Periodization and Plateaus

This is an interesting and introspective look at ourselves as hobbyists. The idea that moving to levels is somewhat simplistic but easily explained. In reality I find myself working in an area for a while until it becomes challenging to keep my attention and fall back to project that are familiar, comfortable. Each time this happens my abilities, knowledge, and experience grow. Without realizing the “plateau” is just temporary, the fall back to basic model building becomes more developed with each endeavor.

In cycling we call these periods of peaks between strength and speed “periods” and, with goals and structure, this periodization, can develop into visible changes. In model railroading this isn’t well defined but the idea of growing by levels might better be explained in similar terms of periodization.  

One aspect of building models to another level is to begin looking beyond the toys we enjoy to the prototype. The ability to “see” how models can better represent what is, or was, in operation will bring a level of satisfaction to every aspect of modeling. This can be the supply chain or operations; freight car history or weathering. Even lifestyle and economics are illustrated in a 1950’s theme layout or a 1900’s plantation line. 

Shakespeare said it well in the famous “All the world’s a stage”. We come into this hobby as babes in arms; then the curious schoolboy; the soldier; the lover; the statesman, and the bard. Finally our interests become so focused that we go back to making changes slowly, with great scrutiny, and enjoy it all. I’m still happily in love with my little pieces of history but have much to learn so will soldier on.

Off my soapbox now. Thanks for a thought provoking piece. 

Don, that might be your best

Don, that might be your best article to this point. I really enjoyed your commentary and your ranking of the modelers levels. The description was also very good and really spelled out why one would be in this level vs that level. Granted they are nothing more than some made up categories but it is an interesting way to chart ones progress through the hobby. The way you covered it is more than lumping folks into categories it is also a guide as to what one can do to break into the next level.

Well,  That makes me feel

Well,  That makes me feel inadequate, might need to start buying Viagra.

I know when I have been placed in the shallow end of the gene pool.

Three levels?

I think it's a lot more complex than that. Even 10 levels probably couldn't contain all the different types of model railroad hobbyists, and putting so much emphasis on a layout and operations doesn't cover those excellent modelers who build superb rolling stock but don't have room or desire for a layout. How for example do you rank a basement filling freelance layout built with whimsical On30 gauge compared to a Proto87 shelf layout depicting in exact scale a thoroughly researched Pennsy roundhouse scene? I think the more important "level" is how much fun and satisfaction one gets per hour spent pursuing the hobby in whatever manner they choose? That seems to me the goal of a hobby?......DaveB

I would tend to agree with Dave

I think 3 levels is fairly simplistic, but that shouldn't take away from the general idea that we grow as modelers as we do more things and we need to help others grow by encouraging them and helping them along the way.

Level 2...

Well, it looks like I'm a level 2. Most of my track is ballasted, and though I don't go for strictly prototype, I do pay attention to the movie sets I've been to, or worked at, and try to model close to that (I model a movie studio, because I wasn't satisfied with the historical "Old West", plus, I now have my first two diesels that sometimes run on the layout... well... one of them does)

I still don't like to show my work though... to a point at any rate. I have found that when i show a finished product, fellow modelers seem to like it, and tell me it's good... however, when i show HOW I do something, those same people will tell me I'm doing ot all completely wrong. That part makes me feel a bit embarrassed. I know I'm new, and have a lot of questions, but over this past eleven months, I've learned a lot, and have even had ideas of my own that folks have embraced, but getting there involves a lot of trial and error (so far more trial, than error, but that's because I religiously read MRH, the forums, ask questions, and get Model Railroader as well, and anything else that's helpful... plus, I dug out all of my old magazines, and "how-to" books I bought back in the 80s that had a lot of cool ideas in them)

Part of my modeling depends on creativity, as my funds are limited. "Don't buy "brand x" cars, but this other brand!" Well, I already have several "brand x" cars... they were in bad shape... I constructed a good one from the bad, added details, better wheels, and couplers, and now they run, and sometimes even look better than that high end I couldn't afford!

I recently learned how to stick a sewing needle into a power drill, and use it to bore a rather smart hole in metal and wood parts for grab irons to be placed... but if a fellow modeler, who complimented the grab irons watched me do that, their heads would explode, and tell me all about the products i should be buying, because they aren't that expensive.

Patience is my other problem... I have the patience to put together a kit... or even to scratch build something... but, if I start a kit, and I don't have something I need for that kit, i do NOT have the patience to wait until i can get that "something" I need for the kit, or build (thus learning the needle trick) and find it frustrating when I ask "has anyone tried this?" and the answer I get is "You're doing it wrong, put everything on hold, and buy these supplies instead!"

That probably makes me a bad modeler, but fortunately, I end up with something I like anyway.

Nothing is truly broken in model railroading, is it? I mean, I've fixed, or built too much stuff out of "junk" or "broken" to believe that. I have a beautiful engine house that when I got it (it was wood and card stock) UPS had done a tap dance on it, and it was crushed flat, and looked like something scraped out of the garbage. But those basic shapes were still there... and the windows I loved were intact. I had no scale lumber, but I had wood coffee stirrers that were the same size and shapes, and a bottle of wood glue. I now have a lit engine house, that I have been asked if it was a craftsman kit... yet, I doubt I would have the patience to build a craftsman kit. (not to my satisfaction at any rate)

I feel from the description that I am a level 2, however. But regardless of what level I'm at, I'm having fun with it, and that's really what counts, isn't it?

Don't look at me! Look at my trains instead!

All I know is that I'm in way

All I know is that I'm in way too deep...

In looking at the categories

In looking at the categories it is easy to see how one aspect could have someone in one level with regard to a specific task, but in a completely different level in others. I suspect the general levels do not require one to be the master of everything, or the novice of everything. I also suspect the levels with regard to different tasks might have something to do with the interest one has in some aspect of model railroading.

An example here might be the interest in operations vs scenery. One might use stand in models of mild levels of detail to represent some models instead of building to the last rivet. Yet the operation of the layout might be very prototypical and run according to schedules etc.

I still thought the classes were very well thought out with out the hair splitting that usually results when something of this nature is attempted.

This last couple posts

This last couple posts capture my feeling on the matter. I don't think it's about ticking all the boxes to reach "a level" but it is I think about graduating from "running" to model railroading to I don't know, a more philosophical view.

And I also agree it is peaks and plateaus. I've managed to ballast my layouts since I was 14 years old. (At least all the ones I've made that got to the point of ballast) However I am extremely "scared" of any sort of structure building. This comes from my experience with model building as a child. (the P-38 glueball.) And those problems never really going away. 

But then, I almost never buy commercial trees any more I have involved processes on tree building. I've treated a mountainside like a canvas. I'm freelancing, but I have a very defined backstory and very defined locomotive roster with a reason for everything. I HAVE weathered cars (lately, Car weathering has been a back burner project) I've custom painted an engine. It's all about fits and starts, Peaks and Periods.

Also, I am like Warflight. While I may have anxiety about glueballs. I have patience to work on a project like that, but the minute it turns out I don't have a critical part, the patience is gone and the frustration sets in and I want to chuck the whole thing. Especially since I almost always hit that point when the hobby store is closed and it's a week to the next paycheck anyway.  

Never too far

I'm probably around Level 2-1/2 on Don's scale. Like Mike said above, all I know is that I'm in too deep. But, too deep to care how deep I am.

Golf?

I'd like to know how the hobby of model Railroading can compare to golf?

The only thing I see with golf is that you play with little balls and chase after them on a field.

Model Railroading is a hobby that actually lets you develop real life skills; carpentry, electrical, painting, etc.

No. Just no.

As if the segregation of modeling  by scales wasn't bad enough, now there are "levels"? Sorry, I'm not buying into that. Why can't we just enjoy the hobby on our own terms without being pigeonholed or judged by others?

