jwhitten Another exercise might be-- suppose you buy a book of track plans by John Armstrong. A whole shopping cart full of FSM kits. A slew of Central Valley tie strips and turnout kits and rails to go with it. Siever's benchwork to fill the whole basement. Enough Woodland Scenics supplies to scenic a small country. Photo-realistic backdrops from All Scale backdrops. BLI and Proto2K locomotives and Exactrail rolling stock. NCE or Digitrax DCC controllers--- and you take all that stuff and combine it into a layout... Is it *yours* or is it *commercial* ??? John
Another exercise might be-- suppose you buy a book of track plans by John Armstrong. A whole shopping cart full of FSM kits. A slew of Central Valley tie strips and turnout kits and rails to go with it. Siever's benchwork to fill the whole basement. Enough Woodland Scenics supplies to scenic a small country. Photo-realistic backdrops from All Scale backdrops. BLI and Proto2K locomotives and Exactrail rolling stock. NCE or Digitrax DCC controllers--- and you take all that stuff and combine it into a layout...
Is it *yours* or is it *commercial* ???
John
It's your layout because you built it. You didn't hire someone to build or assemble it for you.
This is what Railroad Modelers do.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
jwhitten howmus: Lets see, If I go out and by a model railroad does THAT make me a Model railroader??? The question isn't whether it makes you a model railroader, but how do you feel / what do you think about contracting out all or part of a model railroad layout? And if it bothers you, are you bothered by someone who hires someone to do the track plan? Build the benchwork? Build the structures? Etc-- how much / where is the tipping point when it begins to seem different from someone who does it all? This post is *NOT* about who is or isn't a model railroader. John
howmus: Lets see, If I go out and by a model railroad does THAT make me a Model railroader???
Lets see, If I go out and by a model railroad does THAT make me a Model railroader???
The question isn't whether it makes you a model railroader, but how do you feel / what do you think about contracting out all or part of a model railroad layout? And if it bothers you, are you bothered by someone who hires someone to do the track plan? Build the benchwork? Build the structures? Etc-- how much / where is the tipping point when it begins to seem different from someone who does it all?
This post is *NOT* about who is or isn't a model railroader.
OK..... Well it seems that a few have made it, or tied to make it into THAT! So I guess I would have to say, "How do I feel about it?" Total and complete indifference!
Actually I wouldn't buy a model layout or have it "contracted" out to someone else because THAT would take all the fun out of building a Model Railroad. But if YOU want to buy or contract out your layout....... Go ahead. Won't make me "feel" one way or another........
73
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
howmus Lets see, If I go out and by a model railroad does THAT make me a Model railroader???
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm................
I probably should keep quiet.... last time this kind of subject came up I was soundly beaten about the head and body, handcuffed, tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
Lets see, If I go out and by a model railroad does THAT make me a Model railroader??? Hmmmmm???
Well, I went out and bought a truck a few years ago. It sits right out there in my driveway. So, am I a Trucker? I know some truckers who don't have a truck in their driveway......
I also own a car that I bought. I must be a Auto Mechanic? I know several Auto Mechanics who also have cars in their driveway.
There is a kid down the street who owns an electric guitar. He must be a professional Musician, right? I have a degree in music and I own a guitar, so......
I mow my lawn with a mower I bought. Am I a landscape professional???? Hmmm?
Guess it has to do with symantics. Oooooo I used a big word. I must be a poet! Yep!
jwhitten richhotrain: selector: We can have a model train set, or a model railroad, but we aren't modelling...we are playing with them. Modelling, per se, is the act of rendering an item in scale. Few of us really go to those lengths these days. -Crandell Crandell, Shame on you. We are all model railroaders, from the guy who lays track on an old door and runs an engine in a loop to the guy who pays a small fortune to have his layout professionally built to all the rest of us who fall somewhere in between who build our own layouts, large and small, and enjoy the hobby. As for the author of this thread, I don't know what he wants. Back in May, he wrote about a layout that he hated. It was so egregious in his view that it was a caricature of what a train layout should be. He didn't like the layout, he didn't like the landscaping, he didn't like the structures, he didn't like the little people, he didn't like the weathering. Gotta feel sorry for the "model railroader" who built it. Now, he wants to know where is the threshold point on commercially designed layouts or "store-bought" items before the "negative connotation" emerges. All of this negativity does not promote the hobby in my view. C'mon fellas, we are all model railroaders. Yes we are! Rich Wow, you sure are reading a lot more into this than I had in mind. My original goal of this thread was to simply to discuss how people felt about engaging in professional commercial model railroading services, whether getting assistance developing a trackplan, or building benchwork, to the outright purchase of an entire layout. I even went so far as to put in bright red, bold print that I didn't want to start a 'who is/ who isn't a model railroader' thread, though as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to state that too if its your opinion, but that wasn't the point of my thread. In reading Crandell's answer, he was talking about people who *model* something, not whether or not they are a "Model Railroader". In fact, I don't think anybody here has said people are not "Model Railroaders" even if they buy a layout (maybe somebody did and I missed it). But what people *have* said in a number of threads, is that there is a difference between a "Model Railroader" and a "Railroad Modeler". The first is someone who self-identifies themselves with the hobby in some manner. Whether they talk about it, dream about it, read all the magazines, build or buy a layout, or join a club and operate on the club layout. I'm pretty sure that most of the folks here would mostly agree that anybody who *thinks* they are a "Model Railroader" and wants to be in the hobby, *is* a Model Railroader. (Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to me to be the gist from most of the respondents.) On the other hand, a number of folks-- including Crandell-- have said that they believe there is another facet, or "category" if you'd rather, of people who are "Railroad Modelers", who