Hi everyone, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts as to whether it would be helpful to think in terms of genres when approaching model railroading. This is, of course, a widely established practice in literature, movies, and other art forms (eg. westerns, rom coms, horror, sci-fi, action-adventure, etc.), and it seems to be helpful not just in describing a particular taste or style, but in evaluating what works and what doesn't. In short, a technique that works well in one genre may come off all wrong in another.
What got me thinking about this was a recent discussion in which several posters objected to some advice given in an MR article about achieving realism in a layout. While some people had reasonable quibbles with specific points made, others just sounded more generally defensive, or even offended, as if the author had told them their own modeling efforts were all wrong. It's not the first time I've seen such a fuss, in MR or elsewhere in the hobby, when someone suggests taking an approach that others haven't taken.
To put it another way, when someone writes or speaks about how to achieve greater scenic realism, operational authenticity, or whatever, people sometimes feel they're being told what they ought to be doing, when in fact the writer's intent is usually to say "If you want to achieve X outcome, here are some tips on how to do it".
On the plus side, establishing genres would make it easier to talk about techniques for success in different styles of modeling, without passing judgement on the styles themselves. For example, what type of track plan is better: point-to-point , or "spaghetti bowl"? The answer is, it depends on your genre. Use point-to-point if you're doing an Operations or Realistic Trainwatching layout, and spaghetti bowl if you're going for Fantasy World or General Public Entertainment. Yes, people's feelings will still be hurt if they're told they're doing a lousy job of their chosen genre. But at least we'd get away from all the debate about which genre is better or "right". Done well, they're all great in their own way.
On the downside, I think that most of us don't like to be pigeonholed, and similarly resist easy, offhand categorization of our unique creative efforts. And, of course, I could be leading us down a never-ending rathole of debate about what constitutes a genre. When I last checked, there were at least a dozen different sub-genres of sci fi, while at the same time, the lines between sci fi and fantasy are becoming increasingly blurred.
On that note - is anybody out there doing steampunk modeling in N scale?
I don't want to offend, but I don't see the point.
Most of us are well aware that there are lots of approaches to this hobby. We categorize ourselves by scale/gauge, era, power systems, level of detail, degree of accuracy, prototype preferences, etc. We create separate sub-specialities such as the many narrow (or broad) gauges, Proto 48, Proto 87, etc. There are modular clubs with various standards, Round-Robin clubs, Large clubs with permanent layouts, and other variations. There are serious TT&TO operators, those who just like to let the trains run, and collectors who don't run anything at all. We do industrial switching, branchlines, shortlines, and all variations up to the busiest and densest mainlines. We do passenger trains, Mainfest freights, reefer blocks, coal trains, iron ore trains, and any others you can think of. We model mountains, prairies, bridges, tunnels, big cities, small towns, and all kinds of industries. Some like steam, some prefer diesels, some prefer juice. Among the traction guys, the range is from little trolleys and box motors through streetcars, interurbans, subways (nod to Bro. E.), and heavy electrics. Are your heavy electrics GG1's on the Corridor, or Little Joes in Idaho? Across the Pond, they have a whole bunch of their own specialities. And some of us do nothing except read the magazines and dream.
If you want to try to break it down into various genres, be my guest. But I really think the hobby is so diverse that you'll find there are as many genres as hobbyists, and if you manage to come to any solid conclusions and definitions, it will be pretty hard to find a good use for the information.
I think I'd rather just relax and enjoy it instead of trying to dissect it.
Now I'll get off my soap box.
Tom
PS I've never seen it, but I'll bet there is somebody doing Steampunk in N.
CNSFFor example, what type of track plan is better: point-to-point , or "spaghetti bowl"? The answer is, it depends on your genre. Use point-to-point if you're doing an Operations or Realistic Trainwatching layout, and spaghetti bowl if you're going for Fantasy World or General Public Entertainment.
Your example really points out why your idea won't work. Many operations layouts use the bowl of spaghetti approach - see Frank Ellison's Delta Lines - to be able to fit in more operations. In fact the Delta Lines is a point to point bowl of spaghetti.
