OK, so it's easy to pick holes, and anyone can err, but I can't help getting amused at quite obvious errors in time frames.
The cover of the N Gauge Journal 6/12 is a case in point, the caption for which reads that the layout pictured "conveys all the bustling atmosphere of a busy seaside town in the early twentieth century".
Its a good layout and the owner should rightly be proud of it, but "early twentieth century" to me means 1900 to at most 1925, first quarter, do we concur? The on view loco and its livery supports this time period, excellent work.
Of course this wording might be due to editorial action in captioning, but either way, for this period:-
1. The clothing styling is completely wrong, esp the total absence of hats.
2. Only one vehicle pictured is remotely from that era, and the most visual "clue" of all on show is a coach not built in that form until post WW2 (Bedford OB, a 1939 design but with a post WW2 Duple body, very unlike early 20th century vehicles in shape)
3. The telephone box, only introduced in limited form in London during 1926 and very unlike the K1 used nationally which was squarer and as much white as red in colour
4. A "Mechanical Horse" dating from at the earliest 1933.
Now, I don't really mind what people do, that is, until they seem on the face of it to claim authenticity! :bounce: :angel: :angel:
Oh Well, got to go and finish my purple Porterbrook Deltic and GWR Autocoach combo for my LMS branch line.................. Happy Christmas All....................:smiley-laughing:
You mean I can't have Stephenson's Rocket hauling
a pair of nuclear flask wagons? :D
Quote from: Agrippa on December 29, 2012, 12:08:40 PM
You mean I can't have Stephenson's Rocket hauling
a pair of nuclear flask wagons? :D
I think you might have to change the coupling on at least one nuclear flask for that to work :smiley-laughing: :smiley-laughing: :smiley-laughing:
cheers John.
Oh dear, it appears you have a bad case of Rivetcounteritis ::)
Quote from: Bad Raven on December 29, 2012, 11:03:24 AM
Of course this wording might be due to editorial action in captioning,
That is what I suspect too, but then maybe they were just trying to convey an overall feeling of the layout rather than specific details?
Either way I'd suggest you get some sense-of-humour therapy as next you'll be pointing out cows the wrong colour for the region/period ;)
Paul
I don't think I'd have spotted most of those "errors" myself, so it probably wouldn't have bothered me! :)
I did see one layout at TINGS however that looked "wrong" for so many reasons that you didn't need to start counting rivets.
At the end of the day we are slightly limited with the scale we're modelling and the availability of period-specific stock and accessories. I think the layout in question does convey the "atmosphere" without being photo-realistic.
Glen
And here was me thinking this thread was going to be about suggesting 'how to' add visual clues :confused1:
I guess it's each to their own as far as detail goes and whether it's correct or not.
Yesterday I ran a Farish class 33 with half a dozen green MK1's on the layout. The loco has had no detailing done and Lord only knows if the carriages were in the 'correct' order but to me it looked great, and that's all I'm interested in. If a visitor had remarked about a sequence of carriage order then (for the sake of decorum on the forum).............they would not be asked back again. There are those in the know who could pick holes in many of our layouts but I'm sorry, as far as I'm concerned, keep schtum and don't take the enjoyment away from the person who built it. I do not go as far as Rule 1, but may unwittingly stray from the true path of reality.
Do I worry? Am I bothered? :no:
As has been said many times before on here............Your layout is your layout and you can run or build what you like.
I apply artistic license to my own Cornish branch line so that I can run slightly out of period locos and stock if I want to.
I tend not to cast such a critical eye when looking at layouts.
To me N Gauge is about the overall look and feel,i can instantly feel if a layout looks right to me without worrying if the smallest details are authentic or not.If we applied this critical thinking to every aspect of our layouts we would never get anything done as the reserch would take up the majority of our time.
That's not to say i don't admire people who make their layouts as authentic as is possible......Copenhagen fields is a fine example,but this has been 25 years in the making.
