[parkdesigner]

Having just received the latest GR in the mail - I must confess I can finally see why over the last few years many of my train buddies have become disillusioned with the magazine. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif"

The review on pg 98 is by far the softest bit of "reporting" I've seen in years. Apparently, this is a review of the new Aristocraft 2-8-0.

Here is the amazing thing - this is a model of a 3 foot narrow gauge engine, modeled in 1:24 scale. (A fact stated in the review - the 1:24 scale that is). The amazing thing - the reviewer states, and I quote "Pros: Proportions match published drawings in many key dimensions;" and in the body of the review, "To my surprise, this locomotive measures almost identically to published drawings."

REALLY?! REALLY!!! How about that little issue of SCALE?!?! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif

And in the "Cons" section of the review guess how many times the reviewer mentioned the fact that this model is ******* 1:24 scale - and not the correct, accurate, 1:20 scale for this engine... go on, guess... NONE! Oh sure, they point out that the class lamps are the wrong the color, but the fact that the wheels are out of scale... that the entire model is a TOY, not a scale model? ZIP! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/plain.gif

Sheesh!! I guess so long as you're getting new toys to play with, and you wanna be a "player" in the hobby - no need to worry about doing an accurate review that includes attention to scale fidelity!! How hard would it be to add the fact this this thing is out of scale... "The engine is 1:24, not the correct 1:20 scale." - hmmm...9 f***ing words!! I think they could spare the space on the page!!

I think I'm done with GR now too. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/pinch.gif

 

[blackburn49]

RE: Garden Railways Decline

The title to the thread threw me. I thought you were referring to the hobby--not the magazine.

 

[toddalin]

RE: Garden Railways Decline

Nothing wrong with 1:24 scale. It is the proper scale for 3'6" track, and there were several of these around for a time. I think there still are in other countries. It goes with their other 1:24scale equipment.

 

[parkdesigner]

RE: Garden Railways Decline

Sorry blackburn - maybe one of the MODs can add "magazine" to the title...

Todd - nothing wrong with 1:24, except that it is the WRONG scale for a model of a three foot engine. Period. What other countries use, and what other toys (equipment) have been made before should have no bearing on writing a correct, and factual review. The article was supposed to be a review of the engine. Lord knows if Bachmann released a new engine that was a model of a 3 footer, but not 1:20 - well all the Bmann haters would be ALL over them - but since other 1:24 stuff has been made before, that means a review no longer needs to cover the fact that engine is out of scale?!

 

[lownote]

RE: Garden Railways Decline

Surely there are other things worth getting this worked up about? More important things? It does say quite clearly in the review that the scale 1/24. In fact I looked quite specifically at that, because I've only ever seen that model briefly at shows and I was puxzzled about its scale. I'm a new comer to the hobby and have no history with Delton. I thought it was a very useful review myself, nicely written, and it gave me a good sense of the engine.

 

[Jerry Barnes]

RE: Garden Railways Decline

The hobby is supposed to relax you! Jerry

 

[parkdesigner]

RE: Garden Railways Decline

lownote - nicely written, yes - but incomplete - you may know that 1:24 is wrong - but the newcomer that has just opened the magazine and reads the review will have no clue as to the fact that the darned thing is outta scale!

Jerry - it does - it's hack reporting and lightweight reviews like this one that upset me.

 

[JEFF RUNGE]

I guess we won't tell him 1:29 is "out of scale" on our gauge one track. should be 1:32 for SG trains, but hey it's a hobby! As long as they tell you what your buying ...

 

[parkdesigner]

"As long as the tell you what your buying..." My point exactly Jeff! This review doesn't - in fact - just the opposite!

"Pros: Proportions match published drawings in many key dimensions..."
"...this locomotive measures almost identically to published drawings."

Sure sounds like I'm being told this engine is built to scale... something it is not. It is more than fair to expect for that to be included in a review.
(And as for the 1:29/1:32 issues - I'm not a SG guy, but if I was - I'd be 1:32 all the way... if it's not in scale, then it's just a toy)

 

[altterrain]

Yup, it's a wrong scale for the track and so are all of the american prototype 1:22.5, all other 1:24 and 1:29 large scale trains out there. If you don't like them, don't buy them. They suit me just fine /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/tongue.gif" border=0> .
Of course, since the reviewer, Kevin, is a moderator here, you could ask him directly about your issues.

-Brian

 

[Curmudgeon]

If you are running all 1:24 equipment, and can ignore the six-inch gauge difference (and, yes, there were some US lines, but mostly trolley!) fine.
Except, mix a 1:20 car in there and see.

What strikes me as odd is here we have remake #3 of the original Delton and it gets a review.

I am a tad surprised at the author. Especially when he's got that HUGE caboose behind it.
Heck, the guys in the cupola look DOWN into the cab!
He did note the "fantasy" road name.

With those gold drivers, red cab and "sparkly" blue boiler, looks like New Bright.

1.535" back-to-back.
EXACTLY the turnout check-gauge for G1MRA turnouts.

That means it will just slow down at turnouts and not jump.

"Won't quit".
I don't think I would have guaranteed that in print.

 

[toddalin]

Posted By parkdesigner on 08/27/2008 9:29 PM
Sorry blackburn - maybe one of the MODs can add "magazine" to the title...
Todd - nothing wrong with 1:24, except that it is the WRONG scale for a model of a three foot engine. Period. What other countries use, and what other toys (equipment) have been made before should have no bearing on writing a correct, and factual review. The article was supposed to be a review of the engine. Lord knows if Bachmann released a new engine that was a model of a 3 footer, but not 1:20 - well all the Bmann haters would be ALL over them - but since other 1:24 stuff has been made before, that means a review no longer needs to cover the fact that engine is out of scale?!


Excuse me but 2-8-0's were used on 3'6" gauge track. Don't look at it as the wrong scale..., look at it as the wrong road name. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/wow.gif

 

[joe rusz]

...9 f***ing words!! I think they could spare the space on the page!!

Obscenity, vulgarity, profanity and blasphemy have no place on this website. Keep such language inside the park, Mr Park Designer, whoever you are (ah, the anonymityof the web).

 

[parkdesigner]

Sorry Todd, no - this is a model of a Rio Grande 2-8-0, as such - 3 foot is the gauge. (But good try... )

And Joe - my name is Josh - thanks for the lecture - but if you don't like my thread - I suggest you start your own. If I was going to use "Obscenity, vulgarity, profanity and blasphemy" then I would have... the fact of the matter (in black and white) is that I DIDN'T. I used four letters and three characters, nothing more. It just so happens that those do however represent JUST HOW MAD I am at Kevin. And Yes - I know he's on here.

I am SO f***ing tired of people instantly siding with "rubber gauge" crap. For the record - I am a professional designer, and that includes dimensional design (in other words, model building). For someone who constantly is weighing in on the craftsman threads on this site, I think Kevin owes all of the 1:20 modelers out there - and especially the guys who have been building in scale long before the ease and laziness of plastic rolling stock came to be - an explanation on why exactly he would go out and tell the uneducated masses that the Aristo engine "...measures almost identically to published drawings."

Great - now even more muddy waters when it comes to trying to sort scale, gauge, and fact from fiction. (How many newbies do we see every year asking about the "1:20" Bachmann "shorty" cars?!!? So long as reviewers aren't going to hold manufacturers accountable to making items in accurate scales, they will just keep schlepping on the goofy gauge stuff and calling "scale.")

 

[altterrain]

Posted By parkdesigner on 08/28/2008 12:34 AM
...an explanation on why exactly he would go out and tell the uneducated masses that ...




My, aren't you the p****** i*****! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif

I feel sorry for you that not everyone cares as much as you do whether the track is a whole quarter inch too wide.

-Brian

 

[parkdesigner]

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 **** 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.

 

[David Fletcher]

To Quote Bachmann that hides behind the words 'Catalogue' Baldwin design to justify freelance locomotives to the 'correct' scale of 1:20 POINT 3 and On30, the Aristo 2-8-0 is also a Catalogue 10-24-E (not really the 24 1/2-E Im affraid), but a catalogue engine none the less, used Right here in Auz on 42" gauge, New Zealand on 42" gauge and so on...wrong road name is the correct notion! I find far more 'to scale' with this engine that I do with the Bachmann 2-8-0 which, done to the 'correct' scale has no 3' prototype in that configuration!... dont get me started with US 36" saddle tank Mallets that never existed.
I wish someone would do the C-16 at 20.3 for sure, but no reason to bag what was a nicely proportioned model of a catalogue engine, done at a time when real scale in this hobby was rather lacking in largescale, and in some road names is actually to the correct gauge anyway!
I agree, not a great model by today's standard, not worthy of a new review, but a competant model of value to many still running 1:24 and 1:22.5
I think what we seeing here is a real growth in Freelancing done to a scale of 1:20.3, rather prototype model buiding to 1:20.3 scale. Odd, but there is a difference. Building a freelance model to scale is not a scale model of anything, and thus 1:1 of itself, but can be done to a workable scale as a what-if etc, or to suite one's operations at a chosen scale. Yes I'll buy the Mallet when it comes, nice looking toy. I have the C-16s as well, and like them. There is a place for both.
David.

 

[parkdesigner]

David,

Fair points on the "freelancing" issue - and I am in total agreement with you about Mallets that never existed!!

I will still contend that this is a 3' engine and not a catalog version though, thus negating the argument of 3'-6" (and bringing us full circle back to the original frustration on my part)

Kevin's entire first paragraph in his two page review is the history and details of the D&RG's order for Class 60/C-16 engines. Under "Vital Statistics" he says (and I quote):

"Plastic, electrically powered model of the C-16 class (formerly class 60) locomotive of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad."

If from no other statements - those two lines make it quite clear we're talking about a 3 foot engine. Kevin named the railroad, he named the engine class. 3 feet. Period. (Had he said catalog 2-8-0, different story...) As such, to write that "...this locomotive measures almost identically to published drawings" while not once mentioning scale inaccuracies at the rail, and the issue of 1:20 v. 1:24 is unfair to both the readers, and to the 1:20 scale movement.

It just seems such a shame that all those folks working so hard to *model* 1:20 - to build to accurate dimensions, above AND below the boilers - must watch as rubber gauge stuff gets branded (and blessed) as "scale."

 

[SlateCreek]

Personally, Josh, I think you probably better lighten up.

I myself can't wait to get hold of the new C-17.5 by Aristocrepe, as I need a new locomotive to pull my 35 foot stainless steel streamlined New York Centennial passenger cars. And, I've about worn the gears out in my eggliner, so it'll hardly move them anymore, particularly on the 10 percentile grade I need to make my figure 7 go over and under.

Besides. If the Denver and Rio Grande had decided on 3.5 foot gauge, the C-16 would have looked JUST LIKE THAT. Kind of like if all the 2 foot gauge railroads in Maine had been 2.5 feet, they'd have looked JUST LIKE the Bachmann On30 stuff. (Or, conversely, if the Colorado and Southern had chosen 2.5 feet instead of 3, the "Colorado" On30 stuff would have looked just like it's prototype.) Apparently, the model is definitive; reality is occasionally inaccurate (with all due apologies to Douglas Adams)

Traditionally, HO scale modelers (the serious ones) are hung up on accuracy and scale. Only in large scale do people immediately scream "Rivet Counter" (like it was a bad thing) at the first mention of a scale or gauge issue. Certainly, there's room for "whatever floats your boat" in either scale ... I've seen HO starter sets with all kinds of oddball themes, and strange graphics that are no more unusual than the Coca Cola locos and "Queen Mary" diesels from LGB ... but if Broadway Limited's Santa Fe Northern had been out of scale, reviews would have crucified it, modelers would have hated it, and no one would have bought it. On 45mm track, it would probably have got an "Oooooh, Shiny!" and would have immediately been pressed into service pulling a string of "Chicken Dance" boxcars, bubble blowing cars, and a limited edition Beanie Baby caboose.

The good news is, while the focus here will be on your language, and a strange need to defend the "honor" of various manufacturers and publications that will all but obliviate any intelligent discussion of the point you're trying to make, that you're not alone. There are a lot of people who think that models should be accurate in more than "many key dimensions" and that there ought to be more attention to making accurate scale models of railroad equipment than "cute little trains" ... unfortunately, they're often shouted down by the masses, who either don't know or don't care about the prototypes being modeled or the history involved, or have some other axe to grind, or who simply like to pick a fight.

Perhaps GR ought to clarify what their perspective is, as a magazine, when reviewing items. If they're reviewing them from a "model" railroad perspective, then they should pay attention to aspects of the item they're reviewing that would be important to people who "model" (or make miniature representations of) railroad equipment. If they're reviewing them from the perspective of people who are simply looking for animated garden features to improve interest in a garden, but not necessarily be any kind of accurate representation (or "model") of any particular train, then this kind of review is probably fine.

And, I'm not saying the "animated garden feature" folks have ANYTHING wrong with them . . . it's just a different set of priorities than folks for whom, like their smaller scale counterparts, scale fidelity, prototype accuracy, and attention to detail are key.... and when both schools open a magazine with the expectation that the material inside is geared for their interests, someone is about to be sorely disappointed.


Of course, for my part, if you make an accurate model, you please both sides, as you now have an animated garden feature that also accurately represents railroad equipment of some kind ... but if I go too far down that path, I'm sure someone will start picking on my punctuation or grammar, or try to accuse me of being partial to one brand or another, and the whole point will be lost.

Party on, Josh. You're not alone.

Matthew (OV)

 

[TonyWalsham]

I wonder if the manufacturer will demand a follow up review like Bachmann did with the K-27