I agree in my modeling, but people who do not follow that should not be looked down on or cast out.
I see your new can opener is working fine!
"Constructive" criticism is always welcome.
I wish I had the eyesight and talent to be a rivet counter.
Snagle,
I would argue, based on some of the threads here, it is the prototype modelers who are sometimes cast out and looked down upon.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
My opinion is from my experience with a club I belonged to and the many peolpe we met at shows, just as your (and anyone else's) opinion is based on your experinces. I'm something of a rivet counter in MY models. The problem I see that people have with most riveters is not in their modeling, we all(usually) stand in aw at their models. It's the constant riveting of others equiptment when not warranted or asked for, and when they get rebuffed, riveters get very defensive, instead of just shutting up. So most people have a problem with their high and mighty/know it all/won't take a breath and enjoy personality. On the other end, guys who run 4-4-0 with double stacks as not being modelers, just people playing with trains making modelers look like baffoons. "It's not a layout, it's a train set". Theyre laugh at for running old Bachman and Life-Like, and gnerally they usually tend to hide, then to grow. Most modelers are middle ground. they model something specific, tend to keep things close to the prototype, without making things overly complicated, so they can enjoy the trains.
I've seen more people get out of the hobby because of being laughed at for playing with choo-choo's then rivet counters leaving. In fact riveters just never seem to go away.
The people "playing with trains" need some light-handed coxing. If they rebuff, leave at it, maybe they'll come around, if they don't get out. Riveters need to stop throwing around their "indespensible" opinions around whee people weren't looking for it, insulting modelers who felt they worked hard for realism they got in their eyes.
Now, I think I've just pulled the lid off you're can. I'll get off my soapbox and watch (er, read) the worms.
Snagletooth,
There is one inescapabe flaw in your argument... and that's your assumption that all rivet counters are insulting of others.
Not true.
Dave Vollmer wrote:Snagletooth,There is one inescapabe flaw in your argument... and that's your assumption that all rivet counters are insulting of others.Not true.
Dave,I can appreciate your views as many see it as you do..Heres mine.
1. "It's my layout, I'll run what I want."
What a cop out..It doesn't take much discipline to buy the correct models for the era we choose to model.To my mind mixing eras isn't really modeling anything other then running a collection of models.No harm but,do try to keep your trains in era especially for public viewing or while posting photos.
2. "Rivet counting is bad!"
First things first...It WASN'T rivet counters that change the hobby as many may think..It was a natural growth from years of requests for detailed plastic locomotives after all brass locomotives was detailed why not plastic locomotives-sound and "independent" control was talked about 40 years ago!
I believe the term "rivet counters" has lived beyond any usefulness other then a insult by the unlearned.You see 90% of todays models come highly detailed..Now for that other 10% that isn't highly detail many modelers add the missing details such as hood mounted bells,mu hoses and uncoupling bars..This DOES NOT make a modeler a rivet counter but,a ADVANCED modeler.Modeling a era with strict discipline doesn't make a modeler a rivet counter..See what I am saying?
3. "Modeler's License"
I believe 90% of us use some form of "Modeler's License" in designing and building our layouts.A free lance modeler must use "Modeler's License" with strict guide lines IF one wants a believable free lance railroad-a "paper" railroad DOES NOT fall in this category.Why? If a modeler tells me he models the Hooten Hollow & Western and all I see is (say)Chessie locomotives then I must come to the conclusion that the HH&W is a paper railroad of the Chessie System.On the other hand if I see cars and locomotives lettered for the HH&W then its a "real" railroad.See the difference? You see believability and plausibility makes the freelance railroad.We seen this in such freelance railroads ad the AM,the V&O,the Utah Belt,The Franklin & South Manchester,Hoosac Valley,Missouri, Kansas & Quincy and so on.
Even my C&HV appears "real" to those that have seen my locomotives..Some first time viewers ask if its a real railroad!!!
That is what freelancing a railroad is all about.BELIEVABILITY!
I am sure the owners of the above listed railroads would fully agree.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
snagletooth wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Snagletooth,There is one inescapabe flaw in your argument... and that's your assumption that all rivet counters are insulting of others.Not true. The posting of this thread IS insulting to all those modelers who don't follow your mantra.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Snagletooth,There is one inescapabe flaw in your argument... and that's your assumption that all rivet counters are insulting of others.Not true.
I don't mean it in that sense. I'm simply suggesting that some folks are possibly holding themselves and others back by saying these things over and over again even when the situation doesn't call for it.
Example:
A forum friend of mine (Spacemouse) in one thread suggested he might like to try modeling the PRR and was wondering how he might go about finding the right rolling stock for the era. Another forum friend of mine (Jeff Wimberley) responded simply by saying he runs what he wants, and if people don't like it, he'll show them the door.
Tell me, how was that helpful? That was just a mantra without a point. I'm sorry, Jeff, if you're reading this. I don't mean to insult you. But I disagree that the "it's my layout" mantra is going to help Chip model the Pennsy accurately.
Not really..It should be seen as food for thought on how one can advance his/her self in the hobby IF they should chose to do so..
Well Dave, You ARE entitled to your opinion. And, I think there is a lot of truth to it. I skip most of the blather on this forum, and (in my opinion) there is way too much of it. But I ALWAYS read your very informative posts.
For myself, I started with an O-72 oval on the attic foor with Lionel UP M-1000 roaring around and a Lionel Pennsy 0-6-0 switcher using the coal tipple and the log loaders. Playing with trains was fun, but I soon outgrew that by two railing the 0-6-0 and buying a Parmalee & Sturgis NH box cab electric. I hand laid steel track on celotex (not a good idea by the way), but not bad for a kid. Now I was becoming a MODEL RAILROADER. One visit to the New Haven Society of Model Engineers fabulous O gauge layout was all it took. I was MESMERIZED. No more toy trains for me.
One day in the late forties, MRR featured an HO layout (scorned then as the Jeweler's Gauge) and showed a 15 car passenger train, just like the big boys of the New Haven and Pennsy. WOW! That did it for me. I sold all of the O gauge stuff and bought three times as much HO motive power and rolling stock. I built a huge attic layout, double tracked main with spiked brass code 100 rail using perforated black rolled tie strip. What a differance when that was ballasted. For years I operated a melange of Pennsy, Reading and New Haven trains with no real purposeful operation. Just running trains.
I really enjoyed watching the Reading Crusader, the MUs, the T-1 and the ABBA Fas hauling freight, the Pennsy "Clockers' pulled by the GG-1 and the MUs and the New Haven wiith "American Fyer" coaches pulled by EF-3 Box Cab electrics. BUT, I was still just running trains.
In planning my next, and last layout, I realized that just running trains isn't satisfying anymore. So, I am going to offer the Pennsy and Reading collection on e-bay and am now building a roster of New Haven power and rolling stock. Using the New Haven's consist books, I can accurately consist any train operated in the transition era on both the 4 track electrified zone and the doiuble track Shore Line to Boston. The center piece will be the New Haven Union Station, show placing all of the exciting activity that took place there, engine changes from electric to steam and diesel, addition and removal of coaches, diners, baggage and mail cars etc.
It is being planned for duplicating the actual operations of the New Haven, including servicing the industrial sidings from Branford to New London. I can't include all of them (using modeler's license, I suppose) but Madison, Guilford and Old Saybrook had lots of acitivity. All the towns and scenic highlights (including Rocky Neck Beach) are in the proper sequence) and following the New Haven's track diagrams. This has taken a tremendous amount of research and a lot of assistance from members of the NHRHTA Forum, I have frequently said, the research is the hard part especially when one is over 2,000 miles and 60 years away, but is VERY satisfying as all of the pieces start to fill out the puzzle.
I am now building a mock up of the picturesque Old Saybrook station area using aerial photos, photos from the web and my collection of NH publications. When I am satsified with the final product I will then build a module which will be inserted into the layout at the proper time and place. I will be repeating this for all of the town areas with sidings.
In summary, this has been the most rewarding experience that I have had in this hobby. I have met many wonderful people on line that have been very helpful, I have learned things about prototype railroading that I would never have known. AND, I have the satisfaction in knowing that the end result will be as accurate a replica of the New Haven Railroad in its hey day that I can possible produce.
N0W, I offer this to all of you just getting started with your 4 x 8 layouts. It is just your BEGINNING in the world's greated hobby. Just don't let it be the end. Think of what you can accomplish as your modeling skills grow. Believe me, it will be the joy of your lifetime, as it has been mine.
This one is a good thought-provoking topic. I spent some time thinking about it while preparing some structures for their advertising decals.
I don't think the "relaxed" use of non-prototypical rolling stock and engines hurts the hobby.
But, I do think that paying more attention to prototype modelling really enhances it.
I've been back in the hobby for about 2 1/2 years now. I started with the trains I had back in the 1960's, and decided then and there that I wouldn't buy anything from a later era. But, I already had older equipment - non-functioning steamers and beer reefers, and I've indulged my sweet-tooth with a couple more reefers since then. As I've developed as a modeller, I find that I enjoy the research that goes with purchasing decisions. Yesterday, for example, I looked up the history of S&H Green Stamps, to see if it was OK to have a sign for them in a grocery store that would have a Twilight Zone, dual-era existence in the 1930's and 1960's. (It is, by the way.)
Right now, though, my layout is running Geeps right along with the Hudson, because I don't have space to hide the out-of-era equipment right now. For now, I'll live with some "historical anomalies," at least until the very non-prototypical pink foam is completely hidden from view.
The title of the post is a good one, IMHO. Doing the research and being more historically accurate has been part of my own growth in the hobby, and I'm glad that I've chosen to go this way.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Dave, ref the H2a hoppers, a source that I forgot to copy on the web says they were introduced in 1956. That's a year later than I had set for my layout....but...oh, well. I guess I can now think about a GP9? Anyone know? For either the NYC or PRR. Maybe the UP since I have the Challenger?
Edit - Sorry, this was to have been in Chip's current thread. My bad.
selector wrote: Dave, ref the H2a hoppers, a source that I forgot to copy on the web says they were introduced in 1956. That's a year later than I had set for my layout....but...oh, well. I guess I can now think about a GP9? Anyone know? For either the NYC or PRR. Maybe the UP since I have the Challenger? Edit - Sorry, this was to have been in Chip's current thread. My bad.
I was wrong. Here's the real scoop from PRR.Rainfan.net:
Comments:
Still wrong for my era (July 1956), but might be OK for Chip, depending on his choice of end date for his era.
BRAKIE wrote: IF they should chose to do so..
IF they should chose to do so..
The most relevant statement in the discussion.
Tom
Life is simple - eat, drink, play with trains!
Go Big Red!
PA&ERR "If you think you are doing something stupid, you're probably right!"
Dave, I'll answer you more seriously now.
A mantra is only going to hold back those to whom is also counts as dogma. We all chant mantras to ourselves as we go about our business of finding out what the hobby is meant to be for us. Encouraging people to keep their arcs of fire wide is not bad for beginners who may have the personality to pursue something to the nth degree exclusive of something more varied or richer.
The problem, as I see it, is when those of us who are well established profess a certain dogmatic approach to the hobby with newcomers who should take their time to narrow their focus... which also serves to increase their powers of observation and at the same time limits the absolute numbers of facts that they will need to build a good "modeled" railroad.
There is a difference between model railroading and railroad modeling. At least, to me there is. I am currently well and truly ensconced in the former. I currently have no designs on the latter, but when and if I ever do, I will be armed with the basic skills and knowledge that will allow me to develop naturally and to exploit what the sources have to offer me. Model railroading has developed my keenness, my skills of observation, enhanced my general knowledge of railroading, and helped me to develop skills to which I won't have to pay so much attention when the time comes to capitalize on them. Instead, I'll be able to think more globally about a narrow set of facts...as much a conundrum as that sounds...and the skills will be natural and less intrusive.
Has this added anything?
I was afraid that some folks wouldn't read all the words. Ain't that always the way?
Now, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't chose to do what pleases them.
My argument, and my frustration with Trains.com forums overall, is that there are elements that will insist that unless people are running any old thing they're taking the hobby too seriously. They often go on to discourage others who seek to improve their modeling by seeking prototype fidelity.
It's that attitude I'm railing against. The attitude that seeks to hold others back. If people are happy with running whatever comes out of the box, that's absolutely fine. But I'm angry that sometimes people take it one step further and tells others that prototype fidelity is bad, and that they're wrong for caring about what they run.
No, I understand perfectly. I was just testing the left and right of arc...dogma/mantra...you know?
I agree that the newcomer to the hobby may be driven to take a side, a valued side, of the hobby lightly...perhaps even to discount it entirely if he/she receives too much encouragement to be frivolous, fanciful, non-observant, disinterested in history, and so on. It is true, at the same time, that some folks just want to play...period. Getting to the nuts and bolts is what they left behind in Grade 12...happily, too. In that sense, RTR is right up their alleys.
There are right and wrong ways of teaching. Lording it over people, belittling their best efforts, and generally diminishing their own timely and natural enjoyment of the hobby is not going to do any of us good in the long run. On the other hand, there are few better ways of teaching than by setting a good example. As an officer, you know precisely what I mean. It is the same in this hobby. If we, severally, acknowledge the superior craftsmanship and the learning on which it stands, those of us who are newer will learn vicariously that there is more to be had in the hobby than opening boxes and powering up a three-ply layout.
We have perhaps fallen victim to the labeling that afflicts so much of human interaction. We use the term newbie and rivet counter. A person new to the hobby will not intuitively subscribe to, nor align himself with, the latter label because the former is intuitively more apt. This predisposes the "newbie", or sensitizes him, to the various camps and their philosophies. He is likely to ally himself where he finds support and approbation...this is what you are saying. So, he will ultimately come to resist the urges of the more rounded modelers to stretch a little. This is restrictive, both for the hobby and for the budding modeler who could become the next Pele or John (X).
Have I followed?
Crandell,
I'm really sorry, but no, I don't think you've followed. I must not be making myself clear.
I'm not suggesting anyone take sides, nor to I feel I'm "lording" my hobby philosophy over anyone.
My point was that those three phrases are often used by some on these forums to discourage others from choosing to move past the "run anything" stage. That's not fair. I also think that in various forms those phrases are used by some to the point where their own skill stagnates.
The labels of newbie and rivet counter are not mine; I find them derogatory and spiteful. But they are used nonetheless.
You will find yourself, I think, given that you are an excellent modeler yourself, that your interests may narrow (yet deepen). The "I'll run what I want, rivet counting is bad, modeler's license" dogmas will no longer fit. Yet others on these very forums will actually try to stop you from focusing your modeling. Why? Don't know... perhaps to keep themselves feeling better about their own choices?
Hmmm...I don't see where we differ. I thought I was saying what you have just said, but used different words.
I do agree that we shouldn't use axiomatic language to reduce anyone's potential in this hobby.
Maybe the old standby, "Live, and let live," is all this amounts to?
Dave et all,
Very interesting reading....and thought provoking to say the least. My question for you:
Will there be an essay test after this thread is finalized??
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
I think that the terms are relative and subjective. I was recently accused of having too high of standards because I thought the track laid at the club should work--stuff like power to all rails including turnouts and track clean enough that locos lights didn't cut out while they trains coasted through the grime. And I wanted the couplers to be all standardized--I wanted them all the same heights and springs in all of them and they wanted special cars available to put between the Kadees and the horn hooks. We parted company.
Then again, I believe that you can run a Hogwart's Freight and Ferry on any layout and be prototypical. After all, wizard conductors are not limited by such notions as time and space.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Is it possible that we are a bit too concerned with what the other guy is doing, whether they're recreating reality to the nth degree, or just out to relax and enjoy running some trains? Why is it so important to convince the other camp (assuming we can divide modelers in such simplistic terms) that our way is right?
Modelers who desire a challenge greater than running hodge-podge equipment will seek it, and the information can be found here for the asking, as well as other places on the web or in print. That's the primary reason people come to a forum in the first place - to learn.
Greater modeling fidelity doesn't really need prostletizing to push it; the realistic end results are their own advertising, so I disagree with the notion that some "mantra" is going to freeze someone's modeling skills in their tracks. Some may need encouragement and guidance to move past their fears of inadequacy or of making mistakes, but if that encouragement is met with resistance, back off. People will let you know when they've found their comfort level. You can lead a horse to water, but it doesn't pay to hold his head under. (I'm not saying you do that, Dave! I just thought it sounded good. )
I think we're all being too defensive of our own turf...
