The hobby of model railroading is anchored around three essential aspects: electro-mechanical, operational, and artistic. It is probably safe to say that a model railroad simply cannot exist without at least some element of electro-mechanical ability. Meaning the ability to perform the basic construction of the benchwork, lay track and wire it all up into something capable of making trains go. And one could make a reasonable argument that at least some notion of operations are needed in order to create something capable of holding one’s attention for more than a few minutes. The third aspect, artistic, may in fact be optional, though I’d wager that most folks would consider it at least a little bit important in the overall process.
So I’m curious what everyone else thinks-- how much of each do you think is necessary to produce a decent layout? How much of model railroading is aesthetics and how much do you think is operations? Obviously on the one extreme you have modelers such as David Barrow and his Cat Mountain Railroad, who represents a minimalistic perspective emphasizing operations over scenery. On the other extreme, you have folks such as Howard Zane, whose layout is a sheer spectacle of artistic endeavor and every scene a jaw-dropping work of exquisite detail. And then you have the Allen McClelland concept bringing up the middle, whose “Good Enough” strategy of modeling resulted in a terrific blend of operations and well-scenicked layout.
I think your three pillars is what makes model railroading such an interesting and challenging hobby. Few other hobbies require such a combination of somewhat unrelated skills. For a total package all three are necessary but if a person is deficient in one area there are many resources today to turn to for help.
I feel I have at least a moderate ability in all three areas with artistic being the highest, operations second and structural/electrical being my poorest only because of limited wiring knowledge. Fortunately, because of this forum and all the online and book resources a modeler can increase his skills in a deficient area by just jumping in and trying.
I think any model building is art. When you enter into selective compression, weathering, track planning, etc., you are making artistic choices. When you add the motors and wiring you move from being a model builder to being a model railroader.
As Frank Ellison said, it’s a play with the trains as actors, the timetable as script, and the layout as stage.
John, I think you may have overlooked another VERY important fourth pillar of mrr - money![swg]
A would-be modeler needs to be able to purchase the trains [kits or RTR] and various materials: lumber for the benchwork, wiring in different guages for buss and feeders, a power supply, and a big enough piece of real estate to house his desired empire. In some ways a lack of money might compel someone to develop their craftsman and artistic talents to obtain what others might simply buy off-the-shelf at the LHS.
But I digress…to answer your original question, I can only speak for myself. My definition of a so-called ‘decent’ layout has evolved over the 20+ years I’ve been in this great hobby. The more I’ve read magazines like Model Railroader and RMC, and participated in forums like this one, the more ‘spoiled’ I’ve become as I’ve learned the many new ways of enjoying mrr.
I certainly can’t call myself an expert in carpentry or electricity/electronics, but I believe I have developed those talents well enough to build layouts that satisfied my givens-n-druthers at the time of their construction. And since I don’t have the deep pockets to always run out and buy the latest-and-greatest road-specific offering from Walthers/Atlas/Kato/Athearn/etc, I’ve learned to paint and decal many of my model trains. I also like trying to produce model photos that appear ‘real’, so I’m learning how to weather my trains realistically - I guess this would fall under the ‘artistic’ skills c
I agree with the three pillars and I would add a fourth: vision - the ability to imagine something that you have not yet created. I consider it the most critical because it is what tells us when to do the electro-mechanical, operational, and artistic aspects of the hobby. We envision what we want and essentially build it in our thought processes. We consider the operational aspects of it, the construction complexities, and the aesthetics. Once it has reached a point of completeness in our mental vision, we build it - much of the satisfaction comes from one’s vision becoming real.
In terms of importance, the balance of the pillars is very much to each his/her own. There was a forum participant who made non-operating dioramas and he seemed quite pleased with that approach to the hobby. His approach is different from most, but it is what he likes. As for me, I love to build and I want my layout to be aesthetically pleasing/interesting/entertaining, so I focus on the artistic and construction aspects of the hobby. I rarely just run trains, still they must be able to run and run reliably, so I do what it takes to get the technical stuff right. I never give any thought to whether my layout operates like a real railroad - operations are just not interesting, to me. My priorities are that it must look like I want it to, and the trains must move about the track without derailing or stalling, but operations are just not important.
I recognize and appreciate that there are others who live for operations. They run their layouts like a real railroad. I visited one such layout. The scenery was passable - not terribly convincing, but it served to give the trains a stage upon which to perform. But things came to life when four operators and a dispatcher ran trains. It was like watching another world of model railroading. Much of the time there was tension as engineers struggled t
I don´t know what a decent layout is to you, but to me it is a layout I have fun building, enjoy operating, and which makes me proud owning it, because I made it. This is regardless of the size, or the complexity of it, nor does the amount of detail (or lack of it) bother me too much.
I think this is a very personal issue, and so is the amount of “dexterity” that goes into building a layout. Some of us are operation buffs and are quite happy to own a plywood pacific layout, as long as they can operate it like the prototype. Some of us are scratchbuilding wizards and know how to build or detail locos. Others are electric or electronic experts and build prototype like CTC boards or intricate electronic features. I am neither one of them. I build my layout using set track (Kato), run my locos and rolling stock as they come out of the box, use simple kits for my structures and commercially made scenic materials. Call that mediocre, if you like. But the most important pillar for me is art. My layout is a stage for my trains and I want that stage to represent reality, as much as I can achieve that within the means I have. I want that stage to be atmospheric, so that the viewer is becoming a part of the scene he/she looks at. Like looking at a wonderful painting in a museum.
Here in Germany, we have a TV show called “Eisenbahnromantik”, i.e. Railroad Romantics. One of the recent features was about the Utrecht Model Railroad show, where some of the finest layouts are displayed.
Here is a link to a videoof it. The narration is in German, but it is worthwhile looking through the entire 40 minutes of it!
I personally subscribe to the “Good Enough” theory: after all it was an article by W. Allen McClelland on the building of the V&O that re-ignited my interest in model railroading.
However I have discovered that there are so many different approaches and facets to this hobby so that even if it isn’t necessarily my thing, I can now recognize and appreciate the passion, skills, knowledge, and enjoyment that others bring to this hobby, and the fact that they are happy to share, and no matter how seemingly insignificant a detail it may be, it is generally to my benefit.
One of the best discussions as a Model Railroader I have ever been involved in was about the possibilities and practicalities of scratch building and/or kitbashing HO fishing boats and I don’t have plans of ever including a harbour on my layout!
The ability to perform the basic construction in my opinion is the most important. If you can’t build good solid benchwork, lay track to avoid derailing issues or even wire it up properly then no matter how good you are in designing it for operations or adding scenery to the layout just becomes a big waste of time, money and effort. Good enough is not good enough when it comes to these three important aspects of building a good model railway. Operations in my opinion is a give ot take aspect of the hobby. Some people just like to watch trains run in circles, some like to switch cars. I like both but probably do more railfanning then switching. I think artistic is a close second behind basic construction. Everybody enjoys a highly detailed layout with incredible looking scenes that look almost realistic. If they don’t they are lieing. [:-^] This is another aspect of the hobby where good enough isn’t good enough in my opinion. I said this before, people should try to be the best they can be but then try harder to get to the next level. Good enough is just the lazy man’s excuse. Now after saying that some peoples good enough truly is, for example DoctorWaynes. While some people really do need to start again. The worst thing people can say is it’s GOOD ENOUGH for me. Allen McClelland is a great modeller and the V&O was truly a great model railroad but I don’t agree with his way of thinking when it comes to building a model railroad. Now be nice…[B]
In reply to TA462 regarding his opinion of “Good Enough” I can,t really totally disagree, having been bought up with the philosophy of “Do It Once, Do It Right” and also having spent the last 30 years in an industry where “Good Enough” ISN’T, and there are no second prizes, I feel however that my hobby should be my relaxation/ escape and while, in particular sloppy benchwork, track, and wiring will detract from my enjoyment and therefore my relaxation, for the rest “Good Enough” suits me just fine.
The hobby of model railroading is anchored around three essential aspects: electro-mechanical, operational, and artistic. . . .
So I’m curious what everyone else thinks-- how much of each do you think is necessary to produce a decent layout? How much of model railroading is aesthetics and how much do you think is operations?---------------------------------------------------------------
John,I don’t think there is any “pillars of model railroading” because we define the hobby according to our needs,hobby budgets and favorite facet(s)…
Define “decent layout” and then by whose standards? Remember there are those that strive to keep ripping out and rebuilding their layout…Nope no pillar here-move along.
Operation is to wide a term for a “pillar” and one that is misunderstood by many-sorry nothing to see here move along.
Model railroading is a wide hobby with dozens of facets.
I fall into the Howard Zane camp, not just because of the quality of the structures and the scenery, but the entire package. Having had the opportunity to see his layout in person, the entire experience, from walking into the front door to the way the entire layout room is finished, makes a lasting impression. I’m a big fan of aesthetics. A layout with Howard Zane scenery, Bruce Chubb electronics, and Tony Koester operations would be disappointing if it was in a poorly lit basement with exposed heating ducts and a concrete floor.
If I were pressed to add a fourth, as some have, it would be “Flow.” The typical hobbyist’s experience will be diminished considerably without any one of these.
The standards are your own, or else, whomever’s you prefer to emulate. I purposely left the definition open to interpretation so that it would be the definition in your mind, not mine, which is what is important. While I am certainly open to a new perspective, I don’t really see how focusing on one particular “aspect” or another of model railroading changes the requisite elements of operations, electro-mechanics, and art. Though I do agree with Phil that “Vision” is certainly another element. Whether you call them “pillars” or not, they do-- at least in my mind-- seem to be essential to the process, whether you’re building an individual locomotive (say), a static diorama, or even an entire layout. What aspect of model railroading can you envision which does not encompass some proportion of these various elements-- and you can include “vision” or not, as Phil suggests, if you wish… ?
I agree those are all terrific qualities, but it would seem to me that they describe the whole range of “leisure-time activities”, in general, more than the specific hobby of Model Railroading in specific. Don’t you think? Certainly anyone-- me included-- would probably want all of those qualities inherent in their hobby-- but then, I would also want them in Sky diving, Go-cart racing, Stamp collecting, Cup-cake baking, Bug collecting, and Needlepoint. But, admittedly, there are probably also some other hobbies and leisure activities which would be covered under the elements I posited as well…
John,Good points all but,and IMHO when one emulates another’s work he looses something along the line and to be quite honest in the 58 plus years I been in the hobby I never seen anybody I would care to emulate…I may use a idea and tweak it to my modeling style but,to emulate another’s modeling style,layout design sorry, no way,no how.
I believe we was talking about emulating another modelers work not railroading and that can be a subject in its self since its near impossible to emulate a railroader’s work day because many just doesn’t have the patience to emulate a simple pick up/setout switching move.
Truthfully, I was not talking about emulating anyone else-- you actually brought that part up when you asked “by whose standard should we consider a layout decent”. My actual reply was regarding that it is your own standards-- whether they are really your own, or else something that you’ve “borrowed” from someone else-- or more likely, an amalgam of several someone elses.
But, since you’ve (or maybe “we”) have brought it up, it is actually an interesting point in itself. Whose standards DO you use to assess your modeling efforts. Certainly you (yourself) are the only person you must please, but you may elect to adopt / adhere to “standards” that others pr
