Non Rivet Counter Section

[YT-1300]

I moved away from modelling 4mm/OO because I was becoming too obsessed with details, to the extent that hardly anything got finished.  Layouts were started then abandoned.  I have a big box full of stock for a future UK outline layout but I seriously doubt I'll build it.

 

I've settled on US HO where I'm much happier, I've spent a lot of time researching the Rock Island RR and have actually managed to finish a layout based on a general area at a general point of time.  I'm happy with my stock being 'close enough' as I don't have enough knowledge of the prototypes to bog myself down.  I know which models are dogs though, so I avoid those.

 

I could of course go online and study pictures of the prototypes to the nth degree, but I'm just not that bothered anymore!  I have a working layout that is set up at home and has been to an exhibition, it works really well and my friend enjoy operating it.  That means more to me that having the the drivers seat cushion the right colour.

[john new]

My mood changes so not sure if that makes me average. I am happy with my small 4ft shunting plank at home and equally like watching one of my locos tramp around and around the club’s oval test track with a long train. The reason I rejoined was partly to access the “big train set oval” test track.

[The Johnster]

I find one of the problems with detail is that the more you become aware of it, the more you notice and are disturbed by it's abscence or incorrect presence on the model.  You end up chasing the pointless and expensive dragon of finer and better detail which you cannot see under normal circumustances, but must have.  I can give it up any time I want to, you know, but I don't want to... 

 

By and large I am happy with any model that is to scale dimensions, as such a model can always be worked up to better standards of detail and will look more the part at viewing distances much further away than that detail can actually be seen.  Funny how one's view of things changes as the standard of RTR models progresses, though; back in the 80s I would have been delighted with a kit-built etched brass chassis with brake rodding, shoes, &c; now I complain that the brake shoes are too thin and 'finescale'.  No pleasing some of us!

[Hroth]

Of course, as you get older, the fine detail merges into the background and you're happy to be able to notice that the brakeshoes are present, even with your reading glasses on.

 

And as for things like makers plates that the young whippersnappers insist can be read...

 

[CKPR]

Here's an ironic twist - I'm an old-school scratchbuilder modelling an obscure pre-group railway in 4mm / EM but whilst I do count rivets (and bolts), my models are pretty lo-fi (read, crude) compared to modern RTR. Does this mean that my rivet counter licence is going to be revoked ?!

Edited December 20, 2023 by CKPR

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, CKPR said:

Does this mean that my rivet counter licence is going to be revoked ?!

There's no available objective evidence for this action. You are the only one who knows how many rivets should be present, so are self certifying.

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, CKPR said:

 Does this mean that my rivet counter licence is going to be revoked ?!

 

Surely, that's for the OP to decide?

[CKPR]

On 20/12/2023 at 10:42, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

There's no available objective evidence for this action. You are the only one who knows how many rivets should be present, so are self certifying.

I'm currently working my way through a backlog of NHS mandatory training so I'll add it to this weeks To Do list...

Edited December 27, 2023 by CKPR

[Fair Oak Junction]

All of these arguments are common across every hobby sadly. Far too common is the attitude of "if you buy RTR/RTP and you don't kit/scratch-build or kitbash things, you aren't a modeller" completely disregarding that people have different skill sets and ability levels. Because hey, news flash, we aren't all clones! 😄

"Modeller" is an incredibly loose term, but not to the gatekeepers out there. They only have two levels, their way or the wrong way. I can't kit-build a loco or item of rolling stock to save my life, but I can build a decently convincing scenic diorama. I can't paint an intricately liveried loco, but I can paint a tank or building to a good level. So....am I a modeller or not?

I see exactly the same attitude in video gaming. You aren't a true gamer unless you play every game on ultra hard mode, hunt every achievement, go for speedrun records 🙄

 

I fully believe people should support the kit industry IF THEY CAN. But those who rely on RTR should not be made to feel like they are lazy, that they are responsible for killing off kits.
Let's face it, the majority of kit companies that have gone are because of either retirement or death of the owner, not because those nasty RTR people are too lazy.

 

And if people buy RTR items that have an accuracy issue, it generally isn't because they don't care or don't know any better. 90% of the time it's because we know that if we want a model of something, then that's what we are getting. So you are going to have to live with it or fix it yourself. We can point out faults to manufacturers all we want, but they don't have to listen. Buying items with mistakes is not bringing standards in the hobby down, it's just accepting there are limits to how often you can shout into the void. Most manufacturers ARE constantly trying to up standards, even with the odd mistake slipping through.

 

There should be room in hobbies for everyone. There are loads of people who will agree with that in principle, but then still act as gatekeeper in other ways.

If you want to count rivets, do it. If you don't want to, then don't. All people need to do to make hobbies a nicer place is to just not have a go at people because they don't do it your way.

Even if you don't think you are "having a go" it often comes across as condescending, making a demand rather than a suggestion.

 

I just don't care what others think any more. I'm doing hobbies to the best of my ability, and if people don't like that then don't look at my stuff. Simple 👍

Sorry about the long rant, just needed to get it off my chest 😄

Edited December 20, 2023 by Fair Oak Junction

[Typeapproval]

Hi,

 

I think the last few posts are really the sort of area I was talking about. YT-1300 is obviously a happy person in their modelling, as is CKPR. I visit many areas on RMWEB, there are a few where very specific  areas are discussed, (Sadly most are several meters over my head) As I have repeated, I don't wish to spoil anyones fun! I think my ambition is "Middle of the Road Modelling". I have read (I refuse to say where) a contributor saying that as the new XYZ has an incorrect number of rivets on the tender "I shan't waste my money!" We (unless we are extremely fortunate) all have to decide where our hard earned is going to end up. If that person was so disappointed that he withheld his purchase, entirely their choice! Perhaps he is one of the people mentioned in one of the posts for whom detail accuracy is the primary reason for making decisions I wish them well. As somebody who buys a model to use on a layout where the super detail is all but invisible, as Hroth has said "Passing Time" changes the 'View' of things. I appreciate the skill of the model makers skill, sadly I don't have a drive to experience it for myself. I dare to suggest manufacturers could produce detailed models and "Super Detail" models at a premium price. They would benefit from the reduced production costs of the 'Detailed' models and the increased markup on the 'Super Detail'. 

 

I have removed the batteries from my hearing aids! I suspect the increased decibels of anger from many will probably rattle the windows across the nation! Hornby had a stab with "Railroad" but unfortunately used the idea to try to (in my opinion!) fob off old stock. My radical idea is far from that!

 

I shall observe the outpouring of anger and decide if its even worth re-entering the debate.

 

David.

[DenysW]

On 18/12/2023 at 14:12, Typeapproval said:

my interest is in having 'Acceptable' models to run on my model layout.

What has, to me, been ignored is the degree of mainstreamness imposed by your initial choice of what you think is fun to model. You may or may not find you have a choice in how this is implemented. As noted above by @CKPR, if you want the Maryport and Carlisle then RTR isn't really an option. If you think that pre-WW1 Bavarian is beautiful (it is) then there's a moderate amount of RTR, but only in HO. If the steam/diesel overlap period of British Railways makes you happy, just choose a region and choose a degree of accuracy you can live with (and if this means adding the rivets that's then your choice) and enjoy. 

[The Johnster]

The traditional view is that well-made kits were superior to RTR models, and for a while that was true.  The 'new wave' of detailed RTR in the 70s upped the game for RTR and mae it acceptable to a market beyond train sets and toys, but the kit industry upped it's game and began producing highly detailed and more intricate etched brass models.  Kit builds still had the edge in smooth slow-running quality and haulage, and, because the builder can choose gear ratios they largely still do, but the RTR move to Chinese production with can motor/idler cog drive mechanisms produces running standards that are very high indeed in the last 20 years or so.

 

This has made some kits, especially loco kits, look a bit out-of-their-depth.  My point about the brake shoes is an example; plastic injection-moulded baseplates with the brake shoes and rodding moulded in are able to provide better detail.  The older whitemetal kits are looking increasingly challenged; whitemetal is IMHO a terrible material to have to make models out of, crude and lumpen (as if I'm in a position to criticise anything on those grounds), liable to distortion, flash-prone.  Even etched brass is struggling to keep up; a much nicer material to work with but brake shoes, guard irons, coach sides, and much else are too thin and flimsy-looking.  Build a Comet coach and the underframe flaps about in the breeze until the rididity of the box-form bodyshell is able to support it, and while we complained for year about the thickness of plastic coach bodies and the recess of glazing on Hornby and Lima, and the prismatic effect of the inset glazing on Mainline and Airfix, the brass etches go too far the other way.

 

To my mind the worst offence is the Comet coach bogie.  Etched brass fold-up, the sheer flimsiness of the thing makes it difficult to build straight and true, and then you attach blobby, crude, often distorted, and flash-prone cast whitemetal cosmetic outer detail, hopefully without compromising the squareness of the inner brass frame.  On my Comet D147 flatend B-set, you could see the axleboxes and footboards if you looked vertically downwards from over the model; that can't be right, surely.  RTR plastic bogies are much better, thank you, and run pretty well, too!

 

Underframe detail, especially trussing, is flimsy and easily damaged (though it can be bent back into shape just as easily), and you have crude blobby whitemetal vacuum cylinders, dynamos, and battery boxes.  I am happy to use Comet kits to obtain models of types not available from the RTR ranges, and find them within my capability, just, but would replace them with current-standard RTR as soon as such became available, in a heartbeat.  The cost of buildin and finishing such a kit is no significant saving over buyin an RTR coach and renumbering/working it up, and for loco kits the cost is a good bit more than an RTR equivalent for a product which usually won't stand comparison.  Look at eBay's listings for kit-built locos; a plethora of 60s/70s models with no detail below the running plate selling for prices in line with new DC RTR, and probably difficult to convert to DCC.

 

I fully understand the popularity of cast whitemetal components among kit manufacturers, I just wish they'd use something else. 

[john new]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

I find one of the problems with detail is that the more you become aware of it, the more you notice and are disturbed by it's abscence or incorrect presence on the model.  You end up chasing the pointless and expensive dragon of finer and better detail which you cannot see under normal circumustances, but must have.  I can give it up any time I want to, you know, but I don't want to... 

 

By and large I am happy with any model that is to scale dimensions, as such a model can always be worked up to better standards of detail and will look more the part at viewing distances much further away than that detail can actually be seen.  Funny how one's view of things changes as the standard of RTR models progresses, though; back in the 80s I would have been delighted with a kit-built etched brass chassis with brake rodding, shoes, &c; now I complain that the brake shoes are too thin and 'finescale'.  No pleasing some of us!

Agree fully with your first para. You discover the bits you didn’t know the prototype even had! Causes include complaints from others that they aren’t there, are either too big or too fragile, finding the parts in the box, in the ballast when you track clean, etc., etc. 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by john new
spelling mistake corrected

[James Hilton]

On 19/12/2023 at 20:13, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

"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.

I feel I'm being quoted a little out of context here.

 

My approach is not less realistic, less perfect - just it is not cold precision nor accurate operation. It is a model railway from the heart, I love this hobby and I hope that passion is embued in the models that I create.

 

A small plug, if I may, if neither precision in scale or operation appeals, perhaps an artistic approach does - my latest book does try to start a conversation about this - where I talk about the idea with a little more detail and structure.

Edited December 27, 2023 by James Hilton

[The Johnster]

Artistic approaches have their place, and it is a valid and important part of modelling.  If one views a layout holistically, then 'realism' however you define it is every bit as much to do with lighting both directional and colour cast, presentation, sightlines, how scenic breaks are handled, the arrangement of buildings and features, and the control of sightlines by means of cameos as it is to do with scale models, liveries, or intricate detail.  We are presenting the layout viewer (usually ourselves) with an impossible conundrum, little trains in scenery that look the right size because we are viewing them from a scale distance (small, Father Dougal, as opposed to far away).  Our brains know this but are willing accomplices in the game, and the game is disbelief suspension.

 

I often comment that my layout is not a model at all, but a real South Wales mining branch that happens to be small and in the 50s.  This is part of a holistic philosophy, that of modelling the purpose of the railway, to provide passenger and goods services and clear traffic from the colliery, and a good part of the modelling is imaginary; the day-to-day running of the branch, the goods clerk chasing up a customer who hasn't cleared his load from a wagon wanted elsewhere yet, the Colliery surface manager panicking because he's running out of empties.  I get as much satisfaction from this imaginary world with it's interactions and daily minor problems to sort out as from the hard modelliing of the railway, it's engines and rolling stock, and it's operation. 

 

I run a real time* WTT, and operate as far as is practicable to the 1955 Rule Book.  I allow time for shunters on the ground to walk about to change points, and for brakes to be blown off for brake tests, and try my best to run at realistic speeds.  This is all part of the fun, and a major part of the fun at that!  For me, the timetable and working to the rules is enough of a challenge to maintain my interest in the operation; this is a fairly simple BLT albeit a busy one as these mining branches were, and the layout has been operating for nearly eight years now; I'm nowhere near being bored with the running, and there's still a mountain of modelling to do (in fact, I've just completed modelling a mountain, it's lower slopes anyway).  At my age it will very probably be my last layout and I reckon there's enough fun and interest in it to see me out, but some of the fun and interest comes from a type of modelling that is not entirely physical and corpereal.

 

 

*Cwmdimbath time is a battery operated analogue clock with an on-off switch.  It is switched on at the start of a session, which continues from wherever the last one finished, when the clock was switched off.  'Time out', switching the clock off during a session, is allowed, but no movement of locos or stock may take place during it.  It is used for many purposes, but significantly from the operating perspective to place coal loads in wagons, and to reposition head and tail lamps.  'Dual time', where the clock is put back after some moves on the branch so that 'simultaneous' meanwhile back at the ranch action can be performed in the colliery yard or vice versa is permitted, but must not be abused...  The scenic treatment suggests that it is late September or early October, lighting can be set to evoke differing weather or times of day.  The timeframe is set at between 1948 and 58, and anomalous liveries are avoided as much as possible but some compromise is inevitable.  If anyone asks, it's October 1953, a month after the start of auto-working in the area, but that's after 4144 lost it's early BR GW-type livery and before 8497 was delivered,  82001 is a complete fiction, on loan from Barry who are in no rush to have it back.  Rule 1, like dual time, must be handled carefully to maintain my disbelief suspension; with great freedom comes great responsibility!

 

This approach isn't for everyone, and there are as many versions of it as there are practitioners.  My modelling would be nowhere near accurate enough to satisfy some people, and others will find it far too concerned with small-detail accuracy and think that timetabling is absurd, which of course it is, but it tells me what train is coming next.  But I've never known how many rivets there should be, so there's no point in my counting them, so I don't.  I cheerfully use tension loc couplers because my eyesight isn't up to scale links, and sort of mentally tune out the absurd appearance, helped by camouflaging them in rail colour.

 

It works for me; I do not have the knowledge base to even think about suggesting what might or might not work for you, and even if I did, it would be wrong of me to impose my opinions or standards (or lack of them) on you.  There are no right or wrong ways of 'doing' model railways, and whatever you are doing I won't be criticising or trying to exclude you.  If it's floating your boat, it's doing what is should be doing!

[Pacific231G]

I've probably said this before but I see a world of difference between a showcase model complete in every detail and a model that conveys an impression of the real thing (which may or may not be very highly detailed) . A good example of this are the ship models traditionally presented to owners by the yards. They were superbly detailed, probably down to the last rivet, but you'd never feel that you were looking at the real thing. This model does though (at least it does for me)

Especially when seen like this

Though in many ways simplified and definitely not a showcase model, it feels to me  like the hardworking coasters whose engine rooms we used to visit in Plymouth's Millbay Docks when I was a cadet there in a way that a ship in a glass case never could. 

 

The same was true of the model of a King that used to - and maybe still does-  grace the main up platform at Bristol TM. You could put a coin in its case to make it work and it was a beautiful piece of craftsmanship (built I think by Swindon apprentices) but it didn't really give the impression of the real thing that  a train running on say the Buckingham Branch does.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Pacific231G

[Reorte]

On 27/12/2023 at 23:24, The Johnster said:

 If it's floating your boat, it's doing what is should be doing!

That sums up the whole thing. The only wrong approach to modelling is the one you don't enjoy. Realistic operation, bombing around a roundy-roundy, trying to get every little detail right - there are people who like all of those and they're all thus doing it right if that's what they're doing.

 

I think there's always room for constructive criticism, but as soon as the person says something along the lines of "maybe, but I'm not interested" then that's that done.

 

Nothing wrong with being unimpressed with someone else's layout either, just move on and don't be a ?@!* about it if you're not.

[tomparryharry]

On 18/12/2023 at 18:55, ColinK said:

I agree with much of what the OP said.  After one young rivet counter (probably aged about 10) shouted out at an exhibition ‘hey mister, your model of 33008 is wrong, it should have miniature snowploughs’.

 

'Tis funny, I can't ever remember snow ploughs on a Q1....

[Northmoor]

Three observations about Rivet Counters:

1. I would estimate that 1% of them have actually measured the prototype and the model and found the "unacceptable" errors.  These people do know their subject and such, details do bother them; that's fine, it's their money and time they'll spend making something better.  The other 99% read the comments of others, form the self-appointed modelling police and repeat these observations as if they were from their own personal research.

2. No Rivet Counter, not one, started out railway modelling in fine scale.  They all started out playing with the sort of train set they criticise as Not Railway Modelling.

3. I suspect the motivation for putting down RTR purchasers is that they can't accept that someone else is having as much or more fun than them despite spending considerably less money and time*.

 

* I strongly believe that it is more satisfying to put the time in to make something than simply buy it, but we haven't all got forty years left and nothing else to do.....

[4630]

17 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

…but we haven't all got forty years left and nothing else to do.....

Ain’t that the truth. 👍

 

The older you get the greater the awareness of time passing more rapidly.   And since I reached retirement I’m busier than ever now too.

 

 

Edited February 4 by 4630

[The Johnster]

2 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

3. I suspect the motivation for putting down RTR purchasers is that they can't accept that someone else is having as much or more fun than them despite spending considerably less money and time*.

 

 

More fun with better, more holistically realistic, models; you can see why they resent it.  I used to yearn for Japanese handbuilt brass panniers and small prairies; I am now aware of their poor scale detail attributes and unreliability, and have no interest in showcase locos.

 

I  think that, in addition, this denigrating elitism over RTR purchasers by people who consider themselves better modellers working to higher standards is probably more prevalent among my generation of modellers, whose formative modelling years were back in the Silurian Era when RTR models really were by and large crude, off-scale, and basic toys.  'Look at me, I built a kit and it's much better than your RTR toy, even has rivets, the correct number of them too, ergo I'm a serious modeller and you're a box opener with a train set'.  The residue of that viewpoint is still with us.

 

Back in the day, they sort of had a point, but it wasn't as stong a point as they liked to think.  Their kits were usually void of anything in the way of detail below the running plates, no brakes, brake rigging, springs, lower firebox detail, just a brass lump chassis block and Romford wheels.  And I'd be willing to bet an alarming low percentage of them ran acceptably!  I once, in my callow and foolish youth, bought a 'motorisation kit' for an Airfix plastic 61xx kit, which consisted of brass top hat bearings to insert in the holes in the Airfix frames and a couple of lengths of rail which were alleged to be capable of representing the coupling rods.  The Airfix frames had springs, and were superior in appearance to most whitemetal kit brass block chassis.  Check out the Bay of e searching for '00 kit-built locomotives' and you'll see plenty of those peoples' kits, sometimes even in running condition and sometimes well-finished, but much more basic in terms of detail than current RTR, which is even better finished and runs acceptably, and is much closer to scale dimensions.  Wills', very highly regarded back in the time of Trilobites, were designed for RTR chassis, come off it, kitboy!

 

Back in the 80s, the Jurassic, I built a Westward 64xx; whitemetal body parts, foldup nickle-silver etched chassis and gearbox, Romford wheels & gears, Anchoridge DS10.  It was a success; looked like a 64xx, not far off scale, good detail below the running-plate, ran smoothly and controllably slowly, and I was proud of it.  If I can cobble together a reasonably designed kit and get it to run well, anyone can!  But i replaced it with a Bachmann 64xx when that came out, becuase the Bachmann was a better model which made my kit 64xx look Jurassic, a dinosaur in the Pleistocene, and I'm confident enough in my modelling ability (and aware of it's limitations) that I'm not going to be told different by any rivet-counting tw..!

 

The best model that I can afford improved to the best standard that I can manage is fine by me.  I would rather own and use a model that looks like the real engines I remember from my childhood than a perfect dead-scale museum-quality pristine dead soulless example of perfection.  Cwmdimbath is not a model railway, it is a real working railway that happens to be small and in the 1950s, and museum-quality stock has no use in such an environment, irrespective of the numeric attributes of it's rivets...

[The Johnster]

48 minutes ago, 4630 said:

Ain’t that the truth. 👍

 

The older you get the greater the awareness of time passing more rapidly.   And since I reached retirement I’m busier than ever now too.

 

 

 

Your perception of time and the speed of it's passing is governed by your longevity.  When you were one year old, your entire life was one year, and felt like your entire life.  When you are seventy years old, your entire life is seventy years, which feels like the same amount of time your entire life did when you were one year old.  it isn't, of course, but your perception of it's length, 'your entire life',  is exactly the same as it was 69 years earlier.  So time appears from your perspective to be passing 69 times more quickly.

 

Remember when you were ten, sitting in a classroom on a sunny day waiting for playtime, or dinner-time, or home-time?  Now you know why it felt so much longer than it would now; as a proportion of your entire life, the only measure of time you are truly aware of, it was longer!

[4630]

I’m sure you’re probably right @The Johnster.

 

It certainly sounds very profound and I appreciate your eloquent expression of what my feelings and emotions are saying (shouting loudly as it happens) to me.

 

 

[Colin_McLeod]

16 hours ago, 4630 said:

Ain’t that the truth. 👍

 

The older you get the greater the awareness of time passing more rapidly.   And since I reached retirement I’m busier than ever now too.

 

 

 

It's a bit like toilet paper.  The closer you get to the end of the roll, the faster you seem to be using it. 😁

[Torper]

I model in P4.  That means I should qualify for the Triple Belgian chocolate brownie, right?

 

No, no, no!  I went for P4 many many years ago purely and simply because I couldn't stand 00 track which, back in those days, was really pretty awful.  I saw some P4 layouts, thought that they seemed so much better, and decided that that was the way I wanted to go.  I would be lying if I said I've never regretted it but I've stuck with it.

 

Once upon a time the Scalefour Society saddled itself with the unfortunate slogan "Getting it All Right", a slogan which, happily, they have since abandoned.  However, it did mean that people thought that a P4 layout should be perfect in every detail and, furthermore, that a hairshirt should be worn whenever possible during modelling sessions.  These days are now long gone, but unfortunately the perception still lingers.  In fact, P4 is now more accessible than it ever has been and the Scalefour Society members are a friendly and very helpful bunch whose modelling skills range from the sublime to, well, people like me.  Because there is no way I could achieve modelling perfection.  There are no rivets I care to count.  If there's something on a prototype loco that can't be seen you won't find me modelling it.  And while I might get my track more or less right, my skills at scenery, buildings, accurate stock and so on are at best average and not a patch on the efforts of many people working in 00 and other scales who frequent this site.

 

So I suppose what I'm trying to say is let's not label people.  I model in P4 but that doesn't mean that I'm any better than those who don't - in many ways I fall well below their standards.  After all, my favourite rake of coaches is the three Hornby-Dublo "super detail" tinplate coaches to which I added a bit of detail, repainted and converted to P4 notwithstanding the fact that they're too short and have awful underframes and run on the wrong size wheels, but I love them all the same and they look really good.

 

I guess I've talked myself out of that chocolate brownie.