[ozwarrior]

Hornby ask this question on page three of their catalogue.
I suppose everyone has their answers like when a first piece of extra track or scenery is added but I tend to think it's when it's put down on a baseboard. Nothing extra has to be done. But it indicates a desire for permanency.
What do others think?

 

[Richard Johnson]

QUOTE (ozwarrior @ 10 Dec 2007, 08:55) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hornby ask this question on page three of their catalogue.
I suppose everyone has their answers like when a first piece of extra track or scenery is added but I tend to think it's when it's put down on a baseboard. Nothing extra has to be done. But it indicates a desire for permanency.
What do others think?

*** There's danger in definition: It leads to pidgeonholing of people as well as their trains and resentment follows easily. Without casting aspersions of any kind on the preferences of others, I think a circle of track on a baseboard or trains on a trackmat are still a trainset.

I'd define the change as "when it gains a plan and a purpose" - ie when the prospective modeller decides what is to be created, what type of railway it will be, and defines purpose to its trackwork and infrastructure etc etc. Ie, something that goes from x to y or that sets the scene in an appropriate manner for the running of the trains.

Definitions aside, unless the creator wishes to be judged, how others judge isn't the point... the most important thing is that the "Modeller" creates something to fill his own personal "vision and aspiration" for his hobby time.

Richard

 

[neil_s_wood]

I suppose it's when you add to it or "model" some aspect of it and alter the train set from what came in the box. Problem with this differentiation is that "train set" modeller is used as a put down label for some modellers and can be seen as inflamatory which is a bit unfair. We should really be encouraging people to take up this hobby rather than telling beginners why they are inadequate.

I think it's more about how seriously you take yourself and your intentions as regards your layout which label you prefer.

 

[gdaysydney]

Its all in the mind ...... one mans train set is another mans model railway

 

[pedromorgan]

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 10 Dec 2007, 01:25) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>*** There's danger in definition: It leads to pidgeonholing of people as well as their trains and resentment follows easily. Without casting aspersions of any kind on the preferences of others, I think a circle of track on a baseboard or trains on a trackmat are still a trainset.

I'd define the change as "when it gains a plan and a purpose" - ie when the prospective modeller decides what is to be created, what type of railway it will be, and defines purpose to its trackwork and infrastructure etc etc. Ie, something that goes from x to y or that sets the scene in an appropriate manner for the running of the trains.

Definitions aside, unless the creator wishes to be judged, how others judge isn't the point... the most important thing is that the "Modeller" creates something to fill his own personal "vision and aspiration" for his hobby time.

Richard

I think that has summed it up perfectly.

I run whatever i like on my layout. i like to have the right loco with the right stock but apart from that i buy and run what ever takes my fancy. regardless of what country its from. but i find being called a trainset modeller mildly offensive. i put more work into my models than the vast majoprity of models. often to the point of ignoring available models or kits and etching my own.

This is a question i think about alot. I thnk the answer is far more important to other people rather than me. i think the public in general feel the need to pigeon hole people because it helps them to feel 'normal'. i think this applies within hobbies as well as with things like sexuality and race. i can understand why some may find it comforting to be able to place themselves into a catagory, i think it must help them to feel like they are not alone.

They believe that our lives are somehow less important than theirs because they do 'normal' things like go out boozing and watching TV. they often dont realise there are 2 sides to the coin. i see their lives as unproductive and frankly dull.

It hapens internally within hobbies too. i remember having a discussion here on this forum. someone couldnt accept that i had a model railway and not a trainset because i ran my chinese QJ next to a GWR castle. it amazes me that people seem to do it to themselves. they seem to like narrowing their field. i have a friend hat simply refuses to buy a model if it didnt run in his particular patch.

comming back to the origional question, i think its the point at which it becomes an interest rather then simply a toy. i think that goes with any hobby. but then that begs another question- why do we do it? i dont know the answer but i have an idea that simply the will and the enthusiasm is reason enough. i am not sure that is 100% what i mean but i havent yet decided how to word it properly.

Peter

 

[Brian Considine]

QUOTE (pedromorgan @ 10 Dec 2007, 09:57) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I run whatever i like on my layout. i like to have the right loco with the right stock but apart from that i buy and run what ever takes my fancy. regardless of what country its from. but i find being called a trainset modeller mildly offensive.

I would agree with Richard plus what Peter says above. If you take it too seriously you can be in danger of not enjoying the hobby. There are quite a few of us here who enjoy diversifying with stock & that is refreshing.

