This one certainly hit the nail on the head.

I have been a member of my club from the very beginning.  We have been working on 3 different layouts as a club over the years and none of them have gotten close to complete.  The current Sudbury Division has been under construction for over 15 years and we don't even have the mainline complete yet.  We have a little scenery in three areas, which at least proves that once we have the time and resources, we can do a good job of finishing the layout, but there has been a lot of other things which have been priorities keeping us from making much progress on finishing scenes.

I am as much self-concious of the incomplete state of the club layout as anyone.  We have open houses, and I often find myself thinking that there really isn't anything to see, since it's mostly plywood and studs still, even after all these years, and it seems to me like it isn't making much progress sometimes.  Our visitors, however, are almost always really enthused about what they see and only rarely do some leave making comments about "not enough scenery" or something to that effect.  I think usually, modelers as a whole are quite positive in their response, it's the "civilians" who are put off by the plywood.  Repeat visitors usually remark about the tremendous progress we've been making, which our own members have a hard time seeing.

It's good that people can appreciate that model railroads are mostly a work in progress, because they usually take years to build, and most owners don't want to keep them under wraps until they are done.  Most people would never see a model railroad if only the finished ones were shared with others.  I recall Railmodel Journal would do layout tours and would happily show every corner of the layout, including incomplete areas.  It was a refreshing approach, and maybe it should be done more.

I agree

That's why my favorite Model Railroad publication (at least on paper) is Model Railroad Planning. Here you'll see both finished scenes or just bare plywood.

sarcasm and nonsense

How seriously I take my modeling is none of your concern.  I'm not going to be so presumptuous as to pretend to be a spokesman for modelers everywhere, but for myself, I like my models finished because I appreciate realistic models in realistic scenes.  The Awful Truth is it takes a lot of time and effort to get there, and in the meantime we have unfinished models and layouts.  

But...

All that being said, though...While Model Railroading may be "Just a hobby," Model Railroad Publishing most certainly is not!  It's a Business!!!  If your detractors only say "His diesels don't even have handrails!," upon viewing the video, you've beaten the battle.  It means they've forgotten that it's a video, on a camera, a product far removed form the helix itself.  A publication, even if it shows an unfinished work in progress, is upon Air Time, a "Finished Product!"

There is truth to the fact that the present caliber of published media is of a high caliber,and there are a number who maintain it at this level.  If a publication were to slip up and present ad-hoc photographs, low caliber writing, and uninspiring subjects, well...it does not go unnoticed!  Such work is what blogs, Facebook, Youtube, and all the rest were invented to do - to give the unwashed a place to exhibit their work!!!  The publication itself, it must be a polished gem!

For these things, I want to thank Charlie Comstock and Tom Patterson for their most excellent work - Charlie, for his publication on how to produce good photography, and Tom Patterson, for his work expressing how unwashed work becomes publishable material in his blog that appeared last month. These products combined, I believe the editors will have more "useable" work in their hands.  And the producers of MRH, for laying in place the standard that has been true for this expedition from the start - there's been nothing "Amateur" about it yet!

That's Kind of the point...

How seriously you take your modeling is none of my concern - and mine, none of your concern.  So when you see work that is not yours, as do I, regardless of what you or I personally like, it is up to us and us alone to find the beauty that is in that work - even if it's not our cup of tea - and see it for what it is.  If we need to see more, we'll just have to let the imagination fill it in.  In doing so, we become better equipped at appreciating a wider range of not just model railroad, but model railroader, thus widening our social circle.

train of thought derailed

No, the point is an incomplete model is incomplete--that is the only point I could see that Joe was making.  We need to accept the fact that our layouts and models will spent some if not most of their time incomplete.  As far as I can tell, everything else you read into it is imaginary.  

If you want to start a thread on junky or toylike layouts being an end unto themselves, you can certainly do that, and you can also provide a guide to how we are allowed to appreciate or perceive them; that would be a good place for that.  Maybe Joe will even let you write a guest Reverse Running with that as the subject.

