There definitely seems ot be a lessening of the 'rivet counter' mentality as of late - perhaps because they have a outlet to either put up or shut up, liek the RPM - although the tradtional rivet counter who would tell all in earshot all the innacruacies of your model seldom had any of his own anyway. Reading the early years of MR, there were some REALLY outspoken critics of one way or the other of doing things, and they weren't shy about saying it. Today the hobby seems more open and less 'exclusive'. There are still strong opinions on the merits of specific products, but I've seen very little of the "you're not a real modeler, you use sectional track" junk that seemed an ever-present undercurrent in the not so distant past. Instead of scorn, help is offered to the modeler to make things better with the available resources.
In direct refernce to Furlow, there were plenty of "that's not a railroad" comments following the last article he had published in MR. So it does go both ways. Hopefulyl the trnad towards less of this type of argument continues. I''ve always found this to be a friendly hobby, where we can talk about the relative merits of doing things one way versus another. I've never run into anyone in person who claimed superiority due to better operation, or nicer scenery, or whatever. Not to me, or to other mdoeleers around me. Everyone starts somehwere, and while erhaps a 4x8 is not the bets form factor for a layut, it doesn't mean you aren't a 'real' model railroader because you have one. Any more than you are more of a 'real' model railroader because you have a barn full of museum-quality layout.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
wp8thsub cuyama: All of the "operators" I know think there is plenty of room for everyone in the hobby. Malcolm didn't seem to feel that way when he spoke to Sam Posey. [snip] I don't think the nit-picking crowd ever existed to the degree it's talked about in these and other forums. And certainly not today. On the other hand, I've seen just the opposite many times. All the prototype-accuracy-oriented modelers I know of seem indifferent to Furlow, if they think of him at all. Amen Byron. The passages quoting Furlow in the Posey book show the reverse intolerance that prototype modelers and operators seem to see all too frequently.
cuyama: All of the "operators" I know think there is plenty of room for everyone in the hobby. Malcolm didn't seem to feel that way when he spoke to Sam Posey. [snip] I don't think the nit-picking crowd ever existed to the degree it's talked about in these and other forums. And certainly not today. On the other hand, I've seen just the opposite many times. All the prototype-accuracy-oriented modelers I know of seem indifferent to Furlow, if they think of him at all.
[snip]
I don't think the nit-picking crowd ever existed to the degree it's talked about in these and other forums. And certainly not today. On the other hand, I've seen just the opposite many times.
All the prototype-accuracy-oriented modelers I know of seem indifferent to Furlow, if they think of him at all.
Amen Byron. The passages quoting Furlow in the Posey book show the reverse intolerance that prototype modelers and operators seem to see all too frequently.
Maybe I don't get out like I used to but in my experience I have never seen someone get snipped because thier layout or model was TOO accurate. As I said I don't do the proto thing but that doesn't stop me from admiring the work of those who do. I think I'm pretty typical in that respect.
