noteworthy experiences from their publishing journey.  It's their story to tell and it's up to them to tell it the way they want.  I think it was wise not to select a "12 best of all time" and then count down to number 1 - note my comment about the NBA, above - and I don't see it as a slam to any layout that was not included (in this hobby 12 layouts is a pretty small number). 

What I like about the series is looking back on some great work of years past.  I especially admire the great work from the era before ground foam, DCC, and good acrylic paint (model railroading's equivalent to the dead ball era in baseball).  It was especially tough to achieve realism with colored sawdust and lichen.

[andrechapelon]

"Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!"

"But you have heard of me!"

-George

 

That and Andre's comment about the moronic staff at MR choosing the wrong "landmark layouts" are what has made this thread worth wasting the 10 minutes it took me to wade through it.  Thank you, gentlemen.

Fred W 

Well, it's not gentlemanly to call someone a moron.  That's rough.  I for one think the folks at MR are highly talented, creative, thoughtful people...and obviously intelligent.  Try editing a magazine sometime. 

 

Er, uh, I was referring to the editors of Motor Trend  as "morons" and I was being thouroughly tongue in cheek when I did it. I don't really care who makes the "Car Of The Year". Nor do I particularly care if Model Railroader picks TK's AM as a landmark layout. What I find funny are the complaints about who MR has or has not chosen to qualify as having a "landmark" layout.

Were it my job to pick 12 North American based landmark layouts to highlight this year, they would be (in no particular order):

1. Allen McClelland's V&O.

2. John Allen's G&D (yeah, yeah, I know the complaints that will come and I'm not picking it on the basis of "realism").

3. Eric Brooman's Utah Belt.

4. Tony Koester's AM

5. Jack Burgess's Yosemite Valley

6. John Armstrong's Canadaigua Southern

7. Reid Brother's Cumberland Valley

8. Frank Ellison's Delta Lines

9. Whit Towers' Alturas & Lone Pine

10. Paul Larson's Mineral Point & Northern

11. Ed Ravenscroft's Glencoe Skokie Valley

12. Bruce Chubb's original Sunset Valley.

----------------------------------------

Overseas:

Germany: Rolf Ertmer's "Altenbeken"

UK: Peter Denny's "Buckingham Branch"

The above are the only two I can think of at the minute. There was one O fine scale London & Northwestern layout written up in MR in the early 60's, but I don't remember the name. It was impressive however, being a model of the L&NW about 1910 or so.

Andre

 

 

 

 

 

[concretelackey]

Got a question..... Have the editors at MR ever publicly defined THEIR parameters for what qualifys as a Landmark Layout?

 

[PA&ERR]

To set the record straight...

I was merely commenting on the somewhat caprious nature of noteriety. Andre was referring to the editors of MT (Motor Trend) as morons, not the editors of Model Railroader.

I, for one, have the highest regard for the staff of MR, TK and the Alleghany Midland.  

-George

[SBCA]

It's kind of ironic that Model Railroader would choose a layout they virtually ignored for so long(The AM appeared much more in RMC than in MR, until the last few years. In fact, it was almost never mentioned in MR - at least, not so prominently that I remember it, and I've read MR for over 30 years now) as one they would categorize as a "landmark." If Koester's column appeared RMC and NOT MR, would MR have selected his layout?

I agree, I have subscribed to both MR and RMC for over 35 years and the Allegheny Midland just does not stand out in my memory.  If there was ever a trackplan and article about the layout, I am sure I saw it; but I just don't remember it.  TK's articles are different - I have read many of those and continue to enjoy his column in MR and the annual Layout Planning issue.  But the AM layout--- for me it's not even a wide spot in the road much less a landmark.

Enjoy

Paul 

 

Tony's layout was the cover story in December, 1987.  Then there was the pretty big "coal fork extension" series in, I believe, the late 80's.

I would like to see some more in-depth coverage of his newer layout!

[joe-daddy]

It's kind of ironic that Model Railroader would choose a layout they virtually ignored for so long(The AM appeared much more in RMC than in MR, until the last few years. In fact, it was almost never mentioned in MR - at least, not so prominently that I remember it, and I've read MR for over 30 years now) as one they would categorize as a "landmark." If Koester's column appeared RMC and NOT MR, would MR have selected his layout?

B:

Possibly because TK was once editor of RMC.

Not possibly, but probably! 

 

Is there any danger of RMC ever declaring David Popp's a landmark railroad?

 

Joe 

[shawnee]

"Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!"

"But you have heard of me!"

-George

That and Andre's comment about the moronic staff at MR choosing the wrong "landmark layouts" are what has made this thread worth wasting the 10 minutes it took me to wade through it.  Thank you, gentlemen.