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
SpaceMouse wrote: I think that the terms are relative and subjective. I was recently accused of having too high of standards because I thought the track laid at the club should work--stuff like power to all rails including turnouts and track clean enough that locos lights didn't cut out while they trains coasted through the grime. And I wanted the couplers to be all standardized--I wanted them all the same heights and springs in all of them and they wanted special cars available to put between the Kadees and the horn hooks. We parted company. Then again, I believe that you can run a Hogwart's Freight and Ferry on any layout and be prototypical. After all, wizard conductors are not limited by such notions as time and space.
Hmmm..How about the muggles? Won't they see things that might put Hogwarts in jeopardy?
You're probably right... you typically are one of the voices of reason around here!
I would say encouragement comes in many forms, but so does discouragement. It's the latter I'm whining about.
While I'm never shy about posting what works for me, I hope that in general I have not forced my philosophy on others. I prefer, as you say (and as we say often in the USAF) to lead by example.
But now and then I do like to wag my finger!
As a person who has returned to model railroading after a long absence I understand what Dave is trying to say. I also have to agree with what some others have said to. The problems results with our communication with each other and human nature. This is the way I do it so it is right attitude. As one returns to the hobby they have to start some where and grow into the hobby. We start at playing with trains progress to modeling railroading (generic) and then into specific railroad modeling. You purchase what you like what strikes your fancy and then when you find stuff you like start to narrow things down until you become a rivet counter in your area of expertise. You find what your best at eventually and maybe you never get to be a rivet counter but so what this is a hobby that is supposed to relax and give you enjoyment. And Spacemouse I agree with you if you belong to a club then things need to be standardized so that operations go smoothly.
Kevin
SteamFreak wrote: Is it possible that we are a bit too concerned with what the other guy is doing, whether they're recreating reality to the nth degree, or just out to relax and enjoy running some trains? Why is it so important to convince the other camp (assuming we can divide modelers in such simplistic terms) that our way is right?
Yup. There are those that are concerned about being validated by others. I don't fit into that mold at all. However, I do agree with D.V. that sometimes out modeling gets into a rut of mediocrity and does not progress because we've lost the desire to learn new things.
Many moons ago when I started model railroading I was satisfied with out of the box rolling stock and green grass mat scenery. Over the years I've slowly changed what I liked; as my skills progressed I pushed my envelope to become more interested in detail, prototype operations (even a whimsy line can be operated like a real RR) and mechanical perfection. I began the journey I'm on now (about 1981 or so) by chalk weathering and installing Kadee couplers on a Tyco box car - that for me was the first huge step down the road to my current level skill. The layout I'm planning now, although large by footprint, is very simple but it combines all the things I've learned up until now.
I still run whatever moves me, but what moves me has changed. I will run a billboard refer on the back of a GP-50, but not as often as I used to. I would rather now see a freight train with period correct rolling stock from the 1960's than a mismatch of equipment.
Because I have the willingness to learn new things, to grow and adapt, this hobby remains fresh and exciting. I am very eager to begin on my new layout because many of the techniques I will be using (such as foam/wood integrated bench work) I've only experimented with, or found them to be superior to my "standard" methods of building.
To each his own, but don't let that inhibit your growth or be and excuse for mediocrity
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
Midnight Railroader wrote:Perhaps the "it's my layout, I'll run anything I want" folks and the "100% accurate rivet counters" represent two ends of a very wide spectrum.
Only those that lack understanding and fear change would think such thoughts..
What part don't you understand just because a modeler wants detailed locomotives and era specific locomotive and cars ARE NOT rivet counters?
reklein wrote:I think Spacemouse and I must've belonged to the same club. We had a guy who would not ,not could not,understand why you had to reverse the polarity on a reverse loop.I actually got into a shouting match with em. Mostly out of frustration. He'd ask me why it had to be that way and I explained it more loudly each time and he still couldn't understand. I guess the point here might be keep an open mind, but not as open as a liberal democrat. which having said that will probably open a new can of worms. By the way why hasn't Poteet weighed in on this one?
I really hate that when that happens regardless of the modeling or operation subject being discuss.
Some times I think "moron" and excuse myself.
BRAKIE wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote:Perhaps the "it's my layout, I'll run anything I want" folks and the "100% accurate rivet counters" represent two ends of a very wide spectrum. Only those that lack understanding and fear change would think such thoughts..What part don't you understand just because a modeler wants detailed locomotives and era specific locomotive and cars ARE NOT rivet counters?
Again it is the wording that is wrong, "rivet counter" to me is not bad but only someone that has "grown" in the hobby and enjoys and derives pleasure from being able to replicate accuratly the prototype. Midnight railroader is only trying to describe the broad spectrum of this hobby using the terms that have been placed forth by others. In a way I feel AggroJones is a "rivet counter" or detail oriented modeler because he weathers his rolling stock with such great detail and realism (by the way love that cab forward steam loco of yours so real). It may be that rivet counter should be dropped from our language since it appearss to insult some, and be replaced with detail oriented.
I do want detailed locomotives and era-specific locos and cars, yet I am not a rivet-counter.
Why so angry?
BRAKIE wrote:How about the muggles? Won't they see things that might put Hogwarts in jeopardy?
How can seeing a red train in the Pacific Northwest in 1885 possibly put Hogwarts in Jeopardy? Hogwarts is in England, man.
SpaceMouse wrote: BRAKIE wrote:How about the muggles? Won't they see things that might put Hogwarts in jeopardy?How can seeing a red train in the Pacific Northwest in 1885 possibly put Hogwarts in Jeopardy? Hogwarts is in England, man.
Well that was once pointed out by Professor Snape over a flying car..Also platform 9 3/4 is hidden from muggles.So if the Hogwarts Express went chugging down the line muggles would notice it even in the North-West..After all there is a sign on the locomotive stating "Hogwarts Express".
I thought this might cool off or get locked. So, here's my 2 cents (actually more as I worked for large manufacturers for 9 years.
I think the start of this thread is Dave seeing a problem that is not there. So far the best reply was Steamfreak. There is no reason why a modeler has to advance. If people are happy with what they have, what business is it of others. People forget this all goes back to the "toy trains" of a bygone era. We all have different levels of interest and learn what we wish along the way. I seriously doubt that anyone is held back by what is posted on the Internet. Sometimes feelings are hurt (totally unnecessary) but holding someone back - no way.
Brakie was right on the money when he said the improvements in models were a natural evolution. The "prototype" modelers who post all the time online have NOTHING to do with the evolution of models. It is the modelers who vote with their money. That is the "better mousetrap " economic rule. There are a few experts who sometimes consult with companies, but few of them post here or elsewhere. It is simply better models sell better and bring more money to the company. Advances in technology - Cad cam, EDM, better mold components, better molding machines have enabled the better products to be made - at a cost the market will bear.
I disagree. I understand you may be a manufacturer, but I will say this:
Love that prototypical Pennsy stuff out there? It's mostly through the efforts of the Pennsylvania Railroad Technical & Historical Society's Modeling Committee working hand-in-hand with manufacturers like BLI/PCM, N Scale Architect, Bowser, etc. that you see accurate Pennsy material.
Now, these guys are hardcore proto-nuts. But we PRR modelers in all scales own them a debt of gratitude for their persistance.
You know, I get 5-10 unsolicited e-mails a week asking me about how I did this, or how I did that, or just in general about how much they like my website and my layout. I know I'm not a "big name" in this hobby, but I guess I'm doing something right. The three dogmas I mentioned at the start do not get one there.
I feel that in any endeavor, one should always try to raise the bar higher. Otherwise, what's the point? If my modeling were no better today than it was when I was 10, I don't think I'd be having any fun.
I stand by my original assertion, that some here are attempting, perhaps inadvertantly and perhaps unsuccessfully, to hold others back with this mantras. They each have a use, but they tend to be overused.
Dave,
Not to be argumentative or ire-rousing, but it seems to me your comments regarding modeler's license is more an objection to someone using modeler's license in a way that YOU wouldn't than it is anything else. I'm trying to model the CB&Q in Wyoming in the 1930s-1945 or so. I'm also trying to be relatively true to that location and era, and generally am being successful, I think. But - my wife has a thing for paint scheme of the Atlantic Coast Line passenger equipment of the late 1950s to early 1960s. So occasionally an ACL E8 pulling ACL passenger cars runs through the layout. making stops in what passes for Wyoming towns. Implausible? You bet, and we're both aware of it. The train doesn't come out of staging often, but it does come out. I'm not about to ban the equipment from the layout and effectively ruin her enjoyment of it because that train in Wyoming is fantasy. But at the base of it, ALL our layouts are fantasy. Anyone who comes to see my layout and makes some down-the-nose crack about that train can leave immediately or be thrown out. A layout visit is a show by the owner, not an invitation to criticism by the holier-than-thou.
But you know, the down-the-nose, unsolicited criticisms from others is generally where the defensive responses "It's my layout" and "rivet counting is bad" come from, NOT from someone who specifically asks for comment and criticism. If someone posts a shot of something they've done and I see a possibility for improvement, I compliment a good part of the work, and MAY ask if I can make a suggestion. IF they answer yes, then I'll make it. I've done that more than once on this forum. The problem is the goon with the Queen Mary-sized ego who thinks everyone want HIS critique of their work (I almost said HIS/HER, bit I've never seen a woman in the hobby do this), and responds to a "Look what I've been doing!" post with a dissertation on how the prototype didn't do it, how the bridge wouldn't hold up under its own weight in real life, or whatever. Solicited critiques are great, if done with and degree of propriety (and they almost always are). The unsolicited ones get the "It's my layout - go pound sand!" and "^%&$ rivet counter!" mantras.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Mark,
You're quite right. I have little patience as well for those heavy-handed with unsolicited criticism.
As for your modeler's license, that's OK by me! Hey, I'm the guy who has made-up names for his towns on a real stretch of the PRR. Moreover, my Middle Division has 2, instead of 4, main tracks.
Your specific example is not really what I'm getting at. I like to break out my GG-1 now and again, too... but I have no catenary! That's modeler's license!
I'm a fan of fantasy schemes, too. I remember in another thread or forum some really neat modern wide-nose power with New York Central lightning stripes on them. I don't mind!
No, I'm talking about the extremes. Modeler's license is a wonderful and a useful thing. But it can be a stumbling block. For example, it can be the excuse that keeps somebody's layout littered with vertical track and retaining walls, or running roof-walk equipped freight cars in interchange service in the modern era as a matter of regular operation.
You know, I've been wanting to get a Thomas the Tank Engine in N to cut in as a snapper on a coal drag when I take my layout to shows. That's modeler's license!
The difference is, I recognize it as an anomaly and would not have it there, say, on ops night or in a magazine spread.
Maybe I am being to ate-up about this. My original gripe was related to the idea that some sometimes discourage advancement in others by citing these mantras. I still think that's not good.
Okay, wait a miute.
I know there have been problems with manufacturers ignoring inputs from PRRT&HS. But it doesn't happen every time. I seem to remember in TKM that BLI took their input into their second K4 release. Since I don't model HO I can't verify that, but that seemed like a success story.
Are you saying that PRRT&HS has done nothing for improving the fidelity of Pennsy models? Even if their contributions don't affect 100% of the Pennsy models out there, I can't be convinced that PRRT&HS has not had a very positive influence on the Pennsy model market.
I still think it's the demand for more accurate stuff that has brought out the better models and drawn down the curtain on the generic, low-detail, cheapo models. Who wants more accurate stuff? Modelers who care about car type, scheme, and era! These are the people that some would label "rivet counters" because they read build dates and know, for example, that PRR didn't own a PS1 boxcar (yet Atlas makes tons of em...)...
Brunton wrote: Dave,Not to be argumentative or ire-rousing, but it seems to me your comments regarding modeler's license is more an objection to someone using modeler's license in a way that YOU wouldn't than it is anything else. I'm trying to model the CB&Q in Wyoming in the 1930s-1945 or so. I'm also trying to be relatively true to that location and era, and generally am being successful, I think. But - my wife has a thing for paint scheme of the Atlantic Coast Line passenger equipment of the late 1950s to early 1960s. So occasionally an ACL E8 pulling ACL passenger cars runs through the layout. making stops in what passes for Wyoming towns. Implausible? You bet, and we're both aware of it. The train doesn't come out of staging often, but it does come out. I'm not about to ban the equipment from the layout and effectively ruin her enjoyment of it because that train in Wyoming is fantasy. But at the base of it, ALL our layouts are fantasy. Anyone who comes to see my layout and makes some down-the-nose crack about that train can leave immediately or be thrown out. A layout visit is a show by the owner, not an invitation to criticism by the holier-than-thou.But you know, the down-the-nose, unsolicited criticisms from others is generally where the defensive responses "It's my layout" and "rivet counting is bad" come from, NOT from someone who specifically asks for comment and criticism. If someone posts a shot of something they've done and I see a possibility for improvement, I compliment a good part of the work, and MAY ask if I can make a suggestion. IF they answer yes, then I'll make it. I've done that more than once on this forum. The problem is the goon with the Queen Mary-sized ego who thinks everyone want HIS critique of their work (I almost said HIS/HER, bit I've never seen a woman in the hobby do this), and responds to a "Look what I've been doing!" post with a dissertation on how the prototype didn't do it, how the bridge wouldn't hold up under its own weight in real life, or whatever. Solicited critiques are great, if done with and degree of propriety (and they almost always are). The unsolicited ones get the "It's my layout - go pound sand!" and "^%&$ rivet counter!" mantras.
Mark
Thank you, you have expressed what I have been trying to say.This is a hobby and supposed to be enjoyable and give us pleasure.
Thank you
Ah, yes... that could be a thread in and of itself.
Many folks equate prototype accuracy with no fun.
Actually I've had far more fun in the hobby since I quit freelancing and went prototype.
I'm not saying that's right for everyone. But many people are afraid to try prototype modeling because they've been told by others that it's too restrictive and not fun.
I say, try it for yourself. And don't assume those of us who change out trucks on boxcars because they're not correct are somehow having less fun!
Thanks for starting this thread. It has been most thought provoking, and I learned a new word - mantra. I had heard it before but had to look it up. I think that the mantras you list are not neccesarily phases and the list isn't complete. I'll bet we could come up with several more. Then following selector's train of thought, I believe these only become points of contention when they cross over from a mantra to a dogma. I love to watch new people's epiphanies about different elements of the hobby as their skills and knowledge expand and develop.
3986
IT seems to me that "It's your layout, and you can do what you want." starts as a concession and morphs into a battle cry--with the effect Dave is pointing out.
Where I see it used is when a newbee asks if they can run such and such with so and so because when they were overly enthusiastic they bought whatever popped off the shelf or looked cool on eBay. They argue how they can make it work. Then the the old vet says. "It's your layout you can so what you want."
Then you get a bunch of pile ons agreeing that it you can do what you want on your layout. The pile ons then take the phrase and apply it to everything.
As Brakie has pointed out, this type of reasoning creates an excuse to create implausibility through laziness--as he says it is under the guise of fantasy.
The phrase has appropriate and inappropriaate usasges.
Ah, Chip...
You nailed it. Exactly. You and Brakie both.
I need to have you guys write my threads!
Dave Vollmer wrote: Many folks equate prototype accuracy with no fun. Actually I've had far more fun in the hobby since I quit freelancing and went prototype.I'm not saying that's right for everyone. But many people are afraid to try prototype modeling because they've been told by others that it's too restrictive and not fun.I say, try it for yourself. And don't assume those of us who change out trucks on boxcars because they're not correct are somehow having less fun!
To those who are toying with the idea, I'd say jump in and give it a shot. You may be amazed at the amount of fun the research is! But then, if you find it isn't your cup of tea and you're not enjoying the restrictions it may place on your modeling, feel just as free to jump right back out! I for one would only feel a bit of disappointment if you're model railroading the "correct" way, rather than "your way. After all, it's not just your layout (), but it's your hobby as well.