Have fun with your trains
rrinker There definitely seems ot be a lessening of the 'rivet counter' mentality as of late - perhaps because they have a outlet to either put up or shut up, liek the RPM - although the tradtional rivet counter who would tell all in earshot all the innacruacies of your model seldom had any of his own anyway. Reading the early years of MR, there were some REALLY outspoken critics of one way or the other of doing things, and they weren't shy about saying it. Today the hobby seems more open and less 'exclusive'. There are still strong opinions on the merits of specific products, but I've seen very little of the "you're not a real modeler, you use sectional track" junk that seemed an ever-present undercurrent in the not so distant past. Instead of scorn, help is offered to the modeler to make things better with the available resources. In direct refernce to Furlow, there were plenty of "that's not a railroad" comments following the last article he had published in MR. So it does go both ways. Hopefulyl the trnad towards less of this type of argument continues. I''ve always found this to be a friendly hobby, where we can talk about the relative merits of doing things one way versus another. I've never run into anyone in person who claimed superiority due to better operation, or nicer scenery, or whatever. Not to me, or to other mdoeleers around me. Everyone starts somehwere, and while erhaps a 4x8 is not the bets form factor for a layut, it doesn't mean you aren't a 'real' model railroader because you have one. Any more than you are more of a 'real' model railroader because you have a barn full of museum-quality layout. --Randy
Randy I suspect part of this more open attitude has more to do with three things than anything else. The first being attrition of age. The RC really hit its stride during the wild and woolly early days of scale MRing when modellers were really trying to out do each other in accuracy and really establish a level if realism apart from the Lionel type layouts that came before. These guys were working very much on thier own and as such really get entrenched in thier ways. But not its been many years since then and as such we've lost many of this generation. As they hang it up so goes the attitude they spent decades modeling by. Second there is such a plethora of accurate scale models, structures, track, and scenic materials that the dissapline needed to scratchbuild a locomotive from a set of plans doesn't really exist anymore and thirdly, we are more socially connected than any time in history. As a result we interact with people of many different ideas and approaches. That interaction tempers our attitudes when we can see and learn that there is not one way, but often many ways to do something. Maybe we should enter the Rivet Counter to the Endangered Species list.
vsmith Maybe I don't get out like I used to but in my experience I have never seen someone get snipped because thier layout or model was TOO accurate. As I said I don't do the proto thing but that doesn't stop me from admiring the work of those who do. I think I'm pretty typical in that respect.
You ARE typical, and most of us tolerate divergent approaches. I realize this is starting to veer off topic, but as a prototype modeler and operator I see plenty of the backlash exemplified by the Furlow quote Byron posted. As you and others indicate from personal observation, hopefully this is slowly going away.
Furlow admitted to being influenced by the artistry of John Allen, as many continue to be. Too many also forget that Allen was among the hobby's early proponents of realistic operation, and there was more prototyope modeling going on in Allen's work than is often realized. Despite Furlow criticizing operators for offering nothing for others to see, one of his biggest sources of inspiration proved you can have both.
Rob Spangler
Well, it is just nice to know that Malcom Furlow does not have any more interest in what I do then I ever had in anything he ever did. But unlike Furlow, I don't hold his work in contempt as he apparently does mine.
Furlow is a cartoonist, and that's fine, but it is completely outside my areas of interest. And my modeling is along the lines of Tony K in his freelance/protolance days.
I use to be well rounded until I learned what I realy liked - and it's not Malcom Furlow's work.
But, as I have said to others, my self esteem is not invested in Malcom Furlow's opinion of me or my modeling - and I'm sure the reverse is true.
All of this just reinforces my view that the hobby is becoming more splittered - by era, by modeling style, by RTR vs "builders", by prototype vs freelance, by DCC vs DC, by operators vs "display" builders, etc, etc.
It is one thing to be "tolerent", but yet another to actually be interested in all "factions" of this or any hobby. I surely am not - I don't have a enough time or enough money for that.
Sheldon
Hmmmm, lack of tolerance in Model Railroading. Say it isn't so!
As the local token O scaler, the bashing/love feast for Mr. Furlow is mild compared to getting a semi-obscure brass locomotive's boiler taper "wrong". Or, not caring about steam at all. I've been personally insulted, threatened, and otherwise called scum, simply because I don't subscribe to the Brass Is Best attitude.
I stopped reading MRR on a regular basis during the highly visual, but wildly inaccurate "Furlow Era". Just too much whimsy for me, and a lot of others. This, to me is the Furlow legacy, details just to clutter up a scene. I am an RPM modeler, working my way through the Western Maryland's late diesel fleet, and as such, that is my visual stimulation.
I'm not about to say my way is right. What I am saying is that a prototype approach to a small portion of a mid-size class 1 gives me the most satisfaction. And fun. (just as an aside, my motive power fleet is "bottom feeder" stuff, old Atlas F-9s modified as F-7s, Red Caboose GP-9s with the Roco drives, Weaver RS-3s and FA-2s, modified Weaver GP-38s and other low end locomotives. It works.)
