John Allen's articles in M.R.

[Iron Horseman]

A recent article of Pelle's discussing the fitting of turnouts to correct track alignments was quite revealing and helped solve an issue on the club layout because no-one thought of or had considered the possibility of shortening (cutting) the diverging track's stub on a Peco turnout to make it fit. The sort of revelation that we can do with manufactured set track, just as we do with flex, a "light bulb" moment.

That makes me smile a bit. Wasn't it just a couple months ago we had newbie with a question about cutting a turnout here in the layouts section?

 

[NP2626]

I like the ads, they show what is available; or, what is coming down the line, soon. I also believe MR keeps abreast of what is going on in the hobby, far better than I do with my specialized and narrow interests in the hobby! As far as most folks not having the time or the patience to build models, my opinion is that we make the time for the things we want to do and unless they have tried building models, how do they know if they are passing by what I feel is the best aspect of the hobby, unless they give it a shot.

 

[tootnkumin]

That makes me smile a bit. Wasn't it just a couple months ago we had newbie with a question about cutting a turnout here in the layouts section?

I think there was, it was about the time the article appeared, might have even mentioned it. Sort-of, a happy confluence of events.

 

[tootnkumin]

I like the ads, they show what is available; or, what is coming down the line, soon. I also believe MR keeps abreast of what is going on in the hobby, far better than I do with my specialized and narrow interests in the hobby! As far as most folks not having the time or the patience to build models, my opinion is that we make the time for the things we want to do and unless they have tried building models, how do they know if they are passing by what I feel is the best aspect of the hobby, unless they give it a shot.

Oh, I often make time, but life (and others) also have plans for my time, so..........maybe I should be asking myself, What am I doing sitting here

 

[NP2626]

Toot, People are always talking about how busy they are and that the demands of everyday life today preclude their ability to spend the time doing what it is they would like to be doing and that modern life is so hectic! I've been married 42 years, in that time I raised two sons, followed them along through all the things they did: scouts, sports, other school activities, etc... My wife expects me to go to church and fix things around the house. I expect myself to mow the grass and do the other jobs necessary in life. I was in business for myself for 31 years of the 45 years I worked for a living. From what I remember as a kid, my parents worked even harder than I, and made a life for themselves; but, had spare time to do the things they wanted to do. Somehow; or, other, I always found the time to enjoy my interests! Sometimes I couldn't put in the time I wanted too and that is life!

Your statement: "but life (and others) also have plans for my time, so........" is the same for all of us, always has been and always will be. We use our spare time to do the things we want to do. My guess is most Model Railroaders have attempted model building and simply lack the patience for it. That is their loss, in my opinion!

 

[NP2626]

I guess I should redirect this conversation back to the original subject and that is the amount of articles John Allen had in Model Railroader Magazine. I'm up to 2012, now. John died in 1973. However, articles about John and his GD Lines have continued popping up since and I have included all of them to this point. I have found 26 articles, to this point and will add what ever is left that I find.

Is anyone interested in the dates they where published? If so I will submit them here.

 

[NP2626]

I finished up my look at M.R. from 1946 to November of 2016 and found no more references to John Allen or the GD Line. Once I got done, I felt it was silly to not do a complete look, going all the way back to M.R.s beginning. So I am working to complete the whole thing. One thing I found interesting and did not know, was that OO is mentioned in the February 1934 issue and HO is mentioned in the June, 1934 issue. This is far earlier than I thought I would be seeing people thinking about either OO; or, HO!

 

[tootnkumin]

There seems to be some divergence of opinions as to which came first, but it would seem that it's a bit like the Chicken and the Egg. I've always understood that 5/8th inch (16.5mm) gauge track was the beginnings of either scale. 5/8th being half the width of the prevailing 1-1/4" "O" gauge of the time, in the desire for smaller sized engines etc to reduce the space required for a train set (the term layout also coming later to that). The scales of 1:76 (OO) and 1:87 (HO) grew from the track's gauge subsequently.

 

[NP2626]

I need to read some of these early articles to understand how they came about. It's possible that the introduction of OO and HO, happened previous to Model Railroader's Beginning in January of 1934. My thinking is that this is probable. I don't feel which came first to be of much importance. I do know that OO is somewhat popular and at least still alive in the U.K.

