MRR Snobs

[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

[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.

[davekelly]

Virginian,

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

[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.

[Virginian]

I think I am a DC snob.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?