What struck me at the time, was the condescending attitude of both sides in the debate, Prototype at all costs, and the same attitude from the "Whimsy" crowd. Where is the middle ground?
The middle ground exists when you allow it to. Me? I'm, somewhat, in the middle...I loved seeing what Malcolm would come up with as his ideas did seem to be working for him but I also loved seeing someone like Pelle coming up with his scenarios as well...both worked, for me.
As I have a habit of saying in a certain music forum I'm on..."In the war between the fanboi( RC, in this case) vs the basher( Cartoonist, in this case) can there be a little space for those of us who like what we see but would like to see some improvements as well?"
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
I think I failed to make my point in my earlier post. I appreciate the artistry Furlow brought to the hobby even though I didn't/don't model his style. I am a strictly proto/operations/era modeler, and I wouldn't want or attempt to do what Furlow did, but I appreciate the talent and artistry behind what he did. I can say the same of many of the well known layouts published over the years, that doesn't mean I want to imitate what they did, or how they did it, my hobby participation is first for my enjoyment and second, for others.
But Furlow brought a different approach, made many, including myself appreciate the hobby as a whole and be less narrow minded (not gauge). Today there are too many self proclaimed followers of certain modeling skills and habits, which is fine, but when they start verbally or in print insulting all who don't do it their way, then I retreat into the basement and have fun and forget them.
Once, when my layout was on a region tour, I had a self proclaimed genius (one who is known in the hobby) start loudly proclaiming to the audience all the mistakes I made, what he would have done, and on and on. I asked him to leave, he looked at me and made a remark about my narrow mindedness and kept on ranting. A second request to get out was needed. That is when I really started modeling to suit myself and not the audience. And that is when became very tolerant of what others do or think.
Bob
DFD26 Hi, Can anyone tell me if Malcom Furlow is still into model railroading? Thanks.
Hi, Can anyone tell me if Malcom Furlow is still into model railroading? Thanks.
Gentlemen:
The above was the OP's original question. Why must these threads always devolve into he-said, she-said, hear-say?
maxman DFD26: Hi, Can anyone tell me if Malcom Furlow is still into model railroading? Thanks. Gentlemen: The above was the OP's original question. Why must these threads always devolve into he-said, she-said, hear-say?
DFD26: Hi, Can anyone tell me if Malcom Furlow is still into model railroading? Thanks.
Agreed, Maxman.........time to lock this baby, and as far as I am concerned let's put Malcom in with hobos and graffiti as useless starting points for discussion.
The St. Francis Consolidated Railroad of the Colorado Rockies
Denver, Colorado
The beauty of this hobby is that you could build a layout that is both operational and a work of art. If you showed to to both Tony and Malcom they would both have good things to say about it.
Dan Metzger
dm9538 The beauty of this hobby is that you could build a layout that is both operational and a work of art. If you showed to to both Tony and Malcom they would both have good things to say about it.
Unfortunately, the gist of the other disagreement of narrow gaugers with Malcolm Furlow was the inoperability of his layouts. The particular case I know of was the San Juan Central, although I heard his other layouts didn't work, either. The layout served as a spectacular photo diorama that stoked a few readers to try narrow gauge, but could not get a train from A to B. There were both design and workmanship issues never mentioned in the articles. When one realizes that more than two readers have attempted to build copies of the SJC over the years....
Fred W
St Francis Consolidated RR maxman: DFD26: Hi, Can anyone tell me if Malcom Furlow is still into model railroading? Thanks. Gentlemen: The above was the OP's original question. Why must these threads always devolve into he-said, she-said, hear-say? Agreed, Maxman.........time to lock this baby, and as far as I am concerned let's put Malcom in with hobos and graffiti as useless starting points for discussion.
maxman: DFD26: Hi, Can anyone tell me if Malcom Furlow is still into model railroading? Thanks. Gentlemen: The above was the OP's original question. Why must these threads always devolve into he-said, she-said, hear-say?
