MRR Snobs

[whitman500]

I've been back in the hobby now for about 6 months and am a fairly regular reader of these forums. One topic that keeps popping up is whether the hobby has gotten more expensive and, if so, whether this is driving people away.

One thought I have had is that many people are turned off from the hobby because of what they view as the impossible standards that the community seems to have set. I've detected in many places an attitude that says "a layout must have DCC, sound, be prototypically accurate with all the right equipment, buildings, etc."

A question I would pose to those who have been involved in the hobby longer than I have is whether this attitude has gotten worse over time. For example, I recently bought two books on realistic model railroad design: one by John Armstrong (originally published in ~1960) and one by Tony Koester (published recently). I was struck by how different their attitudes were. Armstrong had a very relaxed view of how realistic your layout had to be while Koester repeatedly disparaged layouts that didn't live up to a certain high standard of quality/accuracy.

Anyway, my point is that there has been a lot of handwringing in this forum about the hobby becoming too expensive. However, I think that argument only covers part of the problem. If the standards are too high for the average hobbyist to meet in terms of their resources of time, talent and money, then the hobby won't attract and keep new people. Thoughts?

[MAbruce]

People will be people, and I think snobbery is a constant. However, I think you might detect it more in a place like this because of the anonymous nature of forums. Some people will be snobs to your face, but many more tend to be snobs through words.

Then there is always the general psychological profile of model railroaders. Do we tend to be on the “Napoleon” side because we like to make and run our own worlds, or perhaps we tend to have low self esteem and are overcompensating through criticizing others? Someone could probably write a book on this.

[davekelly]

Hmmmmm. Very interesting point. I've been doing the MRR thing since High School (class of 1982) and running model trains since before I can remember. I think there is something to be said about your thought, but then it needs to be tempered a bit. Yes, the bar seems to be set higher today in terms of detailed models, operations, train control, accuracy of models etc. But on the other hand, given the increase of what is available any level is more easily attained now then back then.

Grab irons on an engine were close to unheard of back in the 60's for the average modeler. Later - articles were written describing how to delete the cast on grabs and replace with wire detail parts. Athearn went so far as to mold dimples (I think) on the inside of some engine models to facilitate that. Now, separate grabs are standard on models such as Kato, Stewart, P2K etc. We've come to expect such details and rightly or wrongly deride models without them.

We can do the same thing with train control. Back in the 60's - MRC power packs regulated speed with a reostat (sp?). If you wanted slow train control - the magazines had (at least by the 70's) articles on how to make your own transistor trottle. You had to solder individual transistors, resistors etc together. Back in the 70's I saved my Christmas, birthday and allowance money for months to buy a MRC Controlmaster X (I forget the exact number). Cost me $40.00 I think. For that much in today's money, a DCC system is doable (Although not top of line). With the widespread availability of DCC - as well as the simplification of installation and programming (not to mention compatability) we've come to the point of expecting such things.

The same is true for rolling stock, scenery, etc etc etc. Because higher levels are attainable today than yesterday at the same expenditure of effort, I think folks are expecting higher levels.

I think this is human nature. Remember when air conditioning in an automobile was an option? Wasn't that long ago. What would the average person think if he/she went to a car lot and saw a brand new car offerred without a/c? Does that make us car snobs? Or is it that we've become used to having A/C and therefore expect it?

Snobbery? Yeah it's here. But if you like running a Conrail 0-6-0 hauling a 36 foot wood box car followed by a couple of modern husky stacks on an oval of snap code 100 track and spend time seeing how fast it will go that's your decision. It's not the way I'd do it - but if it puts a smile on your face - then I would consider you a successful model railroader!! After all - even though we often times forget it - isn't that what it's all about?

[grandeman]

I think as time goes by, the standards for most hobbies have increased. In the sensationally charged world we live in, it takes more to satisfy most folks. Hobbies are getting more sophisticated and expensive. This is true of model railroading as well. Personally, I'm glad to see advancements like DCC, sound, super detailed off-the-shelf locos and such. They've increased the realism and enjoyment of the hobby for many.

I do sense the attitude you're referring to though. Hopefully it will not drown out the casual model railroader. Your observation is why I've posted polls about how big layouts are and if they are strictly prototypical or not. It sounds to me like the prevailing attitude here is that guys are having fun with the hobby at their own standards level which is as it should be.

[jfugate]

Although you do find MRR snobs (mostly online where they can be somewhat anonomys), I think that's the excpetion. In general most people in the hobby are *very nice* and you will find this out if you ever go to a convention.

In fact, some of the nicest people in the world are in this hobby ... that's been my experience after nearly 40 years of doing model trains.

Over the years my tastes have gotten more sophisticated, and I recognize for *me* to get the most enjoyment out of the hobby, I prefer prototype-based modeling that's era and place specific.

Ironically, I think we would attact the most new modelers to the hobby if we promoted more fantasy-based modeling ... ala the Polar Express or Harry Potter's Hogwart Express. There's even a place for Lord of the Rings model railroading. It's not my cup of tea, but it could be the way to keep the basic hobby rejuvenated.

[davekelly]

Joe,

Very interesting thought. Could you imagine Malcom Furlow going SciFi with a model railroad? Not my cup of tea, but would probably be way cool.

[Virginian]

I think I am a DC snob.

[ARTHILL]

I am a snob about modeling my fanticies. This include time warps, line mixing and space travel. My Hiawatha steamer loves to pull its Zephyr coach across my 1880's trestle from Nothern Minnesota to Arizona mountains to visit the mine where we get slabs of agate large enough for counter tops.

[davekelly]

Virginian,

Man. I guess that makes me a DC/Athearn BB snob. lol

[gvdobler]

There ia another thread about MR magazine becoming too basic. This is the tip of the snob iceberg. Once we feel we've learned it all we want only our own egos fed.

Every "hobby" that I've been involved in has the same problem. MR mag has to walk the line between attracting new people and keeping seasoned modelers happy.

If you enjoy trains and set them up occasionally or you spend your life in the basement, you should do it because it 's what you enjoy that counts. Not what someone else thinks you should enjoy.

Unsolicited advice beginning with " I would have done this instead...." is the sure sign you are in the presence of a possible snob.

[IRONROOSTER]

I think several things have happened over the years since I got into this hobby in December 1971:

1. The quality of models and level of detail that is available has increased considerably - though it does cost more. This in turn means that many of us are less satisfied with the low cost lines such as Athearn - we want separate grab irons instead of molded on ones.

2. The increase in high quality RTR (or near RTR) components - track, engines, cars, etc. has made larger layouts a possibility in a shorter amount of time.

3. Resin kits and short run plastic "brass" have allowed an increased emphasis on realism. It's no longer sufficient to have a steam engine decorated for Santa Fe if the model is based on a B&O prototype.

These things together have allowed the hobby to shift emphasis from building to operations and at higher overall level of detail and quality of detail. So, yes the bar is higher. And yes it is a problem for those who don't have the financial resources. You can still build a pretty nice layout for not a lot of money, but will you be satisfied with it compared to the museum quality models that are available, but you can't afford?

And you're right the about the operations snobbery also. John Armstrong explained how the railroad did things and showed you how you do some of those things on your layout. Tony Koester says you have to have x, y, and z or your railroad doesn't measure up.

But if you ignore all that you can still have a lot of fun in this hobby. To paraphrase the water rat from the Wind in the Willows - there is nothing as wonderful as messing about with trains.

Enjoy
Paul

[Jetrock]

Part of the change in attitude is, perhaps, due to technology. Other hobbies have changed even more radically--thirty years ago, "computer games" meant either a text-based adventure game on a primitive home PC or a blocky "Pong" game, replaced by the then-mindblowing 4-bit graphics of the Atari 2600. Compare ADVENT.EXE to DOOM 3 and you'll see how far computer games have come in that time--then the difference in model railroading doesn't seem so great!

Part of it is more intimidation perceived rather than expressed: I really don't see many posts saying "Your model railroad is NO GOOD if you don't have components X Y and Z", but I think when they read posts from folks who say "I do X Y and Z and my model railroad is cool" they might get intimidated and assume that if you don't do it that way, you aren't a real model railroader.

Another factor is, perhaps, frustration at the different ways that people perceive hobbies. I'm not an old, old hobbyist but I have been around long enough to be very familiar with the idea of making things from scratch.

When someone comes to the forum and asks for a cheap, easy way to achieve spectacular results, very often there isn't an answer--either you can spend a lot of money, do a lot of work, or have a less-spectacular layout.

There's nothing wrong with spending money, doing work or having a less-spectacular layout--but for folks who want everything NOW, it can be a hard pill to swallow to encounter a hobby based on ideas like craftsmanship and attention to detail.

People are becoming more used to paying people to do stuff for their entertainment than doing it themselves--people these days watch sports instead of playing them, listen to music instead of making their own, etcetera. Craft-based hobbies are somewhat still around, but they aren't as widespread or as popular. People have learned to assume that only Special People can do these things. If you can't hit baseballs like Mark McGwire, if you can't play guitar like Eddie Van Halen, why even bother picking up a baseball bat or a guitar? In terms of model railroading, maybe people figure if they can't build scenery like John Allen, why not just watch TV instead?

The answer, of course, is that playing baseball, or playing guitar, or playing with trains, can still be a lot of fun even if you're not particularly good at it. And in time, you can get better at it. But a lot of folks aren't used to the idea of taking that time.

Maybe a few folks get intimidated by these ideas. And maybe model railroading just isn't for them. But we also get a lot of new folks talking about how nice and friendly these forums are--in abundance.

[Anonymous]

There is always a level of vehemence (forceful passion) among a "strata" of just about any endeavor. Some of you may have seen this in a irate music conductor when things aren't perfect. Maybe a tirade coming from a drama coach over "mouthed" lines? How about a head chef when an apprentice forgot the marinade? Even impatient admonitions echoing-off the hallowed halls of worship may be heard from time to time. Any where there is "passion," there will be "impatients". All of that seems terribly out of place in the context of a hobby that, by definition, is an enjoyable "pass time."

Then there is the over-the-top "compulsive consumer," who can't imagine why everyone hasn't bought the latest "touted" gee-gah for whatever purpose. The perfection that so many desire has gone from attained "perfection" to acquired 'perfection'. The Artisans of yore are now the Patrons of today. So, what ever road you choose to take, realize that all "endeavors" are elected by the individual, right? And, we should all respect the rights of the "individual" which is definately a two way road.

[Anonymous]

I must admit that I almost fell victim to this ‘snobbery’. I'm a toddler to the physical side of this hobby even though I've known and loved it from as far as I can remember (some twenty odd years).
Initially I felt that if a loco is not of a particular brand that it's a waste of time and money so I'll just hold out until I could afford a better one. Well guess what? Years went by and I was like the kid on the outside looking in. Eventually I got tired of waiting and I got one from tyco, I enjoyed every second running it, especially at christmas when visitors came over.
Age took its toll and then the problems kicked in, instantly I became a repair man (through hours and hours of anguish of course) but in the end I came to understand what makes this little engine tick and today I don't have to send off none of my engines to be fixed. I still have this ‘little-ho-Geep’ even though I now model in n-scale (due to limited space). Maybe if I had succumbed to the notion, I wouldn't have figured out the true reason why I love Model RRing, and remained he kid on the outside looking in.

[selector]

I can see how those who have been away from the hobby for a while might find that they are much further (ugh) 'behind' than they ever thought when they try to get back into it ,and quickly see how much their 15-20 year-old world-view is sadly, even frighteningly, dated.

The new Star Wars Movie (no, haven't yet) must be a real eye-bugger, making the first one of 1979/80 nearly laughable. Who wouldn't pan the first one if it were released as the latest blockbuster today?

Not so much snobbery, as later in time. "Later' meaning 'changed'.

[davekelly]

Ted,

Hit the nail right on the head!

verse,

So very true. Glad to see you didn't stay the kid looking in forever. We should always remember that if you wait and wait and wait - it might be too late.

selector,

Great analogy using Star Wars. I don't know if you ever saw the original King Kong movie - but when I first saw it (late 70's/early 80's) I practically laughed through the whole thing. My dad said when he first saw it he couldn't sleep for a week. Time does change things.

[nickinwestwales]

If it works for you,it works-end of story.........

[tsasala]

Having been out of the hobby for a large number of years, and just recently getting back into it, the landscape has changed considerably (no pun intended). I don't think the change is due to technology directly. I think davekelly has it right - it's a lot easier to model accurately today than it was 20 years ago. When I was 12, Hydrocol was hard to come by (at least for me), so I had to make do with what I had (and it showed). Hopefully my latest reincarnation will look better. I know it will operate better, as I have far more resources to dedicate to better locos, better power systems, etc..

Availability alone does not dismiss the snob factor though. Anyone insisting that I can't put a steam loco on my modern period layout needs to take a time out. People need to realize that this IS a hobby and it IS meant for enjoyment. Moreover, each person gets enjoyment for different reasons.

I personnally have little interest in modeling a prototype to the n-th detail. I do, however, want to make sure my pike has elements are that are not too far out of reality. Why? Probably because I don't want other MRR's looking at my pike say and saying "WTF is that?" ;)

I believe anyone who insists you need BLI consist to "make" your pike run "properly" do a larger disservice to the hobby than anything they can contribute. Everyone should be encouraged, regardless of ability, resources, or size.

For example, MRM showcasing pikes with 300 ft of mainline, taking 20 years to build, and needing 10 people to operate is a little absurd. The current assumption that you need a house sized layout to "effectively" model is ludicris. The pervasion of that concept is definately keeping people out of the hobby IMHO. However, it is the natural evolution of the hobby. What is model railroading? It is modeling the real world. What's the best way to model the real world? Make the model big enough to actually model the prototype at some particular scale. You just can't model horseshoe curve on a 4x8 sheet to plywood (well, not in HO anyway).

One final point - generally speaking, MRRs as a group seem to be far more friendly, welcoming, and accepting that most other groups I've been involved with. In that regard, there is little snobbish-ness.

Jetrock's on the money. As long as your think you're cool, you will be ;)

0.02.

[Jetrock]

QUOTE: For example, MRM showcasing pikes with 300 ft of mainline, taking 20 years to build, and needing 10 people to operate is a little absurd. The current assumption that you need a house sized layout to "effectively" model is ludicrous. The pervasiveness of that concept is definately keeping people out of the hobby IMHO.

There are reasons why those big layouts are in the magazines--largely the same reason that you normally read about major-league players in Sports Illustrated, not the local Little League teams. But I have noted quite a few small layouts in recent issues of MR, as well as in Model Railroad Planning--little shelf layouts, medium-sized 4x8s, and other compact layouts are featured and plans are shown. The big, impressive layouts get page space because they ARE, by and large, big and impressive--but a good photographer can make a 1x3 shelf layout look gigantic.

QUOTE: What's the best way to model the real world? Make the model big enough to actually model the prototype at some particular scale.

Or, model portions of the real world that are small enough to model effectively. You can't build an EXACT model of Horseshoe Curve on a 4x8 in HO, but you could get a fair representation of it. As SpaceMouse mentioned earlier, it certainly LOOKED like 18" radius to him! Would such a model be exact? No. But it could look pretty good with a few simple modeler's tricks.

[Duce]

I know Im just a newbie to MRR. I thing I might have to disagree with some of you guys on this.

You cant blame the advances in technology or the changes to the hobby for being a "Snobb". That is something that is within the person. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in you layout. But making someone feel less because they dont or cant run all the bells and whistles is just wrong.

Just my thoughts

[selector]

Duce, you are right, some of us are snobs because of our personality. But, as others point out, some of that is merely perception, and it lies within the limited frame of reference of those who have a limited interest or exposure to the hobby, and that is often an observer (or, what a snob would characterize as a 'dilettante').

Another analogy: Richard Petty is an affable person, but he is in the elite of his vocation. Some rail modelers are also elitist, but more because of their devotion and compulsion, and not so much because they are jerks, for want of a better word. And, who puts them there? We do, the dilettantes. We are the ones who fawn over them when we meet them, gush here on line over their mighty works, and so-on. We set the standard for what is difficult, when they merely achieve it.

Some people get a thrill just sitting in a NASCAR racer and doing the imagining, and others do the 'doing'. Life is ever thus.

Dave, I hear you. I remember my soccer coach ar college in the early 70's telling me that he was on the floor behind the seat in front of him because he found the shower scene in Hitchcock's "Psycho" so frightening. Sheeeeessshh!!

[Anonymous]

It is theraputic to build something new. A new building; a new siding; a new little pile of trackside junk. I like to read what Tony K has to say about building a layout. He holds the bar high. I try and make my layout look like a circa 1958 scene and endevour to get the details right. Mr K has a high degree of skill and lots of experience and I'm very happy he shares his knowledge. My layout is protypical in era but not location. It satisfies my fantasies and old memories of the late '50s. I am a newbie in modelling HO having done it for only 3 yrs and I am nearing retirement time. I take critiques as encouragement not as deterement. As a request, can anyone direct me to a www that shows detailed stockyard or any other late steam era yard details. d

[Pruitt]

I agree, Duce.

Higher standards are more easily achieved than in the past, but in the 35 years or so I've been messing with model trains, I've never seen more people looking down their noses at those who are happy without engaging in what one might call the more sophisticated aspects of the hobby than I see now.

Model magazines are responsible for part of this - look at an MR from the 1950s and one from the last year or two. Today's better layouts are farther from the mainstream, and certainly from the beginners, than they were in past times. Result - the magazines appear more elitist without meaning to do so.

And take a look at the NMRAs Achievement program. (I may get stomped for treading here, but remember I'm not trying to attack the program). This program is there to help modelers enhance their own skills by laying out a set of requirements which, when met, gives an Achievement Award to the modeler. Accumulate enough of these and you win the title "Master Model Railroader." A good program, and an effective one for those who desire to pursue the citations. There is the unfortunate, unintended, and probably unavoidable intimidation effect that goes along with it, however. A relative novice modeler who happens to be introduced to "Joe Blow, an NMRA Master Model Railroader" might very well feel a bit unworthy at that point.

There seem to be fewer people willing to help out a newcomer without judging them than there used to be. Fortunately, that's still a small percentage of modelers, but it's not as small as it used to be.

I deal with the snobbery by just ignoring the snobs. It works great.

[wrumbel]

This is my first post. I've been out of the hobby since 1986. I know this since i wrapped a lot to stuff in newspapers. I had lost intrest when Mr was doing alot of CTC 16 articles. The hobby seemed to be getting too out of reach. Well in January of this year I started to read the magazines again. I had drawn a layout plan for a 12 x 20 room in 1986. When I showed it to a non railroader he said it looked too complicated and would take forever to build. Well now I'm into DCC and running trains on a 1 x 6 shelf and having fun. I guess it's all in what makes us happy.

Wayne

[davekelly]

wrumbel,
Isn't it interesting to see how our perception and interests change over time?

[bikerraypa]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BruntonThere seem to be fewer people willing to help out a newcomer without judging them than there used to be. Fortunately, that's still a small percentage of modelers, but it's not as small as it used to be.

I deal with the snobbery by just ignoring the snobs. It works great.

Right you are, Brunton. But as far as snobbery and looking down one's nose at the beginners and the less-prototypical, it's not just model railroading. Or rather, it doesn't originate in model railroading, it has simply infected MRR as it has infected other hobbies.

I also fly RC airplanes, and that hobby is really starting to take on an "us against them" mentality. On the one hand, you have the traditional "master modeler" types who believe that anything not scratchbuilt is junk and worthy only of derision. These are the guys who would rather moan and gna***eeth over "the sorry state of the hobby" than actually help someone get involved, or participate in something different. So, the new guys, unable to find guidance about kit building, glow engines, etc, gravitate towards electrics (guys like me). Now, after a few years of this system, electrics are becoming as big a part of the hobby as glow flight, and also becoming every bit as powerful and prototypical.

The reaction from the traditionalists, rather than complimenting the advances made by the "other" side of the hobby, is to deride the electric flyers for flying independently, without a club or instructor, and for doing things on their own. Meanwhile, these are the same people who refused to help the new guys in the first place, and drove them from the clubs and into situations where the only way to enjoy the hobby was independently. Go figure.

I see some of that in MRR, but not as much as in the RC world. For the most part, I've found MRRs to be great folks, always willing to help a new guy and never rushing to deride a layout of which someone else is proud.

Sure, there are blowhards and in-your-face prototypers and "mine is bigger than yours" mentalities in every hobby . And there are some people who just suck. But those folks are very few and very far in between. Most MRRs, like most RCers, are great folks. The bad ones just tend to stick out.

Next time you lament the seemingly-large and ever-expanding rift among model railroaders, just be glad you don't fly RC airplanes. Then you'll feel better. [:D]


Ray out

[Anonymous]

Welcoming new comers depends on those already there. The two most enjoyable organizations I belonged to included all of interest and never excluded in any manner those without means. The first was a local rose club. The person with the one rose saved from a ditch or purchased at the local supermarket was just as welcome as the fellow with a doctorate in botany, 15 acres of roses, and did such arcane things as cloning. The other was a draft horse club which more properly should have been known as a driving club as all were welcome that were interested in driving carts pulled by animal. This included chickens, dogs, goats, ox, as well as donkey, mule, light horse, and draft horse. Folks who welcome all interested comers will help spread the hobby. Discrimination shuts people out. Leave that to where it make sense such as choir or band. (only those that can carry tune need apply)

[jwar]

There are snobs in every field and and activity, try wine tasting for some serious snobbery, The neat thing about knowing a real snob is that you can pick his brain and learn things as hes sure to tell you, if not then hes just another wana be with an attitude, no matter what the subject is. LOL John

[willy6]

I don't think it's a matter of being a "snob", but it might be a person proud of their accomplishments in a layout they created which allows them "bragging rights".

[wp8thsub]

QUOTE: Jetrock sez:

Part of it is more intimidation perceived rather than expressed: I really don't see many posts saying "Your model railroad is NO GOOD if you don't have components X Y and Z", but I think when they read posts from folks who say "I do X Y and Z and my model railroad is cool" they might get intimidated and assume that if you don't do it that way, you aren't a real model railroader.

Jetrock hit one out of the park with this commentary. I've seen flame wars ignite when a beginner asks for advice on whether his idea will work, gets feedback from experienced modelers that it might not, then an anti-"snob" backlash ensues from people who seem to think the advice somehow put the newbie down. Most of the time, the attacks are unwarranted, and speak to a certain insecurity; it relates less to the hobby itself than to a natural human tendency to go on the defensive prematurely.

QUOTE: For example, MRM showcasing pikes with 300 ft of mainline, taking 20 years to build, and needing 10 people to operate is a little absurd. The current assumption that you need a house sized layout to "effectively" model is ludicris. The pervasion of that concept is definately keeping people out of the hobby IMHO.

No offense is intended to the author of the above, but I think this exemplifies the perception gap at work. Big, complicated layouts deserve coverage if they're well executed, and a lot of the modelers who have the ambition to build them also have a similar ambition to pursue other areas of the hobby, such as writing articles and taking photos. It seems natural to me that such big projects will get disproportionate coverage based on the above, and from the fact that a huge layout logically would have a lot more going on that its builder can milk for articles than can a smaller layout (even given that both are of equal quality).

The "current assumption" that you need a huge layout is, in my estimation, a case of perception trumping reality. The hobby press regularly begs for articles on small layouts, and when a nice one shows up in print the magazines usually talk it up as much as they can. Most editorials that mention layout size go out of their way to emphasize that size matters not, yet the perception persists that the magazines advocate big layouts. Seems to me the "pervasion of that concept" comes not from the magazines, but from the average modeler who simply doesn't have the space or money for a basement empire (for the record, I don't have the money for that right now either). If we're of the mind to do so, we can easily look at the layout coverage in MR and assume that coverage somehow equals advocacy.

Look again at what Jetrock wrote, and think how it applies here. Does the publishing of an article on a 30' X 50' layout, mean a.) that a layout any smaller is inferior, or b.) that the guy who built the big layout submitted a feature the magazine decided to use? If you answered a.), you're probably putting too much pressure on yourself to measure up to a standard you think somebody else is setting. Set the bar where YOU want it, and maybe take the chip off your shoulder that's just waiting for the next "dream layout" feature to take aim at it again.