All Hail John Allen!

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831



As I pointed out just today in another thread, sound is only practical on either very large home or club layouts. Sound does not scale and in the typical room employed for relatively small home layouts, all the differing sounds will blend together, regardingless at what audible level they are played. The only way it can work therein is to have a single scene layout concept (all urban, all rural, etc.) and play a single sort of appropriate sound. Elsewise, all the sounds unavoidably reflect off the surrounding walls and all you get is a low, distracting din.

CNJ831

The trick then might be to have the sounds turn off and on when the operator (as opposed to the train) is in close proximity.

[BRAKIE]

Chip,That can be done by using a activation switches like working flashers and crossing gates use.[;)]

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Chip,That can be done by using a activation switches like working flashers and crossing gates use.[;)]

Explain how they work.

I was thinking either photo-electric relays.

[rolleiman]

Do you mean from the operator perspective (you standing along side the layout) or from the Engineer perspective (the little dude in the cab of the loco)? Either way, it would be quite simple to activate one sound and de-activate another (once you've figured how to get the sound there to begin with).. On the Tracks from the engineer perspective, it Could be done with photocells but you'd be better off with some other form of detection.. Current detection in the case of DC.. For DCC, all the computer control that's possible it would Really be slick.. Rather than having sounds abruptly turn on and off, they could fade in and out based on the location and direction of the train. From the viewer perspective (you), Infrared proximity sensors around the edge of the layout similar to those used as safety devices used on garage doors..

I don't know if they still make them but several years ago, radio shak (who said that???) made a recordable sound chip.. It could hold up to 20 minutes of audio and several different sound banks could be set up.. Thier diagram showed a microphone (IIRC) to record the audio but I see no reason why a line input couldn't have been used for 'downloading' different sounds. I Don't know if it was re-programmable though. For that matter, if you wanted to go the computer route, MP3s.. The number of possible sounds limited only by storage space..

Jeff

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rolleiman
The attempt at total realizm I always got a real crack up out of was "Olefactory Airs".. Realistic (supposedly) smells for the layout.. ..Anybody ever buy any of That Stuff?

I've got a whole set of them. I like the sawmill, sawdust smell. Sometimes I add the various scents to the smoke fluid for the appropirate industry.

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831



As I pointed out just today in another thread, sound is only practical on either very large home or club layouts. Sound does not scale and in the typical room employed for relatively small home layouts, all the differing sounds will blend together, regardingless at what audible level they are played. The only way it can work therein is to have a single scene layout concept (all urban, all rural, etc.) and play a single sort of appropriate sound. Elsewise, all the sounds unavoidably reflect off the surrounding walls and all you get is a low, distracting din.

CNJ831

The trick then might be to have the sounds turn off and on when the operator (as opposed to the train) is in close proximity.

In the average-sized layout room, with essentially no significant delay between one sound suddenly shutting off and the next one coming on (reacting to the hobbyist's movement around the layout), the whole thing would sound very gimmicky.

The only way around the problem I can see would be to add circuits that would slowly fade one sound out while slowly bringing up the next sound down the line. That impresses me like a lot of complex work for very little gain in realism and...were it truly desirable...would, I expect, have been tried ages ago by one or another of the bigtime electronic geeks in the hobby. I certainly don't ever recall reading about such.

Honestly, HO hobbyists have always considered sound as a Lionel-like, toy train, aspect and it was almost completely shunned for decades, until very recently. As usual, there's a lot of "how and why" history involved here that led to silent running being the norm for 75 years.

CNJ831

[BRAKIE]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Chip,That can be done by using a activation switches like working flashers and crossing gates use.[;)]

Explain how they work.

I was thinking either photo-electric relays.

Chip,I have never fooled with operating crossing flashers or crossing gates due to the industrial switching type layouts I build so,somebody will need to step in and explain how they work..
The photo-electric relays should work as well.

[SPFan]

If you are a computer hardware or software geek you can easily implement sound on your layout. You can save actual sounds to your MP3 player or computer. You can emit as many unique sounds as you have sound boards or MP3 players. The skill is how to trigger these sounds. MR and Radio Shack offers books on basic electronics. An old computer and a stack of sound cards can probably had at your local computer recycler for well under 100 bucks. As for scents, an outfit called JT Mega Steam makes multiple scents designed to work in S-O gauge smoke units. They include coal, pine. and cedar. I'm not sure if they would work in a generic Suethe unit but some of the O gauge manufactures will sell you a smoke unit from their engines or you buy a reproduction smoke generator from outfits that sell repair parts for 50 year old Lionels for about 6 bucks.

Not to hijack your thread Chip. To those who rate Allen as a minor player, he is the reason I switched to HO back in 1958 and the only one of all the names listed whose layout I could recognize from a single picture. The others may have been better instructors in a certain aspect on model railroading but none has had the lasting impression of John Allen. I do have a few Jack Work pines that I built back in the '60s though.

Pete

[jecorbett]

I have been away for a few days and I am just now jumping in hear but I am amazed about criticism of Allen and Selios works as unrealistic, overcluttered, cartoonish, etc. Let's face it, real railroading if modeled exactly in scale would be pretty bland. The small size of HO trains almost demands a little enhancement to bring them to life. Personally, I continue to be wowed by the work of Allen and Selios and I have been in this hobby off and on for over 40 years. I am less a fan of Furlow's work but I wouldn't be critical of it either. His approach is a little more fanciful. Certainly, there is something to be said for true scale model railroading and if done well is certainly worth admiration, but I find the G&D and F&SM far more interesting whether in print or on video.

As for honoring them, I plan to include a John Allen photo studio as a business in one of my towns and it will have a prominent place on the layout. I just haven't decided which town I will place it in. I may include a similar structure for George Selios.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

I can't decide whether you're being deliberately obtuse, or you genuinely misinterpreted what I wrote. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were being facetious.

I was primarily pulling your leg.

But most of the Layout Design Elements also encompass some sort of selective compression, I think. Or at least I thought they did - maybe I'm wrong.

Also, I'm one yank (or whatever you call us) who has not found your comments offensive in the least. You've stated your thoughts clearly and, I think, without rancor. And provided an intriguing introduction to your own modeling.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger

Mark,
By "ungracious," I was referring to some of your remarks about the people on this thread. You furthered the impression by calling Chip "obtuse" and by making a string of impolite generalizations about Americans.

Actually, I thinke he used the word "obtuse" when referrring to me, not Spacemouse, and he only said he wasn't sure if I was being obtuse in my reply to him or not. I didn't take it as a slight at all. If that means anything.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

My wife is an expert in the field, holding an MFA from UCLA in art. She has been an Art Historian for the Getty Museum. At any rate, she has explained to me how Warhol's work has effected the art community and the course of art theory. While I retained the fact of it, I did not retain the how of it. But in truth, if I did take the time to explain it would you 1) understand it or 2) care.

Hey, Chip!

I think I would understand it, and I certainly would care. While I only have a layman's appreciation for various types and styles of art, I would like reading about the impact of Warhol's work. We've meandered around almost everywhere else in this thread - how about a short diversion here, too?

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

I can't decide whether you're being deliberately obtuse, or you genuinely misinterpreted what I wrote. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were being facetious.

I was primarily pulling your leg.

But most of the Layout Design Elements also encompass some sort of selective compression, I think. Or at least I thought they did - maybe I'm wrong.

Also, I'm one yank (or whatever you call us) who has not found your comments offensive in the least. You've stated your thoughts clearly and, I think, without rancor. And provided an intriguing introduction to your own modeling.

I disagree. There was cynicism, sarcasm, and contempt in most of his words. Shame on you for not seeing it, or if you did see it, shame on you for not admitting to it.

-Crandell

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

I disagree. There was cynicism, sarcasm, and contempt in most of his words. Shame on you for not seeing it, or if you did see it, shame on you for not admitting to it.

-Crandell

Shame on me for not seeing it? Surely you jest!

It could just as easily be "Shame on you for being over-sensitive!" (Now don't let your neck hairs stand one end - I'm not trying to spin you up).

With the exception of one post, I completely missed any overtly aggressive cynicism or sarcasm. What I did read were plain-spoken statements of opinion, and a vigorous defense when taken to task for it. I likewise read no contempt in what Mr. Newton wrote. Wait -- I'll go back and re-read them - hold on a sec.....

Well, okay, in some posts the sarcasm does come through pretty clearly, but in all but a few, the sarcasm advanced his own point or defense, without coming across to me as overly provocative. But I still don't see the cynicism and contempt.

The one exception was the post about "...worshipping the tall poppies unquestioningly." And even there, I didn't take offense because I didn't read the post as particularly hostile - just some overly-general statements about Americans.

This is really kinda funny - usually I have to make an effort to avoid being too-easily offended by what someone posts. This time what is apparently offensive to some others has gone over my head without even mussing my hair (what little of it remains! )[:D]

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

I disagree. There was cynicism, sarcasm, and contempt in most of his words. Shame on you for not seeing it, or if you did see it, shame on you for not admitting to it.

-Crandell

Shame on me for not seeing it? Surely you jest!

It could just as easily be "Shame on you for being over-sensitive!" (Now don't let your neck hairs stand one end - I'm not trying to spin you up).

With the exception of one post, I completely missed any overtly aggressive cynicism or sarcasm. What I did read were plain-spoken statements of opinion, and a vigorous defense when taken to task for it. I likewise read no contempt in what Mr. Newton wrote. Wait -- I'll go back and re-read them - hold on a sec.....

Well, okay, in some posts the sarcasm does come through pretty clearly, but in all but a few, the sarcasm advanced his own point or defense, without coming across to me as overly provocative. But I still don't see the cynicism and contempt.

The one exception was the post about "...worshipping the tall poppies unquestioningly." And even there, I didn't take offense because I didn't read the post as particularly hostile - just some overly-general statements about Americans.

This is really kinda funny - usually I have to make an effort to avoid being too-easily offended by what someone posts. This time what is apparently offensive to some others has gone over my head without even mussing my hair (what little of it remains! )[:D]

Tht's cool. I just thought you were being far too lenient with him. You can disagree with people, but when you are disagreeable in making your points, then polite discourse is discouraged, if not impossible. I thought he had crossed the line a couple of times.

However, I have done that once or twice.[V]

-Crandell

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

I think you missed the bigger picture, I used Big Boys as the extreme example. The GP market would dry up too as well as the track market to run them on etc.... And beside when I think of things I try to think of other people too not just my own personal situation.

Again, the GP market drying up wouldn't bother me. The track would, since I wasn't at all happy with the appearance of my handlaid track, and won't be doing that again. When I think of things I always think of my personal situation - I can't speak for anyone else.

QUOTE: I didn't say it was invalid, and I don't think anyone else really has either. They were surprised by it and maybe even incredulous. I was just responding to your question. You always seem to take peoples responses to your questions as a person affront, when many of those same people have said that your style just wasn't right for them.

Affronted? No, not at all. If I was affronted I wouldn't continue the discussion! [:)]

I know full well my style of modelling isn't right for everyone. But perhaps if I discuss it here, and explain the whys and wherefors of it, someone else might try it and find it's to their liking.

QUOTE: And also, I am NOT easily bored. I was saying that if I choose a prototypical place to model in the manner you have suggested it would be boring for anyone.

That's merely your opinion, and I reckon it's not one shared by the great number of people who have built layouts as I've described. If they were as boring as you say, why are there so many being built and exhibited?

QUOTE: Assuming one could be intersted in light-rail, even our local light rail system only has a train each direction every 20 minutes. Get a train from staging, run it through the staging. Stop, pick up passengers, return to station. Repeat 20 minutes later. Woud that keep you interested in operating?