Fun with "In Progress"

During the Silicon Valley Free-moN set-up at the Hiller Aviation Museum show earlier this month, many people approached our layout, looked, and then commented to their kids "Oh, they're still building this one" and made to move away to the "finished" O scale and NTrak layouts.

And, even though not a single module was "finished" (my own "shoofly" is about 70% done), we were still able to convince them that we had a "real" layout with running trains and everything.

And after a minute or two those same people were totally into both the "finished" sections as well as the parts we were building as we spoke.

Heck, the "in-progress" parts afforded the opportunity to go into greater detail about the actual construction and helped demystify much of the hobby, earning (perhaps) more "converts" than a polished museum piece would.

I know my  local hobby shop owner intentionally made her in-store layout have sections at various completion-levels for the express purpose of educating and not overwhelming people, thus scaring beginners away from the hobby.

So I guess it just comes down to: 1) what is the purpose of the layout, and 2) what is the purpose of the article / video / publication?

There's a place for perfect & polished photos, just as there's a place for sharing techniques or even the joy of running or building a in-progress (half-baked?) layout.

And the model railroading world is wide...

"All restaurants are Taco Bells"

Thanks to "marketing" I suspect. . . .

. . . . Whatever state of completion, scale accuracy, realism or what ever, all today's layouts and models are described as great, realistic, highly accurate and superb running "Model Railroads". And a huge number of out of scale accessories are now "proto". And certain wheels that don't comply with NMRA standards are now publicly boasted as "run fine on NMRA standard track",

Whether the Inuit People really have 100 words for "snow", I don't know. But we have been stuck with just one PC, huge tent encompassing, Model Railroad "snow" for some time now.

And so we have no way any more of objectively differentiating the excellent from the merely good, or even the truly poor.  As well as not being allowed to appear to offend the novices, or the uncaring, in "the hobby",  there are no short simple names left to use for even a "perfect reproduction" that could not be told from the real thing,  let alone just being breath-takingly outstanding.

I accidentally uncovered and opened an old 60's copy of "Model Railroader" edited by Lynn Westcott (sp?) a few days ago. It was like reading about a totally different hobby from the one we hear so much of today. 

???

". . . . Whatever state of completion, scale accuracy, realism or what ever, all today's layouts and models are described as great, realistic, highly accurate and superb running "Model Railroads"."

Sorry, but I'm a little e-tarded, so I can't tell if you're being ironic or not.

And I don't believe your statement is true at all.

There's the intention of the modeler, and then there's the lens through which the viewer perceives the results.

If someone states that they are having fun running trains on a plywood prairie while they work on skills A, B & C, I'm not going to blast them for not having a prototypically accurate, museum-quality layout.
I'll point out what they did well and some things to think about to improve stated skills.

99% of layouts are not "great, realistic, highly accurate and superb-running model railroads," and only those claiming to be should be held up to that kind of criticism.

Otherwise, enjoy the good and help out by suggesting ways to improve in a positive fashion.

That, at least, is my intention 

I wasn't being sarcastic.

I wasn't being sarcastic. e.g. These are straight off the web.

"33" & 36" diameter, narrow (0.088") wheel width, but run fine on NMRA standard track, available in multiple axle lengths.  Perfect appearance, perfect rolling qualities, perfect coupler centering and perfect cleanliness".

" Proto MAX(TM) Magnetic Knuckle Couplers -- Standard Type 4 Pair (Enough for 4 Cars) "

Now suppose you send a young inexperienced person to the hobby shop and tell them to bring back prototypical wheels and couplers for a NMRA competition model  . . . . .

I said precisely, that I have no objection to anyone in the hobby doing whatever they wish. Nor did I say I would be critical of what ever level they worked at.

I DID say I don't think we have any way left to describe different levels of results, expertise or marketing claims.

But Andy if it's on the web it must be true!

Andy, don't you know that if it's posted on the web, it's gotta be true?

Much of what's on the web that's written about the hobby (that isn't in an official publication with editors) is one big electronic RPO column ... just keep that in mind.

To compare people's commentary and opinion posts to content that has to get past the editors to be published is a bit of apples and oranges.

