All Hail John Allen!

[ARTHILL]

I did not see the the. I was still thinking about the sway back box car that inspired my ghost ridden station scene. I am enjoying the discussion of what reality is and if there is any reality outside the perception of the viewer. We did these discussions in grad school and I liked them then and when I got bored, I went home and modeled the reality of my perception. I thought it was real. Spacemouse, how do you think these question up?

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ARTHILL

Spacemouse, how do you think these question up?

I was really only wondering if anyone paid some token homage to John Allen on their layout. Really.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
When you've been in the hobby far longer and grow to have more experience, you will find that most modelers tend to copy parts of other well known modeler's styles to create their own layouts...which is why sales of MR have been a success for so long. There's no mumbo jumbo involved in the building of most layouts.

CNJ831

Ah the grand old argument "Son when you know more you'll see I'm right"... It is often a valid argument. I know that much I was told by my grandfather when I was young; I did not accept nor understand, due to my lack of life experience...

That being said though this is also an argument that sometimes means "When you have stopped being an iconoclast and conformed, you will agree with me/us"...
I respected my grandfather greatly, in fact he is still the one man I place above other men, but where most of what he told me has been true, some has not because I am my own man, in my own time, not he in his...

It is my humble belief, not that my belief of him counts for sawdust, that "When (Chip has) been in the hobby far longer and grow(n) to have more experience" He will produce his own vision, as he does now, and that it will be set by his own standards conscious or unconscious, artful or other.

When it comes to something that has an artistic component to it lines blur and definitions get hard and pointy, there is a right way and wrong way to install a water heater, there are many ways to paint a landscape.

Nuff said from me.

Peace.

Coyote

[leighant]

I don't know if I was paying homage to John Allen, I just tried feebly to steal some of his ideas on a 4x11' figure-8 layout I built back in 1971, my first layout not on a solid table top.

[jfugate]

All modeling is a creative expression of reality and it lies somewhere along a contiuum from stark realism to total abstraction.

We all model somewhere along that continuum. Where the arguments seem to come in are where you cross the line from prototype to "I just made it up" (freelance).

Some are very black and white and say that if you aren't solidly at the stark realism end of the continuum, then you're not doing prototype modeling. Others will say that if you have anything running on your layout that has a prototype paint scheme on it then you are engaging in "prototoype freelancing" and are modeling the prototype to at least some degree.

So where along the line does the break between prototype modeling and freelancing occur? How picky do you want to be? What if you're not using wood to model wood railcars? Or you don't run real diesel in your diesel locos?

This is what causes most of the fights around this topic in the hobby and if the truth be known, we each have to pick our own point along the continuum and not demand that the entire rest of the world agree with us.

Besides, if we all agreed, then the rest of us would be unnecessary. [swg]

[palallin]

I've been in this hobby for 40 years now, and Chip has demonstrated a much better grasp of it than most of the old-timers arguing with him.

The fact is that no way exists to exactly duplicate the prototype in miniature. Physics itself prevents it. Many ways exist to interpret it, however. Observation is, in that sense, irrelevant.

In any case, I have yet to see a photo of a model, a layout, or a diorama that I mistook for the real thing, or vice versa. Level of detail/number of rivets [:D] is irrelevant to the question. Scaling of any amount introduces "error" into the observed (Heisenberg applies here).

As for the direction in which model railroading is going: What comes around, goes around. The pendulum will swing. . . .

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

All modeling is a creative expression of reality and it lies somewhere along a contiuum from stark realism to total abstraction.

We all model somewhere along that continuum. Where the arguments seem to come in are where you cross the line from prototype to "I just made it up" (freelance).

Some are very black and white and say that if you aren't solidly at the stark realism end of the continuum, then you're not doing prototype modeling. Others will say that if you have anything running on your layout that has a prototype paint scheme on it then you are engaging in "prototoype freelancing" and are modeling the prototype to at least some degree.