actively engage in the actual design and construction Railroad-related models, whether its building locomotives and rolling stock, or constructing buildings and structures, or putting together benchwork and laying track so as to construct a complete railroad *model*. The difference being the element of creativity and participation, and the actual work-effort required, regardless of the outcome, in building / constructing the models and/or layout. The nuance I have been interested in exploring in this post however, is (a) how people feel in general about "buying" a commercial layout, and (b) if they have an issue with the former, how does it break down in its components-- which element or elements do people have the most issue with, or if no one particular element-- at what stage is the "tipping point" that it goes from being recognized as a "work of art" (my words) constructed by the modeler, to a "commercial item" (whether art-worthy or not) *purchased* by the modeler? Back in May I wrote an article about a layout I actually liked-- and I said so right up front. YOU are just skipping over the parts that aren't convenient for your slant of the post. But it is true that I felt the layout had many of the "cliche" elements that people often discuss. AND, just for the record, I'm NOT the first one-- and probably far from the last one-- to write a post, or an article, such as that one. While I do not consider myself one of the "greats", nearly all of them have written a piece like that over the years-- from John Armstrong to Tony Koester and a whole lot of 'em in between. And some of them were far less gracious in their comments than I was. If you don't believe me, go research the articles and see for yourself. In fact, I had been *hoping* for my post to be viewed in a humorous fashion, but it wasn't interpreted that way by some-- apparently yourself included. I don't know why-- whether they are insecure in their modeling or layouts, or what. But I did apologize in the event that I offended anybody. If I did, it wasn't intentional-- and I had hoped to have a nice nuanced discussion about the various "cliches" that many people invariably include-- perhaps unintentionally-- on their layouts. But to say I "hated" the layout is just wrong. It was just a title designed to get attention for the post. In retrospect, I agree it was probably too emotionally-charged and I should have used a softer title. By the way, the word "cliche" isn't a specifically bad word, it merely means something that is done so often it becomes predictable or "pedantic". Here is a definition from the web: "A cliché or cliche (pronounced klē-ˈshā) is a saying, expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, rendering it a stereotype, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel." John
richhotrain: selector: We can have a model train set, or a model railroad, but we aren't modelling...we are playing with them. Modelling, per se, is the act of rendering an item in scale. Few of us really go to those lengths these days. -Crandell Crandell, Shame on you. We are all model railroaders, from the guy who lays track on an old door and runs an engine in a loop to the guy who pays a small fortune to have his layout professionally built to all the rest of us who fall somewhere in between who build our own layouts, large and small, and enjoy the hobby. As for the author of this thread, I don't know what he wants. Back in May, he wrote about a layout that he hated. It was so egregious in his view that it was a caricature of what a train layout should be. He didn't like the layout, he didn't like the landscaping, he didn't like the structures, he didn't like the little people, he didn't like the weathering. Gotta feel sorry for the "model railroader" who built it. Now, he wants to know where is the threshold point on commercially designed layouts or "store-bought" items before the "negative connotation" emerges. All of this negativity does not promote the hobby in my view. C'mon fellas, we are all model railroaders. Yes we are! Rich
selector: We can have a model train set, or a model railroad, but we aren't modelling...we are playing with them. Modelling, per se, is the act of rendering an item in scale. Few of us really go to those lengths these days. -Crandell
We can have a model train set, or a model railroad, but we aren't modelling...we are playing with them. Modelling, per se, is the act of rendering an item in scale. Few of us really go to those lengths these days.
-Crandell
Crandell,
Shame on you. We are all model railroaders, from the guy who lays track on an old door and runs an engine in a loop to the guy who pays a small fortune to have his layout professionally built to all the rest of us who fall somewhere in between who build our own layouts, large and small, and enjoy the hobby.
As for the author of this thread, I don't know what he wants. Back in May, he wrote about a layout that he hated. It was so egregious in his view that it was a caricature of what a train layout should be. He didn't like the layout, he didn't like the landscaping, he didn't like the structures, he didn't like the little people, he didn't like the weathering. Gotta feel sorry for the "model railroader" who built it. Now, he wants to know where is the threshold point on commercially designed layouts or "store-bought" items before the "negative connotation" emerges.
All of this negativity does not promote the hobby in my view. C'mon fellas, we are all model railroaders. Yes we are!
Rich
Wow, you sure are reading a lot more into this than I had in mind. My original goal of this thread was to simply to discuss how people felt about engaging in professional commercial model railroading services, whether getting assistance developing a trackplan, or building benchwork, to the outright purchase of an entire layout. I even went so far as to put in bright red, bold print that I didn't want to start a 'who is/ who isn't a model railroader' thread, though as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to state that too if its your opinion, but that wasn't the point of my thread.
In reading Crandell's answer, he was talking about people who *model* something, not whether or not they are a "Model Railroader". In fact, I don't think anybody here has said people are not "Model Railroaders" even if they buy a layout (maybe somebody did and I missed it). But what people *have* said in a number of threads, is that there is a difference between a "Model Railroader" and a "Railroad Modeler".
The first is someone who self-identifies themselves with the hobby in some manner. Whether they talk about it, dream about it, read all the magazines, build or buy a layout, or join a club and operate on the club layout. I'm pretty sure that most of the folks here would mostly agree that anybody who *thinks* they are a "Model Railroader" and wants to be in the hobby, *is* a Model Railroader. (Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to me to be the gist from most of the respondents.)
