Truck vs Body Mounted

[inkaneer]

Rule One is certainly fine, but I dare say that with many of the participants here, Job One is making things better when you can, and striving for improvement both in the skills of the modelers, and quality of the products.

I think I speak for more than a few of the regulars here when I say that "good enough" isn't good enough when there are simple (or in the case of David K Smith, damn near superhuman) things you can do to build and operate better looking, better running scale railroad models.

Lee

Who said what "Job One" was and what authority did that person have to make that declaration?   That may be your own personal "Job One" but you don't speak for everyone.  Others here have said that body mounting couplers was not "Job One" on their to do list.  For instance, Michael Winicki said:

"I agree with the others that say that while body-mounted couplers are a good thing to desire, they're pretty far down the list as far as priority goes.  Heck, as long as the truck-mounted stay coupled and I can move cars in reverse without causing derailments I don't consider it a big thing."

NandW said this:

"That said, I'd like to go all body mount with couplers, but I'm essentially lazy in the little time I have outside of work. So body mounts are way way down on my list of priorities."

That doesn't sound like "Job One" to me.  So remember me, I'm the guy who invoked MRR rule #1.  Do as you wish with your railroad but don't tell others that their modeling isn't "good enough" because to them, it is "good enough."  And in the end that is all that matters.

[One of One-Sixty]

Okay, let me ask this.  Is it possible for an 85' car, namly passenger or any of the smaller passenger car to take the same curves as before if it was truck mounted?  This is without using drawbars, or radically changing a coupler.

How closely coupled are the passenger car sets that Kato make?

[inkaneer]

brian bussey wrote: "The irony of course, is that you criticize the alleged dismissal of those who wish to stick with the basic standard when you yourself dismiss those who wish to strive for higher standards.  No one here on this thread, except for you, has disparaged others for modeling something other than what they model."

REPLY:  This is totally false.  I have gone over my posts on this thread and I now request that you show me and the rest of the prople here where I "dismiss" [whatever that means] those who wish to strive for higher standards" [your words].  Show me because I never said anything like that.  All I did was say it was indeed possible to back long trains with truck mounted couplers.  I merely presented another view and "disparaged" no one.  I'm the one who said: "If you want to body mount then fine but like I said I have seen Ntrakkers back entire trains into sidings with truck mounted couplers.  You say its better and easier with body mounts but someone else may say it takes more skill with truck mounted ones.  I say Model Railroad Rule # 1 applies here."

So your accusation is blatantly false.

[wm3798]

"Pardon me if I intruded on your mutual admiration society."

That was nice and subtle.

[Mark5]

Who said what "Job One" was and what authority did that person have to make that declaration?

I think it was Ford that said what is was ...



(I'm having trouble taking this thread too seriously)

[Blazeman]

The longer one is working at the hobby, confidence grows and the eye becomes more discerning and status quo is no longer tolerated.

The forums should be for encouragement toward that evolution with suggestions and advice to reaching the next level if one is so motivated toward that goal.

As much as I don't care for "new-fangled gadgets" coming out every day in the world, there are ten folks who can't wait for the next gizmo to hit the market. Their lives then are made better in some way.

We've evolved from code 80 to 55 and some are pushing for better yet in code 40. Likewise DC to DCC. Truck vs body mounted couplers. Z couplers or N couplers? Wheel sizes.

It's called progress. If everyone had been content, we'd never have crossed the Alleghenies (and if we hadn't by now, the Greenies would make sure we never did). Progress takes everyone along for the ride.

Some are frightened, unsure of skill levels, feel like the money they've sunk into equipment and such has suddenly become worthless due to higher standards that are developing.

B&W TV's work fine and still give you the picture, but aren't you glad you got a color? When that one craps out, you'll get an HD now because that's all that's out there. Pay more for your cable service to use it and suddenly your enjoyment is palpably better. My boys have blackberries and the wife and I barely use a cell phone. But I can have them use theirs' to do things for me. (Had a boss who, as far as computers, could turn it on or off. It was the in between he had trouble with)

Guys (like me to some extent) cover up their shortcomings by stating "I don't need that," or "Not my bag." It's one thing not to have the dough to go and switch to the next generation of offerings, or feel that one's competence with electronics and tools is limited therefore not pursue the logical upgrade, or maybe haven't the manual dexterity to apply those really telling details that just have hit the market. Other guys are real techies and can absorb the new offerering in stride and apply them immediately.

Those who have contributed on this thread, please understand where the other guy is coming from, especially those who are "advanced" modelers.

I've been to a few layouts and due to the discussions on these forums, I find myself critiquing (mentally of course) the work of the host. But that's more of an avenue to complement the layout usually. "Geez, you are using code 80 rail, but it really is painted well that I didn't even notice it was there." Yeah, sometimes knowing too much in terms of standards of quality can limit enjoyment and stifle ambition. But one has to overcome that.

Kind of rambling, but hope I got some points in and didn't offend.

[MichaelWinicki]

For some folks the need to switch out to body-mounted couplers is greater than it is for others.  If I encountered operational difficulties using truck-mounted on my pike, I'd be a mad-man swapping out one coupler for another.

The coupler "look" is more important for some that it is for others-- that's OK too.  That's just not a bug-a-boo for me. 

Now if you want to get into track and having the right "look", well then I'm much closer to the head of the class.   ;D

[Dave V]

Original post MAJORLY EDITED...

I would argue that the value of the Railwire is that it challenges your comfort zone by presenting you with a higher standard you can choose or choose not to accept.  That's why I'm here, and I suspect that's how RW attracts new members.  There are lots of vanilla forums out there with compulsory attayboys every time someone opens a box and a train falls out.  But this place is different.  Here we can constructively critique one another without fear of hurt feelings.

This is the Railwire, a forum for modelers.  We can encourage while challenging one another, and we can do it with civility.

For what it's worth I don't count my modeling as being on par with the RW standard.  But I'm trying.  That's why I'm here.  I'd rather raise my own standards than expect them to lower theirs.  I would not want to see the Railwire watered down in the same way so many other forums have. 

[Mark5]

I think some peeps maybe take this forum a little too seriously. I don't think many members here behave in a malicious manner.

Carry on.

Mark

[inkaneer]

"Pardon me if I intruded on your mutual admiration society."

That was nice and subtle.

T'was irony in response to:

"...Bryan is a manufacturer who is pretty clear in what his objectives are, based on the models he produces.  This isn't the same as some ivory tower type that lobs grenades then never shows his own work."

[One of One-Sixty]

Okay, let me ask this.  Is it possible for an 85' car, namly passenger or any of the smaller passenger car to take the same curves as before if it was truck mounted?  This is without using drawbars, or radically changing a coupler.

How closely coupled are the passenger car sets that Kato make?

[wm3798]

"Pardon me if I intruded on your mutual admiration society."

That was nice and subtle.

T'was irony in response to:

"...Bryan is a manufacturer who is pretty clear in what his objectives are, based on the models he produces.  This isn't the same as some ivory tower type that lobs grenades then never shows his own work."

I don't see where any irony was required.  Bryan IS a manufacturer who IS raising the bar on quality and authenticity...  He not only shows his work, he sells it to us!

If you wish to continue digging, feel free.  But from here it looks like your hole is plenty deep enough...  Thanks for playing.

Lee

[One of One-Sixty]

Can't we all just get along.

[John]

For what it's worth I don't count my modeling as being on par with the RW standard.  But I'm trying.  That's why I'm here.  I'd rather raise my own standards than expect them to lower theirs.  I would not want to see the Railwire watered down in the same way so many other forums have. 

I don't think that there is a RW standard .. you should feel free to post whatever you think is your best work. However, given some of the personalities here, you should also expect some feedback. Some of it may be offered with a little less tact than it should be  .. sometimes it gets just too over the top ..

[Mark5]

I don't think that there is a RW standard ..

I 100% agree with this statement.