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.
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.
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..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
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.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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.
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
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.
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?
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..
The hobby is the hands of you younger modelers.Shape it 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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
BRAKIE The hobby has change so much over the years I doubt if John would be considered a "master" today..
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.
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...
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
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
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!
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
Harry Potter's not real?????!!!!!
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!
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
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 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
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.
Texas Zephermarkpierce... and no derailments is best.Quite a quandary since that isn't prototypical
markpierce... and no derailments is best.
Sure it is. Every prototype railroad that ever existed would agree that having no derailments is best. None acheive it but its still 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!
SpaceMouseHarry Potter's not real?????!!!!! AAAAUUGGHHHHHHH!
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!
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.
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.
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).
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
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.
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
<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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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
Have fun with your trains
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.