I'm going to be Mr. Switzerland here and agree with everybody. It is your railroad so you can do what you please, and we all have to bow to the truth of modeler's license or we would only be able to represent about ¼ mile of prototype track and perhaps one industry in a 30x30ft space. At the same time a good number of us on the forum have experimented over the years and found that change and innovation keep us interested, I myself have moved more towards a prototype research approach and left behind the "run what you brung" ideals. Rivet counting is not a bad thing, forcing others to do it is. Forcing others to ignore prototype and accuracy is also very bad as some of us get great enjoyment in hunting down the arcane information on the exact color of the widget pin in June of 1932 or something.
I understand what Dave is trying to say, that the "if it feels good do it" phrase has been overused, overworked and no longer has any real meaning. We all know this, if it didn't feel good we wouldn't be doing it in the first place! What Dave is trying to say (I'm pretty sure) is to not reflexively give out excuses for inaccuracy that may not be helpful in advancing an individual modelers progress. Some will progress, some will not. I feel certain the ones that don't progress are not in the hobby long enough to matter, but don't deny that person the input of your experience. State what you know from experience and let the reader decide what to do with that information.
I've learned, progressed, regressed, forgotten and relearned many things over the years to get to the philosophical point I am at now with MRRing. If asked a question, I will respond in the manner of my current level of skill (crude as it may be), not with my skill level of 30 years ago. Naturally now I would encourage a modeler, regardless of the size of the pike, to create a history for his railroad, a name and a purpose along with a time period before even buying the first piece of track. 10 years ago I would have given much different advice.
The bottom line is that the forums are like a buffet, you take what you can digest, leave the rest. Keep coming back and you will sample new items and find that after a while your taste will change. This is natural and healthy; if you find that you miss the simple days of just playing with trains, simply get yourself a Garden Railroad, that's what I did! I can count rivets in HO, and run whatever I daggon well feel like in the garden. Nobody ever said you could only have one railroad!
Dave, I understand your point, but people are going to do what they are going to do, we can't legislate the development of modeling skills and knowledge. You are obviously an accomplished modeler with a desire to continue your personal growth and achievement in the hobby. My advice to you is rather than get frustrated by the "mantras" as you have defined them, continue to find a way to give back to those who seek your advice and knowledge. You'll feel a whole lot better about things doing that rather than focusing on what kind of limitations some hobbiests choose to impose upon themselves.
Mastiffdog wrote: Dave, I understand your point, but people are going to do what they are going to do, we can't legislate the development of modeling skills and knowledge. You are obviously an accomplished modeler with a desire to continue your personal growth and achievement in the hobby. My advice to you is rather than get frustrated by the "mantras" as you have defined them, continue to find a way to give back to those who seek your advice and knowledge. You'll feel a whole lot better about things doing that rather than focusing on what kind of limitations some hobbiests choose to impose upon themselves.
You have a very valid point.
But then again there are times when you want to slap someone upside the head and yell, "Wake up idiot." I used to want to do that with Billy Idol. I've settled down a bit since then.
Chip said: But then again there are times when you want to slap someone upside the head and yell, "Wake up idiot." I used to want to do that with Billy Idol. I've settled down a bit since then.
=====================================================================
Thats the way I feel with some modelers from the intermediate group that KNOWS better and especially to the "my way or no way" types.
IMHO "its your layout" is the battle cry of the unlearn and causual modeler and serves NO real purpose in answering SERIOUS questions other then a pat on the head.
Brakie,
I happen to know that I am one of those people that some would like to slap upside the head.
I find that my ignorance knows no bounds.
Sounds like we're getting into the usual chasmic divide between those who believe that model railroading is a personal activity that one can pursue as they please, and those who apparently believe it should be as regimented as Nazi Germany was! These threads usually end up that way.
"Slap someone upside the head?!" Who do you people think you are, that you would even consider the idea of demanding that someone give up his/her choice in order to take up yours instead?! Did God himself annoint YOU the dictator of the modeling world? Model railroading in some way other than the way YOU do it is not the moral equivalent of murder or some such thing! Quit acting like it is and get a life!
Sheesh!
Brunton wrote: Sounds like we're getting into the usual chasmic divide between those who believe that model railroading is a personal activity that one can pursue as they please, and those who apparently believe it should be as regimented as Nazi Germany was! These threads usually end up that way."Slap someone upside the head?!" Who do you people think you are, that you would even consider the idea of demanding that someone give up his/her choice in order to take up yours instead?! Did God himself annoint YOU the dictator of the modeling world? Model railroading in some way other than the way YOU do it is not the moral equivalent of murder or some such thing! Quit acting like it is and get a life! Sheesh!
I think you are taking my statement a tad seriously. In fact, I've learned to walk away from what I assume to be idiotic behavior. On the other hand, if a person asks for help, I might go the extra mile to convince them to expand their thinking. If they choose another path, once again I walk away.
Perhaps the "slap upside the head" was humor in poor taste.
BRAKIE wrote:Chip,Cut yourself some slack..You have a williness to learn and should go far.I seen that in some of your topics and replies.
I am not particularly self-deprecating. However, I know my knowledge of model railroading has limits. It's one of those "the more you know" clichés.
On the other hand, I can recall several instances where people were ready to slap me upside the head--particularly when I was trying to design a layout and thought the yard ladder was the yard lead. People would make comments and I would screw up the redesign. I give the people who stuck it out with me a lot of credit, I got a good design because I listened to what they had to say and let go of my sense of "rightness." It was about a month later I saw that a drawing I based my assumptions on was abbreviated, and it was assumed that you knew what a yard lead was, even though it was not pictured. Suddenly my layout made sense--and by then I had it built.
I applaud your effort in trying to open up some eyes with what can stunt modeling growth. I'm not a teacher (as I'm sure this is the frustration they feel as they are trying to educate or young ones) but you can't touch them all. Unless a person is ready to expand their knowledge and modeling style, telling them about researching to be more prototypically accurate, not mixing eras when it comes to equipment, or etc., will fall upon deaf ears. Like it or not, it is their layout, it is their property, and ulitmately, it is their money. I think that Brunton's earlier post about him running an ACL passenger train in his layout to please his wife, illustrates the basic nature of this hobby: personal enjoyment. Enjoyment is subjective because as much as a lot of people see "rivet counting" as a bad thing, for some it is a method for personal enjoyment as well. Some people like steam engines and modern freight as well, what's the problem with enjoying running both? Do we really need to just choose one style? Again, I applaud your efforts, but for some modelers, just running a train around an oval is enough for them to enjoy at this time. Hopefully you (and others with experience) will still be around when the time comes for the "newbies" to truly focus. Hopefully you can walk them through the process of being more "prototypical" and teach them the other side of enjoyment from this hobby. All we can ask, and I'm summing up your original post, is to keep an open mind when it comes to this hobby and don't let others discourage you from learning more.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
SpaceMouse wrote:I think you are taking my statement a tad seriously. In fact, I've learned to walk away from what I assume to be idiotic behavior. On the other hand, if a person asks for help, I might go the extra mile to convince them to expand their thinking. If they choose another path, once again I walk away. Perhaps the "slap upside the head" was humor in poor taste.
I was aiming more at those folks who really ARE serious in that same regard. Soory I wasn't more clear about that.
My Karma ran over your Dogma....
The following is from a longtime freelancer who think youz proto guys are missing the very point of freelancing....
But it is MY layout, not yours, not MRs, not the guy behind the counter at the LHS. MINE...and therefore its MY decision to choose what I want to add. In my case its large scale narrow gauge thats a mix of several narrow gauge tram lines. I build or kitbash all of my engines and as such I have to opportunity to model a vast array of subjects from plantaion lines logging lines, industrial and mining tram lines. If I see a cool subject for modeling, like a railbus pic I saw from a long gone Alaskan RR, I just build it, add my own decals and it becomes part of my roster. For me the whole idea of restricting myself to ONLY one RR, ONLY one set specific roster of allowable engines and stock I'd get so bored I'd bail on the hobby.
It is when the riveteer insists on telling you why everything you are doing is an insult to his POV on the hobby, and I'm not talking about merely using a 4-4-0 to pull a streamliner car...I'm talking about the guy that gets upset becuase your brake cylinders look out of proportion to the prototype or are not quite in the correct place. Insistance on belevability is one thing but when that insistance borders on obsession it is bad. I've learned to laugh at these guys now, I just say "Move along small change" When I build, my goal is to build a belevable model, not a 100% accurate to the last nut model, why? highy accurate and hightly detailed models break highly easily and are often highly unreliable due to highy finicky drivetrains. So I build robust models with a good degree of detail but not to where they are so delicate that you need to handle it like a Fabrege egg.
This is the Freelancers rallying cry. As I stated above, this gives me the opportunity to model a wide spectrum of stock, structures and details. I kitbash, ALOT! Like Rumplestiltskin I like spinning straw into gold, namely using a wide range of parts and just "have at it"! The end results are unique, yet beleivable within the narrow gauge realm, theres a prototype for everything is the freelancers creed, everything I've modeled has been based on something I've seen in either person or in old pics. The resulting models are similar, but not exact, to the proto, this is done for either limits due to construction or material constraints, or designers choice. No one has so far said, "thats just plain unnatural!" but I'm working hard on that...
Here are some examples of my work, are they believable? are they reasonably accurate? yet all are freelanced, based on some old photo or other source, except one.
Now if for what ever reason someone does NOT like these, then too bad! and dont worry about it as none of them are on your layout now, are they....hehehhe
Have fun with your trains
Mr. Smith,
I don't think anyone is really questioning your right to freelance--I'm certainly not as I am fairly well out there in my own freelance efforts. And I agree there is a certain amount of comfort in prototypical operations.
But that was not the gist of Dave's arguement. The Gist is that some people use the three mantras as an excuse to as Crandell put it, "Be less than they can be."
I don't think you do that.
Maybe so Chip
But I felt I needed to add a shout out for the wild and wolly freelancers, I live by the creed;
"Theres no wrong way to build a Model Railroad"
And I truely beleive that, theirs only whats wrong to other people POVs.
Granted that leaves the barn door wide open, but I also beleive modelers will eventually model to their best skill level, but no one should on them for starting somewhere less than spectacular. This hobby takes time and most modelers who get deep into it (notice I did not say "serious") build 2 or 3 or more layouts in their lifetime.
So if someone gets a kick building a Thomas themed layout with anything and everything running in circles, then let them. Who can say 10 years from now they wont be gracing the pages of a magazine with a terrific layout that was the result of the seed planted with that first successful Thomas layout. Ya never know.
Mark,If you knew some of the guys I was talking about I am sure you would agree with a slap to the old noggin would be needed as a wake up call...
I dislike seeing talented modelers doing mediocre work.I encourage them to do better as I do all modelers.That doesn't qualify me as a dictator of the modeling world but,a encourager in a kind way.If a modeler shows less then standard work I base my replies as a encouragement.IF its terrible I don't reply..Best to remain silent in some cases then to either encourage bad work or hurt feelings.Either one is as bad as the other.
When I answer a question its based on facts either from lessons learn(usually the hard way) or from observation of what I seen done by other modelers.
A lot of my comments is to (hopefully) cause one to stop and think outside of the normal box and rethink the matter through and draw their own conclusions BASED on ALL replies or answers..
selector wrote:So, the upshot is, "Beware invitations to be less than you can be."
I think letting people enjoy the hobby is the proper idea. When they get bored of just playing with trains, then that's when you educated folks come in and show a different aspect of the hobby, show them that there is more than just playing with the trains. Why should "newbies" be robbed of their enjoyment? Not everyone finds researching and running only one type of equipment fun and enjoyable. We need to keep a diverseness to what we do, or just like Mr. Smith up there, I too would lose interest in this hobby.
"Theres no wrong way to build a Model Railroad".
Untrue..There are many wrong ways to build a model railroad starting with poor equipment running on poorly laid track on poorly built bench work.Thats just the tip of the wrong way to build a railroad iceberg..
Mr Smith,
You missed my point. Sorry about that.
I was not railing against freelancing. Many freelanced layouts are far more plausible than some attempts at prototype modeling.
And no, no one's saying your models look bad. They look fine to me.
Neither am I telling you what to do on your layout. Some people, however, close the door on ever getting any better by screaming "it's my layout" any time someone offers constructive criticsm.
The other issue is that some people take any criticism, no matter how constructive or good-natured, as condemnation.
My layout has improved vastly from criticsm of others. "Attayboys" don't teach a modeler anything. They simply stroke the ego.
Brakie
Its been my experience that any monkey using a Klambake or Atlas layout building guide can with reasonable ease build the basic 4x8 support structure of a layout. It really isn't rocket science, and the plethora of different instant roadbed track out there really takes alot of the issues of bad track laying out of the equation. I've seen the Model RR project layout videos, and for most guys who start with a 4x8 Plywood Pacific, its really a no brainer these days. Try using felt backed flex track, I did.... once.
My term refers to what you choose to model, and how you choose to model it. So if you want a 70's disco themed RR complete with rhinestone clad rolling stock and disco ball over the layout, then do it! If thats what makes you happy then go for it.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Mr Smith,You missed my point. Sorry about that.I was not railing against freelancing. Many freelanced layouts are far more plausible than some attempts at prototype modeling.And no, no one's saying your models look bad. They look fine to me.Neither am I telling you what to do on your layout. Some people, however, close the door on ever getting any better by screaming "it's my layout" any time someone offers constructive criticsm.The other issue is that some people take any criticism, no matter how constructive or good-natured, as condemnation.My layout has improved vastly from criticsm of others. "Attayboys" don't teach a modeler anything. They simply stroke the ego.
I get where yer coming from. I'm just a wild and wolly modeler who wanted to say "dont be afraid to just do it" .
I know what you mean by the types who cannot take ANY criticsim, well intended or not, unfortunatly there really is very little you can do for some of them, they just ramble along in their own way. I tend to find these types being lone wolfs anyway. I always listen when someone offers an opinion on something I've built, I then weigh what they said versus my intented goal. and I have changed some models for the better due to these comments, and I have disregarded others as not being within what my intended goals wee.
Its amazing how many people will offer you strong urgent recommendations of how to "improve" your model, based strickley on what they want to see, with no consideration of what your goal was. So it goes both ways. I came up thru different scales and other hobbies as well so its easy for me to sift the wheat from the chaff. But it can be hard for a newbie to sift through all that.
Dave Vollmer wrote: My layout has improved vastly from criticsm of others. "Attayboys" don't teach a modeler anything. They simply stroke the ego.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: My layout has improved vastly from criticsm of others. "Attayboys" don't teach a modeler anything. They simply stroke the ego.And, at least on these forums, it has become SOP to give those "attaboys" to all posted photos, no matter the quality of the modeling. I wonder if some posters are afraid to be honest because they'll be slapped with the usual "it's-his-layout"-variety of lines.
I think alot of it depends on how you pose your reply. I've seen some replies that come off as just plain rude, even thought that was not the posters intent.
Also offering advice as to how to accomplish a task better -vs- just telling someone they've done it wrong is also a faux paux I've seen here alot too.
I'll never pick on someone's theme, but if I see something that should at least be brought to there attention I will tell them, then I will offer a way to fix it and usually couch it with "If you choose to fix it then.... if not, then enjoy"
All we can do is offer the advice, its up to the modeler to decide whether it to their advantange to listen to it. But its very important to consider how we pose the advice
Theres a world of difference between "I suggest this" and "You should have done this" in the eyes of the reader.
This thread just keeps folding back in on itself like a mobius strip. I think I get your point Dave, and there's an old quote that sums it up best: "Argue for your limitations and they are yours."
The problem is that I am hard-pressed to think of anyone who's potential is being restrained by a few cliches. Do you have examples? When people say such things, generally they're indicating that they're comfortable where they are, and so be it. Don't bother me none. You should concentrate on what you like to model, and thereby serve as an inspiration to people when and if they're ready to learn, but not everyone is at the same point on the curve, or has the same goals in mind. It's as true with model railroading as any other aspect of life.
jasperofzeal wrote: selector wrote:So, the upshot is, "Beware invitations to be less than you can be."I think letting people enjoy the hobby is the proper idea. When they get bored of just playing with trains, then that's when you educated folks come in and show a different aspect of the hobby, show them that there is more than just playing with the trains. Why should "newbies" be robbed of their enjoyment? Not everyone finds researching and running only one type of equipment fun and enjoyable. We need to keep a diverseness to what we do, or just like Mr. Smith up there, I too would lose interest in this hobby.
