Nothing aside from the trains themselves.
For me, the 'allure' comes from the locomotives. More specifically, diesel locomotives designed and built in the1940s and 1950s.
- What is the fundamental allure to our hobby? What draws us to the trains and moreover, building complete environments in miniature for them to operate in?
I have always been someone who likes to take things apart and reassemble them (with varying degrees of success I might add) to find out how they work. So for me the allure is knowing how the benchwork, trackwork, wiring, scenery, locos, cars and all the other elements of a miniature environment work together to create a model railroad.
-- Why trains?
My parents tell me that when I was little, I always wanted a 'too-too-twain' for Christmas so they bought a wind-up toy and later on a Lionel set. I can remember sitting on my grandmother's porch and watching the steamers come through town - her house was one block from the tracks and it would literally shake - so for me it goes back to a childhood fascination.
-- Why the general prohibition on animation? How come if we animate something it tends to feel "toylike" and yet we're able to look beyond that and suspend our disbelief when it comes to the trains themselves?
Didn't know there was a general prohibition - but I would certainly add it to my layout.
-- What do you think about "golden ratios" and common "block element" sizes? What do you see when you look at your layout? Are there somewhat obvious sizings and distributions to the elements you've created?
I have used John Armstrong's formulas to develop my current plan and they have helped solve a variety of potential issues. But I also remember an article in MR many years ago I think by Dave Frary when he talked about view blocks and creating scenes. This is something I have also tried and it has enhanced the overall appearance of the current layout. I have found that when I use this technique it almost forces the use of different sizings of elements and really help create a more believeable scene that really improves the overall look of the layout.
There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.....
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Great topic, John, and congratulations on being selected to moderate these forums.
-- What is the fundamental allure to our hobby? What draws us to the trains and moreover, building complete environments in miniature for them to operate in?
I’ve pondered this set of questions for decades (not constantly, but consistently). I started model railroading as a teen. When I began my career I had to suspend my participation in the hobby – model railroading is a perfect hobby in every way, but one: it lacks portability. During that time I tried hotrods, static model cars and airplanes, R/C airplanes, R/C boats, fly-tying/fly fishing, and dollhouses. They were all enjoyable hobbies, but in the back of my mind I always really wanted to be back into active model railroading. I was out of the hobby for 22 years, and when I came back it was like coming home – it felt just right. But why?
For some time I’ve pondered what it is about this hobby that the others lacked. What I hypothesize is that model railroading makes me a more acute observer of the mundane. In order to be a really good model railroader one must really know the world around him/her, so we habitually look at it closely and carefully. I can think of no other hobby that makes our everyday lives more interesting, but model railroading does just that. Even a simple walk around my old familiar block has me observing the color of moss, the way water forms puddles in a gutter, the way a house’s foundation is more brown the closer it is to the ground, the way a hound lays on the porch, the way a stored coiled garden hose sags on its hook, etc. Sure, they are mundane features, but I notice them. Thus, being a model railroader makes my world more interesting – more accurately, it makes me more interested in my world.
Granted, just building dioramas would have a similar effect, so let’s move on to John’s next question…
There is something majestic and larger than life to trains, and the prototypes are just uncommon enough that many (most?) people are at least casual “train watchers.” I think that’s part of it. For me, they satisfy my need to do something mechanical. I’m only casually interested in prototype trains – I know enough to build credible models. However, I could never hold up my end of a conversation with a real railroader, and that’s not important to me. What is important is that my models look right and move right.
One other thing about trains is that they don’t need anything like a slot, or an antenna in order to facilitate motion. Trains use flanged wheels and rails, just like their prototypes. Because of this, a model train – at least in theory – can be made to look and work exactly like its prototype, but in miniature.
I think this is also the reason that we animate almost nothing else – everything else requires visible compromises in order to animate it. Trains don’t (ok, there are a few compromises, but they are tiny and/or easily hidden.
Regarding the elements of design, I go back to capturing the feel of railroad and its surroundings. When I get on Google Earth and look at prototype track, I can see that my passing tracks are much too short and my radii are much too tight, but on my layout it “feels” right; that’s what I’m after.
