Layouts and layout building

...but I'm beginning to feel as if no matter how I articulate my feelings on the subject, I won't be able to do so without appearing intolerant or self-congratulatory.

And I'm not trying to be.  I'm no expert myself.

This is a big hobby with room for everyone.  That said, I have my own (equally valid) opinions on what constitutes model railroading versus other aspects of the broader hobby of model trains.  But at least here at Trains.com, because of the enormous spectrum of hobbyists (versus a more narrowly-focused forum), I'd probably do best to keep those opinions under my hat.

This hasn't turned ugly yet, but I have a feeling if I keep pushing, it will.  So, please return to your regularly scheduled forums!

Dave Vollmer wrote:

But let me relate...  When I served in Baghdad in 2003 I was hearing credible stories of staff officers putting themselves in for the Bronze Star (and getting it) for essentially flying a desk.  Meanwhile the junior guys kicking down doors and driving in daily convoy down Sniper Alley (the canal road and Route Irish) would be lucky to go home with a commendation.  See how that cheapens the guys who really earned Bronze Stars by going above and beyond?  It's the same cheapening MR does of our work every time they do an article on someone who bought their layout.  They earned the check that paid for it, but they didn't earn the layout through their own labor.

 

That sort of behaviour isn't exclusive to the military. You can see it in the corporate world as well. They give bonuses, incentive rewards and recognition all the time to the mediocre and lazy as well as those that work hard for it.

 

I highly doubt MR is "cheapening" our work. The magazine is about MODEL RAILROADING. No qualification is in the magazine title such as "Model railroading only for those that build their own layout and scratch build everything on it". MR readership is wide and varied. The editors know this and have to provide content that appeals across a broad spectrum. Just because they feature a professionally built layout I fail to see how they cheapen the hobby?

 

You need to get off your high horse, stop looking down your nose and learn to accept and respect all aspects of how MRR's enjoy this hobby.  

 

-G- 

larak wrote:

MPRR wrote: Point taken..... But should such projects be featured in MR ???  Thats the main question here. IMHO - Not at the expense of other articles. If the page count is increased to add them, then OK, I guess. If the articles share some innovative technique(s) that we can all learn from, I wouldn't mind.  So many grey areas ...  Karl

Very telling statement!  You'd think the published ambassador for the hobby, or at least one of the top two, would occasionally expose its readership to new approaches and ideas in the hopes that the exposure would open up yet other ideas and approaches to its readership.  A university faculty never gained notoriety by sticking to what was understood, or even what was campy in their field, but some bright lights are encouraged to reach outside the floodlit zone and feel around in less illuminated places.

Good for Kalmbach and the editorial staff for expanding our horizons, even if they aren't always welcome for every reader.

-Crandell

Lateral-G wrote:

You need to get off your high horse, stop looking down your nose and learn to accept and respect all aspects of how MRR's enjoy this hobby.   -G-

Really, there was probably a nicer way to say that.  I'm not "looking down my nose" simply by expressing a different viewpoint.

If you notice, I did get off my "high horse" in my last post.

Just a thought, but what if we, as a group, sent a pm to the MR editors telling them that we don't welcome input from dilettantes who submit articles when they have not built most of their structures and weathered their scratch built engines, and most certainly if a single screw was driven by someone other than the modeler him or herself?

That would be a strong and stern message to some of us, and to them, wouldn't it?  Would that be a succinct summary of our consensual opinion here?  So far?

Otherwise, how shall we water down the rigid standard that all of us embrace as we slide down that slippery slope to mediocrity?  Heaven forbid!

-Crandell

(Okay, yes, I'm being a wee bit sarcastic.)

To each his own! I don't give a rats behind hoot if someone wants to blow their money on having their layout built.

If someone has the money and can afford to contract out the work of building a layout, more power to em! Probably gets the layout up a lot faster than the DIY folks, (BTW that includes yours truly!)

I consider myself a DIY kinda guy, not just for building my layout, but for around the house too. I take pride in doing tasks around the house that most people have to pay to "get er done"! Like painting (interior/exterior), minor electrical work, carpentry, flooring, dry wall, woodworking, etc... I save a lot of hard earned dough ($$$) by doing it myself around the house. Now the stuff I will not do is roofing and major electrical like putting in a new circuit. I have worked with both, but do not have the skill set to do it reliably. Now, it might take me six months put that 900 sq. ft. of tile floor in working nights and weekends, but I saved a lot of money in the process, no, a ton of money! And I can say it did it myself! Pride!

I like the satisfaction I get when looking back at a finished project on the layout or in the home and knowing it was built with my hands, not someone else's. I also know what my skill set can handle, and when I don't have the skills I try to learn as much as I can about how to approach a new task.

Some folks have the skills and patience to get things done themselves and some don't. Those folks who don't' have the time, energy, or acumen have to pay to get it done! What's wrong with that?