Tony, I get it...really, I do. I couldn't agree with you any more than I do this very minute. My statement was a way of trying, once again, to get inside of Dave's head. There are others readings this thread who may wonder what the heck we're all on about. For them, as I began to do early in the thread, I wanted to make sure I knew exactly where Dave was headed. Dave came across as peeved that too many newcomers are encouraged to mark time indefinitely, that they were given approbation to dally, to have fun, and to not look around at other ways to do this hobby that others find more appealing. My several attempts to state what I thought Dave was saying were to help me, and perhaps by extension, others, to understand exactly what he is explaining.
So, what would be the point of getting into a passtime in which you were required, by some statute or custom/convention, to conform to a rigid set of rules that takes all the fun out of it? Dave agrees that we should all encourage rather than discourage growth. Yes, oh yes, each one of us absolutely has the self-determination to run a set of arcs comprising a perfect circle of track with a radius of precisely 123 cm, and thence to place whatever we can get to run on it and to watch that train perform endless cycles around the track. That is, and should be, fun for some.
But wait, Dave says, there's more! Much more!!! Have you considered this? Or, that?
All Dave is griping about is that too many among us seek to essentially actively discourage a wider vision than said 123 cm oval. We tell the person, "Relax, it's your hobby. Make of it what you will." All true, by the way. What gets lost in the message is, "Would you keep an eye to what others are doing? Notice this and that about their photos? Why have they done this? What was their goal when they set out on this path? Think about what there could be for you if you decide that you are becoming detached to your 123 cms?
Maybe in the end it is not unlike parenting; it can be hands-off or hands-on. If we only stroke the egos, and don't even affect to encourage development outside of the 123 cms, is this the stewardship on which the hobby is meant to thrive?
Dave, I don't know that I have managed to draw your arcs any better....
Wow, Dave, good discussion. I think everyone is generally in consensus that when you pursue plausibility, whether free-lance or prototype, you will find that your horizons expand, your knowledge of railroading deepens, and your appreciation for your own and others' modeling efforts becomes more genuine.
We probably all started out the same way, with a "shot-gun" approach. A simple track plan, a variety of engines and rolling stock that we "liked". Plausibility or theme hadn't entered into it.
If you've ever been to a Lionel collector's house, this is usually where they get off. We scale guys may think that's a silly guy playing with trains, but ask him the difference between a 1944 power pack and one produced in the late '50's, and they'll floor you with their knowledge.
We also have our different paths to satisfaction. One guy will spend two years scratch building a particular passenger car so he can enjoy watching it trail around on a circle of Unitrak on a sheet of LifeLike grass mat. Others will spend untold hours carefully replicating a passenger station in their town, along with the scene around it, then run a Bachmann train set engine through the scene.
Sometimes "Rule #1" is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but more often it's a confession that the modeler hasn't mastered the particular phase of the hobby that's in question.
As for me personally, I chose to model the Western Maryland in the late 60's about 8 years ago. Since then, I feel my skills have increased, my desire to learn more has increased, and the quality of the models and scenery I build have improved. But I don't adhere to every little detail. My Vo-1000 was retired in 1968, and my GP 40 was delivered in 1971, but there they are side by side on the layout! My primary source of coal traffic is the Chaffee Branch, most of which was closed by 1956, but I dig switchback coal operations, so there it is! No true WM steam survived the scrapper's torch, except #202 which became a paper weight in a Hagerstown Park, and the Shay #6, but I now roster a Bachmann Consolidation which earns it's keep running the occasional excursion train (The WM was a popular place for surviving steam engines to run back in the early 70's, so this isn't out of bounds in my mind, either.)
I also maintain an interchange with my Laurel Valley Railway, a freelance in the Alleghenies. I did a lot of custom cars years ago, and I needed an excuse to keep them.
So yes, it's my railroad and I run what I want, but I do so within a particular context that contributes to the plausibility of the layout.
Thanks for prodding the old noggin' to life on this languid afternoon.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
I think too many of you are missing Dave's points because you've been doing this too long to look at the problem with a fresh point of view.
I'm new to this hobby, meaning I've been doing research for over a year. My first vision was of a completely freelanced layout running in circles. Had my first guide (LHS owner) let me do that, I'd have already built something, been bored of it, and left the hobby forever. Thank goodness he didn't have a big car payment to make that month.
After learning more, my next vision was of a RR that was still freelanced, but had some kind of working industry and some limited reason for running.
As I continued to learn, I changed to decide that engines and rolling stock should be somewhat realistic, but not painfully perfect, and the railroad should work. This is where I'll probably end up building my first actual layout because that's what I want. That's what I've chosen to do.
You see? It's a matter of choice, and I think Dave is railing on people who are defauliting instead of making an active choice. I am finding that there is so much more joy in making an active decision, as opposed to defaulting to what someone else suggests. Make an active choice to freelance, or build with Legos, or superdetail. Knock yourself out. But those that are being ecouraged to default into decisions because it's expedient or easy will not get as much out of the hobby as those who are presented active decisions, and follow their gut on what they really want.
Apologies to Dave if I missed his point entirely.
Well said, Crandell!
Although, your argument about the 123 cm of track almost - almost - makes me want to start up about "model railroaders" vs. "model railroad dabblers," but I'll let someone else start that fight!
It's also important to note that various forums encourage or discourage growth. Some can be downright blind to the obvious, while others are so challenging, that some newcomers or novices don't even feel welcome.
This forum tends to run down the middle of the road since the host doesn't want anyone to be offended, but also welcomes and occasionally showcases high quality work.
This is a tough point for me. On one hand, I have trouble acknowledging people who post photos of work that is not up to my standards. The farther from my standards it is, the harder it is.
On the other hand, I know my work is not up to other people's standards, but I still want the attaboys from them.
I admit that many times, I resolve the issue by pretending it doesn't exist--uh I mean, not posting.
If I am true to my nature, though, what I will do is find something in the picture that I do like and compliment that. Hopefully, it will encourage the poster to bring the rest of what's in the picture to that standard.
Sometimes, all I can come up with is attaboy.
SpaceMouse wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: My layout has improved vastly from criticsm of others. "Attayboys" don't teach a modeler anything. They simply stroke the ego.And, at least on these forums, it has become SOP to give those "attaboys" to all posted photos, no matter the quality of the modeling. I wonder if some posters are afraid to be honest because they'll be slapped with the usual "it's-his-layout"-variety of lines.This is a tough point for me. On one hand, I have trouble acknowledging people who post photos of work that is not up to my standards. The farther from my standards it is, the harder it is.On the other hand, I know my work is not up to other people's standards, but I still want the attaboys from them. I admit that many times, I resolve the issue by pretending it doesn't exist--uh I mean, not posting.If I am true to my nature, though, what I will do is find something in the picture that I do like and compliment that. Hopefully, it will encourage the poster to bring the rest of what's in the picture to that standard. Sometimes, all I can come up with is attaboy.
And please continue to shine your light, it is welcomed and appreciated, as too many folks on these forums cast a shadow.
SpaceMouse wrote:what I will do is find something in the picture that I do like and compliment that.
Sometimes probing questions can be used to move beyond a normal modeling mantra. "I notice you used a ppp track arrangment. Is there any particular reason you chose that over qqq?"
3989
I don't want what I'm about to say to cast doubt upon all of my past and future compliments, buuuuut....
I have on some past occasions been less than honest by offering praise because it seems like the right thing to do, but not because it's necessarily warranted.
I have since decided not to do that anymore. It's dishonest, and it doesn't help the modeler in question. So, at least now, if you get an attayboy from me you will know it's genuine.
But those few times when I did sort of "lie" in a compliment, I did a mediocre modeler a disservice. I did not give that person the chance to choose to learn (or not) from what I had to offer. Instead I fell into the "back-patting" trap. But, bear in mind that I always take into consideration any extenuating circumstances of which I may be aware, such as a modeler's age, disability, budget, etc. In that light there's not that much that really meets the "mediocre" moniker. But it's out there.
Not everyone will have the full suite of skills to be an exert modeler. But maybe it's just my personality, but I can't understand why people wouldn't want to hone those skills and advance. So, I tend to assume (often incorrectly) that everyone wants to keep advancing.
That's my baggage, not yours.
Oh, and lest you feel I think too much of my own modeling (I know there's probably an air of conceit to this post), I know I have a long, long way to climb out of mediocrity myself. I'm lucky in that what I've done works, but I'm no advanced modeler. I would like to be, though!
Dave Vollmer wrote: Not everyone will have the full suite of skills to be an exert modeler. But maybe it's just my personality, but I can't understand why people wouldn't want to hone those skills and advance. So, I tend to assume (often incorrectly) that everyone wants to keep advancing.That's my baggage, not yours.
Dave, its one thing to not have a full suite of skills to be an expert modeler, but when we're talking about comments being made on another's modelers work, what is required are people skills.
I think it is good to be honest if your opinion is solicited, but it is important to get your message accross without being hurtful. Some folks are more skillful than others when it comes to communicating.
I think you just hit ONE of the nails right on the head. Plus, you don't want to hurt someones feelings that's doing the best job their capable of. We're not all master modelers here.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Oh, and lest you feel I think too much of my own modeling (I know there's probably an air of conceit to this post), I know I have a long, long way to climb out of mediocrity myself. I'm lucky in that what I've done works, but I'm no advanced modeler. I would like to be, though!
Every once in a while I admire my work. Then I look at Charlie Comstock's work or Joe Fugate's and see where I have to go. I'm starting a couple new layouts so I have a chance to start over.
There's another trick here:
On one hand, you should be proud of what you have accomplished. On the other hand, you should continue to strive for excellence.
Too often I doubt my progress. That is when I look for attaboys. In the ideal world, I would be confident enough in what I have done not to need them. Still, when I write, paint, act, direct, or model, I like to put out my arms and gather the applause.
The poor and mediocre and master modelers are no different here, I believe. When we post our work, we want attaboys.
BRAKIE wrote:Mark,If you knew some of the guys I was talking about I am sure you would agree with a slap to the old noggin would be needed as a wake up call... I dislike seeing talented modelers doing mediocre work.I encourage them to do better as I do all modelers.That doesn't qualify me as a dictator of the modeling world but,a encourager in a kind way.If a modeler shows less then standard work I base my replies as a encouragement.IF its terrible I don't reply..Best to remain silent in some cases then to either encourage bad work or hurt feelings.Either one is as bad as the other.When I answer a question its based on facts either from lessons learn(usually the hard way) or from observation of what I seen done by other modelers.A lot of my comments is to (hopefully) cause one to stop and think outside of the normal box and rethink the matter through and draw their own conclusions BASED on ALL replies or answers..
Wow... This is quite the discussion!
I think this is a healthy discussion to have.
Many new modelers find their way into these forums. Many advanced modelers get fed up and move on. If we wish to maintain a good spectrum of modelers and maintain a learning environment, we need to be able to be honest and to be able to challenge each other.
Some will say it's just a hobby; to me it's a way of life!
Mark,I don't really ask them to do better..I do however,suggest they are good modelers that will go far.That statement is a "push" to do better in a subtle way and has worked more then once.
Of course IF the modeler shows no interest in doing better then that's ok to.That's his/her choice.
Don't mean to stir up something that doesn't want stirring, but I have seen the word "lazy" creep into our discussion at least twice, and I am uncomfortable with those types of value statements and judgmental language. The whole point of this thread is that we should all be encouraged to develop to our potential, but we don't at the same time want to imply that unless one aspires to greatness, and actively pursues it, one is being lazy.
I don't feel I have been lazy in my own particular pursuit of the hobby, but I defy anyone to pinpoint my freelanced scenery and say they recognize it. It doesn't exist except in my mind, that's why. It was how I defined "fun" for me at that time, and it sure as heck is nobody else's railroad, toy or not. I therefore drew some comfort from the mantras, knowing that is was not to be taken as dogma, and felt that the hobby was big enough to tolerate my growth as I needed to move through it.
If we don't encourage with praise, and if we don't offer examples of finer work and craft at the same time, then the hobby is moribund.
Counsellors are taught to use a sandwich technique when offering feedback about performance. You begin with encouraging perspective, then get specific and pointed in the criticism. You provide ways for improvement, and then you go on to point out what the person has done well. Feedback is necessary, otherwise how does one know where one stands? Ditto for honest appraisals; if they are window dressing, of what value will they be to the person who is interested in growth?
Often times I will offer up a photo and and a description of what worked for me. But I do this ONLY if I feel it would be welcome. I know some regulars here well enough to be able to gauge that; otherwise I try to take it from the wording of the post.
I agree with Crandell that leadership by example is the best way to teach. But not to the point where we appear to be trying to "trump" or "one-up" the new modeler. I wouldn't ever say "good job, but look at mine! Mine's better!" I remember that I've been at this for 25 years. Even 10 years ago I'd be too ashamed of my work to share it online.
This reminds of the great and endless track debate in N scale. It really boils down to what compromises we are willing to live with. Yes, I strive for as much realism as I can, but I am confined by time, space and funding.
I represent a full service paper mill in an area roughly 2' x 3' - I'd like to make it larger, but I don't have space available.
I have an Atlas GP40 that has the wrong grilles, the wrong dynamic brake blister etc., but with that red white and black paint, plows for and aft, and a side mounted bell, it sure looks right to me... I don't have funds to buy a more accurate brass model (assuming one is available).
I agree with Dave philosophically that half-hearted "nice job" posts do a disservice, especially when the original poster asks for feedback. But there's also a time and a place for everything. I try to hang around a forum and get to know who's who, and get a feel for the vibe of the thing before I start launching mortars.
When Dave posted his work over on the Railwire, I was probably the first to pin his ears back on the code 80 track and his chunky ballast (in my opinion, of course!) I wouldn't do that here, because the audience is much larger, and I wouldn't want to come across as a nit-picker. Over there, we have a smaller community, most of us know each other and have run on each other's layouts, so friendly jabs are a natural part of the critique process. (I hope I didn't scare you off, Dave!) But my critique came from the fact that the rest of Dave's work is so phenomenal, that the trackwork just stuck out like a sore thumb to me.
I personally think that whatever level of modeler you are, there is always room for growth, challenge, and improvement. Sometimes that comes from within, where you want to try a new technique, change eras, or focus on a particular proto or fantasy theme. Sometimes it comes from without, where you learn something from someone on a forum, at the club, or in a magazine. I also believe that if you aren't growing, you're dying. There is no "standing still."
Carry on!
Wow! I remember the Code 80 thing, but I don't remember you also not liking my ballast!
Don't worry about it, Lee. See, I was seriously considering continuing with Code 80 track for the next layout. But Lee's post got me thinking... Why should I be satisfied with unrealistic track just because I'm comfortable with it? If I'm any kind of modeler, I ought to be able to make any track work, as long as I work at it.
I may even replace my current layout track with Atlas Code 55 one day.
This is the kind of growth and advancement I'm talking about. Spurred on by a challenge from another modeler, who recognizes I'm capable of more.
You're right, Dave, it's all the ballast I carry around that makes me Chunky!
Dave Vollmer wrote:I may even replace my current layout track with Atlas Code 55 one day.
I used to handlay track in HO scale. Satisfying and pleasurable. I also used to spend fifteen to twenty hours building and upgrading freight car kits (replacing stirrup steps, adding train lines, backdating to K brakes, etc.). I now use prefab track (except for turnouts) and spend much less time on each freight car (meaning less detail / more crude detail), because I have to budget my time. I'm building a large layout, so I've had to adjust my "good enough" set point to where I can accomplish more on the layout, at the the expense of the modeling detail on the various parts. Maybe for some other folks it's also a time budget issue.
Brunton wrote: I've had to adjust my "good enough" set point to where I can accomplish more on the layout, at the the expense of the modeling detail on the various parts. Maybe for some other folks it's also a time budget issue.
I've had to adjust my "good enough" set point to where I can accomplish more on the layout, at the the expense of the modeling detail on the various parts. Maybe for some other folks it's also a time budget issue.
This issue of time budget, let alone financial budget hasn't entered the debate very much, but I believe it is relevant. It's all well and good to spend a hundred hours scratch building or super-detailing a loco for example, but then what, run your pride and joy on plywood? I suspect that given the TIME, I could probably make vast improvements on my pike. But I have a life outside this hobby, so I need to set priorities, and determine where I will cut myself some slack on the fidelity issue. It's not always a question of whether or not we WANT to, or even if we have the skills to, raise our fidelity level, but if we have the time. Cheers.
