I know, it seems so restrictive to have labels in this hobby. What I tried to show at the first is that, unless we all agree on the few words that comprise a particular definition, we exclude some, confuse many, and leave most of us generally feeling that the whole thing is arbitrary. Yet, the words, themselves, keep appearing here and some of us are only too glad to use them!
Robert, if....if...we were to stick to the definitions that I gave, I would say if you could even get 6" square on your entire layout that had about 90% of it "right", in scale, you would qualify as a railroad modeler...even if the rest of it was 1/2" birch ply. But that would be my opinion, while there would be others who would vociferiously disagree. Whom, then, do you please?
It is trite, but you really have to please yourself, or what are you doing it for? If you take your cues entirely from the urgings of others, I don't see that you'll ever get much delight from the hobby. We have to adopt a certain standard for ourselves and move to that. Usually that is a synthesis between what we take from examples and what we wish to apply for ourselves...for most of us, anyway.
I think you know what you are going to do, and I think you will be pleased with your best, tempered, efforts.
I'd like to see photos as you progress.
Thanks for your input.
-Crandell
Midnight Railroader wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: none of us can truly tell another that he/she is or is not a model railroader.Sure we can.If you claim you're an artist but you never produce any works, you're not an artist.If you claim you're a Civil War re-enactor but you never re-enact Civil war events, you're not a Civil War re-enactor.If you claim you're a fisherman but you never go fishing, you're not a fisherman.If you claim you're a hunter but you never go hunting, you're not a hunter.And if you claim you're a model railroader but you never model railroad (NOT "read about model railroading" or "think about" model railroading), then you're not a model railroader, any more than you're an artist if you read about arting. There's no intended insult or derision; it's a simple definition, and while you can call yourself whatever you want (Hey, I'm an author, I just don't write!) , whether it is true or not is the issue. Words have specific meanings, and this feel-good philosophy of "You can be whatever you say you are" flies in the face of that.
Dave Vollmer wrote: none of us can truly tell another that he/she is or is not a model railroader.
If you claim you're an artist but you never produce any works, you're not an artist.
If you claim you're a Civil War re-enactor but you never re-enact Civil war events, you're not a Civil War re-enactor.
If you claim you're a fisherman but you never go fishing, you're not a fisherman.
If you claim you're a hunter but you never go hunting, you're not a hunter.
And if you claim you're a model railroader but you never model railroad (NOT "read about model railroading" or "think about" model railroading), then you're not a model railroader, any more than you're an artist if you read about arting.
There's no intended insult or derision; it's a simple definition, and while you can call yourself whatever you want (Hey, I'm an author, I just don't write!) , whether it is true or not is the issue. Words have specific meanings, and this feel-good philosophy of "You can be whatever you say you are" flies in the face of that.
It's pretty hard to argue with that!
SteamFreak wrote: wm3798 wrote: Dave,I don't adhere to Railroad Modeler or Model Railroader as a classification. I much prefer my daughter's term for it... Train Geek.That covers pretty much all of us, I think...Lee ROFL! I've been dying to say that, but didn't have the guts. Tell your daughter one of the train geeks agrees with her!
wm3798 wrote: Dave,I don't adhere to Railroad Modeler or Model Railroader as a classification. I much prefer my daughter's term for it... Train Geek.That covers pretty much all of us, I think...Lee
Dave,
I don't adhere to Railroad Modeler or Model Railroader as a classification. I much prefer my daughter's term for it...
Train Geek.
That covers pretty much all of us, I think...
Lee
ROFL! I've been dying to say that, but didn't have the guts. Tell your daughter one of the train geeks agrees with her!
This is funny! I describe myself as a model railroad geek to my new students in my self-intro. I can live with that label.
wm3798 wrote:Dave,I don't adhere to Railroad Modeler or Model Railroader as a classification. I much prefer my daughter's term for it... Train Geek.That covers pretty much all of us, I think...Lee
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
This thread has gone off into a realm where even I'm uncomfortable.
