The above page long discussion is why I stuck to what I do/have done that requires "prototype fidelity repentance", lol.
I've been accused of starting far too many controversies in the past, on other forums, and am simply trying to learn from and stay out of that, here...lol.
Best regards all--
John
I was going to buy this layout when I was younger. But I didn't have $300 for that. In a matter of fact I didn't own any scenery, paints, cars, people, and buildings.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
Well, the above layout is a neat-looking layout that gets a lot into a small space.
I see no issue with it. It was trying to give the illusion of a long distance run.
Sometimes I've seen those layouts in n scale traded into the local train store, who then liked it so much they actually kept it and used it as the in-store test layout.
I was goning to let this drop,but its been nagging at me all day.
Perhaps "I" am putting too mutch inportance on the word ''layout''
IF joe wants to show you his model railroad ****** what would you expect to see?
If jim wants you to look at his train set ******, what then would you expect?
nither one is better or best just different
I tell some one I have a model RR ******. knowing how mutch time and effort i've put in it, and they replay ; yeah me too, all came in one box, 59.99 at walmart. Thats the insult. Has happen to me
My point; call it what it is,a model RR or a train set
I apologize if this offends some
I understand the insult, and I've certainly experienced it myself...the comparisons between the entry level trainset layout and mine.
Unclebutch: Nothing personal, but I tend to bristle any time I read of someone, anyone, referring to someone's model railroad as toylike. I work very hard to replicate a specific prototype branch line, using all the era appropriate, prototype appropriate models. But, it's a recreational thing, which can be considered a toy. After spending 42 years working on the real trains, you can see my perspective.
Not everyone has the skill and ability to build a museum quality layout, myself included, although I can create a reasonable fascimile. It's about tolerence for those who aren't playing at the same level.
There are a lot of highly skilled model railroaders participating in this forum, and I enoy seeing their work. I also recall a highly regarded late member of this forum, who did wonders with a railroad built with sectional track in the corner of his house trailer. I wonder, If his efforts would have met your litmus test?
You are entitled to express your opinion, and I just expressed mine.
Joe
Similar to the 'Layout definition,' - I have a car.
"Car'" can be a Lamborghini, a Chevy, a lovingly restored Stutz Bearcat or a Yugo.
I own a truck. Without more info, you don't know if my truck is a brand-new Kenworth high horsepower cab capable of hauling loaded tandems at freeway speed (I wish!) or a rather decrepit 23 year old Toyota X-cab (which still gets good gas mileage and passes smog checks.)
I have a layout. It lives in a double garage and rather resembles a Disney thrill ride without the cosmetic skin - but it can and does operate, and satisfies my personal need for speed (40 scale kilometers per hour, average) What other people have, whether a sub-4x8 or as big as a dairy barn, concerns me not one whit. My fun stands alone. I don't need to compare it with anything.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
UNCLEBUTCHBut,,dont show a picture of an ovel of track,tyco rolling stock,horn hook couplers,unpainted snap together building and Hot Wheels, and call it a "layout" IMO to call that a layout is a insult to all the folks that spent thousands of hours of work to get thire "layouts" to look as close to real as possible
IMO to call that a layout is a insult to all the folks that spent thousands of hours of work to get thire "layouts" to look as close to real as possible
Back to the point of the thread - the dog and the fire hydrant, and the children tipping over an out house are just so over done. I've never understood so many peoples' facination with pee and poop. At the last show I went to, the folks who had the newest "moving water" technology, had only one sold out unit - the boy peeing. Of course - sigh.
UNCLEBUTCHMy point; call it what it is,a model RR or a train set
Oddly its both. The only difference is in the mind.
Every open house I ever took a part in some visitor will say "You guys got a nice train set" others may even say a nice model train set up.
None of us operates or builds a model railroad since its impossible. Yet,we hold operations and run dozens of trains over way to few feet of track.
What we have at most is a glorified train set.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Hi Wojosa31
But they are toys expencive gentlemans toys .
The word model is used because no respectable gentleman about town could possibly be seen to be playing with childrens toys
Oh no we are all victims of clever advertising.
regards John
John BusbyBut they are toys expensive gentleman's toys
I came to that conclusion 45 years or so ago. Still I wouldn't take back one minute of it.
Oh my..A thought.. Toy Railroader magazine just doesn't sound as cool as Model Railroader magazine..
BRAKIE None of us operates or builds a model railroad since its impossible. Yet,we hold operations and run dozens of trains over way to few feet of track. What we have at most is a glorified train set.
Well said
OK,,a car is a car, is a corvett the same as my dodge?
I drove truck; 450hp,13speed, 80000lb well past a million miles. You own a ford F150; are you then a truck driver also?
Lady up the road rides a moped on nice days, I wouldn't refer to her as being a biker
If my MRR ****** is a glorified train set,what do I call the train set on the other end?