By "light rail", do you mean tramways/streetcars? There's lot's of interest in modelling those. And most of them run much shorter headways than 20 minutes. My local operator runs on 90 second headways in peak hours, 5 to 7 minutes at other times... If that was my modelling goal, then yes, it would keep me interested.

All the best,

Mark.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

Do animals model railroads?

Do animals use mimickry as art? No. Ergo, all mimickry is not art.

QUOTE: A fanstasy modeller, since you used the term, is a modeller still. The invention makes it art.

Only if we agree with your opinion that model railroading is art. Which I don't.

QUOTE: And if we accept your conclusion, then Allen was not an artist, nor for that matter was Picasso.

I'm happy to agree with you there, Allen was not an artist.

Couldn't say about Picasso - remind me, what railroad did he model?

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by selector

That's cool. I just thought you were being far too lenient with him. You can disagree with people, but when you are disagreeable in making your points, then polite discourse is discouraged, if not impossible. I thought he had crossed the line a couple of times.

Crossed what line? I reckon Brunton has it right, you're being oversensitive. I don't agree with most of what you've written, but I fail to see where I've been impolite, or as you put it, disagreeable. I think you're miffed more because I won't come around to your way of thinking.

QUOTE: However, I have done that once or twice.

Maybe, but I'm still talking to you! [:)]

All the best,

Mark.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

Actually, I thinke he used the word "obtuse" when referrring to me, not Spacemouse, and he only said he wasn't sure if I was being obtuse in my reply to him or not. I didn't take it as a slight at all. If that means anything.

I'm glad you didn't take it as a slight, as it wasn't intended as one. As I noted earlier, the written word lacks the subtlety and nuance of speech. I need to be more conscious of this, particularly when writing to people unused to the robust style of discussion we Australians favour...[:)]

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

I was primarily pulling your leg.

Yeah, thought so.

QUOTE: But most of the Layout Design Elements also encompass some sort of selective compression, I think. Or at least I thought they did - maybe I'm wrong.

No, you're right, a lot of the LDE's as shown in the MR publications are condensed. But there is no reason they can't be modelled full-scale. I mentioned LDEs mainly because I thought they would be a concept most US modellers would be familiar with. What I'm doing owes a good deal to concepts explored by UK publications like "Model Railway Journal".

QUOTE: Also, I'm one yank (or whatever you call us) who has not found your comments offensive in the least. You've stated your thoughts clearly and, I think, without rancor. And provided an intriguing introduction to your own modeling.

That's good, as I don't mean to come across as rancorous.

All the best,

Mark.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by spacemouse

QUOTE: Scratch building has gone commercial and there are things like
pre-made windows etc. available to you. All of these came form the
scratch building efforts of the early modelers. Sure you may have done
it before you saw Allen's work, but that doesn't mean that without
Allen's and other's contributions you would have even the refined
materials to work with let alone the tools and techniques.

I attribute the refined materials, tools and techniques to people like
Al Armitage, Cliff Grandt, Levon Kemalyan, Don Gould and others whose names I doubt
you'd recognise. Again, you're making claims for John Allen that someone
with more knowledge of the hobby's history wouldn't make.

For that matter, I've developed my own tools and techniques over 35
years of modelling - I don't owe John Allen anything for that, either.

QUOTE: Just like you might not like Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans,
but they stood the art world on it's ear and changed the course of art.
Allen did that as well.

QUOTE: Again, that's merely your opinion, not fact. What evidence do you
have to support that claim?

QUOTE: My wife is an expert in the field, holding an MFA from UCLA in
art. She has been an Art Historian for the Getty Museum. At any rate,
she has explained to me how Warhol's work has effected the art
community and the course of art theory.

Sigh! Again you bring up something totally irrelevant to bolster your
weak argument - in this case Andy Warhol. Although it's interesting that
you should use him as a comparison. I 've always thought Warhol was all
form and no substance, as well. And the appeal to authority is another sign
of a weak argument, your wife's academic art qualifications are of absolutely no
relavance to a discussion about model railroading and Johm Allen.

