Imagination what a fun word..We use more then the majority may realize.
Examples would be like how we deliver a boxcar full of freight to a industry just like the prototype.Our passenger trains speeds along hauling passengers to their destination.A PFE reefer train roars by heading for the East coast!
Fact check time.
We are actually delivering a boxcar full of stale air to a empty plastic building that has no floor,no machines no workers no product.
Our passenger trains carry plastic people or empty seats to no where.That PFE train is making loops or going from staging to staging hauling not fruit and vegetables but,stale air..
Imagination at work..
Kids today is not stupid they understand imagination and its play value more far then we did as children due to roll playing table games and roll playing video games. Then you have the roll playing card games.
A lot of teenages see model trains as a RPG like Train Sim.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I can’t for the life of me see how imagination doesn’t play a large role in any model railroad. We all need imagination to cope with our small radius curves, (though I don’t need to be able to imagine the flange squeal, thank you very much), the scale compression, and, even on the smallest and most professionally run ISL, where the trains and freight they’re delivering come from. Yeah I know, the staging yard, cassette or some similar device, just don’t try and tell me it’s not “Somewheresville USA”.
Well put, Bear.
I think where people get hung up is the debate that has raged since people first started the hobby by building on a foundation of what many considered nothing but toys for kids. To make the point that this was an adult endeavour, the argument was made that pursuing realism and, perhaps, accuracy, took these practices to a higher level. In a sense, the hobby defined itself by what it as not, and it was not what kids do, play with trains.
One would think we're sophisticated enough nowadays to realize that all such recreational activity is important in providing a means to set aside the concerns, pains, and frustration of daily life and that this in itself would be good enough reason to lay some track and run a train. And it all comes from that same impetus, as no one needs to do this, however it's done. They simply enjoy it...well, except for those who feel obligated to share their misgivings.
Byron has a good point, too, in that the less we worry about what others are up to, the more we're likely to derive satisfaction from our own work. Procrastination has always been a problem for the hobby, but with the internet, criticism of what others do seems to be catching up with that as an impediment to one's own enjoyment. Lest someone think I'm picking on eaglescout, this is also a problem for some of the, ahem, more focused adherents of prototype modeling. Not everyone is interested in a fully detailed loco down to what brand TP is hanging in the toilet inside the nose of a particular road's units -- or able to pay for it -- but there is a belief among some that relentless criticism of anything that fails to meet that standard is good for the hobby. They don't want to leave anything to the imagination, it's all gotta be there in miniature, because the imagination was left locked in a closet somewhere.
As Bear pointed out, this reliance on sophistication nonetheless remains dependent on imagination at several levels. Your layout is never more than tenuously connected to an imaginary rail network, no matter how detailed your waybills might be. There is no tiny crew walking out to the lead loco with little grips full of 1:87 lunches. You still have to imagine the sweeping curves required to run on real ROW in place of what would be flangesqueal-inducing 24" min R equivalents in real life. Whether you think of it as more a toy or as a prototypic example, these compromises all have to be made or most of us would simply not see why we should bother with a layout that by necessity is at best a representational display of what is the best we can do to meet the image in our heads.
Guess what? We're all nonetheless in the same hobby. Enjoy it, but you do that best by using your imagination in concert with what you do, at whatever level and expense you feel is right, rather than second-guessing what others do with their imagination and the pleasure they derive from it.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehmanWe're all nonetheless in the same hobby.
Amen!
ATLANTIC CENTRALthe level of detail and sophistication in this hobby
LION loves that word "sophistication". It means diluted or watered down.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I can’t for the life of me see how imagination doesn’t play a large role in any model railroad.
Why?
When you look at a nicely done model of an interesting locomotive can you not appreciate it as a nice model without imagining it as something else?
When you watch an HO scale train run over a nicely detailed bridge can you not appreciate the skill of the modeler without imagining that real water is actually flowing under the bridge?