One of the reasons I refuse to have anything to do with the NMRA is because of the MMR program. I don't need a stamp of approval to enjoy my trains. I'm not into this as a competition sport, and yet that's what seems to drive many of the people (and clubs) I've seen. No thanks - if that's someone's idea of this hobby, fine, but don't think for a minute that I'll let you impose your ideals on my hobby.

Like the man said:

I don't like it.

I don't like being labeled level anything. I don't think that is helpful to anyone, at all. I do agree with striving to improve and encouraging others. We have to be careful though, of labeling people and assuming that they are at one level or another. Also, how is ballasting track an indicator of your level of involvement? I've been a model railroader since I was 12, built several layouts and only one had ballast. I am pretty serious about my hobby. I've built contest winning models. (note THAT does NOT make ANY difference to ANYTHING) What level does that make me? Don't insult me with an answer. A very unhelpful article.

Perhaps this article is in the wrong category?

Perhaps it should be in the "Reverse Running" category?  The action of ballasting moves one up a level? Hummm.

It's a commitment

It's about commitment. Prior to ballasting, you don't even have to fasten down the track. Once you ballast, you're committed.

No categorization is perfect. It's about generalities and tendencies. It's also not about saying any given level of commitment is bad, just that with greater commitment may come greater satisfaction. It's worth checking out ...

I'm very committed but not

I'm very committed but not ballasted. 

Sorry, that logic makes no sense. I see what you're trying to do but it doesn't work. 

What about modelers with no

What about modelers with no layout? What level are they and how do they "level up"?

It's a generalization

It's a generalization. A modeler who starts around the Christmas tree becomes more committed once they build something that includes ballast. It's why MR has so many how-to ballast articles. They consider you've crossed a commitment line once you go ahead and ballast.

Again, it's not perfect in all cases, it's a generalization.

Modelers with no layout

If all the modeler ever does is build layouts and they *never* build a layout or even ever run a train on a club layout, etc. then they're a model train builder. They're not the audience this article is talking about.

I knew a janitor in High School who loved building models of trains, but he never ran anything and had no interest in layouts at all. Yes, he's a great modeler and we had really fun conversations together. But I didn't consider him to be a model railroader the same way most people are model railroaders. He was on the "fringe" in a hobby where most have an interest in layouts or running trains.

The point is, you can dream up a million exceptions to prove the categorization doesn't work. That's because nobody fits the categorization we described perfectly just like there is no "average family" that you can point to that is *the family* they had in mind when they do "average" stats.

It's about everybody in general and nobody in particular. Still, the average stats are useful even if there is nobody in particular they had in mind when doing the stats and nobody fits all the average stats perfectly. Same thing here.

On this scale...

Yeah, I've got 10 T-Trak

Yeah, I've got 10 T-Trak modules of various sizes, with four more under construction, and they're all ballasted.

Of course, the standard for T-Trak calls for Kato Unitrack... which is on its own roadbed. And comes ballasted.

On the other hand, I've been known to slice pieces of Kato double track lengthwise to get appropriate length sections of single track with concrete ties (my standard for my modules).

Ballast

​On my previous layout I had TT&TO operations, scratchbuilt and kitbashed cars, handlaid track and switches, multiple binders of prototype data, a timetable, an Access database that generated CC&WB plus reports.  But no ballast.

On my new layout I have the same thing, but ballast, so I guess a couple bags of sand jumped me two "levels".

​Who knew?

The more interesting question is why?

The more interesting question is why no ballast?

Remember, this generalization is about everybody in general and nobody in particular. There is likely almost no large "average modeler" group hidden off somewhere that fits all the categorization perfectly.

I understand

what the commentary was trying to do, but I think the execution wasn't as thought out.  It's a generalization, so why not make the "levels" more general - a beginner modeler who starts with a starter set most likely, an intermediate modeler who takes that to the level of building a layout, adding buildings and perhaps scenery, to the advanced modeler who may be very detail-specific or want proto-ops.  

Whenever we try to make these generalizations, they are almost always going to offend or be misinterpreted, and what I think the point of the article was gets lost.  The point, I believe, was that we're all at different levels and advance with our experience, but we should all be accepting help from others and helping others where we can.