On the theory of "good enough..."

[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! 

[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.

[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

[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.   

[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

[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

 

 

[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.

[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

 

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[jasperofzeal]

 

...By the way, not being from your country, can you explain what a "strawman argument" is?

For someone who has worked in the law field for 10 years, I'm surprised you don't know what a "strawman argument" is (BTW, it's not an Australian thing).

[dehusman]

Fantasy?????????????????????

Pretend we are operating railroads?????????????

Say it ain't soooooooo!!!!!!!!  If I'm dreaming please wake me up, I have several railroads to run

Trust me, its fantasy and its pretend.

Not that that's bad.

Dave H.

[Last Chance]

Fantasy is a illusion, to be wiped away when dirty dishes are to be done and left to dry.

It is hoped that the fantasy of constructing things and running trains eases the pain of drudgery.

However, too much fantasy tends to lead to sanitarium with rubber rooms and drugs yah?

[Autobus Prime]

I agree that the cost of the hobby is high! That is in fact one of the main reasons why the average age of model railroaders keeps climbing (IIRC it's somewhere between 50 and 60 years of age). Young people just can't afford to build a pike on their allowance.

By raising the bar on expectations of quality, you also discourage young modelers from even getting started. There is this inherent snob-ism in our hobby, that a 4' x 8' layout with continuous loop running is too primitive to be of any fun.

LK:

The big layouts aren't always the best ones, however. All things considered, that 4x8 with ell in a relatively recent MR was a lot more pleasing than any part of Rod Stewart's layout. That article was a great example of what I like to see in a layout feature...it covered many aspects of the layout in
great detail, such as operation.

I don't think the cost of this hobby is high. I'm pretty sure I haven't hallucinated that layout in the basement, and I'm pretty sure I'm not missing a zero or two on the paycheck. I could be. I don't usually hold it very long. Annat's what happens when you start a family. Completely worth it, though. But what can I do? People have their dogmas and I can't convert 'em!

I think the average age thing is due to a big spike in popularity a few years back, more than the
youths' disposable income. Have you seen the prices on the ELECTRONICS those kids buy? And the designer clothes that look like stuff I wore 12 years ago to work on my car? Sheesh. (And mine had REAL cheesy product names on 'em, kids!) Of course, because of this, the big population of 50-60 years young MRRers tends to be more visible, but there's lots of young folks here.

(I'm "only" 31 myself. I think. I'm tryna quit.)

The snob-ism doesn't really exist. I used to think it did. What passes for inherent snobbery is actually the inherent embarassment a lot of people have to admit that they have the same limitations as pretty much all of us. We should have a thread like the last scene of AIRHEADS.

("I use hornhook couplers! I run my trains in a loop...continuously!")

[andrechapelon]

Same error and misinformation as always, a chronic problem on this site since folks so often speak before doing the required research.

Now, instead of picking out a past date and simply comparing it with today, try examining the trend of pricing over that whole interval. What you find is that pricing evolved very slowly, or even stood still, during long periods. And many of the products improved progressively over this course, too. Try Mantua's pricing of its locomotives, or Athearn's, as an example. You need to do the necessary homework...I already have.

CNJ831

Oh that's right. If anyone disagrees with you, they're wrong by definition since you are the world's greatest living authority on the hobby. Sorry, I forgot that. I must warn you, however, that I will continue to disregard your "authority" in the future. I wouldn't feel too bad about that, however, as I also disregard the "authority" of the great mass of financial "experts" out there as well (I was buying financial stocks when others were running screaming for the exits). 'Course, the financial "mavens" do have the comfort of pointing to each other as backing their claims where as you are, from what I can see, the only hobby "expert" out there. At least you're the only one claiming that title.

Andre

 

 

 

[corsair7]

I agree that MR tends to feature top quality layouts that would certainly break my budget and exceed my available space. I also agree that the cost of the hobby is high! That is in fact one of the main reasons why the average age of model railroaders keeps climbing (IIRC it's somewhere between 50 and 60 years of age). Young people just can't afford to build a pike on their allowance.

By raising the bar on expectations of quality, you also discourage young modelers from even getting started. There is this inherent snob-ism in our hobby, that a 4' x 8' layout with continuous loop running is too primitive to be of any fun. Now, if I were a pre-teen railfan who was considering getting started in model railroading, I think that a 4x8 and a "starter train set" would be within my budget and my skill level. But how many of this type of layout are featured in MR?

Wouldn't it be great, if MR would do a feature each month on a small pike using inexpensive elements, from the benchwork to the rolling stock to the models? They could title it "A Model Railroad You Can Build". Include a list of materials and set a budget, listing the costs of each item. Sure, those models aren't going to be "good enough" for a lot of the more seasoned modellers, but for a kid just starting the hobby, maybe building and weathering a Walthers Cornerstone kit wouldn't seem as daunting as scratchbuilding a structure. And maybe buying a few (affordable) Bachmann or IHC or Athearn "Blue Box" locomotives would help said youngster get some trains running, as opposed to his saving for a year or two to buy a BLI or brass locomotive.

While I'll agree with several of the other posters on this thread, that it is inspiring to see the grand layouts featured, I must admit that it would be refreshing to see some layouts featured that could realistically be built by a newcomer to the hobby.

They try but they can't cover everything. But I've seen lots of things like this over the years in Model Railroader, Railroad Model Craftsmen and in N-Scale magazine. While these may not always be headlines, they do show up in the magazines. I think the problem has more to do with they get from subscribers both in terms of pictures and written articles. And they've also done small layouts on occasion as well (remember the Turtle Creek and some others?)

What I'd really like to see in a magazine is an article by someone who is actually new to the hobby and goes on to create a room size or smaller layout using off the shelf items (not necessarily what is advertised or available at the LHS) that can be obtained just about anywhere. I'd also like to see someone doing a series about the learning curve that one goes thru in designing a new layout.

Maybe I'll send the editors a query about any interest in an article or series of articles on my experiences with returning to the hobby after a 21 year absence.

Irv

[Mailman56701]

 

"> 

[selector]

Which end of this horse should I be looking at, anyway?

[dehusman]

Forensic equine proctology.

Dave H.

[Mailman56701]

Which end of this horse should I be looking at, anyway?

  Your choice

[howmus]

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

¡Ich Grolle Nicht!

 

Interesting both the Schumann and the Copeland are also cycles that I did several songs from in collage and love to this day.

 

OK, back to arguing here! 

[Dave Vollmer]

...and per usual, here were are...

Sic semper threadendus.

[selector]

Et nihil dictum quod non dictum prius, Dave. 

-Crandell

[marknewton]

Hey Mike, you're ok. Are you sure you are a blue collar worker?

Yes. I trained as a boilermaker, then I was a boiler inspector. Now I drive trains.

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.

Funny thing that - you're the one who claims experience in the law. If anyone is avoiding answering questions in this thread it would be you. You've made a number of claims which I've challenged, and all you've done is gone off on tangents and not answered any of my questions. Very like a lawyer.

Tata!