When a train leaves the visable portion of the layout can you not just accept that it has left the section of the railroad that was modeled without imagining it went off to some specific destination?
When you play a game of chess do you play the game for what it is or do you imagine armies on the field of battle?
When you walk into a significant building are you not able to appreciate the architecture without imagining yourself living there?
What about art? Do you need to imagine a date with her before you can appreciate that the Mona Lisa is a great painting?
Modeling is an activity that can stand on it's own. You don't need to imagine that it is part of something bigger than itself. I am building a model of a piece of a railroad. I can appreciate it for what it is (a model) without having to imagine it's something else. I don't get why you can't understand that.
And to your point about the tight curves, they don't bother me because I know I am operating a model railroad rather than imagining a real one.
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.
BRAKIE Imagination what a fun word..We use more then the majority may realize. Examples would be like how we deliver a boxcar full of freight to a industry just like the prototype.Our passenger trains speeds along hauling passengers to their destination.A PFE reefer train roars by heading for the East coast! Fact check time. We are actually delivering a boxcar full of stale air to a empty plastic building that has no floor,no machines no workers no product. Our passenger trains carry plastic people or empty seats to no where.That PFE train is making loops or going from staging to staging hauling not fruit and vegetables but,stale air.. Imagination at work.. Kids today is not stupid they understand imagination and its play value more far then we did as children due to roll playing table games and roll playing video games. Then you have the roll playing card games. A lot of teenages see model trains as a RPG like Train Sim.
Ahhh... sim, you could substitute the word simulation here for imagination - which implies imagination but is a bit different.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761you could substitute the word simulation here for imagination - which implies imagination but is a bit different.
Simulation is a good word to describe what we do, but I think it is more of a synonym for "model" than "imagination".
I think imagination applies better to the phrase "play railroad" than "model railroad". And btw, there is nothing wrong with playing railroad if that's what you like.
Freud would probably tell me that my attitude comes from my youth when I was 12 years old yelling at my 4 & 6-year old brothers that my model planes and tanks were not toys to be played with.
carl425I think imagination applies better to the phrase "play railroad" than "model railroad". And btw, there is nothing wrong with playing railroad if that's what you like.
And this contrived divide between "playing with toys" and "model railroading," despite being rather obviously specious, floats right back out...to be flogged like the rather beaten-up pony it is, as beneath the dignity of those with aspiration to ???
I guess if it's more important to set one's work apart than to see what's all too obviously a spectrum of interests that are all equally legitimate, a satisfying if not necessarily reassuring way to look at things.
I will only offer that it's hard to create a convincing simulation without using a bit of imagination. That bit may be so small it can be conveniently ignored as too toy-like to be acknowledged, but it nonetheless is present. Why do I say that?
There a person in the family who deals in the most serious of all simulations, war games intended to keep the military on its toes. His major complaint in dealing with constructing scenarios for such exercises was the tendency not to use the imagination, but instead rely on rote repetition of commonly encountered situations. Those more limited, lacking in imagination scenarios are good for scoring points for promotion, not so good in anticipating the old, but worthy saying that you "don't plan to fight the next war based on the last one."
Good thing that embracing a lack of imagination in our hobby only threatens our recreational enjoyment, not more serious things.
mlehmanI will only offer that it's hard to create a convincing simulation without using a bit of imagination. That bit may be so small it can be conveniently ignored as too toy-like to be acknowledged, but it nonetheless is present. Why do I say that?
