|
|
Post by areibel on Nov 23, 2015 15:06:41 GMT -8
MMR has no relationship to being a Prototype modeler. What is the question here? Yeah, I think the OP is confusing Prototype modeling (like an RPM meet) with the MMR. The only MMR I know personally did most of his work in On30, they're really nicely done but the only prototype is in his mind. |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Nov 23, 2015 16:56:54 GMT -8
Could there be an option added that a person is not interested in the MMR at all, or is the poll intended only for those who are interested in achieving the MMR? I respect those who pursue the MMR, but personally I have no interest in achieving MMR status. Even if the label master was ever given to me, I would always consider myself a student: ever learning, ever improving, ever pursuing greater skill. MMR just seems like a resting place, a throne if you will, where one could stop and reflect on his accomplishments. I don't intend to stop. There is no need for an option for 'not interested', because MMR is something almost all model railroaders would like to acheive. It's no different from other polls that dont need a 'none of the above' option. Master Model Railroader is an advancement from prototype modeler, it is the highest level of modeling. "Almost all" = 0.01 % |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Nov 23, 2015 16:59:25 GMT -8
You mean, "good thing the NMRA DID it". Don't see anything they've really done much since the beginning of DCC. I remember when MRN was going to have all of us reviewers certify our review subjects to have earned the "NMRA football". I nearly quit the magazine right then and there, because that certification was pretty worthless when it came down to it. Dave Well, there is LCC, which is maybe too new to catch your attention, but you'll be seeing more of it. Links to info on it are down about halfway in the first group of links here: www.nmra.org/index-nmra-standards-and-recommended-practicesStandards and Recommended Practices may seem static and "worthless" until you have the alternative, everyone going their own way. Even MTH found that out, eventually concluding that lack of DCC capability was hurting sales enough that they finally incorporated some compatibility with their proprietary DCS. Of course, that was only after claiming that the commons the NMRA established with the DCC standard was HIS property...another reminder that Standards also help keep costs under control for modelers by requiring a minimum amount of cross-compatibility between different mfg's products. Huh? MTH in HO had DCC compatibility day one. And what are you talking about claiming MTH said they owned DCC standards? |
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Nov 23, 2015 17:00:45 GMT -8
Never joining the NRMA, or getting any kind of MMR designation, and questioning why I would ever need to. From all the people that have posted about it, for the most part it seems like a stuffy ol' boys club who sit around judging each other's models and awarding medals (probably not true for every division). Fine for some, not for me. Yeah, don't believe everything you read on the internet. Actually, here we spend most of our quality time operating. I'll build what I want, for myself, how I want it, and run it to satisfy myself. Since there's so many informative online forms like this one and groups full of people with like modeling interests (both on forums, groups, and Facebook) I can't see why I'd ever need or want to join the NMRA or accumulate a bunch of merit badges, unless I wanted to be some elite model railroader or sumthin'. Keep in mind that part of the reason you can "run it to satisfy" yourself is because of the NMRA's standards setting. Sure, there's plenty of ways to do this hobby now. You cannot, however, join the NMRA to earn a merit badge. You'd need to be a Boy Scout for that. NMRA members often supply the volunteers who help make the Railroad merit badge possible in each Boy Scout Council. You may be a little old for that merit badge anyway. But getting the merit badge is somewhat easier than a MMR. In the history of the organization, there have only been a little over 500 total to this point. Most NMRA members don't become MMRs, which is one reason I find the premises of this poll to be rather questionable. And I can't say I know any modelers in the younger crowd (let's say, < 40) that care about the NMRA. They're all on social media like Facebook building or