jwhitten >>Priest makes an interesting point. The advent of DCC, sound, advanced signal systems and electroncis, can all actually play a role in layout design Interesting. I did my PF post before reading this :-) john
>>Priest makes an interesting point. The advent of DCC, sound, advanced signal systems and electroncis, can all actually play a role in layout design
Interesting. I did my PF post before reading this :-)
john
Maybe I'm just different but I have always planned layouts before building them. Not just the track plan, but the control system, scenic goals, operational goals, etc.
So I don't know that I agree that any of this new technolgy changes things that much - you either want specific features or you don't - you get there with whatever technolgy is available at the time.
Also, I have never been happy with a "single purpose" layout. My layouts all need some level of:
Prototype operation (both mainline and switching)
Display running (usually more than one train)
Scenic value (key scenic features)
Railfan running (also more than one train)
To me it's called "balance".
I don't presume to understand what modivates some people to do all that work and then take it down and start over - baring a move. Nor is it my place to judge them - it's their "stuff".
Sheldon
CNJ831 The fact is that the actual numbers in that instance are even more dismal than I posted. As I recall, an MR editorial I read quite some time back suggested that only around 10% of layouts started ever reach actual completion before being dismantled! This is indeed an astonishing figure, but I didn't want to quote it because I don't have the time right now to go and find the exact issue it appeared in and I really don't like posting extreme figures unless I can specifically cite the source material as too many folks here balk at some of the disturbing numbers I post. Thus, for my purposes 80/20 was close enough without appearing overly discouraging. CNJ831
The fact is that the actual numbers in that instance are even more dismal than I posted. As I recall, an MR editorial I read quite some time back suggested that only around 10% of layouts started ever reach actual completion before being dismantled! This is indeed an astonishing figure, but I didn't want to quote it because I don't have the time right now to go and find the exact issue it appeared in and I really don't like posting extreme figures unless I can specifically cite the source material as too many folks here balk at some of the disturbing numbers I post. Thus, for my purposes 80/20 was close enough without appearing overly discouraging.
CNJ831
I agree that the split in operators vs builders favors the builders side more than the operators. In fact some time ago I made the observation that most of the major operations leaders had in fact torn down their layouts to build new ones and was promptly pilloried for it. I know from other discussions that this is a touchy subject, yet I also believe it is one of the considerations driving the constant "quality of MR" discussions that keep coming up. There are those in MR and among the leaders of the hobby who espouse the operations point of view above all others. When that POV doesn't match the mindset of 80% of the readers, conflict is inevitable.
I think it is time to consider refocusing the hobby on a balance between building, running, and operating. Consider -- in a quick results society, if operation is the only goal of model railroading, and if it takes years to get to a state where operations is possible, and it requires several people to do it, most younger people will not wait around that long in the hobby. So, if instead we provide a positive creative pursuit where one can build at leisure; where the goal is enjoyment of the process rather than running toward some far off "complete" railroad; we might bring more young people in and keep them.
Sinething for next week then, but Priest is right, especially with sound. Thing is, a layout with the proper audio levels is still counter productive if you have to whistle for towns/roads/bridges/tinnels every ten tseconds. The old trend to have track in a layout makes for an unrealistic use of sound, as well as a spread of signals one does not really need if the distances were better spaced. Sure, you may lose 6 miles of track, but it tends to make a better wiring prohect, or sounding layout, an a few other things.
-Morgan
tomikawaTTMr Armstrong built his dream layout early, then spent fifty years operating, changing and refining it.
In fact, John Armstrong's O Scale "Canandaigua Southern" was powered with a "3rd-rail" side shoe. I was surprised to see that a few years ago in a Model Railroader's article pictures.
3rd-rail was a very popular way of powering a layout prior to the 1960s and the advent of 2-rail HO Scale, S Scale/American Flyer, etc. track.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
In the words of Bob Dylan, "The times they are a changin'".
CNJ831, I remember the Model Railroader editorial which you reference and I scratched my head at the time wondering just what data base they were using as a parameter for their editorial surmise. Having said that let me say that at the moment I was between layouts due to the necessity of moving between apartments and over the years I had lived in an environment where I had had to frequently dismantled one layout and start another; perhaps in that guise MR would have included me in that 10%. But I never considered myself to be a "professional" builder and I cannot think of one layout which I ever started with the intention of dismantaling it short of completion. In fact being forced to dismantle always left me with a sense of loss.
A former member of a club to which I belong left N-Scale for HOn3; I recently encountered him at my local and he was now into Z-Scale. I know for a fact that he built . . . . . or at least started . . . . . one narrow gauge layout and I'm certain that he is in the construction stage of a Z-Gauge layout. Its hard telling why he decided to switch gauges at a particular time but by doing so he automatically mandated a dismantling of his currentl layout. MR may have found that fact discouraging but I look at it this way: this individual my not have found a particular scale . . . . . N-Scale as an example . . . . . to his liking and he may not have found a particular modeling aspect . . . . . standard gauge in lieu of narrow gauge . . . . . to his liking but 20 years or so from the time he left N-Scale for HOn3 he is still active in the hobby. That, to me, is encouraging. Maybe his interests are towards construction as opposed to operation but maybe there is a completed layout in his future and we will one day find him shoving cars into a siding somewhere on that layout. After all, I left HO-Scale for N-Scale over a quarter of a century ago and I have actually to complete a layout to the point of operation but I do know that if age doesn't do me in I'll have one done . . . . . and operating . . . . . eventually.
And I am sure that MR and Joe Fugate would find it absolutely astounding but I know an individual who completed a layout only to find out that he could not stand operation . . . . . at least aimlesslyshovingcarsintoasiding operation . . . . . and dismantled the layout with the intent of building another which would center around a double track railran operation.
And by the way there CNJ831, I do wish that one of the hobby pubs would do another survey; I always participated and I always gave examination to the results when they were published.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Ah yes the layouts never finished.
I have started at least 7 layouts over the last 40 years. None of these were completed - one we moved after the benchwork was up but before any track was laid. The reasons are the usual ones - moves, children, went back to school, change of hobby objectives, etc. My last layout was 14'x23' using sectional track with molded roadbed - I was hoping to reduce the build time. I got 2/3rds of the track laid and wired and we moved.
But you know what, I was having fun with the hobby. Even though my hobby time was limited, just popping down to the basement and running a train on whatever track was there was fun. Building some more when I had a little time. Reading the magazines as they came each month and daydreaming a little on the commute to and from work. Going to a few train shows each year.
Now I'm retired and have an unfinished basement for the "big one". I need to do some room prep and hopefully I'll start it this winter. I don't know if I'll complete it or not. But that's not important. What's important is the pleasure and relaxation it brings me. In the meantime I have one more never to be finished layout - a little 5'4"x12' table top on wheels (so I can roll it around as I work on the basement).
This hobby is like a train trip - the journey is better than the destination.
Enjoy
Paul
I would have to agree that there is a 'Runner' catagory. On of my best MR friends has no interest in 'operation', but builds great models and layouts. His 3rd layout is a 'runner' - he just likes to run his trains. He has two large stub-end staging yards - He 'stores' his trains there. No operation or sequence running - what-ever hits him at the moment.
I tend to design so that the layout can be operated. I do not operate very much anymore, but I like to have the capability.
I suspect that the very low number of completed layouts has a lot to do with either:
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
jrbernier Somehow, I cannot accept that 80/20 mix of builders/operators. I suspect 80% are 'Dreamers' and will never get around to building a layout for one reason or another. That is not 'bad' - a lot of folks are 'modelers' and love to build train models! With all of the 'RTR' now days, we have a large group of 'Accumulators' who seem to collect stuff and maybe dream about building a railroad to operate it on. I suspect that drives the 'Dreamer' numbers so high.
Somehow, I cannot accept that 80/20 mix of builders/operators. I suspect 80% are 'Dreamers' and will never get around to building a layout for one reason or another. That is not 'bad' - a lot of folks are 'modelers' and love to build train models!
With all of the 'RTR' now days, we have a large group of 'Accumulators' who seem to collect stuff and maybe dream about building a railroad to operate it on. I suspect that drives the 'Dreamer' numbers so high.
Actually, Jim, if you read my earlier post a bit more carefully you'll see that the 80/20 split concerns not builders vs. operators, but rather the percentage of layouts once started that reach completion.
However and surprisingly coincidental, the breakdown of builders vs. operators really isn't that much different, percentage-wise. I can tell you that I have never seen a published breakdown of hobbyists' interests that indicated those classified as "operators" (anyone running their trains with a purpose that included pre-planned and logical switching) constituted more than 20% of the total. Those with a more serious approach, involving the use of card cards, way bills, train orders/schedules, etc., form an even smaller group among hobbyists. Although I do count myself among them, real operations seems to be only a niche interest in the hobby. "Runners" predominate, by far.
I only wish MR would resurrect their readers' surveys, like those that appeared in the magazine's editorials for years, to give today's model railroaders a more accurate picture of who and what makes up the hobby these days. These were extremely informative in the past, although I think they would be a drastic eye-opener to many today who have gained a multitude of false impressions from the Internet forums.
My last layout was started in the 1980's and took 15 years to complete. When it was done, I took it down about a year later. But there are other things to consider as to why someone would take down a completed layout.
When I started mine, it was designed for operation and used Cab Control on the main and separate power packs for the yard, industrial areas, and staging, and worked very well.
Now consider the time frame when it was started. No DCC at the time; no sound for locomotives; no Tortoise switch machines, and that meant that the state of the art at that time was twin coil machines. Twin coil machines were OK, but they didn't last a long time and would have to be replaced sooner or later even when operated normally.
The major thing that prompted me to take mine down was maintaining it was starting too become too much like work. The switch machines were failing and rail joints were starting to go bad. I had converted operating power to DCC and that was working OK except when the rail joints started going bad. (Remember, DCC joints are more critical than when using DC.) The other things that sealed the deal for taking it down was: it was on a second floor and I was getting ready to retire and didn't want to keep climbing those stairs as I git older; and I got hooked on DCC sound in locomotives. The layout was N scale and DCC sound was not an option at that time, and I also decided that if I was going to take down the layout, I was going to switch to HO at the same time.
So, it may seem that once a layout gets finished, the builder doesn't know what to do with themselves, but more than likely there are other underlying reasons.
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.
Most layout builders will build a layout with no idea or intension to 'operate' it. After running laps on an unfinished layout that will never be good for operation - They decide to start over.
The hard core model railroader/operators tend to rebuild when they have found limitations with their 'perfect' layout and want to 'do it right' this time. Operation has really influenced layout design in the past 25 years. My layout will be about 18 years old(since it was operating) and only has about 2/3rds of the scenery finished. There was a 10 year 'gap' when I thought about going to N scale because I could do everything 'right'. I never did, and DCC/Sound really made HO a reason to keep the layout. Besides, I really like scratch-building things like structures/freight cars and there is just so much more available in HO. And my 'over 50' eyes are now 60!
The 'plan' is to retire in the next year, and tear down my layout. I want to 'do it right' with code 83 trackage, more staging, and larger curves. This will be my big retirement project. I have accumulated just about all of the code 83 trackage over the past 5 years that I will need. The DCC system and the actual trains are there. I can salvage structures/trees. I held off on the scenery for years as I was not sure what was the best way to do it and did not want to make a mistake. When I started scenery a few years ago, I got into it quite fast and It has been a very enjoyable part of the hobby for me.
Over the years I have seen hobby shops open & close, clubs start/fold, and nice layouts get torn down. As they say; 'This' is natural and folks tastes change over the years.
I am also a builder and my first layout took 13 yrs. to complete, It stood for about a year till I got bored with it and tore it all down. I have just started my new layout, bench work is all done, and am ready to start laying track. I am just happy I can start building again.
Sam
dknelson I remember Tony Koester once wrote a column about a conversation he had with a guy who basically said, now that my layout is finished I need to tear it down and build a new one. Koester said he just could not understand that line of thinking -- that the point was to finish a layout and then operate it. Of course not long after that, Koester himself tore down his layout and started over and now it seems to be a trend (or are significant numbers of great layouts all reaching the same "age" at about the same time?) .... Dave Nelson
I remember Tony Koester once wrote a column about a conversation he had with a guy who basically said, now that my layout is finished I need to tear it down and build a new one. Koester said he just could not understand that line of thinking -- that the point was to finish a layout and then operate it. Of course not long after that, Koester himself tore down his layout and started over and now it seems to be a trend (or are significant numbers of great layouts all reaching the same "age" at about the same time?) ....
Dave Nelson
The reality of the situation is that our hobby is largely comprised of two different sorts of individuals: builders and operators, with the former being the decidedly dominant segment.
There is a very strong creative element in most hobbyists' make-up, driving perhaps 80% or more of layout builders to never fully complete their current layout before tearing it down and completely starting over. This is why the concept long espoused by MR and as you indicate, also by Koester at the time, simply doesn't fly. Most hobbyists do not believe that the ultimate goal of building a layout is to operate it long into the future. Like any true artist, most model railroaders desire to almost continuously create. When their current work is nearing completion they will set aside that latest endeavor to allow themselves to move on to new artistic challenges. There is that feeling of, "I can do better work than this and I really SHOULD try anew to attain that goal." This outlook answers for why only a relatively small percentage of hobbyists are truly "operators" in the first place.
The unfortunate aspect in this for those of us who do enjoy seeing some well known and exquisitely executed layout in the hobby press repeatedly over many years is that very often a master modeler really creates just one basement-filling "masterpiece" in his lifetime. The pages of MR have demonstrated this over and over through the years. Few are the hobbyists with a truly "lifetime" layout.
Recently we have been seeing quite a number of the hobby's well known figures either retiring from the scene altogether, or tearing down their famous empires to start anew. In the latter case, many seem to be at an age where it appears somewhat unlikely that they have the time remaining to them to fully complete another major layout project. Even with the assistance of friends, in our eyes a Herculean effort would be needed to attain the level of detail and sophistication their previous stellar accomplishment attained. But the fact remains that they are pursuing the hobby in the fashion that appeals the most to them.
My layouts were never close to being "great". Every time I had one starting to be presentable, we moved, and I started over each time.
I finally caught on, and the current layout is sectional construction, and most can be relocated if we move again. It is not "portable", but I will not need to tear it all apart if we move.
Reading about Tony Koester's new layout, I see it is another permanent layout. In teh distant future, it, too, may be torn apart.
Reminds me a little of Longfellow's "The Tide Rises, The Tide Falls".
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
A couple of years back, I "finished" my layout. No, it wasn't perfect, and there were still little things I wanted to add, like operating crossing signals, but there was no pink foam showing, and the track was all ballasted, and there were no more structures waiting to be built and placed.
I got bored. You see, at heart, I'm a Builder, not an Operator. And, while I weather my freight cars and engines, I'm not a Collector, either.
Fortunately, about that time, my daughter went off to college and I was granted more right of way in the Train Room slash Family Room that had been "her space" for several years. Phase 2 began, and my head is filled with Phase 3 plans already.
But, I had the space to expand into. I suppose, if I had already filled my space, I would have to tear down something and start again.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Some people (John Armstrong and yours truly for two) latch onto a concept and stay with it until that final trip to the mortuary. Mr Armstrong built his dream layout early, then spent fifty years operating, changing and refining it. Thanks to a nomadic lifestyle, by the time I could start on my last-in-this-lifetime layout I was already drawing Social Security. By then, the basic concept and railroad schematic were carved in marble - permanent and very resistant to even minor changes.
Others build, then, as their tastes, skills, interests and adaptation to changing technology dictate, dismantle and build something else. My home town does the same thing, but with casinos and hotels. (At least model railroaders don't implode their mostly-stripped benchwork!)
Not being privy to Mr Priest's thought processes, I don't know what will replace the Emporia Sub. In Tony Koester's case, it was a desire to get out of Appalachia and go back to his adolescent roots. In my case, the final choice of prototype location and situation gelled early and has since assumed a Gibraltar-like permanence. Different people, different ways.
In all these cases, there is one basic similarity. If the individual becomes dissatisfied with the status quo, that individual will change it. If not, change won't happen.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - for the forseeable future)
Well considering that both these gentlemen had finished layouts that they had operated for some years, I wouldn't take this as the start of any sort of trend.
From what I have seen, most layouts are torn down due to life changes of the owner: marriage, divorce, moves for job or family, a downsize after retirement, etc.
I wonder if Mr. Priest is going larger, smaller, or same size? Koester went larger for his NKP.
TR
In the latest NMRA magazine, editor Stephen Priest reveals that he is going to be tearing down his impressively complete (fully signaled, CTC, CMRI) Emporia Subdivision ATSF layout and will start over. This layout has been featued in MR (here is the trackplan: http://mrr.trains.com/en/How%20To/Track%20Plan%20Database/2007/08/The%20Emporia%20Subdivision.aspx )
and is featured on this website http://www.emporiasubdivision.com/home.html
Priest makes an interesting point. The advent of DCC, sound, advanced signal systems and electroncis, can all actually play a role in layout design -- that is, while one can add these improvements to any existing layout, quite possibly the entire design, the size, the era or prototype, might all be different if these features are part of the initial assumptions rather than retrofits. He does not go into this in much detail but it is a line of thinking worth exploring.