IRONROOSTER 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?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.EnjoyPaul
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?
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
Tony's layout was the cover story in December, 1987. Then there was the pretty big "coal fork extension" series in, I believe, the late 80's.
I would like to see some more in-depth coverage of his newer layout!
To set the record straight...
I was merely commenting on the somewhat caprious nature of noteriety. Andre was referring to the editors of MT (Motor Trend) as morons, not the editors of Model Railroader.
I, for one, have the highest regard for the staff of MR, TK and the Alleghany Midland.
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
Got a question..... Have the editors at MR ever publicly defined THEIR parameters for what qualifys as a Landmark Layout?
shawnee wrote: 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!"-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 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.
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!"-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
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
"Jack Sparrow you are, with out a doubt, the most pathetic pirate I've ever heard of!"
"But you have heard of me!"
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
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.
Er, uh, I was referring to the editors of Motor Trend as "morons" and I was being thouroughly tongue in cheek when I did it. I don't really care who makes the "Car Of The Year". Nor do I particularly care if Model Railroader picks TK's AM as a landmark layout. What I find funny are the complaints about who MR has or has not chosen to qualify as having a "landmark" layout.
Were it my job to pick 12 North American based landmark layouts to highlight this year, they would be (in no particular order):
1. Allen McClelland's V&O.
2. John Allen's G&D (yeah, yeah, I know the complaints that will come and I'm not picking it on the basis of "realism").
3. Eric Brooman's Utah Belt.
4. Tony Koester's AM
5. Jack Burgess's Yosemite Valley
6. John Armstrong's Canadaigua Southern
7. Reid Brother's Cumberland Valley
8. Frank Ellison's Delta Lines
9. Whit Towers' Alturas & Lone Pine
10. Paul Larson's Mineral Point & Northern
11. Ed Ravenscroft's Glencoe Skokie Valley
12. Bruce Chubb's original Sunset Valley.
----------------------------------------
Overseas:
Germany: Rolf Ertmer's "Altenbeken"
UK: Peter Denny's "Buckingham Branch"
The above are the only two I can think of at the minute. There was one O fine scale London & Northwestern layout written up in MR in the early 60's, but I don't remember the name. It was impressive however, being a model of the L&NW about 1910 or so.
Andre
As I recall, the Landmark Layout series is part of the MR 75th anniversary celebration. It seems that they are looking back at 3/4 century as a journey and telling us about some of the noteworthy sights along the way. If someone travels across Wyoming and tells folks how spectacular Old Faithful is, but they don't mention Devil's Tower, does that mean Devil's Tower is not as good? I don't think so.
When the NBA celebrated their 50th anniversary, they named the 50 best players in order - now that started some arguements!
I think MR is wise to call them landmarks and leave it at that. I don't think they ever intended it to be the MR Hall of Fame, but rather a collection of noteworthy experiences from their publishing journey. It's their story to tell and it's up to them to tell it the way they want. I think it was wise not to select a "12 best of all time" and then count down to number 1 - note my comment about the NBA, above - and I don't see it as a slam to any layout that was not included (in this hobby 12 layouts is a pretty small number).
What I like about the series is looking back on some great work of years past. I especially admire the great work from the era before ground foam, DCC, and good acrylic paint (model railroading's equivalent to the dead ball era in baseball). It was especially tough to achieve realism with colored sawdust and lichen.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
andrechapelon wrote: shawnee wrote: 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!"-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 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. Er, uh, I was referring to the editors of Motor Trend as "morons" and I was being thouroughly tongue in cheek when I did it. I don't really care who makes the "Car Of The Year". Nor do I particularly care if Model Railroader picks TK's AM as a landmark layout. What I find funny are the complaints about who MR has or has not chosen to qualify as having a "landmark" layout.
I apologize for misreading your post, and misrepresenting you and your opinions of the MR staff. I still agree with both you and George - complaining in a serious manner about somebody else's opinion of a third party is on the comical side, but an all too common human trait.
True, it's not gentlemanly to call someone a moron. But we all tend to think it in our blackest of hearts when another person(s) hold an opinion in opposition to ours for what appears to be less than brilliant reasons. And a very few of us (could that be me? ) can't seem to stop those dark thoughts from escaping at times.
Wish I was witty enough to leave this thread on a high note, but I'm not, so I'll just leave.
No problem.
Besides, since this forum is about model railroading, you'll never see my rants about the editors of Golf Digest. Calling THEM morons is actually praising them.
Autobus Prime wrote: 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.
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.
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.
Not even close here.We are talking 2 different things.Freelance railroads following strick guide lines based on prototype principles as well as prototype operation far more then Frank's theory..
http://users.foxvalley.net/~osn/FrankEllison1995.htm
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE wrote: Autobus Prime wrote: 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. Not even close here.We are talking 2 different things.Freelance railroads following strick guide lines based on prototype principles as well as prototype operation far more then Frank's theory.. http://users.foxvalley.net/~osn/FrankEllison1995.htm
What you describe is refinement, but in the post I was replying to you were speaking of invention. Between Ellison and Smith there was a lot of refinement, too. Nor did Ellison invent realistic operation. I think if we were able to dig every last bit up, we'd find out that it's as old as the hobby.
Some of the guidelines for operation, fifty-odd years ago, were even stricter than are common today.
Doesn't anybody read the old books any more? They're still out there.
Were all these guidelines commonly accepted by most MRR'ers then? Good question. Probably not. Is realistic operation commonly accepted by most MRR'ers now? Also a good question. Probably not.