Non Rivet Counter Section

[AY Mod]

4 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

I'm quite enjoying this at the moment.....Peco Set track on the dining room table....great fun...

 

Dry cream crackers for you m'lad.

[Gilbert]

4 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Dry cream crackers for you m'lad.

Its third radius - surely that's OK.......😉

[Phil Bullock]

16 hours ago, TheQ said:

I think I'll be having the ships biscuit.

You might think that is the lesser of two weevils … 😀

[Flying Pig]

37 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

Its third radius - surely that's OK.......😉

 

Round the corners off and put a small dab of jam on the cracker.

[Typeapproval]

Co-op own brand Crackers ! DRY! the only way to eat them!

 

I don't think I will offend Gilbert if I say that's not really what many think of as a 'Model Railway'! I'm pleased that the simplicity of running "Trains" round the track is enjoyable. 

 

I don't believe that my opinion should reduce the pleasure. If we look at some of the pioneers of what we now call "Railway Modelling" whose idea was to cover every inch with track completely ignoring anything other than the trains, No buildings, tunnels etc. would we say they had any less pleasure than some of the super detailed miniature landscapes I've been privileged to see at exhibitions over the years. The model often quoted as being the "First Model Railway", 'The Madder Valley', was never going to be honestly described as a "Scale Model"! The sheer mixture of stock if nothing else would preclude that. But I find it hard to think anyone but the most hardened "Rivet Counter" would argue it was less than amazing considering the materials available, the situation at the time of construction etc.

 

I think my memories of the great "Railway of the Month" in RM, (Buckingham, Lydney, Charford etc.) suggest that we have moved considerably in the supply of RTR stock, When Hornby introduced "Barnstaple" the great majority of us were delighted. it wasn't perfect, but it looked the business.  When I read that the cab window on 'XYZ' is 1mm too short (3 scale inches in OO) I wonder if the complainant has actually stood back and watched it run past pulling a train. 

 

As I said the motor in my Triang Princess was decidedly iffy! however it was and still is available as a replacement part, I have recently read of much more up to date locos relegated to the shelf or even the bin as the all singing all dancing motor has failed and is "NO LONGER AVAILABLE"! Perhaps the issue of reliability and life time and indeed the supply of spare parts is something the majority of customers are unconcerned about. We are after all in a throw away world. 

 

In my career in the motor industry, I argued many times with 'Wizz Kid' designers that making things more complex was unnecessary! A simple wire from a pressure switch directly to the brake lights worked just as well as by taking it to an electronic control box. it just used less components. I fear the belief that making it more complex makes it better is very common.

 

Yes in the perfect world nobody would ever get anything wrong, with all the modern equipment from scanning to automated production, it is in theory the case that every item would be perfect. Yes when the manufacturer gets it wrong it is right to criticise (But Constructively) and point out the error. 

 

My initial reason for this post is not to denigrate anyones honestly held opinion, I suggest that the issue is as simple as those who want something as good as possible for an affordable price that will act as intended, and those for whom this level is not good enough.

 

David.

 

 

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

many of us can and do, jump and miss stages or go back

 

I've regressed quite often.

 

Current projects include

• An O BLT (GWR flavour but Heritage/Freelance)
• A O-16.5 BLT (which might communicate with the O BLT)
• A big OO Roundy
• A little OO Roundy
• Something with TT3
• Something with TT:120
• An N Roundy

Not all would be operational at the same time...

At least I haven't tried out EM/P4.   I must be MAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDD!!!!

 

My attitude is DO WHAT YOU WANT. Pinch ideas from the perfectionists and bend them to fit your means and skills.  RMweb has lots of interesting ideas and people to take inspiration from, so don't feel discouraged if it all seems overwhelming. Its a lovely resource for modellers at all levels.

 

1 hour ago, Gilbert said:

I'm quite enjoying this at the moment.....Peco Set track on the dining room table....great fun...

 

Seeing as table top with OO is perfectly feasible*, I wonder why Hornby bothers with TT:120...  🤪

 

* A 3rd/2nd rad double track layout fits on an 8'x4' table**.  Admittedly, not many folk have the room for 8x4 tables in this day and age...

** Thats how the Small OO Roundy started out. Nowadays it gets put up on a framework in the conservatory for winter running.

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

It took me quite a while to learn that what I am truly interested in is 'the traffic' : operation on a credible track layout, with representative trains for my area of interest running to a service timetable.

