Model Railways and The Scientific Method

[Pennine MC]

And there was me thinking MRJ was highbrow

[kevinlms]

To be really pedantic it's called "The Review of Model Railway Rivet Counting and Nit-picking" (check out the punctuation), is bi-monthly and is usually 304 pages.

 

I thought limited editions usually consisted of 504 examples these days, or 200 for Dapol.

 

 

Kevin Martin

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Do tell! Did I miss something else in my "imagineering"?

The 30 ton axleload on a 160 ton all up 4-10-4T. Mechanically, it is best if each coupled axle carries a similar load, so one would expect all coupled axles to be in the high 20s to 30T axleload range. On a ten coupled that places perhaps 140T on the coupled wheelbase. Which leaves 10T at each end to load the carrying wheels, a load easily taken on a pony truck rather than a bogie. So a 2-10-2T is more likely as a wheel arrangement.

Now follow what happens. We save about five tons each end by subsitituting pony truck for bogie and some reduction in overall length of the frame. Five tons loading on a carrying wheel isn't really enough for such a heavy rigid wheelbase loco, and at the bunker end (and it needs to be a big bunker - say 10T - for the sustained power output for dragging 300 wagons around) as the coal is burned the back end of the loco goes 'light' dealt with by a compensating beam to redistribute loading off the rear of the coupled chassis. That increases mechanical inequities in the drive train. It's a spiral of consequences that informs the reader that the design as proposed is unlikely to succeed: and fully worthy of Collett and Swindon, after the GJCenius has departed...

[Stubby47]

 

The 30 ton axleload on a 160 ton all up 4-10-4T. Mechanically, it is best if each coupled axle carries a similar load, so one would expect all coupled axles to be in the high 20s to 30T axleload range. On a ten coupled that places perhaps 140T on the coupled wheelbase. Which leaves 10T at each end to load the carrying wheels, a load easily taken on a pony truck rather than a bogie. So a 2-10-2T is more likely as a wheel arrangement.

 

Now follow what happens. We save about five tons each end by subsitituting pony truck for bogie and some reduction in overall length of the frame. Five tons loading on a carrying wheel isn't really enough for such a heavy rigid wheelbase loco, and at the bunker end (and it needs to be a big bunker - say 10T - for the sustained power output for dragging 300 wagons around) as the coal is burned the back end of the loco goes 'light' dealt with by a compensating beam to redistribute loading off the rear of the coupled chassis. That increases mechanical inequities in the drive train. It's a spiral of consequences that informs the reader that the design as proposed is unlikely to succeed: and fully worthy of Collett and Swindon, after the GJCenius has departed...

Yeah, and it was pink too !

[dibber25]

That approach would be way too dry and soulless for me - but I accept I will probably be in a minority of one in this

 

A minority of two!

CHRIS LEIGH

[iL Dottore]

That approach would be way too dry and soulless for me - but I accept I will probably be in a minority of one in this

Not necessarily, the imaginary example I made up was a very much shortened version of a scientific paper and was missing a discussion section which together with the conclusion section - is often where opinions, pontifications and much informed criticism (i.e. "slagging off") of rival scientific points of view are made. The absence of data tables and figures also made the example somewhat dry.

 

What I do want to promote is the idea that a core part of any model review is purely factural (back-to-back measurements, stalling amperage, key dimensions, etc.) assessed in a way that is clear and (potentially) replicable by the reader. So, a review that states a model locomotive can pull twenty 30gm wagons along 1 metre of Code 100 track tells me a lot about the model (and is something that could be replicated by an individual or a club and the results confirmed, or not).

 

Seriously though, there are dangers in citing authorities. Ron White, founder of Colour-Rail, would often tell a tale asserting that footplate work was beneficial to those suffering from piles. One day a member of the audience asked Ron for medical evidence. Quick as a flash Ron stated that there was a piece in a particular issue of The Lancet. Now you know and I know that this cannot be true but the guy who asked the question went away happy. Silly bu99er!

Silly bu99er, indeed.

 

But I have to disagree about the "danger" of citing authorities. If you claimed that the Russell GWR Coach books categorically state crushed nylon was used as a moquette fabric, it would be easy enough (if I wasn`t already familar with the Russell books) to go to these volumes and check if you were citing correctly (and my response would be, instead of saying you are an clueless so-and-so, would be to say that you had significantly misinterpreted the data).

 

As another poster suggested, a mixture of "dry" verifiable and testable facts and subjective "does it look right/does it provide value for money" assessments would make for a well rounded review.

 

F

[Metr0Land]

ID, I think this debate is well worth having, and maybe is surprising we haven't had it in more detail before (or maybe we have on an earlier board and I never saw it?)

 

I think we're all aware of the vagaires of time/money/publication deadlines and so forth that may make a review less full than some of us would like.

 

However I think it is worth flushing into the open what the basis is for various reviews. Are all reviews done on the same basis (even within 1 publication) and if it's not possible for all publications to review in the same 'scientific' way as each other, then at least us paying public should be aware of the modus operandii of the various reviewers.

 

Publications do from time to time publish the basis for their tests especially when they've not published for some years. However, given that pretty much all of them have websites, maybe we should be asking for a minimum standard of them publishing on their own criteria on their own website, for all to see even if we don't have an industry standard?

[Karhedron]

As another poster suggested, a mixture of "dry" verifiable and testable facts and subjective "does it look right/does it provide value for money" assessments would make for a well rounded review.

 

Part of the problem is that magazines find it hard to recruit sufficient reviewers who are expert in all the subjects being reviewed. For example, I spotted some of the lining issues on the Dapol Halls but I would not have spotted the bogie issues on the Hornby 4-VEP as the latter is neither my scale nor my area of expertise.

If I had been asked to review the Hall I would have had a small library of western steam books to call upon. If the latter, I quick search on google would probably have sufficed. The problem is that it is these sort of details that people are increasingly expecting to be picked up in reviews. This is where RMWeb really comes to the fore (despite accusations of nit-picking in certain parts of the paper-press).

 

For any given prototype there are likely to be several experts casting their beady eyes over it. Some may call this being overly critical but I believe it can be used to the benefit of the manufacturer as well as the modeller. Dapol have invited input to the both the class 22 and 52 projects and the results appear to be very promising. The class 22 has been well received and appears to be clear of any significant errors. Even the running numbers are correct for both livery and condition of the models (suprising hard considering how much variation the class had in its short life). The 52 shows promise and I certainly hope that Dapol manage to deliver the "definitive" Western that modellers are hoping for.

[Physicsman]

Just got in from work, logged on and find the discussion is continuing. Cup of coffee and I'll settle down to analyse the wit that makes reading this stuff such a pleasure!

 

Since Chris Leigh is obviously reading this, could I guess that, as an extremely experienced editor (emeritus), you would expect that no magazine would likely go the "Scientific method" route - for practical as well as dogmatic reasons.

 

Jeff

[iL Dottore]

Part of the problem is that magazines find it hard to recruit sufficient reviewers who are expert in all the subjects being reviewed...

I partly agree, inasmuch as the fine details and variant differences would certainly need to be assessed by experts in that particular railway company/class or type of locomotive (I mean, you wouldn`t want a proctologist to examine your sore throat would you?- well not more than once, anyway), but other assessments - such as stalling amperage, back to back measurements, how many 50gm wagons the loco can haul on 1m of code 80 track could be done by any model reviewer, no matter what his or her speciality or interest.

 

Once a standard assessment panel is agreed upon, most of the factual part of a review would simply be a question of checking off the tests as they are done.

 

F

[Downendian]

Having spent the day writing abstracts ,a paper and marking student scripts some of which haven't applied basic scientific writing style (I'm head of a University department)- I much prefer the laid back writing approach on RMweb for my hobby. Scientific writing also is not always accurate (getting the students to accept this is the first objective at University) and often takes a long time to correct (often years). In the meantime progress on that subject is hampered. This is the exception, and on the whole good journals are a pleasure to read, but the key to a good journal is peer review- having recently reviewed for the journal Nature I was one of five that were commissioned.

 

That is why I believe we should use careful referencing on RMweb (especially to photos) - I'm a big fan of that to avoid the fictitious factlets that can arise from time to time.

 

Scientific writing style is not everyone's cup of tea and the current forum format is great for me, but is subject to peer review of which my friends Ian (Pennine), Mike (Stationmaster) and Nidge (Rugd1022) have all "reviewed" (i.e. corrected) my erroneous posts always with a huge knowledge base cited with great accuracy.

 

In essence we have already adopted a scientific approach - rigorous fact-based research and superb on line and real time peer reviewing, it just doesn't look like a scientific journal which may be off putting to a large proportion of the readership.

 

 

 

 

 

Neil

[Physicsman]

Having spent the day writing abstracts ,a paper and marking student scripts some of which haven't applied basic scientific writing style (I'm head of a University department)- I much prefer the laid back writing approach on RMweb for my hobby. Scientific writing also is not always accurate (getting the students to accept this is the first objective at University) and often takes a long time to correct (often years). In the meantime progress on that subject is hampered. This is the exception, and on the whole good journals are a pleasure to read, but the key to a good journal is peer review- having recently reviewed for the journal Nature I was one of five that were commissioned.

 

That is why I believe we should use careful referencing on RMweb (especially to photos) - I'm a big fan of that to avoid the fictitious factlets that can arise from time to time.

 

Scientific writing style is not everyone's cup of tea and the current forum format is great for me, but is subject to peer review of which my friends Ian (Pennine), Mike (Stationmaster) and Nidge (Rugd1022) have all "reviewed" (i.e. corrected) my erroneous posts always with a huge knowledge base cited with great accuracy.

 

In essence we have already adopted a scientific approach - rigorous fact-based research and superb on line and real time peer reviewing, it just doesn't look like a scientific journal which may be off putting to a large proportion of the readership.

 

Neil

 

Some very salient and constructive points, Neil. What is your speciality, if you don't mind me asking? Your opinions re. scientific presentation should carry a bit of weight, especially from a man who reviews for Nature.

 

I think there is an approach to please everybody, whether rigorous or not. As a Physicist, I would agree with iD that some standardised testing method would be a good idea, but clearly not everyone wants to read "dry as dust" copy in their favourite magazine. Far too many people regard their school Science studies with distaste and don't want to revisit them in their favourite hobby.

 

It would be very interesting to poll the RMwebbers, though the silent majority would probably abstain.

 

And btw, with peer review from people of the calibre of Mike and Ian, how could anyone complain?

 

Jeff

[Downendian]

Hi Jeff

I'm a biomedical scientist/molecular biologist.

Neil

[Pennine MC]

Neil, Jeff - thanks for the appreciation there, I'm sure Mike and Nidge would agree that correcting someone is much less fraught if they're the sort of folk who are more interested in a correct record than being seen to be right all the time.

 

 

... The problem is that it is these sort of details that people are increasingly expecting to be picked up in reviews. This is where RMWeb really comes to the fore (despite accusations of nit-picking in certain parts of the paper-press).

 

And not forgetting the periodic bouts of accusations from within Kar, which personally bother me much more than a single article in a single magazine, the intention and target of which have still not been proven one way or the other.

 

Since Chris Leigh is obviously reading this, could I guess that, as an extremely experienced editor (emeritus), you would expect that no magazine would likely go the "Scientific method" route - for practical as well as dogmatic reasons.

 

 

Obviously I'm not going to speak for Chris here, but can you really see it? For the magazines to invest significantly greater resource, in the current climate and in a field where forums will always have the advantages, seems a non-starter to me.

 

I was going to close by saying that maybe this is bound up in the wider debate, that this is an area where the mags need to consider if their efforts should be targeted elsewhere completely, but I also cant see them giving up on reviews entirely. I do remember when I was in DEMU that there were calls for 'Update' to not feature reviews on the grounds that the mainstream mags did them anyway, but the editor at the time (it may have been Jim S-W) said that the demand was there.

[Downendian]

Neil, Jeff - thanks for the appreciation there, I'm sure Mike and Nidge would agree that correcting someone is much less fraught if they're the sort of folk who are more interested in a correct record than being seen to be right

 

Thats what makes a good scientist Ian, knowing when you're wrong with a body of irrefutable evidence stacking up against you. As you've said before - you can't argue with facts, if a model is wrong dimensionally or livery wise it's wrong full stop. Burden of proof is all that is required.

 

Plus of course relying too much on memory with my key reference books being over 100 miles away. If in doubt don't post when pontificating!

 

Neil

[Mikkel]

if a model is wrong dimensionally or livery wise it's wrong full stop

 

Not wishing to embark on a major epistemological debate here, but might I politely question this notion? I refer here to a recent debate among a most learned group of scholars, which can be seen here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/blog/75/entry-5109-the-farthing-station-weekly-discussion-club/

[The Stationmaster]

Neil, Jeff - thanks for the appreciation there, I'm sure Mike and Nidge would agree that correcting someone is much less fraught if they're the sort of folk who are more interested in a correct record than being seen to be right all the time.

Exactly so Ian - and thanks for saying it for me (and not forgetting, again, that none of us know everything and all us have sometimes rely on memory which might not be as good as we think it is or use source data which might not be good as we've been led to believe it is).

 

I don't know how many people here are familiar with 'Model Railroader' reviews but I think it is possibly useful to come back to them. Despite the shifts of editorial emphasis over recent years the 'factual check' part of these seems to have settled to a consistent pattern and - for me at any rate - they are still readable. Checking key facts such as wheel back-to-back might well be a time & cost imposition too far for the magazines and I'm sure Chris can inform us on that. But surely a small tabular presentation, within a review, of the sort of things several of us have mentioned is not going to be a reading imposition that lumbers us with the dry and undigestible of a scientific paper we can't understand?

[iL Dottore]

For those interested, I have started another thread on assessments - which ones to use, in this same section

 

I look forward to the feedback

 

F

[edcayton]

I may be wrong, but I'd have thought that the situation in the US was rather different from here, with two or more manufacturers chasing a smaller number of prototypes.

 

In the UK with a few notable exceptions that is not the case, so if you want a (insert prototype) you have to have the (insert manufacturer) one. So basically you buy one despite the faults, and if you can't live with them then you have to make a silk purse out of tha sow's ear.

 

The up side of this is some splendid modelling, and your own model is unique.

 

Ed

[kevinlms]

I think thats about hit the nail on the head. The MR reviews cover pretty much all the 'average modeller' purchaser needs and I think thats why they've stayed a constant. Things like B2B are important, but how many purchasers of the mainstream mags have the facility to measure it, let alone an interest in it, their concern is will it run smoothly through my points? Model Railway Constructor did have a 'basic' table in its reviews of the 80's. If memeory serves me they were dropped as there was no interest for them from the readership, though 'dibber25'(CL) will know for certain.

 

Whilst not wishing to poor cold water on ID's proposal, I think if you asked an editorial team which will the 'average reader' prefer, another picture of the product, or a data table?, I'd be very surprised if the data table got the vote. The basic dimensions can be covered in the descriptive text, even if its just 'The model is accurate measured against Blogs' drawing in MRN of 1962'.

 

To a degree Model Rail already has a column with some basic info similar to this. There is usually info on period, region, usage with. Then there is a subjective section with 5 common criteria, looks, build quality, features, decoration and value for money. This is summed up as a percentage. Finally there is a For & Against section with some brief notes on points about the model that stick out.

 

A fair solution IMO with out taking up pages of magazine.

 

Kevin Martin