But isn't that a different type of imagination? More akin to creativity than pretending? I'm just saying that I personaly don't imagine myself running a real train when operating a model. Is there something wrong with that? I thought you were advocating freedom for each to enjoy the hobby as they choose - "a spectrum of interests".
carl425 mlehman I will only offer that it's hard to create a convincing simulation without using a bit of imagination. That bit may be so small it can be conveniently ignored as too toy-like to be acknowledged, but it nonetheless is present. Why do I say that? But isn't that a different type of imagination? More akin to creativity than pretending? I'm just saying that I personaly don't imagine myself running a real train when operating a model. Is there something wrong with that? I thought you were advocating freedom for each to enjoy the hobby as they choose - "a spectrum of interests".
mlehman I will only offer that it's hard to create a convincing simulation without using a bit of imagination. That bit may be so small it can be conveniently ignored as too toy-like to be acknowledged, but it nonetheless is present. Why do I say that?
Now this is an interesting rabbit hole you two are going down.......
I don't find "being the engineer" a necessary or critical part of model railroading. That is why my layout provides both, "being the engineer" (or dispatcher) and also provides lots of display running - so I can just be the railroad President - or a casual railfan.....
Sheldon
carl425 I can’t for the life of me see how imagination doesn’t play a large role in any model railroad. Why?
carl425When you look at a nicely done model of an interesting locomotive can you not appreciate it as a nice model without imagining it as something else? When you watch an HO scale train run over a nicely detailed bridge can you not appreciate the skill of the modeler without imagining that real water is actually flowing under the bridge?
carl425When a train leaves the visable portion of the layout can you not just accept that it has left the section of the railroad that was modeled without imagining it went off to some specific destination?
carl425When you play a game of chess do you play the game for what it is or do you imagine armies on the field of battle?
carl425When you walk into a significant building are you not able to appreciate the architecture without imagining yourself living there? What about art? Do you need to imagine a date with her before you can appreciate that the Mona Lisa is a great painting?
carl425Modeling is an activity that can stand on it's own. You don't need to imagine that it is part of something bigger than itself. I am building a model of a piece of a railroad. I can appreciate it for what it is (a model) without having to imagine it's something else. I don't get why you can't understand that. And to your point about the tight curves, they don't bother me because I know I am operating a model railroad rather than imagining a real one.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Carl,
Not being critical of your choice. It's a new one on me. I was just questioning that it was really all that much different than any other sort of imagination/simulation/virtual approach to the hobby. I can see how you view it as different, but more in the sense that 98% is the same.
Maybe some brief discussion on my approach helps set out how we're really all just chasing on tail if we emphasize the limited differences when so much is the same. Same set of prototypes/classes/models. We can by more or less detailed models in many cases. We can run them crisp out of the box round and round on the Plywood Pacific or weathered on a point-to-point that is remarkably like someplace familiar.
In my case, I model the Rio Grande and if you look at the layout briefly, I would hope that you sense you're somewhere in Colorado, even better if down in the San Juans. I could confine myself to strictly prototype ops with nothing except what I could confirm was present on particular dates and places. Some folks enjoy just that.
On the other hand, I model just about anything Rio Grande-related. If I had room, I'd model Gunnison to Salida to Alamosa to Durango to Ridgway. But I can't. So that traffic, while not present in fact anywhere near the Silverton, nonetheless forms an essential part of my layout as a model. I don't pretend it's anywhere else, but I do use my imagination to fit other things that were more distant in time and space into the space available in my basement place.
Does any of this admittedly imaginary traffic look out of place? Maybe, if you had the library I do and the memory to access it (it is heck getting old and realizing you probably know less everyday...) and wanted to go over it with a fine tooth comb, you could certainly easily call me on this if we were counting points for the prototype police. But if you look at the individual models or a quick glance at a scene, there's really nothing to give it away for the most part.
Unless you catch some of my diesels lurking or the few examples of modern all-steel rolling stock. Or my conversions of 6500-series flatcars to serve the lumber trade. Or my Swiss-pattern modern luxury cruise train. But even there, they all have that family look that at least suggests they're Rio Grande-inspired. It's just that circa 1970, freight trafic remains good on my layout, passenger traffic is surging, because that's the way I imagine it.
