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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
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!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
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.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
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.
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.
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...
Nelson
Ex-Southern 385 Being Hoisted
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.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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.
TONY
"If we never take the time, how can we ever have the time." - Merovingian (Matrix Reloaded)
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.
Kevin
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.