Wright writes.....

[stewartingram]

It's Tony's fault that I model the ECML not the Western inspite of being welsh!

 

Superb shots

 

No it's just natural common sense, though when you get a bit better at it you will move the whole way east and do the GE.

 

Stewart

[Andy Y]

With Heljan's announcement of an OO O2, here are some kit-built models of some of the various sorts, plus their individual prototypes.

For the record - 63925 was built by me from a PDK kit, 63934 was built by me from an Ace kit, 63940 was built by John Houlden from a PDK kit (running on Gilbert Barnatt's original Peterborough layout), 63943 was built by Alan Hammet from a Nu-Cast kit and 63980 was built by me from a Nu-Cast kit with a Jamieson tender.

 

63925 - PDK

 

 

 

 

63934 - Ace

 

 

 

 

 

 

63940 - PDK

 

 

 

 

63980 - Nu-Cast

 

 

 

Just think, when Heljan's loco appears, the need to make all the above will become unnecessary, and kit-manufacturers will suffer even more. Where is the 'constructional' side of our hobby heading?

[Guest Tom F]

Some lovely layouts shots (I spot old Peterborough in there!) Plus some lovely B&W photos of the locos themselves.

Thank you Tony/Andy. You have wetted my appetite even more towards the Heljan O2!

[Mallard60022]

I think that's 36E (GC) where 63925 is lurking and 36E (GN) for 63980

Lovely set of pics Andy. Great modelling too.

P @ 36E (neither shed)

[davidw]

Something else for me to look forward too. Good job I decided not to buy a PDK one two months back! But a shame not to build one in the next breath!

Edited December 9, 2012 by davidw

[BrushVeteran]

63925 - PDK

 

 

 

 

63934 - Nu-Cast

 

 

 

 

 

 

63940 - PDK

 

 

 

 

63980 - Nu-Cast

 

 

Hopefully the 'constructional' side of the hobby will result in seeing more superb and inspirational layouts like we are seeing depicted on this thread. However I do take Tony's point that kit manufacturers are maybe going to suffer, but they still have the ability to produce the more obscure classes that the RTR manufacturers would probably not bother with because of a wider range of detail differences within the class. Also there are a few kit manufacturers who have disappeared into obscurity or who have discontinued certain lines.

 

I have to admit that I was the instigator of researching the O2 for Heljan because I do not have the time, facilities and what's more I don't think I have the skills/ability to produce a model up to the standards as seen in these photographs. I certainly would not want to accept anything less that what I have seen here simply because these are the best, in my eyes. I could not afford to have too many built 'professionally', so I think this is where the RTR manufacturers have the ability to produce 'consistency' at an affordable price. I did also look at these ECML biased threads because that is what fascinates me and after Hornby's announcement of the O1 there were quite a few who mentioned the possibility of an O2. With my connections with Heljan UK and the commisioning by Hattons of an RTR Beyer-Garratt I thought that the time was probably right to look at more steam possibilities. Because I had already carried out a great deal of research on the O2 connected with a book I am writing about 'The Highdyke' branch then I am guilty of letting my enthusiasm getting the better of me!

 

However more importantly I think that at present the RTR manufacturers are doing all they can to keep this hobby alive and once bitten by the bug there are still quite a few new modellers who like to step up a gear and progress into kit building, fuelled by the many excellent acticles and profiles brought to us by the media. Tony himself I think now admits that some of the RTR offerings are almost up to 'his standard' so I think that the bar has been raised and us modellers all want to be up there somewhere. I would like to think that there is still great potential for kit manufacturers to provide a much needed service to those who want to customise their models into what they prefer.

 

As I have said before on RM Web, and as a 'totally biased' ECML modeller, I always look forward to anything related to the likes of Peterborough North, Eastwood Town, Gamston Bank, Grantham, Retford, Little Bytham etc, because the modelling is so realistic and prototypical with attention to detail from inspiration, this is what the RTR manufacturers cannot do............ but can help with!

 

I for one feel greatly privileged to have had the opportunity to work with a manufacturer who has been prepared to take a few risks in producing some of the models that we have wished for. So far it has been worth all the time and effort and the feedback received as always.....positive and constructive! May it continue.