So where along the line does the break between prototype modeling and freelancing occur? How picky do you want to be? What if you're not using wood to model wood railcars? Or you don't run real diesel in your diesel locos?

This is what causes most of the fights around this topic in the hobby and if the truth be known, we each have to pick our own point along the continuum and not demand that the entire rest of the world agree with us.

Besides, if we all agreed, then the rest of us would be unnecessary. [swg]

Joe,

Well said, as usual.

Peace.

Coyote

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandpacoyote
Peace.
Coyote

Now there is something I haven't seen in a while. I just happen to use your name in vain in a post a few days ago......
[#offtopic]
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=52619

[IRONROOSTER]

Personally I am more of the painter than the photographer. In my world the trains always run through the unspoiled countryside. I model what I want the world to be like. It may be Walt Disney, but then I get enough reality on the evening news.

NMRA's first Heritage Car was a Gorre and Daphetid boxcar. The S scale version was a Pacific Rails kit. It runs on my layout now.

QUOTE: QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

.... if the truth be known, we each have to pick our own point along the continuum and not demand that the entire rest of the world agree with us...

[#ditto]

Enjoy
Paul

[Texas Zepher]

And now my real contribution to this topic.

1. No, I have not done a John Allen tribute on any of my layouts. If I do it will probably be the Stegasaur with the locomotive number. It is hard for a person trained as a paleontologist not to like anything to do with dinosaurs.

2. Generally I never pay attention to the authors. I don't know most of the people's work by name that have been mentioned in this conversation. I would probably recognize it when I saw it, but don't associate it with a name. That is because generally I don't care who did something, I care about what they did. I must have been reading MR and MRC for about 4 years before I started recognizing pictures that could be "pieced together" from the different articles. That is when I realized several articles were by the same author. There was even a mini-revolt in the letters to the editor about "Too much John Allen" which is when I realized that all these had been by him.....

3. I've posted a long version of this before but... I have an aquantance that did a layout that was and exact repleca of a small chunk of the real RGS. It had a a passing siding and a spur off the main to a mine. It is the most boring layout to look at and to run that I have ever experienced.

4. Different people's brains work in different ways. Our club has a free-lance railroad and I was always puzzled by one member who wasn't able to contribute anything. Even things as simple as naming the towns got the response "yeah that's fine it doesn't matter". [long story ommitted]. He is an excellent craftsman and awsome modeler, but he just has zero imagination. He has to model a prototype, because without it for a guide he is lost. To create a believable free-lance, one must have a fantastic and organized imagination. Either type can totally enjoy this hobby. How many hobbies can make that claim!

5. Personally, I am moving more and more away from the "most prototypic". I like fast clocks, they apply the pressure to an operating system to not only think but think fast. I like selective compression. I don't want to spend an hour "driving" my train to the next town (Take an MS Train Simulator Train out through Montana sometime if you want to be bored out of your skull), or spotting one car. I don't want to spend fake time to air up my brakes, time is too short for silly imaginary things like that. I like locomotives with less detail like Proto 1000, because I don't have to worry about breaking them while dragging them around from operating session to operating session. I don't have to worry about fellow operators sending them to the floor. Sometimes I like to just watch and listen to a train orbit the layout. As soon as it becomes work and isn't fun, I stop doing it.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin

Scaling of any amount introduces "error" into the observed (Heisenberg applies here).

Heisenberg--I've been searching for that name all day. Another attack of CRS (Can't Remember Crap) disease.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

QUOTE: Originally posted by palallin

Scaling of any amount introduces "error" into the observed (Heisenberg applies here).

Heisenberg--I've been searching for that name all day. Another attack of CRS (Can't Remember Crap) disease.

The act of measuring or observing something changes it so that the measurement or observation is incorrect or skewed.

[espeefoamer]

I enjoyed seeing John Allens layout photos in the 1960s issues of MR. The only thing John Allens,and my railroad had in common is that we have both modelled in HO.