I think you would find much more enjoyment rather than amusement if you viewed a layout for what it "is" rather than for what it "isn't"................ :NGaugersRule:
Have to agree with the above comment. The enjoyment would be sucked out of the hobby for us mere mortals if it became necessary to be 'absolute' in the drive for authenticity. That's not to say we shouldn't try our best - let's just not get too hung up about it.
Gerry
As they say in "The Crimson Tide" - I concur.
Agree with the comments around "it's your layout" - but it is interesting (or at least I think it is) to have a time period you like to "model". Then do some reading around that time to see what was around at the time.
One source of time-specific info is The Railway magazine. You can pick up bound copies of these magazine from the late 1800's onwards easily on eBay and elsewhere. I am interested in pre-war LMS (mid to late 1930s) and managed to get hold of some bound issues from around that time. It is quite interesting to see what where the issues/problems of the time, pictures and diagrams from the era, etc. I am sure there are a lot of other sources of info too.
Just one aspect of the hobby not everyone will be interested in - but can be part of the fun (it that is something fun for you :-) )
Anyone else have good sources of info for their favourite time period?
kester
Sadly I have seen this discussion get highly fraught on a number of other forums, with some pretty entrenched arguments either way.
Having read the OP's comments, and seen the article in question there are indeed valid points. Why would you go to all the effort in producing a fine copy of a station - with all the pre-requisite research to be able to do so - with accurate locos and stock etc. and then blow the illusion out of the water by plonking a post-war bus in the station yard?
Personally I grown to hate the term rivet counter as it unfairly lumps those who are striving for accuracy with those who will pick up any little trivial detail. Helpful advice and suggestions get rebuffed with accusations of being a rivet counter, which seems odd if a real location is being modelled, or a real point in time... If a layout is advertised or described as being 'accurate', should it not be judged as such? Rhetorical question!
If you see a free-lance station set in no particular area, then pretty much anything goes; but if you are modelling (or perhaps more pertinently exhibiting) an accurate model of Penzance in the 1930s, why would you have a King class loco rostered for regular workings? End of show 'messing around' is time-honoured and always produces something interesting! :D
At this point, I consider what runs around your layout at home is not relevant to this thread...the OP refers to a magazine picture; in other words a public display.
'It's my layout and I'll run what I want' is fine enough, but always comes across to me as being extremely defensive...as does the somewhat cryptic 'rule 1'...as far as I can see, the same thing. Is that because someone really wants to display a model with all sorts (fair enough, they do have their place), or because they can't be bothered?
That attitude can also do some damage to some areas of railway modelling.
For me, I try to be as accurate as possible with my layouts, in terms of stock, general feel and practice. I'm no expert, and will happily talk to anyone who has experiences or knowledge that can help me. What I have found is that many Japanese layouts run to rule 1, (their layout; they can do what they want) combined with the picture book appearance of Japanese landscape (indeed I have read more than one article where the author derides 'rivet counters' for pointing out that bullets can't run on the same track as conventional Japanese train - with over a foot difference in track gauge, they clearly cannot).
Sadly what this means is that many Japanese layouts are not treated seriously (I have been told that enough times!) by exhibition managers, as they are see as nothing more than glorified train sets running whatever the operator likes.
I suppose that's fine, but would it not get extremely boring if all layouts did that, and for me it would be sad if a strive for accuracy and authenticity was shouted down to suit the status quo.
This hobby is indeed for all...the beginners, those that just want to play trains and, yes, those that spend years making the perfect replica of a given location at a given time. There are also a lot that want some degree of a sense of time or place on their models. It seems that so many threads on forums treat the latter with extreme suspicion, which is regrettable as we can all learn from one another.
Quote from: Claude Dreyfus on December 29, 2012, 05:29:02 PM
Personally I grown to hate the term rivet counter as it unfairly lumps those who are striving for accuracy with those who will pick up any little trivial detail.
I think this is the key detail - those striving for accuracy on their OWN layouts are meticulous modellers who should be given credit where it's due; those who strive for accuracy on OTHERS' layouts are the rivet-counters ;)
Nothing wrong with politely asking a layout-owner if a particular detail is period-correct if they have obviously strived for complete accuracy elsewhere, so long as it's not done publicly or with any 'one-upmanship'. Picking holes in someone else's work though is really not on if they don't have the chance to reply.
We are all aware of the lack of availability of certain things in N gauge - 70s/80s/90s British cars, people dressed appropriately for certain eras, etc. and not everyone has the skills or dexterity to create these things either from scratch or what is commercially available. Some leeway is needed in viewing such things I think ;)
Paul
After building several layouts of various nationalities I would say that unless a layout is modelled to represent the time period of 1950 to the present day there is not that much available for a modeller modelling an earlier period.
Its hard enough to find non British Railways steam locomotives for starters and IMO a whole lot harder to find cars and people with hats to suit the early 1900s so I think we should use our imagination a little more when viewing layouts.
There is one word in the dictionary that I think covers most if not all layouts and that word is "Represent", nothing is ever perfect in the world of model railways as things always changed day to day, a layout can represent a place and time but it will never be perfect.
We should enjoy our hobby for what it is and stop nitpicking things that don't really matter, after all no one is perfect.
I'd like to applaud Claude on his fine post :thumbsup:
He is completely correct when he says if something is put out in the public domain it should be an accurate representation as opposed to the home layout which isn't intended for 'public consumption'. I too dislike the term rivet counter and take my hat off to those who either have the knowledge or can spare the time for research to ensure everything is perfect down to the last detail. I strongly suspect the bulk of us are just trying to recreate a model of what we can remember (certainly the case in my own efforts) and memories can be somewhat inaccurate, especially as I am going back some 45 years. IMHO, if it looks right it is right (and, yes, I do some research where possible) but public or private I wouldn't dream of pointing out inaccuracies unless specifically asked the question "Do you see anything wrong with what I have done?"
It's also a fair point the perpetrator is not here to defend themselves (or are they? :uneasy:)
Thanks also to everyone who has responded in such a great spirit. I believe that's what makes this forum what it is :claphappy:
I hope this is the final comment, but not betting on it , to modellers building
to exacting standards your work will be applauded, to others
like myself who make compromises enjoy your layouts , if you run
trains which may be slightly out of time with other features on the
layout it's not a major point, so enjoy.
We don' t want WW3 breaking out here, in the end it's
only rock'n roll.
And best wishes to all members and moderators for 2013.
I have some sympathy with the O/P. There does seem to be a 'blind spot' with many modellers to life outside the railway boundary... They strive for accuracy in their rolling stock - e.g. would never run Big 4 liveried coaches behind a BR Blue diesel loco, but over the fence it seems ther are less bothered about out of period, out of region (and on occasions out or scale!) items.
Road vehicles do seem a particular failing especially the use of Oxford Diecast buses. Another example I recently saw was a London Transport Routmaster (1950s design) showing destination 'Marble Arch' parked in the station forecourt, next to a Ford Anglia (1960s) on a layout supposedly set in the Welsh valleys in the 1930s. All the railway stock, much of it kit built, was bang on for the period and location - a great deal of effort had been put into getting that part right so why not put similar thought into the rest of the layout rather than it seeming a cobbled together afterthought.
PLD , I liked your posting re the (relatively) modern road vehicles
appearing on a 1930s layout , especially the London destination
on the bus !
Like an episode of Dr Who, public transport time travel!
I think the main points arising are that there are highly
skilled modellers who will achieve great authenticity and
accuracy , especially in layouts for exhibition and display,
and others who will compromise slightly, eg running big 4
liveried coaches with early BR locos which may have
occurred as all of the rolling stock could not have been
repainted overnight on nationalisation, though obvious
ludicrously anachronistic scenes should be avoided.
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are"
Anais Nin
"The past is a foreign country"
L.P.Hartley
"Anyone fancy a pint?"
ME.
Quote from: weave on December 30, 2012, 12:58:58 PM
"Anyone fancy a pint?"
ME.
:laughabovepost: :laughabovepost:
Get 'em in, Weave :pint:
Cheers :beers: