modelmaker51 wrote: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".
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
A few years ago MR had an article about a layout that was based on Flager's Florida RR through the Florida keys. The layout was very well done and used many insightful techniques. I learned some things from that article and I very much enjoyed the layout. I would not have wanted to have missed that article.
The layout was professionally done.
-John
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".
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.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
What a lot of Great responses!! I was just wondering what the consensus would be on this topic. I'm one of those modellers that likes to do it myself.... and I guess that's what I do with all of my hobbies. I can see the point of taking things to an outside source to have the work done.
Lateral-G you talk about cars quite a bit and I know...when I get the money I'm going to have the windshield gasket replace by a pro. in my 47 Ford truck. I don't have the tools or the skill for that. I see your point as well as others on here.
The Article just caught me alittle off guard, not something I would have expected to read about in MR... I guess I need to catch up with the times.
Brad
tomikawaTT wrote:The model railroad in question - is a model railroad.The name of the publication in question - is Model Railroader.I don't see any adjectives like, "Scratchbuilt, modeler assembled, non-commercial," or similar in the title of the magazine.Applying the reasoning implied in the original question, maybe MR shouldn't have reported on the layout at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. After all, it was built by professional model builders under contract. Or is there some dividing line between 'acceptable' professional building and 'unacceptable' professional building? If so, where is it? Who drew it? Lacking an answer, I don't see any problem with MR featuring professionally built layouts any more than I have heartburn about them featuring custom built locomotives.Back when I was routinely working 60 hours a week, I would have loved to hire a professional to build a layout for me - if I also had had the space and the disposable income. If someone DOES have the space and disposable income, more power to him.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
The model railroad in question - is a model railroad.
The name of the publication in question - is Model Railroader.
I don't see any adjectives like, "Scratchbuilt, modeler assembled, non-commercial," or similar in the title of the magazine.
Applying the reasoning implied in the original question, maybe MR shouldn't have reported on the layout at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. After all, it was built by professional model builders under contract. Or is there some dividing line between 'acceptable' professional building and 'unacceptable' professional building? If so, where is it? Who drew it? Lacking an answer, I don't see any problem with MR featuring professionally built layouts any more than I have heartburn about them featuring custom built locomotives.
Back when I was routinely working 60 hours a week, I would have loved to hire a professional to build a layout for me - if I also had had the space and the disposable income. If someone DOES have the space and disposable income, more power to him.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Well said Chuck.
Doesn't matter who made it. It IS a model railroad IN a model railroad magazine. Plenty of car mags feature cars not built by the owner. Should they be excluded too? Seems a bit ridiculous if you ask me.
If you want to go to the extreme they should only feature articles by people that grow their own trees, cut them down, mill them to make scale lumber or mine their own ore to smelt it down into aluminum and brass or drill their own oil wells then refine the oil to make petroleum to break down into plastic then make their own moldes an inject it.......
see where this is going?
Where do you draw the line?
Professional or amatuer built, a layout is still a layout and can offer plenty of entertainment and instruction for all of us.
-G-
I look for articles that inspire, entertain, and present new ideas. This one did all three. I don't care if Jojo the Chimp or Michaelangelo did it.
Enjoy
Paul
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
The mind is like a parachute. It works better when it's open. www.stremy.net
If it becomes a trend.............I'm not for it.
In my experience model railroading has always been one of those hobbies where the focal point is self proficiency across a gamut of skills. The story of any individuals layout being the trials and tribulations involved in acquiring and utilizing those skills. The best part being the unique solutions modelers come up with for various problems we all face with layouts.
However I'd LOVE to see an issue dedicated to nothing but custom builders who do this for a living. I bet they have a great amount of wisdom to distill for the rest of us. Custom builders are modellers who happen to be successful at making a living at it. Good for them. I'd much rather see interviews with the builders of these layouts versus the owners.
Give the owner a sidebar to explain the concept and inspiration, but more detail and insight from these builders would be great.
But should such projects be featured in MR ??? Thats the main question here.
No. It's like an amateur photography magazine featuring photos someone hired a professional photographer to take. What's the point?
Hmmmm....
Well, one could take the position that the layout was built by a modeller, but he got paid for the work. I haven't read the article yet, but I think I would say that if the layout is worthy, and has ideas that the rest of us can use, and might not have thought of, then sure, it should be in there.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
To each their own.
My son will gladly pay for services, or prebuilt things. He wants the end product so he can use it that's what makes him happy.
Me on the other hand I'm exactly the opposite. I want to build it with my own two hands. For me not only is it a sense of pride but I know it is built right and I know how to take it apart if I have to.
There are plenty people out there that don't want to take the time, and have the cash, to have someone else do the labor. They want to operate the end product and that's what they enjoy.
So I say to everyone, to each their own. I'll build mine and take a lifetime to do it, that's what I enjoy. Everyone else do what you want.
Remember this hobby is suppose to be fun!
Bill
Sure, I agree that with certain constraints, contracted layouts would be the way to go... But, I also think such layouts should be featured elsewhere, ie. company's website. I pay (subscribe) so I can see whats new in the MR world, learn new techniques, and see what people are building. I don't care what some company built. Next month I'm hiring Donald Trump to build a hotel in my downtown area. I figured I'd never be able to design one quite like he could.
OTOH, it seems the hobby is taking a huge turn to RTR equipment. I'm sure MR is just trying to cater to everyone. When are they gonna start to offer operators for our layouts. I just don'y have the time or money to run/operate my layout by myself.
mike
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
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Not all people have the time or skill to build a layout, but they like to run trains. For them they would rather pay someone to do the work for them.
No different then lots of other hobbies.
Take R/C for example. I know plenty of guys that love to fly but can't or dislike building the aircraft . They gladly pay others to do this for them.
or
Car enthusiasts. Lots of guys pay someone to build or restore a classic car/hot rod for them since they lack the skills/time/tools/space to do it themselves.
Does this make either of the guys in my examples less of a hobbyist? I don't think so.
It all comes down to what you want to do. If a guy has lots of money and little time then let him pay to have the layout of his dreams built. I'm certainly not going to think less of him because of it. That's their choice. Think of all the things you don't like to do and pay to have others do for you. I am perfectly capable of cutting my own grass but I HATE doing it so I pay someone else to do it. That's my choice. Does that make me less of a homeowner than my neighbor who's always out mowing his yard and making it look like a golf course? No. The same is true for our hobby. There are so many facets to it that the odds of something (or bunch of somethings) not appealing to the model RR are bound to crop up. That's why there are guys/companies out there that will build your layout for you.
Lastly think about the fact that time is money. Think of all the time you spent working on your layout. Now think about the cost of that time either in real dollars or lost opportunities to do something else. The time you spent and the lost opportunities all have a cost. You chose to spend that working on your railroad. Others choose to spend on having that work done for them so they can do other things.
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 don't have alot of time myself and space has always been at a premium do to my work. I've been working on a 4X8 layout for almost 3 years and I'm just now starting to ballast the track and start putting scenery on it. Is this what the Hobby has come to a true RTR including layouts?? Maybe I just have old fashioned views on this, what do you folks think of this article or idea??