wm3798 wrote: 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
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.
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?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Dave Vollmer wrote: wm3798 wrote: 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.
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.
PASMITH wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: wm3798 wrote: 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
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.
Master of Big Sky Blue wrote: 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
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
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.
BRAKIE wrote: 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 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?
Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the late Great Eastern Railway see: - http://www.greateasternrailway.com
For more photos of the late GER see: - http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/
Allegheny2-6-6-6 wrote: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.
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.
Allegheny2-6-6-6 wrote: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?
It is true that Tony Koester is a passionate advocate for the hobby, an avid popularizer of prototype approaches and a relentless self-promoter of his own layout. To me, the thing with the "Landmark Layout" piece was...great, more shots of ther same pictures of the AM we've already seen before. But the upside is, hey, now you don't have to buy his book on coal railroading.
Tony K clearly is a great modeler, but no better than a few of the folks whose work I've seen on this forum. Seems to me what really separates him is that he's an interesting and prolific writer, and that he's an activist with a solid connection into a means of distribution. There is no denying he has had a positive and widespread impact on the hobby. Sometimes people just get a nod for that. So they called it a landmark layout. Ok, so what. Fine with me. I'm gonna go walk the dog.
To be a landmark anything, it has to be:
1. Innovative or unique,
2. Noticed.
This layout is both. There are many unique and innovative layouts that are just not noticed. There are many people who privately invent or perfect something all at the same time. The noticed one gets the credit. That's just the way it is.
However, Though I have been inspired by John Allen for ever, and have worked at improving on his ideas, I have yet to be as good as he was. Maybe that is also part of the landmark designation, though many do something, someone does it slightly better.
NevinW wrote:Gasp! I just spent the weekend driving down to Beatty, Rhyolite, Death Valley Junction and Goldfield to do research, take photos and collect dirt and talings samples for my model railroad. I guess that would make me one of those “too serious” model railroaders like TK. I should just run a GG1 from Death Valley Junction to Ryan, after all they are “just toys”. No thank you. This thread is filled with all of the usual silly attacks on well-known model railroaders, and those with interests in prototypical modeling. It is filled with clichés about models having electrical motors so they must be toys. The part that I really get tired of is the “there are thousands of model railroads out there that are as good or better than ______________” (fill in the blank with the name of someone whose road is often featured in MR or RMC). I have been modeling railroads since college and have literally seen hundreds if not thousands of model railroads over the years and it is total nonsense that there are numerous great model railroads out there that MR ignores. Maybe 1 in 500 might be good enough to ever get in any of the magazines and very few have the talent, modeling skill and photographic abilities to be considered in the same league with TK and the others denigrated in this thread. People often forget that the camera brings out all of the flaws in a model. What looks good or decent in person will often look really lame when photographed. Those that are able to produce photos that really stand out and be acceptable for publication are rare individuals. Sure, there are differences in style and I prefer the realistic prototypical modeling of a TK or Jim Six to the caricature style of a Malcolm Furlow, but I still appreciate the skill that went into the model and photograph. This thread reminds me of a fellow I knew at the hobby shop who would tell anyone who would listen about how MR rejected his manuscript and how they were a bunch elitist jerks who would only publish material from a few of their personal friends. When he finally showed me the manuscript I was amazed at how bad it was. There is a lot of self-delusion and sour grapes in this thread.
My point is that it takes more than just skill, talent and photographic ability to get to where Tony Koester is. And that the argument over "Landmark Layouts" is a slightly silly one.
But I do believe that the AM was a bit overexposed and overextrapolated. I'm kinda glad he tore it down and is starting up a new one. Enough with the AM already. New photos!
Folks:
So what's wrong with toys? Everybody I know has their toys. Mine are just cheaper and don't need all the gasoline and paperwork. I wish MR would put that famous slogan back on the cover. I miss it, although the sense of perspective it signified *does* seem to be returning, lately.
I think we should feel free to criticize Furlow, Koester, Allen, Six, Soeberg, Schopp, Moore, La Nal, Kalbfleisch, Findlay, Towers, and whoever in the classical sense, but never in the popular sense. To say somebody's hobby is wrongly practiced is always a mistake, but analyzing their methods is a great idea. A movie critic and a literary critic don't always disparage and they don't always praise. What they do is look into things. So should we, whatever our skill level.
I'm not as good a modeler as Furlow, but I do know what I like. I don't really like the whimsical stuff. However, I'm quite sure that was a conscious decision. "Velvet Elvis" talk is uncalled for. Furlow is an artist. He went for a specific feeling and achieved it.
At the other end, we have people modeling the typical stuff. I sometimes like this, but not always. Indeed, it sometimes seems to me that there is very little out there, in the real world, that is typical. I think, for instance, that if you build a model of a typical barn, and everything about it is standard, that it often doesn't look right - it's *too* typical, and looks like a movie set. Vary just one detail slightly, and the look improves. We are quirky people in a quirky world.
So what do I like? I like what looks right. I like what looks interesting. I'm not entirely sure what that is, yet. I also like trains. Trains are cool. I need to spend more time on the cool trains and less time on the forums.
Why is this such a big issue?
Nine times out of ten, I don't agree with "Motor Trend" when they announce their car of the year. I don't write long, nasty complaints about their choice, I simply note that, once again, the staff of MT consists of morons and move on with more interesting stuff.
Like removing the lint out of my navel.
