Modelling Pet Hates

[BG John]

Does your dog dislike the Bristol Channel, John? Or did you post in the wrong topic?

 

Nick

It was to show the colour of the Bristol Channel! My pet loved it, but just happened to be in the picture!

[buffalo]

It was to show the colour of the Bristol Channel! My pet loved it, but just happened to be in the picture!

Sorry, John, I'm being a bit slow today and had forgotten the earlier discussion of sea colours

 

Nick

[bike2steam]

 

Sorry, John, I'm being a bit slow today and had forgotten the earlier discussion of sea colours

 

Nick

Me too, but I tend to be a little more forgiving to a fellow gsd owner.

[BG John]

Sorry, John, I'm being a bit slow today and had forgotten the earlier discussion of sea colours

 

Nick

I was a bit slow posting it, as I'm still catching up with all the posts from when I was on holiday. Of course if I hadn't been on holiday I wouldn't have taken the picture that caused the confusion

[The Stationmaster]

We have it on good authority that the Bristol Channel is brown; there it is modelled as blue and therefore a poor, unrealistic, scenic background.

 

Pete

In fact it depends where you are.  The River Severn is definitely brown/brownish, it becomes the Bristol Channel immediately below the islands of Steep Holm and Flat Holm, where it is still brownish although the colour had started to vary a little by then and there are far more traces of blue by the time you get down to Aberthaw.   But once you are past Swansea it is more or less exclusively blue (as long as there is a clear sky of course).

[rovex]

Moving on from the discussion as to the correct colour of the Bristol Channel - colour is such a subjective thing anyway just look at the number of pages filled on this site about the correct carspray to represent BR crimson and cream - I have a few more pet hates (and I will freely admit I have been responsible for some of these.

 

1. Platforms that are so far from the running line that passengers will need their own plank to alight safely
2. Bridges

• that are so structurally over engineered that you could drive a full size sherman tank over them.
• alternatively are so flimsy they would fall down if the wind blew too strongly
• That use the peco girder sides - its not the sides themselves (I've used them myself) but the use of two sides together but without the joint in the middle being suported by anything or its use on small bridges without cutting it down and so the girder overhangs the abutments by 20 scale foot or more - steel was expensive the railway didn't use more than they had to
• brick bridges with a small arch with masses of bricks above. I'm sure some of these existed but just think that arch has to support not only the train and track but the weight of all that brickwork above. I would have thought a bigger arch would have been used or one higher up in the structure thus reducing the weight of the structure, the materials used (cost saving) and the labour (more cost saving) in laying all those bricks.

Right rant over, I should add this isn't intended as an attack on anyone but merely to make my fellow modellers think a little about the buildings they make and thus help achieve a more realistic approach. However at the end of the day it is your model railway and if thats what you want to do who am I to criticise.

[steve1]

Buildings that float above the baseboard. It's not difficult to make them at least look like they are actually grounded.

 

steve

[OnTheBranchline]

This isn't a pet hate or pet peeve but I think it has to be said. I would love to see more people would be more inclined to experiment and model something else other than 1950s/1960s BR Steam & transition into Diesels. I understand that's what they grew up with but there are other choices out there that might get your fancy going.

[PhilJ W]

This isn't a pet hate or pet peeve but I think it has to be said. I would love to see more people would be more inclined to experiment and model something else other than 1950s/1960s BR Steam & transition into Diesels. I understand that's what they grew up with but there are other choices out there that might get your fancy going.

Many people do do other periods. That said a bit more research wouldn't come amiss when they do. Often such layouts feature inappropriate stock and other features. Another thing that is a pet hate of mine is grouping era layouts that only has goods stock of the designated railway, i.e. a GWR layout where most if not all goods stock is GWR, compounded by private owner wagons that would rarely or ever be seen on that company's metals.

[Clive Mortimore]

This isn't a pet hate or pet peeve but I think it has to be said. I would love to see more people would be more inclined to experiment and model something else other than 1950s/1960s BR Steam & transition into Diesels. I understand that's what they grew up with but there are other choices out there that might get your fancy going.

Hi On The Branchline

 

Wot, like a few years ago, "My layout is based on GWR practice in South Devon during the 1930s"

 

I think model railways have a "fashionable" appeal to some modellers, this does vary over time. You are right the start of the modernisation or the beginning of the end of steam does have quite a following at the moment. I am guilty with my steam aged diesel depot http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67810-brisbane-roada-new-pig-lane/ complete with out of use coaler.