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831


If indeed so astute, you would both be well aware that persons entering a new field of endeavor are typically overly enthusiastic concerning it, as well as bring full of misconceptions about it. As one becomes steadily more educated in that field, they begin to appreciate the realities of that particular pursuit and their zealot attitude and misconceptions are replaced with an understanding of facts that they were unaware of at first. The result is a final realization that they actually knew very little about how and why things work the way they do in that field at the outset. If you don't understand the hobby in detail first, then appreciating expressiveness as applied to it is not necessarily straight forward.

CNJ831

As Crandall pointed out, we are not talking about technical aspects of the hobby, rather we are talking about principles of expression which, by virtue of having toured the academic circuit lecturing, have a tad of knowledge there of. These principles apply whether you are doing abstract art or empirical studies. You bring to the table your mental outlook and you can't change that. You can't write something, paint something, build something without altering it to conform to your world view.

All well and good. I'm aware of the principles that apply in doing empirical studies and of personal influence and bias. However, I very much question their application here. Very few average modelers ever develop any recognizable personal styles, which was the original point of the discussion.

It is fact that the hobbyists writing for the various magazines heavily influence all the rest of us. Being visual creatures, with time we accrue a hodge podge of favorite modeling techniques and ideas we've seen presented by them, choosing to copy their examples as best we can on our layouts. This may result in a new combination of designs/methods but has little to do with any true personal style. To say someone over-weathers their models as a result of personal expression is nonsense. It simply is a reflection or mimicking of the work of their favorite big name in MR being taken as correct or appropriate - not in some subliminal way appealing to them.

A portion of associate editor David Popp's February '06 editorial in MR exemplifies the situation very well. In talking about Dave Methlie's hobby shop layout, he notes: "After each visit I'd go home and see what I could do to my own layout to emulate what I'd seen [done] on the Pine Valley." You can also refer to an endless string of bios at the conclusion of MR articles that repeatedly indicate the author's layout was strongly influence by such and such, or was adapted from a design in so and so's plan book. We all model, to a greater or lesser degree, by imatating others. This is how model railroading has worked almost from the beginning. Any personal "style" is based far more on a modeler's ability, or inability, to emulate his idol's efforts precisely than to expressing some personal style. Like it or not, most hobbyists are no more than basic craftsmen, they are not artists. When you've had time to read through the entire run of MR to see how the hobby evolved - or see it first hand over years - you'll come away with a far better understanding of how things really work in model railroading.

CNJ831

[twhite]

Texas Zephyr--FINALLY, a breath of fresh air in this discussion--it was getting stultifying. Chip asked an honest question and got stepped on by a herd of John Allen Stegosaur wanna-be's. Thanks for stepping in--
Tom[%-)]

[SpaceMouse]

CNJ,

Okay, I think I see where you are coming from.

You are saying that a person cannot have style while he still worships idols and what he creates is more of a product of inability to achieve what he wants to imitate. Correct?

If it is we are talking about two different things--as is quite common. What I was saying was that at any level, a persons expression of his layout is a reflection of mental construct, whether of not he has the ability to achieve a masterful model of it.

And as to developing style, there are a lot of modelers on this board that have their own style. It may be limited by their abilities, but they have learned to work around it. There are others who are developing a style but just aren't good at it yet.

Personally I admire Allen, Selios, Furlow, Koester, Templar, etc. but I don't have a particular desire to imitate any of them. I have a vision of what I want and while I may search for techniques to improve my chances of achieving it, I don't feel I am sacrificing the integrity of my vision because I borrow a technique.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by twhite

Texas Zephyr--FINALLY, a breath of fresh air in this discussion--it was getting stultifying. Chip asked an honest question and got stepped on by a herd of John Allen Stegosaur wanna-be's. Thanks for stepping in--
Tom[%-)]

Thanks for your concern. While I didn't expect the conversation to take the turn it did, I really enjoy discussing the "art" of model railroading. It seems some people disagree with me that all model railroading is art. I would submit that a lot of it is just bad art. Finger Painting.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse


I would humbly suggest that your layout is your fantasy. While it more steeped in your version of reality than maybe someone else, you still choose what is included and what is excluded.

