Alternative to the NMRA Master Model Railroader?

[steinjr]

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.

Precisely.

One good model builder has scratch built this engine (although it is not particularily "realistic" in my eyes, based on the engines I have seen):


And another good, perhaps great, model railroader has detailed and weathered this RTR locomotive, and built the realistic looking scene it is photographed in:


I don't see any obvious criteria which would make it meaningful to compare the level of competence of these two model railroaders - both are good at the way they do their hobby, but they work in very different ways and with fairly different goals.

Smile,
Stein

[dave1905]

I think that people get hung up on the NMRA MMR program for three basic reasons:
1. They think its elitist.
2. They don't like the bureaucracy and documentation required.
3. The don't think the skills required are relevant.

Any formal program that you set up will still offend the people who object to #1. So pretty much forget trying to satisfy them , they will never be convinced.

Any program you set up will have to have some criteria of acheivement or it will be irrelevant. Like those "everybody gets a trophy for being on the team" things they do for kids. The critera have to be fairly specific so that the people determining qualifications would have something to judge things by.
The basis for the "master" is rooted in the guild system of masters, journeyman and apprentices. Since we have pretty much lost those titles outside of a few union positions, the concept of what a "master" is has been lost as well. There are those that say all the documentation isn't needed and that you should be able to just look at a layout and tell if a modeler is a "master" or not. I strongly disagree. I beieve that "master" is as much about what's under the hood and how you got there than the WOW factor of the layout.
With so much RTR equipment out there and so many painting, desing, and layout building services available, I think documentation is absolutely critical to establish exactly what the modeler did and how he did it.
As far as the bureaucracy goes, the NMRA has been bad about that in the past. With any volunteer organization (ans whatever new you set up probably will also be a volunteer orgainization) there are wide variations in the capability of the volunteers. That is also why clear criteria have to be established. Many people complain that the judging (maybe should be changed to "review" or "evaluation") is inconsistent. That points to poor training of the judges, poor understanding of the criteria by the modeler or poor communication of feedback to the modeler.

Lastly the requirements to be a master model railroader. The key to establishing the criteria is to define what a "master" model railroader should be able to do. It shuld be skill based. That is what a master is, one who is skilled. So if somebody plops down a beautifull detailed locomotive in front of me, that great, but I won't consider the modeler a "master" until he or she can explain what he or she did to get it that way (back to the documentation). The trick is to define the requirements to adapt to the modern world.

[dave1905]

[
One good model builder has scratch built this engine (although it is not particularily "realistic" in my eyes, based on the engines I have seen):

And another good, perhaps great, model railroader has detailed and weathered this RTR locomotive, and built the realistic looking scene it is photographed in:

I don't see any obvious criteria which would make it meaningful to compare the level of competence of these two model railroaders - both are good at the way they do their hobby, but they work in very different ways and with fairly different goals.

And a "master model railroader" should pretty much ignore the modeler's goals. It should be about skills. From the standpoint of skills, the person who did the scratchbuilding may have more skills. That person has the ability to work with material and fabricate parts. They had to be able to design the parts, they had to have the mechanical aptitude to fabricate a drive train and wire it to run. Then they had to be able to paint and finish it. As far as it being prototypical or not, that's where the documentation comes in. I have seen pictures of logging engines that were similar to that.
The person who weathered the RTR has a more impressive scene and may be better at scenery and painting, but hasn't demonstrated any superior mechanical or electrical aptitude, hasn't fabricated any parts with precision. While the SCL scene may LOOk better, that doesn't mean that that modeler is a more versitile modeler. Being a master isn't about the flash, its about having a wide range of skills.

In my opinion, based only on the those two pictures (which in no way would be representative of either modeler's full range of abilities) while the scratchbuilt steamer may be less of eye-candy than the SCL diesel, the steamer demonstrates a wider range of skills.

[Sumpter250]

"Master Model Railroader" :
It's a "discipline", that requires prescribed steps, and tests, to achieve.
Once achieved, one can use the letters MMR after their name, and command the respect of others in the hobby. One can also teach, show others how to. One can draw personal satisfaction from accomplishing the tasks to arrive at that place of respect.