People can pretty much say any crazy thing they want on the web and claim it's true, but with content that must go through editors (like what's in magazines or ezines), the goofy stuff tends to get edited out.

How much do we need?

But do we need them?

In the end we have what is memorable - what leaves an impact - and then we have everything else.

We have the expertise that remains deep-seated, and then we have everyone else.  Regardless of who makes the golden jingle that tuns on the light bulb, though, we remember that light bulb most of all, even if we forget who said it.  And when it comes to marketing claims, this may be frustrating,but the easiest thing to remember is that so long as someone is selling something, they'll dress it up with the most colorful language they can muster.  In the end it takes personal experiences to sort through what's good and bad.

I don't send others to get my train parts.  That would presume they think about the hobby like me - and that's not going to be so.  There's a reason I don't ask for trains for Christmas [my mom does a terrific job finding stuff, though!]

Not all Restaurants are Taco Bell.  All restaurants Serve Food.  But guess what: the same inspectors who inspect the 5 Star Chateau Papouli are the same people who inspect Taco Bell.  There are the people who eat to live, and Taco Bell will do them just fine;  those who live to eat may be more critical.  The professional critics, meanwhile, don't waste their time on Taco Bell, though Taco Bell does a fine job hiring critics to talk up their new menu items.  Me personally, I've always been able to find something good to eat - irregardless of what place I'm in! 

...

Provided the editor is "always right"?, right?

And isn't employed by someone named Murdock?

Joe's actually modelling post UP takeover of SP?

Dear Joe,

T'ain't nothing wrong with that SD9's cab numbers, you just managed to snap a shot of it mid-way thru the SP--> UP "patching" process a la

http://www.flickr.com/photos/allenrockwell/4550252426/

They've obviously painted on the UP Armour Yellow patch, 
and temporarily spray-painted the roadnumber on so everyone knows which unit it is, 
but haven't yet stuck on the UP red numbers...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS for public show/"exhibition" work, it's all about "best foot forward" modelling and presentation,
which kinda speaks against unfinished benchwork and models
(unless you're attending the show as a "how-to-build-benchwork workshop" or similar  ),

but at home, sure, no model "rolls straight onto the layout complete"...

PPS believe we've talked about this "to show, or not to show unfinished benchwork" issue previously

https://forum.mrhmag.com/magazine-feedback-was-ezines-891776

and the reply

https://forum.mrhmag.com/magazine-feedback-was-ezines-891776

Yo quiero taco bell

Don't take my word for it. . . . . . .

Oh, Andy, You're funny!!!

Ha, Ha!

Very true

Good column, Joe, and very true. Hobby magazines have long overemphasized "best parts" of layouts, often taking photos right next to the uncompleted plywood part, which one discovers when visiting such layouts. My friend C.J. Riley used to give a clinic in which he would show a superb photo of one of his completed scenes, which were the kind to provoke "oohs and ahs" from viewers, then a second photo standing six feet farther back from gthe layout, so you could see the less-detailed or even unfinished areas adjoining the "perfect photo area." If only to show the real world to aspiring modelers, I think we need more photos like that.

Tony Thompson

Finally, the truth about model railroading!

Now the question is, would an article of a layout tour on a functional, but mostly bare layout make it into MRH. This assumes that the article is fairly well written, and has an interesting angle. 

The fact is that most large and even not so large layouts are no where near finished. Yet they give those building and operating them, a lot of enjoyment. If it's true that trains are fun, then it shouldn't matter at what stage the layout is at, so long as those involved with it are having fun.

Taking my best shot at it

I'll go you one better... how about an article on an as yet non-existent layout??? I'm giving it a try. Why not, nothing to lose but a few digital words and pictures. If MRH doesn't publish it then it will make one heck of a nice post on the LK&O blog site!