An interesting question would be: What scale is closer to the prototype? Another interesting thought is why the gauge for HO and OO became 21/32nds and not 5/8ths as you state. 21/32nds is a direct conversion of 16.5 mm which is HO's true gauge. These are questions that may never be answered and really make no difference to anyone anyway. However, it appears that just after WW1 some German manufacturers started making clock work drives for trains that ran on 16.5 gauge track (Per Google).

As it is, I have surveyed to 1937 so I have a ways to go to get to 1946, where I started the last survey.

 

[tootnkumin]

Like most of these things in rail modelling, they would have been dabbled with by several before becoming established. The English maker Hornby made it popular there when they produced their OO, "Dublo" brand in 1:76 (or thereabouts) in the 1930's.

 

[NP2626]

If you have the capability of looking through the "All Time Digital Archive, take a look at the very interesting 0-4-0 mallet in the March 1939 issue!

 

[NP2626]

Per Google, when starting a search with HO SCALE as the topic, the following was found: "After the First World War there were several attempts to introduce a model railway about half the size of 0 scale that would be more suitable for smaller home layouts and cheaper to manufacture. H0 was created to meet these aims. For this new scale, a track width of 16.5 mm was designed to represent prototypical standard gauge track, and a model scale of 1:87 was chosen. By as early as 1922 the firm Bing in Nuremberg, Germany, had been marketing a "tabletop railway" for several years. This came on a raised, quasi-ballasted track with a gauge of 16.5 mm, which was described at that time either as 00 or H0. The trains initially had a clockwork drive, but from 1924 were driven electrically. Accessory manufacturers, such as Kibri, marketed buildings in the corresponding scale". If this the whole story; or, even the correct story, this explanation works for me.

 

[NP2626]

I have finished looking over all issues of M.R., from January of 1934 to the November of this year issue. Counting all the articles that I felt deserved a more thorough examination, i divided them into topics I thought would be useful. For Malcom Furlow, I found he had written 31 articles. I found 113 articles of general interest to me. 26 articles by; or, about John Allen. Articles on the Rio Grande Southern; or, general interest on Narrow Gauge, I found 49. I only found 25 on the Northern Pacific! I also really appreciate Jack Burgess' Yosemite Valley Railroad which had 7 articles. I only found 9 articles on; or, about Frank Ellison and the Franklin and South Manchester has had 11 articles on it.

As far as there only being 25 articles on the Northern Pacific, I find this strange, seeing how the N.P. was the second Trans-Continental railroad. It seems strange; but, also seems "par for the course", when you look at both the public's interest and the amount of equipment that has been marketed over the years. My interest in the N.P. stems from the fact that I grew up with the N.P. being my home road here in Minnesota!

If any of you are interested in any of this information, I certainly can relay to you what I have.

 

[NP2626]

I do have a question for the people who have been reading this thread: Who was Boomer Pete? I believe this name to be a "Pen Name" like "Mark Twain" was a Pen Name for Samuel Clemens. His introduction appears in the October 1937 issue of Model Railroader. He is introduced as "Just another model railroad nut" and his purpose was to help model railroaders out with their tough situations. By sometime in the end of the 40s his by-line disappears. He appears at the time that Al Kalmbach was editor/publisher of the magazine.

I thought Boomer Pete to be an interesting way to help people with their questions, obviously from back in a time when getting credit for your smarts was less important than simply helping people out!

 

[tootnkumin]

I copied this from a Wikipedia article on Kalmbach (quote) Al Kalmbach did a lot to popularize the hobby. His main interest was operation. He enjoyed being the dispatcher at the Model Railroad Club of Milwaukee, and published many articles on operation. He also wrote a book title "How to run a Model Railroad", under the name Boomer Pete.

Also came across a seller on ebay with 5 of the books for sale.

 

[Iron Horseman]

As far as there only being 25 articles on the Northern Pacific, I find this strange, seeing how the N.P. was the second Trans-Continental railroad.

I don't think it is strange at all. I am guessing there is a direct correlation between the population of the territory a railroad ran through and the number of modelers of that railroad. NP ran through from pretty desolate territory as far a population goes. For modeling competition that same territory was also occupied by the GN, Milwaukee, C&NW, Soo, DM&IR, Union Pacific, and Southern Pacific.