sharing models among themselves. Just like older folks in the hobby, relatively few young folks become NMRA members. But we do have younger members...and MMR. The youngest to earn it was recently, a 13 yo, IIRC. I think both his parents are MMRs, so he had a pretty good support system. People don't only share models online. There's events like RPM. While these not NMRA events, like many events where NMRA members are involved, the insurance coverage that is typically required by venues for such gatherings is provided through the NMRA. In fact, like most in the hobby, you've already benefited from what the NMRA does - and don't even know it. Maybe because it cost you nothing. But it's stuff that's pretty important. Someone's gotta do it. Good thing the NMRA does. It is attitudes like the above that drive people away from joining in the NMRA. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Nov 23, 2015 19:25:37 GMT -8
In fact, like most in the hobby, you've already benefited from what the NMRA does - and don't even know it. Maybe because it cost you nothing. But it's stuff that's pretty important. Someone's gotta do it. Good thing the NMRA does. That was then, when the NMRA had more of an importance in the hobby, but this is now. Things change, organizations become redundant or in the case of the NMRA, much reduced in importance to the hobby. Most people in this hobby don't really care about the NMRA these days, and if the NMRA were to disappear tomorrow, people would just shrug their shoulders and keep playing with their trains. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 19:40:27 GMT -8
Just like older folks in the hobby, relatively few young folks become NMRA members. But we do have younger members...and MMR. The youngest to earn it was recently, a 13 yo, IIRC. I think both his parents are MMRs, so he had a pretty good support system. People don't only share models online. There's events like RPM. While these not NMRA events, like many events where NMRA members are involved, the insurance coverage that is typically required by venues for such gatherings is provided through the NMRA. In fact, like most in the hobby, you've already benefited from what the NMRA does - and don't even know it. Maybe because it cost you nothing. But it's stuff that's pretty important. Someone's gotta do it. Good thing the NMRA does. I think we all agree that all modelers owe a debit of gratitude to the NMRA, beginners, RPM'ers, or advanced MMR's. |
|
|
|
Post by talltim on Nov 24, 2015 2:39:00 GMT -8
There is no need for an option for 'not interested', because MMR is something almost all model railroaders would like to acheive. It's no different from other polls that dont need a 'none of the above' option. Master Model Railroader is an advancement from prototype modeler, it is the highest level of modeling. I was trying to work out if this was deadpan irony or not. I'm guessing not, but in a way it's a pity, because it is very good! Coming from the UK, I find the whole NMRA certification thing very strange, there's nothing equivalent at all here. |
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Nov 24, 2015 5:04:25 GMT -8
I find the whole NMRA certification thing very strange, there's nothing equivalent at all here. Sure there is. It's called being a freshman in a boy's boarding school. And working ones way to being a senior. Very much the same. |
|
|
|
Post by talltim on Nov 24, 2015 5:15:17 GMT -8
Well A: it wouldn't be termed Freshman as that's a US term, and B: its a pretty tenuous simile. Ok, there's nothing similar to the NMRA MMR program in railway modelling in the UK edit: I may have misread your sarcasm level, apologies if I did. Are you referring to such practices as fagging? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagging |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Nov 24, 2015 5:21:47 GMT -8
I just can't get past the idea that grown adults needing to have a certificate to say one is a "good" modeler seems...well, sad, and there are many adjectives that come to mind.
Model railroaders have been accused of being "socially underdeveloped" or "backward" in the past...Perhaps we are?
And btw how does creating a railroad entirely out of one's mind qualify one to be a "master modeler"? I would think that others who strive to exactly replicate part of a railroad or specific prototypes are more deserving of the title "master modeler" as there seems to me to be more of a challenge in doing that well.
Note: I am not and do not aspire to be a prototype modeler to the extent of some, but I can appreciate the quality and excellence they actually accomplish.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by talltim on Nov 24, 2015 5:32:43 GMT -8
And btw how does creating a railroad entirely out of one's mind qualify one to be a "master modeler"? I would think that others who strive to exactly replicate part of a railroad or specific prototypes are more deserving of the title "master modeler" as there seems to be more of a challenge in doing that well. John Dunno that I agree with that. Replicating a prototype exactly is copying, it requires skill but no creativity. Inventing your own requires imagination and artistry too, to make it as convincing as an exact copy. Most people's models are a combination of the two, with accurate stock and imaginary or compressed and distorted real locations. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2015 7:02:58 GMT -8
And btw how does creating a railroad entirely out of one's mind qualify one to be a "master modeler"? I would think that others who strive to exactly replicate part of a railroad or specific prototypes are more deserving of the title "master modeler" as there seems to be more of a challenge in doing that well. John Dunno that I agree with that. Replicating a prototype exactly is copying, it requires skill but no creativity. Inventing your own requires imagination and artistry too, to make it as convincing as an exact copy. Most people's models are a combination of the two, with accurate stock and imaginary or compressed and distorted real locations. I'd disagree. Prototype modeling I feel does require imagination. You have to envision how the prototype would have looked and operated in a 3d space. You won't get that just from pictures alone and of course visiting historical sites don't tell the entire story. So in some aspects of prototype modeling it does require creativity and imagination to fill in the blanks that history doesn't provide. Nothing is so well documented that it doesn't have gaps in the timeline of a railroad or certain equipment on the railroad. As for artistry, I would say it does take a lot of it to copy pictures and books and make them into a 3d model. If you really think about it, aren't painters copying things they see? I see no difference in the two. If you put a bowl of fruit on a table and you go to paint it, are not copying it? I would say this is where the skill as you would say would come in to play to paint it perfectly as your eyes see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Nov 24, 2015 7:22:39 GMT -8
edit: I may have misread your sarcasm level, apologies if I did. Are you referring to such practices as fagging? Extreme, but not that extreme! I should have drawn upon a fraternity example where a fellow must complete a series of tasks to prove himself/herself worthy of membership. But, I mistakenly applied a US stereotype of English schooling. Too much TV, I guess. Or, perhaps, too much Dickens as a child now remembered poorly after a looooooong passage of time. Or, perhaps, I should have just come out and said what was on my mind. But that seldom gets me anywhere. Shutting up would have been a good idea and in a verbal face to face I likely would have done just that. Maybe. It might go back to being chosen last for baseball every time in childhood, but I do have an issue with proving one's self in a hobby. Other folks have none of these issues and seem to be happier for that. NMRA for some folks. Prototype Modeling for some folks. It's all trains at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by talltim on Nov 24, 2015 8:12:05 GMT -8
Dunno that I agree with that. Replicating a prototype exactly is copying, it requires skill but no creativity. Inventing your own requires imagination and artistry too, to make it as convincing as an exact copy. Most people's models are a combination of the two, with accurate stock and imaginary or compressed and distorted real locations. I'd disagree. Prototype modeling I feel does require imagination. You have to envision how the prototype would have looked and operated in a 3d space. You won't get that just from pictures alone and of course visiting historical sites don't tell the entire story. So in some aspects of prototype modeling it does require creativity and imagination to fill in the blanks that history doesn't provide. Nothing is so well documented that it doesn't have gaps in the timeline of a railroad or certain equipment on the railroad. As for artistry, I would say it does take a lot of it to copy pictures and books and make them into a 3d model. If you really think about it, aren't painters copying things they see? I see no difference in the two. If you put a bowl of fruit on a table and you go to paint it, are not copying it? I would say this is where the skill as you would say would come in to play to paint it perfectly as your eyes see it. I'm not going to disagree with that. Again, its probably a trans-Atlantic difference in viewpoint. Here, examples of the fairly common US concept of creating a fictitious RR are few and far between. The majority of people model made up stretches of line, but anyone beyond the trainset mentality of running anything and everything tends to stick to a prototype selection of stock for it*, with track layouts, signaling, railways buildings etc in the 'house style' of whichever real company is supposed to have built the line and other scenery items that fit the supposed area. An extreme example of this is the Vale scene at Pendon. Its a fictitious place, but every building on it is modeled from a real one, all the trains are what would have run there if it existed. Pretty much everything is kit (when I say kit I mean etched brass, not blue box) or scratch built.  www.pendonmuseum.com/gallery#prettyPhotoDunno, is this prototype modelling? *i.e. choose specific locos based in the area, correct passenger and freight stock for the services etc. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 24, 2015 8:49:18 GMT -8
Beautiful pic, Talltim.
I think people may be on the wrong track if they think of prototype modeling as distinctively separate from the skill set required to achieve the MMR. There's a lot of overlap in both directions, even as there are many who insist that, no, they operate in separate universes. Talltim's picture shows why that's not so, as it's simultaneously both real and fictional. Still it creates a great model railroad.
It's all about the decisions you make as a modeler. Prototype modeling suggests a very specific look at what's a viable model subject. The MMR is more about the generic skills of model railroading that can apply to anything. They can apply to building either a prototypically accurate model or something that is complete invention.
The discussion about how prototype modeling often seeming flat and unbelievable unless some artistry is involved is an important point. Prototype modeling is often taken up as a means to frame one's work as beyond criticism except for accuracy. Sometimes that works and it most often does when things stay at the level of looking at an individual model. The results can be stunningly impressive.
But what environment does it sit in? Oftentimes, I've seen people get hung up believing that the layout as a whole has to meet the same standards as went into the model. That's a mighty tall order once you get beyond the single station location scheme that you often find in Europe because of space considerations and the sheer amount of work bringing a layout up to that level of detail. Selection compression is the first big challenge in doing that and there are many more.
I generally approach this as worrying less and less about precision the further from the on-track model you get and simply try to create a believable series of scenes that simulate what is being modeled. Others just seem to freeze up and spend years contemplating the perfect design to change the Plywood Pacific into something they will see as perfect to suit the level of detail on their modelers. Thing is, you can build a bunch of stand-ins quickly, then go back to build more accurate, detailed structures, bridges, etc at your leisure.
In the end, it's about your comfort level with the finished product. Set your "standards" too high and you often end up paralyzed...which may be the source of the Relentless Critic Without Pics to Share, don't ya know?
BTW Talltim, the British (now European? I can't keep track) Region of the NMRA undoubtedly offers the AP program. Not sure how many MMRs are over your side of the pond, but there's probably a few.
|
|
|
|
Post by wp8thsub on Nov 24, 2015 8:49:33 GMT -8
I just can't get past the idea that grown adults needing to have a certificate to say one is a "good" modeler seems...well, sad, and there are many adjectives that come to mind. "Good" modeling doesn't necessarily enter into the equation either. The various certificates reward conformance with established judging criteria. You can game the system by doing what's necessary to earn the required points without actually acquiring much skill. You're rewarded more for how you do things, and how you document them, than for achieving high quality results. That's what cheapens the Achievement Program for me. Many, perhaps most, of those who reach Master Model railroader status are the best of the best. Unfortunately, a large percentage seem to be guys who've figured out how to work the system without ever becoming truly capable or well-rounded modelers. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 24, 2015 9:01:14 GMT -8
I just can't get past the idea that grown adults needing to have a certificate to say one is a "good" modeler seems...well, sad, and there are many adjectives that come to mind. Model railroaders have been accused of being "socially underdeveloped" or "backward" in the past...Perhaps we are? And btw how does creating a railroad entirely out of one's mind qualify one to be a "master modeler"? SNIP No one needs to be a MMR. It's more about wanting to learn those skills you don't have and to improve on the ones you do have. Then there is the role MMRs play in the NMRA. They provide a pool of talent for developing clinics, judging contests, and helping others advance their own skills in the AP program. I suspect part of that is also driven by the belief the NMRA is all about what you as a modeler get out of an organization. People join because it is a way to meet fellow modelers, share skills, have new layouts to operate on, etc. In other words, yes, in part it is all about ME. Problem is some people think that's all it is, including many who dismiss the idea of joining and even some members. Like any educational organization, a big part of the NMRA is service. That applies throughout the membership, with people giving back in various ways. I mentioned the support given the Scouting earlier, but lots of other ways to support the hobby also, from organizing local train shows all the way up to international relations with other hobbyists abroad. But there are folks who still think it should be all about me and well, that often leaves them cold. Probably not good joiners in any organization, but consider that, too, when you hear people saying some of the things we've heard here about how disappointed they say they are. I mean, if joining a club isn't for you, there are lots of legit reason why...you don't need to claim that we're awful three-headed brutes who are dragging the hobby down. It just ain't so. |
|
|
|
Post by bnsftcdiv on Nov 24, 2015 12:58:28 GMT -8
OK, we'll start with the fact that I am both a prototype modeler and an NMRA member. The MMR is nothing more than a series of standards that if met, will give you a certificate of merit. Get enough of those certificates, you are an MMR. Strangely, there is even one for "prototype modeling"! The process is somewhat creativity, somewhat technical and somewhat adherence to a set of standards for the class. I've seen some pretty incredible work qualify one for a certificate, even prototype models. There is a chief dispatcher category that is built around operations. There are also certificates for service to the hobby, as an official or volunteer. Neither the modeling nor the service awards can get you an MMR by themselves. It will likely require both.
Right now the MMR is not a priority for me as I am building railroad number 3 in my new home. I likely have enough volunteer and service time from working the National Train Show to qualify to get those certificates, and Chief Dispatcher is easy. I suspect that I may be able to get things electrical, scenery and civil engineer as I build, along with structures rolling stock and motive power. It's more than just a single really detailed car or structure, it's the whole gamut of getting a model railroad from idea to reality. It'll likely happen, it'll just take time, and some in home judging-which is part of the MMR process. The NMRA Merit contests can also get you there, but is isn't as likely for me….I live 120 miles from my nearest division.
RPM is also relevant to me, as it is to many modelers. Some choose this venue to show as well. Every bit as cool, just a different process. And I enjoy those efforts just as much. it tends to show a lot of modern modeling, which I like so I may spend more time there. No contest, just great modeling-even the NMRA recognizes RPM and has peoples choice awards at many contests.
It's how you choose to spend your limited modeling time and efforts.
Dave Burman
modeling the modern Twin Cities
Trempealeau, WI
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Nov 24, 2015 17:48:39 GMT -8
talltim--
Beautiful scene. Looks real. Best compliment I can give.
I personally would put that somewhat more in the category of "prototype modeling" as the rolling stock and engine are stated to be correct for a point in time, and the scenery is representative of the region. Although the actual place name(s) might be fictitious, from what I can tell, there is a basis in a real life. It's not a "totally made-up" railroad, and I would argue it's probably a lot more challenging to find the appropriate kits and build them and paint them to represent that time than to...take another approach.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 24, 2015 18:28:34 GMT -8
talltim-- Beautiful scene. Looks real. Best compliment I can give. I personally would put that somewhat more in the category of "prototype modeling" as the rolling stock and engine are stated to be correct for a point in time, and the scenery is representative of the region. Although the actual place name(s) might be fictitious, from what I can tell, there is a basis in a real life. It's not a "totally made-up" railroad... I rarely see or hear about a totally fictitious basis for a layout nowadays. Even freelance modelers tend to connect their concept to the real world. With everything from piggyback service to modern diesels, my Four Corners Division of the Rio Grande definitely takes liberties with history. But it could have been. The geography is real enough. Sure, the Silverton is way busier than even tourists keep it. The Three Little Lines that ran north from Silverton aren't thriving, but they remain vital transportation links, rather than long-abandoned ROW. I did go completely fictional with my Cascade Branch, but even it tries to fit the geography and the operations of the D&RGW. With it, for the most part I added in traffic to support modeling Rio Grande operations elsewhere in a compact package. Never enough room to do all that in any realistic form in terms of track. Instead, I invented a branch where many were concentrated together. That way I can do the models and operations, but I just don't bother sweating track arrangements, exact buildings or scenery to represent a specific location. I do get to build, well, prototypically correct models and have a place to run them to and from in reasonably realistic fashion. And I also shamelessly modify or build equipment to suit whatever whimsical needs I may have. I put a priority on making it look like it could be real, which I happened to learn from, well, prototypical modeling. Two examples. Modern logging would require something better than wooden, truss-rodded antiques, even if they were well maintained. What did the Rio Grande already do in that direction? They built NG flatcars from old steel SG equipment. What did I do? Simply added finger racks to turn some into log racks.  Needed some more diesel power, something bigger than the NGed GE 70-tonners. Wanted steam generators and dynamic brakes. Nothing out there like it, so I whipped up what I call a NW2M. Based on the Kato model, these things run like a dream and pull like an ox.   Hard to beat the cost compared to most NG motive power, too. It may not be your cup of tea, but I enjoy it all and do what I feel best suits my needs that day. After all, it's a hobby, not a cult  |
|
|
|
Post by talltim on Nov 25, 2015 3:02:01 GMT -8
BTW Talltim, the British (now European? I can't keep track) Region of the NMRA undoubtedly offers the AP program. Not sure how many MMRs are over your side of the pond, but there's probably a few. The British Region has 5 MRRs (I've even seen one of them, but not talked to her!) and one deceased. However I'm pretty certain that they would all model North American prototypes (given that they are NMRA members) As far as I've seen there's never been any attempt to do an equivalent certificate program in the UK and there is no equivalent national general association to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamline on Nov 25, 2015 11:07:51 GMT -8
Mike Lehmann said "It may not be your cup of tea, but I enjoy it all and do what I feel best suits my needs that day. After all, it's a hobby, not a cult,"
I'm not so sure of that some days. Love the 3-footers.
