John Allen Rules liked his layout also.
Russell
I just picked up a bunch of old NMRA bulletins, some with pictures by John Allen, and an article or two.
I also have the January 1973 copy with his last article, the next month has a large obituary for him, and the following month has the news of the fire that destroyed most of the layout.
He did some amazing things in his time. Just looking at the front cover you knew what you were looking at. The spectacular scenery just scream "John Allen".
The Book is an excellent introduction to his work. But his layout was not that big. He did a lot in a small space.
Agreed, John Allen likely had more influence over a mass reading audience than any other model railroader to date, its too easy in hindsight to belly-ache about whether or not the lines name was kitchy or poo pooing his whimsical side like engine #13, a stegosaurus with #13 painted on her side. the simple fact is that his series of articles and terrific photos he himself took most of, connected with readers and had a tremendous effect opening the eyes of neophite and experienced modelers that there layouts didnt need to be static sterile environments and that they too could enliven them with imaginative & creative life-like scenes, being based on reality or fantasy being left to the modelers whim.
So hats off to Mr Allen and his imagination and energy, he paved the way for a whole group of modelers I admire like Malcomn Furlow, George Selios and alot of others.
Have fun with your trains
8500HPGASTURBINE I think there is way to many other modlers who model as good as him. Now I do admit that he paved the way to great MRR building. Can you imagine what he could have done if he was around NOW. With the advancement in painting, modeling, building, and 1000's of tools and misc stuff that were either not around in his time or was crude by todays standards. Mike
I think there is way to many other modlers who model as good as him. Now I do admit that he paved the way to great MRR building. Can you imagine what he could have done if he was around NOW. With the advancement in painting, modeling, building, and 1000's of tools and misc stuff that were either not around in his time or was crude by todays standards.
Mike
It's hard to judge him compared to today, since so much has changed. He did (contrary to popular belief) use some plastic kits for cars and buildings but the majority of everything on his layout (including the people) he made by hand. It's like comparing Walt Disney's crew's hand-drawn and colored cartoons to today's computer animation...or speculating how many homeruns Babe Ruth could have hit if he could have taken steroids.
In some ways John Allen was a 'perfect storm' of things coming together...a guy who was comfortable with his own company, a craftsman with artistic talent (having studied art in college) and the ability to relate what he did to others via printed word, lectures, and of course photos (as a professional photographer) who from a fairly early age had sufficient money in the bank to spend as much time as he cared to on modelling.
Should we all be so lucky to have something we do today be debated in 30-40-50 years.
Wow, Chip, you were trying to pick this exact same fight two or three years ago. Slow day in PA?
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama Wow, Chip, you were trying to pick this exact same fight two or three years ago. Slow day in PA?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Well said SM, you will get no fight from me.
Maybe Kalmbach will re-issue the book? I find the photos a bit dark and it is probaly due for a freashining, maybe even include a DVD with it......hint.....hint......
betamax But his layout was not that big.
But his layout was not that big.
Seems to me that it was about 30 ft square. That sounds pretty big to me.
8500HPGASTURBINEI think there is way to many other modlers who model as good as him.
But are these modelers Pre-Allen or Post-Allen? Kinda like saying there are alot of painters who paint as good as Van Gogh, but no-one painted like Van Gogh before Van Gogh, only after. Allen is this way, before Allen I dont think anyone went floor to ceiling, or had huge bridges spanning many feet, or had scenery large enough that you walked into and thru it. He marked a definite shift in what a model RR could be and we havent been the same since.
Nah, not even... if he want to throw a fist in a crowded bar watch the ensueing fight, he would have made the subject Malcomn Furlow.
I showed up to late in this world (far to late) to experience any of the G&D, but in my favorite book, Playing With Trains: A Passion Beyond Scale by Sam Posey, Sam talks about the G&D all during the construction of his layout, and I also have poked around on the website for his layout, and I have to say, the man was insanely good. I wish I had been around back when MR was running stories about him and the G&D.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
What John Allen did for me was to open my eyes to the difference between modeling some improbable ideal (the pristine Ideal sawtooth-roof factory, plopped down on a perfectly flat surface with not a weed or fragment of trash in sight) and modeling somewhat-exaggerated reality (the wood building with flaking paint, flapping shingles and bird droppings.) Only after I had seen photos of the G&D did I start noticing clutter, trash cans and structural problems in buildings - things that had been there all along, of which I had been blissfully unaware.
I don't know if John was the first to model the grubby side of things (for which, IIRC, he was chastized in the MR letters column by contemporary perfectionists.) I'm pretty sure he was the first such modeler to receive wide recognition.
Now, many others do (and overdo) the same things he pioneered. That does not diminish his importance to the hobby.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
betamaxBut his layout was not that big. He did a lot in a small space.
Midnight Railroader betamaxBut his layout was not that big. He did a lot in a small space. It filled a basement--what do you mean by "big," if not that?
It filled a basement--what do you mean by "big," if not that?
I'd say it was just the right size to keep one man (and a few friends) - working on it 8+ hours a day, 7 days a week - busy for more than 20 years.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
cuyamaWow, Chip, you were trying to pick this exact same fight two or three years ago. Slow day in PA?
Geezers are entertaining . He must be off his meds.
I recently finished a model which has John Allen's influence.I am looking for more to be released.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Midnight RailroaderbetamaxBut his layout was not that big. He did a lot in a small space.It filled a basement--what do you mean by "big," if not that?
It only filled about half the basement.
PathfinderMaybe Kalmbach will re-issue the book?
Don't stop there... how about the book PLUS a compilation of articles by and / or about John & the G&D? This has been a traditional Kalmbach practice; reprinting similar articles in book form. I'd be in line to get a set...
dlm
He was THE influence in my life. He inspired the funny name of my railroads. It took more than 50 years and 5 attempts to finally take a shot at his ideas. It has been an old man's dream to work on what I only dreamed of as a kid and a young man.
I also recognize some of the other greats, most of which are mentioned above, but he was the "perfect storm" (thanks stix) that kept me going.
I think that John Allen's legacy is that he was a great inspiration for so many, including myself. It's a richer hobby because of him.
Enjoy
Paul
Saying John Allen was a great model railroader is like saying that Sophia Loren was/is a beautiful woman -- not a statement calculated to pick many fights, frankly. And yet the man did have his detractors back when he was alive and in his prime and more than able to defend his views.
By the way if you have old issues or see them at swap meets, try to track down the March 1963 issue of MR with John Allen's 10 page article (with foldout) "Concept and planning of the Gorre & Daphetid." He says dozens and dozens of wise things in that article. Let me give an example: "I like massive modern steam power, yet I restrained myself to conform to the railroad concept and I built a railroad on which massive steam power can't be used. To assure myself that I wouldn't renege later, I built the turntable too short and the embankments and tunnel portals too close on curves to handle massive power. This wasn't done lightly."
Back when Linn Westcott was editor of MR, which many now see as a golden age for the magazine, the letters section of the mag fumed with angry and vituperative letters, some of them nearly incoherent. From the December 1963 issue, a letter from M. La Sagessa of Montgomery Alabama: "I save all my issues of Model Railroader and on cold days I spread them throughout the house. The hot air emanating from the columns written by your staff substantially reduces my fuel bill. Drop dead." The heading they gave his letter? "From a warm friend."
You wanna pick a fight? Try saying something along these lines: "the only true MODEL railroaders are those who have the ready built Plasticville structures on their layout. All others are effette dilettantes."
Heh heh.
Dave Nelson
I don't mind admitting that John Allen has had quite an influence on my approach to model railroading, as I was a fledgling scale modeler when his Varney photos began appearing in MR, way back in the 'fifties. At that time his realism was pretty astounding to a 16 year old kid, and his subtle sense of humor ("Emma" the Stegosaurus yard switcher for one) let me know that the hobby could also be a lot of fun. Which is why I chose the hobby in the first place--I wanted to enjoy myself and still do the best I could with whatever talents I posessed. Allen's photographs kept me going--and wishing.
Frankly, and you might not understand this musical analogy, for John Allen to appear during the time when HO wasn't supposed to stay on the tracks (and a lot of it didn't), is pretty much akin to what might have happened to music if Beethoven had arrived on the scene right after Medieval Gregorian Chant and not 200 years later. For me, Allen not only expanded, but literally exploded the concepts of what the hobby was capable.
I remember when I started slapping down my Sierra Nevada's on my current Yuba River Sub. Every now and then I'd stand back and think to myself, "Well, they're not the Akinback's, but I'm not John Allen, either. So they'll do."
Do I admire other 'contemporary' modelers? You bet I do! I've seen photos by current modelers that make me drool. But sometimes I wonder if possibly THEY haven't tapped into Allen's ideas in some subtle way and made it uniquely their own. If he'd been less of what he was, I don't think we'd be discussing him as if he were still building that railroad of his in his Monterey basement.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
No doubt Allen was a top notch modeler, but he had no influence on me and no inspiration whatsoever. The Gorre and Daphetid was strictly a steam railroad, and I'm not into steam.
aloco - I'm sorry you're not into steam, but surely you can find inspiration from John Allen's modelling in terms of planning and building a prototypically operating railroad (don't worry about the name - some of us are stuck with our early choice!) with humour and modesty.
Look at the articles and photographs that John Allen contributed to a number of model magazines, and think about the lucid explanations, artistic perspective, lighting balance and technical skill to produce as you search for inspiration.
John Allen was ahead of his time.
danmerkel PathfinderMaybe Kalmbach will re-issue the book? Don't stop there... how about the book PLUS a compilation of articles by and / or about John & the G&D? This has been a traditional Kalmbach practice; reprinting similar articles in book form. I'd be in line to get a set... dlm
So would I and I'd bet that there would be enough others to buy most of the print run. If they aren't sure they could just ask and take pre-orders.
Irv
I still interchange with the G&D
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
joe-daddy betamax But his layout was not that big. Seems to me that it was about 30 ft square. That sounds pretty big to me.
John's first G&D was about 30 sq. ft., slightly smaller than a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood (which is 32 sq.ft.). According to the trackplans he drew (I believe for the 1963 article on the layout) the layout room's dimensions at it's largest points was 23' x 32', which would be 736 sq ft. The room had a 'jog' to it so the actual area of the room wasn't a rectangle. Probably the available space was more like 5-600 sq. ft.
BTW someone mentioned keeping John 'and friends' busy working on the layout...my understanding is that although the layout's operating sessions were done with several people, it was relatively rare that any work on the layout - benchwork, wiring, scenery, structures, cars, etc. - was done by anyone but John himself. I know he built some cars for other people's layouts, so it could be had a few cars or buildings given to him by friends in return that he used, but apparently 99.9% of the layout was John alone.
danmerkelPathfinderMaybe Kalmbach will re-issue the book? Don't stop there... how about the book PLUS a compilation of articles by and / or about John & the G&D? This has been a traditional Kalmbach practice; reprinting similar articles in book form. I'd be in line to get a set... dlm
oh yeah ! my credit card is ready to go anytime MR publishes a book with all of JA's articles , and all those written about him as you suggest . i already have the Westcott book and re-read it every couple of years . which reminds me , i should put it in my 'to be read' pile
ernie
John Allen ranks right up there with the best of the best in the Golden Era of model railroading pioneers.
One of my all time favorite quotes of his is this one:
" Start small and build well. Plan your small railroad for operation rather than as a race track, and build it with care. You will be amazed at how much fun a small pike can be."~ John Allen
Ryan BoudreauxThe Piedmont Division Modeling The Southern Railway, Norfolk & Western & Norfolk Southern in HO during the merger eraCajun Chef Ryan
wjstix BTW someone mentioned keeping John 'and friends' busy working on the layout...my understanding is that although the layout's operating sessions were done with several people, it was relatively rare that any work on the layout - benchwork, wiring, scenery, structures, cars, etc. - was done by anyone but John himself. I know he built some cars for other people's layouts, so it could be had a few cars or buildings given to him by friends in return that he used, but apparently 99.9% of the layout was John alone.
That was my post.
Your percentage is probably about right, but Jim Findley built a number of the most famous structures on the G & D. One was the two-level station at Corsa/Cross Junction and another was the station with the triangular footprint and circular tower (I don't recall where it was located on the layout). This one had a telescoping chimney and Jim liked to adjust the length and wait to see how long it took Allen to notice. According to Westcott, John Allen loved a good harmess prank, even if the joke was on him.
Cliff Grandt made drive trains for special equipment for John Allen. In exchange, Allen made highly detailed O scale rolling stock for Grandt (I wonder where those are, now).
When I made my previous post I was making an effort not to snub these and other masters of the hobby who contributed to the G & D.
For those of you looking for the book, I found my copy by doing a google search. I got it from a used book store in England for 3 Pounds (something like 9 dollars); shipping was about $10. It arrived in great condition and took about 2 weeks. The book is often listed on eBay and sells for upwards of $70.
The importance of John Allen has nothing to do with a current modeller not getting any inspiration directly from the G&D. It goes far beyond that. John was one of the pioneers that led to what evolved into the current way of thinking when it comes to model railroad design. He wasn't the only person to have this influence though. John Armstrong had many good articles and his Canandaigua Southern layout was a masterpiece but in a different way than John Allen's. Frank Ellison was also very influential with his ideas and his layout the Delta Lines.
I consider these 3 men to be among the most influential of their time and it is their ideas and views that have inspired so many current modellers who have in turn inspired many more. The importance is their legacy. They all had very large contributions to the hobby and whether or not you agreed with their practices, you can't deny their influence.
One area that John Allen gets no love over is the Timesaver. There are people who absolutely hate switching puzzles. Over time we've seen these get integrated into track plans and this was never it's intended use. People get frustrated with it from an operations standpoint and then go back to the man who designed it. It was never intended to be anything more than a puzzle. It's not a layout design. Of course many do appreciate it for what it is but I've seen more people criticize John Allen over the timesaver than anything else. The only criticism I've ever heard about the G&D was that it's grades are steep and it uses real tight radiuses. Of course John justifies all of this so it really just comes down to opinion and what you want to run.
He was a great modeller and I would love to see what could have been with the G&D had John lived to current times. I'd love to see what he would have done with DCC!
I actually just saw 2 of John Allen's old train cars here this past weekend. Gil Freitag in Houston has 2 of them.
John Allen was good at what he did but,there were those that was just as good or better* in John's day but,never had the publicity like John got from friend Linn Westcott in the pages of MR..
This may come as a shock to younger modelers a lot of modelers back in John's day didn't care that much for him...Yes youngin's we had "rivet" counters and nay sayers even in those days.
*There was some new up and comers back then that is well known today that was turning heads faster then John back in the late 50s and early 60s.
By golly come to think of it those were exciting times in the hobby and the beginning of the hobby we know today thanks in no small parts to these bright up and comers that shook the hobby in advanced modeling,advanced layout designs and prototypical operations.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE John Allen was good at what he did but,there were those that was just as good or better* in John's day but,never had the publicity like John got from friend Linn Westcott in the pages of MR..
There you have it.
What's done is done and I can't change that. I was not so influenced by those people I did not know about or whose work I did not see. I was influenced by John Allen's work as presented in Westcott's book.
Now I don't doubt, that these others had an impact on the hobby. However, photos of John's work survived long enough for me to see and be a huge influence.
There are always unknown people out there in all hobbies, jobs, etc that can equal or sometimes even surpass the skill of those that are known. The music world being a very good example as I wouldn't call many of them good singers by any stretch of the imagination. However when no one knows who you are, you aren't that influential. Maybe to a few who know you but that's it. I absolutely believe there were people back then with just as much talent as John Allen. John Armstrong and Frank Ellison being 2 that I already mentioned and there are certainly others. It's more than just modelling skill though that these men were influential. It was a model railroad philosophy. Each of them brought something unique to the table. In the internet age almost anyone can be influential. These men didn't have that.
My current influences are a few local friends that aside from a random layout feature in a magazine here and there are relatively unknown to those outside of town. One of my biggest current influences is Pelle Soeborg who writes articles for MR. His modelling skill is superb. It doesn't matter if you are into the era or location he models. That doesn't take away from the skill and creativity. I really enjoy reading about the "pioneers" such as John Allen. He nor any of the other people weren't my first influences or the reason I got into the hobby. I guess that would be my dad. Those men however had alot of good insight and ideas that still apply and it is still worth studying. Whether they were the best or not is irrelevant. They are the ones that are documented and can actually learn from.
SpaceMouse BRAKIE John Allen was good at what he did but,there were those that was just as good or better* in John's day but,never had the publicity like John got from friend Linn Westcott in the pages of MR.. There you have it. What's done is done and I can't change that. I was not so influenced by those people I did not know about or whose work I did not see. I was influenced by John Allen's work as presented in Westcott's book. Now I don't doubt, that these others had an impact on the hobby. However, photos of John's work survived long enough for me to see and be a huge influence.
I subscribed to MR from 1969-1977 and I never felt that John Allen was included disproportionately to any other modeler. Having read a lot of Westcott's writing and read about Westcott, I doubt that their friendship played much of a role in editorial decisions. Allen was an excellent modeler, excellent photographer, and a good writer; that's a combination that is going to help anyone to accumulate column-inches in a model railroading magazine.
Myself, I couldn't get enough of Allen's work. If they had published a John Allen article every month I'd have wished for more. In terms of influence, it's all over my layout.
