V8VegaI don't think Model Railroader forum people consider me a real model railroader because I model using 3 rail O gauge.
Ignorance can be excused, but wilful ignorance not. Their loss Dennis.
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Big Boy Forever Geezsh ! Let me repeat again: "I knew some people would take offense, it's inevitable, "you can't categorize me" and "that's elitism", that's just how it goes, even though I made it clear that "satisfaction" of the model railroader was the deciding factor, and that it was a broad big picture, lacking sub groups. IT'S A BROAD BIG PICTURE LACKING SUB GROUPS"---that means, that not every group and category is highlighted...it's BROAD, that means WIDE. and like the other poster said, NMRA has it's own certifications and categories, so categorizing is nothing new, and no big deal.
Geezsh !
Let me repeat again:
"I knew some people would take offense, it's inevitable, "you can't categorize me" and "that's elitism", that's just how it goes, even though I made it clear that "satisfaction" of the model railroader was the deciding factor, and that it was a broad big picture, lacking sub groups.
IT'S A BROAD BIG PICTURE LACKING SUB GROUPS"---that means, that not every group and category is highlighted...it's BROAD, that means WIDE.
and like the other poster said, NMRA has it's own certifications and categories, so categorizing is nothing new, and no big deal.
I'm not offended at all. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to think it's wrong-headed. And vice-versa.
You call it "broad categories"; I call it: "So oversimplified as to be of no use."
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
Oh come off it.
When your #1 item starts out with "as a kid" and your #5 starts with "ultimate modeler", you have presented a hierarchy. This is further reinforced by your use of then and next for intermediate steps. What you made clear was that #5 was the end goal that you think everyone should strive for - the "Real Model Railroader".
And surprise, not everyone agrees with you. Doesn't mean we're taking offense, just that some of us think you're wrong.
Paul
IRONROOSTER Big Boy Forever Geezsh ! Let me repeat again: "I knew some people would take offense, it's inevitable, "you can't categorize me" and "that's elitism", that's just how it goes, even though I made it clear that "satisfaction" of the model railroader was the deciding factor, and that it was a broad big picture, lacking sub groups. IT'S A BROAD BIG PICTURE LACKING SUB GROUPS"---that means, that not every group and category is highlighted...it's BROAD, that means WIDE. and like the other poster said, NMRA has it's own certifications and categories, so categorizing is nothing new, and no big deal. Oh come off it. When your #1 item starts out with "as a kid" and your #5 starts with "ultimate modeler", you have presented a hierarchy. This is further reinforced by your use of then and next for intermediate steps. What you made clear was that #5 was the end goal that you think everyone should strive for - the "Real Model Railroader". And surprise, not everyone agrees with you. Doesn't mean we're taking offense, just that some of us think you're wrong. Paul
And, I might add, if he knew that some people would take offense, why start such a thread in the first place?
Just to be controversial?
I think this thread can best be dismissed as nonsense.
Rich
Alton Junction
I think this thread is now past its sell-by date and we all agree to mutually disagree.
The issue pops up about every year, and every year we come to the same conclusion. We have a saying in my country, which I deem to be quite appropriate:
Every fool is different ...
richhotrain IRONROOSTER Big Boy Forever Geezsh ! Let me repeat again: "I knew some people would take offense, it's inevitable, "you can't categorize me" and "that's elitism", that's just how it goes, even though I made it clear that "satisfaction" of the model railroader was the deciding factor, and that it was a broad big picture, lacking sub groups. IT'S A BROAD BIG PICTURE LACKING SUB GROUPS"---that means, that not every group and category is highlighted...it's BROAD, that means WIDE. and like the other poster said, NMRA has it's own certifications and categories, so categorizing is nothing new, and no big deal. Oh come off it. When your #1 item starts out with "as a kid" and your #5 starts with "ultimate modeler", you have presented a hierarchy. This is further reinforced by your use of then and next for intermediate steps. What you made clear was that #5 was the end goal that you think everyone should strive for - the "Real Model Railroader". And surprise, not everyone agrees with you. Doesn't mean we're taking offense, just that some of us think you're wrong. Paul Count me in among the dissenters regarding the OP's categorization. It is totally invalid. And, I might add, if he knew that some people would take offense, why start such a thread in the first place? Just to be controversial? I think this thread can best be dismissed as nonsense. Rich
Count me in among the dissenters regarding the OP's categorization. It is totally invalid.
