Layouts and layout building

IRONROOSTER wrote:

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

I've thought about doing the MMR thing.

But I also don't want folks to think I'm looking for accolades myself.  I'm not.

When I first came in the service 12 years ago I was obsessed with earning awards and medals.  But I had a crusty old station chief, a man I greatly admired (and whose funeral I went to earlier this month), who taught me two things about that.  Number 1, if I'm good, I don't need to tell anyone.  They'll see for themselves.  Number 2, if the troops (or in this case, you guys) see me obsessed with my own advancement and not their welfare, they'll lose all respect for me.  Soon enough I had decided to focus on my people and on my job.  You know what?  That's when the accolades came.  Since then I have always been careful to pass my accolades and recognition on to my troops rather than to keep them for myself.

And so I pass along credit to those who've inspired me in the hobby when that recognition is due.

I understand that my position on this has probably caused me to lose some respect among you guys.  I hope not, but I'm realistic about it.  I can't say I'll wake up tomorrow and feel differently about custom model railroads; I still don't care for the idea.  But I will concede, as I have in the past, that my opinion in the matter doesn't invalidate anyone else's sense of enjoyment of the hobby, no matter what role they play in it.

EDIT:

FWIW, I'll try to gently and quietly back away from this thread, and leave you all to your regularly scheduled forum!  I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus...  Every now and then a thread presses one of my buttons so hard it sticks, as did this one.  My apologies to the OP for nearly hijacking the thread.

Dave V says:

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.

My own feeling, Dave, is that this whole thread is a tempest in a teapot. To a certain extent I agree with you. OTOH, I don't see any harm in the occasional article about someone's custom built layout, especially when the owner had considerable input into the process (conceptual, if not actual construction). I really don't see how people can get the idea that the only way to get a beautiful layout is to have one built as long as such articles only appear every so often. Someone upstream mentioned the FEC layout that appeared (IIRC) in MR in 2001. In remembering that article, I don't see any way that the actual builder could have come up with the layout without massive input from the purchaser, up to and including massive documentation on the line. Someone knew the FEC cold and I think we can rule out the contractor simply because the contractor wasn't likely to be an FEC expert. Lance Mindheim could probably build someone a great Monon layout with minimal input from the purchaser, but would need extensive documentary input if building, say, Southern Pacific's climb out of San Luis Obispo or Santa Fe's Peavine line. Were Mindheim or any other builder to build such a layout for me, you better believe that I'd be a very nitpicky customer and that the design would be my baby even if most or all of the construction were undertaken by someone else.

We all have things that we find unacceptable for ourselves. For instance, there was an article in GMR 2008 on the Bona Vista. Just looking at the pictures, my own opinion was that it wasn't up to the level of Tom Johnston's Logansport & Indiana Northern or Jay Miller's Panhandle & Santa Fe. Compounding that impression was the excruciating (for me) anachronism of using a lettering font that screams 80's or later on a layout supposedly set on 1953. I look for layouts that, at a very minimum, have to be nitpicked to find era anachronisms. If something obvious destroys the illusion, that's it for me and it doesn't belong in GMR. However, except for here, I'm not going to comment on it because I think that for the most part GMR lives up to its name. GMR 2008 was one of the better ones as far as I'm concerned. OK, it had a dud in it (from my point of view). I suppose if it had been a custom built layout, that would be adding insult to injury, but the guy built it himself. It just wasn't my cup of tea. Whether or not it would inspire someone else to do likewise, I don't know. In any case, the builder obviously enjoys his layout and that ain't bad. He scratchbuilds and that ain't bad. He likes to operate, sort of, and that ain't bad. Now, if he'd just strip everything and letter his equipment using a font like Railroad Roman, the world would be a better place (from my perspective). Of course, the guy does have a working layout and I don't so he's way ahead of my game. Who am I to judge? Right now, I have nothing to show. Everything's packed away for at least the next several months.

And you are right, we are all judgmental to one degree or another. We just don't have to be vocal about it. My own internal standards are such that no layout that isn't designed for operation or adapted for operation, is not uniformly era specific and doesn't show at least an informed layman's knowledge of the prototype is of little value to me personally. It doesn't have to be based on a specific prototype, but if it's freelanced it should project a unified theme. Eric Brooman's Utah Belt comes to mind. Anything less is, for me, just a glorified train set even if it's a pretty one. However, this is the only public place you're going to hear that from me

I earlier mentioned Tom Johnson's Logansport & Indiana Northern. Of all the layouts in GMR 2008, that one raises the bar (Jim Six's photos certainly don't hurt). Ironically, it's scenically "boring" with no mountains, no bridges of any kind and it's of an era and location that do nothing for me. It's also very simply constructed. If ever there was an inspirational layout, however, that one is it. I wish it had appeared in MR instead of GMR, although it certainly belongs in the latter and raises the bar a bit.

I've rambled too long and I have a drip irrigation system to build. I suppose I could get it custom built, but I like doing things like that. Besides, they sell complete kits now. Can't even call them "craftsman" kits, either. I really don't care if the elitist editors of "Classic Sprinkler Systems" insist that if you don't use iron pipe, a pipe threader, iron nipples, tees, plugs, caps, brass sprinkler heads and pipe dope, then you ain't a "real" sprinkler system builder because any idiot can use plastic kits from Home Depot or Lowes. It's my system and I'll build it any way I want to. Besides, if it gets water to where it's needed I'll be satisfied.

Andre

 

 

 

 

 

 

That reminds me...

I forgot to order GMR through MR...  But my LHS still doesn't have it.  When did it hit the shelves?

Lateral-G wrote:

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?

Guess they'll have to change the magazine's motto again... "Dream It, Plan It, Buy It."

Lee 

wm3798 wrote:

Guess they'll have to change the magazine's motto again... "Dream It, Plan It, Buy It." Lee

Or how about "If we Build it for you....they will come!"

Or how about - "Save Space, Buy the Video"

More Cynical by the Minute 

Dave Vollmer wrote:

That reminds me... I forgot to order GMR through MR...  But my LHS still doesn't have it.  When did it hit the shelves?

Last October.

Andre

The only problem I have with these layouts is you don't get much "how to" info in the article.. the construction portion is something like "I paid Bob who did a bangup job!". I remember one layout from Great Model Railoads a guy had built where most of it was how they moved it into the train room after it was built. About as exciting as an article about how to move a couch.

Chris 

I spent some time on the ropes today in several arenas.

Part of why I'm able to post during the day is that I'm writing my PhD dissertation, and it's nice to take periodic breaks to keep the head clear.

Well, today things were going pretty badly with some of my data...  and now I'm within 2 months of defending.  Fortunately, late this afternoon I was finally able to break through a stumbling block.

I hope everyone in this thread will understand that part of my defensiveness in this thread was borne of frustration.  This will hardly be the first time I've let external pressures affect my posts.  Wish I could swear it would be the last...

So, although I lost a day due to computer and scripting issues, I'm back on track in terms of writing.

Steinjr PMed me that he was offended by what he saw as my attempt to exclude other people from the hobby who don't view things the way I do.  I want to make it clear that's neither what I meant nor how I feel.

My favorite part of the hobby is building things with my own two hands (even though I do have lots of RTR cars and some RTR locos).  So I have trouble identifying with someone who choses not to obtain his layout by his own labors.

...but would I exclude such a person from the hobby?  No.  Not even if I had the power to do so.  We are bonded together by our love of trains, big and small...  I have my opinions, as do all of you, but when it comes to recreating railroads in miniature, the only thing that matters is that we have fun doing it, no matter how we come to it.

Hi Dave,

 

I've been following this thread ever since it started with great interest. I would just like to say that although I do not agree with you. I think you have handled your self very nice. I read with interest on how you defend your stand point and argue for it politely while other disagree. This forum would be a boring place if people didn't disagree and said so while still being courteous to each other.

 

My opinion of this topic is that as long as a layout is inspirational it doesn't really matter how people reached their goals. Some guys are professional carpenters and produce excellent bench work for themselves and others, some are electricians and some us have no usable knowledge what so ever when it comes to building a layout. I liked that layout, it was nice and it's focus was very narrow but could be useful when designing just such a segment of their personal layout.

 

Anyways, it's to late and I'm not interested to get in to this discussion. I just wanted to make my own opinion clear. And then of course, still say that I think that you, Dave have handled your self nicely and have nothing to be apologetic about. You just don't agree with some of us.

 

Thanks for an interesting read.

 

Magnus

Dave Vollmer wrote:

I spent some time on the ropes today in several arenas. Part of why I'm able to post during the day is that I'm writing my PhD dissertation, and it's nice to take periodic breaks to keep the head clear. Well, today things were going pretty badly with some of my data...  and now I'm within 2 months of defending.  Fortunately, late this afternoon I was finally able to break through a stumbling block. I hope everyone in this thread will understand that part of my defensiveness in this thread was borne of frustration.  This will hardly be the first time I've let external pressures affect my posts.  Wish I could swear it would be the last... So, although I lost a day due to computer and scripting issues, I'm back on track in terms of writing. Steinjr PMed me that he was offended by what he saw as my attempt to exclude other people from the hobby who don't view things the way I do.  I want to make it clear that's neither what I meant nor how I feel. My favorite part of the hobby is building things with my own two hands (even though I do have lots of RTR cars and some RTR locos).  So I have trouble identifying with someone who choses not to obtain his layout by his own labors. ...but would I exclude such a person from the hobby?  No.  Not even if I had the power to do so.  We are bonded together by our love of trains, big and small...  I have my opinions, as do all of you, but when it comes to recreating railroads in miniature, the only thing that matters is that we have fun doing it, no matter how we come to it.

Dave,

While I'm not working on a PhD dissertation, I did complete my Masters of Science in Microbiology and Scanning Electron Microscopy.  My orals were two hours and totally exhausting and I did drink afterwards. I think exchanging points of view is healthy, no matter what the outcome.  Good Luck.

 

Larry

andrechapelon wrote:

Dave V says: Lance Mindheim could probably build someone a great Monon layout with minimal input from the purchaser, but would need extensive documentary input if building, say, Southern Pacific's climb out of San Luis Obispo or Santa Fe's Peavine line. Were Mindheim or any other builder to build such a layout for me, you better believe that I'd be a very nitpicky customer and that the design would be my baby even if most or all of the construction were undertaken by someone else. Andre  Andre,   Unfortunately the Monon is gone.  Lance tore it down to put up a new Miami, Florida based produce district CSX HO switching layout.  This new plan and Voodoo & Palmettoes layout can be seen at www.lancemindheim.com.  My layout is my rendition of his "Voodoo & Palmettoes layout.  I can only hope its half as good as his.   Larry

My thoughts:
Featuring pro-built layouts in MR? Okay, but go into details as to how the design came about and techniques on how the manufacturer built it. I'm sure there are techniques that each of us could learn. It'd be like watching Norm Abram on New Yankee Workshop build something - there's tools and techniques he uses that I'm sure not everyone knows and would be great to learn about.

As someone else in this thread said, why not have a special issue that has some of the various custom builders in it and how each of them approaches a layout design. Maybe also have them do a layout based on certain design constraints, whether they do it as a real layout or an artist's (computer's) rendering. That way, people that are in the market for something like this would have a convenient source. Just like audio magazines do with gear shootouts.

A thought does occur: I wonder how many of these pro-built layouts are actually run? And regularly? And how soon would someone with such a layout get bored with it and want something on it changed? I doubt the original builder would come in and do alterations.

Dave Vollmer wrote:

I spent some time on the ropes today in several arenas. Part of why I'm able to post during the day is that I'm writing my PhD dissertation, and it's nice to take periodic breaks to keep the head clear. Well, today things were going pretty badly with some of my data...  and now I'm within 2 months of defending.  Fortunately, late this afternoon I was finally able to break through a stumbling block. I hope everyone in this thread will understand that part of my defensiveness in this thread was borne of frustration.  This will hardly be the first time I've let external pressures affect my posts.  Wish I could swear it would be the last... So, although I lost a day due to computer and scripting issues, I'm back on track in terms of writing. Steinjr PMed me that he was offended by what he saw as my attempt to exclude other people from the hobby who don't view things the way I do.  I want to make it clear that's neither what I meant nor how I feel. My favorite part of the hobby is building things with my own two hands (even though I do have lots of RTR cars and some RTR locos).  So I have trouble identifying with someone who choses not to obtain his layout by his own labors. ...but would I exclude such a person from the hobby?  No.  Not even if I had the power to do so.  We are bonded together by our love of trains, big and small...  I have my opinions, as do all of you, but when it comes to recreating railroads in miniature, the only thing that matters is that we have fun doing it, no matter how we come to it.

Dave:
First off, thank you for your service to our country.
Second: you're military - you'll make it through you doctoral defense no problem. Just think how nervous you were on your first patrol in Iraq - you made it through that and you'll make it through this.
Third: You've handled yourself well with such a hot-button issue as this. I never thought you were trying to exclude anyone from the hobby with your comments. It's just a sad statement of the times we are in when someone has an honest opinion about something, states it, and gets taken to task for it. Political correctness run amuck. I've run into the same thing way too many times myself. I have my opinions, state them, and if someone doesn't like them, tough fecal matter. If I caved in to those people, I wouldn't be true to myself. That's why you'll never see me use acronyms like IMO or IMHO. I ain't humble about any opinions I have. It's like a hot-button issue for me - guns on campus. If you have a valid carry permit, I say go ahead and let students, teachers and others on campus carry ON campus. Some won't like that, but that's part of what I believe. Just like your thoughts on pro layout builders - that's part of what you believe.

mammay76 wrote:

i would be more impressed if it was a article on the layout building company, that sounds interesting.

I agree.  I'm not so interested in a guy who bought a layout, but I'd like to hear from the folks who built it.

I've also noticed the way MR is leaning more and more toward RTR.  The editor chimed in on a similar post about the way MR is changing and he acknowedged that the magazine is changing with the hobby (I wonder if the hobby is changing because of the magazine).  Regardless, I don't look forward to MR like I used to; my subscription runs out in three issues, then it's good-bye to MR (I doubt that they'll miss me, but I have better ways to spend my money).