Philosophy Friday -- In Need of Professional Help!

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
41

Paul, Larry, Rich, et al., our society employs nomenclature to identify and define things. It is absolutely necessary to do so if one is to understand what a person, company, or entity is involved in. Whether, or not, one personally wishes to agree with the situation does not factor into things. Simply owning a model railroad, or basic train set, does not somehow automatically make one a model railroader, any more than someone who buys a stamp at the local P.O. to send a letter across town can rightfully call himself as a philatelist. A distinct term, or name, is used to clearly identify what is being done by the individual(s) involved.

For better than half a century the term model railroad hobbyist, or model railroader, has unequivocally meant one who builds examples of a railroad in realistic miniature. The other terms that I pointed earlier are long recognized and were largely accepted definitions of some distinctly different pursuits, or hobbies, involving miniature trains in some fashion. Their practitioners

42

I think a couple of posters have hit the nail on the head. A commercially designed and produced layout is only an issue if one attempts to pass the work off as one’s own. This is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind.

Someone who purchases a prefab layout would be a “Runner”, by CNJ’s definitions above, but interestingly, those definitions leave no room for someone who puts RTR equipment and model kits on his layout. I guess those folks aren’t “real” model railroaders, huh? Maybe another category, say, “Scum of the Earth” would be appropriate there.

43

“Folks, the term “model” in model railroader is employed with the intent to clearly indicate that the practitioner is personally responsible for having built much, if not all, of his layout and equipment.”

CT, next time how about reading what’s posted first, before spouting nonsense? We all have some RTR stuff on our layouts. It’s when hobbyists increasingly employ not only RTR locomotives, but large selections of RTR rollingstock, plastic RTR roadbed/sectional track, RTR buildings and so on, that they progressively step over the line from being a model railroader to becoming just a variation of the toy train group’s approach. Try to keep in mind that the hobby is about creativity and craftmanship, not about simply ownership.

And…the categories of hobbyists I cited earlier are not simply based on my opinion. They have appearred in the pages of MR with the editorial staff having been the source and a reflection of how hobbyists in general regarded the various approaches in the past.

CNJ831

44

I see where people are coming from this. In my opinion, if you have a layout professionally built for you, why should you be the one who’s getting it published? I believe the builder of the layout should have the article be published under their name.

On the idea of having a professional layout builder being commissioned to build a layout, that is up to you. But I think that it is much more entertaining to build your own layout. Watching your first train run all the way around your layout, it’s much more entertaining than have some guy come to you and say, “Here, it’s done, now where’s my check?” Of course not putting that term literally. There are some great professional layout builders out there, don’t get me wrong, but if I had the money, I would go with building my own layout, I find it much more entertaining.

Just a teenager’s [2c]

45

CNJ831,I will more then likely get a hide tanning but,here goes.

John,I am no longer sure what this hobby is or what its becoming.Seems to me there are more and more saying if your not modeling my way then you’re not a real model railroader…Of course 99% of the time this is said behind the safety of a computer screen…To this I say BS in Santa Fe boxcar lettering.

Again one is no more of a craftsman because he/she builds a FSM kit then a prototypical operator is a real railroader…One can have a supped up layout and thinks he superior to all because of his modeling skills.My reply is so? No big thing.

As you know years ago we had to scratchbuild or kitbash if we wanted a correct locomotive or car .Today we no longer need to do that thanks to road specific locomotives and some cars we can buy.

As I mention the true craftsman died with my Dad’s generation of modelers as did many things.

One can puff out his chest and say this engine is 110% correct because I did this or that…That is all well and good of course but,a question that pops into my mind is you model in 95…Why does that 25 year old locomotive look new?

If one wants to play that “correct modeling game” then he/she should model the locomotive the way it looked in the year they model if they don’t they are no more then-what was that subclass? Ah yes, a “dabbler”…

So,after all the smoke and mirror subclasses of modelers it still hold true…We are all model railroad dabblers in one form or the other…

46

Wow, you sure are reading a lot more into this than I had in mind. My original goal of this thread was to simply to discuss how people felt about engaging in professional commercial model railroading services, whether getting assistance developing a trackplan, or building benchwork, to the outright purchase of an entire layout. I even wen

47

So let me ask a question-- and this is not by way of disagreement, but merely to discover the level / degree of effort required before disclosures are mandatory…

If you get track planning assistance, does it seem “mandatory” that it should be disclosed? If its “commercial” (contracted / store-bought)? What about help from a friend over beer? Or taken from a plan in a book? Or modified from a plan in a book? etc.

What about the construction of benchwork? Is it necessary to disclose that you bought “siever’s benchwork” (for example)?

What about the wiring and mechanical parts-- I’d wager that practically everybody buys their own wire and electrical switches. Probably a large number buy switch motors as opposed to rigging-up their own (not necessarily implying they wound their own motors). But these items aren’t generally disclosed-- unless they were constructed by the modeler. So apparently its okay to buy this stuff and nobody cares. But if you buy other stuff-- and enough of it-- you reach a point where people have a different opinion.

John

48

Let’s not go there-- let’s keep it civil.

This has been (in my opinion) a very interesting discussion so far. Let’s not spoil it.

John

49

Well…

How about a little mind exercise: say you are given/purchase/steal a FSM kit…doesn’t matter which one.

You erect it, and gosh if you don’t do a bang up job of it. You send a photo of it sitting on your kitchen table to Model Railroader and they decline to publish. Are we all in agreement? It isn’t model railroading.

Hmm, sez you. Okay, you sez, I’ll put it on a small square of thin ply and scenic it up a bit with some greenery and a fence…yeah and an old clunker in the driveway. Send it in. Model Railroader declines to publish. We all nod in agreement…it ain’t model railroading.

Sheesh, you sez. Okay, I’ll put 12" of right of way complete with a ballasted length of code rails and ties running just outside the back yard fence. Model railroad accepts the photo and publishes it. Do we agree it has become a model of a railroad? Did it matter if the rails and ties were really lightly ballasted EZ-Track, hand-laid, or Code 70 from Micro-Engineering…the weathered stuff?

Or, would we expect MR to decline once more, suggest some improvements, and offer to take another look? What would they be? Would you have to maybe power the short length of rails? Would that suffice? No train, but the rails can run one? Or should you also place a doodlebug on that short length of powered rails and have it creeping along when you take the photo? Would that pass the threshold test? Should the “railroad modeler” have actually built the Doodlebug from scratch, or would the Division Point variety (modified to have DCC and sound by you, of course) be acceptable to pass that same threshold test?

Or, would MR and we onlookers require that an actual loop of track be rendered, if not all in the image incorporating the FSM structure and yard, so that the Doodlebug could complete a circuit?

Just asking.

-Crandell

50

John,

let me try to give a simple answer.

No one really pays attention, who had helped you with your layout, if we are just talking about help. If you publish “your” work, it is a matter of courtesy and friendship to give credit to the work done by your friends. If we are talking enlisting commercial support", it is a different question - there it could have legal implications not to give credit.

So we will end up seeing a long list at the end of each MR feature:

  • Track plan by:
  • Benchwork by:
  • Track by:
  • Scenery artist:
  • Locos by:
  • Rolling stock by
  • Structures by:
  • Figures by:
  • Vehicles by:
  • Power supply by:
  • etc. etc. [;)]
51

Another exercise might be-- suppose you buy a book of track plans by John Armstrong. A whole shopping cart full of FSM kits. A slew of Central Valley tie strips and turnout kits and rails to go with it. Siever’s benchwork to fill the whole basement. Enough Woodland Scenics supplies to scenic a small country. Photo-realistic backdrops from All Scale backdrops. BLI and Proto2K locomotives and Exactrail rolling stock. NCE or Digitrax DCC controllers— and you take all that stuff and combine it into a layout…

Is it yours or is it commercial ???

John

52

Okay, but count me out when they start talking about “Grips” and “Best Boys” and who supplied the hairdressing and wardrobe… [swg]

John

53

This topic comes up now and then and we see the same kind of posts.

The name of the magazine and forums are Model Railroader. To read some posts you would think that there should only be a dozen members.

In my opinion the definition of a true model railroader should be:

A person who is someone between middle age and elder who looks back in life and sees that he/she hasn’t accomplished much they are proud of, so they identify with a hobby to make themselves important. They play with toy trains and can build any part of them from scratch. They even cast their own metal wheels for use on theit cho choo’s and never buy anything but scratch to create their kingdom. The trains that a true model railroader runs on DC or DCC systems that they designed and built, making their own silicone chips from sand and mining their own metals for making wiring and rails.

One thing that I find absolutely funny is how offended they become when someone takes store bought materials and RTR assemblies and create a world that looks just as good as thiers.

All this aside I truely feel sorry for those who really think they can look down at anyone else in the hobby. Life would probably feel a lot better if those would accept people who simply have the same basic interest as the equals they are and even get to know some of them.

In the end we’re all the same and our toys will be pawned off like everything else to the highest bidders.

