Critical discussion

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I enjoyed the article on realism in the new MR. But it remined me… How does one (or do we at all?) have a real honest critical discussion with another modeller? I am not talking about finding fault and carping, and surely do not mean to embarass anyone, but when I see some of these amazing layouts in the mag, I sometimes see things I see as glaring. Such as a highly detailed structure, that is obviously a box sitting on the scenery - that tell-tale gap around the bottom. Could I do better? Probably not, but I wonder does that modeller see it that way and ignores it, or maybe plans to correct it later? Perhaps he sees it, but finds something else a galring error, but I don’t even notice. Perhaps I might ask someone what he sees as things he’d do better or different if rebuilding a layout. That doesn’t point at anything.

I am not a rivet counter, I don;t care if you use a red stop sign in 1940 or a wig/wag crossing sign in present day. You want a TGV screaming across MOntana, go ahead, I’m all for it. But “How did you choose that fencing material, Joe? The holes in it appear to be about a foot across in scale?” I never know if a locomotive is two feet too short, but it catches my eye that many loco handrails appear to be the diameter of a melon, or the size of a guy’s head.

And I note that internet discussions are terrible, so many people are instant to anger if you cross them. But in face to face. Can you visit a club layout and ask if there was discussion about some level of detail. I am sure in every club there are people more stickler than others over various things. Maybe asking about something gets a “we wondered if anyone else ever thought about that detail.” On the other hand that may be a huge breach of ettiquette. For the record, I have not put anyone in the situation, I am not writing after some incident.

I set out to write

2

I am sure an art critic could have endlessly useful, if perhaps harsh, things to say about the amateur who only paints flowers on weekends, and a music critic could have endlessly useful, if perhaps harsh, things to say about the amateur who plays “Silent Night” on flute in their church at Christmas.

To what end would such criticism be directed? And using what standards? Yeah it “might” make the painter a better painter, and the flautist a better flute player – if they have the kind of thick skin a professional has. There is no reason to think they have that kind of thick skin. Most folks get quite enough of “performance reviews” at work to have to also sit through them as hobbyists.

The professional artist and the professional musician - who are in essence in the business of selling their art to the world – are accustomed to such criticism or at the least understand it comes with the territory. And it also warrants pointing out that the history of art and music is littered with the names of critics who made fools of themselves forever with their well-informed and honest criticism of artists whose work they did not like, but about whom posterity has judged differently.

The average model railroader is in the same posture as the amateur artist or musician (or bowler, for that matter) - doing it for love, not money. If they do something that is worthy of praise they love to hear the praise. But are they really in this to hear a frank critical analysis of the ways in which their efforts fail to meet professional standards? Wouldn’t that be akin to the famous cartoon, Bambi Meets Godzilla (go ahead look it up - it is on YouTube)?

Do you eat dinner at someone’s house and then critique the food, the service, or the ambience the way a restaurant critic would? I think not. That is why the famous cookbook author Marcella Hazan said you should never toast "to the chef!&qu

3

Everybody sees things that they are tuned to seeing and misses the stuff they either don’t care about or don’t know about. I model the 1900 era so I have studied that era. I can look at a building and tell whether its appropriate or not because I’ve studied it. You might not. You might see an 1880’s era train with an MDC/Roundhouse 36 ft boxcar in it and think its a great job. When I look at it I see an 1920’s era car in a 1880’s train. Once again, just because I know about it. On the other hand if you model the modern era and had a particular car in a train, I would think its great because I haven’t spent as much time on that era. Some people are focused on cars, some people on scenery, some on engines, some on track.

The era I model is challenging (but not impossible) to research. If you want to contradict me, great, that means you might have found information I have missed.

I used to give a lot of feedback , but rarely do now because people really don’t want that much feedback. Most people post on these lists to have their work affirmed, not to have it analyzed. You could dip a model into a can of brown latex housepaint, call it weathering and you would get a half dozen “Good job!” replies. A lot of people take a dicussion of technique or of comparison to prototype as a personal affront to them. So now, unless somebody specifically asks for feedback, I don’t comment.

4

Good points! People see things from many different points of view based on like-dislike, experience or other things. I understand what you are saying about some of the things presented in the magazines and elsewhere. I notice leaning poles, buildings, derailed equpment, bowed out windows, etc, etc. It’s very common and some folks get all anal about it while others accept it with the attitude of who cares? As an Aircraft Inspector for 45 years I tend to see a lot of details that aren’t 100% correct. It is my nature and was my job. People’s lives depended on this. As a model railroader I have always strived to be as perfect as possible in all my modeling and custom painting because it pleases me.

We all have different goals and views of the hobby. Thwere’s no real answer of right & wrong. Whatever you are satisfied with is “right” for you…and many others. I see these things and just don’t worry about them but make mental notes to not let those things slip by in MY modeling. It’s my main reason for not joining clubs and modular groups. I’m not a snob and I basically love and can talk about all scales, eras and types of modeling but I just can’t be around, appreciate or participate in having a module with a NASA moon landing next to a wild west module or a coal mine next to a circus. Many have poor workmanship and many also are examples of beginner’s work. FOR ME…it’s just not something I want to see or do.

Having a discussion face-to-face can be a great experience when the people are courteous and open minded about it. It’s a great way to learn and gain information. The real issue is when the personal discussions and opinions go online. When the direct contact is lost many people feel they have a right and obligation to be rude and say things that they would probably never say in person. Because the direct contact is lost doesn’t give anyone the right to say some of the stuff I’ve seen here and other places. O

5

And perhaps there is a reason that the hobby has a relatively high percentage of “lone wolf” modelers…

Bill

6

I think you make many valid points. I work as a mechanical design engineer, so design reviews are common in my work week. I find that being receptive to criticism has a few aspects.

The first is that I have put time and effort into making whatever it is Im working on, so hearing that it’s not up to par can be hard to take, at least initially. Many times, after a few minutes and reviewing data, I realize the criticism is correct, and I work to get better for it.

Also, I find how the criticism is delivered goes a long way towards how we receive it. My supervisor has a great way of delivering criticism so I feel like I didn’t waste my time, I just learned how to get better. He explains what I did wrong, and how to do it better, which is very helpful. However, someone I used to work with would start out with “That’s all wrong”, and proceed to redo it all his way. That was always harder to take.

I think we all want to live up to the work we see on these forums and in the magazine(s). Also, I think most people know they can do better. It’s just a matter of practice, and if you’re going to ask for critical comments, you should be prepared that they may be brutally honest.

7

If I ASK for your opinion, then give it. If I have not asked you what you think then you should keep your mouth shut. To criticize unasked is an invitation to a rude response. If you see things that are in your eyes “wrong” keep your mouth shut.

8

I think many hobbyists may be “fishing for complements”.

When I worked at Bell Labs, a much more experienced co-worked said that in his experience, co-workers didn’t want to be told when they did something wrong.

I heard a story that someone lent a scratch built locomotive to John Allen for comments. John took a picture of the locomotive on John’s layout from a scale person’s viewpoint and returned the model and pciture without comment. The picture showed the imperfections of the model, the owner added 10s of detailed parts and won a contest.

may be easiest to help the modeler recognize the deficiencies, than point them out. I think the reason why encouraging the positive is more productive, is not because of what is said, but rather what is not said (what is not praised).

9

I can’t say I agree with the post by CGW. There are ways to offer criticism, the easiest being to ask the person if he/she would be prepared to receive it. If the answer is no, then the matter should be closed in a civil environment. If yes, then it’s time to maintain the scrupulously honest approach. If there is disagreement, everything grinds to a halt…and the matter is again closed. At least, that’s how it has gone in my adult life.

To the subject of noticing details and errors: I was taught how to see a certain way when I got my first telescope at the age of 14. Books suggested drawing what I saw at the eyepiece to help me to ‘learn’ how to see details that I might not otherwise notice. It worked.

Then, I joined the military, armour, part of which is the field of reconnaissance. In that field, you have to learn to be discerning. Shapes, shadows, movement, colours…anything that can help you to spot a possible gun position. Tanks are vulnerable as big hulking and slow-moving objects. Anti-tank weapons abound, but the most lethal anti-tank platform is…another tank. If you missed the end of a barrel protruding from a hide in a woodline, you were toast.

Then, many years later, I joined this hobby. I had to learn another way of ‘seeing’. I had to remark on bark, on ties and fish plates, on the stains on building roofs, and so on.

What am I getting at? That we learn continuously in our lives if we are reasonably intelligent and open-minded. We learn what to spot that we define as errors. If that is unrealistic gaps and long shadows at the base of a scale building, then we teach ourselves how to avoid making that mistake.

Last point: a military base newspaper had a little quip at the masthead. It said, "If you find any mistakes in our publication, we like to please a broad range of readers, including those who are always looking for mist

10

I would say that I am the exact opposite.

If you publish your work in a publication of some sort or another, you invite criticism. Without people criticizing the oversized details of yeseteryear, we would not have highly accurate affordable detailed plastic models today. I am a rivet counter (to a point, I dont think I have actually ever counted rivets).

Everyone is entitiled to an opinion. If you dont like someones opinion, nothing says you have to act on it. A simple “noted” response is more than adequate. Nothing says you have to take the criticism personally.

And do you not want someone to point out derailment causing kinks, S-curves that are causing actual problems with your layout?

There is a whole section on this forum devoted to prototypical accuracy. I strive to do the best I can. If there is something Im doing incorrectly, I want to know about it.

One my biggest gripes is published photos of HO scale models proclaiming how real a scene looks. In that very same photo is a bronze spring and a trip pin, and an out of scale coupler.

When I got back into the hobby in HO scale back in 2012, my first purchase was a Bachmann 2-6-0 DCC and sound. I thought it sounded great and looked pretty good. I even when to the extra step of repainting and decaling it for Boston and Maine. I brought it to the model rr club I had just joined. I discovered to my dismay that the locomotive actually was not a model of anything the B&M owned.

11

Hoy, this can be a basket of bugs if one isn’t careful. I’ve seen layouts the owner was tremendously proud of that sported everything I’ve been taught to NOT do (dead straight tracks parallel to the fascia, no grades, gigantic yards with no purpose, complete absence of theme or era). Did I point out the issues? Nope. Nobody asked me. I’ll take it as lessons learned and try to aim higher on my own layout.

Stu

12

What I was talking about are the rivit counters and know it alls who a a trainshow or a layout tour who have to comment on whatever they see as wrong. Neither of those places are the best venue for “advice” I am not at all opposed to someone giving advice, but it comes easiest from close friends. Someone who offers criticism that is neither the time or place for it. I have several model railroad mentors that I can trust

On a side note I was a working musician for many years. I know about blunt criticism.

What it seems like what you are saying is,is that you should be able to offer your advice and if they dont take it well it is their fault.

13

I value those comments. Trainshows are the only places people get to see my modules, so public feedback is important. Its how I get better. I was raised to do everything I do the absolute best that I can do it. Nothing less is acceptable. Good enough isn’t.

I found out recently from show feedback that there are actually standards for how tall highway signs are (not something that I had not given consideration) and how close they should be to the roadway etc.

I think what selector may be saying, at least how I interpereted it, is that if I offered my opinion/advice on how you could do it better, and you ignore me, its not really an issue with me. I provided feedback to you about what you are displaying.

At trainshows, those people out there are your customers, they have likely paid to see what you are displaying. Always never forget that. They are what allows you to set up and run trains. Not everyone there knows about prototype accuracy, but some do, and you can provide a change to educate those who dont.

Insert shooting star with rainbow from PBS.

14

Way to often peoples advice isnt worth a bucket of warm spit. I want people who I trust and can back up what they say. Advice from an idiot is worthless

15

I’m a lone wolf as far as my modeling goes. I do what I want, the way I want. When it pleases me, it’s done. And frankly, I don’t care what someone else’s opinion would be. As I learn more I may get more particular, but it’s stil me satisfying myself. And yes I do some things that I know are wrong just because I think it looks better. But then for me model railroading is an art form akin to painting not photography.

OTOH, I think criticizing what a manufacturer makes is fair game for consumers. Consumers have a right to examine things offered for sale and point out shortcomings, problems, defects, incorrect details, etc. to the manufacturer and other consumers. It’s all part of the marketplace.

Paul

16

Way to often peoples advice isnt worth a bucket of warm spit.

And here I thought it was just the Vice Presidency. https://www.cah.utexas.edu/news/press_release.php?press=press_bucket

I want people who I trust and can back up what they say.

Here’s an idea. Only ask people whose advice you do trust. It vastly improves the signal to noise ratio.

Andre

17

Well, it is rivEt, not rivIt, but since you didn’t ask, never mind.

18

LOL never have been very good at spelling but thank you.

19

I used to work for a manufacturer. Most people have no idea how much work and actual engineering goes into the toys we call “models”.

I will just touch on the op comments about handrails: The various manufacturers used to use tough flexible delrin, but it was hard to paint. Especially where 2 colors were used the paint film thickness on the handrails became quite a lot. It had to be for the paint to adhere. Or the delrin was dyed but often the dye did not exactly match paint color. So, many complained.

The manufacturers listened and gave us what we wanted: thinner handrails that hold a thinner film of paint and can even be glued when broken, but that came at a price. Now the handrails of multiple manufacturers are way too easily broken. Now people complain about those handrails being too delicate.

So others have learned to make their own handrails out of metal wire…or others of us just buy brass.

Best handrails ever done in HO plastic: Lifelike Proto 2000 Alco RS-27. They were very nearly scale and are almost indestructible delrin.

John

20

There have been a lot of valid points made, so I’m going to pick on one specific example to show how to sugar-coat a critical comment.

“That’s a fine looking (house, barn, chicken coop…) you have there. Are you planning to put weeds and undergrowth right up to it, or do you have some kind of foundation in mind?”

Note that a friendly question that suggests possible answers is very unlikely to be taken as criticism. It disconnects the modeler from ‘blame’ for the problem, and encourages a productive reply. The same idea can be used for poor trackwork, derailment-prone rolling stock or anything else readily obvious.

Of course, this presumes a knowledge of appropriate ‘fixes’ on the part of the critical observer, as well as an ability to suggest, rather than hand down a stone tablet from Zion. I have discovered that a good percentage of blunt critics are relatively clueless when it comes to appropriate corrective action. (I’d love to see THEIR layouts - assuming they have layouts.)

And then there are the people who percieve themselves and all their works as perfect…

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)