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

[JeremyC]

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 totally agree, I wasn't making a general criticism of people who wish to improve standards, that's a good thing, but the attitude of a few who create unnecessary divisions while doing so as it can cast long shadows; we can even see those shadows in this discussion. As an example I know of one model railway club where the subject of 'P4' is still treated cautiously because of divisions caused by the actions and attitudes of one member 50 years ago! That the person in question was a founder member both of the club and the Model Railway Study Group makes, I think, the story relevant

 

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.

Possibly true, but some operators don't even seem to replicate that accurately. I think part of the problem might be that people operate based on what they see at preserved railways. It's not that preserved railways operate wrongly, but because they're tourist railways they don't run an accurate representation of BR operations overall. Note that I'm looking here from the perspective of someone who models 1950s / 60s BR.

As far as exhibitions are concerned I don't think they can be blamed; it's possible to run a fairly accurate representation of traffic and plenty of trains for the punter if you compress the time intervals between the trains. I'm sure some people will remember Heckmondwick, which tried to be totally accurate, but which I remember gained the reputation as a layout where trains rarely ran, possibly because they didn't make this compromise on time.

Jeremy

Edited September 24, 2013 by JeremyC

[bluebottle]

....  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 ...

 

I must admit that this does reflect my lack of understanding of the subtleties of railway operation in my train-spotting days. Now, if British Railways had been able to anticipate a useful service sometimes provided by operators of exhibition layouts and had someone positioned at favoured spotting locations with large flip-cards explaining the whys and wherefores of each movement...

[Jol Wilkinson]

 As an example I know of one model railway club where the subject of 'P4' is still treated cautiously because of divisions caused by the actions and attitudes of one member 50 years ago! That the person in question was a founder member both of the club and the Model Railway Study Group makes, I think, the story relevant

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy,

 

as another example I know of a club where anything that is not 00 or N is regarded as well outside the pail and as a P4 modeller I was made to feel quite unwelcome by the majority of members, although they knew nothing about me or my modelling when I first visited (needless to say I didn't join). I have also experienced quite unpleasant reactions from 00 modellers when I have told them that I have a P4 layout. 

 

Unfortunately it is always the actions of the minority that have the greatest impact. I know quite a few P4 and EM modellers, most of whom are very nice people, helpful and considerate. One or two are quite outspoken in their views (in several cases of the benefits of EM over P4) but have also done much to expand awareness of how to build more realistic models. It is therefore no surprise that I feel rather fed up when these anti P4 stories and sentiments are trotted out.

 

Jol

[Horsetan]

.....some people will remember Heckmondwick, which tried to be totally accurate, but which I remember gained the reputation as a layout where trains rarely ran, possibly because they didn't make this compromise on time.

 

 

I've watched "Brinkley" a few times at exhibitions, and had a similar impression!

[Ravenser]

Jeremy C

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.

 

 

 

 

"Little Johnny wants to see the trains run" .

 

While it is widely assumed (i) that any decent layout will be an exhibition layout (ii) that a crucial element of exhibitions is to recruit children into the hobby and (iii) that the spectators, having paid £4 on the door, "own" the exhibitors, who had better "behave" and jump the correct height when told, prototypical operation will always be two very dirty words

 

In the context of a club project I remember being instructed to remove sidings from a layout plan because "You can't shunt at an exhibition" (evidence at every exhibition notwithstanding), and when it was discovered that we'd developed an operating sequence and were proposing to use something similar in public we were told firmly that we were not allowed  to run any kind of sequence in public , and must stick to sending a train out from the fiddle yard for a complete lap of the layout, followed by another train on a similar basis.... 

 

Assuming that similar attitudes exist in other clubs , any kind of prototypical operation will continue to be uncommon 

[JeremyC]

Jeremy,

 

as another example I know of a club where anything that is not 00 or N is regarded as well outside the pail and as a P4 modeller I was made to feel quite unwelcome by the majority of members, although they knew nothing about me or my modelling when I first visited (needless to say I didn't join). I have also experienced quite unpleasant reactions from 00 modellers when I have told them that I have a P4 layout. 

 

Unfortunately it is always the actions of the minority that have the greatest impact. I know quite a few P4 and EM modellers, most of whom are very nice people, helpful and considerate. One or two are quite outspoken in their views (in several cases of the benefits of EM over P4) but have also done much to expand awareness of how to build more realistic models. It is therefore no surprise that I feel rather fed up when these anti P4 stories and sentiments are trotted out.

 

Jol

My story wasn't intended to be anti P4, I'm a member of the club mentioned and gave it as an example of how the wrong approach can alienate people, there are unfortunately people like that in every group.

 

P4, EM, OO or O gauge and S7 should have many things in common [supply of better models, components, techniques etc.], we should concentrate on those not the difference of a couple of mm in the rail gauge.

 

I have been modelling for something in the region of 45 years and yes, in 4mm, I work in OO. If I was starting totally from scratch now I'd consider P4 and EM [i'd probably plump for EM] so I have no axe to grind there. I personally believe in Tony Wrights attitude 'If it floats your boat'.

 

Jeremy

Edited September 24, 2013 by JeremyC

[Kenton]

The biggest problem (and they cannot help it) is that they continuing to inform you that the gauge of OO is completely wrong for the scale.

 

then preaching the conversion of your evil ways.

 

Most OO (4mm) modellers know and accept it, that they have chosen the OO way from a view of convenience, they simply do not want to have it rammed down their throats that they are wrong.

 

I'm afraid I still am impressed more by good modelling in OO than I am by EM/P4 and certainly not a layout proudly declaring that it is P4 but displaying merely adequate modelling. If you are going to hold up the track as perfect the rest of the model should be out there just as perfect.

 

I don't want to be told the track is P4. I want to admire the track and declare "that is outstanding it must be P4" then wish I could have the patience and skill to emulate it.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Kenton

[Jol Wilkinson]

Kenton,

 

I am impressed by good modelling in any scale/gauge. And although I model using P4 track/wheel standards, that's the only difference between 00, EM and P4 as far as I am concerned. I don't claim my track is perfect (in terms of prototype LNWR accuracy it most certainly isn't) any more than the locos, etc. are. But are you saying that for the 00 modeller, the inaccurate gauge is an excuse for ignoring accuracy in general?  

 

Where do you get this idea that P4 is being rammed down peoples throats? I haven't seen it in the mainstream magazines. Does it happen here on RMWeb? The presence of the S4Soc. stand at an exhibition is no more about telling 00 modellers that they are doing it wrong, than the presence of the L&Y Society stand says implies that it's wrong to model the GWR. 

 

When I help out behind a certain trade stand some customers (and potential customers) apologise for modelling in 00. Why? I respond by saying that the gauge is immaterial, a well built and finished 4mm model is just that, a nice model. Some of the best models I have seen have been 00.  I sometimes admit that, if starting over again, I would probably go into EM for balance between ease and track appearance, but would still use a lot of the techniques I have learned doing P4. Having said that, I may not have discovered those techniques and benefits if I hadn't done P4.

 

As for your last sentence, patience is for those that go fishing. Modelling needs concentration, various skills (something that can be acquired) and knowledge. If you don't have some knowledge, then you don't always understand what you are looking at or fully appreciate it. That's particularly the case with operating a layout in a prototype or realistic manner (guilty, m'lud).  But what may be realistic operation isn't always interesting for the onlooker.

 

Jol 

 

p.s. I count rivets, but then you would expect me to when I am designing an etched loco kit, carriage or wagon, wouldn't you?

Edited September 24, 2013 by LNWRmodeller

[The Bigbee Line]

It's not rivet counting, it's things that don't look right.  It's not OO v EM v P4 it's how it looks, for example if you have an eye level shelf layout you can't see the gauge...

 

To me a true 'rivet counter' is the worse type of modelling snob.  Nothing wrong with being a snob, it's what you do with it.  As mentioned in previous posts there are layouts that look fine in magazine articles, in real life the running is a disaster.

 

One of the best running layouts I ever saw was in some guys dining room.  it ran round the room and had covers so when SWMBO was about it was covered up.  It had been years in the making, using fibre based track.  Southern based there were numerous kit and scratch built Southern locos.  The flangeless drivers had a disc of metal sheet behind giving the effect of flanges.  The overall effect and running however was superb, all trains were well formed and ran at speeds that emulated the real thing.  Shunting was carried out with gusto.  I'm sure the worst river counter would have had a field day.

 

Nothing wrong with some constructive comment, just have a thought for the feelings of the person who has toiled over the model.

[JeremyC]

To get back to the original topic [wish I'd never mentioned 00/P4!]

Criticism should always be constructive and come from a genuine knowledge of the subject, but I don't think that's what tends to be meant by a 'rivet counter'! The problem if you do spot the error is how to tactfully tell the layout owner.

 

As a ship's engineer my pet 'oh no' is usually ships on a layout, usually how they're tied up, but one layout I've seen has a ship in dry dock with the ship sitting on the bottom. No, no, they sit on keel blocks. I did mention it [in I hope a pleasant manner]so maybe it'll get changed.

 

For those who are curious, this is how it's done.

 

Jeremy

Edited September 24, 2013 by JeremyC

[jonny777]

This is obviously a touchy subject, so I will just say that continual references to 00 track as "narrow gauge" is just as insulting to me as "rivet counter" might be to a perfectionist.

 

Yes, I know the gauge is not as wide as it should be, and has been that way since I was given my first train set in the late 1950s. I also know that my 'steam' locomotives are actually powered by an electric motor, and there is no one in my signalbox operating levers to change the points or signals.

 

However, my main interest is operating to a logical timetable with stock that I can justify for the time period of my layout, and therefore the inaccurate track geometry is just one of the compromises that I am prepared to accept in order to create a spotters' mecca that I would have loved to have witnessed during my boyhood years.

 

As long as I can have my Derby Lightweight dmu 'fail' occasionally, and be rescued by a filthy tender first WD (or similar scenarios), then I am happy.

[bluebottle]

This is obviously a touchy subject, so I will just say that continual references to 00 track as "narrow gauge" is just as insulting to me as "rivet counter" might be to a perfectionist.

Yes, I know the gauge is not as wide as it should be, and has been that way since I was given my first train set in the late 1950s. I also know that my 'steam' locomotives are actually powered by an electric motor, and there is no one in my signalbox operating levers to change the points or signals.

 

I think I've mentioned this before, but I remember an article in one of the magazines on the magnificent 00 gauge "Gauxholme Viaduct" layout (somebody please remind me who built it!), in which they explained that they they had narrowed the "six foot" on the long straight to minimum clearance (I can't remember if they quite managed 21 mm , i.e. 3.5 mm : 1ft). This was so effective that a well known trader brought an EM gauge loco to try out on the track ...

So much for "Yes, it's a nicely built layout, but the narrow gauge ruins it for me", which I've heard more than once from otherwise pleasant chaps who obviously don't mean to give offence.

[jonny777]

 

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...

 

 

This is not quite correct. In many respects our idea of post war goods trains is biased by the availability of photographs and (more especially) cine footage. However, the 8mm footage is skewed in relation to the time period because the vast majority of it was taken between 1963 and 1968, with a high percentage of that being either 1967 or 1968 as steam vanished from BR.

 

Yes, there were routes where block coal trains rain on a frequent basis, New England - Ferme Park, Annesley - Woodford, Wath - Mottram for example, but these were the exception rather than the rule.

 

In general, most large goods yards and later marshalling yards had regular services between each other and the train was repeatedly split and re-marshalled on each stage of its journey. Taking March for example (mainly because it is close to the area that I am most interested in), there were trains every few hours around the clock from Whitemoor to Frodingham, Temple Mills, New England, Colwick, Holmes Yard Lincoln, Doncaster Decoy and Mansfield. There were also daily or twice daily services destinations such as Niddrie, Ardsley, Wath, Mottram and Stockton.

 

Some of these would have obviously been coal trains, but most of the others would convey anything that was in the specific road at Whitemoor for that destination. Remember that coal fuelled many more industries than today, not least the domestic gas generating plants which were located in most towns - no natural gas in those days. This meant that most trains would be of the mixed variety.

 

There may not be that much video footage of goods trains from the late 1950s, but it is there if you are prepared to search hard enough. It is unfortunate that some cameramen concentrated only on locomotives, and stopped filming after the first few vehicles in the train, but a few enlightened individuals did keep the camera rolling enough to show details of the goods train make-up. My advice is to watch these carefully. Slow them down to 1/4 or even 1/8 speed and you will begin to notice all the details - such as the proportion of steel wagons with or without top flap doors.

 

In the late 1950s you will also notice several things; such as the number of wooden bodied coal wagons is much higher, as are the proportions of ex-MOD, ex-SNCF, and rivetted wagons rather than the welded version. There are also many quite clean 16t minerals in the late 1950s for the simple reason that they were brand new. Yes they weathered and then rusted quickly because of the treatment they were subjected to, but not that quickly - and this can be seen in video footage from 1958/9.

 

Rewind a couple more years and the percentage of wooden bodied open wagons increases dramatically.

[298]

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.

 

 

Some people seem to make a point of offering their constructive advice, or even thinking they have the right to criticise a layout and won't leave it until they've found something wrong. But what makes it worse is the operator(s) are a captive audience (especially when you operate from the front), and feel compelled to make conversation at a level of utter drivel, whilst trying not to be distracted from their operating. I've become an expert in nodding and smiling politely...

 

On my next Patagonian narrow gauge layout, I'm deliverately going to have the grass blown over the wrong way by the prevailing winds. Lets see how many spot that deliberate error...!!

[sub39h]

Jeremy C

 

 

"Little Johnny wants to see the trains run" .

 

While it is widely assumed (i) that any decent layout will be an exhibition layout (ii) that a crucial element of exhibitions is to recruit children into the hobby and (iii) that the spectators, having paid £4 on the door, "own" the exhibitors, who had better "behave" and jump the correct height when told, prototypical operation will always be two very dirty words

 

In the context of a club project I remember being instructed to remove sidings from a layout plan because "You can't shunt at an exhibition" (evidence at every exhibition notwithstanding), and when it was discovered that we'd developed an operating sequence and were proposing to use something similar in public we were told firmly that we were not allowed  to run any kind of sequence in public , and must stick to sending a train out from the fiddle yard for a complete lap of the layout, followed by another train on a similar basis.... 

 

Assuming that similar attitudes exist in other clubs , any kind of prototypical operation will continue to be uncommon 

 

whilst i feel it is wrong for exhibitors to be told what they can and cannot do on their own layout, i also fail to see the point of "exhibiting" a layout (which would by my definition include exhibiting their rolling stock) and then only have a train come along every half an hour for the sake of prototypical operation. to me as a punter, i would want to see the trains go past, because at the end of the day it's the locomotives that make railways interesting. whilst i very much admire well made scenery and buildings, ultimately it isn't the reason i'm involved in the hobby. i imagine most people feel the same way.

 

in regards to the OP, to me a "rivet counter" is a derogatory term for someone who doesn't have the social skills to know when their criticism is not welcome, is unwilling or unable to put across their criticism in a constructive manner or claims to know more than they actually do. i am a relative beginner to the hobby, having come back into it after a 15 year hiatus. i know very little about the prototype, and i look to those with more knowledge to guide me. i would not dare call these people rivet counters. 

 

to me personally , what looks best is an overall impression. just because some train ran here or there, or was scrapped the year before, or had different lettering doesn't really matter to me. and whilst i commend those who go into that level of detail, it is meaningless if the atmosphere of the layout is wrong in the first place. 

 

at the end of the day though it is a hobby, and i don't feel hobbies should be taken too seriously. if it's not fun it's not a hobby. some people get their kicks from seeing trains go around, others from making buildings, and other still from following the prototype. as long as everyone's having fun and nobody is trying to get in the way of others having fun, i don't see a problem with people counting rivets, or knowing the correct colour of tax discs or anything else that takes your fancy. 

Edited September 25, 2013 by sub39h

[Ravenser]

whilst i feel it is wrong for exhibitors to be told what they can and cannot do on their own layout, i also fail to see the point of "exhibiting" a layout (which would by my definition include exhibiting their rolling stock) and then only have a train come along every half an hour for the sake of prototypical operation. to me as a punter, i would want to see the trains go past, because at the end of the day it's the locomotives that make railways interesting. whilst i very much admire well made scenery and buildings, ultimately it isn't the reason i'm involved in the hobby. i imagine most people feel the same way.

 

 

 

 

In our case there would have been plenty of movements under the sequence - it wasn't any kind of question of "one train every half hour" , nor was it a rural branchline. With junctions at each end of the station , you needed a sequence to avoid conflicting movements conflicting . But the edict was "You can't use a sequence - just run trains round on a circle".  And the whole point of putting in some freight sidings for shunting was to have something going on one corner continuously . But no -  "We never shunted on the last layout"           

 

It's interesting that the moment a sequence or prototypical operation is mentioned, people assume that it means the layout being motionless and devoid of trains for long periods 

 

Personally I'm happy to admire a model of the railway, one element of which is the trains , rather than focusing exclusively on the stock or even the locomotives, so I may be less likely to complain than most about trains that run on less than Central Line headways . Both the club project and my own layout largely revolve/revolved around multiple units , so for the loco-centric they might not have been of interest anyway. But a lot of the network doisn't see many locos these days, and I'd argue it's a blinkered approach simply to ignore such railways - in real or model form - as of no interest to anyone  

Edited September 25, 2013 by Ravenser

[sub39h]

In our case there would have been plenty of movements under the sequence - it wasn't any kind of question of "one train every half hour" , nor was it a rural branchline. With junctions at each end of the station , you needed a sequence to avoid conflicting movements conflicting . But the edict was "You can't use a sequence - just run trains round on a circle".  And the whole point of putting in some freight sidings for shunting was to have something going on one corner continuously . But no -  "We never shunted on the last layout"           

 

It's interesting that the moment a sequence or prototypical operation is mentioned, people assume that it means the layout being motionless and devoid of trains for long periods 

 

Personally I'm happy to admire a model of the railway, one element of which is the trains , rather than focusing exclusively on the stock or even the locomotives, so I may be less likely to complain than most about trains that run on less than Central Line headways . Both the club project and my own layout largely revolve/revolved around multiple units , so for the loco-centric they might not have been of interest anyway. But a lot of the network doisn't see many locos these days, and I'd argue it's a blinkered approach simply to ignore such railways - in real or model form - as of no interest to anyone  

 

Sorry, i should have said "trains" rather than "locomotives". (I happen to be a fan of multiple units.) Point taken regarding your sequence, and I should not have assumed that there would have been a big gap between trains because you mentioned you wished to use a sequence. Also as I mentioned before I feel it was silly to tell you what you can or can't do with your own layout. But I still feel that the railway, and everything around it, is only there for the trains and a model would be relatively pointless (in my opinion) without them. I don't feel those visiting exhibitions are wrong in wanting to see the trains go by. 

Edited September 25, 2013 by sub39h

[Jol Wilkinson]

Perhaps the operating sequences topic divides into two parts.

