steinjr wrote: If I get an answer along the lines of "you can more about this in article X in the MR issue for June 2002", then that is a good answer for me. I go buy that back issue and read that article before asking any followup questions I may still have.
If I get an answer along the lines of "you can more about this in article X in the MR issue for June 2002", then that is a good answer for me. I go buy that back issue and read that article before asking any followup questions I may still have.
I also agree to what you are saying Stein, but only partly to the part I quote above.
You must have better magazine shops in Norway than in Sweden if they have several years old issues of American magazines . My problem is that I'm too impatient to wait for a week or more for an answer.
spidge wrote:I agree that when a question is asked and you are refered to a magazine or website I feel like I was just brushed to the side.
Please don't take this as criticism - it is not intended that way. Just my musings on the subject of how to react to the way people respond to our questions.
IMO, it's all a matter of perspective. You can look at it like you are being brushed off, or you can look at it like someone was kind enough to spend some of his or her own time (and time is a non-renewable resource for all human beings) to read and respond to your question.
I try to look at it this way when I ask a question: I am the one who wants others to spend of their time to help me - I should try to make it worth their while. That means that I should first spend quite a bit of my own time looking for answers on my own, then another chunk of my own time formulating reasonably clear questions.
Questions should try to provide necessary context and background for why I am asking the question and what I hope to accomplish, and I try to find a balance between being concrete and being general enough that the question (and answers) hopefully also will be of use to other people reading the thread.
And obviously - when I start a new thread, the title should be reasonably descriptive, so it is quick and easy for people who are not interested to skip the thread.
If I ask followup questions, I try to summarize what I learned from the article (or any other answers and reference I was given), and then ask my followup questions. In that way my followup questions will hopefully also have some added value for other readers.
It takes time (for me), but that is fair. My time is my own, and I can chose whether I want to spend it reading through an entire website or an entire book, or not.
This is a hobby, not a job project with a short deadline - it takes as long as it takes - I get my enjoyment from being on the road, not from getting to any particular place.
To me, it is all about showing respect for the time of the other readers and the people I ask to spend time helping me.
I am not entitled to a chunk of your time. But if you chose to spend some of your time reading what I write and even replying to me, then I should appreciate it, even if you are not willing to go into a long explanation to me or a long discussion with me.
Anyways - that's my take on asking questions and receiving answers. But we are all different, we have different goals and time plans, and we react in different ways.
The fact that I feel the way I do does not mean that your feeling is "wrong" in some way. Some people feel they need (or at least want) a directly applicable answer right away when they have a question, some are content to wait a couple of weeks (or more) to get more background information that eventually will allow them to figure something out.
So as they say: "your mileage may vary"
Grin, Stein
loathar wrote:I've also seen a lot of folks referred to the NMRA site. Especially when it comes to turnout dimensions and track and weight standards. I will admit though, some of their explanations are a little complicated and over my head sometimes. (IE-the turnout data)
I'm right there with you man.
John
The discussion about referring to other sites is interesting. I find that I do this, but I try to link to places that specifically answer the question (for example, right to the NMRA Standard, rather than the top page), and tell where on the page to look for the answer (halfway down, under X heading, or something). I'll refer to another site because it answers a question better than I can, or has more information than I want to summarize. I also don't want to take credit for someone else's work, so I will refer to their site. The one time that I might refer to a website without much explanation is when someone asks a question that can be anwered in 5 seconds with Google.
I really hope that when I do that I'm not looking like I'm trying to sweep away a questioner, I've read a lot, and have a technical background, but most of my 'practical' model railroad experience is pretty new, so I sure don't want to try to play an expert, even when I stay at Holiday Inn Express!
The other thing I am very guilty of is referring to a couple of books, specifically "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" and Linn Westcott's benchwork book. In my opinion, if someone is trying to design their own layout the first is just essential, and trying to create a design without it is just a big shortcut. The second may be a bit dated, but the methods are time tested, and a good guideline for anyone who lacks the experience or skills to use other methods.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
reklein wrote:good website like Spacemouses on the subject would enlighten the beginner much more than some simple answer one could give in a post here.
On the other hand I've seen people refered to other places that don't really answer their question. Often people are too quick to read into a question the answer they know, instead of figuring out what a person is really asking. I've been guilty of this too.
The other thing is why refer someone to a web site for something that CAN be explained in a few words. There are times more words obfuscate the answer rather than making it clearer.
Finally, I think this forum needs a FAQ section where all the good posts on the topic could be cataloged instead of relying on the search function (which now works much better than it did). Many wonderful answers that I know are out there, are hard to find.
Thank you very much for your answers to my question.
First, Im glad that my impressions are wron and I will appologize to all you that are (have been) refering to the NMRA pages. The reason I started this thread is that I haven't seen the references to NMRA (I don't read all threads)
Second, I will point out that the contents of the threads I have read are mostly very informative and/or interesting.
I would like to read more opinions regarding the issues that have been brought up in this thread.
I reference it in many of my answers. Their site nmra.org and this site have lots of information. Several of the NMRA sigs also have sites with a lot of information. If you are a member (as I am, since 1972) you can also go to NMRA meets. But I think their real value to the hobby is in their standard and recommended practices.
I would encourage anyone who has not done so to explore their site.
Enjoy
Paul
nof wrote:There is one thing that I don't understand though. In some cases the answer to the question can be found on the NMRA's website, but I can't remember anyone refering to NMRA and provide a link to a NMRA webpage.
So what is my problem?
Hej Svenska!
It seems like every month or so I refer to NMRA's website to the MR forum, particularly regarding track-radius and track-spacing issues. I don't consider NMRA irrelevant, but then I'm 60 (going on 14).
Tillgiven,
Mark
nof, to answer your title question, yes, I believe there is. But the answer is dependent upon the person you ask. Generally, I think the younger modellers are somewhat reluctant to belong to, to associate with, and to countenance the promulgations of organizations....large, conservative organizations. I said "generally", so don't jump on me folks. The older a person is, the more conservative they tend to be about problem-solving...generally. So, you will have comparatively fewer people referring to the NMRA, and when they do, they will tend to be older. As our numbers dwindle, those of the older generation, new ideas, norms, values, attitudes, and practises supplant the old. The younger generations have little or no interest in joining organized groups. The prefer informal groups where the structure and behavioural expectations are less rigid.
So, back to my original response; yes, the NMRA, no matter how accurate or current it is as a body and with what it offers the modeller in the way of support or guidance, is an anachronism in the ever modern society. It's just demographics and numbers, if you ask me.
Secondly, there are some credible people posting here who seem to feel that the NMRA is not keeping up in terms of what it can offer, or what it should stand for and offer. When newer folks read enough of this, they must feel less confident in the relevance of the NMRA. In fact, the more they look for answers here, the less they need the NMRA...at least, that is the logic, if not the truth.
-Crandell
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: I've referred to the Standards and RPs many times in reference to clearance and spacing issues, as well as some DCC questions. It's the first place I look when thinking about track radius and centers, if I don't have "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" in my hand.
I've referred to the Standards and RPs many times in reference to clearance and spacing issues, as well as some DCC questions. It's the first place I look when thinking about track radius and centers, if I don't have "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" in my hand.
(except for the DCC questions.)
A while back, there were a number of threads about turnout geometry. All of them, without exception, ended up with somebody (myself in one case) providing a link to the NMRA data on the subject.
There have also been quite a few references to the NMRA gauge in discussions about track laying, clearances and the like.
It's not that there's anything wrong with the NMRA. Rather, like the solid foundation under a building, we tend to take it for granted.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I have read a lot of postings in this forum, Fellow modellers that asks for help, advice or explanations to something they don't understand. There are always a lot of others that willingly answer their questions and explains the hard parts. This is something I like very much, the desire to help each other.
There is one thing that I don't understand though. In some cases the answer to the question can be found on the NMRA's website, but I can't remember anyone refering to NMRA and provide a link to a NMRA webpage. Why? My experience of NMRA is that it's a very good place to start learning about Model railroading and later give you a lot of facts and figures.
Some questions are often answered with a reference to an article written in an old MR magazine or some Kalmbach publications instead of a straight answer. I do believe the writer when he says that the article or the publication is a good one.
So what is my problem? The big differnce is that a link to any good webpage that spread light on the problem will do it immediately. An old magazine that no newbie has on hand or is hard to get will not give any solution at all. A publication you order will give you the answere in a couple of days or (if you live outside North America) in a couple of weeks.