reklein wrote:Any of you guys remembeer Trains magazine? It was meant for the novice and had tons of plans and building articles. I specially liked the ones by E.L.Moore.One of the reasons I've kept all my MRs over the years was the the building articles and plans never seemed to get obsolete. Yeah we've got new glues and materials(styrene,gator board,foam etc) but the methods and plans are still there.Now that was almost 50 yrs ago for me. TV was just becoming available in my area,rural MT, and even Arthur C. Clarke hadn't envisioned video games, the internet, 3D modeling and all that stuff. Plus modelrailroading was a hobby where you built your own equipment, not like baseball or football where you could BUY everything. So now whats happening? Does the Mr.staff have a demographic that shows that buying into the hobby is more popular than building? And is that the reason for the current trend?
Any of you guys remembeer Trains magazine? It was meant for the novice and had tons of plans and building articles. I specially liked the ones by E.L.Moore.One of the reasons I've kept all my MRs over the years was the the building articles and plans never seemed to get obsolete. Yeah we've got new glues and materials(styrene,gator board,foam etc) but the methods and plans are still there.
Now that was almost 50 yrs ago for me. TV was just becoming available in my area,rural MT, and even Arthur C. Clarke hadn't envisioned video games, the internet, 3D modeling and all that stuff. Plus modelrailroading was a hobby where you built your own equipment, not like baseball or football where you could BUY everything.
So now whats happening? Does the Mr.staff have a demographic that shows that buying into the hobby is more popular than building? And is that the reason for the current trend?
You may mean Model Trains, Linn Westcott kinda headed that one, I have some, they are kinda geared for newbies but enough for the skilled gustos to be interesting.
I thought there was a mag out geared more for the skilled hobbyist...anyways..
My layout you can't buy a lot for what I have to do, a lot has to be hand made because the market don't have it. Or its expensive.
if I may, I'd like to spin this thought to a different angle...
As a new modeller, the scratch build has hinestly been a rather overwhelming fear. I can recognize that something isn't right, that it isn't the protoype I'm wanting to capture. But I have tried, and can't even modify an RTR to become closer to what I want, let alone scratch.
I have some of the old issues, and enjoy reading them. But I've skipped the Scratch sections, because I don;t have the talent. Practice may be key, but it becomes discouraging when one can;t get to sheets of styrene to stick together. But after reading these 3 pages, I'm starting to want to try again. as a new modeller, I'm wiling to try it out. Sure, I don't need anything so overly complicated as a schematic for a Big Boy, but a crossing tower might be a neatway to start off and keep us less experianced in. And thanks for relighting a discouraged flame guys.
As a newb, may I ask a simple question then? What counts as scratch building for some? If I buy wall sections as the DPM to build a model of the Indy Union Station? Does that coubt? or should I may brick from Styrene? I think that should be clarifed to help not chaee off new modellers.
-Morgan
Flashwave wrote: if I may, I'd like to spin this thought to a different angle... As a new modeller, the scratch build has hinestly been a rather overwhelming fear. I can recognize that something isn't right, that it isn't the protoype I'm wanting to capture. But I have tried, and can't even modify an RTR to become closer to what I want, let alone scratch. I have some of the old issues, and enjoy reading them. But I've skipped the Scratch sections, because I don;t have the talent. Practice may be key, but it becomes discouraging when one can;t get to sheets of styrene to stick together. But after reading these 3 pages, I'm starting to want to try again. as a new modeller, I'm wiling to try it out. Sure, I don't need anything so overly complicated as a schematic for a Big Boy, but a crossing tower might be a neatway to start off and keep us less experianced in. And thanks for relighting a discouraged flame guys. As a newb, may I ask a simple question then? What counts as scratch building for some? If I buy wall sections as the DPM to build a model of the Indy Union Station? Does that coubt? or should I may brick from Styrene? I think that should be clarifed to help not chaee off new modellers.
For me, scratch building is when a modeler buys materials and components and creates a model. It's a little analogous to baking a cake: A cake from a bakery is ready to run, a cake mix is like a kit (everything you need in one package, pre-measured, with instructions), A scratch cake means you acquire materials and provide skill to assemble and finish - but you may use a recipe.
