The plan is really just a distorted figure 8:
SJCImage13 by Donald Schmitt, on Flickr
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
I threw away all my old MR's long ago. I think this is the track plan in question, for those of you who are wondering what people are talking about. The switchbacks to the turntable look contrived
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Hi,
I followed all of Mr. Furlow's projects in MR, and found him extremely talented - with his forte being scenery. And as mentioned earlier, he is an artist, not a "model railroad enthusiast" as some of us define it. That said, he did use the model railroad "media" with terrific results.
I happened to be in Taos NM a number of years ago and saw his exhibit of artwork. I was disappointed as there were no RR themes, but his artwork was really good.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
All fair comments above - but I think with new techniques, and flexibility. it would be pretty easy to correct any operational faults with the San Juan Central....but I must admit after looking at the design of his 2003 layout (probably never completed), it was hard to see any sense of function. I purchased all the back copies of MR from the 80s especially, which feature articles about him or by him, and it was clear back then that he had enormous influence. Incidentally I just received my layest MR - about 80 pages......back in the day it was sometimes 200 pages! I suppose I am sympathetic to Malcolm because I am an artist myself who has also built model railroads......
With all that I have read, he is an artist, not a model railroader. Model railroading was just a medium he liked working in.
I picked up many useful ideas years ago from his work.
Some who could not do this were jealous.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
BigDaddy Back in the day I was reading MR but I had no idea he was such a controversial figure.
Back in the day I was reading MR but I had no idea he was such a controversial figure.
I don't think he was so controversial - I read his articles back in the 70's and 80's - not my cup of tea but no controversy. I blame social media and forums for the controversy. In fact, it's looking like social media may be contributing to societies ills more and more, indeed, seems to show promise to aid in the demise of civilization - reputations are ruined and people made out to be monsters with the click of a mouse.
Here is what he looks like today, http://mccormickgallery.com/artists/malcolm-furlow I think will explore his videos in MRVP. His artwork, well I like the west but let me just say it is not my style.
I think will explore his videos in MRVP. His artwork, well I like the west but let me just say it is not my style.
It has always seemed clear that Furlow has a lot of artistic skill, and the same can be said for John Allen. Disneyesque, but definitely highly skilled.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Here is what he looks like today, http://mccormickgallery.com/artists/malcolm-furlow
fwright 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Have fun with your trains
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
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!'
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 get it...there is finally a great, civil discussion here...and people can't handle it! To lock this thread would be a travesty.
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/
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.
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.
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?
Yesterday I couldn't spel Engineer, today I are one...
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
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...
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
Which proves conclusively that spell checking ain't all it's cracked up to be...ha! ha!
The St. Francis Consolidated Railroad of the Colorado Rockies
Denver, Colorado
Stourbridge Lion The various fascists
The various fascists
Well, if that's the way you feel.............
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...
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
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...
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..
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Dan Metzger
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.