ATLANTIC CENTRAL Sir Madog It must be a cultural issue - the rather liberal use of the word "art" in the US. Outside of the US hardly anybody regards his/her skillfully made layout as a work of art - more of a job of a talented and gifted craftsman. I´d never engage into a discussion about the job of a skilled craftsman without being on par level with him/her. Politeness and good manners is another issue - or the lack of it. I could say I am equally bored with your reply, but the education I received does not allow such rudeness. Well, I have to agree that considering the skill of model train or layout building an "art", or my carpentry skills an "art", is not inside my definition of "art" - but Howard called it art. I politely avoided that part of the conversation in my earlier replies. But anyone can look at my carpentry and know that it is either good or bad - they need not be a master historic restoration carpenter......... Sheldon
Sir Madog It must be a cultural issue - the rather liberal use of the word "art" in the US. Outside of the US hardly anybody regards his/her skillfully made layout as a work of art - more of a job of a talented and gifted craftsman. I´d never engage into a discussion about the job of a skilled craftsman without being on par level with him/her. Politeness and good manners is another issue - or the lack of it. I could say I am equally bored with your reply, but the education I received does not allow such rudeness.
It must be a cultural issue - the rather liberal use of the word "art" in the US.
Outside of the US hardly anybody regards his/her skillfully made layout as a work of art - more of a job of a talented and gifted craftsman.
I´d never engage into a discussion about the job of a skilled craftsman without being on par level with him/her.
Politeness and good manners is another issue - or the lack of it. I could say I am equally bored with your reply, but the education I received does not allow such rudeness.
Well, I have to agree that considering the skill of model train or layout building an "art", or my carpentry skills an "art", is not inside my definition of "art" - but Howard called it art. I politely avoided that part of the conversation in my earlier replies.
But anyone can look at my carpentry and know that it is either good or bad - they need not be a master historic restoration carpenter.........
Sheldon
My youngest daughter , in her late 20s , when she took a good look at my layout told me, it is an art just like painting or photography, just a different medium. As to dark room magic, it is a ton easier today with photoshop and such programs.
Mike
riogrande5761 Sir Madog John Allen was way ahead of the crowd. Those among us, who say that the G&D was not realistic or too Disney like have to match their own layouts with it - I bet they´ll lose that match! *Yawn* Thats like saying you can't be an art critic without being a top talent artist. Baloney. Same for music or anything else. It's obvious I am not alone in my opinion because it's already been echoed. Please don't get me wrong, JA oozed artistic talent both in his layout and is photographic skills - he had tons of talent artistically, but not every art critic loves every top artists work and just because they don't love it doesn't mean they, and others like they arent legitimately entitled to their opinion.
Sir Madog John Allen was way ahead of the crowd. Those among us, who say that the G&D was not realistic or too Disney like have to match their own layouts with it - I bet they´ll lose that match!
*Yawn* Thats like saying you can't be an art critic without being a top talent artist. Baloney. Same for music or anything else. It's obvious I am not alone in my opinion because it's already been echoed. Please don't get me wrong, JA oozed artistic talent both in his layout and is photographic skills - he had tons of talent artistically, but not every art critic loves every top artists work and just because they don't love it doesn't mean they, and others like they arent legitimately entitled to their opinion.
Well said!
Again, for me, I fully acknowledge the influence, tallent and skills of Allen or Sellios, but their "style" is not for me, so they never "inspired" me........
While only being a minor contributor, my own scenery/structure building skills were good enough at age 16 to be included on the much published Severna Park Model Railroad Club.
But what do I know, I'm just a hick with a pickup and and some little trains with no brains.......
Sir MadogJohn Allen was way ahead of the crowd. Those among us, who say that the G&D was not realistic or too Disney like have to match their own layouts with it - I bet they´ll lose that match!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
mlehmanIn the end, there's not much "blame" for changing the hobby to go around. Would people really want to be stuck in 1945 and what we had available then? I wasn't around, but I can read the old issues in the archive and figure out that I'm pretty glad people like JA were pushing the envelope, each in their own way.
You wasn't there when the real push was started. The steam boys had their finely detail brass steam engines we diesel fans had well not much to brag about.
