Super-Duper layouts

Regardless of one's perception of what a Club layout constitutes, it was nonetheless his personal layout, built to what he envisioned.

Just curious, how do you know that he's not in the hobby anymore?  The reason he dismantled his layout was because he sold his business (that the layout resided in), retired, and moved to Florida.  And as far as I know, he hasn't sold off his entire collection or anything, unless you're privy to something that I'm not.

I fail to see how the size of a layout or by whom it's built is a direct correlation to whether the layout owner remains in the hobby anyway.

I had a commercial layout business for many years.  I had several ways of doing layouts for folks, one of which was complete turnkey that including everything including ordering the trains!  The layouts that I built that are still around and the folks are still having a great time with, were built using my 'student / teacher' method.  I would come and teach the new owner how to do some part of the project, benchwork, scenery, wiring, etc.  I would come back in a couple of weeks and 'critique' what they have done.  Then we did the next step.  So they were getting their own sweat equity into their layout.  Russ

Different strokes for different folks.  Who cares how those layouts were built  They look pretty darn good to me.

My take is this:

To each his own. Some enjoy running trains but have little interest in the build process. 

Thankfully, I  am not of this camp and I'm grateful as I don't have the extra cash laying around to pay for someone's build services.

However, I do get lots of ideas ideas when looking at their finished products so that's a benefit for me. It might be their scenery, furniture-grade framing, control panels, wiring (though Mike CT's would be tough to beat!) Regardless, it gives me a "high water mark" to shoot for with my own layouts. 

Oh boy, I think I need to revise my previous post just a little to make an exception here. If I could have a layout like that of Tony Lash, professionally built would be just fine with me. Also the only way I would ever live long enough to enjoy it. I imagine just maintaining it would be more work than building the layout I am working on now? That is really and truly a dream layout!

However, someone else would have to pay for it all, that's so far above my pay grade it is just unimaginable what costs would be. Space to house it would be a problem as well, the building, house, or whatever it was in would have to also be donated. Then there are utilities and maintenance which would also need to be provided for no additional costs. Possibly a large trust fund or endowment could be set up by a wealthy donor for any future expenses or revisions to the layout? I could probably afford to buy a train or two every once in a while. Not asking too much here, am I? 

There it is.

Pete

My issue isn't professionally built layouts vs. home built. Like most are saying, to each his own. My issue is with the magazines. I'm not crazy about someone's professionally built layout being rewarded with a spread, but as long as it's clearly identified in the article as such and it contains innovative layout ideas or construction techniques which would be of interest, then there is a benefit to me, and granted, I'm just one reader.  If it's just, "here's the layout Joe Blow had built professionally and isn't it great" then that's just something I'm not going to pay that much attention to.

If you paid for the labor/materials, or even if it was built for you free of charge, then I'd say it's your layout.

Unless you're 100% scratchbuilder, you might as well not get any satisfaction running trains on it either because the trains you bought were made by someone else.

I can see how a reader might be put off by the fact that a pro-built layout gets a featured spread in the magazines. It can seem like a bit of a "shortcut to stardom." 

I'm sure that magazines are hard pressed to find suitable content and pro-built layouts are most likely situated in a nicely appointed room rather than an unfinished basement with extension cords running along the floor, etc. 

So, the editors are naturally going to pluck those opportunities when they come along.

However, I do notice that when reading these types of pro-built stories, I rarely give much weight to the owner's claim of "I designed it, but they built it for me." I guess it's just the downside of having a pro-layout built. You might not get any of the credit that might be due.

Whether a layout is built by the owner or professionally built by a contractor, they're both means to an end. 

Perhaps the bigger problem is that there's an abundance of "home built" layouts that look too unfinished, or perhaps too sloppy-looking to be featured in a publication and not enough that are finished and look presentable enough to be given a full-feature spread?

I enjoy looking at all layouts no matter who built them, what stage of finished they are in, how well they are done, scale model or toy. There can be something for everyone to learn from any of them.

They are nice to see, no doubt about it.   Like the man said "different strokes for different folks."

Although I could afford to have someone else build it, I prefer to muddle along myself with support and help from my partner-in-crime and the occasional friend.

I enjoy running a train over track I worked hard to get "just right", and know nobody will ever figure out the wiring except me lol!

Eventually, Lord willing and the creek don't rise, we'll get some scenery together to give it a finished look.  Doing that now with the engine termnal area, albiet with some buildings Dave at Crescent did up for us.  He did a fantastic job on putting together the Korber roundhouse kit of ours which had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.  I did manage to fix the lifted roof section; out of joint joist.

You might want to check out the other magazine's current issue. I was impressed by the Nugent family layout that was featured. A father and son project I wouldn't mind owning.

I, for one, am glad there are those in the hobby that lack the time or ability or the desire to build their own layout's.  When a magazine publishes a story or they come on a forum such as this one and post photo's of "their" layout, I get to view things I may never do. Some of their layout plan or just a simple idea. I  may find a use for at a later date incorporated in my own layout.

I'm too poor to build a magazine spread quality layout, but I'll have fun running my used tin plate trains on used track amid used tinplate structures on an inexpensive home built base/framework.

Maybe there is a magazine worthy story there,  that people can have fun playing with trains, inexpensively.

Dave

I'm sure Allan will agree that OGR is always on the lookout for well done small layouts.

While features on big layouts may be flashy, more readers are looking for something that can be built in a limited space with limited means. The magazines realize this and would appreciate more submissions in this area.

In other words, average readers want to see some large layouts whether professionally built or not. We all like to dream on occasion.

But, they also want to see what others have done with imagination and modeling skills rather than $$$. The layout-on-a-door series back a few years ago showed what could be done on a budget and (almost) in a closet.

It's difficult to attain this balance each issue since what goes in each magazine depends on the submission of articles.

As was hinted at in previous posts, attention to details, a neat layout environment, and some practice with layout photography can get just about everyone in the magazine if they want to make the effort.

Jim

While features on big layouts may be flashy, more readers are looking for something that can be built in a limited space with limited means. The magazines realize this and would appreciate more submissions in this area.

+1 Jim!!!  Spot on.  I love it when the "over the top" layout and "modest" layout are featured in the same magazine.  I get to do a little dreamin' and I also get to see some realistic features which my son and I look at and say, "We can do that".

Ron