All Hail John Allen!

[MidlandPacific]

QUOTE: .... and next to the ash pit I'd have to put a . . . . . . . hmmmmmm. Maybe not . . . . . .

The maestro himself said the Dino never learned to use the ashpit. I mean, come on, you want to be prototypical, right????

[davekelly]

Vssmith,

Was at Wally World yesterday after this thread started and found myself looking for dino figures. Gotta have one. I think it would look really neat next to my BLI Mike. Of course, then I'd have to put some sort of feeding trough next to the coaling tower.... and next to the ash pit I'd have to put a . . . . . . . hmmmmmm. Maybe not . . . . . . [(-D][(-D][(-D]

[vsmith]

When I start to rebuild my indoor layout in the new garage, I've decided what my tribute to John Allen will be, instead of cattle or sheep in the stock pens, it will be dinosaurs!

How about a heard of Triceritops on their way to Chicago to become Top Sauroloin!

[:0][:p][:D][;)]

[SPFan]

The quality that defined John Allen's work and later Selio's for me is imagination. The closer to reality a model achieves the less imagination it takes to create it. Skill, yes, imagination, no. For the kid with his chin on the table watching his undersized Lionel coming down the three rail track its all about imagination. That for me, separates model railroading from modeling.

Pete

[MidlandPacific]

And for those who've offered nasty insinuations about the talents of freelancers, and particularly for those who've criticized The Wizard of Monterey, I offer Yeats' response to critics of John Synge's "Playboy of the Western World" (which covered the life of Don Juan)

Once, when midnight smote the air,
Eunuchs ran through Hell and met
From thoroughfare to thoroughfare
While that great Juan galloped by;
And like these to rail and sweat
Staring upon his sinewy thigh.

[MidlandPacific]

Oh, all right. Here are the links. Just teasers, as I said - not much detail, although diehard GD Line fans will find the drawing interesting.

http://www.redshift.com/~1king26/drawing.jpg

http://www.redshift.com/~1king26/trio.jpg

[ARTHILL]

OK where are all these pics, or is that the teaser, no pics YET. I love looking at JA"s stuff, though I don't need any more ideas until I finish some of the ones I have, including my freelanced model of Yellowstone/Yosemite floor to ceiling canyon.

[MidlandPacific]

In the time it took for this discussion to morph away from the original topic and into a "rigid adherence to prototype versus freelancer" smackdown, someone has discovered and begun to post a cache of previously unknown photos of the Gorre and Daphetid. I had about thirty messages in my inbox this morning.

As I said, I'm an empiricist in these matters, rather than a theorist. I don't really care about the question of which kind of modeling is "better". But I do know that if JA wasn't all that great a modeler, and if his modeling was unappealing, people would not be writing grateful messages of appreciation to Keith Beard for his willingness to sort, scan and post these photos.

I'll post a link as soon as I have it - right now Keith's just sending out teasers.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

Oh My God! In nearly five years of reading and contributing to this forum never have I seen such an endless run of nonsense, twaddle, and just plain B.S. associated with a thread or subject.

The discussion here does not involve da Vinci vs. Dali, Einstein vs. Newton, nor Dr. Freud vs. Dr. Phil! We are dealing with a bunch of average joe's that play with miniature trains and usually attempt to create, to the best of their often limited abilities, some sort of surrounding real-world scenery to go with them. Like it or not, some can do this with considerable talent, some have more difficulty exicuting something reasonably believable, and a lot simply lack sufficient talent to do so in any acceptable form. For heaven's sake, don't read into simple subjects far, far more than honestly exists!

CNJ831

As may be, I've sure enjoyed the discussion!

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

Some ponderings. At what level is one a "serious" model railroader? Let's say one wants to add an automobile to his 1964 PRR layout. Which level would mark someone that is "serious"?

1. Can only find a 1965 Chevy - uses it because it is "close enough."
2. Can only find a 1965 Chevy - refuses to use it as it doesn't go with the year of the layout...