My suggestion for learning to scratch build is to try a few craftsman kits. That way you'll get the right materials and some instructions to guide you step by step. Then try a simple project on your own - maybe following along with an old magazine article. If you can, go to train shows and talk to the modelers there - you'll learn a ton.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
Flashwave, you hit the nail on the head! Start simple, bite off what you can chew. This is exactly the type of stuff we used to see regularly in MR. I built this over the course of two evenings, fudging the plans from available photos. It's built from styrene pieces, scrap windows from another kit, and some Plastruct stair parts. Dipping your toes in doesn't have to be overwhelming.
The DPM modulars can be bashed into just about anything, too. I would consider that more of a kitbash than a scratch build, but the basic premise is the same...
Again, I can't emphasize enough how inspiring this thread has been for me. I really appreciate the thoughtful feedback!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Flashwave, your question is at the cusp of the point where so many of these discussions take a nasty turn. Each of us uses "something" else to generate what we need. For some of us, that is merely money. For others, that is hacking off branches and picking weeds. I don't think any one of us will claim to mine his own metals, but nothing would surprise me...that's how niggly it can get when the one-upmanship of ego-manifestation feels it must make itself known. And God knows this hobby has egos.
My point is that, unless we really do mine our own metals and smelt them, we all rely on the efforts of some other entity, organism, or natural process to gain what we need to have fun in the hobby. That may be the weed and branch, the sheets of styrene, or the lightly weathered locomotives that Bachmann is selling this very day.
That is why several of us bleat, against a seeming noisy gale, that there should be room for all of us, with our several abilities and interests, in this hobby. And, bless his heart, Lee has stated as much in his opening question several pages back.
Yes, very much, you bet.
-Crandell
Yes, Crandell, and that street runs both ways... there should be room for us inveterate researchers and scratch builders at the table, too...
Your extension to the other logical extreme (mining your own metal) is just as ridiculous as mine (calling yourself a fisherman because you stop at the seafood market on your way home from the boat...) I believe most of us have a degree of common sense that helps us know generally where the lines are drawn.
selector wrote:...For some of us, that is merely money. For others, that is hacking off branches and picking weeds. I don't think any one of us will claim to mine his own metals, but nothing would surprise me...
...For some of us, that is merely money. For others, that is hacking off branches and picking weeds. I don't think any one of us will claim to mine his own metals, but nothing would surprise me...
Wait, so you're telling me that the modeler's skill test of being let loose in a forest with an xacto knife and/or razor saw with the expectation that in 3 weeks you come walking (or limping) out of said remote forest with an accurate scale representation of <fill in the blank here> is now definct?!
and I was so close to being able to do that too....
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
I have to agree with all of you completely.
Another similar story, was when reading an issue of Classic Toy Trains, maybe last year (my aunt renews the subscription each year), there was a pretty nice highrail layout. I was impressed until I realized he hired a custom builder to come and design the layout to fit in the room, and build it, contributing only scenic ideas. I understand CTT is for toy trains, and not a "modeler" magazine, but to have a layout featured in a magazine that you yourself didn't build?
Alex
I feel that I have to chime in here. I've only been in the hobby for alittle over a year, and have been buying MR and other mags, as soon as they hit the shelves. The entire reason that I got into the hobby was because of the scratchbuilding, that is something I enjoy. I found a hobby shop that had alot of old mags that was for sell, and I bought boxes upon boxes of them and started reading. I figured that if I was going to learn how to do anything in this hobby, I should learn it from the ones that prefected it, made it what it is today.
I have noticed the lack of scratchbuilding articles and also the electronic how to's. Even as young as I am, I understand the change. With the way that the hobby has become so commercialized, you have to make your sponsers happy. What they are producing is what you push. Without the sponsers there wouldn't be a MR. So unfortunately I do understand. With saying that I would love to see some more scratchbuilding and electronic articles.
Maybe I'm naive but I plan to scratchbuild every structure on my layout, and also build every pc board. It gives me that satisfaction that "this is mine and only mine".
All of this, is just my own opinion, but even with or without a magazine to help with scratchbuilding, there is always going to be scratchbuilding.
Norman....
Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. The reason I ask that is that a number of scratchbuilders have stated on this forum that they like to scratch build because they can be creative and build unique structures to fit the space rather than adjusting the space to accomodate the structure. Don't you lose both of those when you scratch build from somebody else's plan. If you follow the plans, you have no more flexibility than a kit builder would have. You also lose the uniqueness in that your structure is going to look like the others that followed that same plan. Granted, there won't be as much duplication as there is with kits builds, but it won't be unique either.