You've missed the point. I'm saying that I can't get excited about the realisation of someone else's fantasy. But that aside, I humbly suggest that you're wrong. My current project is an accurate representation of a specific time and place, with nothing selectively compressed or deleted. It is as close to it's prototype as my skills allow. How is that a fantasy?

QUOTE: If you ignore or choose not to model roadside trash or graffiti, you are diverging from reality. When you choose to model a nice strip mall over the ratty trailer park next door, you are diverging from reality.

I choose to model everything within the boundaries of the area I'm modelling, including roadside trash/and or graffiti, if that's what's there. My intention is to replicate reality, not selectively edit it.

QUOTE: In fact, no matter how you slice these itty bitty trains, you are building your fantasy. To claim your fantasy is more legitimate because it matches your version of reality better than someone else's does is a tad myopic.

Nonsense. My models are what's legitimate, they match reality as well as my skills permit. There is no fantasy involved, simply observation

QUOTE: A modeler's pike is a representation of who they are, an extension of how they see things and how they think. It can be an expression of how they wi***hings would be. (Koester) Or it can be interpretation of how they see things. (Furlow.)

I think you have that wrong-end up. Koester's layout strikes me as an interpretation of how he sees things. But to be honest, I think you have the wrong end of the stick about much to do with the hobby, to judge from your comments so far. I think you need to learn more about what really motivates modellers.

All the best,

Mark.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831
Nonsense. For the vast majority of model railroaders the hobby is not about deep personal philosophies or Freudian interpretations. It's about attempting to replicate the real world to the best our abilities...often today based on reseaching a prototype. While some layouts may be so far off the mark as to be considered "fantasy-based", this is more often a matter of lack of modeling talent than it is one of intention...or is perhaps to cover-up such shortcomings and make it look harmlessly "cute".

Chip, IMO there's nothing very deep or philosophical about the hobby for most of us, nor about most of our model railroads. Whether we are trying to model today or some long past yesterday, we're trying to model it as it really was, not as Walt Disney might have envisioned it.

Spot on, CNJ831. Couldn't have said it better myself.

All the best,

Mark.

[sebamat]

I am in modelling US trains only a few years but up to now I do not remember having seen some J. Allen layout pictures (an engine yes). Are some around on the net?

Just to know what all the story is about

sebastiano

p.s.: it took me several years (and a better dictionary) to understand the joke in the G&D RR.....

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

My current project is an accurate representation of a specific time and place, with nothing selectively compressed or deleted. It is as close to it's prototype as my skills allow. How is that a fantasy?

Mark.

If I may, I am compressing your argument to the above sentence.

Why are you building your pike if it not to loose yourself in the project? Why did you pick the time and location of your pike. How many people are you going to represent? What are they going to be dong? Are there going to be pets? Who's going to be the owners? You still have a million decisions to make and how you make them will determine how well your pike meets your fantasy of what it was really like.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

The act of measuring or observing something changes it so that the measurement or observation is incorrect or skewed.

I'm afraid that's a complete mistatement of Heisenberg (no offense intended) - unless the definition has changed since I learned it in quantum mechanics.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that one cannot know the both the precise location and energy of of a particle at the same time. As one knows one of these with more and more precision, one can know the other with less and less precision. So you can know the exact energy of a particle, but you won't know where in the universe you'll find it. Or you can know exactly where it is, but you'll have idea of its energy state. Or you can have a really good idea of it's location and a really good idea of its energy state at the same time - good enough for all practical considerations outside of quantum-level concerns.

