Rivet Counting

When I got into Trains some 18 years ago. I was by no means a rivet counter and I still am not one at least not the extreme.
I do like to see mu hoses and what not ,however when it comes to fine details like windshield wipers,grab Irons,Correct running numbers and rather or not a R.R. company owned a specific unit I really do not care. Now I do hear it at the club I'm at but what I am wondering is am I a Modeler or a Big Fan?

I find myself sometimes shaking my head at Rivet counters who say things like that unit was never owned by that company or complaining because a company did do put this part or that part on a Train even though unless you have magnifying glass you could not see it any hoot. It really makes me laugh because sometimes I think some modelers have forgotten about why we love trains.

Now here is a topic that will surely have just about every member of the Scale Model Railroading forum speaking up. And just remember, if fisticuffs breaks out, Please call the proper authority in your city or area, at least after watching for 5 or 10 minutes.


I want to go on record that I am NOT a "full blown" rivet counter. I cannot stand reading reviews of different items from people that complain that a company only has 834 rivets instead of 835 that the prototype had. And the extent some go to make their locomotives match exactly to what the railroad had is, while I admire their dedication and work, almost nuts. I myself in most cases cannot tell the difference from the stock model and the changes someone makes. I do get a laugh too when i read "how to's" on all the additions and changes.

I add the "full blown" only because I have large fleets of identical cars, such as CSX 2-bay centerflows from Atlas, that I have renumbered the last two digits of the road number; on the sides anyway. The reporting marks on the ends, I just partially scratch out the number or weather it little bit. Not like you see it passing by at the grade crossing .

No fisticuffs here.

But I would like to point out that 'rivet counter' is perhaps too broad of a brush with which to paint.

There are folks who strive for as correct a model as they can get, treating it as a personal challenge-- example, the folks who go to the Prototype Modeling Meets. I have personally interacted with some of these modelers and they are among the nicest and humblest people I've met. They like to share what they've done in a non-threatening way, and would be happy to help you learn to become a better modeler, but if not, that's OK too. I would classify what they do as "scholarly" more than it is "rivet counting."

But then there are those who can't wait to tear down what others have done, and stick their "knowledge" boorishly in your face, not unlike jabbing a finger into your chest to make the point. This kind of behavior, which is significantly off-putting, is not often illustrated with modeling of their own. I've more or less decided that there is insecurity behind some of these put-downs, and fear that you've made another choice in enjoying the hobby that is somehow threatening. I'd also hasten to point out that these kind of people aren't limited to Scale Model Railroading. I have other hobbies and the same character appears there as well; different details but same attitude.

But then there are those who can't wait to tear down what others have done, and stick their "knowledge" boorishly in your face, not unlike jabbing a finger into your chest to make the point. This kind of behavior, which is significantly off-putting, is not often illustrated with modeling of their own. I've more or less decided that there is insecurity behind some of these put-downs, and fear that you've made another choice in enjoying the hobby that is somehow threatening. I'd also hasten to point out that these kind of people aren't limited to Scale Model Railroading. I have other hobbies and the same character appears there as well; different details but same attitude.

That always happens at least once to me every time that I venture to a train show. And about the "rivet counting," I can be a rivet counter (or a tree counter) when it comes to the scenery.

What utmrr mentions in door number 2 seems to often be the people who if you counted their rivets, they might not be correct. I have met some as mentioned who will tear something apart up and down but if you ask them what they can show you that they have done, they dont have much to show for it.

To the guys who strive to make their models as detailed an accurate as possable in that "personal challenge" kind of way, we salute you. Only you can put things like air dryers, fuel oveflows, drain pipes and traction motor cables that we will probably never see because they are under the locomotive in all the right places.

I'm definitely not a "rivet counter", but I don't have anything against those who strive for detail. Some people just like to watch trains run, others recreate operations down to the smallest detail. Some people like any engine that has their favorite road name on it, others build an exact replica of a particular engine or car or whatever at a particular time. Each one of these approaches, and anything in between, is valid in my opinion.
The only person I don't agree with is one who tears other's work down. Like others who have posted here, I find that people who "cut others down" are often very "short" themselves.
That's my "2 cents" on this topic.

I have nothing against rivet counters, and I have nothing against people who just enjoy running trains or doing whatever.

What I do hate the people that kid themselves and others that what they are doing is "model railroading." I was on an NMRA convention tour where the layout description was something like, "Bob models the New York Central in the St. Louis area circa 1960s. Wide variety of period motive power, extensive yards and switching scenes, scenery 60% complete." When I got there, it was a fellow with a 4x8 in his garage that looked like something from the Great Northern Pacific! There was clearly no prototype, he wasn't modeling the New York Central or anything else from the 1960s, and the "St. Louis" part came from a reference to his hometown. Okay, so I don't blame the guy so much as I do the tour guides who wrote the descriptions... but I think there is so much pressure in this hobby to "be like the guys in the magazines" that we try to pretend we're doing something we're not. When I was 12, I told people I modeled NYC steam era on the Ulster & Delaware. My layout was 4x8 (point to point!), I had a NYC steam engine and some period cars, and the town names matched some names I saw on a map, but that was about it. I certainly was not modeling the U&D or anything close to it. Nor was I attempting to actually learn what I would need to do if I wanted to more faithfully model the U&D or the NYC steam era. However, I was having fun. But I felt the need to "mask" my fun by taking on a more serious title and position to "legitimize" what I was doing. In the end, it's not needed.

Where do I draw the line? If I learn about something that is a glaring omission to my models, I'll try to correct it. Though from sheer laziness, I can tell you about the countless freight cars on my layout without grab irons, glad hands, or air hoses. When it comes to diesels and obvious details like fuel tank sizes, truck frames, and air horns, I try to be faithful. But most of the time, I call "good enough" and move on. Like Allen McCellend, I believe it is best to achieve a high level of detail as a standard, but not so much that you get caught up with superdetailing everything in sight. You have to draw the line somewhere, or else you never actually get to enjoy your layout.

-otto-

I agree with what has been said about people putting others down because they don't think what they do is good enough. This is the "Worlds greatest hobby" because of the large number of areas that you can focus on depending on your strengths. Where is it scenery, operations, planning, research or detailing.

Beasty101 wrote: It really makes me laugh because sometimes I think some modelers have forgotten about why we love trains.

You need to keep in mind that knowing those statistics about equipment and their favorite railroad is what they like to do. But I think the best thing to remember is that if you are having fun, then you are doing it right.

Chris
Lancaster, CA

Allan McClelland, the best known modelrailroader in the world Touted his "good enough phiolosophy" at shows and on video.

I think that becoming a rivet counter tends to develop more and more in model rail fans as they progress in their hobby through their lifetime. In my own case, I have always enjoyed building up, painting, and detailing O-scale traction models, which I display seperately from our O-scale layout. I recall having a discussion with an early very famous pioneer in the production of O-scale trolley trucks, when I had specified a series of trucks which prototypically never did see the car that I was building. I appreciated the interest that he took when he was reluctant to send me the trucks for this model, telling me what I already knew about them. It wasn't until I explained to him that I was aware of the discrepancy, but merely liked the way that these trucks looked on my model which had prompted my substitution of the prototypical trucks, that he would send them to me (reluctantly). Well, you know - years later, I went out and searched for and got the trucks that our friend recommended and replaced the original pair that I had purchased back then. Then and now, I recognize that it is important to be prototypical within reason, and that the model just lacks something, especially with something as obvious to a traction modeler as the correct trucks. So, I guess, in the end, it just comes down to doing whatever you're happy with at the time, even if it takes many evolutions as in my case. Rich - you were right.

I'm definitely not a rivet counter. I also don't tear down what other modelers do, whether they're rivet counters or box shakers. For me the level of detail on today's N-scale locomotives and rolling stock right out of the box is very good. I use primarily Atlas and Kato locomotives so I know if a new release is available painted for any of the RR's I model it I know there is a prototype for it. They're also getting RR-specific in how they detail their releases. As for rolling stock I use Micro-Trains almost exclusively (with a little Atlas thrown in) and the detail and quality match the locomotives.

I respect the rivet counters, they're the master model builders in our hobby. While I have the patience to lay track, wire, and build scenery I don't have the patience to sit and try to fit uncoupling levers or windshield wipers to an N-scale diesel. My first few EL and D&H locomotives purchased almost 20 years ago didn't come with numberboards like all current releases do.....and I'm not sure they ever will !

I have to agree with Otto's general take on this question, although the entire subject is a highly controversial one and that's probably how many will consider my view.

I do not consider myself as a rivet counter in the classic sense. Much of my rolling stock has cast-on grabs or ladders, my locomotives are not of the current super-duper-detailed, high-end $400 variety, nor are my structures all from FSM. However, everything on my layout is period correct and appropriately weathered. Likewise, my scenery is highly believable with no bare plywood showing anywhere and there are no unmodified, or unpainted (raw plastic) buildings to be seen. Overall, the layout gives the impression of period accuracy and realism.

It is my belief that a layout, as a whole, should reflect the highest degree of modeling the builder is capable of and, except for those in the newbie stage of the hobby, never look like a bunch of unassociated items that were simply thrown together on a grass mat board. As Otto suggests, model railroading is one of the few hobbies that I can think of where such a small percentage of its participants actually live up to the hobby's name, with much of the remainder being some combination of individual model builders, collectors, and folks that just happen to have a model train of some description running around a loop of track set on all but bare plywood. If you doubt this, just take a look sometime at the weekend HO photo galleries on various sites, particularly the MR site, a forum that boasts some 50,000+ members! If one in every 10-15 post shows a realistic looking layout, it's unusual.

Once upon a time, in the now distant past, the lack of quality materials, whether structural, scenic, rolling stock, or whatever, unquestionably held back many wouldbe hobbyists from achieving any high degree of realism on their layouts. However, today there is little excuse for one not having at least a passable, reasonably realistic-looking, pike. Too often one sees examples of the sort of layout that Otto mentions, with its owner pretending/professing that they have a show-worthy pike. I can appreciate that not everyone can be a George Sellios, whether it be for reasons of personal talent, space, time, or money but none of these is a valid excuse for a simple lack of effort on the modeler's part. In my opinion, model railroading is (an always has been) a hobby about creating a realistic representation of a railroad (be it prototypical or free lance) in miniature to the best of one's ability...it is not simply about playing with a basic HO/N train set on a board.

CNJ999