Others might confine themselves to steam to be more authentic -- and most narrowgaugers do, with no love lost for diesels. Someone else might build a standard gauge line to the same locations; it could either be Rio Grande, too, or maybe name it after their kids. Vastly different approaches that all satisfy someone are possible, even if things look pretty much the same based on what people buy to equip them. Some involve admittedly little imagination, but I think it's rare that none is involved, even if you insist that's the case for you.
Play is often treated like a 4-letter word, but it's essential for psychological well-being -- and I think essentially tied to our hobby for most of us, even if some choose to except themselves. Here's a interesting article on the value of play: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/11/15/the-importance-of-play-for-adults/
Just happened to search for it, seemed apt, then I read down a little and find that one of the doctors quoted in it is a colleague of a friend of mine, Patch Adams. Yep that one, a local resident and ocassional guest crew here on my layout.
"Play can even facilitate deep connections between strangers and cultivate healing."
I think many, not all, would attest to the power of model railroading to do that. I don't think the hobby has a monopoly on that, just that it lends itself particularly well to that, despite the sizable percentage of lone wolves and the tiny % of irritating folks who seem to swim against that tide. It takes all kinds, to be true, but at the core of what most get as satisfaction in this hobby is the hobby's play value that helps us deal with the less fun parts of modern life.
ATLANTIC CENTRALNow this is an interesting rabbit hole you two are going down....... I don't find "being the engineer" a necessary or critical part of model railroading. That is why my layout provides both, "being the engineer" (or dispatcher) and also provides lots of display running - so I can just be the railroad President - or a casual railfan.....
Sheldon,
If Carl's point is there are different forms of imagination or that there's even some entirely different but some related term in the sense that there's a concept that meets many of the same needs as what other see as imagination, I don't have a problem seeing that as allied to the concept even if he insists on difference.
Imagination, or whatver it is, is very personal, like my description of why my layout's concept works for me. This is also why it doesn't really work all that well to critique someone else's motivating imagination, because it's probably more productive and undoubtedly more accurate to describe your own conceptualization of imagination. That's also why we should be seeking happiness in our own modeling -- critique of others' work rarely does us any good unless kept to oneself to inform our own, as that is what we have the most power to change.
mlehman ATLANTIC CENTRAL Now this is an interesting rabbit hole you two are going down....... I don't find "being the engineer" a necessary or critical part of model railroading. That is why my layout provides both, "being the engineer" (or dispatcher) and also provides lots of display running - so I can just be the railroad President - or a casual railfan..... Sheldon, If Carl's point is there are different forms of imagination or that there's even some entirely different but some related term in the sense that there's a concept that meets many of the same needs as what other see as imagination, I don't have a problem seeing that as allied to the concept even if he insists on difference. Imagination, or whatver it is, is very personal, like my description of why my layout's concept works for me. This is also why it doesn't really work all that well to critique someone else's motivating imagination, because it's probably more productive and undoubtedly more accurate to describe your own conceptualization of imagination. That's also why we should be seeking happiness in our own modeling -- critique of others' work rarely does us any good unless kept to oneself to inform our own, as that is what we have the most power to change.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Now this is an interesting rabbit hole you two are going down....... I don't find "being the engineer" a necessary or critical part of model railroading. That is why my layout provides both, "being the engineer" (or dispatcher) and also provides lots of display running - so I can just be the railroad President - or a casual railfan.....
I agree, completely. And that is why I challenged eaglescout as to his basic premise.
I do this for me, it is all in my little head, all the reasons, satisfactions, justifications and imaginary constructs.
Any notion of doing this for others would to me assume that we have access into their minds in ways we likely never will.
So I do it for me, and if by some chance a few others can take something from it, be it my actual modeling, or my thoughts on modeling, that is all extra.
There are a few on here who don't care for my outspoken style, or the fact that I don't run with the group on issues like sound and DCC, and that I am outspoken about those issues.
But I feel if people are reading/listening, they are entitled to different views, to take or leave as they see fit.