Also, for the dedicated prototype modeler, what are the chances that any of the plans are going to be for a structure that belongs on their layout.
At one time, scratchbuilding was a necessity because of the lack of quality kits available but that is no longer a problem. A wide variety of kits are available that can be painted and weathered to look good on any layout. Kitbashing and add-on details allow the kit builder to create outstanding structures. Even the prebuilts are coming preweathered although I do like to dress them down a little bit with my own weathering powder. MR's decision to drop these articles seems to be a recognition that scratchbuilders are becoming an ever smaller percentage of the modeling community. The hobby has changed and the editorial decision by MR has reflected that. For those who are still committed to scratchbuilding and are interested in those types of articles, RMC still caters to those interests. MR seems to me to be more geared to the general modeling world, while scratchbuilding has become a niche interest.
jecorbett wrote: Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature.
Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature.
I like to see them and I do read them as they give me ideas. The actual plans are not significant to me although I look at them for spacial relationships sometimes. What is more important to me is learning the construction techniques and short-cuts people use. These are skills I can incorporate into my own efforts.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
selector wrote: My point is that, unless we really do mine our own metals and smelt them, we all rely on the efforts of some other entity, organism, or natural process to gain what we need to have fun in the hobby. That may be the weed and branch, the sheets of styrene, or the lightly weathered locomotives that Bachmann is selling this very day.-Crandell
Crandell, this is rather surprising to hear from you, gievn that you are our resident voice of reason. I don't know that anybody really would deny that even scratchbuilding relies mostly on commercial parts. Oh, sure, every now and again you hear of the guy who scracthbuilt every part of his loco but the wheels, but, as Lee says, any reasonable person would consider scratchbuilding to start somewhere after the metal was smelted or the trees cut down. That argument seems more like the typical "blocking strategy" than a cogent argument.
When I was doing HOn3 so many years ago, I used to scratchbuild from photos. I'd find a door, a window, or a person standing next to the structure, and then scale the whole thing from that. It was usually a best-guess than an exact replica, but it worked for me. I used pre-sized lumber, milled wood siding, and commercial windows and doors. Yet I would still call it scratchbuilding in its intended sense.
But the real argument here, if I'm reading Lee correctly, is that MR used to feature more of that kind of modeling than today. I don't think scratchbuilding will ever go away (to address the VHS analogy) because there will always be modelers wanting a specific structure or car that is not commercially available. Now, whether MR choses to show modelers that there's an option beyond off-the-shelf is the issue at stake.
I agree 100% with Lee, and I don't feel this is judgemental at all. By chosing to ignore that entire aspect of the hobby, MR will ultimately do a disservice to the modeler by not showing that there can be more beyond simply opening a box and plopping something on the layout.
OTOH, RMC stands in a position whereby it may finally be able to capture a big share of the market from MR, that being the more craftsman-oriented modelers. RMC used to always play second-fiddle to MR, and probably will still do so, but I'm buying RMC again, whereas I hadn't for many years. And that's essentially what Hal Carstens had intended... for the Craftsman part of Railroad Model Craftsman to be where it distinguishes itself from MR.
To depart on a positive note, MR's focus on operation has been very helpful to me, as has its focus on DCC. I can see how someone in the construction phase of the layout might be disappointed, but for a guy like me, relatively new to DCC and looking to operate beyond 'roundy-round, the operations and DCC aspect of MR is something I won't get in any other pub.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
There are hobbyists who like to make things, railroad modelers. There are others who like to accumulate stuff and run it. I'm a model builder and get satisfaction out of making something with my own two hands, and later taking photos of it.
I previously reference to a lumberyard that I scratchbuilt from plans in MR. I don't recall the specifics, but think the article was mostly plans and photos of the prototype - I didn't follow anyone else's construction practices. I modified one part of a structure from the plans to better suit the area it would be placed in on my modules.
I modify/change/add to kits that I've assembled to make them "mine". Buying the latest premade gizmo just isn't the same.
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
I've used those plans for everything from working on my Cumberland station down to photocopying them and watercoloring them for backgrounds.