Also, in terms of influence, consider this example: Westcott reported in his book that John Allen was the first to get real notoriety for weathering. Assuming that this is true, every one of us who weathers our structures, engines, rolling stock, etc. can trace that practice back to John Allen.
Chip,Does these names ring a bell? Allen McClelland,Tony Koester,Doug Smith(the father of carcards/waybills)..How about Paul Jansen? There are many.
There was a lot of "super" modelers in that day that was real hobby shakers and movers the problem is they never got their far share of publicity as up and comers like John did...That's the sad part.
Most modelers never heard of Paul Jansen but,his modeling and photography was advance for that era.
Allen and Tony would wait till the 70s before they raise to fame even tho' Allen had several photos in Trackside Photos that showed modeling well ahead of its time.
Doug Smith was as the father of car card/waybill operation.A novel idea that was thought to be quite useless..After all who wants to flip through way bills and car cards when they are running their trains and why did MR waste the space on such a useless subject?
John has a part in the history of the hobby has what could be done beyond the simple track filled 5x9 "ping pong" layouts of those times..
I dunno the hobby was advancing on all sides for the better and yet John and his G&D still held top billing in MR till the bubble burst in or around the mid 60s then John kinda slipped into the shadows as more "advanced" modeling came on the scene and "fantasy" modeling was frown upon..Even the old wooden car kits was scorn by the majority as being to cruel looking and outdated.
Brakie,
Yes I read (or read about) all those modelers. But I read about them long after I started my first layout. By then I had my vision of big scenery firmly planted in my brain. Now the one you did not mention, Armstrong, I read in between reading Westcott's book and building my first layout. But Anderson gave me the how, Allen gave me the inspiration.
Phil said:I subscribed to MR from 1969-1977 and I never felt that John Allen was included disproportionately to any other modeler.
-----------------------------------------------------
You're about a decade to late..Time was the G&D was a monthly picture and John had several bylines in MR and RMC..The G&D was shown in several catalogs including PFM..
John was not the first to weather locomotives and cars but,was given the notoriety by Linn.The guy was a O Scale 2 railer...
I once discuss at length a grand idea of mine and as a teenager I was basically ignored I even penned a article and was told "Thank You" but,your idea seems impractacle and that was that.
Doesn't matter..
Somebody else picked up on the idea 20 years after I did..
So goes life.
Jason
Modeling the Fort Worth & Denver of the early 1970's in N scale
BRAKIE Phil said:I subscribed to MR from 1969-1977 and I never felt that John Allen was included disproportionately to any other modeler. ----------------------------------------------------- You're about a decade to late..Time was the G&D was a monthly picture and John had several bylines in MR and RMC..The G&D was shown in several catalogs including PFM.. John was not the first to weather locomotives and cars but,was given the notoriety by Linn.The guy was a O Scale 2 railer...
Just as Brakie says, for a time John Allen's work was evident quite disproportionally in the hobby press. And remember, Gordon Varney was using images of his products shot on the G&D almost monthly, appearing sometimes in both MR and RMC at one time.
I also agree that there were quite a number of other hobbyists doing as good, or even better work, than John back in the 50's and early 60's. The G&D had a decided fantasy, or caricature bend, to much of it which many at the time were not a thrilled over as many are today. By the mid 1950's the trend was already decidedly toward realism and way from stretching reality.
There were also superior layout photographers to John in the 50's. Several were working with pinhole lenses and producing amazing images that were sometimes difficult to tell from the prototype (Bill Clouser, for instance). This was rarely ever so with John's work, which were always obviously scenes of models and often shot as more or less helicopter views - save for the trestle shots.
It is also worth pointing out that fame in a hobby is often based as much, or more, on exposure as opposed to outstanding talent. If a particular publication's editor likes your style of writing, or photographs, you can be assured of going to the head of the line when submitting material. Writers who require little or no copy editing quickly become favorites of an editor and by repeated exposure, can become very well known to readers. If their work, what ever the subject, is at least moderately good, the less accomplished will quickly come to place the individual on a pedestal. Far too often you need not be the best in a particular field to be famous, only widely known.
I'm not saying this to critcize John or his works, only that this is the real way fame often comes. John was an excellent modeler in my book but only one of many talented hobbyists at the time, most of whom never got the page space they deserved.
CNJ831
I separate John Allen the modeler and innovator, from the G&D railroad. John Allen was very creative. But for my tastes G&D was not inspirational. Given the choice between an article on J. Harold Geisell's small layout or the V&O or Findlay's or the MP&N or pretty much anything by Odegard and pictorial on the G&D, I would not choose the G&D. Not that the G&D was bad. It just doesn't appeal to me.
Wanting to fight over not liking the G&D is like wanting to fight me because I like scrambled eggs and you like them sunny side up. Pretty silly.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
BRAKIEJohn was not the first to weather locomotives and cars but,was given the notoriety by Linn.The guy was a O Scale 2 railer...
John Allen won a national award for his well-worn enginehouse in 1948. That is the model that Westcott cites as the first. Is there a documented earlier case? What was it?
shayfan84325 BRAKIEJohn was not the first to weather locomotives and cars but,was given the notoriety by Linn.The guy was a O Scale 2 railer... John Allen won a national award for his well-worn enginehouse in 1948. That is the model that Westcott cites as the first. Is there a documented earlier case? What was it?
Phil,We would need to dig deep into the O Scale annuals to find that man's name..Even my Dad "weathered" his O scale locos untill he went into HO in 53 or 54.
BRAKIEJohn Allen was good at what he did but,there were those that was just as good or better* in John's day but,never had the publicity like John got from friend Linn Westcott in the pages of MR..
Always a factor.
My personal model railroading hero, Minton Cronkhite, was so far ahead of his time in the 30's and 40's, he was doing things with layout design that were seen as "new" when they were the subject of articles in the 80s! Same thing for his train control systems.
But because he didn't write articles about his work, nor spend time photographing it, there are about three stories in the history of MR that covered his work. And his layout were massive, extremely prototypical affairs--so much so, that Santa Fe hired him to build exhibits for them to be shown at public events.
And he worked on into the 1960s, continually improving the realism of his modeling. His obit in MR was one paragraph, as i recall.
If he were more of a self-promoter, we might be arguing the merits of Cronkhite's modeling style on this forum.
I suspect the prominence of John Allen articles in Model Railroader had a great deal to do with the fact that the man could put pen to paper, which already gave him a leg up on talented modelers who could not, or were afraid to, write for publication. And in an era when photo reproduction was not as sharp and clear as it came to be, John Allen started with superbly focused and artfully shot photos that tended to look better than many other people's efforts. MR used to run some truly marginal photos in Trackside Photos back in those days, out of necessity,.
By no means was John Allen the first guy to weather structures and models, although he was one of the best and most imaginative at it. The November 1940 MR has an article by F S Smith about his O scale Delaware & Western. It being a golden era steam pike the locos and passenger cars look, correctly, quite clean, but his engine house had broken windows and worn paint. I have no reason to think it was the first weathered structure, since in the letters section of that same issue, Jack W. De Camp wrote about "weathering buildings" showing that even the vocabulary existed by then.
CNJ831 It is also worth pointing out that fame in a hobby is often based as much, or more, than on exposure as opposed to outstanding talent. If a particular publication editor likes your style of writing, or photographs, you can be assured of going to the head of the line when submitting material. Writers who require little or no copy editing quickly become favorites of an editor and by repeated exposure, can become very well known to readers. If their work, what ever the subject, is at least moderately good, the less accomplished will quickly come to place the individual on a pedestal. Far too often you need not be the best in a particular field to be famous, only widely known
It is also worth pointing out that fame in a hobby is often based as much, or more, than on exposure as opposed to outstanding talent. If a particular publication editor likes your style of writing, or photographs, you can be assured of going to the head of the line when submitting material. Writers who require little or no copy editing quickly become favorites of an editor and by repeated exposure, can become very well known to readers. If their work, what ever the subject, is at least moderately good, the less accomplished will quickly come to place the individual on a pedestal. Far too often you need not be the best in a particular field to be famous, only widely known
See "Furlow, Malcolm," who wrote lots of words and shot many photos for a sum total of about six years, made his huge splash, then disappeared from the hobby.
Folks:
I wonder if a little of the controversy over the G&D doesn't exist simply because it was such a great model railroad, that inspired a lot of imitation. It wrapped itself with its own genre of dramatic mountain-climbing model railroads and now it's hard to see just how unusual and awesome it was.
I think my favorite G&D photo is the first one I saw. It was the Gorre enginehouse, framed by overhanging tree branches in the foreground. It was an early shot, and it still has an odd sense of reality about it.
I don't think jealousy had anything to do with the like/dislike of the G&D...If anything it may have been the overkill of pictures of the G&D..Look at the flap about Malcolm just a few years ago..It was the same in John's day except Linn never heard the "Enough already!"
