# Garden Railways Magazine Decline



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Having just received the latest GR in the mail - I must confess I can finally see why over the last few years many of my train buddies have become disillusioned with the magazine. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif"

The review on pg 98 is by far the softest bit of "reporting" I've seen in years. Apparently, this is a review of the new Aristocraft 2-8-0.

Here is the amazing thing - this is a model of a 3 foot narrow gauge engine, modeled in 1:24 scale. (A fact stated in the review - the 1:24 scale that is). The amazing thing - the reviewer states, and I quote "Pros: Proportions match published drawings in many key dimensions;" and in the body of the review, "To my surprise, this locomotive measures almost identically to published drawings."

REALLY?! REALLY!!! How about that little issue of SCALE?!?! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif

And in the "Cons" section of the review guess how many times the reviewer mentioned the fact that this model is ******* 1:24 scale - and not the correct, accurate, 1:20 scale for this engine... go on, guess... NONE! Oh sure, they point out that the class lamps are the wrong the color, but the fact that the wheels are out of scale... that the entire model is a TOY, not a scale model? ZIP! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/plain.gif

Sheesh!! I guess so long as you're getting new toys to play with, and you wanna be a "player" in the hobby - no need to worry about doing an accurate review that includes attention to scale fidelity!! How hard would it be to add the fact this this thing is out of scale... "The engine is 1:24, not the correct 1:20 scale." - hmmm...9 f***ing words!! I think they could spare the space on the page!! 

I think I'm done with GR now too. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/pinch.gif


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Garden Railways Decline*

The title to the thread threw me. I _thought_ you were referring to the_ hobby_--not the magazine.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

*RE: Garden Railways Decline*

Nothing wrong with 1:24 scale. It is the proper scale for 3'6" track, and there were several of these around for a time. I think there still are in other countries. It goes with their other 1:24scale equipment.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

*RE: Garden Railways Decline*

Sorry blackburn - maybe one of the MODs can add "magazine" to the title... 

Todd - nothing wrong with 1:24, except that it is the WRONG scale for a model of a three foot engine. Period. What other countries use, and what other toys (equipment) have been made before should have no bearing on writing a correct, and factual review. The article was supposed to be a review of the engine. Lord knows if Bachmann released a new engine that was a model of a 3 footer, but not 1:20 - well all the Bmann haters would be ALL over them - but since other 1:24 stuff has been made before, that means a review no longer needs to cover the fact that engine is out of scale?!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: Garden Railways Decline*

Surely there are other things worth getting this worked up about? More important things? It does say quite clearly in the review that the scale 1/24. In fact I looked quite specifically at that, because I've only ever seen that model briefly at shows and I was puxzzled about its scale. I'm a new comer to the hobby and have no history with Delton. I thought it was a very useful review myself, nicely written, and it gave me a good sense of the engine.


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Garden Railways Decline*

The hobby is supposed to relax you! Jerry


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

*RE: Garden Railways Decline*

lownote - nicely written, yes - but incomplete - you may know that 1:24 is wrong - but the newcomer that has just opened the magazine and reads the review will have no clue as to the fact that the darned thing is outta scale! 

Jerry - it does - it's hack reporting and lightweight reviews like this one that upset me.


----------



## JEFF RUNGE (Jan 2, 2008)

I guess we won't tell him 1:29 is "out of scale" on our gauge one track. should be 1:32 for SG trains, but hey it's a hobby! As long as they tell you what your buying ...


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

"As long as the tell you what your buying..." My point exactly Jeff! This review doesn't - in fact - just the opposite! 

"Pros: Proportions match published drawings in many key dimensions..." 
"...this locomotive measures almost identically to published drawings." 

Sure sounds like I'm being told this engine is built to scale... something it is not. It is more than fair to expect for that to be included in a review. 
(And as for the 1:29/1:32 issues - I'm not a SG guy, but if I was - I'd be 1:32 all the way... if it's not in scale, then it's just a toy)


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Yup, it's a wrong scale for the track and so are all of the american prototype 1:22.5, all other 1:24 and 1:29 large scale trains out there. If you don't like them, don't buy them. They suit me just fine /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/tongue.gif" border=0> . 
Of course, since the reviewer, Kevin, is a moderator here, you could ask him directly about your issues. 

-Brian


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

If you are running all 1:24 equipment, and can ignore the six-inch gauge difference (and, yes, there were some US lines, but mostly trolley!) fine. 
Except, mix a 1:20 car in there and see. 

What strikes me as odd is here we have remake #3 of the original Delton and it gets a review. 

I am a tad surprised at the author. Especially when he's got that HUGE caboose behind it. 
Heck, the guys in the cupola look DOWN into the cab! 
He did note the "fantasy" road name. 

With those gold drivers, red cab and "sparkly" blue boiler, looks like New Bright. 

1.535" back-to-back. 
EXACTLY the turnout check-gauge for G1MRA turnouts. 

That means it will just slow down at turnouts and not jump. 

"Won't quit". 
I don't think I would have guaranteed that in print.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By parkdesigner on 08/27/2008 9:29 PM
Sorry blackburn - maybe one of the MODs can add "magazine" to the title... 
Todd - nothing wrong with 1:24, except that it is the WRONG scale for a model of a three foot engine. Period. What other countries use, and what other toys (equipment) have been made before should have no bearing on writing a correct, and factual review. The article was supposed to be a review of the engine. Lord knows if Bachmann released a new engine that was a model of a 3 footer, but not 1:20 - well all the Bmann haters would be ALL over them - but since other 1:24 stuff has been made before, that means a review no longer needs to cover the fact that engine is out of scale?!


Excuse me but 2-8-0's were used on 3'6" gauge track. Don't look at it as the wrong scale..., look at it as the wrong road name. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/wow.gif


----------



## joe rusz (Jan 3, 2008)

...9 f***ing words!! I think they could spare the space on the page!! 

Obscenity, vulgarity, profanity and blasphemy have no place on this website. Keep such language inside the park, Mr Park Designer, whoever you are (ah, the anonymityof the web).


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Sorry Todd, no - this is a model of a Rio Grande 2-8-0, as such - 3 foot is the gauge. (But good try... ) 

And Joe - my name is Josh - thanks for the lecture - but if you don't like my thread - I suggest you start your own. If I was going to use "Obscenity, vulgarity, profanity and blasphemy" then I would have... the fact of the matter (in black and white) is that I DIDN'T. I used four letters and three characters, nothing more. It just so happens that those do however represent JUST HOW MAD I am at Kevin. And Yes - I know he's on here. 

I am SO f***ing tired of people instantly siding with "rubber gauge" crap. For the record - I am a professional designer, and that includes dimensional design (in other words, model building). For someone who constantly is weighing in on the craftsman threads on this site, I think Kevin owes all of the 1:20 modelers out there - and especially the guys who have been building in scale long before the ease and laziness of plastic rolling stock came to be - an explanation on why exactly he would go out and tell the uneducated masses that the Aristo engine "...measures almost identically to published drawings." 

Great - now even more muddy waters when it comes to trying to sort scale, gauge, and fact from fiction. (How many newbies do we see every year asking about the "1:20" Bachmann "shorty" cars?!!? So long as reviewers aren't going to hold manufacturers accountable to making items in accurate scales, they will just keep schlepping on the goofy gauge stuff and calling "scale.")


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By parkdesigner on 08/28/2008 12:34 AM
...an explanation on why exactly he would go out and tell the uneducated masses that ... 




My, aren't you the p****** i*****! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif 

I feel sorry for you that not everyone cares as much as you do whether the track is a whole quarter inch too wide. 

-Brian


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

Wow - way to be dedicated to modeling Brian! That's right, support our hobby by cheering on the continual destruction of *model* railroading... and we all wonder why "G" isn't taken seriously by the rest of the railroad community! "Wheels? Couplers? Ahh... then there must not be anything wrong with it!!" 

Heck - there seems to be less *modelers* every day... just shake the box and run whatever the **** falls out. Lot's of skill involved in that! Scale? Dimensions? Fidelity? Who needs those when I can run a 1:24 boxcar with Snoopy on it behind my 1:29 engine!?! 

It's funny - the first posts in this thread were about the mistaken thought that "Garden Railways Decline" was about the hobby, rather than the magazine - but I can tell now (oddly enough) it IS about just that! This hobby is going down the drain! And it's due to this exact "scale be damned" type of thinking!!! 

It's called "Model Railroading" not "Toy Railroading" - if you think a quarter inch is no big deal, then I suggest you just go ahead and move on over to the New Bright stuff from Toys R Us - but do me a favor and keep quiet around the manufacturers because it's comments about "a whole quarter inch" that are KILLING the hobby.


----------



## David Fletcher (Jan 2, 2008)

To Quote Bachmann that hides behind the words 'Catalogue' Baldwin design to justify freelance locomotives to the 'correct' scale of 1:20 POINT 3 and On30, the Aristo 2-8-0 is also a Catalogue 10-24-E (not really the 24 1/2-E Im affraid), but a catalogue engine none the less, used Right here in Auz on 42" gauge, New Zealand on 42" gauge and so on...wrong road name is the correct notion! I find far more 'to scale' with this engine that I do with the Bachmann 2-8-0 which, done to the 'correct' scale has no 3' prototype in that configuration!... dont get me started with US 36" saddle tank Mallets that never existed. 
I wish someone would do the C-16 at 20.3 for sure, but no reason to bag what was a nicely proportioned model of a catalogue engine, done at a time when real scale in this hobby was rather lacking in largescale, and in some road names is actually to the correct gauge anyway! 
I agree, not a great model by today's standard, not worthy of a new review, but a competant model of value to many still running 1:24 and 1:22.5 
I think what we seeing here is a real growth in Freelancing done to a scale of 1:20.3, rather prototype model buiding to 1:20.3 scale. Odd, but there is a difference. Building a freelance model to scale is not a scale model of anything, and thus 1:1 of itself, but can be done to a workable scale as a what-if etc, or to suite one's operations at a chosen scale. Yes I'll buy the Mallet when it comes, nice looking toy. I have the C-16s as well, and like them. There is a place for both. 
David.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

David, 

Fair points on the "freelancing" issue - and I am in total agreement with you about Mallets that never existed!! 

I will still contend that this is a 3' engine and not a catalog version though, thus negating the argument of 3'-6" (and bringing us full circle back to the original frustration on my part) 

Kevin's entire first paragraph in his two page review is the history and details of the D&RG's order for Class 60/C-16 engines. Under "Vital Statistics" he says (and I quote): 

"Plastic, electrically powered model of the C-16 class (formerly class 60) locomotive of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad." 

If from no other statements - those two lines make it quite clear we're talking about a 3 foot engine. Kevin named the railroad, he named the engine class. 3 feet. Period. (Had he said catalog 2-8-0, different story...) As such, to write that "...this locomotive measures almost identically to published drawings" while not once mentioning scale inaccuracies at the rail, and the issue of 1:20 v. 1:24 is unfair to both the readers, and to the 1:20 scale movement. 

It just seems such a shame that all those folks working so hard to *model* 1:20 - to build to accurate dimensions, above AND below the boilers - must watch as rubber gauge stuff gets branded (and blessed) as "scale."


----------



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Personally, Josh, I think you probably better lighten up. 

I myself can't wait to get hold of the new C-17.5 by Aristocrepe, as I need a new locomotive to pull my 35 foot stainless steel streamlined New York Centennial passenger cars. And, I've about worn the gears out in my eggliner, so it'll hardly move them anymore, particularly on the 10 percentile grade I need to make my figure 7 go over and under. 

Besides. If the Denver and Rio Grande had decided on 3.5 foot gauge, the C-16 would have looked JUST LIKE THAT. Kind of like if all the 2 foot gauge railroads in Maine had been 2.5 feet, they'd have looked JUST LIKE the Bachmann On30 stuff. (Or, conversely, if the Colorado and Southern had chosen 2.5 feet instead of 3, the "Colorado" On30 stuff would have looked just like it's prototype.) Apparently, the model is definitive; reality is occasionally inaccurate (with all due apologies to Douglas Adams) 

Traditionally, HO scale modelers (the serious ones) are hung up on accuracy and scale. Only in large scale do people immediately scream "Rivet Counter" (like it was a bad thing) at the first mention of a scale or gauge issue. Certainly, there's room for "whatever floats your boat" in either scale ... I've seen HO starter sets with all kinds of oddball themes, and strange graphics that are no more unusual than the Coca Cola locos and "Queen Mary" diesels from LGB ... but if Broadway Limited's Santa Fe Northern had been out of scale, reviews would have crucified it, modelers would have hated it, and no one would have bought it. On 45mm track, it would probably have got an "Oooooh, Shiny!" and would have immediately been pressed into service pulling a string of "Chicken Dance" boxcars, bubble blowing cars, and a limited edition Beanie Baby caboose. 

The good news is, while the focus here will be on your language, and a strange need to defend the "honor" of various manufacturers and publications that will all but obliviate any intelligent discussion of the point you're trying to make, that you're not alone. There are a lot of people who think that models should be accurate in more than "many key dimensions" and that there ought to be more attention to making accurate scale models of railroad equipment than "cute little trains" ... unfortunately, they're often shouted down by the masses, who either don't know or don't care about the prototypes being modeled or the history involved, or have some other axe to grind, or who simply like to pick a fight. 

Perhaps GR ought to clarify what their perspective is, as a magazine, when reviewing items. If they're reviewing them from a "model" railroad perspective, then they should pay attention to aspects of the item they're reviewing that would be important to people who "model" (or make miniature representations of) railroad equipment. If they're reviewing them from the perspective of people who are simply looking for animated garden features to improve interest in a garden, but not necessarily be any kind of accurate representation (or "model") of any particular train, then this kind of review is probably fine. 

And, I'm not saying the "animated garden feature" folks have ANYTHING wrong with them . . . it's just a different set of priorities than folks for whom, like their smaller scale counterparts, scale fidelity, prototype accuracy, and attention to detail are key.... and when both schools open a magazine with the expectation that the material inside is geared for their interests, someone is about to be sorely disappointed. 


Of course, for my part, if you make an accurate model, you please both sides, as you now have an animated garden feature that also accurately represents railroad equipment of some kind ... but if I go too far down that path, I'm sure someone will start picking on my punctuation or grammar, or try to accuse me of being partial to one brand or another, and the whole point will be lost. 

Party on, Josh. You're not alone. 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

I wonder if the manufacturer will demand a follow up review like Bachmann did with the K-27


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Josh, you raise a valid point. I did not mention the fact that the loco "should" be 1:20.3 if it were to represent true 3' gauge. In the context of this particular locomotive, however, I don't feel it as significant an issue. The reason stems from the history of the model itself. Recall that this is a re-issue of a 20+ year old design. In truth, I was quite surprised to see that it had never been reviewed. At the time the locomotive was introduced, 1:24 was the _de facto_ scale for US narrow gauge on #1 gauge track. That was the scale most modelers chose for scratchbuilding and kitbashing (hence the large number of 1:24 details from Trackside Details and Ozark Miniatures). When Accucraft and Hartford Products started out, they too chose the "inaccurate" scale of 1:24 for their scale models. To paraphrase an old newsman, "that's the way it was." As an aside, there was a tremendous amount of top-drawer modeling being done to that scale. In fact, it was the modeling being done in that scale which gave rise to Accucraft and Hartford. I don't see that as a detrimental development. 

As for why the scale/gauge discrepancy wasn't addressed in the review, I simply didn't see it as an issue. First, it's hardly fair to criticize a company for a choice that was not theirs to begin with. Aristo didn't chose the scale, they merely bought the molds to keep the product line alive. Second, the truth of the matter is that the majority of people in garden railroading don't care about proper scale or gauge. They want their trains to run on the rails and look good with the rest of their stuff. That's a fact the scale enthusiasts would love to see change, but the reality is that the "shake the box" crowd always has been--and always will be--a prominent and important part of this hobby. 

Those for whom proper scale is important know their chosen scale (whether accurate for the gauge or not) and determine their choices based solely on that. That's why I put much more emphasis on accuracy relative to the manufacturer's stated scale than accuracy to the gauge. The C-16 does measure out quite accurately in the stated scale of 1:24 to published drawings. Yes, the gauge is off. As others have said, that's hardly a unique circumstance in large scale, it's "the way it is." You'll find that the scale/gauge discrepancy is rarely mentioned in GR reviews. I only mention it if there's an ambiguity relative to the actual scale, such as in my review of Piko's locomotive. 

Josh, I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree that a model has to be accurate to its scale/gauge to be considered anything but a "toy," nor do I accept your argument that any degree of compromise is "killing" the hobby. Compromise is an inherent part of model railroading, regardless of scale. You've seen the work of the many talented modelers who post photos of their projects here. I'd be quite loathe to call any of them "toys" simply because the wheels are the wrong distance apart--and I'd sure not do it if they were standing within striking distance. 

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have this scale/gauge mess that we have in large scale. Alas, history unfolded the way it did, and we're left to navigate the waters as best we can. 

Later, 

K 

PS - TOC, the top of the cupola of the D&RGW long caboose is 12' 8" above the railhead. The top of the roof of the C-16 is around 10' above. The crew _would_ be looking down into the cab. The caboose is actually quite well proportioned to the locomotive.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I believe that if they made everything exactly to scale none of us would be able to afford this hobby. The rolling stock would be priced right out of our bugets.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By parkdesigner on 08/28/2008 1:21 AM
Wow - way to be dedicated to modeling Brian! That's right, support our hobby by cheering on the continual destruction of *model* railroading... and we all wonder why "G" isn't taken seriously by the rest of the railroad community! "Wheels? Couplers? Ahh... then there must not be anything wrong with it!!" 
Heck - there seems to be less *modelers* every day... just shake the box and run whatever the **** falls out. Lot's of skill involved in that! Scale? Dimensions? Fidelity? Who needs those when I can run a 1:24 boxcar with Snoopy on it behind my 1:29 engine!?! 
It's funny - the first posts in this thread were about the mistaken thought that "Garden Railways Decline" was about the hobby, rather than the magazine - but I can tell now (oddly enough) it IS about just that! This hobby is going down the drain! And it's due to this exact "scale be damned" type of thinking!!! 
It's called "Model Railroading" not "Toy Railroading" - if you think a quarter inch is no big deal, then I suggest you just go ahead and move on over to the New Bright stuff from Toys R Us - but do me a favor and keep quiet around the manufacturers because it's comments about "a whole quarter inch" that are KILLING the hobby. 




A frequent question here is how to increase the size of the hobby. Well I can tell you, this kind of attitude will not do it. Someone starts in a hobby, something they do for fun, and the first thing they want to encounter is some guy oddly het up about how You're doing it wrong! That model out of the box is wrong! People like you are killing this hobby! 

"Um.., ok (backing away slowly) sorry, I thought this was supposed to be fun. I've got an appointment back in the real world..." 

The magazine is a generalist publication that tries to appeal to people who love accurate modeling, and to people who just like to see trains running around. So it will always offend purists. As far as I can tell, being offended is one of the things purists like best.


----------



## Crosshead (Feb 20, 2008)

"A frequent question here is how to increase the size of the hobby. Well I can tell you, this kind of attitude will not do it. Someone starts in a hobby, something they do for fun, and the first thing they want to encounter is some guy oddly het up about how You're doing it wrong! That model out of the box is wrong! People like you are killing this hobby! 
"Um.., ok (backing away slowly) sorry, I thought this was supposed to be fun. I've got an appointment back in the real world..." 
The magazine is a generalist publication that tries to appeal to people who love accurate modeling, and to people who just like to see trains running around. So it will always offend purists. As far as I can tell, being offended is one of the things purists like best." 



Next thing you know, Josh will be wanting people who play musical instruments to hit the right notes, too. Why does something have to have no standards to aspire to, no standard of quality, and no guidance from folks who know more about it than others to be fun? Do we give the same kind of accolades to the kid who bangs on a grand piano with both fists that we do a kid who takes lessons, learns how to play, and does well at a recital? Do recreational sports teams still practice hard because they want to win the league, or do they just sort of show up and do what they feel like? Why does a hobby have to be mindless to be fun? If I wanted that, I'd play "World of Warcraft" all night. Isn't there any room for people to strive for excellence in the craft, and to learn how to improve as they go? 
Maybe they ought to include a "Master Model Railroader" certificate in the box with every starter set. Just so's nobodys feelings get hurt, and nobody feels pressured to accomplish anything.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

You know, people play music at all kinds of levels. Some people know three chords and can't read a note, and they make a joyful noise and people love it. They sing around a campfire or in church or with friends. A lot of truly great music has been made out of three chords by part time "folk" musicians who had no real idea what they were doing, people who were farmers or steelworkers or housewives an who knew zip about music except how to have fun. Others spend their lives mastering every aspect of music making. For the life of me, I can't see why there isn't room for both. They are just different aspects of the pleasure "music" can provide. 

As far as I can see, the presence of people who just want to learn three cowboy chords has had absolutely zero deterrent effect on my desire to master jazz guitar--none whatsoever. But my looking down my nose at beginners and people who just want to have fun--a huge deterrent effect


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Lots of emotion from all sides ... 

Some folks in their responses seem to forget that Josh's original point wasn't that the model was crap but that Kevin's review was not up to the mark. He generalized a bit from there to the magazine's (lack of) utility. 

Kevin has now explained why he said what he did in the review ... his key point being that most GR readers do not care about scale fidelity/proportion. 

I am probably more in Josh's (and Matt's - Slate Creek's) corner in wishing for reviews of models that were tougher on their scale infidelities. Personally, i do not find the reviews generally to be sufficiently critical of shortcomings nor sufficiently praiseworthy of the many good things present - in short most reviews are just way too bland to be helpful. I think Josh's point that GR has never stated its criteria or perspective for its reviews makes the reviews difficult to situate for many of us. 

For sure as an Fn3 modeler I will not be a purchaser of a 1:24 scale model correct gauge or otherwise. That said, I have no problem with an improved loco for those long suffering modelers who have chosen the "gummy" scales of 1:22.5 or 1:24. I do have a problem with those who model in the gummy scales being so vocal in criticizing those who prefer a more accurate model. Mostly this criticism implies a reverse snobbery using the term rivit counter derogatorily to cover over some truly awful modeling (from a scale accuracy perspective). 

i also have a problem with the "rivit counters" derogatory comments about the decline of modelbuilding. It is no doubt true that fewer models are scratchbuilt these days but on the other hand most modelers are building railroads not just models of railroad equipment. In that context, there is every bit as much model building going on as there ever was. 

Why the intolerance that we see in this thread? Josh made what I think is a valid point, Kevin provided a valid rationalization - I am sure that Josh and Kevin can agree to disagree. But, the mere raising of the scale/proportion issue raised hackles promptly from all kinds of folks eager to rabblerouse. I am reminded of the words of a Kris Kristofferson song ... "some folks doing something dirty decent folks can frown on" 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 08/28/2008 3:53 AM
........As for why the scale/gauge discrepancy wasn't addressed in the review, I simply didn't see it as an issue. First, it's hardly fair to criticize a company for a choice that was not theirs to begin with. Aristo didn't chose the scale, they merely bought the molds to keep the product line alive. Second, the truth of the matter is that the majority of people in garden railroading don't care about proper scale or gauge. They want their trains to run on the rails and look good with the rest of their stuff. That's a fact the scale enthusiasts would love to see change, but the reality is that the "shake the box" crowd always has been--and always will be--a prominent and important part of this hobby. 
Those for whom proper scale is important know their chosen scale (whether accurate for the gauge or not) and determine their choices based solely on that. That's why I put much more emphasis on accuracy relative to the manufacturer's stated scale than accuracy to the gauge. ....... 

......I understand where you're coming from, but I do not agree that a model has to be accurate to its scale/gauge to be considered anything but a "toy," nor do I accept your argument that any degree of compromise is "killing" the hobby. Compromise is an inherent part of model railroading, regardless of scale. You've seen the work of the many talented modelers who post photos of their projects here. I'd be quite loathe to call any of them "toys" simply because the wheels are the wrong distance apart--and I'd sure not do it if they were standing within striking distance. 
In an ideal world, we wouldn't have this scale/gauge mess that we have in large scale. Alas, history unfolded the way it did, and we're left to navigate the waters as best we can. 
Later, 
K 





IMHPO I believe K hit the mark in regards to things especially since it was about his article. Although it is very entertaining to watch these things in regards to scale unfold. Been watching them for almost 9 years now and..........Hehehe 

Anyhow we do not Model Railroad we Garden Railroad or more specifically put have a garden with a model/toy train set. The only way we care about scale/gauge is exactly how K described it. "We want out trains to run on rails and look good with the rest of our stuff". None the less it's just a hobby. Meant for your personal amusment. No matter if you are restoring a 1965 AC Cobra with a 427 side oiler and webers on top or throwing down track in your yard, it will never be Exact. The original production is the only exact there will be. Regardless, a hobby is one of those things that in real life, when the chips are down, it gets filed out of sight when those real life issues actually step in and start slapping us around. Hobbies are expendable. Always have been and always will be. 
But this is how it is and works for us or more specifically me. It is what it is. Plus like John J sezzd "if they made everything exactly to scale none of us would be able to afford this hobby". Heck they don't and we dang near can't. Doohhh!!!! 

K, I've always enjoyed reading your postings and articles in Garden Railways. I will miss them since we are not renewing our subscription to the Magazine. Not for any particular content issue but more for budget and what we get out of it. Like I said we do this hobby with a "Garden with a train" mentality and since we have achieved that, the money could be better spent (or saved) for other things. 

Joe 


BTW...Hope it stops raining soon so the daughter and I can go out and play with her models...umm err uhh... I mean run her toy Snoopy and Disney Anniversary trains. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## DennisB (Jan 2, 2008)

We should be promoting this hobby and helping others get started. This is a toxic thread. The purpose of this forum is to promote garden railroading. I am very saddened that this topic has gotten so out of hand. This does not speak well of the hobby. 
Dennis


----------



## Bill4373 (Jan 3, 2008)

Let's face it, we are "ATTEMPTING" to model a railroad in miniature. A logging railroad with code 332 rail??? Didn't that prototype engine have 356,753 rivets?? If I want to mix sizes, I'll do that. I run what I want to and like. The gate that leads to my back yard opens both ways. If you don't like my ATTEMPT at miniature railroading, then don't let the gate hit you in the _ _ _ on your way out. If you can, go back to Issue #1 of Garden Railways (January-February 1984) to see how the hobby has changed since that time. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

SlateCreek/Matthew(OV)... well said. VERY well said. 

parkdesigner/Josh... poorly stated. Although I agree with your assessment of the state of the hobby... (it doesn't cost any more to make a "model" to the correct scale than to make it to the wrong scale; so why lose half the possible sales by excluding those that want at least some semblance of "Scale")... and your concern about the completeness of the review... your use of thinly veiled profanity is a "gross turn off" and is insulting to more than just the author of the review in the magazine. It is not an expression of your feelings about the situation, it is an expression that you don't care about the feelings of your audience. I know you lack the understanding as to why and as such you will neither apologize for it nor cease to use it in your everyday conversation and public expression; but it so severely interrupts your argument that I no longer care about the issue you are so upset about.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Just to throw my own opinion into the mix... 

Personally, I agree that the rubber gause/scale situation is frustrating, and it irks me that I almost never see a review of a 1:29, 1:24, or 1:22.5 model which even _mentions_ the fact that none of the above are correct for either US standard gauge or 3' narrow gauge. Granted, all are correct for some gauge somewhere, but NOT for the stated scale/gauge/prototype. 

That said, I also respect those that want to run trains in the garden, and don't care about a few scale inches here or there, as long as it works. That's fine, and it's a valuable part of the hobby. Those are the people driving the market, making decent, reasonably priced mechanisms available for the kitbaskers and scratchbuilders among us. 

The fact is, there has always been and always will be room in the hobby for a very broad range of tastes, opinions, and personal choices. 

Now, on the subject of the decline in GR... It seems to me that all of the Kalback publications (or at least MR, GR, and Trains, which I've read on occasion) have declined significantly, at least from the model builder's point of view. I have old copies of MR from the '50s, containing articles about cutting and soldering brass (as the basic, beginners' info), scratchbuilding models, and generally encouraging people to go forth and build a great model. These days, the vast majority of the hobby seems to be much more RTR oriented, so that's where the largest railroad hobby publishing company is moving. As I said above, I respect that, and appreciate the positive side of it, but I also no longer subscribe to their magazines. My own tastes, objectives, choices, etc. have put me in a different area of the hobby than that served by them. 

In conclusion, I believe it's important to hear an opinion about an article, a model, a magazine, or the hobby in general. However, please remember that it's _just_ an opinion, and not everyone will or should agree with it. We all need to respect each other, because the argument, swearing, and name calling is what really hurts the hobby for all of us, regardless of how we choose to model.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow, there are some good arguments/ stances here! Glad to see folks are at least respecting each other's opinions and goals with regards to the hobby! 

I read Kevin's article too, and found it to be good at informing me about a revised product. The one thing that gave the author credibility was his statement about having had the earlier versions. What I care about is "Will the freaking thing run and pull the trains I want." That's all I care about. I was also more interested to see some different feedback on the engine. I have had the chance to see one run at a nearby garden rr. Looked and ran really really well. 

Josh - GR has changed since its first inception back in the late 80s, but it was never ever a scale model magazine, so I am a little suprised at your reaction. The scale mag, Outdoor Railroader, which became something else, was the only real scale model magazine that I can recall, and it is gone. 

As far as being more critical of the manufacturers, the sky is the limit. Kevin also failed to mention this was an electrically powered locomotive, and not lives steam, as per the original, for which Aristo should have been flambayed. How far does it need to go? Like K said, this is a model that has been around a long time. For those of us who have been doing this a long time, this engine would be a good addition to go with my LGB moguls and Bachmann American. 

Each of us approaches this hobby differently. I am less focused on the correct scale to gauge issue. The green version looks really nice and it has #52, my wife's favorite number. Those are my deciding factors, in case anyone cares. 

Mark


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Gee,I thought these not to scale or correct gauge wars were over years ago. What goes around comes around I guess.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

I found a couple items that seem to me to be worth pointing out. 

First, on the quality of the review: 
This is an excerpt from a review in Outdoor Railroader of the then-new Caldonia Express/Delton C-16. Granted, it is not a review of the Aristo model, but if (as I assume is the case) they simply re-made and updated the old Delton model, then the main aesthetic and dimensional points are still valid. The full review can be found here. 
First, let's give the new Delton/Caledonia C-16 a cosmetic once-over. It is a 1:24 scale mostly cast plastic model with solid brass fittings and metal tires on the wheels. 

It is not an accurate representation of Number 268 in its later years. The discrepancies are simply too numerous to list. But the model is what Delton/Caledonia intended a very handsome freelance rendition of what a C-16 "could have been". 

.. 

The fit, finish, and quality of the detail parts were all excellent. The model looks terrific. 
Some critics have said the Delton C-16 seems too small. A careful check of all dimensions shows the locomotive's wheel base is ten scale inches short (probably to negotiate very sharp curves), the overall length is five scale inches short (but in proportion to the shorter wheel base), the driver diameter is two scale inches short (probably to compensate for the oversize flanges), and the tender is five scale inches short (compared to the as-built dimensions; the model's tender is completely different than the one 268 had in its later years). The width of the cab and tender are right on the money. So are the cab height and the height of the locomotive above the rails. The boiler even seems to be the correct diameter. So much for "too small". 

Altogether, Delton's C-16 is one of the very most accurate mass-produced locomotives in the hobby, at least in the case of the 1882 version. The review sample, as I pointed out, is really a freelance.


Second, on the subject of 1:24 models being toys: 
Take a look at this website. I challenge anyone to call this guy's models anything other than fine scale. They're a level of quality that many of us can only dream of reaching. The fact that they are 6" out of gauge does not seem obvious to me, and does not detract in any way from their appearance. 