I take my modules to shows.
It is in the reactions of the people, that I get my "satisfaction and respect".
The widening of the eyes, and seeing the word "WOW" form on the lips of the viewers, knowing that at every show, there are places where the spectators stop and admire, and that my place is one of them -- this means more to me than any letters after my name, and, I also get to teach, show others how to. --- and that is my alternative
I guess I just don't need to "pass a test" to enjoy being in this hobby, but that doesn't mean I can't respect those who have "endured the challenge" and become NMRA MMR's ....it's definitely not an easy honor to achieve.

[steinjr]

[

And a "master model railroader" should pretty much ignore the modeler's goals. It should be about skills. From the standpoint of skills, the person who did the scratchbuilding may have more skills. That person has the ability to work with material and fabricate parts. They had to be able to design the parts, they had to have the mechanical aptitude to fabricate a drive train and wire it to run. Then they had to be able to paint and finish it. As far as it being prototypical or not, that's where the documentation comes in. I have seen pictures of logging engines that were similar to that.

The person who weathered the RTR has a more impressive scene and may be better at scenery and painting, but hasn't demonstrated any superior mechanical or electrical aptitude, hasn't fabricated any parts with precision. While the SCL scene may LOOk better, that doesn't mean that that modeler is a more versitile modeler. Being a master isn't about the flash, its about having a wide range of skills.

In my opinion, based only on the those two pictures (which in no way would be representative of either modeler's full range of abilities) while the scratchbuilt steamer may be less of eye-candy than the SCL diesel, the steamer demonstrates a wider range of skills.

OTOH, the modeler who made that first engine (a modeler who is great at producing rustic looking backwoods locomotives) makes landscapes that to me looks like amusement park ride style old west layouts, while the second modeler makes great realistic looking scenes, with thoroughly researched scenes, nice kitbashed buildings, realistic tracks, engines, cars, and so on and so forth.

It all depends on what aspect of the modeling you look at, and what your personal preferences are.

Smile,
Stein

[pgandw]

Interesting discussion.

I've yet to become a member of the NMRA. Yet, becoming an MMR is on my bucket list. Why? Because of the challenge it represents to my current skill set. Because whether or not I am a Master Model Railroader in the eyes of others, it will be a significant personal achievement.

Are there plenty of model railroaders who are master model railroaders without possessing the official title? Sure there are. Just like there are master craftsmen who don't have the union or guild card. And there are those who possess the title without having the real qualities that define a master. NO titling or achievement system is perfect.

My world of work has an interesting analogy called "Senior Engineer". To some, senior engineer is just a pay grade. To others, it represents a higher level of technical knowledge. To me, a true senior engineer is a mentor, and capable of leading a project, as well as having the superior technical knowledge of his craft. This matches very well with what Stein said about a true MMR being a contributor back to the hobby.

My father started down the trail toward his MMR. He received 2 APs before his failing health removed from the hobby, and eventually from life on earth. While he was working on his MMR, he never doubted that is was a worthwhile pursuit. I think I feel the same way.

[MasonJar]

Look at the Canadian Association of Railway Modellers' "equivalent" - the Canadian Railway Craftsman - <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.caorm.org/track.html">http://www.caorm.org/track.html</a><!-- m -->

There are 6 achievement areas - and only 2 of those are about the models. Four (or two thirds) are about communicating and contributing via mentoring, writing articles (web and newsletter), and volunteering at events. So for the Canadian certification, it seems that sharing the hobby is quite important.

The Youth Certificate has four areas, balanced between models and layouts (2/4) and operating (1/4) and volunteering (1/4).
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.caorm.org/youthcrc.html">http://www.caorm.org/youthcrc.html</a><!-- m -->


Andrew

[dave1905]

OTOH, the modeler who made that first engine (a modeler who is great at producing rustic looking backwoods locomotives) makes landscapes that to me looks like amusement park ride style old west layouts, while the second modeler makes great realistic looking scenes, with thoroughly researched scenes, nice kitbashed buildings, realistic tracks, engines, cars, and so on and so forth.

It all depends on what aspect of the modeling you look at, and what your personal preferences are.

