Modern Image split

[Northmoor]

Lack of RTR overhead stock is a big issue with suburban electric layouts. All we have is a 350, and that is dual voltage! Bring on a manufacturer making PEP derived EMUs (they are third rail too) and some Mk1s and we might stand a chance. 313 will be a good start being dual voltage and only 3-car.

 

The 3-car 306 (I know it is LNER) can be made as a DC equivalent that will work on all those Woodhead layouts so there will be a ready market, and I am sure that Mk1 302/303/304/305/308/310/311 are similar enough that some common components can make a range economical of at least some of them. That just leaves Altrincham EMUs, 312 and 309 as early overhead EMUs that might be a bit niche that were still in use in the '80s.

 

More modern EMUs (like the 350) will be in use for many years to come so should have an excellent future with those wanting to model the contemporary scene. I would have thought that AC would not be any more niche than N-gauge if something was actually available to buy.

313 - agreed, a good starting point.

306/506 - "a ready market", yes for about ten existing layouts

302/307 - similar ends but different coaches?

303/311 - Glasgow Blue trains, power doors, unlike anything else on BR

304/305/308 - same ends but much variation in vehicles. Some large and some short window units, often within the same class

310/312 - Based on Mark 2 coach profile; similar vehicles but some variation

313/314/315 - Largely identical apart from numbers of vehicles

317/318/319/320/321/322 - Some common coach sides but three designs of cab end

 

Useful summary?

Edited March 11, 2018 by Northmoor

[Huw Griffiths]

I doubt train length is the issue. Knitting the overhead in a convincing way capable to being transported is. 

 

Andi Dell has managed it with Dagworth and Ravenclyffe.

 

Anything is possible - but OLE is complex and that's what puts most people off I suspect.

 

I can't see this being helped by inadequate instructions.

 

I, personally, haven't come across any well written and clearly illustrated books in English, on how to build / put together model OHLE - which is a shame.

 

At this point, I could imagine somebody telling us about some amazing book on the subject, that I've never seen - please feel free - really, I'd love this to happen - because I haven't encountered such a book.

 

I could also imagine somebody pointing to a manual from the German model OHLE specialist Sommerfeldt. All I can say is that, if their manual is easy to follow, then it must have received a complete rewrite, following on from the edition I acquired a number of years ago. If this has indeed happened, then I'd be very interested. Otherwise, I'd have no chance.

 

The edition I've got consists of photos of OHLE (some full sized German prototype - some models assembled on a wooden plank, presumably using their parts) - some drawings labelled only in highly technical German, with a very occasional list of translations for some of the words used - plus some impenetrable paragraphs in several languages. These paragraphs include some in almost unintelligible English - which seem to miss out key sections.

 

 

Actually, you both make some very pertinent points here. There have been a number of amazing representations of OHLE on some layouts - however, I suspect this is probably despite the available literature on the subject, not because of it.

 

On plain, straight, track, OHLE should be quite straightforward - the wire is held aloft by a system of suitable supports at appropriate intervals - and zig-zags from side to side, a small distance either side of the track centre line, to even out wear on loco (and EMU) pantograph heads. Curves become a bit more "interesting" - switches and crossings rather more so, due to the need to ensure a continuous surface for pantographs to slide along (whilst ensuring they don't get tangled).

 

Joins between baseboard sections offer yet more potential problems - as sections of overhead wire also need to be easy to remove and reinsert, whilst still providing a smooth surface for pantographs.

 

Of course, on full sized railways, you don't get baseboard joints - however, you do need to maintain the wire at a suitable tension to stop it sagging - you also need to provide electrical feeds to the wires and split these wires into electrically isolated sections, then ensure a smooth mechanical transition between sections.

 

 

In other words, OHLE is not something that many railway modellers are likely to feel confident with, unless they've got at least a certain amount of specialist knowledge or experience.

 

When Peco announced that they were planning on marketing some Sommerfeldt model OHLE, I was secretly hoping that they'd also offer a clearly written rewrite of the full Sommerfeldt manual - in other words, I was hoping for rather more than a leaflet or a "Railway Modeller shows you how" pamphlet.

