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.)
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-
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.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
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.
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.
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?
...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!
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.
Doug
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.
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.
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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.
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'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
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 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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
But do I hold him in the same class as those who build their own? No.
Seems a bit elitist to me.....
"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.
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.
What's more elitest? Acknowledging the accomplishment of someone who works at his craft, or stroking a check to get instant gratification?
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Dave Vollmer wrote:But do I hold him in the same class as those who build their own? No.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Did you design and build your own DCC system?Did you design and build your sound locomotive?
Did you design and build your own DCC system?
Did you design and build your sound locomotive?
Respectfully, I find that sort of argument to be a cop-out. Sure, most of us buy trains off the shelf. Nothing touches my layout (except for testing) without at least some weathering; most get replacement wheelsets, extra details, etc.
But the layout in my opinion (and, I gather, the opinion of many here) is where my creativity is supposed to shine (or not). I understand not everyone can build a layout due to handicap, etc. For those folks, custom layouts are fine.
Like Lee, I feel like the idea of paying someone to build your layout cheapens the hobby just a bit for those of us who work very hard to achieve what they do with a check.
Extending it to other hobbys:
Buying an entire stamp collection at once vs. collecting them one at a time.
Buying a custom-built hotrod instead of working on it in your garage.
...etc.
Is someone who buys a custom built model railroad a model railroader? Technically, yes, if he runs it. But do I hold him in the same class as those who build their own? No. Not unless they had no other way to have a layout (disability).
RedSkin wrote: After reading the MAY issue of MR, I had a question and was wondering what everyones take on this would be. The article I'm referring to is Lots of Locomotives in a small space. Now my concern with this article is the fact that the person had a layout building company build the layout. The overall size of the layout is rather small and I could understand if the person had some sort of disablity that would prevent them from build such a layout, but the excuse that he didn't have the time, I just don't know. I think the idea and concept of the layout is great and its good to see smaller layouts featured in the pages of MR, but one that's been for the most part built by company as opposed to the actual modeller.....to me it is like nothing more that a three page ad for that company.
After reading the MAY issue of MR, I had a question and was wondering what everyones take on this would be. The article I'm referring to is Lots of Locomotives in a small space. Now my concern with this article is the fact that the person had a layout building company build the layout. The overall size of the layout is rather small and I could understand if the person had some sort of disablity that would prevent them from build such a layout, but the excuse that he didn't have the time, I just don't know.
I think the idea and concept of the layout is great and its good to see smaller layouts featured in the pages of MR, but one that's been for the most part built by company as opposed to the actual modeller.....to me it is like nothing more that a three page ad for that company.
I finally got the May issue and read the article. The article is three pages.
Of those three one short paragraph mentions that the layout designer (the owner did design the track plan himself, he designed the operations plan himself, he kitbashed some of the structures himself) hired a custom builder company to build the trackwork and most of the structures.
The rest of the article describes the inspiration for the layout, the planning process, operating the layout, and a little bit about kitbashing extra structures by the owner.
Some ideas gleamed from the article that may be transferable to other modellers: - A layout that is all engine terminal - The layout of the engine terminal - Staging for engines using a second roundtable - Think more about sequential ops plans for single user layouts - Using curtains to limit dust collection on layout
I really don't see much of a problem with this article here. Apart from the fact that it causes a little envy in those of us (including myself) who cannot afford to hire someone else to do those parts of layout building we are not all that fond of doing.
Joe
Modeling:
Providence & Worcester Railroad
"East Providence Secondary"
HO scale
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
jeffrey-wimberly wrote:There have been layout building contractors for almost as long as there have been layouts to be built, and it's not the first time that a professionally built layout has gotten a big write-up. Look at Clark Dunham's big O-Scale layout that was built for a museum. It was built by a professional crew in only a few days! Did that stop the model mags from writing it up? no. This is no different.
Same for the rebuilt BNSF at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
If you want to run 'em, run 'em, if you want to build 'em, build 'em; or anything in between is the way I see it.