Then came the detailers of diesel locomotives had articles in RMC and few in MR. John may have had his G&D but,we young modelers want more detail diesels then fantasy layouts. It was a uphill battle to get here from there. Wasn't for the constant push to raise the bar we would not have the models we have today.Athearn,Atlas and Walthers said such details could not be done in plastic because of the production costs. Then BOOM! A company that well known for cheap train set cars and locomotives show it could be done.The mystery is why did they choose a caboose and shortly after the BL2 as the prototype for their P2K line?
Advancements in layout design took off with several well known modelers layouts starting in the late 60s.
The new trend layout setters was Sunset Valley,V&O,AM CM&SF and several others. Today those topnotch layouts has been replace with the ultra layouts that's found in the pages of MR and RMC and can be seen in videos.
The G&D like all famous layouts of its day had its glory hour and its place in the annuals of model railroad history.
The sad side young modelers today talk more of Pelle Soeborg,Tony Koester, Allen McCelleland,Lance Mindheim,Eric Brooman,Bill Darnaby and the other modern greats.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIEMike,John was a photographer and I recall several discussions at Hall's hobby shop about possible "dark room magic" that enhance his photos and that's where I learn about the distaste for the G&D. Make no mistake these guys was modelers that could scratch build a steam or diesel locomotive and had far more then your "plywood pacific" as a layout.
Larry,
I think we all know how easy it is to be a critic. The internet has only made it easier. Personally, I find the tendency to cut down others work to be rather depressing -- and useless besides.
Was there some "dark room magic" involved? Maybe, maybe not, I only have what's in the press to go by. But to me it wouldn't matter much anyway. Some believe that pics are supposed to be exact copies of what is depicted, just as some believe that prototype modeling is mostly about making exact replicas of the 1:1. To me, both ideas miss the point, are rarely if ever achieved, and set standards that are as likely to drive people from the hobby as high prices, stuffed shirt "experts," and the lack of RTR stuff in whatever particular prototype they favor. Frankly, that sort of stuff is about not having fun. We all fall short of perfection, some of us just laugh that off...and others obsess about it.
And what gets published isn't about showing the absolute best/top of class/blue ribbon/whatever stuff. Nope, it's about what publishers find sells magazines, first of all, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to read or see. The internet has rather caused people to forget how little and slow the content was that was portioned out before things went online.
What gets published is also about what is informative or inspirational. I think JA helped with both, not so people could do it all just like him, but so they'd start to think outside the spaghetti bowl. Now some would say that's exactly what he did, but it's not. He took the spaghetti and disguised it...the first step in the long road to the now widely accepted linear, once through a scene layouts of today. He also got people thinking more about their layouts as railroads. Sure, Ellison came before and laid out the theory, but it was Allen who built and publicized what the results of that could be.
No, John wasn't the daddy of every decent layout we've seen since. What he did was start breaking down some fixed ideas about what a layout should look like and do. Sure, it wasn't ops as we know them now, but it was definitely in the first few steps of the long journey to where it is now.
And no one is going back and unpublishing what he did. It may be dated, less comprehensive than some have argued over the years, and yes, probably overexposed. But he made a credible effort that has stood the test of time far better than some are willing to give him credit for. Those who find more modern efforts to look up to are selling JA short by insisting that his influence is over-rated. The responses he drew, both good AND bad, got people motivated to try their hand at what might best be termed "high concept" model railroading. All those named as representing something "better" than what the G&D was probably wouldn't have got where they were without the inspiration that Allen provided, in part. Sure, they had the benefit of improved technology, more developments in the art of scenery (probably where the influence of techniques from outside the hobby comes into play visually), and the experience of thousands of modelers who found inspiration in what JA did and tried things they never would've thought about much because he stirred the pot to get folks to think bigger and better. Just because there is lots of bigger and better now should not be used to diminish his contributions.
In the end, there's not much "blame" for changing the hobby to go around. Would people really want to be stuck in 1945 and what we had available then? I wasn't around, but I can read the old issues in the archive and figure out that I'm pretty glad people like JA were pushing the envelope, each in their own way.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Howard,I wish you the best in your endeavor of writing a book. I would probably glance through it but,could write many books on the history-good long term memory but,don't ask what I had for breakfast three days ago.
