RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted December 6, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 6, 2009 Just as a completely informal & light-hearted musing session. For those of you here from when I joined, I wanted to try out EM gauge. As a scenic modeller I could see that that the basic appearance of commercially available track, and particularly points was going to be a problem. However one thing I found to be more of a problem: When you embrace a set of standards, possiby just because you like the look of the track as it is nearer to a scale width. Why is it you'd be bothered about the size or type of the brake blocks on wagons, whether the bufferbeam pipes are in the correct place on a loco etc? Why is it automatically assumed that just because you would like your track to look like real railway track, that you'd also be interested in the rolling stock? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkmouse Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 ...Why is it automatically assumed that just because you would like your track to look like real railway track, that you'd also be interested in the rolling stock? Or indeed, run it according to prototype? Some people just like doing it that way I suppose, but as far as I see it, it's all just toy trains, and we should be free pick and choose which aspects we want to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poggy1165 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I think it's the P4 people, in particular, who try to 'sell' the complete package - that is getting everything right. However, it aint compulsory. I don't see why, in principle, one can't use P4 and EM track with re-wheeled out of the box locos and Airfix and Superquick buildings. It really is up to the individual and what he/she wants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Why is it automatically assumed that just because you would like your track to look like real railway track, that you'd also be interested in the rolling stock? Because it would be kinda weird, if wanting track and wheels to look like the real thing, not to be interested in the rolling stock? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davknigh Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Well, if you've managed to notice the difference between set track and the real thing it is not too great a leap to move the eyes up and notice the difference between real wheels and model wheels. Then you notice what the wheels are suspended on and it all goes up (or down, depending on your point of view) from there. Granted there has to be a suspension of disbelief with any form of model, it all depends on how tolerant of "compromise" you happen to be. BTW I don't think there is any form of conspiracy at work here Cheers, David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted December 6, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 6, 2009 hmm thanks for those thoughts folks. Its a personal minefield I go through everytime regards OO versus staying in EM. I'm not totally dis-interested in rolling stock, but I have a great difficulty other than ensuring the wheels are right size and guage in getting intrested in the finities of bufferbeam detailing or wagon underframes and stuff? This might be partly 'cos I am lacking in sufficient knowledge as to how they should look, but also because I tend to look on things from a bit of a distance (like you would a real train) You just sometimes feel its 'expected' that you should go to massive lengths to make 'everything' just so, and kind of wonder if you dont whether people think you are lazy, ignorant or something! I always think that given a limited amount of time available you should spend it on the things you actually enjoy doing which to me is scenics, detailing locos and rolling stock is something I tend to put off 'till the last couple of days before someone might see the layout!! -Enjoy weathering though, and basically anything that makes a mess! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted December 6, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 6, 2009 Russ You can't be wrong! It's your railway, and it oughter run to your rules. Real railways have had nearly two centuries to work out how wheels and rails should best fit together, such that neither wears too quickly, but harmony is absolute and derailments don't happen by chance. I suspect that really pretty track could be made to 16.5mm gauge if the best components were used, and the difference from the essentially handlaid EM/P4 would be less obvious. In the past perhaps people did that with Peco Individulay, designed in an era when modellers still often used outside third rail for pickup. I think that range is still available, and no doubt there are others. Railway modelling is essentially a very broad kirk, embracing as it does a multitude of scales and gauges. There is scope for the finescaler to indulge in perfection on all fronts - but he's still only a modeller. Some people will never really operate their layout - do they know the commodity in every wagon, where it originated and where it's going? Others are more than comfy with RTR roundy-round in their chosen scale - they still have a great time. How far you take the deception that is modelling is down to the modeller and the modeller alone. Do not be browbeaten into not enjoying this hobby because you do not aspire to others' high standards on all fronts. Doing your own thing, modelling-stylie, is where it's at, and that's that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Hi Rus Personally its down to a mindset. If you of the mindset to notice that 00 track doesn't look right then you will be of the mindset to notice that a loco with tension locks doesn't look right either. Its a bit more with the P4 mindset as if you notice that the flangeway gaps in EM track looks just as bad as 00 you will have a similar view with regards to the overall scene. Its not elitist to say that if you cant tell the (very obvious) difference between EM and P4 track then you wont notice other details that are just as obvious to those that do. Having said that there is NO rule to say that you must think like that. If you model P4 with tension locks and thats good for you then there is no one in any position to say that you are wrong. If you have fun running stuff out of the box on set track with RTP buildings or if you enjoy researching which pattern chairs were used on each individual sleeper then good for you. Its a hobby its supposed to be fun! Cheers Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted December 6, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 6, 2009 I see some of this: a similar aspect of landscape/railway across the board, you do see some layouts that claim to be finescale, where the stuff outside the railway fence is well neglected. I certainly dont include you in that Jim S-W your stuff is as exact as anyone could aspire to and accross the board! I dont think there is alot of elitism in the P4 mindset, its simply a step further than I want or have time for though I am occassionally tempted. My thoughts on EM (and this is a wholly personal dilemma!) is the relationship between buffers and rails is completely wrong on OO rails and this is something I well remember from observing the prototype and models as a child, EM is a 'quick fix' for this, even though I dont really enjoy the regauging/re-wheeling of rolling stock. Pretty track in OO and even using peco pointwork is possible to make look good as many on this forum have demonstrated. I am very tempted by the latest N gauge stuff and also (possibly) 2mm finescale, as it offers more landscape potential, but I am conscious that I may just be 'bailing out' cos of 4mm dilemmas which is something I did with 7mm and sometimes regret! Maybe I just ought to change my signature to dont know? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieselbob Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Hi Russ Its a funny subject, what we are willing to accept on our 4mm gauge layouts. For me , although I know that Peco streamline code 100 track & points are crap with regard to scale, I can for some reason put up with it (perhaps ripping up around 50 meters of track and 40 odd sets of points makes me see it in a different light. But I remember a few years ago buying a Heljan class 47 and looking at it on the track and wondering what was wrong with it, well as soon as I worked out that it is a couple of mm too wide It was gone for good and I will never buy another one. I think they call it double standards and I am glad that I can sometimes settle for compromises or I would never have the time to complete anything. Bob Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 Russ, ask ten different people this question and you'll get ten different answers, the upshot being that it's an entirely subjective matter. You know what you like and you like what you like - that's all that matters. To give these comments some substance, although I don't do EM like you, I do like my track to be slightly more subtle than Peco code 100. Admittedly I have code 75 myself at the moment, but I suspect I'll be moving to SMP for scenic areas before too long! I do like my rolling stock, buildings and scenery to look like they belong to the same planet so finish and consistency of colour, shade and tone is important to me. Paradoxically, I'm happy to accept Kadees as my standard coupling and I just re-fitted my kit-built J37 with Gibson MR brake blocks because although they aren't strictly accurate, they still look OK and will at least help to minimise the risk of shorting with the loco. This latter is of extreme importance due to intended future digitalisation of my fleet! Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 I detect, Russ, your internal dilemma is far more about scale than it is about the distance between the rails. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted December 6, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 6, 2009 I detect, Russ, your internal dilemma is far more about scale than it is about the distance between the rails. yes I think you have a point there, I've always had an eye to the landscape possibilities of N or 2mm FS even where the 'train' part becomes an even smaller cog in the wheel, but having said that I feel that I couldnt even do any of the detailing in that scale, but maybe thats a good thing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 In any scale, there is no such thing as a free lunch; the compromises are all relative. Play to your strengths and inclinations. For example, to use an extreme case, could you imagine being happy creating something that didn't include any 'railway'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted December 7, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 7, 2009 In any scale, there is no such thing as a free lunch; the compromises are all relative. Play to your strengths and inclinations. For example, to use an extreme case, could you imagine being happy creating something that didn't include any 'railway'? Erm yes I could, I think thats part of the problem!! I could quite see myself building small diorama's of hill farms and similar that didnt have road or rail vehichles as parts of them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Being a landscape modeller doesn't sound like a problem to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted December 7, 2009 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 7, 2009 I think the way that really good club layouts come together is that they will have certain strengths between members and that they will pull together with X doing the rolling stock Y doing the baseboards and wiring and Z doing the buildings and scenery? As an individual you are left with what bits you want to do, and bodging the rest! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Both of those are true, but as an individual you get to make all the decisions, and are not constrained by the views of others. Go for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Erm yes I could, I think thats part of the problem!! I could quite see myself building small diorama's of hill farms and similar that didnt have road or rail vehichles as parts of them Nowt wrong with that Russ - How many of the layouts you see do you find most enjoyable because they are built with the railway as part of the landscape as opposed to landscape as part of a model railway. Sounds a bit obscure but I much prefer to see the railway fit in (JLTRT) rather than landscape added as an afterthought to a model railway - Deadwater turned out to be a good example of the former....(hopefully I've got the use of "former" the right way round)! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Don't think I can add much as it's all been pretty well said. This sums it up for me: ...we should be free pick and choose which aspects we want to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartp Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 As your other replies have suggested, all modelling is a compromise, and the degree of compromise you're prepared to accept is a very personal thing. You clearly aren't prepared to accept the compromise which 16.5mm gauge involves because it just doesn't look right - it doesn't look right to me either but I am prepared to accept it if only because converting everything to EM after all this time would just introduce a whole new set of complications and delays I can do without. On the other hand, I just can't accept tension locks so I've always used 3-links, even on Portwilliam's ancient Peco Code 100 track. It's perverse but there you go. I'm going to have to use some sort of auto-coupling on Newton Stewart as the goods yard is at the back of the widest board but it's not something I'm particularly happy about. It's clear you're concerned with the overall look, you've arguably achieved that on 'Deadwater' without getting bogged down in the myriad variations in BR standard (sic) vans and which pipe goes where. Most Parkside kits built straight from the box will result in a perfectly acceptable model of that particular variant - I've got a core fleet of rolling stock built straight from the box, the gerneral principle being 80% of the effect for 20% of the effort. With those largely complete (if not actually painted, lettered and weathered yet) I'm working my way through some of the variations just to have something a bit different - I doubt many people will spot the differences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poggy1165 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 For me, model railways are all about compromise. It's just that one person's 'compromise' is a wholly unacceptable and unrealistic jarring note to the next guy. That's why, ultimately, it's a very personal hobby and why I couldn't see myself getting involved with a club layout. I don't think anyone needs ask permission of anyone else to do what they want to do. Even if you convert 'Percy' to P4 and keep the funny face, there will be no visit from the Model Railway Gestapo - you will not be taken away and charged. I have yet to see the 'perfect' model railway, the one that couldn't be criticised for anything, although I have seen a number of good attempts. I think the key is to please yourself, and the time to scrap a layout is when it no longer pleases you. I'm all for people trying new ideas and philiosophies. Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 'Chad would like to eply to this thead howeve he has been taken into custody afte the appeaance of the Blue Kestel on the Teviotbank layout ecently. Bail is set at 6 Heljan Claytons. Yous The WM Layout Secet Police PS: We have his coat in custody as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted December 7, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 7, 2009 Even if you convert 'Percy' to P4 and keep the funny face, there will be no visit from the Model Railway Gestapo - you will not be taken away and charged. I say old chap! There are limits you know! I think that might be pushing the old "reasonable" envelope a little far! Not recommended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted December 7, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 7, 2009 This is an interesting question Russ - I'm definitely of the "landscape" preference, but does that mean there can be compromises in track standards as the track won't be such a large part of the whole effect? I still prefer the look of scale track but the time / effort / money involved versus "plonk it down" Peco is difficult to justify in my situation. I would stress that having the time / money / skills I would prefer better looking track - but then we're back into the "what would better OO track actually mean" debate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.