I would say everything after level 1.

But I'll put a question to you, Dave. If a modeller decided to go to any of these levels of "seriousness", what of it? It's their layout, it's their choice, is it not?

I get the sense that you would tend to disparage that person and their choices. If that is so, why?
What difference does it make to the way you enjoy the hobby if another person chooses another way?

All the best,

Mark.

Mark,

You would guess wrong. My feeling is if it makes a person smile - then he/she is a successful model railroader. Disparge a person's way of being a model railroader is not my way. I believe calling someone's modeling "non realistic" is somewhat of a negative. No matter how freelanced we get with our modeling - no matter how caractuture (sp?) our style - we all want to be somewhat realistic. I put the scale from my earlier post up there - not to diss anyone's way of doing thing - but to point out that no one goes "all the way" in realism. I dare say that if a person's first comment upon seeing your layout was "that Chevy isn't right - GM didn't use that shade of Green in 1964 - you'll realize the importantance of that as you get over your beginners enthusiams and become a serious modeler" you would take that as a slight.

As anyone that has been on this forum a while will tell you (I think) I love it when people do things their own way. If a person wants to be 100 percent prototypical - more power too him/her. I actually admire the modeler that has the vision to see a totally correct miniaturized world and follows a philosophy of "1/87th everything." On the other hand I also respect the person that uses the hobby to escape the real world. This person builds his layout to reflect how he things the world should be or how he remembers the past. If this person is able to build a layout that matches his vision - then I again can admire that ability. Both are serious model railroaders.

Believe it or not you can make your layout a perfectly scaled model of a certain place at a certain time - and if there are any RTR items on your layout there are some that will say that you aren't a real model railroader as real model railroaders build things, not open boxes and you'll see that when you get serious about being a modeler.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

Oh My God! In nearly five years of reading and contributing to this forum never have I seen such an endless run of nonsense, twaddle, and just plain B.S. associated with a thread or subject.

Don't sugar coat it. Tell us how you really feel.

In truth, to the average Joe it doesn't matter how one thinks or what one thinks when they make a layout. And you are right, perhaps for the majority of people, skills play a bigger part--although I would say commitmnet and persistance play an even bigger part than skill.

Still some of us enjoy discussing the psyco-babble. I think there is a lot to be learned from discussing the masters of the art of railroading.

[CNJ831]

Oh My God! In nearly five years of reading and contributing to this forum never have I seen such an endless run of nonsense, twaddle, and just plain B.S. associated with a thread or subject.

The discussion here does not involve da Vinci vs. Dali, Einstein vs. Newton, nor Dr. Freud vs. Dr. Phil! We are dealing with a bunch of average joe's that play with miniature trains and usually attempt to create, to the best of their often limited abilities, some sort of surrounding real-world scenery to go with them. Like it or not, some can do this with considerable talent, some have more difficulty executing something reasonably believable, and a lot simply lack sufficient talent to do so in any acceptable form. For heaven's sake, don't read into simple subjects far, far more than honestly exists!

CNJ831

[dwRavenstar]

There are two ways to have the tallest building in the neighborhood; you build yours up or tear the others down.

Considering the two majority posters in this thread it's my opinion that one of you has put forth the effort to engage in a philosophical discussion while the other has taken every available opportunity to deride every opinion that has been offered from every corner. I'll allow it to each of you to decide which description applies where.

The catch with trying to level the neighborhood is that you sooner or later find yourself in a fight.

Railroad modelling is a self-indulgence, a method of self expression and a creation of something that brings satisfaction when it's done properly. When it suits YOU it's being done properly. You might as well attack someone for speaking in the wrong language or with the wrong accent when you comment that their way of seeing or doing something in a way that makes them happy and hurts no one else is wrong.

dwRavenstar

[SpaceMouse]

Mark N.

