Okay, so here's a potentially controversial topic, but one that a few civic-minded, lunatic-fringe types may be able to sort out or drag out for a while. Some comments about what constitutes a model railroader on Gary's layout thread got me to thinking. I've read other threads on other forums bashing the NMRA or the MMR or the acheivement program as being outdated. Along the same vein are threads bashing the contests as biased or craftsman-kit-esque heavy.
I'd rather be positive about something new or different than to tear down something old. So let's brainstorm and come up with our own list about what makes a model railroader - or rather, what makes a 'master' model railroader?
I do NOT want to hear the 'anything goes, as long as you're having fun playing trains' answer. There needs to be some sort of criteria for what constitues a definition that matches the three words - master, model, and railroader. You can be a master modeler, but not necessarily a railroader. You can be an operator of the plywood pacific without a hint of scenery but does that fully qualify, etc. You get the idea.
Any takers? Thoughts?
Galen
Galen, not to upset you, but as far as I'm concerned folks here are friendly, they are Modelers of railroad equipment, and if anyone here cares to what degree they go to be a "master" I'm not one of them.
Regardless of what definition anyone puts on it, it is a hobby, past time, and done for enjoyment. If it becomes an obsession, then it becomes an illness.
Model Railroader magazine had a certain few folks that would apear in issue after issue during the years I subscribed, and few others could get on board. A lot of the contests had the same winners over and over.
If someones modeling is not just exactly what, then is he not a model railroader. Maybe he just "plays with trains", something I do all the time.
When it becomes a job, I'm out of it, but I've been at it since 1950 so I'm probably hooked for life. Why do we always have to hang titles on people. Maybe we should issue licences and if you can't pass the test then you can't be a model railroader at all.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Charlie
I have no problem with their definition of master model railroader...the only thing I lack is hand laying track and, quite frankly, it'll be a frosty day in the southern nether regions before that'll ever happen. In this day of reduced standards and people would have what they have because of political, judicial or societal preferences, it's kind of nice to see a bar set---and held to---in various fields to shoot for. Like the current wave of scoreless T-ball going through our children's athletic circles, everyone playing knows the score, regardless of whether there is an official record kept or not.
Some folks strive to become "Master Modellers", and while I may admire their skills, that title doesn't, to me, add any lustre to their accomplishments. If it does to them, then it's served its purpose.
Personally, I think that quantifying one's accomplishments in a hobby environment seems to run counter to the nature of it being a "hobby".
Wayne
Well it's a big hobby with lots a niches in it. It's hard to set a standard on something that is so subjective. Different people have different opinions, and preferences on what they feel what constitutes a master modeler. I generally place little importance on titles in day to day life, I've found that most people that have them don't deserve them. I would rather keep my hobby a lot less serious, It's a nice diversion and I'd like to keep it that way.It may sound like a contradiction but I have the awards that I have received from the various challenges here at The Gauge, proudly displayed in my train room. I was honored that other people here liked my work enough to vote for it, But I'd rather not hold some, title earned or not. There are plenty of outstanding molders here in my opinion. I'd rather just call them ''Friends'' and keep it at that.
The NMRA contests and achievement programs have a couple of purposes. One is to draw some models out for their meetings to attract attendees. Another is to improve modelling standards and techniques. The MMR program is designed to induce the modeller to work in different parts of the hobby. Some people respond to a bit of competition but note that the MMR only requires a certain standard (you don't have to place first) and a lot of the areas are not competitive -- you have to wire a layout but not neatly, just so it works.
Galen,
I agree that the MMR has some areas that need a little tweaking or updating, but I think it has some good parts. I think a lot of people get caught up in the term Master Model Railroader, it does not mean you are Master of ALL model railroding, just that you have, in the eyes of the NMRA, sucessfully mastered their criteria. In many things the term Master is used, it does not mean you are the best, just that you have fullfilled the requiremnts or taken a test. I do think that for those who want to particiapte it is great that there is something for them to do. I also believe that the MMR/AP challenges people to become better modelers or acknowledge those who already meet the requirements. One thing they stress is that it is only a race against yourself to improve your own skills.
