27 replies to this topic

[Ecurie Martini]

As a many time winner of model railroad model contests, I am as much a stickler for detail as anyone. But some

concessions must be made to keep the car usable. The trick is to find the balance. I tried to make wheel inserts

mandatory in the group where I raced the cars I posted, but there was just too much push-back from the commercial

racers in the group. Some didn't even want drivers mandatory. I even offered the resin cast inserts and drivers free,

since I was casting them. I just couldn't convince them.

 

Slot missiles vs. slot models!

 

As a model railroader you might recall a long standing debate between the scale adherents and tinplate fans.  As I recall, the argument of the latter was that while admitting that their compromises like odd-looking automatic couplers, way out-of-scale wheel flanges, impossible tight curves etc. affected appearance, they facilitated more realistic operation. (I'm recalling this from debates in Model Railroader ca late 40's - early 50's - my HO layout was taken down to make room for a 4 lane Scalextric track in 1959)

 

EM

[Dave Crevie]

That is why there are two totally different factions in model railroading. Hard-core modellers like myself don't consider tinplate

trains as models, just toys. Never heard the argument that tinplate ran better than scale. Actually the other way around. I have

many O-scale loco models built before WWII, and they run great. An analogy can be made to slot racing. Wing cars v. scale

cars. Two entirely different ideologies. Each with it's own proponents, and like model railroading, there are people involved in

both. 

[Ecurie Martini]

"East is east and west is west and n'eer the twain........"

 

As I recall, the operational advantage claimed for the tinplate models was based on the out-of-scale wheel flanges leading to fewer derailments.

 

And then of course there is the two rail vs three rail discussion (although digital control may have entered that moot)

 

EM