So measuring something doesn't change it, but you can't precisely measure one thing and still know much else about it.

In any case, since the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle operates at the quantum-level, applying it to anything much larger than a small molecule is wasted effort at best. It quickly becomes a second-order, then third- and even fourth-order effect as the size of what is being measured increases. By the time we get to visible-with-the-human-eye size, Heisenberg is effectively meaningless. Trying to apply it to model railroading scales is ludicrous.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Brunton

QUOTE: Originally posted by Texas Zepher

The act of measuring or observing something changes it so that the measurement or observation is incorrect or skewed.

I'm afraid that's a complete mistatement of Heisenberg (no offense intended) - unless the definition has changed since I learned it in quantum mechanics.

While Heisenberg'd pricniple doesn't exactly apply, the way it has come to be understood in the culture does.

You cannot do anything without bringing your fundamental assumptions of reality to the table. And your fundamental assumptions of reality are different from anyone else on the planet. You nor anyone else can model anyone else's version reality. All you can do is model what you think is real. You bring your life experiences into the mix.

The mere fact that you are making an itty-bitty model of something is creating a fantasy world--no matter how close you think it is to the prototype.

[davekelly]

John Allen, Sellios, Furlow and Koester. Each has there own "style" of model railroading. None of which do I consider my "style." Allen's layout was too "artistic" for me, Furlow too characature (sp?), Sellios too "dark" and Koester "too operations oriented." That said, I do consider each of these guys as exceptional modelers and they all have my deepest respect. Why?

1. They all have a vision of what they want their layouts to look like and have done excellent work in achieving that vision. Isn't that why are all in the hobby to start with? Not to please others, but to achieve our vision of what a layout should be.

2. Additionally, each has contributed to the hobby by sharing their visions and accomplishments and have done so much to help others achieve theirs. I have learned so much from each of these guys and although their styles of modeling are not mine - I have been able to incorporate bits and pieces into my own modeling and thus improve (in my mind) my abilities. I'm sure even those that don't want their layouts to look like those of Allen, Furlow et al have picked up some technique or idea from them. The willingness to share and help others - while at the same time opening themselves to criticism is a quality that draws great respect from me.

Just my 2 cents.

[BRAKIE]

Sorry,Guys,I do not see modelers as any type of artist or self impressionist.I do see SERIOUS model railroaders are modeling miniature transportation systems some set in time and exact areas while others freelance while staying within the perimeters of realism.The discussion of self impressions or being a artists is a rather mute point once one enters the serious side of model railroading.
To those modelers fantasy modeling is a beginners or unlearn modelers idea of model railroading..[V][:(] I don't subscribed to that thought but do feel a model railroad should be a model of a transportation system having rhyme and reason for being..

[twhite]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

QUOTE: Originally posted by twhite

Texas Zephyr--FINALLY, a breath of fresh air in this discussion--it was getting stultifying. Chip asked an honest question and got stepped on by a herd of John Allen Stegosaur wanna-be's. Thanks for stepping in--
Tom[%-)]

Thanks for your concern. While I didn't expect the conversation to take the turn it did, I really enjoy discussing the "art" of model railroading. It seems some people disagree with me that all model railroading is art. I would submit that a lot of it is just bad art. Finger Painting.

Chip--I'm in your camp, partially because as a professional musician, it's hard for me to approach ANYTHING without some form of 'artistry' creeping in--just my training. For me, model railroading is a hobby chock full of the 'art' of PERCEPTIVE REPRODUCTION. Now whether that extends to putting pigeons on the rooftops or conversely, lettering a locomotive for a railroad that never used them in regular service (my Rio Grande Yellowstones, for example) is up to me. It's my decision and my perception--and my hobby. Yes, Allen was fanciful, but it went with his sense of humor (I think he'd have been a member of the Algonquin Round Table in another life) and his particular perception of reality. It worked for him, good for him. It doesn't work for other modelers, good for them.
I think it's impossible to escape the influence that Allen has had on the hobby, whether one agrees with his particular outlook or not. I know that my own Sierra Nevada range unconsciously pays a lot of tribute to his Akinback Mountains, and anyone else who has 'floor to ceiling' gorges is actually repeating a technique that Allen began in the late 1950's. .
Reality is what we make of it, whether it's detail that you need a magnifying glass to see (like a Vermeer painting) or a 'keyhole' Impression (like Monet or Seurat), it's all in our perception.
I think what we need to do is pause in our 21st-Century perception of things and look back and appreciate what Allen and his contemporaries were able to achieve in the period in which they modeled. And that was to take a hobby that was just coming into its own and bring it forward in a HUGE leap.
Musically speaking, sort of like having Beethoven arrive on the scene right after Gregorian Chant.
Tom [:D]
Oh, and PS: In case any rivet-counters are out there moaning over my ficticious Rio Grande Yellowstones, the railroad DID use them during WWII. Borrowed them from the Missabe Road. So you see, I'm not THAT fanciful, LOL!
T.

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

You've missed the point. I'm saying that I can't get excited about the realisation of someone else's fantasy. But that aside, I humbly suggest that you're wrong. My current project is an accurate representation of a specific time and place, with nothing selectively compressed or deleted. It is as close to it's prototype as my skills allow. How is that a fantasy?


I choose to model everything within the boundaries of the area I'm modelling, including roadside trash/and or graffiti, if that's what's there. My intention is to replicate reality, not selectively edit it.

Nonsense. My models are what's legitimate, they match reality as well as my skills permit. There is no fantasy involved, simply observation

]

I think you have that wrong-end up. Koester's layout strikes me as an interpretation of how he sees things. But to be honest, I think you have the wrong end of the stick about much to do with the hobby, to judge from your comments so far. I think you need to learn more about what really motivates modellers.

All the best,

Mark.

Mark, what you see is not what I see. You claim that what you see is better intepreted by what you know. You leave no room for limbic alteration of what you see; the brains's limbic system alters all memory. All thoughts get filtered through the limbic system, and since no two are identical, no two interpetations can be identical.

Now, which of ours is wrong?

[davekelly]

I think we all fantasize at least a little bit when it comes to model railroading. Just to pick an example that comes to mind. The guy who models a coal mining railroad set in West Virginia in the late 19th/early 20th century is certainly modeling a major industrial player during that time period. Great machinery, fantastic engineering feats, moving the country forward etc etc. CEO/Chairman of a great railroad. Does that person also enjoy being the boss of an entity that found it cheaper to replace brakeman who had lost fingers/hands while coupling/uncoupling cars than installing air brakes or enjoy the fact that tunnels were built by what amounted to slave labor with very very high death tolls? Of course not - hence the fantasy.

[davekelly]

I think we all fantasize at least a little bit when it comes to model railroading. Just to pick an example that comes to mind. The guy who models a coal mining railroad set in West Virginia in the late 19th/early 20th century is certainly modeling a major industrial player during that time period. Great machinery, fantastic engineering feats, moving the country forward etc etc. CEO/Chairman of a great railroad. Does that person also enjoy being the boss of an entity that found it cheaper to replace brakeman who had lost fingers/hands while coupling/uncoupling cars than installing air brakes or enjoy the fact that tunnels were built by what amounted to slave labor with very very high death tolls? Of course not - hense the fantasy.

[JBCA]

For whatever my two cents (Canadian) are worth.

This is one of the more fascinating discussions I have read on this forum (maybe because I don't have enough time to read many of them).

Chip and I joined the forum about the same time, and from his photos I believe he has done excellent work.

Not being a philosopher, I would observe that it is self-evident that any endeavor is an expression of one's self.

What does it say about me that when I get to the point of having the track down and running the trains it's hard to go further (sceneryphobia?), but it's fun.

Jim