Are you preparred to throw Tony Koester under the bus with Furlow as a banned subject matter? How about George Selios and David Barrow? These folks are two sides of the same coin ya know. Be carefull when you start signaling out individuals as "undesirable". All these folks have had their share of flamewars over their work over the years, does that mean we should bann anyone who sparks intense feelings, nope, of course not, we just need to be mature about it and accept that this is a big world and not everyone does things the same way.
I think this discussion has been one of the best ones on this forum in a long time, its demonstrated to me that as a whole we are far more tolerant of often wildly different approaches to the hobby yet we all get along fine. This is a marked contrast to when I started in the hobby back in the '70's.
I am a huge fan the man, but I do agree that his work is not the greatest planned stuff but then, thats not his objective, he's building dioramas, great big stageset like dioramas but thats the desired effect. Not operable but thats not the objective, there ment to be looked at as kinitic sculpture. The best Ops layouts I've seen were the Domino layouts David Barrow did, those are every bit the stageset Furlow builds in their bareness but they are not intended to be objects of scenic viewing but hard core operations layouts, so all that scenery stuff is so much unnecessary fluff. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, myself included. My Pizza layout is crammed with details, it has no Ops, well its a Pizza and theres no where to add any, its built for display to show modeling potential to newbies, and in that respect it works great, but I'm also building in Ops layout, but it will also be Furlowized detail wise, but it should be every bit as operable as Tony's layout, thats a nice "middle" to shoot for.
I don't get it...there is finally a great, civil discussion here...and people can't handle it! To lock this thread would be a travesty.
vsmith Are you preparred to throw Tony Koester under the bus with Furlow as a banned subject matter? How about George Selios and David Barrow? These folks are two sides of the same coin ya know. Be carefull when you start signaling out individuals as "undesirable".
Are you preparred to throw Tony Koester under the bus with Furlow as a banned subject matter? How about George Selios and David Barrow? These folks are two sides of the same coin ya know. Be carefull when you start signaling out individuals as "undesirable".
You're right, Vic, and I am well-rebuked; I should have been more careful. Intolerance breeds intolerance and apparently I'm not completely immune.
Odie I don't get it...there is finally a great, civil discussion here...and people can't handle it! To lock this thread would be a travesty.
I don't wish to see anyone banned from discussion. And yes, I can "handle it." However, the comments here have nothing to do with the original question. Further, if one puts Malcom Furlow into the search box, about 930 items come up about him. Many of these have the same comments, pro and con, so there is nothing new. You either like what he does or you don't. And in this particular thread, we are reduced to analyzing statements that he made that someone read in a book, so there's speculation as to his meaning and intent.
What would really make this a "civil" discussion would be if he were able to respond and defend what he may or may not have said.
I personally think Furlow had some good ideas about space and the perception of space. Two of my favorite layout are Furlow’s “San Juan Central” and Steve Pettit’s “Chamatiago & Southern”. When you are dealing with a small layout say 4'x8' or 4'x10', you almost have to go vertical to gain the appearance of space. Deeper creeks, rivers, or canyons and higher mountains or hills. I’ve read all the reasons why he left the hobby or didn’t finish some layouts that he had started, but he did give us things to think about - the verticalness of a layout (taken a lot from John Allen) and the three point perspective of how to direct the viewer while looking at the layout, and also I think he did quiet well with scenery and weathering techniques. Just some thoughts. Thank you..
As one of the Moderators here I see no need to lock the topic as long as it stays civil which it has. I have pulled a couple of posts that could have derailed the topic in the flame war to keep in on track but nothing serious worth beating anybody up over either. The various fascists of the RR hobbies should be fun and we should be open / tolerant of different ideas as nothing more then a deviation of a great hobby...
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
Stourbridge Lion The various fascists of the RR hobbies should be fun and we should be open / tolerant of different ideas as nothing more then a deviation of a great hobby...
The various fascists of the RR hobbies should be fun and we should be open / tolerant of different ideas as nothing more then a deviation of a great hobby...
Did you mean "facets", Darren?
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Stourbridge Lion The various fascists
The various fascists
Well, if that's the way you feel.............
tstage Stourbridge Lion: The various fascists of the RR hobbies should be fun and we should be open / tolerant of different ideas as nothing more then a deviation of a great hobby... Did you mean "facets", Darren? Tom
Stourbridge Lion: The various fascists of the RR hobbies should be fun and we should be open / tolerant of different ideas as nothing more then a deviation of a great hobby...
Which proves conclusively that spell checking ain't all it's cracked up to be...ha! ha!
Yesterday I couldn't spel Engineer, today I are one...
Well now, after reading all the posts I have some understanding of the issues that may or may not have led to someone dropping out of the hobby. I for one am sorry to see anyone exit the hobby as it cuts down on the number of us to support the industry as a whole. I find myself in the group that is looking for the good enough model to include scenery. I also like something that is modeled to approach reality in that it maybe condensed but does need to seem plausible. Rail served industries that do not look like the could produce 10% of a car load do not work for me, neither do passenger stations that could not accommodate 6 people with out them touching each other.
With that being said, what appeals to you is fine with me, even if it is not something that appeals to me in the sense that I would want to do something similar I can still appreciate your efforts. After all the person who needs to be pleased with our use of recreational time is ourselves.
As to Malcom Furlow, I thought he did some nice work with regard to scenery but I had no desire to build any of his projects myself. I seem to remember them as essentially glorified Christmas tree layouts and little else. There are a great many aspects of the hobby I do not participate in but I find no reason to be critical of someone who does it differently. It sounds like Mr. Furlow was not of the same tolerance level that he expected based on the posts I have seen, as if one attacks another it is only reasonable to expect a retaliatory response.
I will say this regarding the posts above, it seemed to answer the question what happened to Mr. Furlow?
vsmith I am a huge fan the man, but I do agree that his work is not the greatest planned stuff but then, thats not his objective, he's building dioramas, great big stageset like dioramas but thats the desired effect. Not operable but thats not the objective, there ment to be looked at as kinitic sculpture. The best Ops layouts I've seen were the Domino layouts David Barrow did, those are every bit the stageset Furlow builds in their bareness but they are not intended to be objects of scenic viewing but hard core operations layouts, so all that scenery stuff is so much unnecessary fluff. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, myself included. My Pizza layout is crammed with details, it has no Ops, well its a Pizza and theres no where to add any, its built for display to show modeling potential to newbies, and in that respect it works great, but I'm also building in Ops layout, but it will also be Furlowized detail wise, but it should be every bit as operable as Tony's layout, thats a nice "middle" to shoot for.
Very well said. I, too feel strongly both ways. Furlow's photos of his models were and are inspirational to me on how to generate a feeling and evoke emotions with a layout. But there is a good part of me that enjoys John Armstrong's "engineer" operations, or sometimes even "spectator" operations. Both styles of operation are that much more enjoyable when the train is traversing compelling scenery and scenes.
That's exactly what I was thinking. This discussion has been awesome. Everyone has been civil and stated their opinions/points with great thought and respect, plus I learned more about Malcolm here than I have in the past regarding what "happened"
Malcolm has been discussed numerous times on this forum, (not that long ago) and usually it got quite nasty resulted in a locked thread.
I remain a Malcolm Furlow fan simply because back in the early 80's, with a new family, I couldn't afford to get back into model railroading, diapers, formula, mortage etc. I was an armchair modeler, and picked up the book on the construction of the SJC. I wore the color off of the pages reading that book over and over again. While I admit the SJC is not the best for operation, the photography and the story telling was a wonderful enjoyment that allowed me to escape lifes realities and start to plan for my own railroad. John Olsen's book was also another favorite and I keep these mags in a special place away from all my other MRR, MRC and Gazettes.
I enjoy the whimsicle, and I enjoy prototypical operations, and everything inbetween. Presently, like most of you, I'm somewhere in the middle, I call it "proto-freelanced" and I'm having a blast.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
In recent years it seems like - in many areas - it's gotten harder to separate someone's beliefs or way of doing things from the person themselves. I can appreciate how great Malcolm's modeling was, even though he didn't do things the way I would, and didn't have the same goals I do in the hobby.