Now, I choose to model in 1:20.3 because I want to model 3' gauge equipment, and I'm scratchbuilding everything anyway, so the choice of scale is immaterial to me. I'm sure this guy already had a stock of 1:24 equipment, and a 1:20.3 model would simply not fit in well with everything else. I hope that, in the future, more models will become available in 1:20.3, and that seems to be the case, but there is still quite a bit of it out there in other scales. I look at it much the same way that I see OO and HO models - they run on the same track, but they're different scales. I don't hear people complaingin that models in either scale are the "wrong" scale, and the people that care about OO track being narrow have moved over to P4 or EM gauge models.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2008)

Have to say several things, like Dennis said, yes bad thread. 
1. As a kitbasher and scratch builder I don't always make everything to scale every time! (pocketbook $$$$ fixed income) 
2. I have been over in GRMF and when I bring up scale plans that left the magazine and now we have .pdfs, I ask is the company in some sort of downfall that WE don't know???? My thread gets killed. Remember they print more than train mags. There has been many different types of scale magazines gone by the wayside that gave you ideas and dreams scale or not. 

Now if the marker color is not right then it is so! 

Toad


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I guess that's the way it needs to be. 
I report the K did not meet the actual scaled dimensions, and I get pitched, now this loco is just great. 

Oh, Meester Fletcher......yes, had a bloke in the States from NZ who had to have one of those 2-8-0's. 
But, all he did was 3'6" gauge in 1:24. 

I guess free-lanced, fantasy, improbable gauge issues are what we are stuck with. 

Eggliner, Pacificado, first re-make of the C was 1/4" too high (but expert modellers told us is was 'just right'), a LiverSpot of a loco sketched on a piece of paper but never built, this could make a new book.....


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

It seems to me that all of the Kalback publications (or at least MR, GR, and Trains, which I've read on occasion) have declined significantly, at least from the model builder's point of view. I have old copies of MR from the '50s, containing articles about cutting and soldering brass (as the basic, beginners' info), scratchbuilding models, and generally encouraging people to go forth and build a great model.
Ain't that the sad truth. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif MR used to be filled with plans for structures, rolling stock, locos, etc. Their layout construction articles were a heck of a lot more than a few pages of captioned photos. The MA & PA construction series spanned 13 issues in all, and even contained a proposed back story and history for the railroad and region which made for some very entertaining reading. Dollar Model Projects, Letters from Jim, and a host of other recurring features made it well worth buying - and saving. Today's mag is a mere shadow of its former self.


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

I really don't understand why people get all upset over things like this. Same thing happened over at the G1MRA site, got real nasty. Now they are thinking of shutting down their site. Jerry


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Agreed that this is simply a reworking of the now close-to 2 decades old Delton models. The simple truth is that Aristo already has the molds, and is simply using them. Its a reisuue, why get bent over a reissue? 

The whole issue of scale and accuracy, if the plans your measuring off of are drawn at 1/24 scale and they happen to nearly match the 1/24 model, why is anyone surprised if the reviewer says its close to the plans, the only thing off in the whole thing is the gauge of the wheels, something that hasnt been correct since the first C16 rolled of the Delton assembly line all those years ago. To redo the engine in 1/20 would entail an ENTIRELY new model, nothing from the Delton model would translate. Now thats ONE HELLOVA investment to make, Lewis is frugal if nothing else, so I'm not surprised he simply retooled the molds. He knows that for every Josh, theres 10 or more who will buy it. ****, I'd buy one, I've seen this engine at the BTS it looks nice, and having seen the older version next to an Accucraft C16, its a HUGE difference in size. 

We get to another glaring fact about large scale that some people just seam dead set to refuse to accept, that there are ALOT of large scalers who already have *substantial* investments in 1/22.5 and 1/24 models and are simply not going to jump on the 1/20.3 bandwagon simply because a few people get uptight about the fact that 1/20.3 is the only holy anointed 'accurate' scale for 45mm track. Alot like me, simply do not have room for the larger models, some existing layout clearences will not work with 1/20, alot simply dont worry about it and will run 1/20 and 1/24 and 1/24 and 1/29 all together, if thats what they like, I don't do it myself but I'm not going to pee on their cornflakes. 

One of the primary reasons I have always been freelanced was to purposefully AVOID this whole prototype hangup. First off NOBODY made models of the engines I liked, if they did they were $3K, secondly I have had run-ins with guys in HO narrow gauge in the past that really _really_ soured me to that approach, so I will create my own roster, modifing stock models to be unique to my layout or building my own, and if I have something that because of 'scale' looks off on my layout, well then I'll rebuild it, which is what I would do with THIS engine on MY layout, rebuild the cab it to something larger to match my 1/22.5 ruling scale. Having studied narrow gauge railroads since before I started LS, I know the truth is that sizes and gauges ran the gaunlet, over the years engines and roilling stock were sold off to numberous different railroads of different gauges, from 30" gauge stock retrucked with 36" gauge trucks to some standard gauge cars retrucked to 36" gauge to 36" gauge cars retrucked to standard gauge! So for the freelancer theres a true freedom to "mix and match" that the prototypers would get in a fit over. 

Now IF your modeling a specific prototype railroad, using specific prototype stock, at a specific prototype time, then you really are looking at self-restricting your choice of selections, and accept that this will be the case. Especially in large scale which simply does not have anywhere near the selection of products available in HOn3, even in HOn3 scratchbuilding and kitbashing are not the exception, they are considered the norm, or at least were back in the day. 

Josh all I can say is that if you _really_ want an accurate 1/20.3 scale C16, *dont look to Lewis* to spend close to a million dollars to recreate the wheel at a larger scale, afterall the man invented 1/29 for _increased market value_, to suddenly expect scale fidelity is like expecting a politician to tell the truth during an election year, naive at best. So either save up and find an Accucraft C16, at 1/20.3 its a terrific looking model, or get a BBT 2-8-0 drive block, and *build one*. Plans are available all over the place, Trackside Details and Ozark Minatures sell every detail part concievable and everything in Dave Fletchers Mogul Masterclass project would apply to a 1/20 C16 as well. 

PS I'm talking only about the model issue, I will not comment on K's review as I have not read it yet.


----------



## DKRickman (Mar 25, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 08/28/2008 9:35 AM
Today's mag is a mere shadow of its former self.


In my opinion, today's MR is more a monthly advertisement for the latest and greatest (and most expensive) Walthers products. It sure seems like Walthers is trying to become the Micro$oft of the model railroad world, at least in HO. 

I have a good friend who's just recently become active in model railroading. He started a couple years ago with a glorified loop of track on a table and a subscription to MR. He's since torn the layout out, build a new point-to-point, and cancelled his subscription. We both devour RMC and Railfan and Railroad monthly, because (while still shadows of their former selves) are much more interesting and informative. It's been interesting to see the development of a future "rivet counter". What's even more interesting, though, is to see that he enjoys the hobby to about the same extent that he did in the beginning. In other words, moving from running whatever trains he wanted in a circle to prototypical operation, scale fidelity, etc. has not increased his enjoyment of the hobby. He's just found, like so many of us, that to continue to enjoy it, he needed to continue to improve, both in his models and in his knowledge of railroads. 

One of these days, I'll get him into large scale, and/or scratchbuilding.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2008)

Does any one know for a fact or slight fact what Kalback Publications are going to do? seems like there hanging on a thread?! 
And so what other Mags are out there I could invest in? 
I like hands on, grit in the teeth and full well knowing if some one showed me I know I could do it, I live in the sticks so I have no G scale people around me but HO and O scale. 
Toad 

Vic seen me get my thread pulled..I think, asking about the GRM.../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/doze.gif


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Toad, I feel your pain, you remember how many threads I had got nixed during the LGB flameout? /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif 

I still like GR, but the Gazette has become by far my most important resource publication, even going so far as to collect as many back issues as I could get my greedy little paws onto when someone sold off their collection at my LHS. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif 

What I dont like about GR, for me, is the seaming emphisis on large yard filling layouts that tout the headlines, "great layout is a small space" small space? Holy crap its bigger than my whole backyard, thats small now? /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/shocked.gif 

Overall I'm still happy with the rag, every time I think its waning they publish something redeaming, like the last issue featured a really well done indoor point to point layout that really was in a small space.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

And so what other Mags are out there I could invest in? 
For my money, the Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette is the best mag out there right now. Unfortunately it's only published bi-monthly. 
If you're interested in plans and articles on how to scratchbuild stuff (albeit probably in HO, but much is still applicable to large scale), buy some back issues of Model Railroader from the 50s and 60s available at places like Railpub.com


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2008)

Yeah I have 1st issue with typed letter. 
They need to remember where there roots lay!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/angry.gif 
Oh there publication pick ups and people wanting to buy is going down.....I freakn think so!!!!!!! I hope they read this thread! They cannot nix this one!!!! And yes I remember them nixing yours that "they" (stormtroopers "SS") thought it was wrong. Tired of there wants and never want to hear our side. 
Toad


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 08/28/2008 10:33 AM
And so what other Mags are out there I could invest in? 
For my money, the Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette is the best mag out there right now. Unfortunately it's only published bi-monthly. 
If you're interested in plans and articles on how to scratchbuild stuff (albeit probably in HO, but much is still applicable to large scale), buy some back issues of Model Railroader from the 50s and 60s available at places like Railpub.com




Dwight, 
Truthfuly I have all the way to s gauge. Old mags and some from across the pond. Will look up those! Thank you. 
Toad


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I just thought it was good to see an old loco brought back to life. 
What a person can learn when he comes home for lunch. 
back to work.


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow ... so many got really incenced at the message that a review was inaccurate taking it as a personal blast at their modelling approach. I read Kevin's review and have now reread Josh's critique ... while Josh worded it rather strongly, the suggestion was that not only did the review not say much about scale to gauge it even went so far as to say that the dims and proportions matched the drawings. Hmm if the track is actually about 17% too wide and the dims are correct for 1:24 ... then the model proportions must be off ...simple as that. 

That does not mean that folks who model in 1:22.5 or 1:24 are doing anything wrong ... nor does it condemn the loco in question ... c'mon guys get a grip - the criticism was of the review not of each of you personally. And, I didn't hear anyone say that a modeler shouldn't run what pleased him nor was there any suggestion from the Fn3 crowd that the first new (well slightly revised perhaps) loco in many years for the 1:24 guys should have been done only in 1:20.3 Has the "silly season" as they say in the UK begun here and thin skinned folks read into something not what the writer said but what they want to hear? 

In terms of magazines, there are a few scratchbuilders ( Dwight and Toad for example) out there who do not like the current MR and favour stuff from a half century ago when a modeler had to build. The emphasis then was on building a model ... and it took a lifetime to complete even the smallest layout. Most model railroads that actually ran were in the hands of large clubs as private individuals rarely got more than a loop of track running. Today, most modelers see themselves modeling a railroad not just modeling a piece of equipment. And just as the scratchbuilder buys castings and stripwood to make a model, these modelers buy cars and locos to build the model rialroad. 

I have no problem with both types of modelers enjoying their creative worlds. But surely the scratchbuilders still left could be more tolerant of the changing world around them. It hardly means that the mags have gone downhill just because a modeler's favoured activity finds little expression in the popular press. The fact that the Gazoo is almost the only scratchbuilders mag left suggests that this type of modelling activity is very much in the minority. And doubly so amongst large scalers. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 08/28/2008 10:33 AM
And so what other Mags are out there I could invest in? 
For my money, the Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette is the best mag out there right now. Unfortunately it's only published bi-monthly. 
If you're interested in plans and articles on how to scratchbuild stuff (albeit probably in HO, but much is still applicable to large scale), buy some back issues of Model Railroader from the 50s and 60s available at places like Railpub.com








Add to that Uncle Russ's now sadly only-quarterly mag as a 'valued resource' to scratchbuilders and kitbash modelers.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Doug - I'm not condemning the RTR crowd, and I fully realize that the Model Railroading hobby has changed substantially from what it once was as better and more detailed RTR stuff has become more and more available. What I _am_ saying is that the MR magazine has gone downhill. Most railroads featured in its pages anymore are large layouts, and most today simply don't have the space or resources for such a large pike. The articles which do feature "how to build it" stuff are far shorter than they once were, and most articles featuring how to build a layout are now nothing more than some captioned photos. Maybe that's what the large majority of modelers want today, but it isn't what I want, and I can't help feeling that much has been lost. And I'm not talking about just scratchbuilding articles, though that's certainly part of it. The example I used of the MA & PA early in the series had as that month's installment several pages of which a large chunk was creating the history of the railroad and the region it served. That not only made for some entertaining reading, but exemplified a very enjoyable aspect of the hobby which gets little emphasis these days. In fact, it was even mentioned in said article that "imagineering" such a history for one's pike was not only a lot of fun, but added to the overall quality of the layout as it provided a yardstick of "believability" by which to measure one's efforts and against which to plan the layout. 

Each to his own, and I bear no intolerance to folks who want to do it different from what I may do. But my opinion (and that's all it is - my personal opinion) is that much that once were enjoyable facets of the hobby have been lost, and the magazine does nothing to point them out, where once it did. 

Most of Kalmbach's magazines - at least the train related ones - seem to suffer from the same deficiency which I'd call "fluff over meaningful content." Those who disagree are welcome to their different opinion and can continue to buy the mag. Me, I'm also entitled to my own opinion, and I can choose not to engage in what to me seems a waste of my money. I will buy Kalmbach's more specialized books if they appeal to me and contain info I need. For a model railroad periodical, I'll spend my bucks on the Gazette and Finescale. Possessing or expressing that personal opinion does not indicate intolerance... merely my opinion on what constitutes a good periodical.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2008)

Dwight, very true and when I asked Rene on the phone she said it was because of "down sizing" which means what I don't know but she did just get a new job in GR so it could have been anothers job and cut them out so she fills 2 different boots. Could GR go under, yes. 
Toad


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

...I am probably more in Josh's (and Matt's - Slate Creek's) corner in wishing for reviews of models that were tougher on their scale infidelities. 

The question becomes how often do you beat up a manufacturer for a specific scale choice they made? When Aristo introduced 1:29, they suffered a great deal of criticism for "inventing" a scale. History has demonstrated this to be a wise marketing move on their part, and they've carved out a rather large segment of the hobby. Are we--as reviewers--supposed to continually point out the fact that the rails are technically too close together, or are we allowed to accept that a practice has become so commonplace that it has become its own standard? Models built to that scale deserve to be reviewed on those merits, and not compared to another--albeit more "accurate"--standard. Look at O-scale (1:48), whose rails are 5' apart. That's an accepted compromise which rarely--if ever--gets mentioned in reviews. The same holds true for HOn30 and On30 products based on 3' and 2' gauge prototypes. The fact that the wheels may or may be too close/far apart for the prototype doesn't often make its way into the review, and rarely is it mentioned in a way that detracts from the overall quality of the model. 

...if the track is actually about 17% too wide and the dims are correct for 1:24 ... then the model proportions must be off ...simple as that...

I disagree. The proportions (height, width, length) are all near accurate relative to the drawings. The _only_ difference is that the wheels are set slightly wider than the prototype. That has a minimal, arguably negligible impact on the overall proportions of the model. None of the dimensions (width of the cab, boiler diameter, tender) were widened to compensate for the wider gauge. Possibly the cylinders sit farther out, but that's it. It's no more out of proportion than any of the O and HO scale examples alluded to above. If the cab was widened to where it scaled out at 1:22 or something, then the proportions would be off-kilter and worthy of comment. But save for the space between the wheels, the model matches the advertised scale very reasonably, nearly identically in all the key dimensions. To that end, it lives up to its advertised specs and when compared with other 1:24 products, gets a passing grade. (In fact, the two key dimensions where the model is compressed--overall length and wheelbase--are compromises along a completely different axis having nothing to do with gauge.) 

Personally, i do not find the reviews generally to be sufficiently critical of shortcomings nor sufficiently praiseworthy of the many good things present - in short most reviews are just way too bland to be helpful.

That is, perhaps, the most common criticism of product reviews (not just those in GR). The raw facts such as performance are easy enough to report, but sometimes difficult to translate into "real world" language. If I say a locomotive can pull 2 pounds, what does that mean on _your_ railroad? Difficult to say, since it depends on track, grade, curve, etc. Thoughts on scale fidelity depend on the reviewer's familiarity with the prototype. If I know the prototype, I can pass a much stronger judgement on how well a model matches, but I also have to temper my comments to balance against the next review I write in which I may know nothing of the prototype. It's not fair to rail against one product because the brake lines are 1/2" too narrow, then give the next product a pass although it's actually 10' shorter than the prototype and I didn't know it. I won't ignore the issues, but I won't dwell on them, either. I'm always asking myself "is this something the average modeler--not I--would worry about?" 

I think Josh's point that GR has never stated its criteria or perspective for its reviews makes the reviews difficult to situate for many of us...

In an ideal situation, the perspective should be invisible. The "ideal" review should lay out the facts as they're determined, then let the reader decide whether the product is right for their use. Part of the difficulty in writing reviews for a magazine with such a diverse readership as GR's is that the extremes are so far apart that tailoring a review for the "average" modeler still leaves a lot of territory uncovered. I look at each scale within the large scale umbrella as its own individual pursuit, none any more or less valid than another, each with its own strengths and compromises. Those strengths and compromises are inherent in the scale, not the product. I will not criticize a product for the sins of the scale. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

I have been reading reviews in UK model magazines for many years. Whatever the report says I will decide whether I want the loco or not. 

I have only been reading GR for just over two years so have no guide about its history. I like the mag. - its' emphasis is on US railroads which is what I run. 
GR and Classic Trains are the only RR mags I purchase. 
Mention has been made of 1:20.3 and some other scales - fine models - if you have the $$$ and are not ham-fisted, like I am. 
 

The 1:22.5 and Aristo 1:29 were what I was able to comfortably afford and in my opinion are pretty good models. In recent threads where the mention of encouraging newcomers into the hobby was discussed quite a few folk said that the overall cost of getting started were often a frightener to many and they soon lost interest.


----------



## livesteam5629 (Jan 2, 2008)

Josh - GR has changed since its first inception back in the late 80s, but it was never ever a scale model magazine, so I am a little suprised at your reaction. The scale mag, Outdoor Railroader, which became something else, was the only real scale model magazine that I can recall, and it is gone.

Outdoor Railroader is gone as a quarterly publication for several reasons. One is that material to publish was becoming difficult to obtain (How many times can you do an article on the Sundance Modules?), but more importantly Clambake was the distributor. Per Uncle Russ "Never have your distributor be competing for the same market you are." (or something to that effect) Correct scale is important to me but not so much so as to kill my enjoyment of the hobby. Sometimes we have to compromise to get what we wish. My live steam 1:20 (almost 0.3) Mason Bogie is a case in point. Driver spacing is wrong, boiler a little too large, cylinders the same but when up and running it looks very very close to a heavy Mason Bogie becasue the incorrect dimensions are not detectable unless you have a caliper and scale drawing in hand.So is it to scale? Only I really know(I think). BTW I have pre Gazette issues and #1 to current, Some pre issues and #1 to current of Outdoor/Finescale MRRng and all issues of Steam in the Garden. Not bragging so please do not interpret my comment as such. It is that these publications IMHO are the best in the hobby and I do not wish to part with them. Have tons of back issues of RMC, MR, Trains, plus some dead publications which will go to the local library soon. 
Noel


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Odd. 
You mean the width of the cylinders were changed to accomodate the different gauge? 
"Possibly the cylinders sit farther out, but that's it. " doesn't tell us much. 

"Are we--as reviewers--supposed to continually point out the fact that the rails are technically too close together, or are we allowed to accept that a practice has become so commonplace that it has become its own standard?" 

Continually. If for no other reason than to alert the "newbies" as to what they are getting into. 

Facts is facts. 

You have not reviewed the facts.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Noel, 

I though Uncle Russ was publishing "Finescale Modeler". Doesn't it include more general scale modeling that just outdoor trains? The last couple of times I looked through one (I don't see them often), the stuff wasn't large scale trains. And I think the adventures of the railroad man were gone. That was what I really read Outdoor Railroader for anyway, those great stories. The gods of steam, the fig newtons, the white dustbuster minivan...it was too much!! Thanks. Now I have to dig out an old issue I have stored in the basement. 

Mark


----------



## livesteam5629 (Jan 2, 2008)

Odd. 
You mean the width of the cylinders were changed to accomodate the different gauge? 
"Possibly the cylinders sit farther out, but that's it. " doesn't tell us much. 


Sorry Curmudgeon, 
No the orginal locomotive which was a outline 1:20.3 MB from OZ has been modified by me so much it is hard to tell which was orginal. The cylinders are now Roundhouse and also highly modified that they no longer look like a Roundhouse product. They are mounted on the original frame in place of the original cylinders which did not stand up to my mods. The engine now has a "scale" David Fletcher MB valve gear in stainless steel, Barry Big Trains side and main rods and tender truck, plus numerous other detail parts. Boiler still orginal but undergoing scrutiny for possible replacement. 
Scratch building, modifying and etc is my fun in the hobby. 
Noel


----------



## livesteam5629 (Jan 2, 2008)

Mark; 
You are correct. Finescale covered all aspects of Narrow Gauge Railroading from 1:1, On30 (or is it On21/2) On3 and outdoor. Still a good mag in spite of it now being published as a Narrow Gauge Annual (twice yearly or quarterly?) and only available by subscription I believe. Uncle Russ really took it in the shorts with Kalmbach. A real shame since there was/is a market for both. 
Noel


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Dwight Ennis on 08/28/2008 12:19 PM 
Doug - I'm not condemning the RTR crowd, and I fully realize that the Model Railroading hobby has changed substantially from what it once was as better and more detailed RTR stuff has become more and more available. What I _am_ saying is that the MR magazine has gone downhill. Most railroads featured in its pages anymore are large layouts, 

Dwight 
Do you realize how long some of us complained about not seeing enough modern mainline ??? Fors years it was just narrow gauge scratchbilt ...what ever . 
I'm greatful to see modern cars being weathered and new articals on new stuff. 
If 4 car log trains with shays was all that was out there I'd be gone. 

I wish some of this energy spent currecting things was spent on getting more folks into the hobby.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 08/28/2008 1:34 PM
Noel, 
I though Uncle Russ was publishing "Finescale Modeler". Doesn't it include more general scale modeling that just outdoor trains? The last couple of times I looked through one (I don't see them often), the stuff wasn't large scale trains. And I think the adventures of the railroad man were gone. That was what I really read Outdoor Railroader for anyway, those great stories. The gods of steam, the fig newtons, the white dustbuster minivan...it was too much!! Thanks. Now I have to dig out an old issue I have stored in the basement. 
Mark




"Finescale" started out as "Outdoor Railways", when Klambake aquired the distribution rights to Outdoor Railways, a power struggle occured due to a name dispute over "Outdoor Railways" name being to similar to thier own "Garden Railways" so Uncle Russ changed the name to "Finescale Model Railways" and added emphisis on other smaller non-garden scales, but the damage was done and eventually (some say deliberatly) Klambake slowly eroded Finescales distribution until it was finally dissolved with the remaining publication being 2 bi-annual "Modelers Annual" 1 "Mining, Logging & Industrial Annual" and 1 "Narrow Gauge Annual" but these continue to be top notch info publications.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm greatful to see modern cars being weathered and new articals on new stuff. 
If 4 car log trains with shays was all that was out there I'd be gone.
Marty - nowhere did I say content should be confined to narrow gauge or logging. Nowhere. 

In fact, MR in its heyday (by my definition) featured far more stuff on broadgauge (that's standard gauge to you  ) than on narrow gauge. And the industries described, while not always appropriate for today's dieselized pikes due to their publication date, would fit right in with any layout dated mid-sixties and earlier, when rail service to smaller industries was more common. Most of these plans were actually sized for broadgauge (platform and loading dock heights, etc.).


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight 

Your point is well taken given your interests in the hobby and of course your opinion counts ... just as you have stated, you no longer buy the mags which do not reflect your modeling interest. 

I only reacted to your use of the words - the mags have gone downhill (because they no longer reflect model building to the extent they once did). Personally, I think the mags have gone uphill as MR in particular has responded to the notion that many folks build AND OPERATE their empire. This has in fact overtaken the model building which used to be the centre of attention. 

I cannot say the same for GR of course as few garden railroaders scratchbuild and even fewer operate prototypically. As a prime exhibit of both points check out the feature RR in the latest GR - two loops no switches and all rtr stuff; the owner even states his goal is to sit by his pool with a drink and watch the trains go round. Be that as it may, though GR does not cater to my specific interest in operations, it does appeal to the gardener in me so I continue to read it. 

All of us need to understand that the hobby has a wide range of interests from collecting to ops to purely social aspects. we all need to be tolerant of those interests even when they are not our own. We can individually decide to buy or not to buy a magazine based on its conformance to our interests but to say a mag has gone downhill because it has followed the mainstream interest as the hobby changes casts an intolerant value judgement. 

Regards ... Doug


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 08/28/2008 1:34 PM 
Noel, 
I though Uncle Russ was publishing "Finescale Modeler". Doesn't it include more general scale modeling that just outdoor trains? The last couple of times I looked through one (I don't see them often), the stuff wasn't large scale trains. And I think the adventures of the railroad man were gone. That was what I really read Outdoor Railroader for anyway, those great stories. The gods of steam, the fig newtons, the white dustbuster minivan...it was too much!! Thanks. Now I have to dig out an old issue I have stored in the basement. 
Mark

You are confusing "Finescale Modeler" with "Finescale Railroader" that went down a couple years ago. 

Finescale Modeler: 
http://www.finescale.com 

Finescale Railroader: 
http://www.finescalerr.com


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Whoops! Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

You mean the width of the cylinders were changed to accomodate the different gauge? 
"Possibly the cylinders sit farther out, but that's it. " doesn't tell us much. 

Yes, the cylinders would be set wider. Probably the frame's a bit wider, too. I'm not writing the review here, merely offering a suggestion as to where a potential variance from the plans may lie, otherwise I would have been a bit more deliberate in my verbage. But--again--wider cylinders relative to the rest of the locomotive are an inherent compromise to the scale. Having scratchbuilt my share of 1:24 models, it's not that significant of a change. If you're modeling 1:24 on gauge 1 track, then you've accepted that as a compromise. If you can't accept that as compromise, step up to 1:20.3. Just be prepared to shell out a few more bucks for a C-16. 

"Are we--as reviewers--supposed to continually point out the fact that the rails are technically too close together, or are we allowed to accept that a practice has become so commonplace that it has become its own standard?" 

Continually. If for no other reason than to alert the "newbies" as to what they are getting into. 

I disagree. That's what the other 120 pages in the magazine are for. I generally assume that the reader either has at least a cursory understanding of scale and gauge and is reading the review because he/she is interested in the product for what it is, or--like many--simply doesn't care about scale, just wanting something that looks good and runs well. If the reader is interested in learning about scale and gauge, there are plenty of other resources both within the magazine and out to help them on their journey. (Not the least of which is a column called "Garden Railways Basics" that covers such concepts from time to time.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2008)

I haven't received mine yet (GR Mag) but I can say, I've seen the C-16 and commented many times; "It's a nice looking Little engine"...they are all toys some just cost more than others!....I wonder what someone could do with a C-16 in 7/8......? 

cale


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By calenelson on 08/28/2008 2:48 PM 
....I wonder what someone could do with a C-16 in 7/8......? 
cale


Ride it? /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif 

BTW alls youz guys out there with those hated not to scale 1/24 toytrain Delton and Aristo C-16s that are just makin yer eyes bleed cause they're not correct to 1/20.3 scale /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/blink.gif 









Feel free to mail them all to me, I'll bash'em into something interestin and put'em to good use /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

Any hobby magazine has to keep having basic articles aimed at the beginner. People who have been in it for awhile just have to put up with the 'basics'. Sometimes I even pick up something from them myself.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

"I disagree. That's what the other 120 pages in the magazine are for. I generally assume that the reader either has at least a cursory understanding of scale and gauge and is reading the review because he/she is interested in the product for what it is, or--like many--simply doesn't care about scale," 

And that after your supporting commentary on 1:29. 
Obviously, you don't THINK people care. 
Really surprising after page 109 of the June 2008 issue: 

"What this isn't is 1:22.5 scale () or #1 scale (), the accurate scale for standard-gauge trains running on 45mm track". 

You said it there, but you gave this one a "walk".


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Jerry Barnes on 08/28/2008 9:43 AM 
I really don't understand why people get all upset over things like this. Same thing happened over at the G1MRA site, got real nasty. Now they are thinking of shutting down their site. Jerry


Thread drift with apologies - 

Thanks, Jerry, for that notice from GC. Living where I do, I, too, fall under the aegis of the EAG - East Anglia Group - but having to join up to a Yahoo! group was such a RPITA that I didn't bother to join in. 

Seems that was a good decision. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/ermm.gif 

Funny, the very few G1-ers that I know, and with whom I play trains at this 'exalted level of sophisticated enjoyment' all seem to get on just fine wherever and whenever we meet up. Funny that, eh? 

Best 

tac 
G1MRA #3641


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Actually, I've been reviewing the pictures and diagrams and mfg's drawings, and don't believe that this is a model of the Baldwin C-16 engine built for D&RGW. 
This appears to be the 2-8-0 exhibited at the Railway Appliances Exposition of 1883 built by Balwin for the Conglomerate Mining Company. The engine was however sold to another private carrier, the Lac La Belle & Calumet, but then sold to the Deerfield River Railroad, an affiliate of the Hoosac Tunnel & Wilmington, though this is also a 3' gauge line. 
The point is, Baldwin made these engines for 3'6" as well as 3' lines. The 3'6" gauge was second in the U.S. only to the 3' gauge in narrow gauge railroading. If the one provided to the Railway Appliances Exposition looks like the D&RGW version, so can their 3'6" versions and again I contend, that this is "just the wrong road name" for the engine regardless of who Delton, AristoCraft, or GR report it was made for (not MADE BY).


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Ah, the old "wrong road name" syndrome. 
But, "expert modelers looked at it and said it was just right!" 

The question is not the loco, rather the printed material.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 08/28/2008 3:44 PM 
Actually, I've been reviewing the pictures and diagrams and mfg's drawings, and don't believe that this is a model of the Baldwin C-16 engine built for D&RGW. 
This appears to be the 2-8-0 exhibited at the Railway Appliances Exposition of 1883 built by Balwin for the Conglomerate Mining Company. The engine was however sold to another private carrier, the Lac La Belle & Calumet, but then sold to the Deerfield River Railroad, an affiliate of the Hoosac Tunnel & Wilmington, though this is also a 3' gauge line. 
The point is, Baldwin made these engines for 3'6" as well as 3' lines. The 3'6" gauge was second in the U.S. only to the 3' gauge in narrow gauge railroading. If the one provided to the Railway Appliances Exposition looks like the D&RGW version, so can their 3'6" versions and again I contend, that this is "just the wrong road name" for the engine regardless of who Delton, AristoCraft, or GR report it was made for (not MADE BY).

I would agree the wood burner version could be passed off as a generic catalog model, 








but Aristo has chosen to model the coal burner version with the dual air pumps on the left side, this was to the best of my knowledge only a D&RG practice, so Josh's comment about it being a Colorado narrow gauge model does have merit: 








I simply consider it a nicer reissue of an older alredy existing 1/24 scale product.


----------



## paintjockey (Jan 3, 2008)

To each their own. Personaly, I just assume that anything that aristo makes, while nice, isn't to scale. True, maybe it sould be noted for new comers but I really don't think it's the downfall of the hobby. LGB made not to scale stuff for pretty much their whole existance and when they went under people were pretty bummed. People will run what they want. Some like me, will start with whatever they get their hands on then "aspire" to make scale models, then finescale models. Oh yeah then when I'm done with that I go play world of warcraft all night. People will do what they want, they always do. 

