Actually, John Allen modeled the West, where 400 foot sheer drops are relatively common on railroads out here. If you’ve ever been over the SP (now UP) Donner Pass line, there are several places where the railroad skirts not only 400 foot sheer drops, but a couple of 2,000 foot ones. He just modeled the type of country that he was used to out here, IMO.
Tom
The skyhook took passengers from a station to a hotel at the top of a mountain, that was built to disguise a support post.
I’ve just had a thought of what I think might be a rewarding model railroad subject - Cannery Row. Infleuced by another of California’s great sons, John Steinbeck. So many wonderful scenic and reseach opportunities. Main-line and switching possibilites and period features. Lots of scratchbuilding and or kit bashing - authentic or fantasy. The prospects are becoming way too exciting for this old mans heart to take. I’m getting a buzz for the possibilities bouncing about in my head and my creative juices are flowing - oop’s, time for a mug of java and a good lay-down
Cheers
Bruce
Bruce–
GREAT idea! Actually, I’m surprised that nobody (at least that I know of) hasn’t modeled that SP branch through Monterey and along the coast down through Asilomar and Del Monte. You can walk the branch through Cannery Row–it’s a pedestrian/bike trail and along the coast, and you’re right, it’s got tons of character. Just like Steinbeck’s wonderful novel (which happens to be my all-time favorite book!).
Tom [:D]
Sorry, I failed to state my point clearly, so I’ll try again.
I am simply making the distinction between an original work and a copy. Whether it’s called “art” or not is a matter of semantics and is irrelevant to my point. One who creates something original has a vision and talent. Whether the object created is good or bad is always a matter or opinion. For example, I cannot appreciate the works of Picasso, but I do not deny that his work was original and creative and that he has a vision not previously displayed by others.
But even though I cannot appreciate Picasso’s work, it is an indisputable fact Picasso deserves more recognition than those who simply produced copies of his work. The same is true of any human creation. For example I might be able to build an outstanding scale model of one of Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings, but it’s still just a copy, and the fact that I cannot produce an original work as good as his means that I lack the talent he had.
And of course the same thing applies to model railroading. Some MRRs have the outstanding vision and talent to create original works which are pleasing to the great majority of viewers. Others lack this talent, and are thus limited to building miniature copies of the works of others.
<edit: sarcastic comment removed>
Give it a break, Harry. Go visit an art gallery instead of trying to bait people.
Grin,
Stein
It should be pointed out that John’s modeling of the G&D was simply an extavagant “style”, not some extraordinarily new art form or concept within the hobby and in my opinion could be seen as an evolving extrapolation from some other existing layouts of the period. However, John admittedly took these ideas to creative extremes that exceeded most of those others. In large part, readers opinions presented here have been based on what they’ve seen of the G&D in the literature of recent years and fails to consider other material appearing in older copies MR’s and RMC’s. Thus, many posters don’t really appreciate the sort of modeling being done by some others at the time that may have influenced John himself. John’s overall modeling style is today probably best classified as caricature, which one saw as distinctly more commonplace during the earliest period of the G&D than subsequently. This makes John no less of an outstanding modeler, nor less looked upon as a very creative mind in the hobby’s early history but it does indicate that John modeling was not absolutely unique.
Likewise, it should be noted that John’s “style” of modeling was never one that was truly universally appealing and thus the complaints one occasionally saw in MR’s Letters to the Editor regarding “too much G&D” in its pages. Nor has John’s G&D style of modeling been widely reproduced in other layouts since (Sellios and Furlow seemingly being its main proponents seen in the magazines in recent years), which tends to put the G&D’s actual longterm influence on the hobby/hobbyists somewhat in question in my book. Even well before John’s untimely death, the sort of modeling style presented on the G&D had long since given way to a more strict conformity to realism. This is in no way to be taken as critical of John’s work, nor does it take anything away from t
Oh be nice.
Just because there is an aggregate of boneheads willing to agree that they have been insulted, does NOTHING to invalidate the source of their ire.
Begging pardon, but also begging the question…
[:-,]
To paraphrase those who have gone before us:
“It is art, Jim, but not as we know it”
[alien]
Cheers
Bruce
But where’s the logic? Okay, before we get too off subject…
As I have said before, I admire John Allen’s accomplishments and his place in the history of our hobby. The G&D was quite a layout. But I am guessing from the thread title that all opinions are up to scrutiny, so I will say this… I like seeing many other people’s work just as much if not more sometimes, and as I am far from a master modeler myself I greatly admire what many have accomplished. I don’t see myself ever getting close to doing what some people can.
I know John has a huge following, but my opinion? I will take reading about his first layout or his second one anyday, I find his original small layout to be more interesting by far than the large one. And as someone with a small layout I certainly can appreciate it more. So no, I am not looking for a “fight” as the title suggests, just offering a slightly different opinion than many others might. Maybe someone else already has, in which case this can be added to that line of thinking, haven’t had time to read this whole thread.
Two anecdotes about two artists featured/mentioned here: When I was the teacher of a Behaviorally Disabled Class (read: street punk/delinquents to most) who had driven off every teacher they got that year, they accidentally discovered a copy of John Allen’s book (Kalmbach) in the school library. Got totally enthralled with the idea that this model railroading thing was a HOBBY anyone could try and asked if I could take them to a train show that was coming to our nearest city. (Unfortunately due to liability issues and school field trip non-budgets, I couldn’t arrange this…) but the effect of this book on these kids was not only surprising but inspirational! I hope that some of them went on to participate in the hobby somehow after my contract finished. I supplied and we built and weathered a few models and joked about how much more fun this was than sharpening switch blades! Some of these kids were pretty dangerous customers and this hobby didn’t fit into their hellish home situations, but John Allen showed some of them that one could create one’s own “world” that was a happier and safer place they could hopefully someday retreat to if they could hold a job and save up some dough. A few others went on to prison most likely, but I and Mr. Allen couldn’t save 'em all… When I was a kid, I was not known for cleaning up my bedroom/4X8 layout room very often or very well. My Dad used to peek around the doorjamb and mutter, "How 'bout cleaning up this room? It looks like a Jackson Pollock painting in here!!! When the film came out I had to rent it so I could finally see what my father was referring to! 
I for one, wish this book would be back in publication and think it’s a crime it isn’t. If you were to photocopy a copy for your own use only, it would not be a copyright infringement by the way. I treasure my copy and refer to it for inspiration all the time. It’s been a huge incentive for me to finally get my first “real” layout built and finished eventually. It is NOT worth $300 bucks however
It’s interesting to note that in operating sessions, John liked to often run the train that ran up the branchline that used the original layout as it’s core. Apparently that was a favorite part of his layout to him also.
I went back and looked thru the Westcott book again over the weekend. (BTW it should really be called the Westcott - Hayden book…Linn Wescott died well before the book was finished, and Bob Hayden came in as “editor” and put it all together.) One thing that I think has gotten overlooked is that operation was very important to John. At that time, off-layout staging was rare - you made up trains in a yard, ran them over the layout, and broke them up in another yard. Layouts were built to have as long a mainline run as possible, to provide a sense of distance and to allow for plenty of industries - even if it meant looping thru the same scene three or four times. I believe many of the later articles he wrote were about train operations, not scenery. I don’t think JA was building a layout to be a way to show off his scenery skills, it was meant to represent a working railroad…and from what I can learn, did so quite well.
BTW someone mentioned something about John “doing what the masses wanted”. I think that’s not true. From what I can gather John wasn’t someone desperate for attention, although I guess once he got going amongst friends he could be a pretty good talker. He sounds like a fairly quite, polite guy who liked trains.
Amen. This does not surprise me. Thanks for sharing this experience with us. Peter Smith, Memphis
Wasn’t Mr.Allen a very good photographer as well? Could it be that his photograph’s made his layout better then it actually was? I know that you can hide a lot of flaws when you take a picture of a car so I’m sure you can do the same with a layout. His pictures were spectacular weren’t they. Just something to think about.
While that’s true, plenty of people operated on his layout, regulars and guests.
I don’t think they’d have been so glowing in their reports of the experience if the reality of the layout was not as good as the photos.
Precisely…and something I attempted to point out well up-stream in this very thread.
A good photographer can totally trick the viewer into thinking details, or scenery, exist in a picture of a layout when something totally different and prehaps much less impressive actually exists. John was a master of this sort of thing. Specific camera angles, unusually wide-angle (for the time) shots, superimposing multiple scenes, using mirrors to expand a scene - all of these were used by John to great advantage in his layout photos.
Take a look at the G&D photo on page 88 of the current MR. What appears to be a vista of a huge yard is, in fact, a shelf a bit more than 3 feet wide and perhaps 7 feet long. Fully half the image is just a reflection of the scene in a large mirror. So…less than half of what you see there truly exists.
Now look at the picture on the next page, showing the yard at Gorre and beyond. It looks like the scene’s background goes on and on. But does it? Heck, no! What you are seeing is a type of composite shot I’ve used myself on many occasions. By cleverly positioning the camera as he did, John has us looking across the upgraded but quite small original G&D layout, across several feet of aisleway, to the shelf carrying Angel’s Camp beyond, which was 12 feet or more from the camera! However, from this angle, the scene appears to be one solid piece of railroad.
In neither case (as well as in many other of John’s photos) does the image honestly depict what the layout would look like if you were actually&nbs
w:
Yes, the focus then leaned towards the concept of a real transportation system, where our present focus is more towards the appearance of a real transportation system.
Nowadays we tend to take exception to the shortcuts that were involved, but perhaps, from the other point of view, too much reliance on staging (for example) to make the railroad look real to the observer, might make it feel less real to the operator. I think the most interesting model railroads combine both ideas, however.
I agree 100%. I like to make things as much as anybody, but they look a whole lot nicer when produced from a blueprint or a set of directions clearly written.