A lot of regular authors/columnists have strong opinions, which is okay - just recognize their bias is just that - a bias. It's like sound, weathering, DCC and whole host of things - some like it, some don't, some do both. Currently there is a strong bias in the hobby press towards photographic, museum quality, protoype model railroading. But in reality a lot of people are having fun with trains in other ways.
In many ways the toy train guys are better at this than we are. They have fun running whatever appeals to them and don't worry about whether that streamline passenger train looks right next to 4-4-0 pulling a truss rod passenger car.
This is a hobby, do what's fun for you.
Enjoy
Paul
Gee - if we were to break down this hobby into different categories or genres, I would not know where to fit in - not because my choice of an exotic genre, but too broad an interest in anything running on rails.
My genres would be
OO9 gauge British NG (= narrow gauge)
HOm Swiss NG
N scale Japanese standard gauge, which is 3 1/2 ft. gauge
HO tin plate toy trains (Marklin)
I also fancy HOn3 Colorado NG and H= bscale Swiss SG
Frankly, I really don´t care about the genre, as long as I am having fun with what I am doing.
Sir MadogFrankly, I really don´t care about the genre, as long as I am having fun with what I am doing.
Me too.
Hi Ulrich! Good to see you back!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I think I gte the point to this idea. People should consider that it's a big, diverse hobby with lots of different way of doing stuff, different expectations of what's important, and different comfort levels with actually building something vs RTR and everything in between.
CNSFOn the downside, I think that most of us don't like to be pigeonholed, and similarly resist easy, offhand categorization of our unique creative efforts.
Yeah, people get the bone of contention and division between their teeth and they just want to gnaw at things a lot of the time. Plus there's way too much crossover in interests, even by the same individual, to say they work in X genre most of the time.
Best to just encourage folks to be tolerant, consider other points of view, and let them learn there's almost always something someone else can teach us, if we're only willing to look at the good stuff as well as fretting about what we disagree with.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehman I think I get the point to this idea. People should consider that it's a big, diverse hobby with lots of different way of doing stuff, different expectations of what's important, and different comfort levels with actually building something vs RTR and everything in between.
I think I get the point to this idea. People should consider that it's a big, diverse hobby with lots of different way of doing stuff, different expectations of what's important, and different comfort levels with actually building something vs RTR and everything in between.
I think what would be most helpful would be for the OP to establish a list of potential genre for us to consider.
Rich
Alton Junction
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
I also think I get the OPs gist but sadly conclude that defining genres would only get to exercise those who want to “arm wave” over such minutiae.
No shortage of arm waving here - no sir!
ACY I don't want to offend, but I don't see the point.
Me neither. But for whatever reason, MR forums seems to attract a lot of this type of discussion. Maybe a lot of people have way too much time on their hands which might be more constructivly applied to working on a model or a layout! Now get back in that train room and get to work! Chop chop!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 I also think I get the OPs gist but sadly conclude that defining genres would only get to exercise those who want to “arm wave” over such minutiae. No shortage of arm waving here - no sir! ACY I don't want to offend, but I don't see the point. Me neither. But for whatever reason, MR forums seems to attract a lot of this type of discussion. Maybe a lot of people have way too much time on their hands which might be more constructivly applied to working on a model or a layout! Now get back in that train room and get to work! Chop chop!
Or, how about the " Philosophical Dissection" forum.
Mike.
My You Tube
And for the rowdier bunch, a Steel Cage match forum...
...with the winners permanently banned.
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tstage And for the rowdier bunch, a Steel Cage match forum... ...with the winners permanently banned.
This type of suggestion comes up every so often. The problem is that model railroading is a multiple dimension hobby, and there are multiple focuses all going on at the same time. Because of that, there is rarely one definitive genre on a layout. I can run an engine that is detailed to a gnat's butt on layout with sectional track hauling Tyco cars, using the 1968 UCOR rule book.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
CNSF On that note - is anybody out there doing steampunk modeling
On that note - is anybody out there doing steampunk modeling
What is steampunk exactly. I never really understood the fascination. Is this set in the 1800s with modern technologies. If it is I don't care for this genre.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
richhotrainI have felt for a long time that a new sub-forum should be added, and it should be called Whimsical Ideas. These ideas don't really have anything to do with modeling, yet they do. Rich
It would be nice if we could corrall all these "escoterica" topics into subforum, but it doesn't look like our hosts are going to do that, and even if they did, half the topics would get posted here and have to get moved so it would be "high maintenence". It appears as long as escoterica is tolerated - we will continue to see plenty more tempests in teapots for some time to come. The MR staff basically don't have time to manage the forum to the degree thats needed to make it a little "tighter" and keep topics focused on the hobby itself As a result, it's going to continue to be a "padded room" here in the General Discussion section.