 

If they had offered such a publication, I suspect that a number of railway modellers would have been quick to buy their own copies of it - even a number of people who had no immediate intention of including model OHLE in their next layouts - and some of these people might have been able to be won over (assuming, of course, that they could afford the stuff). Unfortunately, I never saw such a publication - and I personally regard this as something of a missed opportunity.

 

Something like this could also have offered the potential for some very interesting new magazine project layouts (or updates of existing ones) but this was not to be - mainly, I suspect, because it would have taken an inordinate amount of time to work out what would have been involved, based on the available information.

 

Unfortunately, all of this does nothing to increase the popularity of models of trains from the "BR Blue" or more recent eras - and seems to perpetuate a sort of "chicken and egg" situation.

 

Despite many people's misgivings about model OHLE, a number of classes of "Modernisation Plan" overhead powered EMUs actually looked rather attractive - and could have made for superb models (this could also be said of some of their replacements) - but they were unlikely to feature in many toy train sets, because a decent (and robust and otherwise practicable) representation of the OHLE could not be easily added to small home layouts, using what was readily (and cheaply) available in many shops.

 

 

Huw.

[Ravenser]

Lack of RTR overhead stock is a big issue with suburban electric layouts. All we have is a 350, and that is dual voltage! Bring on a manufacturer making PEP derived EMUs (they are third rail too) and some Mk1s and we might stand a chance. 313 will be a good start being dual voltage and only 3-car.

 

The 3-car 306 (I know it is LNER) can be made as a DC equivalent that will work on all those Woodhead layouts so there will be a ready market, and I am sure that Mk1 302/303/304/305/308/310/311 are similar enough that some common components can make a range economical of at least some of them. That just leaves Altrincham EMUs, 312 and 309 as early overhead EMUs that might be a bit niche that were still in use in the '80s.

 

More modern EMUs (like the 350) will be in use for many years to come so should have an excellent future with those wanting to model the contemporary scene. I would have thought that AC would not be any more niche than N-gauge if something was actually available to buy.

 

It's worth pointing out that the 3 rail people were without RTR for many years, but that didn't stop Southern 3rd rail emerging as a lively modelling scene. Kits were available from DC kits for a number of units - perfectly buildable

 

And there's still Bratchill - whatever their limitations

[Clive Mortimore]

I can't see this being helped by inadequate instructions.

 

I, personally, haven't come across any well written and clearly illustrated books in English, on how to build / put together model OHLE - which is a shame.

 

At this point, I could imagine somebody telling us about some amazing book on the subject, that I've never seen - please feel free - really, I'd love this to happen - because I haven't encountered such a book.

 

I could also imagine somebody pointing to a manual from the German model OHLE specialist Sommerfeldt. All I can say is that, if their manual is easy to follow, then it must have received a complete rewrite, following on from the edition I acquired a number of years ago. If this has indeed happened, then I'd be very interested. Otherwise, I'd have no chance.

 

The edition I've got consists of photos of OHLE (some full sized German prototype - some models assembled on a wooden plank, presumably using their parts) - some drawings labelled only in highly technical German, with a very occasional list of translations for some of the words used - plus some impenetrable paragraphs in several languages. These paragraphs include some in almost unintelligible English - which seem to miss out key sections.

 

 

Actually, you both make some very pertinent points here. There have been a number of amazing representations of OHLE on some layouts - however, I suspect this is probably despite the available literature on the subject, not because of it.

 

On plain, straight, track, OHLE should be quite straightforward - the wire is held aloft by a system of suitable supports at appropriate intervals - and zig-zags from side to side, a small distance either side of the track centre line, to even out wear on loco (and EMU) pantograph heads. Curves become a bit more "interesting" - switches and crossings rather more so, due to the need to ensure a continuous surface for pantographs to slide along (whilst ensuring they don't get tangled).

 

Joins between baseboard sections offer yet more potential problems - as sections of overhead wire also need to be easy to remove and reinsert, whilst still providing a smooth surface for pantographs.

 

Of course, on full sized railways, you don't get baseboard joints - however, you do need to maintain the wire at a suitable tension to stop it sagging - you also need to provide electrical feeds to the wires and split these wires into electrically isolated sections, then ensure a smooth mechanical transition between sections.

 

 

In other words, OHLE is not something that many railway modellers are likely to feel confident with, unless they've got at least a certain amount of specialist knowledge or experience.

 

When Peco announced that they were planning on marketing some Sommerfeldt model OHLE, I was secretly hoping that they'd also offer a clearly written rewrite of the full Sommerfeldt manual - in other words, I was hoping for rather more than a leaflet or a "Railway Modeller shows you how" pamphlet.

 

If they had offered such a publication, I suspect that a number of railway modellers would have been quick to buy their own copies of it - even a number of people who had no immediate intention of including model OHLE in their next layouts - and some of these people might have been able to be won over (assuming, of course, that they could afford the stuff). Unfortunately, I never saw such a publication - and I personally regard this as something of a missed opportunity.

 

Something like this could also have offered the potential for some very interesting new magazine project layouts (or updates of existing ones) but this was not to be - mainly, I suspect, because it would have taken an inordinate amount of time to work out what would have been involved, based on the available information.

 

Unfortunately, all of this does nothing to increase the popularity of models of trains from the "BR Blue" or more recent eras - and seems to perpetuate a sort of "chicken and egg" situation.

 

Despite many people's misgivings about model OHLE, a number of classes of "Modernisation Plan" overhead powered EMUs actually looked rather attractive - and could have made for superb models (this could also be said of some of their replacements) - but they were unlikely to feature in many toy train sets, because a decent (and robust and otherwise practicable) representation of the OHLE could not be easily added to small home layouts, using what was readily (and cheaply) available in many shops.

 

 

Huw.

Hi Huw

 

I have tried.

[Nearholmer]

I do hope that magazines don’t splinter along the lines suggested, because I, for more than one I suspect, like variety in magazines.

 

I don’t model post-blue, or blue, or even model at all by some measures, but a well thought-through and executed layout is a well thought-through and executed layout, whatever the subject.

 

The. Railway Modeller under the current editor manages to be a good broad church, and although the current one doesn’t contain much that I’d cut out and keep, the previous two did, and it’s a fair certainty that the next, or the one after, will.

 

More provocatively: surely all railway modellers have something to learn from, or at least appreciate in, all other railway modellers’ work? To put the blinkers on, and ignore everything but ones own current path, is either arrogant, or self-depriving.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Huw Griffiths]

Hi Huw

 

I have tried.

 

Many thanks for that - I'll have to have a more detailed look.

[Colin]

Definitely Brian.

It's not what the layout/diorama or whatever sets out to portray (or in which era it is set) that matters to me, but whether said portrayal is convincing and credible to my eyes.

[LBRJ]

I have yet to see a D&E layout that made me stop and go 'Wow!'  Except maybe The World's End, and lets be honest, it is the architectural modelling that makes that layout stand out... not the diesels.  And I cannot recall any diesel or electric layout that fits into the 'magnum opus' category of super-layouts.   It seems that the leading figureheads within our fraternity have failed to embrace post 1968, seemingly without exception.   There must surely be a sound reason for this.

 

It does intrigue me though, that the Scottish scene seems to have become more 'modern image' oriented.  Maybe this is because there is more diesel stuff available RTR for Scottish modellers compared to steam era models?  It will be interesting to see if this year's announcements by Hornby and Rails will have an impact on future focus, north of the border.

 

I agree with the earlier comments that the smaller scales are better suited to modern railway modelling, with the emphasis on seeing block units gliding through the scenery, stopping occasionally.  So it should be no surprise that D&E features more in N-gauge.  

 

However I suspect that the biggest hurdle for most people is what they see these days.  Most folks now have to travel some distance to see anything on the railways of more than passing interest...   Take my local station at St Austell, for example, in the 1930's it had a large goods depot and a number of busy sidings... the station employed over 40 people at that time.  When Motorail died out with the blue diesels, its status as a destination was lost.  Now it is merely a through station, the trains pausing here briefly on their way somewhere else.  It is a pathetic vestige of what it once was.  Even the mighty clay industry has collapsed to be a withered remnant of its former might.  The most interesting rail activity locally is found - wait for it - on the Bodmin and Wenford steam railway!  No wonder people go back to the days when there was more interesting stuff going on, when looking for modelling inspiration.