"Satisfaction" of the model railroader was the first term used. If you are satisfied and happy with any level fine & good.
5 broad categories were used, all valid. Subgroups were not included and left to the imagination, and using common sense you would know there is overlap and offshoots into different directions, within the 5 categories..
A Hierarchy exists for the modeler who wants to be the most realistic in visual presentation. Operation is a matter of choice, though hierarchy exists there in the constant electromechanical improvements offered by manufacturers. Also there are details and items to add to trains for more realistic looks. That's why people buy small brass parts to replace the plastic molded details on trains, and why people use real wood ties and wood and laser cut buildings and are constantly seeking more realistic materials for trees, scenery and even use real dirt to add realism.
There are people here who agree with this visual hierarchy of model railroading, in fact, it is referenced in many books on model railroading, along with suggestions for having fun at any level.
The ones who don't agree, reject hierarchy and attribute it to elitism; it bothers them, doesn't seem fair. Hierarchy is a part of life in many areas, you can't escape it even in model railroading. There is always something to strive for.
It seems the ones trying to start trouble here exist in the group rejecting hierarchy rather in the group liking the broad general categories of model railroaders, who strive for better realism and improving the looks of their layout.
If this view is nonsense, then this Forum is nonsense.
richhotrainCount me in among the dissenters regarding the OP's categorization. It is totally invalid.
Sorry Rich but,there are sub groups of modelers..
The why is simple.
Our modeling style puts us in one of those groups of modelers..Its been like that for as long as I can remember..
How do we end up there?
Its totally unnecessary..
WE and I mean all of us is judge by our modeling style from a "train set modeler" to a supposed "expert modeler" by our peers in the hobby.
You've read it on this and other forums..
I would rather be accepted as a model railroader/model train enthusiast and leaving the grouping out.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I've always held their is no wrong way to build a model RR, if the end result satisfy the builders intent.
Have fun with your trains
Big Boy Forever Just as a matter of casual discussion: It seems that there are different satisfaction categories of model Railroaders. (1) In my case, as many others, I had a Lionel 3 rail train as a kid, with the flagman who popped out of a shack when the train went by, and a RR crossing that dropped at Mach 1 when the train came by. The pedestrians and cars had no chance of escape. that's one category, and one some people like even today. (2) Then there is the grass mat and plasticville layout, maybe 4 X 8 or a little larger, with un-painted track, stock scenery like woodland scenics out of the bag, stock locos and rolling stock. (3) Next is the more realistic modeler who weathers cars and locos, tries to get more realistic than the plasticville layout. (4) Then the super-detailer who takes painstaking effort to get every little detail right on the train equipment, more accurate scenery and even focusing on the lettering and text of an era, including the culture of the layout time period. (5) The ultimate modeler, is the "Craftsman", who spares no expense or time getting a miniature movie set quality layout, amazing dioramas, which can fool the eye to think that the scene is real life in every detail, super artist, and engineering fanatic. (DCC) Of course, now the DCC technology adds more realism to any level layout. In general, this is what I've observed for what it's worth. Feel free to add your own opinions.
Just as a matter of casual discussion:
It seems that there are different satisfaction categories of model Railroaders.
(1) In my case, as many others, I had a Lionel 3 rail train as a kid, with the flagman who popped out of a shack when the train went by, and a RR crossing that dropped at Mach 1 when the train came by. The pedestrians and cars had no chance of escape. that's one category, and one some people like even today.
(2) Then there is the grass mat and plasticville layout, maybe 4 X 8 or a little larger, with un-painted track, stock scenery like woodland scenics out of the bag, stock locos and rolling stock.
(3) Next is the more realistic modeler who weathers cars and locos, tries to get more realistic than the plasticville layout.
