Help me, I think I'm turning into a rivet counter!

[Oldddudders]

But by what mechanism are we to learn of RTR errors?

"Cottage" industries, for example Shawplan have a great ability to improve RTR for the discerning modeller. Sure if you are happy to run straight from the box then no problem, but surely information given in the spirit of making a good model into a great model cannot be seen as unbecoming?

Neil

Much earlier in this thread I said this :

 

"I think recognising others' mistakes simply reflects a greater awareness of how things should be. Mentioning the fact to the other modeller can be unhelpful, needs to be ultra-diplomatic, may not win you many friends if done clumsily." As far as I am concerned the comments in question, however accurate, did not meet those key criteria.

[Downendian]

Yes Ian but we are talking about a RTR model, taken straight from the box and photographed.

 

I fully agree with you that tact and diplomacy required when discussing a kit or scratch built model to which I thought you were referring in the above quotes.

Neil

Edited July 8, 2013 by Downendian

[woodyfox]

Is there a fine line between condemning every comment regarding the failings of an RTR product, no matter how constructive, well intentioned, diplomatic and necessary for the continuing improvement of general modelling standards; and the complete stifling of constructive debate by 'pigeon holing' those that:

 

Wish to share knowledge,

Wish to share skills,

Wish to improve offered items, and,

Wish to achieve the highest possible standard in their chosen area,

with a predjudicial, intentionally derogartory label (rivet counter)?

[Classsix T]

Without knowledge of the particular post it is difficult to ascertain the intended mind-set of the post Ian refers to. It may read differently to others.

 

However, what I think Ian is getting at is a post along the lines of "Glad you like your model, if you'd like to improve it a thread exists here..." etc. might've come across a bit better without denigrating someone else's choice of what they spend THEIR money on (rule no.1 in my book). The decision is then up to the already happy purchaser of the model whether to take it further. Though this may upset Andy for influential advertising?

Besides, modelling cottage industries wouldn't have much to do if all rtr was perfect.

 

C6T.

[Ravenser]

But by what mechanism are we to learn of RTR errors?

"Cottage" industries, for example Shawplan have a great ability to improve RTR for the discerning modeller. Sure if you are happy to run straight from the box then no problem, but surely information given in the spirit of making a good model into a great model cannot be seen as unbecoming?

Neil

Having accidentally found the relevant thread , it's worth pointing out that two of the three criticisms made relate to colours . In one case it's a question of red - which is notoriously problematic on old black and white photos , in the second case no reliable evidence is available to judge the state of late LNER "faux teak" since no such original finish survives and period colour material is desperately scarce and not likely to reproduce the colours accurately (if anyone wants to chase hares theres about 5 secs of archive colour footage in the recent BBC documentary The Joy of Sets which shows a post war LNER express with teak/"teak" coaches)  . In the third case the RTR model matches a builder's photo of how the insignia were applied. It may turn out to be a rare varient, but it's not wrong and the suggestion it may have been changed before the vehicle entered service feels like clutching at straws

 

Not a lot can be done to "upgrade" any of this - while the cottage industrialist in question may not personally be satisfied with Hornby's rendition of teak , the awkward fact is that about 5 generations of modellers have failed to "crack" varnished teak finish successfully (we've been trying since the early 30s) and almost nobody is going to do a better job than Hornby.

 

Mercifully apart from one brush with LNER/ER painted brown - not teak - I don't have to face this particular issue but I'll still have one of the coaches in question when they are done in maroon.

 

This doesn't seem to be a case of pointing out a clear error in the model (eg the fact that Bachmann's cattle wagon is a  scale foot short) or offering a solution, and it's by no means certain that the criticism of the RTR model is correct.

