MRJ 254 Post-Publication Thread.

[Rumblestripe]

Some years ago, RMJ included an A3 size print of a photographed model in a natural setting with the simple caption "THIS is a Model Railway"

 

Semley deserves that accolade. It is a masterpiece.

 

The debate on weather (or not) is tricky. It is difficult to judge the appearance of a Victorian/Edwardian railway against our experience of an ageing and aged infrastructure. A pre-Great War railway was the pinnacle of the technology of the age, NASA or CERN not some battered old DMU rattling asthmatically along neglected and overgrown tracks. The bricks of the buildings were of the highest quality only a few years old, the woodwork freshly painted, the standards of cleanliness exemplary, you could eat your dinner off the boiler housing of a shunting locomotive let alone an express. Perhaps the PO wagons are a little too clean but that's about it.

[Anglian]

I throughly enjoyed seeing the large number of images of Semley. I'm sure there will be more published on this layout in the future. There was much of direct interest to me even though I shall never have the skill to model in P4. I'm not old enough to remember mainline steam so without a direct line to a reservoir of nostalgia to draw on for inspiration the colour of the pre-group era is highly appealing. I certainly find the pre nationalisation freight vehicles, both company owned and private owner fascinating.

 

However, having been invited into a number of signal boxes on preserved railways the recreation of the block instruments, the lever frame and the full mechanical interlocking was the single most intriguing element and one that I would love to see expanded on in future articles. I can only imaging how much fun the layout would be to operate. For me this layout has definitely had the same profound impact on me that Hursley did so many years ago. 

 

I noted just how good the trees look close to back scene. I don't know if these were Gordon Gravett models as were the pines (noted in a caption) either way they were superbly rendered and the depth given to the overall scene by the blend achieved between the 3D and 2D elements is very good.

 

There was only one element which I felt could be improved and that was the painting of some of the figures and the cows. I aways think the latter would be more convincing if modelled prone in a huddle under tree cover or tucked into an edge of a field. It's one of those elements on a model that is hard to get just right. I noted one figure on a bench has her feet raised up high and whilst not anatomically impossible it failed to convince. 

 

One question in my mind was: has the layout been built to exhibit? (I've not read the article yet in detail.) I only ask as the high back scene on the 'inside' facing side of the scenic section suggests this may be the case.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Anglian

[Daddyman]

I have belatedly acquired a copy and I agree that Semley is superb. Every detail on the trains is crisp, their paintwork is superb, every vertical in the buildings is vertical, the scenery hasn't the slightest hint of bodging or dirty little secrets hidden by foliage. The layout is absolutely superlative in every imaginable way. And yet it leaves me, like an earlier poster on here, totally unmoved. 

I struggle to identify what makes it so soulless, not in order to criticise the builder, but in order to try to work out how to avoid this problem myself, which is so easy to fall into. There but for the grace of God.... 

I wonder if it's that it depicts such a bland southern English "everywhere" - what passes for scenery to those who have never seen Northumberland? Or that it lacks definition as that "everywhere"? - by which I mean, take away the stock and the railway buildings and would you know where it was, in the way you would with Portchullin, for example? Or is it too focused, too closed in on, the railway, so that it can't breathe?

 

I don't know, but I'd like to know, as I need to understand this before entering the Cameo Competition... 

[jamie92208]

Maybe it's time the thread was retitled to MRJ 255.   In anticipation of this I spent 10 minutes sitting in the car park outside Amadeus (The printers) in case the next issue slipped out of the door.   I can report that amongst the employees of the offices opposite, 95% of the male drivers reversed into their parking spots and 95% of the female employees drove forwards into their spaces. I would not care to speculate what this proves.

 

Jamie

[Jol Wilkinson]

 There was much of direct interest to me even though I shall never have the skill to model in P4. 

 

Nobody that models in P4 had any "skill" until they learned it.

 

I model in P4 and don't regard it as any different to the other two 4mm gauges in terms of the skill required. What you do need is the desire to build your own models and the enthusiasm to have a go.

[Horsetan]

....I can report that amongst the employees of the offices opposite, 95% of the male drivers reversed into their parking spots and 95% of the female employees drove forwards into their spaces. I would not care to speculate what this proves.

See "Driving Standards" thread.

[Zero Gravitas]

Maybe it's time the thread was retitled to MRJ 255.   In anticipation of this I spent 10 minutes sitting in the car park outside Amadeus (The printers) in case the next issue slipped out of the door.   I can report that amongst the employees of the offices opposite, 95% of the male drivers reversed into their parking spots and 95% of the female employees drove forwards into their spaces. I would not care to speculate what this proves.

 

Jamie

Hold your horses - the excitement is scheduled to start all over again on 11 May...

[jamie92208]

Hold your horses - the excitement is scheduled to start all over again on 11 May...

 

Thanks for that unfortunately I don't have any horses to hold.  

 

Jamie

[Anglian]

Nobody that models in P4 had any "skill" until they learned it.

 

I model in P4 and don't regard it as any different to the other two 4mm gauges in terms of the skill required. What you do need is the desire to build your own models and the enthusiasm to have a go.

 

 

A good point well made (excuse the dreadful pun) I was lost for other words.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Anglian

[Horsetan]

Thanks for that unfortunately I don't have any horses to hold.  

I do.

[Zero Gravitas]

I do.

Keep them held - MRJ 255 scheduled for 11 May, so I'm planning to start the not-very-serious threa thread then.

 

However, I have been automatically notified that the 253 and 254 not-very-serious threads have been moved by a moderator to "Wheeltappers"; so I don't know if the 255 not-very-serious thread will suffer the same fate. To my mind, it makes much more sense to keep these threads in the MRJ section. But then, what do I know?

[jamie92208]

We'll have to start a petition to keep it in the right place.

 

Jamie

[Penlan]

 But then, what do I know?

If you knew, you wouldn't be asking....  

[corneliuslundie]

As long as the "not serious" thread remains here until we have finished with it does it matter if it is later removed (or even deleted?) After a while it ceases to have much value but at the time it is useful and relevant, even if not always (ever?) serious.

Jonathan

[PJBambrick]

 

I wonder if it's that it depicts such a bland southern English "everywhere" - what passes for scenery to those who have never seen Northumberland? Or that it lacks definition as that "everywhere"? - by which I mean, take away the stock and the railway buildings and would you know where it was, in the way you would with Portchullin, for example? 

Hi All...  Interesting to read the comments re: Semley landscape, so thanks for the feedback.. it does help me along!

 

The quiet Wiltshire countryside surrounding the station and dairy is presented as closely as possible to its prototypical 1912 appearance, with trees, field boundaries, farms and skyline, purely taken as a research project and deliberately omitting any 'romancing' of the panorama.

 

This approach goes some way to matching the historical accuracy of all Martin's modelling, and so we found ourselves agreeing on this method, sticking to exactly what would have been visible at the time.  Personally speaking, the closer to this 'window into the past' subject matter, the more rewarding the outcome becomes, whether it turns out to be just a quiet corner of a southern county, or a scene with windblown Northumbrian fells and crags instead. 

 

The creative choice is the model's subject, but after that, (for me anyway), the end result is all about going with the reference.

 

I'll get back to any comments after a 10 day trip abroad...Cheers

[Loconuts]

I am sure Martin and his crew have done a lot of research but one thing that does concern me is the lack of trees. At the turn of the century we had a lot more trees in this country compared to present day. Back in 1974 I spent an evening with Roye England looking through some old photos of the Vale area and the number of trees that were around was noticeable particularly along the lanes.

 

A lot have gone due to modern farming methods, building, road safety and desease. I myself witnessed the effects of Dutch Elm desease in Oxfordshire and the removal of stands of elms, they were never replaced.

 

Loconuts

[Penlan]

I am sure Martin and his crew have done a lot of research but one thing that does concern me is the lack of trees. At the turn of the century we had a lot more trees in this country compared to present day. 

With all due respect, I'm not sure that's entirely true.

In the book 'The Meon Valley Railway' Part 1: Building the Line, there are far more trees there now than in the 1890's.

I have had in interest in the Neath & Brecon Railway and many Edwardian photographs show a bleak landscape, now plenty of trees, and I could go on - I seem to have books galore dealing with Victorian and Edwardian rural activities,  plus those rather strange 'Then & Now' books, and if the fields are not now supermarkets, estates and/or motorways, then in general, there's more trees now.

But I think to say there where more trees then than now, is to sweeping a statement.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Penlan

[Izzy]

Although it might be true that numbers of trees in certain areas has fallen compared with the past, in relation to lineside vegetation the reverse is often the case. In steam days immediate lineside stuff was kept down to avoid lineside fires and studies of then and now comparison shots of many current lines often show that trees etc have grown and multiplied quite a bit since diesel and electric traction took over. This is one reason why the 'leaves on the line' situation has become such a problem in recent times.

 

Izzy

[Loconuts]

With all due respect, I'm not sure that's entirely true.

In the book 'The Meon Valley Railway' Part 1: Building the Line, there are far more trees there now than in the 1890's.

I have had in interest in the Neath & Brecon Railway and many Edwardian photographs show a bleak landscape, now plenty of trees, and I could go on - I seem to have books galore dealing with Victorian and Edwardian rural activities,  plus those rather strange 'Then & Now' books, and if the fields are not now supermarkets, estates and/or motorways, then in general, there's more trees now.

But I think to say there where more trees then than now, is to sweeping a statement.

 

I was basing my observation on old photos and also a report commissioned by the Forestry Commission which was the subject of a Country File program recently. The report stated that the number of broad leaf forests have shrunk over the years whereas commercial forestry had increased. As we know commercial forestry use pines not native to this country

 

Generally the report states we are not planting enough trees to replace those that have been lost including commercial forests. One picture I saw recently was a photo taken from Lodge Hill just outside Abingdon in 1912 which showed a town within a wooded landscape and it was compared to a present day photo from the same spot, 75% of the trees had gone.

 

The other thing is that in the early part of the 20th century farms were not mechanised and therefore fields were small and surrounded by hedgerows, these hedgerows had trees within them. As farms became more mechanised and the machines got bigger these hedgerows got  ripped out along with the trees. This action is the cause of some of the flooding we experience.

 

True new trees are springing up along the routes of old abandoned railway lines where they have been turned into cycle ways/footpaths. I could ramble on with countless examples of where woodland and trees have been removed and never replaced. All I was trying to state is that the countryside changes over time.

 

Loconuts   

[Penlan]

 All I was trying to state is that the countryside changes over time.

Indeed it does, and one's tempted to say what's seen (and scene  ) is in the eye of the beholder.

 

When one thinks of all those Elms lost in the 70's,

though I still have two old 80' high ones in my garden,

the landscape has changed.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Penlan

[Torper]

I have belatedly acquired a copy and I agree that Semley is superb. ..........And yet it leaves me, like an earlier poster on here, totally unmoved.

 

It is superb, but it doesn't leave me unmoved.  I should find it inspirational, and I do, but at least to the same extent I find it a bit depressing because I know that, however hard I try, I will never ever be able to build a layout to anything approaching these standards.  It may of course be pure coincidence that since reading about Semley my railway modelling mojo seems to have deserted me and instead I'm trying to build a Special Hobby kit of a Fairey Barracuda (and compared to that, P4 is a piece of cake).

 

DT

[Adam]

I was basing my observation on old photos and also a report commissioned by the Forestry Commission which was the subject of a Country File program recently. The report stated that the number of broad leaf forests have shrunk over the years whereas commercial forestry had increased. As we know commercial forestry use pines not native to this country

 

Generally the report states we are not planting enough trees to replace those that have been lost including commercial forests. One picture I saw recently was a photo taken from Lodge Hill just outside Abingdon in 1912 which showed a town within a wooded landscape and it was compared to a present day photo from the same spot, 75% of the trees had gone.

 

The other thing is that in the early part of the 20th century farms were not mechanised and therefore fields were small and surrounded by hedgerows, these hedgerows had trees within them. As farms became more mechanised and the machines got bigger these hedgerows got  ripped out along with the trees. This action is the cause of some of the flooding we experience.

 

True new trees are springing up along the routes of old abandoned railway lines where they have been turned into cycle ways/footpaths. I could ramble on with countless examples of where woodland and trees have been removed and never replaced. All I was trying to state is that the countryside changes over time.

 

Loconuts   

 

All fair comment, of course, but in the sheep corn territory that is this end of Wiltshire the impact is rather less pronounced than on the border of Berkshire and Oxfordshire.

 

Having just compared a few OS maps showing Semley station, of various dates [using Digimap - the National Library of Scotland can supply something similar, but I'm at work and I have this tool open for something else], what is very striking is that the field boundaries north of the station - what you can see in the backscene of Mr Finney's layout - are representative of a landscape managed by grazing. The field boundaries extant today (visible in Google's satellite and aerial imaging) are more or less those seen in the first edition 25" to the mile OS map (published 1889) and they are still hedgerows, perhaps with fewer hedgerow trees, but that's not so surprising.There is a bit of plantation woodland immediately north of where the station was  but that appears very recent indeed (it's not mapped in 1985). The nearest significant woodland, but even then, only a couple of copses of 20 or so acres, that would be visible from the modelled scene are a mile or so distant and there are no trees at all on the railway's boundary. There is more woodland - again, plantations which are still there - to the south of the railway, but you can't see any of that, of course because from the point of view you are looking at the model from, it's behind you. There are plenty of changes - mostly in the nature of farming and what is being grazed - but the overall 'shape' of the landscape is not so far removed from the late 19th century.

 

Just my observations, it's a fine model.

 

Adam

Edited May 11, 2017 by Adam

[Bernie333]

Semley is very pretty, but where is all the dirt?

[Loconuts]

Semley is very pretty, but where is all the dirt?

 

We have had that one in previous posts, there was not any at that time, it was not like BR in that period. Labour was cheap and the railways employed cleaners.

 

People took a pride in those days unlike our present throw away society of today.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Loconuts

[Penlan]

Semley is very pretty, but where is all the dirt?

I was going to say 'Page 3', but the sequence isn't there.

The only problem I have with the main spread view on pages 82-83, is the fencing above the milk churns.

I realise it's the angle the photo's taken at because the photo at the top of page 84 shows it to be a standard Post & Rail.

Also the pastel colours of the couple on the bench under the awning on page 87.

 

But that's nit picking.