I have a problem with professionally built layout articles in MR. Sure, they are beautiful (they should be for what they cost!) but featuring them in a "do it yourself" magazine just rubs me the wrong way.
When I read one of MR ubiquitous "layout tours" I expect to get the insight of the builder not the person who paid someone to build it for him. Even worse, the article I'm talking about isn't even written by the person who paid the professional builder to build it but someone else.
I, like about 99% of model railroaders, can't afford to pay someone to build my layout for me. I'm glad Gary Lenoff can afford to pay Dick Taylor to build him a beautiful layout, but that is not what I care to see in MR. In fact, it might be more interesting to interview Dick Taylor and find out what steps he took to build Gary's layout.
If this trend continues, perhaps MR should start a spin off magazine called Layouts of the Rich and Famous.
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
" Hear, Hear! "
Richard Martel
I don't have a problem with MR featuring a professionally built layout as long as there is a disclaimer or it's clearly marked as such. Seeing the work of true artists serves to provide me ideas and inspiration I can use on my own layout.
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
George, I agree with you one hundred percent. Some will say that such articles offer ideas to general hobbyist but, without providing any actual information on how the work was done to guide others, that's just pure nonsense in my view. What it does do is to provide an almost guaranteed highly photogenic subject to illustrate a magazine article.
And if you dislike that approach, well, I'll be interested to see the type of response readers will have as Photoshopping images becomes a larger and larger part of layout pictures appearing in the hobby press. I'm seeing a lot of it sneeking into non-model railroad publications already (added foregrounds and background; introduction of people into shots; added or erased scenic features). Sooner or later I fear that published layout photos could become essentially image-manipulation fantasies, rather than realities based on the creator's cleverness and craftsmanship.
CNJ831
Maybe it's a sign of the times. In our increasingly busy lives we tend to delegate. In the Netherlands the big trend is to outsource your daily chores. Someone to clean the house, your groceries delivered to your door, someone to paint your house or do the garden.
But in a hobby this outsourcing is not very desirable. What fun is it when you have your layout built by someone else? I also question the value of this type of article. What does it teach or inspire? Without inside knowledge or tips from the professional builder it's basically a nice photo shoot. Nice but lightweight. Inspiring? Nah. Building a layout is an accomplishment by the hobbiyst. It's like reading a cooking magazine and the feature article is about someone who went to a bakery and bought a nice cake. That is USELESS.
What I always liked about US magazines was the willingness to superdetail, paint and (scratch)build a model. The European mags featured grass-mats (yuck) and everything RTR and pre-assembled. Now it's the opposite.
Frank
Fellers,
I agree 100% that those sorts of layouts ought not to be featured. Those articles are nothing but a multi-page advertisement for the builder, and a chance for the owner to get some face-time. I find it ironic that MR will allow such articles, even pay a writer to produce it, and yet not allow a "for-sale" section on this board. Apparently there are different rules for different income levels.
Now, I have absolutley NOTHING against folks buying a fully-made layout. If you have the money and that's what makes you happy, well then go for it. Some rich folks collect cars, others buy expensive boats or guns, having a custom-built layout is no exception.
However, it ought NOT to appear in MR.
Respects,
A different point of view: It's called photogenics. The bigger better layouts produce much better photos for a magazine. I photographed models for a manufacturer for a couple years. We used actual layouts. The results were very mixed. Worst case, some photos were not usable at all.
Many home layouts are so jammed in there is no room for lights, tripods, decent angles, etc. All are required for publishable photos. There has to be a usable backdrop or room to place one. Some of the scenes on your layout may look great to you, but a photo will often show flaws - ever see a model off the track? Room lighting will affect the photo, even changing the color in some cases. There are sometimes scenes that just don't look right in a photo - such things as out of scale vehicles, people in weird poses, buildings with no roof detail etc.
Instead of looking down at these, look for ways to improve your layout and modeling. Try to get a friend to come in and shoot some photos of your layout. You might be surprised at what shows up.