On the other hand, a number of folks-- including Crandell-- have said that they believe there is another facet, or "category" if you'd rather, of people who are "Railroad Modelers", who actively engage in the actual design and construction Railroad-related models, whether its building locomotives and rolling stock, or constructing buildings and structures, or putting together benchwork and laying track so as to construct a complete railroad *model*. The difference being the element of creativity and participation, and the actual work-effort required, regardless of the outcome, in building / constructing the models and/or layout.
The nuance I have been interested in exploring in this post however, is (a) how people feel in general about "buying" a commercial layout, and (b) if they have an issue with the former, how does it break down in its components-- which element or elements do people have the most issue with, or if no one particular element-- at what stage is the "tipping point" that it goes from being recognized as a "work of art" (my words) constructed by the modeler, to a "commercial item" (whether art-worthy or not) *purchased* by the modeler?
Back in May I wrote an article about a layout I actually liked-- and I said so right up front. YOU are just skipping over the parts that aren't convenient for your slant of the post. But it is true that I felt the layout had many of the "cliche" elements that people often discuss. AND, just for the record, I'm NOT the first one-- and probably far from the last one-- to write a post, or an article, such as that one. While I do not consider myself one of the "greats", nearly all of them have written a piece like that over the years-- from John Armstrong to Tony Koester and a whole lot of 'em in between. And some of them were far less gracious in their comments than I was. If you don't believe me, go research the articles and see for yourself.
In fact, I had been *hoping* for my post to be viewed in a humorous fashion, but it wasn't interpreted that way by some-- apparently yourself included. I don't know why-- whether they are insecure in their modeling or layouts, or what. But I did apologize in the event that I offended anybody. If I did, it wasn't intentional-- and I had hoped to have a nice nuanced discussion about the various "cliches" that many people invariably include-- perhaps unintentionally-- on their layouts. But to say I "hated" the layout is just wrong. It was just a title designed to get attention for the post. In retrospect, I agree it was probably too emotionally-charged and I should have used a softer title.
By the way, the word "cliche" isn't a specifically bad word, it merely means something that is done so often it becomes predictable or "pedantic". Here is a definition from the web: "A cliché or cliche (pronounced klē-ˈshā) is a saying, expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, rendering it a stereotype, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel."
John,
I dunno. I can't figure it out. Maybe you are right, I am reading too much into this.
Maybe you should restate your original premise.
Do you not like professionally designed/constructed layouts?
Do you object to someone passing it off as his own work when it isn't?
Are you concerned that the hobby has drifted away from a hands on approach by amateur craftsmen?
Do you want us to stop referring to ourselves as model railroaders?
One thing that I have concluded is that I consider myself a "model railroader" because I built and landscaped my own layout (but with store bought materials). But, since I don't scratch build anything or weather locomotives or rolling stock, I have concluded that I am not a "modelling railroader". How's that guys for a new term?
In any event, I gotta stop this and go watch TV. The Bears are already behind 7-3 at home against a team that has lost 20 consecutive road games. And Tiger is 3 over par after 4 holes and isn't going to make the Fed Ex Final. So, you think that you have problems with defining model railroading while I am sitting here in Chicago losing money in Fantasy Foorball and Fantasy Golf.
Alton Junction
It could be why some people aren't overly fond of "instant model railroaders" with their prefabricated layouts is the same in most life situations where there are resentments for the "nouveau riche" (newly rich) who try to buy their way into neighborhoods, yacht clubs, golf clubs, high society, etc. As in "Just who do they think they are, calling themselves model railroaders, when their only effort was writing a check?". Perhaps a better term would be "model railroad owners".
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
ccaranna the other day i woke up and had some coffee and then i thought what a great day to drive my car around the block and maybe see if that rattle was still loose under the car but after i had my coffee i needed to clean the pot when i realized that if i used plaster on my walls in my house after repairing the wall maybe i could use the plaster on my railroad so i drove along the tracks near my house and saw a train it was long maybe 45 cars i don't remember but the coffee pot was hot and i thought about how many people are rude when they talk about other peoples railroads like NS or something because i like csx i get alot of flack for it just like my railroad which i built completely by myself with plaster cloth and cardboard lacing which made me think that if i only paid someone to work on it for me i would still be made fun of for not building it myself now i don't think i do a bad job its just that other people are better except i know all of the csx road numbers by heart and people are kind of impressed by that but usually theres some other guy that knows which chessie engine was used in williard in 1978 which i do not know but i am still learning i guess someday i will try and write a book but its so difficult finding a publisher that will print my book maybe it is because there is a lot of editing involved not sure if i type too much but if anyone knows a publisher that i can contact i would appreciate it so after i had drive around the street i came back and built a ready to run building and put it on my layout which looks really good i must say but then i decided to make my own scenery material so i went out back and cut down a tree by hand and brought a limb inside where i cut it down and used the sawdust and painted it green and i used that for ground cover on the farm i have now i am not too proud that i did that because i know people will think it looks cheap but in this economy i am doing the best i possibly can do considering that i have not refinanced my house and i was unemployed for a year or so but i am hoping that once i get my book published