Dave Vollmer wrote:But do I hold him in the same class as those who build their own? No.
But do I hold him in the same class as those who build their own? No.
Seems a bit elitist to me.....
-G-
What's more elitest? Acknowledging the accomplishment of someone who works at his craft, or stroking a check to get instant gratification?
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Kind of a hot post to jump into for my first time posting but here goes... I first got interested in this hobby by seeing the cover of the March 05 issue of MMR. Once I started reading, I was hooked.
I have made a deal with the domestic CEO for some space in the basement and hope to begin construction within the next couple months. Nothing to large and I definately have no idea what the finished product will be but the ultimate goal of my layout will be to have my son develop an interest in something/anything that requires more action than the movement of thumbs.
I have read the article and will be trying to use part of what I have seen on my layout. It may have been built by someone else but it is inspiring to see what can be done in a limited space.
So long as it shows me someone who enjoys the hobby... it has a place.
My 2 bits.
Lateral-G wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: But do I hold him in the same class as those who build their own? No. Seems a bit elitist to me.....
Dave Vollmer wrote: But do I hold him in the same class as those who build their own? No.
"Elitist" is a ten-cent word being tossed around too much on the campaign trail...
But, if my opinion on this matter makes me elitist, then I have no problem with that. Having a sense of acomplishment when one has actually accomplished something isn't all bad.
I see what you mean, and I do try really, really hard not to make judgemental statements if I can avoid them. But in this case, I don't mind being marked down as having passed judgement.
I feel very, very strongly about this. It's one of my model-railroading hot bottons. I have no problem with ready to run as it applies to cars and locos. I'm less supportive of built-up structures, but hey, to each his own. I feel a fully RTR layout is the unreasonable extreme. That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to express it no matter how unpopular or judgemental it may seem. I built my layout. I don't want to see MR start running articles on how to write a really big check.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Buying a designed,engineered and constructed layout from a person who does this for a living is no different that buying a custom built house. The house is a three page ad for the company that built it. That same house could be on a Parade of Homes tour and the buyer may have never lifted a hammer during its construction. Still people go through them and take away ideas for their own homes. I feel the same way about layouts. If I had deep pockets, I would have probably had a layout built for myself. I don't enjoy spending countless hours building structures and doing scenery. Since this only one of several hobbies, I can never devote enough time to it.
However, then there is George Sellios and his Franklin & Manchester layout that has graced the pages of MR several times. Not only does he build a nice layout, his "Fine Scale Miniatures" company that builds HO structure craftsman kits, benefits everytime someone sees his layout and then runs out to buy one of his kits. Here the layout is a three page ad for his business. We end up building one of his kits and then take credit for such a beautiful building. However we didn't design, engineer or manufacturer the componets for the building. So how does buying a structure kit or "builtup structure" differ from buying a designed, engineered and custom constructed layout?
Larry
Larry,
The difference is, I don't go around calling myself a contractor (although I did frame houses during the summer when I was in college). But I call myself a model railroader, a title I feel like I've earned in the 25 years I've been in this hobby (plus 5 layouts).
I still think it's a blocking tactic, not a real, cogent argument, to go to the illogical extreme (i.e., did I design and engineer my kits). That's not what anyone's saying. It most certainly isn't what I'm saying.
Building a layout involves taking the parts, although many of them may be off the shelf, and putting them together skillfully and artfully to create a coherent whole.
Buying a structure kit differs very, very greatly from buying a custom built layout. You still assemble the kit. If you're a guy like me, you paint and weather it, add signs, and maybe even kitbash it. You make it your work by influencing the outcome with your own two hands and your artistic skill.
I have a few built-ups on my layout, but only because I couldn't get them as kits. I painted them anyway (what a pain when they're assembled already) and weathered them... I wish they'd been kits instead.
I just can't see how you can compare a kit, especially a very advanced and difficult kit like one of George's FSM models, to having someone show up at your door with a big truck full of layout.
Geared Steam wrote: wm3798 wrote: For me the joy of the hobby comes from the sense of accomplishment when I build something, whether it's benchwork, an electrical circuit, or a detailed scene. I would be loathe to have someone else enjoy my hobby for me...This type of article leaves me cold, and cheapens what it means to really participate in a hobby, and diminishes Model Railroader's reputation as a leading magazine.I suppose there's a market for this sort of thing, but as I stated in another thread about scratch building, you won't find an article in American Woodworker about shopping for a dresser at Ikea.Lee Which is why I let my sub expire, its turning into a RTR mag for new people, nothing wrong with that at all, and perhaps that sort of mag is needed. It is really disturbing to me that MRR featured a layout that was built by a contractor.I now sub to RMC and Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette because of the "craftsmanship" and the high level of modeling.MHO
wm3798 wrote: For me the joy of the hobby comes from the sense of accomplishment when I build something, whether it's benchwork, an electrical circuit, or a detailed scene. I would be loathe to have someone else enjoy my hobby for me...This type of article leaves me cold, and cheapens what it means to really participate in a hobby, and diminishes Model Railroader's reputation as a leading magazine.I suppose there's a market for this sort of thing, but as I stated in another thread about scratch building, you won't find an article in American Woodworker about shopping for a dresser at Ikea.Lee
For me the joy of the hobby comes from the sense of accomplishment when I build something, whether it's benchwork, an electrical circuit, or a detailed scene. I would be loathe to have someone else enjoy my hobby for me...