Please don't try to sell me some bs that they are the same.I don't believe you should get a prize just for showing up
If we don't get some kind of recognition for time and effort ;then why bother?
and a warm fuzzy feeling inside is not enuff
I build my layout for only one reason, ME! If I am happy with the result I don't need any recognition from anybody.
I think some of us has lost the reason we build layouts. Number one reason for me is fun, yours may be replicating a time and place. We are both enjoying the same hobby. Enjoy what you do, after all life is too short as we found out in Florida this past weekend.
UncleButch,There really is no implication of quality with "train set" vs. "model railroad" either, other than the fact that we hobbyists prefer one term over the other. It is more a reflection of the user of the phrase than it is on the layout itself. For example, if someone called Allen McClelland's V&O a "train set" to one of us, we'd know that person was not a fellow hobbyist. It's not because the V&O wasn't quality, it's because the speaker isn't one of us.
One of the issues here seems to be that you seem to take offense too easily. Why are you offended because some ignorant guy says, "Me, too!" Let me put it this way; my reaction to your situation above (where I say I have a model railroad and some guy says, "Yeah, me, too. I bought it at Wal-Mart.") would be, "Oh? What scale?" If the guy stammers with something like, "Um...it's...ah...one of the small ones," then I know he's not serious and will change the subject. I'll say, "How about those Red Sox?"Instead, if the guy responds with, "HO," then I'll dig into it some more, asking him some leading questions to see if he's interested in getting in deeper. If he is, I'll invite him to my club or tell him about an upcoming show. I'll encourage the guy to think beyond the starter set, not jump down his throat because he dared compare his Wal-Mart set to my 25'x50' pike.
And yes, I've had that happen. I used to show off my layout to complete strangers since it was in the basement of my family's bookstore (since closed). I had an older gentleman come in and tell me all about his own beautiful layout. He brought in pics of it and proudly showed them to me. It was all I could do not to laugh because the quality of this man's layout was pretty poor, to be kind (and nothing like he was telling me). But obviously he loved it. I asked him how long he'd been in the hobby, it was less than 5 years. I said something to the effect that it was real nice, and that he should read MR and visit some local clubs. I did not say his layout was ridiculous, even tho' it was (trust me).
The point is that we all have to start somewhere. If we snap at a guy just because he's a newbie, then the hobby won't grow very much.
Paul A. Cutler III
UNCLEBUTCHIf my MRR ****** is a glorified train set,what do I call the train set on the other end?
A train set is a train set some are plain Jane while others are just glorified train sets.
And yes my Buick is just like your Dodge a automobile. A Moped is classified as a two wheel motorized vehicle just like any motorcycle.
A true "biker" is a bicyclist not a motorcyclist except in macho terms.
A layout is indeed a train set plain Jane or glorified and is built for the builder's enjoyment.
There is no prize for showing up..
[quote user="UNCLEBUTCH"
[/quote]
I have a Toyota Tacoma. Toyota defines it as a truck.
I am the driver of said Toyota truck.
Therefore, ya, I am a Truck Driver.
It's not my profession, but it's how I get around.
When I was working at a small shop doing mostly tool & die work, I thought it was offensive if someone called me a machinist. I was a TOOLMAKER !!!
Then I went to work for a company that didn't do any tool & die work, but we do some of the most complex machining in the world. It just isn't tool and die work. Now I have no problem referring to myself as a machinist, just like I know that my trains are in fact toys. They are very nice toys, but toys nonetheless.
This issue is stsrting to cause stress,as stated life is too short.
Many of you have pointed out some vary valid points ,of me personly,that gave me reason to think hard about, whole different disscussion.
Of my train set/layout,I come to realize that the trains themself are but a excuse to pursue my real interest, kitashing and scratch building,creating my own miniature world,with or without a train.
I will quietly remove myself from the folds of model railroader, and assume a title of scale model builder. This ,to me, should releive me of the layout/train set nonsence.
Prehaps without knowing, you guys have helped bring to light a few issues I need to address
THANK YOU
Butch - What matters is who you are and what you are. NOT what you are called, or what your interests or passions are called.
Scott.
UNCLEBUTCHI will quietly remove myself from the folds of model railroader, and assume a title of scale model builder.
I would be careful assuming such a title. Knowledgeable people may point out the flaws in your modeling and that is guaranteed since that covers scenes to trains..
Well it would be pretty amazing if the guys weighing in on this thread, thoughtful a bunch as they surely are, would be able to resolve these old vocabulary issues.
I would say however that while "play with trains" and even "toy" can have widely varying meanings (toys are things that are played with, yet play can be deadly serious as those who are paid millions of dollars to "play" football, baseball or golf will tell you), to me "train set" does have a very precise meaning: a prepackaged box that is purchased, or received as a gift, and set up: locomotive, cars, track. Even most Lionel or American Flyer layouts are something more than "train sets."
Almost no scale model railroad layout is a "train set."
