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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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?
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
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
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!
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.
Jason
Modeling the Fort Worth & Denver of the early 1970's in N scale
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.
- Harry
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.
CNJ831
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.
[
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".
Have fun with your trains