^^^^ Pretty harsh... So... if my modeling does not come out like John Allen, should I just hang it up and go do something else? If my realism does not approach the likes of Jon Grant am I just a loser hack playing with toys? Honestly - if the person building the layout is enjoying themselves who gives a flying **** if they are pulling 90' covered automobile carriers with a pair of 2-8-2's rolling past a German passenger station.... I mean really. There's some points to made about what makes a model or layout appealing to OTHERS, for sure... but if the person doing the modeling is doing so purely for their own enjoyment and entertainment - who or what gives anyone else a license to put it down?!?
Remember Allen McClelland with his V&O. His slogan "good enough" is very useful. You can't build a gym with the details you build a diorama. You have to make it "good enough". And that's your own decision. You must have fun and perhaps with your model railroading some relaxation from work. Wolfgang
The NMRA?:we-biggrin: It's interesting that you mentioned John Allen. Some people think that the John Allen and George Sellios style is "superdetailed to a fault" and doesn't look realistic. Then there's David Barrow's minimalist approach focusing on operations. Where does that fit within the "rules"? Oh, and what about the freelancers and proto-lancers? They probably shouldn't even be allowed in MR, huh? I mean, those highway signs are designating a highway that follows a railraod that doesn't exist. I'm so confused.
By no means...but throwing something together in a highly incomplete/inaccurate fashion is not really modeling railroading either. Without question, not everyone is a George Selios - few will ever attain such a skill level - but just about everyone is capable of a good, thorough and accurate journeyman's job of modeling if they simply make the effort. In addition, there's no excuse for inaccuracy today, with the reseaching of any era a thousands times easier than ever before and just about every item required to replicate it being commercial produced...if you only look. To end up accomplishing less than a credible layout, in a reasonable time span, is all too often just the result of laziness and sloppy work. And Wolfgang, McClelland's "good enough" modeling practice was not in regard to inaccurate modeling, only the degree of appropriate detail being represented. NYW&B
I dont care what publications say what and who does this, etc....... "Model railroading is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby." That last sentence essentially sums it up. So what if someone chooses to run an Bachmann GP30 instead of a Proto or a brass one? So what if there is a modern Porsche on a layout based in the 1950's? Yes perhaps it is not prototypical, but I wouldn't dare label that modeler as "inept" or "lazy". If someone choses to freelance in exquisite detail, or decides to model a prototype down to every spike and tie plate, then I applaud their efforts and I admire them and would like to be on that level someday. However, model railroading is a free-thinking entity that allows a broad range of modeling styles and modeling philosophies. Just because someone choses not to model "accurately" does not and should not exclude them from the model railroading fraternity.
I have a laminated sign hanging on my layout that has two simple rules to follow: 1. This is my railroad 2. While efforts have been made to make this look and operate as close to prototype as possible, in case of inaccuracies (real or percieved), consult rule number 1. In short, nitpickers can either be silent or will be treated accordingly. Perhaps some of us need to get a copy of Sam Posey's book "Playing with Trains", and read it cover to cover.
Now, in fairness, some research is needed to determine what was present in a certain time frame (in mycase, the 1970s) if a degree of accuracy is desired. I personally restrict my modeling to the late 1970s since that's when I came of age as a model railroader (and that was the last five years of Frisco's existence). I don't go so far as to paint license plates on my vehicles or add toilet paper to the outhouses in the rural areas, but I add enough details to give one a general idea when the layout is depicted. For those who are aghast at the sight of doublestacks rolling past Wild West towns, they need to avoid looking at modular layouts at any cost. Most modular layouts I've seen vary widely in eras, if not scenery. But those kind of layouts are mostly for the entertainment of the general public as well as the builders of the layout. What seems to be missing here is the fact that this hobby is wide enough to allow the differences of how to approach it. No one way is the right way, on one way is wrong- they're all just different. To look down one's nose and pooh-pooh their efforts and ideas simply because they don't fit one's percieved notions is ridiculous. Remember, we're all just playing with trains- we all just play differently.