Remember the movie remake of "The Wild Wild West", the old, late 60's TV series of the same name? In the movie, Will Smith was one of the actors, not sure of the others, but there was a lot of "steampunk" machinery and weapons, and trains in that. Mostly used by the main villan.
I just googled steampunk railroad, and it is kind of interesting, to look at.
As I understand steampunk, it's a fantasy world in which heavy industrial machinery from the steam age is imagined to be capable of things that could never really be. The Wild West was a good example of it. Also the Zorro movie from several years ago in which anachronism seemed to be the governing factor.
I like the idea of the steam powered Zeppelin, probably using hydrogen and powered by coal! A wood burner might produce more sparks for a more soectacular effect. Quite doable, and even more compact in Z!
Anybody who wants to go into that genre is welcome to enjoy his hobby any way he likes.
ACY I don't want to offend, but I don't see the point. Most of us are well aware that there are lots of approaches to this hobby. We categorize ourselves by scale/gauge, era, power systems, level of detail, degree of accuracy, prototype preferences, etc. We create separate sub-specialities such as the many narrow (or broad) gauges, Proto 48, Proto 87, etc. There are modular clubs with various standards, Round-Robin clubs, Large clubs with permanent layouts, and other variations. There are serious TT&TO operators, those who just like to let the trains run, and collectors who don't run anything at all. We do industrial switching, branchlines, shortlines, and all variations up to the busiest and densest mainlines. We do passenger trains, Mainfest freights, reefer blocks, coal trains, iron ore trains, and any others you can think of. We model mountains, prairies, bridges, tunnels, big cities, small towns, and all kinds of industries. Some like steam, some prefer diesels, some prefer juice. Among the traction guys, the range is from little trolleys and box motors through streetcars, interurbans, subways (nod to Bro. E.), and heavy electrics. Are your heavy electrics GG1's on the Corridor, or Little Joes in Idaho? Across the Pond, they have a whole bunch of their own specialities. And some of us do nothing except read the magazines and dream. If you want to try to break it down into various genres, be my guest. But I really think the hobby is so diverse that you'll find there are as many genres as hobbyists, and if you manage to come to any solid conclusions and definitions, it will be pretty hard to find a good use for the information. I think I'd rather just relax and enjoy it instead of trying to dissect it. Now I'll get off my soap box. Tom PS I've never seen it, but I'll bet there is somebody doing Steampunk in N.
I guess i'm not getting it, either. To me saying genres is just a fancy way of saying categories. Something we already break down into already as ACY, and others, have pointed out.
Jeff
Hi again everyone, great to hear from so many. I have a day job and had plans this evening, so couldn't rejoin the discussion until now. But I was tracking the posts as well as I could and very much enjoyed reading your thoughts. Yes, it's a rather trivial and esoteric subject as opposed to more useful discussions on how to do benchwork, or DC vs. DCC, but the responses so far reflect a mixture of thoughtfulness with a bit of fun thrown in, so I hope everyone who participated got at least something out of it. And no, I'm not into steampunk myself; just wanted to throw it out there for fun, as I find it a fascinating example of the diversity of human interest and creativity.
Anyways, to comment on some of the points made, I don't see differences in scale, era, geography, or favorite prototype as being genres, at least not in the way the term is usually applied in other art forms. They're certainly categories, but to me, the concept of genre has more to do with a stylistic approach. Maybe garden railroading and toy train collecting/operating are distinct enough in multiple ways, including stylistic, that they would have to be considered genres. But they have their own magazines, so let's set them aside for now and just consider the modeling usually covered in MR.