i will use the money to create a huge representation of the sand patch grade in the apalachian mountains it will be so coool but i am not so great at creating my own track plan so maybe i will have to get help on that which defeats the purpose of doing it myself plus i will have to pay someone money that i do not have so i do not know what to do i suppose i will have to cross that bridge when i get to it which reminds me i saw a great train bridge the other day that still said pennsylvanina on it and i thought that was amazing how it said that since i do not even see conrail on any bridges i mean pennsylvanina was out of business in 1980 and i think that bridge was built in 1979 or something i would like to build my own bridge that says new york central but i am not sure if there is one so i will have to build it myself with decals i think just like i was able to find some miniature cows for the farm but i can not believe there is no bridge that says chesapeake and ohio now i dont mind if i see someones trains and they didnt make it themselves and museum displays are always cool i just wished i knew who made them and club layouts are never made by the people that are running the trains they always say that the those guys are here today or they havent been around for a long time or they died a long time ago which makes me think the the guys running the trains are so lucky to have a train layout that is already created for them and all they have to do is show up and run trains but i suppose they still have to maintain it somehow to keep the trains running and to keep the dust from getting to thick on the buildings in the city but sometimes that natural dust looks real and everyone these days is so particular about making things look exactly like it is in real life when i see that i think its cool but wish i had the skills to paint my freight cars with rust and grafiti just like the real ones but since i model n and ho scale i have to make some sacrifices which is why o scale seems good except that i will need about 500 square feet of room to run a 50 car train but thats the way the cookie crumbles i guess which reminds me i need to finish my coffee
the other day i woke up and had some coffee and then i thought what a great day to drive my car around the block and maybe see if that rattle was still loose under the car but after i had my coffee i needed to clean the pot when i realized that if i used plaster on my walls in my house after repairing the wall maybe i could use the plaster on my railroad so i drove along the tracks near my house and saw a train it was long maybe 45 cars i don't remember but the coffee pot was hot and i thought about how many people are rude when they talk about other peoples railroads like NS or something because i like csx i get alot of flack for it just like my railroad which i built completely by myself with plaster cloth and cardboard lacing which made me think that if i only paid someone to work on it for me i would still be made fun of for not building it myself now i don't think i do a bad job its just that other people are better except i know all of the csx road numbers by heart and people are kind of impressed by that but usually theres some other guy that knows which chessie engine was used in williard in 1978 which i do not know but i am still learning i guess someday i will try and write a book but its so difficult finding a publisher that will print my book maybe it is because there is a lot of editing involved not sure if i type too much but if anyone knows a publisher that i can contact i would appreciate it so after i had drive around the street i came back and built a ready to run building and put it on my layout which looks really good i must say but then i decided to make my own scenery material so i went out back and cut down a tree by hand and brought a limb inside where i cut it down and used the sawdust and painted it green and i used that for ground cover on the farm i have now i am not too proud that i did that because i know people will think it looks cheap but in this economy i am doing the best i possibly can do considering that i have not refinanced my house and i was unemployed for a year or so but i am hoping that once i get my book published i will use the money to create a huge representation of the sand patch grade in the apalachian mountains it will be so coool but i am not so great at creating my own track plan so maybe i will have to get help on that which defeats the purpose of doing it myself plus i will have to pay someone money that i do not have so i do not know what to do i suppose i will have to cross that bridge when i get to it which reminds me i saw a great train bridge the other day that still said pennsylvanina on it and i thought that was amazing how it said that since i do not even see conrail on any bridges i mean pennsylvanina was out of business in 1980 and i think that bridge was built in 1979 or something i would like to build my own bridge that says new york central but i am not sure if there is one so i will have to build it myself with decals i think just like i was able to find some miniature cows for the farm but i can not believe there is no bridge that says chesapeake and ohio now i dont mind if i see someones trains and they didnt make it themselves and museum displays are always cool i just wished i knew who made them and club layouts are never made by the people that are running the trains they always say that the those guys are here today or they havent been around for a long time or they died a long time ago which makes me think the the guys running the trains are so lucky to have a train layout that is already created for them and all they have to do is show up and run trains but i suppose they still have to maintain it somehow to keep the trains running and to keep the dust from getting to thick on the buildings in the city but sometimes that natural dust looks real and everyone these days is so particular about making things look exactly like it is in real life when i see that i think its cool but wish i had the skills to paint my freight cars with rust and grafiti just like the real ones but since i model n and ho scale i have to make some sacrifices which is why o scale seems good except that i will need about 500 square feet of room to run a 50 car train but thats the way the cookie crumbles i guess which reminds me i need to finish my coffee
If I might offer three items of advice...
#1. Drink smaller cups of coffee...
#2. Hit return a couple of times about every fifth line or so.
#3. Keep on loving trains! I'd buy your book-- put me down for one of the first copies!
john
Could you expand on that thought?
LOL. Now that's probably the longest sentence I've ever seen.
