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.
-Crandell
dehusman wrote:Everything any modeler does is some level of good enough. We are all just at different points on the continuum.Dave H.
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.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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
selector wrote: Et nihil dictum quod non dictum prius, Dave. -Crandell
Et nihil dictum quod non dictum prius, Dave.
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.
Tom
You boys and your Latin....
Great isn't it?
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.
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."
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
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!
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!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
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 ---
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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.
CNJ831
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.
Andre
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dave Vollmer wrote: ...and per usual, here were are...Sic semper threadendus.
...and per usual, here were are...
Sic semper threadendus.
And you've been around this forum long enough to know not to play with matches.
See what you started...
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.
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
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
¡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!
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
selector wrote:Which end of this horse should I be looking at, anyway?
Your choice
Forensic equine proctology.
">
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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).
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)