jfugate wrote: CNJ831 wrote:Juveniles lay track on bare plywood and call it a layout...one would hope for something far better from supposedly talented adults. I would hardly call David Barrow a juvenile. While his current minimalist approach to modeling a layout doesn't especially float my boat, I am perfectly happy to take the "big tent" view and call what he is doing model railroading too. In fact I sat on a tour bus with David in 2004 and spoke at length with him about his minimalist modeling. He related to me how many of the old line modelers have labeled him almost a heretic for taking such a contrary approach. I think it's darn clever, even though it's not how I like to do a layout.Long story short, the hobby changes and adapts to the times. In today's microwave generation, quick is in. Rather than labeling the new approach as "heresy", I'm happy to call those who are taking this different approach my fellow modelers as well.I guess I'm just not into "us" and "them" hairsplitting. The more the merrier, if you ask me.
CNJ831 wrote:Juveniles lay track on bare plywood and call it a layout...one would hope for something far better from supposedly talented adults.
I would hardly call David Barrow a juvenile. While his current minimalist approach to modeling a layout doesn't especially float my boat, I am perfectly happy to take the "big tent" view and call what he is doing model railroading too. In fact I sat on a tour bus with David in 2004 and spoke at length with him about his minimalist modeling. He related to me how many of the old line modelers have labeled him almost a heretic for taking such a contrary approach. I think it's darn clever, even though it's not how I like to do a layout.Long story short, the hobby changes and adapts to the times. In today's microwave generation, quick is in. Rather than labeling the new approach as "heresy", I'm happy to call those who are taking this different approach my fellow modelers as well.I guess I'm just not into "us" and "them" hairsplitting. The more the merrier, if you ask me.
Not really off topic, so bear with me.
Anyone who knows the rules can play chess. Even people who don't know the rules can play chess. Chess can be played on a finely-crafted board decorated with expertly-executed carvings and mother-of-pearl inlays, using pieces cast from solid gold and silver, or on a lined-off piece of paper using bottlecaps, pull-tabs and other odds and ends. It's all chess, and all of the people who play are called chess players.
Likewise, model railroading can be carried out on a finely crafted, supurbly detailed layout, using only museum-quality rolling stock, with every (DCC equipped, of course) locomotive fitted with a sound system that produces not only all the bells and whistles but all the compressor chuffs, generator whine and stoker rattle of that specific prototype. Model railroading can also be carried out on track laid on a sheet of plywood supported on saw horses (or the dining room table) using sectional track and train-set rolling stock in whatever gauge. It's all model railroading, and all of the people who follow the hobby with any degree of seriousness are model railroaders.
Chuck (who has been operating one module since 1980, and has yet to ballast the tracks on it)
tomikawaTT wrote: jfugate wrote: CNJ831 wrote:Juveniles lay track on bare plywood and call it a layout...one would hope for something far better from supposedly talented adults. I would hardly call David Barrow a juvenile. While his current minimalist approach to modeling a layout doesn't especially float my boat, I am perfectly happy to take the "big tent" view and call what he is doing model railroading too. In fact I sat on a tour bus with David in 2004 and spoke at length with him about his minimalist modeling. He related to me how many of the old line modelers have labeled him almost a heretic for taking such a contrary approach. I think it's darn clever, even though it's not how I like to do a layout.Long story short, the hobby changes and adapts to the times. In today's microwave generation, quick is in. Rather than labeling the new approach as "heresy", I'm happy to call those who are taking this different approach my fellow modelers as well.I guess I'm just not into "us" and "them" hairsplitting. The more the merrier, if you ask me. Not really off topic, so bear with me. Anyone who knows the rules can play chess. Even people who don't know the rules can play chess. Chess can be played on a finely-crafted board decorated with expertly-executed carvings and mother-of-pearl inlays, using pieces cast from solid gold and silver, or on a lined-off piece of paper using bottlecaps, pull-tabs and other odds and ends. It's all chess, and all of the people who play are called chess players. Likewise, model railroading can be carried out on a finely crafted, supurbly detailed layout, using only museum-quality rolling stock, with every (DCC equipped, of course) locomotive fitted with a sound system that produces not only all the bells and whistles but all the compressor chuffs, generator whine and stoker rattle of that specific prototype. Model railroading can also be carried out on track laid on a sheet of plywood supported on saw horses (or the dining room table) using sectional track and train-set rolling stock in whatever gauge. It's all model railroading, and all of the people who follow the hobby with any degree of seriousness are model railroaders. Chuck (who has been operating one module since 1980, and has yet to ballast the tracks on it)
Aww now I was going to stay away until you brought up Chess. That is one of the games I have a passion for. I sent my chessboard to Iraq for the Soldiers in 2003 along with some other things to take thier mind off the fighting. I havent touched chess since.
My board is really a 10 dollar wooden set made for Kaybee stores or something similar. We have had great games on it with some good people over the years.
I say it's about friends who enjoy trains of all kinds instead of the mega detailed/completed layout. I myself have ambition to advance well beyond the workbench stage now that the home is almost free and clear but that will take time.
Let me get out of this thread with drinks for everyone and best wishes and good cheer.
BTW I used to play chess by telephone to a friend who was a very good player on the east coast. The games were very good as long as we both carefully confirmed the moves with pauses to check the game boards 1200 miles apart.
1-I refuse to model a specific prototype, time, place or fret over minutia.
2-I am using whatever I've randomly collected over the years and working the layout around what I have.
3-The main change between the past layouts(Plywood Atlantic branch lines) is this one will be cookie cutter and cardboard mesh and wired with a change to DCC in mind. Room for increasing the operational aspects is there and a continuous run option is a major feature.
4-My carpentry and scenicing skills are untested. In other words, even tho I've loved my trains for 40 years, I'm not an expert modeler. If you want to be critical of me, do so in a polite fashion.
5-Nobody on earth should be complaining about the price of anything unless a large part of that price is taxes. If you need an explanation, I would suggest you take a basic economics class or attend my political discussions on another site.
7-Anyone complaining that I skipped number 6 will be ignored. I felt like it and that's all there is to it.
8-Now go play trains and don't get arrested. I'm not bailing anyone out this weekend.goes double for Phil and Nora
CNJ 831
Isn't a model railroad a miniature phyical represention of a real railroad? You never mentioned the phrase, "model railroad," even once in you diatribe. You did mention, "model railroading," twice. It seems, at least to me, that, "model railroading," is a miniature representation of the operations of a real railroad. That doesn't require scenery, although without it the operations would certainly be boring. Yet there are more than a few who don't seem at all interested in, "completing," their layouts and are content just to operate. I would tend to agree with you that they do not have a model railroad, but none-the-less, I would have to say that they are engaged in model railroading, and more power to them. My HO layout has scenery and is operational, but it's only 2' x 8' with a fiddler yards at each end. I hope in your book I don't have to have a layout that fills a basement in order to escape your pigeon-holing me as a, "hobby fringe expert."
I have taken $800 brass locomotives and cut them apart and re-soldered major components to get them to look "just right". I've painstakingly painted and weathered models to recreate specific portotypes.
But I refuse to believe that I am any more or less of a modeler than someone who opens boxes and puts models directly on their code 100 track (I do that, too!) on a plywood shelf, or enjoys this hobby in whatever way they do. The fact that there are so many ways and so many levels of participation in this hobby is what makes it great. As long as we all are getting a kick out of what we are doing, we are successful, IMHO.
Best regards,
Mick
HEdward wrote:7-Anyone complaining that I skipped number 6 will be ignored. I felt like it and that's all there is to it.
That made me smile, thanks....
For my meagre input on this secondary topic with-in the topic see my signature quote........
As for who can afford the hobby anymore topic, there are two types of threads which should be interlocked... The first being that of complaints about the (percieved) rising costs of the hobby (to which I dont agree) linked to the second type being "how many cars do you have?" or "how many unfinished/started kits?" Many people in the hobby have far more equipment then they will ever use, or even take out of that dust covered box, that was a 'must have' item when bought. Most of us probably have months worth of 'work' we could do with existing kits in our possession, without spending a dime, maybe its like giving a kid your credit card and sending them to Toys-R-Us, they will undoubtedy buy things they dont really need or want that much just because they can.
Some of the modellers who complain the hobby is too expensive in one thread go on to another thread and state how many hundreds of cars they have, how many BB car kits not even built, or structures and other kits in boxes in closets for years unbuilt. To a degree I admit to doing this, I have quite a few unbuilt kits that I have had for over 12months, yes I will get to them, but I could have used my money more wisely and not bought them untill I was ready to assemble them.
Have fun & be safeKarl.
HEdward wrote: 1-I refuse to model a specific prototype, time, place or fret over minutia. 2-I am using whatever I've randomly collected over the years and working the layout around what I have. 3-The main change between the past layouts(Plywood Atlantic branch lines) is this one will be cookie cutter and cardboard mesh and wired with a change to DCC in mind. Room for increasing the operational aspects is there and a continuous run option is a major feature. 4-My carpentry and scenicing skills are untested. In other words, even tho I've loved my trains for 40 years, I'm not an expert modeler. If you want to be critical of me, do so in a polite fashion. 5-Nobody on earth should be complaining about the price of anything unless a large part of that price is taxes. If you need an explanation, I would suggest you take a basic economics class or attend my political discussions on another site. 7-Anyone complaining that I skipped number 6 will be ignored. I felt like it and that's all there is to it. 8-Now go play trains and don't get arrested. I'm not bailing anyone out this weekend.goes double for Phil and Nora
I agree, espicially with No.8!
ukguy wrote: HEdward wrote:7-Anyone complaining that I skipped number 6 will be ignored. I felt like it and that's all there is to it. That made me smile, thanks.... For my meagre input on this secondary topic with-in the topic see my signature quote........ As for who can afford the hobby anymore topic, there are two types of threads which should be interlocked... The first being that of complaints about the (percieved) rising costs of the hobby (to which I dont agree) linked to the second type being "how many cars do you have?" or "how many unfinished/started kits?" Many people in the hobby have far more equipment then they will ever use, or even take out of that dust covered box, that was a 'must have' item when bought. Most of us probably have months worth of 'work' we could do with existing kits in our possession, without spending a dime, maybe its like giving a kid your credit card and sending them to Toys-R-Us, they will undoubtedy buy things they dont really need or want that much just because they can. Some of the modellers who complain the hobby is too expensive in one thread go on to another thread and state how many hundreds of cars they have, how many BB car kits not even built, or structures and other kits in boxes in closets for years unbuilt. To a degree I admit to doing this, I have quite a few unbuilt kits that I have had for over 12months, yes I will get to them, but I could have used my money more wisely and not bought them untill I was ready to assemble them. Have fun & be safeKarl.
Hear, hear!
rayw46 wrote: CNJ 831 Isn't a model railroad a miniature phyical represention of a real railroad? You never mentioned the phrase, "model railroad," even once in you diatribe. You did mention, "model railroading," twice. It seems, at least to me, that, "model railroading," is a miniature representation of the operations of a real railroad. That doesn't require scenery, although without it the operations would certainly be boring. Yet there are more than a few who don't seem at all interested in, "completing," their layouts and are content just to operate. I would tend to agree with you that they do not have a model railroad, but none-the-less, I would have to say that they are engaged in model railroading, and more power to them. My HO layout has scenery and is operational, but it's only 2' x 8' with a fiddler yards at each end. I hope in your book I don't have to have a layout that fills a basement in order to escape your pigeon-holing me as a, "hobby fringe expert."
While I said that I was through responding to this thread, I think it worthwhile to clear up this often mistaken impression. The hobby is "model railroading", about the creation of a representation of a railroad and its surrounding enviroment in miniature. The hobby is not, nor ever has been, called "modeling railroad operations". This is a distinctly different concept which only a small faction (generally polled at around 15%-20%) within the hobby seriously does on their layouts. Be advised that while recommended by a some authors, it has never been spelled out anywhere to my knowledge as a final goal of the hobbyist, only as an adjunct to running your trains once you've completed your layout. Read the MR (and other magazine) editorials over the past 70 years regarding what they indicate is the supposed intent or goal in "model railroading". It surely isn't operations on bare plywood. Operations is simply a facet of the hobby, like locomotive fabrication or structure building, not an ultimate goal. And, yes, I do operations myself, fairly often, but it was never what I, nor most older more experienced hobbyists, ultimately were striving toward. A finished layout and running trains for my enjoyment was my aim and historically that's been true for most modelers down through the years.
For those few whose sole interest inthe hobby is indeed running model trains on time schedules and with car cards on bare plywood with track tacked to it, that's fine with me if that's what floats your boat. But appreciated that, if true, it is opposite to the goals of every other craftsman scale modeling hobby, where it is always the objective to recreate physical reality in miniature in as rich detail as one can. I'd say operating on bare plywood has more in common with a computer game than classical model railroading.