Although I don't think buying "shake the box" models is lazy. Personally, I like to run trains, i build what i can't afford or find. When I can buy an accucraft boxcar for under $70 and the same kit to build is over $100 or i can scratchbuild it for about $80, i think buying it is pretty smart, not lazy. But again, if building models is your thing, enjoy it. 

It's good to see people stand behind what they like. Run what you enjoy and enjoy what you run, at the bottom of it all they are all toys. Some are more finescale than others. Some are more toyish than others. But they are all toys and toys are supposed to be fun. 
Terry


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Atless you all are talking about it, good or bad and if its a good runner it should sale well. 
I'm just thankful I got into the true 1:29th scale...!!!! 

Hopefully a couple of the C 16s will show up at our battery powered steam up.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I get Play Boy Mag for the Articals and get Garden Railways for the pcitures.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

OK, I just received my magazine and am reading the write-up. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it nor are there any improper references to scale. 
You are just misinterpreting it. That's not Kevin's fault. 

In the first paragragh Kevin talks of the D&RG and their acquisitions. A history lesson on the background of the C-16, if you will. After all, D&RG was the biggest customer for these. 

In the second paragragh, Kevin discusses the history of model itself. He states, "I had never compared the model with the measurements of the prototype, though. To my suprise, this loco measures almost indentically to published drawings, etc." 

No where has Kevin noted that this is a model of a D&RG engine. He only gave some D&RG history up front. 

Under Vital statistics it states, "Dimensions are very close to published drawings for the prototype." Again, no one has identified which prototype. You are drawing the conclusion that he is comparing it to the D&RG prototype, and not some drawing of a 3'6" gauge engine. 

He goes on to mention fantasy lettering for Union Pacific, but again, this would be the case regardless of what 3'6" gauge railroad this catalog engine was taken from. (Again, I contend, right scale, wrong road name.) 

The picture in the article clearly shows a "generic" catalog Baldwin C-16 wood burner that could well have been produced for a 3'6" gauge line. There are no photos of any coal or D&RG equipment or air pumps or... 

God, I should have been a lawyer.


----------



## tom h (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin, I have to say I look forward to reading your articles, the same with Marty and Bruce and whoever else, you guys make it easy for us new guys to understand, very detailed so we can work with it. Keep up the great work!!! 

I could care less about counting rivets, just as long as it runs, you really want to start an arguement  Do you pick your wives like you pick your trains? /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif 

tom h


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

JJ, 

And the neighbor kids are afraid of you? Wonder why. By the way, since we're talking scale, has anyone ever bothered to mention to any of the bunnies in your 'Play Boy' rag that they are disproportionately scaled to appear top heavy? Who am I kidding. I could never get that kind of sentence out to a 'live' one!! Bet Hef couldn't either. 

All- 
Model Railroad News had a review spread across 8 pages in their August issue of this exact same locomotive. I guess they were given a pass because of these lawyer type weasal words (Apologies to lawyer types): 

"The model is considered 1:24 scale, also known as "Half Inch" or H Scale. ..... While 1:24 is not one of the "pure" scales, on regular garden railroad track, it does represent a 3 1/2" "Cape" scale, which was not common in the US, but is quite popular all over the rest of the world.." MRN, page 40, "Our sample C-16", paragraph 2 

The article offers the following dimensions: 
locomotive: 29 feet, 6 inches pilot to back plate (unclear if this is the model or real) 
tender: 20 feet, 3 inches (unclear if this is the model or real) 
gap between loco and tender: 1 scale foot 
Total: 40 feet, 9 inches. 
Stack height: 6.75 inches, or 13.5 scale feet 
width: 4.5 inches, 9 scale feet 
Drivers: scale out to 34.87 inches, real was 36 inches 

Maybe someone with either the loco or the drawings can confirm the above? 

They even gave the paint job a glowing review!! MRN is an all scale publication, so they are reaching more people than those just interested in large scale trains. I must have missed when H scale was made. Makes sense, G, then H, the F. What happened to I scale? Or was that too close to Gauge 1? 

If nothing else, this has been one interesting thread. 

Mark


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 08/28/2008 6:36 PM

God, I should have been a lawyer.



And just think you could have more land with more road and more trains! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By toddalin on 08/28/2008 6:36 PM

God, I should have been a lawyer.





Good thing you didn't. 
Wouldn't have made a good one. 

Better re-read the entire first paragraph. 
Something about D&RGW, Baldwin, 56 of the original Class 60, later called C-16, worked for the D&RGW for nearly 50 years. 

Selective understanding.


----------



## parkdesigner (Jan 5, 2008)

"God, I should have been a lawyer." 

WOW Todd - and a VERY bad one if you were. VERY BAD. 

You stated in your above post: "Under Vital statistics it states, "Dimensions are very close to published drawings for the prototype." Again, no one has identified which prototype. You are drawing the conclusion that he is comparing it to the D&RG prototype, and not some drawing of a 3'6" gauge engine." 

ok... yes sir - your words - but please, if you will, read aloud from the first line of this same paragraph... 

What's that? Can't read? Well, allow me to read it for everyone: 

"Plastic, electrically powered model of the C-16 class (formerly class 60) locomotive of the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad." 

Nope - "no one has identified which prototype." 

I'd suggest rereading the entire article before making your next post.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

And that after your supporting commentary on 1:29. 
Obviously, you don't THINK people care. 

Dave, you're misinterpreting my statements. I said _many_ people don't care. When you look at reader surveys, look at what people are running on their railroads, and listen to people on these forums, it's quite apparent that there are a good number of people in large scale who simply want to run cool looking trains in the garden without thought to scale, era, or prototype. There are also many people (though seemingly a slightly smaller number) who are more scale oriented, sticking to one, perhaps two scales. An even smaller number stick strictly to one scale, one railroad, etc. As I've always said, the large scale hobby consists of a very wide spectrum of interests. 

Really surprising after page 109 of the June 2008 issue: 
"What this isn't is 1:22.5 scale () or #1 scale (), the accurate scale for standard-gauge trains running on 45mm track". 

You said it there, but you gave this one a "walk".

Dave, read--and quote--the whole thing. That statement is based solely on the fact that the locomotive being reviewed (Piko's diesel) was labeled _on the box_ as 1:22.5. Clearly it is not, being a standard gauge prototype running on gauge 1 track, whose "correct" scale should be 1:32. I never indicated that being neither was a negative, merely that it wasn't either. I commented because there was a discrepancy between what was advertised and what was delivered. You'll notice I mentioned in my earlier posts that such discrepancies _do_ merit comment. 
The rest of the paragraph reads as follows: 

"If proper scale/gauge ratios are important to you, you'll find this locomotive oversized. If running trains that look visually compatible together (particularly with LGB's European-style rolling stock)[is important], then you might consider this an addition to your roster." 

In the case of the C-16, there was no discrepancy between the advertised scale and what was delivered, and as I've already explained, no reason for comment. You're under no obligation to agree with my reasoning, though I would expect you to respect it. 

The last paragraph of the review: 

"On the whole, I'm impressed with this locomotive. It seems to me that, based on this and Piko's "Taurus" locomotive (reviewed in the February 2007 issue of GR), that the company appears to be focusing on bringing European standard-gauge prototypes to market, perhaps taking a page out of Aristo-Craft's and USA Trains' early playbooks in making products visually compatible with other manufacturers' offerings. It worked well for American companies and I suppose it might work well for Piko. Having said that, I'd prefer that they keep reading that playbook and accurately state the scale of their models on the box." 

No where do I say it should be 1:32, just that it should be accurately labeled. If inventing 1:26 works for Piko, then so be it. The waters can't get any more muddy. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Zonk (Feb 20, 2008)

Ya know...this is absolutely rediculous. Five pages in less than a day about an issue like this...why cant people post this much about layouts or models or anything "good" in the hobby. Something i really liked about this forum was that there was no bashing or stupid arguments unlike most others. but now...just like the rest here it is. this is the kind of garbage that gets other great forums shut down. people sometimes need to simply AGREE TO DISAGREE and move on. If you're not happy...well then go. Don't let your negativity flourish over everyone else and get them worked up. Whats worse is that, as it was stated, this is what ruins hobbies. This is what pushes people away instead of drawing them in closer. And guess what, sad to say a lot of the hobbyists are dying off. And since some of these people are only thinking about themselves its not getting passed on. Yes, enjoy the hobby for what you make of it, but dont ruin it for everyone else. 

Matt


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

I'm having fun, aren't you, Matt? 

It's so much fun to flip Kevin sh.......stuff. 

He reacts so predictably! 

But, since it is a Baldwin C-16 built for the D&RGW, as stated, the gauge is not right for the engine. 

Sorry.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree with you Matt on needing something else to focus on. (you missed some awesome threads way worse than this one way back when. You missed the original scale wars and the demise of LSOL the first time.) 
You guys need to focus on something else. How about helping me with my track plan?! See the track forum. I put in pictures and everything!! So far, I've got some good ideas, but certainly, with all the folks coming back to see what's happening here, there's got to be at least a couple of other ideas!! Come on you slackers, I made crazy suggestions for all your railroads!! Marty- remember the flyover track for your new passenger yard?! 
Dang. Where's Greg Esselman's Derail picture. 
Mark 
PS Dave, sure is nice of you to be so easy on K when he finished your review of the K-27... Kevin- see what happens why you try to help a guy out?!! 
/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/laugh.gif 

PPS Ducking and running for cover. 

PPSS I can't remember the last time I had so much fun on MLS!!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

He does--he acts predictably like a reasonable, rational person, which he is, as well as a decent likeable guy who is also a great modeler.


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Except he picks up cars to uncouple them.....


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Except he picks up cars to uncouple them.....

Not for very much longer. Accucraft's got a new 1:32 operating knuckle coupler that uses the same pocket as the Kadee 820. They're spot on for a 3/4 scale coupler in 1:20.3. Accucraft isn't sure when they'll be available separately, but they will be in due time. Then, even I can join the ranks of the "pull the pin" crowd.  They do couple with the Kadee #1 coupler. 

Later, 

K


----------



## docwatsonva (Jan 2, 2008)

Don't get me wrong, I love this site and admire all the work by the people who use this site and all that can be learned by reading the postings that appear here. I hope this site continues forever (great job Shad). 

However, I wonder who would be willing to guess at what percentage of garden railroders actually look at this site let alone care about what is written here.


----------



## yardtrain (Feb 18, 2008)

Writing to Garden Railways magazine about these issuses would be more effective.


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By docwatsonva on 08/29/2008 6:23 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love this site and admire all the work by the people who use this site and all that can be learned by reading the postings that appear here. I hope this site continues forever (great job Shad). 
However, I wonder who would be willing to guess at what percentage of garden railroders actually look at this site let alone care about what is written here.