But "train set" is within the common vocabulary of even those very unfamiliar with model trains of any stripe, because it is a category of purchasable item that perhaps a family member or friend once received, or has been seen in stores or in advertising. It is a common phrase. That does not make it an accurate one if used to describe something that is not a train set. But even when used inaccurately, that does not in itself make the use a hostile one to which we should bristle.
[Amended post: and today's paper has a classified ad for a garage sale including, among other things, "train sets." I suspect that does NOT mean a stack of boxed AHM or Walthers or Tyco train sets. It might be a case of brass steam locomotives! Who knows, because as I attempted to argue, it is the phrase used by those who may know nothing about model trains because they know no other phrase to use.]
Dave Nelson
dknelsonAlmost no scale model railroad layout is a "train set."
And there lays the trap many fall into. Freight car gurus,locomotive gurus and those that fully understand railroading will tell you there's no such thing because of the various details.
A example look how some condemn a "S" curve yet,they are common on the prototype or how fast they condemn the use of a crossing to gain access to industries in tight areas yet,the railroads have no problems doing so.
Then the scenery and engineering gurus will point out those mistakes.
Scale or no its still a train set.
And both is based on the common train set loop layout unless you have a true point to point layout and that doesn't come close to being a urban industrial lead.
Larry,
'Way back when, the then-Editor of MR (John Page, IIRC) wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece describing all the "improper model railroading" things he was seeing out the window of a 1:1 scale passenger car. The last one, which rated italics and a 'spun into the ground' narrative, was a turnout on a curve! He ended with a 'What is the world coming to, when the full size railroads don't follow the rules model gurus have laid down for them?"
Today, you can buy a curved turnout in a bubble pack. Or build one on a superelevated curve inches from a vertical easement.
And if S-curves are really a problem (Not, when connected by proper transitions) I'm in big trouble. One run along the full length of a fixed wall is a snakewiggle of successive S-curves.
I look to the prototype for inspiration, and to my fellow modelers for advice. I don't let either force me into accepting artificial limitations.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)
I think Chuck (Tomikawa) is the only one who mentioned my own pet peeve: Implausible bridges. It's true that Shays were known to haul log trains over modern, heavy-duty steel bridges; and heavy Mallets were known tp operate over wooden trestles, but these were not the norm. A modern diesel or Amtrak train on a timber truss bridge would be a rare sight indeed, and ANY train that operates over an unsound bridge at all ought to raise an eyebrow or two.
Of course everybody has the right to have fun in any (presumably moral and legal) way they like, so I don't want to dictate to anybody how he should run his (or her) trains.
But I like to apply the same principle that is applied to literature: You may write fiction, but the reader should be able to suspend his disbelief and attach some credibility to the situation. If it looks highly unlikely or impossible, then I have a hard time suspending my disbelief.
YMMV.
Tom
John Busby Hi Wojosa31 But they are toys expencive gentlemans toys . The word model is used because no respectable gentleman about town could possibly be seen to be playing with childrens toys Oh no we are all victims of clever advertising. regards John
Yes they are...so is my new F150. Life is not all work and no play, there has to be a reward.
Now, if I could just get the figure of a railroader to only come of of the interlocking tower, when a train is passing, like the tower on the Lionel dream layout of my youth...
tomikawaTTToday, you can buy a curved turnout in a bubble pack. Or build one on a superelevated curve inches from a vertical easement.
chutton01
chutton01Did we cover incredibly dilapidated/weathered/dangerously unstable buildings that are represented as still in use?
One of my personal pet peeves is overly distressed metal roofing. Unless there has been a tornado, you will rarely if ever see metal sheets badly misaligned, or bent way out of shape, or with uneven edges. Yes, they do tear and blow off but they don't just move away from each other leaving wide gaps. They would never have been installed with the edges not lined up. The common practice of including wildly distorted corrugated roofing on 'craftsman' kits bothers me.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I can't believe that as long as this thread has become nobody has mentioned the skinny dippers or the line of figures mooning the train!
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
To claim that a model railway that has compromises due to the limitations of space etc. is less of a layout, is to me rather funny.
We mostly make model railroads as opposed to railroad models! I, for one, have no problems with that.
And regarding the Rabbit warren type, is my new layout one?
I want both scenery and a long mainline run in the given space. That is why I call it a model railroad. It has very few prototypical scenes, it has short runaround tracks and many other "flaws" that disqualifies it as a railroad model.
But it is built, by me, for me. And that is all that counts in my book.
It might also get other hateful things, such as punny names, hobos, dilapidated buildings and even the odd funeral party.
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
Graf:
Looks like a pretty good plan to me!
As a general observation, ultimately this thread is about personal likes and dislikes. I don't recall anybody saying that we are not allowed to do what we want (although the discussions about what can and can't be called a layout get kind of close to that). So Graf, you have my absolute permission to do whatever you want! That is, of course, as long as you grant me permission to do whatever I want too!
Sorry, poor attempt at trying to be funny.