Fred W 

Well, it's not gentlemanly to call someone a moron.  That's rough.  I for one think the folks at MR are highly talented, creative, thoughtful people...and obviously intelligent.  Try editing a magazine sometime. 

 

[on30francisco]

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD

JOHN ALLEN

Credo in unum Deum. 

[IRONROOSTER]

It's kind of ironic that Model Railroader would choose a layout they virtually ignored for so long(The AM appeared much more in RMC than in MR, until the last few years. In fact, it was almost never mentioned in MR - at least, not so prominently that I remember it, and I've read MR for over 30 years now) as one they would categorize as a "landmark." If Koester's column appeared RMC and NOT MR, would MR have selected his layout?

I agree, I have subscribed to both MR and RMC for over 35 years and the Allegheny Midland just does not stand out in my memory.  If there was ever a trackplan and article about the layout, I am sure I saw it; but I just don't remember it.  TK's articles are different - I have read many of those and continue to enjoy his column in MR and the annual Layout Planning issue.  But the AM layout--- for me it's not even a wide spot in the road much less a landmark.

Enjoy

Paul 

 

[fwright]

"Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!"

"But you have heard of me!"

-George

That and Andre's comment about the moronic staff at MR choosing the wrong "landmark layouts" are what has made this thread worth wasting the 10 minutes it took me to wade through it.  Thank you, gentlemen.

Fred W 

[Autobus Prime]

It's kind of ironic that Model Railroader would choose a layout they virtually ignored for so long(The AM appeared much more in RMC than in MR, until the last few years. In fact, it was almost never mentioned in MR - at least, not so prominently that I remember it, and I've read MR for over 30 years now) as one they would categorize as a "landmark." If Koester's column appeared RMC and NOT MR, would MR have selected his layout?

B:

Possibly because TK was once editor of RMC.

[Pruitt]

It's kind of ironic that Model Railroader would choose a layout they virtually ignored for so long(The AM appeared much more in RMC than in MR, until the last few years. In fact, it was almost never mentioned in MR - at least, not so prominently that I remember it, and I've read MR for over 30 years now) as one they would categorize as a "landmark." If Koester's column appeared RMC and NOT MR, would MR have selected his layout?

[Autobus Prime]

Randy,I will split hairs here..I believe Doug Smith's layout may have been the first on prototype style operation with waybills/car cards while Tony's and Allen's layout was the first true freelance railroads based on prototyical disciplines and prototypical operation.I can't recall anybody that introduce those freelance railroad disciplines before those two.

B:

Oh, come now.  There was this man named Frank Ellison, and I don't recall the Delta Lines being in the Handy Railroad Atlas.  And Ellison didn't invent Operations, either. 

Prototypical disciplines and prototypical operation have been around for a long time.  A lot of things in this hobby that seem new aren't inventions but reinventions.  Nothing wrong with that.  Still, we shouldn't forget the earliest practitioners.

 

[cregil]

We enjoy what we enjoy; our layout's style and method are to please ourselves.  We appreciate what we appreciate in layouts of others.   What I am trying to figure out is what purpose this thread holds.  

And I ask myself that question as rhetorically as I THOUGHT the thread title was rhetorical.  But instead of reading about others pondering why it is, this thread seems to be about why it really isn't. 

There are obvious reasons why TK's layout is featured, first and foremost is that his work is unquestionably at a very high level of excellence--beyond anything I'll ever accomplish.  

But stating the obvious is no more satisfying than reading dozens of posts amounting to sniper fire-- aiming at a target when making sure your own work is not up for the same level of criticism. 

My real reason for posting, besides taking my own parting shot, is to turn off the "email me replies to this post."   It is depressing to know that such zeal exists in the hobby for attacking the work of others.

[jfugate]

I don't think anyone would disagree that Allen McClelland's V&O layout was a landmark layout.

Tony-the-K's A&M was the first well-published layout that *applied* the proto-freelance design principles Allen espoused in the V&O series ... and we can always use more examples of how to *apply* layout design principles. You don't have to be a marvelous innovator -- just very good at showing us all a detailed example of a medium-sized layout that consistently applied the principles.

Layout design examples where the reasoning is explained thoroughly are pretty rare. 

For that reason, the A&M was a landmark layout.

[PA&ERR]

"Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!"

"But you have heard of me!"

-George

[SpaceMouse]

Why is this such a big issue?

Nine times out of ten, I don't agree with "Motor Trend" when they announce their car of the year. I don't write long, nasty complaints about their choice, I simply note that, once again, the staff of MT consists of morons and move on with more interesting stuff.

Like removing the lint out of my navel.

Andre

I was just thinking that 9 out of 10 doctors recommend Kent cigarettes.