I cannot even consider the idea of deciding how to do this hobby based on trying to understand or anticipate the needs, or likes, or imaginations of others, be they grown or not - actually, if I had to do that, a really big pile of trains would be for sale really fast........
So yes, when it comes to model railroading, my life is all about me.......
mlehmanIn my case, I model the Rio Grande and if you look at the layout briefly, I would hope that you sense you're somewhere in Colorado, even better if down in the San Juans.
I think this statement is the best one to use as an example that may help you to understand how we think differently. I would not sense that I was in Colorado, my mind doesn't work that way. I would think that you have made a nice model that does a good job of representing Colorado.
mlehmanIf Carl's point is there are different forms of imagination or that there's even some entirely different but some related term in the sense that there's a concept that meets many of the same needs as what other see as imagination, I don't have a problem seeing that as allied to the concept even if he insists on difference.
I thought about this soon after I posted it. I think a better way to make the point would have been to talk about different uses for imagination rather than different forms. I used my imagination to design the layout, and to solve some engineering problems during construction, but I won't use it to enhance the entertainment I get from running it.
Another potential difference is that I put the emphasis on "model" in model railroading. I am first a model builder - like the cars, planes and tanks of my youth. I may decide that some level of detail is too much work or beyond my skill level, but I would never consciously "leave something to the imagination".
I do not for a minute mean to deprive anyone of the play value of their railroad. Nor do I mean to belittle anyone for "playing". I'm just offering myself as evidence that not everyone in the hobby approaches it that way.
carl425I think a better way to make the point would have been to talk about different uses for imagination rather than different forms. I used my imagination to design the layout, and to solve some engineering problems during construction, but I won't use it to enhance the entertainment I get from running it.
If I may turn the coin over here so, we can see the other side...
Your trains haul real freight,your industries turn out product,workers are busy making said product? Your imagination does you much credit.
Your industries like mine have no machines,no workers,no product other then stale air,your freight cars like mine hauls stale air.
You and I use the same imagination to enhance our operation play value by pretending we are hauling freight and our industries are turning out product-how about that Crete 18 wheeler roaring down the road? Oops! That truck's going no where except in our imagination..It has no motor so,it can't move.
I'd guess that, within this hobby, all of us use our imagination in some form or other. I don't imagine those things which I see...there's no need to duplicate them or improve on them, even though to some (me included) they may be short of what's possible. I run DC, and have eschewed any type of lighting, and don't have a sound system. However, with the sound system of my imagination, all of my steam locomotives sound exactly like the real ones, and the flanges squeal and the air pumps thump, with the birds and cicadas chirping behind the din of clanging couplers and cursing car men. Feel free to call it "play" - it is....it literally makes me smile.
Here's a LINK to some of that play. You can provide the rest of the soundtrack, or not, as you wish.
Wayne
doctorwayneYou can provide the rest of the soundtrack, or not, as you wish.
Here's what I see and hear.The engineers on X4807 and the 632 has shut off the throttle as the train drifts through the area at time table track speed and 4807's engineer starts blowing for the crossing.I can smell the hot grease and see a cross cab wave from the engineer on the 4807-good enough?
BTW. I really like the looks of #25's tender.
Thanks for that reply, Larry, and for your kind words. That's the type of imagination that goes on in my head, too...sorta fills in the blanks, whether in photos, in-person static viewing, or even while running the trains.
A teenager is one of my best operators and also one of the most knowledable "rivet counters" I know. I model the steam era northern pacific, so he made a video on his phone to let me see/hear the NP whistle on a Cumbres & Toltec loco. I was touched and a little blown away at his level of knowledge. Now who is mentoring who? Until then I wouldn't have recognized an NP whistle. No I'm not going to look for sound files of NP whistles, Bachmann, BLI, Genesis are good enough for me.
