| Author | Messages | |
East Broad Top
Moderator
Centennial, CO
Conductor
Posts:601
Send Message
 | | 08/28/2008 3:53 AM |
| Josh, you raise a valid point. I did not mention the fact that the loco "should" be 1:20.3 if it were to represent true 3' gauge. In the context of this particular locomotive, however, I don't feel it as significant an issue. The reason stems from the history of the model itself. Recall that this is a re-issue of a 20+ year old design. In truth, I was quite surprised to see that it had never been reviewed. At the time the locomotive was introduced, 1:24 was the de facto scale for US narrow gauge on #1 gauge track. That was the scale most modelers chose for scratchbuilding and kitbashing (hence the large number of 1:24 details from Trackside Details and Ozark Miniatures). When Accucraft and Hartford Products started out, they too chose the "inaccurate" scale of 1:24 for their scale models. To paraphrase an old newsman, "that's the way it was." As an aside, there was a tremendous amount of top-drawer modeling being done to that scale. In fact, it was the modeling being done in that scale which gave rise to Accucraft and Hartford. I don't see that as a detrimental development.
As for why the scale/gauge discrepancy wasn't addressed in the review, I simply didn't see it as an issue. First, it's hardly fair to criticize a company for a choice that was not theirs to begin with. Aristo didn't chose the scale, they merely bought the molds to keep the product line alive. Second, the truth of the matter is that the majority of people in garden railroading don't care about proper scale or gauge. They want their trains to run on the rails and look good with the rest of their stuff. That's a fact the scale enthusiasts would love to see change, but the reality is that the "shake the box" crowd always has been--and always will be--a prominent and important part of this hobby.
Those for whom proper scale is important know their chosen scale (whether accurate for the gauge or not) and determine their choices based solely on that. That's why I put much more emphasis on accuracy relative to the manufacturer's stated scale than accuracy to the gauge. The C-16 does measure out quite accurately in the stated scale of 1:24 to published drawings. Yes, the gauge is off. As others have said, that's hardly a unique circumstance in large scale, it's "the way it is." You'll find that the scale/gauge discrepancy is rarely mentioned in GR reviews. I only mention it if there's an ambiguity relative to the actual scale, such as in my review of Piko's locomotive.
Josh, I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree that a model has to be accurate to its scale/gauge to be considered anything but a "toy," nor do I accept your argument that any degree of compromise is "killing" the hobby. Compromise is an inherent part of model railroading, regardless of scale. You've seen the work of the many talented modelers who post photos of their projects here. I'd be quite loathe to call any of them "toys" simply because the wheels are the wrong distance apart--and I'd sure not do it if they were standing within striking distance.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't have this scale/gauge mess that we have in large scale. Alas, history unfolded the way it did, and we're left to navigate the waters as best we can.
Later,
K
PS - TOC, the top of the cupola of the D&RGW long caboose is 12' 8" above the railhead. The top of the roof of the C-16 is around 10' above. The crew would be looking down into the cab. The caboose is actually quite well proportioned to the locomotive. | |
Tuscarora Railroad
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| John J
Moderator
Conductor
Posts:766
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 5:24 AM |
| | I believe that if they made everything exactly to scale none of us would be able to afford this hobby. The rolling stock would be priced right out of our bugets. | |
 | |
| lownote
1st Class Member
Arlington VA
Conductor
Posts:555
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 5:56 AM |
| Posted By parkdesigner on 08/28/2008 1:21 AM
Wow - way to be dedicated to modeling Brian! That's right, support our hobby by cheering on the continual destruction of *model* railroading... and we all wonder why "G" isn't taken seriously by the rest of the railroad community! "Wheels? Couplers? Ahh... then there must not be anything wrong with it!!"
Heck - there seems to be less *modelers* every day... just shake the box and run whatever the hell falls out. Lot's of skill involved in that! Scale? Dimensions? Fidelity? Who needs those when I can run a 1:24 boxcar with Snoopy on it behind my 1:29 engine!?!