 

[Robert Stokes]

I agree that it is an attitude of mind. When you are TRYING to create a model of the real thing however inadequate then it is a model railway.

 

[Richard Johnson]

QUOTE (pedromorgan @ 10 Dec 2007, 18:57) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think that has summed it up perfectly.

(Snip) I remember having a discussion here on this forum. someone couldnt accept that i had a model railway and not a trainset because i ran my chinese QJ next to a GWR castle. it amazes me that people seem to do it to themselves. they seem to like narrowing their field. i have a friend hat simply refuses to buy a model if it didnt run in his particular patch.

coming back to the origional question, i think its the point at which it becomes an interest rather then simply a toy. i think that goes with any hobby. but then that begs another question- why do we do it? i dont know the answer but i have an idea that simply the will and the enthusiasm is reason enough. i am not sure that is 100% what i mean but i havent yet decided how to word it properly.

Peter

Hi Peter

I too think about this a lot as I have clients in all categories and teach modelling subjects to people with a wide spread of interests too....Personally while I respect the pleasure of others and will defend their right to do it their way, I do think I actually come largely within the category of your friend, as I am a stickler for detail and do stay largely to those loco's/stock that ran on "my patch".

However I do have a seriously bloody minded streak so it any Cat 3 modellers with "an attitude" arrive and bore me stupid with their waffle I'm as likely to run The Rio Grande Zephyr across Ribblehead as a Midland 999 class with a load of clerestory coaches or the Thames Clyde express.... (mind you... The coaches and the WP F3's or D&RGW F7's or PA's would have the right liveries and handrail detail etc - I do have standards

)

I actually think there are three types of modeller:

(1) Those who "Run trains for trains sake", and buy them cos they like 'em - I include in this an associate who has a very tasty Hornby Dublo 3 rail layout thats a pleasure to watch and run, and those who simply run out of the box trains mixing national prototypes on an extended oval with whatever they like.

(2) Those who "Make a model railway" with a bit of detail in the scenery, a definable purpose and may or may not modify stock, but will probably focus on a regional or at least one national prototype - however if they choose not to, that's their choice and their pleasure.... I have several good friends who do this and they are fine modellers!

(3) Those who "Make a model OF a railway" and who pay attention to period, architecture, track layouts, rolling stock and locomotive types and detail. I wonder if a faithfully executed "Thomas" layout falls into this category . With all those expressions on the loco's does a Thomas modeller become a wrinkle counter?????????

Pleasure is equal for all as they are doing what they want.

Skill MAY be higher in the case of 2 and 3 but then again 1 may be the worlds greatest modeller but may choose not to bother....

Knowledge will probably be better for 3 as to his prototype, but then again my friend with the "Dublo" layout has an encyclopaedic "Dublo loco servicing" ability and knowledge of his chosen models, so "knowledge of choice" is equal.....

Each has an opportunity to "enjoy" and "care" equally too.... and again, that's the point, isn't it.

--------------------------------------

So Peter... Noting your comment re being labelled - My one request to all:

If you want to call someone a rivet counter that's fine but do so with respect for their knowledge, not as a curse, 'cos thats what they are, and its their way to enjoy the hobby... (and I suppose its what I am too) - and understand that I'll (and hopefully they) will be doing the same if you are ever called trainset modeller

.

After all... they only become insults if we allow them to be!

Richard

 

[pedromorgan]

Out of interest, which catagory do you think i am in?

I am fussy about detail on my stock. i design and build detailed rolling stock. and build accurate trains. BUT hardly any 2 of my trains could be prototypically run next to each other. i like things to look right and couldnt stand running a 3 rail layout (or one with studs) but i dont mind the discrepency between HO and OO in the slightest. My dream layout is a total mix of prototypes from GWR broad gauge to modern TGV's and bullet trains. but it would have to be properly ballasted with painted rails and point rodding.......

Peter

 

[bike2steam]

Yes Richard, I suppose I'm one of those sad cases you could slot in (3), but I still refer to my layout as my 'train set' - who cares.In one of my conversations with Tony Wright about our layouts, we both referred to them as 'train sets' with a wry smile - you gotta have a sense of humour.
Paul M.

 

[Richard Johnson]

QUOTE (bike2steam @ 10 Dec 2007, 22:52) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes Richard, I suppose I'm one of those sad cases you could slot in (3), but I still refer to my layout as my 'train set' - who cares.In one of my conversations with Tony Wright about our layouts, we both referred to them as 'train sets' with a wry smile - you gotta have a sense of humour.
Paul M.