This for me has never been about the good or bad of either model railroading as expressive art or model railroading as expressive realism. What I objected to was the idea that someone could model something realistically, with total objectivity. This is impossible because:

1) People cannot process all the information availible to them
2) Everyone filters the information in a way this important to them
3) Therefore everyone filters the information differently and their perception is altrered by this filtering
4) When people model realistically, they model what they perceive
5) When people model they don't model what they don't perceive
6) They then must eilinate things from their layout due to selective compression and do so based upon what is they perceive as not important.
7) They must also make choices based upon skill level and commercial availibility and their personal econiomic status
8) They also make choince as to how much time the spend on each aspect of the hobby, which in turn is based upon their perception of what is important.

Therefore it is my contention than no matter how realistically you model, you cannot do so without imprinting who you are onto your creation.

This doesn't mean you can't do a create a great realistic layout and amaze your friends. It just means your creation will still be a reflection of who you are.

This stance seems to have gotten me labled as anti-realistic.

That and the fact that I think the idea is ludicrous that one starts modeling whimsy and becomes more realistic as their skills develop and they get more serious about the hobby. I think that people who model railroading as art are every bit as serious as those who try for realism.

I do think that artists who express their layouts as art are bringing something to the table that realists don't. Because if they do it well, they are bringing forth an internally consistant interpretation of the essence of the world, a vision that must be held to thoughout the creation of the layout --i.e. the dark times of the Depression as seen by Selios or the joyous fiesta world of Furlow.

I can appreciate both camps.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

My intention is to replicate reality, not selectively edit it.

That is a mind-boggling statement, Mark.
It implies no selective compression, exact scale reduction of prototype curvature, use of #12 and larger (mostly larger) turnouts, etc.

That's exactly what it implies, and involves. Why is that so mind boggling? I'm not attempting to recreate Tehachapi Loop, or anything else enormous that stretches for miles on end. Did no-one look at the pictures I posted earlier in the thread of my module?

The terminal I'm modelling is, in reality, just on 700' long, and no more than 135' wide. That can easilybe modelled in HO without selective compression. So that's what I've done. Sure, this approach won't work if I want to model an entire division, but that's the compromise I make - choose something small and model it completely.

All the best,

Mark.

It's mind-boggling because it's such a unique approach. Tight curves, sharp switches and selective compression are almost axioms in this hobby, wheter we realize it or not. As your approach, which I've not encountered in the hobby before, eschews those axioms, it boggles my mind.

I think I did see the photos you posted - got any more? I wouldn't even begin to try to do what you are doing, but I'd love to see more of the results of your efforts!

hats off to you and your work!

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Mark,

While we assume what we know as physical laws are stable, there is more and more research coming out from quantum physics that blur the distiction between matter and energy. As such, there is increasing evidence that thought energy can have an effect on matter. This opens a whole new can of worms.

Hmmmm. What exactly is the energy of thought? At best a few millijoules of energy as electro-chemical changes take place in our brains, where thought does, by definition, have an effect on the matter in our brains. But does it have an effect on matter outside our own brains? I take it that you are implying such an effect, and that is quite a leap from the current state of knowledge.

Still, since I don't quite know everything yet [:D], I guess I can't really refute it, but I will remain very sceptical!

But there is some evidence that physical laws are not entirely stable at the quantum level, so who knows?

[Grubby]

QUOTE: Mate, how you perceive things is your own business, it's not for me to tell you.

You tell me, do you perceive my original post, "I've never been impressed by Allen's modelling, nor that of his followers like Furlow and Sellios. I prefer realistic modelling." as bashing? Because I'm buggered if I can see why such an innocuous remark should be met with the sort of responses it has gotten.

No, I think it is a fair comment, but several of your responses from their have been fairly offensive to those not acquainted with the Australian communication standard [:P]

I dont like that sort of stuff either but being critical of it to the extent this thread has generated shows a distinct lack of understanding of the "artistic" side of this hobby. You dont have to like it to appreciate the skill and imagination these guys have. To dismiss their "art" because it doesnt float your boat is your perogative, but expect people to defend their "idols" and people they consider pioneers and master craftsmen.