While it really is not my intent or purpose to inflame folks here, I would like to cite a few additional points worthy of some pondering, especially in light of some of the responses above. Those who look upon the hobby as simply "playing with trains", or that "anything is acceptible", embrace concepts that originated in the juvenile sector from the Lionel era. One will find support for these ideas in neither the magazines, nor in any serious books on the hobby. The word "modeling" in itself conveys the attitude of rendering something in minute detail. I can not think of a single craftman-type hobby where it is regarded otherwise. Builders of model ships, war machines, automobiles, aircraft, etc. all strive to be as accurate in their renders as their skills will allow. Less than that is typically regarded as slipshod. Why then should the outlook be claimed to be absolutely the opposite in model railroading? Examine the books/modeling guides being offered by Kalmbach and others today. One can no longer find simply a generalized outline. Each volume now addresses a separate facet of modeling in detail, addressing specialized segment of railroading (yards, trackwork, weathering cars and locos, creating highly realistic scenes - even down to specific eras). These are not indicative of a hobby based on generallities and approximations. Likewise, look at the manufacturing sector. Serious hobbyists have been driving the manufacturers for years to ever greater realism, detail and accuracy in their products. Let one of them make the least error in a new model today and web forums ring with denouncements of that product. "Good enough" no longer is, amongst the great majority of those in the model railroading community. Neither do the prices charged for today's items relegate the to classification as toys...many are approaching the prices paid and detail of hand made brass scale models of only a few years ago. As I've pointed out previously, the hobby press clearly espouses that accuracy in modeling is regarded as upper most today, except perhaps in the case of the absolute beginner's first layout. You do not and never will see any layouts constructed with "anything goes" tollerances in the pages of MR, RMC, Scales Rails, or anywhere else other than perhaps the weekend photo threads on-line. Hobbyists with an attitude of acceptance for inaccurate modeling really need to wake up and recognize that model railroading is a pursuit that, while fun and highly enjoyable, is today one where if you do not take it seriously, you will not be taken seriously by its general constituency. NYW&B
Ooohhh, I beg to differ..... While admit I haven't seen any gross amount of "anything goes" in Model Rilroading, if you look hard enough it can certainly be found.... actually i've found it worse in the NMRA calendars than any other publications. Besides, it is a big stretch to make a direct comparison between photos in a model railroading magazine and what we see here, because the photos in magazines use more professional photography, and additional forms of lighting for the shot. Most of us at home don't have that kind of money to have thousands of dollars of photography equipment to whip out of our back pockets. Also, scenes in the magazines are, for the most part, "finished", but the weekend photo threads show pictures of peoples layouts "in progress" in some form.
Only true when you limit your perusals to the few forums populated largely by the entry-level crowd. Those, MR's forum being a good example, tend to provide a highly distorted view of the hobby's makeup, since paricipants there are mostly beginners, or those with little more than a fringe interest in the hobby (just look at the thread topics!). Regarding what you see there as "typical" of hobbyists is highly misleading and far from representative of the hobby. Attend an NMRA divisional meeting, or visit any of the many forums where the experienced modelers gather and post and you'll encounter weekly examples of images/modeling as good, or better, than that published in the magazines. I'd suggest looking in on something like the Railroad Line Forums as a good place to start. Even many of the daily postings include images worth of George Selios, or others of the same calibur. NYW&B
John Allen's railroad "Quote: Originally Posted by NYW&B View Post You do not and never will see any layouts constructed with "anything goes" tollerances in the pages of MR, RMC, Scales Rails, or anywhere else other than perhaps the weekend photo threads on-line." The "never" statement along with "anything goes" is in error. If one wants to see "anything goes" check out these links. This model railroad was published in just about all model magazines of the 50's thru the 70's, and has been published in many countries. Everything was just about scratch built. IMO, nothing in todays standard layouts will equate the character of this layout, including the " dinosaurs " that populated the scenes and other unusual things. This was rated one of the best in the world, I believe is still is. John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid Railroad - A Reminiscence John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid Railroad - GALLERIES
no ones layout is perfect unless the person(s) who built it is pleased with his or her work accurate or not would i be concitered a nitpicker if a get excited when i see a prototype of the model in real life with the same number and if i memorized most of norfolk southerns loco number catigories like the evolutions are from 7500 to the 77s and the SD70M-2s are 26s and the SD70Ms are 25s and the dash-9s are 8889 to 98s and so on i cant pass out on seeing a prototype of what i have i just want a shot of it so i can eventually hand it on the TR wall and say this NS 8890 is this 8890s model i actually spend more time with the scenery then i do running trains unless i run a train wile i detail or run the track cleaning car around wale i need to fix some detail
If this is true, then why do the majority of manufacturers now produce RTR items? Seems to me that a hard-core craftsman would want nothing to do with a ready-to-roll hyper-detailed building, locomotive, or rolling stock, especially one that is already weathered for you. Seems to me that they're appealing to the average modeler (and *gulp* toy train crowd) and not a master craftsman. It's the tail wagging-the-dog I tell ya. Plus, I would think a model railroader with the skills required to produce a highly detailed masterpiece wouldn't bother with kits or RTR items anyway. They'd scratchbuild everything. Trust me, I love realism and I'm all for it, but to say that a model railroad that doesn't meet a ridiculously high realism standard that the majority of model railroaders would have difficulty achieving is a toy is stretching it.