[;)]

O

54

John W. said:

"…there is a difference between a “Model Railroader” and a “Railroad Modeler…”

I have made this very statement, words arranged exactly the same way, several times in the past three or four years. If you purchase every single item, or only some, and create something that passes for a scale railroad, you are the former. You arrange parts to create something greater than their sum, and you have a railroad of some sort…modeled or in scale. However, if you take pains to faithfully render a true scaled version of a section of a real railroad, then you are a railroad modeler…that is what you set out to create, and there it is. I still think that some of the items could be purchased, donated, modified, or scratched from raw materials. I wouldn’t make the insulated 22 gauge feeder wires, for example, nor the joiners, and I would probably not in this lifetime get around to creating a NYC Hudson in HO from materials and some commercial parts. But if I worked hard to create a scaled version of the Podunk & Western’s right of way between mile posts 12 and 13, and ran scale trains down that length, I would say I was definitely a railroad modeler.

-Crandell

55

By the way for those true modelers, here’s the definition of a railroader.

http://www.wordnik.com/words/railroader

A person engaged in the management or operation of a railroad or railroads; one employed in or about the running of railroad-trains or the general business of a railroad

That being the case to make a model railroader you would simply add the word model before railroad in the definition. It doesn’t mention building the scenery or trains or anything else on the railroad.

56

John (OP),

Too bad that despite your plea, your thread became a who is/isn’t a model railroader thread. Getting a straight answer is going to be difficult when egos, labels, and fragile confidence are present. It’s too bad that these attitudes that some exhibit are what keeps new people from this hobby. So what if someone doesn’t have the talent to build a layout or super-detail an engine or car, they still like trains and that should be enough to let them enjoy the hobby as they see fit. Labels, even if it’s the norm in everyday society, don’t do anything but categorize people to make the “higher ups” feel better about themselves. if I were to apply the so called accepted labels of this hobby to myself, I would be a “model maker” and “armchair modeler”. Truth is that I am a model railroader because of my love for trains and the models (fancy word for toy) of such.

57

So, which one is “better?” Is it the operations-uber-alles guy who builds a Plywood Pacific, forsaking even roadbed, or the same guy who pays someone else to build a beautiful layout for him to operate?

We all have our skills, and our limitations. Some have lots of time, others lots of money, most don’t have enough of either. Some years ago, we had a spirited discussion here about Sam Posey’s book, Playing with Trains. Sam is a former Nascar driver and sports analyst, so he’s one of those guys with the financial resources to have a fine layout built. He worked with a professional modeler, and did a lot of the work himself, and ended up with a layout he was proud of in far less time than it would have taken to build it himself. Sam also has Parkinson’s Disease, which limits his physical ability to model, so that’s yet another consideration.

I’ve come to realize that I’m a Builder. I enjoy casting stone walls with Hydrocal. I enjoy making my own latex molds for casting cobblestones. So, am I any less the model railroader because I don’t do op sessions or run my trains on schedules?

If you really want to know if a guy is a model railroader, ask his wife.

58

That´s about the best answer to this issue I´ve ever read!

59

Definitions of words change constantly. Oh by the way there is a mouse on the desk by my right arm as I type this. Model Railroading has gone from carving out blocks of wood to computer controlled replica’s of the real thing.

At this point in time more than ever definitions are in flux. Should we strike up a committee to come up with new words or just tune up the definitions of the words we already use, or both?

The points made in this thread and the definitions of what or who is what at this point in time, cannot be much more than opinions, or so it seems. Let’s offer up our opinions and let’s respect those of others.

The glass is half full. Let’s have a drink. It’s Sunday morning and I’m off to the church of Train Room.[li]

Brent

60

A few thoughts - directed at both sides:

CNJ831 - Like it or not, definitions of words and phrases evolve and change with time - we don’t speak the same language of the King James Bible.

To the ready to run, “kumbaya” crowd, you are just as responsable for the “divisions” as the die hard, craftsman types. How? By holding views like “Why build that when you can just buy XYZ123”.

What this is really all about is:

Interests - We are all interested in trains, but deep down that interest is very different for many of us. Both extremes on this issue have a hard time understanding the other side.

Goals - We all have different personal goals, or a chosen lack of them, in our pursuit of this hobby. and actually the young RTR crowd has a harder time understanding the goals of the “model builder” than what the model builders have understanding the RTR crowd - based on what I have seen, and as I have experianced on this forum regarding my own modeling choices and methods.

Abilities - Some of us have mechanical, electrical, construction or artistic skills which we enjoy appling to this hobby - out of neccessity those of past generations HAD to have or develope these skills - not so much so today.

Resources - Time and money or time vs money? This hobby has always required both, but now the importance of money is at the fore front - hence this discussion.

I belong to a round robin group and have helped a number of other modelers with their layouts. I have designed track plans, built benchwork, designed and installed control systems, and more - always donating my time - but usually being compensated for materials/products/supplies I bring to the project.

I, on the other hand, do not desire the help of others on my own layout. I desire that it be my own work. I have no problem using any level of commercial products, RTR (although they seldom stay completely “stock”), kits of every skill level, and scr