Edited December 9, 2012 by BrushVeteran

[Andy Y]

I have to admit that I was the instigator of researching the O2 for Heljan because I do not have the time, facilities and what's more I don't think I have the skills/ability to produce a model up to the standards as seen in these photographs. I certainly would not want to accept anything less that what I have seen here simply because these are the best, in my eyes. I could not afford to have too many built 'proffesionally', so I think this is where the RTR manufacturers have the ability to produce 'consistiency' at an affordable price. I did also look at these ECML biased threads because that is what facinates me and after Hornby's announcement of the O1 there were quite a few who mentioned the possibility of an O2. With my connections with Heljan UK and the commisioning by Hattons of an RTR Beyer-Garrett I thought that the time was probably right to look at more steam possibilities. Because I had already carried out a great deal of research on the O2 connected with a book I am writing about 'The Highdyke' branch then I am guilty of letting my enthusiasm getting the better of me!

 

Thanks Grahame, I think it's worth attaching this the following from Tony:

 

I'm helping Heljan (via one of their representatives) with research on the O2s for their projected model. Am I thus poacher turned gamekeeper? On one hand I'm berating the loss of the kit-makers, yet on the other helping with their 'demise'. Who knows? Comments, please.

 

Collaboration with the relevant fonts of knowledge is a positive move from manufacturers which seems to be increasing rather than being wholly reliant on in-house expertise and available source material.

 

I think it's sensible to assist development if one is in a position to do so to get the best possible end-result within reason rather than just maintain development is a threat to heritage. Times continue to change fast, communication and development is less of a closed-shop than it was and new opportunities with laser-cutting, 3D prototyping and home-office origination of etches simply mean that the subject matter changes. My view is that kit developers need to embrace these changes too and nurture business models which exploit the changes rather than being continually reliant on a static product range.

[great northern]

Tony and I have discussed this several times, and I know that he is greatly concerned both for the kit manufacturers, who risk losing their livelihood, and for, as he puts it, the "constructional" side of the hobby. History shows that the march of progress cannot be halted, and that there are always losers as that march continues. There are however plenty of people on here who make it clear that they get their enjoyment from making things - often things which are unique, or even if not, which cannot be had "off the shelf". I can't see them changing, as that would defeat the whole rationale for their modelling, so the consructional side will still be there.

 

If Tony refused to assist Heljan, he would not help the kit manufacturers at all, nor would he delay the inexorable march of progress and technology. His input though will help considerably in ensuring that the model, when it appears, will be an accurate one. and that can surely only be a good and positive thing?

 

As I've said before, I'm one of the majority who can't put anything other than a very simple kit togther competently. There are a lot more like me out there, as witnessed by the 85% plus of kits sold that have never been completed. Until comparatively recently I couldn't afford to commission those more competent to build them for me either. Many others are, and will probably remain, subject to the same economic constraints. To all like me, the flood of very high class RTR models, increasingly of the less glamorous classes of loco, are an unexpected but very welcome movement in the hobby. Whether it is a move in the right direction depends on the modelling philosophy of each individual, but in my view it need not be a negative step.

 

My next observations may I fear provoke outrage amongst some, and if so I apologise to Andy and invite him to remove them if he thinks fit, but I really do personally believe that this is the way forward. Until recently it has been impossible to create an accurate model of a particular piece of railway using only RTR items. For that reason, many modellers have a very eclectic collection of locos and rolling stock. I accept the argument that "It's my train set, and I'll run what I like", but if we want to be taken seriously, and don't we get upset when we are categorised as geeks and anoraks, perhaps we should be looking at producing models that accurately reflect the real thing, as it is now or was at some time in the past? Of course a few outside the hobby will seize on that as evidence of even more nerdish behaviour, but whatever we do won't change their prejudices, nurtured as they have been for many years by sloppy and lazy journalists and media.

 

I'm not pushing modelling a prototype here, by the way. just modelling the railway as it was or is. There's a lot less excuse for not doing that now, so is that the way things should progress, and which, while using this plethora of goodies which are being dangled in front of us, also advances the hobby in a positive way?

 

I'm not good at making things which involve using my hands or any form of co-ordination between them and my brain, but there are things I can make. I made the decision to model Peterborough North in 00, and I worked out a plan which allowed all of the essentials to be included. I made the decision that it should be operated as the real thing was, and did the reasearch that was necessary. I made the plan for a fiddle yard that would enable the layout to be operated correctly, though TW thinks it is an abomination, and I made sure that the right locomotives and rolling stock would appear. I also made a decision that I could not hope to do the buildings myself, or make the complex pointwork that would be necessary, so I outsourced those things to experts who could. There's an awful lot of RTR on my layout, but it could not have been contemplated, let alone built, if all that out of the box stuff had not been available. Very little of it is exactly as it came out of the box now by the way. There will be a lot of detail on the layout too, and that will be made by me.

