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..."
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.
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!).
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
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.
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.
CNJ831
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. $$$$$
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.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
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
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
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
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!!!!
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
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.
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!
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
trainnut57 wrote:Whatever happened to the idea that a model railroad was a tool with which to have fun?
Today's models are so well done, so highly detailed, that I'm having fun just weathering them and running them. I recently took my kids to one of Europe's biggest model railroad displays (sorry, it's an all German web-site):
http://www.modellbahn-wiehe.de/index2.htm
While we were there, I observed the display, and realized that the whole thing was not hyper-detailed. No one could have appreciated it anyway, as all the trains were operating. It was more about "setting the scene", about creating an impression of reality. And it works! I would rather have more railroad with less detailing that gives the overall impression of being real, because I will be running trains over it, and want to feel as if I'm running over a real branch line.
My interlocking must have a tower with a towerman and a few mock up armstrong levers visible inside, but it does not have to have cable conduits running from the tower to the tracks as in the prototype. My freight car trucks need not have real springs; I'm satisfied with die-cast springs. Have fun and..."stop counting rivets!"
trainnut57 wrote: I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever. How about this: Is it good enough for you??? When it comes to my Railroad, Fallen Flags, Inc., if you don't like it you don't have to look. But you know what? I haven't had one person or child tell me they didn't like it. Most didn't want to leave. My one layout covers: ATSF, Burlington, BN, BNSF, UP, SP, D&RGW, NYC, PENNSY, B&O, C&O and AMTRAK, steam and diesel respectively, and all pass the same scenery. GOOD ENOUGH!!!!
I imagine you didn't read my follow-up post exposing this as a bit of good-natured humor... But that's okay, because even if I were serious about this, I think it's fun to think of the hobby in terms of science and math. You may not, but that doesn't make my views on the hobby invalid. But I do make it clear throughout that "good enough" is defined by the modeler himself, and no one else. I hope you read that too.
I'm an analytical person; that's just as valid a way to approach the hobby as any.
I would suggest by your reaction you may be taking the hobby a bit seriously as well....! Relax and have fun. I am!
In my own modeling (which applies only to me, and nobody else) I have a dream. At a point on my under-construction layout where the benchwork has yet to be erected, I will model a long, twisting upgrade climb parallel to a fast-flowing river in a steep-sided valley. When it is finished, steam-powered freights will work hard and move slowly to climb it.
At that time, when I look at the results of my efforts from a couple of meters away, I will ask myself, "Does that look like what I saw from the other side of the river between Agematsu and Kiso-Fukushima?"
If the answer is yes, I will have achieved my own, "Good enough."
Chuck (modeling the Upper Kiso Valley of Central Japan in September, 1964)
Autobus Prime wrote: trainnut57 wrote:I myself have no background in electronics, design, engineering, art (drawing a straight line with a ruler my thumb generally gets in the way), nothing that would readily enable me to build the kinds of layouts seen in MRM. Everything I have learned I have learned by trial and error. I have probably spent as much on my layout rebuilding it (8 times to date) because "something" didn't turn out right or I got a better idea, as any of the great larger layouts seen in MRM. I just learned what I know the hard way-trial and error. tn57:Engineers do that too, but they say "empirical methods" for respectability's sake. A lot of the charts we use were come up with over the years by just that trial and error. The analog computer of reality is an excellent analyst in the long run. From what you're telling me, you've done lots of experimenting along the way, and for my money that's the heart of model railroad engineering...that and sharing your mistakes and successes so other people can avoid / repeat them. I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever. DV was being facetious, and maybe poking a little fun at that very tendency to overanalyze. After all, neither his chart nor my obfuscated version has any recognized units anywhere. It's good enough when it's good enough.
trainnut57 wrote:I myself have no background in electronics, design, engineering, art (drawing a straight line with a ruler my thumb generally gets in the way), nothing that would readily enable me to build the kinds of layouts seen in MRM. Everything I have learned I have learned by trial and error. I have probably spent as much on my layout rebuilding it (8 times to date) because "something" didn't turn out right or I got a better idea, as any of the great larger layouts seen in MRM. I just learned what I know the hard way-trial and error.
I may have drifted a little off topic and I apologize, but when I saw the charts presented by Dave Vollmer I kinda lost it. Why not start a drive to once again begin having fun with the hobby and not worry about whether your layout is good enough for whatever or whoever.
Uh... that answer sounds good enough for me!
George
Doctor Dave, Dave Nelson, et.al.--
Your "doc" is exposed.
Better check your gif files and watch your language.
Some of our members here may be sensitive to graphs, plots, and intersecting data.
AMEN!
Doc
OMG you people need to get a life!! Where do you find time to model??
Thanks for starting the post .. it is fun reading.
It is all subjective however, I know that all the curves shift to the left for me as a factor of the time I have been working on a particular scene. Fortunately, after I get away from it for a while it shifts back to the right.
Dave,As another point of view discussed among advanced modelers is:Where do we draw the time line for a given locomotive?
Do we draw that line when the locomotive was new from the plant-in other words shiny and all fresh.
Do we draw that line when the locomotive has seen many months of service and has lost its luster?
Do we draw that line when the locomotive is long over due for a fresh coat of paint?
What details should we add/remove and when should they be added/removed? Let's say we model AB&C..The question we need to ask and find the answers to is when did the shop add A/C to the 444? When was the headlights lowered from above the cab to the nose? Then there is the minute detail such as the crack door glass.Wait! When was 444 converted to a road slug? Or perhaps: What?? 444 was wrecked and scrapped shortly after it was delivered?
Many questions many different time frame answers in the life span of a given locomotive
As we can see there is far more in "accuracy modeling" then just adding the "correct" details.
Of course the above type of modeling is hardcore and many won't take that extra step.
I know I won't and will stop at "close enough/good enough" rather then sweat the minute details..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Dave Vollmer wrote: Autobus Prime wrote:DV:I believe you have done a great service to the hobby with this "quantitative" analysis of a difficult subject. However, based on my experience in reading steam tables etc. I believe that this chart could be improved to the point of utter incomprehensibility with further reasearch. For instance, here is a start:As you can see, the isobars make it much harder to read, especially once you spill that cup of coffee on it. With careful work, a chart can obscure complicated data in ways that would take many more pages with a table of values.Well done, sir!Add to it the fact that as we improve our skills even for the same set of initial conditions our definition of good enough keeps migrating to the right, and we will have achieved complete incomprehensibility.
Autobus Prime wrote:DV:I believe you have done a great service to the hobby with this "quantitative" analysis of a difficult subject. However, based on my experience in reading steam tables etc. I believe that this chart could be improved to the point of utter incomprehensibility with further reasearch. For instance, here is a start:As you can see, the isobars make it much harder to read, especially once you spill that cup of coffee on it. With careful work, a chart can obscure complicated data in ways that would take many more pages with a table of values.
Well done, sir!
Add to it the fact that as we improve our skills even for the same set of initial conditions our definition of good enough keeps migrating to the right, and we will have achieved complete incomprehensibility.
Yes, "well done" ............. A salute to Autobus for clearing this up.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU