Three mantras to stunt your modeling growth!

[Dave Vollmer]

"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!

[Dave Vollmer]

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!

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.

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.

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.

Last thing, Dave...I've seen your pictures, and, um... you are not a mediocre modeler.

Aw, shucks...!

[Heartland Division CB&Q]

"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?

 

 

[Dave Vollmer]

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.

[Heartland Division CB&Q]

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.

[Dave Vollmer]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[reklein]

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

[BRAKIE]

 Garry said:

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?

======================================================

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.

[MAbruce]

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.    

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... 

[Dave Vollmer]

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.    

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.

[Pruitt]

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.

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.

[Dave Vollmer]

No offense, sir...

But I think the quote he was remembering was yours rather than mine.

Sorry!!!

[Pruitt]

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.

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. Nothing aggrieved about my tone - see my previous post.

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.

[IRONROOSTER]

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 

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.

Enjoy

Paul 

[Heartland Division CB&Q]

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!

[Anonymous]

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.

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

[vsmith]

Here are some examples of my work, are they believable?

Since you ask, no, not really.

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?

[vsmith]

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]

Definitely time to throw some popcorn in the microwave.

[Anonymous]

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.    

 

[Dave Vollmer]

Unfortunately, that's always the way.

Pithy discussion seems to invite this kind of acrimony.  I don't know why.

[vsmith]

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.    

 

[Dave Vollmer]

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.

[vsmith]

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

[vsmith]

I should add that ALL of the models I posted were built from trains found in either book photos, online photos, or magazine photos, so everyone ('cept one) of them has a prototype, so to speak

[Pruitt]

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?

 

[wm3798]

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.

Lee 

[marknewton]

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.

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.

[marknewton]

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.

Now, now, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say vsmith's locos are not realistic, I said they weren't believable. Not the same thing at all.