Mastiffdog wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Not everyone will have the full suite of skills to be an exert modeler. But maybe it's just my personality, but I can't understand why people wouldn't want to hone those skills and advance. So, I tend to assume (often incorrectly) that everyone wants to keep advancing.That's my baggage, not yours.Dave, its one thing to not have a full suite of skills to be an expert modeler, but when we're talking about comments being made on another's modelers work, what is required are people skills.I think it is good to be honest if your opinion is solicited, but it is important to get your message accross without being hurtful. Some folks are more skillful than others when it comes to communicating.
This sounds like a Seinfeld debate on social etiquette. How honest should you be when asked to give your honest opinion?
Perhaps asking for an honest critique of our work on the forum is the model railroader's equivalent of asking "Honey, does this make me look fat?"
We all know the answer to that one...
vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?
Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?
I think the modeling is great, but the setting needs some more ground foam...
I'm tempted to start another thread about "theme."
Theme is a great thing. You can follow the first and third mantras within a set theme and still be successful. In fact, having a theme is the only way "It's my layout!" and "Modeler's liscence" will contribute positively to your layout.
The theme is the spring from which all aspects of the layout flow. The theme is doubly important to the freelancer. It is the theme that tells you everything from what era you're in to what industries are lineside to what type of motive power you operate.
The theme provides harmony to the layout. It holds everything together. It removes guess work and replaces it with the known. In that respect, it makes model railroading easier. Modeling World War II? Okay, you're running mostly steam. Troop trains. Automobiles all from the late 1930s or earlier. Stop signs are yellow, not red. And so on.
The theme focuses your hobby dollar. You're less likely to blow your paycheck on that new SD70MAC because you're modeling Penn Central in the early 1970s.
A layout without a theme may be fun to the owner. And that's fine. But a layout without a theme will confuse the visitor and require so much explanation as to reduce the visitor's appreciation of the layout.
SteamFreak wrote: Perhaps asking for an honest critique of our work on the forum is the model railroader's equivalent of asking "Honey, does this make me look fat?"We all know the answer to that one...
"Maybe a little ..." <sudden sharp pain in my ancle> ?
No, seriously - it is a good debate. The question of how to best offer constructive criticism of someone's work is one of the those eternal questions in life.
And it is hard to come up with one answer that will always work for everybody, because we humans simply are a diverse lot. "One size fits all" doesn't always work.
There are a _lot_ of factors that influence how we react to advice and comments others offer us, and some of those factors the person offering advice has no influence on whatsoever, and have no way of gauging beforehand.
Take myself as an example - I've spent a couple of years dreaming about building a layout, and maybe the last year or so working towards a layout - gathering information, buying various stuff I would need etc.
While gathering information, I have posted various questions - in newsgroups, other web forums and here.
What I have found is that what works best on me is posters who give their advice as questions (ie offering advice in the Socratic tradition). Along the lines of "maybe something like this would work .... ?", or "What is the concept behind this thing you do over here ?" or "have you considered trying ...?"
What generally annoys me is replies that to me comes across as sounding too categorical. Here is an example from a comment that rubbed me the wrong way in a debate somewhere else a long time ago: "you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that ...". It came across to me as saying : "The only correct way of doing this is <something>. You must be some kind of dumbass since you are trying something else!".
I also really like the phrase Selector mentioned: "Sandwich technique" - praise, constructive criticism, praise. But by all means - the sugar coating that some people need can get a bit too sweet for my taste sometimes.
Anyways - that was my krone's (about 16 cents) worth of comments.
Smile, Stein
It's a very thought provoking thread, and I'm glad you said others will not be in agreement.
Here's my philosphy and how I conduct my model railroading. My layout is a fictional division of Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad. It is a point-to-point, around-the-wall, sectional layout. Each end has a reverse loop and also a wye. It has a double track mainline with some branch lines. The design is intended to allow simulations of most operations of the CB&Q in the late 1940's through the mid 1960's. Also, I exercise "plausible realism" as I operate my fictional trains that are based on CB&Q trains. The slogan is "Everywhere Lost".
I have two basic kinds of sessions to run the trains. First is the operating session. Trains have schedules and equipment is compatible based on era, etc. Industries are served with road switchers and freight cars are assembled into manifest trains. I try to simulate a real transportation company. On my layout, I handle midwestern commodities in my CB&Q freight trains. Passenger trains have schedules.
Second is a running session. In a running session, anything goes. If I care to run a fast freight across Nebraska with my PRR T-1 locomotve, I'll do just that. European trains and many other trains can be operated.
So, it most definately is my layout. I do as I please.
As for rivit counting, none of us can be perfect. Looking at the prototype railroads, you will find the variety of rolling stock along with all of the modifications during years of service. For example, a steam locomotive on the real railroad may have had its drivers and valve gears changed during a shop overhaul. Original drivers are gone. The engine looks differant from when it was built. There were large amounts of different kinds of freight cars and passenger cars upon being built also. Following later modifications, their appearance changed, too. Paint schemes for locomotives and cars were changed over the years, also.
It's just not feasible for model manufacturers to keep up with all of that ever changing variety and make models for each railraod during each of the years. So, I have no use for rivit counters at all.
That's where "modelers license" comes to our rescue. Yes, we do practice "plausible realism". That way we have models that make sense and appear to be realistic.
To the contrary, Dave, these items are not stunting our modeling growth at all. They enable growth because they allow us to use our limited resourses and talents to produce our own model railroads in an imperfect world.
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU
Dave Vollmer wrote: I'm tempted to start another thread about "theme."
That will go over well for a week or two, then after a couple hundred posts it will get repetitive. I worded is a little differently--I said that the layout had to have it's own inherent set of rules. But now that you say it, theme sounds better.
You know, what you say, in my mind, is fine and right, in MY modeling , I totaly agree with.I've seen pictures of youre layout and they are exceptional. But to put them on everyone and say they aren't up to par if they don't follow YOURE RULES is wrong. We all see trains differently. We all model them differently. to be otherwise is to drive people away. And saying certain railroaders aren't right because because they don't folow YOU'RE RULES isn't right. I personally believe in you're matra for ME. BUT DON'T insist it on EVERYONE. THATS WRONG. That's my opinion. And you're liberal pennsy fan? you sound like the norm to me. Where's that Amtrak GG1 when I need it!?
What thread would be after that one? Why we all should model the PRR? At first I took your original post as educational and not too intrusive, but now with you contemplating making similar-type threads is now making me think you're trying to shove your ideals down some throats. I hope I'm mistaken with my observation, but that's what it seems like to me.
marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.
Whenever I reply to such a question, I won't say flatly that something is unrealistic. I might say that I see where the questioner is trying to go, and then offer some suggestions. That's both tactful AND useful, I think.
snagletooth wrote: But to put them on everyone and say they aren't up to par if they don't follow YOURE RULES is wrong.
But to put them on everyone and say they aren't up to par if they don't follow YOURE RULES is wrong.
Please point out to me where I said that.
I'd really like to know.
jasperofzeal wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: I'm tempted to start another thread about "theme."What thread would be after that one? Why we all should model the PRR? At first I took your original post as educational and not too intrusive, but now with you contemplating making similar-type threads is now making me think you're trying to shove your ideals down some throats. I hope I'm mistaken with my observation, but that's what it seems like to me.
I think you are mistaken with your observation. I'm not trying to shove anything. But again, on these forums, that's the reaction anytime someone posts something here that challenges the "comfort zone."
I said I was "tempted" to start a thread about "theme." I haven't. You know why? I think it would make many people here uncomfortable. Something as basic as a unifying theme to tie a layout together is "too restrictive" for many here.
So I don't plan to further share my philosophy on theme here. Notice I said "share." Not "cram" or "force." You guys all choose to:
a) open the thread and
b) take the information onboard or not.
And, by the way, everyone should model PRR! But I'm also okay with Reading, Lehigh Valley, Lehigh & New England, Erie, Lackawanna, East Braod Top, Huntingdon & Broad Top Mountain, etc. ...you get the point!
Whatever you choose to do, I just hope you'll do it well and to keep getting better. Stagnation can lead to boredom which can lead to a decline in hobby sales which means it'll be harder for me to find the stuff I want!!! See, it is all about me!!!
Brunton wrote: marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.This is the PERFECT example of how not to answer the question. While perhaps totally honest, it is unnecessarily bonbastic and rude, and seems to simply be attempt to humiliate the person asking the question. Completely counter-productive, and worse than useless. Tact? What's that?Whenever I reply to such a question, I won't say flatly that something is unrealistic. I might say that I see where the questioner is trying to go, and then offer some suggestions. That's both tactful AND useful, I think.
Two railroads diverged in a wood, and I— I modeled the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.
(with apologies to Robert Frost)
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote: Two railroads diverged in a wood, and I— I modeled the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.(with apologies to Robert Frost)EnjoyPaul
Ah yes, the Ma & Pa... I love that railroad. In fact, I'm thinking of eventually shifting my Pennsy focus to your neck of the woods. I was thinking NCRR from York to Parkton with connections at York to the York Secondary and M&PA.
As for rivit counting, none of us can be perfect. Looking at the prototype railroads, you will find the variety of rolling stock along with all of the modifications during years of service...There were large amounts of different kinds of freight cars and passenger cars upon being built also. Following later modifications, their appearance changed, too. Paint schemes for locomotives and cars were changed over the years, also. It's just not feasible for model manufacturers to keep up with all of that ever changing variety and make models for each railraod during each of the years.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Brunton wrote: marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.This is the PERFECT example of how not to answer the question. While perhaps totally honest, it is unnecessarily bonbastic and rude, and seems to simply be attempt to humiliate the person asking the question. Completely counter-productive, and worse than useless. Tact? What's that?Whenever I reply to such a question, I won't say flatly that something is unrealistic. I might say that I see where the questioner is trying to go, and then offer some suggestions. That's both tactful AND useful, I think.But the reply is completely in character for that poster.
A hobby is a spare-time recreational pursuit from Wikipedia.
We all pursue a hobby for a reason. That is relax and break away from the stress of life. I model railroad because it allows me to bond with a highly theraputic male foster child that has only known abuse from the males in his life. The train stores and "playing" with trains are the only time he is nice to me. It also allows my 14 year old son to join in and we can create a bond that overshadows the foster boys horrible past. Do I feel these three mantras are wrong not really but I also do not post pictures because my level of work as well as my kids level of work is no were near what you gentlemen can do. Do I use the regular posters work to offer encouragment and highten goals for the boys of course. But from experience one negative statement disquised as constructive critism can destroy very quickly many hours of work, hard work by the inexperienced. We should all remember that everyone started somewhere and encouragement and positive response and discussion will further the hobby more than trying to get everyone to follow the same path. Most arguments start on this forum not because someone is trying to argue but because of the posters wording.
Brunton wrote: marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.This is the PERFECT example of how not to answer the question. While perhaps totally honest, it is unnecessarily bonbastic and rude, and seems to simply be attempt to humiliate the person asking the question.
Completely counter-productive, and worse than useless. Tact? What's that?
Well, isn't this an interesting philosophical discussion~! That's the thing that has amazed me about this hobby, once I started looking at it seriously. Y'all get pretty philosophical. It's about a balance of discipline and imagination. It's one of the things that has drawn me into it.
I am so glad I never posted any pics of my "starter" layout a year ago. It would have been totally embarassing, now that I've opened my eyes and sampled some of the fine work out there. But one thing is for sure, this forum has led me to think a lot more about my new design and upcoming layout (once basement remodel is finished and clean). I've probably have had more fun doing just research and learning about railroads and lining up my ideas in the last six months since I tore down my last layout. I can't wait to put some of the ideas to good use. So I think it is that ambition, that aspiration to advance and learn that's an essential thing to the hobby - and which helps define it. So I think Dave is right that falling back on a cliche as a crutch for not advancing one's thinking, as someone said, not making an active choice, is probably just an excuse or a defense mechanism. Sure, "It's my party and i'll cry if i want to" - well yes, you can, but I don't think many people will want to stick around to hear about it. It's not a reason to party.
And, well, you have to admit there's the other end of the extreme, too. I guess there's a difference in time and and focus and money and determination - Dave, you said it's a way of life for you, and a lot of people wouldn't say that. But I have also noticed that as part of the white noise of the forum, like any human exercise, there's a fair amount of pomposity and condescension that can creep into the dialogue...various huffing and puffing. I guess it goes with the territory, and well, perhaps it can prod people to do better. It's not like there are established "standards" or grades in modeling, like belts in Karate. So people are left to judge themselves against others, and there's an informal sorting out process. And some people take a more surreptitous delight in doing that. Witness the grand farewells of "serious" modelers leaving this forum. It's their graduation, and they enjoy that. I guess more power to 'em, they've gotten to a plane where it's just all about the technique.
Dave, I think your comments of "theme" are spot on. I think theme is the central issue, and whether or not your engines have ditch lights is less important to plausibility that maintaining a fidelity to a theme (rather than, necessarily, a prototype). And theme is where the thinking-advancement comes into play, where you move beyond a starter layout.
Last thing, Dave...I've seen your pictures, and, um... you are not a mediocre modeler.
Canondale61 wrote:A hobby is a spare-time recreational pursuit from Wikipedia.
We all pursue a hobby for a reason. That is relax and break away from the stress of life.
marknewton wrote: As for rivit counting, none of us can be perfect. Looking at the prototype railroads, you will find the variety of rolling stock along with all of the modifications during years of service...There were large amounts of different kinds of freight cars and passenger cars upon being built also. Following later modifications, their appearance changed, too. Paint schemes for locomotives and cars were changed over the years, also. It's just not feasible for model manufacturers to keep up with all of that ever changing variety and make models for each railraod during each of the years.No, it's not feasible for the manufacturers to do this - that's where being a modeller comes in. That's where research comes in. That's where the ability to modify, kitbash or scratchbuild comes in. You might not be able to do these things, but don't assume that no-one else can, either.
Kitbashing is valid alternative, and you have a good point. Thanks. Some of my equipment is kitbashed. It's a fun part of the hobby. However, it's still not feasible to kitbash every locomotive, passenger car, freight car, and structure on my model railroad to fit a specific date in history. Compromises are still required. Each of us must allocate our time wisely.
"However, it's still not feasible to kitbash every locomotive, passenger car, freight car, and structure on my model railroad to fit a specific date in history."
Wow, Jack Burgess would be very surprised to learn that. His Yosemite Valley Railroad is exact down to a specific day; the only true compromise he's made is the length of his run.
I would argue that it's not only feasible, but for some it would be fun!
shawnee wrote: I am so glad I never posted any pics of my "starter" layout a year ago. It would have been totally embarrassing, now that I've opened my eyes and sampled some of the fine work out there.
I am so glad I never posted any pics of my "starter" layout a year ago. It would have been totally embarrassing, now that I've opened my eyes and sampled some of the fine work out there.
Now, if you're just starting out, there's no need to be embarrassed. We all had to start somewhere. The first layout I built as an adult had some pretty poor trackwork and a grade so steep nothing I owned would go up it without the 0-5-0 helper!
shawnee wrote:But one thing is for sure, this forum has led me to think a lot more about my new design and upcoming layout (once basement remodel is finished and clean). I've probably have had more fun doing just research and learning about railroads and lining up my ideas in the last six months since I tore down my last layout. I can't wait to put some of the ideas to good use. So I think it is that ambition, that aspiration to advance and learn that's an essential thing to the hobby - and which helps define it. So I think Dave is right that falling back on a cliché as a crutch for not advancing one's thinking, as someone said, not making an active choice, is probably just an excuse or a defense mechanism. Sure, "It's my party and i'll cry if i want to" - well yes, you can, but I don't think many people will want to stick around to hear about it. It's not a reason to party.
But one thing is for sure, this forum has led me to think a lot more about my new design and upcoming layout (once basement remodel is finished and clean). I've probably have had more fun doing just research and learning about railroads and lining up my ideas in the last six months since I tore down my last layout. I can't wait to put some of the ideas to good use. So I think it is that ambition, that aspiration to advance and learn that's an essential thing to the hobby - and which helps define it. So I think Dave is right that falling back on a cliché as a crutch for not advancing one's thinking, as someone said, not making an active choice, is probably just an excuse or a defense mechanism. Sure, "It's my party and i'll cry if i want to" - well yes, you can, but I don't think many people will want to stick around to hear about it. It's not a reason to party.