It's funny - the first posts in this thread were about the mistaken thought that "Garden Railways Decline" was about the hobby, rather than the magazine - but I can tell now (oddly enough) it IS about just that! This hobby is going down the drain! And it's due to this exact "scale be damned" type of thinking!!!
It's called "Model Railroading" not "Toy Railroading" - if you think a quarter inch is no big deal, then I suggest you just go ahead and move on over to the New Bright stuff from Toys R Us - but do me a favor and keep quiet around the manufacturers because it's comments about "a whole quarter inch" that are KILLING the hobby.
A frequent question here is how to increase the size of the hobby. Well I can tell you, this kind of attitude will not do it. Someone starts in a hobby, something they do for fun, and the first thing they want to encounter is some guy oddly het up about how You're doing it wrong! That model out of the box is wrong! People like you are killing this hobby!
"Um.., ok (backing away slowly) sorry, I thought this was supposed to be fun. I've got an appointment back in the real world..."
The magazine is a generalist publication that tries to appeal to people who love accurate modeling, and to people who just like to see trains running around. So it will always offend purists. As far as I can tell, being offended is one of the things purists like best.
| |
Evading the Midas touch of expertise
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/magic/westover/ | |
| Crosshead
Brakeman
Posts:14
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 6:28 AM |
|
"A frequent question here is how to increase the size of the hobby. Well I can tell you, this kind of attitude will not do it. Someone starts in a hobby, something they do for fun, and the first thing they want to encounter is some guy oddly het up about how You're doing it wrong! That model out of the box is wrong! People like you are killing this hobby!
"Um.., ok (backing away slowly) sorry, I thought this was supposed to be fun. I've got an appointment back in the real world..."
The magazine is a generalist publication that tries to appeal to people who love accurate modeling, and to people who just like to see trains running around. So it will always offend purists. As far as I can tell, being offended is one of the things purists like best."
Next thing you know, Josh will be wanting people who play musical instruments to hit the right notes, too. Why does something have to have no standards to aspire to, no standard of quality, and no guidance from folks who know more about it than others to be fun? Do we give the same kind of accolades to the kid who bangs on a grand piano with both fists that we do a kid who takes lessons, learns how to play, and does well at a recital? Do recreational sports teams still practice hard because they want to win the league, or do they just sort of show up and do what they feel like? Why does a hobby have to be mindless to be fun? If I wanted that, I'd play "World of Warcraft" all night. Isn't there any room for people to strive for excellence in the craft, and to learn how to improve as they go?
Maybe they ought to include a "Master Model Railroader" certificate in the box with every starter set. Just so's nobodys feelings get hurt, and nobody feels pressured to accomplish anything. | | | |
| lownote
1st Class Member
Arlington VA
Conductor
Posts:555
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 6:49 AM |
| You know, people play music at all kinds of levels. Some people know three chords and can't read a note, and they make a joyful noise and people love it. They sing around a campfire or in church or with friends. A lot of truly great music has been made out of three chords by part time "folk" musicians who had no real idea what they were doing, people who were farmers or steelworkers or housewives an who knew zip about music except how to have fun. Others spend their lives mastering every aspect of music making. For the life of me, I can't see why there isn't room for both. They are just different aspects of the pleasure "music" can provide.
As far as I can see, the presence of people who just want to learn three cowboy chords has had absolutely zero deterrent effect on my desire to master jazz guitar--none whatsoever. But my looking down my nose at beginners and people who just want to have fun--a huge deterrent effect | |
Evading the Midas touch of expertise
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/magic/westover/ | |
| Dougald
Moderator
Foreman
Posts:427
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 6:53 AM |
| Lots of emotion from all sides ...
Some folks in their responses seem to forget that Josh's original point wasn't that the model was crap but that Kevin's review was not up to the mark. He generalized a bit from there to the magazine's (lack of) utility.
Kevin has now explained why he said what he did in the review ... his key point being that most GR readers do not care about scale fidelity/proportion.
I am probably more in Josh's (and Matt's - Slate Creek's) corner in wishing for reviews of models that were tougher on their scale infidelities. Personally, i do not find the reviews generally to be sufficiently critical of shortcomings nor sufficiently praiseworthy of the many good things present - in short most reviews are just way too bland to be helpful. I think Josh's point that GR has never stated its criteria or perspective for its reviews makes the reviews difficult to situate for many of us.
