Three mantras to stunt your modeling growth!

[Bergie]

i just came back into this hobby after 30 yrs. i was so anxious about getting back in the hobby that i went out and bought modern diesels and rolling stock from various aras and i built myself a 6'X10" layout with code 83 track and atlas switch machines. ihave since taken down that layout and starting a 11'x9' layout and flex track and using tourtoise swith machine and minimum 24' radius,i also run a 4-8-2 berk just for excursions and i am still going to use diesels with rolling stock from different eras. i can,t count rivets because i don,t know what to count,maybe that will change in the future. i enjoy building the layout,doing the electronic part of it,also enjoy building kits,weathering etc. what i dont like is the labels rivet counter,newbie,etc

Welcome back, John.

The rest of you, are you finished insulting one another. Say it with me:  HOBBY

Let's move on.

Bergie

[jesrr]

i just came back into this hobby after 30 yrs. i was so anxious about getting back in the hobby that i went out and bought modern diesels and rolling stock from various aras and i built myself a 6'X10" layout with code 83 track and atlas switch machines. ihave since taken down that layout and starting a 11'x9' layout and flex track and using tourtoise swith machine and minimum 24' radius,i also run a 4-8-2 berk just for excursions and i am still going to use diesels with rolling stock from different eras. i can,t count rivets because i don,t know what to count,maybe that will change in the future. i enjoy building the layout,doing the electronic part of it,also enjoy building kits,weathering etc. what i dont like is the labels rivet counter,newbie,etc

[John Busby]

My Karma ran over your Dogma....

The following is from a longtime freelancer who think youz proto guys are missing the very point of freelancing....

1.  "It's my layout, I'll run what I want."

But it is MY layout, not yours, not MRs, not the guy behind the counter at the LHS. MINE...and therefore its MY decision to choose what I want to add. In my case its large scale narrow gauge thats a mix of several narrow gauge tram lines. I build or kitbash all of my engines and as such I have to opportunity to model a vast array of subjects from plantaion lines logging lines, industrial and mining tram lines. If I see a cool subject for modeling, like a railbus pic I saw from a long gone Alaskan RR, I just build it, add my own decals and it becomes part of my roster. For me the whole idea of restricting myself to ONLY one RR, ONLY one set specific roster of allowable engines and stock I'd get so bored I'd bail on the hobby.

2.  "Rivet counting is bad!"

It is when the riveteer insists on telling you why everything you are doing is an insult to his POV on the hobby, and I'm not talking about merely using a 4-4-0 to pull a streamliner car...I'm talking about the guy that gets upset becuase your brake cylinders look out of proportion to the prototype or are not quite in the correct place. Insistance on belevability is one thing but when that insistance borders on obsession it is bad. I've learned to laugh at these guys now, I just say "Move along small change" When I build, my goal is to build a belevable model, not a 100% accurate to the last nut model, why? highy accurate and hightly detailed models break highly easily and are often highly unreliable due to highy finicky drivetrains. So I build robust models with a good degree of detail but not to where they are so delicate that you need to handle it like a Fabrege egg.

3.  "Modeler's License"

This is the Freelancers rallying cry. As I stated above, this gives me the opportunity to model a wide spectrum of stock, structures and details. I kitbash, ALOT! Like Rumplestiltskin I like spinning straw into gold, namely using a wide range of parts and just "have at it"! The end results are unique, yet beleivable within the narrow gauge realm, theres a prototype for everything is the freelancers creed, everything I've modeled has been based on something I've seen in either person or in old pics. The resulting models are similar, but not exact, to the proto, this is done for either limits due to construction or material constraints, or designers choice. No one has so far said, "thats just plain unnatural!" but I'm working hard on that...

Here are some examples of my work, are they believable? are they reasonably accurate? yet all are freelanced, based on some old photo or other source, except one.

Now if for what ever reason someone does NOT like these, then too bad! and dont worry about it as none of them are on your layout now, are they....hehehhe

PS I have tried proto in the past.....yawn! (for me)

Hi Vic

Stop showing off

A lot will not like your work because they don't understand what a bush tramway is and the weird stuff that runs on some of them

Also a lot of small scalers have trouble with the supposed lack of detail they see because where you correctly have three or four rivets they expect incorrectly at least a dozen.

They are not used to the large detail empty spaces that should be there on the size of trains you build and that they have to stand up to the great outdoors.

regards John

Ps the little steam tram isn't believable  the boiler stick-es over the end of the frame and beyond the skirt.

Having said that I will now be proved wrong

 

[Dave Vollmer]

Hmm...  John...   If I'm reading your post properly (dfficult without punctuation), I'm wondering, did you read the part where I said modeler's liscense is not bad and that I use it too?  My point is that it sometimes becomes a crutch.

As for massive railway room...  My layout (minus the 3-track ataging yard) measures just 36 inches by 80 inches.  No one is saying that it needs to be a foot-by-foot representation.

A subcategory of modeler's license is known as "selective compression."  That's where you shrink something down to a manageable size but maintain proportions and recongnizeable features.  That's essentially what we do with the entire railroad.  This  is GOOD.  No where do I say it's not.

The trouble is that some people a) don't read the entire point because they fixate on a particularly contentious word and b) they don't wish to have their thought process challenged.

Have I told anyone what they have to do in their train room?  No.  Have I maybe stirred up sme thought process about our comfort zones and dogmas?  I hope so.

Enjoy!

 

[John Busby]

Hi guys

1 its my railway I'll run what I want to

No one has the right to question what I run on my railway at home if I want to run the Hogwarts Express I will "you know where the door is if you don't like it" well at least the train is a real one

2 Advanced modellers are good and should be praised for their models and the assistance to others.

Rivet counters on the other hand is a term of insult reserved for people who deserve it IE those who criticize others but cannot produce a model of their own when asked basically those who are a blight on the hobby.

Its no wonder advanced modeler's rightly feel insulted at being called rivet counters.

3 modelers licence without it we might as well all go back to toy trains who here has room to build a reasonably accurate model of their favorite major city terminal with all its facilities answer none how about a simple branch line  answer again none what about your local station answer again probably none.

my local station has a platform 1 mile long with two bay platforms one now out of use for mail one used for the train that terminates in my town also used to have a car (auto) loading facility so that passengers cars could be loaded on the train and travel to the destination on the same train.

It also has a a small loco depot and used to have a carriage shed as well freight facilities are about two or three miles away from the passenger station.

All of that will not fit in the average model railway available space I don't want to hear about your massive railway room because the likely hood is to fit your railway as it stands in the space you used modelers licence to build it.

generic layout sorry there is no such thing each layout is an individual creation of its owner that reflects what gives the owner pleasure 

If the owner wants help no question he will ask for it, and its up to us to point him or her in the direction of the answer wanted which is whether we like it or not going to be biased by our own thoughts on the subject.

that's a $4 answer I had to think about it

I always try to do better

Its just not all are blessed with the genius that some think is necessary to build a model railroad and everything else just isn't one that's the type of elitist thought that gets me steaming at the ears.

regards John

 

[jktrains]

My comments in red

Care to explain your comment, or just being sarcastic? or trolling for a fight? I've never been one to shy away from critisism so I'm calling you on the carpet.

I'd just like you to justfy your comment instead of just blerting out such a rude statement,

If you're going to build freelance locos that are credible, you need to have a good understanding of locomotive design practice. For freelanced locomotives to be believable, they can't have design or enginering features that would be impossible in reality. Some of your models do, so I regard them as unbelievable.

OK I can accept that. I have an outstanding understanding of locomotive construction. But you need to understand that in order to build reliable, funtional, model locomotives some concessions often need to be made. I'll explain on the later comments...

care to show your models of "railroad perfection" and I'm sure I could shoot a few holes in them too...

Maybe - depends on how much you know about my prototype. My Fotopic pages linked below have some model photos on them. I'll save you the trouble of commenting on the unfinished overhead wiring on the Japanese layout, and mention it myself.

I will check them out.

So I'll ask...What is wrong with them, care to point out which ones are not beleivable and why?

Loco, #3, is it meant to be a Heisler? If so, it's unbelievable for two reasons, there's no rods coupling the wheels, and the cylinders would project into the firebox and/or ashpan. The "ShayKirk" has three cylindrical objects under the ashpan. What are they meant to be? What drives it? If it's meant to be a Dunkirk it would have V-cylinders visible near the cab And the loco you called "Whadahellizit" - are you seriously claiming it's believable?

OK, the Heisler, 1st off it was never ment to be a exact scale model. It was made to give me something to use an old Bachmann 2-4-2 lokie that had stripped gears. So I rebuilt it using a Bachmann Flatcar, 2 aristo dismal bricks w/ added sideframes. I intentionally left off the geared bits simply because their was no real way to do all the connected bits with the given drive bricks, its a trade off in which I get a very reliable running loco and none of the drive kink problems I have seen in other models that did attempt to replicate to driveshafts, one day I would like to add all the drive bits, the underside "box" is removable for the day when I can add a small can motor and the spinny bits.

The Shaykirk is just what it looks like...a Shay with the cylinders mounted undernieth. Beleive it or not their IS a prototype for this arraingment, Baldwin built a one-off loco that can be seen on the "geared steam locomotive works" website. But THIS model is actually based on a freelanced On30 model I saw in an issue of "Light Iron Digest" from last year. So its a large scale model of an On30 model of a freelanced logging loco.

As for the Whatdahellizit? You'll need to study more mining trams to see where I was drawing inspiration from, this was drawn from a 600mm guage Germie tram lokie with a completely enclosed framework. I just "Americanized" it.

So...smart guy, explain to me, how does my Climax not look like a Climax, do you even KNOW which one is the Climax is?

Yes, I know which two models you posted are meant to be Climaxes. One is a typical modeller's license version, the other appears to be based on the MDC/Roundhouse HO model - which also relies on modeller's license. But the Climaxes weren't the models that I was commenting on.

Correct on both counts, one is freelanced, the other is a large scale model of an NKP HO Model, why the MDC? I dunno I just liked the way it looked.

If I had a million bucks and a milling machine I could make them all 100% accurate right down to the spinny bits and flying pushrods and all that, But I'm poor, very POOR! So I make do...

...so that means my only powertool is a cheap dremel tool and a powerdrill, so I make do, and make what to me, and to others I know, beleivable models of such locomotives. Not perfect, but beleivable. Also understand that on another website , my main goal doing models like this is to show that kitbashing reasonable looking models is not this mindblowingly complex process but can be done often with a great deal of fun. FUN is my main goal.

Now if you had just stated " I just find some of them unbeleivable" in the first place, I would  had brushed it off and we wouldnt had had to go thru all this drama, but as it is, I can completely accept that you may have "issues" with my models, thats fine...I sometimes have issues with them also. But at least we understand where the other is coming from. Sorry for any rough language.

PS Thanks about the Price, I think your the 3 guy whos ever recognized what is was!

PS PS, I'm thinking of adding a Johnson 16wheeler too...

Later Vic

OK put away the popcorn machine guys

I've been following this thread, especially the three-way between vsmith, marknewton, and Mark Brunton.  With all the back and forth that's been going about the initial comment that marknewton made about things being "believeable", while I don't want to insert myself into the middle of this, it would seem based on marknewton's last post that some apologies are in order.  People have ca

[cpeterson]

Wow, I can't believe I went out of town for five days and missed this.  Interesting discussion, but I can't help be lean more towards the view expressed above about the two ends of the spectrum and a large degree of variation inbetween.

[wm3798]

I was a communications major back in the day, and one of the things that I learned is that no matter how good you are (or think you are) there are people that just won't be persuaded.  The trick is to listen to their criticism, learn what you can from it, and disregard the rest.  If they want to be purely contrarian and argue for the sake of argument (which seems to be happening here), you politely nod, pretend you're listening, then dismiss everything they say.

They're never going to listen to you, so why extend the same courtesy to them...

Lee 

[Anonymous]

I don't ask for opinion and don't care to recieve it. 

Doesn't that tend to limit conversation among visiting friends who are also model railroders?

Nope.

