Great post Doc! If I understand correctly you're saying to stop tweaking when its not fun anymore. If that's what you mean, I agree 100%
Best!
How about a three-dimensional analysis where the z-axis is money? I can think of other factors, but I can't conceptualize in more than three dimensions at a time.
Mark
markpierce wrote: How about a three-dimensional analysis where the z-axis is money? I can think of other factors, but I can't conceptualize in more than three dimensions at a time.Mark
Ah, yes, another critcal initial condition! In fact, it may well be worth adding a third curve for cost, which should follow roughly the same curve as work. Some modelers, however, are lucky enough not to have to concern themselves with money (I wish I could say I were one of them), but I suspect the vast majority might see money as a damping effect.
I imagine that money would certainly affect the starting point and slope of the fun and work curves. More PDE for ya! In other words, with less money, more work must be done to produce the same result, and so the work curve is steeper. Perhaps the fun curve drops off faster too. Hmmm....
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
As long as we're adding dimensions, TIME is always a factor. We all get a standard issue, sixty seconds per minute...
Then, too, there are FAMILY CONSIDERATIONS - an irregular curve, unique for every individual, possibly totally independent of FUN and WORK but probably having a significant influence on TIME and MONEY.
Add in AVAILABILITY (of an RTR model, a basic kit, detail parts...) That would be represented by random numbers, not any kind of smooth curve.
Gets complicated in a hurry, no?
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - to the 100 meter rule)
EDIT! Horrors! I almost forgot JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. How do we quantify that (especially if the modeler goes to work in a military uniform?)
tomikawaTT wrote: EDIT! Horrors! I almost forgot JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. How do we quantify that (especially if the modeler goes to work in a military uniform?)
A common ommission for those retired.
Doc,
One of the limitation of your model is its assumption that 100% prototype fidelity is a universal goal. Not all modelers view the hobby that way.
Not all modelers aspire to be "rivet counters" even though it is well within their capablity to do so.
Just like not all people who are over 6'6" tall play basketball.
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
We can count on Dave V. to come up with good thought starters. That's quite something making a graph like that, Dave.
An economist may add the law of diminishing returns in some fashion to the theory. Hypothetically, a modeler may do a great job building a replica of his favorite type of locomotive, and he will feel a great sense of accomplishment at completion of that model. Suppose, however, he builds a second locomotive identical to the first...... Possibly, he feels less of a sense of accomplishment with the second locomotive. Continuing, he will feel less as he builds more and more models of the same type of locomotive.
But............his prototype had 45 such locomotives of the same class....... Clearly, the fun will run out as he builds more of the same. It's not likely that he will build 45 identical models and feel it's fun each time.
Same goes for the layout. His prototype operated 10,000 miles of railroad. He'll never fit that in the layout room even with Z scale.
To keep the fun up, he practices plausible realism of course. Also, he is highly selective in choosing certain potions of the prototype to replicate.
It all gets back to the modeler who must decide about priorities.
What matters to him or her?
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
You could try to factor in all the additional variables, like time, expense, etc., but "cost" in the Kynesian Economics classical definition, implicitly including opportunity costs, will cover them all.
So, for that matter will "work", in the classic pysics definition.
I take exception to the general shape of the "work" curve. This may be symptomatic for some modellers, but in theory, hobbies should be free and ultimately enjoyable. How close we come to achieving that is a matter of purity and personal pride. I stand in awe of my own ability to reach new pinnacles of achievement in avoiding "work"
I also take exception to the assymptotic nature of both curves.
I firmly believe perfection IS possible, whether anyone ever reaches that standard or not.
And I know for a historical documented fact that perfectly infinite spending, both time and money, on THIS hobby IS equally possible, in fact, even likely.
Finally, it is clear that smaller and smaller details would satisfy the limiting nature of the work curve as originally described. As detail approaches nano-angstroms in size, down to the Nyquist limit where accurate visual detection requires light wavelengths at least twice that of the receptor's minimal ability to discern, the investment return dwindles toward zero. At the same time, details which are orders of magnitude larger, as in O or G scale, similarly drive the work (cost) curve upwards, diminishing the cost/benefit ratio there too.
Clearly, the economies of scale play a part here. Just as clearly, HO > N.
2X.
Thanks, Dave, for your excellent work in proving what most of us knew all along.
;-)
It's an interesting idea, but I don't acccept what appears to be your basic premise. That is work and fun are a zero sum game whereby one decreases as the other increases. I personally find that work and fun can rise together. The limiting factor for me is time. Good enough represents the amount of time I can spend on each item - car, structure, track - while achieving an overall effect yet bulding the whole layout. Money allows me to reduce the time for each item and/or move good enough to the right. The size of the layout forces me to reduce the time spent on each item and moves good enough to the left. If good enough gets too far left to be satisfacory, then the layout is too large for the time I have available or I don't have enough money available to compensate (or some combination of the two).
Case in point. On my last layout I did most of the benchwork with dadoes and some of it with hand cut dovetails and mortise and tenons - all my joints were glued. This was a lot more work, but it was also a lot more fun for me. However, it took too much time in the overall scheme of building the layout. Good enough was exceeded on benchwork, but scenery was never done. So the overall effect was reduced. Time was the issue. My current layout uses simple butt joints. I compensate by using more screws which raises the cost, but overall time is reduced while a satisfactory level of good enough is achieved.
just my thoughts
Enjoy
Paul
Nobody told me there would be story problems...
For me, "time" is a critical variable (well, that and "incompetence"). The less time I have available, or the longer I've been working on a particular project, that "Work" curve tends to steepen sharply and I get a much lower Good Enough critical point, but time away from that same project will flatten the Work curve.
I'm glad Dave did the math already - I last did calculus 20 years ago in college and I completed all 4 semesters of calculus/differential equations in only 5 semesters!
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
As some of you may have suspected, the first post was meant sort of tongue-in-cheek... but what's cool is so many folks ran with it and thought about it!
Paul's right; the major limitation in this "theory" is the idea that work detracts from fun. A case in point for me was the labor of love that was my N scale PRR M1 4-8-2; by far the most ambitious kitbash I'd ever attempted. It was a lot of work, but I enjoyed most of that work. There are practical limitations that aren't the same as work that limit accuracy in such cases (such as lack of access to a lathe to turn new drivers or a boiler, etc.).
There are times when I stop having fun, such as when the valve gear pops apart (as happens often with Spectrum steam in N scale) and I spend an hour putting it back together with tweezers and an Optivisor... or when I'm on my hands and knees looking for that little coupler spring that took flight, wishing I was in G scale where the parts aren't so danged small...
...but those times are not related to prototype accuracy.
As for the premise that not all modelers are looking for prototype accuracy, this theory doesn't really apply to them. "Good enough," as Tony Koester calls it, does relate to accuracy, although it can be applied to freelancers as well (such as Allen McClelland). Where the theory is non-applicable is to the spectrum of modelers to whom faith to prototype practices is not important. For them, "good enough" is more arbitrary and less depedndent upon initial conditions for their "sweet spot."
Dave V opines:
Paul's right; the major limitation in this "theory" is the idea that work detracts from fun.
For a rather complete dissertation on what constitutes fun and what constitutes work, see Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", specifically chapter 2 wherein Aunt Polly assigns Tom to whitewash a fence. The fence gets whitewashed many times over, but not by Tom. Tom discovers a great truth.
Andre
Hi!
May I add another view of "good enough".............
"Good enough" has different meanings to different folks and varies with the task at hand.
In example, my building of a generic structure has a low threshold of "good enough" - as compared to - my building of a replica of Grandmom's trackside house that stands in southern Illinois.
Another example is that I have a very high threshold of "good enough" when doing track laying, but a lower level when detailing the obstructed from view backs of structures.
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Maybe it was intended to be tongue in cheek but this actually is an interesting and perhaps even significant idea, because obviously each person's chart is going to look different and some people's will be nowhere near as symetrical as Dave Vollmer posted. And as Tony Koester has pointed out, Allen McClelland may have originated the notion of "good enough" but actually is such a superb modeler that his stopping short of going all out is still several notches above the norm.
What is significant about Dave V's graph from a commercial aspect it is the extent to which different hobby magazines cater to different graphs. Prototype Modeler is different than Mainline Modeler is different than Model Railroading is different than RMC is different than MR. The NMRA's Scale Rails magazine has made a huge change in its graph under its new leadership of Steven Priest. Obviously this is a calculated decision by each of them and just as obviously, some of them have failed commercially in recent years, more's the pity. Model Railroader for example I suspect has elected a graph that represents the largest number of people who call themselves modelers. It is not a specialty or narrow publication. So the dissatisfaction quotient with any given magazine or hobby product is a a function of where you come out on the Vollmer Scale.
My own Vollmer Scale graph? I am extremely fussy about clean workmanship and scale accuracy. On the other hand, I am extremely untalented and try as I might my work lacks clean perfection so that paint and weathering and Squadron putty have to cover up a multitude of sins. A very sad graph indeed.
Dave Nelson
markpierce wrote: tomikawaTT wrote: EDIT! Horrors! I almost forgot JOB RESPONSIBILITIES. How do we quantify that (especially if the modeler goes to work in a military uniform?)A common ommission for those retired.Mark
Not really unless one's spouse wants to get you out of the house and doing something that brings green stuff (and I am NOT referring to fruits and vegetables ) into the house.
Irv
But who determines what "good enough" means?
It's nice to come up with theories (and in academic circles one is expected to do so practically on a daily basis) but to be practical it's each individual that determines what "good enough" means.
Most of us have artistic streaks that find expression in building model railroads. But just as there are different styles and philosophies of painting landscape or people, ther are different philosophies of model railroading. So if you wnat to build very detailed models of locomotives you may find that operating them may not be possible because of various reasons.
We therefore come back to the concept of good enough. So there are restraints on how we define the term. Some of the restraints are time, money, family resposnibilites and relationships, skills, space, ability and any number of others that people are bound to come up with. But at some point the interaction of all of these do come to some gathering place which you've termed "the sweet spot." But that's not the problem, Dave.
The problem is that what you or I or the next guy consider "the sweet spot," may not be acceptable to others. Sometimes it's jealousy but most of the time it's simply nit picking.
So let's define "nit picking." I once was reading a military modelling magazine and came across a cartoon which showed two modeller's talking about a 54mm figue of a Greek Hoplite. One says to the other:
That's the wrong color of mud between the guy's toes for the Peloponesian Wars."
Now the humour may be lost on some but the jist is that the dirt between the toes of a 54 mm figure is virtually irrelevant to the rest of the figure because it is barely the size of dust spec. So that's nitpicking. And lots of us tend to do it. We may tedn to think we offering constructive criticism, but are we really?
I personnally don't think nitpicking accomplishes much except to encourage people to leave the hobby. And if enough that happens, we may find ourselves alone and thus have to go back to the time when being a model railroader required being able to create everything from scratch.
For me, "good enough" has a somewhat different meaning.
I will spend the lion's share of my time and effort on my trains - locomotive and rolling stock. They are, after all, the "stars" of my layout. I will spend less time and effort on scenery and structures because they are the "supporting cast" as it were. I wouldn't want them to upstage the "stars".
The last thing I want my vistors to do is to say, "Wow! Look at that fantastically detailed warehouse! By the way, did a train just go past here?"
joegideon wrote:I have my brother-in-law. Habitually out of work, he has a beeper that- when I get to that 70-80% point where I am somewhat confused as to whether it IS- or isn't- good enough- I beep. Within 15 minutes, Leon comes a-knockin', tool belt on, an old SX70 in hand... I point at a scene and Leon dives right in. I call him "Ol' Eighty-Per" for short. In a typical "mission", Ol' Eighty will arrive- and within twenty minutes, he'll bring me a Polaroid "proof". My only problem so far has been a certain amount of theft... and I fixed most of that by switching to "G" scale. Incidentally, he gets $1.35 / hr.(I model the transition era).
Hey, I'll give you $1.50 if you can rent him out to me. that 15 cents should be enough to buy you an extra length of snap track at transition era prices.
I believe that one should look to Webster to understand the limits of the model-railroading hobby. It is defined as "a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation."
If you find pleasure and relaxation from your hobby nothing else matters.
I spent an extraordinary amount of time constructing bench work and building models. I bought locomotives for more money than I spent for my first car without any hesitation. I have wasted more time creating details on a scene that even a museum would do which no one but me would ever see.
Am I crazy? Sometimes my wife thinks so. I do it now because it relaxes me.
I will admit that many years ago when I was young I spent my time and money on cigarettes, whiskey and wild-wild women for relaxation but my tastes have changed for the better.
Don't psychoanalyze your hobby just follow it as closely as any other source of pleasure and relaxation "if it feels good do it."
Doc
Dave V wrote-I have a ton of soap-box issues on model railroading, so rather than smack you guys around with them on the forums (as much), I'd put them all in one place.
loathar wrote: Dave V wrote-I have a ton of soap-box issues on model railroading, so rather than smack you guys around with them on the forums (as much), I'd put them all in one place.
Ah, yes, but I have not shared all of my blog nuggets here (see the paranethetical passage above)!
I do also want to point out, as some may have missed, that this concept is on a "per modeler" basis, i.e., "good enough" is defined by the individual modeler's "sweet spot" and not by a larger group consensus.
Unless one is actually building models for other people (such as a custom builder might), one should always define "good enough" based on one's own standards. Building your own models to please someone else often leads to frustration and disappointment.
Remember, it's about fun.
Dave;
Just change fun to reward and work to cost and you can roll all the other variables into them....
And its just as relevant.
Jack W
I have been a long time subscriber to the "good enough" theory of modeling.
Case in point, visually, I need my models to, at first glance, to be what they are supposed to represent. That means a GP-35, for example, has to have 3 fantowers 2 large, one small, the spartian cab, no anti-climbers, symmetric dynamic brake blisters blah blah blah. I'm not too worried about a few scale inches here or there, but, a real deal breaker for me is bad mechanical soundness.
Jerky motion, grinding gears, high starting amperage, too high speed, either low end, or top end, is a no-no! I demand smooth operation, standardized gear ratios (for MU use) and NMRA standard gauge and wheel profiles!
To me nothing is more frustrating that a locomotive or car that is always derailing, hard starting, bad rolling, or just plain badly engineered no matter how well scaled and detailed it is.
I have had a few cars that fall into that catagory. They became kitbash fodder real quick!
I feel that model railroading is about building a mini world, where everything "plays well" together, and not sweat the small details. I (like many) have a job where small details are the difference between right and wrong, (and in my former career, life and death! see my screenname for the why of this concept)
Embrace "good enough"! Like the loop, an occasional "fantasy" paint scheme, or the old standby, a dinosaur as a log skidder, and enjoy a hobby.
Now, where did I put that bottle of O scale fly droppings? I need to put them on the windshield of that custom made WM F-7 to date it for exactly 9:26 a.m. Friday, August 14 1968.
Good idea, Doc. Mine is when I can finally say "I can't do any better, that looks about right." Of course, I'll take a break if it's tedious work. But yeah, if it ain't fun, do something else.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
Heartland Division CBnQ wrote:An economist may add the law of diminishing returns in some fashion to the theory. Hypothetically, a modeler may do a great job building a replica of his favorite type of locomotive, and he will feel a great sense of accomplishment at completion of that model.
TZ .. I'm gald you brought this thread back to the top. It was thought provoking. I like your latest post and all the others. The earler remark on "economy of scale" made me laugh loudly. .............I expect some quadratic equations from the mathmaticians.
Never mind that. I'm behind building my fleet of F3's for the Burlington, and I've got work to do.........until I get the same number the CB&Q had in it's fleet, I ain't prototypical.....
Texas Zepher wrote:And a tangent (had to throw in trig right) to that is the highly detailed model. It is so well done that it causes one great stress to run it on the layout.
What would happen if it derail, run into something, get clipped by another train, or even just be picked up wrong and have one of those details get folded, bent, spindled, or mutilated!
marknewton wrote: Texas Zepher wrote:And a tangent (had to throw in trig right) to that is the highly detailed model. It is so well done that it causes one great stress to run it on the layout. All of my models are very highly detailed, but they cause me no stress when they get run. Why should they?What would happen if it derail, run into something, get clipped by another train, or even just be picked up wrong and have one of those details get folded, bent, spindled, or mutilated!What would happen is they would get repaired. If they were damaged by derailment or collision then I'd take steps to prevent that happening again. If they got picked up wrong I'd tell whoever not to do it that way again! I can't decide if you're being facetious, but if you aren't, presumably you'd be an advocate of models having little or no detail? Litho'ed tinplate might be go for you...Mark.
I think he was being facetious.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
Man...for a few minutes there I was having flash backs to the ole college calculus days!
Tongue and cheek aside, I cannot fathom how you can measure "level of fun", "work expended", "and money spent", and "ribbits" with mathematics or quantum mechanics, but whatever floats your boat or fuels your spacecraft.
In any case, please do not start adding any statistics to this thread, because I will be lost in the explanations between the median, mean and the mode!
Ryan BoudreauxThe Piedmont Division Modeling The Southern Railway, Norfolk & Western & Norfolk Southern in HO during the merger eraCajun Chef Ryan
I have two scales of good enough. Mostly I can make models look really good to the naked eye--at least my naked eye.
Then I take a picture and it looks like a model again.
I think I need to buy a cheaper camera.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote: I have two scales of good enough. Mostly I can make models look really good to the naked eye--at least my naked eye. Then I take a picture and it looks like a model again. I think I need to buy a cheaper camera.
There is as story about how Cliff Grandt scratchbuilt a locomotive (I think it was a Heisler) and sent it to John Allen for his appraisal. John (who was a professional photographer) took photos of the loco and sent the photos and the loco back to Cliff.
Cliff imediately rebuilt the locomotive to fix all of the errors that showed up in John's photos.
Autobus Prime wrote:DV:I believe you have done a great service to the hobby with this "quantitative" analysis of a difficult subject. However, based on my experience in reading steam tables etc. I believe that this chart could be improved to the point of utter incomprehensibility with further reasearch. For instance, here is a start:As you can see, the isobars make it much harder to read, especially once you spill that cup of coffee on it. With careful work, a chart can obscure complicated data in ways that would take many more pages with a table of values.
Well done, sir!
Add to it the fact that as we improve our skills even for the same set of initial conditions our definition of good enough keeps migrating to the right, and we will have achieved complete incomprehensibility.
Autobus
Nice Graph. Couldn't find the triple point, though
If you want to take a probablistic view of the "good enough" concept you could define it as a series of yes-no questions about each facet of model building, ranging from the more general (is it the right scale?) to the more specific (are the rivet patterns correct?). You could ask the modelers the questions in order and record the answers as binary patterns, then graph those answers on a continuum between the lowest number (00000000000000000) and the highest number (11111111111111111111111). Graphing it would probably produce "clouds" different interest levels.
But all that would tell you is the most common amounts of compromise modelers are willing to make. But other than that this whole excercise is a moving target. I might have a different level of "good enough" for track than cars.
The level of "good enough" might also depend on the era or scale you model in. A 50's modeler might be able to achieve a high level of "good enough" because there are literally hundreds if not thousands of choices for rail cars. It is way easier to achieve a higher degree of fidelity because there is more variety. I model the TOC (turnof the century) and there are very few models available so my level of "good enough" is forced to be lower. While a 50's modeler may have 50 or 60 varieties of coal car to choose from, the TOC modeler has but 3 (6 if you include steel hoppers). So while my preferred level of "good enough" may be higher, the market forces me to compromise down.
The concept of "good enough" was formed back when the "average" boxcar was a an Athearn blue box. One also has to consider that since the concept was first put forward, the availability and variety of models has skyrocketed. So what was "good enough" in 1975 might be totally unacceptable today.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
It's really quite simple. "Good enough" happens when you aren't willing to put more time into it.
FWIW
Charlie Comstock
BCSJ wrote: It's really quite simple. "Good enough" happens when you aren't willing to put more time into it.FWIWCharlie Comstock
...not always... I have a few projects in the parts bin that are far from "good enough," but I'm not willing to put any more time into them. These are more like abortive modeling attemps.
Dave Vollmer wrote: BCSJ wrote: It's really quite simple. "Good enough" happens when you aren't willing to put more time into it.FWIWCharlie Comstock ...not always... I have a few projects in the parts bin that are far from "good enough," but I'm not willing to put any more time into them. These are more like abortive modeling attemps.
And you aren't the only one who has that situation.
Don't neglect the unquantifiable factor that everything I do is superior to everything everybody else does in my own mind. Therefore my "good enough" means that my own worst minimum is greater than another's best. (hey, after all I am the Emperor Supreme of my railroad).
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
This is not a big issue. All model railroading is simply and analogy of the real thing. All analogy's eventually break down. An example is HO code 100 versus smaller codes. Were does your analogy break down at?
Some people just like to argue or look down on other's modeling.
We are just "boys" playing with trains. Ask your significant other. They will say we look "cute" playing with our trains.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
No problem with my theory Dave. Those projects were good enough for the closet (or box or trash bin) where they got stashed. Or did you say that the standard of 'good enough' was judged as though for up front and personal at eye level in the location visitors see first when they walk into the layout room and nowhere else?
Ciao baby,
Dave Vollmer wrote: Autobus Prime wrote:DV:I believe you have done a great service to the hobby with this "quantitative" analysis of a difficult subject. However, based on my experience in reading steam tables etc. I believe that this chart could be improved to the point of utter incomprehensibility with further reasearch. For instance, here is a start:As you can see, the isobars make it much harder to read, especially once you spill that cup of coffee on it. With careful work, a chart can obscure complicated data in ways that would take many more pages with a table of values.Well done, sir!Add to it the fact that as we improve our skills even for the same set of initial conditions our definition of good enough keeps migrating to the right, and we will have achieved complete incomprehensibility.
Yes, "well done" ............. A salute to Autobus for clearing this up.
Dave,As another point of view discussed among advanced modelers is:Where do we draw the time line for a given locomotive?
Do we draw that line when the locomotive was new from the plant-in other words shiny and all fresh.
Do we draw that line when the locomotive has seen many months of service and has lost its luster?
Do we draw that line when the locomotive is long over due for a fresh coat of paint?
What details should we add/remove and when should they be added/removed? Let's say we model AB&C..The question we need to ask and find the answers to is when did the shop add A/C to the 444? When was the headlights lowered from above the cab to the nose? Then there is the minute detail such as the crack door glass.Wait! When was 444 converted to a road slug? Or perhaps: What?? 444 was wrecked and scrapped shortly after it was delivered?
Many questions many different time frame answers in the life span of a given locomotive
As we can see there is far more in "accuracy modeling" then just adding the "correct" details.
Of course the above type of modeling is hardcore and many won't take that extra step.
I know I won't and will stop at "close enough/good enough" rather then sweat the minute details..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
OMG you people need to get a life!! Where do you find time to model??
Thanks for starting the post .. it is fun reading.
It is all subjective however, I know that all the curves shift to the left for me as a factor of the time I have been working on a particular scene. Fortunately, after I get away from it for a while it shifts back to the right.
Whatever happened to the idea that a model railroad was a tool with wich to have fun? To bond with offspring or others with similar interests? Why is a railroad with a Burlington Route steam locomotive running on it sub standard to some (rivet counters) because there is no identifiable scenery on the layout through wich the CB&Q ran?
I myself have no background in electronics, design, engineering, art (drawing a straight line with a ruler my thumb generally gets in the way), nothing that would readily enable me to build the kinds of layouts seen in MRM. Everything I have learned I have learned by trial and error. I have probably spent as much on my layout rebuilding it (8 times to date) because "something" didn't turn out right or I got a better idea, as any of the great larger layouts seen in MRM. I just learned what I know the hard way-trial and error.
There was only one small hobby shop in town when I began, and the owner leaned more to repair than anything else. I did learn some from him. Today, there are three places that advertise HO gauge, but not one of the proprieters can answer a technical question. They carry very little in stock and order whatever you want from Walthers. (I can do that at home).
I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever. How about this: Is it good enough for you??? When it comes to my Railroad, Fallen Flags, Inc., if you don't like it you don't have to look. But you know what? I haven't had one person or child tell me they didn't like it. Most didn't want to leave. My one layout covers: ATSF, Burlington, BN, BNSF, UP, SP, D&RGW, NYC, PENNSY, B&O, C&O and AMTRAK, steam and diesel respectively, and all pass the same scenery. GOOD ENOUGH!!!!
AMEN!
trainnut57 wrote:I myself have no background in electronics, design, engineering, art (drawing a straight line with a ruler my thumb generally gets in the way), nothing that would readily enable me to build the kinds of layouts seen in MRM. Everything I have learned I have learned by trial and error. I have probably spent as much on my layout rebuilding it (8 times to date) because "something" didn't turn out right or I got a better idea, as any of the great larger layouts seen in MRM. I just learned what I know the hard way-trial and error.
I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever.
Doctor Dave, Dave Nelson, et.al.--
Your "doc" is exposed.
Better check your gif files and watch your language.
Some of our members here may be sensitive to graphs, plots, and intersecting data.
Autobus Prime wrote: trainnut57 wrote:I myself have no background in electronics, design, engineering, art (drawing a straight line with a ruler my thumb generally gets in the way), nothing that would readily enable me to build the kinds of layouts seen in MRM. Everything I have learned I have learned by trial and error. I have probably spent as much on my layout rebuilding it (8 times to date) because "something" didn't turn out right or I got a better idea, as any of the great larger layouts seen in MRM. I just learned what I know the hard way-trial and error. tn57:Engineers do that too, but they say "empirical methods" for respectability's sake. A lot of the charts we use were come up with over the years by just that trial and error. The analog computer of reality is an excellent analyst in the long run. From what you're telling me, you've done lots of experimenting along the way, and for my money that's the heart of model railroad engineering...that and sharing your mistakes and successes so other people can avoid / repeat them. I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever. DV was being facetious, and maybe poking a little fun at that very tendency to overanalyze. After all, neither his chart nor my obfuscated version has any recognized units anywhere. It's good enough when it's good enough.
Uh... that answer sounds good enough for me!
George
In my own modeling (which applies only to me, and nobody else) I have a dream. At a point on my under-construction layout where the benchwork has yet to be erected, I will model a long, twisting upgrade climb parallel to a fast-flowing river in a steep-sided valley. When it is finished, steam-powered freights will work hard and move slowly to climb it.
At that time, when I look at the results of my efforts from a couple of meters away, I will ask myself, "Does that look like what I saw from the other side of the river between Agematsu and Kiso-Fukushima?"
If the answer is yes, I will have achieved my own, "Good enough."
Chuck (modeling the Upper Kiso Valley of Central Japan in September, 1964)
trainnut57 wrote: I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever. How about this: Is it good enough for you??? When it comes to my Railroad, Fallen Flags, Inc., if you don't like it you don't have to look. But you know what? I haven't had one person or child tell me they didn't like it. Most didn't want to leave. My one layout covers: ATSF, Burlington, BN, BNSF, UP, SP, D&RGW, NYC, PENNSY, B&O, C&O and AMTRAK, steam and diesel respectively, and all pass the same scenery. GOOD ENOUGH!!!!
I imagine you didn't read my follow-up post exposing this as a bit of good-natured humor... But that's okay, because even if I were serious about this, I think it's fun to think of the hobby in terms of science and math. You may not, but that doesn't make my views on the hobby invalid. But I do make it clear throughout that "good enough" is defined by the modeler himself, and no one else. I hope you read that too.
I'm an analytical person; that's just as valid a way to approach the hobby as any.
I would suggest by your reaction you may be taking the hobby a bit seriously as well....! Relax and have fun. I am!
Today's models are so well done, so highly detailed, that I'm having fun just weathering them and running them. I recently took my kids to one of Europe's biggest model railroad displays (sorry, it's an all German web-site):
http://www.modellbahn-wiehe.de/index2.htm
While we were there, I observed the display, and realized that the whole thing was not hyper-detailed. No one could have appreciated it anyway, as all the trains were operating. It was more about "setting the scene", about creating an impression of reality. And it works! I would rather have more railroad with less detailing that gives the overall impression of being real, because I will be running trains over it, and want to feel as if I'm running over a real branch line.
My interlocking must have a tower with a towerman and a few mock up armstrong levers visible inside, but it does not have to have cable conduits running from the tower to the tracks as in the prototype. My freight car trucks need not have real springs; I'm satisfied with die-cast springs. Have fun and..."stop counting rivets!"
trainnut57 wrote:Whatever happened to the idea that a model railroad was a tool with which to have fun?
Why is a railroad with a Burlington Route steam locomotive running on it sub standard to some (rivet counters) because there is no identifiable scenery on the layout through wich the CB&Q ran?
I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby...
Those good enough point is even different for various projects.
Do you build a big scenery with some Woodland or do you scratch build a house. There's a difference.
Wolfgang
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
FWIW, I found that the more accurate I try to make my modeling, the more fun and fulfilling the hobby becomes to me. I don't dare suggest that my way is the only way, or even the best way... it's the best way for me.
It can become a slippery slope, however. The better my models look, the worse they look rolling on my code 80 track. So, down the line I plan to relay with code 55. Also, the more accurate and detailed trains passing my oversized NJI PRR PL signals began to look bad... so now I have some scale-sized LED Alkem PRR PL signals awaiting installation.
But that's all part of the fun! I know it'll never be 100%; I haven't started body-mounting couplers yet and I certainly won't be lighting real fires in my steamers. Overall, though, I enjoy that I can keep pushing that envelope and my target can keep slipping right.
I think if I hit a wall whereby I didn't want to or couldn't improve any further, I might lose interest in the hobby altogether. The good news is I'm so far away from perfection, there's a long way to go before I have to worry about that!
In answer to Mark Newton trainnut57 wrote:Whatever happened to the idea that a model railroad was a tool with which to have fun?
In answer to Mark Newton
Nothing. Why do you assume otherwise?
Trainnut57 answers: Only because of the "pressure" put on today's modler to "own the best" use the best, buy the best, DCC is the only way to go, etc. Although you are given many options, the top of the line equipment is generally out of the range of the average blue collar hobbyist-the one that uses Elmers glue for scenery rather than Woodland Scenics. As an example; my layout is U shaped 17'x18'x7' and goes around the furnace. It started as a 4x8 foot sheet of 1/2" plywood. Each additional section was an add-on. To look at it from the top you'd never know it, but from underneath-ugh, what a mess. I would like to see how assembly of this tabletop would be described if written up in a magazine. I doubt they would write it up. I have no enclosures (facia) around it, my overhead lighting is not recessed nor is it track lighting. But I did it myself.PS In all honesty I do wish it would have been built as a shelf mount like I was considering, but I am still more than satisfied the way it turned out.