Another thing is that while the NP pioneered some great locomotives the 2-10-0, 4-8-4, and 2-8-8-4. And although they didn't invent the wheel arrangement the best 4-6-6-4s ever built. They do not capture the imagination like the Pennsy S2 and T1 and ubiquitous GG1, or the Union Pacific's 9000 class and the big blows. On the Diesel front one compares the pine tree schemes to a Santa Fe War bonnet or SP Daylight and it isn't even a close run. They finally hit a home run with the Two tone Loewy Passenger scheme but that is such a small portion of their fleet.

As a real railroad the NP isn't known for much other than poor management, repeated scandals, and multiple bankruptcy (which means of course the NP of 1980 is technically not the same NP company that completed the transcon). Contrast that to its "owned" road the CB&Q which from its conception as the Aurora Branch never missed a share holder dividend even in the depression era.

The NP did not choose glamorous names of its passenger trains that only went to Seattle and Portland. No City of Los Angeles, Super Chief, or Broadway Limited serving the movie starts at the peak of Hollywood and Broadway. No Zephyrs, Cannon Balls, or Rockets. What do we get - The North Coast Limited -- yawn.... The Mainstreeter -- What is that anyway? Certainly doesn't make me want to ride it, let alone dream about it.

And finally whats up with the Monad? Certainly turned off a whole generation of modelers who fought in the Korean war. My father could not stand to look at the NP logo without reminding him of "the enemy".

Add to that the other model railroad things like the horrible rendition of an F7 by Athearn. The choice of AHM to do the Butter Knife passenger car scheme other than the Loewy. And the total lack of a NP prototype caboose until Atlas did the wide vision in what 1983?.

I believe all these contribute to the lack of interest in the over all modeling community.

 

[tootnkumin]

There is something to be said for modelling a less modelled prototype, being it's uniqueness, against that is a lesser interest from manufacturer support. My interest in MRL and considering where I am is largely based on being off the heavily beaten track, probably too because I am the only one in my club that does so (a bit of pseudo snobbery maybe), and still running interesting machinery (to me anyway)

 

[NP2626]

Iron Horseman, your last post comes across like you would hold a grudge against the Northern Pacific! I need to correct you on at least one point: (which means of course the NP of 1980 is technically not the same NP company that completed the transcon) The correction, of course is that the Northern Pacific no longer existed in 1980, as the merger between the CB&Q, Northern Pacific, Spokane, Portland and Seattle and the Great Northern took place in 1970. Other than that, I would say your history lesson is pretty much spot on! However, can I ask: Why would Model Railroaders give a dang about the amount of times a railroad goes through difficult times? I feel it actually adds some interest to the subject.

We all have our interests, possibly because of where we live and what we saw, in our younger days; or, for what ever reasons. If it is more important to you to model a railroad that you feel was the Broad Shoulders of the United States of America, that is your choice.

From you're Monad; or, emblem, I gather that you model the Santa Fe, good choice! Plenty of equipment available! However, now you are just one of thousands who model a popular railroad.

Best to you!

 

[NP2626]

Something that really stands out in the earlier issues of Model Railroader is that if you wanted to be a model railroader back then you had to make almost everything. When I look at what they had, I am absolutely amazed at the craftsmanship these modelers had!

 

[Iron Horseman]

Iron Horseman, your last post comes across like you would hold a grudge against the Northern Pacific! I need to correct you on at least one point: (which means of course the NP of 1980 is technically not the same NP company that completed the transcon) The correction, of course is that the Northern Pacific no longer existed in 1980, as the merger between the CB&Q, Northern Pacific, Spokane, Portland and Seattle and the Great Northern took place in 1970.

Ha, no grudge just stating a few observations. And Ooops, typo. Of course I meant 1970. One could make similar arguments for even smaller class 1 railroads like the Minneapolis and St. Louis. Real railroad doesn't pass many real people so by default it gets less modeled. In fact it could be substituted for all the other "not playing well in Peoria" type jokes. Zero named trains, no motive power innovation or cool special equipment, etc, etc. In my entire Model Railroading history I've only met one other person who models the Minny Lou.