John's layout was advanced but,there were others MR and RMC shun except for a glance in trackside photos but,time for the G&D was running short the hobby started its turn-the old heads blamed us younger modelers for never being satisfied.. To us youngsters our new heroes was the diesel locomotive super detailers and later Extra 2200 South became our choice magazine. I dunno of any modeler my age back then that wasn't detailing his Athearn,Trains Inc, Alco Models or Hallmark diesel locomotives. We didn't mind the noise.
My grandson's generation of modelers will push this hobby forward as far as details,electronic doodads and believability..
I for one would probably have to buy the book, but then, I'm one of your friends, or would like to think I am, anyway, lol.
I read your first book, almost every word (the various chapter subjects can/do allow one to read chapters out of order) and found it to be a great read--both entertaining and fascinating at the same time. The layout photos are marvelous. Considering that I tire of most train books and sell them after I've read them, but I somehow keep re-reading yours, I think you did a great job. (I actually only own 3 other train books, the rest I sold or gave away).
I think this hobby is art; my other avocation is playing trumpet...
The point is I definitely see where the eye of the professionally trained artist results in much better modeling. Heck--even to weather freight cars and not ruin them is an art all by itself!
I would definitely support a book effort that focuses more on the artistic side of model railroading, just as I would an effort that talks about prototype civil engineering practice versus realism in modeling.
I also would appreciate another book on the art of brass models, as there's many models whose photos have not been published anywhere. I like photo guides. What better way to sell the future of the hobby?
My 2c, since you asked.
John
Regarding realism in modeling, there are just certain things that I see, as an engineer, that I know you would not ever see in real life, because structurally they wouldn't work, but would fail...so I see earlier layouts as whimsical or Disneylike because although some were very artistic, they pushed the reality of what a real railroad would have built to or beyond extremes.
One of the reasons I introduced this thread was to actually see how much interest there is in the art and design phase of model railroads....espcicially by younger train nuts. Some may have seen my book....."Howard Zane, My Life With Model Trains".......this was a trial for my major project still in planning stage. I was/am (if I don't croak up from old age first) planning on writing a book on the fine art of model railroading or model railroading seen as a fine art. I may shelve this project, even though I have found several who still see this hobby as an art. I now think it would be easier to sell gefilte fish to Arabs or rubbers to monks than to sell a book like what I have been planning to newer modelers. I just now do not think the market is there for this kind of effort.........I could be wrong which is often the case, but still I could never sell enough to come close to breaking even.
The on line budget presses would not work as the photos have to be top notch and beyond....and then some.
Thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks,
HZ
Howard,
Most of the modelers I know ae big John Allen fans. Seeing his shots on the back of MR and articles on his layout were very inspiring. I built a 5 foot deep canyon on my last layout as direct result of seeing his work.
As for electronics or scenery being the draw, I would have to go with the scenery. Every visitor I’ve had to my layout was more impressed by the scenery than the electronics. From my experience with kids: today’s youth are not as interested in building circuits, that’s old school. They are more interested in software and assembly of pre-built components.
As for the art vs craft debate, I am firmly in the modeling as art camp. The two big names that always come up as examples of artistic modeling are Sellios and Allen. I would suggest that there is art in other modeler’s work that is more prototype-based. Take a look at Jack Burgess’ modeling. Jack is a strict prototype modeler yet his work has a great sense of lyricism and is very artistic.
Whenever a modeler becomes popular there will be detractors. If you don’t like the whimsical style then MR ran too many Allen articles. If you don’t like proto modeling then MR ran (or especially RMC) ran too many Koester articles. In Furlow’s case, he inspired some very mean-spirited detractors, who were part of what drove him away from the hobby.
BTW: The camera is brutal when it comes to modeling. If there is a flaw, you will see it in a close up shot. Take a look at the photos, Allen’s modeling was excellent. I might point out that Allen took the time to write articles and to take great photos. The hobby press is all about good photos. I for one am glad he made the effort.
Other modelers back in the day who were great and relatively unknown? I’m sure there were lots. I know many modelers today that are better than what I see in the magazines (they have all appeared in the hobby press at some point). The main reason you don’t see more of them is because they prefer to spend their time modeling as opposed to writing articles. I’m guessing that was true back in the day as well.