 

On a slightly different tack, one issue is the situation where all the rivets are present and correct , the detail is spot on and the whole thing's totally wrong. That's to say where the detail and craftmanship of individual models is absolutely right, but the overall combination is completely wrong and incredible . The afore mentioned TMD layouts are a classic example - the locos may , and often are, detailed and very accurate to specific prototype, but such a depot never existed anywhere , and looks nothing like any depot that did. For example someone recently quoted the main shed at Sheffield Tinsley (TI) as scaling out at 37' in 4mm . The typical TMD layout has an 18" long shed, often from Hornby. Stations with 3 platforms holding 4 coaches and claiming to be Euston, Kings Cross or Waterloo  vanished from the hobby decades ago as absurd....

 

Or - for another example - the presence  of brightly coloured wooden PO wagons   sprinkled into BR steam era goods , when A) coal wagons generally ran in coal trains - the local pickup goods being the exception to the rule  and B) post war PO wagons were severely weathered or unpainted wood . Not to mention that most post war coal trains would have had

lots of 16T minerals , and that 98% of all 16T minerals had scored /damaged paintwork and streaks and patches of rust...

[Pacific231G]

I've never regarded people who aspire to accuracy in their own modelling as rivet counters. The term seems to apply more to those far too willing to pedantically criticise the efforts of other modellers.

[billbedford]

Not a lot can be done to "upgrade" any of this - while the cottage industrialist in question may not personally be satisfied with Hornby's rendition of teak , the awkward fact is that about 5 generations of modellers have failed to "crack" varnished teak finish successfully (we've been trying since the early 30s) and almost nobody is going to do a better job than Hornby.

 

 

 

Oh really?

 

It seems to me that far too many people settle for what the likes of Hornby are willing to give them and not make the effort to try things for themselves.

 

 

 

Link repaired

Edited July 9, 2013 by billbedford

[Ravenser]

Oh really?

 

It seems to me that far too many people settle for what the likes of Hornby are willing to give them and not make the effort to try things for themselves.

 

To be honest , I expected the link was going to a "recipe" for varnished teak finish or a photo of a model painted by someone very very good.

 

This is the first time I've seen someone say that Hornby's current teak finish is unacceptably poor , and suggest it can be bettered by a handpainted finish . That does beg the question  " how? -using what method/"recipe"?" and whether the techniques will deliver a result better than Hornby's in the hands of an average/ better than average modeller , or whether only a professional painter of the calibre of Steve Barnfield or Larry Goddard with all the kit can "get a result"  

 

I can and do paint things but I can't achieve the quality of finish of current factory finishes even on a single colour livery (I'm still trying to pluck up courage to attempt 2 colour liveries) and I rely on weathering to get me out of jail 

[billbedford]

This is the first time I've seen someone say that Hornby's current teak finish is unacceptably poor , and suggest it can be bettered by a handpainted finish . That does beg the question  " how? -using what method/"recipe"?" and whether the techniques will deliver a result better than Hornby's in the hands of an average/ better than average modeller , or whether only a professional painter of the calibre of Steve Barnfield or Larry Goddard with all the kit can "get a result"  

 

 

If you think that the Hornby teak finish is acceptable then you have a long way to go. The first thing you have to do to model successfully is to fully understand your subject. This means study and observation, and learning the difference between what you see and what you think should be there. Taking teak as an example, if you look carefully at these photos, you will see that even at this viewing distance the tonal differences in the graining is very subtle. Once you move out to the distances that we normally view models then any visible graining disappears and all that can be seen is a graduation of tone within the panels and sometimes on the door pillars. To paint this successfully is not difficult, but does take practise, not least because it is very easy to overpaint the panels.

[kandc_au]

If you think that the Hornby teak finish is acceptable then you have a long way to go. The first thing you have to do to model successfully is to fully understand your subject. This means study and observation, and learning the difference between what you see and what you think should be there. Taking teak as an example, if you look carefully at these photos, you will see that even at this viewing distance the tonal differences in the graining is very subtle. Once you move out to the distances that we normally view models then any visible graining disappears and all that can be seen is a graduation of tone within the panels and sometimes on the door pillars. To paint this successfully is not difficult, but does take practise, not least because it is very easy to overpaint the panels.

Bill, all,

I haven't seen the model in question but judging from what is normally produced for the mass market I can assume it is pretty ordinary.

That said, modellers strive to achieve what they can, or feel they are capable of.

If they don't feel capable they will accept what is produced....they are not necessarily going to say it isn't good nor bad, especially if they don't feel capable of producing a better result.

It would seem to me that those who model these Teak coaches could do with some tutorials being produced (by more than one person) so that they can have a go.

For those who can do it, and find it easy, don't think it feels easy for those who do not have the confidence in even starting an attempt.

It would appear that we could actually do with a section just with tutorials stored in it, EVEN if they are segments of a large thread.

 

The other thing is if people are talking about a thread...how about a link so that others can form their own views of what has been said and the "TONE" with which it was said. Again not everyone writes with the same feeling as they are saying something, and it can come over completely different to the way it was intended.

 

Khris

 

Edited for spelling

Edited July 10, 2013 by kandc_au

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

....the trigger for this 'catch 22' issue is the inability of those who aspire to less advanced/time consuming modelling to simply accept that there will always be those that can and do. Instead, there is a need (of the former) to justify and/or detract from the latter by stereotyping with names/titles etc.

 

Just do your own thing and don't apologise for it.

 

Dave     

[Oldddudders]

....the trigger for this 'catch 22' issue is the inability of those who aspire to less advanced/time consuming modelling to simply accept that there will always be those that can and do. Instead, there is a need (of the former) to justify and/or detract from the latter by stereotyping with names/titles etc.

 

Just do your own thing and don't apologise for it.

 

Dave     

Indeed, Dave. But, as recent posts in this thread have shown, there is a % of those who can and do model at the highest skill-level who look down their noses at the rest of us because we dare to settle for less. Is it any surprise that an inverted snobbery born out of resentment has emerged, with the syndrome generally described as Rivet Counting.

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

...I haven't heard a descriptor/title for those that you describe Ian....might it be... 'the vast majority'...not got much of an edge to it has it?

 

Dave  

[OnTheBranchline]

I'm a little bothered because I was recently told that the Pannier that was in "The Local Freight" starter set by Bachmann didn't technically exist because the Pannier has topfeed but also GREAT WESTERN on the side of it. I couldn't have known this at the time of purchase over a year ago.

 

Should I be bothered?

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

...not in the slightest, however, if you intend exhibiting your layout then someone is going to point it out. 

 

Dave

[Happy Hippo]

The best tale of 'rivet counting' I have heard in a long time was related to me by the owner/operator of a very nice 7mm scale micro layout.

 

An elderly gentleman had been perusing the layout very closely (nose down close) for several minutes.

 

He then stood upright and said something along the lines of:

 

"This is a lovely layout, and I hate to be critical, but I've noticed the tax disc in vehicles are the wrong colour for the year depicted.  They should be this colour!"

 

Regards

 

Richard 

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

....amusing really...the amount of trouble that a layout builder goes to seems to be matched by the onlookers need to find something amiss.  

 

Interesting insight into human nature.

 

Dave

[OnTheBranchline]

There is a difference between constructive criticism and criticism for the sake of criticism however.

[Kenton]

If there are too few rivets on my model then you look for the ones that fell off, if there are too many rivets on my model then I'll rub some off.

 

If it looks right to me it is my model, if it doesn't look right to you then show me yours. Then I can accept it might be wrong. But it is still my model.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Kenton

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

...an interesting comparison would be between the comments from onlookers of different nationalities standing side by side next to the same layout. 

 

Some are instinctively polite...others instinctively critical.

 

Dave

Edited September 22, 2013 by Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71

[Clive Mortimore]

The best tale of 'rivet counting' I have heard in a long time was related to me by the owner/operator of a very nice 7mm scale micro layout.

 

An elderly gentleman had been perusing the layout very closely (nose down close) for several minutes.

 

He then stood upright and said something along the lines of:

 

"This is a lovely layout, and I hate to be critical, but I've noticed the tax disc in vehicles are the wrong colour for the year depicted.  They should be this colour!"

 

Regards

 

Richard 

Hi Richard

 

The old boy had a point but it is how it is said to the the layout owner. Some people are able to pass on useful information without upsetting the layout owner, some even to the point where the layout owner welcomes their input. Others just ain't got a clue how to help.

 

At one show, I was under the baseboard doing a running repair and I heard this guy say "They are the wrong ESSO markings on those tank wagons". And my mate who was driving the trains replied "If they are wrong, Clive will know they are wrong".

 

They were wrong.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[JeremyC]

It's interesting to note that all the comments on this thread are about accuracy of locos, rolling stock or gauge etc. No one has commented on realistic operation. I've seen P4 layouts whose operation has born no relationship to anything done in the real railway world, but the attitude is 'it must be right it's P4'; on the other hand I've seen 00 layouts where operation is 'as the book'.  [of course I've seen the opposites as well]. Of course the ideal is a P4, S7 etc layout built exactly to scale in all respects and operated exactly as per the prototype, but that probably takes more skill, time, space or money than many have. I'm sorry to say the considerable case for these finer standards isn't helped by the arrogant attitude displayed by a small number of their supporters.

Operation seems to be the forgotten sector of the hobby nowadays, a friend of mine who is a modeller and former railwayman, often comments at exhibitions about how bad operation is; his question being why do so many people who build model railways not seem to be interested in the prototype? If you read some of the articles on the history of railway modelling you can get the impression that interest in operation has declined as the models have become more accurate.

The question is what is railway modelling? Could it be argued that those who 'rivet count'  or obsess about colour are more model engineers than railway modellers?

In the end however i think everybody need to remember it's just a hobby, for enjoyment, the world isn't going to end because the gauge on a layout is 2mm too narrow!

Jeremy

[298]

 I'm sorry to say the considerable case for these finer standards isn't helped by the arrogant attitude displayed by a small number of their supporters.

 

I don't like the term because it harks back to an era 30+ years ago, but looking at that era with hindsight gained over the years, we now know that toolmakers generally did a good job of getting the basic shapes right, even if the finished detail and manufacturing processes weren't as fine as we expect today. But the wish for continual change and improvement, generated by these "rivet counters" who were unprepared to rest on their laurels, has created the market and quality standards and a "we've never had it so good" atitude enjoyed by those who are prepared to point out mistakes.

 

I had quite a chat with the new "till minder" in my local branch of a UK based model shop chain, and he asked if I was a "Rivet counter" in quite a derisory tone. I wasn't quite sure of how he knew about the phrase and can only assume it's from conversations with regular customers, who are presumably the same ones who keep bringing back new models due to manufacturing quality issues...

 

 Operation seems to be the forgotten sector of the hobby nowadays, a friend of mine who is a modeller and former railwayman, often comments at exhibitions about how bad operation is; his question being why do so many people who build model railways not seem to be interested in the prototype? If you read some of the articles on the history of railway modelling you can get the impression that interest in operation has declined as the models have become more accurate.

 

Isn't that because Brits tend to model from a "trainspotting" perspective and replicate what they would have seen at their local station (ie lots of trains going by and some shunting in the yard), without actually thinking about accurate traffic patterns or governing what happens when or where the wagons are routed. Punters at shows and to some degree exhibition managers dictate how layouts are built and operated, which means maximum action, just in case someone complains their not getting good value from the few quid they paid to enter a show.

[gazmanjack]

Punters at shows and to some degree exhibition managers dictate how layouts are built and operated, which means maximum action, just in case someone complains their not getting good value from the few quid they paid to enter a show.

 

...another words if I was to build a modern day layout (based on Australian practises), you would only see a train every half hour or so. Modern prototype running...

 

Cheers, Gary.

[Kenton]

 

...another words if I was to build a modern day layout (based on Australian practises), you would only see a train every half hour or so. Modern prototype running...

 

Cheers, Gary.

Time scaling of course?