On the theory of "good enough..."

[corsair7]

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.

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.

Irv

[trainnut57]

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

[trainnut57]

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?

[PA&ERR]

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.

Does that mean it is acually Boris Badanov?

-George

[andrechapelon]

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.

Andre

[trainnut57]

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.

[CNJ831]

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.

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

[Flint Hills Tex]

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.

[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

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.

CNJ831

 

[Autobus Prime]

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. I think a lot of us aren't looking that far back, but are looking back 20 years ago and seeing that the typical loco used was an Athearn F7 or GP9, available at around $36 in today's dollars (I think it still is). Today, the typical loco used is probably the same thing, or an inexpensive Bachmann Plus unit for about the same price, but often we see that $40 loco with $10 worth of electronics sold for $80, and that looks inflated, and what we see promoted and coming out new is a lot of $100 diesels. Also, remember, that there's more to this than equipment -- in the 1950s, it seemed "respectable" to have a one or two-horse pike, and a lot seemed to have five or six locos and maybe 50 cars, but today we think we need a fleet of diesels, or three or four identical steamers, and lots of freight cars sitting in staging, waiting to run. So, while it's still possible to do this hobby cheaply, the way we are led to see it makes it seem more expensive.

I think most of us still do things the cheap way...but I think we're being made to feel that we're doing it "wrong" if we don't do things the expensive "right" way. To me, the Central of Georgia is the only Right Way.

Folks:

The way I see it, we can get upset that model railroading costs too much for us average Joes (which I used to do), or we can get upset that it may be portrayed that way, but all that does is make us spend more on Tums.

We can also prove it wrong to ourselves, which is what I did in my younger days before getting into the aforementioned doom-and-gloom mindset, and which I do now, after leaving that mindset behind, by doing what we can with what we have. Personally, I believe the theory has been exploded. I've spent well under $500 on my layout, equipment included, and it's a working HO railroad, and a lot of that was not strictly necessary, or was equipment I'd bought a long time ago.

What we really need to do, though, is to stop being embarassed, as if there's some sort of big-buck modeler's club that we have to belong to, and start telling people about what we average Joes are able to do. In the past, I think, we had a rather small number of Joe Sixpacks who made a BIG impact because they wrote a lot about what they did.

E.L. Moore was an exception - not many people were as bent on economy as he was - but he was PROUD OF IT, and he wrote a lot...and he started when he was in his 60s. The impact he made, starting at the point when a lot of us might think it was too late to make a ripple, is staggering...and except in the earlier years, the man didn't even have space for a layout!

Linn Westcott was an exception. I don't think many people have been the "popularizer" that he was. The HO Railroad That Grows is a great illustration of his philosophy. It's not a spectacularly fine line, even by the current standards, and he was well aware of that. But it was eminently achievable by a lot of people. How many of those went on to finer things, who would never have done so, if not given that easy first step? LHW was also a great innovator, who did a lot for the hobby, but not one of these things would have done a bit of general good if he'd hid his light under a bushel basket.

This even relates to the theory of good enough here...you might not think it's good enough for anybody else, but if it's good enough for you, it probably is, even if it's not for everyone.

[andrechapelon]

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.

Andre

 

 

[Scarpia]

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

[AntonioFP45]

[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.   

[Lillen]

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

[dehusman]

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".

Dave H.

[Scarpia]

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 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! 

[corsair7]

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

[riogrande5761]

...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.

Somebody has waaaaaaay too much time on their hands or needs a wife!

 

Just kidding!  =D

[CNJ831]

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    

[marknewton]

Boy, I've been told a lot of things in my life but never to get out of the hobby.

Really? How extraordinary! Who told you to do that?

I know Mark is from Australia and maybe he needs to lighten up (down under) a bit.

If I had the faintest idea of what you meant by that I might consider it...

I didn't realize the hobby was relegated to middle class people as Mark suggests.

Relegated? Your words, not mine. What I suggested was that without a certain amount of discretionary income, you'd be hard pressed to be a model railroader. That would seem to exclude blue-collar types on a minimum wage with little or no discretionary income, would it not?

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.

So don't buy them. You've said yourself you bought most of your steam engines years ago. So the "pressure" to buy the best, rather like the evil rivet counters, is no more than a strawman argument.

Cheers,

Mark.

[tomikawaTT]

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.

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)

[Kenfolk]

Dave--

Just LOOK at what a fine mess you've gotten us into this time.

Is this thread "good enough" ?  

 

 

[trainnut57]

Answer to dehusman post:  MONEY$$$$. Friends are friends, pros ask for money.

[trainnut57]

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

[dehusman]

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.

Dave H.

[twhite]

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

Tom

[Scarpia]

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

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

[howmus]

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.

[CNJ831]

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 approached by the wealthy, if done on any large scale and high quality.

CNJ831

[twhite]

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