 

[BRAKIE]

The why is simple..The AM was among the first true freelance railroads designed on prototypical disciplines and operation not on a hodge podge collection of road names under the guise of a "freelance" railroad.Freelance railroads such as the V&O,AM,A&LP,Sunset Route and other such freelance roads set the stage for prototyical designed and operated layouts far more then other so called "freelance" railroads that was no more then a "paper" railroad because you seldom seen locomotives and cars lettered for the freelanced railroads

Rather than "The AM was among the first true freelance railroads designed on prototypical disciplines and operation" perhaps that should read "The AM was among the first PUBLISHED true freelance railroads designed on prototypical disciplines and operation"?

Being published doesn't mean it was a "first", just first published and possibly, in all the examples given. "The first published North American......." would be a better description?

Randy,I will split hairs here..I believe Doug Smith's layout may have been the first on prototype style operation with waybills/car cards while Tony's and Allen's layout was the first true freelance railroads based on prototyical disciplines and prototypical operation.I can't recall anybody that introduce those freelance railroad disciplines before those two.

[andrechapelon]

Why is this such a big issue?

Nine times out of ten, I don't agree with "Motor Trend" when they announce their car of the year. I don't write long, nasty complaints about their choice, I simply note that, once again, the staff of MT consists of morons and move on with more interesting stuff.

Like removing the lint out of my navel.

Andre

[Autobus Prime]

Folks:

So what's wrong with toys?  Everybody I know has their toys.  Mine are just cheaper and don't need all the gasoline and paperwork.  I wish MR would put that famous slogan back on the cover.  I miss it, although the sense of perspective it signified *does* seem to be returning, lately. 

I think we should feel free to criticize Furlow, Koester, Allen, Six, Soeberg, Schopp, Moore, La Nal, Kalbfleisch, Findlay, Towers, and whoever in the classical sense, but never in the popular sense.  To say somebody's hobby is wrongly practiced is always a mistake, but analyzing their methods is a great idea.   A movie critic and a literary critic don't always disparage and they don't always praise.  What they do is look into things.  So should we, whatever our skill level.

I'm not as good a modeler as Furlow, but I do know what I like.  I don't really like the whimsical stuff.  However, I'm quite sure that was a conscious decision.  "Velvet Elvis" talk is uncalled for.  Furlow is an artist.  He went for a specific feeling and achieved it.

At the other end, we have people modeling the typical stuff.  I sometimes like this, but not always.  Indeed, it sometimes seems to me that there is very little out there, in the real world, that is typical.  I think, for instance, that if you build a model of a typical barn, and everything about it is standard, that it often doesn't look right - it's *too* typical, and looks like a movie set.  Vary just one detail slightly, and the look improves.  We are quirky people in a quirky world.

So what do I like? I like what looks right. I like what looks interesting. I'm not entirely sure what that is, yet.  I also like trains. Trains are cool. I need to spend more time on the cool trains and less time on the forums.

[shawnee]

Gasp! I just spent the weekend driving down to Beatty, Rhyolite, Death Valley Junction and Goldfield to do research, take photos and collect dirt and talings samples for my model railroad. I guess that would make me one of those “too serious” model railroaders like TK. I should just run a GG1 from Death Valley Junction to Ryan, after all they are “just toys”. No thank you.

This thread is filled with all of the usual silly attacks on well-known model railroaders, and those with interests in prototypical modeling. It is filled with clichés about models having electrical motors so they must be toys. The part that I really get tired of is the “there are thousands of model railroads out there that are as good or better than ______________” (fill in the blank with the name of someone whose road is often featured in MR or RMC). I have been modeling railroads since college and have literally seen hundreds if not thousands of model railroads over the years and it is total nonsense that there are numerous great model railroads out there that MR ignores. Maybe 1 in 500 might be good enough to ever get in any of the magazines and very few have the talent, modeling skill and photographic abilities to be considered in the same league with TK and the others denigrated in this thread. People often forget that the camera brings out all of the flaws in a model. What looks good or decent in person will often look really lame when photographed. Those that are able to produce photos that really stand out and be acceptable for publication are rare individuals. Sure, there are differences in style and I prefer the realistic prototypical modeling of a TK or Jim Six to the caricature style of a Malcolm Furlow, but I still appreciate the skill that went into the model and photograph.

This thread reminds me of a fellow I knew at the hobby shop who would tell anyone who would listen about how MR rejected his manuscript and how they were a bunch elitist jerks who would only publish material from a few of their personal friends. When he finally showed me the manuscript I was amazed at how bad it was. There is a lot of self-delusion and sour grapes in this thread.

My point is that it takes more than just skill, talent and photographic ability to get to where Tony Koester is.  And that the argument over "Landmark Layouts" is a slightly silly one.

But I do believe that the AM was a bit overexposed and overextrapolated.  I'm kinda glad he tore it down and is starting up a new one.  Enough with the AM already.  New photos! 

[ARTHILL]

To be a landmark anything, it has to be:

1. Innovative or unique,

2. Noticed.

This layout is both. There are many unique and innovative layouts that are just not noticed. There are many people who privately invent or perfect something all at the same time. The noticed one gets the credit. That's just the way it is.

However, Though I have been inspired by John Allen for ever, and have worked at improving on his ideas, I have yet to be as good as he was. Maybe that is also part of the landmark designation, though many do something, someone does it slightly better.

 

[NevinW]

Gasp! I just spent the weekend driving down to Beatty, Rhyolite, Death Valley Junction and Goldfield to do research, take photos and collect dirt and talings samples for my model railroad. I guess that would make me one of those “too serious” model railroaders like TK. I should just run a GG1 from Death Valley Junction to Ryan, after all they are “just toys”. No thank you.

This thread is filled with all of the usual silly attacks on well-known model railroaders, and those with interests in prototypical modeling. It is filled with clichés about models having electrical motors so they must be toys. The part that I really get tired of is the “there are thousands of model railroads out there that are as good or better than ______________” (fill in the blank with the name of someone whose road is often featured in MR or RMC). I have been modeling railroads since college and have literally seen hundreds if not thousands of model railroads over the years and it is total nonsense that there are numerous great model railroads out there that MR ignores. Maybe 1 in 500 might be good enough to ever get in any of the magazines and very few have the talent, modeling skill and photographic abilities to be considered in the same league with TK and the others denigrated in this thread. People often forget that the camera brings out all of the flaws in a model. What looks good or decent in person will often look really lame when photographed. Those that are able to produce photos that really stand out and be acceptable for publication are rare individuals. Sure, there are differences in style and I prefer the realistic prototypical modeling of a TK or Jim Six to the caricature style of a Malcolm Furlow, but I still appreciate the skill that went into the model and photograph.

This thread reminds me of a fellow I knew at the hobby shop who would tell anyone who would listen about how MR rejected his manuscript and how they were a bunch elitist jerks who would only publish material from a few of their personal friends. When he finally showed me the manuscript I was amazed at how bad it was. There is a lot of self-delusion and sour grapes in this thread.

[shawnee]

It is true that Tony Koester is a passionate advocate for the hobby, an avid popularizer of prototype approaches and a relentless self-promoter of his own layout.  To me, the thing with the "Landmark Layout" piece was...great, more shots of ther same pictures of the AM we've already seen before.  But the upside is, hey, now you don't have to buy his book on coal railroading. 

Tony K clearly is a great modeler, but no better than a few of the folks whose work I've seen on this forum.  Seems to me what really separates him is that he's an interesting and prolific writer, and that he's an activist with a solid connection into a means of distribution.  There is no denying he has had a positive and widespread impact on the hobby.  Sometimes people just get a nod for that.  So they called it a landmark layout. Ok, so what.  Fine with me.  I'm gonna go walk the dog. 

[marknewton]

Toi each his own, I make my living at prototypical modeling as well architectural modeling my trains are toys used to relieve the stress of everyday life. It just annoys the crap out of me when someone like TK chritizes people who don't do what he does.

When and where did he do that? In this thread? On this forum? In his articles?

So I don't do research at the US geological service to find out the mineral content of the rock formations in the area I'm modeling so the ballast I use isn't 100% correct for that area or I'm pulling a freight car in my consist that wasn't out till 1959 and I'm modeling 1957. Does it really ammount to a hill of beans?

I've never seen a hill of beans, so I wouldn't like to say. But for a bloke who is annoyed crapless by someone who criticizes those who don't do what he dies, you're not averse to doing a bit yourself.

Can anyone here read those production dates on an HO or an N gage car as it goes by you at a prototypical 25 or 30 mph?

Yes, I can. Can't you? Perhaps you need to see an ophthalmologist?

If you get the warm and fuzzy's by having all those little details in order and 100% correct then cudo's to you. But until you can show me a working live steam engine in HO or an RS3 that reaks of diesel oil then your not prototypicly 100% correct.

I can show you working N scale live steam, let alone HO - that can be bought of the shelf. Don't know anything about HO diesels though, I suspect they might be a bit harder to come by.

But it hardly matters, it's a strawman argument at best. I don't claim to be 100% protypical, and I don't run model steam engines or diesels - only electrics. Even if I did, the idea that anything less than live steam or diesels means that our modelling is no more than "playing with toys" is nonsense.

As I noted earlier, you're entitled to define your hobby for yourself as you see fit - but leave others to do the same for themselves.