My two cents,
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
The recent discussion about John Allen´s G&D shows me that my decision to get out of the rat race of building layouts which are exact copies of Mother Nature and her man-made accessories is right
I received my first copy of MR back in 1969 - a generous gift from someone who thought it would help me to learn the English language (which it did!). In those days, features on the G&D were still common and I was shocked to see pictures this wonderful layout. It was so much different from the Plywood Pacific Railroads I saw displayed in the window of my favorite LHS or those traveling train shows that came to town once a year. The G&D had scenery! At a time, when all those beautiful (and expensive) materials we employ nowadays were not available!
John Allen was way ahead of the crowd. Those among us, who say that the G&D was not realistic or too Disney like have to match their own layouts with it - I bet they´ll lose that match!
OK, guys - here is one for you to chew on:
In today´s model railroading, we thrive more and more for realism and perfection. Our scenery has to be an exact copy of Mother Nature, our structures no different from real ones, and our locos and rolling stock loaded with details, sounds and other gadgets, just to make them look as if ...
The realism and perfection have a flipside - each little mistake, each corner you have cut becomes more apparent as ever. Perfection leaves no room for imagination and illusion - essential for fascination.
BRAKIE I was around in John's glory years 50/60s and modelers back then thought it was too fantasy in looks and over published.
I was around in John's glory years 50/60s and modelers back then thought it was too fantasy in looks and over published.
Yes, I agree completely. Thats why I characterize the G&D as a "Disney" style layout. Obviously Disney does everything first class and use a lot of top shelf talent so it isn't "dissing" John Allen to say his G&D looked Disneyesk in appearance. But it didn't look "realistic" either so I guess it depends on what your poison is as to whether you are inspired or like the G&D. I recognize his talent, but definitely was not inspired by it or wanted to emulate it. I'd rather emulate something like Rob Spanglers Western Pacific 8th subdivision or Mike Dannemanns D&RGW or something like that.
Anyway, of course modelrailroading includes art, electronics but it is nothing without a love of trains. With out that, well, you might as well be into something else that involves art of electronics. But it does show that modelrailroading is a multi-discipline hobby involving wood working, electronics, art, research on trains, etc. It's not easy to be good an all of those things. I'm not so good at the detail modeling part so I'll never be with the "in-crowd" who are recognized for their diesel modeling or amazing weathering etc. But I still enjoy trains and the hobby for what I can at my level.
Mike,John was a photographer and I recall several discussions at Hall's hobby shop about possible "dark room magic" that enhance his photos and that's where I learn about the distaste for the G&D. Make no mistake these guys was modelers that could scratch build a steam or diesel locomotive and had far more then your "plywood pacific" as a layout.
There was another guy that had photos of SP locomotives in highly detailed scenes in several catalogs MR and RMC that would equal today's advance layouts. Yet the G&D photos was publish 20-1. There was a upstart from Dayton that started making a splash in "Trackside Photos".
The 60s was the dawning of advance layouts and there are many examples if one cares to do the research.. Also around this time advance detail modeling was taking hold and we can see the results today from those early baby steps.
In short the hobby was slowly turning from dump spaghetti bowl and whimsical layouts to a less is better approach and MR started publishing "A Railroad You Can Model" Articles on a yearly bases.
And yes,those articles drew ire from the old heads that refuse to see the hobby was changing.
I'll bet you a cup of coffee you will never guess who the old heads blame for the changing hobby.
Hi,
Do you all recall Malcolm Furlow's MR articles years ago? He put together a beautifully scenicked layout and had several great articles. But once he was done, he moved back to the "fine art" world, leaving the hobby. I recall him writing that he really didn't care for railroading per se, but loved the layout building and creative process.
Mr. Furlow did absolutely outstanding work, but his real interest was art, and not trains. Thus, his tenure in the hobby was relatively short.