Is it? Are these "rivet counters" real, or just a strawman to prop up your argument?
trainnut57: Read some of the comments in MRM and you'll see rivet counters do exist-even the magazine editorial staff admits it. There are fanatics in all hobbies, workplaces, even vacationers so why is it so hard to beleive that someone wouldn't report that the latest model of the newest diesel is a scale three inches short of the prototype or the drive wheels are a scale 33" but should be 34", the warning label on the battery box should be at the bottom of the lid not the top, etc., etc., etc., and that anything less than total accuracy is not worth the trouble. Read the magazine, don't just look at the pictures.
Why do you assume that your way is the only way to have fun with the hobby? Did it ever occur to you that those who strive to improve their modelling are also having fun?
trainnut57: I don't assume my way is the only way, that would be facecious. Some of the "fun" cost me many hundreds of dollars over the years due to mistakes and/or errors on my part-ones I will not make again. But I do believe that there is a larger following of people who believe that building their own buildings and making their own mountains has a lot more satisfaction to it than hiring specialists to build their system and calling it their own. But I ask you this; when was the last time you saw any model railroad layouts featured in MRM or any other publication of this type with similar circulation, that were constructed by an "average joe?" Most layouts I've seen featured are by architecs, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, draftsmen, artists, people with extensive background and years of experience in the graphic arts. This is fine and great. We need them too for our ideas (not that we'd steal any of course) I know several of these types myself, even attorneys, but I believe they have a slight edge, other than money, over an auto mechanic or a paralegal or your standard "grunt" worker who also enjoys the hobby. This advantage consists of a knowledge of presentation of a product, construction of a prototype from scratch, and the talent to mold and create the surface and background. I also understand that MRM wants only the best in their magazine and that is good, but why not do a common layout every once in a while by the guy who works 8-12 hours a day, comes home to his young family and puts in an hour or so on his 4x8' plywood layout that he's very proud of because HE figured out the wiring, HE built the structures, HE added the people and HE sculpted a landscape with plastic shopping bags, masking tape and paper towels soaked in patching plaster. There might be more than one or two fantastic low cost layouts out there needing discovery.Good enough is entirely subjective, and for me it has changed over time. What was good enough for me five years ago isn't good enough any more. My knowledge and skills have developed, and I 'm having more fun now than before.
trainnut57: I agree whole heartedly. This thread sure has spun off some thoughts even though I understand it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.Mark.
Dave, you're right. I think I did over react to a degree. But as I answered to Mark, (in a nutshell) when you open the pages of MRM and view the layouts, when was the last time you "met the builder" and he was a ditch digger, cab driver, burger flipper, etc? I think it's time MRM and other such publications realize that people other than civil engineers, cpa's, structural designers, etc., build model railroads too. It might even be interesting to see how they built theirs without the aid of professionals doing it for them.
FYI I drove an 18 wheeler for 25 years before ruptering several discs in my lower back, then returned to school and spent about 10 years as a paralegal in a state where paralegals are nothing more than glorified secretaries. I retired for medical conditions three years ago. I started my layout in mid 1974. You can do the math.
GREAT POST
Dave Vollmer wrote: ...or when to stop counting rivets!Figured I'd share my latest blog post.Let's call the solution the "sweet spot." This solution is the point at which the amount of work required to make a model more accurate exceeds the fun the modeler would have in doing so. So, let's define two curves:What makes this an initial value problem (i.e., the sweet spot is a unique solution to a very specific set of circumstances) is that the slope of these curves varies greatly from modeler to modeler, and from project to project. In other words, the skills, desires, and patience of the modeler affect the sweet spot location as does the choice of prototype, starting model (if applicable), availability of after-market details, paint, decals, photos, diagrams, etc.So "good enough" is a constantly moving target; the reference frame is always changing. Perhaps quantum mechanics is a better context than math? You decide. But the sensitivity to initial conditions reminds me very much of partial differential equations, where each variable is dependent upon the others and a minor change in the choice of prototype or starting point yields a vastly different version of "good enough."
...or when to stop counting rivets!
Figured I'd share my latest blog post.
Let's call the solution the "sweet spot." This solution is the point at which the amount of work required to make a model more accurate exceeds the fun the modeler would have in doing so. So, let's define two curves:
What makes this an initial value problem (i.e., the sweet spot is a unique solution to a very specific set of circumstances) is that the slope of these curves varies greatly from modeler to modeler, and from project to project. In other words, the skills, desires, and patience of the modeler affect the sweet spot location as does the choice of prototype, starting model (if applicable), availability of after-market details, paint, decals, photos, diagrams, etc.
So "good enough" is a constantly moving target; the reference frame is always changing. Perhaps quantum mechanics is a better context than math? You decide. But the sensitivity to initial conditions reminds me very much of partial differential equations, where each variable is dependent upon the others and a minor change in the choice of prototype or starting point yields a vastly different version of "good enough."
The Old Mutt would argue that at least in some areas, this is a very BAD concept.
Doing a "good enough" job in areas such as wiring and track work is likily to result in a layout that is NOT enjoyable to operate. Some areas require that one do the best work possible if the layout is to be a success.
Have fun
trainnut57 wrote: Whatever happened to the idea that a model railroad was a tool with wich to have fun? To bond with offspring or others with similar interests? Why is a railroad with a Burlington Route steam locomotive running on it sub standard to some (rivet counters) because there is no identifiable scenery on the layout through wich the CB&Q ran? I myself have no background in electronics, design, engineering, art (drawing a straight line with a ruler my thumb generally gets in the way), nothing that would readily enable me to build the kinds of layouts seen in MRM. Everything I have learned I have learned by trial and error. I have probably spent as much on my layout rebuilding it (8 times to date) because "something" didn't turn out right or I got a better idea, as any of the great larger layouts seen in MRM. I just learned what I know the hard way-trial and error. There was only one small hobby shop in town when I began, and the owner leaned more to repair than anything else. I did learn some from him. Today, there are three places that advertise HO gauge, but not one of the proprieters can answer a technical question. They carry very little in stock and order whatever you want from Walthers. (I can do that at home).I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever. How about this: Is it good enough for you??? When it comes to my Railroad, Fallen Flags, Inc., if you don't like it you don't have to look. But you know what? I haven't had one person or child tell me they didn't like it. Most didn't want to leave. My one layout covers: ATSF, Burlington, BN, BNSF, UP, SP, D&RGW, NYC, PENNSY, B&O, C&O and AMTRAK, steam and diesel respectively, and all pass the same scenery. GOOD ENOUGH!!!!
exPalaceDog wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: ...or when to stop counting rivets!Figured I'd share my latest blog post.Let's call the solution the "sweet spot." This solution is the point at which the amount of work required to make a model more accurate exceeds the fun the modeler would have in doing so. So, let's define two curves:What makes this an initial value problem (i.e., the sweet spot is a unique solution to a very specific set of circumstances) is that the slope of these curves varies greatly from modeler to modeler, and from project to project. In other words, the skills, desires, and patience of the modeler affect the sweet spot location as does the choice of prototype, starting model (if applicable), availability of after-market details, paint, decals, photos, diagrams, etc.So "good enough" is a constantly moving target; the reference frame is always changing. Perhaps quantum mechanics is a better context than math? You decide. But the sensitivity to initial conditions reminds me very much of partial differential equations, where each variable is dependent upon the others and a minor change in the choice of prototype or starting point yields a vastly different version of "good enough."The Old Mutt would argue that at least in some areas, this is a very BAD concept.Doing a "good enough" job in areas such as wiring and track work is likily to result in a layout that is NOT enjoyable to operate. Some areas require that one do the best work possible if the layout is to be a success.Have fun
Perhaps then, good enough for trackwork needs to be a little bit 'gooder' than for some other areas of the hobby. But if someone isn't bothered by derailments then their personal good-enough level for track might be what some other might regard as unacceptible.
We often assume that our own standards for 'good enough' ought to apply to everyone else (at least those with any sense!) too.
Is this post good-enough?
Regards,
I guess I should have qualified that...
I was thinking "good enough" in terms of detailing and painting rolling stock, locos, and structures, and to a lesser extent, scenery.
But, for an enjoyable, trouble-free layout, near-perfection is the only "good enough" for things like trackwork, wiring, wheel gauge, coupler height, loco performance, etc. Granted, we never quite get there, but I've been known to dig out sections of track and relay them to achieve smooth, error-free ops. Because if the trains don't run, then I'm not having fun.
In that respct, I've never been harsh like some "advanced modelers" on people using intergral-roadbed sectional track (True Track, Unitrack, EZ Track, etc.). Sure, it doesn't look as good as highly detailed flex or handlaid, but it's sure reliable. Later on, it can be painted and ballasted. For a first layout, it's not a bad idea! I've been tempted to try Atlas' new code 65 True Track in N scale if they can expand the line to include the curve radii and turnouts I'd need.
Dave Vollmer wrote: It can become a slippery slope, however. The better my models look, the worse they look rolling on my code 80 track. So, down the line I plan to relay with code 55.
It can become a slippery slope, however. The better my models look, the worse they look rolling on my code 80 track. So, down the line I plan to relay with code 55.
I'm running into that with my structures. The ones I built 10-15 years ago look pretty sad next to the nice ones I'm building these days. Still cheap kits, but my skills have gotten so much better. Now I'm torn between redoing the old ones or just buying all new kits. $$$$$
trainnut57 wrote:Trainnut57 answers: Only because of the "pressure" put on today's modler to "own the best" use the best, buy the best, DCC is the only way to go, etc.
Although you are given many options, the top of the line equipment is generally out of the range of the average blue collar hobbyist-the one that uses Elmers glue for scenery rather than Woodland Scenics.
Read some of the comments in MRM and you'll see rivet counters do exist-even the magazine editorial staff admits it. There are fanatics in all hobbies, workplaces, even vacationers so why is it so hard to beleive that someone wouldn't report that the latest model of the newest diesel is a scale three inches short of the prototype or the drive wheels are a scale 33" but should be 34", the warning label on the battery box should be at the bottom of the lid not the top, etc., etc., etc., and that anything less than total accuracy is not worth the trouble.
...I ask you this; when was the last time you saw any model railroad layouts featured in MRM or any other publication of this type with similar circulation, that were constructed by an "average joe?
Most layouts I've seen featured are by architecs, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, draftsmen, artists, people with extensive background and years of experience in the graphic arts. This is fine and great. We need them too for our ideas (not that we'd steal any of course) I know several of these types myself, even attorneys, but I believe they have a slight edge, other than money, over an auto mechanic or a paralegal or your standard "grunt" worker who also enjoys the hobby. This advantage consists of a knowledge of presentation of a product, construction of a prototype from scratch, and the talent to mold and create the surface and background.
I also understand that MRM wants only the best in their magazine and that is good, but why not do a common layout every once in a while by the guy who works 8-12 hours a day, comes home to his young family and puts in an hour or so on his 4x8' plywood layout that he's very proud of because HE figured out the wiring, HE built the structures, HE added the people and HE sculpted a landscape with plastic shopping bags, masking tape and paper towels soaked in patching plaster. There might be more than one or two fantastic low cost layouts out there needing discovery.
trainnut57 wrote: Dave, you're right. I think I did over react to a degree. But as I answered to Mark, (in a nutshell) when you open the pages of MRM and view the layouts, when was the last time you "met the builder" and he was a ditch digger, cab driver, burger flipper, etc? I think it's time MRM and other such publications realize that people other than civil engineers, cpa's, structural designers, etc., build model railroads too. It might even be interesting to see how they built theirs without the aid of professionals doing it for them.
What must be kept in mind is that, when it comes to what's seen in the cover shots and in layout tours of MR these days, is that MR is selling a fantasy/dream, not something of a scale and quality-level that ordinary, or blue collar hobbyists, can ever hope to achieve. But it is not simply skill that sets these layout owners appart from most of the rest of us (although many are certainly talented), it's much more about the availability of hard cash that their professional positions in the real world has provided.
When you read the bios, you'll note that so far this year 75% of the featured layout's owners are from a decidedly upper income bracket (CEOs of companies, aerospace engineers, NASA excs, etc.). Likewise, they are not among those for whom "good enough" is ok either. These are men modeling at the state of the art. And, if you'll also notice, when they can't do the work themselves, they bring in the talents of outside help, increasingly often the services of professional layout builders. Incidentally, in the more distant past, MR's featured authors did indeed come from every walk of life, with the blue collar guys clearly outnumbering the really wealthy.
Except for the occasional layout of under 100 square feet, most of what is on display in the pages of MR (at least in HO scale) likely ran in excess of $25,000 to $50,000 and many of the larger pikes undoubtedly far exceeded the latter figure. Normal hobbyists can not begin to afford nor hope to replicate such masterpieces (or are allowed to by their spouses!).
CNJ831
I've been fortunate enough to have a couple of my models published in the main magazine for the genre (wargaming), and I subscribe to Fine Scale Modeler, as well as MR (and others). Trut be told most of the models I see in these publications are way outside of my league, and I appreciate that more after having some of my projects in print.
I think it's important that the magazines publish the "ideal" - it is through these examples that we as modelers can improve their skills. If you don't know what is possible, than how can you even try to get there? I know i see things that I want to duplicate, or at least try, to improve my skill sets.
I have one other thought, as it seems to come down to $$, at least in most people's minds. Al hobbies cost money, no way to avoid that. With this one, at least to myself, it seems to be a question of how to spend money wisely, as opposed to how to save money. Therefore the push towards the best DCC system, etc, are actually good conversations, as in the long run your funds may be better spent than with a cheaper system (just an example).
Cheers.
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
CNJ831 wrote:[snip]... it's much more about the availability of hard cash that their professional positions in the real world has provided.When you read the bios, you'll note that so far this year 75% of the featured layout's owners are from a decidedly upper income bracket (CEOs of companies, aerospace engineers, NASA excs, etc.). Likewise, they are not among those for whom "good enough" is ok either. These are men modeling at the state of the art. And, if you'll also notice, when they can't do the work themselves, they bring in the talents of outside help, increasingly often the services of professional layout builders. Incidentally, in the more distant past, MR's featured authors did indeed come from every walk of life, with the blue collar guys clearly outnumbering the really wealthy.Except for the occasional layout of under 100 square feet, most of what is on display in the pages of MR (at least in HO scale) likely ran in excess of $25,000 to $50,000 and many of the larger pikes undoubtedly far exceeded the latter figure. Normal hobbyists can not begin to afford nor hope to replicate such masterpieces (or are allowed to by their spouses!). CNJ831
[snip]... it's much more about the availability of hard cash that their professional positions in the real world has provided.
Hard cash availability provides a trade off. A model railroad will require expenditures of either time or of money. And one may be substituted for the other. However all of us have finite limits on both of these resources. And there's the rub.
Sure, I can go down to the local hobby store and buy 'ready to run' rolling stock. But it doesn't have to be that way. A trip to the swap meet can provide some inexpensive trucks and the rest of a box car could be made from various pieces/shapes of styrene. Modelers were building cars this way for ages. Some still make a master out of styrene and cast duplicate car components in resin (like the fellow modeling the 1895 Housatonic RR for whom there is literally NO ready to run stuff).
John Allen scratch built his prize winning 1948 engine house for about $1 worth of stuff. Or course that was in 1949 (iirc). But of course this isn't the road to instant (or closer to instant gratification).
As for all the suits with money to burn for whom 'good enough' isn't an option - well I'd have to say that's hog wash. It's just that 'good-enough' means something different than good-enough for someone else. Who'd ever guess that different people would have 'good enough' at different levels.
Our host, MR, is also partly responsible for the trend towards rtr. Afterall, they don't stay afloat if the advertisers don't advertise. So is it any wonder that some articles look a bit like a Walthers/Woodland Scenics infomercial?
