All Hail John Allen!

[MidlandPacific]

QUOTE: we as Railroad Modelers are stage Managers, we set the stage for a play

Somewhere, Frank Ellison just dug his elbow into John Allen's ribs.

[Pruitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Back to Heisenberg.

While the technical explanation of Heisenberg's principle does not apply, the popular adaptation to sociological studies and empirical studies does apply. For instance, the mere fact that the observer is present in an ethnography changes the way people act around him. Likewise, a researcher's fundamenta assumptions skew the outcome of a study by choosing what and how to observe.

I can see the similarities, allowing for a really loose interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle. But I think you're completely off the mark when talking about it in regards to research and the researcher's fundamental assumptions. It's true the researcher's assumptions will skew his perception of the outcome, but in terms of the purely physical universe, as far as we know it will not skew the actual outcome. I'm talking physical laws here, and not social reaearch.

Regarding John Allen -

I remember when I picked up the April 1972 issue of MR and read that John Allen had died. I had just really gotten into model railroading a few months earlier, but I already knew who he was and I was almost heartsick at his passing.

When it was first published I bought Model Railroading with John Allen and savored every page. Every couple of years I pull it off the shelf and thoroughly enjoy reading through it again.

While I hold the man in high esteem for his artistry and his many contributions to the hobby, I do not, nor will I have, a testament of any sort to him on my layout. The layout itself is a testament to him, as it is to all the artisans who make the things that go into it, as well as to those who first developed the techniques I use in its crafting and operation. In some way it's even a testament to me, for the simple fact of building it.

There are as many ways to model railroad as there are model railroaders. No two approach the hobby from an identical perspective. My best friend has a spaghetti-bowl of track and likes to watch several trains at once run on the various loops on different levels (so do I when I visit his house). I'm reproducing some various bits and pieces of Wyoming in my New Jersey basement, with an eye towards "serious" operation. I have no intention of just running trains around on different loops. Which one of us is right? We both are.

From "serious" modelers like Brakie to roundy-rounders like my friend, and even to the folks with a simple tinplate loop on the floor, we're all right, as long as we enjoy how we're pursuing the hobby. Someone else may not enjoy my approach, but that doesn't matter, because it is MY approach. I would hazard to say that the only time someone's approach to the hobby is wrong is when they aren't enjoying it because they're doing it the way someone else told them they should, instead of doing it the way they want.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon

The interchange at Willits will be Phase 3 of my layout. And yes, #45 was/is the Super Skunk a much later aquisition. I hope to ride it this summer. Their mainstay in 1917 was the 2-6-2 saddletankers which of course will have to be bashed. The one saving grace is that at that time they still had a 3-Truck Shay, so that can stay.

Chip, you got a copy of Spencer Crump's Redwoods, Iron Horses, And The Pacific: The Story Of The California Western "Skunk" Railroad. ?

Actually I have several of his books. I have a really cool book that shows a pictorial roster of every loco on the NWP roster. I even have 1914 video fottage of the ride along the Russian River, the station at Willits and the Golden Spike Cermony in Eureka.

QUOTE: I think the Spectrum 0-6-0T could be made into a reasonable copy of one or more of CW's locos.

Andre

I considered them--they are certainly cheap enough, but alas, they are Alcos as are the Proto 2Ks. I have several MDC 0-6-0 Baldwin Kits that I plan to remotor and convert.

[davekelly]

Chip,

Just where do you get off enjoying the hobby by doing things your way???????? What is the world coming to when everyone can do the model railroading thing in their own way and - here's the kicker - have fun doing it????? John Allen wasn't really a serious model railroader - we all know that. He only built a basement full of toy trains, scratchbuilt structures and invited many folks to his house to enjoy fellowship and to operate is layout. He blew it as soon as he put that dinasaur on the layout. Same with that Furlow guy. It's obvious he isn't a serious model railroader either - what with that going around with the ear to ear smile. Heck all he accomplished was to build a toy train set up at a children's hospital in Dallas in order to cheer folks up - hardly an accomplishment. Beginners, both of 'em.

Now the serious thought.

Chip - although your style of doing the model train thing isn't my cup and tea and I'm sure my way of doing things isn't yours - we're both having fun in our own ways and as far as I am concerned that makes us sucessful model railroaders. The only thing I'm serious about when it comes to my layout is I'm serious about having fun. If something doesn't make me happy or flip my switch - I don't do it. That's why I consider it a hobby - not a job.

[SpaceMouse]

Mark,

QUOTE: It's true the researcher's assumptions will skew his perception of the outcome, but in terms of the purely physical universe, as far as we know it will not skew the actual outcome. I'm talking physical laws here, and not social reaearch.

