After fifty years of model and railroad building there isn't that much to do any more I already have more locomotives than the prototype I model did. What do I need with more?
Agreed. Well, sort of. I'd rip out all the trackwork and redo it so that it'd be fun to operate and not just look at. I'd also clean up some of the trash and garbage. OH, and make the buildings look more like they really did in 1930. When, by the way. the depression was just beginning. The F&SM looks like it's been neglected for fifty years, not like a city at the end of a ten-year boom economy.
I got out the Dec 99 isue of Model Railroader, and guess what? There's a track plaan...
Cap'n Handbrake will be delighted to know that the railroad is an operational trackplan, and he is using DCC now and making (as of that writing) a start at operations. Most of the article concerns the scenery, though. It is mentioned that he had discovered a need for an engine terminal and another yuard, so the track plan was being revised...The published plan didn't seem to have a lot of industries, but it does include a large yard, and possibilities in at least two spots for interesting switching.
One especially humerous note: The scene in Port Russel Harbor had to be redone after George's wife said that it looked like a Popeye cartoon..
Looks like George may be moving from model railroader to railroad modeler...
OK, Froggy, here are my personal litmus tests of a TRUE model RR: :>))
If everything is pristine and clean, then it's not a true model RR.
If it starts like a jackrabbit and zooms like a rocket, then it's not a model RR!
If it's aimed more to the dispatcher or the train watcher than to the engineer, then it's not a model RR!
If it has ugly weggie nosed stink wagons with any model numbers higher than GP or SD 9, then it's NOT a model RR!
In fact if it has ANYTHING designed later than 1956, then IT'S NOT a model RR!
And even if all the stink wagons are first generation, BUT they are allowed to outnumber the BEAUTIFUL STEAM LOCOMOTIVES, then IT'S NOT a model RR!!
If an otherwise moral and self respecting steam locomotive is forced to burn OIL instead of COAL, then IT'S NOT A MODEL RR!!!
If at least some of the BEAUTIFUL STEAM LOCOS don't have the words, NEW YORK CENTRAL, C&O, or CANADIAN PACIFIC written on the tender,THEN IT'S NOT -- I SAY NOT-- A MODEL RR!!!!
oops -- sorry -- got a little carried away there. :>))
And Froggy, please know that no offense is intended. I really do think the question you posed is a very interesting one -- I just couldn't resist having a little fun with it.
Jim, you seem offended by something. Do you have some kind of problem with the fact that I am not fawning over Sellios' diorama?
Or that I am interested in what the general concept is of a model railroad? Instead of trying to start a fight with me, which you can't do, why don't you just use your energy to answer the question. You are obviously interested in this thread or you wouldn't be here. What is your idea of what constitutes a model railroad as opposed to that which has tracks and trains, but is not a bona-fide model railroad.
The notion that a certain amount of track and structures constitutes a model railroad is a furphy. You could model say, Enola Yard, in it's entirety, but if all you did with it was run a loco at high speed back and forth you wouldn't have a model railroad.
Conversely, you might model a crossing loop or a simple interchange, but if you operate it in a prototypical manner, you would have a model railroad.
I can see what Froggy is getting at - a model railroad is in part defined by it's physical infrastructure, but also by the manner of it's operation. From what I can see, the F&SM is more a diorama.
I don't know what "UP" means. Heads up? Hands up? Stand up? Up yours? Besides, Steve wrote that, not me. I am amused by some of the irate messages that are being posted. I haven't done anything at all to minimize the work of Sellios. Quite the contrary in fact. I have repeatedly said that he is a super-fine modeler. It is perfectly all right to venture an opinion about the work of another when it is put on public display. What do you think the judges at a model contest do? We all have our likes and dislikes in every area of our lives. We also have ideas about how things should be, and that's what I'm trying to get at here; a statement of how things should be according to the ideas of the writer. If you don't give a rat's arse, that's fine. That's an opinion too There are lots of things in the world, and in this hobby, that I do not give a rat's arse about.