So in the end, who's 'good enough' is better? I'd say go look up rule #1 before judging.
Charlie
CNJ831 wrote: What must be kept in mind is that, when it comes to what's seen in the cover shots and in layout tours of MR these days, is that MR is selling a fantasy/dream, not something of a scale and quality-level that ordinary, or blue collar hobbyists, can ever hope to achieve.
I can't agree with that at all. The people who taught me the most about model railroading back when I was learning were all "blue collar" people. It was exactly because they didn't have a million dollars that they learned how to scratchbuild and detail things themselves. You don't need a million dollars to be a great model builder. You need patience and craftsmanship.
You are correct that somebody with limited funds might not be able to afford the "scale" of a layout that a more affluent person might. I disagree that a person on a limited budget can't get "quality". You seem to imply that quality is something you buy. Its not. I can scratchbuild models of as good or higher quality than the typical commercial models of my era (of course that's not really saying much since model companies don't produce that much in my era and half of it is train set quality). Quality is what you put into it.
But it is not simply skill that sets these layout owners appart from most of the rest of us (although many are certainly talented), it's much more about the availability of hard cash that their professional positions in the real world has provided.
And they are in the magazines because people are sucked in to thinking that its important to have dozens of the latest 2-8-8-8-8-8-4 sound equipped engines and 90 car trains. That's not required to be a good modeler. If people would demand articles on MODELING then the magazines would print them.
It amazes me how many layouts are published in MR that have virtually no hope of anything even vaguely resembling prototypical operation. If you wanted to operate prototypically you couldn't, they don't have the tracks. But I digress.
Yes the recent layout owners may be well to do, but I strongly disagree that an average modeler can't have as good or better a layout. You also have to realize that the articles are written to present the layout in the best light and the photos are literally taken in the best light. I operated on a layout that was featured in MR several years ago and the only scenery on the layout was EXACTLY the areas in the photos. They had been cropped to include just the areas sceniced (and it was fun to operate on regardless of the scenery or lack of it). 2 inches to either side was bare benchwork. So take the articles with a grain of salt.
When you read the bios, you'll note that so far this year 75% of the featured layout's owners are from a decidedly upper income bracket (CEOs of companies, aerospace engineers, NASA excs, etc.). Likewise, they are not among those for whom "good enough" is ok either.
Not necessarily, they are people who are focused and detail oriented. They just happen to be professionals. A lot of machinists and electrician are excellent modelers because they also have been trained to pay attention to detail.
Once again I disagree. Its a matter of perspective and once again patience. If you expect to build a $10,000 layout in a year you are correct. If you want a $10,000 layout and are patient, its easily attainable. If you budget $50 a month on your hobby you can have $10,000 layout in less than 20 years.
I used to belong to the Whidbey Island Model Railroad Club. Great club by the way.
Anywho... One of our more senior members there had a philosophy concering "good enough".
He was fond of saying, "There is never time to do it right, but there is always time to do it over!"
Being a musician, sometimes I tend to go by the old Russian Operatic adage: "If it's Gudunov for Boris, then it's Gudunov for me."
Good for me comes in stages. I might like something originally then go back and say, "No, I think I've progressed since then," and if it's improveable, then I'll do my darndest to improve it. I don't expect any kind of perfection the first try, but I'll do my darndest to get it to look like I want it AT THAT TIME.
As I said, I'm a musician by profession. Each time we go back to a piece of music we've learned, we find something new in it, something we can improve. Perhaps even a completely new vision of it. That's why we keep going back. But we do it in stages. That's how I approach the hobby. A project might look just fine after the initial stages, and we leave it at that. Then later, we return to it and think, "You know, I can IMPROVE on this," and we do. Each stage is a form of pleasure and work--HARD work--and gradually, though your own concentration to your own level, it takes on even MORE of what you originally wanted.
Case in point: An Akane 'basket-case' Yellowstone that I had to rebuild from the ground up. First stage, after rebuilding the drive shaft, correcting the cosmetic damage, re-motoring it and at least getting it running:
Second stage: Painting and adding some cosmetic details:
'Good enough' for right now? For right now, yes. For the future? I'll come back to it. Improve the drive-train. Add additional details. But for right now, the fun/work ratio has evened out so that I'm not embarrassed to run it on my layout or photograph it. For now, there are other projects to either start or improve upon. Like a piece of music I love, I'm going to revisit it in the future with a different vision of it.
Keeps me young. Keeps me thinking and DOING
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
dehusman wrote: CNJ831 wrote: What must be kept in mind is that, when it comes to what's seen in the cover shots and in layout tours of MR these days, is that MR is selling a fantasy/dream, not something of a scale and quality-level that ordinary, or blue collar hobbyists, can ever hope to achieve. I can't agree with that at all. The people who taught me the most about model railroading back when I was learning were all "blue collar" people. It was exactly because they didn't have a million dollars that they learned how to scratchbuild and detail things themselves. You don't need a million dollars to be a great model builder. You need patience and craftsmanship.You are correct that somebody with limited funds might not be able to afford the "scale" of a layout that a more affluent person might. I disagree that a person on a limited budget can't get "quality". You seem to imply that quality is something you buy. Its not.
You are correct that somebody with limited funds might not be able to afford the "scale" of a layout that a more affluent person might. I disagree that a person on a limited budget can't get "quality". You seem to imply that quality is something you buy. Its not.
Dave, while you are certainly entitled to such opinions, your responses to the content of my post honestly does not address the actual facts.
You assert that you have visited a layout featured in MR that consisted of mostly unscenicked terrain, with only a few highly specific spots being finished and photogenic, with these being what appeared in the magazine. However, I'm sure that this was not even hinted at in publication. What was being inferred by the magazine was that the entire layout was like the represented segments shown (I'd say that most layouts depicted in MR are probably close to complete, not like your example). They were selling a dream and that is how it has to be accepted. As far as I can see, no one actually aspires to have a layout that is scenicked only in a few spots.
Getting back on point, while someone with a salary close to the American average may be able to create a layout of modest size (10x10-12x12), without an outrageous expenditure of funds, they simply can not execute the basement-filling examples to anything like the level of quality those built by high salaried professional men found in the MR articles exhibit. Layouts of that magnitude cost big money, regardless of how much talent their owners may have.
You suggest that with an expenditure of $50 a month one can created a $10,000 layout in less then 20 years. However, the fact of the matter is that (a) the average tenure of an individual in model railroading is less than even 10 years (MR has cited 7 years as the average) and (b) even those who stay with the hobby long-term are unlikely to keep and work on the same layout over such an extended span of time. Usually they'll build several over the course of 20 years. As a result, they'd likely need an expenditure of several times $10,000 over the period.
While a quality 10x10 pike does not necessarily need to exceed $10,000 in costs, those huge layouts are very expensive and I've seen several in private hands documented at well over $100,000! No amount of individual talent can offset the materials cost necessary to replicate such pikes. It has long been accepted that the cost figure for building a "quality" layout is around $100 per square foot (published in MR many times) - custom builders charge up to $300+ for that dimension. I've seen nothing to seriously challenge the accuracy of that figure - only empty claims, together with poor results.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm far from a champion of RTR. As you imply about yourself, I too am a quality scratchbuilder. However, I still appreciate that this is far from being enough if one has dreams of building an empire of the calibur of those typically seen in MR. In years long gone by it was indeed possible to do it all yourself and on the cheap, simply because the state-of-the-art of model railroading was far more primitive. With the commercial products available today, those weed-based trees from the backyard are usually pretty sad looking as stand-ins; good-sized urban scenes will take forever to create if one is scratching them one building at a time; just one quality steam loco and a consist can run you upwards of $750-$1,000 and what about track? The amount of track on most featured layouts in MR would run into the thousands, all by itself!
While in our youth, skilled blue collar folks very credibly represented the typical hobbyist, the fact of the matter today is, as with so many other pastimes, it is becoming increasingly something best approached by the wealthy, if done on any large scale and high quality.
twhite wrote:Being a musician, sometimes I tend to go by the old Russian Operatic adage: "If it's Gudunov for Boris, then it's Gudunov for me."
Bad Tom, very BAD!!!!! I can't Handel it.......... Now I'm going to have to Bach up and start over.
I did very much like your analogy to music though. It is very true of my own work. What was "Good Enough" a few years ago now often needs to be revisited. I also like to modify the old adage to read, "Perfect Practice makes Perfect". As our skill levels increase, so does our idea of what is good enough. I consider the challenge to model as well as I am able part of the fun of the hobby, just as the challenge of perfecting a piece of music is part of the joy of being a musician! I remember years after I became a music teacher doing a public recital. One of the song cycles I included on the program was Vaughn-Williams' "Songs of Travel", I thought I had perfected it in collage but remember my artist teacher telling me I needed to live another 10 years before I could really know and sing the songs really well...... That was John Malloy. He was SO right! I amazed myself when I did the recital. Such it is as I grow and learn in the hobby. What I thought was good enough then doesn't even come close now.
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
CNJ831 wrote: dehusman wrote: CNJ831 wrote: What must be kept in mind is that, when it comes to what's seen in the cover shots and in layout tours of MR these days, is that MR is selling a fantasy/dream, not something of a scale and quality-level that ordinary, or blue collar hobbyists, can ever hope to achieve. I can't agree with that at all. The people who taught me the most about model railroading back when I was learning were all "blue collar" people. It was exactly because they didn't have a million dollars that they learned how to scratchbuild and detail things themselves. You don't need a million dollars to be a great model builder. You need patience and craftsmanship.You are correct that somebody with limited funds might not be able to afford the "scale" of a layout that a more affluent person might. I disagree that a person on a limited budget can't get "quality". You seem to imply that quality is something you buy. Its not. Dave, while you are certainly entitled to such opinions, your responses to the content of my post honestly does not address the actual facts.You assert that you have visited a layout featured in MR that consisted of mostly unscenicked terrain, with only a few highly specific spots being finished and photogenic, with these being what appeared in the magazine. However, I'm sure that this was not even hinted at in publication. What was being inferred by the magazine was that the entire layout was like the represented segments shown (I'd say that most layouts depicted in MR are probably close to complete, not like your example). They were selling a dream and that is how it has to be accepted. As far as I can see, no one actually aspires to have a layout that is scenicked only in a few spots. Getting back on point, while someone with a salary close to the American average may be able to create a layout of modest size (10x10-12x12), without an outrageous expenditure of funds, they simply can not execute the basement-filling examples to anything like the level of quality those built by high salaried professional men found in the MR articles exhibit. Layouts of that magnitude cost big money, regardless of how much talent their owners may have.You suggest that with an expenditure of $50 a month one can created a $10,000 layout in less then 20 years. However, the fact of the matter is that (a) the average tenure of an individual in model railroading is less than even 10 years (MR has cited 7 years as the average) and (b) even those who stay with the hobby long-term are unlikely to keep and work on the same layout over such an extended span of time. Usually they'll build several over the course of 20 years. As a result, they'd likely need an expenditure of several times $10,000 over the period.While a quality 10x10 pike does not necessarily need to exceed $10,000 in costs, those huge layouts are very expensive and I've seen several in private hands documented at well over $100,000! No amount of individual talent can offset the materials cost necessary to replicate such pikes. It has long been accepted that the cost figure for building a "quality" layout is around $100 per square foot (published in MR many times) - custom builders charge up to $300+ for that dimension. I've seen nothing to seriously challenge the accuracy of that figure - only empty claims, together with poor results. Now don't get me wrong, I'm far from a champion of RTR. As you imply about yourself, I too am a quality scratchbuilder. However, I still appreciate that this is far from being enough if one has dreams of building an empire of the calibur of those typically seen in MR. In years long gone by it was indeed possible to do it all yourself and on the cheap, simply because the state-of-the-art of model railroading was far more primitive. With the commercial products available today, those weed-based trees from the backyard are usually pretty sad looking as stand-ins; good-sized urban scenes will take forever to create if one is scratching them one building at a time; just one quality steam loco and a consist can run you upwards of $750-$1,000 and what about track? The amount of track on most featured layouts in MR would run into the thousands, all by itself!While in our youth, skilled blue collar folks very credibly represented the typical hobbyist, the fact of the matter today is, as with so many other pastimes, it is becoming increasingly something best approach by the wealthy, if done on any large scale and high quality.CNJ831
While in our youth, skilled blue collar folks very credibly represented the typical hobbyist, the fact of the matter today is, as with so many other pastimes, it is becoming increasingly something best approach by the wealthy, if done on any large scale and high quality.
CNJ831, but why does it matter in a negative way that the good, or the best is shown? Do you read car magazines to read about the latest Yugo model, or because the new corvette (or Porsche) model is on the cover? Cars not your thing; what about computers? Does PC Week attract you interest only because they have an article on the used $200 box running Windows ME?
My point is in my opinion the mags should show the best - and this does not relate to my level of good enough. As other's have pointed out, the good enough ratio kicks in when your're satisifed at that moment with the work at hand, just before the fun disapears. Having the ideal shown in print is just another way to set the bar for personal skill sets and development.
I think tying it soley to financial means is mistaken. I've noticed another modeler on this forum who seems to be having a blast in the hobby, without a ton of money, and suffice to say his good enough, and my good enough. differ. And it should , as we're different people. I think the other individual is the perfect example of how effort ends before the fun runs out, and to me, that's perfectly good enough.
Cheers
Ray:
As a vocal accompanist, I THOUGHT I'd get your attention with that one, LOL!
But I'm glad that you agree with me--we keep coming back to favorite things, things that were so rewarding to us earlier and find that we can make them even MORE rewarding as we grow. Odd--and fascinating to me, at least--is that you would use the Vaughn-Williams cycle as an example. That's one song cycle that every time I accompany it, I find more and more in it (Schumann's "Dichterliebe" and Copland's "Old American Songs" seem to be that way for me, too).
Same thing with a locomotive or a piece of scenery or a small detail as I come back to it--there's more here that I can do.
But I loved your analogy. But yes, at times in our life: "If it's Gudunov for Boris--"
I'll shut up now
Earlier in the discussion there was critcism of people who hire professionals to work on part of their layout. At first I was also critical of those but my position is softening.
In most places I have lived I have helped other modelers with their layouts. It was not uncommon to have an informal group that would circulate amongst the various modelers to ehlp do everything from finish the layout room to applying scenery. What is the difference, with respect to the layout owner's participation, between that hiring a professional to design/build the benchwork and having a group of friends over to design/build the benchwork? Depending on the capabilities of a person's friends you may not be getting superior product by having it professionally made. I have assisted people with redoing commercial layout designs and rebuilding professionally built layouts, if I could improve them then they certainly weren't all that swuft.
Here's a thought, what's the difference between having a professionally designed layout built and buying a RTR, DCC and sound equipped engine? Other than size, in either case the "modeler" is buying a turnkey product where the only skill required to acquire the "model" is whipping out a credit card.
Boy, I've been told a lot of things in my life but never to get out of the hobby. I know Mark is from Australia and maybe he needs to lighten up (down under) a bit. I didn't realize the hobby was relegated to middle class people as Mark suggests. In reality there are several degrees of "blue collar" workers. When I was driving I was a blue collar worker knocking down $60 grand + a year. Then I became blue/white collar worker and earned $18,000. When I first started driving I barely earned a living. Ergo, different stages of blue collar. In my day, the term wasn't goverend by earning, rather the type of work. I was also accused of having a chip on my shoulder. I didn't If you start at the begining of this post, you will find that although it started out tongue-in-cheek it brought up some very good points, both serious and not so serious, so why not have some fun and blow off some steam.
