Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
A bit like washing your hands in the office toilet and then wafting them under the paper towel dispenser and wondering where the hot air is...
A musing about MRJ
- Thread starter Martin Shaw
- Start date
- Status
Richard Gawler
Western Thunderer
Well I think, "collecting" begins when you start buying stuff (be it sheets of cardboard or RTR locos), and "modelling" starts when you start doing something creative with these things, be it making a model station or running trains to a timetable. The common ground being, there is no single "correct" or even "recommended" approach; but a "finescale" model typically gives a high importance to a lifelike appearance, regardless of robustness, reliablility, ease of construction, ease of use or interoperability with other models.
simond
Western Thunderer
Wikipedia offers a definition of “Model building”, which suggests, as Richard has, that there is some sort of creative activity involved.
en.wikipedia.org
I also tend to this view. Collecting is, IMO, not creative, it’s essentially acquiring the fruits of others’ creativity. If you then run your collection through a landscape, or to a timetable, or portray it in a diorama, I’d argue that this is creative.
I recall a debate a few months back as to whether a 3DP article counted as “scratchbuilt”, as IIRC there was a competition prize for such a category. I think there was a consensus that even if the modeller created the CAD, and printed the article, it wasn’t scratchbuilt, but if it had been whittled from matchsticks or plasticard, (to match the same drawing) it would be. I can see some logic in this view, but also some inconsistencies.
And then there’s art. Is a model “art”? Does it matter if it’s an exact replica of a real object like a 3D photo, or if it’s somehow an impression of the original, or indeed entirely whimsy in the fashion of Heath Robinson?
I guess none of it really matters, as long as we each enjoy what we’re doing. If anyone else likes it, tant mieux.
Model building - Wikipedia
I also tend to this view. Collecting is, IMO, not creative, it’s essentially acquiring the fruits of others’ creativity. If you then run your collection through a landscape, or to a timetable, or portray it in a diorama, I’d argue that this is creative.
I recall a debate a few months back as to whether a 3DP article counted as “scratchbuilt”, as IIRC there was a competition prize for such a category. I think there was a consensus that even if the modeller created the CAD, and printed the article, it wasn’t scratchbuilt, but if it had been whittled from matchsticks or plasticard, (to match the same drawing) it would be. I can see some logic in this view, but also some inconsistencies.
And then there’s art. Is a model “art”? Does it matter if it’s an exact replica of a real object like a 3D photo, or if it’s somehow an impression of the original, or indeed entirely whimsy in the fashion of Heath Robinson?
I guess none of it really matters, as long as we each enjoy what we’re doing. If anyone else likes it, tant mieux.
I agree with this statement 110% as a minimum.
I rode motorbike for close on 60 years and the same sort of 'what is the proper type'.
So which is correct? Answer, the one that suits the individual.
regards
Allen
Who has dabbled in 2,4,7 & 16mm SG & NG in the last 70+ years and won a couple of awards over that time.
NHY 581
Western Thunderer
Well..........I currently have three operable layouts. A 1950s East Anglian backwater, a 1950s S&DJR goods yard and an ostensibly late 1960s industrial something or other.
However..........I have locos and specific stock for.....a pre WW1 SE&CR layout, a post 1962 diesel based East Anglian layout, quite a few 1950s ex-Midland locos, 1930s Southern, 1950s Southern Region, 1920s GWR and a few assorted industrial locos. All are hopefully destined to see 'action' on suitable future projects..........but I would venture that currently they may well constitute a collection.......oh dear...
All very good points and totally agree there is no correct approach. The quality of the latest crop of RTR releases allows the unskilled likes of me to hopefully produce a satisfying overall picture. However, though RTR is generally robust , I accept there are issues some of which can be easily resolved or overlooked, others muchless so.
As an example let's take Hornby’s J15. A pretty good looking loco. Accurate and runs wonderfully well thanks to the twin flywheel motor and pick ups to all wheels, tender as well as loco. But it's not perfect. The big thing are the handrails to the boiler. The knobs are flat, not radiused to the boiler. A real drama to resolve and one which any reasonable kit builder will have avoided because theirs will be done true to prototype. So, park a Hornby model next to a well put together kit built J15 and these handrails will stand out.