(4) Then the super-detailer who takes painstaking effort to get every little detail right on the train equipment, more accurate scenery and even focusing on the lettering and text of an era, including the culture of the layout time period.
(5) The ultimate modeler, is the "Craftsman", who spares no expense or time getting a miniature movie set quality layout, amazing dioramas, which can fool the eye to think that the scene is real life in every detail, super artist, and engineering fanatic.
(DCC) Of course, now the DCC technology adds more realism to any level layout.
In general, this is what I've observed for what it's worth.
Feel free to add your own opinions.
I think people are being a bit hard on the OP. I think I know what he is trying to say and there is no reason to take offense. Obviously, it is a broad hobby with people who pursue different interests. You can't write a post that is worded perfectly that fits evrybody into 5 slots. As readers, we need to have broad tolerences.
#3) "Weathers locos and cars but beyond plasticville structures." While I have only weathered stuff within the past 10 years...I never ever wanted plasticville structures. So I don't fit nicely into this category. However, if "weathering cars and locos" means I desire more realism in the appearence of items that are placed on the layout...then yes, I fit category 3.
#4) "even focusing on lettering and text of an era". Since I freelance, font is driven by what I want, not by what once was. But yes, details matter. However, I don't do "painstakingly" anymore. If I can buy it super detailed, I will, but reasonably detailed will suffice. I am not a "superdetailer", but in some ways, I fit category 4.
For me, becoming a super craftsman would require too much time devoted to the hobby. I don't mind saying that. I enjoy the hobby immensly, but sitting at my bench trying to replicate a model to the nth detail is simply too much dedication to realism for my tastes. Once in while the urge strikes me to start, but the interest level falls when I'm not progressing fast enough. I've never completed one of these project. I guess the reward isn't worth the effort, for me.
And to Bob CMRProd point, the categories expressed by the OP are visual categories. There are similar (not perfect) characterizations of OPERATIONS ;-) which may deserve a separate thread. Personally, I desire a certain level of realism in operations, but devoting time to things like proper time for coupling/uncoupling, or replicating the operations through Albany NY on Septemebt 17th 1956 would get too tedious for me, much like the superdetailing mentioned above.
- Douglas
Geez- I'm glad my "more discrete" catergories, which I described in my initial response, are below the line of fire in this thread. As for the NMRA, if I could afford the regular membership, I would like to join- as would many others who are $ challenged by living from paycheck to paycheck in this present economy. I used to be able to buy stuff online from Train World years ago, but their prices left me still standing on the ground at the quarterly swap meet where I bottom feed off used stuff or old BB kits with the allowance I manage to save up every few months.
Cedarwoodron
cedarwoodronbut their prices left me still standing on the ground at the quarterly swap meet where I bottom feed off used stuff or old BB kits with the allowance I manage to save up every few months. Cedarwoodron
What's wrong with that?
I've been bottom feeding for years on the use market,train shows and e-Bay..Even when gainfully employed as a brakeman I bought Athearn and few Atlas engines.
I never was one to get carried away with spending except for a short period when I was working part time at a hobby shop and was able to buy anything I wanted at wholesale and some paydays I broke even on my IOUs..
Not to worry..That job was my hobby money.
Big Boy Forever A Hierarchy exists for the modeler who wants to be the most realistic in visual presentation. Operation is a matter of choice, though hierarchy exists there in the constant electromechanical improvements offered by manufacturers. Also there are details and items to add to trains for more realistic looks. That's why people buy small brass parts to replace the plastic molded details on trains, and why people use real wood ties and wood and laser cut buildings and are constantly seeking more realistic materials for trees, scenery and even use real dirt to add realism. There are people here who agree with this visual hierarchy of model railroading, in fact, it is referenced in many books on model railroading, along with suggestions for having fun at any level. The ones who don't agree, reject hierarchy and attribute it to elitism; it bothers them, doesn't seem fair. Hierarchy is a part of life in many areas, you can't escape it even in model railroading. There is always something to strive for. It seems the ones trying to start trouble here exist in the group rejecting hierarchy rather in the group liking the broad general categories of model railroaders, who strive for better realism and improving the looks of their layout.