One is that what some of us call pressure doesn't refer to anxiety over anything special--Dr. Phil takes care of that. All of the new products coming out are DCC equipped. It took BLI (I beleive-but I may be wrong) to start bringing out locomotives that cater to the DC group alone, others are following, finally, and by pressure because the "Sound only" works better on DC and draws less power. However, these units are still priced at over $125. Worth it? Yes. Would we like to see them a little cheaper, definitely. Maybe in time. Oh, and before anybody says anything, YES there are some locomotives out there, new, and without sound or DCC. But check out the road names; they may not fit in with your road. I model the transition era between steam and diesel, and I'm really glad I bought most of my steam locomotives years ago. The ones today are beautiful, but there's no way I can afford $500 for a Big Boy or Challenger. Even e-bay is getting high priced for these losomotives when you can find them.
I think this post has really started the juices flowing among us hobbyists, and has promted some good, frank, discussions. I also believe the bottom line is each and every person who has replied or even read this post has his/her own idea of what is good enough for them and nobody is going to change their respective opinions. SO lighten up out there guys and let us pressure MRM for a layout from the average joe. Oh Lord, I said it again
Dave--
Just LOOK at what a fine mess you've gotten us into this time.
Is this thread "good enough" ?
dehusman wrote: Earlier in the discussion there was critcism of people who hire professionals to work on part of their layout. At first I was also critical of those but my position is softening. ---- snip ----Here's a thought, what's the difference between having a professionally designed layout built and buying a RTR, DCC and sound equipped engine? Other than size, in either case the "modeler" is buying a turnkey product where the only skill required to acquire the "model" is whipping out a credit card.Dave H.
---- snip ----
the difference is in the scale of the change the owner makes when he recognizes that the result isnt - quite - good enough. The DCC/sound engine might get a different air horn and cab window shades. The professionally built layout might have an orchard become the first tee and eighteenth green next to the new Country Club headquarters - or maybe a diesel shop over those open-air loco storage tracks...
When the sun goes down, it's the individual owner who decides what is good enough. Whether others agree or disagree is irrelevant.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - eventually, good enough)
trainnut57 wrote: Boy, I've been told a lot of things in my life but never to get out of the hobby.
I know Mark is from Australia and maybe he needs to lighten up (down under) a bit.
I didn't realize the hobby was relegated to middle class people as Mark suggests.
All of the new products coming out are DCC equipped. It took BLI (I beleive-but I may be wrong) to start bringing out locomotives that cater to the DC group alone, others are following, finally, and by pressure because the "Sound only" works better on DC and draws less power. However, these units are still priced at over $125. Worth it? Yes. Would we like to see them a little cheaper, definitely. Maybe in time. Oh, and before anybody says anything, YES there are some locomotives out there, new, and without sound or DCC. But check out the road names; they may not fit in with your road. I model the transition era between steam and diesel, and I'm really glad I bought most of my steam locomotives years ago. The ones today are beautiful, but there's no way I can afford $500 for a Big Boy or Challenger.
Scarpia wrote: CNJ831, but why does it matter in a negative way that the good, or the best is shown? Do you read car magazines to read about the latest Yugo model, or because the new corvette (or Porsche) model is on the cover? Cars not your thing; what about computers? Does PC Week attract you interest only because they have an article on the used $200 box running Windows ME? My point is in my opinion the mags should show the best - and this does not relate to my level of good enough. As other's have pointed out, the good enough ratio kicks in when your're satisifed at that moment with the work at hand, just before the fun disapears. Having the ideal shown in print is just another way to set the bar for personal skill sets and development.I think tying it soley to financial means is mistaken. I've noticed another modeler on this forum who seems to be having a blast in the hobby, without a ton of money, and suffice to say his good enough, and my good enough. differ. And it should , as we're different people. I think the other individual is the perfect example of how effort ends before the fun runs out, and to me, that's perfectly good enough.Cheers
Go back and re-read my initial post. It addressed the point brought up about MR not featuring articles on ayouts of a realistic size and with a reasonable cost factor that the average hobbyists can identify with. The simple fact is that, on average, MR exhibits layouts that are on the scale of empires, with price tags to match. As I pointed out, MR is selling a fantasy or dream when it comes to the layouts typically displayed in their pages. Refected in this are MR's advertisements, which are largely from the manufacturers of expensive RTR. In contrast, take a look at all the ads for craftsman-type items found in RMC - it defines who each are writing for.
My subsequent post was spurred by dehusman's comments regarding my position. He did not address the facts as they exist today and indicated that craftmanship/time can replace the monetary outlay in the case of large layouts. Model railroading, at least at any serious level, has become quite an expensive hobby (and before someone pops up with the claim that it always was, I can tell you for personal experience that it was definitely not so in the past). Today, the basic materials are down right expensive, to say nothing of the RTR products.
I would also point out that an individual's current "good enough" is usually a reflection of having to settle at a certain level of quality because of costs and to a lesser extent, lack of skills. If one's finances improve, usually so does their "good enough", often to a striking degree. The questions I addressed were never about, "who's having fun and who isn't."
Dave Vollmer wrote: ...or when to stop counting rivets!Figured I'd share my latest blog post.Tony Koester of MR/RMC fame has often spoken of a so-called "good enough" philosophy (citing V&O creator Allen McClelland as the source) for model railroading. In other words, for each one of us, there's a point at which a model or scene is "good enough."I thought about this as I tried to codify my own threshold of "good enough," and it began to remind me of differential equations from calculus. "Good enough" is nothing more than a unique solution to an initial value problem.Let's call the solution the "sweet spot." This solution is the point at which the amount of work required to make a model more accurate exceeds the fun the modeler would have in doing so. So, let's define two curves:The red dashed line represents fun (scaled on a dimensionless, normalized range between zero and unity) and the solid black line represents work (scaled the same way). As a store-bought or scratch-built model becomes more and more accurate, it requires more and more exacting, tedious, and time-consuming work to accomplish. Theoretically, the amount of fun a modeler is having is simultaneously decreasing (i.e., the law of diminishing returns). The "sweet spot" is that level of accuracy whereby the modeler is still having fun but working hard to accomplish his goal; any more work and it stops being fun. Notice the curves are asymptotic; no model can ever achieve 100% prototype accuracy.What makes this an initial value problem (i.e., the sweet spot is a unique solution to a very specific set of circumstances) is that the slope of these curves varies greatly from modeler to modeler, and from project to project. In other words, the skills, desires, and patience of the modeler affect the sweet spot location as does the choice of prototype, starting model (if applicable), availability of after-market details, paint, decals, photos, diagrams, etc.So "good enough" is a constantly moving target; the reference frame is always changing. Perhaps quantum mechanics is a better context than math? You decide. But the sensitivity to initial conditions reminds me very much of partial differential equations, where each variable is dependent upon the others and a minor change in the choice of prototype or starting point yields a vastly different version of "good enough."Certainly, for many modelers (including myself), making a model more accurate is fun. But I would argue that for the vast majority of us there is a point, somewhere between kinda close and near perfection, where we decide "enough is enough" and the model is "done." It's at that point where the "work" and "fun" curves have intersected.
Tony Koester of MR/RMC fame has often spoken of a so-called "good enough" philosophy (citing V&O creator Allen McClelland as the source) for model railroading. In other words, for each one of us, there's a point at which a model or scene is "good enough."
I thought about this as I tried to codify my own threshold of "good enough," and it began to remind me of differential equations from calculus. "Good enough" is nothing more than a unique solution to an initial value problem.
The red dashed line represents fun (scaled on a dimensionless, normalized range between zero and unity) and the solid black line represents work (scaled the same way). As a store-bought or scratch-built model becomes more and more accurate, it requires more and more exacting, tedious, and time-consuming work to accomplish. Theoretically, the amount of fun a modeler is having is simultaneously decreasing (i.e., the law of diminishing returns). The "sweet spot" is that level of accuracy whereby the modeler is still having fun but working hard to accomplish his goal; any more work and it stops being fun. Notice the curves are asymptotic; no model can ever achieve 100% prototype accuracy.
Certainly, for many modelers (including myself), making a model more accurate is fun. But I would argue that for the vast majority of us there is a point, somewhere between kinda close and near perfection, where we decide "enough is enough" and the model is "done." It's at that point where the "work" and "fun" curves have intersected.
Somebody has waaaaaaay too much time on their hands or needs a wife!
Just kidding! =D
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
CNJ831 wrote: Scarpia wrote: CNJ831, but why does it matter in a negative way that the good, or the best is shown? Do you read car magazines to read about the latest Yugo model, or because the new corvette (or Porsche) model is on the cover? Cars not your thing; what about computers? Does PC Week attract you interest only because they have an article on the used $200 box running Windows ME? My point is in my opinion the mags should show the best - and this does not relate to my level of good enough. As other's have pointed out, the good enough ratio kicks in when your're satisifed at that moment with the work at hand, just before the fun disapears. Having the ideal shown in print is just another way to set the bar for personal skill sets and development.I think tying it soley to financial means is mistaken. I've noticed another modeler on this forum who seems to be having a blast in the hobby, without a ton of money, and suffice to say his good enough, and my good enough. differ. And it should , as we're different people. I think the other individual is the perfect example of how effort ends before the fun runs out, and to me, that's perfectly good enough.Cheers Go back and re-read my initial post. It addressed the point brought up about MR not featuring articles on ayouts of a realistic size and with a reasonable cost factor that the average hobbyists can identify with. The simple fact is that, on average, MR exhibits layouts that are on the scale of empires, with price tags to match. As I pointed out, MR is selling a fantasy or dream when it comes to the layouts typically displayed in their pages. Refected in this are MR's advertisements, which are largely from the manufacturers of expensive RTR. In contrast, take a look at all the ads for craftsman-type items found in RMC - it defines who each are writing for. My subsequent post was spurred by dehusman's comments regarding my position. He did not address the facts as they exist today and indicated that craftmanship/time can replace the monetary outlay in the case of large layouts. Model railroading, at least at any serious level, has become quite an expensive hobby (and before someone pops up with the claim that it always was, I can tell you for personal experience that it was definitely not so in the past). Today, the basic materials are down right expensive, to say nothing of the RTR products. I would also point out that an individual's current "good enough" is usually a reflection of having to settle at a certain level of quality because of costs and to a lesser extent, lack of skills. If one's finances improve, usually so does their "good enough", often to a striking degree. The questions I addressed were never about, "who's having fun and who isn't."CNJ831
Don't all hobby magazines sell a fantasy? And don't all model railroads do the same thing? Don't we all pretend that we are operating railroads?
So what you see as a fantasy is what we are all engaged in.
So what? Are we having fun or is this a "real job?"
I think we do it because we need to escape from the world and there really isn't anything wrong with that.
CNJ831 wrote:Go back and re-read my initial post. It addressed the point brought up about MR not featuring articles on ayouts of a realistic size and with a reasonable cost factor that the average hobbyists can identify with. The simple fact is that, on average, MR exhibits layouts that are on the scale of empires, with price tags to match. As I pointed out, MR is selling a fantasy or dream when it comes to the layouts typically displayed in their pages. Refected in this are MR's advertisements, which are largely from the manufacturers of expensive RTR. In contrast, take a look at all the ads for craftsman-type items found in RMC - it defines who each are writing for. My subsequent post was spurred by dehusman's comments regarding my position. He did not address the facts as they exist today and indicated that craftmanship/time can replace the monetary outlay in the case of large layouts. Model railroading, at least at any serious level, has become quite an expensive hobby (and before someone pops up with the claim that it always was, I can tell you for personal experience that it was definitely not so in the past). Today, the basic materials are down right expensive, to say nothing of the RTR products. I would also point out that an individual's current "good enough" is usually a reflection of having to settle at a certain level of quality because of costs and to a lesser extent, lack of skills. If one's finances improve, usually so does their "good enough", often to a striking degree. The question never was, "who's having fun and who isn't."CNJ831
I would also point out that an individual's current "good enough" is usually a reflection of having to settle at a certain level of quality because of costs and to a lesser extent, lack of skills. If one's finances improve, usually so does their "good enough", often to a striking degree. The question never was, "who's having fun and who isn't."
I understand the angle you're getting at per your first point - however there was recently a great little HO layout that was in a gentlemen's laundry room, something like 3 x 7 feet long, that was appealing. There was also an engine yard layout (professionaly built, as should be duly noted), these two stick out in my head as being examples not being the super pike style of layout.
I wonder too, if MR staff is to travel for a layout shoot, if smaller ones may just not be worth the costs involved.
I still hold the big monster pikes are nice to look at; I for one am happy they print them, as I've never seen one in person. Having a way to look at them like that for me is beneficial.
We'll have to disagree about the costs of the hobby, when I was in college over 20 years ago I would nose around the hobby, and finally purchased a roundhouse climax, and assembled a small scratchbuilt enginehouse with handlaid track as a diorama (I couldn't afford a PS, and it seemed pointless on a 1x2 setup). Maybe in earlier decades, but I found model railroading to be expensive then, as much if not more so than it is today. The difference is, at 40 years old, I finally have some discretionary income I can throw that way. That old climax cost me $30 in 1987, I got two Bachmann Spectrum DCC equipped locos for >$70 each on ebay. In my experience, this has never been an inexpensive hobby, but than again, I've yet to find one that isn't.
I've been exploring trees lately, trying to find the best combination of ecomomy and quality. I've tried the Woodland Scenic products, including their Forest canopy. I'm drying flowers, and growing certain species in my garden for that purpose. I've looked into the classic winding of wire, and making a tree amature. I've finally (I think) settled on the Scenic Express supertrees, as a very good solution. Sure they cost $25 a box, but due to real life, I can only afford an hour or two a night on my layout; scavanger hunting in the woods or winding wire doesn't appeal to me in that time frame. This is a case where scratchbuilding (ie the wire armature) would definately be cheaper for a similar if not better result.
Scratchbuilding is also not cheap - not to begin with. I've found in my experience that it takes some time to acquire enough backstock of materials to effectively scratchbuild structures, etc. I think a lot of folks gloss over this fact; I'm changing modeling genres, and I find that I'm missing things I used to take for granted when I'm working on a project. I used to need something, and simply dove into my "bitz box" to find the part. Now, I don't have the same resources at hand, and have to build the up again, with things such as scale lumber, etc. I can't tell you how excited I was when I recently finished a couple of "craftsman" kits, and ended up with not only a ton of extra roofing shingle strips, but some nice siding panels as well!
I agree with your last statment, with two modifiers. I would first reverse the emphasis on skills and costs, as skills improve, future projects and what's good enough improves, often without additional costs (ie, I already have some of that ground foam). I would also add in time as a major factor as well.
Cheers!
trainnut57 wrote: Answer to dehusman post: MONEY$$$$. Friends are friends, pros ask for money.
Yes money is a difference. But from the standpoint of everything else (the amount of work, craftsmanship, participation, etc.) there isn't much difference. Someone other than the "modeler" did the work.
So another facet of good enough may be how much you do yourself. As soon as somebody else starts participating in the build, you lose some measure of control over the outcome. Assuming you are going tokeep what they do, you have to accept their workmanship, craftsmanship, their take on your vision. Whatever they do has to meet your concept of "good enough".
Taking off from that point, maybe one definition of "good enough" is the instructions you would give somebody who was going to build something for you. How accurate would you ask them to build it? How much time would you expect them to spend on it? What would be your budget? How close would it have to get to your mental vision to be acceptable? Whatever parameters you would set for them are your "good enoughs".
