I would think rattlers would tend to stay on the floor.
They also don't bat at oncoming trains.
They don't scratch. However, like cats, they can bite. Unlike cats, their bites are venomous. Sounds like an even trade-off on that point.
You can eat a snake.
You can make a hatband out of the snakeskin.
Snakes don't play with their food.
A rattler will let you know it's there and if it's scared. Cats bite first and ask questions later.
Jay (definitely a dog person)
I changed the title to "So if I model the Klaatu, Borado, & Nikto RR..." but not many people have responded. This is how old threads never die, they just fade away...
Jim
Mark, We had all kinds of vermin on the loose around the place when we first bought it. After a year I had managed to run off most of the bugs, spiders, lizards and mice but not the rats. No matter what I tried the rats kept a firm hold on the shed. As time when on there seemed to be fewer and fewer so I thought I was beginning to win the battle. Then one day they were gone. A few weeks later when I was cutting some brush I spotted a good sized rattler slither under the shed. That explained why the rats evacuated. I had just started benchwork about that time. Several times when I was working in the shed I disturbed Mr. Snake who was under the floor and set him off rattling. Each time it gave me a good scare. Then it appears he left too and I've not seen or heard from him again. Bruce
WELL SAID!
choo choo drew
And this would be on-line at what website?
Eric
Jeff wrote:
"I got out the Dec 99 isue of Model Railroader, and guess what? There's a track plaan..."
I seem to remember a time when RMR was a great forum for discussing
*ideas* about model railroading/railroad modeling/railroad dioramas, etc. Now, it seems, folks are more interested in enforcing a sort-of model railroading political correctness on us all. Maybe it's an outgrowth of the political "discussions" that have been inflicted on us of late.Anyway, I am interested in seeing a lively discussion of your question and disappointed in the apparent inability of people to understand it. You have clearly stated it over and over, but perhaps I can help a little with a few observations about what it is not:
o It is not a value judgement, it is not a statement--it is a
*question*. When Froggy makes a value judgement you will know it. Just read his comments about Sellios' layout, or trip pins on couplers. As he has stated over and over, this has nothing to do with Sellios' layout.o It is a question, not a troll. Froggy is not a troll and never has been.
o Froggy is not trying to develop a definition of "model railroad" that will be enforced in glossaries and RMR by the symantics police. He is simply asking each person for *their* definition of what a "model railroad" is. There will *not* be a "correct answer" but I'm sure Froggy will give us his strongly-held opinion (although he hasn't exactly kept it a secret).
OK, Ok, here's my attempt.
Most folks think of a "model" as being a scaled down replica of a locomotive, building or mountain. As a retired engineer (not the kind that drives a locomotive), I think of "model" in much more abstract terms. A "model railroad" is a representation of a real railroad. A
*complete* representation would include track, locos, cars, an economics-sensible reason-for-being (e.g.: hauls coal from mine to power plant), and the ability to be operated like a full-scale railroad. A properly designed computer program could be a model railroad. In most cases, any of the following also might be required: engine service facilities, car maintenance/repair, passenger depots, operating signals. Anything less would not be a "model railroad."Engineers use "models" to investigate the behavior of systems and I can imagine engineers constructing an HO scale model of a proposed railroad yard to investigate bottle necks, operating problems, etc before the real thing is built. It would *not* be ballasted and the buildings would probably be nothing more than rectangular cardboard boxes of correct outside dimensions. The engineeers would invite real-world yardmasters, switchmen and enginemen to operate it. Expected traffic volume would flow into the yard from a hidden staging yard and the operators would have to deal with it and get the trains out. I have no idea if this is actually done, but such a model would be a "model railroad."
I think a "model railroad" does not have to be modeled after any actual prototype railroad and doesn't have to have scenery, or beautifully modeled rolling stock. I'm inclined to think (though this is probably just a matter of taste) that it also ought to maintain a certain consistency regarding era. For example, a steam era railroad should have water tanks, coal tipples, stock yards, ice docks, etc. Years ago I worked as a railroad switchman, and my father worked as a locomotive engineer, so I know first hand how a railroad operates. That has a lot to do with how I designed and am building my model railroad. And it *is* a "model railroad" in terms of my definition, above. I know what kind of buildings/facilities are required and where they should be located. I know how the yard should be organized and how the yardmaster manages the flowthrough of cars and locos. Yard operations, particularly the job of the yardmaster, are interesting and challenging and that's where I've put my emphasis.
I also belong to a model railroad club and what I found amongst the members prompted me to conclude: Folks are interested in modeling only what they know first-hand. Everyone knows what rolling stock and locos look like and we can all study photos of the real thing to get the weathering just right or the right kind of fans in the right places. But how many people have first-hand experience with railroad operations? I think most folks are interested in modeling what they know, and that usually *doesn't* include operations except in a very superficial way. A loop of track with locos, cars, mountains and buildings *is* a model railroad to them; that's the depth of their experience. Maybe that's why you came up a bit short on getting a discussion going.
And for all you readers who want to take my comments as an insult, or a value judgement as to what is "correct," I say: calm down. It is neither and shouldn't be taken as such.
Paul Welsh
My def of a model railroader would be 'anyone who enjoys and plays with models (smaller versions) of trains. That would be regardless of detail or realistic operation.
A Railroad modeler >
Well it would be on-shelf in my basement...sorry, I can't find it on-line anywhere.
Thank you Paul. Thank you very much.
Yours is one of only a very few that really made an effort to understand and address the question asked. You did a great job.
My defiinition of a bona-fide model railroad is very similar to yours, and yet a bit different. I am not ready to give up yet, however and will wait a bit before I post my idea of what a "real" model railroad is and is not.
.....................F>
Well I guess the perpetrators of this thread do :-)
I've been reading this debate, or more precisely skimming it, because I've pretty much heard it all before, if not about Sellios then about Allen or Furlow, or whomever. Is Allen McClelland not a model railroader because there is no full size V&O? Is Dan Holbrook not a model railroader because he models the BN and didn't create his own railroad? Is Andy Harman not a model railroader because all he has to show for over 40 years in the hobby is a few diesels and an about-to-be-scrapped plywood oval?
I dunno, I have a problem with labeling or more precisely when one particular group lays claim to a generic term. Model Railroading is the name of a magazine, so is Model Railroader. It's a general description of our hobby. It sounds more sophisticated than "Toy Trains". The term implies some craftmanship perhaps, or at least in the earliest days it did.
I've certainly been in enough heated arguments over the term "prototype modeler", which is a fairly generic term but it's half specific - that is, the prototype part. Prototype modeler doesn't mean off-the-shelf Genesis and Life-Like stuff that's good enough. It doesn't mean perfectionist rivet counter. It doesn't mean full operations oriented layout. It doesn't mean competitive contest builder. It actually means all of the above, qualified with the P-word. Although, at any given time, one or more of the above groups have laid claim to the term... or the other side of the coin, the term has been pinned on one of the groups. Eliteism, reverse eliteism.. I don't think of eliteism so much as one group differentiating itself, but when that group claims the generic. It's like saying, I'm a rivet counting, 99.9% modeler with timetable operation and anyone who isn't at least on that level isn't a real prototype modeler. Or isn't a real model railroader.
Hell, the terms are generic. Specific in that model railroading is differentiated from model airplanes or model boats. Specific in that prototype modeling is differentiated from freelance modeling, or what has been very popular in the hobby the last twenty years, that has been dubbed proto-freelancing - basing a ficticious or partially ficticious railroad on existing lines and practice, or a plausible what-if scenario.
Are garden railroaders model railroaders? Hmm, let's see... plants, rocks, flowers, gravel... oh look a fish pond. And there's some track (a 'railroad') and it's got little trains on it ('models'). Yep,looks like they are.
I hear so much about "divisiveness ruining the hobby". Heck, when it comes to ruining the hobby, divisiveness has to pick a number and stand in line behind the internet, mail order hobby shops, limited runs, China, and everybody's favorite scapegoat... the NITpickers. There are so many things out there ruining the hobby I'm amazed the entire manufacturing base doesn't commit mass suicide at the gates of Beijing.
Diversity is good. Divisiveness is merely an intolerance of diversity... or... eliteism. Eliteism is _not_ a practice of people getting together with a common interest (whether a minority or not)... it's the practice of planting the flag of their special interest above the entire hobby. Are there prototype modelers who have tried to do that? You betcha. I have still have the bruises from going toe to toe with them too. Quite an adventure it was. I'm a prototype modeler and have stood in solidarity plenty of times... but we have no more "right" to impose our methods and beliefs on the entire hobby any more than do brass collectors or Lionel collectors or whimsy modelers or Terry Thompson. I am interested in the welfare of prototype modeling because I enjoy it, and I want it to thrive, survive, and grow. It doesn't need to take over anything to achieve that end, but unfortunately there are some of us who wish we could take over, and others outside of the PM interest who believe we *are* trying to take over. And oh my God, you know what happens when [fill in the blank] takes over.... yep, ruining the hobby!
I dunno why everyone has something to prove. Well yes, I guess I do. It's pretty basically human to want to be right. And want to take over. Being human is pretty much fun actually. You get to watch and play with the other humans, and its never a dull moment. Sometimes I just ain't ready for bed yet on a Wednesday night and have to jump in on a thread I've been successfully ignoring for a week or more now.
Andy (soon to be a Hoosier, soon to be August)
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
If I had even the idea of what you're on about, I might respond...
Mark.
No matter; unless you're into live steam it's hard to run your trains when all the electricity is out.
Rent "The Day The Earth Stood Still" from NetFlix or your local DVD/Videotape emporium; even other youngsters have been known to get references to that cultural icon.
Cultural icon? In your culture, perhaps. In spite of the advent of the internet, and what some like to describe as US cultural hegemony, not everybody has the same set of references. :-)
However, if I ever get around to getting the TV to work properly, and programming and connecting the video and/or DVD machines, I'll take a look. Television here in Sydney is as crook as Rookwood, so I haven't been motivated to fix the thing!
All the best,
Mark.
Excellent question and statement. After getting the track down I've worked on the scenery to make it look good. I've spent little time running the trains and I don't know if it can keep me interested. Something I've never considered until I read this discussion. I've enjoyed building the buildings and scenery and making things look good, but someday that will be done and I hope that I'll be happy with it, rather then feel it's time to rip it out and start again. It's been good to think about where I'm going with it. Time to stop building and start running. Thanks, Bob in Kalamazoo
Speaking of George Sellios I'm solicting opinions on whether you think he is a model railroader or not...
JUST KIDDING!!
Terry
It's widely regarded as a Science-Fiction classic, and one of first really decent Sci-Fi movies. Far ahaed of it's time relative to the competiotion. While the special effects are typical of the period, the movie as a whole still holds up well, taken in context. Worth a look!
Dan Mitchell ==========
Mark Newt>
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:50:06 UTC, "Bob Scherzer" wrote: 2000
A couple of suggestions: find a group in your area that operates and observe them. If you can find more than one do it. Also look into the operations Special Interest Group. Someone is sure to provide you with the link. See what you think of operations and whether you would like to do it. Just remember that there are as many different levels of operation as there are of scenery, all the way from the Plywood Pacific to the F&SM. If you find a level of operation that you like see how it fits with your present layout. If it doesn't see if you can modify what you have. Otherwise start over.
IMO planning a model railroad involves a lot of steps. If you want to operate then design the layout for the way YOU want to operate. This will dictate the track plan along with the space you have available. The scenery will follow from this as will the car mix. One thing to realize is that things will change. Your carefully worked out plan will have bugs or you will see room for improvement, make the changes. Also figure out whether the layout is to be operated by you alone or whether by a group. This obviouly has quite a bearing on how things are done. The layout I run on provides a full night's employment for about 15 people. No one sits around waiting for more than a few minutes.
Snidley Whiplash to Miss Froggy as he ties her to the railorad track:
Ha! Ha! I've got you now! You've fallen "That is exactly what I am getting at, but it is like pulling teeth to get people to commit to a self generated definition of a model railroad as opposed to a model of a railroad, AKA diorama."
Every layout is a diorama. People don't walk. Vehicles don't move. Machinery doesn't operate. Only the trains run.
A minature modeler would deride it because compromises to scale fidelity are made in order the let the modeler play with it. A R/C hobbyist would deride it because time and resources are wasted modeling unprototypical parts that should move but don't.
A true model railroad doesn't exist. No one has ever built one where the people walk, vehicles move and machinery operates. How many model railroad/dioramas have operating bridges on them? A lot, they're cool. But why? The bridge may move but no ships and boats go under them. It's useless animation.
"I will say this yet once again: I want to know what you consider; what you define, as a bona-fide model railroad."
And the answer to the question is. That there's no such thing as a bona-fide model railroad at this point in time.
"I want to know what YOU consider a "real" model railroad."
What I'd consider as close as you can get to model railroad at this point in time is where the bare minimum standard is the trains run reliably, are weathered and look plausibly realistic between 1 to 3 feet away. That they travel through scenery that's plausible and a trackplan that allows simulating prototypical operations such as switching of cars, passing siding etc.
There was an article in Model Railroader:March 1983. Last days of the Duquesne.
It was a layout about for or five by ten with circular operation but it was realistic looking, seemed to have operation potential.
Things I don't consider to be model railroads. Garden railroads. Anything with track made of die formed metal with three rails equidistant from each other. They're just toys.
"Your ideas may be totally different from mine, but I won't get my feelings hurt. That's because my ideas are totally different from yours. So don't you get your feelings hurt either. We are not herd animals here. it is not necessary to blend in and be like everyone else, or parrot the party line: "If you're having fun, you're doing it right".
Yeah. I've noticed when the fun is mocking the vesties it suddenly not all right for model railroading to be fun.
One of these days I'm going get a NJ or MA state trooper uniform and a Model Railroad Prototype Police shoulder patch, go to a convention and start handing out tickets to vesties for creating a climate that engenders disrespect for the hobby, non-prototypical paint schemes and things of that sort. Oh and one each for Terry Thompson and Russ Larson for destruction of a model railroad magazine and crimes against Model Railroading.
Eric
If you had a large enough snake in the layout room the cat would soon cease to be a problem. :-)
Eric
Mark Newt RATTLE SNAKES??? I thought having our cat around the layout was a problem...
Lots of snips...
Alot more snips...
Well this video claims the layout is "one of the greatest model railroads ever built":
- George Sellios (Part 1)
Shouldn't that settle it?
MacIndoe
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.