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!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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!!!!
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,
Charlie Comstock
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.
FWIW
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.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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!"
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
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.
Irv