 

That said, I do have a number of diesels that run on my fledgling layout under rule 1, simply because I like them, though admittedly all are first generation.   The Sheds, Skips and Lawnmowers are all on the allotment!     

 

Phil

 

You could start by looking at the excellent EM Gauge in the 70s website

 

Nearer to you prototypical geography wise I would suggest

St Ruth in 2FS

Blue Ball Summit in N

as being fabulous examples of D&E layouts - both can be found here on RMweb

[F-UnitMad]

 I cannot recall any diesel or electric layout that fits into the 'magnum opus' category of super-layouts.   It seems that the leading figureheads within our fraternity have failed to embrace post 1968, seemingly without exception.   There must surely be a sound reason for this.

 

 

Phil

Maybe the age of these 'leading figureheads' has something to do with it? To acquire the money and space needed to build & stock a Magnum Opus requires some years of 'Wealth Accumulation', followed by time to build the thing. So the people who now have that happy combination are also among the older members of the hobby, who actually remember Pre-1968 and have the where-with-all to reproduce it in model form? In years to come, the same may become true of people wanting to model huge layouts based on BR Blue. Just my 2p.

 

However there have been, or are, impressive D&E layouts both now and in the past - two that come to my mind are of Birmingham New Street - the garden one built by the late Don Jones in Sutton Coldfield many years ago, and the current P4 New Street of Jim Wright-Smith. 

[Norm81]

Maybe the age of these 'leading figureheads' has something to do with it? To acquire the money and space needed to build & stock a Magnum Opus requires some years of 'Wealth Accumulation', followed by time to build the thing. So the people who now have that happy combination are also among the older members of the hobby, who actually remember Pre-1968 and have the where-with-all to reproduce it in model form? In years to come, the same may become true of people wanting to model huge layouts based on BR Blue. Just my 2p.

 

However there have been, or are, impressive D&E layouts both now and in the past - two that come to my mind are of Birmingham New Street - the garden one built by the late Don Jones in Sutton Coldfield many years ago, and the current P4 New Street of Jim Wright-Smith.

 

Totally agree, along with the years of modelling experience required to build to that standard.

 

People often model what they remember, so those modelling BR Blue will most likely be 30's or 40's. Juggling a job and possibly family so with financial, space and time constraints. Not exactly conducive to creating a magazine or exhibition standard layout, nevermind a "magnum opus".

[Clive Mortimore]

Totally agree, along with the years of modelling experience required to build to that standard.

 

People often model what they remember, so those modelling BR Blue will most likely be 30's or 40's. Juggling a job and possibly family so with financial, space and time constraints. Not exactly conducive to creating a magazine or exhibition standard layout, nevermind a "magnum opus".

Hi Norm

 

I would say to fully recall banger blue it is glory someone would be over 45. The first departure from strict corporate image was in 1979 with the introduction of large logo livery soon after that things went silly livery wise.

[truffy]

People often model what they remember, 

 

 

I agree with everything else, except this. I suppose that it depends on how you define "often". I don't remember steam (except the heritage railways), and was born in the era of blue diesels, but they are the last thing that I want to model; people take different approaches to deciding what they want to express, and how they want to express it.

Edited March 12, 2018 by truffy

[grahame]

I agree with everything else, except this. I suppose that it depends on how you define "often". I don't remember steam (except the heritage railways), and was born in the era of blue diesels, but they are the last thing that I want to model; people take different approaches to deciding what they want to express, and how they want to express it.

Yep, for me I was born in the steam era and remember it well, but having experienced it (the dirt, the smuts, the grubby engines, the choking smoke, the run down infrastructure, etc.,) it's the last thing I want to model.

 

People model what they prefer and/or like but often nostalgia and/or rose tinted glasses take effect.

 

G

Edited March 12, 2018 by grahame

[truffy]

the dirt, the smuts, the grubby engines, the choking smoke, the run down infrastructure, etc.,

 

 

Other than the choking smoke, that was pretty much my commute on '80s BR!

[dj_crisp]

I'm now curious as to what level of layouts we should all aspire too.... (other than Pendon)

[grahame]

Other than the choking smoke, that was pretty much my commute on '80s BR!

 

No smuts, grubby engines or choking smoke from EMUs.  Presumably you lived in an unfortunately underprivileged part of the country.   

 

G

[Nearholmer]

Dj crisp

 

Interesting question, which seems to assume that there are a series of levels, possibly with Pendon at the top.

 

What might the scheme of ‘levels’ that you have in mind be?

 

Kevin

[dj_crisp]

I'm interested as there have been rather dismissive comments on this thread of some really high quality D&E layouts that have given me loads of inspiration to keep with the hobby.

[Norm81]

I'm interested as there have been rather dismissive comments on this thread of some really high quality D&E layouts that have given me loads of inspiration to keep with the hobby.

Oddly it's had almost the opposite effect on me, as there have been rather dismissive (and that's an understatement in some cases) comments aimed at D&E modellers on this thread.

 

At the end of the day the original question is answered in that no, there's not enough content available to satisfy the current magazines let alone a standalone one.

[sem34090]

My thoughts on this concept:

 

D&E modelling covers (Roughly) 50 - 60 years in the history of Britain's railways. Before that there were plenty of interesting petrol, diesel and electric locos and units, but in order to model those it is almost a given that some steam will be required.

 

My current chosen period, pre-grouping steam, petrol and electric, spanned almost 100 years of our railway history: that's more history than has happened since the grouping at present, yet it still seems more neglected than D&E modelling as far as magazines go. There is proof that D&E modelling is more popular than pre-grouping,  but some of the comments here seemed to have been based around the premise that diesels and electrics have ruled entirely for 50 years and as such warrant their own magazine. As I say, if you go from 'Locomotion' (The first thing truly resembling anything close to a modern steam loco that ran on a standardised gauge of track!) in 1825 then that's 98 years, meaning that (based on the aforementioned logic!) we would be having almost two pre-grouping mags! It is an area that is growing in popularity, as many (myself and others I know included) who have grown up on (or, in many cases nowhere near!) the plastic-crud-EMU/DMU railway don't seem to have a connection with the modern railway.

 

My earliest railway memory is my Mum holding me up to the window of some sort of slam-door EMU coming into Guildford, but my most enduring railway memories from soon after are of Bulleids and BR Standards storming the Alps between Medstead and  Alton! I remember my Dad digging out his childhood 'Britannia' and me immediately deciding that the Britannia looked like the Bulleids on the MHR. The first loco I purchased in this hobby was an unrebuilt Bulleid Pacific. However, as time has gone on and I have learnt more and more about our grand railway heritage my tastes have gradually shifted towards earlier periods. I started out modelling BR(S) in the 1960's, before gradually slipping back to modelling the LBSCR Circa 1900. I found that these earlier periods offered so much more, were more colourful and far more interesting to research. I also found that fellow pre-grouping modellers were more forgiving than BR ones, as people's personal anecdotes don't really come into play.

 

I think my point is that there is more varied and interesting railway history before 1968 than after it: 1825 - 1968 is a span of 143 years, almost 150, compared to the D&E era's meagre 50, and it has to be remembered that steam locos have existed since 1804 in various forms, increasing that span to 164 years. I believe, as a younger modeller and part of a group of the same, that we are seeing a period of great change in this hobby. I know more people who model the pre-grouping scene than modern scene out of my 'close' group of 6 younger railway modellers. Out of that six, one is a BR Blue era modeller, two of us are almost exclusively pre-1948, mostly pre-1923, now, with the remaining three having a variety of stock, but primarily from 1923 - 1968, with some SECR stock creeping in. I am now planning a possible group pre-grouping layout exercise in a modular format. There is more to life than 'BR this' and 'BR that'. RTR steam, until recently, seems to have focused on ex-(Insert pre-group company here) stock in a bid to cater to the every need of the BR modeller, whilst leaving those of us who don't model BR, due to the beautiful variety and interest, Most magazines seem to neglect this period of history to a greater extent than D&E modelling. The only one seemingly not following this trend is Railway Modeller and they seem to somehow manage to usually maintain something for everyone in each issue.

[grahame]

1825 - 1968 is a span of 143 years, almost 150, compared to the D&E era's meagre 50, and it has to be remembered that steam locos have existed since 1804 in various forms, increasing that span to 164 years.

 

I think you are probably making a fundamental mistake of comparing different things here. The use of D&E traction is not limited to a meagre 50 years - that is the period effectively without steam traction on BR - and isn't on the same basis as the comparative 164 years you quote for steam trains being in existence. In fact electric traction has existed in the UK since 1881 and is still in use over 135 years later, and diesel trains since the 1920s so over 90 years there.

 

D&E modelling covers (Roughly) 50 - 60 years in the history of Britain's railways. Before that there were plenty of interesting petrol, diesel and electric locos and units, but in order to model those it is almost a given that some steam will be required.

Not quite true - there were many early electric only lines, and surely the reverse is also true for a large part of rail history in that to model steam some D&E would be required.

 

G

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by grahame

[Nearholmer]

Isn't it a truism that many, possibly most, modellers read a generalist modelling magazine to keep up with developments, and marvel at creations, across the entire hobby AND read a more specific periodical about the niche that they are particularly 'into'?

 

The niche can be a particular prototype company, or period, and/or a particular scale/gauge or format of model.

 

That's certainly how I've always worked, and it seems to be how everyone else I know works.

 

So ...... aren't there specialist prototype publications and a specialist modelling group (DEMU?) that cater for the 'post-Blue' community, without the need to splinter the generalist publications?

 

And, if an individual decides to cloister themselves from generalism, then they need only read the specialist stuff, although I'd argue strongly that they will be the poorer for it.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Nearholmer

[sem34090]

Fair point regarding all-electric lines, but it certainly isn't the case that in order to model a 'large part' of the steam era some D&E is required. D&E, whilst certainly not a minor concern was not truly widespread until after 1955, and steam lasted only until 1968 in general use, industrials excluded for a moment here, a period of only 13 years. Prior to 1955 there were still many areas that had yet to be reached by more modern modes of traction. Electrics were, on the whole, limited to urban and suburban services (The NER being the major exception to this) in order to compete with electric tramcar services, with petrol and diesel shunters being few and far between. Petrol Railcars seem to have come about the same time as steam railmotors, but appear to have been generally dropped in favour of push-pull steam operation. I know the GNR, LBSCR and NER had some, with the NER ones seeming to endure the longest.

 

Part of my point which I think I lost in that post was that there is so much in the way of interesting (P)D&E modelling to be had prior to 1948, but this gets overlooked even more than the traditional views of the modelled pre-grouping period.

[Invicta]

I agree with everything else, except this. I suppose that it depends on how you define "often". I don't remember steam (except the heritage railways), and was born in the era of blue diesels, but they are the last thing that I want to model; people take different approaches to deciding what they want to express, and how they want to express it.

 

....and the other factor in the 'people model what they remember' theory is that people's memories of the railway will vary- if you grew up in an area that had suffered heavily from the Beeching axe, then your childhood railway memories, and their influence on your railway modelling might be very different to someone who grew up in the Southern Region commuter belt, or close to the ECML/WCML.

 

Growing up in a town that lost passenger services a couple of years before I was born, my railway memories probably involve as much time travelling on heritage lines as they do BR, so my modelling has been pretty steam-centred from the start.

 

If I was ever going to go D+E, it would involve lots of 20s, coal wagons, NCB diesel shunters and queues of Oxford Diecast cars at level crossings, because that's pretty much my main memory of the 'big railway' from when I was a kid

[sem34090]

Also, I feel that the topic of pre-grouping P,D&E modelling is neglected not only by magazines, but by the various D&E groups. I have yet to see a pre-grouping electric layout...