Was this really in 1991? and is 1991 really so many years ago?
Unbelievable
Anyway, what is unbelievable to me is that I have just left a facebook group having faced a tirade of personal abuse.
My crime?
Pointing out that a canal feature on an unspecified layout, not mentioned to the group, was physically impossible in multiple ways, and whilst individual elements were really well modelled the overall scene showed zero understanding of canals.
It turns out that saying two narrowboats can't pass each other in a canal only as wide as one narrowboat is rivet counting. Who knew? Me, I thought it was only possible by a strange quirk of quantum physics.
The name of this group?
Realistic Railway Modelling.
TBF mostly it does what it says on the can, but people still post pictures of what are essentially toy train layouts and don't get the negative comments I did. People were invoking rule one "It is my railway" in a group that actually says rule one is not valid.
Anyway, my top ten crimes against canals on layouts
1: Impossible bends that no 70ft long narrowboat could ever make
2: Locks that have the gates at the wrong ends or are otherwise incorrect
3: Models of President, a short-lived steam-powered experiment that only ever operated on one route. Most narrowboats were either horse-drawn or Bollinger powered. Having President on a layout is like having a model of Rocket.
4. Not quite as bad as 3, but only having models of No 1 boats, ie the colourful owner-operator barges rather than the more numerous company boats or even cabinless day boats
5: Incredibly short pounds between two locks
6: The whole canal being modelled at the same width as a narrow lock. The only places a "narrow" canal is narrow is in the locks and at bridge holes
7: Wharves that it would be physically impossible to get a canal boat into or out of.
8: A mismatch between how loaded a barge is and how low it is lying in the water. a fully loaded narrowboat with heavy cargo might only have 6 inches above water. And obviously, an empty barge tends to be down at the stern, where the machinery is, but when fully laden will be more level.
9: Confusing features found on butties with features of powered craft, especially rudders
10: Ridiculous geography and a failure to appreciate the canal usually came before the railway
When I look at a layout and see stuff like (for example) fork lift trucks, I think 'what is it? why is it there? how did it get there? Does that object being in that place make sense? If not then it spoils the illusion.
ReplyDeleteThe more you know about what s utside the railway fence the more things you'll see that just don't look right. But part of the charm of mdelling for me is that voyage of exploration were you start to learn about other subjects, like agriculture and phone boxes.
ReplyDeleteThere seem to be an awful lot of people who think it's acceptable to interact on line in a fashion that they'd be pretty unlikely to get away with face to face, particularly if they feel that their fragile little egos are being challenged by a statement or reply, even more so if it happens to be true!
ReplyDeleteI also thoroughly enjoy learning why things are there and what they do. It possibly means I get less actual modelling done, but so it goes.
Running a few FB groups you do see that certain people expect groups to pander to them, rather doing what it says on the tin. "I know this is the baler twine appreciation society, but here is picture of my dog". We know we almost all have to make compromises in our modelling, bt I like to think I know when I am making them and can explain why. The only rivet counters I despair of our the one who aren't actually right. I learn from the other kind.
Delete