Springfield PA
jwhitten "In Need of Professional Help!" From time-to-time I have read articles in the model press, including Model Railroader magazine, or on various forums, about people who have literally "purchased" their entire railroads in one go-- by which I mean they contracted with a layout design and construction firm to do all the planning and all the work. And from the examples I've seen they generally *look* okay to me. They seem well-designed and thought-out, well made and nicely apportioned, fully-scenicked and, frankly, look like they might be a lot of fun to run and operate. But, curiously, sometimes the reaction to such a layout is negative and, or even downright nasty. I recall one specific example in Model Railroader a few years ago about a fellow who contracted with a firm to design and deliver a layout based on a locomotive servicing facility. He didn't have much space, liked locomotives, and after consultation it was decided that a service facility would be a good fit for his wishes. I forget offhand why he didn't want to do it himself, but it doesn't really matter, whatever the reason, he just elected to "buy" his railroad rather than build it. Well, in the very next issue there were letters from people complaining about how he wasn't really a model railroader and that it was somehow "cheating" since he had it built and didn't build it himself. I remember my own thoughts, more or less, while reading the article showcasing the layout, which was something like "Boy, this is over the top commercialism. Even for Model Railroader-- they're stooping to new lows... (mumble mumble) Cow-towing to their commercial advertisers, etc." Then when I read the feedback in the next issue, I realized it was probably a common reaction. I re-read the article several times to try to figure out what it was that bothered me about it, but I was never able to quite decide what it was. But it stands to reason that simply the knowledge that it was professionally built, as everything else about it looked normal, and in fact quite nice. It was a model railroad after all! Interestingly though, I don't have the same reaction to layouts in museums, shopping centers, professional buildings, or anywhere else. Perhaps its the fact that they are housed in a "professional" location and its expected that they would be professional designed and constructed. Perhaps it simply the knowledge that the layout was professionally designed in a hobby where most modelers typically pride themselves on their own accomplishments-- and expect that their modeling brethren are similarly engaged in designing and constructing their own layouts-- to whatever degree and ability they can. But what about the layouts that were commercially-contracted out by the modeler? Apparently that is a different story, but maybe people don't really know how to approach it-- not quite sure what to say, or how to approach it. And anyway, what is there really to say when the whole thing has been designed and built by professionals who know all the secrets and all the tricks? It'd be a bit like trying to critique a Disney World exhibit! (A real Mickey Mouse operation there, if ever there was one! :-) The layout may be uniformly well-done, and yet other than "ownership", it is not really "of" the modeler in the same sense as a home-made layout is. So that's one thing... The other is this-- let's break it down some, just for the heck of it... From one perspective, nearly all layouts are really "store-bought" at some level, when you consider that the construction materials are almost always purchased. Whether then combined or placed as-is on the layout being kind-of immaterial. The lumber is typically purchased, the track materials, the trains and rolling stock, the structures, the switches and wiring, the throttles or DCC control units-- whatever. Even if you scratch-build, you still probably purchased the materials rather than whittling your own window frames and casting your own door knobs-- though I'm sure there are some who do exactly that! And I'm not trying to call one type a "Model Railroader" and another type "Not a Railroader"-- that's not where I'm going with all this. So, My Questions For Today Are: -- Suppose you found out that the owner of some layout you admire really, in fact, contracted with a commercial design and construction firm to create the entire layout? -- Or maybe they just consulted with a professional design firm to develop the track plan and that's all-- the modeler did everything else? Or maybe it was the track plan and the benchwork? Or the track plan, benchwork, some scenicking and the major structures...?? -- Where is the threshold point? How much, and of what, has to be "store-bought" before the "negative connotation" emerges? I reckon that's what I'm really asking. -- Or, maybe you're not bothered by the idea of a "store-bought" layout. Why or why not? -- How would you feel about the modeler him or herself, if you find out that some or all of their layout has been professionally contracted out? Would that change your opinion? Do you think the modeler ought to be "required" to "fess up" and inform people of the layout's status? As always, I'm looking for your thoughts and opinions-- and photos too if you got 'em! John
"In Need of Professional Help!"
From time-to-time I have read articles in the model press, including Model Railroader magazine, or on various forums, about people who have literally "purchased" their entire railroads in one go-- by which I mean they contracted with a layout design and construction firm to do all the planning and all the work. And from the examples I've seen they generally *look* okay to me. They seem well-designed and thought-out, well made and nicely apportioned, fully-scenicked and, frankly, look like they might be a lot of fun to run and operate.
But, curiously, sometimes the reaction to such a layout is negative and, or even downright nasty. I recall one specific example in Model Railroader a few years ago about a fellow who contracted with a firm to design and deliver a layout based on a locomotive servicing facility. He didn't have much space, liked locomotives, and after consultation it was decided that a service facility would be a good fit for his wishes. I forget offhand why he didn't want to do it himself, but it doesn't really matter, whatever the reason, he just elected to "buy" his railroad rather than build it. Well, in the very next issue there were letters from people complaining about how he wasn't really a model railroader and that it was somehow "cheating" since he had it built and didn't build it himself.
I remember my own thoughts, more or less, while reading the article showcasing the layout, which was something like "Boy, this is over the top commercialism. Even for Model Railroader-- they're stooping to new lows... (mumble mumble) Cow-towing to their commercial advertisers, etc." Then when I read the feedback in the next issue, I realized it was probably a common reaction. I re-read the article several times to try to figure out what it was that bothered me about it, but I was never able to quite decide what it was. But it stands to reason that simply the knowledge that it was professionally built, as everything else about it looked normal, and in fact quite nice. It was a model railroad after all!
Interestingly though, I don't have the same reaction to layouts in museums, shopping centers, professional buildings, or anywhere else. Perhaps its the fact that they are housed in a "professional" location and its expected that they would be professional designed and constructed.
Perhaps it simply the knowledge that the layout was professionally designed in a hobby where most modelers typically pride themselves on their own accomplishments-- and expect that their modeling brethren are similarly engaged in designing and constructing their own layouts-- to whatever degree and ability they can.
But what about the layouts that were commercially-contracted out by the modeler? Apparently that is a different story, but maybe people don't really know how to approach it-- not quite sure what to say, or how to approach it. And anyway, what is there really to say when the whole thing has been designed and built by professionals who know all the secrets and all the tricks? It'd be a bit like trying to critique a Disney World exhibit! (A real Mickey Mouse operation there, if ever there was one! :-) The layout may be uniformly well-done, and yet other than "ownership", it is not really "of" the modeler in the same sense as a home-made layout is.
So that's one thing...
The other is this-- let's break it down some, just for the heck of it...
From one perspective, nearly all layouts are really "store-bought" at some level, when you consider that the construction materials are almost always purchased. Whether then combined or placed as-is on the layout being kind-of immaterial. The lumber is typically purchased, the track materials, the trains and rolling stock, the structures, the switches and wiring, the throttles or DCC control units-- whatever. Even if you scratch-build, you still probably purchased the materials rather than whittling your own window frames and casting your own door knobs-- though I'm sure there are some who do exactly that!