Andre
rogertra wrote: BRAKIE wrote: The why is simple..The AM was among the first true freelance railroads designed on prototypical disciplines and operation not on a hodge podge collection of road names under the guise of a "freelance" railroad.Freelance railroads such as the V&O,AM,A&LP,Sunset Route and other such freelance roads set the stage for prototyical designed and operated layouts far more then other so called "freelance" railroads that was no more then a "paper" railroad because you seldom seen locomotives and cars lettered for the freelanced railroads Rather than "The AM was among the first true freelance railroads designed on prototypical disciplines and operation" perhaps that should read "The AM was among the first PUBLISHED true freelance railroads designed on prototypical disciplines and operation"?Being published doesn't mean it was a "first", just first published and possibly, in all the examples given. "The first published North American......." would be a better description?
Randy,I will split hairs here..I believe Doug Smith's layout may have been the first on prototype style operation with waybills/car cards while Tony's and Allen's layout was the first true freelance railroads based on prototyical disciplines and prototypical operation.I can't recall anybody that introduce those freelance railroad disciplines before those two.
andrechapelon wrote: Why is this such a big issue?Nine times out of ten, I don't agree with "Motor Trend" when they announce their car of the year. I don't write long, nasty complaints about their choice, I simply note that, once again, the staff of MT consists of morons and move on with more interesting stuff.Like removing the lint out of my navel.Andre
I was just thinking that 9 out of 10 doctors recommend Kent cigarettes.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
"Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!"
"But you have heard of me!"
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
I don't think anyone would disagree that Allen McClelland's V&O layout was a landmark layout.
Tony-the-K's A&M was the first well-published layout that *applied* the proto-freelance design principles Allen espoused in the V&O series ... and we can always use more examples of how to *apply* layout design principles. You don't have to be a marvelous innovator -- just very good at showing us all a detailed example of a medium-sized layout that consistently applied the principles.
Layout design examples where the reasoning is explained thoroughly are pretty rare.
For that reason, the A&M was a landmark layout.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
We enjoy what we enjoy; our layout's style and method are to please ourselves. We appreciate what we appreciate in layouts of others. What I am trying to figure out is what purpose this thread holds.
And I ask myself that question as rhetorically as I THOUGHT the thread title was rhetorical. But instead of reading about others pondering why it is, this thread seems to be about why it really isn't.
There are obvious reasons why TK's layout is featured, first and foremost is that his work is unquestionably at a very high level of excellence--beyond anything I'll ever accomplish.
But stating the obvious is no more satisfying than reading dozens of posts amounting to sniper fire-- aiming at a target when making sure your own work is not up for the same level of criticism.
My real reason for posting, besides taking my own parting shot, is to turn off the "email me replies to this post." It is depressing to know that such zeal exists in the hobby for attacking the work of others.
BRAKIE wrote:Randy,I will split hairs here..I believe Doug Smith's layout may have been the first on prototype style operation with waybills/car cards while Tony's and Allen's layout was the first true freelance railroads based on prototyical disciplines and prototypical operation.I can't recall anybody that introduce those freelance railroad disciplines before those two.
B:
Oh, come now. There was this man named Frank Ellison, and I don't recall the Delta Lines being in the Handy Railroad Atlas. And Ellison didn't invent Operations, either.
Prototypical disciplines and prototypical operation have been around for a long time. A lot of things in this hobby that seem new aren't inventions but reinventions. Nothing wrong with that. Still, we shouldn't forget the earliest practitioners.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Brunton wrote:It's kind of ironic that Model Railroader would choose a layout they virtually ignored for so long(The AM appeared much more in RMC than in MR, until the last few years. In fact, it was almost never mentioned in MR - at least, not so prominently that I remember it, and I've read MR for over 30 years now) as one they would categorize as a "landmark." If Koester's column appeared RMC and NOT MR, would MR have selected his layout?
Possibly because TK was once editor of RMC.
PA and ERR wrote:"Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!""But you have heard of me!"-George
That and Andre's comment about the moronic staff at MR choosing the wrong "landmark layouts" are what has made this thread worth wasting the 10 minutes it took me to wade through it. Thank you, gentlemen.
Fred W
I agree, I have subscribed to both MR and RMC for over 35 years and the Allegheny Midland just does not stand out in my memory. If there was ever a trackplan and article about the layout, I am sure I saw it; but I just don't remember it. TK's articles are different - I have read many of those and continue to enjoy his column in MR and the annual Layout Planning issue. But the AM layout--- for me it's not even a wide spot in the road much less a landmark.
Enjoy
Paul
3railguy wrote:THERE IS ONLY ONE GODJOHN ALLEN
THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD
JOHN ALLEN
Credo in unum Deum.
fwright wrote: PA and ERR wrote: "Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!""But you have heard of me!"-GeorgeThat and Andre's comment about the moronic staff at MR choosing the wrong "landmark layouts" are what has made this thread worth wasting the 10 minutes it took me to wade through it. Thank you, gentlemen.Fred W
PA and ERR wrote: "Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!""But you have heard of me!"-George
Well, it's not gentlemanly to call someone a moron. That's rough. I for one think the folks at MR are highly talented, creative, thoughtful people...and obviously intelligent. Try editing a magazine sometime.
Autobus Prime wrote: Brunton wrote:It's kind of ironic that Model Railroader would choose a layout they virtually ignored for so long(The AM appeared much more in RMC than in MR, until the last few years. In fact, it was almost never mentioned in MR - at least, not so prominently that I remember it, and I've read MR for over 30 years now) as one they would categorize as a "landmark." If Koester's column appeared RMC and NOT MR, would MR have selected his layout?B:Possibly because TK was once editor of RMC.
Not possibly, but probably!
Is there any danger of RMC ever declaring David Popp's a landmark railroad?
Joe