I imagine trains and layouts have their time in the spotlight; then... fade away.
I never liked the trapped, dust collecting permanent feeling; kind of like a tattoo, when it's owner has moved on...
Today's 10's are tomorrow's tear-downs.
Rick
bluelinec4,
Your post above is one of the most insightful on this topic yet. Thanks.
jackson
Aside from the embedded subjectivity in the subject, I think Rick B had the most grounded response, although layouts are entertaining in many ways they are transient and peripheral to everyday life and that can draw both criticism from non modelers as immature or self absorbed or created a world we control..I have heard them all..as well as kudos from admirers but even kudos are dependent on who is looking..sometimes it reminds me of some of my wife's interest which are just o.k or kind of a halfhearted "yeah, that's great." Frankly I think grading one's hobby is equally transient as much as one interests or circumstances do change..and layouts are sort of secondary to the trains themselves and what we like as far as prototypes, etc regardless of realism or whimsy in where they run. Sometimes I think the hobby as a whole has become lopsided, too much focus on niggling and parsing layouts and less on the trains. A wonderful engine can run on a sidewalk and and not be detracted from as far as entertainment value..regardless of where it runs. I remember reading some articles in MR that I thought were prime examples of OCD run a muck. Two words come to mind. Good enough.
electro,
Good enough... has to be good enough; that's about as good as it gets; and, I'm okay with that.
I've often felt there are some people with OCD traits, in this hobby. Obsessive Compulsive Personality's too. That's not good or bad, just is.
Rick
Rick
Well, I was one of those who was sincerely surprised when someone took umbrage at two words, "toy trains"..and I thought to myself, who cares? Not to disparage others tastes, or opinions. It seemed beside the main point.. once again..the trains themselves would seem to be the point regardless of opinions over this or that "standard" which is strictly in the mind not in writ. That's why I went to tinplate where the trains are the focus. I think some layouts are works of art but all layouts are created with the idea of running trains, whether they are super detailed or whimsical. I think way too much parsing goes on here at times that becomes slightly overwrought, in my own seemingly minority opinion, but so be it. Again who cares enough to get high blood pressure? At times the hobby can be a bit surrealistic.
Bruce
Currently my layout = (-1)^(1/2)
Originally Posted by scale rail:
I'm just curious. Where are you on this scale. Let's say a one is a carpet layout. A ten would be a super scale two rail railroad. I'm not saying a 4x8 Marx layout isn't as good as a ten at all. In fact I would love OGR to do some articles on Marx layouts. I think they'er wonderful. I would say my layout is about a #7 on the scale. I think it would be interesting for us to know where we are on the scale. Not as a judgmental thing but just as a interesting fact. Again number ten is no better than number one. A one can be as much fun and the owner getting as much enjoyment out of their layout as the folks running a ten. Please lets keep this fun and not get into any heavy discussions. Thanks, Don
Probably a 3.5. Space-constrained in a garage unit to 19ft x 9ft, with table flat up against 2 walls. 7 track loops, 6 interconnected, one climbing to height of 7 inches and looping back over itself. Conventional locomotives and Legacy locomotives. Crude, unfinished scenery. Trackside accessories wherever they can fit.
I would put my layout as a 6.667. Two mainlines of approx. 220 feet long for each, 8 sidings and a small 3 track yard. Still need approx 10 foot of a siding, more buildings, people, more wiring of sidings and more money.
ehiku!
Aloha!
KD
dkdkrd, OK, 5
Aloha, Don
