Unfortunately, some individuals find their 'fun' in criticizing and denigrating others. I don't understand it. I try to remember 'mind over matter'. I don't mind, because they don't matter.

 

Politely pointing out that something didn't exist in 'real life' is one thing. Judging someone because they happen to like it is quite different, and rather rude.

I've always stated that my layout is set in the town I grew up in in western Indiana during the fall of 1960. That being said, I've taken artistic license with that...

 

I have several pieces of rolling stock that have build dates of 1961 and later. Why? Because I wanted them. I don't care if my Walthers Indiana Farm Bureau covered hoppers were built in December of 1963; IFB was everywhere back then and even my earliest memories dating back to the early 70s, IFB was prevalent. The brickyard I have on my layout was gone by 1960 - not on my layout. I don't know when Globe Railway Equipment changed to the Fountain Foundry Corp; on my layout it's still Globe Railway Equipment.

 

It all falls back to Rule #1 - My layout, my rules. The only person (pretty much) that is going to see the layout is me. Anyone else who desires to see it more than likely isn't going to know or care that I have cars that didn't exist in October 1960. When I've posted pictures or friends/family visits, you know what the first question is? "Where's all the graffiti?"

 

I have no time for criticism for the pure sake of being critical. It's happened to me on this forum. If you want to be constructive with criticism then that's one thing. I have no time for people being a jerk about it.

One of the best things about this forum is the appreciation for all kinds of modelers. Compared to many of us, there are plenty of folks here who are rivet counters, but IMO as long as you're only counting your own rivets, more power to you 😁. I never understand why someone would care what another modeler is into.

I agree with Dan above. But I would add a couple of aspects.

 

If you show something for comment, you'll probably get comments, but not all may be the ones you like. That's life, expect it and roll with it.

 

If you show something and make claims about it that aren't true, then it's highly likely some who will post corrections. That's not unfair. In some cases it might be actually informative.

 

Andy

I think that most forums and magazines give a distorted view of the view of the hobby.

I would guess that 80% (or more) are all about having fun and don't worry about rivets, era,etc.

 

3 rail O gauge especially O27 is very popular.  Menard's O27 trains, track, and buildings seems to be booming.

Atlas HO code 100 sectional track seems to be very popular.  In fact sectional track seems to be the most popular type of track in all scales, much of it with roadbed.

RTR everything seems very popular.

 

Personally, I have to come to realize that some of the most fun I had with trains was when I started. Tyco trains,Atlas code 100 sectional track, Atlas building kits, Athearn and MDC kits. It was all fun.

 

Then I listened to the "Experts".... But I have recovered from that and gone back to having fun.

 

Paul

I seem to be completing the circle with Lionel/027. I got my first train set for my sixth birthday, and used/played with it extensively until I received a Tyco train set for Christmas when I was 11. The Lionel slowly went away.

 

I'm now 67, with an 18 month old grandson. I have pulled the Lionel stuff out of storage, and and getting it ready for him to play with. I will probably get the new Fast Tracks sectional track; might look into a new power pack, as everything I have is over 50 years old.

 

We'll have lots of fun with it, for sure. Whether it becomes a gateway for him to get into the hobby, we'll see.  

While I don’t have the extensive experience of some, my thoughts are that my layout (and future expanded layout) are meant to be an expression of my fondness for the Alaska Railroad and Alaska in general, not bound to a specific time (although I mentally ground it in the late 1990s). That allows me to purchase any/all related locos and rolling stock that would appear on the Alaska rails in it’s 100+ year history. It’s fun to see steam and diesel on the layout together, and if a piece of rolling stock doesn’t “fit” I just imagine that it came up on the barge from Seattle at some point. That’s fun, and that’s the point.

We stand by our motto, Having fun with trains. No more, no less. As long as folks allow another modeler the freedom to enjoy this hobby, we're good.

 

Heck, I deliberately will publish articles that don't float my boat or I even disagree with at times (as long as the disagreement is philosophical, not something potentially harmful), because I feel that is important for the good of the hobby.

My response to a somewhat heated conversation that was driving people off where at least one of the participants was unconcerned about that: "It's a hobby, people shouldn't need to have thick skins."

 AMEN.

🤬

 

This forum isn’t immune either, there have been numerous threads with certain users that simply  have to pick at each other. Maybe it’s the summer doldrums or these are people (who might be great modelers in their own niche) that I’m glad I don’t interact with in person.

 

And related, if you have to reply with a better method of how someone is doing something when they made a thread to share a process, please include a photo of your work or method so we can decide if we agree!

All the "rivit counter" and such always has made me feel very good that I can build models. My best reply to them is "how many models have you scratch built?"

It's all in your definition of "fun." Some of us like researching and building more accurate models, and find it far less enjoyable to just do whatever. I find there are a few of us who presume that doing anything above a certain point means you're ruining the hobby, but others go far beyond what I do.

 

DSC03712 by wp8thsub, on Flickr

 

As an example, this SP car was assembled from a craftsman Cannon kit that required scratchbuilding and modifying a slew of components with minimal instructions. That's after building up the sides from laminations of styrene. It required many hours of research and literal counting of rivets to create a finished product (all the rivets on the sides are from Archer decals). Was it fun for me? Absolutely, because I like doing this sort of thing. If we're saying the hobby is supposed to be fun, is the implication that doing this type of modeling by definition is not fun? I hear that sometimes from people who dismiss building more advanced models as an affront to their hobby enjoyment. They don't think it's fun, so apparently I shouldn't either, and they can get quite vocal about it. I'm sure there are some hobbyists who would have done more than I did here.

 

There can also easily be a disconnect on a forum where we communicate in writing. We can't judge someone's reactions in real time, so clarifying exactly what kind of feedback is being requested can go sideways. When one person asks for opinions on a freight car model, he may want to hear an honest appraisal of everything so improvements can be made. Another may write the same question but have entirely different expectations, and greatly resent the more candid responses. The first guy may want a rundown of lettering placement, safety appliances, truck choices, and so on, while the other may want some affirmation his project came out OK as a train filler. Both are valid.

 

Of course you should do the hobby the way you like. Just remember that what seems like drudgery to you may be another modeler's idea of what it's all about.

Unfortunately, as long as people are people they will need to.

 

When I umpired Little League baseball years ago, we had certain parents who didn't seem to grasp that the regular season games weren't the Major League World Series, and the game and league officials (including the coaches, umpires and staff members) were all unpaid volunteers (mostly other parents). A few of those sorts of folks were always around, and new ones always arrived to replace the ones whose kids aged out.

 

Same with model railroading (and anything else). So thick skins will always be needed.

I've come across my share of 'experts' in this hobby, including 'real-world' 1:1 experts. One fellow I knew who was a self-proclaimed know-it-all wouldn't hesitate to point out things that he percieved as 'totally wrong' and he would back up his claims because "he worked for the railroad and could tell you how it really is". More often than not I would simply back down and concede thay, yep, he knew it all. Nothing I could say would change his position and he would most often 'dig in' to prove his point. Teaching a pig to sing?

 

He actually announced once while visiting my layout that I had the pair of PRR GG1s coupled up wrong in that they both had to be in the same direction or they would 'short out'. The real ones, mind you, not the models. After some time explaining how the primary 11 KV AC was brought into the locomotive through the catenary and into the primary transformer he still refused to accept that two GG1s could be coupled 'back-to-back'. He knew because he worked for the railroad.

 

Sometimes I'm amused when I find evidence of a misconception that is actually proven to be true. I recall when the Broadway Limited NYC Mohawks were produced that many of the railroad press reviews and such panned the choice of the lighter smokebox color, "the NYC never did it like that". But I didn't mind, they were excellent running and looking models and I'm glad to have several. I did tone down the light gray look on one of mine just to see if it would help the 'wrong' appearance:

 

 

The engine on the right is 'fresh out of the box'. Well, not long ago I was watching some NYC videos and what do I see but a Mohawk taking water and, to my eyes anyway, this one sure seems to have a lighter colored smoke box!

 

 

Good enough for me.

 

Regards, Ed

" being produced in "foobie" paint schemes"

 

Is it just me or does Foobie sound like a great RR to model!

 

"and literal counting of rivets"

 

Wait! People like that aren't just a meme?

 

To the original point about the Class One Model Works PS-2/3000SD, the only road that is slightly wrong is the Mopac, which had unique PS-2/2950SDs, iirc. Good luck finding the difference.

 

Scott Chatfield, huck bolt counter

I always count rivets at the end of a project to make sure i have enough for the next project.

 

I live by 3 rules

 

1 My railroad my time my money

 

2 Run trains

 

3 Have fun

If prototype modelers don't provide accurate reviews of products, how will the manufacturers learn to perform accurate prototype research to execute correct models. Before someone says " close enough works for me" I have to say not at the price point ClassOne is asking for the hopper being produced..

Never have this issue with Tangent or MOLOCO......

When it comes to "foobies" I just hope that the manufacturer identifies them as such so that I can relay that information accurately in the news.

 

I will admit to gritting my teeth at times for the total fantasy paint schemes (like some of the fantasy ones that BLI and Lionel are putting on the Big Boys, or all the Bachmann Christmas stuff) although obviously there is a market for them. I would be interested in knowing how many of our readers would be counted in the fantasy scheme collectors.....

 

But Irv Athearn and Joshua Lionel Cowen built very successful companies in part by being willing to put Santa Fe on anything and everything. 😁

The smarter manufacturers work with the historical societies when it comes to "getting it right" on a model. And I stand in awe of most of the manufacturers in how many details they do get on a model - detail-minded is the correct term for them. Frankly, often enough I don't see them unless they are pointed out to me.

"

 by being willing to put Santa Fe on anything and everything. 😁"

 

Well, putting it on a K4 is a bit much, although a L1 has history!

I recently picked up a pair of Bowser two-bay coal hoppers lettered for KO&G. I was sure they were foobies, but I looked 'em up in my 1967 Official Equipment Register when I got home, just for fun. And there they were! So I own more or less accurate models of 40% of KO&G's five-car fleet of that particular car.

 

If I were super concerned about exact historical accuracy, I'd have to carry a library around to train shows, because the interweb informed me quite firmly that KO&G never owned such cars. I bought them anyway, and I'd have run them anyway, because I liked them.

 

I'm having fun in my own way. I hope everyone else does the same, as long as it hurts no one else.