Jason
Modeling the Fort Worth & Denver of the early 1970's in N scale
I like to build my own stuff, but then again, why not look at a "professional built layout" as a way of learning???
Somene who possesses the gifted talent of being able to turn a hobby into a profession?
What a great way to make a living!
Sure, I'll never have the time or room to build a huge layout, but looking at some of these sure does give me some inspiration, and the ability to dream!
To quote a line from one of my favorite videos which just happens to be a documentary produced by NBC on the X-15 rocketplane program, which led to the development of the space shuttle.
Aviation is my other hobby, and I had the wonderful experience of meeting one of my boyhood heroes and idols who both helped design and fly the X-15, Scott Crossfield, 2 years ago at the annual EAA air show in Oshkosh Wisconsin.
The quote is as follows.
You an apply it to building a model railroad as well.
"MEN DREAM, MACHINES DO".
And from this comes "THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE"
Ed
jguess733 wrote:It doesn't make them any less of a model railroader in my book.Jason
I don't know. I think MRRing and being a MRRer incorporates - at least to a modicum extent - means gettting your hands "dirty" to really appreciate the hobby. I'm NOT saying that this gentleman, who paid someone else to construct and build his layout for him, isn't a MRRer. However, depending on how much of the layout was constructed for him, I think Mr. Lenoff missed out on some real enjoyment of the process.
Now I realize that some people have the time but don't have the money. While others have the money but don't have the time. Still others have both but don't have the talent or patience.
For me personally - even if I did have the monies to pay for someone else to put together my "ideal" layout - I wouldn't. The personal enjoyment and fulfillment at trying something new that I have never done before (and actually accomplishing it - whether I'm ultimately happy with it or not) is priceless. The knowledge that I learn in this hobby and the benefits that I gain I can sometimes apply to what I do in life. To actually have someone else build my layout?...It would always feel like someone else's layout.
To each his own. The big and massive will always wow the public as a whole. I just hope that MR doesn't allow itself to turn into a PBS. It used to be that This Old House dealt with the fix-it problems of the common man. Now, it pretty much caters to the rich and affulent. (Personally, they should have changed the title to This Old Mansion years ago...)
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
IF this layout comes from March 07, I haven't gotten mine yet. But if they post a plan, I can learn from it, professional or no. I want to learn how layouts work and I get that from the plan and by figuring out the operations. Can I learn from the pros. Sometimes. Last year they had a 4 x 8 professionally done and that operationally was horrible. They has a farmer supply store that had railroad service, but no way to get a car, truck or wagon to the store--and that was the only industry.
So I want to see good layouts. Ones I can learn from.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
jsoderq wrote: A different point of view: It's called photogenics. The bigger better layouts produce much better photos for a magazine. I photographed models for a manufacturer for a couple years. We used actual layouts. The results were very mixed. Worst case, some photos were not usable at all.Many home layouts are so jammed in there is no room for lights, tripods, decent angles, etc. All are required for publishable photos. There has to be a usable backdrop or room to place one. Some of the scenes on your layout may look great to you, but a photo will often show flaws - ever see a model off the track? Room lighting will affect the photo, even changing the color in some cases. There are sometimes scenes that just don't look right in a photo - such things as out of scale vehicles, people in weird poses, buildings with no roof detail etc. Instead of looking down at these, look for ways to improve your layout and modeling. Try to get a friend to come in and shoot some photos of your layout. You might be surprised at what shows up.
I agree to a certain extent with jsoderq's comments above. I've photographed several layouts that have been published (in MR and others), and very rarely will things be easy. But any photographer can make do, and get decent shots. Cars off the track? This has nothing to do with who made the layout. Room lighting affecting the layout photos? Not really, photographers usually provide their own photo lights, at least I do. The other flaws could be on any layout no matter who built it, and could be fixed, hidden, or not included in a photo.
Not really sure how this translates into an opnion re professionally built layouts. I guess one has to assume that if someone can afford to have a layout built for them, the location of the layout would be in a large well lit room without support posts, utility piping and ductwork, etc. That could be a reason, but other modelers who build their own layouts have such locations too.
And if you check out most of the layouts featured in MR, the photos only show small scenes that could in reality be individual dioramas, as they only show very small parts. Only once in a while will they feature photos that show large sections of a layout at once. This is one of my personal peeves, I'd like to see the setting in which a layout is placed to get a better overall feel of it.
Anyway, back to the subject of this post - I personally don't really want to see showcase layouts built by professionals. Perhaps MR could change their slogan to "Dream, have someone else Plan and Build"?
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
Is it just me or are a lot of professionally built layouts unprofessional looking?
Most I’ve seen have out of place mountains, oversized trestles, unrealistic triple crossovers, way too much track, and surprisingly very few mini details. I suppose the trend is to fit in as much action to suit the customer.
But the layouts I love to look at have very few tracks and lots of open space scenery. And most have little room but make it look like it’s an open scene using good modeling techniques. It's this type of layout that impresses me the most.
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Tim Fahey
Musconetcong Branch of the Lehigh Valley RR
Well, for one thing, I don't believe MR touts itself as a "do it yourself" magazine, just one supporting the idea that "Model Railroading is Fun!", so that isn't really an issue it seems. For another, some people can't stand carpentry and wallowing in Hydrocal but thoroughly enjoy operating and building rolling stock. Isn't that model railroading too?
If we think people should only build their own layouts, do we think people should not use RTR rolling stock or locos, or turn our noses up at store-bought track? If we think professional builders/designers are bad, did anyone complain about articles on John Armstrong's or Linn Westcott's plans that either of those two didn't build and run themselves? Sure, you could say that the accompanying articles told us what they were thinking, but if we want to be rigid and doctrinaire, we can't go letting people get away with heresy just because they are legends.
I agree with the other guy - Give me good layouts, regardless of designs or builds them.
KL
The point is not in buying RTR rolling stock or not.The point is that to create a model railroad is all about CREATIVITY and learning things.
Having a layout built by a contractor is not about creativity. It's about getting instant results.If someone really doesn't like to build a layout and has the money, than that is his choice. But he's missing out on a lot. A lot of people seem to do that these days, taking shortcuts and getting to the result instead of enjoying the journey.
I never understood the idea of having a layout professionally done. Seems like it would be less meaningful and enjoyable if someone else built it.
If you have time to run it, you have time to build it if only you're willing to wait for the completed product. The "I want it now" mentality makes for less fulfilling hobby fun.
But then money is a substitute for skill in all things these days...
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
reklein wrote:One last thing ,the guy who gets paid to build that layout is just one of us who is lucky enough to have gotten paid for doing what he loves,and is also good enough to have his work featured in the Magazines.
Building layouts for a living may sound good but I think it gets old quickly.
I know several guys who have turned their hobby into a business. They all agree it effectively killed their interest in the hobby. Like the last thing a plummer want to do is to fix faucets in his own house.
8500HPGASTURBINE wrote: What about the old guy who is 70 and decides he wants a nice MRR layout. Or the kid who is handicapped and his parents don't know anything about it. Physically neither of them are capable of doing a dream layout, they just want to be a Model railroader. Does that make them any less of a MRR then me, I don't think so. In my eyes he is just as dedicated.Michael
What about the old guy who is 70 and decides he wants a nice MRR layout. Or the kid who is handicapped and his parents don't know anything about it. Physically neither of them are capable of doing a dream layout, they just want to be a Model railroader. Does that make them any less of a MRR then me, I don't think so. In my eyes he is just as dedicated.
Michael
Great theory, but I'd bet very few people who match your scenarios are the ones buying professional layouts. Professional layouts are really, really expensive and so that tends to limit the customer base to primarily well-paid professional types, not folks with fixed incomes.
Just like all of the major moral issues, there are exceptions to the rule where it's entirely understandable. For the majority of cases, though, I don't really understand.
To me (yes, my opinion, not fact), model railroading is as much (or more) about creativity than the mechanics of running trains. Professional layouts are someone else's creativity.
And, I agree, I don't think they really belong in Model Railroader unless they're from the perspective of the builder (like that 4x8 they did last year based on Lancaster, PA).
I think building layouts for a living would stink. You'd be on a deadline,have to keep it under budget.(who here is capable of that!) You can't walk away when things go wrong and come back when you feel like it. If your dealing with a person with enough "extra" income to have somebody else build such an expensive toy, there is probably going to be conflicts when you don't do something exactly like they think it should be done. People I've delt with that had tons of extra cash usually wheren't very fun to deal with.(no offence to anyone).
Back to the topic-Since when WEREN'T magazines just a platform for people to get face time and sell things?(uhhh...never?) I don't mind seeing "pro" layout articles, but I will agree that some of them are dumb and look like expensive crap. They don't project that love of the hobby quality that makes some layouts great.MR did used to lean more towards how to do things from scratch, but a lot of articles now are nothing more than a list of part #'s and the web sites to buy them from. Their reveiws seem to lean towards things that cost $100 or more too.
I agree with your point that modelrairoading is partly about creativity, I love scenery and backdrop painting etc. Model railroading is about a lot of skills and therein lies its appeal.However the pro who is building those railroads is creative too,and thus deserves credit. If you have a custom layout though, you can't say "look what I built",only" look what I bought".
I'm sorta playing the devils advocate here because I love to build and much joy would be taken away if MRs could only be bought.
IMHO, the important thing is to have fun within the basic concept of operating miniature trains - or storing fine quality models in a display case if operation isn't part of that person's thing.
Just as we don't expect a chess master to make his own chess pieces and board, why insist that a model railroad hobbyist assemble the equivalent if all he wants to do is operate something that looks reasonably like his idea of a railroad? OTOH, I don't feel that the ability to hand-lay my own specialwork or kitbash a reasonable-looking freelance steam loco makes me any better than somebody who runs on sectional track and has all RTR rolling stock. Nor do I envy the person who owns a lovely professionally built railroad, even one based on the JNR Chuo-Nishi Hon Sen in the Kiso Valley. More power to him(her.)
It's all about the FUN! Everything else is secondary.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
C'mon now. Y'all are creating strawman arguments to deflect attention from the original post. The question was whether MR should be featuring articles about professionally built layouts, as opposed to layouts built by the rest of us.
The remarks about RTR cars and built-up structures are bogus, and to be candid, I expected better from the folks who frequent this forum. A guy who builds his own home doesn't buy sheet metal to fabricate his hot water heater, or kitchen sink. He doesn't scratchbuild his stove or air conditioning unit, etc. So let's knock off those analogies.
What is being discussed is whether it is appropriate to feature articles about some fellow who has a custom-built layout, and hold it up as an example of what to strive for. To my mind, it's like having someone show off his mansion he had built after he won the lottery. It's basically an advertisment for the builders, NOT the layout itself, however nifty it might be. It's advertising that isn't paid for, although it does help to generate a miniscule amount of income through subscriptions.
I guess what peeves me about this is that, whilst I in no way am putting down the skills and creativity shown by the builders, it just seems to me that MR should be about the rest of us, full of how-to articles and personal experiences and tips, etc. It ought to be featuring REAL layouts built by AVERAGE modellers. Yeah, I can aspire to the F&SM level, even though I know I'll not quite make it.
It's nice to dream. It's nice to see the pretty layouts. But, how many kids are turned away becoause they KNOW they will NEVER reach that level of artistry? How many adults look at those layouts and figure, "why bother? Mine will never look that good".
Anyway, that's enough rambling from me. If I keep going I'll get off on another tangent, and I need some sleep
This is one of the funnier threads of late.
Don't like the articles in MR?
Write some of your own.
Don't like professionally built layouts?
Write about what you're doing.
After all, most of the content in MR is stuff that's sent in from the outside, not generated from the inside. If MR doesn't receive articles that appeal to you, they can't print 'em.
Andre