Hence a good reason to try to maintain a good spectrum of skills on these forums. I hope that if I can do anything here, I can learn and teach, not brag. But I also want to be challenged. Lack of challenge leads to stagnation.
shawnee wrote:And, well, you have to admit there's the other end of the extreme, too. I guess there's a difference in time and and focus and money and determination - Dave, you said it's a way of life for you, and a lot of people wouldn't say that. But I have also noticed that as part of the white noise of the forum, like any human exercise, there's a fair amount of pomposity and condescension that can creep into the dialogue...various huffing and puffing. I guess it goes with the territory, and well, perhaps it can prod people to do better. It's not like there are established "standards" or grades in modeling, like belts in Karate. So people are left to judge themselves against others, and there's an informal sorting out process. And some people take a more surreptitous delight in doing that. Witness the grand farewells of "serious" modelers leaving this forum. It's their graduation, and they enjoy that. I guess more power to 'em, they've gotten to a plane where it's just all about the technique.
The "Farewell, I'm leaving" threads are odd in themselves in that they seem like an attention bid. Admittedly, though, I've thought about leaving these forums many times for the more advanced boards. But I worry that if I pigeon-hole myself into "prototype-N-only" boards, I might fall into "group think." At least here, although there are lots of beginners, there's also a wide spectrum of thought. So, I go to the advanced boards for specific projects and to these boards for philosophy.
shawnee wrote:Dave, I think your comments of "theme" are spot on. I think theme is the central issue, and whether or not your engines have ditch lights is less important to plausibility that maintaining a fidelity to a theme (rather than, necessarily, a prototype). And theme is where the thinking-advancement comes into play, where you move beyond a starter layout.
Thanks. Not all will see it that way. But nearly every well-respected layout in the hobby has a pretty well defined theme, whether prototype or freelanced. And you're right, it's the theme that I think is the main threshold between novice and advanced modelers. That's my opinion, anyway.
shawnee wrote:Last thing, Dave...I've seen your pictures, and, um... you are not a mediocre modeler.
Aw, shucks...!
Dave Vollmer wrote: "However, it's still not feasible to kitbash every locomotive, passenger car, freight car, and structure on my model railroad to fit a specific date in history."Wow, Jack Burgess would be very surprised to learn that. His Yosemite Valley Railroad is exact down to a specific day; the only true compromise he's made is the length of his run.I would argue that it's not only feasible, but for some it would be fun!
Short line modelers can do that, I suppose. But how about a 1950's era CB&Q with 14,000 miles of line? ........... or a 1950's PRR? .......... It's not likely.
Look at the $3.0 million layout in Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. Even with resources like that, the layout's BNSF serves only two cities (Chicago and Seattle). Both of the cities is significantly downsized from the real thing.
So even with $3.0 million, a layout must execise modeler's license. And the rivit counters can say the museum ommitted thousands of towns on the real BNSF, right?
That's not what you said. Now you're changing the argument. You said "it's still not feasible to kitbash every locomotive, passenger car, freight car, and structure on my model railroad to fit a specific date in history." That doesn't say model "every structure, locomotive, car, etc." I read your statment to read that it's not possible for those locmotives, cars, and structures you choose to build to all be from an exact date in history.
The argument that one would have to model 1,000s of miles of track to accurately depict a railroad is a cop-out.
People say "Well, I gotta compromise on the length of the run, so I may as well compromuse on the structures, the scenery, the trains, etc." Not so. We all have to shorten our run (save for the CNJ freight terminal guy), so you start from there.
That's why even in the magazines, I'll see an ABA set of Pennsy F7s pulling a coal drag across a wooden trestle in the mountains. Pennsy had over 10,000 bridges, only 800 of which were wooden trestles in modern times, and most of those were short pile trestles in harbor areas. But the "compromise ball" starts to rolling and someone trying to model a prototype ends up not.
Oh, Dave. it's a frinedly discussion. no arguments. sorry if I sounded like arguing. I know how long it takes me to sctach build or kit bash. I have too many trains and buildings to make exact replicas every time. Not enough hours of the day. Not enough days.
Trying to be pefect to satisfy rivit counters, therefore, would stunt modeling growth.
Anyhow....thanks for the thoughtful thread.
You'll please forgive me if I'm on the defensive.
I kind of knew what I was walking into when I started this thread. Didn't count on7 pages and counting, though!
I understand your point. I just think that it smacks a bit of resignation. I cannot stand to be told that something's not possible.
I'm a pretty intense guy no matter what it is I'm doing.
Dave Vollmer wrote:Snagle,I would argue, based on some of the threads here, it is the prototype modelers who are sometimes cast out and looked down upon.
I just think everyone should be accepted. Hey, this is a model railroading forum, if we're talking about model railroading, we're having fun, right?
Getting back to the beginners versus experts subject. About 15 years ago I took art classes at the local JC. I learned that with no particular talent one CAN learn to draw a fair representaion of what one is looking at. As time went on those of us in the class would look at our earlier work ,which we thought was pretty good at the time, and groan at our inadequacies as an artist. As we grew we would marvel at what others had accomplished and long for the days when we could do the same. However accomplishment takes practice,practice practice,like anything be it drawing , music,or modelling. Some of that can be gotten around by buying the art or the models but you lose the sense of pride and accomplishment.
Criticism needs to be positive,when you observe someones work always point out the strong points first. Say things like I like the paint scheme but the sound has too much of a european ring to it. Which is not bad in itself but coming from an sd-40 its just wrong.As artist and modellers we need to be open to constructive criticism and honestly ask our selves wether the criticism is valid,and what can we do to improve.
Anyways thats my
Garry said:
======================================================
Garry,One can do that IF one models the high lights of a branch line or industrial district of a major railroad..Of course one can't model the all of it but,can model the more familiar highlights of a given DIVISION or SUB DIVISION..There has been many examples of that in MR and the annual Model Railroad Planing following solid prototype LEDs..Tony Koesters NKP St. Louis Division layout is a example of such planning.
One only needs to apply good LDEs while planing his/her layout.Those LDEs can be prototypical or freelance.
Again allow me to point out that A free lance modeler must use "Modeler's License" with strict guide lines IF one wants a believable free lance railroad..This time around I will add a believable layout as well.
Of course this approach may not be for everybody but,you will find as one grows in the hobby he/she begins to see bigger and better things while casual modelers may never feel the need to advance in the hobby and don't comprehend why some model that way and usually the first to say "its my layout" or call these advanced modelers "rivet counters"..
There is room for both in the hobby.
Dave:
From someone who recently stated in another topic that he didn't see much value in hanging around this forum, you're sure hanging around a lot.
Not that I think it's a bad thing.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Wow... This is quite the discussion!I think this is a healthy discussion to have.
Actually, after the first two pages my head started spinning. At this point I'm feeling a little ill. It's starting to pass now...
MAbruce wrote: Dave:From someone who recently stated in another topic that he didn't see much value in hanging around this forum, you're sure hanging around a lot. Not that I think it's a bad thing. Dave Vollmer wrote: Wow... This is quite the discussion!I think this is a healthy discussion to have.Actually, after the first two pages my head started spinning. At this point I'm feeling a little ill. It's starting to pass now...
Wrong Dave! I think you mean davidmbedard...
I've stated that I focus more of my projects in other, more advanced boards, but I haven't burned bridges here yet... unless that's what this is!
Now I have said that I don't feel I get as much from this forum as I'd like to.
marknewton wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: Brunton wrote: marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.This is the PERFECT example of how not to answer the question. While perhaps totally honest, it is unnecessarily bonbastic and rude, and seems to simply be attempt to humiliate the person asking the question. Completely counter-productive, and worse than useless. Tact? What's that? Whenever I reply to such a question, I won't say flatly that something is unrealistic. I might say that I see where the questioner is trying to go, and then offer some suggestions. That's both tactful AND useful, I think.But the reply is completely in character for that poster.And Brunton's intemperate rant is in keeping with his, methinks.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Brunton wrote: marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.This is the PERFECT example of how not to answer the question. While perhaps totally honest, it is unnecessarily bonbastic and rude, and seems to simply be attempt to humiliate the person asking the question. Completely counter-productive, and worse than useless. Tact? What's that? Whenever I reply to such a question, I won't say flatly that something is unrealistic. I might say that I see where the questioner is trying to go, and then offer some suggestions. That's both tactful AND useful, I think.But the reply is completely in character for that poster.
Brunton wrote: marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.This is the PERFECT example of how not to answer the question. While perhaps totally honest, it is unnecessarily bonbastic and rude, and seems to simply be attempt to humiliate the person asking the question. Completely counter-productive, and worse than useless. Tact? What's that? Whenever I reply to such a question, I won't say flatly that something is unrealistic. I might say that I see where the questioner is trying to go, and then offer some suggestions. That's both tactful AND useful, I think.
No offense, sir...
But I think the quote he was remembering was yours rather than mine.
Sorry!!!
marknewton wrote: Brunton wrote: marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.This is the PERFECT example of how not to answer the question. While perhaps totally honest, it is unnecessarily bonbastic and rude, and seems to simply be attempt to humiliate the person asking the question.It's none of these things. It's a succinct answer to the question posed, and nothing more. A bombastic, rude and humiliating reply from me would look nothing like this. I don't know VSmith from a bar of soap - I have no reason or inclination to humiliate a stranger.Completely counter-productive, and worse than useless. Tact? What's that?Something you're not too well acquainted with, if this post is any example.Whenever I reply to such a question, I won't say flatly that something is unrealistic. I might say that I see where the questioner is trying to go, and then offer some suggestions. That's both tactful AND useful, I think.Perhaps, but you'll notice VSmith didn't ask for suggestions, so I didn't offer any. I'll take a punt - you can't see why I reckon his models aren't believable, hence your aggrieved tone.
But you mean you can be even more bombastic and rude? How so? You might be able to be more insulting, but pretty much anything else you might write could be no more rude than what you did write.
Anyway, my apologies for taking your first post as an point-making exercize rather than simply as the cheap shot it apparently was. I'll not make that mistake again.
Dave Vollmer wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: Two railroads diverged in a wood, and I— I modeled the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.(with apologies to Robert Frost)EnjoyPaul Ah yes, the Ma & Pa... I love that railroad. In fact, I'm thinking of eventually shifting my Pennsy focus to your neck of the woods. I was thinking NCRR from York to Parkton with connections at York to the York Secondary and M&PA.
Better be careful there Dave, it's a slippery slope. I started out to build a generic Pennsy continuous run layout in one end of my basement and wound up deciding to tear it down so I could do as much of the Ma & Pa point to point as I can fit into my basement.
Here's some math for you all.
At this point, we have Dave's original post and 136 replies. Add this reply and you have 138 posts. Each person contributed his two cents.
Therefore, the thread is worth $2.76!
Seriuosly, I think everone had some valid points. I'd like to thank Dave for starting the thought-starting thread, and all the people who chimed in.
A useful discussion in my opinion.
Happy Model Railraoding!
Dave Vollmer wrote: WARNING: The following thread contains my opinion. Yours may differ!I see three phrases which come out in various forms again, and again, and again. These "mantras" as I call them have become so ingrained in some modelers that they almost become automatic. I feel that these phrases have the potential to freeze someone's growth as a model railroader and possibly lock that person into a regime where he/she does not advance.1. "It's my layout, I'll run what I want."Correct. No one disputes this. But, when someone does want to haul autoracks with a Big Boy or billboard reefers with an SD90MAC, he/she is not modeling anything a real railroad would do (Iowa Interstate Chinese 2-10-2s not withstanding!). Thus it detracts from plausibility. Also, people who lock themselves out from constructive criticism from fellow modelers discard out of hand any hope of learning from collective experience.2. "Rivet counting is bad!"Were it not for pressure from so-called "rivet counters" I doubt that the high-quality detailed locomotives and rolling stock we enjoy today straight from the box would be available. We'd probably still have generic 40' boxcars and approximate USRA steamers. Rivet counting is the next logical step for those who choose a prototype and wish to be faithful to it. Honestly, producing an accurate model of the prototype can be very satisfying. Rivet counting is a different way to model. I cannot, and will not ever understand why some people hold fidelity to prototype, those real trains we all love, in such low esteem.3. "Modeler's License"By itself, this term is not bad. It describes the creativity we all have and the compromises we must make to attempt to recreate a very large thing in a very small space. I use it myself. But to some, it becomes an cover for the completely implausible. If plausibility is not one's desire, then fine. But most of us appear to want to be held in esteem among peers, and plausibility is a prime route toward this. Does your railroad need a lot of explanation? Would a layman see it and pretty much understand it without having to ask questions?We see the Joe Fugates, the Dave Frarys, the Bob Grechs, the Jack Burgesses, and so on... They got to where they are by not holding themselves back with defensive dogmas. They are not satisfied with a frozen level of skill and realism because "it's their layout" or "it's modeler's license."Fantasy layouts are fine. In some respects, one I really enjoy (I'll pick on Bob Grech here) and a bit of fantasy, but it's plausible and it works well.I respectfully ask those modelers who stand by the above mantras not use them to discourage others who wish to sharpen their skills or advance past a generic layout. I know this will probably start an argument, but this has been festering in me for some time.
WARNING: The following thread contains my opinion. Yours may differ!
I see three phrases which come out in various forms again, and again, and again. These "mantras" as I call them have become so ingrained in some modelers that they almost become automatic. I feel that these phrases have the potential to freeze someone's growth as a model railroader and possibly lock that person into a regime where he/she does not advance.
Correct. No one disputes this. But, when someone does want to haul autoracks with a Big Boy or billboard reefers with an SD90MAC, he/she is not modeling anything a real railroad would do (Iowa Interstate Chinese 2-10-2s not withstanding!). Thus it detracts from plausibility. Also, people who lock themselves out from constructive criticism from fellow modelers discard out of hand any hope of learning from collective experience.
Were it not for pressure from so-called "rivet counters" I doubt that the high-quality detailed locomotives and rolling stock we enjoy today straight from the box would be available. We'd probably still have generic 40' boxcars and approximate USRA steamers. Rivet counting is the next logical step for those who choose a prototype and wish to be faithful to it. Honestly, producing an accurate model of the prototype can be very satisfying. Rivet counting is a different way to model. I cannot, and will not ever understand why some people hold fidelity to prototype, those real trains we all love, in such low esteem.
By itself, this term is not bad. It describes the creativity we all have and the compromises we must make to attempt to recreate a very large thing in a very small space. I use it myself. But to some, it becomes an cover for the completely implausible. If plausibility is not one's desire, then fine. But most of us appear to want to be held in esteem among peers, and plausibility is a prime route toward this.
Does your railroad need a lot of explanation? Would a layman see it and pretty much understand it without having to ask questions?
We see the Joe Fugates, the Dave Frarys, the Bob Grechs, the Jack Burgesses, and so on... They got to where they are by not holding themselves back with defensive dogmas. They are not satisfied with a frozen level of skill and realism because "it's their layout" or "it's modeler's license."
Fantasy layouts are fine. In some respects, one I really enjoy (I'll pick on Bob Grech here) and a bit of fantasy, but it's plausible and it works well.
I respectfully ask those modelers who stand by the above mantras not use them to discourage others who wish to sharpen their skills or advance past a generic layout.
I know this will probably start an argument, but this has been festering in me for some time.
1. it's my layout.
Well not really. Since it is both mine and my wife's, she has a large say in the matter. This means, the structures and theme could be the 1990's and you wouldn't see a diesel. Steam rules...PERIOD. Oh that steeple cab, that's just to keep Chris happy...but honey that RSD-15 would look and sound cool. "It ain't steam and it ain't electric, so no." This has resulted in the steamers pulling hi-cubes, autoracks, and cryo-reefers. If you don't like I suggest you take it up with her. The club has on one or two occasions. They gave up. Plausibility is a polite fiction we tell ourselves to look like we kind of know what we are doing, and to feel like we are actually trying to pull of something more than is a rose colored view of the world that is/was.
"Also, people who lock themselves out from constructive criticism from fellow modelers discard out of hand any hope of learning from collective experience." Yes like collective experience is the end all and be all. I know that is not what you mean. Personally and I know quite a few modelers around me that aren't looking for collective experience but the right answer. Cases in point there are multiple ways to silence a BB athearn. Which is the right one? Anyone? Is there one that works ALL the time EVERY time and that I won't have to tinker with again? From what I have seen shared on the board, no. So that means no one has got the fix in yet.
