F&SM F units

Sounds like a serious case of American Land Barge Syndrome *8->

The '55 and '56 Chevy's were pretty cool, IMO.

In '62 some friends and I had, perhaps, the world's ugliest '49 Ford rag top (minus the rag). We jacked it up and put on some oversized truck tires so it wouldn't sink in the sand. If only we had had the vision to forsee monster trucks ... ah well!?

Paul

Strolling the streets of northeast San Diego (in "Normal Heights") one night at 3am (having seen 'Fantasia' that evening with considerable chemical enhancement) a '58 Ford smiled at me from where it was parked next to a little stucco house with a concave pointy eave and that rolled over the edge roofing. Not quite a hobbit village, but certainly benign.

At least it wasn't Christine.

One man's dream, another man's nightmare!

Dan Mitchell ==========

Tra>

=>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote: =>

=> > Some of the contributors to this thread have expressed a "my taste is => > better than your taste" attitude. I guess they never learned that in => > aesthetic matters we should all strive to distinguish between what we => > like and what we recognise as excellent. =>

=>How do we recognise excellence? Do we rely on our individual =>judgement, or so we accept the consensus view? Because this seems to be =>the crux of the matter. The consensus appears to be that the F&SM is an =>excellent model railroad, whereas my judgement tells me that it's not. =>

If you can say, "Well, this isn't my kind of [music/painting/theater/model railroad/whatever] but I can tell it's very well done", then you've learned some objective standards of excellence. And most experienced judges will agree with you - and if they don't, you will nevertheless understand why.

The fact is, that excellence is not a matter of democratic consensus. All of us are simply incapable of judging most kinds of excellence. We all have some, and a few have great, expertise in one or another kind of excellence. It takes a lot of experience, thought, study, recognition and discounting of one's prejudices, and so forth, to become an expert judge of excellence. I like to listen to experts debate the excellence of some art or skill that I myself cannot competently judge. One thing I notice about such discussions: they generally focus on the object or performance in question, and rarely on personal likes and dislikes. And of course, by listening to them, and paying to attention to the objects of their discourse, I begin, in a small way, to understand.

Nevertheless, it's also true that such judgements begin with a love of the game or art. We start by expressing our personal taste, and graduate to recognising excellence. Funny thing, though: the better you become at recognising excellence, the more things give you pleasure. You transcend the narrow compass of mere likes and dislikes.

But that's enough pontificating - too much, probably, for some people. :-)

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

Very true.

Let me make an observation based on many years of model building, attending many contests as both a spectator and participant, and more than a few times as a winner or judge. I have won model contests at the NMRA National and IPMS regional levels. I have judged at the NMRA regional level, both model and photo contests, and at various IPMS model contests.

The judges, usually competent to do so, make a fast pass of the entries, and quickly decide on subjective basis whether they 'like' or don't like each model, for whatever reasons. Obviously, they do NOT all use the same set of standards. Still, they will quickly come to about a 90% agreement. This is the first 'cut'.

Yes, they almost always have a 'judging system' or rating sheets, etc. which serve as a set of guidelines on WHAT to judge on. These usually have little effect on the first 'cut', eliminating 90% of the entries. The entry is either 'up to standards' , or it's NOT.

It's the remaining 10% or so that get real scrutiny. NOW the judging 'rules' come into play, as the various judges debate the merits, or lack thereof, of the few best entries. This is also where the materials supplied by the entrant become valuable. NO set of judges can be expected to KNOW all that may be necessary to correctly judge the variety of things they are called upon to judge. Documentation provided by the entrant can make a HUGE difference here. If such and such a detail can be documented, then credit can be appropriately given. Factual information often results in arguments between the judges, but documentation from the entrant solves this problem.

What remains are the last subjective issues. Opinions on modeling 'technique', colors used (often impossible to accurately document), weathering, etc. The judges can squabble long and hard on such issues. At this level ALL the models are VERY nice. But which ones among them deserve the highest accolades? Rarely does ONE model stand out as clearly superior. Rarely do the judges initially agree. Each one tries to convince the others that his/her opinion is the correct one. Assuming the judges are competent, what each has to say will have validity. Usually one position or another becomes persuasive.

Occasionally a consensus is NOT reached. Having an odd number of judges solves the impasses, when a vote must be taken. I've seen judges that will hardly speak to one another after such a session!

All this can be very informative, as you imply. I recommend taking a turn as a judge if you're invited to do so ... you'll learn a LOT. A lot about model building, AND about human nature! :-)

Dan Mitchell ==========

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

Weeell, I thought that maybe you could point to some layouts that might have been covered in the model railroad press. For example, Wolf Kirchmeir mentioned Jack Burgess' Yosemite Valley RR. It should be quite difficult to find fault with that one.

Texas Pete

Good Observation,

Dan, let me add something from my experience in judging NMRA Regional contests:

o - Documentation: This will add more points to a model. Someone filling out an entry form with no supporting documentation is just asking for lower points. Comments on the entry form like 'added details to conform to prototype' really say nothing. Someone who has gone to the trouble to work up a handout with a list of the details/modifications and pictures/diagrams to prove it will always garner more points. o - Protype vs 'Freelance': This is tough. If your personal XY&Z line did not use a detail feature, that is your decision. But of you built a model of a Milw ribside caboose and fabricated al of those ribs - you are going to get points for the work. In IPMS, I rarely have seen a 'freelance' F4E jet, but most of the time there is supporting documentation to prove the paint job or weapons that have been added to model - IPMS is a lot tougher bunch. I have never judged or entered an IPMS contest(not even a member), but I have viewed models at shows and marvel at the list of details that they guys add and the research they put into their models. This spring, I will be judging at the TLR Spring Convention in Grand Forks. Again, we will be looking for 'shadow judges' who want to learn about the NMRA judging process. This will at least make the individual a better modeler/contest entrant, and help seed a pool of judges for the future. I know we are doing something right, as models we have judged at the Regional level have gone to the National, and have never had more that 1 or 2 points difference in the judging.

Jim Bernier

"Daniel A. Mitchell" wrote:

Dan, I have left most but not all of your reply above.

I also have judged NMRA contests from the local level to the national level, and it is a learning experiance for the judges as well.

The times I have judge we have tried to give all models a good once over. But if it is appearance that it would not qualify for a merit award (87.5 points out of 125) it will get some comments and then quickly passed over.

Those that are on the edge will get a good going over to make sure they are properly placed.

Best of show is always a hard call. Do you go just with the points or are there otherthings that come into play. Especially when you have different groups of judges judging the different categories. This is where the head judge needs to make a call.

But to all: Don't let a contest scare you. All NMRA contests are also open to Display Only items. These are not judged at all.

Howard R Garner NMRA Lifer

But make sure you include the proper documentation.

My best example was an N-scale class A Shay. Scratch built, Very good workmanship. Lost a lot of points on conformity. the documentation was photos of a 3 cylinder shay. (NMRA National, Birmingham AL 198?) Howard

Agreed.

As for the IPMS (International Plastic Modeling Society), yes, they are often a lot more 'scholarly' in their model work, and documentation, than the NMRA modelers. Not to say that most NMRA contest modelers do a poor job, not at all, but the average quality of work at an IPMS show is higher than often seen at the NMRA shows. As you say, they usually do a lot more research, and more scratchbuilding.

BUT, if you want to see some beautiful model work, try going to the annual AMPS (Armor Modeling & Preservation Society) show in Maryland. It's all military vehicle subjects, but the average quality of work puts even IPMS to shame! A typical IPMS regional-placing model is little better than 'qualified to enter' at AMPS. I've competed there, and even won modestly (Advanced Class, bronze), but never judged.

Model railroaders are often a pretty casual bunch ... Those AMPS guys are true fanatics. The only thing in model railroading I can think of that's somewhat comparable are the REALLY die-hard narrow guagers.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Jim Bernier wrote:

I agree.

One thing that often comes up is a point I've tried to make in this group a few times. There IS a difference between a strictly accurate model and one that's made to LOOK accurate. More of one absolutely means less of the other. Which is the better model? I've never heard a GOOD answer to that one ... it's PURELY subjective. Fortunately most models exhibit some of each, and the judges have only to evaluate the balance of features.

And yes, here are some individuals that do beautiful model work, but just don't care for competition. Most contests have some provision for them to display but not be judged (even though some of these models are very worthy of competition). It's also a way for previous winning models to be seen, even though they are no longer eligible for competition.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Howard R Garner wrote:

Good example.

The purpose of the documentation is to make clear exactly what YOU did to make your model conform more closely to the prototype. Obviously plans or photos of the prototype are a good starting point. If you're scratchbuilding that's about ALL you need.

If you're working from a kit, you also have to document what was WRONG with the original model in the first place, whatt needed to be changed, and why, and how you went about the conversion.

NO set of judges can know all there is to know about most prototypes, or even the model kits most use to start their projects. it's up to the entrants to make these issues apparent to the judges.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Howard R Garner wrote:

This is pretty much why I have given up on pursuing the NMRA MMR award. I feel that the plans included with an Ambroid or Campbell kit should be more than sufficient documentation for anything that I have entered in a contest. I find doing research very dull, hence I'm unlikely to get any sort of decent score under Conformity even though the model looks great. The demand for reams of documentation in NMRA contests takes the fun out doing it.

There's a transmission shop down the road that has a Subaru or some rice burner set up on a huge 4WD chassis. I think it's the business' snow plow. Another guy in Zion, IL about 20 years ago had a '72 or '73 Nova set up on a Blazer (or some GM) chassis.

Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"

Yes, it would, and I would not even bother trying. I regard the YV as an excellent example of what a model railroad should be. But not all outstanding layouts are featured in the model railroad press, or at least the US model raiload press.

While good documentation will certainly HELP a model to place well, assuming it's otherwise well done, it's not absolutely essential. My experience is that only about 10% of the entries in NMRA contests provide ANY documentation beyond a few cryptic comments on the application form. Such lack of documentation just places a higher burden on the judges, which can lead to less accurate judging and inappropriate outcomes.

Naturally, the higher you place, or aspire to place, with the model, the more important such documentation becomes.

And, as I've pointed out, your casual attitude to your modeling is typical of a LARGE portion of the model railroading community. It's less true of some other modeling groups, such as the armored vehicle and ship modelers. THERE, documentation is usually an absolute MUST if you expect your model to even place.

And, even if you don't care for research and documentation, and have crated a nice model, there's nothing to prevent you from entering it, perhaps only as a display. Some people just don't care for the whole idea of competition. Even if the model does not win anything, I'm sure many would enjoy seeing it. Lets face it, there's only going to be ONE winner per category, and perhaps a couple 'also rans', but that doesn't mean even the losing models are necessarily CRAP, and not worth seeing. A model that loses in one contest may win in another with NO modification. That's just the result of the relative competition, AND the biases of the judges. I don't care what 'system' of judging a contest uses, the personal likes, and dislikes, of the judges plays a LARGE part in every contest.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Rick J>

And that's a darn shame.

Texas Pete

=>On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 00:13:43 +1100, Mark Newton => wrote: =>

=>>I thought that maybe you could point to some layouts that =>> > might have been covered in the model railroad press. For example, =>> > Wolf Kirchmeir mentioned Jack Burgess' Yosemite Valley RR. It should =>> > be quite difficult to find fault with that one. =>>

=>>Yes, it would, and I would not even bother trying. I regard the YV as an =>>excellent example of what a model railroad should be. But not all =>>outstanding layouts are featured in the model railroad press, or at =>>least the US model raiload press. =>

=> And that's a darn shame. =>

=>Texas Pete

It's a darn shame that those who know about these outstanding layouts don't get off their duffs and write them up. The "model railroad press" can't feature what it doen's know about.

Wolf Kirchmeir ................................. If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on this train? (Garrison Keillor)

"Wolf Kirchmeir"

I'm sure there must be dozens of interesting layouts that have never been published. Not all of them need to be basement sized empires.

Is it me, or has there been an increase lately, in MR especially, of "commercial" layouts?

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway