Model Railroading Scope (Or I'm ok, you're ok)

In the professional services business in which I work, we have a term called "scope". It basically is used to refer to what work falls under a contract, and what doesn't, or what we're doing on a project, and what we're NOT doing on a project.

A recent thread on TheRailwire got me thinking about how different many modelers are. The old notion of "we each enjoy our trains differently, and that's ok" is often brought out whenever there's an ideological disagreement on various forums to extinguish flame wars.

http://therailwire.net/smf/index.php?topic=13656.0

This notion is an important one in the hobby, allowing "daisy pickers" to coexist along side "rivet counters" without igniting feuds. However, I've realized that there's something else at work here. Aside from how seriously modelers take all this stuff, there is also a spectrum of what type of "serious" modeler people are.


(Photo changed, Sorry Jerry!)

It's very possible to be serious about building a model of "a railroad". For years, Tony Koester championed this from the pages of RMC and Model Railroader. His Allegheny Midland was a wonderful model of a railroad (even though it was freelanced). He modeled the way a railroad works, but the rolling stock and structures were important in as much as they supported the model of the railroad itself. Structures should all be roughly uniform, as that's how a real railroad does things. Locomotives and rolling stock should all be accurate in as much as they represent an accurate "fleet". While Tony had many outstanding individual models, I believe that they still existed mostly to support "the railroad". In this mindset, the individual "work" is the layout itself and the railroad system that it represents.



On the other hand, it's very possible for a modeler to be very serious about building individual models. NMRA contest rooms are full of these models, and while some may exist in the context of a larger modeling endeavor, many were built to stand on their own as outstanding individual works. They may end up being part of a layout, but in this case, the layout serves as a place for these individual models. Howard Zane's outstanding layout, I believe, falls into this category. Howard has a basement (plus) of very well done models, of both rolling stock and structures, however, Howard's layout "functions" to serve as a display place for these models. In this view, the "work" is the individual models, and the supporting items (like track, for example) are not the focus of the modeling.

These schools of thought are not always conscious decisions, but often seem to stem from the smaller micro-decisions of what's "good enough" that take place in all model railroaders minds. For some "good enough" means that the mix of cars in a train are correct, even if they're riding on Kato's JDM spec Unitrack, while others won't care if the cars are of mixed eras, as long as they all have full brake rigging, while even others only care if they're all weathered, but look "wrong" unless they're all rolling along on hand laid code 25 rail with tie plates and joint bars.

Either of the mindsets can be representative of people who take their modeling seriously (like I do), and I believe there is a mutual respect between people in both camps, but I believe that the more people acknowledge the existence of these camps, and the many modelers who try and straddle them both, the better and happier we will all be (mostly because it will spell the end of the "you're not a real modeler if you don't..." threads on forums).

Better Models for the Masses?

It cannot be overstated that the quality of scale models (in this case, N, but generally any scale) is currently at an all-time high and still climbing. The steady advancement of technology has provided us with manufacturing capabilities unheard of just a couple of decades ago.

That said, what good is quality, one may rightfully argue, if accuracy is not keeping pace? This thorny, argument-inducing issue is loaded with valid points to make on behalf of folks on both sides of the fence.

In defense of the manufacturers, as in any business venture there's a point of diminishing returns. Even the largest model makers have finite budgets and resources. There is always a clear line in the sand beyond which the company begins to lose profitability on any given mass-produced product; the lower the development investment, the greater potential profit—and profit equals more goodies for us. It is therefore necessary for us to accept that there will be a "good enough" rule applied across the board. We must also expect to see at least some "fantasy schemes" so that products find the broadest possible market and generate the greatest ROI.

The "good enough" rule involves two aspects of production: research and tooling. There are just so many human-hours that can be invested in researching a model before the budget is blown. And as for tooling, there may be a point at which a scale-width hood becomes prohibitively costly to tool owing to hard stops such as motor size. Yes, it may be feasible to make the hood the right width, but that last six scale inches may come at the expense of a different, more costly motor or all-new tooling for a chassis that could have been recycled from another loco.

In defense of the modelers, many errors would cost nothing to correct: the right paint color or road number costs the same as paint of the wrong. As Mike Skibbe summed it up in a previous post, getting it right expands the potential market: it will then appeal to the prototype modelers as well as the casual consumers (which includes collectors) who enjoy the model just the way it is, warts and all.



Let's take a specific example: for September 2007, Micro-Trains released a CP Rail 89-foot trailer flat loaded with intermodal containers, number 521135. However, this number is part of a series used for AAR type P782 81-foot flats (center photo, CP 521133). If they'd wanted to get closer to reality, they should have used a number between 5217XX and 5223XX, which appear on CP Rail AAR type P880 89-foot flats (bottom photo, CP 521719). Although the CP Rail cars have open decks, unlike the models, Micro-Trains could have improved matters a bit by positioning the containers at the extreme ends of the car. (Top photo, Micro-Trains; center and bottom photos, Joe Rogers, Railroad Pictures Archive.)

This information was obtained after just a few minutes of online searching. Which raises a curious issue: the Internet has become an incredibly potent research tool. It certainly cannot be a huge strain on a manufacturer to spend some quality time with Google, yet obvious and presumably avoidable discrepancies continue to appear time and again. As another example, the number boards on a soon-to-be-released diesel are off the mark, as several photographs of the real deal clearly illustrate. What is the reason for this oversight?

Once again, the manufacturer may have had any number of limitations imposed on the model's production; much goes on behind the scenes, out of our view. With respect to the number board problem, older tooling is being recycled. In other situations, getting absolutely every aspect of the model accurate may not be feasible given time and budget constraints. And, since most tooling is done overseas, there may be communications problems or quality control issues on the contractor's end. We could not hope to know all of the details.