John Armstrong - a lifelong O scaler - once said something about HO modelers to the effect of 'No of course I don't hate them, even if they are terribly misguided!'
I think this discussion is part of the barrier to entry new modelers see in our current hobby. That is, if it doesn't meet a certain "prototypeness" then it isn't good model railroading.
For myself I have often been ashamed of my model railroad because it isn't big enough to include what the "more prototype than thou" mindset requires. For example, my railroad is DC, not DCC. And that's because it runs one train at a time. The industries aren't large enough to demand serious rail service. I know that's not prototype, but it's the space I have. I have eight feet on one wall for my town. Yes, the buildings aren't prototype size, but if I scaled them up, I'd have only one, not a whole town.
There was a period in MR where I almost dropped my subscription because frankly, the editorial style made me feel unwelcome in the hobby. Thankfully that period is over and the last few years have been a refreshing change.
I love the wide variety of articles in MR now. While I don't have multiple trains, I still love articles on TT&TO. Or the operators column. And especially the construction articles.
Finally, I can't finish without mentioning Pelle Soeborg. More than anyone else, his railroad and articles seem to merge the prototype mindset with the artistry of Furlow and Selios.
jmbjmbI think this discussion is part of the barrier to entry new modelers see in our current hobby. That is, if it doesn't meet a certain "prototypeness" then it isn't good model railroading.
I can't recall a single post in this thread that made that point. To which one are you referring?
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
jmbjmb I think this discussion is part of the barrier to entry new modelers see in our current hobby. That is, if it doesn't meet a certain "prototypeness" then it isn't good model railroading. For myself I have often been ashamed of my model railroad because it isn't big enough to include what the "more prototype than thou" mindset requires. For example, my railroad is DC, not DCC. And that's because it runs one train at a time. The industries aren't large enough to demand serious rail service. I know that's not prototype, but it's the space I have. I have eight feet on one wall for my town. Yes, the buildings aren't prototype size, but if I scaled them up, I'd have only one, not a whole town. There was a period in MR where I almost dropped my subscription because frankly, the editorial style made me feel unwelcome in the hobby. Thankfully that period is over and the last few years have been a refreshing change. I love the wide variety of articles in MR now. While I don't have multiple trains, I still love articles on TT&TO. Or the operators column. And especially the construction articles. Finally, I can't finish without mentioning Pelle Soeborg. More than anyone else, his railroad and articles seem to merge the prototype mindset with the artistry of Furlow and Selios.
Dont worry, stick with it, it eventually goes away, especially once you can accept that your building for no one but yourself, so dont worry about what others think, it isnt their RR is it. Its only what you find enjoyable. I've always said Theres no wrong way to build a model railroad, if the end results are satisfying to you, then how you got there doesnt matter.
That was one of the things I've learned from guys like Furlow, but also Tony Koester, John Allen, John Olsen, George Selios, John Barrow, Robert Hegges and others. Whatever their varied personal phylosophies or prejudices might be I dont concern myself with, I just like the work. While I love Furlows work, would I get along with him personally? politically? I dont know, maybe not, but I'm not going to let that stop me from enjoying the end product . Its like art or music, while I cannot stomach Richard Wagners personal beliefs, I am still enthralled by his music.
I have Model Railroader in front of me right now at the article about Furlow - September 2003...
I can see how the images would upset some purists - but I also see how brilliant his concept was. I think the following issues of MR had letters which were highly critical. And I suspect that Furlow all along as an artist was highly sensitive to criticism. My guess it that he trashed this layout and got out of the hobby. I guess he is in his 70s now, and I find it sad that MR closed their file on him after that September issue. I have emailed MR a few times re all this and I must say that the replies aren't that helpful. I always hoped that someone somehow would update him, and pay homage top his special vision. Apologies for revisiting this old story.