Being careful when treading on people's toes is apparently a cultural difference I have noticed especially on these forums. Americans seem to have a distinct lack of "tall poppy syndrome", and we are definately in the minority here. I am still intrigued as to this cultural difference you speak of though..

GL HF

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

Some ponderings. At what level is one a "serious" model railroader? Let's say one wants to add an automobile to his 1964 PRR layout. Which level would mark someone that is "serious"?

1. Can only find a 1965 Chevy - uses it because it is "close enough."
2. Can only find a 1965 Chevy - refuses to use it as it doesn't go with the year of the layout...

I would say everything after level 1.

But I'll put a question to you, Dave. If a modeller decided to go to any of these levels of "seriousness", what of it? It's their layout, it's their choice, is it not?

I get the sense that you would tend to disparage that person and their choices. If that is so, why?
What difference does it make to the way you enjoy the hobby if another person chooses another way?

All the best,

Mark.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

I'm glad that you appear to be very happy with your layout and spend considerable time with it. I guess that bottom line my point is that the "proper" way to approach a layout is the way each specific modeler wants to.

Absolutely - I couldn't agree more. My reasons for model railroading are much like yours. I like trains, and I liked the times that my father spent playing trains with me when I was young.

What I don't like is being told I should "hail" a particular person, simply beacuse there is a consensus view that they are "great".

All the best,

Mark.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Grubby

I am interested in these cultural differences between Australians and Americans as they relate to modelling railroads... perhaps Mark can explain how I should perceive my Australian perspective on this argument,

Mate, how you perceive things is your own business, it's not for me to tell you.

You tell me, do you perceive my original post, "I've never been impressed by Allen's modelling, nor that of his followers like Furlow and Sellios. I prefer realistic modelling." as bashing? Because I'm buggered if I can see why such an innocuous remark should be met with the sort of responses it has gotten.

All the best,

Mark.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by twhite

Whoa, friend, back up on that one a little bit, will you? Remember, 'realism' is often a personal perception.

I totally disagree. To me, realism is not a matter of perception. To me, realism is recreating a real scene, or creating one that could plausibly exist in reality. I regard the layouts of Allen/Furlow/Sellios and their imitators as unrealistic, fantasy layouts because they portray scenes that are implausible, scenes that could never exist in any reality. All your comparisons about our differing perceptions are beside the point. Realism is not just about whether one has the right number of spikes in the track, or other minutae. That's just differing levels of detail. Sellios' layout is very highly detailed, but unrealistic all the same.

QUOTE: I would grant that my perception of model railroading is probably quite different from yours, but don't EVER call me less than accomplished because of that difference. It's MY perception, remember. Just like it's YOURS.

No-one, least of all me, called you less accomplished. From what I can see you are an accomplished modeller, and a realistic one at that. My comment was not aimed at you. My comment was not in regard to perceptions, but experience, ability and accomplishment. Like it or not, we are not all at the same level of attainment as modellers.

All the best,

Mark.

[davekelly]

Some ponderings. At what level is one a "serious" model railroader? Let's say one wants to add an automobile to his 1964 PRR layout. Which level would mark someone that is "serious"?

1. Can only find a 1965 Chevy - uses it because it is "close enough."
2. Can only find a 1965 Chevy - refuses to use it as it doesn't go with the year of the layout.
3. Finds a 1945 Ford and uses it because it could conceivably still be operating.
4. Does research and finds that the 45 Ford weren't around in great numbers in 64 so refuses to use it.
5. Finds a 63 Chevy RTR and puts in on the layout
6. Researches the colors available on the 63 Chevy and paints it a similar shade
7. Gets the actual 63 Chevy paint chips and custom mixes paint to match
8. Researches and ensures the license plate on the model car was actually on a 63 Chevy.