Let us not overlook, too, the fact that tooling is an art form, despite being the domain of computers these days. Blueprints and photographs must be interpreted by humans before tooling can commence, and the results reflect the skill of those individuals responsible for the interpretation. Layer on the complicating factors of fitting everything over a mechanism designed by other engineers, and you have ample opportunities for the model to drift astray from reality. To see all of this in practical form, take three models of the same locomotive from three different manufacturers: they should all be identical, or nearly so, yet each is different—sometimes subtly, sometimes radically. Why? It's the quality of interpretation.

But take heart, as we may be witnessing an opportunity to make everyone happy, or perhaps at least happier. Online forums are being frequented by both manufacturers and their customers. This free exchange of information and perspective may provide the means for even better, more accurate models. But this assumes one thing: everyone remains civil. It seems inevitable that some hot-headed rivet-counter starts spouting off about how incredibly stupid everyone is at XYZ Company for having gotten the stenciling on a gondola wrong. If I were a manufacturer, I would not be inclined to go the extra mile to satisfy people like this. Would you?

All of this has given rise to one overarching question in the back of my mind: Why are some modelers getting so fussy? Our models are better-looking and more accurate than ever before. Are we becoming jaded? With a cornucopia of steadily-improving products, are we now beginning to expect too much? It used to be that prototype modelers were generally content to modify their models as needed to achieve accuracy. Now it seems some won't even buy a product unless it is perfect right out of the mold. What they don't seem to realize is that they're shooting themselves in the foot; not supporting a model maker reduces the chances of seeing more products, let alone better ones.

Mike Skibbe Sums it Up

From a thread on Trainboard about new Z scale boxcars, Mike Skibbe summed up my feelings about many manufacturer shortcomings. Check this out.

There is a misnomer that "Prototype Modelers" and "Rivet Counters" take things too seriously and arn't having fun. Things couldn't be further from the truth. We have tons of fun doing what we do too. The fun just comes in different ways. This is similar to the on-going debates about Tony Koester/Bill Darnaby hard core operators vs roundy-round runners. Many people say, "Oh, too many rules and it's too much like real work, that would never be fun for me." And they are probably correct, maybe they never would enjoy it. But for those that are really into operations, it's fun to follow the rules! It's fun to treat running trains like it was a real job. It doesn't make either camp wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean either group is "eternally frustrated."

He continues, emphasis mine.

First, the NP geeps MTL just released. I read a review (Model Train News?) that said MTL used a number series on the NP that didn't have dynamic brakes, yet the model does have dynamics. The kicker is, that NP did own geeps with dynamic brakes! MTL just didn't use the right numbers. You say, "We can split hairs on what's "prototypical" or obvious structural differences, or we can strive to do the best we can with what we have and offer Road Names that help folks realize their dream layouts." Would it have cost any more to use the right number series on the NP geeps? Was using the wrong number really "striving to do the best with what's available"?

The N and Z scale RI 40' boxcars in pullman green are another example. MTL put a non-Pullman Standard built number series on their PS1 boxcar body. Yet RI also had a number series that is almost a perfect match for the PS1, with the exact same paint scheme. Doing it right satisfies both the everyday modeler and the prototype modeler. Doing it wrong only satisfies the every day modeler. Why leave out a portion of the customer base, when doing it right doesn't cost any more?

From http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=89706&page=2

One of the best forum quotes in a while

Care of the wise Tom Mann:

It is a mystery: why are the Hallmark ornaments usable models, yet the houses made by micro-trains are not usable models?

In the new Z Scale forum on TheRailwire.net
http://therailwire.net/smf/index.php?topic=13183.0

The photo is of Robert Ray's using the aforementioned cars. What amazing work.

Alan Curtis's models live on!

Discovered on the Atlas forum (forum TOPIC_ID=36268), it looks like Alan Curtis's awesome (even though I've never bought one, being much more of a cheapskate RTR guy than I'll ever admit) cast metal kits will continue to be available.

This is great news, since it had seemed that there was a chance that these great models would no longer be available. Also good news is that the new owner, Peter Harris, knows that the forums exist. If this is a good or bad thing remains to be seen, but good luck to Peter and anyone else at "N Scale Kits" (http://www.nscalekits.com/), the new company producing the models, you're sailing into scary waters.

Alan Curtis's departure from the scene was one of the things that initially got me thinking about the state of the industry. Cottage manufactures (like ACM) have come and gone for a long time, but I had really hoped he had more staying power, since I know he had a number of interesting things in the works. The additional good news is that these new things that he was working on are still going to be done by NSK, which bodes VERY well for North Country Modelers.

First post

After a while of reading the various train fora, I have decided that there is some content that just belongs in a blog.

There is a lot of intelligent discussion on these forums, from simple how to things, like paving a road, to discussions about upcoming products (and the pondering of just WHAT Kato is thinking these days), to discussions about why we are into trains. However, there is also a lot of plain bullshit on these forums as well. Posts about "how do I make my engines run in reverse", "why aren't my handrails installed for me?" etc dilute the high value content in these forums, and help obscure the real jems that they provide.

I intend to discuss these issues that come up on the forums, cutting through the minor and day to day issues, and focus on big things about the hobby. The health of the industry, why we model, big product discussions, responses to published articles, things like this (and maybe some discussion about my layout and website), these are the types of things I want to cover.

I hope that my readers find what I have to say interesting, and add to the discussion by posting replies in the comments below.