[chaya]

It's a little odd, but near the same time you were beginning this thread, Dave, I was discussing the same thing with a friend.  I was saying that although I had begun in this hobby with a sense of real enjoyment--creative sparks flying, so to speak--I found over the years that I became more and more hesitant to do anything.  Why?  Because I was hearing so much from people who insisted that their way, and their way alone--whether operations, trains, controllers, scenery, or benchwork--was correct.  As I was saying to my friend, ALL modeling is unprototypical.  No matter which approach is taken, prototypical points are made and others are sacrificed.  It is a matter of each modeler deciding for himself what works best to convey the feeling of a "real" railroad.  Many hoary old experienced modelers, however, seem unable to achieve the sort of objectivity that allows them to see that only ten years ago they were saying that theirs was THE "prototypical" way to do things--and that today their favorite way to do things looks silly.  What I am trying to say is that prototypical-ness (prototypicality?) is 1) in the eye of the beholder, and 2) seems to depend on fads.  

The point I was making to my friend was that I am really enjoying this forum because there are a lot of people on it who insist that whatever people want to do is okay.  That's really freeing for me.  My planned railroad will be both prototypical and fictional, and I'm truly looking forward to telling visitors the interesting story behind how a long-vanished railroad changed ownership and made a now-defunct line successful, and why another railroad made a better business decision in this little world than it did in real life.  One line will be built where the defunct line had actually begun to build but failed to finish it, and a new industry will be based on the actual geology of the area, for example.  My layout will be describing the real world--with a twist in the story line.

If you think about it, every railroad, no matter how prototypical, requires some explanation.  Why?  Because somehow we manage to cram them inside little rooms.   

At the same time I was making these points to my friend, you were making the point that you were feeling criticized for wanting your trains to be prototypical.  My reaction was one of horror, actually.  Why would someone want to do that?  Each modeler who works on resurrecting a prototype--and shares what he has learned--is preserving railroad history for all the rest of us.  Prototype modelers provide the industry stimulus that gives us a huge variety of satisfyingly detailed and correct models to choose from. You go, Dave!  (By the way, I saw and admired your engine photos.  What an accomplishment!) 

I think the the lesson here is that we all need to be less critical of others, whether it's because they like research and history more than we do or because they seem like they're just playing with trains.  Each and every one of us has something to contribute.   

 

 

 

 

[BRAKIE]

There's a phrase I like, which I learned only a year ago, and that I like really well, and thats"the willfull suspension of disbelief". Weather the modelling is believable or not isn't really the question in my book. Its wether its good enough to make us believe that its realistic. An example would be like the current run of fantasy movies, No one that I know of today can play a sort of lacrosse while riding a flying broom ,however when sitting in a darkened room watching a large screen TV we sure believe they can. In my opinion Smith's locos are believable because , one, I don't know that much about steam locos and ,two, its dark in the computer room.

 

IMHO if we can't please ourselves with our modeling then it doesn't matter how good others may think it is.You see we all model in our own style to suit  our taste but,here lays the rub..To  many modelers get hung up on what others may think or believe Joe's and Mary's models is superior to theirs and they go into what I call the "competition mode" to the point where its consumes them and many become burnt out or think their modeling isn't good enough while forgetting the harshest judge of their modeling skills are their selves.

All to sadly I fell into that trap and forgot who it was I really had to please.Since I been retired I ALMOST slid back into that trap after detailing a Athearn SW1500 that I entered in a local contest to see how good my left handed modeling really was..I finish 17th out of  96..Not bad seeing I am a right hander..

[reklein]

There's a phrase I like, which I learned only a year ago, and that I like really well, and thats"the willfull suspension of disbelief". Weather the modelling is believable or not isn't really the question in my book. Its wether its good enough to make us believe that its realistic. An example would be like the current run of fantasy movies, No one that I know of today can play a sort of lacrosse while riding a flying broom ,however when sitting in a darkened room watching a large screen TV we sure believe they can. In my opinion Smith's locos are believable because , one, I don't know that much about steam locos and ,two, its dark in the computer room.

[Dave Vollmer]

I failed myself because it is not, nor has it ever been, my attempt to solicate praise or criticism from the members of the club, or viewers of my layout.  Quite simply priase or criticism of the layout means little because it's not important.  If the were important than I might listen or preen, but since I refuse to get worked up or down over a past-time that is meant to reduce stress and provide family time, why would the critics be important?

I don't ask for opinion and don't care to recieve it.  Where I trying to make money or sell my layout then I might care, but as most model railroads are for personal ENJOYMENT why should it matter at all what other people think?  I realize that we all have egos that need to be stroked, mine too, but my layout is not connected with that aspect of my ego.

Now I've had former Pennsy employees view my layout at shows and provide both praise and criticism.  I've used the latter to improve the layout and make it more in line with what the real railroad did.  Of course, that's within the confines of a hollow-core door, but...

It helps to know what works and what doesn't.

[Midnight Railroader]

I don't ask for opinion and don't care to recieve it. 

Doesn't that tend to limit conversation among visiting friends who are also model railroders?

[Anonymous]

Quite honestly I hope I never have the esteem of my peers, because that means that I have failed...myself. 

So you like it when people come over and say they don't like your layout? You'd be unhappy if they thought you did a good job of building a model railroad? That's...unusual.

 

I failed myself because it is not, nor has it ever been, my attempt to solicate praise or criticism from the members of the club, or viewers of my layout.  Quite simply priase or criticism of the layout means little because it's not important.  If the were important than I might listen or preen, but since I refuse to get worked up or down over a past-time that is meant to reduce stress and provide family time, why would the critics be important?

I don't ask for opinion and don't care to recieve it.  Where I trying to make money or sell my layout then I might care, but as most model railroads are for personal ENJOYMENT why should it matter at all what other people think?  I realize that we all have egos that need to be stroked, mine too, but my layout is not connected with that aspect of my ego.

[Midnight Railroader]

Your reply was a rant. I'm amazed that you can regard a succinct, one word answer - "no" - as being rude and bombastic. I'd regard that as being a bit precious. And yes, I was making a point. I thought some of VSmith's model weren't believable.

I cinsidered various replies, but I'm not going to dignify your sour blatherings with further discussion. Go away, troll, I'm done with you. Or maybe try something new - add some value to the discussion, instead of just trying to cause problems.

You're asking too much, there.

[Midnight Railroader]

Quite honestly I hope I never have the esteem of my peers, because that means that I have failed...myself. 

So you like it when people come over and say they don't like your layout? You'd be unhappy if they thought you did a good job of building a model railroad? That's...unusual.

[snagletooth]

Snagle, I just checked back in to see if dave posted anything further on his ideas on theme, but i think i need a translation of what you just said.

Ah so!!!  Pennsy fans...bad.  So then, there is an endemic problem with Pennsy fans!  This IS news to me!   I must avoid them. I don't want unfortunate with them.

Jus kiddin'  

Dave, you should post a thread on the theme issue.  It's an interesting, fundamental idea, and one that doesn't get a lot of play on the forum.

Have a nice night, all.

 

Yes, avoid them at all cost! Always, ALWAYS, carry an Amtrak GG1 with you to fight them off. They are evil! EVIL! EVIL!

[shawnee]

Snagle, I just checked back in to see if dave posted anything further on his ideas on theme, but i think i need a translation of what you just said.

Ah so!!!  Pennsy fans...bad.  So then, there is an endemic problem with Pennsy fans!  This IS news to me!   I must avoid them. I don't want unfortunate with them.

Jus kiddin'  

Dave, you should post a thread on the theme issue.  It's an interesting, fundamental idea, and one that doesn't get a lot of play on the forum.

Have a nice night, all.

 

[snagletooth]

 Vollmer, I respect you for unleashing( for what is obviously)  this can of worms( to which, like I said In MY modeling I agree, but not to enforce it on others, which, we obviously diagree) Tomato, tamato. Thid i not agree this was gonna be a mess. I've had MANY unfortunate with Pennsy fans. Like I said, our opinions are based on peronall expeirince. I have many BAD ones with them. I hope youre not all like that, but in my expeience, it keeps going on and on and on and on. my experience says you'all are WAY over the top. If my time is wrong I'm sorry, but, you know. I hope. They are out there, and you've stated they are! You gotta know the "foamers" i've meet, eh?

[vsmith]

My comments in red

Care to explain your comment, or just being sarcastic? or trolling for a fight? I've never been one to shy away from critisism so I'm calling you on the carpet.