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.

[palallin]

Seems to me that a "serious" modeller is one who thinks about what he does and why he does it that way. If model railroading isn't about philosophy--which is to say that one needen't think about what one does or why--then it's not serious, and those who plunge in without thinking about the larger questions are the ones who aren't serious, especially those who simply accept that there is only ONE right way to do things. John Allen obviously was a serious model builder, as are Furlow and Selios, and even Koester.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger

QUOTE: we as Railroad Modelers are stage Managers, we set the stage for a play

Somewhere, Frank Ellison just dug his elbow into John Allen's ribs.

*chuckles and winks* and what a grand picture that is... thanks for the image brought a smile to my day..

Peace.

Coyote

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rripperger

QUOTE: we as Railroad Modelers are stage Managers, we set the stage for a play

Somewhere, Frank Ellison just dug his elbow into John Allen's ribs.

To which John exclaimed, "Hey, I get it. Tell them!!"

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

I'm trying to wrap my brain around something. If I were going to be a realistic modeler, in order to get as realistic as I could, I would have to choose a point, time, instant , say, 1:05 pm July 2nd 1958, on the Nickle Plate Line in Terrahaute, IN. The less distance I chose to model the better.

So I have a trade off. Less track miles the more realism but fewer operational possibilities, The more miles of track, the more operational possibilites, but the more selecttive deletion.

In order to do it right, I would have do my homework, study books and newspapers--what was the weather like, what was the political situation, were people working, unemployed. Etc. Had there been any recent catastrophies that would have left damage--floods tornadoes, etc.

If I would have to find timetables, equipment rosters, and not only have the right type of equipment, but the correct numbered equipment for the route at that time of day.

I'm not that realistic. My coming layout is set in July of 1917, I know the rosters, but I'm going to model in sunshine even though there would be a slightly better chance of overcast. I have the right road numbers, but I don't know the schedules. I can represent the town of Fort Bragg a city of 3000 back then, but I have to do it in 8 to 12 buildings. I have some good photos of the sawmill complex so I can do a decent job of scratch building that.

But since I can't get that point, time instant, thing down, I've got a long way to go to be a serious modeler, right?

Well, no.

First off, you said realISTIC modeler. To be realistic, it has to emulate reality, but it doesn't have to copy it exactly. There ARE modelers who DO model a specifc second in time out there: they build static dioramas, and are among the best modelers on the planet. Head to any proto modeler's meet, and check out their displays; they're amazingly real.

That said, most fo the rest of us poor, picked on proto guys are realistIC modelers: we do the research and narrow our focus to replicate the real world as closely as possible *in a model context* as possible. Most proto modelers I know of DO pick a specific year, month, week, and sometimes even day.

My own efforts are leaning to a specific month of a specific year (July, 1950). I know what engines were assigned to the division, what the schedules were, what some of the trains looked like, and what the traffic patterns for the NKP and it's connecting roads were (at least, in a relatively general sense, but as completely as possible for 55 years in the past). If it didn't run on the division in 1950, I don't own it. If it did run on the division, I model it as accurately as normally possible. If a RTR model of a specific car exists, I buy it. If it exists as a plastic or resin kit, I buy it. If it doesn't exist at all, I shelve it for later, for the day I'll either scratchbuild it or someone finally comes out with it in resin. Most of my signature (and lineside) structures will be/are scratchbuilt. I've walked and photographed every mile of the line, and am modeling the topography and foliage faithfully (faithfully, not always completely accurately).

Do I make compromises? Sure: my steam engines have little electric motors, my "grass" is ground up foam and nylon thread, and my wood structures are made out of plastic. So what? I'm a realistIC modeler, basing my MODELS on reality. There are no dwarves, Matchbox cars, Tulley monsters or space aliens on my layout. There aren't even any minor anachronisms, like 1957 Chevys, drive-in theaters, pizza stands or plug door boxcars. There ARE helium tank and vinegar tank cars, but I have photographic proof that they ran on the line in 1950.

So no Chip, you don't have to model a specific second in time to be a "serious prototype modeler". You DO have to do some homework and not make any serious historical mistakes to be taken seriously, however. We few proto modelers who take our end of the hobby seriously see ourselves more as historians who write texts with plastic models instead of words on paper (and many of us do both).

[ARTHILL]

I could have finished carving Mt Sublime if I had not tried to read all this. When I did this much philosophy in grad school I wanted an A. Now all I got is a pile of foam chips I have not swept up yet. Maybe I can get back to modeling tomarrow.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ARTHILL

I could have finished carving Mt Sublime if I had not tried to read all this. When I did this much philosophy in grad school I wanted an A. Now all I got is a pile of foam chips I have not swept up yet. Maybe I can get back to modeling tomarrow.

I know the feeling. I have 3 icoming shipments of vitamins I had to scan through and I only go through one. I had to keep coming back to see who said what next.

I won't get to work on Tater Mountain for a few days. I'm about half-way thought installing 3 staging tracks. My 4 x 8 turned 4.5 x 8 is now 5.2 x 8. It would be a semi-serious layout if Mongo hadn't showed up. But it's hard to be serious when you model cowboys.

[vsmith]

What I like most about Allen was that he used the materials at hand, made due or improvised or just created out of basic materials what he needed, he could turn garbage into treasure and had a good sense of humor about him, he did realistic modeling without being slavish about adhering to any prototype, he made it work and mostly he had fun doing it.

Screw this! I'm going to model what I like, run what I like, create what I like, and admire any work that I like (Like Selios and the Master Furlow) ...if anyone has a problem with that, then they can go like themselves right off a plaster cliff !

Chip, Sod the philosophical discussions!

Just DO IT, do what you like, do it to the best of your skills, dont be afraid to make errors and just have fun doing it!

There truely is no "Correct" way to make a model RR, its entirely up to the modeler to choose the how's and why's of a layout and how detailed or not to make it. Model RRing is like the color spectrum, no one can prove one color is better than another, its all just opinion. Some like red hues, others like the blue shades. If you like Koester Blue go for it, Furlow Red, go for it, its entirley up to the individual to chose where in the spectrum of the wide wide world of layouts you want to set down at.
.
The day this becomes "serious" is the day it becomes WORK and that is the day it all goes into the dumpster !

[Roadtrp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith


The day this becomes "serious" is the day it becomes WORK and that is the day it all goes into the dumpster !

[#ditto]

[dwRavenstar]

Heyas,

Interesting discussion and fantastic insights on both sides of the aisle. Admittedly it was a bit of work, imagining all of the crossed arms, harumphs, twisted faces, crossed eyes and the like that undoubtedly accompanied the variety of posts.

When attempting to create a railroad model don't we all have an idea of what we want to see as the finished product and accept our physical, financial and artistic limitations in our efforts?

Recently when the topic was posted asking if we were all being priced out of the hobby I thought of guys like John Allen and his contemporaries, guys who didn't have the current myriad of production pieces available and built what they could with what they could find and create with their own hands and imaginations. They built what they could in the same mind stream all of us do........... they did what satisfied themselves.

I find myself thinking of the newspaper Journalist who lived upstairs from Wm. Shakespeare (sp?) and after a hard day at the office, followed by a difficult evening writting tomorrow's article, wondered what that "hack" downstairs was dreaming up now. Reality, what a concept. Maybe it's the easy way out, maybe it's the only way out, I dunno.

If Reality were such a fantastic idea places like Home Depot and Lowe's would never have prospered.

dwRavenstar

[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.

[marknewton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

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?

Because I enjoy building and operating model trains, it's something I'm good at. "Loose" myself? I suppose you mean "lose". Perhaps, perhaps not. You're making the mistake of assuming that my motivations are the same as yours. They're not.

QUOTE: Why did you pick the time and location of your pike.

It's time and location were simple to choose - it's a model of a place I visited in Japan in 1981.

QUOTE: How many people are you going to represent? What are they going to be dong?

I'm using my photos from the trip as a guide to placing figures. Likewise to determine what they'll be doing.

QUOTE: Are there going to be pets? Who's going to be the owners?

Pets? Owners? Neither has any relavance to my modelling. You're being silly now.

Cheers,

Mark.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by marknewton

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

QUOTE: 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?

Because I enjoy building and operating model trains, it's something I'm good at. "Loose" myself? I suppose you mean "lose". Perhaps, perhaps not. You're making the mistake of assuming that my motivations are the same as yours. They're not.

QUOTE: Why did you pick the time and location of your pike.

It's time and location were simple to choose - it's a model of a place I visited in Japan in 1981.

QUOTE: How many people are you going to represent? What are they going to be dong?

I'm using my photos from the trip as a guide to placing figures. Likewise to determine what they'll be doing.

Are there going to be pets? Who's going to be the owners?

Pets? Owners? Neither has any relavance to my modelling. You're being silly now.

Cheers,

Mark.

SO you pick a time and location that has emotional significance to you but you maintain that who you has nothing to do with what you create?

Chip

Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.

• Reply