Autobus Prime wrote: Walleye wrote: CNJ831 wrote:Taking the time to understand and learn how to correctly represent landscape in a realistic manner is what sets appart those who are the true hobbyists from the rest. All heed this man! And know once and for all whether you qualify as a "true hobbyist" or are just one of "the rest." W:Bah. A "true hobbyist" is someone who practices a hobby, not someone who lives up to one practitioner's arbitrary standards. "The rest" are just as true hobbyists as anybody. I look forward to the day when the term "true hobbyist" and anything like it takes the well-deserved instant pounding that "true fan" does in other circles.Some people are more skilled than others, and some people get farther into things than others, but we're all model railroaders.
Walleye wrote: CNJ831 wrote:Taking the time to understand and learn how to correctly represent landscape in a realistic manner is what sets appart those who are the true hobbyists from the rest. All heed this man! And know once and for all whether you qualify as a "true hobbyist" or are just one of "the rest."
CNJ831 wrote:Taking the time to understand and learn how to correctly represent landscape in a realistic manner is what sets appart those who are the true hobbyists from the rest.
All heed this man! And know once and for all whether you qualify as a "true hobbyist" or are just one of "the rest."
W:Bah. A "true hobbyist" is someone who practices a hobby, not someone who lives up to one practitioner's arbitrary standards. "The rest" are just as true hobbyists as anybody. I look forward to the day when the term "true hobbyist" and anything like it takes the well-deserved instant pounding that "true fan" does in other circles.Some people are more skilled than others, and some people get farther into things than others, but we're all model railroaders.
AP,
Golly! Here I thought CNJ831 had somehow had a vision of the absolute truth.
Surely you don't mean to imply that people can be allowed to do their own thinking and reach their own conclusions about how they want to do this hobby? Why, anyone could call himself a model railroader just because he had built his own model railroad! And how would we keep "the rest" in their place?
Walleye wrote:Golly! Here I thought CNJ831 had somehow had a vision of the absolute truth.Surely you don't mean to imply that people can be allowed to do their own thinking and reach their own conclusions about how they want to do this hobby? Why, anyone could call himself a model railroader just because he had built his own model railroad! And how would we keep "the rest" in their place?
Golly gee, Walleye, if you really (and sadly) believe this is a hobby where anything is ok when it comes to modeling and that flatlands layouts are as welcome and acceptable a design as any, please explain why you virtually never sees examples of such layouts depicted in any of the magazines today. Such layouts as feature articles simply don't exist, aside for their presentation occasionally as some basic, entry level project. You won't find them offered up in modern layout construction guides beyond those of the WGH introductory level either, nor represented in any serious instructional videos. Doesn't that at least to give you some clue as to how they are regarded by those with any real experience in the hobby?
If you remain in doubt about how flatlands pikes are looked upon by experienced modelers, try attending an NMRA meet or convention, present your flatlands pike to the group as a viable layout and see the reaction you get if you are anything but a newbie. Better yet, have it evaluated by your supposed peers on one of these occasions. You'll be in for a very rude awakening as to what they think of it. Hiding behind the "It's my railroad and I can do anything I want" won't cover you there. I know that a lot of folks like to overlook the facts when is comes to discussions here but these are pretty tough ones to get by.
Likewise, ever sign up for a layout tour offered by some model railroading organization and count just how many flatlands layouts you saw? I've never encounted even one on the many national and regional convention layout tours Ive taken. Does that also perhaps suggest to you that most hobbyists really don't take them seriously, or as in any way representative of what the hobby is currently about?
The acceptability of "my own rules make it OK" and flatlands layouts, as viable examples of the model railroading hobby, may have existed several decades ago when commercial scenery products, modeling concepts and the methodology to employ them were both primative and limited, or when such basic pikes were still a big deal with kids for their Lionels. Today that era and acceptance is now long past, as well as how they are regarded by experienced hobbyists. It's true that you may practice the hobby in any fashion you wish but you also need to come to grips with what is recognized as a representative example of it by the mainstream and what is not.