There's also the ability to take the plans that are close to what you want, and modifying them before you start cutting styrene or wood. When they include floor plans, they can help you understand how the building functioned, and therefore what details should go where... (roof vents over the bathroom, Coke machine outside the waiting room, time clock next to the staff door, that sort of thing)
Obviously there's a lot of features in a monthly magazine that aren't going to interest everyone, or even a majority. I usually skim right past anything that involves building a circuit. The question remains, what is the objective of Model Railroader? Is it to help people expand their horizons? Or to peddle the wares of their advertisers?
jecorbett wrote: Let me pose this question to the scratch builders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. The reason I ask that is that a number of scratch builders have stated on this forum that they like to scratch build because they can be creative and build unique structures to fit the space rather than adjusting the space to accommodate the structure. Don't you lose both of those when you scratch build from somebody else's plan. If you follow the plans, you have no more flexibility than a kit builder would have. You also lose the uniqueness in that your structure is going to look like the others that followed that same plan. Granted, there won't be as much duplication as there is with kits builds, but it won't be unique either.Also, for the dedicated prototype modeler, what are the chances that any of the plans are going to be for a structure that belongs on their layout.At one time, scratch building was a necessity because of the lack of quality kits available but that is no longer a problem. A wide variety of kits are available that can be painted and weathered to look good on any layout. Kitbashing and add-on details allow the kit builder to create outstanding structures. Even the prebuilts are coming preweathered although I do like to dress them down a little bit with my own weathering powder. MR's decision to drop these articles seems to be a recognition that scratchbuilders are becoming an ever smaller percentage of the modeling community. The hobby has changed and the editorial decision by MR has reflected that. For those who are still committed to scratchbuilding and are interested in those types of articles, RMC still caters to those interests. MR seems to me to be more geared to the general modeling world, while scratchbuilding has become a niche interest.
Let me pose this question to the scratch builders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. The reason I ask that is that a number of scratch builders have stated on this forum that they like to scratch build because they can be creative and build unique structures to fit the space rather than adjusting the space to accommodate the structure. Don't you lose both of those when you scratch build from somebody else's plan. If you follow the plans, you have no more flexibility than a kit builder would have. You also lose the uniqueness in that your structure is going to look like the others that followed that same plan. Granted, there won't be as much duplication as there is with kits builds, but it won't be unique either.
At one time, scratch building was a necessity because of the lack of quality kits available but that is no longer a problem. A wide variety of kits are available that can be painted and weathered to look good on any layout. Kitbashing and add-on details allow the kit builder to create outstanding structures. Even the prebuilts are coming preweathered although I do like to dress them down a little bit with my own weathering powder. MR's decision to drop these articles seems to be a recognition that scratchbuilders are becoming an ever smaller percentage of the modeling community. The hobby has changed and the editorial decision by MR has reflected that. For those who are still committed to scratchbuilding and are interested in those types of articles, RMC still caters to those interests. MR seems to me to be more geared to the general modeling world, while scratchbuilding has become a niche interest.
Regarding the usefulness of the articles, they were/are very helpful, because they provide insight into techniques that are useful in other cases. There is also a lot of scratch-bashing that goes on, in which portions of detailed construction articles are combined to create something different, or structures are resized or rearranged to fit a certain situation. It is significant that these articles and the technical drawings are falling by the journalistic wayside.
I believe that the hobby is seeing the same changes that we see in other hobbies. I'm a street rod guy and I've noticed that many more professionally built rods are showing up at car shows (shown by the proud owners who simply bought them). It used to be that cars and model trains were process hobbies - we were involved because we love the process of creating something our own way. The evolution seems to be leading these hobbies in the direction of possession hobbies in which there is some satisfaction in simply possessing a completed street rod or model railroad. For me, there is little satisfaction in possession hobbies, but there must be for some folks - Model Railroader's May feature on a purchased layout had me thinking "Do I really have anything in common with this hobbyist?" I can't bring myself to refer to him as a modeler.
I get concerned that this evolution may cause the market for some important supplies to dwindle. That might make it tough to keep being the kind of modeler I am, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime (I figure I'm good for another 20-30 years). I do wonder if in 10 years I'll go to a train show and find that the whole thing is about buying RTR this and RTR that and that the interest in scratch building and craftsman kits will have dropped to practical non-existence. It saddens me to think that may be the future, but if those folks of the future find satisfaction in it - I guess it's OK. It is certainly not my place to decide what brings pleasure to someone else.