[davekelly]

Andre,

I see you aren't a real model railroader as you don't model the CNJ or PRR in 1963. Please turn in your membership. Oh yeah - if you aren't running a MRC PE or PA system - you obviously don't understand DCC either. There is no need to discuss your views on realism vs fantasy either as your absurb choice of prototype and era marks you as only a wannabe.

[(-D][(-D][(-D] I have to admit those SP Pacifics sure are pretty engines!

Roadtrp,

Remembering playing trains with Dad is why my favorite equipment includes a couple of Tyco HO engines and a Lionel flatcar with the submarine on it.

[andrechapelon]

Anyone that doesn't do things the way I do is not as serious a model railroader as I am. And most likely less accomplished. The fact that manufacturers don't bring to market things I want shows there total misunderstanding of the marketplace and willingness to rip off everyone stupid enough to buy their stuff. The magazines have lost touch with reality as they haven't done a single article about my favorite prototype (the only one worth modeling) era and scale in at least 6 months.

Well, Dave, that pretty well sums it up.

If the manufacturers don't bring out a reasonably priced (< $150) model of Southern Pacific P-6 4-6-2 #2454 as it appeared on July 31, 1948 at 9:30 AM PDT that surely shows their obstinate refusal to understand the market.

Model Railroader and RMC should limit their focus to Southern Pacific's Monterey Branch as it apppeared and was operated in 1948.

Oh yeah, all scales except for HO are for losers. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Andre

[Roadtrp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

Originally posted by Roadtrp
Do you seriously think that I would devote time, effort, skill and money to a hobby I didn't enjoy? I enjoy doing research, I enjoy learning new skills. I enjoy developing my existing ones. I enjoy the satisfaction of creating a miniature version of a place I've been, or a train I rode or drove. In short, I enjoy my hobby immensely.

I average about two hours a day working on modelling or the layout. (I'm also fortunate in being able to do some of that while I'm at work.)

All the best,

Mark.

I'm glad that you appear to be very happy with your layout and spend considerable time with it. I guess that bottom line my point is that the "proper" way to approach a layout is the way each specific modeler wants to.

My modeling skills are meager, and frankly I have no great interest in developing them a whole lot. I want to be better than I am, but never aspire to be as accomplished as many of you are.

I have my pike for two reasons:

1) I love trains
2) I loved having my Dad play trains with me when I was a kid.

My Dad had put together quite an extensive Lionel layout, and of course he brought me and my brother into the fold. His layout was maybe OK for early 50's, but nothing great. It was about as realistic as Lionel 027 could get -- not very. He did wire and light the buildings he built (with Christmas tree bulbs) and made some major pieces of scenery... mountains, tunnels and the like. Grass was green paint; pavement was cement colored paint.

The track plan was basically a large oval with a couple of sidings extending into the middle of the layout.

I got away form MR for a long time. I went off to college and did not have a place to store the trains. My bother bought a house right after high school and he did. He got the trains and sold them a couple of years later. I think he took $300 for the lot.

My Dad died when he was only 55. I always wanted to do trains again, but there never seemed like a good place to start. Finally a couple of years ago I decided to heck with it; I gave my wife a list of starter equipment I wanted for Christmas. Of course that initial list has been expanded dozens of times.

But I made sure when I made my pike to make the same stupid mistakes my Dad did. Well almost. I have an oval and a passing siding and three sidings extending into the middle of the layout. I also do a little better than paint for grass and roads, but not by a whole lot. I kind of like a flat pike. That is what I grew up with and most of Minnesota is pretty darned flat anyway.

So I sit at my layout table at night and watch my trains go around in circles. My 28 year-old son thinks it is really relaxing... kind of like watching fish in an aquarium. And it is.

And not to be totally sappy, but many nights I feel that my Dad is there too, watching my little trains run in circles. How could a hobby be better than that?

-Jerry

• Reply