CNJ831
CNJ831 wrote: Walleye wrote:Golly! Here I thought CNJ831 had somehow had a vision of the absolute truth.Surely you don't mean to imply that people can be allowed to do their own thinking and reach their own conclusions about how they want to do this hobby? Why, anyone could call himself a model railroader just because he had built his own model railroad! And how would we keep "the rest" in their place?Golly gee, Walleye, if you really (and sadly) believe this is a hobby where anything is ok when it comes to modeling and that flatlands layouts are as welcome and acceptable a design as any, please explain why you virtually never sees examples of such layouts depicted in any of the magazines today. Such layouts as feature articles simply don't exist, aside for their presentation occasionally as some basic, entry level project. You won't find them offered up in modern layout construction guides beyond those of the WGH introductory level either, nor represented in any serious instructional videos. Doesn't that at least to give you some clue as to how they are regarded by those with any real experience in the hobby? If you remain in doubt about how flatlands pikes are looked upon by experienced modelers, try attending an NMRA meet or convention, present your flatlands pike to the group as a viable layout and see the reaction you get if you are anything but a newbie. Better yet, have it evaluated by your supposed peers on one of these occasions. You'll be in for a very rude awakening as to what they think of it. Hiding behind the "It's my railroad and I can do anything I want" won't cover you there. I know that a lot of folks like to overlook the facts when is comes to discussions here but these are pretty tough ones to get by. Likewise, ever sign up for a layout tour offered by some model railroading organization and count just how many flatlands layouts you saw? I've never encounted even one on the many national and regional convention layout tours Ive taken. Does that also perhaps suggest to you that most hobbyists really don't take them seriously, or as in any way representative of what the hobby is currently about?The acceptability of "my own rules make it OK" and flatlands layouts, as viable examples of the model railroading hobby, may have existed several decades ago when commercial scenery products, modeling concepts and the methodology to employ them were both primative and limited, or when such basic pikes were still a big deal with kids for their Lionels. Today that era and acceptance is now long past, as well as how they are regarded by experienced hobbyists. It's true that you may practice the hobby in any fashion you wish but you also need to come to grips with what is recognized as a representative example of it by the mainstream and what is not. CNJ831
You're right about what many of the layouts that get shown in the magazines or talekd about at the NMRA. But not everyone has the talent or the desire to produce such layouts at least initially. It takes skill and experience as well as knowledge to build anything like that. Sometimes it also takes money and alot of research tp get to the point where one is ready to do that. Maybe those guys who get to that point aren't on the same level as many other folks, but that doesn't denigrate the efforts of those who build on 4 x 8 sheet of plywood without incorporating mountains, hills or even creeks, rivers or lakes.
I am in the process of preparing my train room to hold new benchwork which will be flat to begin with but the final layout will not be flat and it will certainly feature hills, valleys and elevated tracks along with both urban and non-urban scenery. I don't have the final track plan yet but I am working on it.
Irv
CNJ831,
Thank you for setting me straight. I am new to this hobby and had naively assumed that the point of it was to have fun building model railroads. I actually thought it was my railroad, and that consequently, I really could do whatever I wanted with it. But you have corrected my misconceptions. I now realize that the whole point of model railroading is to win the approval of "those with real experience in the hobby" and that if I do not conform to the canons of accepted (revealed?) concepts, I will be regarded with disdain.
Perhaps you could refer me to some acknoledged source of truth in model railroading, so that I can learn all of the right ways to do things. Maybe with proper guidance, I can aspire to be considered a "true hobbyist" and not merely one of "the rest."
Back when I was railfanning the rail-served industries of Beautiful Downtown Brooklyn, the only deviation from dead flat was the crown of the streets, which dropped off to curb lines that then rose back to street-crown level (assuming that the street had curbs and sidewalks. A lot of them didn't.) Since all the storm drains were underground pipes, there were no stream beds to cut up the flatness.
A typical model railroad has a surface area measured in acres - and not many of them. There are plenty of places where 'a few hills around the edges' describes the right-of-way and adjacent real estate - even though the macro-scene is a valley surrounded by snow-capped crags. (Check out Dotsero, CO - a wide, flat valley in the heart of the Rockies!)