Of course the same may be said about any of today's layouts in 20-30 years..
B&Mbarn Well said. We should appreciate John Allen for what he did and when he did it.
Well said. We should appreciate John Allen for what he did and when he did it.
True but,he was not the only great modeler of that era.He was the only well publish modeler of that era...
Everywhere you look was pictures of the G&D in magazines and catalogs complete overkill..
BRAKIE shayfan84325 BRAKIEJohn was not the first to weather locomotives and cars but,was given the notoriety by Linn.The guy was a O Scale 2 railer... John Allen won a national award for his well-worn enginehouse in 1948. That is the model that Westcott cites as the first. Is there a documented earlier case? What was it? Phil,We would need to dig deep into the O Scale annuals to find that man's name..Even my Dad "weathered" his O scale locos untill he went into HO in 53 or 54.
My reference to Westcott's book was in error. Westcott acknowledges that it was not the first weathered model, but John Allen's enginehouse was the first weathered model to win an American model railroad contest. Westcott wrote, "It influenced many modelers, for they discovered that a weathered model appears more realistic and detailed than the same model would appear in immaculate condition."
Sorry about any feathers I ruffled.
BRAKIE I don't think jealousy had anything to do with the like/dislike of the G&D...If anything it may have been the overkill of pictures of the G&D..Look at the flap about Malcolm just a few years ago..It was the same in John's day except Linn never heard the "Enough already!" Of course the same may be said about any of today's layouts in 20-30 years..
B:
I didn't mean it was jealousy; I meant that sometimes a thing can be so cool it spawns a trend, and then gets submerged in it.
If you want a more recent example, I think we might have approached that point with Appalachian coal railroads. I think they're fascinating railroads, but I could see how somebody else could have looked and said, "Oh GAD, another frelling coal hauler. Why can't someone model the SP&S?"
(But then you have perennial Colorado narrow gauge screwing up the whole analogy.)
dknelsonI suspect the prominence of John Allen articles in Model Railroader had a great deal to do with the fact that the man could put pen to paper, which already gave him a leg up on talented modelers who could not, or were afraid to, write for publication.
dehusman dknelsonI suspect the prominence of John Allen articles in Model Railroader had a great deal to do with the fact that the man could put pen to paper, which already gave him a leg up on talented modelers who could not, or were afraid to, write for publication. I believe it was not because of writing talent (not saying that he wasn't a talented writer), but because of his ability to photograph models effectively. He was a commercial photographer so could deliver the type of photos that other authors could only dream of. If he lacked the ability to photograph his layout and models, you probably would have never heard of it.
I believe it was not because of writing talent (not saying that he wasn't a talented writer), but because of his ability to photograph models effectively. He was a commercial photographer so could deliver the type of photos that other authors could only dream of. If he lacked the ability to photograph his layout and models, you probably would have never heard of it.
Actually I think was because he was capapble of writing coherently and interstingly and photogaphing what he wrote about that made it possible for model railroad magazines to publish so much about his layout. Those have got to be two points that any magazine editor would jump at because it takes two headaches out of the mix for them. Now they only have to deal with layout and photo placement. And add to that there is only a limited time between issues and lots to accomplish in that time span that you get to realize that the less that has to be done by the editorial staff, the more likely that an article that is both well written and nicely illustrated with great photos will make it into print.
BRAKIE Chip,Does these names ring a bell? Allen McClelland,Tony Koester,Doug Smith(the father of carcards/waybills)..How about Paul Jansen? There are many. There was a lot of "super" modelers in that day that was real hobby shakers and movers the problem is they never got their far share of publicity as up and comers like John did...That's the sad part.
Well it's important to remember John Allen first came to prominence in the late 1940's, when guys like you mention were still in school. Of course there were great model railroaders around during John's time in the hobby (from the forties til he died in the early seventies) but by the end of his life many of the top modellers were guys who had been inspired by his work. It's kinda like music...Elvis Presley wasn't the first guy to record Rock and Roll, or the first guy to have a national top 10 hit with a Rock record (he wasn't even the second or third) and his records weren't as good as some other artists BUT he was the one who caught the imagination of the general public and put Rock on the map. You could make a good argument that his records were surpased later by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Springsteen etc. - but without Elvis, those later acts might never have happened.
I suspect a lot of the "overkill" of John in hobby magazines at the time came not from one editor or another pushing John's work, but simply that John was able to deliver a "package" that made the editor's job easy. Here you are trying to find articles to fill the next issue and in the mail you get an article from JA that is very well written, demonstrates excellent modelling techniques, and comes with professional quality photos. Well of course you're going to put it in your magazine!!
Dave,Indeed John was also a top notch photographer.However,the only one I fully believe would equal John would be Paul Jansen.
BTW..John was a busy man.
Take a look see.You may understand that age old cry of "Enough!".
http://witt-family.com/gorre-and-daphetid/G&D_Files.htm
Looking at some of those pictures brings back a flood of memories...
Stix,The good part is each of those mention modelers moved the hobby forward to what it is today.There are many such pioneers whose works goes unnoticed that deserves to be remembered..
I think the one lingering thing that I learned by studying Allens earliest incarnation of the GD, was that a layout does not have to be big to be great.
I also think one of the prime reasons we remember Allen today over many other contemporaries was his skills as a photographer, that his skills as a professional photographer helped raised the bar when it came to documenting model RRs in print.
Midnight Railroader See "Furlow, Malcolm," who wrote lots of words and shot many photos for a sum total of about six years, made his huge splash, then disappeared from the hobby.
Untill 2003, when his under-construction layout made the cover of MR, unleashing such a storm of controversy here and elsewhere from all the negative nancy's who couldnt stand that someone was actually having fun with model trains that he likely said "-it, I dont need this " and went back into seclusion.
Dont blame him either, I have no doubt if John Allen was alive and modeling today he would be every bit as controversial now as he was back in the day and that each new picture published would elicite an "Oh no not again" or "Oh thats not real model railroading" or "Oh its all just made up so it doesnt count" or other similar gripes that were hurled at Furlow back in '03 would also be being tossed at Allen today from the same group of dislikers amongst us today.
vsmith Untill 2003, when his under-construction layout made the cover of MR, unleashing such a storm of controversy here and elsewhere from all the negative nancy's who couldnt stand that someone was actually having fun with model trains that he likely said "-it, I dont need this " and went back into seclusion.
Was that the cover with the stereotype Mexican "bandito" figures in sombreros sitting on the loco?
vsmith I think the one lingering thing that I learned by studying Allens earliest incarnation of the GD, was that a layout does not have to be big to be great. I also think one of the prime reasons we remember Allen today over many other contemporaries was his skills as a photographer, that his skills as a professional photographer helped raised the bar when it came to documenting model RRs in print.
I would point out that being a consummate photographer, also results in one generally having the ability to preceive and compose scenes so as to maximize their appeal, impression of size, etc.. They can make the ordinary appear quite extraordinary very easily. Few here truly realize how often what they see in the magazines is a highly misleading impression of just how a layout appears in person. Even some of the hobby's most famous layouts of the past were arranged more like dingy rabbit warrens than anything like the great, spacious, railroad empires we saw in the pages of the magazines.
Remember, with photography, what you see is not necessarily what you get. Did anyone else notice that the opening photo for the Beer Line article, on page 44-45 of the January MR, is not an actual scene to be found on the layout but results from a re-locating of several structures so as to create a more pleasing and attention-grabbing image? Such is a common practice when photographing layouts or dioramas and I would venture that the majority of shots one sees in MR, RMC, et al. have multiple elements that have been added at the last minute to further enhance the scene.
Yep, and the poor doggy burning his feet sitting on top of the slide valve chest.
Great layout (to me) but boy! did the mud fly here!
I actually have that issue in my breifcase this week!
CNJ831 vsmith I think the one lingering thing that I learned by studying Allens earliest incarnation of the GD, was that a layout does not have to be big to be great. I also think one of the prime reasons we remember Allen today over many other contemporaries was his skills as a photographer, that his skills as a professional photographer helped raised the bar when it came to documenting model RRs in print. I would point out that being a consummate photographer, also results in one generally having the ability to preceive and compose scenes so as to maximize their appeal, impression of size, etc.. They can make the ordinary appear quite extraordinary very easily. Few here truly realize how often what they see in the magazines is a highly misleading impression of just how a layout appears in person. Even some of the hobby's most famous layouts of the past were arranged more like dingy rabbit warrens than anything like the great, spacious, railroad empires we saw in the pages of the magazines. Remember, with photography, what you see is not necessarily what you get. Did anyone else notice that the opening photo for the Beer Line article, on page 44-45 of the January MR, is not an actual scene to be found on the layout but results from a re-locating of several structures so as to create a more pleasing and attention-grabbing image? Such is a common practice when photographing layouts or dioramas and I would venture that the majority of shots one sees in MR, RMC, et al. have multiple elements that have been added at the last minute to further enhance the scene. CNJ831
Absolutly! but the reality doesnt make the impression if you never see it in person, its the image that get printed that leaves the indelable mark on the psyche. Thats why some are often let down when they see how different a layout can look in person vs how it was published, not seeing the furnace or the piles of dirty laundry under the layout makes a huge difference
<Absolutly! but the reality doesnt make the impression if you never see it in person, its the image that get printed that leaves the indelable mark on the psyche. Thats why some are often let down when they see how different a layout can look in person vs how it was published, not seeing the furnace or the piles of dirty laundry under the layout makes a huge difference >
Ah but it does make the person who built look human.
Sure the greats are still great but we all need to realize that ther are human beings like ourselves and while they obviously have great and better skills then most of us, we still share our humanity with them.
Midnight Railroader Was that the cover with the stereotype Mexican "bandito" figures in sombreros sitting on the loco?
One firestorm erupted because Furlow put a fellow in a sombrero holding a rifle on the pilot beam of the engine. People were complaining how sterotyped it was, if not downright insulting.
About a week later I went to local Mexican restuarant and noticed that among the pictures of 1920's Mexico on the walls, there was a "prototype" picture of a fellow in a sombrero holding a rifle on the pilot beam of an engine.
What exactly is "real model railroading"? Does that mean prototypical? The nice thing about a model is that it can be anything you want it to be. If you want it to be a representation of a real place, it can be. If you want it to represent a fantasy world, it can. You can have even have hobbits riding passenger trains to Mordor with Orks working as engineers and conductors if you want to. That's the beauty of creativity. I don't think anyone should criticise anyone else's vision over how they build their own layouts just because it differs from what someone else may do. I've seen people say John Allen's G&D was too much of a fantasy world. I like that. If it was too real then what's the point? Go outside and railfan the real thing. It doesn't get anymore real than that! A model doen't have to conform to any standards, necessarily be based on anything prototypical, and certainly doesn't have to be politically correct.
"Real model railroads" can be anything from switching puzzles to basement empires. They've been built in shoeboxes, pizza boxes, on doors, window sills, shelfs, set up on carpet floors, etc. I have a hard time understanding what "real model railroading" is if John Allen's was considered too fantasy like.
dehusman Midnight Railroader Was that the cover with the stereotype Mexican "bandito" figures in sombreros sitting on the loco? One firestorm erupted because Furlow put a fellow in a sombrero holding a rifle on the pilot beam of the engine. People were complaining how sterotyped it was, if not downright insulting. About a week later I went to local Mexican restuarant and noticed that among the pictures of 1920's Mexico on the walls, there was a "prototype" picture of a fellow in a sombrero holding a rifle on the pilot beam of an engine.
Whoever made that comment must have not studied the Mexican Revolution, there are literally 100's if not 1000's of pictures of average soldiers, wearing Sombreros or similar broad hat carrying rifles posing in front of - or on top of some subject matter like a locomotive, church, fountain, etc.
I've even been in homes that have promenantly displayed a similar subject photo of their sombrero clad rifle tooting great-grandfather or great grand-uncle (and commonly great grand-mother or great grand-aunt) who they proudly boast "Fought right alongside Pancho Villa (or Emilio Zapata)"
I find that those mostly offended by such imagry are either not Mexican latino but Cuban,Central American, South American, and just dont like being lumped together with the Zapatistas, or their families are Mexican... but were on the losing side
Viva la Revolucion
fredswain . You can have even have hobbits riding passenger trains to Mordor with Orks working as engineers and conductors if you want to.
. You can have even have hobbits riding passenger trains to Mordor with Orks working as engineers and conductors if you want to.
How about Harry Potter learning the trade from Old Brakie on the Hogwart's Freight and Ferry. . (I bet you wondered what he really looked like.)
SpaceMouse fredswain . You can have even have hobbits riding passenger trains to Mordor with Orks working as engineers and conductors if you want to. How about Harry Potter learning the trade from Old Brakie on the Hogwart's Freight and Ferry. . (I bet you wondered what he really looked like.)
corsair7 <Absolutly! but the reality doesnt make the impression if you never see it in person, its the image that get printed that leaves the indelable mark on the psyche. Thats why some are often let down when they see how different a layout can look in person vs how it was published, not seeing the furnace or the piles of dirty laundry under the layout makes a huge difference > Ah but it does make the person who built look human. Sure the greats are still great but we all need to realize that ther are human beings like ourselves and while they obviously have great and better skills then most of us, we still share our humanity with them. Irv
You're right about that. It's great when we get a peek "behind the curtain" and find out that masters are just folks like the rest of us.
When I visited the National Gallery of Art I was advised to budget some time to visit the basement. After spending hours looking at the finished works of some of history's greatest artists, I descended the stairs. In the basement were sketches by many of those same great artists. Seeing eraser marks on pencil sketches by Picasso, Escher, and others brought them much closer to me - just knowing that they worked things out like I do was a revelation. I look at their work with greater appreciation knowing that it was work for them and not magic.
Westcott's book brings John Allen closer as a person. Among those pages I read about his challenges and frustrations, and the time he lost interest in model railroading and didn't touch his layout for months. Identifying with him as a person makes his results seem attainable, at least it does for me. Simply put, he wasn't born with all that skill - he had to learn it like the rest of us.
fredswainA model doen't have to conform to any standards, necessarily be based on anything prototypical, and certainly doesn't have to be politically correct
MODEL
1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object. 2a. A preliminary work or construction that serves as a plan from which a final product is to be made: a clay model ready for casting. b. Such a work or construction used in testing or perfecting a final product: a test model of a solar-powered vehicle. 3. A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics: a model of generative grammar; a model of an atom; an economic model. 4. A style or design of an item: My car is last year's model. 5. One serving as an example to be imitated or compared: a model of decorum. See synonyms at ideal. 6. One that serves as the subject for an artist, especially a person employed to pose for a painter, sculptor, or photographer. 7. A person employed to display merchandise, such as clothing or cosmetics. 8. Zoology An animal whose appearance is copied by a mimic.
Certainly any object concerned with a "model railroad" could be lumped into one of those categories. When you use the term "real model railroad" then you have a problem because you have to define what real is. If real implies reality, then Orcs and Hobbits other fantasy characters aren't "real" and modeling them isn't "real model railroading". I view the 'model" in model railroading to be defined using the first definition. So by that definition it would rule out fantasy stuff (since they are an idea, not an object) and it does imply standards since the first definition implies a scale and requires it to represent a physical object. That's my personal definition. You are welcome to yours. You shouldn't require me to conform to your definition any more than I should require you to conform to mine. If somebody wants to have Harry Potter riding the Hobbit Express, more power to them. I do reserve the skip to the next post in the thread.
Harry Potter's not real?????!!!!!
AAAAUUGGHHHHHHH!
Seems like they only issue where there is unanimity in this hobby is fewer derailments are better than more, and no derailments is best.
Mark
dehusman fredswainA model doen't have to conform to any standards, necessarily be based on anything prototypical, and certainly doesn't have to be politically correct MODEL 1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object. I view the 'model" in model railroading to be defined using the first definition. So by that definition it would rule out fantasy stuff (since they are an idea, not an object) and it does imply standards since the first definition implies a scale and requires it to represent a physical object.
1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.
I view the 'model" in model railroading to be defined using the first definition. So by that definition it would rule out fantasy stuff (since they are an idea, not an object) and it does imply standards since the first definition implies a scale and requires it to represent a physical object.
I tend to think of us as belonging to two general camps:
I find the two categories analogous to folks you find at car shows - restorers and hot rodders/customizers. The relationship between the two car groups is similar to the two train groups - respectful, but strained. It's almost as if we worry that one or the other will force us to their ways.
Myself, I'm a car guy and model railroader (hot rodder and freelancer). I don't find any reward in detailing anything to make it the same as something else - I like to bend the rules and see what happens. At the same time, I am truly grateful to the restorers and prototype modelers, because their research is what enables me to "get back to zero" when I try something on my car that doesn't work, and the prototype guys help me to know what's plausible on my freelance railroad.
I really don't know what we freelancers give back to the prototype modelers - perhaps we create a larger market for the things they need, and that helps to ensure that the products they need will continue to be available (but that's conjecture). I sense that some of the prototype guys find us irritating and I'm not sure of the reason (many of the car restoration guys see hot rodders as destroyers of potential restoration projects - it's really hard to un-chop and un-channel - so they seem to find hot-rodders distasteful).
I like what you said here:
dehusman That's my personal definition. You are welcome to yours. You shouldn't require me to conform to your definition any more than I should require you to conform to mine.