 

Not only do periods have times when they are "fashionable" but types of layouts, like small TMDs. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/62823-pig-lane-or-should-it-be-i-am-sorry/ or http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/66487-southbridge-my-first-depot/  You don't see many bigger depot layouts http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61979-hanging-hill/

[johnlambert]

This isn't a pet hate or pet peeve but I think it has to be said. I would love to see more people would be more inclined to experiment and model something else other than 1950s/1960s BR Steam & transition into Diesels. I understand that's what they grew up with but there are other choices out there that might get your fancy going.

 

I chose that era because it interested me, but it is at least a decade before I was born.  If I modelled what I remember from my childhood it would mostly be 3rd rail blue/blue & grey/Network Southeast EMUs.  But, yes, I agree the steam-diesel transition era (especially Western region) is rather over-exposed.

 

I think all my pet hates have been covered. 

[bike2steam]

This isn't a pet hate or pet peeve but I think it has to be said. I would love to see more people would be more inclined to experiment and model something else other than 1950s/1960s BR Steam & transition into Diesels. I understand that's what they grew up with but there are other choices out there that might get your fancy going.

Most of my layouts have been that 50/60's period, but I also made an IoW 30's layout, but you must appreciate that some of us have no interest in 'boxes on wheels'  - sad, but true.

[black and decker boy]

This isn't a pet hate or pet peeve but I think it has to be said. I would love to see more people would be more inclined to experiment and model something else other than 1950s/1960s BR Steam & transition into Diesels. I understand that's what they grew up with but there are other choices out there that might get your fancy going.

I think people model what they remember or want to remember. Transition is the current vogue but RTR does kind of perpetuate the theme somewhat.

 

Personally I am too young for transition but love the period and contribute to my dads layout Eskmuir. My new layout on the other hand is early 70s blue & tired green diesels. Previously I had an 80s/90s layout with Dutch, 3 tone grey, blue and so on (Argyle road) and then a post privatisation Freightliner Layout (Weston Road). Tastes change but I would love to do something in blue grey/ large logo/ Rf red stripe era as that was the period of my youth. Pre- transition modelling does not appeal to me as I know nothing about it whereas transition period onwards is covered in many books and videos. Bang up to date has also lost its appeal as I get older so its looking like anything for 1957 to 2000 is my interest period.

 

As to pet hates, modern image layouts that use out of the box stock, no weathering or detailing and no thought to mixing of periods, eg Pre 1994 sprinters next to post 2005 freight locos. Track plans or arrangements which are simply not feasible in real life -.eg commercial or industrial premises squeezed between running lines with no access. At the end of the day though, it depends on how you are marketing your layout. If its a fine scale (ie premier league) layout then I will judg harsher than if its just a lower division. Usually if it runs then its going to have a place on the circuit. If it doesn't work then it should stay at home, no matter what level of finesse in the stock and scenery.

 

One layout we saw recently claimed to be 1920s L&Y, it's stock was late BR steam, a GWR B set crudely repainted and a Calder Valley class 110 DMU! Barmy and not worthy of the exhibition it was at.

[Clive Mortimore]

I think people model what they remember or want to remember. Transition is the current vogue but RTR does kind of perpetuate the theme somewhat.

 

Personally I am too young for transition but love the period and contribute to my dads layout Eskmuir. My new layout on the other hand is early 70s blue & tired green diesels. Previously I had an 80s/90s layout with Dutch, 3 tone grey, blue and so on (Argyle road) and then a post privatisation Freightliner Layout (Weston Road). Tastes change but I would love to do something in blue grey/ large logo/ Rf red stripe era as that was the period of my youth. Pre- transition modelling does not appeal to me as I know nothing about it whereas transition period onwards is covered in many books and videos. Bang up to date has also lost its appeal as I get older so its looking like anything for 1957 to 2000 is my interest period.

 

As to pet hates, modern image layouts that use out of the box stock, no weathering or detailing and no thought to mixing of periods, eg Pre 1994 sprinters next to post 2005 freight locos. Track plans or arrangements which are simply not feasible in real life -.eg commercial or industrial premises squeezed between running lines with no access. At the end of the day though, it depends on how you are marketing your layout. If its a fine scale (ie premier league) layout then I will judg harsher than if its just a lower division. Usually if it runs then its going to have a place on the circuit. If it doesn't work then it should stay at home, no matter what level of finesse in the stock and scenery.

 

One layout we saw recently claimed to be 1920s L&Y, it's stock was late BR steam, a GWR B set crudely repainted and a Calder Valley class 110 DMU! Barmy and not worthy of the exhibition it was at.

Hi Black and decker

 

See http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73622-modelling-pet-hates/?p=1090062

[C&WR]

Pet hate Two

As a "historical" diesel modeller other people expecting me to know all about all diesel models and expected to be excited about a class xxx DMU in a stripey livery.

 

I don't understand.  Why would you not? It's modern image like yours

[PGC]

I'm sorry but the widely held theory that 3-links are the ultimate in realism is a bit lost on me. One of my pet hates really.

 

In the original post, what I was trying to illustrate was the snootiness of the pratt who wouldn't accept there are other acceptable couplings than 3 link. My response was, effectively, saying that if he wasn't prepared to accept the compromise of tension lock couplings on stock, he must also be prepared to not accept the compromise of a motor in the firebox.

 

I personally use 3 links because I like them, but I don't expect everyone else to use them for any reason at all, I expect everyone else to use what they feel most happy with, be it tension lock, Spratt & Winkle etc.

 

It take all sorts to make the world go round (including couplings!) and that's my hate - bigots, know-it-alls etc. who believe everyone must kowtow to their opinions and beliefs. I have an answer for them, and it takes the form of two fingers stuck firmly in a V shape !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Phil

[Talltim]

The belief that all RTR manufacturers still favour the GW. That was so 25 years ago. Also that every other layout is as GW BLT again 25 years ago.

[newbryford]

The belief that all RTR manufacturers still favour the GW.

 

Nah - the RTR manufacturers favour all the other companies apart from the one that you're modelling..........

 

Cheers,

Mick

[DavidH]

 

... However, there's one matter of taste that I must mention – too much of the less attractive aspects of the prototypical scene. The odd bit of graffiti is ok, particularly if it's actually witty, but not mindless “tags” everywhere. I don't like road traffic accidents or burnt-out houses, abandoned or torn-up track, boarded-up old signal boxes, derelict wagons etc. ...

 

I'm glad we're all different, it makes life much more interesting, but I'm opposite to you! When I get round to actually modelling something it's going to be pretty much what you hate, rather untidy and unkempt (although probably not much graffiti and certainly no road accidents). Definitely bombed-out buildings though. How else can you model central London in the couple of decades after WW2? I want to model what was there, rather than what I'd like there to be. My girlfriend wants to do a model of the Paris suburbs, with graffiti everywhere. I said she'd be banned from exhibitions ...!

 

So my pet hate is ... people not modelling a real world, with all it's imperfections. But, I'm not actually that upset if they do, as long as they're enjoying themselves. (And I'm sure this has already been said by someone else.)

[C&WR]

Enjoying?  ENJOYING!  Get away from here!

 

I personally wear a cilice made from hand-soldered P4 track, so there

[Iain Popplewell]

I know I'm going to regret this but I have to ask what is a cilice ? I already know what P4 track is.

[Clive Mortimore]

I know I'm going to regret this but I have to ask what is a cilice ? I already know what P4 track is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilice

[C&WR]

I only knew because ahem one of the cleaners at work ahem ahem likes Dan Brown novels.  Not my kind of reading at all ahem even on the beach where I prefer more erudite tones & a copy of BRM...

[Iain Popplewell]

Well C& WR  it's true to say you learn a new thing every day.I've always said never be afraid to admit your ignorance on RMWEB.Not so sure about you reading BRM  though,are you some kind of pervert or what !

 

 

Edit:Having read this post the morning  after the night before I apologise for suggesting you might be a pervert I think the word heretic might have been more appropriate.As a self confessed hair shirt wearer surely you should have been reading MRJ. and not the low brow do it the easy way BRM.

 

PS.Where might I buy a P4 track celice I tried Hattons but was told," Sorry mate we don't do any Protofour stuff."

[bluebottle]

Only those without imagination never grasp that the more you know, the more you realise how much you don't know ...