No no a thousand times no. It is not about who runs the thing. It is about how the thing runs. If John Armstrong had designed and built the F&SM nothing would be different except that it would be Armstrong's diorama instead of Sellios' Personalities have nothing whatever to do with it.
..............F>
And you have just hit on a key point there E Litella. Selios is not modeling Camden in 1976. He is modeling it forty-five years earlier. Long before it became the pesthole it is today.
........F>
I already have. There are model railroaders and railroad modelers. The boundaries are hazy and nebulous, and most people from what I've seen often have a foot in both categories.
In my definition, model railroaders are generally content to run trains with scenery running anywhere from minimal to realistic. Railroad modelers try to portray an actual or fictitious railroad in a specific time and place, or place an emphasis on operation and can have little to no emphasis on scenery. The railroad has a raison d'etre. Compromises are allowed.
Model railroaders may operate. Railroad modelers MUST operate.
Now I must add that my categories are extremely informal and in no way affect those I admire and those I don't, or with whom I'd like to hang. I really don't care which you are. It just serves me as a mental category as to which side you think of as more important: scenery or operating. Is my distinction useful? Only to me. YMMV.
One thing needs to be kept in mind among all these messages flying around. Mr. Sellios is in the business of producing craftsman building kits. Would it be any wonder that his layout focuses more on scenery than train operation? That's his bread and butter. No real surprise to me there.
Jay CNS&M Wireheads of the world, unite!
As I recall, that track plan was a foldout. I think you needed more A's in plaan. I know when I first saw it it seemed to go on forever.
Jay CNS&M Wireheads of the world, unite!
There are many choices in this hobby, for example:
Don Cardiff Model Railroad Design Kaneville, IL
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 20:12:05 UTC, "Bob Scherzer" wrote: 2000
Does it keep you interested now? If you have the track down pretty much as it will be and it keeps you interested so that you want to run trains then that is a good thing. Adding scenery can certainly enhance the fun and interest of running a good layout. If it isn't interesting now adding scenery won't help.
A friend of mine had a large layout with complete scenery but with very limited operating potential. I don't consider running trains in a circle to be operation. After a while he couldn't gather enough people to operate and even he lost interest. Bye-bye layout.
Whoomp! There it is...
I suspect ~this~ is why Froggy brought up the whole issue in the first place.
Jeff Sc. Georgia Road (this week)
Mark, I don't have any duck-unders. My layout is in a large shed behind the house. The layout goes around the walls with a large kidney bean shaped peninsula more or less down the center. But I have bashed my head a few times working on things under the layout especially when startled by rattle snakes and such. Bruce
Someone recently suggested that one or more of the participants in this thread sit on a pin.
Man oh Man, some people just have no sensayuma.
.................................F>
Not at all.
No.
I was curious as to what could be gained by arguing about a definition of the term "model railroad".
I didn't get an answer, but I suspect that some people just enjoy the argument, and perhaps that _IS_ the answer to my question.
Carry on! In the meantime, I'll just go work on my model railroad.
JR Hill
Because for 23 years I could watch the Pennsy GG1s go by my window.....
Jim Stewart
Agreed, Don. And . . .
many facets within the above such as:
etc., we've heard it all before but the main point, because of all the above, is the reason the phrase in your subject line can correctly sum it all up - FUN! (and I'm having a ton of it!)
Take care.
Paul K. - "The CB&Q Guy"
What is a model railroad?
Whatever you the owner think it is.
As to what type of model railroad it is, I will leave to others to waste time arguing about.
Bill Dixon
(Snipped for brevity)
Jay, I tend to agree. Our previous layout was primarily intended for operations. We had mainly RTR equipment, and the scenery was never really completed to a presentable standard. But we were interested in US style interchange operations, so it served us well. I would define this layout as a railroad model.
But when I started to dabble in 1/4" scale, it was because I was interested in modelling some particular rolling stock, and developing some new modelling skills and exploring new techniques. The operation of this stuff is secondary. The building is what interests me here. This activity I would define as modelbuilding.
Likewise, our growing passion for Japanese narrow gauge is aimed at producing what I will readily admit will be a diorama. Here, the interest is in researching, and learning about, a railway that is very different to any that we are familiar with. Obviously, this is model railroading.
I'm quite comfortable with defining our modelling activities and interests in this manner, and I don't think it a waste of time.
All the best,
Mark.
RATTLE SNAKES???
I thought having our cat around the layout was a problem...
Cheers,
Mark.
This was a crude attempt to get some diversion from the 'What is a Model Railroader Debate' However, I notice the last message of the thread, Model Rairloading is Fun, atleast on my computer, goes back to George Sellios. Arrrggghhh - how do we escape? Can someone atleast change the tittle once in awhile (no offense, George)
Don Cardiff Model Railroad Design Kaneville, IL
Where is the 'What is a Model Railroader Debate' I haven't seen that one.