Chuck, I think you misunderstand the situation created by the current marketplace and how most serious modelers have reacted to it. Even the truest craftsman today will rarely bother to build a loco from scratch, simply because it is likely to be already available commercially. All that may be necessary then is to modestly superdetail it to perhaps represent a specific engine on the roster of a particular railroad. To go beyond this is simply wasteful of the modeler's time, time that can be better spend elsewhere on the layout. Scratchbuilding engines was common years ago basically because so little existed in the way of available accurate diesel shells (remember the oversized and incorrect old Athearn diesels?), or steamer boilers (questionably generic examples by Mantua, English, et al.), forcing hobbyists to be either scratchbuilt or created them through truly extreme kitbashing. Today one sees the hobby's craftsmen more commonly turning their efforts toward modifying resin or high quality plastic rolling stock kits (see RMC's continuing series), particularly scratchbuilding highly complex structures, signaling their layouts and superdetailing everything else. The RTR/high accuracy revolution in motive power (and to a lesser degree, rolling stock) has allowed the craftsman to largely direct his energies elsewhere, with the result that their layouts are becoming ever more impressive and extremely accurate/realistic overall. One needs only look at what was commonly shown in the pages of MR 20 years ago and compare it to what is displayed today to appreciate this. What was considered an almost unobtainable degree of realism a generation ago, has now become commonplace! NYW&B
What we have here is a failure to communicate I have no problems with highly detailed layouts that closely capture the prorotype, nor do I have any problems with those who operate in a prototype manner. I can even tolerate Koester's drum-beating on timetable-and-train-order operation. However, the one thing I have a problem with is the looking down of one's nose upon all who do not subscribe to the above. You are clearly missing the point that there are several ways to enjoy this hobby. You are also missing the point that we, after all, are still playing with trains- and I am so far removed from Tyco junk it's not funny. Once again, your way is not the only way, although I can accept how you wish to model and operate your model railroad. If you look at my N scale layout, you will most likely be at home, since everything is geared toward the 1970s- well, except for that Frisco Baldwin switcher I use in the paper mill with its 1950s paint job. The track is weedy, rails are painted, ties weathered, and speeds are slow. No Rapidos are to be seen on any of the cars. When I start running the layout the way I want, I'll use no more than a simple switch list. No DCC, it's all block wiring & cab control. Now, I've visited layouts with handlaid track, and layouts with Unitrak or similar products. It's either ballasted & painted, or just nailed onto the cork. I've run trains with detalied & weathered locomotives & rolling stock, as well as trains with everything looking like it came off the showroom floor. The scenery has either been exquisite, non-existant, or everything in between. The scales have been from G to Z, including that dreaded Lionel. And on every layout, I have enjoyed myself running trains. If I noticed anything that seemed amiss to me, I kept it to myself. In my line of work, I HAVE to be detail-oriented, or patient health suffers. Why should I be that anal-retentive in my hobby? Why should I push such a policy on others? If you're comfortable in your approach to the hobby, more power to you. I hope you achieve your goals. Just remember that not everyone subscribes to that policy, and that doesn't make them lazy or inept (I resent the use of those terms), just different.
Friscobob, something tells me that the fact your have an n-scale layout COMPLETELY disqualifies you from the hobby in this guys mind. It's the typical NMRA mentality.
i think the reason the started making evorything RTR was because all the big layout builders and superdetail people like you and me didnt have time to mess with building them like the BBoxes but i think that it is fun to build the athearn BBoxes