If, instead of selectively compressing 20-odd kilometers of canyon-like river valleys I had opted to model only the log transfer yard of the Kiso Forest Railway and the adjacent JNR station, I could have filled my garage with a scene that would have been, simultaneously, perfectly true to prototype and as flat as (and about the color of) a pancake.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Butlerhawk wrote:Is there anything wrong with a flat layout? If so, what? My layout if flat with a few hills on the edges and I think it looks OK - am I missing something?
Butlerhawk, that depends.......... are you having fun ?
If so, NO, your not missing anything !!! Having fun IS the point of the hobby.
It's a bit hard to make any other comment, without knowing a bit more about your layout, I'd just be waffling on without knowing what I was talking about !
Where's it set ? Is it a mainline, branch or a yard ? Early or modern ? How old are you ? Is it your first layout or your tenth ? How much time do you have to spend modifying or rebuilding the layout if you decide you are " missing something "
All questions that need to be answered before "true hobbyists and the rest of us" can unleash upon you the gift of perfection in model railroading if that's what you (or any of us ) aspire to !!!
Cheers,
Warren
Technically speaking, I think you are all correct. Yes, flat is ok and yes, this hobby is about having fun. But I also think it is correct to assume that most people who would consider themselves to be "serious" modelers do try to evolve their techniques to more closely depict the real world and as such may look back on earlier work with different eyes. For example, my first real modeling attempt was for a modular club in GA. I thought it looked great at the time and honestly there isn't anything wrong with it; but it doesn't look right to me anymore because my skills have grown since then. Due to my roots in a modular club, my layout (currently under construction) will be made up of 8' modules. Since I may still occasionally take a module to a show with my club, my track will have no grade changes. However, scenery will change elevation to give the impression of grade on parts of the layout. Now CNJ is correct in the sense that flat is not usually perfectly level. I grew up in Houston, and pretty much the only noticable deviation from flat came in the form of overpasses and bayous. But if you look closely, there is almost always some deviation from flat. Just spill some water and it becomes easy to see.
What I did on my modules is the same thing I would recommend to anyone modeling a relatively flat region. My modules have a plywood top that is topped with 1/2" pink foam and then my roadbed. I then use a sanding block or a rasp to ever so slightly break up the smooth top of the foam and give it subtle dips, ridges, gullies, etc. Then I use different textures of vegetation to further break up the flatness. The result is a very flat, but not perfectly flat, landscape. You can use as much or as little of this technique as necessary to look like the area you are modeling. Just remember, a lot is to be said for modeling it to "just look right."
For the record, while not a lot of flat railroads are in the magazines, there are exceptions. What about David Barrow, for example? Not my cup of tea, but his work is in the MR all the time.
Remember, we are all modelers...we just have different experience levels, but we all started as beginners at some point. Just my two cents, for what it is worth. bnsf76
Walleye wrote: CNJ831,Perhaps you could refer me to some acknoledged source of truth in model railroading, so that I can learn all of the right ways to do things. Maybe with proper guidance, I can aspire to be considered a "true hobbyist" and not merely one of "the rest."
Walleye, for as far back as one wishes to go with this hobby's more serious publications, as well as amongst hobbyists themselves, the drift has always been toward steadily advancing your skills to allow you to create increasingly more realistic and accurate depictions of the real world in scaled miniature. If it were not so, we'd all be running some cheap Bachmann trainsets on a plywood board with some Plastiville houses and saw dust grass.
If you ever have the opportunity to look through a full set of Model Railroader, you will find that, all the way back in the 1950's, the magazine cut itself free from any association with highly simplified versions of the model train hobby when it editorially bannished tinplate and Hi-Rail layouts from its pages. Even back then that sort of simplistic modeling was regarded as not accurate/realistic enough to be considered as any true form of model railroading. RMC took the same path shortly thereafter.