If the magazine chooses to cater to RTR hobbyists, so be it. What they publish has never dictated what I do as a modeler. I'm grateful for what I learned in the bygone era, but they have a business to run. If anyone should understand how technology and financial climates usher in change, model railroaders should. Significant changes happen in our prototypes at a remarkably fast pace - 100 years ago the piston valve was on the horizon, now there is talk of fully automated trains (no engineer on board). Should we not expect changes of similar magnitude in our hobby, with its hallmark periodical leading the way? Objectively, I think we have to admit that we've seen this coming.
That said, we don't have to like it or participate in it. There are other magazines, other forums, and plenty of traditional modelers to maintain a wealth of shared knowledge and hopefully maintain a market for our supplies. We can continue to do our thing our way, and we can welcome newcomers into the fold. If there is really a market for it, perhaps a new magazine dedicated to traditional ways of model railroading will be created (although, there already are a couple of good ones).
In closing this diatribe, I'll simply state that I feel a sense of having been betrayed by Model Railroader Magazine. I feel that I have been a loyal reader. I patronize some of its advertisers and I've sung its praises - although, not recently. I now feel that Model Railroader is turning its back on the very modelers who made it the prominent publication that it is. Business is business, but that's just not right.
My subscription renewal will not be in the mail.
wm3798 wrote: Obviously there's a lot of features in a monthly magazine that aren't going to interest everyone, or even a majority. I usually skim right past anything that involves building a circuit. The question remains, what is the objective of Model Railroader? Is it to help people expand their horizons? Or to peddle the wares of their advertisers?Lee
I think the truthful answer is both. Kalmbach is first and foremost a business. If it doesn't prosper as a business, it will cease to function in the other areas. Subscriptions pay only a small share of the bills. Most revenue comes from their advertisers so they must keep those people happy. At the same time, they have to control costs, which means a fixed amount of space for content. Within that space, they can't be all things to all people. They have to determine who their target readership is going to be. To what extent that decision is influenced by the interests of their advertisers, we can only guess.
MR has made the decision to target the widest possible audience while RMC's content seems to me geared to the craftsman as their name would indicate. Twenty years ago, I didn't see as much difference in the content of the two magazines but now they seem to be diverging into different directions. It's true that MR no longer seems interested in presenting scratchbuilding material. On the other hand, have you ever seen RMC do a 4X8 project railroad. MR is going to be more relevant to the newbies while RMC is going to be of more interest to the highly skilled modeler. Both carry content that will be of interest to most of us who like me, fall somewhere in between those two extremes. There's something for all of us. You just aren't going to get it from a single publication any more.
Dave, what you quoted of mine was my way of reminding all readers of two things: first, that these topics tend to draw passionate and pent-up ire from even the most controlled responders, particularly as the topic gets further along.
Secondly, each of us uses something, and draws on the work of others, to get "satisfaction" as we define it at a given stage of our development and interest. For some of us, that will be solidly RTR. For some, metal brass blocks or sheets will be indicated.
As I have stated elsewhere, there is room for all of us, and the rest of that comment, which I feel Lee misunderstood (may very well be my way of using words, so no fault suggested except that it be mine) was a way of saying that I felt his way of doing model railroading belongs as much as mine, and I acknowledged that it was his central premise of the thread. If the magazine can meet the needs of the neophyte in all its guises, why can't it also find room for those who have "earned their stripes" for want of a better descriptor. And I agree with him.
But, as happens frequently, these discussions do, almost to a one, degenerate into name calling and suggestions that one side or the other in the inevitable polarity that develops is too rigid and intolerant. I can see it building in responses that came after my last.
Keep the lid on it, please, and don't be so testy folks. I was expressing a middle ground, and still feel the heat. I was being conciliatory, if clumsily expressive, and still find folks wanting to tackle me.
Lighten up!
Crandell, I'm not sure which post you're referring to... I think this entire thread has been very civil and enlightening...
selector wrote: I was expressing a middle ground, and still feel the heat. I was being conciliatory, if clumsily expressive, and still find folks wanting to tackle me.
I was expressing a middle ground, and still feel the heat. I was being conciliatory, if clumsily expressive, and still find folks wanting to tackle me.
Fair enough. I understand what you're getting at. I don't think this thread has gotten as angry as I might have expected, and for that, I commend my fellow posters.