 

Firstly, do you usually want to run your layout in a (reasonably) prototypical way whether at home, at the club or at a show. If so then you need to study what the prototype did and broadly follow that, even if you "compress" time.

 

If you are exhibiting your layout, then an unrealistic sequence may be appropriate to provide more entertainment for the onlooker. Depending on the exhibition, the viewers may be more or less knowledgeable about how railways operate (other than running late) and are probably only interested in seeing locos and trains move.

 

How long is a sequence anyway and what is going on? Unless you display the sequence or link it to some other obvious feature such as the lighting changing to show the passage of time (as in Dave and Shirley Rowe's diorama some years ago) then how will people know where in the sequence you are?

Edited September 25, 2013 by LNWRmodeller

[jcm@gwr]

So much for "Yes, it's a nicely built layout, but the narrow gauge ruins it for me", which I've heard more than once from otherwise pleasant chaps who obviously don't mean to give offence.

 

Obviously an enthusiastic supporter of Brunel,

 

who believed that he should have won the court case!

 

Jeff

[Clive Mortimore]

As we progress in our modelling pursuits many of us acquire vast amounts of information , some of which is not accurate. Many of us, as it is a hobby, like to disseminate that information, at shows, on the internet and in published magazines or books. So why is helping people with an error "rivet counting"?

 

I also notice this thread has almost become another 4mm gauge war and "got to entertain the public" at exhibitions debate, again.

 

 

If we cannot be adult enough to discuss with other modellers our knowledge on the subject then should our wives, partners, girlfriends, boyfriends, mothers and grandmothers allow us out in public?

 

edit ...whoops forgot to spell check.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[The Bigbee Line]

Personally I am currently a 'brick counter' my method to sketch out plans for brick built structures.  Works well, except for when the image quality is not quite good enough to see the actual bricks.

 

An observation is that we often model based on historic photographs.  How typical are these? The majority are of loco only, then it's the more interesting ones at that.

 

My biggest frustration is the movie clip where it gets cut just as the loco goes out of view, just when I was waiting to see the wagons or coaches.....

 

I am always on the lookout for interesting things in the background of shots.

Edited September 26, 2013 by The Bigbee Line

[298]

As we progress in our modelling pursuits many of us acquire vast amounts of information , some of which is not accurate. Many of us, as it is a hobby, like to disseminate that information, at shows, on the internet and in published magazines or books. So why is helping people with an error "rivet counting"?

 

I suppose it depends to what extent the information is used to provide information- taking a cue from another thread, there is evidence of NSE liveried Mk2's running in Scotland, but how accurate would this be on a layout...? You could present the photo to show such a coach and say the layout is set on an exact date, but then again such rareties aren't part of the norm and shouldn't be modelled as they werent part of the general scene.

 

I actually quite enjoy the research side of the hobby, and it's a revelation to find new photos of my chosen prototype and try to guess the exact location or year if not known. But slavishly following such information may lead to accurate but improbable looking scenes on a layout, hereas someone who only believes that the loco should match the caboose and anything coupled between them is incidental, might have an artistic touch and be able to create a complete scene that looks just right.

 

So who builds the better layout...?

[OnTheBranchline]

I think you may possibly have made the mistake of acquiring knowledge of the Real Thing.  Unfortunately there's quite a lot of that about on RMweb and if you read the offending posts without due care and inattention you may well find your enjoyment impaired in a number of common modelling situations.  Other sources of information such as books and actually looking at the prototype are fortunately much easier to avoid, but you should in all cases take proper steps to preserve your precious ignorance or you may never be able to look another TMD layout in the face again.

 

Very Fahrenheit 451-esque, we might as well start the book burning now.

[Nearholmer]

Indeed, and best start with the humorous books, because they’re lost on some people.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Flying Pig]

To be fair, when you exhume a thread after this amount of time, it's very hard to differentiate actual content from irony staining.