And I'm not trying to call one type a "Model Railroader" and another type "Not a Railroader"-- that's not where I'm going with all this.
So, My Questions For Today Are:
-- Suppose you found out that the owner of some layout you admire really, in fact, contracted with a commercial design and construction firm to create the entire layout?
-- Or maybe they just consulted with a professional design firm to develop the track plan and that's all-- the modeler did everything else? Or maybe it was the track plan and the benchwork? Or the track plan, benchwork, some scenicking and the major structures...??
-- Where is the threshold point? How much, and of what, has to be "store-bought" before the "negative connotation" emerges? I reckon that's what I'm really asking.
-- Or, maybe you're not bothered by the idea of a "store-bought" layout. Why or why not?
-- How would you feel about the modeler him or herself, if you find out that some or all of their layout has been professionally contracted out? Would that change your opinion? Do you think the modeler ought to be "required" to "fess up" and inform people of the layout's status?
As always, I'm looking for your thoughts and opinions-- and photos too if you got 'em!
selector You erect it, and gosh if you don't do a bang up job of it. You send a photo of it sitting on your kitchen table to Model Railroader and they decline to publish. Are we all in agreement? It isn't model railroading.
You erect it, and gosh if you don't do a bang up job of it. You send a photo of it sitting on your kitchen table to Model Railroader and they decline to publish. Are we all in agreement? It isn't model railroading.
One thing to recognize is that FSM spends thousands of dollars on advertising. They produce catalogs with pictures of the model in it. Thousands of modelers read their ads. Hundreds of modelers buy the kit and assemble it. Hundreds or thousands see the model on other people's layout.
Chances are if many modelers saw a picture of the model standing alone or on a layout they would recognize it as a commercially developed structure, many could identify it as an FSM kit and many could tell you which kit it is.
If I saw pictures of a layout, I couldn't tell whether is a commercial design or a homemade design.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
MisterBeasley If you really want to know if a guy is a model railroader, ask his wife.
If you really want to know if a guy is a model railroader, ask his wife.
And if she rolls her eyes skyward and gives you "that" look....
...you must be talking to my wife!
A few thoughts - directed at both sides:
CNJ831 - Like it or not, definitions of words and phrases evolve and change with time - we don't speak the same language of the King James Bible.
To the ready to run, "kumbaya" crowd, you are just as responsable for the "divisions" as the die hard, craftsman types. How? By holding views like "Why build that when you can just buy XYZ123".
What this is really all about is:
Interests - We are all interested in trains, but deep down that interest is very different for many of us. Both extremes on this issue have a hard time understanding the other side.
Goals - We all have different personal goals, or a chosen lack of them, in our pursuit of this hobby. and actually the young RTR crowd has a harder time understanding the goals of the "model builder" than what the model builders have understanding the RTR crowd - based on what I have seen, and as I have experianced on this forum regarding my own modeling choices and methods.
Abilities - Some of us have mechanical, electrical, construction or artistic skills which we enjoy appling to this hobby - out of neccessity those of past generations HAD to have or develope these skills - not so much so today.
Resources - Time and money or time vs money? This hobby has always required both, but now the importance of money is at the fore front - hence this discussion.
I belong to a round robin group and have helped a number of other modelers with their layouts. I have designed track plans, built benchwork, designed and installed control systems, and more - always donating my time - but usually being compensated for materials/products/supplies I bring to the project.
I, on the other hand, do not desire the help of others on my own layout. I desire that it be my own work. I have no problem using any level of commercial products, RTR (although they seldom stay completely "stock"), kits of every skill level, and scratch build items when the need/desire strikes me. But I have no desire to ask friends for help or hire proffessionals to come into my home and build the layout. Those are my choices.
I have no problem with others who make different choices, but I know from experiance, 40 years of it in this hobby and a number of years working in hobby shops, that I am unlikely to have much in common with someone who buys a turn key, or nearly turn key layout from a pro - I suspect I could be that pro or at least work for one if I chose to.
And again, as in my first post, I am only offended when such layouts are "passed off" as the owners work. Beyond that I am largely indifferent.
I have also built hot rods and restored old cars in my lifetime, and in that hobby too I find I have nothing in common with those who simply "buy" a fast car or a perfectly restored old car.
I design and build houses for a living, I seldon have much in common with my clients - they buy houses, I build houses.
Model trains is a vast hobby, "Model Railroading" is undefined at this point as the hobby and the culture are in flux, but to be sure it is a large and diverse hobby and it is unrealistic to expect that those within it who have one set of goals, interests, ablities, resources to be in touch with those whos goals, interests, ablities and resources are at the oposite ends of the available ranges.
Examples:
Some love sound - some hate it.
Some love building kits - some hate it
Some love brass - some don't see the value/point
Some are prototype focused - some not so much so
Some freelance or "protolance" - some don't see the point
Some are only about the trains - some are into the whole "minature world" thing
Some love prototype operation - some don't care one bit about it
Some love trains of the past - some only care about what they see today
How can all these views come together? They can't really, at least not for more than ten minutes of small talk - then the boredom or offense sets in. Birds of a feather will ALLWAYS flock together - it is human nature.
Sheldon
Definitions of words change constantly. Oh by the way there is a mouse on the desk by my right arm as I type this. Model Railroading has gone from carving out blocks of wood to computer controlled replica's of the real thing.
At this point in time more than ever definitions are in flux. Should we strike up a committee to come up with new words or just tune up the definitions of the words we already use, or both?
The points made in this thread and the definitions of what or who is what at this point in time, cannot be much more than opinions, or so it seems. Let's offer up our opinions and let's respect those of others.
The glass is half full. Let's have a drink. It's Sunday morning and I'm off to the church of Train Room.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
That´s about the best answer to this issue I´ve ever read!
So, which one is "better?" Is it the operations-uber-alles guy who builds a Plywood Pacific, forsaking even roadbed, or the same guy who pays someone else to build a beautiful layout for him to operate?
We all have our skills, and our limitations. Some have lots of time, others lots of money, most don't have enough of either. Some years ago, we had a spirited discussion here about Sam Posey's book, Playing with Trains. Sam is a former Nascar driver and sports analyst, so he's one of those guys with the financial resources to have a fine layout built. He worked with a professional modeler, and did a lot of the work himself, and ended up with a layout he was proud of in far less time than it would have taken to build it himself. Sam also has Parkinson's Disease, which limits his physical ability to model, so that's yet another consideration.
I've come to realize that I'm a Builder. I enjoy casting stone walls with Hydrocal. I enjoy making my own latex molds for casting cobblestones. So, am I any less the model railroader because I don't do op sessions or run my trains on schedules?
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
John (OP),
Too bad that despite your plea, your thread became a who is/isn't a model railroader thread. Getting a straight answer is going to be difficult when egos, labels, and fragile confidence are present. It's too bad that these attitudes that some exhibit are what keeps new people from this hobby. So what if someone doesn't have the talent to build a layout or super-detail an engine or car, they still like trains and that should be enough to let them enjoy the hobby as they see fit. Labels, even if it's the norm in everyday society, don't do anything but categorize people to make the "higher ups" feel better about themselves. if I were to apply the so called accepted labels of this hobby to myself, I would be a "model maker" and "armchair modeler". Truth is that I am a model railroader because of my love for trains and the models (fancy word for toy) of such.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
By the way for those true modelers, here's the definition of a railroader.
http://www.wordnik.com/words/railroader
A person engaged in the management or operation of a railroad or railroads; one employed in or about the running of railroad-trains or the general business of a railroad
That being the case to make a model railroader you would simply add the word model before railroad in the definition. It doesn't mention building the scenery or trains or anything else on the railroad.
John W. said:
"...there is a difference between a "Model Railroader" and a "Railroad Modeler..."
I have made this very statement, words arranged exactly the same way, several times in the past three or four years. If you purchase every single item, or only some, and create something that passes for a scale railroad, you are the former. You arrange parts to create something greater than their sum, and you have a railroad of some sort...modeled or in scale. However, if you take pains to faithfully render a true scaled version of a section of a real railroad, then you are a railroad modeler...that is what you set out to create, and there it is. I still think that some of the items could be purchased, donated, modified, or scratched from raw materials. I wouldn't make the insulated 22 gauge feeder wires, for example, nor the joiners, and I would probably not in this lifetime get around to creating a NYC Hudson in HO from materials and some commercial parts. But if I worked hard to create a scaled version of the Podunk & Western's right of way between mile posts 12 and 13, and ran scale trains down that length, I would say I was definitely a railroad modeler.
This topic comes up now and then and we see the same kind of posts.
The name of the magazine and forums are Model Railroader. To read some posts you would think that there should only be a dozen members.
In my opinion the definition of a true model railroader should be:
A person who is someone between middle age and elder who looks back in life and sees that he/she hasn't accomplished much they are proud of, so they identify with a hobby to make themselves important. They play with toy trains and can build any part of them from scratch. They even cast their own metal wheels for use on theit cho choo's and never buy anything but scratch to create their kingdom. The trains that a true model railroader runs on DC or DCC systems that they designed and built, making their own silicone chips from sand and mining their own metals for making wiring and rails.
One thing that I find absolutely funny is how offended they become when someone takes store bought materials and RTR assemblies and create a world that looks just as good as thiers.
All this aside I truely feel sorry for those who really think they can look down at anyone else in the hobby. Life would probably feel a lot better if those would accept people who simply have the same basic interest as the equals they are and even get to know some of them.
In the end we're all the same and our toys will be pawned off like everything else to the highest bidders.
O
Sir Madog John, let me try to give a simple answer. No one really pays attention, who had helped you with your layout, if we are just talking about help. If you publish "your" work, it is a matter of courtesy and friendship to give credit to the work done by your friends. If we are talking enlisting commercial support", it is a different question - there it could have legal implications not to give credit. So we will end up seeing a long list at the end of each MR feature: Track plan by: Benchwork by: Track by: Scenery artist: Locos by: Rolling stock by Structures by: Figures by: Vehicles by: Power supply by: etc. etc.
let me try to give a simple answer.
No one really pays attention, who had helped you with your layout, if we are just talking about help. If you publish "your" work, it is a matter of courtesy and friendship to give credit to the work done by your friends. If we are talking enlisting commercial support", it is a different question - there it could have legal implications not to give credit.
So we will end up seeing a long list at the end of each MR feature:
Okay, but count me out when they start talking about "Grips" and "Best Boys" and who supplied the hairdressing and wardrobe...
selector Well... How about a little mind exercise:
Well...
How about a little mind exercise:
How about a little mind exercise: say you are given/purchase/steal a FSM kit....doesn't matter which one.
Hmm, sez you. Okay, you sez, I'll put it on a small square of thin ply and scenic it up a bit with some greenery and a fence.....yeah and an old clunker in the driveway. Send it in. Model Railroader declines to publish. We all nod in agreement....it ain't model railroading.
Sheesh, you sez. Okay, I'll put 12" of right of way complete with a ballasted length of code rails and ties running just outside the back yard fence. Model railroad accepts the photo and publishes it. Do we agree it has become a model of a railroad? Did it matter if the rails and ties were really lightly ballasted EZ-Track, hand-laid, or Code 70 from Micro-Engineering...the weathered stuff?
Or, would we expect MR to decline once more, suggest some improvements, and offer to take another look? What would they be? Would you have to maybe power the short length of rails? Would that suffice? No train, but the rails can run one? Or should you also place a doodlebug on that short length of powered rails and have it creeping along when you take the photo? Would that pass the threshold test? Should the "railroad modeler" have actually built the Doodlebug from scratch, or would the Division Point variety (modified to have DCC and sound by you, of course) be acceptable to pass that same threshold test?
Or, would MR and we onlookers require that an actual loop of track be rendered, if not all in the image incorporating the FSM structure and yard, so that the Doodlebug could complete a circuit?
Just asking.
CTValleyRR Maybe another category, say, "Scum of the Earth" would be appropriate there.
Maybe another category, say, "Scum of the Earth" would be appropriate there.
Let's not go there-- let's keep it civil.
This has been (in my opinion) a very interesting discussion so far. Let's not spoil it.
CTValleyRR I think a couple of posters have hit the nail on the head. A commercially designed and produced layout is only an issue if one attempts to pass the work off as one's own. This is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. Someone who purchases a prefab layout would be a "Runner", by CNJ's definitions above, but interestingly, those definitions leave no room for someone who puts RTR equipment and model kits on his layout. I guess those folks aren't "real" model railroaders, huh? Maybe another category, say, "Scum of the Earth" would be appropriate there.
I think a couple of posters have hit the nail on the head. A commercially designed and produced layout is only an issue if one attempts to pass the work off as one's own. This is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.
Someone who purchases a prefab layout would be a "Runner", by CNJ's definitions above, but interestingly, those definitions leave no room for someone who puts RTR equipment and model kits on his layout. I guess those folks aren't "real" model railroaders, huh? Maybe another category, say, "Scum of the Earth" would be appropriate there.
So let me ask a question-- and this is not by way of disagreement, but merely to discover the level / degree of effort required before disclosures are mandatory...
If you get track planning assistance, does it seem "mandatory" that it should be disclosed? If its "commercial" (contracted / store-bought)? What about help from a friend over beer? Or taken from a plan in a book? Or modified from a plan in a book? etc.
What about the construction of benchwork? Is it necessary to disclose that you bought "siever's benchwork" (for example)?
What about the wiring and mechanical parts-- I'd wager that practically everybody buys their own wire and electrical switches. Probably a large number buy switch motors as opposed to rigging-up their own (not necessarily implying they wound their own motors). But these items aren't generally disclosed-- *unless* they were constructed by the modeler. So apparently its okay to buy this stuff and nobody cares. But if you buy other stuff-- and enough of it-- you reach a point where people have a different opinion.
richhotrain selector: We can have a model train set, or a model railroad, but we aren't modelling...we are playing with them. Modelling, per se, is the act of rendering an item in scale. Few of us really go to those lengths these days. -Crandell Crandell, Shame on you. We are all model railroaders, from the guy who lays track on an old door and runs an engine in a loop to the guy who pays a small fortune to have his layout professionally built to all the rest of us who fall somewhere in between who build our own layouts, large and small, and enjoy the hobby. As for the author of this thread, I don't know what he wants. Back in May, he wrote about a layout that he hated. It was so egregious in his view that it was a caricature of what a train layout should be. He didn't like the layout, he didn't like the landscaping, he didn't like the structures, he didn't like the little people, he didn't like the weathering. Gotta feel sorry for the "model railroader" who built it. Now, he wants to know where is the threshold point on commercially designed layouts or "store-bought" items before the "negative connotation" emerges. All of this negativity does not promote the hobby in my view. C'mon fellas, we are all model railroaders. Yes we are! Rich
CNJ831,I will more then likely get a hide tanning but,here goes.
John,I am no longer sure what this hobby is or what its becoming.Seems to me there are more and more saying if your not modeling my way then you're not a real model railroader..Of course 99% of the time this is said behind the safety of a computer screen..To this I say BS in Santa Fe boxcar lettering.
Again one is no more of a craftsman because he/she builds a FSM kit then a prototypical operator is a real railroader...One can have a supped up layout and thinks he superior to all because of his modeling skills.My reply is so? No big thing.
As you know years ago we had to scratchbuild or kitbash if we wanted a correct locomotive or car .Today we no longer need to do that thanks to road specific locomotives and some cars we can buy.
As I mention the true craftsman died with my Dad's generation of modelers as did many things.
One can puff out his chest and say this engine is 110% correct because I did this or that..That is all well and good of course but,a question that pops into my mind is you model in 95..Why does that 25 year old locomotive look new?
If one wants to play that "correct modeling game" then he/she should model the locomotive the way it looked in the year they model if they don't they are no more then-what was that subclass? Ah yes, a "dabbler"..
So,after all the smoke and mirror subclasses of modelers it still hold true..We are all model railroad dabblers in one form or the other..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I see where people are coming from this. In my opinion, if you have a layout professionally built for you, why should you be the one who's getting it published? I believe the builder of the layout should have the article be published under their name.
On the idea of having a professional layout builder being commissioned to build a layout, that is up to you. But I think that it is much more entertaining to build your own layout. Watching your first train run all the way around your layout, it's much more entertaining than have some guy come to you and say, "Here, it's done, now where's my check?" Of course not putting that term literally. There are some great professional layout builders out there, don't get me wrong, but if I had the money, I would go with building my own layout, I find it much more entertaining.
Just a teenager's