One poster suggested it might be helpful if I proposed some examples, or a list. I certainly agree with the sentiment that if we overthink this we could easily wind up with as many genres as there are modelers in the hobby. But on a much broader sense, it has occurred to me more than once that three general themes, styles, motivations, or whatever repeatedly show up in our collective body of work, and while they're not entirely mutually exclusive, you can't pursue all three to a really high level at the same time because at a certain point they don't work together and you're forced to make tradeoffs.
The three I'm talking about are: 1) operations-oriented 2) scenery and/or trainwatching oriented, and 3) fantasy/whimsy/entertainment oriented. As I said, they're not entirely mutually exclusive, but at a certain point they tend to come into conflict. For example, if your top priority is the longest possible mainline run to support realistic multiple-crew operating sessions, you're going to have to sacrifice some visual realism by having a high track to scenery ratio and possibly multiple passes through the same scene. Or, if you're going for a super-realistic appearance along the lines of what Lance Mindheim or Pelle Soeborg are doing, you might want to resist the urge to add skinny dippers to your water feature.
Note the key words I've used here: "if you're going for". This is where I think we often get into trouble in the hobby. There is absolutely no right way or wrong way; everyone should feel totally free to do whatever they want without being lectured. Having said that, I know what I'd like to achieve, and I certainly appreciate articles from experts who've achieved the same thing at a very high level and can pass on some advice on how I can do it better. So I was thinking that maybe a fairly limited, widely-understood set of general stylistic genres would make it easier for us to have those conversations without people taking it the wrong way.
That said, maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. What prompted me to post this was a recent discussion about Lance Mindheim's March MR article about how to achieve realism. Some people seemed to take offense, thinking he was promoting realism over fun/whimsy, which might have been avoided had there been a clearer understanding that he was writing about how to do one particular genre/style really well. But there was also a heated debate about whether or not Victorian houses are realistic. So, maybe hurt feelings and sore toes are just inevitable in a hobby like this. I suppose that even over in the sci-fi/fantasy literary and hobby world with its umpteen sub-genres, people are still finding things to fight about.
Considering the staggering variety of scales, track gauges, prototypes to be modeled, freelance flights of fancy or just 'out of the box, onto the rails' with weird and wonderful things like giraffe cars and Vlasic pickle cars (or weird and not so wonderful like monster railroad guns and flakwagen) trying to identify and codify specific model railroad genre would be an exercise in futility.
I prefer to fall back on a very basic idea; one size does not fit all.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in 1:80 scale, aka HOj)
Some people, regardless of how it is presented, will take offense for the sake of be offended, so they can (again) tout how long they have been in the hobby, and their way is the only way, ad nauseum.
What they don't "get" is everyone is fine with that person doing what he wants on his layout, but many other modelers enjoying reading about advancements, and the authors that continue to experiment in many aspects of the hobby.
This usually begins an 8 page long thread with a few people pinwheeling about how someone is telling them how they should model. It makes for some interesting entertainment for everyone else, but really serves no purpose besides making those few feel good that they have justified themselves to the world.
This behavior will never go away as its human nature, and your idea will do nothing to really make that aspect go away.
I recall reading a debate about nail holes HO scale, and if you should add them or not, as one side agreed, the other side's arguement is you would never see them from the distance viewed. Neither is right or wrong, we compress and also exaggerate to get the effect desired don't we?
Besides, what else would we read for entertainment, the mainstream press?
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
CNSFSo I was thinking that maybe a fairly limited, widely-understood set of general stylistic genres would make it easier for us to have those conversations without people taking it the wrong way.
That might work, at least in terms of developing some "spotting features" so to speak. Nothing wrong with observing and noting what seems important to differing approaches, even if such definitions can never be, ahem, definitive.
I think where things go wrong is trying to plug people as individuals into these pigeonholes. That induces the "defense or fold" mentality where people get defensive about what and how they do things, what's important on their modeling agendas, etc. So it helps to clearly separate people from things in these conversations. For instance, I generally try to present what I do and the reasons why, while acknowledging that YMMV, even when it's clear someone is asking about what they should do.
On the other hand, some people see their views as under attack simply because someone makes it clear others hold a differing opinion. Nothing but ignoring that really works, because people already inclined to take offense at the least or even lack of provocation are usually not the sort that a reasoned conversation will end with the parties agreeing to disagree but still be pals.
