Why is Koester's Allegheny Midland a Landmark Layout?

[Allegheny2-6-6-6]

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. 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? 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?

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.

Everyone in this hobby weather it be a world class model railroader or excuse me a "Landmark" modelrailroader or the guy with the old ping-pong table in the corner of his basement runnng his old Tyco trains form when he was a kid equally has somethng to contribute to the hobby. They all keep it alinve and contribute to the hobby's growth.

[marknewton]

It's my opinion that both of these particular modelers as well as many other take this hobby way too serious as well as themselve's.

Whereas you don't - good for you, it's your choice. But why denigrate those who do choose to take the hobby seriously?

Let's face it guys no matter how we slice it, no matter how great a modeler you are no matter how real we make it all look we are still grown men for the most part playing with our toy trains hidden in the basement form the rest of the world.

In every thread like this there's at least one person who presents this trite bit of nonsense as if it were an unassailable, universal truth.

It isn't.

If it's your opinion that you're playing with toy trains, then that's your prerogative, but don't assume that everybody else shares that opinion. Speaking for myself, I do take the hobby seriously, and what I do is a long way from "playing with...toy trains hidden in the basement"

Mark.

[rogertra]

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?

[shawnee]

Does anyone really care whether Tony Koester's layout is called a "landmark" by Model Railroader?  What does he get - a free subscription?  Perhaps we're all taking this too seriously?

Hey, I gotta go now.  Lou Sassi is in my basement and he wants a beer. 

[Allegheny2-6-6-6]

Its a landmark layout because the Staff of MR feel they need to give a pat on the back to one of their own.

James

 

You hit the nail right on the head. For every Tony Koster, George Selios, Howard Zane, Dick Elwell etc. there are a hundred maybe a thousane no name modelrailroader who are just as good if not better. Not detracting one bit from these idividuals skills and abilities are the one's chosen by either M.R. or Allen Keller or whom ever as Great modelrs or landmark layouts etc. It's the opinion of the staff at M.R. that TK's layout is a landmark it may not be your choice or mine but just becasue one doesn't prefer a person't style or particular layout you still have to give credit where credit is do. TK is a fantastic modelr who has an amazing eye for detail as does Geroge Seleios. Neother of whoms layouts I care for but I do admire their modeling ability. It's my opinion that both of these particular modelers as well as many other take this hobby way too serious as well as themselve's. Let's face it guys no matter how we slice it, no matter how great a modeler you are no matter how real we make it all look we are still grown men for the most part playing with our toy trains hidden in the basement form the rest of the world.

Nothing wrong with that at all I like my HO scale world much better then the real one (it's the only place where I'm always right.....lol)

But the term "Landmark" is being used with some literary licence in that it's more of their statement of their opinion.

 

Just .02 cents worth casue I aint got much after spendng it all on model trains

[HHP-8]

Amen to that, Lee. Scenery:track ratio is high, but I use N-scale because of not haveing a big space. To get back on topic, the Cumberland Valley was awesome (at least I think according to the landmark layout article it is.) Anyone know if the Gorre&Daphetid is going to be a landmark layout?

 

If it isn't i'd be very dissapointed. It was one of the better layouts built in that time peroid. It is a shame that it isn't around today, and that it was destroyed how it was.

 And I do too think that it was a high scenery:track ratio. But so is my layout.

[PASMITH]

Malcolm Furlow is to model railroading what Elvis on black velvet is to art.

I know he had fun, and I know he was doing his own thing yaddah yaddah...  But it was purely charicature.  Very well executed charicature... just not my cup of tea.

Lee 

AMEN, brothah!

The individual elements in Malcolm's world look realistic by themselves (i.e., rust looks like rust and rotting wood looks like rotting wood), but as a whole it always looked more like a Disney World ride than a functioning railroad enterprise (and yes, I know John Olsen's the Disney guy, not Malcolm).  Malcolm simply out-Allened John Allen when it came to fantasy.  Malcolm's stuff was cool-looking but didn't look anything like the real Colorado narrow gauge.  The real narrow gauge railroads were businesses.  Marginal ones, yes, but businesses nonetheless.

John Allen did great things for the hobby, but his layout is not really one you'd want to emulate for capturing the essence of a realistic railroad (except for operations; John was a real pioneer there).  Nevertheless it was great fun to look at and run.

I don't really know but, perhaps Andy Sperandeo might have a different response regarding whether or not John Allen was also a pioneer in operations.

Peter Smith, Memphis

Sorry Dave, after re-reading your post, I think you may actually be agreeing with me?