Phoebe Vet wrote:Did you design and build your own DCC system?Did you design and build your sound locomotive?Unless you scratch build everything, you are buying stuff built by a pro. The only actual argument I see in this thread is where to draw the line.
Unless you scratch build everything, you are buying stuff built by a pro. The only actual argument I see in this thread is where to draw the line.
While that carries the argument to it's logical extreme, I don't think it's valid in this case. The products we buy to incorporate into our layouts are tools, a means to an end. Your argument would mean that unless I grow the trees from which I cut the lumber for my benchwork, then I'm cheating.
I would compare it to playing an instrument in an orchestra. You learn to play the instrument through hours of practice, you learn the music through constant rehearsal, and you combine your efforts with the efforts of others to create a performance. It takes commitment, and a significant investment of time and effort and in the end, you create a one of a kind performance. Buying a layout is akin to purchasing a CD... Yes, you can play the music and probably enjoy it thoroughly, but other than swiping your credit card, you really don't have anything to do with the finished product.
Some people like to build stuff, and some people like to play with their trains. Most of us are somewhere in between. Do we not have enough room for everyone?
When I read an article written by, or about, a pro, what I see is a highly experienced craftsman sharing his (her) skills.
I am not in these forums to brag about MY skills, I am here to learn from others. If I can share a little of my experience along the way, that is good, too.
Dave Vollmer wrote: See, I'd rather hear about how custom layouts are built than what people do with them after they're bought. They did a little project with the Methles 2 years ago, but I would love to read about how a team builds a large layout in 6 weeks..... several paragraphs deleted .... Kudos to the custom builders. I imagine it's hard work and it's not a huge profit-maker. I'd be worried that getting paid to model railroad would take the fun out of it.
See, I'd rather hear about how custom layouts are built than what people do with them after they're bought. They did a little project with the Methles 2 years ago, but I would love to read about how a team builds a large layout in 6 weeks.
.... several paragraphs deleted ....
Kudos to the custom builders. I imagine it's hard work and it's not a huge profit-maker. I'd be worried that getting paid to model railroad would take the fun out of it.
I've been told (by LHS owners and one gentleman who converted his layout into a public attraction) that, as soon as it becomes a job driven by business hours and expected schedules, it ceases to be a hobby. I rather suspect it's like the contractor, who builds custom houses for other people to live in. There's the satisfaction of a job well done, and the pleasure of the new homeowner - but not fun like a personal hobby. You would be building someone else's dream, not your own.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Tim Fahey
Musconetcong Branch of the Lehigh Valley RR
modelmaker51 wrote: jeffrey-wimberly wrote:There have been layout building contractors for almost as long as there have been layouts to be built, and it's not the first time that a professionally built layout has gotten a big write-up. Look at Clark Dunham's big O-Scale layout that was built for a museum. It was built by a professional crew in only a few days! Did that stop the model mags from writing it up? no. This is no different.Having worked for Clark Dunham, (on and off), in the past 15 years, I can definitively say that none of the layouts are built in just a "few days". The layouts can take anywhere from a month or two, 6 months or even a year or two, (the Cincinatti S scale layout) and involve anywhere from 5 to 15 craftspeople. Final assembly on site usually does take just a "few days".
Having worked for Clark Dunham, (on and off), in the past 15 years, I can definitively say that none of the layouts are built in just a "few days". The layouts can take anywhere from a month or two, 6 months or even a year or two, (the Cincinatti S scale layout) and involve anywhere from 5 to 15 craftspeople. Final assembly on site usually does take just a "few days".
On the other hand, I don't want to read about the guy who bought it. That's like me writing an article in MR every time I buy a new locomotive. Someone else did the work; I bought it. I read MR for inspiration too, and it's the work that inspires me, not "lookey what I bought!"
I don't really understand how the non-handicapped can buy pre-built layouts. If I didn't have time for railroading (my wife thinks I don't anyway), I don't know what I would do... But buying someone else's layout would feel less than honest to me.
I want to survay my layout as a world I created, not purchased. But I guess if other folks have other objectives, have at it!