But never mindy Andy, I'm talking about John Allen. What evidence do you
have to support your claim - which I've paraphrased - that he stood the
modelling world on it's ear and changed the course of modelling?

QUOTE: And while you can argue that Allen was only know because of his
publication--that's just the way it is.

QUOTE: No, I'll argue that Allen enjoys a reputation greater than he
deserves because of MR's editorial policies.

QUOTE: What's the difference?

Ever heard of "hype"?

All the best,

Mark.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

My wife is an expert in the field, holding an MFA from UCLA in art. She has been an Art Historian for the Getty Museum. At any rate, she has explained to me how Warhol's work has effected the art community and the course of art theory. While I retained the fact of it, I did not retain the how of it. But in truth, if I did take the time to explain it would you 1) understand it or 2) care.

Hey, Chip!

I think I would understand it, and I certainly would care. While I only have a layman's appreciation for various types and styles of art, I would like reading about the impact of Warhol's work. We've meandered around almost everywhere else in this thread - how about a short diversion here, too?

Okay, I'm going to try this. My wife is watching a movie and doesn't want to get involved right now. Anyway, she gave me a 3 minute vesion during the commercial.

Warhol, a long with others like Lichtenstein, was a founder in the Pop Art movement. What Warhol did was to look at commercailism and present it as art. It was an In-Your -Face afront to the the art world. It causes a massive re-examination as to what constitutes art. Warhol is consider the founder of "conceptual" art.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by spacemouse

QUOTE: Frank Lloyd Wright did not do anything new. People have been
building houses for millinia. He just did it so that people took
notice.

Utterly irrelevant. We're not discussing 20th century architecture, nor
was Daddy Frank a model railroader, AFAIK. You're argument is obviously
weak if you have to resort to these irrelevant comparisons.

QUOTE: Allen brought us vision and scope beyond what the other modelers
did. If not, MR would have picked up on them.

MR did showcase the work of other equally talented modellers. If you
knew more about the history of the hobby you'd be aware of this.
And presumably you'd be less likely to make unsustainable claims
about John Allen.

Cheers,

Mark.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse
Warhol, a long with others like Lichtenstein, was a founder in the Pop Art movement. What Warhol did was to look at commercailism and present it as art. It was an In-Your -Face afront to the the art world. It causes a massive re-examination as to what constitutes art. Warhol is consider the founder of "conceptual" art.

Interesting. Thanks for the capsule summary.

I wonder if that massive reexamination resulted in the death of art as a category of human endeavor? Note that I don't mean the death of art - just its demise as a category.

A lot of different activities that may not have been considered art in earlier times are considered art now - or at least some writers who think they're being creative and expanding the general consciousness or some such blather rank nearly anything as art. Remember the controversy a few years ago over a photo of a cross in a glass of urine being subsidized by the NEA? A lot of people argued that it was a legitimate piece of art. Others disagreed vehemently.

Are Warhol's Brillo boxes or his Campbell's soup paintings art? Or just realistic renderings of reality using paints? I would want Warhol's Brillo painting hanging on my wall for just one reason - it would show I have serious money! As art it leaves me cold, however (not to be taken to mean I dislike his work). If all it takes is painting something to be called an artist, then I'm a veritable Renoir with a can or Sherwin-Williams.

A lot of people here consider their model railroads as pieces of art. I thinks in the case of most thats primarily affectation. Many modelers are certainly artisans, but most I wouldn't categorize as artists. I wouldn't consider a model railroad a piece of art any more than I would consider a dowel pin turned on a lathe by an artisan to be a piece of art.

Does that mean I don't think Warhol was an artist?

[;)]

[SpaceMouse]

Mark B,

Why wouldn't or couldn't a model railroad be art? Certainly I could see where a plywood empire might not be considered. But what is art if it is not a recreation or interpretation of life? You paint something to look realistic it is art. You sculpt something tho look realistic and it is art. You take a picture of something to represent it and it is art.