Scarpia,
As someone who comes from the same hobby as you do I can relate to a lot of the things that you are saying. I have a couple of bitz boxes for that meaning that any conversion is fast and cheap for me. I got some 15 armies so bitz are plenty. But for model railroading I have very few, just slowly building up new bitz boxes from the many plastic kits I'm now constructing. But I do NOT got any spare lumber yet, none of those extra detail that more experienced modellers take for granted, just as I do with war gaming.
Building a good basics of materials and tools take time, if you are young, taking a chance on scratch building can be daunting, a failure might set you back many months of hobby money.
Magnus
[8)]
QUOTE: All of the new products coming out are DCC equipped. It took BLI (I beleive-but I may be wrong) to start bringing out locomotives that cater to the DC group alone, others are following, finally, and by pressure because the "Sound only" works better on DC and draws less power. However, these units are still priced at over $125. Worth it? Yes. Would we like to see them a little cheaper, definitely. Maybe in time. Oh, and before anybody says anything, YES there are some locomotives out there, new, and without sound or DCC. But check out the road names; they may not fit in with your road. I model the transition era between steam and diesel, and I'm really glad I bought most of my steam locomotives years ago. The ones today are beautiful, but there's no way I can afford $500 for a Big Boy or Challenger. ~~ END OF QUOTE
I have to disagree with the 1st sentence: ALL of the new products? Last I checked, all of the HO and N locomotives hitting the market that are decoder equipped can run in DC or DCC mode. Additionally, standard DC models are offered but are equipped with the "Plug" feature that allows easy adapting to DCC. Which products is the above poster referring to? What's the fuss about?
As for affordability, many of us are on a tight budget (myself included). As has been said before, a good number of hobby shops (at least in the U.S) still offer the "Layaway Plan", which vary between 1 to 3 months.. I've purchased several locomotives this way in past years.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Lillen wrote:Scarpia, As someone who comes from the same hobby as you do I can relate to a lot of the things that you are saying. I have a couple of bitz boxes for that meaning that any conversion is fast and cheap for me. I got some 15 armies so bitz are plenty. But for model railroading I have very few, just slowly building up new bitz boxes from the many plastic kits I'm now constructing. But I do NOT got any spare lumber yet, none of those extra detail that more experienced modellers take for granted, just as I do with war gaming.Magnus
I just auctioned off my old bitz box, and mailed it off to the UK - a full 5 kilos of bitz!!!
Starting over can be half the fun
Model railroading, at least at any serious level, has become quite an expensive hobby (and before someone pops up with the claim that it always was, I can tell you for personal experience that it was definitely not so in the past). Today, the basic materials are down right expensive, to say nothing of the RTR products.
1957 Atlas code 100 snap track (brass): $.25/section ($1.95 in today's $). You can get code 100 snap track (but nickel silver, not brass) here http://ehobbyland.stores.yahoo.net/9cod100snapt.html at 6 sections for $4.99 ( roughly $.84/section)
1957 Mantua Pacific kit: $29.95 ($232 in today's dollars if available). The closest available equivalent is the Bowser K-4 kit with superdetails. MSRP for that is $172.50
1957 Athearn Hi-F (rubber band drive F-7 A unit only) $6.95 ($54.12 in 2008 dollars). Current MSRP for RTR F-7A/B set (2 units instead of one) $74.98.
Yup. Things are just getting outrageous.
corsair7 wrote: Don't all hobby magazines sell a fantasy? And don't all model railroads do the same thing? Don't we all pretend that we are operating railroads?So what you see as a fantasy is what we are all engaged in.So what? Are we having fun or is this a "real job?" I think we do it because we need to escape from the world and there really isn't anything wrong with that. Irv
Absolutely not, Irv. A number of them present layouts that are within the reach of many, if not most, of their more sophisticated, skilled readers. Neither do I consider those $50,000 layouts the only ones capable of providing other hobbyists with new ideas that assist them in their own modeling. In fact, most have features on a scale that can not be reasonably down-sized to conventional layouts and still look good. Far more reasonable/applicable ideas just as well can come from some 10x10 or 12x15 pike and can be far better evaluated as to how they might fit into your own pike. I've found Dave Popp's relatively modest N-scale layout to be one of the best sources of ideas I seen in years...more than I've observed on many single "monster" layouts.
The point I'm making is that huge pikes are, for the most part, serve either simply as reader entertainment, or a hook to get the dabblers to buy the magazine and drool over something they can never possibly hope to achieve in the hobby. That's not what the magazine was originally all about.
I agree that MR tends to feature top quality layouts that would certainly break my budget and exceed my available space. I also agree that the cost of the hobby is high! That is in fact one of the main reasons why the average age of model railroaders keeps climbing (IIRC it's somewhere between 50 and 60 years of age). Young people just can't afford to build a pike on their allowance.
By raising the bar on expectations of quality, you also discourage young modelers from even getting started. There is this inherent snob-ism in our hobby, that a 4' x 8' layout with continuous loop running is too primitive to be of any fun. Now, if I were a pre-teen railfan who was considering getting started in model railroading, I think that a 4x8 and a "starter train set" would be within my budget and my skill level. But how many of this type of layout are featured in MR?
Wouldn't it be great, if MR would do a feature each month on a small pike using inexpensive elements, from the benchwork to the rolling stock to the models? They could title it "A Model Railroad You Can Build". Include a list of materials and set a budget, listing the costs of each item. Sure, those models aren't going to be "good enough" for a lot of the more seasoned modellers, but for a kid just starting the hobby, maybe building and weathering a Walthers Cornerstone kit wouldn't seem as daunting as scratchbuilding a structure. And maybe buying a few (affordable) Bachmann or IHC or Athearn "Blue Box" locomotives would help said youngster get some trains running, as opposed to his saving for a year or two to buy a BLI or brass locomotive.
While I'll agree with several of the other posters on this thread, that it is inspiring to see the grand layouts featured, I must admit that it would be refreshing to see some layouts featured that could realistically be built by a newcomer to the hobby.
andrechapelon wrote: Model railroading, at least at any serious level, has become quite an expensive hobby (and before someone pops up with the claim that it always was, I can tell you for personal experience that it was definitely not so in the past). Today, the basic materials are down right expensive, to say nothing of the RTR products. 1957 Atlas code 100 snap track (brass): $.25/section ($1.95 in today's $). You can get code 100 snap track (but nickel silver, not brass) here http://ehobbyland.stores.yahoo.net/9cod100snapt.html at 6 sections for $4.99 ( roughly $.84/section)1957 Mantua Pacific kit: $29.95 ($232 in today's dollars if available). The closest available equivalent is the Bowser K-4 kit with superdetails. MSRP for that is $172.501957 Athearn Hi-F (rubber band drive F-7 A unit only) $6.95 ($54.12 in 2008 dollars). Current MSRP for RTR F-7A/B set (2 units instead of one) $74.98.Yup. Things are just getting outrageous.Andre
Same error and misinformation as always, a chronic problem on this site since folks so often speak before doing the required research.
Now, instead of picking out a past date and simply comparing it with today, try examining the trend of pricing over that whole interval. What you find is that pricing evolved very slowly, or even stood still, during long periods. And many of the products improved progressively over this course, too. Try Mantua's pricing of its locomotives, or Athearn's, as an example. You need to do the necessary homework...I already have.
Slip of the tounge and slowdown of the fingers-Meant to say DDC Equipped or Ready. No fuss. Just trying to get Mike's (from Australia) goat. Seems to be working.
I know about the layaway plan, but first you have to have a hobby shop nearby willing to do it and to have the stock to offer. None around Erie do. Closest would be Buffalo or Cleveland. I deal through a friend at a trainshop in Sacramento or e-bay. Only problem with the latter is you don't really know what you're getting. I am looking for a Nerkshire, bought two from e-bay, sent both back because they didn't run. That's a huge concern. If somebody out there is willing to spot me about $250K I have a spot all picked out in an already zoned small business large enough for a 20,000 sq ft shop stocked with everything and an area more than twice that size for the layout. And it's in a nice neighborhood directly behind my house and patrolled by police and my own two male German Shepherd Dogs. The store, of course, would be all HO and all road names. Around here about all you can get is NYC, PC, CSX and Conrail, and if you're really lucky, NS.
Sorry about the confusion.
Andre: Just to be fair, I should point out that the Mantua Pacific was quite new then, and would become very economical, if greatly cheaped-out, as time went on.
The Pacific had actually been on the market since about 1950. It had a Pittman DC-71b motor, IIRC, a gearbox and a flexible shaft between the motor and gearbox. And yeah, they cheaped it out around 1960 or so by substituting a smaller motor, and eliminating the gearbox. They did the same with the Mikado (which dates from around 1948). So what's the point? Do we want quality cheapened?
The Penn-Line/Bowser locos were never cheaped out and on an inflation adjusted basis, sell for less than they did 40-50 years ago. Most now include superdetail kits. IIRC, the Bowser NYC K-11 sold for $24.50 without tender (roughly $190 today). Bowser sells the same kit, with tender, today for under $100.
howmus wrote: twhite wrote: Being a musician, sometimes I tend to go by the old Russian Operatic adage: "If it's Gudunov for Boris, then it's Gudunov for me." Bad Tom, very BAD!!!!! I can't Handel it.......... Now I'm going to have to Bach up and start over.
twhite wrote: Being a musician, sometimes I tend to go by the old Russian Operatic adage: "If it's Gudunov for Boris, then it's Gudunov for me."
Does that mean it is acually Boris Badanov?
Hey Mike, you're ok. Are you sure you are "a blue collar worker?" I worked in the law field for ten years after my injury and you sound an awful lot like a lawyer. Always answer a question with a question so you don't have to answer the question.
But in seriousness, if a blue collar worker likes the hobby and indeed is limited in discretionary income, why shouldn't he/she participate? He can't participate not because of a limited budget for his means, but rather because the industry is pricing the low end hobbyists out of business. Minimum wage and other cost of living expenses have not kept up with prices. After my spinal injury, had it not been for my model railroad I would have gone stark raving nutso. And when my weekly wage dropped from $1600 to $450, technically we didn't have the money to continue. But with help from the wife and other family members, this now low end blue collar worker was able to keep working on the layout which took my mind off the pain and I beleive helped me recover faster. If someone enjoys or is attracted to a hobby such as this, they should not be discouraged because they only have $10 to spend rather than $100
By the way, not being from your country, can you explain what a "strawman argument" is?
Corsair 7 wrote: Don't all hobby magazines sell a fantasy? And don't all model railroads do the same thing? Don't we all pretend that we are operating railroads?
Fantasy?????????????????????
Pretend we are operating railroads?????????????
Say it ain't soooooooo!!!!!!!! If I'm dreaming please wake me up, I have several railroads to run
CNJ831 wrote: corsair7 wrote: Don't all hobby magazines sell a fantasy? And don't all model railroads do the same thing? Don't we all pretend that we are operating railroads?So what you see as a fantasy is what we are all engaged in.So what? Are we having fun or is this a "real job?" I think we do it because we need to escape from the world and there really isn't anything wrong with that. IrvAbsolutely not, Irv. A number of them present layouts that are within the reach of many, if not most, of their more sophisticated, skilled readers. Neither do I consider those $50,000 layouts the only ones capable of providing other hobbyists with new ideas that assist them in their own modeling. In fact, most have features on a scale that can not be reasonably down-sized to conventional layouts and still look good. Far more reasonable/applicable ideas just as well can come from some 10x10 or 12x15 pike and can be far better evaluated as to how they might fit into your own pike. I've found Dave Popp's relatively modest N-scale layout to be one of the best sources of ideas I seen in years...more than I've observed on many single "monster" layouts.The point I'm making is that huge pikes are, for the most part, serve either simply as reader entertainment, or a hook to get the dabblers to buy the magazine and drool over something they can never possibly hope to achieve in the hobby. That's not what the magazine was originally all about.CNJ831
So? Magazines, like all other businesses are there to make money. Sure, they may also be there for other reasons, but they are not philanthropic organizations. So what if they show the monster layouts? I've gotten many good ideas from Allen McClellan, Bruce Chubb and others who've had their creations featured in the pages of the hobby press. I've also gotten gotten good ideas from lots of other places.
So please reconsider what you said. Al Kalmbach may have been a model railroader but he didn't create the magazine nor Kalmbach Publishing to lose money. He may not have intended to become rich, but he didn't intend to go bankrupt either. He simply saw a need and filled it, That's what entrepreneurs do and have always done.
trainnut57 wrote: ...By the way, not being from your country, can you explain what a "strawman argument" is?
...By the way, not being from your country, can you explain what a "strawman argument" is?
For someone who has worked in the law field for 10 years, I'm surprised you don't know what a "strawman argument" is (BTW, it's not an Australian thing).
trainnut57 wrote: Fantasy?????????????????????Pretend we are operating railroads?????????????Say it ain't soooooooo!!!!!!!! If I'm dreaming please wake me up, I have several railroads to run
Trust me, its fantasy and its pretend.
Not that that's bad.
Fantasy is a illusion, to be wiped away when dirty dishes are to be done and left to dry.
It is hoped that the fantasy of constructing things and running trains eases the pain of drudgery.
However, too much fantasy tends to lead to sanitarium with rubber rooms and drugs yah?
Lee Koch wrote:I agree that the cost of the hobby is high! That is in fact one of the main reasons why the average age of model railroaders keeps climbing (IIRC it's somewhere between 50 and 60 years of age). Young people just can't afford to build a pike on their allowance.By raising the bar on expectations of quality, you also discourage young modelers from even getting started. There is this inherent snob-ism in our hobby, that a 4' x 8' layout with continuous loop running is too primitive to be of any fun.
By raising the bar on expectations of quality, you also discourage young modelers from even getting started. There is this inherent snob-ism in our hobby, that a 4' x 8' layout with continuous loop running is too primitive to be of any fun.
Oh that's right. If anyone disagrees with you, they're wrong by definition since you are the world's greatest living authority on the hobby. Sorry, I forgot that. I must warn you, however, that I will continue to disregard your "authority" in the future. I wouldn't feel too bad about that, however, as I also disregard the "authority" of the great mass of financial "experts" out there as well (I was buying financial stocks when others were running screaming for the exits). 'Course, the financial "mavens" do have the comfort of pointing to each other as backing their claims where as you are, from what I can see, the only hobby "expert" out there. At least you're the only one claiming that title.
Lee Koch wrote: I agree that MR tends to feature top quality layouts that would certainly break my budget and exceed my available space. I also agree that the cost of the hobby is high! That is in fact one of the main reasons why the average age of model railroaders keeps climbing (IIRC it's somewhere between 50 and 60 years of age). Young people just can't afford to build a pike on their allowance.By raising the bar on expectations of quality, you also discourage young modelers from even getting started. There is this inherent snob-ism in our hobby, that a 4' x 8' layout with continuous loop running is too primitive to be of any fun. Now, if I were a pre-teen railfan who was considering getting started in model railroading, I think that a 4x8 and a "starter train set" would be within my budget and my skill level. But how many of this type of layout are featured in MR?Wouldn't it be great, if MR would do a feature each month on a small pike using inexpensive elements, from the benchwork to the rolling stock to the models? They could title it "A Model Railroad You Can Build". Include a list of materials and set a budget, listing the costs of each item. Sure, those models aren't going to be "good enough" for a lot of the more seasoned modellers, but for a kid just starting the hobby, maybe building and weathering a Walthers Cornerstone kit wouldn't seem as daunting as scratchbuilding a structure. And maybe buying a few (affordable) Bachmann or IHC or Athearn "Blue Box" locomotives would help said youngster get some trains running, as opposed to his saving for a year or two to buy a BLI or brass locomotive.While I'll agree with several of the other posters on this thread, that it is inspiring to see the grand layouts featured, I must admit that it would be refreshing to see some layouts featured that could realistically be built by a newcomer to the hobby.
They try but they can't cover everything. But I've seen lots of things like this over the years in Model Railroader, Railroad Model Craftsmen and in N-Scale magazine. While these may not always be headlines, they do show up in the magazines. I think the problem has more to do with they get from subscribers both in terms of pictures and written articles. And they've also done small layouts on occasion as well (remember the Turtle Creek and some others?)
What I'd really like to see in a magazine is an article by someone who is actually new to the hobby and goes on to create a room size or smaller layout using off the shelf items (not necessarily what is advertised or available at the LHS) that can be obtained just about anywhere. I'd also like to see someone doing a series about the learning curve that one goes thru in designing a new layout.
Maybe I'll send the editors a query about any interest in an article or series of articles on my experiences with returning to the hobby after a 21 year absence.
">
Forensic equine proctology.
selector wrote:Which end of this horse should I be looking at, anyway?
Your choice
twhite wrote:Ray: As a vocal accompanist, I THOUGHT I'd get your attention with that one, LOL! But I'm glad that you agree with me--we keep coming back to favorite things, things that were so rewarding to us earlier and find that we can make them even MORE rewarding as we grow. Odd--and fascinating to me, at least--is that you would use the Vaughn-Williams cycle as an example. That's one song cycle that every time I accompany it, I find more and more in it (Schumann's "Dichterliebe" and Copland's "Old American Songs" seem to be that way for me, too). Same thing with a locomotive or a piece of scenery or a small detail as I come back to it--there's more here that I can do. But I loved your analogy. But yes, at times in our life: "If it's Gudunov for Boris--"I'll shut up nowTom
¡Ich Grolle Nicht!
Interesting both the Schumann and the Copeland are also cycles that I did several songs from in collage and love to this day.
OK, back to arguing here!
...and per usual, here were are...
Sic semper threadendus.
Et nihil dictum quod non dictum prius, Dave.
-Crandell
numbnut57 wrote:Hey Mike, you're ok. Are you sure you are a blue collar worker?
Hey Mike, you're ok. Are you sure you are a blue collar worker?
numbnut57 wrote:I worked in the law field for ten years after my injury and you sound an awful lot like a lawyer. Always answer a question with a question so you don't have to answer the question.
selector wrote: Et nihil dictum quod non dictum prius, Dave. -Crandell
Crandell:
Semper ubi sub ubi.
(I learned that from my favorite Jesuit priest at the high school)
Yah, I know it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but just thought I'd throw it in.
Dave Vollmer wrote: ...and per usual, here were are...Sic semper threadendus.
See what you started...
And you've been around this forum long enough to know not to play with matches.
andrechapelon wrote: Same error and misinformation as always, a chronic problem on this site since folks so often speak before doing the required research.Now, instead of picking out a past date and simply comparing it with today, try examining the trend of pricing over that whole interval. What you find is that pricing evolved very slowly, or even stood still, during long periods. And many of the products improved progressively over this course, too. Try Mantua's pricing of its locomotives, or Athearn's, as an example. You need to do the necessary homework...I already have.CNJ831Oh that's right. If anyone disagrees with you, they're wrong by definition since you are the world's greatest living authority on the hobby. Sorry, I forgot that. I must warn you, however, that I will continue to disregard your "authority" in the future. I wouldn't feel too bad about that, however, as I also disregard the "authority" of the great mass of financial "experts" out there as well (I was buying financial stocks when others were running screaming for the exits). 'Course, the financial "mavens" do have the comfort of pointing to each other as backing their claims where as you are, from what I can see, the only hobby "expert" out there. At least you're the only one claiming that title. Andre
It's sad to see you go through the same old bluster routine once again in an attenpt to cover the fact that you have not examined the situation in question at all but simply posted something for effect that in no way reflects what actually occurred over the interval - you seem to do this all the time.
In the posting of accurate, verifiable information regarding model railroading, just as in offering sound advice in the stock marked, there are the "mavens" and "experts". What separates them is that the former usually speak either before they think, or out of a lack of actual knowledge, while the latter are the ones who've researched the subject in detail and have something worthwhile to offer...if you'll only bother to listen.
CNJ831 wrote: andrechapelon wrote: Same error and misinformation as always, a chronic problem on this site since folks so often speak before doing the required research.Now, instead of picking out a past date and simply comparing it with today, try examining the trend of pricing over that whole interval. What you find is that pricing evolved very slowly, or even stood still, during long periods. And many of the products improved progressively over this course, too. Try Mantua's pricing of its locomotives, or Athearn's, as an example. You need to do the necessary homework...I already have.CNJ831Oh that's right. If anyone disagrees with you, they're wrong by definition since you are the world's greatest living authority on the hobby. Sorry, I forgot that. I must warn you, however, that I will continue to disregard your "authority" in the future. I wouldn't feel too bad about that, however, as I also disregard the "authority" of the great mass of financial "experts" out there as well (I was buying financial stocks when others were running screaming for the exits). 'Course, the financial "mavens" do have the comfort of pointing to each other as backing their claims where as you are, from what I can see, the only hobby "expert" out there. At least you're the only one claiming that title. AndreIt's sad to see you go through the same old blust routine once again in an attenpt to cover the fact that you have not examined the situation in question at all but simply posted something for effect that in no way reflects what actually occurred over the interval - you seem to do this all the time. In the posting of accurate, verifiable information regarding model railroading, just as in offering sound advice in the stock marked, there are the "mavens" and "experts". What separates them is that the former usually speak either before they think, or out of a lack of actual knowledge, while the latter are the ones who've researched the subject in detail and have something worthwhile to offer...if you'll only bother to listen. CNJ831
It's sad to see you go through the same old blust routine once again in an attenpt to cover the fact that you have not examined the situation in question at all but simply posted something for effect that in no way reflects what actually occurred over the interval - you seem to do this all the time.
The thruth is the really that both mavens and experts have the same kind of track record where the stock market is concerned because it is really unpredictable what will happen since people's actions in a given situation is unpredictable because most people make ther decisions based on perceptions rather than information.
AS for the trends in the hobby, I think you'll find statements to the effect that model railrtoading is going down the tubes in the early issues of Model Railroader too. After all not everyone was happy to not have milled parts or machines to hel produce those parts in the early years because the only real modellers were those who could build from scratch.
If I had a talent for drawing I would make a cartoon showing Adam and Eve after being thrown out of Eden with Adam saying to Eve "We really don't need that Garden. Now we can start from scratch and do it the right way."
While Dave's initial charts were enough to make my eyes melt (and seemed way too much like work . . .) a quick reading of the various postings in this threat convinces me that:
1. Way too many model railroaders worry too much about how much things cost. I don't look at a layout and say "Wow, he must have spent $20 grand on it" - I enjoy the finished layout for what it is.
2. Are thinking that every big layout has to be bought and paid for by someone (I know of a number of model railroaders with significant financial means who build their own layouts for their own enjoyment. If they "job out" some aspect of it, who gives a #$%?? I'm not rich, but after spending time in our last house that could have spent on the layout finishing the basement I sucked it up and paid someone to finish the layout room for me - Does that mean I'll be lambasted for that every time (and if) the layout ever appears in a magazine article?
And, most importantly -
Many of you need to dig out the V&O Story and re-read what Allen McClelland's "Good Enough" philosophy actually means. It has nothing to do with how much your layout, or the next guys, costs.
Marty
That's what good lawyers do. If you would have read the post rather than look for a way to dig at someone you would have seen the compliment there. However, when you change my screen name to provide a dig or snide remark, you've gone too far. Would you like it if I started all my posts "fignewton writes".
Get a new life and pick up a sense of humor with it.
ET
As the builder of a large layout, I live by the "good enough" philosphy constantly. Time (or the lack of it) is my biggest concern, and cost is often down the list a ways. If it costs more but it saves time, that's often the greater concern.
"Cheap enough" isn't often the primary concern, in other words!
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
corsair7 wrote:--- irrelevant verbiage deleted ---If I had a talent for drawing I would make a cartoon showing Adam and Eve after being thrown out of Eden with Adam saying to Eve "We really don't need that Garden. Now we can start from scratch and do it the right way."Irv
--- irrelevant verbiage deleted ---
About half a century ago, when injection-molded plastic was replacing die-cast zinc alloy as a major railroad model material, Model Railroader published a cartoon in which two Fred Flintstone dressalikes were standing at the block of stone which served as the LHS counter. On the other side of the counter, the similarly-attired clerk had just opened a box for their perusal. The caption:
"I don't care what anyone says about these newfangled metal kits. I still prefer stone."
As Robert Heinlein observed, the main problem with experts is that they (and, frequently the media) assume that their expertise in one field carries over into other fields where their knowledge does NOT come from their own experience or academically rigorous research and reasoning. (At this point I will bite my tongue and restrain my fingers rather than provide examples.)
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Huh huh...
While the Andre-CNJ thing was entirely predictable, the discussion about money and which professions are represented in MR was unexpected... I don't get it one bit. One of my favorite modelers of all time was Bill Henderson (Coal Belt), and he was a truck driver. Oh, and he did a lot of creative, craftsman things.
Besides, who cares, really? Very few of us have bottomless wallets; I say focus your spending and you'll have a better layout. Model the modern-day CSX? Then you may want to reconsider buying that Athearn Big Boy that looks really cool. Save your cash and use it to buy more scenery materials, or equipment more appropriate to your era and locale. It never ceases to amaze me how many model railroaders buy random, high-priced stuff that looks great but has no real bearing on their modeling efforts. If they can afford it, great! But then they can't complain when they "can't afford" to finish their layout to MR standards.
Just stirring the pot again!
...and to think... I thought I took the hobby too seriously! Some of you guys... wow.
Dave Vollmer wrote: It never ceases to amaze me how many model railroaders buy random, high-priced stuff that looks great but has no real bearing on their modeling efforts. If they can afford it, great! But then they can't complain when they "can't afford" to finish their layout to MR standards.Just stirring the pot again!...and to think... I thought I took the hobby too seriously! Some of you guys... wow.
It never ceases to amaze me how many model railroaders buy random, high-priced stuff that looks great but has no real bearing on their modeling efforts. If they can afford it, great! But then they can't complain when they "can't afford" to finish their layout to MR standards.
Now, now, David--that brass Sunset Great Northern Z-6 4-6-6-4 I have on order for my Rio Grande Yuba River Sub is just a LOANER to help my railroad through a 'power shortage', understand, LOL!
Dave Vollmer wrote:Huh huh...While the Andre-CNJ thing was entirely predictable, the discussion about money and which professions are represented in MR was unexpected... I don't get it one bit. One of my favorite modelers of all time was Bill Henderson (Coal Belt), and he was a truck driver. Oh, and he did a lot of creative, craftsman things.Besides, who cares, really? Very few of us have bottomless wallets; I say focus your spending and you'll have a better layout. Model the modern-day CSX? Then you may want to reconsider buying that Athearn Big Boy that looks really cool. Save your cash and use it to buy more scenery materials, or equipment more appropriate to your era and locale. It never ceases to amaze me how many model railroaders buy random, high-priced stuff that looks great but has no real bearing on their modeling efforts. If they can afford it, great! But then they can't complain when they "can't afford" to finish their layout to MR standards.Just stirring the pot again!...and to think... I thought I took the hobby too seriously! Some of you guys... wow.
I've been saying this, but no one listens to the new guy
"it isn't about saving money, it is about spending it wisely."
twhite wrote: selector wrote: Et nihil dictum quod non dictum prius, Dave. -CrandellCrandell: Semper ubi sub ubi. (I learned that from my favorite Jesuit priest at the high school) Yah, I know it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but just thought I'd throw it in.Tom
You boys and your Latin....
Great isn't it?
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
Everything any modeler does is some level of good enough. We are all just at different points on the continuum.
dehusman wrote:Everything any modeler does is some level of good enough. We are all just at different points on the continuum.Dave H.
But go too high and you're some mean spirited, ill intentioned, cold hearted rivet counter that just drives the cost of the hobby up by requiring all new products to have near perfect detailing down to the last knick in the paint on that XYZ boxcar and DCC with sound and interior detailing on locomotives
Just kidding.
In actuality, after reading Dr. Vollmer's rail blogs and going through his MRR's website, his work as well as some of the other RIVET COUNTERS as some of you keep putting it, has inspired me to better my own modelling. Maybe it's time to start on that craftsman kit, or accurizing my diesels to match the ones that they modelled after.
Guess I'm next. Rivet counting here I come.
I believe I have stated in earlier such threads (maybe just one of them) that I get the impression the use of the term "modelling" is misused by many of us. I call myself a railroad modeller, but I don't do it. Sure, I have mostly NYC and PRR engines and rolling stock, but if that's all it took we'd all be able to say we model a given railroad. No, I don't. I like what is available to me that is a scale approximation, a "facsimile" of the real items, but anyone who has seen my images would be dishonest (my opinion) if they said the scenery resembles anything either of my two concentrations would have frequented. Where's the dark rocky outcrops, or the grey? How come so few deciduous trees? And let's not forget all the trackside details I seem to have forgotten. And on it goes. So, I am not a railroad modeller, and I guess not a model railroader...or whatever. I just purchase toy trains, mock up something like a setting, place track on it that works okay, wire it up, and then place the rolling items on the tiny rails. The rest is just fun.
Is Bob Boudreu a model railroader? Or a railroad modeller? I get the feeling that he is more into modelling, with sometimes a heavy railroad theme, but I believe he has to go to a club to actually operate trains...his or others'. But, holy smoke, can he build the models...and image them.
Dave's railroad is a very close approximation, in scale of course, to the real thing and he has understandably received compliments for his eye and his work. I would say he is a railroad modeller.
I guess you could argue about everything/one being on a continuum, and there would be lots of agreement. Some of us pay more attention to little details, and I can't think of a reason to find fault with that, even if they point out the lack of detail in my own layout. Which they haven't. So you will never hear the term "rivet counter" from me. I'll just remark on the observation that something is not quite right with X model and move on. Or not if it suits me.
Amazing commentary, this thread. Some of us on this thread are the most outrageous advocates of do it my way or you are . . . What we mean is "what is good enough from my personal view".
Case in point, I just visited the Greeley Transportation Museum last night, for the third time. This layout consumes a 70' x 140' building and in a word, is "amazing'. Thousands of trees, probably a dozen trestles, canyons with backgrounds to die for. Thirty car trains winding their way through the trees, Doug Geiger engineered signaling system with CTC. Oh, and all that outrageous mountain scenery towering 15' high is built on stacked blue foam.
But if one measured this incredible work by the yardstick of many on this website who proport "good enough works for me," Greeley Transportation Museum is, well, all code 100. Atlas code 100 at that, with watermellon sized tie plates and outrageous rail heights some 30 thousandst of an inch too high. And to add misery to the stack the turnouts are outrageously unreliable commercial, right out of the box. As for the use of blue foam; well I know a fellow who is adamant bout that little point.
No, Greeley Transportation Museum is not 'good enough'.
FYI, the museum opens to the public on Memorial Day, 2009. (Unless you are a member of the Northern Colorado Model Railroad club.)
Back to the train room, I got work to do. . .