2. Rivet Counting is bad.
A.) My BS is in History and Geography and my MS is in transportation geography. I know what rivet counting can do. It can bog you down in the minutia that will eventually be absolutely squat. This is not to say that Rivet Counting is bad. A certain level of rivet counting is in all of us. At some point people either say enough or not enough. I want an engine/car/MOW/scenery that looks reasonable and FITS with its surroundings. A super-detailed Kadee LS&I PS-1 looks a bit out of place next to a BB PS-1 in the scheme. Somewhere in between would be nice. This is not to say that I don't like the Kadee, but it looks better sitting next to a nicely detailed loading dock, than in the regular consist. Also see comment about 2-6-2 below.
B.) My current job is working at a level of real world detail that is both staggering and mind-numbing. Why the heck would I want to bring that home with me? MFF and WAGS work best at home.
"I cannot, and will not ever understand why some people hold fidelity to prototype, those real trains we all love, in such low esteem." Because some of us have learned just how pointless it is, past a certain point. Brass is a great example, am I glad it exists, yeap. Am I annoyed at how much it costs? yeap. Am I annoyed that it is the only way I can get certain locos? yeap. Would I prefer if I could a brass loco that had the detail of a good plastic engine and the reliability of said plastic engine? Yeap. I would be perfectly happy with a CMStP&P 2-6-2 stripped of all its minor detail save backhead, running boards, railings and coal bunker.
3. Modeler's License
This is where we get the "I don't really care" part of the discussion. As I have explained up above the reasons for certain aspects of the layout are useful in avoiding unneeded and unwanted arguments, plus they save money. We all use it to avoid (sometimes) messy bits of history. I hope that there are not many people that model WWII German Arbeitet Camps, but I can say that's one piece of history that I don't want to model, but say the Pullman strike or Calumet Mich Copper Strike or the occasional chain gang, not a problem, yet strangely many railroads depicting the south or industrial scenes have neither. For that matter how many one or two finger amputees do have running around our roads, I don't.
Esteem by o
marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote: Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.
vsmith wrote: Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?
Care to explain your comment, or just being sarcastic? or trolling for a fight? I've never been one to shy away from critisism so I'm calling you on the carpet.
I'd just like you to justfy your comment instead of just blerting out such a rude statement, care to show your models of "railroad perfection" and I'm sure I could shoot a few holes in them too...nothing is perfect...
...and I never said mine were perfect, they werent ment to be, they are ment to be RUN, and as such sacrifice a level of finescale for durability. So I'll ask...What is wrong with them, care to point out which ones are not beleivable and why?
If I wanted a highly detailed shelf queen I could easily spend a few months buidling it, but to me, Whats the point of a model train if you cant run it or it runs like crap?
So...smart guy, explain to me, how does my Climax not look like a Climax, do you even KNOW which one is the Climax is?
marknewton wrote: Brunton wrote: marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote:Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?Since you ask, no, not really.This is the PERFECT example of how not to answer the question. While perhaps totally honest, it is unnecessarily bonbastic and rude, and seems to simply be attempt to humiliate the person asking the question.It's none of these things. It's a succinct answer to the question posed, and nothing more. A bombastic, rude and humiliating reply from me would look nothing like this. I don't know VSmith from a bar of soap - I have no reason or inclination to humiliate a stranger. Completely counter-productive, and worse than useless. Tact? What's that?Something you're not too well acquainted with, if this post is any example. Whenever I reply to such a question, I won't say flatly that something is unrealistic. I might say that I see where the questioner is trying to go, and then offer some suggestions. That's both tactful AND useful, I think.Perhaps, but you'll notice VSmith didn't ask for suggestions, so I didn't offer any. I'll take a punt - you can't see why I reckon his models aren't believable, hence your aggrieved tone.
But your comment WAS rude and sarcastic...
Now I am, put your money where your mouth is....
Enlighten me... Oh great sage of the narrow gauge history.....
see my comments on bottom page 7
SteamFreak wrote:Definitely time to throw some popcorn in the microwave.
And the thread has run its course and should be closed in my opinion. As usual, it has degenerated into several side topics and personal attacks. The thread has turned dark and ugly. What a shame.
Unfortunately, that's always the way.
Pithy discussion seems to invite this kind of acrimony. I don't know why.
Mastiffdog wrote: SteamFreak wrote:Definitely time to throw some popcorn in the microwave. And the thread has run its course and should be closed in my opinion. As usual, it has degenerated into several side topics and personal attacks. The thread has turned dark and ugly. What a shame.
Trynnallen,
Thanks for the well-thought out response. I disagree with your answers, but it shows you read my words and thought about them. That's why I put them out there.
For the record, I have a BS and MS in meteorlogy and am one year away from a PhD in atmospheric dynamics. It's all very calculus-intensive, so, like your academic pedigre, it makes me detail-oriented. I'm also an active duty Air Force officer, so I have to pay attention to detail. Since my entire life is centered around being detail-oriented, I can't help but apply that mentality to my hobby. Sloppiness, unless I'm talking about applying weeds and trees to the layout , makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Alles in ordnung fur mich!
I'm sure some people will read what I wrote as my dictum to bring everyone else into my line of thinking. It's not, but instead is meant only to challenge commonly used phrases.
Again, although I don't agree with what you said, I thank you for an intelligent, well-thought-out answer. I guess I'd better get ready for this thread to get locked, since it's turning into an ugly argument between some other folks.
Dave Vollmer wrote: For the record, I have a BS and MS in meteorlogy and am one year away from a PhD in atmospheric dynamics.
For the record, I have a BS and MS in meteorlogy and am one year away from a PhD in atmospheric dynamics.
So... does this mean we can call you Doc Hurricane ???
PS to all.
I'm not trying to lock the thread, I just dont like blanket criticism without justification.
If its just a simple "I dont like your Models" that fine with me and he should just say that and be done with it. I wont be offended.
But I dont like someone saying something negative and not then backing it up with justifiable reasons.
Personally I'm betting he cant tell the M.A.C. from the Tin Lizzy
Ya know, Dave, I like your idea of starting a thread about theme. That, like this thread, should generate interesting discussion. Or mayvbe we could morph this thread into that discussion... go for it. You first, please - you express things very well, and come up with points I for one would probably never think about.
SO?
I went over to Scale Rails Online, which is pretty beginner friendly, and pretty light on criticism, and asked the members to explain the theme of their layouts. So far it's been pretty interesting, and as of yet, the flame throwers remain sheathed...
I would like to see a similar thread started (this one may be too far gone to evolve...) It's interesting to me to hear about the thought processes that go on behind the pictures.
Brunton wrote:Rant? What rant? Your post was bombastic and rude. I thought you did it intentionally to make a point, and I was just explaining how I saw it. But perhaps you were not making a point, and were just being rude and bombastic for no good reason.
Rant? What rant? Your post was bombastic and rude. I thought you did it intentionally to make a point, and I was just explaining how I saw it. But perhaps you were not making a point, and were just being rude and bombastic for no good reason.
Brunton wrote:Actually, from reading some of your past posts and conversing with you in some cases, I can easily understand that from your point of view vsmith's locos are not realistic.
Actually, from reading some of your past posts and conversing with you in some cases, I can easily understand that from your point of view vsmith's locos are not realistic.
Brunton wrote: Ya know, Dave, I like your idea of starting a thread about theme. That, like this thread, should generate interesting discussion. Or mayvbe we could morph this thread into that discussion... go for it. You first, please - you express things very well, and come up with points I for one would probably never think about. SO?
I don't know... I've probably stepped on a few too many egos already!
Besides, I don't really want to come off as high-handed as I seem to have here.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Brunton wrote: Ya know, Dave, I like your idea of starting a thread about theme. That, like this thread, should generate interesting discussion. Or mayvbe we could morph this thread into that discussion... go for it. You first, please - you express things very well, and come up with points I for one would probably never think about. SO?I don't know... I've probably stepped on a few too many egos already!Besides, I don't really want to come off as high-handed as I seem to have here.
vsmith wrote:Care to explain your comment, or just being sarcastic? or trolling for a fight? I've never been one to shy away from critisism so I'm calling you on the carpet.I'd just like you to justfy your comment instead of just blerting out such a rude statement,
I'd just like you to justfy your comment instead of just blerting out such a rude statement,
vsmith wrote:care to show your models of "railroad perfection" and I'm sure I could shoot a few holes in them too...
care to show your models of "railroad perfection" and I'm sure I could shoot a few holes in them too...
vsmith wrote:So I'll ask...What is wrong with them, care to point out which ones are not beleivable and why?
vsmith wrote:So...smart guy, explain to me, how does my Climax not look like a Climax, do you even KNOW which one is the Climax is?
vsmith wrote:I'm not trying to lock the thread, I just dont like blanket criticism without justification. If its just a simple "I dont like your Models" that fine with me and he should just say that and be done with it. I wont be offended.But I dont like someone saying something negative and not then backing it up with justifiable reasons.Personally I'm betting he cant tell the M.A.C. from the Tin Lizzy
marknewton wrote:Your reply was a rant. I'm amazed that you can regard a succinct, one word answer - "no" - as being rude and bombastic. I'd regard that as being a bit precious. And yes, I was making a point. I thought some of VSmith's model weren't believable.
My comments in red
marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote: Care to explain your comment, or just being sarcastic? or trolling for a fight? I've never been one to shy away from critisism so I'm calling you on the carpet.I'd just like you to justfy your comment instead of just blerting out such a rude statement,If you're going to build freelance locos that are credible, you need to have a good understanding of locomotive design practice. For freelanced locomotives to be believable, they can't have design or enginering features that would be impossible in reality. Some of your models do, so I regard them as unbelievable. OK I can accept that. I have an outstanding understanding of locomotive construction. But you need to understand that in order to build reliable, funtional, model locomotives some concessions often need to be made. I'll explain on the later comments... vsmith wrote: care to show your models of "railroad perfection" and I'm sure I could shoot a few holes in them too...Maybe - depends on how much you know about my prototype. My Fotopic pages linked below have some model photos on them. I'll save you the trouble of commenting on the unfinished overhead wiring on the Japanese layout, and mention it myself.I will check them out. vsmith wrote:So I'll ask...What is wrong with them, care to point out which ones are not beleivable and why?Loco, #3, is it meant to be a Heisler? If so, it's unbelievable for two reasons, there's no rods coupling the wheels, and the cylinders would project into the firebox and/or ashpan. The "ShayKirk" has three cylindrical objects under the ashpan. What are they meant to be? What drives it? If it's meant to be a Dunkirk it would have V-cylinders visible near the cab And the loco you called "Whadahellizit" - are you seriously claiming it's believable?OK, the Heisler, 1st off it was never ment to be a exact scale model. It was made to give me something to use an old Bachmann 2-4-2 lokie that had stripped gears. So I rebuilt it using a Bachmann Flatcar, 2 aristo dismal bricks w/ added sideframes. I intentionally left off the geared bits simply because their was no real way to do all the connected bits with the given drive bricks, its a trade off in which I get a very reliable running loco and none of the drive kink problems I have seen in other models that did attempt to replicate to driveshafts, one day I would like to add all the drive bits, the underside "box" is removable for the day when I can add a small can motor and the spinny bits. The Shaykirk is just what it looks like...a Shay with the cylinders mounted undernieth. Beleive it or not their IS a prototype for this arraingment, Baldwin built a one-off loco that can be seen on the "geared steam locomotive works" website. But THIS model is actually based on a freelanced On30 model I saw in an issue of "Light Iron Digest" from last year. So its a large scale model of an On30 model of a freelanced logging loco.As for the Whatdahellizit? You'll need to study more mining trams to see where I was drawing inspiration from, this was drawn from a 600mm guage Germie tram lokie with a completely enclosed framework. I just "Americanized" it. vsmith wrote: So...smart guy, explain to me, how does my Climax not look like a Climax, do you even KNOW which one is the Climax is?Yes, I know which two models you posted are meant to be Climaxes. One is a typical modeller's license version, the other appears to be based on the MDC/Roundhouse HO model - which also relies on modeller's license. But the Climaxes weren't the models that I was commenting on.
vsmith wrote: Care to explain your comment, or just being sarcastic? or trolling for a fight? I've never been one to shy away from critisism so I'm calling you on the carpet.I'd just like you to justfy your comment instead of just blerting out such a rude statement,
OK I can accept that. I have an outstanding understanding of locomotive construction. But you need to understand that in order to build reliable, funtional, model locomotives some concessions often need to be made. I'll explain on the later comments...
vsmith wrote: care to show your models of "railroad perfection" and I'm sure I could shoot a few holes in them too...
I will check them out.
OK, the Heisler, 1st off it was never ment to be a exact scale model. It was made to give me something to use an old Bachmann 2-4-2 lokie that had stripped gears. So I rebuilt it using a Bachmann Flatcar, 2 aristo dismal bricks w/ added sideframes. I intentionally left off the geared bits simply because their was no real way to do all the connected bits with the given drive bricks, its a trade off in which I get a very reliable running loco and none of the drive kink problems I have seen in other models that did attempt to replicate to driveshafts, one day I would like to add all the drive bits, the underside "box" is removable for the day when I can add a small can motor and the spinny bits.
The Shaykirk is just what it looks like...a Shay with the cylinders mounted undernieth. Beleive it or not their IS a prototype for this arraingment, Baldwin built a one-off loco that can be seen on the "geared steam locomotive works" website. But THIS model is actually based on a freelanced On30 model I saw in an issue of "Light Iron Digest" from last year. So its a large scale model of an On30 model of a freelanced logging loco.
As for the Whatdahellizit? You'll need to study more mining trams to see where I was drawing inspiration from, this was drawn from a 600mm guage Germie tram lokie with a completely enclosed framework. I just "Americanized" it.
vsmith wrote: So...smart guy, explain to me, how does my Climax not look like a Climax, do you even KNOW which one is the Climax is?
Correct on both counts, one is freelanced, the other is a large scale model of an NKP HO Model, why the MDC? I dunno I just liked the way it looked.
If I had a million bucks and a milling machine I could make them all 100% accurate right down to the spinny bits and flying pushrods and all that, But I'm poor, very POOR! So I make do...
...so that means my only powertool is a cheap dremel tool and a powerdrill, so I make do, and make what to me, and to others I know, beleivable models of such locomotives. Not perfect, but beleivable. Also understand that on another website , my main goal doing models like this is to show that kitbashing reasonable looking models is not this mindblowingly complex process but can be done often with a great deal of fun. FUN is my main goal.
Now if you had just stated " I just find some of them unbeleivable" in the first place, I would had brushed it off and we wouldnt had had to go thru all this drama, but as it is, I can completely accept that you may have "issues" with my models, thats fine...I sometimes have issues with them also. But at least we understand where the other is coming from. Sorry for any rough language.
PS Thanks about the Price, I think your the 3 guy whos ever recognized what is was!
PS PS, I'm thinking of adding a Johnson 16wheeler too...
Later Vic
OK put away the popcorn machine guys
Snagle, I just checked back in to see if dave posted anything further on his ideas on theme, but i think i need a translation of what you just said.
Ah so!!! Pennsy fans...bad. So then, there is an endemic problem with Pennsy fans! This IS news to me! I must avoid them. I don't want unfortunate with them.
Jus kiddin'
Dave, you should post a thread on the theme issue. It's an interesting, fundamental idea, and one that doesn't get a lot of play on the forum.
Have a nice night, all.
shawnee wrote:Snagle, I just checked back in to see if dave posted anything further on his ideas on theme, but i think i need a translation of what you just said. Ah so!!! Pennsy fans...bad. So then, there is an endemic problem with Pennsy fans! This IS news to me! I must avoid them. I don't want unfortunate with them.Jus kiddin' Dave, you should post a thread on the theme issue. It's an interesting, fundamental idea, and one that doesn't get a lot of play on the forum.Have a nice night, all.
Trynnallen wrote:Quite honestly I hope I never have the esteem of my peers, because that means that I have failed...myself.
Brunton wrote: marknewton wrote:Your reply was a rant. I'm amazed that you can regard a succinct, one word answer - "no" - as being rude and bombastic. I'd regard that as being a bit precious. And yes, I was making a point. I thought some of VSmith's model weren't believable.I cinsidered various replies, but I'm not going to dignify your sour blatherings with further discussion. Go away, troll, I'm done with you. Or maybe try something new - add some value to the discussion, instead of just trying to cause problems.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Trynnallen wrote:Quite honestly I hope I never have the esteem of my peers, because that means that I have failed...myself. So you like it when people come over and say they don't like your layout? You'd be unhappy if they thought you did a good job of building a model railroad? That's...unusual.
I failed myself because it is not, nor has it ever been, my attempt to solicate praise or criticism from the members of the club, or viewers of my layout. Quite simply priase or criticism of the layout means little because it's not important. If the were important than I might listen or preen, but since I refuse to get worked up or down over a past-time that is meant to reduce stress and provide family time, why would the critics be important?
I don't ask for opinion and don't care to recieve it. Where I trying to make money or sell my layout then I might care, but as most model railroads are for personal ENJOYMENT why should it matter at all what other people think? I realize that we all have egos that need to be stroked, mine too, but my layout is not connected with that aspect of my ego.
Trynnallen wrote: I don't ask for opinion and don't care to recieve it.
Doesn't that tend to limit conversation among visiting friends who are also model railroders?
Trynnallen wrote: I failed myself because it is not, nor has it ever been, my attempt to solicate praise or criticism from the members of the club, or viewers of my layout. Quite simply priase or criticism of the layout means little because it's not important. If the were important than I might listen or preen, but since I refuse to get worked up or down over a past-time that is meant to reduce stress and provide family time, why would the critics be important?I don't ask for opinion and don't care to recieve it. Where I trying to make money or sell my layout then I might care, but as most model railroads are for personal ENJOYMENT why should it matter at all what other people think? I realize that we all have egos that need to be stroked, mine too, but my layout is not connected with that aspect of my ego.
Now I've had former Pennsy employees view my layout at shows and provide both praise and criticism. I've used the latter to improve the layout and make it more in line with what the real railroad did. Of course, that's within the confines of a hollow-core door, but...
It helps to know what works and what doesn't.
reklein wrote:There's a phrase I like, which I learned only a year ago, and that I like really well, and thats"the willfull suspension of disbelief". Weather the modelling is believable or not isn't really the question in my book. Its wether its good enough to make us believe that its realistic. An example would be like the current run of fantasy movies, No one that I know of today can play a sort of lacrosse while riding a flying broom ,however when sitting in a darkened room watching a large screen TV we sure believe they can. In my opinion Smith's locos are believable because , one, I don't know that much about steam locos and ,two, its dark in the computer room.
IMHO if we can't please ourselves with our modeling then it doesn't matter how good others may think it is.You see we all model in our own style to suit our taste but,here lays the rub..To many modelers get hung up on what others may think or believe Joe's and Mary's models is superior to theirs and they go into what I call the "competition mode" to the point where its consumes them and many become burnt out or think their modeling isn't good enough while forgetting the harshest judge of their modeling skills are their selves.
All to sadly I fell into that trap and forgot who it was I really had to please.Since I been retired I ALMOST slid back into that trap after detailing a Athearn SW1500 that I entered in a local contest to see how good my left handed modeling really was..I finish 17th out of 96..Not bad seeing I am a right hander..
It's a little odd, but near the same time you were beginning this thread, Dave, I was discussing the same thing with a friend. I was saying that although I had begun in this hobby with a sense of real enjoyment--creative sparks flying, so to speak--I found over the years that I became more and more hesitant to do anything. Why? Because I was hearing so much from people who insisted that their way, and their way alone--whether operations, trains, controllers, scenery, or benchwork--was correct. As I was saying to my friend, ALL modeling is unprototypical. No matter which approach is taken, prototypical points are made and others are sacrificed. It is a matter of each modeler deciding for himself what works best to convey the feeling of a "real" railroad. Many hoary old experienced modelers, however, seem unable to achieve the sort of objectivity that allows them to see that only ten years ago they were saying that theirs was THE "prototypical" way to do things--and that today their favorite way to do things looks silly. What I am trying to say is that prototypical-ness (prototypicality?) is 1) in the eye of the beholder, and 2) seems to depend on fads.
The point I was making to my friend was that I am really enjoying this forum because there are a lot of people on it who insist that whatever people want to do is okay. That's really freeing for me. My planned railroad will be both prototypical and fictional, and I'm truly looking forward to telling visitors the interesting story behind how a long-vanished railroad changed ownership and made a now-defunct line successful, and why another railroad made a better business decision in this little world than it did in real life. One line will be built where the defunct line had actually begun to build but failed to finish it, and a new industry will be based on the actual geology of the area, for example. My layout will be describing the real world--with a twist in the story line.
If you think about it, every railroad, no matter how prototypical, requires some explanation. Why? Because somehow we manage to cram them inside little rooms.
At the same time I was making these points to my friend, you were making the point that you were feeling criticized for wanting your trains to be prototypical. My reaction was one of horror, actually. Why would someone want to do that? Each modeler who works on resurrecting a prototype--and shares what he has learned--is preserving railroad history for all the rest of us. Prototype modelers provide the industry stimulus that gives us a huge variety of satisfyingly detailed and correct models to choose from. You go, Dave! (By the way, I saw and admired your engine photos. What an accomplishment!)
I think the the lesson here is that we all need to be less critical of others, whether it's because they like research and history more than we do or because they seem like they're just playing with trains. Each and every one of us has something to contribute.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Trynnallen wrote: I don't ask for opinion and don't care to recieve it. Doesn't that tend to limit conversation among visiting friends who are also model railroders?
Nope.
I was a communications major back in the day, and one of the things that I learned is that no matter how good you are (or think you are) there are people that just won't be persuaded. The trick is to listen to their criticism, learn what you can from it, and disregard the rest. If they want to be purely contrarian and argue for the sake of argument (which seems to be happening here), you politely nod, pretend you're listening, then dismiss everything they say.
They're never going to listen to you, so why extend the same courtesy to them...
vsmith wrote: My comments in red marknewton wrote: vsmith wrote: Care to explain your comment, or just being sarcastic? or trolling for a fight? I've never been one to shy away from critisism so I'm calling you on the carpet.I'd just like you to justfy your comment instead of just blerting out such a rude statement,If you're going to build freelance locos that are credible, you need to have a good understanding of locomotive design practice. For freelanced locomotives to be believable, they can't have design or enginering features that would be impossible in reality. Some of your models do, so I regard them as unbelievable. OK I can accept that. I have an outstanding understanding of locomotive construction. But you need to understand that in order to build reliable, funtional, model locomotives some concessions often need to be made. I'll explain on the later comments... vsmith wrote: care to show your models of "railroad perfection" and I'm sure I could shoot a few holes in them too...Maybe - depends on how much you know about my prototype. My Fotopic pages linked below have some model photos on them. I'll save you the trouble of commenting on the unfinished overhead wiring on the Japanese layout, and mention it myself.I will check them out. vsmith wrote:So I'll ask...What is wrong with them, care to point out which ones are not beleivable and why?Loco, #3, is it meant to be a Heisler? If so, it's unbelievable for two reasons, there's no rods coupling the wheels, and the cylinders would project into the firebox and/or ashpan. The "ShayKirk" has three cylindrical objects under the ashpan. What are they meant to be? What drives it? If it's meant to be a Dunkirk it would have V-cylinders visible near the cab And the loco you called "Whadahellizit" - are you seriously claiming it's believable?OK, the Heisler, 1st off it was never ment to be a exact scale model. It was made to give me something to use an old Bachmann 2-4-2 lokie that had stripped gears. So I rebuilt it using a Bachmann Flatcar, 2 aristo dismal bricks w/ added sideframes. I intentionally left off the geared bits simply because their was no real way to do all the connected bits with the given drive bricks, its a trade off in which I get a very reliable running loco and none of the drive kink problems I have seen in other models that did attempt to replicate to driveshafts, one day I would like to add all the drive bits, the underside "box" is removable for the day when I can add a small can motor and the spinny bits. The Shaykirk is just what it looks like...a Shay with the cylinders mounted undernieth. Beleive it or not their IS a prototype for this arraingment, Baldwin built a one-off loco that can be seen on the "geared steam locomotive works" website. But THIS model is actually based on a freelanced On30 model I saw in an issue of "Light Iron Digest" from last year. So its a large scale model of an On30 model of a freelanced logging loco.As for the Whatdahellizit? You'll need to study more mining trams to see where I was drawing inspiration from, this was drawn from a 600mm guage Germie tram lokie with a completely enclosed framework. I just "Americanized" it. vsmith wrote: So...smart guy, explain to me, how does my Climax not look like a Climax, do you even KNOW which one is the Climax is?Yes, I know which two models you posted are meant to be Climaxes. One is a typical modeller's license version, the other appears to be based on the MDC/Roundhouse HO model - which also relies on modeller's license. But the Climaxes weren't the models that I was commenting on.Correct on both counts, one is freelanced, the other is a large scale model of an NKP HO Model, why the MDC? I dunno I just liked the way it looked.If I had a million bucks and a milling machine I could make them all 100% accurate right down to the spinny bits and flying pushrods and all that, But I'm poor, very POOR! So I make do......so that means my only powertool is a cheap dremel tool and a powerdrill, so I make do, and make what to me, and to others I know, beleivable models of such locomotives. Not perfect, but beleivable. Also understand that on another website , my main goal doing models like this is to show that kitbashing reasonable looking models is not this mindblowingly complex process but can be done often with a great deal of fun. FUN is my main goal.Now if you had just stated " I just find some of them unbeleivable" in the first place, I would had brushed it off and we wouldnt had had to go thru all this drama, but as it is, I can completely accept that you may have "issues" with my models, thats fine...I sometimes have issues with them also. But at least we understand where the other is coming from. Sorry for any rough language.PS Thanks about the Price, I think your the 3 guy whos ever recognized what is was! PS PS, I'm thinking of adding a Johnson 16wheeler too...Later Vic OK put away the popcorn machine guys
I've been following this thread, especially the three-way between vsmith, marknewton, and Mark Brunton. With all the back and forth that's been going about the initial comment that marknewton made about things being "believeable", while I don't want to insert myself into the middle of this, it would seem based on marknewton's last post that some apologies are in order. People have ca
Hi guys
1 its my railway I'll run what I want to
No one has the right to question what I run on my railway at home if I want to run the Hogwarts Express I will "you know where the door is if you don't like it" well at least the train is a real one
2 Advanced modellers are good and should be praised for their models and the assistance to others.
Rivet counters on the other hand is a term of insult reserved for people who deserve it IE those who criticize others but cannot produce a model of their own when asked basically those who are a blight on the hobby.
Its no wonder advanced modeler's rightly feel insulted at being called rivet counters.
3 modelers licence without it we might as well all go back to toy trains who here has room to build a reasonably accurate model of their favorite major city terminal with all its facilities answer none how about a simple branch line answer again none what about your local station answer again probably none.
my local station has a platform 1 mile long with two bay platforms one now out of use for mail one used for the train that terminates in my town also used to have a car (auto) loading facility so that passengers cars could be loaded on the train and travel to the destination on the same train.
It also has a a small loco depot and used to have a carriage shed as well freight facilities are about two or three miles away from the passenger station.
All of that will not fit in the average model railway available space I don't want to hear about your massive railway room because the likely hood is to fit your railway as it stands in the space you used modelers licence to build it.
generic layout sorry there is no such thing each layout is an individual creation of its owner that reflects what gives the owner pleasure
If the owner wants help no question he will ask for it, and its up to us to point him or her in the direction of the answer wanted which is whether we like it or not going to be biased by our own thoughts on the subject.
that's a $4 answer I had to think about it
I always try to do better
Its just not all are blessed with the genius that some think is necessary to build a model railroad and everything else just isn't one that's the type of elitist thought that gets me steaming at the ears.
regards John
Hmm... John... If I'm reading your post properly (dfficult without punctuation), I'm wondering, did you read the part where I said modeler's liscense is not bad and that I use it too? My point is that it sometimes becomes a crutch.
As for massive railway room... My layout (minus the 3-track ataging yard) measures just 36 inches by 80 inches. No one is saying that it needs to be a foot-by-foot representation.
A subcategory of modeler's license is known as "selective compression." That's where you shrink something down to a manageable size but maintain proportions and recongnizeable features. That's essentially what we do with the entire railroad. This is GOOD. No where do I say it's not.
The trouble is that some people a) don't read the entire point because they fixate on a particularly contentious word and b) they don't wish to have their thought process challenged.
Have I told anyone what they have to do in their train room? No. Have I maybe stirred up sme thought process about our comfort zones and dogmas? I hope so.
Enjoy!
vsmith wrote: My Karma ran over your Dogma....The following is from a longtime freelancer who think youz proto guys are missing the very point of freelancing....1. "It's my layout, I'll run what I want."But it is MY layout, not yours, not MRs, not the guy behind the counter at the LHS. MINE...and therefore its MY decision to choose what I want to add. In my case its large scale narrow gauge thats a mix of several narrow gauge tram lines. I build or kitbash all of my engines and as such I have to opportunity to model a vast array of subjects from plantaion lines logging lines, industrial and mining tram lines. If I see a cool subject for modeling, like a railbus pic I saw from a long gone Alaskan RR, I just build it, add my own decals and it becomes part of my roster. For me the whole idea of restricting myself to ONLY one RR, ONLY one set specific roster of allowable engines and stock I'd get so bored I'd bail on the hobby.2. "Rivet counting is bad!"It is when the riveteer insists on telling you why everything you are doing is an insult to his POV on the hobby, and I'm not talking about merely using a 4-4-0 to pull a streamliner car...I'm talking about the guy that gets upset becuase your brake cylinders look out of proportion to the prototype or are not quite in the correct place. Insistance on belevability is one thing but when that insistance borders on obsession it is bad. I've learned to laugh at these guys now, I just say "Move along small change" When I build, my goal is to build a belevable model, not a 100% accurate to the last nut model, why? highy accurate and hightly detailed models break highly easily and are often highly unreliable due to highy finicky drivetrains. So I build robust models with a good degree of detail but not to where they are so delicate that you need to handle it like a Fabrege egg. 3. "Modeler's License"This is the Freelancers rallying cry. As I stated above, this gives me the opportunity to model a wide spectrum of stock, structures and details. I kitbash, ALOT! Like Rumplestiltskin I like spinning straw into gold, namely using a wide range of parts and just "have at it"! The end results are unique, yet beleivable within the narrow gauge realm, theres a prototype for everything is the freelancers creed, everything I've modeled has been based on something I've seen in either person or in old pics. The resulting models are similar, but not exact, to the proto, this is done for either limits due to construction or material constraints, or designers choice. No one has so far said, "thats just plain unnatural!" but I'm working hard on that...Here are some examples of my work, are they believable? are they reasonably accurate? yet all are freelanced, based on some old photo or other source, except one.Now if for what ever reason someone does NOT like these, then too bad! and dont worry about it as none of them are on your layout now, are they....hehehhe PS I have tried proto in the past.....yawn! (for me)
PS I have tried proto in the past.....yawn! (for me)
Hi Vic
Stop showing off
A lot will not like your work because they don't understand what a bush tramway is and the weird stuff that runs on some of them
Also a lot of small scalers have trouble with the supposed lack of detail they see because where you correctly have three or four rivets they expect incorrectly at least a dozen.
They are not used to the large detail empty spaces that should be there on the size of trains you build and that they have to stand up to the great outdoors.
Ps the little steam tram isn't believable the boiler stick-es over the end of the frame and beyond the skirt.
Having said that I will now be proved wrong
jesrr wrote:i just came back into this hobby after 30 yrs. i was so anxious about getting back in the hobby that i went out and bought modern diesels and rolling stock from various aras and i built myself a 6'X10" layout with code 83 track and atlas switch machines. ihave since taken down that layout and starting a 11'x9' layout and flex track and using tourtoise swith machine and minimum 24' radius,i also run a 4-8-2 berk just for excursions and i am still going to use diesels with rolling stock from different eras. i can,t count rivets because i don,t know what to count,maybe that will change in the future. i enjoy building the layout,doing the electronic part of it,also enjoy building kits,weathering etc. what i dont like is the labels rivet counter,newbie,etc
Welcome back, John.
The rest of you, are you finished insulting one another. Say it with me: HOBBY
Let's move on.
Bergie