I suppose I opened this all with my "three mantras" thread, but now we're bickering over who gets to call himself a model railroader. That's very thin ice. There's almost no way to define it without being all-inclusive such that no one will be offended. Even my last post on the subject probably crossed that line.
Honestly, I'd like to see more model railroaders do high-quality realistic work. But for all of my preaching, in the end I still know it's none of my business how others enjoy the hobby. My advice can be taken by some as cramming my way down their throats; that's not the effect I intend.
In the end none of us are the president of the hobby, or the Pope of Model Railroading, so that none of us can truly tell another that he/she is or is not a model railroader.
We have our differences (modern vs. period, east vs. west, HO vs. N), but in the end we all play for the same team. We're all in the model railroad hobby. Further subdivision is derisive. I admit much guilt in this area too.
All I can do is be the best model railroader I can be, and hope through shear inspiration I can help others achieve the same.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Midnight Railroader,Um, no. You missed my point. Being a model railroader is not a job, it's a hobby. There is a difference.
IMHO, any one at any time can proclaim themselves to be a hobbyist in any field of interest. Of course, they may not be a very good hobbyist, but that's a horse of a different color.
As to how one can "be a model railroader" without owning any models, that's simple. Say, for example, a fellow has an interest in model trains & joins a model railroad club. He works on the layout, sweeps floors and runs trains...yet doesn't own a single model himself. Is he not a model railroader?
Or even more basic, say someone simply has a subscription to MR. The classic "arm chair model railroader", if you will, who doesn't own a thing other than a bunch of magazines. Are you prepared to confront these subscribers and tell them they aren't model railroaders? I'm not.
The better question is, why do you feel these kinds of people are not model railroaders? What difference does it make if they are or aren't? As long as they don't falsely represent themselves as skilled modelers, it's no big deal if someone thinks they are a model railroader when they own no models.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul3 wrote:IOW, you can't be a military veteran without serving in the armed forces. Likewise, you can't be a doctor without getting your degree, nor can you be a Professional Engineer without first passing the EIT exam, spending several years in the industry, then passing the PE's exam. And so on. These are jobs, they are not hobbies. OTOH, you can be Civil War buff and not be a re-enactor. You can be a sports fan without ever playing ball. You can be a Disney afficianado without having to work for the Mouse.You sure as heck can be a model railroader without ever owning a single piece of model railroading equipment.
OTOH, you can be Civil War buff and not be a re-enactor. You can be a sports fan without ever playing ball. You can be a Disney afficianado without having to work for the Mouse.
You sure as heck can be a model railroader without ever owning a single piece of model railroading equipment.
How can you "be" a model railroader without owning a single piece of model railroading equipment? Just by proclaiming you are one?
Well said, NNeil! Very well said from someone who purports to be only modestly skilled with words.
It turns out that you are incorrect. I don't consider myself a railroad modeler because I don't do it. If you recall from an earlier post of mine, I don't have any current aspirations to such lofty heights. It just isn't what my model railroading, the more apt characterization of my skills and interest, is all about.
You seem to be quite perspicacious. Insecurity about one's own place in the hobby undoubtedly inspires some of us to behave the way we do when we interact here. However, a good many members are quite secure, thanks very much, and this sometimes is the problem, I think. They are somewhat more rigidified in their approach, thinking that they have little left to learn, and their replies come across as such.
We classify things in a heuristic form of learning. It happens in all sciences, mine among them. It is an attempt to find common ground and language for joint discovery. On this and other forums, ego plays a role, and so does insecurity about one's own abilities, about how well received we may be, how well regarded, how we stack in the pecking order. It is only my opinion, but I think a lot of the resentment and bickering we see here is a result of these things.
My only purpose for this entire discussion was to foster discussion with a hope that we could remind ourselves to cut each other some slack and to refrain from taking personal affront so much. Call it naive, although I am not, it was an attempt to offer a service of debate about what it is that makes us neutral and non-targeted in our daily passages here, and why some of us seem to rankle. Recall that this came soon after a particularly tumultuous weekend where so many threads were sidelined with personal attacks and arguments about terminology and ideas, and ways of doing things. I had a thread deleted entirely because it was so inflammatory...it came at a time when folks were acting like a mob, in a frenzy, and wanting to pick on anybody who could be victimized. There seemed to be so much pent up anger!
I invite anyone who feels that my definitions have serious limitations to devise their own and to launch their own thread about what the various common terms mean in this forum, and why some of it pushes buttons in our discussions. In the absence of that, and as a courtesy to those who might want to contribute to fostering good relations on the forum, I offered what I thought were reasonable terms based on (my) readings over nearly two and a half years here.
I agree with you that this hobby should not be about creating divisions. The terms I listed are not my own, but predate my tenure in the hobby, and on this forum, by many years. I had hoped to stimulate a discussion about the terms, and that is why they appeared up front. Once we seemed to get to the nub of each of them, and I was never under any illusions about how easily that would be done, I had hoped to continue to talk about ways to improve our interpersonal relations here...to give Bergie and all of us a hand. It could still happen if enough folks decide they'd like to maintain the thread...even if out of idle curiosity.
One thing that never seems to be argued on these threads is that we all love model trains and railroading. You'd think something as innocuous as that would permit so much more attention and focus on these things. But, it doesn't. It is the written word that seems to get in the way here, and every one of them is selected by a sentient being at the keyboard.
Thanks, again, for your thoughtful reply.
I would like to preface these statements by saying that I hope that my words are not taken with any offense. I'm not a skilled writer so I might convey a tone that wasn't intended.
Selector tells us that security is often the foundation for conflict. I would suggest that security (or more likely, insecurity) is what leads people to come up with arbitrary classifications such as "railroad modeller" as opposed to "model railroader".
I don't know anything about Selector or what he models, but I would guess that he considers himself to be a "railroad modeller" as usually the people who establish or promote these arbitrary classifications are those who consider themselves members of the more superior group. Also I would think that in Selector's field of ethno-political conflict, he would be familiar with cases of arbitrary classifications as a cause of conflict.
The need to establish these classifications stems, I believe, from insecurity. After all, if there aren't lines drawn then what's to separate us modellers from, say, Thomas the Tank. It's a common insecurity found throughout the hobby that I've experienced as well. We want to deferentiate what we do from toy trains. By calling themselves "railroad modellers" and not "model railroaders" they are addressing this insecurity by placing a buffer between themselves and the toy trains, this buffer being the middle of the road "model railroader".
Myself, by these definitions, would be a model railroader because, even though I model a real railroad, the CPR, I model a fictional line. I don't have the time or resources to model an accurate protypical railroad although I wish that I did. I have a great deal of respect for those who accurately model prototype railroads, even the so called rivet counters. They give me something to aspire to.
But, I don't think that it benefits the hobby in any way to create divisions. I could decide that I was going to model a prototypical railroad and call myself a "railroad modeller" but my work would pale beside that of many great "model railroaders" because the skill level isn't there. (I only returned to the hobby a couple of years ago after about 20 years.)
The important thing is that I love model railroading and I enjoy learning more about both the hobby and about real railroads. I don't need to be nor do I want to be classified. And, if I'm worried about people associating my work with toy trains then it's up to me to make sure that the quality of my work is good enough that it doesn't look like a toy.
simon1966,My point wasn't to imply that a hobby is unimportant (WRT "just a hobby"). What I was trying to point out with emphasis is that there are no qualifications to have a hobby, while there are qualifications to having a job (as in, someone has to hire you even if it's yourself).
IOW, you can't be a military veteran without serving in the armed forces. Likewise, you can't be a doctor without getting your degree, nor can you be a Professional Engineer without first passing the EIT exam, spending several years in the industry, then passing the PE's exam. And so on. These are jobs, they are not hobbies.
Dave Vollmer,In addition to "Lighten up", I would also amend the ever popular, "Get a life!" These are the words used by those who can't stand the desire for accuracy in modeling. When I have pointed out in the past the flaws of a new model, this phrase is what seems to be posted with some regularity. My favorite was when I complained that a certain NH $1500 brass model had the wrong font on the tender, and the replies ranged from "Get a life!" to "If you keep complaining, they'll stop making New Haven models!" Yeah, right. The same company has now offered 3 more brass NH models since.
So maybe the fourth "mantra" should be called, "Lighten up and get a life!" ? Whaddaya think? Too wordy?
SteamFreak wrote: Have you read some of the discourse on YouTube? Unfortunately, some people are predisposed to argue. Egos are fragile and fuses are short. There are lot of angry folks in this world. It's pretty amusing to think that most people expect entire nations to coexist peacefully when they can't even get along with their own neighbors.File that sad truth under "Nature: Human."
Have you read some of the discourse on YouTube?
Unfortunately, some people are predisposed to argue. Egos are fragile and fuses are short. There are lot of angry folks in this world. It's pretty amusing to think that most people expect entire nations to coexist peacefully when they can't even get along with their own neighbors.
File that sad truth under "Nature: Human."
Absolutely right, human nature sometimes just can't be changed. As Gil Grisom (CSI producers discriminate against MR'ers but I think he respects them) said in the infamous Model Killer episode: 'It's so easy for things to get to you when you look at things so close all the time, sometimes you should look to see what's out there.'. I personally think that's very well said.
Dang! I thought railroad modeling was Heidi Klum dressing in striped bib overalls and strutting along the walk boards of an RS-3!
Look, I'm as philosophical as the next guy. It seems that this forum has become a repository for such discussion, which is probably appropriate since the audience is very broad and diverse. This is due to the fact that threads are all heaped on the same composter, rather than split up into different topic or scale categories.
We all bring our own biases and learned behaviors to the table, so we might benefit by just laying out the cards about the baggage we carry... Here's mine.
I'm an N scaler. So, by nature, I feel like the rest of the hobby doesn't expect much from my scale. This comes from a life time of hearing from HO guys about my eyes going bad, about how superior their chosen scale is, etc. I admit that this is a complex that I have to deal with.
I model an eastern road that isn't CSX, NS, PRR or Amtrak. Until recently, much of what I wanted to model had to be improvised. Despite the pride I take in those improvisations, I love the fact that I can now finally get a lot of stuff "off the rack." Yet somehow this doesn't prevent me from criticising guys who want everything off the rack, RTR, built-up, plug and play, what have you. Again, my baggage.
I tend to sell myself short, then I show off like a prima donna. I like to present myself as a so-so modeler with only modest skills, yet I work like hell for hours to create a scene that I'm happy with, then spend another chunk of time staging it and photographing it so it looks really good. I post the results with reckless abandon on all the forums I participate in, and then sit back and let the warm fuzzies wash over me as the compliments come rolling in. What can I say, I'm a creature of ego just like everyone else.
Outside of the hobby, I like the works of Twain, Mencken, and the various members of the Algonquin Round Table. As such, I like to throw in ascerbic, cynical quips using obscure literary references that not everyone is going to "get". Sometimes they work, sometimes they backfire, and I have a lot of 'splainin' to do. What can I say... it's who I am.
I'm not sure what the point of this is, other than to secure my part of the bandwidth that's being expended on this lofty subject...
Carry on!
I'm noticing here in the forum, and also in Terry Thompson's July editorial, the rise of a fourth "mantra"...
"Lighten up."
Now, I know it's really meant to tame the rancor in some of these threads. I assume it's meant to mean that it's OK to have your own opinion about an issue, but that one should respect other opinions equally.
However, I fear it may become a way of further denegrating those of us who take prototype fidelity very seriously.
I can see it now... A member asks "Who makes replacement steps for XYZ caboose? The model came with the wrong steps for my era." The answer? "You need to lighten up!"
I hope I'm wrong....
Paul, you are so right, it is just a hobby. But, in my experience there are few things in a person's life that generate more passion than a hobby. Just look at the passion that is stirred in the classic car movement, or on the golf course. It just seems to be a fact of human nature that many do get very worked up over the chosen hobby.
Mark K, you are welcome, I have been very fortunate to have a job that has let me live on 2 continents and travel regularly to 3 more. I have lived for 20 years in the UK, 10 in NY and 13 in the Mid West of the US. That is like 3 different countries!! There was nothing more pleasurable than our annual distributors conference when folks from all over the globe came together for training and some fun. Picture an Aussie, an Englishman, a Canadian, a South African, a Belgian, a Japanese and a Scot sitting at a bar in a hotel in Scotland eying the single malts preparing to represent their nation!
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
selector,This is a hobby, for pete's sake. Not a job (astronaut), not a social problem (crime)...it's just a hobby. All you need to be a hobbyist is to have an interest in the subject matter.
OTOH, to be an astronaut (or a firefighter, or a cop, or whatever), you have to be employed to be one as part of your job description. To be a criminal, you have to break the law.
But to be a model railroader (or a stamp collector, or a butterfly catcher, or a bird watcher, or any hobby), all you have to do is sit in your arm chair and dream. For example, I am also a WWII warbird enthusiast. Now, I don't own one, and I've never flown in one. But I buy books, go to air shows, and travel to air museums to see them from time to time and take pictures. None of that makes me a pilot (that's a job), but it's still my hobby.
jasperofzeal wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler". In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are. EnjoyPaul -Crandell I could not agree with you more.I've noticed that these previous threads have a forceful undertone to them. I saw it in the last reply to you (not mine) that said you're taking a combative stance. What's the point of a discussion if you set the rules at: "only my definitions count." What ever happened to: "to each his own"?
IRONROOSTER wrote:So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler". In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are. EnjoyPaul
So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler". In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are.
Enjoy
Paul
I could not agree with you more.
I've noticed that these previous threads have a forceful undertone to them. I saw it in the last reply to you (not mine) that said you're taking a combative stance. What's the point of a discussion if you set the rules at: "only my definitions count." What ever happened to: "to each his own"?
And there-in lies the answer, I'm afraid. As long as each of us approaches the hobby from a point of view of disinformation, education, experience, whimsy, or any other contributory factor that leads to what each of us can show another, we will disagree with one another about what is "right". As long as our taxonomy and definitions and actual knowledge are as highly disparate as they seem to be among us, we can't expect anything less than frustration and confusion when we attempt to impose our view of things trains on other members.
So, Mark Newton has had an epiphany of sorts (sign of an open mind in my books), and I encourage others, in closing, to think about these things and how they impact our unidimensional communications on this forum. All that labels us, that builds a reputation for us, are our words. Once the post button is clicked at the bottom of the text box, we have painted pictures of ourselves, or at least added yet another brush stroke to the built-up image that we all form in our mind's eye. Like all paintings that I know, sometimes they are better seen after backing off a bit, rather than trying to get up in their faces.
Thanks for all of your contributions, everyone.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
Paul, we'll just have to disagree. I thought I took pains to explain that my first point was for illustrative purposes and that I was not meaning to link criminality to you. You have deliberately taken a combative stance and ignored my caveat, so you and I cannot have a meaningful discussion if you deliberately or naturally misconstrue my words and definitions. In other words, if you won't play the game nicely, I won't play with you.
I do thank you, though, for replying.
selector wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:...So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler". In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are. EnjoyPaul Paul, respectfully, your argument leans heavily towards solipsism. I don't mean to imply that this relates to you in any way; it is only for illustrative purposes that I use this example- but is the same reasoning that criminals use to justify their actions...they do it because it is what they want to do. They reason that even if another person would object or be considered victimized, it doesn't matter since it is what the criminal wants and that is what counts.
IRONROOSTER wrote:...So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler". In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are. EnjoyPaul
...So, in the end this is another "Who is a REAL model railroader?" thread. Or in this case a "REAL railroad modeler". In either case, for me the criteria is simple - if you think you are, you are.
Paul, respectfully, your argument leans heavily towards solipsism. I don't mean to imply that this relates to you in any way; it is only for illustrative purposes that I use this example- but is the same reasoning that criminals use to justify their actions...they do it because it is what they want to do. They reason that even if another person would object or be considered victimized, it doesn't matter since it is what the criminal wants and that is what counts.
Actually, this is totally out in left field and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Your argument is not illustrative or pertinent and is used only to be insulting by saying I have criminal mind - the word "respectfully" becomes irony here.
So, I disagree that just because you would like to be considered an astronaut, you are necessarily going to be taken for one by others.
Actually, this supports my argument - if you ride in a space craft you're an astronaut if you build or runs model trains you're a model railroader or railroad modeler. In both cases you can so describe youself.
That is to say, in order for us to have a meaningful conversation, we have to agree on terms. If you elect to use your own, then we have no basis for discussion. Picking apart definitions is not part of the thread since I operationalized them at the first.
The problem here of course is that your definition is not generally accepted. Second, this whole thread started off being about definitions so your belated attempt to limit it to your definition halfway through is pretty egotistical.
Calling one's self a railroad modeler does not make it so. For the term to have meaning, it must have a definition that makes it distinct, and that is what I attempted to do. Some of the names you mention are known more for what I would agree are not railroad models, but are model railroads. This is not to say that each of them had never achieved a railroad model at one time, or even subsequently.
Again, many characteristics can be self described. The term has meaning just not yours. Your desire seems to be create an elite class that applies only to you so that you can say to everyone else who uses the term "No you're not. Only I am". I would suggest you coin a new term for yourself such as "Miniature Laureate".
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Brunton wrote: I don't know for sure, Larry, but I'd bet there's a lot of folks in a big grey area (say about the size of the Grand Canyon) between the two.I'd fall under the definition of "Railroad Modeler," I guess, but I'm still pretty casual and laid back, I think. I enjoy the research involved, but having all the details of a particular track layout in a particular town isn't a hard requirement (though I like it much better if I do). While I want places on the layout to be recognizable to anyone who has actually been there, my goal is more the overall atmosphere and sense of place, with a few specific exceptions.
I don't know for sure, Larry, but I'd bet there's a lot of folks in a big grey area (say about the size of the Grand Canyon) between the two.
I'd fall under the definition of "Railroad Modeler," I guess, but I'm still pretty casual and laid back, I think. I enjoy the research involved, but having all the details of a particular track layout in a particular town isn't a hard requirement (though I like it much better if I do). While I want places on the layout to be recognizable to anyone who has actually been there, my goal is more the overall atmosphere and sense of place, with a few specific exceptions.
Mark, at this point I agree with you. This is very much an "academic" exercise trying to parse the notion of who fits into the hobby where, as if we each have a key that only opens one door...through which the Big Finger hastens us, thence to slam it shut. Yet, getting back to taxonomy, the terms "rivet counter" and "dabbler", "armchair modeler", and others seem to satisfy a need for so many of us to characterize, to classify if you will, what a person does with most of their time in the hobby.
I'll say this at this point: this is one of the most judgmental bunch of folks I have met anywhere. As a group, I mean, not individually, we tend to label things and want to isolate them...and we forget that a person has presented it. Much like the phenomenon of road rage, we seem to lose our inhibitions when we type remarks that we know the other person will see.
So, I disagree that just because you would like to be considered an astronaut, you are necessarily going to be taken for one by others. That is to say, in order for us to have a meaningful conversation, we have to agree on terms. If you elect to use your own, then we have no basis for discussion. Picking apart definitions is not part of the thread since I operationalized them at the first.
BRAKIE wrote: Dave V,There is a deference between a model railroader and railroad modeler.The model railroader is a casual modeler that has a laid back approach while a railroad modeler follows disciplines in modeling a given prototype that could include a given day and time. or follows strict free lance guide lines for believable freelance railroad.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Here's a better question: Why label people at all in what's supposed to be a fun past time? What difference does it make if someone considers themselves a "Model Railroader" or a "Railroad Modeller"? And why would anyone care?
Here's a thought: if you think you're a model railroader, you are one. Period. You may not be a particularly good one, or you may be a MMR. Either way, you are still a model railroader/railroad modeller (which, BTW, there's no difference between).
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Havenn************