I have repeatedly tried to divorce this thread from discussion of the F&SM, but to no avail. I don't want it to be about the F&SM because I am trying to move into a more generalized area of discussion. Alas, it seems that the F&SM is the only example I can use that is known by everyone.
Interestingly enough, it seems that George has become bored with his diorama as well and is rebuilding it to have more railroad-focused activity. Isn't that interesting? I know of several "famous" model railroaders (and some not so famous) that have recently done the same thing in recent years.
Agreed there. I don't think anyone has done anything but praise his work.
Agreed again.
I guess I fall into the "not so famous" category as I'm bored with my GER an will be dismantling it soon.
And I consider the GER both a model railway and a railway model though I don't consider it a diorama.
To me, a diorama is where trains do nothing but run through the pretty scenery and nothing else. Like some of those very large public display layouts that Model Railroader have been wasting so much space on lately.
The diversity of this hobby is it's greatest strength! It's a HOBBY ... you're supposed to do it in whatever manner YOU enjoy! If you're having FUN, you're doing it right! Nobody should be telling you that YOU shouldn't be enjoying yourself because you don't play by THEIR rules. We're ALL just 'playing with toy trains', in one way or the other, and that's just FINE!
Or the importance of *NOT* being a 'model railroader'? ... Kind of like "The importance of not being SEEN".
Now, of course, we also have to deal with the issue of 'virtual' model railroads, and probably 'virtual model railroaders'. Sort of electronic 'armchair modelers'. These terms also need precise definitions, so we can EXCLUDE unqualified and unworthy individuals.
I have NO problem with most of this DISCUSSION. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the shortcomings (or virtues) of the F&SM ... all model railroads, dioramas, whatever, are less than perfect. We can all learn from constructive criticism. There's nothing wrong with proposing 'definitions' for various terms, and arguing over their merits, or lack (mostly) thereof. Such discussion strengthens and focuses the hobby. As for the F&SM, maybe it IS a 'diorama' ... but I don't see anything in the dictionary that then excludes it from ALSO being a 'model railroad'. I can't see why a model railroad NEEDS to run at all, let alone well.
What's WRONG is making blanket public statements that "XYZ" is NOT a 'model railroad', or Joe Blow is NOT a 'model railroader' because he doesn't match YOUR definition of the terms. Don't EXCLUDE people or their creations. Such decision is not yours to make, except in your own mind.
Now, if a club or similar organization of like-minded individuals chooses to create such standards for their OWN purposes, within their OWN organization, that's just fine. A private group shouldn't have to put up with someone who's clearly out of step with the group's purposes. But just because they don't fit in the group doesn't make them, or their ideas, any less worthy. I don't recall that this newsgroup has passed such restrictive definitions or the hobby as a qualification to 'belong'.
In the USA at least (and many other places) we have the right to say most anything we choose. That doesn't mean it's always WISE to do so. One is entitled to make such statements, but those who don't agree can then make equally unfounded counter statements, and start a big squabble about mostly NOTHING.
Which pretty much sums up this thread to me.
Lets just discuss the issues, and stop calling people (or their creations) names, or denying them the same.
I was at a train show and saw a man in his 80's looking at the Franklin & Manchester book. I overheard him tell the woman he was with, "Hell, I lived through the depression. It never looked this bad!"
Model railroad (?) or train layout(?) or diorama with ancillary trains (?) I don't care, but I do find the style depressing.
Ok, so I guess I'm just concerned that the fact that George is superb at scenery and, perhaps, only so so at the actual track layout means he doesn't qualify as a model railroader. Now I'm only so so at both scenery and track layout. I guess that means I don't have much of a chance. Is it because he is so good at one and not the other the reason that he is in question as a model railroader? Just asking. I don't know where we're going with this. I'm just not sure what to call that activity with trains that I spend so much time at. I thought I was into model railroading. Perhaps I've been wrong all these years. Bob in Kalamazoo (Philosophy always seemed less threatening when it involved angels on heads of pins instead of trains)
This thread is actually very entertaining. Some of the respondents are allowing themselves to get worked up into a snit about a simple question. Hey fellas. I'm going to say this as many times as necessary until summa y'all get the message:
THIS IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE SELLIOS THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE F&SM
Didja get that? If there's any doubt, read it again.
Its a discussion about what makes a collection of "stuff" into a bona-fide model railroad as opposed to a collection of model trains and other "stuff" that makes up a diorama or other non-model railroad object. The F&SM simply had the unfortunate task of being used as an example of when a model railroad is not really a model railroad, but is a diorama. Never was any disparaging remark made about the quality and fineness of the work. It is great work. that is indisputable
This thread also is NOT about who can be allowed to enter the fraternity of "True" model railroaders, nor is it about what defines a "true" model railroader. That is for later............
Dan, I think you have lost sight of what is being attempted here. Back up a step and think about it. No one is impugning anyone. We are simply trying to discuss our varying points of view. There is no need to get aggravated at those who do not share the same points as you. I don't share the same points as some others, but you don't see me getting angry. I do not believe that everyone who has model trains is a model railroader, and I do not accept that every model work that has trains running on it is a model railroad. BUT-----I am not angry at those who do. They have the same right to their opinion as I do. The same right as you do. We do not all have the same values and we do not all have the same goals. You are neither right, nor or you wrong, if your opinions differ from mine or anyone else's.
The idea here is to bring those ideas out and discuss and compare them; not fight about them. There is no code of laws regulating playing with toy trains. Because, in the end, that is what we are all doing. No matter how we do it, no matter what we call it.
Again, we are in complete agrement on this. Who else wants to add a comment?
So, it's not the layout that makes it a model railroad but the way in which it is run? And George Sellios' layout would be a model railroad if it was run by John Armstrong?
I'm not trying to be a trouble maker. I guess I'm just impressed with quality work (whether it depicts the actual historical setting or ????). I think I'm a model railroader, maybe I should call myself a model railroad enthusiast.
Nossir, that is not what it means at all. It means that the main focus has never been on the railroad. That is all it means
First: I did not mention anything about the "Qualifications" to be a "model railroader"
The difference is in how the idea is executed. Boring and static is the same in any size or scale. Dynamic and "alive" is, likewise, the same on any scale.
An acquaintance of mine on the extreme opposite side of the city has a model railroad that has scenery that could be charitably described as scenery. He uses brass and nickel-silver flex track and snap track randomly and has many brass Atlas #4 snap switches operated by the manual Atlas switch machine. He uses horn-hook couplers. The control system is DC analog and the entire railroad is operated by Atlas electrical products; controllers and selectors, etc.
I love to operate this model railroad. Once your eyes adjust to the scenery and your brain compensates for it, it is a beautiful thing. Actually, the structures are mostly pretty good The operation is so realistic that you get lost in the doing of it after about five minutes. It is an aesthetically perfect reproduction of railroading in Dixie fifty years ago. The F&SM would blow it out of the water if you compared the scenery, but this railroad will be a viable, interesting-no, captivating- piece of work for many many years yet to come. It is a true gem of a model railroad. In the end it blows away the diorama style models.
So, it is not about size and it is not about fineness of scenery or exactitude of rolling stock models. It is about execution. It is about a balance that must be struck between all of these to achieve the state of being a model railroad and not merely a model of a railroad sitting static on a shelf.
Run by John Armstrong? No. Designed and built by John Armstrong? Yes. Because then the emphasis would be more on operation, and less on structures and scenery. A John Armstrong version of the F&SM would be very different to the existing layout.
As am I. But this thread is not about quality work, per se. It's about what you do with it, and how you define it.
You should call yourself whatever you think most accurately defines your involvement in the hobby.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.