Also the only way to change it is to particiapte, earn your certificate and then judge things. If you look at who is judging it is all older retired guys, so they are going to have some biases as to what htey like, this is life. The only way to change this is to get younger people in with different interests and tastes. People seem to be really good at complaining about problems but seem to lack the initiative to do anything about it. My goal is to achieve my MMR by the time I am 40, I am turning 30 this year so I think this is a realistic goal. I have a long ways to go but I am prepared to take the necessary steps and then will in turn coach others and perform judging duties as I am able.
ocalicreek Wrote:what makes a model railroader - or rather, what makes a 'master' model railroader?
The only meaningful (IMO) definition of a master model railroader is a model railroader who inspires and teaches other model railroaders.
Who makes other model railroaders go: "wow - that was an _elegant_ way of solving that problem" or "wow - that looks _really_ good" or "I want to try that too".
In this forum - people like Gary, Doc Wayne, Kurt, Tetters and quite a few others.
Smile,
Stein
I see nothing wrong with an achievement program as long as people don't get carried away with it.
The purpose is to encourage people to explore the hobby, and it does feel nice to achieve something. No one is saying anyone is better, they are saying that so and so has accomplished such and such set of standards. As Shaygetz said above, "Everyone playing knows the score"
there is no need to take this sort of thing to seriously. I'm no stranger to achievement programs gone to far. If you think the NMRA stuff is silly, just try to sign on to something like "Xbox Live", then you'll see how far people will go. Its not uncommon for a bunch of people to "Stage" an achievement in some video games with friends, rather than actually achieve them, and do this for literally hours at a time, buying games they don't want for the sake of the achievements.
I don't see this sort of obsessive madness in the Model train hobby, and until I do, I'm going to have to go with NMRA ranks not being a big deal. Its just one more way to improve your skills, and if that is not how you like to "play the game", then you do it your way.
I personally think having a "Medals" system would be great. They can be incredibly goofy (Like a "Mini Me" achievement, make a scale model of yourself, Or a "Pig-pen" achievement [named after the peanuts character], Weather a model!), and would ultimately encourage exploration into the hobby.
Interesting responses. Only a few of you - still more than I expected - chose the 'it's all good' cop-out, but that's okay. I don't intend to ruffle feathers. I really wanted to see if there were a common understanding or set of shared ideas about what a master model railroader is or does.
Let's redefine what Master Model Railroader means (NOT the NMRA definition). I personally don't have anything against the NMRA, I've just decided it's not for me. This thread is not an NMRA bashing opportunity - I will not stoop to that.
Not to take away anything from anyone who has earned the title, but how many guys do you know who, in your estimation, fit the description of an MMR without having participated in the 'official' program? What sets a layout apart from others?
I learn something from every layout I visit in person or look at online. Sometimes I learn what to do, and sometimes what not to do. Some things I don't like are not a matter of personal taste but are just sloppy workmanship and modeling that shows a lack of care or precision. Don't read more into that statement than there is - I'm not discrediting freelance railroads or fantasy modeling or giant plastic dinosaurs, nor am I saying that one type of layout is 'better' than another. But we have all seen layouts that somehow seem to be very well done, moreso than others. Whether a modeler is particularly talented or has just been at it longer, there's something polished and presentable about the layout and nearly every aspect of the modeling that just works, regardless of scale, gauge, era or theme.
Remember there is a difference between judging and judgmentalism. One is based on a set of agreed upon standards or ideals, the other on opinions.
So here's a first idea - a master model railroader has built or is building a layout - not a diorama, but a layout on which model trains run. Agree or disagree?
Galen
Galen, this is certainly an interesting question, and I see no harm in thinking about it. Although I am an NMRA member, I have no idea what it takes to be an MMR. I've never been interested, mainly because my modeling is for my own enjoyment. I do admit that I get satisfaction out of having my work admired here at Big Blue. I'll also be on the Houston Layout tour this fall. But other than that, I have no desire to get further recognition. Pursuing the MMR thing seems like it would turn the hobby into a chore, making me feel that I had to do certain things when perhaps I didn't really want to.