Exactly, which is why it should be skills based. Skills have no "preferences". If you have the skill construct a drive train, then it doesn't matter whether its in a freelanced logger or a modern diesel. If you have to have the skill to construct a scene, then it doesn't matter whether somebody thinks its an amusement park ride or a near photgraphic scene. By making it skills based it takes the prejudices of the evaluator out of the picture.

[MountainMan]

My only desire is to reach my own limits with this hobby. I do not aspire to be a "master" of anything. I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who said that this is a hobby - anything more and it becomes an obsession and that won't do at all.

As for teaching others, I have learned more from other modelers like myself than I will ever learn from "masters", because the "masters" are not doing what I am doing.

[dave1905]

As for teaching others, I have learned more from other modelers like myself than I will ever learn from "masters", because the "masters" are not doing what I am doing.

If the program is structured correctly, the masters are doing basic things that everybody is doing to some extent. Once again skills. Skills cut across all scales and eras.

[ocalicreek]

Excellent discussion, everybody!

Thank you for so heartily responding and sharing your thoughts about this subject. I know feelings can run high - hot or cold - about the NMRA, so I appreciate the effort at keeping the discussion positive and productive.

I personally don't have any plans to construct an actual documented, structured program to set up as an 'official' alternative to the NMRA's program. I suppose if someone wants to do that I'd be happy to throw my hat in the ring and help.
What I'm hoping for is that this discussion, here on this most amiable and agreeable of all the forums, might foster a good working definition or shared idea about what a master model railroader is - apart from any of the previously established NMRA requirements.

I understand that not everybody welcomes constructive criticism and that's okay. But it seems from this thread and others that many of us place a strong emphasis on personal growth in the hobby using the standards we set for ourselves. Some of us even hold the MMR ideals up as a benchmark or as goals.

But could it be that one thing that makes this forum work - our diversity of interests, locales, personal goals and experiences, is also something that is undercutting the level of interest and committment to the MMR program? With the relative anonymity of the internet - faceless icons and imprecise words - we have lost or changed some shared ideals that would otherwise provide positive peer pressure to acheive?

For instance, if you attend a monthly clinic where models are presented, you can see these models up close first hand, interact with the modelers who built them, etc. Fine, you can do that on a forum too. But what's missing is the conversation you have with another person quietly away from the model table in which you agree his weathering is a little too much for your taste. If you know the modeler, you may be able tell that to them. They may even agree with you. But this interaction will probably be kosher and amiable because there's a common understanding that by putting their model on the table they are opening themselves up to receive comments - positive or negative.

That may not be a terrible criticism and is certainly not a slur or personal attack against the modeler. However, Print those thoughts on a forum and you mighty get lynched. This is just one example and not all are negative. But it's that sort of peer interaction that somehow builds a shared understanding that alot of 'attaboy's' and flat out adoration just cannot do. I know, mother always said "if you can't say anything nice...." but we are still judging (not always judgmental), critically thinking beings and our modeling is affected by interacting with other modelers in a reflective way. I think a set of standards, spoken or unspoken, contribute to the growth of the hobby by inspiring us and challenging us to do things not just better but sometimes differently. I know you can get that on a forum, but I think there's something missing that comes from either face to face interaction with modeler and model, or clearly articulating ideas in a forum where it's understood that nobody is going to get their nose out of joint if a criticism is made.

Anyway, this is some of the motivation behind this question and discussion, at least for me. Thanks again for the good thoughts!

Galen

[tomustang]

The basis of terms like "Master" denotes work/job. Once titles like that are in place in a hobby it's not a hobby anymore but work.

[steinjr]

OTOH, the modeler who made that first engine (a modeler who is great at producing rustic looking backwoods locomotives) makes landscapes that to me looks like amusement park ride style old west layouts, while the second modeler makes great realistic looking scenes, with thoroughly researched scenes, nice kitbashed buildings, realistic tracks, engines, cars, and so on and so forth.

It all depends on what aspect of the modeling you look at, and what your personal preferences are.

Exactly, which is why it should be skills based. Skills have no "preferences". If you have the skill construct a drive train, then it doesn't matter whether its in a freelanced logger or a modern diesel. If you have to have the skill to construct a scene, then it doesn't matter whether somebody thinks its an amusement park ride or a near photgraphic scene. By making it skills based it takes the prejudices of the evaluator out of the picture.

In principle, I agree with you - if you want to have some kind of official certification program, the criteria for good (or good enough) probably ought to not to be based (wholly, or in large part) on the individual preferences of the reviewer/evaluator.

But the fact still remains that the everybody has preferences, and those preferences will make it hard to judge something on "skill" alone. Our preferences and experiences do enter into our evaluations.

For instance - in category B (railroad setting) of the NMRA MMR program, there are three APs: Structures, Scenery and Prototype models. You have to choose at least one of the three. All three has judging factors that will tend to have a preference for prototype based/prototype inspired over more whimsical layouts.

For structures, one factor on the judges form (worth 25 points) is "conformity" - how well the structure adheres to prototype practices. For scenery and prototype models, key phrases on the judges form is things like "prototypical suitability" and "believable miniature representation of prototype railroad". A whimsical layout may still be ably constructed - in it's choice of construction techniques, but it is probably not going to score very high in category B.

But be that as it may. If people want some kind of formal recognition of their skills, then by all means let them enter some certification program and add some letters after their name.

However, I suspect I still will continue to form my own personal opinions about who is a master model railroader in those aspects of the hobby I care about, and who I want to continue to try to learn from in those aspects of the hobby. For instance, I have no idea if you have an MMR, but I expect I will continue to read with great interest your posts on operations - since you combine a wide knowledge of the prototype with an ability to be pragmatical about what is practical on a model railroad, and you have the ability and patience to explain and continue to teach. To me, that makes you a master at least in this aspect of the hobby.

Smile,
Stein

[Green_Elite_Cab]

That may not be a terrible criticism and is certainly not a slur or personal attack against the modeler. However, Print those thoughts on a forum and you mighty get lynched. This is just one example and not all are negative. But it's that sort of peer interaction that somehow builds a shared understanding that alot of 'attaboy's' and flat out adoration just cannot do.

I also hate this environment of "you can do no wrong" thinking at times. As you've said, you can get lynched for pointing things out. Several times i've been chastised for trying to help people. The worst areas for this are track planning threads and any "new" modelers.

Frequently, their track plans don't necessarily work, mostly because they're sketched on a piece of paper or on MS Paint or something. Often times, if a new guy really likes a plan, I'll make it on my track planning software and see how it fits in reality. Several times these plans do not work or fit the goals of what the original poster of the plan wanted. Sure enough, every time I begin to point out flaws or trouble spots (respectfully and politely), i get 4 or 5 people telling me "Its his layout, he can build it how he wants", completely oblivious to the fact that he CAN'T build it because its physically impossible (good luck getting that HO 4-8-2 Mountain to go through those 10" curves).

I don't understand what the problem is with helping people in this manner. So much for "teaching".

[steinjr]

What I'm hoping for is that this discussion, here on this most amiable and agreeable of all the forums, might foster a good working definition or shared idea about what a master model railroader is - apart from any of the previously established NMRA requirements.

Okay, here is a counter question: why is it important to you to establish "a good working definition" of what a master model railroader is?

I know whom among the forum members I consider to be masters at various subjects. As do you, no doubt. We may not necessarily agree on all our choices, but I am sure that there would be significant overlap.

But why is it necessary for us to try to work out formal criteria for who is a master and who is not?

For instance, if you attend a monthly clinic where models are presented, you can see these models up close first hand, interact with the modelers who built them, etc. Fine, you can do that on a forum too. But what's missing is the conversation you have with another person quietly away from the model table in which you agree his weathering is a little too much for your taste.

Not much of a problem, in my experience. I have had dozens of one-on-one conversations with people by personal message of some kind (most model railroading forums has some kind of personal message thing), discussing some aspect of their or my layout.

Where there is a will, there is a way. But I don't quite see what this new subject (or the subject of how to avoid getting charged by KISAs if you provide a honest and constructive critique on some subject) has to do with whether there is a definition of who is a master model railroader?

(KISAs = Knights In Shining Armor - people who rush to take up arms to defend others against imaginary dragons, people who take offense on behalf of others).

The core issue with advice is not who is offering the advice, but whether the advice offered make sense to you.


Smile,
Stein