If I were a Professor of Model Railroading and asked my students to prepare a paper categorizing model railroaders, I would fault your paper as not sufficiently thought out. What you dismiss as sub groups are actually more categories in your hierarchy. When I read your initial post, it struck me as cursory at best.
No one here is "trying to start trouble". You, yourself, admit that you started this thread knowing that some people would take offense to it. That seems more attune to starting trouble than our replies to it. It just seems to me from your responses that anyone who disagrees with your basic premise is asking for trouble.
There are catagorys of model railroaders but they first have to be broken into the different parts of the hobby. First there are the trains themselves, next the trackwork, next scenery and last operating. Each of these is broken down into catagorys and can cross the line when things like trackwork are superdetailed into the scenery catagory. I have never seen a layout built to the highest level of scenery like the works of people like Chuck Doan do on dios.
Hierarchy? Maybe..Naw..Wouldn't fit in the grand scheme of the hobby nor would a pecking' order..
Gotta be a mind set since we are free to choose the way we model...
And there lays the trap..
Your style isn't my style,your enjoyment differs from my simple choice of ISLs based on the fact I like switching cars and modeling a industrial area.
There are those that look down on ISLs as boring..That's ok.I think running mindless loops is boring.That's ok too.
Some look down on RTR cars and plastic structures as being inferior modeling.That's ok too..I'm not interested in wood structures and craftsman type car kits. That's ok too.
Its gotta be a mind set based on what we want out of the hobby...
The error is when we think our modeling style is better then another's or far worst we think our modeling is inferior to others..
No..The hobby is what WE want it to be for our personal enjoyment.
richhotrain Big Boy Forever A Hierarchy exists for the modeler who wants to be the most realistic in visual presentation. Operation is a matter of choice, though hierarchy exists there in the constant electromechanical improvements offered by manufacturers. Also there are details and items to add to trains for more realistic looks. That's why people buy small brass parts to replace the plastic molded details on trains, and why people use real wood ties and wood and laser cut buildings and are constantly seeking more realistic materials for trees, scenery and even use real dirt to add realism. There are people here who agree with this visual hierarchy of model railroading, in fact, it is referenced in many books on model railroading, along with suggestions for having fun at any level. The ones who don't agree, reject hierarchy and attribute it to elitism; it bothers them, doesn't seem fair. Hierarchy is a part of life in many areas, you can't escape it even in model railroading. There is always something to strive for. It seems the ones trying to start trouble here exist in the group rejecting hierarchy rather in the group liking the broad general categories of model railroaders, who strive for better realism and improving the looks of their layout. Those who don't agree, reject hierarchy? Not at all. If I were a Professor of Model Railroading and asked my students to prepare a paper categorizing model railroaders, I would fault your paper as not sufficiently thought out. What you dismiss as sub groups are actually more categories in your hierarchy. When I read your initial post, it struck me as cursory at best. No one here is "trying to start trouble". You, yourself, admit that you started this thread knowing that some people would take offense to it. That seems more attune to starting trouble than our replies to it. It just seems to me from your responses that anyone who disagrees with your basic premise is asking for trouble. Rich
Those who don't agree, reject hierarchy? Not at all.
It's a broad general overview with 5 groups I have observed from my POV. Sorry it seemed cursory to you since I didn't include the other groups you thought should be there which would make it more thought out and complete.
You are inaccurate with your premise of "It just seems to me from your responses that anyone who disagrees with your basic premise is asking for trouble." "Trouble" is not something I injected into this thread, someone else did.
You are not reading the posts or something. The "trouble" issue is not one I brought up, and it came from the group who did not like my idea of 5 categories, or really any categories. I was responding to their accusation of starting trouble which is absurd and ridiculous.
I initially figured there probably would be some people who don't like categories, that's what I was talking about and that is not a "premise" for starting the thread. This is true outside of Model railroading also, especially in this day and age where some people don't like class structure. Just because that may be true, is not a reason to thwart an observation to be posted for discussion.
Also, your reason for disagreement is not necessarily exactly the same reason for anothers disagreement so you can't speak for them.
