Large Scale Central

A bit of background on expertise

General Discussion
#1

Hi all, Once upon a time there were plenty of people who would contradict any statement I made regarding LGB and the “G” ummi factor, by saying they were only “toys”. My comeback on that was (and is) that LGB states that theirs are models and the scale is supposedly 1:22.5 It was a merry tug-o-war until one day I decided that there was no winning, might as well solve that problem with some straight forward figures like this:

Hard to dispute any statement like that unless you find an error in the math or the measuring method - so far no complaints/reports on either count. In a way it’s just too bad that some don’t do the research were research would be in order, but still proclaim loud and clear …, until such time when they profess to have no interest in the matter. But that’s OK! I guess I’ve done research on the proto and the models for long enough to keep on doing what I like doing: set the record straight when the BS gets too thick! PS Do I know everything? Not by a far stretch! But I’m perfectly willing to keep on learning every single day for the rest of my life!

#2

Vote “Who cares?” on proposition one. Do you post just to hear yourself blather?

#3
Mik said:
Vote "Who cares?" on proposition one. Do you post just to hear yourself blather?
No, quite often I post to make it perfectly clear that when it comes to model trains I make a clear distinction between models and toys. But I don't object to anyone having lots of fun with their toys. It's just that I prefer models.

Have fun with your toys! :wink: :slight_smile:

PS On other occasions I attempt to explain certain manufacturing methods and the consequences in the materials we use in LS modeling. Of course that is strictly for those who care and understand what is involved. Those who don’t give a fig can just ignore those post.
BTW the same goes for how certain things work on the Internet, from posting pictures to what happens with incorrect URLs and such matters as Error codes. It’s all completely optional to read or not to read. :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

#4

Can I let you in on a little secret? With the exception of one off handbuilt items and coal fired live steam, they are ALL toys. You “serious railroaders” just approach playing with them differently than others do.

#5
Mik said:
Can I let you in on a little secret? With the exception of one off handbuilt items and coal fired live steam, they are ALL toys. You "serious railroaders" just approach playing with them differently than others do.
Mik,

It’s all in the eye of the beholder, but interestingly when the serious modelers refer to the TOYS as TOYS then the toy fraternity gets upset.
See, I don’t get excited about which toys you guys play with, but I like to point out that there’s a difference between models and TOYS. If that is readily understood doesn’t excite me either, after all if necessary one can always refer someone to one Wiki or the other, or even a technical book if necessary. :wink: :slight_smile:

On that playing bit, one of my ex-inlaws was a serious gamer back in the early seventies, chess, backgammon, strategic games you name he was crazy about it. Couldn’t get his head around the “operating” aspect of model railroading. That has to be child’s play.

Well, he sure acquired a bit of appreciation and respect after he had the joy of running a wayfreight from one end to the other of the layout.

His comment:“I had no idea”
Me: “Don’t worry, you’re in good company! Most people get the surprise of their life!”
Little has changed, but that’s not a surprise! :wink:

#6

:confused: Hmmmmm…model. One says “if it isn’t coal fired it isn’t a model”…and the other says he makes a clear distinction between toys and models, and serious modelers and those who play with toys…I’m bewildered~!

Among the residents of this close knit community resides at least one person who builds rather odd contraptions that have never been seen by the eyes of another human…and I’ve never seen a serious bone in his body. He also plays with them in his back yard…:confused: And there are others who have their own forum elsewhere that also build whimsical contraptions…

I guess they are all just eccentric toy manufacturers!

#7

But … Warren,

That will break open the whole “model”, “scale”, “gauge” debate again and … it is so simple. Really!

It is like any other equation and the basics can be found in the Scales section of the LSC Everything Wikipedia. But I shall add the definition of “Model” - the one I learned very, very many years ago in school - to the basics section.

How did I learn that model bit first? It was in Grade 4 when we were very busy cutting contoured pieces according to the 2D map of a certain section of landscape. Each of those pieces had a certain thickness in order to represent the 50m height distance on that contour map. That was “Accurate Modeling 101” in Grade 4.

Of course representations of the vertical are quite often exaggerated on 2D profiles in order to make the vertical more distinct. OTOH if a 3D model is to a certain scale then all 3 planes have the same scale.

PS Just added a (my) definition of “Model” to the LSC Wiki. To be adjusted (edited) as required. :wink:

#8

Then, by YOUR definition of “model” everything that Chris Walas or Vic Smith has made cannot be called models. Many of the creations by “model makers” at film studios etc are therefore not models. By the English that I have learned, what you describe is a “scale miniature replica”. That’s a whole different ball game. In my opinion you are trying to fit the world into your own tiny box. The world is bigger than that, and the definition of “model” as applies to this hobby…and most others, is far too big to be placed in a box. Creators of whimsical/fantasy models are as much modelers as the person that creates the museum piece…as well as all in between.

How would I classify the LGB Amfleet car. It definitely isn’t a scale miniature replica of an Amfleet car, but I would still say it’s a model…but more of a caricature… And that’s ok as long as everyone knows what they are getting. If LGB were trying to pass it off as a scale miniature I would have a problem with their pitch, but they don’t.

Most hobbyists are trying to create an illusion when they build their models. To achieve that goal is sufficient to classify them as modelers. Even if they are shake the box type modelers, the whole of the layout becomes the model when the illusion is achieve. They are as much modelers as the hobbyist that creates the museum quality shelf queen. The goal of their illusion is accomplished. Therefore hobbyists like Vic Smith, Chris Walas and Bob Baxter are as much modelers as Dave Fletcher and the other “master modelers”…and the rest of us fit in there too. :slight_smile:

#9

Warren,

You can add to or edit anything in a Wiki, you just have to be prepared for the follow up corrections.

My definition is exactly that MY DEFINITION. If you want to look up the professional definitions you can go to the BIG Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_model or any of the umpteen dictionaries.

For instance:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language said:
model (mòd´l) noun 1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved.


The box may be small, but that’s often the case when you condense something down to the basic definition.

BTW in the technical sense the definitions get even tighter, but I didn’t want to get that technical.

While we’re on the subject the definition for caricature is:

caricature (kà r´î-ke-ch¢r´, -cher) noun

  1. a. A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject’s distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect. b. The art of creating such representations.
  2. A grotesque imitation or misrepresentation: The trial was a caricature of justice.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved.

Need I say more??? :wink: :slight_smile: :smiley:

PS Since you cite Vic Smith and Chris Walas as examples: Unless what they built is a model of an original fullsize master; no they are not models, they are originals . As in:

original

original (e-rîj´e-nel) adjective
Abbr. orig.

  1. Preceding all others in time; first.
  2. a. Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual: an original play, not an adaptation. b. Showing a marked departure from previous practice; new: a truly original approach. See synonyms at new.
  3. Productive of new things or new ideas; inventive: an original mind.
  4. Being the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved

I find that in model railway parlance “scale” and “gauge” are not the only terms that are mixed up, there are a number of other things that find equally “loose” interpretation.

#10

I think the key word here is “hobby”. We are not a design, scientific or historical organization. As such the hobby field as a whole holds a broader definition of “model” than would these other organizations. The definition of a “model train” is different for hobbyists than that held by a historical society or museum. Yes, we all have our own standards that our models should meet, but to say that a model that doesn’t meet your standards, even though it meets the standards of the creator isn’t a model is an insult to that person and his creative talents.

I might also add that you can take the most accurate and historically correct model you’ve created and place it on some track, run it and if you get pleasure from it then it’s a toy. Model railroading is a recreational hobby to be enjoyed and to bring relaxation to those who participate in the hobby. The truth is that we are ALL playing with toys. Some of us get them out of a box, others create their own toys and many of us just modify what we can buy to make us happier. The necessary components of a hobby model have nothing to do with scale fidelity but should incorporate fun, relaxation, pleasure and happiness. If the model does that, then it’s the best model in the world.

The difference between a boy and a man is the price of his toys…:smiley: :wink:

#11

MODEL, EXAMPLE, PATTERN, EXEMPLAR, IDEAL mean someone or something set before one for guidance or imitation. MODEL applies to something taken or proposed as worthy of imitation . EXAMPLE applies to a person to be imitated or in some contexts on no account to be imitated but to be regarded as a warning . PATTERN suggests a clear and detailed archetype or prototype . EXEMPLAR suggests either a faultless example to be emulated or a perfect typification . IDEAL implies the best possible exemplification either in reality or in conception .

From Merriam Webster online.

In the purest sense a “model” is the example of prototype that is replicated. A “scale model” is a miniature of an exsisting object but not all “models” are scale replicas.
#12

OK, OK

Let me put it in one paragraph:

“A model (as it applies to model railroading) is an item which represents a specific master (it is a model of that particular master) in a consistent scale i.e. if the scale is 1:29 then at least the length, width and height of that item is 1:29. It has one consistent scale!”

#13

By way of explanation of the above and with some practical examples: A F3 from USA Trains is much closer to my “model” designation, than lets say a LGB F7.

The percentage errors are referenced to the 1:29 de facto scale, but interesting just how close the F3 is to the 1:32 mark, which would match the track gauge. Disclaimer: I don’t own a F3 or a F7, the measurements were provided by someone who does own both. I just compiled the proto data and the “model” data.

#14

Let’s just say that we agree to disagree. Your definition is fine for a museum but flat sucks for a hobbyist.

I know your figures on the F3 are not yours, but I question their accuracy. Unfortunately I don’t have my Cyclopedia handy. The F3 should measure 10’ wide over the carbody and 14’ 6" from railhead to top of carbody. This was the standard maximum allowable for locomotives back then due to clearances on the East coast. I think this held true through the GP38. Also as a side note, back when the original product review was done there was quite a bit of discussion as to the correct size of the Genesis. I have since found out the correct dimensions for width and height. They are 10’ wide over the carbody and 14’ 6" over the top of the carbody. The Genesis was made to these dimensions because on the Northwest Corridor Amtrak still has clearance problems that would not allow larger locomotives.

#15
Warren Mumpower said:
Let's just say that we agree to disagree. Your definition is fine for a museum but flat sucks for a hobbyist.

I know your figures on the F3 are not yours, but I question their accuracy. Unfortunately I don’t have my Cyclopedia handy. The F3 should measure 10’ wide over the carbody and 14’ 6" from railhead to top of carbody. This was the standard maximum allowable for locomotives back then due to clearances on the East coast. I think this held true through the GP38. Also as a side note, back when the original product review was done there was quite a bit of discussion as to the correct size of the Genesis. I have since found out the correct dimensions for width and height. They are 10’ wide over the carbody and 14’ 6" over the top of the carbody. The Genesis was made to these dimensions because on the Northwest Corridor Amtrak still has clearance problems that would not allow larger locomotives.


Warren,

I don’t remember where I got the proto info on the F3 and F7. But possibly from drawings published in MR at one time or the other, or from the Net.

If it would have been RhB I would have duly noted the source. :wink: :slight_smile:

PS OK the dimensions are from MR Apr 2000 page 84,

Height overall 15ft (that includes the horns)
Height of carbody 14ft 1/2"
Width overall 10ft 8" (includes handrails)
Length overall 50ft 8" (center of coupler?)

I guess if it needs to fit within a certain clearance profile it’s a good thing to include the “doo-dads”. :wink: :slight_smile:

PPS

The dimensions in the Oct 1970 MR, page 48-49 are the same except the width is given as 10ft 7"