This is a photo of my Dad, my Grandson and the Christmas Lay out. I also have a 4x8 I built in high school that I still run and under construction for the last 10 years a layout in the old coal bin. 7 x 11.
Best source of average and above average photos is the weekly Sunday Photo Fun
Banks, Proud member of the OTTS TCA 12-67310
I'm well aware of the weekly Sunday Photo Fun. I often see some very nice shots in there. But one neat photo does not necessarily translate into an article feature.
Articles or essays are submitted to CTT by the readers for possible inclusion and consideration for publication.and so your premise that an averaged size layout is not enough to base a feature upon as a potential article let alone series ignores the retro railroad series or the last series on constructing a small layout that was originated by the publishers.
Also I have seen several articles on average sized layouts that fathers and sons have built, here and elsewhere. So I don't think your inference that there is an overwhelming desire to exclude them for the sake of large professionally built layouts that you further infer have more content within a feature does not hold true. We are discussing preferences and not edicts since none of us have to sell a publication ( thank heavens). You must know there are as many preferences as there are readers..
An average layout would probably represent not only a smaller footprint but a lower per square foot cost for a complete scope of work, which translates into doing as much with less money which is a challenge and hence the interest in what can be done with less funds or a smaller footprint without the added cost of a contractor. This isn't complicated. If you compare the challenges of writing a check for which you have sufficient funds for hiring a contractor to deliver a layout out of the box so to speak versus having to squeeze a dollar, in this economy, for most the latter rather than the former applies, hence the preference for same.Its the utility of the feature beyond it's entertainment factor.There is a pragmatic side to this. and most of us I would assume, have to balance the two. Pragmatism and entertainment.
BTW....Banks...I think that photograph is priceless. A picture speaks a thousand words.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
DennisB-1 I'm well aware of the weekly Sunday Photo Fun. I often see some very nice shots in there. But one neat photo does not necessarily translate into an article feature.
My layout is not worthy of the pages of CTT I do enjoy seeing what others do and aspire to my rendering of what they do.
If some of the SPF layouts were explored more in depth with more photos and info they would make excellent articles. One poster belongs to a large club with a large layout. I would like to see a feature on it
wallyworld Articles or essays are submitted to CTT by the readers for possible inclusion and consideration for publication.and so your premise that an averaged size layout is not enough to base a feature upon as a potential article let alone series ignores the retro railroad series or the last series on constructing a small layout that was originated by the publishers. Also I have seen several articles on average sized layouts that fathers and sons have built, here and elsewhere. So I don't think your inference that there is an overwhelming desire to exclude them for the sake of large professionally built layouts that you further infer have more content within a feature does not hold true. We are discussing preferences and not edicts since none of us have to sell a publication ( thank heavens). You must know there are as many preferences as there are readers..
Please, let's not turn this into a contentious thread. You have completely misconstrued what I said. I was only talking about the photos in Sunday Photo Fun and I never said nor did I imply that an average size layout isn't enough to base a feature article on. I said one neat photo isn't enough.
I also never inferred there was an overwhelming desire to exclude the average sized layouts for professionally built ones. Please show me where I inferred that.
I'm not for or against anyone's preferences. I'm simply trying to understand exactly what is meant by the average Joe layout. I didn't coin that description.
Before this gets any more off track, let me repeat what I said several posts ago:
Any layout, regardless of size, can inspire. Inspiration comes from images or scenes that spark one’s imagination—size or expense has nothing to do with it. Craftsmanship is craftsmanship.
I don't know about the "average Joe"; but I would sure be interested in an article about or by the amazing Becky "Penny Trains" (who seems to be way above average!).
Bob Nelson
Not trying to cause a commotion either. Just want to clarify what I'd like to see in CTT.
lionelsoni I don't know about the "average Joe"; but I would sure be interested in an article about or by the amazing Becky "Penny Trains" (who seems to be way above average!).
I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,
How about it Penny???
Banks Not trying to cause a commotion either. Just want to clarify what I'd like to see in CTT. lionelsoni: I don't know about the "average Joe"; but I would sure be interested in an article about or by the amazing Becky "Penny Trains" (who seems to be way above average!). I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, How about it Penny???
lionelsoni: I don't know about the "average Joe"; but I would sure be interested in an article about or by the amazing Becky "Penny Trains" (who seems to be way above average!).
I couldn't agree more with you folks
Bruce
In the Disneyland thread I gave my support for an article on Becky. I think the unique thing with this article would be that Becky is a woman alone. Many articles we"ve seen in CTT shows a woman with her husband or daughter's with their father, but never a woman alone with a love of model trains. Plus, Becky has a variety of themes with her layouts, like her Thai layout she shared with us smetime back.
I think an article on Becky would truly be "one of a kind" and could perhaps be an instant classic.
Thanks guys! I appreciate the interest in my little endeavours!
As far as articles go, if I ever can manage to get a picture decent enough to make publication I'll be sure to submit it! But so far I haven't had much success!
I'd like to chime in also on the big vs. small and "I built" vs. "I had it built" conversation. The main layout I started building in the mid 90's was 4 by 9 expanded over the years to 9 by 14 with a big U shaped spur off one end and a half (stern) model of a ship on the other. Aside from the single track spur on a shelf along the wall, the layout is and always was just two O27 ovals on the 4 by 9 section. I described my "benchwork" at least once before as being 3 by 4 pallets, 2 by 4 legs, some scrap plywood from an old built-in bar and steel shelving. It isn't much, but it was what I started with. Currently it's in a state of chaos and some things have been removed for other projects. Just last night I pulled up some trees to use on my current jungle. One of these days I'll rebuild that layout into something new but I wouldn't consider the old layout magazine worthy. It had 2 operating accessories, some MTH, Lionel and Plasticville buildings and not a whole lot else. It's not entirely flat, but that's only because the legs aren't straight! Except for a very few pieces, I doubt anyone would have been very interrested in seeing a feature article about that layout.
But we all dream about it don't we? That maybe someday OUR work will be featured and OUR efforts will be recognized? It's completely normal and totally understandable.
However I do admit that somewhere in the back of my mind I too say "That?" "That's what passes for a good layout these days?" And I admit it, I'm guilty. But I also don't like it that sometimes I think that way. And I'm also as guilty as anyone else of thinking "That's cheating" when I see a layout that was built by professionals. But most often I only think that way when it's a home layout. ( I love what Clark Dunham did at Citibank .) And I also love the old factory display layouts and the Scenic Railways Lionel produced in the 20's and 30's. So I admonish myself when I think one layout is great and the other isn't simply because if I look at the situation hard enough, I'll find my own hypocricy. I just try to take everything at face value and learn as much as I can from it. And I eagerly await each issue and I always look at the pictures before I read a word.
And I agree with you Dennis that it's a very thin line between what's good and what's bad and what's worthy and what isn't. It's always subjective.
Becky
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month