There is room in this hobby for all of us and I truly believe that we can each learn from each other, regardless of our approach to the hobby. I also think we enjoy the hobby more if we keep an open mind when we encounter folks whose ideas and ideals differ from our own (this may apply to life in general).
SpaceMouseHarry Potter's not real?????!!!!! AAAAUUGGHHHHHHH!
Well, there are many levels of reality......... (see: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle for a start.) I remember a class on Philosophy at Eastman School many years ago where reality was discussed. There was, for instance, a chair..... The physical reality of "the chair". One that has dimensions and takes space in the physical world. That is the least form of reality. Then you could have a Painting of a chair which would be a step higher in reality. But then there is the "IDEA" of "chair" which has no physical space or dimentions but exists only in the mind. That would be the true essence of "reality"!
So, after all, the world IS what You think it is.............. (To you at least). And that goes for the rest of us as well! As for John Allen, his was a world well thought!
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
markpierce... and no derailments is best.
Texas Zepher markpierce... and no derailments is best.Quite a quandary since that isn't prototypical.
No? Zero derailments is an ideal, not reality, at least over an extended period. I'm sure the real railroads think no derailments is best too.
Smoking hotboxes!, and I thought we could all agree on something!
Texas Zephermarkpierce... and no derailments is best.Quite a quandary since that isn't prototypical
Sure it is. Every prototype railroad that ever existed would agree that having no derailments is best. None acheive it but its still best.
All true, but on the other hand if you watch the video / DVD of the GD line (which wasn't shot by John) it does show a pretty remarkable level of modelling skill. Also neat to notice from the earliest film to the last how much the trains slowed down !!
Back about the time Marklin announced Z scale, I remember a pic being in MR with a caption talking about a modeller who had made a super-tiny operating train layout. The pic showed as I recall a small steam engine with a pencil behind it for size comparison. The pencil looked very big in comparison to the train, which the caption said was like 1:400 scale or something, so the engine would be about 1/2" long.
Turned out it was a pic John had rigged up and sent in under a false name. He had taken a picture of a pencil point and blown it up and then cut out the pencil, and set it behind IIRC an HO brass steam engine. I assume that was one of the last (maybe the last?) pic published in MR before John died.
I just looked up "Model Railroading with John Allen" at Abe Books, Amazon and on Ebay. THe cheapest one is on Ebay for $65 and change. Abe Books has several copies and the cheapest on there is $80. Amazon has a copy for $100. With those prices there wis obviously a market for this book.
howmusSpaceMouseHarry Potter's not real?????!!!!! AAAAUUGGHHHHHHH!   Well, there are many levels of reality......... (see: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle for a start.) I remember a class on Philosophy at Eastman School many years ago where reality was discussed. There was, for instance, a chair..... The physical reality of "the chair". One that has dimensions and takes space in the physical world. That is the least form of reality. Then you could have a Painting of a chair which would be a step higher in reality. But then there is the "IDEA" of "chair" which has no physical space or dimentions but exists only in the mind. That would be the true essence of "reality"!  So, after all, the world IS what You think it is.............. (To you at least). And that goes for the rest of us as well! As for John Allen, his was a world well thought!
SpaceMouseHarry Potter's not real?????!!!!! AAAAUUGGHHHHHHH! Â
AAAAUUGGHHHHHHH!Â
Â
Well, there are many levels of reality......... (see: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle for a start.) I remember a class on Philosophy at Eastman School many years ago where reality was discussed. There was, for instance, a chair..... The physical reality of "the chair". One that has dimensions and takes space in the physical world. That is the least form of reality. Then you could have a Painting of a chair which would be a step higher in reality. But then there is the "IDEA" of "chair" which has no physical space or dimentions but exists only in the mind. That would be the true essence of "reality"! Â
So, after all, the world IS what You think it is.............. (To you at least). And that goes for the rest of us as well! As for John Allen, his was a world well thought!
corsair7 I just looked up "Model Railroading with John Allen" at Abe Books, Amazon and on Ebay. THe cheapest one is on Ebay for $65 and change. Abe Books has several copies and the cheapest on there is $80. Amazon has a copy for $100. With those prices there wis obviously a market for this book. Irv
"Don't tell anyone you got it from me, but if you borrowed the book and 'lost' it, you would have to pay the original price."
I suppose a less, dishonest librarian would have suggested I borrow it and scan it.
markpierce Seems like they only issue where there is unanimity in this hobby is fewer derailments are better than more, and no derailments is best. Mark
But I model the 1970s--the more derailments the better!
People who fail to recognize and appreciate the brilliance of the work of Allen, Furlow, etc. are simply jealous because they lack that ability. Many people can produce excellent copies of the work of others, be it 1:1 or any other scale. This applies to works in all fields of endeavor, whether it be railroads, cars, structures, paintings, sculpture, clothes or whatever. But very, very few can create an original work which can compare to the works of the masters, such as John Allen, Frank Lloyd Wright, Da Vinci, Hitchcock, Enzo Ferrari, or anyone else you care to name.
- Harry
Harry,I doubt if there is any jealously there as much as it is saying "enough already"..The same was said for the V&O,AM, The Maumee Route,the Trains of Thought Column,etc.
Its a matter of certain modelers being overly expose in the pages of the magazines that the cry of "enough already" is heard.
On the other hand the so called "fantasy" modeling was never really accepted by the majority and is look down upon more today then in times past...
The hobby has change so much over the years I doubt if John would be considered a "master" today..
BRAKIE The hobby has change so much over the years I doubt if John would be considered a "master" today..
Maybe. But what you are doing is comparing apples to oranges--his layout to today's standards.
The one thing that almost everyone agrees is that John Allen gave the publisher's, the sponsors, and the public what they wanted. He was as talented at self-publicity as he was at modeling. My guess is that he would have positioned himself pretty well in today's environment as well.
HarryHotspurPeople who fail to recognize and appreciate the brilliance of the work of Allen, Furlow, etc. are simply jealous because they lack that ability. Many people can produce excellent copies of the work of others, be it 1:1 or any other scale. This applies to works in all fields of endeavor, whether it be railroads, cars, structures, paintings, sculpture, clothes or whatever. But very, very few can create an original work which can compare to the works of the masters, such as John Allen, Frank Lloyd Wright, Da Vinci, Hitchcock, Enzo Ferrari, or anyone else you care to name.
What I take exception to is that people don't seem to understand that a person can acknowledge an "artist's" talent without liking his work. Jackson Pollock is one of the most famous and groundbreaking modern artists. Would I pick a print of one of his paintings to hang in my living room? Probably not. John Allen was one of the most famous and groundbreaking modelers. Would I pick a layout and scenery design similar to his for my layout? Probably not.
My choice is not based on jealousy or either of our modeling abilities. It is just a matter of personal preference. Saying that you HAVE to like the G&D (which is implied by the many of the posts, such as implying that the motivation for not liking Allens work is a driven by negative behavior such as jealousy, liking the G&D is good, disliking it is bad) is like saying that I HAVE to like Coke, that I HAVE to model the PRR or that I HAVE to like the Red Sox. I don't HAVE to do any of those. I don't HAVE to like the G&D. And not liking it doesn't imply that I hate it either. If I had unlimited funds to create the layout of my dreams, it would look nothing like the G&D, its just not my preference.
Chip,I dunno know..The hobby is so different today then it was back then and that's not apple to oranges either.There has always been the few so called "fantasy modelers" in our hobby that was tolerated now,I am not dang sure..Even on the local scene I notice the younger modelers(those less then 40) wanting 110% correct models with noise and frown on those models that isn't up to those "standards"..Some frown at freelance railroads as being "fantasy" modeling and not serious modeling...
Old relics like me that enjoys the hobby doing things the "old school" way are on the "endangered species" list soon to become extinct..
I believe if John came on the scene today he would be grouped with Malcolm and friends frowned upon as not being "serious"and that battle cry of "Why did MR,RMC waste the space?" would be heard.
The hobby is the hands of you younger modelers.Shape it well.
SpaceMouse corsair7 I just looked up "Model Railroading with John Allen" at Abe Books, Amazon and on Ebay. THe cheapest one is on Ebay for $65 and change. Abe Books has several copies and the cheapest on there is $80. Amazon has a copy for $100. With those prices there wis obviously a market for this book. IrvI read it through interlibrary loan. When I told the woman at the counter that I saw a copy on eBay for $300 she said, "Don't tell anyone you got it from me, but if you borrowed the book and 'lost' it, you would have to pay the original price." I suppose a less, dishonest librarian would have suggested I borrow it and scan it.
At this point I'd settle for a scan or even a nice photocopy.
Sure it may violate a copyright but if they aren't willing to reprint it and I am not willing spend megabucks for a copy, what can they expect?
BRAKIE I believe if John came on the scene today he would be grouped with Malcolm and friends frowned upon as not being "serious"and that battle cry of "Why did MR,RMC waste the space?" would be heard.