Finally, I’ll draw a parallel between two pastimes that are both virtually addictive: golf and model railroading. As pastimes go, they are very different – except for one very important factor, and that factor is much of what I believe keeps us pursuing them. It’s the fact that there is always room for improvement. No matter how good of a golfer one becomes, he/she will likely never reach perfection – 18 strokes to complete 18 holes. Likewise, our hobby always leaves us ways to improve. That’s much of the beauty of both hobbies and much of the reason we stick with them (another hypothesis).
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
jwhitten So, My Questions For Today Are: -- What is the fundamental allure to our hobby? What draws us to the trains and moreover, building complete environments in miniature for them to operate in? -- Why trains? -- Why the general prohibition on animation? How come if we animate something it tends to feel "toylike" and yet we're able to look beyond that and suspend our disbelief when it comes to the trains themselves? -- What do you think about "golden ratios" and common "block element" sizes? What do you see when you look at your layout? Are there somewhat obvious sizings and distributions to the elements you've created?
So, My Questions For Today Are:
--I have had an interest/love of trains from small child age. When I was about 8-10 my father bought us a Marx o27 set for Christmas after we showed GREAT interest in a bunch of old lionel trains stuff a neighbor was garage sale-ing. I wanted it BAD, but my father knew what I didn't- it had been stored in the basement long enough to gather some rust and such, with no guarantees it would run, and ata price that he could spend on a new set. SO he said "maybe for Christmas". I had actually forgetten aobut it by then, and so was really surprised Christmas morning to find the set set up next to the tree! The following Easter, the Easter bunny brought another train set. Actually before this, I had an old Marx o27 windup train with tinplate cars on a circle of track to play with as a younger child.
Also I used to LOVe watching the trains go by on the road crossing we had to cross to leave or go home. I used to love watching the Chessie stuff go by!
As a teenager, my father finally settled on a three interconnected loop layout that could run 3 trains at once {with 3 transformers} and built the sturdy 2 4x8 "L" shaped layout and helped to show me how to wire it, remote control switches and all.
I can't explain my allure...jsut to say its a fascination, both real life, and in miniature.
--Why NOT trains? I am not into remote controlled airplanes or boats, for instance. As I outlined above, trains just hold my fascination and attention. Again, I cannot explain my fascination with all things trains.
-- Animation is a funny thing...as a kid we had a cattle car that would send out a cow when lined up with a pen ramp. We had a milk car that put out milk cans. We had a log car that dumped logs. WE also had the signal man come out of the shack when the train went by and a working gate that went down when the trains passed by. Not all were realistic as Lionel and Marx O/O27 animated stuff WAS "toy like". They were all fascinating to children who like to see things "do things". I think animation today offers endless possibilities if one thinks them up. things like real working train locating block signals, gates and crossing signals that work, strobe-like flashing light at a welder's machine, smoke to come out of a burning building, etc. I think many who have "finished their layouts" then look for ways to "plus" it and make gimicky animaiton. I don't think it is really "prohibited", just personal preferences and when it comes to trains....we train nuts tend to go for anything train-related. Now we can even get wire to embed in a road along with battery powered cars can "drive" down the road. AND there are those new fangled DCC controlled "working couplers" for "realistic" operation of coupling/uncoupling!
--I'm puzzeled by the "golden ratio" and "blocks" think you desribe. Maybe I just don't get it. I can tell you that "vingettes" {sp?} are an integral part of creating a layout. A form of art and self fulfilling creativity. I can create ANYTHING I wnat on my layout in any way I want. It may or may not be prototypical {thats why I 'proto-free-lance}. It may be very realistic. But it is my world, I have created it and it gives me a place to let out my creativity! I have a VERY SMALL layout so everything I have on it is kinda "cramped" together and squeezed in to fit. I hope one day to have a larger layout that I can stretch out and "develop" one square foot sections the way I want in a plausible more realistic way.
In the mean time, It's my railroad and I'll run it as I wanna!
I am fortunate that My Other Half {MOH} is also into trains, though N scale to my HO. MOH gets to run trains under teh xmas tree from Thanksgiving weekend to the Orthodox Christmas on the 8th of January when all comes down. Our vacations can typically include visiting a working steam tourist railroad with no arguements about it! We always have a Train calendar on the wall and subscribe to 4 trains magazines, both model {1} and real train {3} mags. WE each devour them with umbridled lust when they come in! They come in handy waitng in a Dr.s office! They get read cover-to-cover.