Grinnell
carl425 mlehman wrote: "If Carl's point is there are different forms of imagination or that there's even some entirely different but some related term in the sense that there's a concept that meets many of the same needs as what other see as imagination, I don't have a problem seeing that as allied to the concept even if he insists on difference." I thought about this soon after I posted it. I think a better way to make the point would have been to talk about different uses for imagination rather than different forms. I used my imagination to design the layout, and to solve some engineering problems during construction, but I won't use it to enhance the entertainment I get from running it.
Interesting you should bring that up. I was thinking back to some discussion about locating some tracks around a wye and how I remembered that having some shred of imagination involved. Didn't bother searching back for it, because I wanted to emphasize the substantial commonality of what we do, rather than pick at the differences.
But I think it's an example of how imagination creeps in, even if you take a fairly structured approach to the prototype. That's a matter of personal taste, where you decide how comfortable you are on the scale of what's a must to include and what not. It's unavoidable to make some choices when it's obvious 100% of the real won't fit, as is almost always the case.
I'm also a model builder, just not limited to what did exist by including what could have existed with some minor tweaks to the past, along with a far larger % of stuff that woould fit right in to what we have evidence of available. If the Venn diagram of what's past wasn't the predominant set of what's on my layout, the maybe 10% that never existed wouldn't make much sense as its dependent on that historical context that did exist. That's the past as I'd like to see.
If it helps in understanding why I like to let my hair down (what's still there) by coloring outside the lines like this, I'm a historian who has to deal with 100% real in my daily work. And there's way too much unhappy with the real past for me to make absolute adherence to the prototype constrain me when I want to relax and enjoy the hobby.
I too am very much about modeling a believable "version" of the past. Since we can't realy know every detail anyway, why not fill in the blanks with believable but happy versions that could have been.
That for me is the most imagination driven part of the hobby.
mlehman But I think it's an example of how imagination creeps in, even if you take a fairly structured approach to the prototype. That's a matter of personal taste, where you decide how comfortable you are on the scale of what's a must to include and what not. It's unavoidable to make some choices when it's obvious 100% of the real won't fit, as is almost always the case. I'm also a model builder, just not limited to what did exist by including what could have existed with some minor tweaks to the past, along with a far larger % of stuff that woould fit right in to what we have evidence of available. If the Venn diagram of what's past wasn't the predominant set of what's on my layout, the maybe 10% that never existed wouldn't make much sense as its dependent on that historical context that did exist. That's the past as I'd like to see.
Mike,
I think that is a great summary of my thinking. I will always freelance...protolance to be more exact....to be able to have my layout "improve" something that the prototype lacks. As I read the OP, if I eliminate what you call 10% to make my model railroad 100% accurate to fidelity, I would lose interest. Others may not.
I'm interested in modeling modern shortlines. Modern shortlines really never have enough traffic to keep the layout interesting if I modeled 100% of proto fidelity. My vision of how to modle a particular short line always involves adding a few more industries and traffic, departing from the protoype in a positive way, IMO.
- Douglas
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I too am very much about modeling a believable "version" of the past. Since we can't realy know every detail anyway, why not fill in the blanks with believable but happy versions that could have been. That for me is the most imagination driven part of the hobby. Sheldon
Yes, and I'm sure your approach is thoroughly informed by prototype practice, as are most who take this track rather than the Classic Toy Trains track. I say that to not at all to drive a wedge there, either, but to point out that if one wants to speak of the balance shifting more toward the material objects of our desire as individual items depicting discrete parts of the railroad vs building a model of a railroad, that's what better defines our hobby than picking at people who are, ahem, not completely faithful in adherence to a prototype.
This is a hobby for people who like to create. That may be world where the rules are very rigid, but also one that embraces substantial variations on the chosen theme. Carl's approach may be more conservative than either of ours and we may be somewhat more conservative in some apects than the OP's. But we all have plenty in common and often rely on exactly the same information, if not exactly the same philosophies to guide us.