Finescale model wins on accuracy,
Same type of loco. Hornby produce 65469 as tweaked by Norwich with polished brass rim behind smoke box and red coupling rods. Very nicd but wrong as their tooling didn't allow them to change the chimney to the stove pipe which completes the modifications to this particular loco.
Again, the Finescale modeller would win on accuracy because they deal with the chimney issue as they build.....However there is a stovepipe available from Alan Gibson..............add one to the Hornby model and a tarpaulin rail to the tender and it's looking good....barring the handrails. Now we're giving high importance to lifelike appearance and arguably dipping a toe into Finescale world.
So, is a MRJ article showing how to upgrade your Hornby J15 to a more accurate appearance any less worthy than a step by step build of a kit of the same loco?
And yes, I'm aware that building J15s was covered by the late Mr Rice et al in some of the very early issues but is this an example of how MRJ now needs to move with the times ?
Rob
Osgood
Western Thunderer
Following on from your comments on art and creativity, @simond - this short video has a delightful message on the subject and confirms your thoughts, and the message toward the end kind of echoes what I think @Neil was alluding to on the coal thread:
Of particular relevance is the segment from 1.05 describing different forms of creativity.
Now, could I reason that I have simply made a substitution - instead of sugar cubes I use Heljan and other RTR boxes?
Oh well it was worth a try
Of particular relevance is the segment from 1.05 describing different forms of creativity.
Now, could I reason that I have simply made a substitution - instead of sugar cubes I use Heljan and other RTR boxes?
Oh well it was worth a try
Last edited:
76043
Western Thunderer
I think on 3DP parts if you design them and get them printed is most definitely scratch building. You have made all the effort!! If you purchase them, then it's kit building.
As for collectors, we do all collect stuff a little, look at all those unbuilt kits we have.
Tony
As for collectors, we do all collect stuff a little, look at all those unbuilt kits we have.
Tony
cmax
Western Thunderer
Excellent post, Thank you for sharing.Following on from your comments on art and creativity, @simond - this short video has a delightful message on the subject and confirms your thoughts, and the message toward the end kind of echoes what I think @Neil was alluding to on the coal thread:
Of particular relevance is the segment from 1.05 describing different forms of creativity.
Now, could I reason that I have simply made a substitution - instead of sugar cubes I use Heljan and other RTR boxes?
Oh well it was worth a try
Gary
Eastsidepilot
Western Thunderer
I think there has been some RTR upgrades featured in MRJ, from a personal point of view I don't see the point if it's still 00 gauge, bit half baked !
whilst a detail upgrade and P4 conversion would be the sort of feature I'd expect in MRJ.If moving with the times meant filling the mag with 00 gauge models and Peco track etc. well that's when I'd stop buying it, save it for the likes of RM etc.
Surely the idea of MRJ in the first place was to not be like Railway Modeller etc. not to compete but to showcase an alterative view to mainstream model railways, I certainly like the lack of the box sellers advertising crap.
Last edited:
jonte
Western Thunderer
I think there has been some RTR upgrades featured in MRJ, from a personal point of view I don't see the point if it's still 00 gauge, bit half baked !
If moving with the times meant filling the mag with 00 gauge models and Peco track etc. well that's when I'd stop buying it, save it for the likes of RM etc.
Surely the idea of MRJ in the first place was to not be like Railway Modeller etc. not to compete but to showcase an alterative view to mainstream model railways, I certainly like the lack of the box sellers advertising crap.
Absolutely.
To be constructive (please forgive the pun), for those would-be aspirers to MRJ who would like the parameters shifting as suggested (shaln’t mention moving goal posts as I’m on my way to the Fulham game and I’m not filled with encouragement
), then may I offer a suggestion?An interrogation of the online pages of say High Level kits, will yield one of several replacement chassis for current and older RTR OO gauge locos which could be purchased, along with say a CSB system with full instructions to ensure smooth running over less than perfect track - these are I believe of the highest quality with full assistance given by an interested proprietor - coupled with the purchase of a motor and some scale wheels freely available, and followed by a visit to a local exhibition to pick up some soldering equipment and an array of drill bits and pin vices of appropriate sizes; then the win on say an online auction site for a broken model of your chosen subject for a pittance, should put you on course to at least have your work noticed by the MRJ team, in the knowledge that your recipe would be of benefit to its readers, probably in any of the four milli scales. It would also prove a prime opportunity to showcase some weth’ring skills should they prove your party piece.
Essentially, it might even up a whole new and interesting avenue of the hobby.
What’s there to lose?
Jordan
Mid-Western Thunderer
Subtle!!3 points…
Sorry, Jonte, couldn’t resist
NHY 581
Western Thunderer
I think there has been some RTR upgrades featured in MRJ, from a personal point of view I don't see the point if it's still 00 gauge, bit half baked !
If moving with the times meant filling the mag with 00 gauge models and Peco track etc. well that's when I'd stop buying it, save it for the likes of RM etc.
Surely the idea of MRJ in the first place was to not be like Railway Modeller etc. not to compete but to showcase an alterative view to mainstream model railways, I certainly like the lack of the box sellers advertising crap.
And this is the kind of disappointing attitude that may well sink MRJ in the long run. In the 4mm model railway world EM and P4 modellers are in the minority. Maybe in the MRJ readership, 4mm wise, they are in the majority. Who knows ? However, unlike you though, I still get inspired by quality modelling. I don't let the fact that it's in a gauge I have no interest in stand in the way of my enjoyment of the subject.
And I'm not advocating handing MRJ over to a Railway Modelleresque audience. God no !
But to use your words there is an alternative view to OO world. Disregarding your apparent prejudicial outlook on all things 00 there are some decent 00 modellers out there, you know....PMP ( who like me uses PECO track ) Chris Nevard and Tim Maddocks to name just three. ÌAre we saying that an article or two by them and that's an issue to avoid lest you suffer a sudden and inexplicable urge to narrow your gauge........No.....I thought not.
Absolutely.
To be constructive (please forgive the pun), for those would-be aspirers to MRJ who would like the parameters shifting as suggested (shaln’t mention moving goal posts as I’m on my way to the Fulham game and I’m not filled with encouragement
An interrogation of the online pages of say High Level kits, will yield one of several replacement chassis for current and older RTR OO gauge locos which could be purchased, along with say a CSB system with full instructions to ensure smooth running over less than perfect track - these are I believe of the highest quality with full assistance given by an interested proprietor - coupled with the purchase of a motor and some scale wheels freely available, and followed by a visit to a local exhibition to pick up some soldering equipment and an array of drill bits and pin vices of appropriate sizes; then the win on say an online auction site for a broken model of your chosen subject for a pittance, should put you on course to at least have your work noticed by the MRJ team, in the knowledge that your recipe would be of benefit to its readers, probably in any of the four milli scales. It would also prove a prime opportunity to showcase some weth’ring skills should they prove your party piece.
Essentially, it might even up a whole new and interesting avenue of the hobby.
What’s there to lose?
I take it that's aimed squarely in my direction, Jon. I'm not so obsessed by getting an article in MRJ to make things deliberately tricky for myself.
Why should I ?
On your example, I have three super smooth
Hornby J15s that will run beautifully over my peco pointwork. They will in time be weathered accordingly, coaled and crewed. They will look the part but going by the views of others, have no chance of being featured.
However, if I replace chassis wheel gears and motor, spend an age getting it to run to the same standard as the Hornby model this model, which looks the same has a better chance to get in the mag. Really ?
Other than demonstrating a degree of craftsmanship or not subject to how it runs, if at all of course, it's a pretty pointless exercise.
I would rather spend the time building a layout for my well running, well weathered and detailed out of the box loco to play on. And that may be where I'm going wrong.
I think overall, my kind of modeller is simply not the right sort to find themselves in MRJ. We're not welcomed by the finescale boys and we should remain in the other magazines and not get above our station.
I think that has been made abundantly clear.
Rob.
