| Author | Messages | |
Dougald
Moderator
Foreman
Posts:427
Send Message
 | | 08/28/2008 2:03 PM |
| Dwight
Your point is well taken given your interests in the hobby and of course your opinion counts ... just as you have stated, you no longer buy the mags which do not reflect your modeling interest.
I only reacted to your use of the words - the mags have gone downhill (because they no longer reflect model building to the extent they once did). Personally, I think the mags have gone uphill as MR in particular has responded to the notion that many folks build AND OPERATE their empire. This has in fact overtaken the model building which used to be the centre of attention.
I cannot say the same for GR of course as few garden railroaders scratchbuild and even fewer operate prototypically. As a prime exhibit of both points check out the feature RR in the latest GR - two loops no switches and all rtr stuff; the owner even states his goal is to sit by his pool with a drink and watch the trains go round. Be that as it may, though GR does not cater to my specific interest in operations, it does appeal to the gardener in me so I continue to read it.
All of us need to understand that the hobby has a wide range of interests from collecting to ops to purely social aspects. we all need to be tolerant of those interests even when they are not our own. We can individually decide to buy or not to buy a magazine based on its conformance to our interests but to say a mag has gone downhill because it has followed the mainstream interest as the hobby changes casts an intolerant value judgement.
Regards ... Doug | |
Doug Matheson
Manotick Ontario
SA #122 | |
| toddalin
Foreman
Posts:406
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 2:14 PM |
| Posted By markoles on 08/28/2008 1:34 PM
Noel,
I though Uncle Russ was publishing "Finescale Modeler". Doesn't it include more general scale modeling that just outdoor trains? The last couple of times I looked through one (I don't see them often), the stuff wasn't large scale trains. And I think the adventures of the railroad man were gone. That was what I really read Outdoor Railroader for anyway, those great stories. The gods of steam, the fig newtons, the white dustbuster minivan...it was too much!! Thanks. Now I have to dig out an old issue I have stored in the basement.
Mark
You are confusing "Finescale Modeler" with "Finescale Railroader" that went down a couple years ago.
Finescale Modeler:
http://www.finescale.com
Finescale Railroader:
http://www.finescalerr.com | | | |
| markoles
1st Class Member
Lancaster, PA
Conductor
Posts:814
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 2:18 PM |
| | Whoops! Thanks for clarifying. | |
Mark Oles
Millersvillanova Railroad, Lancaster, PA | |
| East Broad Top
Moderator
Centennial, CO
Conductor
Posts:601
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 2:25 PM |
| You mean the width of the cylinders were changed to accomodate the different gauge?
"Possibly the cylinders sit farther out, but that's it. " doesn't tell us much.
Yes, the cylinders would be set wider. Probably the frame's a bit wider, too. I'm not writing the review here, merely offering a suggestion as to where a potential variance from the plans may lie, otherwise I would have been a bit more deliberate in my verbage. But--again--wider cylinders relative to the rest of the locomotive are an inherent compromise to the scale. Having scratchbuilt my share of 1:24 models, it's not that significant of a change. If you're modeling 1:24 on gauge 1 track, then you've accepted that as a compromise. If you can't accept that as compromise, step up to 1:20.3. Just be prepared to shell out a few more bucks for a C-16.
"Are we--as reviewers--supposed to continually point out the fact that the rails are technically too close together, or are we allowed to accept that a practice has become so commonplace that it has become its own standard?"
Continually. If for no other reason than to alert the "newbies" as to what they are getting into.
I disagree. That's what the other 120 pages in the magazine are for. I generally assume that the reader either has at least a cursory understanding of scale and gauge and is reading the review because he/she is interested in the product for what it is, or--like many--simply doesn't care about scale, just wanting something that looks good and runs well. If the reader is interested in learning about scale and gauge, there are plenty of other resources both within the magazine and out to help them on their journey. (Not the least of which is a column called "Garden Railways Basics" that covers such concepts from time to time.)
Later,
K | |
Tuscarora Railroad
Friends of the East Broad Top | |
| calenelson
Non-Paying Member
Foreman
Posts:392
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 2:48 PM |
| I haven't received mine yet (GR Mag) but I can say, I've seen the C-16 and commented many times; "It's a nice looking Little engine"...they are all toys some just cost more than others!....I wonder what someone could do with a C-16 in 7/8......?
cale | |
‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King I tell you. | |
| vsmith
1st Class Member
SoCal
Conductor
Posts:996
Send Message
| | Jerry Barnes
1st Class Member
Lexington, NE
Conductor
Posts:976
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 2:59 PM |
| | Any hobby magazine has to keep having basic articles aimed at the beginner. People who have been in it for awhile just have to put up with the 'basics'. Sometimes I even pick up something from them myself. | |
Life is too short to take seriously. | |
| Curmudgeon
Foreman
Posts:401
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 3:01 PM |
| "I disagree. That's what the other 120 pages in the magazine are for. I generally assume that the reader either has at least a cursory understanding of scale and gauge and is reading the review because he/she is interested in the product for what it is, or--like many--simply doesn't care about scale,"
And that after your supporting commentary on 1:29.
