Speaking out against quirky figures

[invicta280]

Personally I liked to see some of the outrageous drivers on Shane's CVLR. The Stig and Cap'n Jack Sparrow for example.

Unfortunately we don't seem to have had any updates from this very atmospheric line

[andymctractor]

Hi, concluding this subject for now I think it is safe to suggest that quirky figures are firmly set into the psyche of many 16 millers though the reasons for this are not always clear. Perhaps this relates to the origins of 16mm that is based round the locomotive and the use of live steam with the railways themselves being much less important. So many of the crusty steamy types use quirky figures that I'm sure those who aren't particularly keen are tempted to keep out of discussions on the matter.

I've come into 16mm fairly recently but I consider the garden railway more important than the trains that run through it. A well thought out garden railway shines with brilliance when it looks right without any trains and is only momentarily injected with life as a train passes through.
Before I finish I would like to add that I'm a full blown freelance modeller and the near to prototypical stuff I've got is that that I have purchased RTR, which is just too good at the price. I do have a Fred Dibnah character that was bought for me by someone very dear and he will be the steamer of a stationary engine I will soon be building that I bought from the US. Of course I will construct the kit in a freelance manner as usual but it will need to be convincing nevertheless.

Thanks to all for contributing to this discussion.

[jim@NAL]

I agree with andy I do like some of the quirky fingers thou but not all of them also the price of some of them I think is a bit expensive .there also doesn't seem to be a very wide range of nomal non quirky fingers available(or I jest haven't found them )

on a 2nd note does anyone know why we haven't had any posts from .Shane's CVLR.i do love his line

[pskipper]

I just found Mikesmarvellousmodels by searching for Shunting Horse, here's the link...

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/mikesmarvello ... pg=&_from=

[Big Jim]

I have never really given any thought at all to the type of figures I have/will use on my locos and railway. The only stipulation I have is that they are cheap and toddler proof.
I am not really one for scenery as IMHO the garden can provide most of that but my young son loves to have figures he can play with. He spent half an hour yesterday playing with a couple of open wagons and a few cheap figures from Back to Bay Six, happy days.

[Chris Cairns]

An interesting subject that raises its head again. Thank You to Andy for starting a new discussion.

Like others I have still to build my garden railway (actually I still have to build the garden first as the back garden was an optional extra that I did not select). However I have still collected several figures along the way.

Part of the problem is although we accept many of our locomotives at 16mm/G scale it depends if you are modelling a specific or a generic narrow gauge line (from too small with the tight cab of an IP Eng Lollypop railcar to somewhat huge with an over scale dual gauge Accucraft running on 32mm). And then the various manufacturers of figures have their own interpretation of what is 16mm/G scale and do not generally give us accurate measurements on their websites before we buy (try finding a 16mm scale figure to fit in the cabs of the current range of Mamod oscillators).

My collection includes Busybodies (Fred Dibnah, his specific sized Mamod SL/MSS driver, and the Ivor the Engine range), Modeltown drivers & staff (both painted & unpainted), selection of the Back2Bay figures (standing & seated, 5 for £10), couple of Mr Swift's, and a Sweet Sixteen & Brandbright figure picked up from the bereavement stall in the M2M area at Peterborough. Using one of Mike's (Jurassic Models) scale rulers I've picked up some suitable sized Star Trek figures and other toy figures from the budget shops which have movable hands/legs/heads and should be easily repainted.

I notice no-one has mentioned Playmobil figures. Got a large box off evilbay to populate some of my Mamod/MSS coaches which are OK as long as you do not look too close - to me it looks better with a populated rather than an empty coach.

As has been summarised above - 'Each to their own'.

Chris Cairns

[Dr. Bond of the DVLR]

Of course there may be other reasons why people don't really like realistic people, namely a phenomenon I came across through animation but one which could apply here - Uncanny Valley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

[andymctractor]

Of course there may be other reasons why people don't really like realistic people, namely a phenomenon I came across through animation but one which could apply here - Uncanny Valley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

This goes some way to explaining why some members cannot explain why they prefer quirky figures.  I found this very much more interesting than I thought I would when I initially scanned it.  
I do however have concerns over what Zach reads during his off duty time.  Mind you, anyone who can study Chemical Engineering (i think I'm correct) without going a bit do lally needs the sort of brain that few of us can boast of.  :blob7:

[kandnwlr]

Of course there may be other reasons why people don't really like realistic people, namely a phenomenon I came across through animation but one which could apply here - Uncanny Valley.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

This goes some way to explaining why some members cannot explain why they prefer quirky figures.  I found this very much more interesting than I thought I would when I initially scanned it.  
I do however have concerns over what Zach reads during his off duty time.  Mind you, anyone who can study Chemical Engineering (i think I'm correct) without going a bit do lally needs the sort of brain that few of us can boast of.  :blob7:

Interesting to note that no one seems to mind about garden railways looking as close to the real thing as possible ... it seems that the issue only arises if an attempt to model people occurs. I further note that quirkiness seems to be restricted to the 16mm narrow gauge community and is not often seen in, for example, Gauge 1 enthusiasts, who perhaps take things more seriously .... so perhaps the quirkiness is simply a projection of how 16mm people see themselves and others.

Perhaps I should get out more often. But I´ll take my anorak just in case it rains.

[kandnwlr]

And don´t even try to get me started about explaining the significance of four quirky St Trinians figures driving a model traction engine around the K&NWLR. The mind boggles ....

K&NWLR: St. Trinians traction engine by kandnwlr, on Flickr

[TonyW]

... I further note that quirkiness seems to be restricted to the 16mm narrow gauge community and is not often seen in, for example, Gauge 1 enthusiasts, who perhaps take things more seriously ...

Could it be that a lot (but certainly not all) of 16millers look at it as Toy Trains, while the G1ers look at it as Model Railways?

[tegfan railway]

TOY TRAINS??!! Miniature model engineering marvels if you please!

preparing to be shot down! Tongue in cheek and all that - perhaps its a narrow gauge thing as all the narrow gauge crowd are all a bit quirky (myself included!!) I note also that the buildings and other scenery are never quirky.

By the way for the record I REALLY like the quirky style of figures!

[Big Jim]

Perhaps if we took ourselves more seriously we would all be building finescale layouts and counting rivets?

[TonyW]

TOY TRAINS??!! Miniature model engineering marvels if you please!

Well yes, but I was thinking more of looks and operation rather than mechanical prowess.

You only need to look on YouTube or the Association's DVDs to see an out-of-the-box steam loco with shiny paint and unpainted wheels towing a train at a speed approaching that of sound.

You also only need to look on YouTube or the Association's DVDs to see a commercially made steam loco that its owner has done his best to make it look like a miniature of The Real Thing towing a train at something which looks like a scale 10 to 20 miles per hour.

To me, one is Toy Trains and the other is Model Railways. Both are popular, but I know which one I prefer.

[andymctractor]

Could it be that a lot (but certainly not all) of 16millers look at it as Toy Trains, while the G1ers look at it as Model Railways?

They are all 'model railways'. That includes toy trains, quirky stuff, rivet counting, freelance etc. the difference being the purpose that the model is completed for.
I'm going to get even more boring than I'm already known for now by adding something that I think I still remember from a course I did about 14 years ago when we learned a definition of a model. It went something like this.
'A model is a simplified representation of an article or process from the real world that has been created for a specific purpose.'
Discuss!!!

[Soar Valley Light]

Now there's an interesting hypothesis Andy and one I think I agree with!

Of course, it still depends upon the individuals view of their own world and their personal perception of reality. I think we are all creating our own miniature realities in our models - look at some of the 'back stories'! Equally we construct our own private little worlds for the railway to exist in. We do this either wittingly or unwittingly, its an unavoidable consequence of constructing a railway.

One significant factor in my view is that 16mm is big enough to be considered as an actual railway in it's own right, rather than a model representation of something full sized (or real). Indeed it's probably the smallest scale this could be considered to apply to and in my view due in the main to the railways location - in the great outdoors. (Apart from those which aren't !)

Hmm, that ought to provoke some reaction! As I've said before, everyones railway is their own to do with and to view as they see fit. It's that variety that makes this forum such a lively place.

[philipy]

Could it be that a lot (but certainly not all) of 16millers look at it as Toy Trains, while the G1ers look at it as Model Railways?

They are all 'model railways'.  That includes toy trains, quirky stuff, rivet counting, freelance etc. the difference being the purpose that the model is completed for.  
I'm going to get even more boring than I'm already known for now by adding something that I think I still remember from a course I did about 14 years ago when we learned a definition of a model.  It went something like this.
'A model is a simplified representation of an article or process from the real world that has been created for a specific purpose.'
Discuss!!!

Andy, I'm not sure I can agree with a lot of this, although the basic premise I do sort of agree with. There is a world of differenc between a "model railway" as commonly understood, and "a model OF a railway". In 2/3/4/7mm the latter is a lot easier to acheive, due to the space required to do the same thing in16mm and larger. For example my 4mm (P4) model of Marlborough is L shaped approx 23ft x23ft and in 16mm that would equate to nearly 100ft x 100ft! It also requires a crew of at least 5 at any one time to operate properly, it has a roster of  approx 10 loco's, a dozen or so bogie coaches, half a dozen 4-wheelers, and who knows how many freight vehicles. It is fully signalled with working signals and has (dummy) point rodding and signal wires. It also so has two control panels and who knows how many miles of wiring underneath. It took me over 12years to construct, not including scratchbuilding much of the stock. I suggest that that size garden railway is simply not practical for anything less than comitted club or similar.

I also have a bit of a problem with the word 'simplified' in your definition, although it may depend on the field which that particular definition is used in. Being silly about it, take a 10x10x10 cube of steel, make another one that is 1x1x1 and you have an exact 1/10 scale model of the original, with no simplification. Build a plastic kit model of Titanic and even if the visible model is excatly to scale the inside is missing completely and in that case it certainly complies with your definition. My Marlborough is not a precisely accurate model of the real thing because the geometry had to be modified,, so in that sense it is simplified, but bits of it are accurate scale models of the real thingSo overall, I think your definition itself is over simplified!

[andymctractor]

Andy, I'm not sure I can agree with a lot of this, although the basic premise I do sort of agree with.

So overall, I think your definition itself is over simplified!

Thanks philipy for your contribution and your view.
I think 'simplified' is trying to describe every possibility except for an exact copy in every way. This would include everything from Pendon to Lego trains and much more.

I have to admit that the course I was on when I was introduced to the definition was a maths modelling course but the definition of model seemed to work for me in scale modelling also.
It would be interesting for you to have a go at a better definition assuming it is possible to have one that fits everything.

Good luck.
Andy

[andymctractor]

Now there's an interesting hypothesis Andy and one I think I agree with!

One significant factor in my view is that 16mm is big enough to be considered as an actual railway in it's own right, rather than a model representation of something full sized (or real).

That has put the cat among the pigeons. I certainly treat my railway as a railway in it's own right. Still think of it as a model though.

[MDLR]

To get back to where we started from..........................

I only have one figure on my railway, and it's a Rob Bennett one! Oddly enough. though, I wouldn't describe him as quirky. He is, in fact, Arfur - a driver figure made with a ruddy great brass clip to slide on over a displacement lubricator. He's called Arfur cos he's only half there, but he looks absolutely fine standing on the footplate, covered in steam oil, with his fag on in his mouth!