Many of us are passionate about this because seeing MR changing in this way, inevitable or not, is like losing an old friend. Whereas I used to wear out each month's issue to tatters before the next came, now I can pretty much finish it in an evening, and expect not to refer back to it during future modeling. Too bad. Much, if not most, of what's on my layout now was influenced by MR from a few years ago and back. The most recent issues have little of that "meat" that Lee gets at.
I should have seen this coming... Several years ago Terry Thompson did an editorial in which he compared model railroading to RC boats and planes. Since hobbyists can come home from the shop and fly a plane or sail a boat right out of the box that very day, he opined, how can model railroading compete? The answer, as he saw it, was to push ready-to-run to its limits, in hopes of capturing the instant-gratification crowd and also to lose fewer new hobbyists to frustration when the layout turns out be an overwhelming project.
I see nothing "sinister" in what Terry said... there's much truth in it. But MR has definitely followed that ideology lately, trying to reduce as much as possible the amount of time and effort required to get to the layout operations part of the hobby. But in doing so, it seems, leaves many of us proces-based modelers trackside, as the outcome-based express rolls past.
I apologize if this sounds judgemental, but I'm very passionate about this. I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.
Has anyone considered that MR is just following the trend of the readership?
I fly RC as another hobby. Years ago (about the same timeline as Model Railroader) the RC mags always had several construction articles in each issue about building a model from plans or from scratch. Over the years these build articles have gone away. Today the preference is for ARF (almost ready to fly). Why? Because modelers today have limited time to devoted to building. I think the same is true for model railroading. A quick walk thru your local hobbyshop will present you with dozens and dozens of pre-built structures. These obviously sell well and provide the modeler with "instant gratification".
I'm sure that an very good percentage of MR readers fit into the "limited time" available category. They don't have the time to sit down and research a particular structure, make plans, obtain the necessary materials and start building. MR has to follow what the readership wants or else they're not going to sell magazines. Like it or not, todays world has consumers and hobbyists that want it now and just don't want to wait or take the time to develop the skills. This is true with every hobby or interest.
How many of you like RTR rolling stock or locos? I bet almost all of you do. Sure it's fun to build a piece of rolling stock every now and then but if you have a fleet of 100 box cars building, painting, decaling and weathering every single one would quickly become tedious and boring. The same is true of structures. How long would it take for you to build all the structures you needed for your layout if you had to build each and every one from scratch? My guess is there would be very few of you left in the hobby.
Every hobby I'm involved in has lamented the loss of the skill base with the coming or pre-made items (planes, trains or automobiles). it's a fact we're going to have to live with. If you're truly dedicated to scratch building then you will find a way.
-G-
I would like to second the points Crandell is making. There is a long stream of processes that go into turning raw materials into a finished layout. The difference among us is at one point we choose to enter that stream. No modeler I have ever been aware of steps in at the beginning of the process. No one turns raw materials into components for scratchbuilding structures and rolling stock. Does anyone mill there own scale lumber? Does anyone mold their own window and door castings? Does anyone suggest that these people are not modelers because they take advantage of materials others have produced? Of course not. But there are some who seem to suggest that those of us who choose to enter the water a little farther downstream are not real modelers. If you go a little farther down the stream, you find the kit builders and bashers. These are the people who buy shake the box kits and may or may not customize them with extra details.
Lately, we see more and more modelers who take advantage of the availability RTR locos and rolling stock and prebuilt structures. And I have no qualms about calling these people modelers. Whereas a scratchbuilder takes advantage of manufactured components to build a unique structure, the RTR modeler buys ready made structures to compose completed scenes. Both approaches utilize a creative process.
Lastly there are those who choose to have others build there layouts. Even these people get involved in the process. It might be as much as presented a builder with the plans and writing or check or simply presenting the builder with a concept and asking him to do both the design and construction, but even those people have significant input into the final product.
I make the analogy to someone who wants to make a cross country trip. If you want to get there fast, you fly. If you want to enjoy the journey, you take the train. Most people choose to fly simply because they don't have the time for the train. We all have options as to how we get to where we want to go and we all make different choices. What's wrong with that?
Dave Vollmer wrote: I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies.
I like model railroading a lot, even when I have to do it in N-scale. But I cannot see devoting all my energy to it except in short, dedicated bursts. My value system requires that I devote some time to my family, job, and spirituality from time to time.
Dave Vollmer wrote:... I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.
... I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.