My mention in the other thread that I don't think I am a model railroader yet - just my feeling. Until I have completely finished a scene and made it look realistic, I just don't feel I am in the same league as some of the accomplished modelers here. I certainly don't use that to judge others. It is only my self-imposed criteria. I have my own goals for my layout, and achieving those goals is what will qualify me as a model railroader.
Back to the question: This is just my opinion, but it feels like someone with the MMR title should have quite a few years in the hobby. I'm not prepared to throw a number out though. The term "seasoned veteran" comes to mind. Perhaps achieving all the criteria for MMR practically guarantees that? That it takes many years to complete all the requirements?
I thought about it some more, and rephrased the question.... what would it take for
me to consider
myself to be an accomplished model railroader?
In no particular order:
Understand DCC - layout wiring, installing decoders, and using it
Scratchbuild or kitbash/upgrade rollingstock
Scratchbuild prototype structures with reasonable fidelity
Have a substantially completed layout
Understand and implement prototypical operations
Realistically weather rollingstock and locos
Accomplish realistic scenery
That's the short list. Most of that is subjective. What exactly does "realistic" mean? I know what it means for me, but can't describe it. I'll know it when I see it!
Gary - thanks for chiming in. You keep using that word - accomplished. Perhaps something akin to 'seasoned veteran' as you say may be a helpful way to frame it. I think there are some naturally talented folks who dive right in and are able to build complete model railroads within a short span of time that rival the most seasoned veterans. Malcolm Furlow comes to mind, (and he's a Texan too...what is it about you folks...
).
After rereading several replies, I think Brer Shaygetz may have hit on something with the scoreless T-ball, but maybe not what he was aiming at (please set me straight if I'm reading this wrongly). Somehow we have to hold to a standard - starting, as Gary is saying, with a standard we set for ourselves. But on what do we base that standard? To whom are we looking to base our progress? Ourselves? Other modelers? The folks who win contests or write articles in the hobby rags?
You can say that you'll know it when you get there, but how are you able to make that assessment? You can't say 'that model looks like a boxcar' without comparing it to another boxcar, prototype or model. You CAN say purely on your own merit, 'that model boxcar looks good enough for me'. One is objective, the other subjective. For someone else to assess your work, as in a contest, or for you to assess someone else's work, you have to have a starting reference, right?
I think we all have an idea of what 'good enough' looks like, and from that you can see we naturally have an idea of what 'not good enough' or 'wow that's awesome' looks like. So with that in mind, if we're going to talk 'accomplished model railroaders' we can NOT simply say, "It's all good."
Galen
Having looked over the thread and my post now in the morning (instead of typing it up at midnight last night), I can see that i missed the point (and now my train is promptly derailed).
This is a short list of criteria. If you guys have anything you would add to it, that would be awesome, I know I'm not covering all the bases.
*****************************************************************
1.) Layout should be tied together overall, and follow a general plan, and flow logically, as well as being aesthetically pleasing and practical operationally.
2.) Demonstrate competency in:
a.) Scenery- Create a complete and seamless environment for your trains that is logically tied together
b.)Operations- Must simulate, in miniature, some form of railroad operations, and the layout must operate reliably where applicable
c.)Scratch Building/Kit-bashing- Demonstrate the ability to synthesize realistic structures and rolling stock from available parts
d.) Engineering- Must demonstrate knowledge and ability to do of bench work construction and electrical work (including DCC as well as layout wiring)
e.)Rolling Stock- Cars and locomotives should be competently built and appear "realistic". They should all perform reliably where applicable.
3.) Specialize in at least 3 of the above categories, going above average in quality, detail and design. must demonstrate deep knowledge of these categories, and be able create innovative solutions.
4.) Must show "veteran modeler" status, working in the hobby for at least ten years.
*************************************************************************************
That's the way i figure it, though personally i don't like "time limits". I'm thinking if someone is REALLY good (or more likely has to much time on their hands
) they could accomplish master modeller earlier than that.
I agree with what stein said:
"The only meaningful (IMO) definition of a master model railroader is a model railroader who inspires and teaches other model railroaders. "
If other people are looking at what you did for inspiration you are propagating the hobby. The metric by which inspiration is measured is in the eye of the inspired. In the sense of Stein's statement, perhaps the only things that ultimately qualify are sharing your modeling with others, and time.