I don't know If I have adequately answered your questions or not, but I have to the best of my ability!
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
jwhitten So, My Questions For Today Are: -- What is the fundamental allure to our hobby? What draws us to the trains and moreover, building complete environments in miniature for them to operate in? -- Why trains? -- Why the general prohibition on animation? How come if we animate something it tends to feel "toylike" and yet we're able to look beyond that and suspend our disbelief when it comes to the trains themselves? -- What do you think about "golden ratios" and common "block element" sizes? What do you see when you look at your layout? Are there somewhat obvious sizings and distributions to the elements you've created? As always I'm looking forward to your comments and opinions! (And pictures are always fun too, so feel free to post 'em!) John
As always I'm looking forward to your comments and opinions!
(And pictures are always fun too, so feel free to post 'em!)
John
John, I expect there's a different reason for each person. I got into model because I fell in love with the protoype, and there just isn't room in my bedroom for a 1:1 scale 4-8-4. A friend of mine mentioned wantign to see the model railroad club after seeing the pictures on my Facebook page. More for the scenery and design I think, though I don't know for sure. I quit reading minds, too many empty voids. One thing that helps our hobby is the dynamics of it. A car kit, a diorama, all pretty permanent. But even if the scenes don't change, the trains themselves do. Different train, different movement, and it's all hands-on stuff. There's also much to learn in the hobby, and deep down, the human spirit still likes the tinkering of wood to some degree.
That said, I wounldn't get too hung up on the scenery itself. How many model railroaders of today had what could amount to an "Empire" of Brio/Thomas/Whittle/Melissa & Doug (Might be a new one, but they do Whittle looking trains with more of the Brio flexibility in wheelbase and track) in their rooms before? There's not much to the scenery in those, just the track, trains, and a few wooden trees. What there is though, is the hands-on of it. And those Thomas battery trains nver last longenough, and you'll notice Brio was smart enough to inlude a feature that allowed them to free-wheel and still make noise and lights. So the allure might be buried in there smewhere.
The issue of toylike I see as being that there's not enough of it to be truly real. We animate the cars, but there's no one inside, or they don't move. The peopel on the sidewalks aren't moving, but the bus is there. It may need to be an all or nothing thing, the imagination may siply not be able to wwork around having a split universe. For some though, the moemnt DOES help with the realism. These may also be the same people who say "Yeah, the smokem unit isn't in perfect sync, and yeah, the sound is coming from the tender and not the smokestack, but it's a steam engine. There has to be smoke and there should be a cacophony of noise. There's a road, it should have cars, and they should be moving." And yet, others will say "sound is noise, don't want it. Wrecks the illusion."
I'm not sure what you mean by that last part. If you are referring to things like distance between towns, it depends on the pespective for moi. The Naptown & White River as it is today was carved out of a spaghetti bowl type layout. One of those "This scene needs more track. I'll go buy three more boxes of it."layouts. So, there's a lot of loseness in it. So if you look at it from a helicopter, the caboose is three towns away on a fourteen car train. But what if you limit how much you can see? There's a remarkable differnece between
and
Even though the second shot was taken from "in the scene" of the above shot.
-Morgan
jwhitten Do you think there are common sizes-- whatever the dimensions work out to be, and of course relative to the selected scale-- that things turn out to be? Like structures and their footprints, both the actual footprint, and one for the extended footprint which includes whatever infrastructure that is related to it. For example, let's say a trans-loading facility which, in HO scale let's say, might have the actual footprint of 8 inches by 6 inches, and an extended footprint of 12 by 10 when you add in the tracks on one side, the parking lot for the trucks on the other, and a bit of road to connect it to the rest of the layout. So, in round terms, perhaps you could say that the general footprint for that is 12 by 12 inches (rounding up to the nearest convenient quantum, which in my mind is perhaps 3 inches). And so on? So that there are several "standard" block sizes, and they don't have to be square, that was just a suggestion / example? If so, what sizes would you say exist? john
Do you think there are common sizes-- whatever the dimensions work out to be, and of course relative to the selected scale-- that things turn out to be? Like structures and their footprints, both the actual footprint, and one for the extended footprint which includes whatever infrastructure that is related to it. For example, let's say a trans-loading facility which, in HO scale let's say, might have the actual footprint of 8 inches by 6 inches, and an extended footprint of 12 by 10 when you add in the tracks on one side, the parking lot for the trucks on the other, and a bit of road to connect it to the rest of the layout. So, in round terms, perhaps you could say that the general footprint for that is 12 by 12 inches (rounding up to the nearest convenient quantum, which in my mind is perhaps 3 inches).
And so on? So that there are several "standard" block sizes, and they don't have to be square, that was just a suggestion / example?
If so, what sizes would you say exist?
john
John,
I hope I am getting this right, as I am reaching the limits of my English more rapidly these days.
6" by 12" for a straight module and 12" by !2" for a corner module in N scale is not much real estate for anything, including scenery. To be able to mix & match the modules, just like dominoes, track location is fixed - no flexibility there. This modular system is based on Kato´s Unitrack, so even track length, bridges, etc, are pretty much fixed as well. Each "block element", like platform width/length etc. needs to follow the same set of rules - they need to be in "standard sizes" to be compatible.
Just take a look at some of the modules:
In fact, this system is all about common sizes. May sound boring, but you´d be surprised at the amazing results which can be achieved.
Just leaf through some of the pages in this link.
jwhitten ... So, My Questions For Today Are: -- What is the fundamental allure to our hobby? What draws us to the trains and moreover, building complete environments in miniature for them to operate in? -- Why trains? -- Why the general prohibition on animation? How come if we animate something it tends to feel "toylike" and yet we're able to look beyond that and suspend our disbelief when it comes to the trains themselves? -- What do you think about "golden ratios" and common "block element" sizes? What do you see when you look at your layout? Are there somewhat obvious sizings and distributions to the elements you've created? As always I'm looking forward to your comments and opinions! (And pictures are always fun too, so feel free to post 'em!) John
...
For me the allure is the total package.
Start with the artistic. The layout plan. Free lance or prototype each plan is a unique interpretation of railroading. It may be a particular railroad, or a place, or a memory, or a dream or some combination. But whatever it is, it is yours. Even if you follow a published track plan you modify it, use different buildings, scenery, or trains, operate it your own way, etc.
Next you have the building. Even using RTR cars, engines, track, roadbed, control systems, benchwork, etc; you still have to figure out what your layout needs and put it all together. But you can also build the cars, engines, track, benchwork, and/or control systems
Then there is the mechanical fascination of getting this engine thing and these car things to run over this track thing successfully using this control thing. And when you figure how to do one, then you figure out two and then three or more.
You can also do scenery, have operating sessions, go to shows, build collections, add working signals, etc., etc., etc.,...
No other hobby has so much..
Animation is a central part of model railroading, the trains move, the switch points move, the turntable turns, signals change. Other animation is probably avoided because there isn't much available in kit or RTR. And the hobby press has few articles on rolling your own.
Unless you're part of a module group or club, about the only thing in common are the NMRA standards and RPs. Other golden ratios and sizes are whatever works for you.
Enjoy
Paul
Part 2. I'm noit sure what this has to do with the allure of trains, but it was part of the question...
"Is there any such thing as a "golden ratio" in model railroading with respect to how we lay out the various elements on our layouts-- the ratio between the amount of switching to mainline running; the amount allotted to cities versus countryside; the distance between major features, and so on."
If I had a HUGE layout and all the space and all the time, I would probably like 25% switching to 75% mainline running, and 25% allotted to cities versus 75% allotted to countryside. The upper level of an imaginary layout I drew just an exercise approached this ideal.
This had the same theme as a layout I actually built in a space about 3 x 7 feet, which had the opposite proportion.
I LIKE modeling cities, so my layout under construction is 80 percent devoted to one city with multiple districts and neighborhoods, and 20 percent devoted to a relatively open space - the single-track causeway connecting the Island city to the mainland. There is little length for mainline running, so the main operation will be switching of one sort or another- yard switching, industrial spur switching, transfer switching, passenger switching. It goes with the territory.
One “block element” size for me is six feet...about the length of my outstretched arms, and the length of my rollaway duckunder causeway section, which represent a 2 mile long prototype causeway.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/552/Rolling.JPG
FT-ABBA + 17 boxcars (@ 40 ft) +caboose.
Yes, that’s okay. But passenger trains don’t condense so easily because they need to have certain numbers of certain cars.
F7-ABBA + RPO + Baggage + 2-3 coaches + lounge + diner + 2 sleepers =
prototype 240 ft + 60 ft + 560 ft = 860 ft = 5 ft 4 ½ inches in N
I notice my layout’s scenes AND operating areas are in “blocks” about 6 feet long or half-blocks, sometimes overlapping, partly because of train length and partly because of the six foot visual range. The causeway to the Island seaport, 6 feet.
The amusement and residential district- a half block- three feet.
The cotton compress (on background) three feet. (I showed it last week I recall)
Westport, the “open” dockside area- six feet.
The Santa Fe freight yard, 6 feet.
Overlapping some with the Demara open staging yard six feet.
Export grain elevator three feet.
The passenger terminal area including throat and curving ladder- six feet.- overlapping somewhat with six feet of dockside cargo sheds.
I am also concerned with CITY blocks in an urban setting-- street and lot spacing. My prototype city typically has a street grid with 80 foot street right-of-way, blocks 320 feet square
and alleys going down the middle of each block. Here’s one in a residential district.:
The deep and narrow lots typically have a main house on the main street and an “Alley house” on the alley, which might be a low rent cottage, a servant’s quarters or garage or storage.
I want to model this kind of city in my amusement/ residential district (shown 5 pictures back) with major thoroughfares 40 feet wide, lots 60 feet deep, a 13 foot alleys and residential neighborhood streets 26 feet wide.
I guess I’d better stop this block talk before I get blocked.
There are a number of highly diverse reasons for model railroad participation that draw various individuals to our hobby. Probably the three paramount ones can be outlined as follows.
For many years it was the creative challenge posed to serious craftsman-artistic types by model trains, whereby inherently talented folks could create miniatures of real world scenes and massive equipment by their own hand. To many, the hobby was/is a form of 3-D art. Incidentally, layouts of yesteryear were often more to look at then to seriously operate. That is why MR's 50 year push for "operations" was a dismal failure until recently.
There are individuals that have been drawn to the hobby because of its "power" aspect. It fulfills a fantasy of controlling a huge and powerful machine, albeit in miniature and even the enviroment itself!. Particularly in the age of steam, locomotives were often regarded as almost alive and having mastery over such a ground shaking beast was an ego booster and every boy's fantasy! This same situation exists for folks today who play military war and fantasy games.
Still another segment of the hobby is composed of individuals who look at our pursuit (perhaps more subconsciously that consciously) as simply playing with toy trains...something they may often recall from their youth. Likewise, there will be those who were denied Lionel, Flyer, or Marx train sets as children and are now fulfilling their dream of actually having a set of toy trains.
Basically, the draw can be said to be essentially the same as for R/C cars, airplanes, powered model ships and a few similar items as adult hobbies. There is the creative aspect, the control fantasy, and the obvious link to one's childhood toys. Don't think for a moment that trains are unique in this situation.
Two factors weigh in here. The first is that, largely because of physics, animated models beyond the trains themselves cannot be made to function in a totally realistic fashion. Their motion is often too herky-jerky, or too quick and thus detracts from the layout's sense of reality from the hobbyist's God's eye view of things. This is why operating vehicles have always failed to be incorporated as a mobile feature on most layouts. While HO locomotives can be made to operate in a very realistic fashion, this cannot be said of just about any other mechanical item on a layout.
The second reason is that animation evokes a feeling of the thing being just a toy, like the Lionel log loaders and coal dump cars of yore. As long as serious model railroading has been in existence most of its participants have been attempting to distance themselves from being looked upon as overgrown children and animation only brings you back to it.
Approaching this from an artistic point of view (an alternate hobby of mine is landscape painting), ratio of size and general composition weigh heavily in many's approach to modeling. Size, dimensions, color and texture in a scene's buildings (or the landscape) are all facets that always need to be considered. I think that for most serious, or highly accomplished, hobbyists an appreciation of these come almost automatically (that is why they are good), because there seems to be a distinct dichotomy exhibited in layout quality in the hobby, with little middle grown.
CNJ831
Motley What is the "Allure of Trains?". The allure is being able to recreate the real thing in your basement. The possibilities are endless, and the fun is endless. With other hobbies they tend to get boring at some point. With model railroading, you'll never really get bored. If you get tired of laying track, build some structures. If you get tired of running trains, lay some track.