This posting subject is at about 1793 views ....... by about less than a hundered viewers most likely /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/shocked.gif They keep re viewing to see what they said now ........../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/angry.gif 

GR magazine has about 36,000 readers  

And so today is Happy Friday , and the Labor Day weekend starts , be happy  , or not /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crying.gif


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 08/29/2008 3:13 AM
Except he picks up cars to uncouple them.....

Not for very much longer. Accucraft's got a new 1:32 operating knuckle coupler that uses the same pocket as the Kadee 820. They're spot on for a 3/4 scale coupler in 1:20.3. Accucraft isn't sure when they'll be available separately, but they will be in due time. Then, even I can join the ranks of the "pull the pin" crowd. " border=0> They do couple with the Kadee #1 coupler. 
Later, 
K 




Don't ever let it be said you can't teach an old dog new tricks. 
You will ALWAYS be remembered on the CCRy as the "Sky-Hook" for your creative ways of uncoupling. 

Now all we gotta do is get you to address some of those other issues, and maybe, by the time you're old enough to shave, you'll be all set!


----------



## Cougar Rock Rail (Jan 2, 2008)

Hello all, 

Interesting discussion! 

Here's a possible suggestion, based on what Gartenbahn Profi does when reviewing these oddball 1:27 standard gauge locos: 
They recognized that the manufacturers weren't aiming for 1:32, or 1:22.5, but rather something in between, so they call it Gauge 1.5. That's because they aren't Gauge 1 (1:32) or Gauge IIm (1.22.5) but something in between, usually 1:27 or so in the case of something like an LGB Genesis or Piko loco. That way in their reviews they don't just harp on about the improper scale, but rather they acknowledge the manufacturing target and focus their efforts on reviewing operating characteristics etc. Now given that they are competition for Kalmbach, I suspect it might be hard a hard pill for them to swallow, but it's a suggestion. 

Keith


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

There was--around 10 or so years ago--an attempt to classify each scale with its own moniker "LS##", such as LS32 for 1:32, LS20 for 1:20, etc. To my thinking, it made a lot of sense. It got away from the generic "G" moniker, focusing instead on "Large Scale," and the numbers were a pretty straightforward way to identify each product by its scale. A few manufacturers used it for a short while, but it never caught on. I'd love to see something like that get going again, but at least we've seen the manufacturers (for the most part) settle down on the scale front, so that a start. They're also much better about identifying the scale on the box itself, so that also helps the consumer in the hobby shop. I think that's the best we can hope for at the moment. 

Don't ever let it be said you can't teach an old dog new tricks. 
You will ALWAYS be remembered on the CCRy as the "Sky-Hook" for your creative ways of uncoupling. 

What'd you expect me to do? I couldn't cut through the packing tape on those boxy couplers you use. Fortunately, the "This End Up" label on the side showed me which way to lift them.  

Now all we gotta do is get you to address some of those other issues, and maybe, by the time you're old enough to shave, you'll be all set!

And leave you deprived of something to disagree with? I'm not _that_ creul. If I wanted to inflict that much psychological damage, I'd simply make you go back to track power, or if I was feeling particularly nasty, make you drive a Chevy.  

Later, 

K


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

Well, you know me well enough to know you won't MAKE me do ANYthing, especially drive a General Misunderstanding. 

I do like the photo you took in the review, however. 

Those gold drivers really set off the sparkly-blue paint on the boiler and fire-engine-red cab.... 

Makes me want to repaint all my stuff to match.


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

For those who object to the scale (1/24) of the c-16 I have a suggestion. Do what I'm doing.... Put a Bug Mauler cab, and shortened tender (as well as wider pilot and running boards) on it.... Then you'll have a 1:22 or 1:20 model of NKP (no known prototype, lol), and nobody can say it's out of scale anymore. 

But what do I know? I play with toy trains. 

As for GR... I quit getting it about a year ago. Too many ads and not enuff "meat and taters"to justify the expense for me.... I liked looking at what others have done, the plant section and generally picking up ideas, but wading through all the shtuff I didn't want and/or couldn't afford to find it was rather annoying.


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

That was _GREAT!!!!_ (I haven't had this much fun reading five pages of "discussion" since the "super socket" debacle last year!) Ah, I should've known that it would be the old scale/gauge debate... It's been about five years since the last flare-up so it was due. 
I'm actually NOT going to take sides this time (*gasp!*) as I see this issue as a moot point. Rather, I will address the title (revised) of this thread and comment that the decline of readership in Kalmbach's RR publications may indeed be influenced in part due to the increased "commercialization" of the various publications. This not only includes the massive quantities of ads but the tendency for publications to be "pressurized" into printing reviews and articles writen as favorably as possible leading to justifiable criticism. 
I'm still PO'd at Bachmann for doing what they did to Kalmbach by trying to dictate who does their reviews and WHAT is said in the reviews! That GR no longer seems to have TOC doing reviews just means that their credibility has dropped significantly. This is not meant as a criticism to Marc or Kevin for their reviews but it DOES put said reviews under a cloud of "suspicion" right from the start. Sorry, it's not fair but that's what happens when objectivity is called into question by the capitulations of the editors to pressure from manufacturers advertising depts. 
I continue to subscribe to GR as it is a magazine directly concerning our hobby! Do I get as much out of it as I used to? Maybe not but then I also have all of the LS websites to fill in the gaps. Well, I said I wouldn't take sides so I will stop here. PLEASE feel free to continue to rant and rave for another couple of pages but just remember that NOTHING we do outside is completely to scale! Now that I've cooled off from mowing, I will now retire to the layout where I can start pulling all the prototypically scaled 1:1 _bindweed._ /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

I think the pages of this thread in many ways emphasize what a difficult job a magazine, and particularly its Editor, has to produce something of high interest to all. A virtual impossibility I would say. I think our hobby would be poorer if GR was no longer available. I am sure many newcomers find GR very helpful: I have, and maybe many are drawn to the hobby having bought or been given a recent Issue. 

Many times over the years I have seen interminable wrangles over scales and gauges in N, 00/HO, O and all their variants. Nothing is ever achieved other than more entrenchment in belief by those unwilling to see or accept another point of view. 
 

I have always enjoyed railroading as a hobby and welcomed the publications that helped me or gave pleasure reading them. We all know that the adverts are the life blood of magazines but also the food of a magazine is its content, much of which we modelers provide. The Editor of GR's UK counterpart is constantly asking for more copy for his magazine.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

edited


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

edited?


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I still find it a decent mix, agreed theres some bad articles form time to time or some layout I may personally not care for, but for each of those theres some great articles, like Bruce's "Glad Hands" or Marty's "Table Creek" discussion, and for each disappointing layout, there are layouts that just make my eyes pop open and I say "wow", so its still doing something right, most of the time.


----------



## chuckger (Jan 2, 2008)

Looking through thr latest issue of GR on page 7 the bottom third of Ridge Road Station's add it says C-16 Wood or Coal Engine Features: Suitable for 1:24th or 1:29th scale. 
So this engine would work with 1:29 rolling stock?? Can't picture a C16 engine with Aristo 1:29 heavyweight passinger cars. 

Steve, you forgot all the "discussion" about LGB going under, and about the super socket, the K27 has been out 8 months now and I have yet to see a post anywhere about anyone having a problem with it, [the socket]. 

As for GR Ive been a subscriber for 8 yr's. I like the how to articles, and general info. I think the mag has improved in the last 3 to 4 years. I know I'd miss it if it where to suddenly go away. 

chuckger


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Nah, I didn't forget about LGB but the "discussion" on _that_ subject was more over on LSC than here! (In fact, it's still going on!) The "supersocket" may not be over! Strange things are going on over at Bachmann and they _still_ aren't giving Tony Walsham an answer to a simple question even though they intimated they would. We will just have to wait and see what's inside the new Biles-Coleman Mallet when it shows up!


----------



## Bill4373 (Jan 3, 2008)

If you don't like the engine, DON'T BUY IT!!! 

If you don't like Garden Railways magazine, DON'T BUY IT!!!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Steve, 
Actually I have finally got an answer to my question. 

It just wasn't in public. *YET.*


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

It took 'em long enough. Bill, to what engine are you referring? The new Aristocraft C-16 is a good engine! They took a design that Delton first did and finally got it right! Delton's units were underpowered and unreliable but were gems to look at (even if they were in 1:24!) When Aristo was able to acquire the moulds, they put in a more robust drivetrain but they lost some of the accuracy by having the whole boiler and cab sit 1/2" too high and by having some less than accurate paint schemes. Now, they have gone further and come up with a pretty slick belt drive utilizing _metal_ valve gear and which lowers the boiler/cab profile back to what it should be. They even are re-doing their paint schemes to be more accurate. It's not 1:20.3 so it's not accurately gauged but for what it is: a redesign of a venerable model nearing 20 years of age, it is worth of note. 
If you are referring to the K-27 with the "supersocket," I have one and have had it re-done over by TOC and it is a superb model but it illustrates the point that reviews need to be more than regurgitated ads from the various manufacturer's marketing departments. That part belongs in the New Products section. Product Reviews should be where "our" trusted and objective experts check out everything about this new offering and give us an unbiassed review so we can make the best informed purchase possible. The "gist" of the problem seems to be that many if not all of Kalmbach's RR periodicals have adopted a much more "corporate chearleader" style of articles. Be that as it may, I'm still subscribing.


----------



## Pete Chimney (Jan 12, 2008)

I guess this discussion about GR and whether it is in decline (or not) boils down to this (a paraphrase from Abe Lincoln). 

"You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time".


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

If I recall, our esteemed leader on this site has that quote in his sig file. The medium doesn't matter, the message will always have critics. 

Later, 

K


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Chuckgr, 

I'd say the C-16 would look weird with a heavyweight, but it might not look so bad with early 1900s late 1890s standard gauge equipment. The Aristo Sierra cars come to mind. Here's the thread where I have pictures posted of both a 1:20.3 loco and the Aristo 1:24 C-16 hauling 1:29 cars. 

http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/14/postid/46808/view/topic/Default.aspx 

You have to use your imagination and pretend to make it really work scale wise, but I rationalize it by saying it is simply a standard gauge loco with small drivers. Here's a picture of the 1856 Wm Mason under steam at the B&O museum last year (run by MLSer Chris France). If this had a 100-ton hopper behind it, I don't think it would look much different than the C-16 with a 100 ton hopper. If you want to model the late 1890s early 1900s, but you want to model standard gauge, then you could theoretically choose this engine to meet your desires. 










For fun, I dug through the UConn library images of New Haven steam (what else?). The New Haven, being run by bankers, had old power that was too small until well after WW1. 

Doesn't this consol look like it could have C-16 wheels and cylinders with a Big Hauler boiler? 
http://images.lib.uconn.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/photographs&CISOPTR=487&CISOBOX=1&REC=9 
Point is, with the right perception and enough research, most of the model trains availble ready to run could be adapted to our choice scale. 

Mark


----------