My
Joe Daddy
Grampys Trains wrote: We definitely had different opinions of what was good enough. It seems to me that applies to model railroads, too. As to the money argument, people ask me what kind of gas mileage I get with my vehicle. I tell them I don't really know. I don't check it. It serves my needs, and I have to put gas in it, so gas mileage is irrevelant to me. That' my personal opinion, and doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else. I don't really know how much money I've invested in my layout, maybe $5,000 over a span of approx. 5 years. That's an average of about $80 a month. From the start, I knew I'd have to invest time and money to achieve my goal of a nice layout. I don't regret a minute or dollar invested.
We definitely had different opinions of what was good enough. It seems to me that applies to model railroads, too.
As to the money argument, people ask me what kind of gas mileage I get with my vehicle. I tell them I don't really know. I don't check it. It serves my needs, and I have to put gas in it, so gas mileage is irrevelant to me. That' my personal opinion, and doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else.
I don't really know how much money I've invested in my layout, maybe $5,000 over a span of approx. 5 years. That's an average of about $80 a month. From the start, I knew I'd have to invest time and money to achieve my goal of a nice layout. I don't regret a minute or dollar invested.
Well said! People (including myself) should probably spend more time working on our layouts (striving towards the kind of quality you have achieved on your layout) and less time arguing about what is "good enough" in general terms
Now, it is back to my warehouse for me - I need to make a new concrete loading dock for trucks on the back side of it and get the door frames painted. I'll try to make it look as good as I can given my current skill level and available time. That will just have to be good enough for now.
Grin, Stein
selector wrote:I believe I have stated in earlier such threads (maybe just one of them) that I get the impression the use of the term "modelling" is misused by many of us. I call myself a railroad modeller, but I don't do it. Sure, I have mostly NYC and PRR engines and rolling stock, but if that's all it took we'd all be able to say we model a given railroad.
I believe I have stated in earlier such threads (maybe just one of them) that I get the impression the use of the term "modelling" is misused by many of us. I call myself a railroad modeller, but I don't do it. Sure, I have mostly NYC and PRR engines and rolling stock, but if that's all it took we'd all be able to say we model a given railroad.
Gary:
"Semper ubi sub ubi" means "Always wear underwear."
Learned that from my favorite Jesuit priest at the Catholic boy's school at which I teach. Other than that, my Latin's pretty poor, myself (well, except for possibly some of the more ribald sections of "CARMINA BURANA" )
numbnut57 wrote:That's what good lawyers do. If you would have read the post rather than look for a way to dig at someone you would have seen the compliment there. However, when you change my screen name to provide a dig or snide remark, you've gone too far.
That's what good lawyers do. If you would have read the post rather than look for a way to dig at someone you would have seen the compliment there. However, when you change my screen name to provide a dig or snide remark, you've gone too far.
Would you like it if I started all my posts "fignewton writes".
twhite wrote: Gary: "Semper ubi sub ubi" means "Always wear underwear." Learned that from my favorite Jesuit priest at the Catholic boy's school at which I teach. Other than that, my Latin's pretty poor, myself (well, except for possibly some of the more ribald sections of "CARMINA BURANA" )Tom
Am I the only one that finds this distrubing? See you on the news at 6.
PASMITH wrote:Holy Cow Batman, over 5,000 views of this thread and still climbing!
So is that good enough??
I have seen this on virtually every forum. Post a question that actually asks for a technical answer or some constructive input and get a half dozen constructive answers (if you are lucky). Start a thread about some esoteric point or some undefineable aspect and you can get a dozen pages and keep it going for weeks.
Opinions are evidently more common than knowledge. 8-)
jasperofzeal wrote: twhite wrote: Gary: "Semper ubi sub ubi" means "Always wear underwear." Learned that from my favorite Jesuit priest at the Catholic boy's school at which I teach. Other than that, my Latin's pretty poor, myself (well, except for possibly some of the more ribald sections of "CARMINA BURANA" )Tom Am I the only one that finds this distrubing? See you on the news at 6.
No doubt!!
I'm a lot more concerned about that "Carmina Burana" thing..... I once had an Orff addiction myself. Even kept a copy of his Shulwerk in my desk at school for those times I had to have it. It came from an addiction to Kodaly. I even sang his Te Deum in collage..... You have seen Close Encounters of the Third Kind haven't you? Guess I shouldn't really say more here on line, but hopefully ol' Tom can get some help for this...
Well, not unless you ALSO find it disturbing when a public school gym coach reminds his team to be properly and protectively attired (i.e, 'jockstraps' )for sports events.
Ray--
On CARMINA BURANA--we found out the best way to whet the addiction was to PERFORM it, which is exactly what my high school choir did, two years ago--with blessings from the Administration, BTW. Worked like a charm, and the guys just LOVED doing it. And we did a pretty darned good job of it, too. They didn't care about the lyrics, they were just having too much fun with the music. And after that, it was easy to get them into Brahms, Beethoven and Copland.
twhite wrote:Ray--On CARMINA BURANA--we found out the best way to whet the addiction was to PERFORM it, which is exactly what my high school choir did, two years ago--with blessings from the Administration, BTW. Worked like a charm, and the guys just LOVED doing it. And we did a pretty darned good job of it, too. They didn't care about the lyrics, they were just having too much fun with the music. And after that, it was easy to get them into Brahms, Beethoven and Copland. Tom
Oh Yeah!!!!!! Hope you had orchestra accompaning them. You have to have the gong in "O Fortuna"!!!! (I know you realise that 95% of the people on here have no clue of what this is all about........) I played "O Fortuna" for my 8th. grade classes years ago (It was in the Series Books). After school 4 of the "tough" kids showed up in my room. "Mr. Howard, would make us a copy of that Fortune Song you played today?" Had to tell them no as it is copyrighted, but they could buy the entire piece at the local record shop downtown. Found out from the owner of the shop that a few kids did exactly that. Great way to show students that great music isn't quite so boring as they thought....
Sorry for stealing the thread............... You can go back to argueing now.
Hi all, new to this forum, but been reading MR since late 1978.
In the past, I knew well enough that I hadn't the space, time, or money for anything that could be considered 'good enough' for my standards, so armchairing had to be good enough for many years.
Lately, though, I've finally put some real concrete effort into model railroading, and it is expensive, but so are all hobbies. Finding your own limitations, financial and otherwise, gives you a sort of boundary line, a place where you know it'll have to be good enough for you to at least make a start worthwhile.
Expecting that boundary to be in the realm of the big layout features seen in magazines is, for most, unrealistic, though these do serve some really fine inspiration.
There have been many features and how-to's on smaller layouts in MR. The Clinchfield series was just wrapping up when I began reading MR bacl in the fall of '78, and there's even more small layout info and interest now, fortunately.
The hobby goes through phases, and it's still really developing it's overall public identity, but what we all do in our own basements, garages, and spare rooms really defines what the hobby is.
Most of us will never have that 'dream layout' or have our work featured in an international modelling magazine, but spending our time in this hobby is something we've all chosen to do, so we just need to make the most of what we have to hand, and not begrudge those that have more time or money, and help those that have less in terms of knowledge and skills.
We all have our own preferences and standards, but in the end it's about having fun, and if it's not fun, why do it?
Interesting debate, anyway!
:)
If Semper ubi sub ubi means "Always wear underwear" ....
What is the Latin translation for "and when you don't, try not sitting on new upholstery"?
Thanks,
PS -- My girlfriend asked me this question because of an incident involving our cabin's chair on the maiden voyage of the cruise ship Pearl. Believe me, you don't want further details.
kcole4001 wrote:BTW, compared to some ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) forum's standards this squabble is really quite tame.
Wow, does this bring back fond memories of playing SL/ASL !
markpierce wrote: If Semper ubi sub ubi means "Always wear underwear" .... What is the Latin translation for "and when you don't, try not sitting on new upholstery"?Thanks,Mark............
............
Latin's a little rusty, but I believe "ut vos operor non , tendo non sedeo in novus upholstery" is close enough. "Upholstery" not having a direct translation
Dave Vollmer opines:
While the Andre-CNJ thing was entirely predictable,....
Well, at least I'm dependable.
You'll have to excuse me, Dave. I was a part of a large software implementation about a dozen years ago and our company hired a whole slew of "expert" consultants* to assist us. Turns out, these self-proclaimed "experts" caused more problems than they solved and our team spent the better part of the year after implementation undoing much of what the "experts" told us to do. I don't trust unverified claims of expertise and I'm a bit sensitive about same. Anything I've personally posted about hobby pricing can be either verified or falsified by a little research since specific examples are provided. That should be "good enough" (to try and keep it somewhat on topic).
*Consultant - a person who claims to know 101 ways to make love but has never actually been out on a date.
andrechapelon wrote:Dave Vollmer opines: Huh huh...While the Andre-CNJ thing was entirely predictable,....Well, at least I'm dependable. You'll have to excuse me, Dave. I was a part of a large software implementation about a dozen years ago and our company hired a whole slew of "expert" consultants* to assist us. Turns out, these self-proclaimed "experts" caused more problems than they solved and our team spent the better part of the year after implementation undoing much of what the "experts" told us to do. I don't trust unverified claims of expertise and I'm a bit sensitive about same. Anything I've personally posted about hobby pricing can be either verified or falsified by a little research since specific examples are provided. That should be "good enough" (to try and keep it somewhat on topic).*Consultant - a person who claims to know 101 ways to make love but has never actually been out on a date.Andre
So by your definition, based on that experience, anyone who is a consultant is unqualified?
No offence, but I haven't seen your name in the editors section of the Webster's Dictionary. I trust you'll excuse me for not trusting your unverified claim of expertise in this matter.
I still say the point of good enough is when the fun disapears.
Due to the personal growth that seems to be inherent to any modeling based hobby, that is a point which fluctuates based on experience and skill development.
But hey, I'm no expert......
Well I might as well jump in too LOL.
There was this guy who could build brass steam Locos from scratch but could not build the base for a layout out of 2 x4's etc. After I they were built he had a tear in his eye they were so beautiful [his words]. he could not build the guts for a layout but he could build brass locos.
I can not build a loco to save my life. But if it is made of wood I can probably build it.
For me 'good enough' amounts to the level of my skills for now. I buy a loco and if it stays on the tracks I am happy. I have never weathered a loco or car etc.
However, I can and do build buildings and bridges etc etc that make people go nuts trying to figure out how i do it.
Recently i built a trestle. I did not put in ALL the details for a change because i simply coudln't be bothered. And yet it still has all the nut and bolt washers etc on it. I also put a spike in EVERY tie etc etc. I just choose not to put in other things though because I thought what I had done this time was 'good enough'.
For others it would be too much and yet others would have done more [like put in the gurd rail].
As for the 'rivet counters'. If it were NOT for them we would not have the fine looking locos and cars etc that we now have. I appreciate these people a lot. No way my shay would look as good as it does if it were not for those guys.
Personally I think we owe rivet counters a big round of applause. But there is no chance at all of me doing that kind of stuff on my own.
So good enough' for me depends on what it is I am doing. I hand lay my own track and make my own turnouts. I hand make board by board all my buildings and bridges.
But I also but cars and locos and run them as is out of the bow and never have changed them. Whatever they look like out of the box is generally what they look like years later as well.
For me, both areas are good enough.
As for others, I think that good enough is what ever makes you happy. When the hobby stops being fun it stops beinga hobby I think. For me "FUN" is cutting and dying and laying out 5,000 scale sized railroad ties. I have had people watch me cut them out etc and almost run out of the room LOL.
I also make things like ladders etc and people go crossed eyed watching me. To me that is fun. Changing the appearance of a loco or car is not fun to me.
We are all different, and each of us have our own idea of fun. I think often though it comes down to our expectations and our experience. In the end, are you having fun? Then it does not matter what others think.
That just my opinion though. Hope it helps :D
Scarpia wrote: andrechapelon wrote: "expert" consultants* to assist us. Turns out, these self-proclaimed "experts" caused more problems than they solved (snip ...) I don't trust unverified claims of expertise (snip ...) *Consultant - a person who claims to know 101 ways to make love but has never actually been out on a date. So by your definition, based on that experience, anyone who is a consultant is unqualified?
andrechapelon wrote: "expert" consultants* to assist us. Turns out, these self-proclaimed "experts" caused more problems than they solved (snip ...) I don't trust unverified claims of expertise (snip ...) *Consultant - a person who claims to know 101 ways to make love but has never actually been out on a date.
"expert" consultants* to assist us. Turns out, these self-proclaimed "experts" caused more problems than they solved (snip ...)
I don't trust unverified claims of expertise (snip ...)
Reminds me of this great T-shirt I once briefly considered buying and wearing at work after the company where I worked then changed my job description into "senior consultant" : it had the word "unemployed" crossed out, and the text "consultant" penciled in instead. Under it said : "same work, more pay".
Sadly I chickened out from buying and wearing both that T-shirt and buying and wearing the T-shirt that said "select * from management where clue > 0 - zero rows returned" - I must have been getting older and more "responsible" even then
Anyways - the main point of Andre's post seems to have been not "all consultants are unqualified", but rather "some self proclaimed 'expert' consultants are unqualified - so I want to see for myself what data these self proclaimed experts base their analysis &recommendation on, and see them explain how they went from data to result."
Which is an very sensible attitude, in my opinion. "Just trust me, I am an expert" is usually a weak argument. An qualified expert in a field ought be able to explain to a reasonably intelligent layman (and especially to a reasonably intelligent layman with domain knowledge) how he or she arrives at their result.
Incidentally - is this thread really much related to model railroading any more ? Or are we all busy illustrating the old quip that explains why somewhat vaguely defined emotional touchy-feely subjects tend to get 5-10 pages of followup posts while posts about technical aspects of our hobby rarely gets more than 4-5 followup posts: "opinions are like (umm - plural of excretory body opening at lower rear end of human beings) - everybody has one, and everybody thinks everybody else's stink worse than their own" ?
Hmm - I forget - in these kinds of threads - was I supposed to bite my tongue and sit on my hands, or was I supposed to bite my hands and sit on my tongue, or was I supposed to bite what people sit on and put my tongue out, or ....
Apparently, you've never heard the joke and, judging from your reply, have trouble recognizing a joke as well.
There's a joke I like that takes potshots at software types (I was one once) which involves a woman who's been married 3 times but is still a virgin. To keep it short, I'll skip straight to the punch line where the woman wails to her friend, "My 3rd husband is a software engineer and all he ever does is tell me how good it's going to be".
And yes, the big 5 consulting firms did hire kids straight out of college and made them "consultants" without first having at least a modicum of actual real world experience. Still do as far as I know. I'm retired, but I doubt things have changed all that much. Cheap labor, billed out at $250/hour at the time. We had 2 of the 5, Price-Waterhouse Coopers and Deloitte & Touche. Talk to any software professional who's been in the business for any length of time. They'll tell you about consultants. It ain't just MY opinion.
And then there was a colleague of mine who reveled in his S.C.U.M.B.A.G. title (Santa Clara University MBA Graduate). OTOH, he had over 12 years real world experience before getting the MBA so he actually knew something useful.
And just to bring this back on topic, if you're going to have a layout professionally built, make sure your contractor actually has built layouts. Otherwise, I can guarantee you it won't be "good enough".
steinjr wrote: Reminds me of this great T-shirt I once briefly considered buying and wearing at work after the company where I worked then changed my job description into "senior consultant" : it had the word "unemployed" crossed out, and the text "consultant" penciled in instead. Under it said : "same work, more pay".
I've met a few people that would fit into one of those shirts.
I think we have read enough opinions here, and the most recent have not advanced the original premise a great deal. Let's move on.