Gotta say, its a shame he wasn't a train nut, for his work and articles are missed.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
John,
Good point. A fair comparison is with the layouts of their time, not against some future standard. Whether you liked them or not, they were exceptional, if for nothing else being mostly visually complete (at least in terms of what was pictured) when there were a lot of Plywood Pacific Lines out there, One can argue the G&D in particular was overexposed. On the other hand, John Allen's work was in proven demand. People wanted to see more. I didn't discover him until '69-'70 or so, so was late to that interest and -- then, the fire
I wasn't trying to be critical of those earlier layouts per se, only stating that in some ways the plans were somewhat more "whimsical" or fantastic ie huge bridges, with lots of vertical dimension in the scenery. My feeling has been that the layouts of that era sometimes suffered in the press due to the quality of the images printed which perhaps didn't always do those layouts justice. Seeing layouts in b&w magazine images is not the same at all as seeing them in person.
So I can't or don't fully know what I missed. That doesn't mean they weren't good modelers or ahead of their time.
The biggest thing I learned from the later track planning books is that some of us in the hobby err on the side of too much track. Sometimes less is more.
Sorry Howard, it will be neither art nor electronics.
Love of trains.
While your layout is definitely a work of art, if you didn't love trains, would you have made it?
Someone who loves art, might like the hobby from the artistic side, but will most likely not do anything other than observe.
Bruce Chubb's electronics are good, but someone who loves electronics will most likely again, do no more than observe.
Unless they also love trains.
That is why I am here, I love trains, big, and small, from 1:1 on down. Yes, the electronics side is nice, as is the artistic side, but I could care less without the trains being the primary interest.
Other hobbies indeed have a big electronics, or artistic, or both, sides to them, but they do not interest me anywhere near as much as trains.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
cedarwoodronOne thing that MR could do would be to publish more articles from subject matter experts in modeling electronics that would show how model railroads could be improved with applications in signal installs, structure lighting, car lighting, etc from an elementary perspective, so us average Joe types could learn.
I agree that it would be a good idea. Linn Westcott's electronics articles were extremely good and I believe significantly advanced model railroad throttles (motivated my interest in engineering). But he did this through a series of articles.
Unfortunately, recent MR articles on DIY electronic projects haven't been very good. I'm thinking of a couple articles with designs by the author that could have been achieved with fewer and less expensive parts or had defective designs. (made me wondered how they were reviewed and selected articles).
Describing and showing how to use commercial products is not the same as designing and building circuits.
Without earlier articles showing more simple designs to reference, how complicated a project can you cover in a single article. Linn Westcott described the Twin-T detector in a 3 part article. Hopefully such an article not only explains the design but the principles behind it as well.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
It is amazing how interests change from generation to generation. There have been times when I would have gladly swapped some of my scenery and scratch-building skills for some of the electrical and high tech skills possessed by the many younger modelers now entering the hobby. The hobby has most definitely changed, but not for the better or worse....just change!
A few years back I was aghast at the ready to install built up buildings in addition the RTR everythings being offered. But then I realized that younger folks were entering the hobby due to these new innovations which allowed them to build layouts and concentrate on what they seemed to enjoy the most and were quite proficient with......electronics. Whatever brings folks into the hobby is what is most important.
One thing that MR could do would be to publish more articles from subject matter experts in modeling electronics that would show how model railroads could be improved with applications in signal installs, structure lighting, car lighting, etc from an elementary perspective, so us average Joe types could learn.
I have learned to use LEDS and resistors, but am not sure I could move very far beyond that level without such additional instruction and example.
The intersection of electronics integration into model railroading, and similar integration of computer software into operations appears to be an excellent point of entry for younger modelers.
Cedarwoodron
One of the first layouts I was attracted to was the G&D in the early 60's when I was 15. It was amazing and I could not wait for articles concerning the G&D. It was because of those articles and pictures I became a MRR.
It is still the best layout I have ever seen, live or in print IMO.
I Have been building layouts since my 20's and although I never had the talent of John Allen, Sellios and many others that were, are at the pinnacle of layout building I have had fun and tried my best building a layout.
now all these years later I'm still enjoying the trains and enjoying all that the dealers and mfgs. have to offer. Modeling today is much less then years ago. But with today's RTR and some prebuilt structures I can still have a layout.
Howard Zanetwo things: His layout was built during the 40' through the 60's and way ahead of his time in most everything. And I'll be glad to listen to the many negative comments about his layout after I can see what has been done by the person making the comments.