Today's the endless proliferation of excellent how-to guides/videos and the availability of quality scenicking materials, gives you every possible advantage short of building a quality layout for you. In reading these books you can quickly gain insight enough to build a great looking layout of whatever size you choose. Most of us progressed through a "flatlands" layout stage as outright newbies but quickly made the effort to advance far beyond that simplistic level. True, hardly anyone starts out as a George Sellios-level modeler but most can in time give a good account of themselves in their modeling, if they only try. The key is move away from the idea that simply running a train set on a flat board makes you a "model railroader", as well as the quip heard here so often that, "It's my layout and I can do what ever I want (and still be considered a model railroader)." I'm afraid the latter is basically a junvenile justification from the 1950's Lionel era...and in MR's eyes, obviously it wasn't even true or acceptable back then. You gain the respect and acceptance of your peers, it's not something that comes automatically, even in a hobby.
Allow me to acquaint you with a fact which seems to have escaped your notice: As model railroaders, we are all grown-ups whose hobby is playing with children's toys.
When I was a boy, almost 60 years ago, a friend had a gorgeous large-scale layout which he, his dad, and brothers had built. It took up the entire top floor of their house. On rainy days, we would go up there and, as we called it, "play trains."
And that is still what we all do. The scenicing, the detailing, the scratch-building, the prototype research, the operations planning, all of it is for the purpose of "playing trains." It is the opportunity to "play trains" which draws us to the hobby, and which sets model railroading apart from other model-building hobbies.
Viewed in the light of this fact, your posturing about who is a "true hobbyist" and "serious model railroader" all sounds a bit overdone, don't you think?
Walleye wrote: CNJ831,Allow me to acquaint you with a fact which seems to have escaped your notice: As model railroaders, we are all grown-ups whose hobby is playing with children's toys.Viewed in the light of this fact, your posturing about who is a "true hobbyist" and "serious model railroader" all sounds a bit overdone, don't you think?
Walleye, while that may be your take on what you do and the level you do it at, don't believe for a minute that your outlook is shared or accepted by any serious hobbyist. Your's is a view of the hobby from the perspective of someone just beginning and with a lot to learn. While such a concept might float on an entry-level site such as this one, if you were to attempt to pass it off on one populated by those with a decided interest in serious model railroading, you would find yourself given a little pat on the head and sent on your way. More than a few posters from here have ventured over to one or another of the more advanced model railroading sites, only to return and admit they found themselves to be totally out of their element, with concepts of hobby simplisity than simply didn't mesh with what was accepted elsewhere. Be advised that the hobby is taken very seriously in many quarters by its more seasoned participants. Indeed, there are those that just play with their toy trains but then there are also model railroaders and the two categories are hardly synonymous...as you will undoubtedly discover eventually.
CNJ 831,
Easy, big fella! Really struck a nerve, din'it! So you play with kids' toys, but have a problem when someone points out the fact? Sounds like you have issues to resolve.
Here's another fact you may not like: This hobby does not belong to you. It belongs to you and to me and to the guy who just bought a Bachmann train set for $50 on eBay. It belongs to the guys at MR. It belongs to the granddad who just built a 4x8 to amuse his grandkids, and is starting to realize that he'd like to tackle something more elaborate next time. We all choose to call ourselves model railroaders, and until you register that term as a trademark, you have no right telll anyone to stop. You are entitled to an opinion, but nothing more. You and some like-minded souls may deplore the corruption of "your" hobby, but "the rest" of us are busy having fun. What are yiu doing?
BTW, you would probably be surprised at the extent to which we actually agree about what you and I want in our layouts. I seriously doubt that your standards are higher than my own. The difference is that I apply my standards only to the work I do, and don't try to use them to denigrate others and inflate myself.
It has been fun baiting you. and for that I apologize. It really wasn't proper behavior, and the fact that you present yourself as such a tempting target doesn't justify my sarcasm. But now it's time to move on. I've got better things to do: I'm going to go play with my trains.
Flat trackage with rolling scenary is the best way to go for a small pike. The flat trackage lends itself to easier construction and more trouble free running.
In my opinion there's nothing as unrealistic as heavy grades on a small layout..
I had a flat layout. Then I went to a train show and really looked at the layouts that were there and realized that not having areas below the track was something I was missing. That night the whole thing came down and I started over. (I have a small layout, so not a huge loss)
I am much happier being able to have scenery below track level. If you like what you have planned, go for it. Just be ready to rip it up when you see where it is lacking.
Jim
jimk wrote: I had a flat layout. Then I went to a train show and really looked at the layouts that were there and realized that not having areas below the track was something I was missing. That night the whole thing came down and I started over. (I have a small layout, so not a huge loss)I am much happier being able to have scenery below track level. If you like what you have planned, go for it. Just be ready to rip it up when you see where it is lacking.Jim
Probably the most enlightened comment to date.
No layout is set in concrete. I'm pretty sure that the one I'm building now will be my last and final - but if somebody gifted me with a house with on-site general aviation hangar, I'd modify it in an instant (mostly by spreading the dismembered pieces around and connecting them with new benchwork and track.)
WIAR,
Any pics or track plans? I'm in NW WI, and would be very interested to see what you have done to model the area.
Walleye wrote: WIAR,Any pics or track plans? I'm in NW WI, and would be very interested to see what you have done to model the area.
No - unfortunately I'm still in the dark ages and don't have a digital camera, let alone one with a lens suitable for photographing in N scale. However, if you PM me I can e-mail you track plans and a system map (PowerPoint presentations). I didn't get real down and dirty with the topographical surveys and such, but I did make some educated decisions on the routes. I figured if I over-analyzed it, the process wouldn't be as fun after a while.
mine is as flat as can be but think I got enough to give it more thatn enough intrest.
http://s50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/GIIG21/?action=view¤t=918cd90c.pbr
Walleye wrote: This hobby...belongs to you and to me and to the guy who just bought a Bachmann train set for $50 on eBay. It belongs to the guys at MR. It belongs to the granddad who just built a 4x8 to amuse his grandkids, and is starting to realize that he'd like to tackle something more elaborate next time. We all choose to call ourselves model railroaders, and until you register that term as a trademark, you have no right telll anyone to stop. You are entitled to an opinion, but nothing more. You and some like-minded souls may deplore the corruption of "your" hobby, but "the rest" of us are busy having fun. What are yiu doing?
This hobby...belongs to you and to me and to the guy who just bought a Bachmann train set for $50 on eBay. It belongs to the guys at MR. It belongs to the granddad who just built a 4x8 to amuse his grandkids, and is starting to realize that he'd like to tackle something more elaborate next time. We all choose to call ourselves model railroaders, and until you register that term as a trademark, you have no right telll anyone to stop. You are entitled to an opinion, but nothing more. You and some like-minded souls may deplore the corruption of "your" hobby, but "the rest" of us are busy having fun. What are yiu doing?
W:
I like that. Very well put.
Walleye wrote: It has been fun baiting you. and for that I apologize. It really wasn't proper behavior, and the fact that you present yourself as such a tempting target doesn't justify my sarcasm. But now it's time to move on. I've got better things to do: I'm going to go play with my trains.
Attaboy, Walleye, you go play with your trainset, while I go and operate my model railroad, you know, the aspect that's the adult hobby.
CNJ831 wrote: Walleye wrote: It has been fun baiting you. and for that I apologize. It really wasn't proper behavior, and the fact that you present yourself as such a tempting target doesn't justify my sarcasm. But now it's time to move on. I've got better things to do: I'm going to go play with my trains.Attaboy, Walleye, you go play with your trainset, while I go and operate my model railroad, you know, the aspect that's the adult hobby. CNJ831
My, my, my - how some people enjoy arguing about opinions. Your way isn't the only way. This is a free country, and people can enjoy this hobby anyway they want to, and that includes enjoying it without enduring someone else's derision because they haven't "evolved" their techniques to suit your particular tastes. My layout is seven flat sections representing locales in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and North Dakota, with enough hills, forests and a few cuts to make things interesting and break-up the "flatness", and plenty of low-level detail. Who is to decide whether my lack of a mountain range, or the fact that I have only one mossed-over pond instead of the rippling stream with a fly-fisherman you see in practically every MR issue, or my lacking a scratch-built basswood trestle, makes my layout not a layout but a "train set"? The simple fact that you labor on it, you put thought into it, you plan, you design, you fail and try again until you get the right look, and you do the best you can do with the time and money and abilities you have makes it a model railroad.
I have a suggestion.
Why don't the adult minds here adjourn to the Beer Barn for a cool one while the adolescent mind carries on operating his toys in what he imagines is a prototypical manner.
There are three ages, physical, mental and chronological. When the latter two match, we have an adult. A mismatch, with accompanying insecurity, leads to a, "My way, or the highway," attitude that's frequently as abrasive as a coarse grindstone. If a certain poster here recognizes an overhanging Elesco feedwater heater in the mirror I will rest my case - and go back to operating TTTO 24/30 with a very complex car card and waybill system (after I have my Singha.)
Kinda high and mighty of you isn't it? After all we are ALL model railroaders by definition regardless of age,creed,layout,equipment etc..
I figure I could watch you "operate" your model railroad and note every operation rule,every safety rule and every work rule you break..
What's that make me?
A dabbler at best?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
One thing I think we have to realize is that different areas of the country are geologically and geographically EXTREMELY varied. For instance, the San Joaquin Valley of California is flat. FLAT! However if one wants to model that 'flatness' with any amount of precision, there is hardly any spot in the Valley where one cannot see either the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east or the Coast Range mountains to the west in the distance. Ergo: Flat with a distant mountain backdrop. The elevation changes along the north-south bound UP (ex SP) tracks from Stockton (around 75' above sea level) to Bakersfield (about 300'), but it takes well over two hundred MILES for that elevation change, so to all intents and purporses, we're still FLAT. To quote one of the other posters--"You can watch your dog run away for three days." There are occasional river crossings--very occasional, BTW--, but no grades to speak of. And the country along the railroad right of way does NOT undulate, it just lies there. Flat. The scenery is orchards and row upon row of field-crops, with an occasional silo jutting into the sky. It's California, not the Hudson River Valley.
So to get back to the original premise--can one successfully model a railroad that is FLAT, the answer is a resounding yes. In fact, there's a model railroad club in Stockton, CA at the San Joaquin Valley Fair Grounds that has done a pretty remarkable job of it modeling SP, Santa Fe, Western Pacific and some of the smaller, more localized traction companies in the area. And it's not boring, nor is it 'playing with trains.' It's beautifully detailed, and five minutes after looking at it, you don't mind at all that it's FLAT.
So it can be done, and it can be done well.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Butlerhawk:
Absolutely not. My first was flat, then in 1958, my dad added a tunnel on the flat table, I thought it looked great. That was Lionel, then HO stepped and I started with the Mountains.
It was 32 feet X 18 feet, a big "U" that had elevations and tunnels. Now the new WTRR gives the illusion of having hills with build up foam and plaster, but the track is level. NO HILLS!
The buildings in the background are elevated on extra sheets of foam.
I sometime will have some extra foam stacked and allow it to gently bend to create a grade to another level, but not to high. I got tired of the loss of land to get height, I like long running flat trains and no more grades
Level is nice, less work and more fun.
Besides, whoever heard of a hill right in the middle of a runway.
My trains run better.
Sometimes a pile of ground cover creates the illusion.
No hassels,
And you can create contures.
Long and flat; it is just easier for me.
Robert Sylvester, WTRR
CNJ831 wrote:The acceptability of "my own rules make it OK" and flatlands layouts, as viable examples of the model railroading hobby, may have existed several decades ago when commercial scenery products, modeling concepts and the methodology to employ them were both primative and limited, or when such basic pikes were still a big deal with kids for their Lionels. Today that era and acceptance is now long past, as well as how they are regarded by experienced hobbyists. It's true that you may practice the hobby in any fashion you wish but you also need to come to grips with what is recognized as a representative example of it by the mainstream and what is not. CNJ831
Actually, 2 or 3 year ago, MR did a feature on an large HO industrial layout (maybe in Great Model Railroads?) that was completely flat, with only a modicum of detailing - i.e. buildings, no trees. Even though the benchwork and lighting were beautifully done, the layout itself was indeed a "minimalist" approach to the hobby because the author liked and designed it that way. Is he any less of a "serious" MRRer for doing so? I guess you have to be the judge of that.
And - more recently - the November 2007 issue of MR had a ~15 x 31 N-scale "prairie" layout (Midland Continental) with a zero grade to it. The only areas that might be considered not level would be the two streams that the mainline crosses over. Even so, it seems MR still considers layouts like this worthy of notice and publication? I will agree that even slight variation in terrain does add visual interest and variety to a layout.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tomikawaTT wrote: CNJ.Try driving I-20 from Abilene to Pecos, or I-40 across eastern Colorado and western Nebraska, and then come back and pontificate about how "the real world" looks.Chuck (modeling mountainous Central Japan in September, 1964)
CNJ.
Try driving I-20 from Abilene to Pecos, or I-40 across eastern Colorado and western Nebraska, and then come back and pontificate about how "the real world" looks.
Chuck (modeling mountainous Central Japan in September, 1964)
You know the first time I flew from Atlanta to Denver, from about Arkansas to Denver International, I couldn't believe how flat the terrain was. Obviously there were ditches, creeks, rivers and stuff like that... Not totally flat, but heck of a lot flatter than what I'm use to living along the Allegeny mountains.
CNJ831 wrote: The acceptability of "my own rules make it OK" and flatlands layouts, as viable examples of the model railroading hobby, may have existed several decades ago when commercial scenery products, modeling concepts and the methodology to employ them were both primative and limited, or when such basic pikes were still a big deal with kids for their Lionels. Today that era and acceptance is now long past, as well as how they are regarded by experienced hobbyists. It's true that you may practice the hobby in any fashion you wish but you also need to come to grips with what is recognized as a representative example of it by the mainstream and what is not. CNJ831
Perhaps that is why this hobby is gasping for breath and in its death throws.
There's no ramp up to "perfection" anymore. My kids and I like "playing with trains" and I enjoy a good dose of realism. Our family layout is a compromise of both and the goals of our layout are far more valuable to me than the accolades of the hobby elite.
I do love competition and I appreciate respect for well developed talent. Someday hope to achieve MMR. For now though, I'm happy to support the hobby as best I can and in the process instill a love of it in some future modelers.
To address the original post:
My first layout was a folded figure 8 and it was quite discouraging not to have any level sidings or mainline. This prevented even basic operations.
My next layout was multi deck, plywood flat and although I use 1/2" homosote beneath my hand-laid track, I regretted not having any ditches, valleys, ROW fills, etc. I sure enjoyed being able to leave trains on the mainline as I worked cars into sidings!
My current plans are for using more open benchwork and getting some good topograpical relief into the layout.
I loved both my first layouts and I'm happy I built them.
Bryan
[quote user="BRAKIE] Kinda high and mighty of you isn't it? After all we are ALL model railroaders by definition regardless of age,creed,layout,equipment etc..I figure I could watch you "operate" your model railroad and note every operation rule,every safety rule and every work rule you break..
Actually, Brakie, you're more than welcome to watch me operate. After all, the "pro's" like yourself are best equipped to help "civilians" like me operate in a more-realistic manner. Any current or former professional railroaders are always welcome in my train room, both for the fraternity and as mentors, knowledgeable in how the real thing operates by profession.
FWIW I know my models are really "toys" when it comes down to it. My brother-in-law is a car fanatic and has a small collection of 1:1 scale automobiles. I, however, haven't yet figured how to get a 1:1 scale GP38-2 in my garage. I don't think the Homeowner's association would approve of it anyway, even if I could fit it on my meager property. So, due to the limitations of space involved I'll have to settle for the models, rather than the real thing.