Dave, even your process is an outcome for you because it is a means to the end of achieving "success" and enjoyment as you define it. It is a vessel for your passion, but your statement at the front of this quote is, to my way of seeing it, broad and exclusive of those who merely dabble...whatever that term means. A person who buys everything, and who merely arranges it so that it resembles a model railroad is not a model railroader the way I see it. But they are included in the hobby, and that is what the magazine serves. At the other extreme, someone driven to craft every visible item on his layout should not expect much substance in the contents of MR for what he does.
There is a middle ground, but even then it may not be a smart business decision to adopt the middle ground as the basis on which to keep the magazine viable. What generates the revenue? Exclusively sellers of scratch-buliding supplies? No, it is the advertising from manufacturers of things that induce people to purchase those self same things.
But, and this will be my last contribution, I do feel that the magazine should occasionally reach out to all its hobby members in a meaningful way...if for no other reason than to be good stewards of the hobby, including by way of educating the newer and less adventurous members that there is more development out there for them if they should want it. That means, describing it in easy terms, and then showcasing it.
Lee, I hope I have managed to state, in that last paragraph, what I think you are driving at...or some of it, anyway. For the record, I do not disagree.
SpaceMouse wrote: jecorbett wrote: Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. I like to see them and I do read them as they give me ideas. The actual plans are not significant to me although I look at them for spacial relationships sometimes. What is more important to me is learning the construction techniques and short-cuts people use. These are skills I can incorporate into my own efforts.
The plans give me a general idea of how the item looks and the basic construction. I usually alter them to suit my needs or make my own based on the published plans. It's MUCH easier to alter a plan than to kitbash. These articles in the old MRs were and still are useful to me. I no longer subscribe to MR due to the fact there are very few articles of interest to me. The Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette, RMC, and LID are my bibles when it comes to unbiased construction articles.
SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I like model railroading a lot, even when I have to do it in N-scale. But I cannot see devoting all my energy to it except in short, dedicated bursts. My value system requires that I devote some time to my family, job, and spirituality from time to time.
I know there's a nugget of humor to your response, but it does point out to me that I need to clarify what I meant...
I don't mean "model railroad to the exclusion of all else." But I do mean that when I'm working on the layout, I'm 100% committed to that project at that time (until kids, wife, job, other hobbies, etc., call me back to the real world). But I've been described as an "intense" person before. I'm never completely satisfied with my work. I have to be very careful not to extend that philosophy to parenting and marriage, but it has served me well in my work and my hobbies. Continual process improvement.
Dave Vollmer wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I like model railroading a lot, even when I have to do it in N-scale. But I cannot see devoting all my energy to it except in short, dedicated bursts. My value system requires that I devote some time to my family, job, and spirituality from time to time. I know there's a nugget of humor to your response, but it does point out to me that I need to clarify what I meant...I don't mean "model railroad to the exclusion of all else." But I do mean that when I'm working on the layout, I'm 100% committed to that project at that time (until kids, wife, job, other hobbies, etc., call me back to the real world). But I've been described as an "intense" person before. I'm never completely satisfied with my work. I have to be very careful not to extend that philosophy to parenting and marriage, but it has served me well in my work and my hobbies. Continual process improvement.
Of course I was joking, even about the scale. But I also knew what you meant. I too figure anything doing is worth doing to the best of my abilities, even if my skills are not up to master levels.
And as an aside to Jcorbett. I can't stand paying for strip wood. The best investment I made was a mini-table saw so I could mill my own lumber.
Except it doesn't do very well below HO scale.
jecorbett wrote: Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. The reason I ask that is that a number of scratchbuilders have stated on this forum that they like to scratch build because they can be creative and build unique structures to fit the space rather than adjusting the space to accomodate the structure. Don't you lose both of those when you scratch build from somebody else's plan. If you follow the plans, you have no more flexibility than a kit builder would have. You also lose the uniqueness in that your structure is going to look like the others that followed that same plan. Granted, there won't be as much duplication as there is with kits builds, but it won't be unique either.
Those articles were indeed very useful and were widely employed by the serious model railroaders of the day. I can say that I've personally cataloged most of the scratchbuilding articles in MR from the 50's onwards and have built numerous examples. Several of these structures garnered awards in NMRA regional contests, before gracing my layout. And since every modeler has his own "style" of building, I can't say I recall seeing any two scratchbuilt structures that truly looked exactly alike, even when based on the same set of plans.