I'd just like you to justfy your comment instead of just blerting out such a rude statement,

If you're going to build freelance locos that are credible, you need to have a good understanding of locomotive design practice. For freelanced locomotives to be believable, they can't have design or enginering features that would be impossible in reality. Some of your models do, so I regard them as unbelievable.

OK I can accept that. I have an outstanding understanding of locomotive construction. But you need to understand that in order to build reliable, funtional, model locomotives some concessions often need to be made. I'll explain on the later comments...

care to show your models of "railroad perfection" and I'm sure I could shoot a few holes in them too...

Maybe - depends on how much you know about my prototype. My Fotopic pages linked below have some model photos on them. I'll save you the trouble of commenting on the unfinished overhead wiring on the Japanese layout, and mention it myself.

I will check them out.

So I'll ask...What is wrong with them, care to point out which ones are not beleivable and why?

Loco, #3, is it meant to be a Heisler? If so, it's unbelievable for two reasons, there's no rods coupling the wheels, and the cylinders would project into the firebox and/or ashpan. The "ShayKirk" has three cylindrical objects under the ashpan. What are they meant to be? What drives it? If it's meant to be a Dunkirk it would have V-cylinders visible near the cab And the loco you called "Whadahellizit" - are you seriously claiming it's believable?

OK, the Heisler, 1st off it was never ment to be a exact scale model. It was made to give me something to use an old Bachmann 2-4-2 lokie that had stripped gears. So I rebuilt it using a Bachmann Flatcar, 2 aristo dismal bricks w/ added sideframes. I intentionally left off the geared bits simply because their was no real way to do all the connected bits with the given drive bricks, its a trade off in which I get a very reliable running loco and none of the drive kink problems I have seen in other models that did attempt to replicate to driveshafts, one day I would like to add all the drive bits, the underside "box" is removable for the day when I can add a small can motor and the spinny bits.

The Shaykirk is just what it looks like...a Shay with the cylinders mounted undernieth. Beleive it or not their IS a prototype for this arraingment, Baldwin built a one-off loco that can be seen on the "geared steam locomotive works" website. But THIS model is actually based on a freelanced On30 model I saw in an issue of "Light Iron Digest" from last year. So its a large scale model of an On30 model of a freelanced logging loco.

As for the Whatdahellizit? You'll need to study more mining trams to see where I was drawing inspiration from, this was drawn from a 600mm guage Germie tram lokie with a completely enclosed framework. I just "Americanized" it.

So...smart guy, explain to me, how does my Climax not look like a Climax, do you even KNOW which one is the Climax is?

Yes, I know which two models you posted are meant to be Climaxes. One is a typical modeller's license version, the other appears to be based on the MDC/Roundhouse HO model - which also relies on modeller's license. But the Climaxes weren't the models that I was commenting on.

Correct on both counts, one is freelanced, the other is a large scale model of an NKP HO Model, why the MDC? I dunno I just liked the way it looked.

If I had a million bucks and a milling machine I could make them all 100% accurate right down to the spinny bits and flying pushrods and all that, But I'm poor, very POOR! So I make do...

...so that means my only powertool is a cheap dremel tool and a powerdrill, so I make do, and make what to me, and to others I know, beleivable models of such locomotives. Not perfect, but beleivable. Also understand that on another website , my main goal doing models like this is to show that kitbashing reasonable looking models is not this mindblowingly complex process but can be done often with a great deal of fun. FUN is my main goal.

Now if you had just stated " I just find some of them unbeleivable" in the first place, I would  had brushed it off and we wouldnt had had to go thru all this drama, but as it is, I can completely accept that you may have "issues" with my models, thats fine...I sometimes have issues with them also. But at least we understand where the other is coming from. Sorry for any rough language.

PS Thanks about the Price, I think your the 3 guy whos ever recognized what is was!

PS PS, I'm thinking of adding a Johnson 16wheeler too...

Later Vic

OK put away the popcorn machine guys

[selector]

Hey, Dave!!   See you in the next thread, Bud.  It's been a slice!!