Obviously, you don't THINK people care.
Really surprising after page 109 of the June 2008 issue:
"What this isn't is 1:22.5 scale () or #1 scale (), the accurate scale for standard-gauge trains running on 45mm track".
You said it there, but you gave this one a "walk". | | | |
| tacfoley
1st Class Member
Foreman
Posts:492
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 3:22 PM |
| Posted By Jerry Barnes on 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
Thread drift with apologies -
Thanks, Jerry, for that notice from GC. Living where I do, I, too, fall under the aegis of the EAG - East Anglia Group - but having to join up to a Yahoo! group was such a RPITA that I didn't bother to join in.
Seems that was a good decision. 
Funny, the very few G1-ers that I know, and with whom I play trains at this 'exalted level of sophisticated enjoyment' all seem to get on just fine wherever and whenever we meet up. Funny that, eh?
Best
tac
G1MRA #3641
| | | |
| toddalin
Foreman
Posts:406
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 3:44 PM |
| Actually, I've been reviewing the pictures and diagrams and mfg's drawings, and don't believe that this is a model of the Baldwin C-16 engine built for D&RGW.
This appears to be the 2-8-0 exhibited at the Railway Appliances Exposition of 1883 built by Balwin for the Conglomerate Mining Company. The engine was however sold to another private carrier, the Lac La Belle & Calumet, but then sold to the Deerfield River Railroad, an affiliate of the Hoosac Tunnel & Wilmington, though this is also a 3' gauge line.
The point is, Baldwin made these engines for 3'6" as well as 3' lines. The 3'6" gauge was second in the U.S. only to the 3' gauge in narrow gauge railroading. If the one provided to the Railway Appliances Exposition looks like the D&RGW version, so can their 3'6" versions and again I contend, that this is "just the wrong road name" for the engine regardless of who Delton, AristoCraft, or GR report it was made for (not MADE BY). | | | |
| Curmudgeon
Foreman
Posts:401
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 3:54 PM |
| Ah, the old "wrong road name" syndrome.
But, "expert modelers looked at it and said it was just right!"
The question is not the loco, rather the printed material. | | | |
| vsmith
1st Class Member
SoCal
Conductor
Posts:996
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 4:05 PM |
| Posted By toddalin on 08/28/2008 3:44 PM
Actually, I've been reviewing the pictures and diagrams and mfg's drawings, and don't believe that this is a model of the Baldwin C-16 engine built for D&RGW.
This appears to be the 2-8-0 exhibited at the Railway Appliances Exposition of 1883 built by Balwin for the Conglomerate Mining Company. The engine was however sold to another private carrier, the Lac La Belle & Calumet, but then sold to the Deerfield River Railroad, an affiliate of the Hoosac Tunnel & Wilmington, though this is also a 3' gauge line.
The point is, Baldwin made these engines for 3'6" as well as 3' lines. The 3'6" gauge was second in the U.S. only to the 3' gauge in narrow gauge railroading. If the one provided to the Railway Appliances Exposition looks like the D&RGW version, so can their 3'6" versions and again I contend, that this is "just the wrong road name" for the engine regardless of who Delton, AristoCraft, or GR report it was made for (not MADE BY).
I would agree the wood burner version could be passed off as a generic catalog model,
but Aristo has chosen to model the coal burner version with the dual air pumps on the left side, this was to the best of my knowledge only a D&RG practice, so Josh's comment about it being a Colorado narrow gauge model does have merit:
I simply consider it a nicer reissue of an older alredy existing 1/24 scale product. | |
 Kitbashing, welcome to the Dark Side | |
| paintjockey
Smalltown oHIo
Foreman
Posts:189
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 4:43 PM |
| To each their own. Personaly, I just assume that anything that aristo makes, while nice, isn't to scale. True, maybe it sould be noted for new comers but I really don't think it's the downfall of the hobby. LGB made not to scale stuff for pretty much their whole existance and when they went under people were pretty bummed. People will run what they want. Some like me, will start with whatever they get their hands on then "aspire" to make scale models, then finescale models. Oh yeah then when I'm done with that I go play world of warcraft all night. People will do what they want, they always do.
Although I don't think buying "shake the box" models is lazy. Personally, I like to run trains, i build what i can't afford or find. When I can buy an accucraft boxcar for under $70 and the same kit to build is over $100 or i can scratchbuild it for about $80, i think buying it is pretty smart, not lazy. But again, if building models is your thing, enjoy it.
It's good to see people stand behind what they like. Run what you enjoy and enjoy what you run, at the bottom of it all they are all toys. Some are more finescale than others. Some are more toyish than others. But they are all toys and toys are supposed to be fun.
Terry | |
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
-Ben Franklin
There cannot be good living where there is not good drinking.
-Ben Franklin
I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're goining to feel all day.
-Frank Sinatra | |
| NTCGRR
1st Class Member
Nebraska City NE
Conductor
Posts:833
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 5:35 PM |
| Atless you all are talking about it, good or bad and if its a good runner it should sale well.
I'm just thankful I got into the true 1:29th scale...!!!!
Hopefully a couple of the C 16s will show up at our battery powered steam up. | |
 Marty Cozad
North Table Creek GRR
Nebraska City, NE
Is it "REAL" or just 1:29 th | |
| John J
Moderator
Conductor
Posts:766
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 6:19 PM |
| I get Play Boy Mag for the Articals and get Garden Railways for the pcitures. | |
 | |
| toddalin
Foreman
Posts:406
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 6:36 PM |
| OK, I just received my magazine and am reading the write-up.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with it nor are there any improper references to scale.
You are just misinterpreting it. That's not Kevin's fault.
In the first paragragh Kevin talks of the D&RG and their acquisitions. A history lesson on the background of the C-16, if you will. After all, D&RG was the biggest customer for these.
In the second paragragh, Kevin discusses the history of model itself. He states, "I had never compared the model with the measurements of the prototype, though. To my suprise, this loco measures almost indentically to published drawings, etc."
No where has Kevin noted that this is a model of a D&RG engine. He only gave some D&RG history up front.
Under Vital statistics it states, "Dimensions are very close to published drawings for the prototype." Again, no one has identified which prototype. You are drawing the conclusion that he is comparing it to the D&RG prototype, and not some drawing of a 3'6" gauge engine.
He goes on to mention fantasy lettering for Union Pacific, but again, this would be the case regardless of what 3'6" gauge railroad this catalog engine was taken from. (Again, I contend, right scale, wrong road name.)
The picture in the article clearly shows a "generic" catalog Baldwin C-16 wood burner that could well have been produced for a 3'6" gauge line. There are no photos of any coal or D&RG equipment or air pumps or...
God, I should have been a lawyer. | | | |
| tom h
1st Class Member
Mokena, IL
Foreman
Posts:112
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 6:54 PM |
| Kevin, I have to say I look forward to reading your articles, the same with Marty and Bruce and whoever else, you guys make it easy for us new guys to understand, very detailed so we can work with it. Keep up the great work!!!
I could care less about counting rivets, just as long as it runs, you really want to start an arguement  Do you pick your wives like you pick your trains? 
tom h | |
 | |
| markoles
1st Class Member
Lancaster, PA
Conductor
Posts:814
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 7:14 PM |
| JJ,
And the neighbor kids are afraid of you? Wonder why. By the way, since we're talking scale, has anyone ever bothered to mention to any of the bunnies in your 'Play Boy' rag that they are disproportionately scaled to appear top heavy? Who am I kidding. I could never get that kind of sentence out to a 'live' one!! Bet Hef couldn't either.
All-
Model Railroad News had a review spread across 8 pages in their August issue of this exact same locomotive. I guess they were given a pass because of these lawyer type weasal words (Apologies to lawyer types):
"The model is considered 1:24 scale, also known as "Half Inch" or H Scale. ..... While 1:24 is not one of the "pure" scales, on regular garden railroad track, it does represent a 3 1/2" "Cape" scale, which was not common in the US, but is quite popular all over the rest of the world.." MRN, page 40, "Our sample C-16", paragraph 2
The article offers the following dimensions:
locomotive: 29 feet, 6 inches pilot to back plate (unclear if this is the model or real)
tender: 20 feet, 3 inches (unclear if this is the model or real)
gap between loco and tender: 1 scale foot
Total: 40 feet, 9 inches.
Stack height: 6.75 inches, or 13.5 scale feet
width: 4.5 inches, 9 scale feet
Drivers: scale out to 34.87 inches, real was 36 inches
Maybe someone with either the loco or the drawings can confirm the above?
They even gave the paint job a glowing review!! MRN is an all scale publication, so they are reaching more people than those just interested in large scale trains. I must have missed when H scale was made. Makes sense, G, then H, the F. What happened to I scale? Or was that too close to Gauge 1?
If nothing else, this has been one interesting thread.
Mark
| |
Mark Oles
Millersvillanova Railroad, Lancaster, PA | |
| Ole Toad Frog
1st Class Member
Roasharon, Tx.
Foreman
Posts:258
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 7:17 PM |
| Posted By toddalin on 08/28/2008 6:36 PM
God, I should have been a lawyer.
And just think you could have more land with more road and more trains!  | |
 | |
| Curmudgeon
Foreman
Posts:401
Send Message
| | 08/28/2008 7:41 PM |
| Posted By toddalin on 08/28/2008 6:36 PM
God, I should have been a lawyer.
Good thing you didn't.
Wouldn't have made a good one.
Better re-read the entire first paragraph.
Something about D&RGW, Baldwin, 56 of the original Class 60, later called C-16, worked for the D&RGW for nearly 50 years.
Selective understanding. | | | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 |
|