Taken to the Extreme

National Hobby Enquirer Headline Screams: 

MRH blows the lid off the seamy underbelly of the Model Railroading World - 
The Awful Truth is revealed 

(surprisingly - it has little to do with Dorky Hats) 

I think this could be taken a step further.  We could have magazines that specialize in layouts that aren't done - call it

Unfinished Model Railroad Magazine

This month's feature - Era specific L girders and a cordless drill that you can scratch build

 Model Railroad Draftsman

Seven principles to help you decide how to decide on a track plan -  ten plans you'll never build.

...or maybe

Will I live Long Enough to Finish Those Kits? Quarterly

Simple techniques for casting wheel sets and When to bail on a difficult build

or perhaps

Pontificate and Barely Get Started Gazette

This month - How to parlay online posting into a hobby & Five ways to avoid starting on that next project

and of course

Model Railroad Procrastinating - 2012

Feature this month:  Hand Selected screws - the secret to sturdy bench work & How to tell if your plan is really ready to build. 

Should be real blockbusters as arm chair modelers, long traumatized by roving bands of over-achieving rivet counters, race out to buy copies to soothe the pain...

Worth noting that I miss-spent my youth reading Mad Magazine,

Ducking for Cover,

Guy

Cat Mountain & Santa Fe

Didn't one of David Barrow's versions of the CM&SF get press, even though it was effectively (and deliberately) a Plywood Pacific built specifically for operations?

CM &SF

I remember all the mostly negative comments about it in the various elists at the time (and I think the MR reader letters in the next issue).

Breaking the "MR rules to live by" so soon?

"long traumatized by roving bands of over-achieving rivet counters,"

Don't y'a'll just hate getting the right change from all the "penny counters" on the supermarket checkouts.

You published what?

There have been a number of articles about layouts that have not been built yet. They're called track plan(ning) articles and discuss LDE's, show prototype photos, and make lots of promises (sometimes, the planned layout is actually being built). MRP tends to have a number of long-on-promise articles. The key to making these articles appealing (imo) is discussing the design process, how tradeoffs were handled, tricky places where something clever was needed, and of course a legible and accurate trackplan with enough information for the reader to figure out what's actually been planned. While figure 8's, ovals, and dogbones are definitely trackplans and many layouts have been built using these concepts, there normally isn't enough out of the ordinary concepts to make them interesting. Byron Henderson plans were are real blessing for MRH as he both put considerable thought and experience into them and was able to explain his thought processes and provide good looking trackplans. Eye-candy is used when possible, even when not a stick of wood has yet been screwed in place. The article, Fine Tuning a Layout for Operation, in MRP 2004 by Don Mitchell and myself, featured photos of my old layout as a "prediction" of what was to come.

An article featuring lots of photos of "bare naked benchwork" is feasible (in MRH) IF that benchwork is showing unusual, neat, or innovative construction ideas/techniques. But most people aren't going to be enthused about 8 pages of standard L-girder or open frame construction although come to think of it, the current Up the Creek series (installing the BC&SJ peninsula) has had an awful lot of benchwork photos in it.  I think the difference is I'm trying to show how I built the benchwork  in UTC rather than it being a "look at my trains running on track laid on bare plywood" article.

In my opinion (humble or otherwise), David Barrow's main claim to fame was the reusable domino construction method. Get tired of the trackwork on a domino? Tear it up and re-lay with a different configuration. A great way to get a layout up and running in a hurry (super-detailing scenery and structures takes a lot of time) and some ops heads are, for the most part, mostly blind to (or vaguely aware of) scenery while they're running. Given the choice though, I'd rather run through scenery than bare plywood. But for photos and people who aren't so intent on prototype operations that they don't actually notice the scenery, a more "decorative" approach would seem to be called for. And this includes magazines where exuding "Oh wow! Hey honey, have a look at this guys layout!" is generally a good idea to keep readers salivating.  Note that the LDSIG Journal, MRP, and Dispatchers Office all resort to eye-candy (when available) to go along with the construction photos.

But it's definitely true that most layouts, even the ones with superbly finished scenes, aren't finished to that level everywhere. And maybe MRH should be trying to include an aerial view or two of the layout showing the scenery in it's "native habitat", aisles, raw benchwork, and all.

YMMV

Charlie