Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

How realistic are your models? Photo challenge.

Pugsley

By Pugsley,
in Modelling musings & miscellany

 Share

Recommended Posts

ian@stenochs

ian@stenochs

Posted
Posted

Morning Ian.

Firstly, I made reference to scale/gauge/standards as these can have a significant effect on the appearance of the models themselves in terms of wheel flanges, boiler fittings and finesse in general.

Railway modelling is a very broad church and RMweb encapsulates this perfectly, allowing modellers with all sorts of interests and abilities/skills/standards to come together and share information and gain inspiration

Threads such as this one admirably demonstrate such a coming together of different approaches to the same common goal.

As an aside, you make reference to my altered image in post 5622. I didn't alter it, Stubby did,not that I minded one jot. As I said earlier, I used to remove the couplings prior to photographing the stock but no longer do so as I prefer to represent them for what they are so that members see that they are ready to run.

You also make reference to the other images posted above and state;

'That is a perfect example of what we are looking for in this thread"

Thank you, most kind of you to say so. However regarding other images on the thread, you then go on to say;

"There are also some which are clearly models and not really being shown to advantage nor in the spirit of the thread. Should we not all be striving for the former? Please continue to show us your work but select only those pictures which conform to the thread title, “how realistic are your models”.

With the greatest respect, whilst your image above suggest a skilled approach to the hobby, one should not be so quick to suggest that an image is not in the spirit of the thread.

It is this very approach that I am at odds with. To the contributor, it is and due respect should be given, not discouragement. That "not good enough" approach is not acceptable. If the contributor perceives their image to represent the sentiment of the thread title, then its good enough for me. Therefore whilst it is kind of you to suggest I continue to contribute to the thread and I will, the final choice of the image I post will rest with me.

Rob.

Rob,

 

I think we are getting our nickers in a twist over very little. I think we both want to see examples of realistic modelling on this thread but we obviously have different ideas of what constitutes realism..

 

Ian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
NHY 581

NHY 581

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Rob,

I think we are getting our nickers in a twist over very little. I think we both want to see examples of realistic modelling on this thread but we obviously have different ideas of what constitutes realism..

Ian.

Agreed Ian. I believe we have both put our respective points across.

 

 

Back to trains.

 

 

 

 

Rob.

post-14122-0-34990700-1526844431_thumb.jpg

Edited by NHY 581
  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_J

Bill_J

Posted
Posted

Agreed Ian. I believe we have both put our respective points across.

 

 

Back to trains.

 

 

 

 

Rob.

 

Early in British Railways history, they began experimenting with a new auto-coupling system, to replace screw-links...

 

:jester:

Link to post
Share on other sites
chaz

chaz

Posted
Posted

Yes, I agree with that.

 

However what some people appear not to consider is that when written, words have no infjection, intonation or facial expression; these all form the bigger part of communication. :yes:

 

 

Quite so. Should a piece of constructive criticism provoke an offended response then a gracious withdrawal with an apology is probably the best course. A chain of increasingly angry postings goes nowhere and just spoils it for everyone.

 

I always know I'm right :no:  but I also know how to button it  :this:

 

Chaz

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Captain Kernow

Captain Kernow

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

Almost all couplings in this scale (4mm to the foot) are a compromise to some extent, between appearance and ease of use.

 

Take some of the other types - Kaydees can look good, but only on stock that would have had some kind of a buckeye fitted anyway.

 

What about things like Dinghams or Spratt & Winkle - they still have bits of metal sticking out.

 

And as for AJs - a long thin, bent bit of rod coming out from your rolling stock fore and aft!

 

Even 3-links and screw links, which I use, can be a compromise if you are looking for something that isn't so 'hair shirt' to operate. I use Smiths hooks and links, which are overscale, but are at least fairly easy (for me, at the moment) to use under exhibition conditions.

 

Exact scale couplings from the likes of Exactoscale and Masokits, for example, are certainly usable, but in my experience, need a lot more concentration and are rather more 'draining' over a period of time at an exhibition, even though they do look good.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
leopardml2341

leopardml2341

Posted
Posted (edited)

Having just looked back through the pictures Rob has posted I can honestly say that hitherto I'd not noticed the couplings at all :)

 

Of course that may mean that I'm unobservant (SWMBO would disagree vehemently), or perhaps when viewing the scene as a whole, they are simply not glaringly obvious and a testament to Rob's skills in creating a holistic sense of realism?

 

With an 'eye for detail' that many modeller's have, its inevitable that no matter how good a 'scene' is, we more than most, can only suspend belief for a moment or two before our attention is drawn into actually looking for something that breaks the illusion.

 

SWMBO is often completely amazed with some of the images posted, only accepting it's a model when these 'illusion breakers' are pointed out.

 

One thing is for sure, I follow this topic for inspiration, not arguments. :yes:

 

 

Edit:

 

Corrects predictive text it's 'two' not 'too'......

Edited by leopardml2341
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
P.C.M

P.C.M

Posted
Posted

Agreed Ian. I believe we have both put our respective points across.

 

 

Back to trains.

 

 

 

 

Rob.

Couplings or not that weathering looks superb.

 

Cheers Peter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
NHY 581

NHY 581

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Those 63xx really are quite pleasant to look at........in a move akin to Dylan going electric, I can see one shuffling about on either Mutton or Sheep Lane.....and there's a new batch coming out.....oh dear!

 

 

Rob.

Edited by NHY 581
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
rocor

rocor

Posted
Posted

Early in British Railways history, they began experimenting with a new auto-coupling system, to replace screw-links...

 

:jester:

 

 

I blame the Victorians, they should have invented a auto-coupling system that could be easily replicated in model form. That would have prevented all this present day controversy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
The Johnster

The Johnster

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

One of the local girls has her interest piqued by the arrival of an auto at Cwmdimbath from Bridgend.  She seems less bothered by the general scruffiness of the scene than the buffers, which Hornby have not muted sufficiently for her taste (or mine!).  Her sisters are scattered around the area, and are all over the railway, as is correct for a Valleys scene.

 

W189 W is, to the best of my knowledge, a correct Tondu vehicle, my second from Hornby along with 2761.  

Edited by The Johnster
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
The Johnster

The Johnster

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

One of the local girls' has her interest piqued by the arrival of an auto at Cwmdimbath from Bridgend.  She seems less bothered by the general scruffiness of the scene than the buffers, which Hornby have not muted sufficiently for her taste (or mine!).  Her sisters are scattered around the area, and are all over the railway, as is correct for a Valleys scene.

 

W189 W is, to the best of my knowledge, a correct Tondu vehicle, my second from Hornby along with 2761.

post-30666-0-81504900-1526930111_thumb.jpg

post-30666-0-09969600-1526930852_thumb.jpg

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
The Johnster

The Johnster

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

2761 has just come to a stand by the column ready to take water, after which she will run around her van and make for home at Tondu.  Before anybody comments on how realistic this scene is, it features PECO Streamline code 100 track, a Hornby 2721, and a brake van that is in the current Bachmann range but oughtn't to be, an old Mainline moulding with moulded handrails and, for some reason, a bent brake handle.  2761's livery is incorrect, an ersatz version of Caerphilly works austerity grotesque black, and her moulded number plates might be a bit of an improvement on the usual RTR printed ones but don't really cut it.  She has a chimney, dome, and safety valve cover from a defunct Westward 64xx.

 

Given all this, I hope nobody will object to the couplings!

 

Another local girl gets down to it under a bush in the foreground; wonder what's tasty down there!  

post-30666-0-20401700-1526934569_thumb.jpg

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
7APT7

7APT7

Posted
Posted

Lots of great pic`s here again..and thanks to 'ALL' that post...... :good:

 

Time for a paddle i think...!

 

attachicon.gifunder bridge (HO layout 2008).jpg

 

Brian.

 

Hi Brian

 

Looks great having that partly dried up effect... and not that heavy flowing look, and the way the light reflects off the water in the shadow of the bridge as been captured superbly!

 

Regards

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...