I was around in John's glory years 50/60s and modelers back then thought it was to fantasy in looks and over published.
There were other modelers that was just as good but,never got the publicity John did thanks to MR,RMC,Varney ads,PFM and Tenshado catalogs.
When I first saw the John Allen cover story in 1962, I was totally immersed in learning to fly and everything to do with aviation. This became my career for the next 18 years. My dad had a huge layout, but it was his....not mine. I did have two uncles who ran steam, but as a growing up kid during the 40's and 50's, my interests were flying model planes....R/C, control line, and freeflight. Then at 16, I got my private pilot's license..and that was my life until the RMC magazine article.
My college background was industrial design with some fine art, and most likely these taught skills were the reason I could build a decent and almost acceptible layout. Almost directly after college, I went into the military and continued with avaition. But.........my interests due to this Allen layout knawed at me until finally I began my dream layout. Yes, it was most definitely the fine art of John Allen's creation that drew me into the hobby....and many others from my era.
I'll admit that what I am to electronics , Vlad the Impaler was to liberal thinking, and that is OK as my real interests lie above the bench work. I have known some really good electronics folks and many who have helped me....do wiring that to me could be construed as art. I guess you could say is that what is art lies within the beholder.
With my association with the train shows, I was privy to visit many wonderful layouts...........some so good that if the builder was a painter or sculptor, his work would have adorned the walls of many of the worlds's finest museums. Anyone ever see Bob Lawson's SRR pike in Cinncinatti? If so, I rest my case!
I make mention of John Allen's wonderful work.......two things: His layout was built during the 40' through the 60's and way ahead of his time in most everything. And I'll be glad to listen to the many negative comments about his layout after I can see what has been done by the person making the comments.
BRAKIEMike,I've heard of Starving Artist sales but,never a starving model railroader sale. Stick out tongue
That's because the hobby is too expensive for starving artists (please, let's not go THERE! ), so only the non-starving can find the moolah to be model railroaders, too.
Ulrich,
Thanks!
mlehmanThe bottom line is that this hobby is far too diverse to say any single factor is "best" as we may know our personal preferences well, but we are rarely so accurate about what gets and keeps others interested. It takes all kinds.
Bravo!
Sir Madogproviding you got them hooked on trains with that Lionel layout while they were little kids.
Or they enjoy playing Train Sim-that replaced that old Lionel layouts several years ago.
Mike,I've heard of Starving Artist sales but,never a starving model railroader sale.
While it makes for good conversation, I don't think most people not in the hobby already would see the choice as electronics vs art. The hobby embraces both...so all those who insist they're not artists can leave the room if the fact that others have no problem with the hobby being art is not their cup of tea. Some folks don't want to be artists, and that's OK, too.
Art involves self-expression in ones chosen media. From building and finishing a single car up through basement filling layouts, all offer opportunities for making choices that reflect our interests, skills, and the way we wish to depict the railroad scene.
Electronics can even be art, as these examples using the Raspberry Pi - beloved by RR hackers -- demonstrate: https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/tag/art/
Truth be told, Bear and others who've mentioned that interest in trains comes before all else in getting people into the hobby...
...the one constant in attracting newbies to the hobby over the years is the sight of trains running on track.
Where those trains lead to once the RR bug has bitten can vary widely. Even if art is not your bag, writing art off as a factor in keeping people interested in the hobby for anyone other than yourself is somewhat short-sighted. Same thing with saying RTR isn't interesting enough to hold a person's interest. That's clearly not the case, even if we personally prefer to build things when that's within our personal skillset.
The bottom line is that this hobby is far too diverse to say any single factor is "best" as we may know our personal preferences well, but we are rarely so accurate about what gets and keeps others interested. It takes all kinds.
BRAKIETeenagers on the other hand would be interested in how a computer operated model train works.
... providing you got them hooked on trains with that Lionel layout while they were little kids.
Back to Howard´s original question, my personal order is:
Sir MadogI think kids are thrilled by the action and not by how the action is controlled.
Without a doubt.. Ever see a group of kids around a Lionel display layout that has lots of animation going on? They will watch for a long time in order to take everything in.
Teenagers on the other hand would be interested in how a computer operated model train works.