 

So, I can't make locos or rolling stock, and the constructional side of the hobby in that sense passes me by. I reckon there's quite a lot I have made and can continue to make though, and that in so doing I make best use of what is now much more readily available to those of us who were issued with more than the regulation number of thumbs, and that to some degree at least I contribute to the advancement of the hobby. Meanwhile, those who can will continue to do and to make, and will always have my respect and admiration.

[coachmann]

I believe that the people who buy anything that appeals to them, even if it ranges from pre-grouping to diesel prototypes to present day Units, are in fact keeping the RTR manufacturers in business. Without this market, and I am guessing it is the largest, the people who model particular prototypes (like me for example) would only buy a fraction of what is actually available. I'm probably not the only person who now finds himself looking for reasons to buy the fantastic RTR offerings and stretching the bounds of historical credibility in the process.

 

Good luck to the many modellers who have a very eclectic collection of locos and rolling stock......They are financing the development of even more models so I might even get my Fowler 3P 2-6-2T one day! If we can all live in harmony as well, then even better.

 

I would like to add I am in no way critisising Great Northerns viewpoint. I'm just saying how I see it even if it does perhaps come from an unexpected quarter...

Edited December 9, 2012 by coachmann

[Bernard Lamb]

Nice locos.

Shame about the diagonal stripes on the minerals.

Bernard

[Andy Y]

I think that's 36E (GC) where 63925 is lurking and 36E (GN) for 63980

 

They're all Tony's pics, I particularly like the image of the weathered O2 which was begrimed by Tim Shackleton.

 

Tony's advised "both 63925 and 63980 are on Retford GC shed (check the houses on the old A1 in the background). Out of interest, the real 63940 and 63943 are at Frodingham and 63934 is at Mexborough. "

 

Tony's also included another lovely image of an O2/4, built by John Houlden from a Nu-Cast kit and running on his Gamston Bank layout.

 

 

I'm pleased to say that Tony is penning a whole series of articles for BRM to be published next year where he muses over the matters of prototype modelling and the building of kits. I'm told the first one is considered controversial!

[coachmann]

Nice locos.

Shame about the diagonal stripes on the minerals.

Bernard

Go on then I'll bite...... worrabout the stripes...

[Adam]

Go on then I'll bite...... worrabout the stripes...

 

I think what Bernard has in mind is that they've been done 'corner to corner' on the panels which they weren't - usually (I'm sure I've seen one or two, in pictures, but its's very, very, very rare) - on the prototype. They were painted on at a shallower angle. The works' shots in these links from Paul Bartlett's collection shows what I mean:

 

http://paulbartlett....c2154#h3c9c2154

 

http://paulbartlett....3840d#h3fb3840d

 

The reason seems to have been that the end doors weren't full height (though they were on most wooden minerals).

 

 

Adam

Edited December 9, 2012 by Adam

[coachmann]

Never noticed that before. I hope one or two slipped through with top to bottom diagonal stripes otherwise how can I live with my Bachmanns now......

[Adam]

Bachmann have this particular detail right... I would hazard that most of the minerals illustrated are from other sources.

 

Adam

Edited December 9, 2012 by Adam

[Bernard Lamb]

Thanks Adam.

Sorry Larry for being rather cryptic.

It is an error that was common ten years or so ago but now thanks to the likes of Bachmann and Paul B has been rectified.

Bernard

[coachmann]

Thanks Adam.

Sorry Larry for being rather cryptic.

It is an error that was common ten years or so ago but now thanks to the likes of Bachmann and Paul B has been rectified.

Bernard

Thanks. All my wagons are in storage so I have to admit I did not rush to check them.

[Jol Wilkinson]

 

I'm probably not the only person who now finds himself looking for reasons to buy the fantastic RTR offerings and stretching the bounds of historical credibility in the process.

 

 

Larry,

 

I would suggest that defines the majority of modellers, although some will not see the need to justify any suspension of disbelief.. The downside is that layouts could become increasingly similar in terms of the area/location/period as they are defined by the stock available to run on them.