This brings to mind an example I was going to use last night. I have a friend who is an English instructor, writer, and poet. Almost makes my history degree look marketable, doesn't it? One of the things poets like to do is choose a formal structure to write within. There's at least 55: http://www.poemofquotes.com/articles/poetry_forms.php
Oh, that mostly sounds painful to me, who doesn't mind dashing off some free verse lines every great once in awhile, but it's exactly the sort of thing that gets him thinking and writing to have to fit his expression into the rules of one of those. Similarly, we're happy to choose which form our modeling expression will take -- and likely would find it artistically painful to try to force something into a form we don't enjoy.
And, uh-oh, I used the art word, it may be time to quit for right now...
DoughlessMike, I think that is a great summary of my thinking. I will always freelance...protolance to be more exact....to be able to have my layout "improve" something that the prototype lacks. As I read the OP, if I eliminate what you call 10% to make my model railroad 100% accurate to fidelity, I would lose interest. Others may not. I'm interested in modeling modern shortlines. Modern shortlines really never have enough traffic to keep the layout interesting if I modeled 100% of proto fidelity. My vision of how to modle a particular short line always involves adding a few more industries and traffic, departing from the protoype in a positive way, IMO.
I think one of the problems that is encountered in prototype modeling is info paralysis. Either there's not enough info for someone to commit or there's conflicting info. Yet you're building a layout. Some folks get stuck there or by the fact they can't seem to fit enough of what they love in to spark the start of construction or even worse somewhere in the middle that's just not far enough along to hold one's interest.
That's when you have to accept that you're building a model and not a replica. There's not only room for interpretation, but the situation requires it.
Similarly, once it's reasonably complete, the layout should be something able to hold your interest, whether through ops or offering opportunities to rebuild and improve it as your skills develop, as well as a place to display and run your motive power and other rolling stock. And it has to be distilled down to fit your space and budget. Yes, even if you're hardcore prototype oriented, this is where you might just have to take a Lifeline call to your imagination -- or you face design paralysis here, too.
What's really at stake here is gaining confidence in what you know about the prototype, practicing that, and then if it suits, coloring outside those lines in a way that expands on the themes that bring your layout alive for you. That may be strict prototype practice or it may be something looser. But it's all model railroading that no one should regret.
grinnellA teenager is one of my best operators and also one of the most knowledable "rivet counters" I know. I model the steam era northern pacific, so he made a video on his phone to let me see/hear the NP whistle on a Cumbres & Toltec loco. I was touched and a little blown away at his level of knowledge. Now who is mentoring who? SNIP
I think that's an example of the beauty of sharing this hobby by assuming common interests even as we sometimes interpret our individidual approaches in different ways. The kid may always be deeper into the details, but you've fostered a fire for knowledge that benefits you and likely things like historical societies, a local club, perhaps, even the kid's future education and career interests. Like Bear said, it'd be awfully boring if we all thought the same way.
The more realistic a model railroad is, the more it stimulates my imagination. Instead of "imagining" that a shoebox is a factory and a locomotive has a bell and whistle, I'd rather have a building that actually is a minature factory, and a locomotive that does have a bell and a whistle. That lets my imagination fill in the small details that I have not modelled.
As I've matured as a model railroader, I've made more demands on my modeling. It's always going to be a place of imagination, but I always "imagine" how much better it can be.
I even try to make my imagination as realistic as possible....
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
MisterBeasleyAs I've matured as a model railroader, I've made more demands on my modeling. It's always going to be a place of imagination, but I always "imagine" how much better it can be. I even try to make my imagination as realistic as possible....
MisterBeasley,
Great example of how the imgination can become 3D through the magic of model railroading. Not everyone models Kansas...but it's possible.
mlehmanGreat example of how the imgination can become 3D through the magic of model railroading. Not everyone models KansasWink...but it's possible.
Kansas?
Mermaids are real, just ask my 5 year old grandson........