What is the "Allure of Trains?".
The allure is being able to recreate the real thing in your basement. The possibilities are endless, and the fun is endless. With other hobbies they tend to get boring at some point. With model railroading, you'll never really get bored. If you get tired of laying track, build some structures. If you get tired of running trains, lay some track.
I have to agree with "Motley".However, the "Allure" I think actually began with the coming of the Iron Horse which opened up the whole country to everyone in the form of travel and adventure.When the people in our society began having some free time, they began creating miniatures. When the miniature creations were of the Iron Horse, people started to figure out how to make them actually run on tracks because they were mechanical. Then things just took off from there.Every time technology advanced, so did our hobbies, and so did our miniature Iron Horses, which still represented travel and adventure, although we may not be consciously thinking of them in that way.Therefore, we build a miniature world, in whatever form we choose. And as we have added "operations", we have added actual travel and adventure in the form of purpose for our Model Railroads.
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.
Addressing the animation question.
I do think that this is heavily influenced by the purpose of the model railroad and who the intended audience is. Adult modellers tend to be much more interested in detail and realism. Children and non-modelling adults tend to gravitate to animation and other things placed on the layout for entertainment purposes. I sense that the historical emphasis on somewhat unrealistic toy like animation scenes from Lionel et al, is somewhat sneered at by "real modelers" but just look at what happens at trains shows. It is the module with the animation that draws the crowd on the modular layout.
So, each has their place. I can quite well understand why a serious scale modeller would avoid unreal looking animation, but I can equally see the attraction for those that have a primary purpose of providing entertainment to the unwashed masses.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
Also I became fascinated with trains when I was a kid. And getting that first train set for christmas was a memory I will always remember.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
Why Trains? you ask.
Simple. Trains allow you to operate powered models indoors. Powered models that move are way cooler than static display models. The rails handle the steering problem, unsolved for car models until the invention of the slot car in the early 1960's. And, you get to be the engineer, the glamor occupation of earlier days.
Powered airplane models have some of the same appeal, but the deterrent is the ever present possibility of a crash, instantly turning a beautiful model into junk. And gas powered aircraft are an outdoor hobby because of the noise. Trains are an indoor hobby that takes some of the curse off of winter.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
For me, I enjoy railroad modeling and model railroading because it allows me to build “a whole little world” and that world WORKS. In both model and prototype, the landscape and cityscape are tied to the railroad, and the railroad is tied to its surroundings.
(Missouri Pacific diesels pull southwest-bound freight train over US Highway 77 underpass 2 miles north of Refugio. Ca. 1985.)
(“Generic” southwest Santa Fe layout 30 x 40 inches built in ten days with out-of-the-box commercial models.)
And a model railroad is something that works in miniature very much like the real thing, to a large part because of the FIXED GUIDEWAY nature of its mode of operation.
I enjoy building models just for the sake of building models...
(dollhouse of my cousin’s real house)
But building “my own little world” and having it fairly real and fairly complete, and being able to have the train perform in that scene, either when I run them by myself or with a friend or two, now that’s NEAT!
(old East Texas layout)
-- Why the general prohibition on animation? For me, the question is, can it be animated realistically? If intersection red and green lights cycle realistically and the cars just sit there, the light cycle calls attention to the cars just sitting there. However, flashing neon signs on a street scene are acceptable, as will be a disco mirror ball and some dance band music in my pier nightclub...
if I ever get it finished. But I won’t make the little dancers twirl around and around. I have a solution for animation on my rail drawbridge. I have seen a model realistic beyond my wildest abilities- I believe it won best-of-show at an NMRA National Convention. I saw it demonstrated going up to let a boat pass, and lower down afterwards. Sweet operation. Except that I had to imagine the boat. If someone built a model boat running along a “slot” on a simulated water surface, something would be lacking. And if one built a really operating model boat in REAL WATER-- water doesn’t usually scale down. My solution-
when and I if I get the liftbridge working reliably.. after getting the railroad itself running reliably... will be to operate the bridge as normally UP for boat traffic. Only when I schedule a train on or off the island will I lower the bridge for the train, and raise it afterwards. Actually, that is how I saw the prototype bridge is operated, after the Texas Limited tourist train passed over it.
I will stop here and maybe continue later about ratios and element sizes, if there is not too much objection to my hogging the Philosophy.
Sir Madog My little world is a modular layout made up of mini modules measuring only 6" by 12". Each module is an LDE of its own (except stations - they are made up of 3 modules). By re-arranging the modules, I can create a new little world each time I built up the layout (takes only 5 minutes).
My little world is a modular layout made up of mini modules measuring only 6" by 12". Each module is an LDE of its own (except stations - they are made up of 3 modules). By re-arranging the modules, I can create a new little world each time I built up the layout (takes only 5 minutes).
Ulrich,
Ever since I was a little child, I was attracted to trains. Was it because my father took my brother and me to the train station on weekends to watch trains - I don´t know. Being born in 1956, most of the trains we saw in those days were still steam powered. A steam locomotive was like a huge animal, being very much alive. Cars were still rare in the days of post-war Germany and the commons means of travel was the train. My father read the trainboards to us - there were trains going to Ventimiglia, Rome or Brindisi, others all the way to Istanbul, Geneva or Paris. Trains also meant going on a vacation for us, as we took a train to reach our vacation destinations in Austria, Italy or Switzerland.
The attraction to real trains was extended into the small world when I received my first train set at the age of 7. Now I was able to re-enact those dreams of traveling to far destinations, in the small little world I was able to create - I guess this is still what I am doing now.
MisterBeasley Guess what computer games I like. Right. Flight Simulator. Sim City. Civilization. (No, not The Sims. That's a bit too toy-like for me.) The pattern develops. To me, it looks wrong to have a ferris wheel or carousel, for example, spinning on its own, but surrounded by completely static people.
Guess what computer games I like. Right. Flight Simulator. Sim City. Civilization. (No, not The Sims. That's a bit too toy-like for me.) The pattern develops.
To me, it looks wrong to have a ferris wheel or carousel, for example, spinning on its own, but surrounded by completely static people.
Civ is one of my favorite games too-- but it saps a *lot* of time. I haven't been able to play a single game since I had kids... :-( (but having kids makes up for it :-)
I agree with your assessment that it looks strange to have disconnected pockets of animation-- such as your ferris wheel. Which is why having animated street (traffic) lights seems odd to me. Having them lit but frozen seems much more appropriate given the general moratorium on animation that most railroad modelers seem to have, at least to me.
What is my preference in jobs? What is my preference in computer games? What is my preference in household chores?
They all point to the same thing - I like to make things. If I can't make the real thing, I like to make models of it. At work I'm a rocket scientist, in missile defense. Actually building and flying a missile to test the system is rediculously expensive, and you only get one shot. So, I'm in the Modeling and Simulation group, and we build computer systems which are almost as complex as our radar itself, on which we simulate every aspect of our target, the atmosphere, and even the position of the sun, all with the highest fidelity we can get, to "improve the breed."
Guess what computer games I like. Right. Flight Simulator. Sim City. Civilization. (No, not The Sims. That's a bit too toy-like for me.) The pattern develops. And, as you might imagine, I'd rather rewire the basement than wash the floor. It's just so much more creative.
What other hobby allows me the freedom to create like model railroading? Where else can I learn so many skills, and let my own interest and enjoyment determine how deep I go into each of them? Where else do I have the kind of god-like power as I do over the town of Moose Bay?
There are times when I ask myself (philosophically) if I need the trains. After all, I spend more time building structures and scenery than anything else, and that's what I enjoy. But, it's the trains that hold it together. The tracks are the cords that bind the hills and the bay to the town, the houses, bars and hotels. It's the trains that turn a static model into a kinetic sculpture. The trains breathe life into the scenery. Without them, the play is nothing but a stage set, just like the trains are nothing but actors doing a read-through, sans costumes, without scenery.
The "golden ratio" is important, too. Trains are the right match for a town, or pretty much anything on the scale of a layout. Ships are generally too large, airplanes need too much space, and autos (thinking Faller Car Systems here) are too small. Besides, autos aren't supposed to interact with each other the way trains do.
I have nothing against automation. I've got traffic lights, and somewhere down the line I'll have crossing flashers and maybe even operating gates. I can load live coal into hoppers from a flood loader, and drop it through the operating doors at another point of the layout. Signals, too, are a form of automation. However, I think it's wise to draw the line at the railroad tracks. To me, it looks wrong to have a ferris wheel or carousel, for example, spinning on its own, but surrounded by completely static people. And, automating people just isn't going to happen.
Short answer? It's the World's Greatest Hobby. Why settle for anything less?
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I like the hobby because it is offers a lot of different things to do and keep the mind thinking, from the design of the layout, the challenge of wiring up a bunch switches, the excitement of turning a plain piece of plywood wood into a city or a forest, taking a box of plastic bits and turning into a building, and the thrill of seeing it all come together when the trains start going around the layout flawlessly. Since I have gotten into MRR I also have enjoyed reading about the trains I run and going out and see them in real life running down the tracks.
The allure for me is firmly rooted in my past. This was a hobby that I did with my father when I was a child. It is a hobby that I am able to enjoy with my own boys. There is a strong sense of family bonding associated with it. Couple that with the desire fo model a buygone era and we see a stong link to the past.
Why trains? Well perhaps my Dad surcumbed to the marketing ploy of Hornby back in the 60's?
"The Allure of Trains"
Railroad Crossing - 1923 - Edward Hopper
What do you suppose is the "allure" of Model Railroading, aside from simply the trains themselves? What is the fundamental essence of the hobby? Is it building something? Creating art? Socializing? Operations and simulations? What do you suppose draws people to model-- as in recreate in miniature-- trains as opposed to slot cars, military war-gaming, or even just creating elaborate dioramas? Why is there not a thriving subculture based around modeling the automobile and it's landscape? [Actually there is.., although I don't know about the "thriving" part.] Model railroading is one of the few hobbies where the hobbyist actually goes to great lengths to not only represent the supposed focal point of the hobby-- the trains-- but the environment in which they operate as well. And while there are certainly varying degrees of implementation along the various lines of effort: bench-work, laying track, scenicking, building structures & rolling stock, operations, etc., these elements *are* generally, more or less, universally included. In the case of bench-work and track, perhaps it's obvious-- they're kind of a requirement in order to run the trains themselves. But the rest is certainly not required, and yet nearly all of us-- even the ones who are "only into operations", generally include scenicking and some modicum of structures, if only to indicate where the trains should begin from and end their operations.
This isn't a question of "who's a model railroader", nor a question of "what's a model railroad" [well, maybe it is a little..], nor "is model railroad an art form", or any of those usual ones-- this is a question regarding the most fundamental aspect of the hobby itself-- what is the "allure" of the trains? Why trains? Why modeling the whole complete environment? Why do we animate the trains but are reluctant to animate the other aspects of the environment? And as a side-note there, I was thinking the other day, with respect to animation-- why do people animate traffic lights and crossing gates? If there is a general prohibition on animation in-general, these elements should probably be included-- especially the traffic lights anyway, as when they change state, the environment is sort of expected to change state with them. And when it doesn't, it just sorta seems empty and hollow. Wouldn't it be perhaps better if the lights could be set according to the modeler's desired, and yet not animated?
One other thought that I've had, that doesn't seem to fit anywhere else-- something that MrBeasley and Shayfan have both touched upon previously in their posts, Is there any such thing as a "golden ratio" in model railroading? [Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio] And when I ask this, I'm asking the question in two forms-- one, the literal concept of the "golden ratio", with respect to how we lay out the various elements on our layouts-- the ratio between the amount of switching to mainline running; the amount allotted to cities versus countryside; the distance between major features, and so on.
The second manner in which I'm asking isn't so much about the literal "golden ratio" itself, but rather-- are there "basic building block" sizes associated with the hobby? Such as in HO many things commonly fall into 3-inch, 6-inch, 8-inch, 12-inch, and 24-inch blocks. Is this a coincidence? Or perhaps some logical division related to manufacturing ability? John Armstrong wrote about some of this in his "Track Planning By the Squares", in which he postulated that many of the fundamental design aspects of model railroading were related to a few basic parameters, such as the minimum radius of curves, the minimum spacing of parallel tracks, the desired width for aisles and so forth. Tony Koester (and others) have discussed the ideas of the LDE (Layout Design Element) in various forms, and other folks have come up with basic building block constructs such as modular design, etc. So are there basic "element sizes" that people could use to help in their planning and layout, and if so, what are they (and I recognize they'll be different for each scale).