This statement assumes he would build the same layout or even the same style of layout. I beleive John Allen would have still given the people what they want.
HarryHotspurPeople who fail to recognize and appreciate the brilliance of the work of Allen, Furlow, etc. are simply jealous because they lack that ability
No, That implies that if you think something is art, we must all agree, or we're wrong.
Just because you think their work was great, doesn't make it universally or objectively true.
It always misleading to speculate on what so-and-so would do if they were alive today. We're all products of our times. If Beethoven had been born in the 20th century he might have gravitated towards synthesizers and been making Rock CD's today rather than composing symphonies. In a different time, Abe Lincoln might have given up on politics after losing his seat in Congress and been satisfied remaining a highly successful corporate attorney.
John Allen started in model railroading at a time when inside jokes, puns, cutesy place and railroad names were common. Walthers used to offer a decal set called "model railroad names" which besides words like "northern", "southern", "central" etc. included "attic", "toy", "basement" and others. I suspect there were plenty of "Basement and Western" and "Lilliput Central" railroads around. (Anyone remember the "Yahsah, Yewall and Shonuff RR"??) It was pretty rare back then to find a model railroad that didn't have a "George's Gorge" or some similar play on words or pun.
As someone with a sense of humor he enjoyed doing jokes on his layout. But I think we can't get too carried away with that. He did a few jokes here and there - I suspect more early on, fewer (or more subtle ones) as he got older. But John was also an excellent modeller. He got permission to ride on freight trains in the cab and made notes of how a real train crew switched industries, how long it took etc. In the days of wooden cars with trussrods, freight cars really did sometimes sag or have a hump in the middle if the rods were too loose or too tight. Maybe he exagerated that a little, but many many of the cars, buildings, and engines he built were very accurate and well detailed models.
It's kinda like celebrities today. Somebody is a model citizen for a couple of years, then gets drunk at a Hollywood party and causes a scene, and the next weekend SNL is doing a sketch portraying them as a raging alcoholic. Just because John took a few pics of a brontosaurus on his layout, or posed some figures in the act of lynching a diesel locomotive salesman as a joke for some friends when they came over, don't assume that his layout was just a series of Disneyland scenes and make-believe jokes.
SpaceMouse BRAKIE I believe if John came on the scene today he would be grouped with Malcolm and friends frowned upon as not being "serious"and that battle cry of "Why did MR,RMC waste the space?" would be heard. This statement assumes he would build the same layout or even the same style of layout. I beleive John Allen would have still given the people what they want.
Chip,I believe you missed my point..
betamaxBrace yourselves. Another box from Allen's house has been found to contain reams of documents written by Allen himself, discussing various topics such as data sheets, operations etc. From his round-robin mailings of the 1960s. We may learn even more about the man and his influence. There are even some photographs.
Source?
wjstixJust because John took a few pics of a brontosaurus on his layout, or posed some figures in the act of lynching a diesel locomotive salesman as a joke for some friends when they came over, don't assume that his layout was just a series of Disneyland scenes and make-believe jokes.
dehusman Naw let the 400 ft sheer drops that filled half the room, the sky hook lifts to stations and multiple bridges over the same canyon do that for ya.
Naw let the 400 ft sheer drops that filled half the room, the sky hook lifts to stations and multiple bridges over the same canyon do that for ya.
Actually, John Allen modeled the West, where 400 foot sheer drops are relatively common on railroads out here. If you've ever been over the SP (now UP) Donner Pass line, there are several places where the railroad skirts not only 400 foot sheer drops, but a couple of 2,000 foot ones. He just modeled the type of country that he was used to out here, IMO.
dehusmanNaw let the 400 ft sheer drops that filled half the room, the sky hook lifts to stations and multiple bridges over the same canyon do that for ya.
twhite dehusman Naw let the 400 ft sheer drops that filled half the room, the sky hook lifts to stations and multiple bridges over the same canyon do that for ya. Actually, John Allen modeled the West, where 400 foot sheer drops are relatively common on railroads out here. If you've ever been over the SP (now UP) Donner Pass line, there are several places where the railroad skirts not only 400 foot sheer drops, but a couple of 2,000 foot ones. He just modeled the type of country that he was used to out here, IMO. Tom
I've just had a thought of what I think might be a rewarding model railroad subject - Cannery Row. Infleuced by another of California's great sons, John Steinbeck. So many wonderful scenic and reseach opportunities. Main-line and switching possibilites and period features. Lots of scratchbuilding and or kit bashing - authentic or fantasy. The prospects are becoming way too exciting for this old mans heart to take. I'm getting a buzz for the possibilities bouncing about in my head and my creative juices are flowing - oop's, time for a mug of java and a good lay-down
Cheers
Bruce
citylimits twhite dehusman Naw let the 400 ft sheer drops that filled half the room, the sky hook lifts to stations and multiple bridges over the same canyon do that for ya. Actually, John Allen modeled the West, where 400 foot sheer drops are relatively common on railroads out here. If you've ever been over the SP (now UP) Donner Pass line, there are several places where the railroad skirts not only 400 foot sheer drops, but a couple of 2,000 foot ones. He just modeled the type of country that he was used to out here, IMO. Tom I've just had a thought of what I think might be a rewarding model railroad subject - Cannery Row. Infleuced by another of California's great sons, John Steinbeck. So many wonderful scenic and reseach opportunities. Main-line and switching possibilites and period features. Lots of scratchbuilding and or kit bashing - authentic or fantasy. The prospects are becoming way too exciting for this old mans heart to take. I'm getting a buzz for the possibilities bouncing about in my head and my creative juices are flowing - oop's, time for a mug of java and a good lay-down Cheers Bruce
Bruce--
GREAT idea! Actually, I'm surprised that nobody (at least that I know of) hasn't modeled that SP branch through Monterey and along the coast down through Asilomar and Del Monte. You can walk the branch through Cannery Row--it's a pedestrian/bike trail and along the coast, and you're right, it's got tons of character. Just like Steinbeck's wonderful novel (which happens to be my all-time favorite book!).
Midnight RailroaderHarryHotspurPeople who fail to recognize and appreciate the brilliance of the work of Allen, Furlow, etc. are simply jealous because they lack that ability No, That implies that if you think something is art, we must all agree, or we're wrong. Just because you think their work was great, doesn't make it universally or objectively true.
Sorry, I failed to state my point clearly, so I'll try again.
I am simply making the distinction between an original work and a copy. Whether it's called "art" or not is a matter of semantics and is irrelevant to my point. One who creates something original has a vision and talent. Whether the object created is good or bad is always a matter or opinion. For example, I cannot appreciate the works of Picasso, but I do not deny that his work was original and creative and that he has a vision not previously displayed by others.
But even though I cannot appreciate Picasso's work, it is an indisputable fact Picasso deserves more recognition than those who simply produced copies of his work. The same is true of any human creation. For example I might be able to build an outstanding scale model of one of Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings, but it's still just a copy, and the fact that I cannot produce an original work as good as his means that I lack the talent he had.
And of course the same thing applies to model railroading. Some MRRs have the outstanding vision and talent to create original works which are pleasing to the great majority of viewers. Others lack this talent, and are thus limited to building miniature copies of the works of others.
HarryHotspurAnd of course the same thing applies to model railroading. Some MRRs have the outstanding vision and talent to create original works which are pleasing to the great majority of viewers. Others lack this talent, and are thus limited to building miniature copies of the works of others.
<edit: sarcastic comment removed>
Give it a break, Harry. Go visit an art gallery instead of trying to bait people.
Grin, Stein
It should be pointed out that John's modeling of the G&D was simply an extavagant "style", not some extraordinarily new art form or concept within the hobby and in my opinion could be seen as an evolving extrapolation from some other existing layouts of the period. However, John admittedly took these ideas to creative extremes that exceeded most of those others. In large part, readers opinions presented here have been based on what they've seen of the G&D in the literature of recent years and fails to consider other material appearing in older copies MR's and RMC's. Thus, many posters don't really appreciate the sort of modeling being done by some others at the time that may have influenced John himself. John's overall modeling style is today probably best classified as caricature, which one saw as distinctly more commonplace during the earliest period of the G&D than subsequently. This makes John no less of an outstanding modeler, nor less looked upon as a very creative mind in the hobby's early history but it does indicate that John modeling was not absolutely unique.
Likewise, it should be noted that John's "style" of modeling was never one that was truly universally appealing and thus the complaints one occasionally saw in MR's Letters to the Editor regarding "too much G&D" in its pages. Nor has John's G&D style of modeling been widely reproduced in other layouts since (Sellios and Furlow seemingly being its main proponents seen in the magazines in recent years), which tends to put the G&D's actual longterm influence on the hobby/hobbyists somewhat in question in my book. Even well before John's untimely death, the sort of modeling style presented on the G&D had long since given way to a more strict conformity to realism. This is in no way to be taken as critical of John's work, nor does it take anything away from the G&D's incredible visual impact, then or now. However, while the G&D has certainly been considered as visually amazing to virtually all of us, past and present, it has not resulted in many hobbyists ever being willing to incorporate it's style into their own layouts.
steinjrHarryHotspurAnd of course the same thing applies to model railroading. Some MRRs have the outstanding vision and talent to create original works which are pleasing to the great majority of viewers. Others lack this talent, and are thus limited to building miniature copies of the works of others. <edit: sarcastic comment removed> Give it a break, Harry. Go visit an art gallery instead of trying to bait people. Grin, Stein
Oh be nice.
dehusman[ One firestorm erupted because Furlow put a fellow in a sombrero holding a rifle on the pilot beam of the engine. People were complaining how sterotyped it was, if not downright insulting.
[
Just because there is an aggregate of boneheads willing to agree that they have been insulted, does NOTHING to invalidate the source of their ire.
Begging pardon, but also begging the question......
To paraphrase those who have gone before us:
"It is art, Jim, but not as we know it"
But where's the logic? Okay, before we get too off subject...
As I have said before, I admire John Allen's accomplishments and his place in the history of our hobby. The G&D was quite a layout. But I am guessing from the thread title that all opinions are up to scrutiny, so I will say this.. I like seeing many other people's work just as much if not more sometimes, and as I am far from a master modeler myself I greatly admire what many have accomplished. I don't see myself ever getting close to doing what some people can.
I know John has a huge following, but my opinion? I will take reading about his first layout or his second one anyday, I find his original small layout to be more interesting by far than the large one. And as someone with a small layout I certainly can appreciate it more. So no, I am not looking for a "fight" as the title suggests, just offering a slightly different opinion than many others might. Maybe someone else already has, in which case this can be added to that line of thinking, haven't had time to read this whole thread.
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
trainfan1221 I will take reading about his first layout or his second one anyday, I find his original small layout to be more interesting by far than the large one. And as someone with a small layout I certainly can appreciate it more.
I will take reading about his first layout or his second one anyday, I find his original small layout to be more interesting by far than the large one. And as someone with a small layout I certainly can appreciate it more.
It's interesting to note that in operating sessions, John liked to often run the train that ran up the branchline that used the original layout as it's core. Apparently that was a favorite part of his layout to him also.
I went back and looked thru the Westcott book again over the weekend. (BTW it should really be called the Westcott - Hayden book...Linn Wescott died well before the book was finished, and Bob Hayden came in as "editor" and put it all together.) One thing that I think has gotten overlooked is that operation was very important to John. At that time, off-layout staging was rare - you made up trains in a yard, ran them over the layout, and broke them up in another yard. Layouts were built to have as long a mainline run as possible, to provide a sense of distance and to allow for plenty of industries - even if it meant looping thru the same scene three or four times. I believe many of the later articles he wrote were about train operations, not scenery. I don't think JA was building a layout to be a way to show off his scenery skills, it was meant to represent a working railroad...and from what I can learn, did so quite well.
BTW someone mentioned something about John "doing what the masses wanted". I think that's not true. From what I can gather John wasn't someone desperate for attention, although I guess once he got going amongst friends he could be a pretty good talker. He sounds like a fairly quite, polite guy who liked trains.
TA462 Wasn't Mr.Allen a very good photographer as well? Could it be that his photograph's made his layout better then it actually was? I know that you can hide a lot of flaws when you take a picture of a car so I'm sure you can do the same with a layout. His pictures were spectacular weren't they. Just something to think about.
Wasn't Mr.Allen a very good photographer as well? Could it be that his photograph's made his layout better then it actually was? I know that you can hide a lot of flaws when you take a picture of a car so I'm sure you can do the same with a layout. His pictures were spectacular weren't they. Just something to think about.
I don't think they'd have been so glowing in their reports of the experience if the reality of the layout was not as good as the photos.
Precisely...and something I attempted to point out well up-stream in this very thread.
A good photographer can totally trick the viewer into thinking details, or scenery, exist in a picture of a layout when something totally different and prehaps much less impressive actually exists. John was a master of this sort of thing. Specific camera angles, unusually wide-angle (for the time) shots, superimposing multiple scenes, using mirrors to expand a scene - all of these were used by John to great advantage in his layout photos.
Take a look at the G&D photo on page 88 of the current MR. What appears to be a vista of a huge yard is, in fact, a shelf a bit more than 3 feet wide and perhaps 7 feet long. Fully half the image is just a reflection of the scene in a large mirror. So...less than half of what you see there truly exists.
Now look at the picture on the next page, showing the yard at Gorre and beyond. It looks like the scene's background goes on and on. But does it? Heck, no! What you are seeing is a type of composite shot I've used myself on many occasions. By cleverly positioning the camera as he did, John has us looking across the upgraded but quite small original G&D layout, across several feet of aisleway, to the shelf carrying Angel's Camp beyond, which was 12 feet or more from the camera! However, from this angle, the scene appears to be one solid piece of railroad.
In neither case (as well as in many other of John's photos) does the image honestly depict what the layout would look like if you were actually present in John's layout room. Photo images are in 2-D and as such are subject to all sorts of trickery that in a 3-D presentation of the same scene would never fool the viewer.
ALWAYS keep this in mind when looking at layout photos, whether they be by John Allen, or anyone else.
wjstix One thing that I think has gotten overlooked is that operation was very important to John. At that time, off-layout staging was rare - you made up trains in a yard, ran them over the layout, and broke them up in another yard. Layouts were built to have as long a mainline run as possible, to provide a sense of distance and to allow for plenty of industries - even if it meant looping thru the same scene three or four times.
One thing that I think has gotten overlooked is that operation was very important to John. At that time, off-layout staging was rare - you made up trains in a yard, ran them over the layout, and broke them up in another yard. Layouts were built to have as long a mainline run as possible, to provide a sense of distance and to allow for plenty of industries - even if it meant looping thru the same scene three or four times.
w:
Yes, the focus then leaned towards the concept of a real transportation system, where our present focus is more towards the appearance of a real transportation system.
Nowadays we tend to take exception to the shortcuts that were involved, but perhaps, from the other point of view, too much reliance on staging (for example) to make the railroad look real to the observer, might make it feel less real to the operator. I think the most interesting model railroads combine both ideas, however.
I agree 100%. I like to make things as much as anybody, but they look a whole lot nicer when produced from a blueprint or a set of directions clearly written.
John Allen made people think I guess about their approaches to the hobby as such. much like Malcom Furlow. I find that some of the arguing about prototypical depictions of MRR'ing has the same note as that of an artist having to deal with questions about 'realism'. We forget we are arguing over RE-presentation not the thing itself. If I use elves on my layout instead of humans of what use would it be for a negative nancy to get all in a bother about it anyway?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
I picked up the DVD on the G&D finally got to see it
BUY IT!
Dam the guy was good!, this is just a capsule summary, but the DVD sadly short at just under 40 minutes, includes many still shots but is mainly composed of a never finished film that was in production when Allen died and never finished. So what you can see is parts of the G&D at its hight in full glory, professionally shot on great color film. Definetly worth it as one thing video allowes is to see the layout in action, and the moving camera allows to see how there was no part of the layout that wasnt detailed, I now see where the detailing logic behind the F&SM came from, every square inch of the layout has to looks "lived in".
I haven't watched my copy for a while, but I'd say there's maybe 20 min. of film footage. It's broken up into segments as I recall, so the narrator will talk say about John's narrow gauge interests and it'll show some stills and some footage of the narrow gauge in action while the narrator talks about it. I can't remember who the narrator was (not sure he was even identified?) but I think it was a friend of John's who was familiar with the layout.
Capt. GrimekThanks! If anyone happens to actually time the filmed sections, just as a recording studio/production guy aside from MRing, I"d be curious. If it's near 20 min. I'm in. This man has been a hero of mine for decades and I had always wished that motion pictures existed and only found out last year that it did. If anyone happens to see a used copy at a cheaper price listed somewhere and would PM me that would be greatly appreciated as well. Otherwise it'll have to wait until the new year.
Where can I get the video? I might be able to buy one now since I've been lucky to have unloaded alot of stuff recently on Ebay and the money is there now to buy this. I still wouldn't pay $300 for a used book so the video just may give what the book could. To bad I never bought my own copy. But that's life, I guess.
Capt. GrimekIrv, I just now ordered a DVD copy from trainvideodepot.com for $30 plus 3.00 shipping. I didn't find anything cheaper or used online. Hope that helps. They're in CA. (Don't remember if I saw a VHS version listed there if you meant video, literally...)
I got mine thru them too, but at a show. watched it again its definelty like 30+min out of the 40 of film