**As am I Paul . We have a quieter pleasure in our models, but pleasure nonetheless!

Peter

I'd say you are most certainly a modeller Peter - some of your work is outstanding. "eccentric" doesn't suit you (needs less hair, more age and dandruff) but "eclectic" does.

The label just doesn't matter - do it your way and smile ...I do - people always fear or curse those things they don't understand, or, far more sadly, tend to put down those who they see as having some added vision, skill or motivation they do not share.

Comfort yourself with this thought: (Ignoring the tossers who simply sit in their armchairs, pontificate, never actually do anything and are never happy - and are as bad for the hobby as trespassers are for trainspotters)

Fussy modellers generally criticise models, are mostly happy to share their skills and as a result, models improve. Some less focussed model railway people see fussier modellers as a threat for some strange reason, so they strike out and criticise other people. Now that IS sad!!

Richard

 

[7113]

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 10 Dec 2007, 14:14) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>"eccentric" doesn't suit you (needs less hair, more age and dandruff) but "eclectic" does.

Ah then I must be eccentric, I have the additional years and the recedeing hair (no dandruff tho'!)..........

However to be a little more serious if I may I would say that it becomes a model when there is a drive to go beyond what came in the box.

Unlike some people I really don't care what is run after all it's meant to be fun.

Regards

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (Richard Johnson @ 11 Dec 2007, 01:14) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Comfort yourself with this thought: (Ignoring the tossers who simply sit in their armchairs, pontificate, never actually do anything and are never happy - and are as bad for the hobby as trespassers are for trainspotters)

Fussy modellers generally criticise models, are mostly happy to share their skills and as a result, models improve. Some less focussed model railway people see fussier modellers as a threat for some strange reason, so they strike out and criticise other people. Now that IS sad!!

Richard
Unfortunately, Richard, there is also the fussier modeller who chooses to lecture and lord it over the modellers that he deems inadequate or not up to his unilaterally imposed standards. I find these individuals sad as they put people off our hobby. For some reason they seem to gravitate to model rail clubs, probably for the captive audience that they can lecture on why they are not as good as he is.

There is nothing wrong with having a sound knowledge base, on the contrary we really need people like this in the hobby and they are a great resource for the less well informed of us and beginners. I know many people like this who have a remarkable degree of knowledge on various aspects of the world of model rail and they are a real assett to our hobby, I would include you in this category. It is the people who use this knowledge to put down others that are a problem. As has been said, they often have the same mistakes on their layout that they are pointing out to you in the mistaken belief that you are unaware of the clash of eras or geographical locations and actually care about it. Most of us are fussy in some areas and not others depending on what we deem most important. Tolerance is what is needed. One upmanship is not. Let's face it not many of us are replicating Pendon, although I'm sure we would all like to/be able to.

 

[goedel]

Well, I'm delighted to find out that I am approximately a (2) or more likely about a (2.4) on Peter's excellent scale of the extent of the vice. I am safe in the knowledge that I'm somewhere in the middle, far from either Thomas the Tank (0) or the hardened anorak (4+), which is where everyone else on the forum is too I suppose!

To the (1)s I say, "Come on in, the water's lovely!"

To the (3)s I say, "Loosen your ties a bit and turn the lighting lower - then your modelling will look that little bit less distinguishable from unobtainable perfection!"
or
"Err on the side of a (4) - straighten your tie, turn the spotlights on and get stuck in - then your modelling will look that little bit less distinguishable from unobtainable perfection!"

 

[7113]

There is (or was) a model of an Emmett (?) style railway, which I think I saw at Warley a few years ago. It had such strange things as a pink 0-2-0 and nothing that has any base in reality. The question then becomes is this a model railway or a model of a railway? My personal view is that it was the latter, despite there being no real prototype only a number of cartoons on which the creators based their models.

As an aside it was excellent and everybody loved it.

Regards

 

[dwb]

In a room with a train set the models are put back into their boxes and stacked under the bed to make more space for humans. In a room with a model railway, all other items such as clothes are packed into trunks and removed to make more space for the railway

David

 

[Gary]

David probably sums it up perfectly.

Permanancy of track seems to be the key. A permanent garden railway for example may comprise only of track running through and over garden however this is definitely a model railway and not a train set.

Happy modelling
Gary