Graham L., LTAMR*
*long-time amateur model railroader
|
|
|
|
Post by cnwfan on Nov 25, 2015 20:56:33 GMT -8
I don't think you can automatically tie prototype modeling into the desire to pursue the MMR. I would lump myself into the prototype modeler category, and I have no interest at all in pursuing the MMR. There have been interactions over the years with my models being judged by NMRA-like standards, which mostly left a bad taste for any type of judged contest.
I have looked at the requirements of some of the categories, and it leaves me somewhat shaking my head.
For example, the civil engineer requirement is that your layout plan include a turning facility for motive power. Mine includes a wye, because I'm not strictly following my prototype. If I were, there would be no wye on my layout. I do know of layouts that have no provision for turning power, because the prototype didn't have the provision for turning in the area modeled. It's possible that one's layout may not include any type of yard or terminal facility as called for in the criteria. It may be a case where trains come out of staging and work industries along the way, and go back into staging. Does that make the individual constructing that layout any less of a model railroader?
Then there's the one that I like to pick on the most, cars. The rules state that you need to build 8 cars of 4 types, one of which must be a passenger car. Four of the eight must be scratchbuilt. Uh, I model the CNW in 1988. It DOESN'T have passenger service anymore outside of scoot territory. That shows a pretty large disconnect between the "rules" and what people might actually be modeling as a prototype. That arbitrary passenger car requirement alone turns me off to that category. To be fair, I do model the end of scoot territory, so I do have some passenger service. If I were modeling another area of the CNW, I would have nada, zip, zilch.
Then we get into some of the technology that's become more readily available in the last several years. I've 3-D printed entire freight cars. It took just as much effort into doing the details in 3-D, keeping in mind the process limitations as it would have been building the car. Those cars probably wouldn't count as scratchbuilt by the rules.
Overall, the MMR isn't the approach for me. It works for some. Most of the MMR's I've met do seem to enjoy their modeling approach, and are pretty low key about having their MMR.
Kurt Kruse
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Nov 25, 2015 21:32:56 GMT -8
Thanks Kurt.
I can draw in cadd much much better than I can model in real life, so it would be easier for me to draw and 3D print than to build from scratch.
As you said, that probably wouldn't count...lol.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 25, 2015 22:16:58 GMT -8
SNIP I have looked at the requirements of some of the categories, and it leaves me somewhat shaking my head. For example, the civil engineer requirement is that your layout plan include a turning facility for motive power. Mine includes a wye, because I'm not strictly following my prototype. If I were, there would be no wye on my layout. I do know of layouts that have no provision for turning power, because the prototype didn't have the provision for turning in the area modeled. It's possible that one's layout may not include any type of yard or terminal facility as called for in the criteria. It may be a case where trains come out of staging and work industries along the way, and go back into staging. Does that make the individual constructing that layout any less of a model railroader? In this and other cases, it pays to check with the local AP chair or a MMR. Just because you don't have a layout that would have turning facilities doesn't mean you're locked out of fulfilling this requirement. For instance, building a module with a turntable on it would satisfy this requirement, too. You are not obligated to make the rules fit your layout. What you do is adapt to observe the rules while still retaining something of interest, if possible. Sometimes, you just end up meeting the requirement by doing something you otherwise had not contemplated doing. Then there's the one that I like to pick on the most, cars. The rules state that you need to build 8 cars of 4 types, one of which must be a passenger car. Four of the eight must be scratchbuilt. Uh, I model the CNW in 1988. It DOESN'T have passenger service anymore outside of scoot territory. That shows a pretty large disconnect between the "rules" and what people might actually be modeling as a prototype. That arbitrary passenger car requirement alone turns me off to that category. To be fair, I do model the end of scoot territory, so I do have some passenger service. If I were modeling another area of the CNW, I would have nada, zip, zilch. Well, it's not exactly like the C&NW never had passenger cars. Build something that would be strictly historical from the view