A simple observation of 5 categories of model railroading causes some people to protest vehemently and accuse the poster of trying to start trouble...amazing scenario.
Big Boy Forever It's a broad general overview with 5 groups I have observed from my POV. Sorry it seemed cursory to you since I didn't include the other groups you thought should be there which would make it more thought out and complete.
richhotrain Big Boy Forever It's a broad general overview with 5 groups I have observed from my POV. Sorry it seemed cursory to you since I didn't include the other groups you thought should be there which would make it more thought out and complete. I guess that I am just hurting real bad inside because you refuse to add a #2.5 category - - - see my initial reply.
I guess that I am just hurting real bad inside because you refuse to add a #2.5 category - - - see my initial reply.
Sorry, just 5 categories allowed.
That's just the elitist way to do things.
Isn't it interesting how we can argue over something that really doesn't matter?
Joe
I'm going to support the OP. His second line was "It seems there are different satisfaction categories with model railroaders" The key thought being what satisfies your interests. That deflates any type of class warefare in my view.
I think his five categories are quite accurate, I also think it is the way most people progress through the hobby. Some may start at with category 1, and be satisfied to never move to a another category. I would find it hard to beleive that if someone reached category 5, that they could chuck it all and go back to being satisfied with category 1.
Myself...I started at category 2 and have only moved to about 3.2, with no desire to go to category 5. I have a desire to be competent enough (in my view) to reach category 4, but if not, so be it. 3.2 suits me fine.
BRAKIE I've been bottom feeding for years on the use market,train shows and e-Bay..Even when gainfully employed as a brakeman I bought Athearn and few Atlas engines.
My category 3.2 satisfaction level no longer accepts BB products. The competition has just outshown those models anymore. My bottom feeding consists of more completely detailed and crisper painted models. And I have to resort to buying them RTR, since my modeling skills also cannot compete with the competition.
That's not bashing anything. Its just that the more detailed products have become more abundant and the street prices have come down to where the price difference between a new old stock P2K or Atlas DC product is not much more than a BB.
Why not have more detail and better paint for just a bit more money? I'm talking 20 bucks more for a loco, maybe 5 for a car.
Its easier and cheaper than ever to be in category 3.
DoughlessWhy not have more detail and better paint for just a bit more money? I'm talking 20 bucks more for a loco, maybe 5 for a car. Its easier and cheaper than ever to be in category 3.
Absolutely! I've seen Atlas cars that cost the same or slightly less then a Athearn RTR(ex-Roundhouse) FMC boxcar-its still a foot to wide.
Looking at the street prices there's very little price difference as you already noted.
Big sign...What do you do when you have a collection of IPD short line boxcars that numbers 236 and other wide body cars that you don't want to part with?
My solution is simple.Since my wide cars fits my primary C&HV and SCL in 78-80 modeling I use them.I just rotate engines between C&HV and SCL.
My Slate Creek Rail,Huron River and Summerset Ry is 94/95 I use my scale width cars-around 48.
I also have Chessie(78-80) Southern(78-80) CR (94/95),CSX (95-96) and NS(95-96) and I use IHB,BRC and several short line CF7 as the mood strikes with my scale width cars.
Thankfully my ISL is generic and all I need to do to change eras is rotate cars,locomotives and vehicles.
Big Boy ForeverIt seems that there are different satisfaction categories of model Railroaders.
there are many aspects of model railroading that everyone has varying levels of interest, skill and time to focus on. The "5 categories" seems to span from a low to a high level of demonstrated modeling skill in a combination of some of the following.
Many modelers may have little interest in visual realism but have a very reliable and electronically sophisticated railroad that is operated very realistically.
Just one example from Boomer Pete's 1944 book, "How to Run a Model Railroad", is the Connecticut Midland layout where the club built trackwork on benchwork just wide enough for there 0-gauge track and just a foot off the floor. They had no aisles, they just stepped over the tracks during operating sessions. The photo in the book shows no scenery or structures, but does show signals.
I doubt any two of us demonstrate skills in each of these modeling aspects to the same degree.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading