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
Crandell,
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!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
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.
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?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Snagletooth,
There is one inescapabe flaw in your argument... and that's your assumption that all rivet counters are insulting of others.
Not true.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Constructive" criticism is always welcome.
I wish I had the eyesight and talent to be a rivet counter.
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!
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.