 

However, your approach of using modifying RTR locos and kit/scratchbuilding carriages goes beyond what most modellers will attempt, probably being content to purchase RTR products alone.

 

Jol

[Mallard60022]

Thanks Andy for clarification. If I'd checked the photo jpeg bumph (as shown in one of the posts above) then I would have found that out. However I'm proud to say I didn't ('cause I wouldn't have thought of that anyway) and recognised the proto sites.

I really am getting more and more tempted to do Thrumpton (GC) as an OO layout; go on guys, tell me why I should!

My penneth re. modelling and RTR is that many (note 'many' as I know Tim Easter and others are nowhere near getting their bus pass) of the 'modellers' that know their steam days stuff and can kit build are, like me, getting on a bit.

So, at risk of being drummed out of RMweb, I suggest that the lovely RTR versions of such loco's as shown here are enabling and will enable loads of folk to have lovely layouts representing a time they did not experience. Yes it is a great pity that the art of loco kit building seems to be declining (is it really?) but just look around the outside world and so are so many other 'skills'.

Sincerely, P @ 36E

Edited December 10, 2012 by Mallard60022

[ianwales]

It's Tony's fault that I model the ECML not the Western inspite of being welsh!

 

Superb shots

 

Yep me too, another Welsh ECML modeller under TW's influence

 

Ian

Edited December 11, 2012 by ianwales

[landscapes]

Just picked up the January 2013 copy of BRM magazine in my local W H Smiths.

 

Tony's article and photos of Little Bytham, just brilliant.

 

Regards

 

David

[Andy Y]

Might I thank all those correspondents who've expressed an interest in the latest developments on my Little Bytham layout which featured in the MI section of the January issue of BRM? I've been very gratified by the response.

 

By way of a further progress report, I've included pictures of Ian Wilson's latest contribution - the former engine house which stood in the goods yard. This was originally built to house the locos for Lord Willoughby's private railway to Edenham, serving his nearby Grimsthorpe Castle. After his line closed (in the 1880s), the GNR used the building as a stable, as did the LNER and BR. It was demolished in the late '60s. It's Ian's intention to eventually make all the Bytham buildings available as kits in his Pacific Models range.

 

 

 

 

As an 'extra' to Hornby's new models thread, I've included yet more examples (not just from Hornby) to show how brilliant the current steam-outline models really are. Some folk have commented that some are still not good enough for a 'decent' layout. Perhaps that's true 'straight out of the box', but as these pictures show (I hope) with just a touch of weathering/detailing they're at least the equal of a decent kit-built loco. And, as mentioned, they're a fraction of the cost. I must say I do find it astounding when some commentators still insist on the highest level of detail at the lowest possible cost. What do they actually expect?

 

The models illustrated will form part of a series to be published in BRM where I'll highlight similar aspects of detailing/alterations across a wide raft of models (not just for the LNER/ex-LNER). I hope they'll prove to be of interest.

 

For the record...

The Hornby and Bachmann B1s have been slightly detailed and weathered by me. Both have new identities.

The Bachmann K3 has been detailed and weathered by Tony Geary (though it still needs a front shackle).

The South Eastern K3 was built and painted by me (its construction featured in BRM).

The Anchorage K3 was built and painted by Alan Hammett.

The Bachmann O4 was detailed by me and weathered by John Houlden. It's been featured in BRM.

The Little Engines O4 was built, painted and weathered by Tony Geary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, and Happy New Year,

Thanks Tony; Happy New Year!

[Guest Tom F]

Another wonderful write up and photos by Mr Wright.

 

Thank you and Happy New Year Tony!

[Hippo]

Great pictures of Little Bytham.

Happy new year Tony, hope 2013 is a good one for you

 

Owen

P.s. maybe as a new years resolution you could join Rmweb.

[Allegheny1600]

Happy new year to all!

Now just my tuppence worth!

My most sincere thanks to the likes of Brush Veteran and Tony Wright for assisting Heljan with the 02!

If it were not for major manufacturers committing to producing new models like this, the world would be a much drabber place plus the chassis of this and many other locos has got to be of great benefit to those (like me!) who might have the guts to attempt a body kit and plonk it on an RTR chassis but wouldn't care to attempt to kit build an eight coupled chassis without many years of experience.

Now, one wonders what else might be in HJ's future plans? (distant future, that is!). They are certainly promising us some wonderful things to come soon!

Cheers,

John E.