Last edited:
oldravendale
Western Thunderer
I repeat. Model making is what you make of it. There's quite a few layouts I really like. I'm never likely to build one. I've no interest in 2mm. But I think Copenhagen Fields is remarkable and so interesting (there are others). I've no interest in building a diorama but love Stephen Fay's stuff. In the olden days I used to enjoy "super detailing" OO RTR (and there's an anachronism) but now prefer to build in 7mm. I don't buy any model railway (or prototype railway come to that) mags although used to subscribe to MRJ which I stopped simply because I stopped enjoying the read. That doesn't mean I'll never buy another copy. Surely we can, to quote an earlier post by John Kneeshaw, Live and Let Live.
This is a hobby. Some like building. Some like painting or weathering. Some like building layouts using hand built track and some are perfectly happy and in many cases have produced beautiful looking layouts using Peco OO. At the end of the day it's toy trains. If MRJ want to feature a OO layout because it has something special about it, then that's a good way of introducing people to achievable "proper" model making, isn't it? (And it's a good introduction to MRJ as well). Call it "entry level serious modelling" if you like. After all, our interest in proper modelling (there's elitist for you!) came from somewhere and that's how we discovered one another.
Having said all that one of my greatest joys was to see "Love Lane" in the flesh. That devotion to getting everything right is remarkable and so atmospheric. It deserves study at the highest level. But not everyone will agree and that's the beauty of this hobby. Go your own way and if you produce something of excellence it's surely a subject for MRJ.
Oh, and before I forget, this is an opinion and you are perfectly entitled to disagree. I absolutely refuse to get upset if you do so.
Brian
This is a hobby. Some like building. Some like painting or weathering. Some like building layouts using hand built track and some are perfectly happy and in many cases have produced beautiful looking layouts using Peco OO. At the end of the day it's toy trains. If MRJ want to feature a OO layout because it has something special about it, then that's a good way of introducing people to achievable "proper" model making, isn't it? (And it's a good introduction to MRJ as well). Call it "entry level serious modelling" if you like. After all, our interest in proper modelling (there's elitist for you!) came from somewhere and that's how we discovered one another.
Having said all that one of my greatest joys was to see "Love Lane" in the flesh. That devotion to getting everything right is remarkable and so atmospheric. It deserves study at the highest level. But not everyone will agree and that's the beauty of this hobby. Go your own way and if you produce something of excellence it's surely a subject for MRJ.
Oh, and before I forget, this is an opinion and you are perfectly entitled to disagree. I absolutely refuse to get upset if you do so.
Brian
Neil
Western Thunderer
Oh dear we're a little way off peace and harmony here.
MRJ has in the past featured OO layouts, Philip Harvey's freelance Amberdale for one which if I remember correctly featured some pretty chunky track. At the time it seemed to be well received. There have been others, George Ilife Stokes' layout and John Ahern's Madder Valley come to mind, as does the Manchester club's Dewsbury Midland.
I'm not convinced that the standards a layout is built to really matters in the final summing up, a good layout is a good layout irrespective of whether it's OO, EM or P4. There are some gems at the less finescale end of the spectrum and some shockers where all the effort has been put into the most exacting of standards.
Rather than lobbying for a broad church approach or a tightening of the criteria to favour finescale my own wish for MRJ is that it would do colour as well as its rivals and improve the layout on the page. I guess both stem in part from the steam age production techniques which must hinder sorting out colour balance, cropping and vibrancy of the submitted images and compromise the easy shifting of words and pictures round the page to maximise their impact and minimise all those white blank areas. MRJ with the production values of Loco Revue would be a mighty fine thing.
MRJ has in the past featured OO layouts, Philip Harvey's freelance Amberdale for one which if I remember correctly featured some pretty chunky track. At the time it seemed to be well received. There have been others, George Ilife Stokes' layout and John Ahern's Madder Valley come to mind, as does the Manchester club's Dewsbury Midland.
I'm not convinced that the standards a layout is built to really matters in the final summing up, a good layout is a good layout irrespective of whether it's OO, EM or P4. There are some gems at the less finescale end of the spectrum and some shockers where all the effort has been put into the most exacting of standards.
Rather than lobbying for a broad church approach or a tightening of the criteria to favour finescale my own wish for MRJ is that it would do colour as well as its rivals and improve the layout on the page. I guess both stem in part from the steam age production techniques which must hinder sorting out colour balance, cropping and vibrancy of the submitted images and compromise the easy shifting of words and pictures round the page to maximise their impact and minimise all those white blank areas. MRJ with the production values of Loco Revue would be a mighty fine thing.
NHY 581
Western Thunderer
Indeed.
simond
Western Thunderer
I wholly agree.
On the subject of opinions, they’re rather like backsides. Everybody’s got one and some are more attractive than others.
Eastsidepilot
Western Thunderer
There is some great modelling out there and here on WT to inspire and, no, the fact that it may be 00, TT or whatever shouldn't matter, I certainly liked Chris Matthews layout ' Bottom Works Sidings' in # 279 inspirational, but as I said in my post 'PERSONALY' that if MRJ started to fill it's pages with 00 or N etc. and become detrimental to 'finer' scale modelling, if that's what 'keeping up with the times' means then I wouldn't subscribe to it !
It's the editors of MRJ that choose what is featured, I'm sure loads of people send in articles or make suggestions for publication and they try to publish a balanced Journal with Guest editors who will probably have their own preference.
I started subscribing to MRJ because it wasn't full of RTR stock and track, and long may it stay that way ( In my view) even though I was invited to write an article on converting an 0 gauge RTR loco to S7 which was published some time ago.
So don't pull your fleece out over it Rob, just 'cause your a 00 modeller don't make you a bad one
.Opinion voiced and all mine
Last edited:
Captain Kernow
Western Thunderer
In some respects, I might be tempted to agree wholeheartedly with this and I would be among the first to encourage fellow modellers to have a go at etched chassis construction etc.Absolutely.
To be constructive (please forgive the pun), for those would-be aspirers to MRJ who would like the parameters shifting as suggested (shaln’t mention moving goal posts as I’m on my way to the Fulham game and I’m not filled with encouragement
An interrogation of the online pages of say High Level kits, will yield one of several replacement chassis for current and older RTR OO gauge locos which could be purchased, along with say a CSB system with full instructions to ensure smooth running over less than perfect track - these are I believe of the highest quality with full assistance given by an interested proprietor - coupled with the purchase of a motor and some scale wheels freely available, and followed by a visit to a local exhibition to pick up some soldering equipment and an array of drill bits and pin vices of appropriate sizes; then the win on say an online auction site for a broken model of your chosen subject for a pittance, should put you on course to at least have your work noticed by the MRJ team, in the knowledge that your recipe would be of benefit to its readers, probably in any of the four milli scales. It would also prove a prime opportunity to showcase some weth’ring skills should they prove your party piece.
Essentially, it might even up a whole new and interesting avenue of the hobby.
What’s there to lose?
But in another respect, on balance, I am firmly with Rob on this one. It is arguably a matter of one's personal and modelling priorities. Time and space available (both in general and for modelling in particular) are also relevant here, as is health.
Whilst I have had experience of building etched chassis, there are other aspects of modelling, which I have decided are closed off to me, especially some of the new technologies, including CAD, 3-D printing, resin moulding, Templot etc. You will have noticed that most of those involve computers...
So, it's perhaps all very well to say 'what's there to lose?', which of course I accept is meant entirely benevolently and constructively. But in my case, anything involving computers would mean that there's a huge chunk of my available modelling time at stake. This would be time wasted, as I try in vain to get to grips with computer programmes, which my brain is simply not wired to master.
I would also include the use of lathes and milling machines. Whilst I do own a lathe, time and domestic space limitations mean that I have never even attempted to set it up in the 12 years of so that I have owned it (nor the pillar drill that I bought at around the same time). I have had (possibly still do have) access to tuition from skilled friends, but it's simply not worth bothering them, if I can't use the lathe at home.
So whilst it's very interesting to see and admire what 'minds immeasurably superior to mine' can produce using computers or machine tools within the pages of MRJ, I am far more likely to warm to an article that uses modelling techniques that are available to me now.
- Status