I wish there were more folks out there looking to pay people to get their layout built; I would love to get paid to build em! Talk about a dream job, building model railroads and getting paid to do it!

selector wrote:

Just a thought, but what if we, as a group, sent a pm to the MR editors telling them that we don't welcome input from dilettantes who submit articles when they have not built most of their structures and weathered their scratch built engines, and most certainly if a single screw was driven by someone other than the modeler him or herself? That would be a strong and stern message to some of us, and to them, wouldn't it?  Would that be a succinct summary of our consensual opinion here?  So far? Otherwise, how shall we water down the rigid standard that all of us embrace as we slide down that slippery slope to mediocrity?  Heaven forbid! -Crandell (Okay, yes, I'm being a wee bit sarcastic.)

EDIT:

If the intent is to put me on the defensive, you folks win.  I'm on the ropes.  I get it.  Because I'm not 100% in agreement you guys on this, I'm the "elitist" bad guy.  Got it.

Heaven forbid someone express an unpopular opinion without being heaped upon by sarcasm.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  I really thought we could have a decent conversation on this subject without "high horse," "looking down your nose," and heaping helpings of sarcasm.

Yet I am made out to be the one who's being non-constructive...

Sarcasm and rankor are typically the refuge of those who have run out of cogent points to argue.  I feel as if I tried to keep this civil.

But, David, what is extreme about inclusiveness?  Where would the art world be without Dali and others who were almost irrational in their approach to their craft? 

I am saying that rigidity is an extreme in and of itself.  While the hobby seems to have no problem with those who insist on doing the bulk of their experience themselves, why do those people have a problem with those who do not?

Your way is already validated, but what we are discussing here is the validity of having much of one's experience in the hobby invalidated if it is not of one's own doing largely.  I think, and I hope you would accord as much validity to my own opinion as to your own, that there should be room for all kinds in the hobby.  I am not alone in having expressed that in this thread.

To stand as a group and point the finger at others is, sorry to say, entirely judgemental.  This is about singling out others who don't measure up in a way that you define; ergo, judgement.

That, my MRRing colleague, ie exclusive.  I don't think it enriches the hobby at all.  It is the same rigidity that you should hope to avoid in your faculty...with respect.

-Crandell

There are a lot of custom layout manufacturing firms advertise in the hobby press so there must be a market. I can't fathom a layout that I haven't sweat blood over but I know that there are people who, for one reason or another, either can't - or won't - devote time and energy to constructing a layout.

The only custom built layout I ever recall visiting was in the San Diego area and the model rail had a dedicated room of, I would guess, about 500 square feet which was obviously an add-on at the back of this house. The whole property exuded luxury - the whole neighborhood was luxurious for that matter - luxurious household furniture; luxurious car in the driveway; multi-hundred thousand dollar motor home parked under an awning adjacent to the house; etc, etc. This guy's layout was an island with an operating area in the middle; and the guy openly admitted that everything on this layout - which I found rather simple minded . . . . . . . . . . and boring - had been custom built for him. He had virtually no topographic scenery and his structures had been randomly selected and were very randomly placed. He was , however, running some very expensive brass steamers alongside some very cheap plastic diesels - his trackplan looked like something out of a toy train design manual; in point of fact, I got the distinct impression that, at one time this had been a Lionel set-up and all he had done was pull up the three rail track and lay down HO-Scale track in it's stead. It was weird but he was openly proud of it.

. . . . . . . . . . anyway, the kicker came when he was talking about a piece of rolling stock that, he said, needed a new truck; one of the visitors in there at the same time I was there took a look at this defective car and said that what was needed was to rebore and retap the hole in the bolster. "How do you do that?" "You chuck a tap in a pin vise." " What's a pin vise?" I about collapsed over backwards; after an expanation he said that he didn't have one of those so he'd have to take this car down to the hobby shop to get fixed. I have several pin vises just laying around and thought of offering to send him one . . . . . but he wouldn't have used it even if he had one.

That sure ain't me!!!

I don't think this rail was lazy; all that money had to come from someplace. As I have always said: Those who work hard get callouses; those who work smart get rich! . . . . . and have a model railroad layout!

And I have a lot of callouses!!!

Crandell et al.,  

I see what you're saying and I agree to a point.

But, I would add, that inclusiveness has a cost; the cost is the "watering down" of the existing group.  If the group is enriched more than it is weakened by inclusiveness, then, by all means, it should be done.  But, if more is lost than gained, perhaps not.

My personal opinion is that what is gained by seeing beautifully constructed custom layouts in MR is outweighed by the loss caused by (a) the lack of insight into how that custom layout was contracted, designed, and built (which is what I want to know, anyway) and (b) the percetion that new people might get that the only way to have those beautiful layouts is to buy one.  Point (b) goes hand-in-hand with that other hot-button issue of the decrease in true hands-on articles in MR.

If this makes me judgmental, then I guess I'm guilty.  We are all judgmental about some things in our lives whether we wish to be or not.

I'd rather read about a guy who built a layout by stapling grass mats to a ping-pong table, because he did it himself.  But you won't see that in MR, will you?  That's the true elitism, IMHO.

EDIT:

Case in point:  How about our own CudaKen?  He started with a loop of track and grass mat...  His layout is really starting to look like something.  Sure, it won't make the pages of GMR, but what he's done in a short time, with help, but mainly by his own labor, is pretty darned spectacular.  But I bet MR wouldn't do it.

Okay, Dave, I am glad you have understood me....I can be abrasive in my message, and my devilish utilitarian side uses that to establish a basis on which to debate the issue without missing what I feel is the central point...if I am going to be able to participate.  The deontological side of me hopes, wincing, that I haven't singed too much.  Sorry if my words stung.

I think elitism is an apsiration...if it is healthy and not misguided.  Surely we don't discard athletic elitists as a bad thing.  We do need to have a cadre of folks who understand what can be achieved, and coaches who help some of us get there.  Along the way, necessarily, are many strewn bodies.  Why stand in judgement of them?  Why not encourage them to stand and continue, or just to stand?  I use analogies a lot, I hope that doesn't confuse people, but our hobby will be more robust with more people bringing more ideas.  Some of them may be auto mechanics who are incapable of thinking in 3-D to execute a three dimensional track plan.  But they may introduce something else that I would rather not miss, and if MR publishes that idea for me, in what way are they doing a disservice to the hobby?

We have recently discussed MR's role....it is to titillate, to encourage, but not to everyone.  It would have no readership if it appealed solely to the truly accomplished...as you doubtlessly are.

-Crandell

True enough, Crandell...

And my recourse is to not read those articles.  Although, as MR has thinned over these recent years, I usually do anyway...

Elitism is one of those tough nuts. 

On the one hand, pride is one of the 7 deadly sins.

On the other hand, pride in one's work and one's accomplishments is critical for maintaining one's work standards and esprit de corps.

So elitism is a strange bird.  It's a necessary evil sometimes.  So I have a habit from time to time of importing that sense of "earned accomplsihment" into my hobby.

But I also understand that it's probably not appropriate to apply that standard to something as broad and light-hearted as a hobby.

We all have a threshold between work and fun...  For some of us that threshold is closer to the "work" side than for others.  But, unless one is in the hobby as a profession, oe's sense of work should not exceed one's sense of fun.

There seems to be an idea that having a layout featured in MR is an award of some kind, attesting to the owners achievements as a model railroader. I'm afraid I don't see it that way.  It's a good article or it's not - this one I thought was good. 

If you're interested in an achievement program and awards then you should join the NMRA.  They have such a program where your work is judged and awards made.  Get enough and you get awarded "Master Model Railroader" and can put MMR after your name.

For me, if you think you are a model railroader, then you are and welcome to the club. 

as usual just my

Enjoy

Paul 

Dave Vollmer wrote:

My personal opinion is that what is gained by seeing beautifully constructed custom layouts in MR is outweighed by the loss caused by (a) the lack of insight into how that custom layout was contracted, designed, and built (which is what I want to know, anyway)...

The article did leave me wanting to know more too, as do many MR mag articles of late. And this seems like a missed opportunity for MR mag to take it to the next level and kick it up a notch with some "in-depth" online content for subscribers. Talk about being "elite", subscriber only content!

Case in point:(tooting my own horn here...sorry folks) Last year's MR April 2007 issue there was an article entitled Build a swinging gate for easy access to your model railroad, by Gary Hoover, and MR even posted some online content as a follow-up with a PDF included. But I was left empty handed, wanting to know more details. Well, this article ended up being a spring board for building my own swing gate, and eventually I wrote my own online article entitled Building a swing gate: an alternative to the duck under to share with those who might have a similar issue. Oh, and this tutorial is free for anyone who might need it!

Camaro, your

Buying a designed, engineered, and constructed layout from a person who does this for a living is no different that(sic) buying a custom built house.

is true enough; it becomes a horse of a different color, however, if you go around claiming that you built it yourself. If I recall correctly this is the issue that arose over the Key West Extension article that appeared in Model Railroader about ten years past; the actual builders of this layout objected that the rhetoric of this article implied that the owners of this layout had done the construction themselves.

This probably seems stupid but ownership issues do come up in courts of law; Carroll Shelby put his name on the side of his GT but the Ford trademark still stayed on the front end. If I go out and plop down twenty five thousand iron men for a Chevy, put a Smith trademark on the front end, and install custom built tail lights have I not manufactured a Smithmobile?