...............F>
Hi Mark:
Don't take it too personally ... to a large extent I was responding to many earlier posts, all at one time.
I don't really care what any individual may THINK of the F&SM, or the whole hobby of 'model railroading'. We're ALL entitled to our opinions. And that's ALL they are, opinions. And, for the record, I totally agree that the F&SM is out of the mainstream of what we usually call 'model railroading' ... and I think that's just GREAT!
I objected to certain individuals (more than one) outright stating that either the F&SM (or any other layout) was NOT a 'model railroad', or that George Sellios (or anyone else) was NOT a 'model railroader' because they didn't meet THEIR standards of what those words meant. The long and heated discussions in this thread, and many previous ones, have made it certain that the terms are highly ambiguous and mean different things to different people. NO ONE speaks FOR the hobby! ALL of us can speak ABOUT the hobby, and express any OPINION we may hold.
If you say "I don't think it's a model railroad as I define the term" (and hopefully then define the term as you see it) ... that just FINE! And many here have proceeded in that fashion. But to just plain state "That's NOT a model railroad" is presumptuous and untrue.
It's the difference between a vigorous discussion of differing opinions, and blanket comments stated as FACT, but unsupported by the subject (hobby) as a whole (as all the differing comments prove).
WHY do we think we need a precise definition of a term like "model railroad"? It's a hobby term, not some term that needs a precise legal, political, medical, or engineering definition. Such precise definitions and jargon are sometimes necessary to avoid CRITICAL errors of communication, with possible disastrous consequences. That's NOT the case here! Some here seem to think (their right) that such definitions are to allow EXCLUSION of unworthy or inappropriate creations. I disagree (my right). To me, the former assumes some form of "I'm doing it RIGHT, and you're doing it WRONG" mentality. Even the separate terms 'model' and 'railroad' clearly mean different things to different people, and at differing contexts, times, and places. So what?
As someone else stated: "Who gives a rat's arse?"
And that's *MY* opinion!
Dan Mitchell ==========
Mark Newt>
Froggy:
(see below) ... An interesting and worthy quest, with MANY answers. If only the whole thread had stayed on that track ...
Somehow it turned into a "let's bash the F&SM", and then the inevitable counter offensive, and so forth ... Then we got blanket statements the such and such was NOT this or that. Of course that's how most all long threads develop. They're long because they pursue some popular, or sensitive, subject. Then they mutate, branch, and sometimes get funny, nasty, or just plain stupid.
What's MY definition of "model railroad"?
I don't have one, other than my own 'model railroad'. I feel the thing should first be a model. I want it to LOOK like a miniature of the real thing, rather than BE a precise miniature (which is TOTALLY different animal). THEN, if it can also be operated, that's good. Then, if it can be operated in a somewhat prototypical manner, that's better. To do the last requires a sensible track plan capable of supporting realistic movements and generating a useful amount of 'traffic'.
I personally don't care for the huge open 'plywood' layouts I've seen, no matter how many trains they can operate, or how realistic the signals, paperwork, or 'movements' may be. They may be railroads, but they're not models by MY definition.
So, on my layout I try to make it look realistic. It looks good. It's loosely based on a fictitious GN branch line somewhere in the western mountains. It also includes a subsidiary logging railroad that interchanges with the GN. The period varies with the equipment being run, but usually represent some date between about 1935 (all steam) and
1948 (mixed steam and early Diesel). Personally, I like steam (or electric), but some of my 'operators' prefer Diesel, so I accommodate them. I've won many prizes with photos taken on the layout, and had one of these published. Some of the individual models on it have won prizes in both regional and national NMRA contests.It also runs, usually quite well ... but occasionally the gremlins come to visit :-(
It is a point to point (three really, roughly "Y" shaped) switching layout. Trains move between the three terminals. A basic card order operating system to generate make believe traffic, and there are a few simple operating rules loosely excerpted from real rule books. No timetables, though I'm not opposed to the idea and may try it at some time, especially if my railroad grows, as I hope it will. I have a monthly operating session, and can keep from three to six operators entertained and busy. Personally, I'm more of a builder than an operator, but I like to see my creation being 'operated'. I rarely 'operate' it myself. I do run trains on it. I've participated in 'operating' sessions on other area layouts, some large, with VERY involved, computer generated, dispatched, etc. operational schemes. I can have fun with this OCCASIONALLY, as a game, but it's NOT what *I* enjoy in the hobby. I like the 'modeling' more than the 'railroading'.
And, Oh yes, I *DO* enjoy 'railroading', doing many hours a year of volunteer work on the local steam tourist railroad (Huckleberry RR) in
1:1 scale, 3' gauge. I'm not really a particular fan of narrow gauge, but it's what's here, and I'm going to support it!Dan Mitchell ==========
snipped-for-privacy@thep>
And those roll-your-own guys,
7) Draftsman/designer 8) Mold maker 9) Pattern maker 10) Die makerJay CNS&M Wireheads of the world, unite!
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.