Peter Smith, Memphis

[PASMITH]

Malcolm Furlow is to model railroading what Elvis on black velvet is to art.

I know he had fun, and I know he was doing his own thing yaddah yaddah...  But it was purely charicature.  Very well executed charicature... just not my cup of tea.

Lee 

AMEN, brothah!

The individual elements in Malcolm's world look realistic by themselves (i.e., rust looks like rust and rotting wood looks like rotting wood), but as a whole it always looked more like a Disney World ride than a functioning railroad enterprise (and yes, I know John Olsen's the Disney guy, not Malcolm).  Malcolm simply out-Allened John Allen when it came to fantasy.  Malcolm's stuff was cool-looking but didn't look anything like the real Colorado narrow gauge.  The real narrow gauge railroads were businesses.  Marginal ones, yes, but businesses nonetheless.

John Allen did great things for the hobby, but his layout is not really one you'd want to emulate for capturing the essence of a realistic railroad (except for operations; John was a real pioneer there).  Nevertheless it was great fun to look at and run.

I don't really know but, perhaps Andy Sperandeo might have a different response regarding whether or not John Allen was also a pioneer in operations.

Peter Smith, Memphis

[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.

The real problem is the majority of the modelers(I was guilty at one time) misunderstands the real meaning of "freelance" and in the past few years "protolance" as well...

Perhaps I should done a topic explaining each in detail?

[3railguy]

Malcolm Furlow is to model railroading what Elvis on black velvet is to art.

I know he had fun, and I know he was doing his own thing yaddah yaddah...  But it was purely charicature.  Very well executed charicature... just not my cup of tea.

Lee 

It seems MR went through an artsy fartsy period in the 1980's with the likes of Furlow, Olsen, Hayden, Sassi, and Frary. A lot of emphasis was put on scenery and project layouts were more like dioramas without alot of emphasis on operation. A layout is a serious cash outlay but if it lacks interesting operation, you can get tired of it real fast. These guys do fantastic work however and I love their books.

[tomikawaTT]

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD

JOHN ALLEN

And Malcolm Furlow is His Prophet...

Yeah.  Right.  And if you believe that, I have a rather aged bridge in New York City...

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[fireman216]

I was always fond of Dick Taylors Hempstead and Marysville N scale layout...it was featured in the N scale primer book....that thing even had an operating hump yard....Dick now runs Raildreams...

[Dave Vollmer]

Malcolm Furlow is to model railroading what Elvis on black velvet is to art.

I know he had fun, and I know he was doing his own thing yaddah yaddah...  But it was purely charicature.  Very well executed charicature... just not my cup of tea.

Lee 

AMEN, brothah!

The individual elements in Malcolm's world look realistic by themselves (i.e., rust looks like rust and rotting wood looks like rotting wood), but as a whole it always looked more like a Disney World ride than a functioning railroad enterprise (and yes, I know John Olsen's the Disney guy, not Malcolm).  Malcolm simply out-Allened John Allen when it came to fantasy.  Malcolm's stuff was cool-looking but didn't look anything like the real Colorado narrow gauge.  The real narrow gauge railroads were businesses.  Marginal ones, yes, but businesses nonetheless.

John Allen did great things for the hobby, but his layout is not really one you'd want to emulate for capturing the essence of a realistic railroad (except for operations; John was a real pioneer there).  Nevertheless it was great fun to look at and run.

[Packers#1]

Amen to that, Lee. Scenery:track ratio is high, but I use N-scale because of not haveing a big space. To get back on topic, the Cumberland Valley was awesome (at least I think according to the landmark layout article it is.) Anyone know if the Gorre&Daphetid is going to be a landmark layout?

[Milepost 266.2]

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD

JOHN ALLEN

That must make me an atheist, then.

Greetings, fellow heathen! 

[wm3798]

Malcolm Furlow is to model railroading what Elvis on black velvet is to art.

I know he had fun, and I know he was doing his own thing yaddah yaddah...  But it was purely charicature.  Very well executed charicature... just not my cup of tea.

Lee 

[marknewton]

Mark,

Please point to a published N scale layout that's the size and scope of the Reid Bros that pre-dates it ... without a doubt it signaled the coming of age of N scale both in terms of aesthetics and operations.

Copenhagen Field springs to mind, as well as some European efforts, but no matter.

You're barking up the wrong tree, Lee. I absolutely agree that the CV is a landmark layout, for precisely the reasons stated. I'm using it as an example to highlight Harold's contradictory arguments and apparent double standard.

All the best,

Mark.

[marknewton]

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD

JOHN ALLEN

That must make me an atheist, then.