[Pruitt]

Your reply was a rant. I'm amazed that you can regard a succinct, one word answer - "no" - as being rude and bombastic. I'd regard that as being a bit precious. And yes, I was making a point. I thought some of VSmith's model weren't believable.

I cinsidered various replies, but I'm not going to dignify your sour blatherings with further discussion. Go away, troll, I'm done with you. Or maybe try something new - add some value to the discussion, instead of just trying to cause problems.

[marknewton]

I'm not trying to lock the thread, I just dont like blanket criticism without justification.

If its just a simple "I dont like your Models" that fine with me and he should just say that and be done with it. I wont be offended.

But I dont like someone saying something negative and not then backing it up with justifiable reasons.

Personally I'm betting he cant tell the M.A.C. from the Tin Lizzy

You'd lose that bet, then. And I must have missed the bit where I wrote that I don't like your models... I quite like the A.G. Price bush tramway engine. I just don't think some of your models are very believable, because they wouldn't work in reality.

[marknewton]

Care to explain your comment, or just being sarcastic? or trolling for a fight? I've never been one to shy away from critisism so I'm calling you on the carpet.

I'd just like you to justfy your comment instead of just blerting out such a rude statement,

If you're going to build freelance locos that are credible, you need to have a good understanding of locomotive design practice. For freelanced locomotives to be believable, they can't have design or enginering features that would be impossible in reality. Some of your models do, so I regard them as unbelievable.

care to show your models of "railroad perfection" and I'm sure I could shoot a few holes in them too...

Maybe - depends on how much you know about my prototype. My Fotopic pages linked below have some model photos on them. I'll save you the trouble of commenting on the unfinished overhead wiring on the Japanese layout, and mention it myself.

So I'll ask...What is wrong with them, care to point out which ones are not beleivable and why?

Loco, #3, is it meant to be a Heisler? If so, it's unbelievable for two reasons, there's no rods coupling the wheels, and the cylinders would project into the firebox and/or ashpan. The "ShayKirk" has three cylindrical objects under the ashpan. What are they meant to be? What drives it? If it's meant to be a Dunkirk it would have V-cylinders visible near the cab And the loco you called "Whadahellizit" - are you seriously claiming it's believable?

So...smart guy, explain to me, how does my Climax not look like a Climax, do you even KNOW which one is the Climax is?

Yes, I know which two models you posted are meant to be Climaxes. One is a typical modeller's license version, the other appears to be based on the MDC/Roundhouse HO model - which also relies on modeller's license. But the Climaxes weren't the models that I was commenting on.

[Pruitt]

Ya know, Dave, I like your idea of starting a thread about theme. That, like this thread, should generate interesting discussion. Or mayvbe we could morph this thread into that discussion... go for it. You first, please - you express things very well, and come up with points I for one would probably never think about.

SO?

I don't know...  I've probably stepped on a few too many egos already!

Besides, I don't really want to come off as high-handed as I seem to have here.

I didn't see any high-handedness (even though it may have seemed like it). Except for one particulary discourteous lout, the discussion has been lively but pretty civil. Very enjoyable. And since my layout has a very definite theme, I'm interested in what you have say.

[Dave Vollmer]

Ya know, Dave, I like your idea of starting a thread about theme. That, like this thread, should generate interesting discussion. Or mayvbe we could morph this thread into that discussion... go for it. You first, please - you express things very well, and come up with points I for one would probably never think about.

SO?

I don't know...  I've probably stepped on a few too many egos already!

Besides, I don't really want to come off as high-handed as I seem to have here.

[marknewton]

Actually, from reading some of your past posts and conversing with you in some cases, I can easily understand that from your point of view vsmith's locos are not realistic.

Now, now, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say vsmith's locos are not realistic, I said they weren't believable. Not the same thing at all.

[marknewton]

Rant? What rant? Your post was bombastic and rude. I thought you did it intentionally to make a point, and I was just explaining how I saw it. But perhaps you were not making a point, and were just being rude and bombastic for no good reason.

Your reply was a rant. I'm amazed that you can regard a succinct, one word answer - "no" - as being rude and bombastic. I'd regard that as being a bit precious. And yes, I was making a point. I thought some of VSmith's model weren't believable.