This isn't necessarily surprising in a hobby that often values the particularistic in what we model -- What's your prototype? Era? Mainline, shortline, or narrowgauge? -- but it's something that doesn't always translate well from what we model to what we discuss F2F between us. Most folks manage this difference pretty well. Those that can't, well it's a pity, because you can often learn from someone elses's approach to a different situation/prototype/scale simply by being open-minded and accepting that what others do for themselves is because that works best for them, just as your way does for your own goals.
I think Sheldon actually said it best very recently over on another thread:
I get a bit upset when I feel that I am being talked down to, and quite honestly a number of MR articles in recent years made me feel I was being talked down to. That is why I do not even pick up MR for a look see.
In contrast the latest issue of Classic Trains was magnificent in many ways.
Also, I would support dividing up into genres and would suggest perhaps a section for those who are more collectors of fine models rather than builders.
Just because I like playing with brass steamers does not make me an elitist. I simply enjoy fine models I could not build myself, and after trying many many more in between or middle of the road models I personally decided on no compromise buy the best I can find even if I only then have a tiny handful of engines and cars. I am much happier this way. My son does appreciate the finer models too and has already made it clear which ones he wants, that can never be sold. He likes the green boilered T&P and GN stuff. He thinks the multi colored paint schemes on steam are hot. At least there is some interest remaining...
Yes indeed we have ten freight cars remaining on hand between us, only 3 of which belong behind steam...we just like what's up front, which selling off a bunch of accumulated plastic paid for. Roadname? If I like the engine I buy it and then read all about the prototype history. I like the engines that had Worthington BL or BL2 feedwater heaters and my days of running 50 to 75 car trains are over.
John
What types of generes did you have in mind?
It sounds to me like the idea of model railroading genres is a way to deflect criticism of your work. "That railroad never ran steamers with oil tenders!" "It's OK, I'm doing Whimsical Entertainment." Or "Am I missing something or does this track not actually connect to the rest of the railroad?" "It's OK, I'm doing Scenic Realism." Issues that could be just as easily answered with "It's my railroad and I like it that way."
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
I suspect in one way or another we've all been doing genres - just never thought of it in those terms perhaps.
Dave Nelson
Steven Otte"It's my railroad and I like it that way."
Steve,
True enough, Rule #1 covers a lot of sins, err, preferences.
On the other hand, it could serve as a way for people to do a "givens and druthers" in terms of their relationship to the hobby, rather like is done in designing a layout.
People sometimes think they need to be a wizard at everything or to have some grand artistic vision of what they want. That can certainly lead to participatory paralysis. Better to carve things down to what you personally find interesting and concentrate there, ignoring the rest that you don't know enough to care about. If you stay in the hobby and you find reason to need them again, they will still be there waiting.
Of course, I'm the sort who doesn't like things to be mostly predetermined. I often find new areas of enjoyment I didn't expect by coming back to the basics of the hobby and just running with the ball, then adapting the stuff I find useful as best practices. Others just want a definition to shoot for. It takes all kinds. The concept of different genres coild be another way of helping people determine where their skills and interests lie.
richhotrain I have felt for a long time that a new sub-forum should be added, and it should be called Whimsical Ideas. These ideas don't really have anything to do with modeling, yet they do. Rich
I have felt for a long time that a new sub-forum should be added, and it should be called Whimsical Ideas. These ideas don't really have anything to do with modeling, yet they do.
Steven Otte It sounds to me like the idea of model railroading genres is a way to deflect criticism of your work. "That railroad never ran steamers with oil tenders!" "It's OK, I'm doing Whimsical Entertainment." Or "Am I missing something or does this track not actually connect to the rest of the railroad?" "It's OK, I'm doing Scenic Realism." Issues that could be just as easily answered with "It's my railroad and I like it that way."
Steven, pleeeeeeeeeze set up a Whimsical Entertainment and Ideas sub-forum.
My railroad is freelanced and set in August, 1954 because I like steam and F units.
.
Everything is whimsical because John Allen and Malcolm Furlow always seemed like they were having more fun than Frank Ellison and Allen McClelland.
What does that make my genre? I'll bet most serious modelers would just call it "nonsense".
I can live with that. I am modeling nonsense in 1954.
-Kevin
Living the dream.