A few days ago I found myself falling slightly into an RMweb style rant about the P class; just slightly. I try to avoid this, but it tips you into a thought pattern of why?
A couple of years back I had a conversation over a layout about generational attitudes to modelling. When you look at this through the reverse telescope of RMweb it doesn't quite work, however, the gist is that he and I were of an age where we were more than happy taking a 1970s item and performing various cut and shut operations to get something else. I note that looking back through that bastion of perfectness MRJ, a lot of the earlier issues feature the same sort of operations. Now there seems to be an attitude of 'why can't someone produce a RTR...?' This isn't wrong, no one would find it odd if this were applied to kitchen appliances, but that surely is not what we are about.
The dictionary definition of modeller is: a person who makes models of people or things.
Taken to it's logical hair-shirt conclusion, that means making your own motors and filing your own wheel spokes (and describes many S gaugers). And yet many of these 'waiting for the RTR loco' types casually describe themselves as modellers; a person who make models of people or things. Err... no.
So now I've come over all finescaly again. See how easy it is.
There's a flip side: I'm dripping in admiration for Chris Nevard's work and have yet to find someone who doesn't agree. However if you strip it down to bare bones, much of it is RTR stock, RTP buildings and other easily obtainable commercial items all subtly altered and refined. Modeller... or artist? Then you take the track on Brewhouse Quay and realise that there are only 1 in 500 modellers who could get close or who would even consider doing something like that. Modeller, artist or craftsman? The key here is taking the best of what is available and using it to your best advantage for the particular situation that is requiring of it, and I think he would agree; it's a time thing as much as anything. Why spend hours making something when you can buy something as good or better for a fraction of any hourly rate. Then we are into the thorny question of pastimes and professionals.
What's my point here? Well there isn't one really, only that the word modeller means different things to different people and it is remarkably easy to fall into the trap of getting tribal about others who have a different concept to you. Here's where my line is: buying RTR and running it around Peco setrack is not railway modelling, it's collecting. Change the number, add some weathering, build a few kits, make a few extra parts, is. That's where I would put it, but I'll bet if I wrote that on RMweb I'd get hate mail.
1
Interesting post, and yeah, I’ve found these sorts of discussions can raise all sorts of emotions. I sometimes think there’s a ‘modelling’ continuum with RTR and collectors on one end and total scratchbuilders and finescalers on the other. Never the twain shall meet :-)
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that I would not have got back into indoor railway modelling, albeit at my glacial pace, had it not been for Chris Nevard showing what was possible by combining commercial products with flair. At the same time I've had to take care not to try and copy the distinctive look of his layouts. I think most of us make some sort of choice between what we buy and what we model, but it doesn't matter how good individual bits of a layout are, it will always take some magic and modelling to turn into a convincing and engaging layout.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm similar in my outlook...the several times I've flirted with "pure" RTR have never ended well. I'm much happier converting locos to EM, building the odd wagon kit etc.
ReplyDeletePlaying Devil's advocate a bit...do you remember Bredon in RM many years ago, RTR on 1st radius curves (Setrack? Dunno.) but with an artistry that means many remember it forty? years later...and artistry is what Chris Nevard does with the RTR he uses.
Si has cited "Bredon" which as he says was "in RM many years ago".
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest a more recent case of a layout that uses Peco track, RTR equipment, and various kits?
At one level it might be seen as a sophisticated train set, but at another it is a superb piece of evocative modelling. Its genius is in the overall effect achieved by combining relatively simple (and perhaps ubiquitous) elements to produce a wonderful result.
I refer to Darren Ray's "Handcross" in RM, Feb 2018, pp.140-144.
This is modelling (indeed good modelling) - who would disagree?
Christopher Payne
I suspect this has always been the case, it's just that the "aquistitors" (collectors have a theme to their collection, they don't just buy EVERYTHING)can be more vocal now. There was a letter in the RM (I think) many years ago asking which models they should buy for their planned very early (Era 1 in modern nomenclature) layout. The editor very tersely said they would have to build stuff as the only RTR item was Rocket.
ReplyDeleteI thought Handcross was brilliant. Such good work.
ReplyDeleteHow about the 'Sheep Bloke' and his ovine named layouts like Bleat Wharf. RTR, RTP, Code 75 all weathered to perfection and artistically presented.
Now each to their own and I have nothing but respect for those with the skill, patience and so forth to craft layouts and models to the most exacting standards.
Well that isn't me and I'd rather have a small layout or two presented to something that aspires to Chris Nevard's standard or the others mentioned here than something of prototype fidelity which lacks the atmosphere, the artistry even to make viewing the space a pleasure.
One can visit a gallery and understand the pictures one views, admire them even. Which picture though will connect with the soul and entice one into real connection with the piece.
My argument is that Chris Nevard's efforts, Sheep Bloke's work, Handcross and others (Critchell Down?) that whilst apparently insignificant in size fulfil the requirement to draw one's attention and admiration in a most constructive and pleasureable way.
I think for some modellers it's all about the locomotives, and to lesser extent the rolling stock, while for other modellers they are simply components within a model and arguing about the provenance of the components is a bit like criticising an artist for not grinding their own pigments and mixing them with egg whites from their own hen before painting them on canvas woven from their own cotton plantation and stretched on a wooden frame made from their own coppiced woodland.
ReplyDeleteNo one thinks van Gogh a lesser artist because he brought his paint in a tube.
One of the reasons I do 3mm apart from the space issue is that you have to make up a lot of the stock. Made my first kit built loco in 3mm had to source the bits, solder it together - modelling. However using modern tech 3d printing I mix and match. On the hand who can some of the OO Southern stuff out at the mo, so adding to that collection!
ReplyDelete