[Master of Big Sky Blue]

MBSB:

And what if they do?  They could do worse than the AM.  I don't always agree with Mr. Koester; he has a tendency to tunnel vision which is perhaps understandable in a C&O fan.  I certainly can't say the AM isn't one of the great model railroads, and then there is the point that it's one of the best-documented, as has been stated.

But if there is some element of favoritism, so what?  Mr. Koester has contributed a lot to the magazine.  Why shouldn't he be given recognition, if the staff wants to? It's their magazine,and they probably have lots of photos on file.

Landmarks are a personal thing, anyway.  Everybody's list is going to be different, especially in a hobby where people have been rediscovering the same things over and over and over for sixty years.  What I want to know is, where is the Moonlight & Violins? 

Andre C. gets twenty olde pharte points for remembering the Clinchfield project.  Quite right, AC.

Wow way to Read WAYYYYYYY to much into what I said. I was mearly making a facetious comment that the selection process of such a series is entirely arbitrary and a myriad of criteria are used for selection.

As for the Exposure of David Popp's Layout. Its easy to understand said level of Exposure when one remembers that it was originally started as a Project Layout in the Step by Step column. And then has grown and expanded into its present form.

James.

 

[3railguy]

THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD

JOHN ALLEN

[on30francisco]

Personally I can't wait to see the posts here when MR showcases Malcolm Furlow's work as a landmark layout......

 

-G- 

I second that. Malcolm's work was landmark back when he was into it.....

I believe Malcolm's layouts were a landmark in that he had a positive attitude about toward the hobby and was inclusive of beginners and advanced hobbyists. His scenery and concepts were top notch. He promoted freelancing, innovation with different scales, gauges, and non-mainstream ideas for those of us who found prototype modeling too restrictive or anal. He definitely put the FUN back in "Model Railroading is FUN."

[wm3798]

Personally, I really like Popp's New Haven.  It is a managable size and scope, is very coherent, and while it doesn't offer the operational "capability" of a larger layout, it has plenty of interest for a layout its size.

In fact, given the fact that David's layout is small to mid-sized, I think it may be one that more modelers can readily identify with and learn from than a basement filler like the V&O or even the Cumberland Valley...  Not a landmark by any stretch, but a very good compact design with a plausible operating schematic.

Lee 

[3railguy]

I doubt Popp's terribly over exposed layout will achive some kind of 'landmark' status.  Popp's and Stewart's Chooch are the only two N layouts I personally can identify as N.  I'm not inclined to believe it is a bias in the modeling press, but I do think it is harder to do a 'great and wonderful' job in N than in HO.  Last night I had the opportunity to contrast an O and HO layout and IMHO, the HO was just so much more detailed.

Personally I don't think Popp's layout measures up to the exposure it has gotten, but then, nobody asked me either. And I certainly don't think it achieves the same level of excellence with Tony's AM or the V&O for that matter.  

Come to think of it, John Widmar's N does measure up from a visual appearance perspective, but it is not nearly as operationally capable as the AM, V&O or Popp's layout. 

Probably the most awe inspiring N scale layouts I've ever seen that deserve to be labled "landmark" have been published in N Scale Railroading magazine. It's only natural because NSR is devoted to N scale where MR is primarily HO. Being an N scaler, David Popp's layout has been an inspiration for me. I'm quick to pick up any issue that features his work. As far as terribly over exposed, I think that has more to do with the layout being a convenient showcase for the editor's how to's.

[joe-daddy]

While my cynical side is inclined to believe MR was giving a "shout out" to one of its own (will David Popp's NH show up as a "landmark?"),

I wouldn't doubt Popp's terribly over exposed layout will achive some kind of 'landmark' status.  Popp's and Stewart's Chooch are the only two N layouts I personally can identify as N.  I'm not inclined to believe it is a bias in the modeling press, but I do think it is harder to do a 'great and wonderful' job in N than in HO.  Last night I had the opportunity to contrast an O and HO layout and IMHO, the HO was just so much more detailed.

Personally I don't think Popp's layout measures up to the exposure it has gotten, but then, nobody asked me either. And I certainly don't think it achieves the same level of excellence with Tony's AM or the V&O for that matter.  

Come to think of it, John Widmar's N does measure up from a visual appearance perspective, but it is not nearly as operationally capable as the AM, V&O or Popp's layout. 

[wm3798]

Mark,

Please point to a published N scale layout that's the size and scope of the Reid Bros that pre-dates it.  And if you can do that, find one that's still in existence and still operated regularly.

I think you'll have a hard time doing that.  I've been picking up MR since the mid 1970's, (not every issue, mind you) and I can't think of another N scale layout that has made the impression or is as oft refered to as the Cumberland Valley System.

Maybe it isn't ground breaking as a large operations oriented layout, as you say it's been done in every other scale, but without a doubt it signaled the coming of age of N scale both in terms of aesthetics and operations.

Lee 

[marknewton]

Olsen's Mescal Lines was the introduction of surreal exagerrated scenery, usually credited to Malcom Furlow, sorta John Allen on "Mescaline".

You're dreaming. If anyone deserves credit for introducing surreal exagerrated scenery, it's John Allen. Furlow was nothing more than a devoted follower.

Mark.

[marknewton]

Layout building? The Reid's layout took N scale out of it's 2x4 layout mentality and demostrated that a large layout with multiple prototypes could be constructed.

All of which had been done before, in N scale as well as every other scale known to man. But, to quote you, they didn't:

"jump(s) the hobby forward. Like Jim Hedigers X benchwork for double decker or Joe Fugate's lighting system...develope(d) new ideas..."

That hole's looking pretty deep to me.

Mark.

[3railguy]

I think what describes a landmark layout is an unusually awe inspiring layout that shows up in Model Railroader one day. Everything about it looks right and in it's place. It provides realistic flowing track work and signaling, beautiful scenery and structures, intricate detail, and hours of interesting operation. Model Railroader gets rave reaction from readers and the layout gets talked about amongst just about every train head circle for months.

The layout may not inspire everyone but inspires enough people that it becomes a landmark. If western desert railroading is your idea of an ideal layout, then the east coast mountain flavor of the A&M may not appeal to you. Wait till Lorrel Joiner's Great Southern comes along and feast your eyes on that.

I've read Tony Keoster's commentarys and as far as I'm concerned, he's just doing his own thing. He has his own views as to what he thinks is right. A lot of people love his work and want to hear his views so he writes about them. He is quick to point out the mistakes he's made, has a sense of humor, and doesn't seem to push his views on anyone. You often run into self appointed experts who impose themselves as model railroad authorities. Keoster doesn't strike me that way.

 

[Autobus Prime]

Its a landmark layout because the Staff of MR feel they need to give a pat on the back to one of their own.

MBSB:

And what if they do?  They could do worse than the AM.  I don't always agree with Mr. Koester; he has a tendency to tunnel vision which is perhaps understandable in a C&O fan.  I certainly can't say the AM isn't one of the great model railroads, and then there is the point that it's one of the best-documented, as has been stated.

But if there is some element of favoritism, so what?  Mr. Koester has contributed a lot to the magazine.  Why shouldn't he be given recognition, if the staff wants to? It's their magazine,and they probably have lots of photos on file.

Landmarks are a personal thing, anyway.  Everybody's list is going to be different, especially in a hobby where people have been rediscovering the same things over and over and over for sixty years.  What I want to know is, where is the Moonlight & Violins? 

Andre C. gets twenty olde pharte points for remembering the Clinchfield project.  Quite right, AC.

 

[wm3798]

I've always admired Koester's work, his dedication to research and accuracy, and his penchant for realistic operations.  I've learned an awful lot that advanced my enjoyment of the hobby by reading his articles.

There's no question that his name sparks lively conversation, though.  The roundy roundy "run what I want" contingent typically think he's a rivet counting snob, and the hard core operators tend to think he's some sort of god..   I think the fact that he generates debate, regardless of what side you fall on, is good for the hobby.  Since the Allegheny Midland was tangible evidence that fuels that debate, it has earned its place as landmark.

Groundbreaking?  Probably not.  But as others have mentioned, Tony has no illusions about where the ideas that went into it came from.  He openly and respectfully credits the work of Allen, Armstrong, McLelland et al.  That alone earns points in my book.

And I'll also jump on the Reid's bandwagon while we're at it.  If you question the status of N scale before and after the first Cumberland Valley article was published, you need to get your head examined.  There were some pretty good models before 1980, but not many.  There were some interesting N scale layouts, too.  The Clinchfield comes to mind.  That was a landmark in and of itself, but maybe more as a portable modular design than as an N scale layout.

But after 1980, N scale really came into it's own.  N Scale Magazine appeared, fueling craftsman level modeling in 1:160.  N trak exploded from it's germination stage, and Atlas rolled out the RS-3, the first high quality split frame engine available.  Things have only gotten better from there.

The Reid Brothers showed the way, and showcased the key advantage N scale offers, scenery:train ratio.  They broke the mold, and freed N scale from the coffee table and secured its rightful place in the basement!

Lee