Incidentally, for those new to the hobby, be advised that a goodly percentage of those old major scratchbuilding structure projects from MR were employed by the manufacturers in creating plastic kits. The same was true for the locomotive diagrams. When MR dropped these sorts of features, they lost one of the magazine's most valuable assets for attracting the serious hobbyist. That decision is at least partially responsible for the drastic decline of MR's circulation figures and its popularity over the past dozen years.
CNJ831
selector wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote:... I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.Dave, even your process is an outcome for you because it is a means to the end of achieving "success" and enjoyment as you define it. It is a vessel for your passion, but your statement at the front of this quote is, to my way of seeing it, broad and exclusive of those who merely dabble...whatever that term means. A person who buys everything, and who merely arranges it so that it resembles a model railroad is not a model railroader the way I see it. But they are included in the hobby, and that is what the magazine serves. At the other extreme, someone driven to craft every visible item on his layout should not expect much substance in the contents of MR for what he does.There is a middle ground, but even then it may not be a smart business decision to adopt the middle ground as the basis on which to keep the magazine viable. What generates the revenue? Exclusively sellers of scratch-buliding supplies? No, it is the advertising from manufacturers of things that induce people to purchase those self same things.But, and this will be my last contribution, I do feel that the magazine should occasionally reach out to all its hobby members in a meaningful way...if for no other reason than to be good stewards of the hobby, including by way of educating the newer and less adventurous members that there is more development out there for them if they should want it. That means, describing it in easy terms, and then showcasing it.Lee, I hope I have managed to state, in that last paragraph, what I think you are driving at...or some of it, anyway. For the record, I do not disagree.-Crandell
Maybe it's the diplomatic wording, but I'm almost having trouble deciphering whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or both... But I understand you're trying to extract yourself from this thread so I won't belabor it...
I don't mean to be exclusive of certain groups as it pertains to who should or should not be catered to in MR. I do have personal opinions on what does and does not constitute model railroading, but expressing those here would be devisive and likely alienate me... There's a time for brutal honesty and this ain't it. This has still been pretty civil, in spite of the odds.
But I agree that all aspects of the hobby should be covered by the hobby's leading "gateway" magazine, for two reasons. The first is to maintain long-time loyal readership. And the other is to expose new modelers to every aspect of the hobby from RTR to craftsmanship and back again, so that new modelers can make more informed choices about how they can chose to enjoy this great hobby.
Dave Vollmer wrote:I apologize if this sounds judgemental, but I'm very passionate about this. I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.
Dave, I appreciate your passion as much as I do the fine work you have presented on this forum, but many of us who don't scratchbuild are still devoting our passions to the hobby. It's all a matter of circumstance. I am retired, so I have more time than most modelers but I am also building a very large layout so building most of my structures the old fashioned way simply is not an option. There have been a few modelers who have the skill to produce high quality craftsmanship on a large scale, John Allen and George Selios are two that come to mind and I know there are others. I simply am not that good. To produce craftman quality work is probably going to take me 3 times as long as some of these folks and if I went that route, I'd never come close to finishing my layout. About half my rolling stock and most of the newer stuff is RTR. Most of my structures are built from common kits with little modification. I am starting to use some prebuilts because the quality of these has improved recently and I have even learned to weather them to remove the plastic look. I have a handful of top end craftsman structures which turned out pretty good but again, took an awful long time to complete. I have even done some scratchbuilding if you count an extra long receiving platform I build for my produce warehouse (It isn't very good, but it fills the bill).
I look forward to the day when I can run a train over the entire mainline without it once passing through bare foam or plywood. That day is several years away at least, and when that happens, I'll begin work on the branchline with the same approach I am using now. And if I manage to complete that before I get carried out of the train room horizontally, I might take a serious stab at scratchbuilding and replacing some of the earlier efforts with higher quality work, assuming the mind, the eyes, and the fat fingers are still capable.
One thing that might help you is Evergreen Styrene's book: http://www.evergreenscalemodels.com/Book.htm
Some of the chapters are available as pdf files. The book is $14.95 + $3 for S&H. Well worth the cost.
I wouldn't be particularly worry about how "scratchbuilding" is defined. As one scratchbuilder put it, the primary difference between scratchbuilding and putting together a craftsman kit is that with scratchbuilding, you are the one creating the kit components.
Andre