of how your layout depicts the C&NW, if you must. It's also possible that a passenger car repurposed to MOW service could count. A business car would certainly count. Then there's Amtrak... Then we get into some of the technology that's become more readily available in the last several years. I've 3-D printed entire freight cars. It took just as much effort into doing the details in 3-D, keeping in mind the process limitations as it would have been building the car. Those cars probably wouldn't count as scratchbuilt by the rules. There's some thought on adopting some of the new technologies to the various AP certs that constitute the work required for the MMR. Don't know if this sort of thing is one of them, but I imagine it could be. One of the important parts of such changes would be to not devalue the work of past or future MMRs versus what is currently in place. People recognize the long-in-tooth nature of some of the requirements. There is a lot of emphasis on scratchbuilding skills, but is that ever a disadvantage for the prototype modeler? I don't see how. Overall, the MMR isn't the approach for me. It works for some. Most of the MMR's I've met do seem to enjoy their modeling approach, and are pretty low key about having their MMR. Kurt Kruse Kurt, if your concerns are mostly about figuring out how to pursue the work needed for the MMR, then do consider inquiring further about what you've mentioned. There is almost always a way to adapt one's interests to fit the requirements. |
|
|
|
Post by talltim on Nov 26, 2015 1:23:22 GMT -8
The requirement for a turning facility is interesting . If you' were modelling the modern scene in the UK you'd struggle, there's about 4 turntables left in the country (outside of preserved railways) and the number of turning eyes there have ever been in is probably fewer than that. However if you were building one as a standalone for the MMR why not go for something unusual like www.amicitreni.net/public/data/G.Masieri/2007616201152_StellaBrennero.jpgBuilt in a narrow valley with no room for a normal Wye and in a location too cold for a turntable to work reliably |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 26, 2015 5:11:12 GMT -8
Talltim,
Interesting example. I was thinking of another, similar wye that I've seen overhead pics of, maybe in Italy? Pretty sure there's nothing like it on the C&NW. But what's important is that it satisfies the requirement, not that it happens to be on the line you model. In fact, there's no requirement that any of the ways you could satisfy this aspect of this AP cert need be on what RR you generally model as a prototype.
This is also a good example of how the past has somewhat superseded modern model RRing practices. Turning arrangements not only involve whatever trackwork is involved, but the wiring needed to make them work. Used to be more of a big deal, but now it's plug and play with autoreversers for the most part. Also used to be a biggere deal when most modeled steam. Now MUed diesels often obviate the need for turning. It might seem old-fashioned to require this, but it involves several sets of overlapping skills: design; trackwork; wiring; and in cases like a turntable, maybe even some scratchbuilding.
Just because you're all DCC doesn't mean that doing it with DC is a bad idea. You might encounter something different if your modeling interests change. Or, as a MMR, you might be called upon to help someone sort this out on their layout. Remember the aspect of service is inherent to MMR standing. That in itself may turn off some people, but the NMRA sees the hobby -- and especially earning the MMR -- as benefiting from having those documented skills available to aid others.
|
|
|
|
Post by peoriaman on Nov 26, 2015 5:20:28 GMT -8
For example, the civil engineer requirement is that your layout plan include a turning facility for motive power. Mine includes a wye, because I'm not strictly following my prototype. If I were, there would be no wye on my layout. I do know of layouts that have no provision for turning power, because the prototype didn't have the provision for turning in the area modeled. It's possible that one's layout may not include any type of yard or terminal facility as called for in the criteria. I wonder if I ran around the train when I reached the end of the line, if that would count as a "turning facility"? Having a pair of engines assigned to the job would negate the need to run long-hood-forward for half the day. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Nov 27, 2015 6:49:19 GMT -8
You can adapt your modeling to fit the rules, but I suspect since you're not actually turning anything, simply reversing, the requirement for a turning facility would not be met by a simple runaround.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmuley on Dec 2, 2015 17:34:14 GMT -8
Model trains are my hobby. That's as far as it will ever go with me and that's just fine.
|
|