Regarding those who brought up and revel in David Barrow's revolutionary so-called "minimalist" modeling style, you should be aware that this "style" is nothing but a throw-back to the way the average modeler was forced to work in the years between the late 1930's and the very early post-war period...simply for lack of adequate kits and scenicking materials. It was then considered the "Lionel on a board at Christmas" style. The question was also posed if I considered Barrows a model railroader because of his track on plywood "layout". And I'll say, in a word, no, partly for an additional reason. In exchanges with past MR staffers I have been told that he does not even build his own layouts but rather has them built for him...including the last one. His involvement is nothing more than in the design work. If that is all one is capable of in this hobby, then they are not a model railroader in my book. Incidentally, I was also told that his "minimalist" design was so unsatisfactory and unsatisfying that the "layout" lasted only a relatively short time before being dismantled.
Finally, before someone goes off on a further unintended tangent regarding my statements, let me say that in my book there is absolutely nothing wrong with having an as yet incomplete/partially finished layout, as long as you are continuing to regularly progress toward finishing it. My quams are with the seemingly increasing acceptance of the concept of reaching the track-on-bare-plywood stage and halthing your work indefinitely. That's where I split off the train set folks from the model railroaders.
With that food for thought, I'll retire back into the shadows..
CNJ831
James, Brisbane Australia
Modelling AT&SF in the 90s
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
James, I have to agree with you and Half the fun of a hobby is getting there.
To be fair to CNJ i don't think he's trying to say that someone who can only afford plywood and some scatch built scenery isn't a model railroader, The impression I am getting from him is that to be involved with a hobby involves effort and being content to just throw some track down and run a couple of trains and say "I'm done, see what a great modeler I am" is that person Truly a modeler . If that's the point then I agree but CNJ could have been nicer about it.
Every hobby that I can think of has gotten more expensive over my life time and I am only 21 years of age.
I just save my little bit of extra cash and all my change. Then when I get ready to go to my LHS I buy what I can of what I need.I don't know any body in this hobby that has said I am going to build a layout or a new one and walked into a hobby store and bought every thing they needed in one day. Why, because I do not know any one that can afford to do so.People will continue to buy hobby items because they love it and they have or will meet great people in the process.
Just my thoughts.Baker
RMax1 wrote: You get what you pay for. CHEAP IS CHEAP and doesn't last. The more you pay the better the quality is and it will last longer.
You get what you pay for. CHEAP IS CHEAP and doesn't last. The more you pay the better the quality is and it will last longer.
Bill H. wrote: RMax1 wrote: You get what you pay for. CHEAP IS CHEAP and doesn't last. The more you pay the better the quality is and it will last longer. The above comment manages to eclipse even CNJ831...
Bill,I saw that comment and chose to ignore it because its a very narrow minded observation and one that has very little knowledge that borders on the foolish side and doesn't deserve a reply.
BRAKIE wrote: Bill H. wrote: RMax1 wrote: You get what you pay for. CHEAP IS CHEAP and doesn't last. The more you pay the better the quality is and it will last longer. The above comment manages to eclipse even CNJ831... Bill,I saw that comment and chose to ignore it because its a very narrow minded observation and one that has very little knowledge that borders on the foolish side and doesn't deserve a reply.
Tyco trainset versus Kato?
Thats akin to comparing my Ford Escort to a Cadillac and there lays the rub of many today's modelers..They never compare like brands..Tyco Vs Model Power Vs the Bachmann train set, Athearn vs Walthers vs. Atlas Train Line..Genesis(non sound) vs Atlas Silver line* VS Kato..See how it SHOULD work? But,in order to prove their worthless Escort/Caddy comparison they blend low end and high end models together.See?
* No use to compare Atlas's "Gold Line" as its just the silver line with sound unless one is comparing sound units..That is why I didn't include BLI or Genesis sound units.
Why can't they just all buy brass?
(with apologies to a headless and deceased queen.)
Its like any other interests in life, YOU decide if you wish to spend or not.
My wife thinks about like this, if I were into dirt bikes I would have to spend what $6000 on a bike and have to have a trailer or truck to take it out to an aproved place to ride it. Now years ago, say 1988 the same bike would go for $2000 and gas was much cheaper to. My layout is in the garage and she always knows where I am and who I am with (She likes that part). I can work on the layout or run trains any time I desire.
Years ago I spoke with the late Wit Towers about this and he responded that you simply budget and stick to it. He said he would do $1 a week, alot back in the '50-'60 era, and when he did not spend his weekly allowance it was added to the next week. It was a hobby not a nessecity for life so he kept it in check. I am not that self diciplined. I know what the major expenses are( control, locos, etc...) and I simply waite for a birthday, Christmas, or Fathers day to come around for the bigger ticket items.
The expense of it all and the time to dedicate to the layout are the main factors in limiting may layout to 15x17 on two walls of the garage. I built partitions on my limit lines and I am sticking to it. Once the you get to a point where you have the control system and locos you want the rest is mostly time.
John
BXCARMIKE wrote:This hobby's never been inexpensive, back when athearns were had for under two bucks, wages were relative. Now for some, moneys never been a problem, but most of us are budgeting families, homes, cars, etc, so it's not cheap. even scratch building costs money, tools, glues, paints, what have you. All hobbys are expensive. a newbie will shell out a small fortune eventually to achieve one of those dream model railroads. I'm avoiding the whole layout debate, and yes you can do a bare bones layout, but I'll bet more people would prefer some sort of scenicked design, just read this forum, someones always asking about static grass, rock castings,crossings, painting bricks etc,etc, so they;re leaning towards some sembelence of scenery. Just look at your work bench, there's files, spue cutters, pliers, drills, vises, adhesives,paint, airbrushes,the list is long, even MR's basic tools that's in yearly issue standard will have you spending bucks. If you like trains, you find a way to get what you need, maybe some guys should sell off some old stuff and then have the cash for the latest fad. You can run with the big dogs or stay on the porch, the choice, as always, is yours...............................................MIKE
Mike,Let us not forget in the days of Athearn $1.50 car kits there was a lot of Unionized manufacturing jobs that paid good wages then as well as skilled trades.Of course there was still high paying white collar jobs then as well and the cost of living was not as bad as todays. Thats why brass locomotives was both affordable and popular in that era.
BXCARMIKE wrote:True,Brakie, but I think price was still fairly relative. Maybe with the got to have now, instant gratification mentality of today, manufactuers smell easy money. Maybe they up the ante more by making limited runs, so you got to get now or else, keeps prices up,so we all become victims. It's still a hobby, sometimes an addiction ,but a hobby and it's something that's going to cost money. .
I agree..Those super detail locomotives are nice but,sorry to say ran the price up in the process.As long as we have guys cheering on the manufacturers by saying things like"you get what you pay for",I want this or that,more details and other sayings similar to that the manufacturers will keep seeing $$$$$ in their eyes.
However,everything has a price ceiling as Walthers found out and thus they lowered the price (a little) on the P2K locomotives.Atlas saw the approaching price limits we are willing to pay(perhaps through smaller limited run preorders?) and started the Trainman line..You know some how I don't think Atlas started this line on a whim or as a after thought..
One Track Mind wrote:Can't help it: I'm not piling on CNJ831, but while this thread continues to roll along, it amuses me that just Friday I felt the need to soothe an apologetic customer who felt bad because he was "just an armchair model railroader." This guy has bought a lot...a LOT of magazines and books from me over the years...I explained that in our tolerant hobby, ahem, there has always been armchair model railroaders...that there is more of them than you would think...and that they enjoy the hobby vicariously. But according to the definition given somewhere in this thread, shall we just refer to these folks as "armchairs" from now on since according to the definition they cannot be armchair model railroaders? Sorry, just being a little facetious this afternoon.
Gumby4,I don't think $10.00 in 1956 is $74.95 in todays market..$10.00 back in the 50s would by a lot of stuff.$74.95 won't buy much today at full MRSP.I suspect it would buy 2 pair of Lee jeans though.Back in 56 you could buy a good use late model car for $50.00 now a good use late model car will cost around $8,500-14,000 plus interest rate for the loan..Back in 1956 Athearn cars was 99 cents,you could buy a Tenshado GP7 for $21.95..How about a United AT&SF 2-8-0 for $34.95?
Calculators isn't the best way to compare prices in the 50 to today..Even the cost of living was cheaper back then.