Certainly you would have to say Art HIll's diorama Last Kiss, where all the figures are white except the kissing couple, is art. I'm pretty sure that Furlow, who's profession is artist, would consider his layout art. I went as far to ask if I could enter a diorama in an art show and was told I could enter as 3d art and that dioramas as art were not uncommon. What is a model railroad if not a large diorama?

What is art if not a representation of a part of reality that is designed to evoke some sort of feeling? What is art if not a representation designed to transport the viewer beyond the physical reality?

I have been a artist in two different fields and have dabbled in a few others. Certainly the creative process of building a layout is no different than the creative process of the artist. Even my wife thinks what I do is art.

[bcammack]

I heard an interesting observation recently that sorta put things into some perspective.

"You don't have to be creative to have a realistic model railroad. There are techniques and you don't have to be an artist, just a technician."

I think that realism resonates with those who do not have a strong creative side. I think that creativity can be cultivated, however.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Mark B,

Why wouldn't or couldn't a model railroad be art? Certainly I could see where a plywood empire might not be considered. But what is art if it is not a recreation or interpretation of life? You paint something to look realistic it is art. You sculpt something tho look realistic and it is art. You take a picture of something to represent it and it is art.

Certainly you would have to say Art HIll's diorama Last Kiss, where all the figures are white except the kissing couple, is art. I'm pretty sure that Furlow, who's profession is artist, would consider his layout art. I went as far to ask if I could enter a diorama in an art show and was told I could enter as 3d art and that dioramas as art were not uncommon. What is a model railroad if not a large diorama?

What is art if not a representation of a part of reality that is designed to evoke some sort of feeling? What is art if not a representation designed to transport the viewer beyond the physical reality?

I have been a artist in two different fields and have dabbled in a few others. Certainly the creative process of building a layout is no different than the creative process of the artist. Even my wife thinks what I do is art.

I wouldn't consider a slot car setup or an RC airplane or car art, either.

How do we define art, anyway? Is anything we create by definition art? Do we need to add to that creativity our imagination to call it art? While I might refer to my wife as an artist in the kitchen, I don't really see the meals she prepares as works of art, though she creates them out of raw materials, and uses her imagination to decide what some of the ingredients are. To carry this to a ridiculous example, we all drop little creations of our own in the commode every day. Since we created it, is it art? If I try to "sculpt" it (please don't take this any further!) while creating it, is it art?

To me, art exists for its own sake, while a model railroad serves a purpose to its owner beyond that. You don't have to accept my thoughts about either art or model railroads as the correct one for you - that's just how it strikes me.

I think a diorama is usually a static display, and therefore most model railroads don't fit the category. I agree a diorama might be considered art, but not a model railroad, though it has many artistic elements.

Anyway, if a model railroad is art to you, who am I to say you're wrong? You want to consider your layout art, have at! All I'm saying is that my layout (and pretty much everyone else's layout too) isn't art to me. That's not taking away from it (ot them) - that's just how I choose to view art.

[SpaceMouse]

Mark B,

While I hear you saying that because a model railroad moves, I'm going to make the assumption that what you mean is that the model railroad is interactive. Certainly there are many forms of art that move.

I agree that it does not take a lot of talent to shake a structure box and plop it down on a layout. It takes more skill to take that same structure to paint it so it is part of an overall representation. It takes even more skill to use that same representation to create a mood.

Last year at a local art show, a chair won Best of Show. Was it art when it was in the gallery but now that it is being sat upon just a chair?

[BRAKIE]

For all you "artist" out there how much did your last layout sell for?
I would like to see correct answers when the question is ask again about selling a layout since 99% of the replies will be a layout as a rule can't be sold.Art? Not hardly.At least you can sell art...Model railroading is not nor has it ever been a art.Sadly that is more crap from the pages of MR that was sallow hook,line and sinker.

[SpaceMouse]

Brakie,

Are you saying that to be art it has to have resale value?