This type of article leaves me cold, and cheapens what it means to really participate in a hobby, and diminishes Model Railroader's reputation as a leading magazine.
I suppose there's a market for this sort of thing, but as I stated in another thread about scratch building, you won't find an article in American Woodworker about shopping for a dresser at Ikea.
Which is why I let my sub expire, its turning into a RTR mag for new people, nothing wrong with that at all, and perhaps that sort of mag is needed. It is really disturbing to me that MRR featured a layout that was built by a contractor.
I now sub to RMC and Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette because of the "craftsmanship" and the high level of modeling.
MHO
DITTO!!!
I no longer subscribe to MR as I feel it's turning more into an infomercial which is OK as it exposes the newcomer to the products and services that are currently available. I have subscribed to NGSL and RMC for over 20 years because I enjoy building things and seeing craftsmanship by common modelers with in-depth explanations, however, I do like some things like locos RTR. Those two magazines just keep getting better and really stimulate my interests due to their contents.
I think what Dave V is getting at is something along these lines (correct me if I'm off base here Dave)
[Dave V]
Like building stuff for the layouts, there are a number of ways to get a layout to put stuff on. The differentiations are pretty much like structure kits. Firstly, you walk out of the LHS with a pile of stripwood and an rough plan/instruction sheet - which is akin to going to a lumber yard and picking up a bunch of plywood or 1-by material to frame a layout. Secondly, there are the pre-packaged "craftsman" kits, with pre-cut sticks and maybe some wood sheets to make construction faster - similar to the "design a layout, and we'll cut the wood to length" type kit companies that help with the benchwork. Finally you have the builtups - aka the entire layout built for you.
[/Dave V]
Personally, I think that the article in question would have been better received had the featured modeller actually done the table-top work himself and used the kit benchwork, instead of having the whole thing built for him. From my perspective, the article read as if I was talking to someone about a third party's layout as opposed to their personal layout.
Closest rough example I can quickly think of off the top of my head -- say Dave V went to see Chuck's layout, and was recounting the layout to me....
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
camaro wrote: Buying a designed,engineered and constructed layout from a person who does this for a living is no different that buying a custom built house. The house is a three page ad for the company that built it.
Buying a designed,engineered and constructed layout from a person who does this for a living is no different that buying a custom built house. The house is a three page ad for the company that built it.
Seems to me, that in house building terms, the discussion is essensially about whether you must be both an architect, a carpenter and then live in the house after it has been built to be acknowledged as the creator of a house.
To me, you need both an dreamer, a planner and a builder to get a good result - if nobody has a dream, the house will not be planned and built. Just building without having a sensible plan first usually is not much better than just planning and never get the house actually built.
And like with house building - the planning and the building does not necessarily have to be done by the same person.
I respect the skills of both the architect and the carpenter.
Some builders are not great at planning. Some planners are not great at building.
This hobby is big enough both for both dreamers, planners and builders, even if some builders sometimes need the help of someone else to come up with a vision and track plan, or if some planners sometimes need the help of someone else to help build the physical representation of their design.
In the case of the engine terminal in the May 2008 issue of MR, the owner was also the designer/architect - he had created the track plan and the operations plan. As well as kitbashed some of the buildings - like the diesel facilities and background buildings.
I respect his vision and his plan, and how he found an alternate route around the point where most plans stops - the building phase.
Seems to me that there is little point in trying to reserve the label "modeller" only for those who build the physical layout with their own hands. To me the term "modeller" could just as easily also be applied to the people who design a track plan and design an operations plan to represent how something works. The plans are also models. They are just not physical models.
Anyways - the more layouts get designed, built and the more model trains that are run, the better for all of us - as a source of inspiration for other modellers, existing and potensial, to help create a continued market for stuff DIY modellers may also need and to spread little more happiness in the universe ! That we all agree on, I betcha
Grin, Stein
I've heard this same arguement in the car hobby as well. Except for the exterior paint, I built this in my garage, paid for some engine machine work, but the rest is my work. But I still love to see and appreciate everyone else's rides, regardless of who built them.
If you paid to have your's done then more power to you, just don't claim it to be your work, it's your ride (or layout), yes, just not your work. Some appreciate the work, others appreciate the end result. And for what it's worth, I'd have someone build me a railroad if I had a seven figure income.
As far as the magazines go, show me the best there is so I can push my talents to the limit by trying to duplicate their work. I could care less who built the layout, but if the layout was paid for then I'd still like to meet the owner and congratulate him. Last time I checked having a layout built wasn't cheap, so the owner must have done something right in life to get to that point.
San Dimas Southern slideshow
Dave Vollmer wrote: Larry,The difference is, I don't go around calling myself a contractor (although I did frame houses during the summer when I was in college). But I call myself a model railroader, a title I feel like I've earned in the 25 years I've been in this hobby (plus 5 layouts).I still think it's a blocking tactic, not a real, cogent argument, to go to the illogical extreme (i.e., did I design and engineer my kits). That's not what anyone's saying. It most certainly isn't what I'm saying.Building a layout involves taking the parts, although many of them may be off the shelf, and putting them together skillfully and artfully to create a coherent whole.Buying a structure kit differs very, very greatly from buying a custom built layout. You still assemble the kit. If you're a guy like me, you paint and weather it, add signs, and maybe even kitbash it. You make it your work by influencing the outcome with your own two hands and your artistic skill.I have a few built-ups on my layout, but only because I couldn't get them as kits. I painted them anyway (what a pain when they're assembled already) and weathered them... I wish they'd been kits instead.I just can't see how you can compare a kit, especially a very advanced and difficult kit like one of George's FSM models, to having someone show up at your door with a big truck full of layout.
Dave,
If the gentleman didn't take credit for the layout in the first place, what difference does it make whether it hits the pages of MR or not? Its obvious that it came out somewhere in the MR article that it was a contract job. No one really knows how many layouts grace the pages of MR magazine that are contracted jobs. Who really cares. And yes, it is an "illogical extreme". By the same token, a layout can be as skillful and artful as a 4 x 8' plywood sheet with a loop track.
By the way in MI, you can get a General Contractors License to build houses w/o ever swinging a hammer and get the discounts at lumber centers.
I think some people in here missed my point.
I have great respect for people who scratch build everything. I am envious of their skills.
But I also accept the hobbyist who has Thomas the Tank Engine running around an 18 inch radius circle on the ping pong table.
Most of us are somewhere in between those two extremes. None of us started out as experts. The Thomas fans need to be nurtured and encouraged. We should watch them grow and offer help along the way.
I respect the contract builder. The secret to being happy in life is to find something that you love to do and then find a way to get paid to do it.
The statement that "You are inferior because you don't do it like I do" is arrogant. Jeff Gordon or Dale Earnhardt do not build, or even work on, their own race cars. Does that make them inferior to the guy who builds his own to race at the local track on Saturday nights? I bet that second guy would sell his grandmother to the gypsies to trade places with Dale. But they are both racers, and they are both doing something they love.
If building the layout was "everything" then we wouldn't get together for operating sessions.
Many people enjoy music who don't play an instrument, and the guy who plays water glasses at weddings is just as much a musician as the guy who beats a kettle drum in the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet wrote: The statement that "You are inferior because you don't do it like I do" is arrogant. Many people enjoy music who don't play an instrument, and the guy who plays water glasses at weddings is just as much a musician as the guy who beats a kettle drum in the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra.
The statement that "You are inferior because you don't do it like I do" is arrogant.
Although I know I didn't use the wording "inferior," but if I came of as arrogant, sorry. I don't think I would use that strong a word.
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.
As for your second statement, I really, really have to disagree. I wouldn't call someone with no formal education in music a "musician." Musician is a title one earns. That's the peoblem these days. Very few people want to "earn" anything. They just lie down and cry "me too!"
A good compromise in my eyes:
Split the story.
Have Part I be the how the guy and the custom builder go theorugh the design process and arrive at a contract. Then Part II would be construction and installation.
I'd read that in a heartbeat.
This one seems really simple to me, it's about a model railroad layout, so it belongs in model railroader. If it isn't something that you are interested in, then don't read it. I personally have absolutely zero interest in N Scale, I'm actually going the other direction and have been collecting a lot of 3-Rail O-Gauge, and my HO interests are waning. But, that doesn't mean that I think that MR shouldn't include anything about, the tiny little trains that you can't see much detail on across the room, I just don't read the articles on N-Scale, but obviously Dave and many others do. The owner never denied that it was custom built, so there should be no reason for anyone to feel that it "Cheapens" anything that they have done. Enjoy those parts of the hobby that interest you, and let others enjoy what interests them. The more people involved in the hobby, the better it is for the hobby. Debates like these don't benefit the hobby in any way.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
challenger3980 wrote: Debates like these don't benefit the hobby in any way. Doug
Debates like these don't benefit the hobby in any way.
I disagree. This is a healthy debate. We certainly don't have to agree, as clearly we don't.
But constructive debate on what we feel should or should not appear in MR does benefit the hobby in that MR is probably the most-read periodical in the hobby.
My argument boils down to focusing on the builder (custom or not), not the buyer.
...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.
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
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!
(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!
Ryan BoudreauxThe Piedmont Division Modeling The Southern Railway, Norfolk & Western & Norfolk Southern in HO during the merger eraCajun Chef Ryan
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.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
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.
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.
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)...
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!
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.