For sure as an Fn3 modeler I will not be a purchaser of a 1:24 scale model correct gauge or otherwise. That said, I have no problem with an improved loco for those long suffering modelers who have chosen the "gummy" scales of 1:22.5 or 1:24. I do have a problem with those who model in the gummy scales being so vocal in criticizing those who prefer a more accurate model. Mostly this criticism implies a reverse snobbery using the term rivit counter derogatorily to cover over some truly awful modeling (from a scale accuracy perspective).
i also have a problem with the "rivit counters" derogatory comments about the decline of modelbuilding. It is no doubt true that fewer models are scratchbuilt these days but on the other hand most modelers are building railroads not just models of railroad equipment. In that context, there is every bit as much model building going on as there ever was.
Why the intolerance that we see in this thread? Josh made what I think is a valid point, Kevin provided a valid rationalization - I am sure that Josh and Kevin can agree to disagree. But, the mere raising of the scale/proportion issue raised hackles promptly from all kinds of folks eager to rabblerouse. I am reminded of the words of a Kris Kristofferson song ... "some folks doing something dirty decent folks can frown on"
Regards ... Doug
| |
Doug Matheson
Manotick Ontario
SA #122 | |
| cmjdisanto
1st Class Member
Colonial Heights, Virginia
Foreman
Posts:196
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 6:57 AM |
| Posted By East Broad Top on 08/28/2008 3:53 AM
........As for why the scale/gauge discrepancy wasn't addressed in the review, I simply didn't see it as an issue. First, it's hardly fair to criticize a company for a choice that was not theirs to begin with. Aristo didn't chose the scale, they merely bought the molds to keep the product line alive. Second, the truth of the matter is that the majority of people in garden railroading don't care about proper scale or gauge. They want their trains to run on the rails and look good with the rest of their stuff. That's a fact the scale enthusiasts would love to see change, but the reality is that the "shake the box" crowd always has been--and always will be--a prominent and important part of this hobby.
Those for whom proper scale is important know their chosen scale (whether accurate for the gauge or not) and determine their choices based solely on that. That's why I put much more emphasis on accuracy relative to the manufacturer's stated scale than accuracy to the gauge. .......
......I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree that a model has to be accurate to its scale/gauge to be considered anything but a "toy," nor do I accept your argument that any degree of compromise is "killing" the hobby. Compromise is an inherent part of model railroading, regardless of scale. You've seen the work of the many talented modelers who post photos of their projects here. I'd be quite loathe to call any of them "toys" simply because the wheels are the wrong distance apart--and I'd sure not do it if they were standing within striking distance.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't have this scale/gauge mess that we have in large scale. Alas, history unfolded the way it did, and we're left to navigate the waters as best we can.
Later,
K
IMHPO I believe K hit the mark in regards to things especially since it was about his article. Although it is very entertaining to watch these things in regards to scale unfold. Been watching them for almost 9 years now and..........Hehehe
Anyhow we do not Model Railroad we Garden Railroad or more specifically put have a garden with a model/toy train set. The only way we care about scale/gauge is exactly how K described it. "We want out trains to run on rails and look good with the rest of our stuff". None the less it's just a hobby. Meant for your personal amusment. No matter if you are restoring a 1965 AC Cobra with a 427 side oiler and webers on top or throwing down track in your yard, it will never be Exact. The original production is the only exact there will be. Regardless, a hobby is one of those things that in real life, when the chips are down, it gets filed out of sight when those real life issues actually step in and start slapping us around. Hobbies are expendable. Always have been and always will be.
But this is how it is and works for us or more specifically me. It is what it is. Plus like John J sezzd "if they made everything exactly to scale none of us would be able to afford this hobby". Heck they don't and we dang near can't. Doohhh!!!!