 

'Scenic treatment' is limited to a little ballasting and track filth, and if 'others' are prepared to run the loco, carriage and wagon works that's great: now we routinely have decent quality RTR OO available that runs reliably, I am in traffic modelling heaven.

 

So I am a way, way below average railway modeller, but aiming at the loftiest pinnacle of railway traffic modelling.

[Gilbert]

I was very taken with this layout by Chris Nevard...possiby tighter than 3rd radius though...

[Gilbert]

I like the approach by James Hilton set out in his latest book..."The Art of Railway Modelling"

 

"I make model railways not models of railways"

 

In my opinion your model railway can be just what you want it to be....and do what ever you want it to do be that operation or anything else...

 

Has anyone mentioned Rule 1 yet?

 

Chris H

Edited December 19, 2023 by Gilbert

[Gilbert]

6 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

So I am a way, way below average railway modeller, but aiming at the loftiest pinnacle of railway traffic modelling.

I'd rather think of it as different approaches rather than levels...no one has set out a table of evaluation criteria defining performance levels as far as I know...although I am aware in general terms of the NMRA Achievement Programme but that does seem as broad as it is high...

[Hroth]

6 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

Has anyone metioned Rule 1 yet?

 

The First Rule of Railway Modelling is that NO ONE mentions Rule 1....

 

Well, it'll be covered sooner or later!

 

[Gilbert]

1 minute ago, Hroth said:

 

The First Rule of Railway Modelling is that NO ONE mentions Rule 1....

 

Well, it'll be covered sooner or later!

 

I mentioned it but I think I got away wth it....

[kevinlms]

9 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

I was very taken with this layout by Chris Nevard...possiby tighter than 3rd radius though...

With that track plan, being in just about every track plan book, ever published! Not suggesting anything wrong with it, just unique it ain't!

[Gilbert]

Just now, kevinlms said:

With that track plan, being in just about every track plan book, ever published! Not suggesting anything wrong with it, just unique it ain't!

I was really talking about the overall presentation of the oval...

[Hroth]

Just now, kevinlms said:

With that track plan, being in just about every track plan book, ever published! Not suggesting anything wrong with it, just unique it ain't!

 

The track plan isn't unique (something similar is probably in CJFs 60 Small Layouts) but the treatment is excellent, with good ideas to copy!

 

[kevinlms]

8 minutes ago, Gilbert said:

I was really talking about the overall presentation of the oval...

Yes, I'm fully aware of that and I don't believe my earlier comment negated it, as I only referred to the track plan.

Edited December 19, 2023 by kevinlms
More info

[Dungrange]

22 hours ago, Typeapproval said:

I'm hoping to find a section in this esteemed site, where I don't feel like a second-class citizen as my interest is in having 'Acceptable' models to run on my model layout.

 

I think we all interact with the site differently.  Yes, there are various sub-forums and some people may only look at certain areas of the site, but I tend to always use the 'View New Content' button, which means that I see all sections and can comment in all sections as per my varied interests.  That means that even if there was a 'No Rivet Counters Allowed' sub-forum I'd still see posts in it, along with posts in the one labelled 'For Rivet Counters Only'.  There are a lot of very knowledgeable people who post on this site and who I would take their answer as being correct or certainly well informed (there are others who blow hot air out their ****).  However, I tend to find those who are experts are only experts in certain subject areas, whether that be track standards, DCC automation or the the pre-grouping railways.  Those who can provide a detailed explanation of various chairs used in the formation of a turnout, tend not to contribute much to the topics about computer control and vice versa.

 

If the criticism of new models is an issue, don't read these threads and either read the ones that suit you, or start your own documenting your own layout.  Those who share your philosophy are more likely to follow what you post.  If your thread doesn't live up to the standards of some others, then they will most likely ignore it.

 

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

What I am truly interested in is 'the traffic' : operation on a credible track layout, with representative trains for my area of interest running to a service timetable.

 

 

That's definitely what interests me most as well: understanding how the real railway works.  That therefore means understanding enough about the railway and the flow of traffic to be able to create an operable track plan that can be signalled in a prototypical way, built to the standards that I can manage.  I'm not overly bothered by small inaccuracies with particular items of rolling stock (although I'd like them to be as accurate as possible), but I appreciate that for some 'modellers', it's not about the railway, but having as accurate a model of their favourite locomotives as possible.   They may be able to criticise the window proportions or the number or rivets on a particular model, but chances are if you were to ask them a question about track, signalling, or computer control, they wouldn't have a clue.

 

I think the only advice I can offer @Typeapproval is to just ignore those who are overly critical and don't worry about what others think of you.  I'm not an expert on anything, but I do know a little bit about quite a lot and every day is a school day, as I find I pick up little pieces of information on a regular basis (even from those who knit pick).

 

[Steven B]

I'm not worried if a model has nine rivets instead of ten, but I am worried if there are rivets where there should be a weld. 

 

I find it interesting seeing different approaches. I've seen stunning hand-built fine scale track running through what I'd consider poorly executed scenery. Likewise I've seen layouts with stunning scenery with course scale track and radius 1 curves. Neither way is better than the other - just "different". 

 

Model railways/railway models is a broad church with each member of the congregation finding their own space of happiness.  Sometimes they cross over!

 

Steven B

[Deeps]

I once won a competition for eating the most cream crackers in a minute. No reflection of my modelling skills of course.

[Nearholmer]

4 hours ago, Typeapproval said:

it is in theory the case that every item would be perfect

Which assumes that there is a definition, one definition, of “perfect”, which I would really question.

[Bernard Lamb]

16 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Which assumes that there is a definition, one definition, of “perfect”, which I would really question.

People have been selectively breeding race horses for a  few hundred years, and have not got there yet, and they have far more money than most of us to throw at the challenge.

Bernard.

[Dungrange]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Which assumes that there is a definition, one definition, of “perfect”, which I would really question.

 

I'm sure a manufacturer could produce an absolutely 'perfect' model of XXXX in its as built condition, but it would still be wrong for my layout set in the summer of the year YYYY because by then it had received three small dents from a collision in January YYYY and the windscreen wipers were worn and the paint was faded or flaking somewhere and therefore the model just doesn't capture how I remember it when I saw it at ZZZZ.  I can just image the comments about perfection.

[Nearholmer]

I think maybe you aren’t quite getting what I’m saying.

 

There is a wide acceptance that “perfect” is measured by dimensional and appearance fidelity to the real thing …… your words imply that you have adopted that definition like most other railway modellers.

 

What I’m trying to say is that that isn’t the only possible definition of “perfect”, it’s just one of many.

 

Back to my analogy with art: are Pissarro’s and Turner’s paintings of trains “imperfect” because they have little fidelity to the appearance of the real thing, that in that respect they fall far short of photographs? No, they are each “perfect” in conveying the essence of trains in motion, by very different techniques. They are far more realistic in that sense than any photo, or any model I’ve ever come across; I can learn far more from them than from any dimensionally exact, but sterile, representation.

 

And model-making, by different techniques, and by approaches that don’t necessarily get entirely caught-up with dimensional accuracy and photo-accurate appearance can also convey things in different ways. As someone remarked above, The Madder Valley conveys things that The Vale Scene doesn’t, and vice-versa, they’re at the peaks, or at least the very upper slopes, of different mountains.

 

 

[Mol_PMB]

Some of my most enjoyable and memorable model railway experiences have been operating the late Alan Garraway's coarse scale O gauge layout. It was fully signalled and interlocked, and you had to obey the rulebook. It didn't matter that the locos and stock were crude. My favourite loco was built around a motor salvaged from a WW2 anti-aircraft gun! 

I probably err too far the other way, focusing on accuracy of rolling stock at the expense of never getting a train running.

Even within that, I find myself having different standards for different projects - my favourite loco scratchbuild project needs to be spot-on, but on other projects it's only realistic to have some compromises or I'd never get anything finished.

We all have our own preferences, that's great. As long as we're enjoying what we do and feeling satisfied by it.

To the OP, welcome to the forum and I hope you find plenty of inspiration and support here.

 

Mol

[Jol Wilkinson]

8 hours ago, Gilbert said:

I like the approach by James Hilton set out in his latest book..."The Art of Railway Modelling"

 

"I make model railways not models of railways"

 

In my opinion your model railway can be just what you want it to be....and do what ever you want it to do be that operation or anything else...

 

Has anyone mentioned Rule 1 yet?

 

Chris H

 

"I make model railways not models of railways" sums it up completely.

 

I prefer to make a model of a railway, even though it might be a fictitious location and set in a variable time span (within limits). I can enjoy research, design, model building, etc. replicating as well as I can a little bit of transport and social history.

 

That's different to enjoying a model railway which can be a total invention of your own imagination, limited only by the money and time you have available to spend on it.