K, I've always enjoyed reading your postings and articles in Garden Railways. I will miss them since we are not renewing our subscription to the Magazine. Not for any particular content issue but more for budget and what we get out of it. Like I said we do this hobby with a "Garden with a train" mentality and since we have achieved that, the money could be better spent (or saved) for other things.
Joe
BTW...Hope it stops raining soon so the daughter and I can go out and play with her models...umm err uhh... I mean run her toy Snoopy and Disney Anniversary trains.  | |
 MLS Member since September 2005 | |
| DennisB
southwestern Ontario
Brakeman
Posts:61
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 7:00 AM |
| We should be promoting this hobby and helping others get started. This is a toxic thread. The purpose of this forum is to promote garden railroading. I am very saddened that this topic has gotten so out of hand. This does not speak well of the hobby.
Dennis | |
www.ckgscale.com
| |
| Bill4373
1st Class Member
Michigan
Foreman
Posts:114
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 7:40 AM |
| | Let's face it, we are "ATTEMPTING" to model a railroad in miniature. A logging railroad with code 332 rail??? Didn't that prototype engine have 356,753 rivets?? If I want to mix sizes, I'll do that. I run what I want to and like. The gate that leads to my back yard opens both ways. If you don't like my ATTEMPT at miniature railroading, then don't let the gate hit you in the _ _ _ on your way out. If you can, go back to Issue #1 of Garden Railways (January-February 1984) to see how the hobby has changed since that time. | |
Gather, friends, while we enquire, into trains propelled by fire.... | |
| Semper Vaporo
1st Class Member
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Engineer
Posts:1228
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 7:43 AM |
| SlateCreek/Matthew(OV)... well said. VERY well said.
parkdesigner/Josh... poorly stated. Although I agree with your assessment of the state of the hobby... (it doesn't cost any more to make a "model" to the correct scale than to make it to the wrong scale; so why lose half the possible sales by excluding those that want at least some semblance of "Scale")... and your concern about the completeness of the review... your use of thinly veiled profanity is a "gross turn off" and is insulting to more than just the author of the review in the magazine. It is not an expression of your feelings about the situation, it is an expression that you don't care about the feelings of your audience. I know you lack the understanding as to why and as such you will neither apologize for it nor cease to use it in your everyday conversation and public expression; but it so severely interrupts your argument that I no longer care about the issue you are so upset about.
| |
 C. T. McCullough
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
SA #37469
| |
| DKRickman
1st Class Member
Salisbury, NC
Foreman
Posts:345
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 7:49 AM |
| Just to throw my own opinion into the mix...
Personally, I agree that the rubber gause/scale situation is frustrating, and it irks me that I almost never see a review of a 1:29, 1:24, or 1:22.5 model which even mentions the fact that none of the above are correct for either US standard gauge or 3' narrow gauge. Granted, all are correct for some gauge somewhere, but NOT for the stated scale/gauge/prototype.
That said, I also respect those that want to run trains in the garden, and don't care about a few scale inches here or there, as long as it works. That's fine, and it's a valuable part of the hobby. Those are the people driving the market, making decent, reasonably priced mechanisms available for the kitbaskers and scratchbuilders among us.
The fact is, there has always been and always will be room in the hobby for a very broad range of tastes, opinions, and personal choices.
Now, on the subject of the decline in GR... It seems to me that all of the Kalback publications (or at least MR, GR, and Trains, which I've read on occasion) have declined significantly, at least from the model builder's point of view. I have old copies of MR from the '50s, containing articles about cutting and soldering brass (as the basic, beginners' info), scratchbuilding models, and generally encouraging people to go forth and build a great model. These days, the vast majority of the hobby seems to be much more RTR oriented, so that's where the largest railroad hobby publishing company is moving. As I said above, I respect that, and appreciate the positive side of it, but I also no longer subscribe to their magazines. My own tastes, objectives, choices, etc. have put me in a different area of the hobby than that served by them.
In conclusion, I believe it's important to hear an opinion about an article, a model, a magazine, or the hobby in general. However, please remember that it's just an opinion, and not everyone will or should agree with it. We all need to respect each other, because the argument, swearing, and name calling is what really hurts the hobby for all of us, regardless of how we choose to model. | |
Kenneth Rickman - krickman1@carolina.rr.com
Salisbury, NC
If at first you don't succeed, use a bigger hammer! | |
| markoles
1st Class Member
Lancaster, PA
Conductor
Posts:814
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 8:07 AM |
| Wow, there are some good arguments/ stances here! Glad to see folks are at least respecting each other's opinions and goals with regards to the hobby!
I read Kevin's article too, and found it to be good at informing me about a revised product. The one thing that gave the author credibility was his statement about having had the earlier versions. What I care about is "Will the freaking thing run and pull the trains I want." That's all I care about. I was also more interested to see some different feedback on the engine. I have had the chance to see one run at a nearby garden rr. Looked and ran really really well.
Josh - GR has changed since its first inception back in the late 80s, but it was never ever a scale model magazine, so I am a little suprised at your reaction. The scale mag, Outdoor Railroader, which became something else, was the only real scale model magazine that I can recall, and it is gone.
As far as being more critical of the manufacturers, the sky is the limit. Kevin also failed to mention this was an electrically powered locomotive, and not lives steam, as per the original, for which Aristo should have been flambayed. How far does it need to go? Like K said, this is a model that has been around a long time. For those of us who have been doing this a long time, this engine would be a good addition to go with my LGB moguls and Bachmann American.
Each of us approaches this hobby differently. I am less focused on the correct scale to gauge issue. The green version looks really nice and it has #52, my wife's favorite number. Those are my deciding factors, in case anyone cares.
Mark | |
Mark Oles
Millersvillanova Railroad, Lancaster, PA | |
| Paul Burch
1st Class Member
Gig Harbor Washington
Foreman
Posts:188
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 8:18 AM |
| | Gee,I thought these not to scale or correct gauge wars were over years ago. What goes around comes around I guess. | |
Paul Burch
Sierra Cascade & Pacific R.R. | |
| DKRickman
1st Class Member
Salisbury, NC
Foreman
Posts:345
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 8:53 AM |
| I found a couple items that seem to me to be worth pointing out.
First, on the quality of the review:
This is an excerpt from a review in Outdoor Railroader of the then-new Caldonia Express/Delton C-16. Granted, it is not a review of the Aristo model, but if (as I assume is the case) they simply re-made and updated the old Delton model, then the main aesthetic and dimensional points are still valid. The full review can be found here.
First, let's give the new Delton/Caledonia C-16 a cosmetic once-over. It is a 1:24 scale mostly cast plastic model with solid brass fittings and metal tires on the wheels.
It is not an accurate representation of Number 268 in its later years. The discrepancies are simply too numerous to list. But the model is what Delton/Caledonia intended a very handsome freelance rendition of what a C-16 "could have been".
..
The fit, finish, and quality of the detail parts were all excellent. The model looks terrific.
Some critics have said the Delton C-16 seems too small. A careful check of all dimensions shows the locomotive's wheel base is ten scale inches short (probably to negotiate very sharp curves), the overall length is five scale inches short (but in proportion to the shorter wheel base), the driver diameter is two scale inches short (probably to compensate for the oversize flanges), and the tender is five scale inches short (compared to the as-built dimensions; the model's tender is completely different than the one 268 had in its later years). The width of the cab and tender are right on the money. So are the cab height and the height of the locomotive above the rails. The boiler even seems to be the correct diameter. So much for "too small".
Altogether, Delton's C-16 is one of the very most accurate mass-produced locomotives in the hobby, at least in the case of the 1882 version. The review sample, as I pointed out, is really a freelance.
Second, on the subject of 1:24 models being toys:
Take a look at this website. I challenge anyone to call this guy's models anything other than fine scale. They're a level of quality that many of us can only dream of reaching. The fact that they are 6" out of gauge does not seem obvious to me, and does not detract in any way from their appearance.
Now, I choose to model in 1:20.3 because I want to model 3' gauge equipment, and I'm scratchbuilding everything anyway, so the choice of scale is immaterial to me. I'm sure this guy already had a stock of 1:24 equipment, and a 1:20.3 model would simply not fit in well with everything else. I hope that, in the future, more models will become available in 1:20.3, and that seems to be the case, but there is still quite a bit of it out there in other scales. I look at it much the same way that I see OO and HO models - they run on the same track, but they're different scales. I don't hear people complaingin that models in either scale are the "wrong" scale, and the people that care about OO track being narrow have moved over to P4 or EM gauge models. | |
Kenneth Rickman - krickman1@carolina.rr.com
Salisbury, NC
If at first you don't succeed, use a bigger hammer! | |
| Ole Toad Frog
1st Class Member
Roasharon, Tx.
Foreman
Posts:258
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 9:07 AM |
| Have to say several things, like Dennis said, yes bad thread.
1. As a kitbasher and scratch builder I don't always make everything to scale every time! (pocketbook $$$$ fixed income)
2. I have been over in GRMF and when I bring up scale plans that left the magazine and now we have .pdfs, I ask is the company in some sort of downfall that WE don't know???? My thread gets killed. Remember they print more than train mags. There has been many different types of scale magazines gone by the wayside that gave you ideas and dreams scale or not.
Now if the marker color is not right then it is so!
Toad | |
 | |
| Curmudgeon
Foreman
Posts:401
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 9:28 AM |
| I guess that's the way it needs to be.
I report the K did not meet the actual scaled dimensions, and I get pitched, now this loco is just great.
Oh, Meester Fletcher......yes, had a bloke in the States from NZ who had to have one of those 2-8-0's.
But, all he did was 3'6" gauge in 1:24.
I guess free-lanced, fantasy, improbable gauge issues are what we are stuck with.
Eggliner, Pacificado, first re-make of the C was 1/4" too high (but expert modellers told us is was 'just right'), a LiverSpot of a loco sketched on a piece of paper but never built, this could make a new book..... | | | |
| Dwight Ennis
Moderator
Milpitas, CA
Engineer
Posts:1466
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 9:35 AM |
| It seems to me that all of the Kalback publications (or at least MR, GR, and Trains, which I've read on occasion) have declined significantly, at least from the model builder's point of view. I have old copies of MR from the '50s, containing articles about cutting and soldering brass (as the basic, beginners' info), scratchbuilding models, and generally encouraging people to go forth and build a great model. Ain't that the sad truth.  MR used to be filled with plans for structures, rolling stock, locos, etc. Their layout construction articles were a heck of a lot more than a few pages of captioned photos. The MA & PA construction series spanned 13 issues in all, and even contained a proposed back story and history for the railroad and region which made for some very entertaining reading. Dollar Model Projects, Letters from Jim, and a host of other recurring features made it well worth buying - and saving. Today's mag is a mere shadow of its former self. | |
Dwight Ennis
Milpitas, CA
SA #21
http://www.SantaCruzLumberCo.com
 | |
| Jerry Barnes
1st Class Member
Lexington, NE
Conductor
Posts:976
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 9:43 AM |
| | I really don't understand why people get all upset over things like this. Same thing happened over at the G1MRA site, got real nasty. Now they are thinking of shutting down their site. Jerry | |
Life is too short to take seriously. | |
| vsmith
1st Class Member
SoCal
Conductor
Posts:996
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 9:50 AM |
| Agreed that this is simply a reworking of the now close-to 2 decades old Delton models. The simple truth is that Aristo already has the molds, and is simply using them. Its a reisuue, why get bent over a reissue?
The whole issue of scale and accuracy, if the plans your measuring off of are drawn at 1/24 scale and they happen to nearly match the 1/24 model, why is anyone surprised if the reviewer says its close to the plans, the only thing off in the whole thing is the gauge of the wheels, something that hasnt been correct since the first C16 rolled of the Delton assembly line all those years ago. To redo the engine in 1/20 would entail an ENTIRELY new model, nothing from the Delton model would translate. Now thats ONE HELLOVA investment to make, Lewis is frugal if nothing else, so I'm not surprised he simply retooled the molds. He knows that for every Josh, theres 10 or more who will buy it. Hell, I'd buy one, I've seen this engine at the BTS it looks nice, and having seen the older version next to an Accucraft C16, its a HUGE difference in size.
We get to another glaring fact about large scale that some people just seam dead set to refuse to accept, that there are ALOT of large scalers who already have substantial investments in 1/22.5 and 1/24 models and are simply not going to jump on the 1/20.3 bandwagon simply because a few people get uptight about the fact that 1/20.3 is the only holy anointed 'accurate' scale for 45mm track. Alot like me, simply do not have room for the larger models, some existing layout clearences will not work with 1/20, alot simply dont worry about it and will run 1/20 and 1/24 and 1/24 and 1/29 all together, if thats what they like, I don't do it myself but I'm not going to pee on their cornflakes.
One of the primary reasons I have always been freelanced was to purposefully AVOID this whole prototype hangup. First off NOBODY made models of the engines I liked, if they did they were $3K, secondly I have had run-ins with guys in HO narrow gauge in the past that really really soured me to that approach, so I will create my own roster, modifing stock models to be unique to my layout or building my own, and if I have something that because of 'scale' looks off on my layout, well then I'll rebuild it, which is what I would do with THIS engine on MY layout, rebuild the cab it to something larger to match my 1/22.5 ruling scale. Having studied narrow gauge railroads since before I started LS, I know the truth is that sizes and gauges ran the gaunlet, over the years engines and roilling stock were sold off to numberous different railroads of different gauges, from 30" gauge stock retrucked with 36" gauge trucks to some standard gauge cars retrucked to 36" gauge to 36" gauge cars retrucked to standard gauge! So for the freelancer theres a true freedom to "mix and match" that the prototypers would get in a fit over.
Now IF your modeling a specific prototype railroad, using specific prototype stock, at a specific prototype time, then you really are looking at self-restricting your choice of selections, and accept that this will be the case. Especially in large scale which simply does not have anywhere near the selection of products available in HOn3, even in HOn3 scratchbuilding and kitbashing are not the exception, they are considered the norm, or at least were back in the day.
Josh all I can say is that if you really want an accurate 1/20.3 scale C16, dont look to Lewis to spend close to a million dollars to recreate the wheel at a larger scale, afterall the man invented 1/29 for increased market value, to suddenly expect scale fidelity is like expecting a politician to tell the truth during an election year, naive at best. So either save up and find an Accucraft C16, at 1/20.3 its a terrific looking model, or get a BBT 2-8-0 drive block, and build one. Plans are available all over the place, Trackside Details and Ozark Minatures sell every detail part concievable and everything in Dave Fletchers Mogul Masterclass project would apply to a 1/20 C16 as well.
PS I'm talking only about the model issue, I will not comment on K's review as I have not read it yet.
| |
 Kitbashing, welcome to the Dark Side | |
| DKRickman
1st Class Member
Salisbury, NC
Foreman
Posts:345
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 9:52 AM |
| Posted By Dwight Ennis on 08/28/2008 9:35 AM
Today's mag is a mere shadow of its former self.
In my opinion, today's MR is more a monthly advertisement for the latest and greatest (and most expensive) Walthers products. It sure seems like Walthers is trying to become the Micro$oft of the model railroad world, at least in HO.
I have a good friend who's just recently become active in model railroading. He started a couple years ago with a glorified loop of track on a table and a subscription to MR. He's since torn the layout out, build a new point-to-point, and cancelled his subscription. We both devour RMC and Railfan and Railroad monthly, because (while still shadows of their former selves) are much more interesting and informative. It's been interesting to see the development of a future "rivet counter". What's even more interesting, though, is to see that he enjoys the hobby to about the same extent that he did in the beginning. In other words, moving from running whatever trains he wanted in a circle to prototypical operation, scale fidelity, etc. has not increased his enjoyment of the hobby. He's just found, like so many of us, that to continue to enjoy it, he needed to continue to improve, both in his models and in his knowledge of railroads.
One of these days, I'll get him into large scale, and/or scratchbuilding.  | |
Kenneth Rickman - krickman1@carolina.rr.com
Salisbury, NC
If at first you don't succeed, use a bigger hammer! | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 |
|