Tony Wright

Dear RBAGE, As one of those who used the word 'hierarchy' in recent posts, may I comment please? You seem to imply that I could be seen as 'fuelling' elitist tendencies in the hobby. Is it 'elitist' to encourage folk to make things for themselves? Or to assist them in their model-making? Or to strive for greater accuracy? Today four chaps came from the Ely club to visit and run LB. Though of 'mature' years, in some ways they're beginners at model-making. Would anyone who harbours 'elitist' thoughts offer to help them on a one-to-one basis with their model-making? The stipend? A donation to CRUK. We had a splendid day, they certainly did not feel looked down upon and are as keen as mustard to learn. Though, at the moment, they're more reliant on RTR, they really want to do things for themselves. I think there is a hierarchy in any creative hobby. Whether it's social or political, I'm not sure, but it's been my privilege to work with and for many of those who, on merit, are towards the 'top' end. These are top model-makers (in some cases the best) and there are also respected historians/authors. These are the men (and women) who've driven the hobby forward, who care about passing on skills and ensuring information is correct. It would be disingenuous of me to even consider that I might have a 'positive' effect in even a tiny way, compared with those of high stature. Yet, when one tries to put a reasoned point of view across, instead of an equally-reasoned counter-response (which I would deeply respect), some of the responses must have seen as being potentially libelous. Can you see those who encourage model-making, offer assistance and strive for greater accuracy writing in such a vituperative way? Which 'side' of the debate should be careful in how they express their points of view I wonder? I honestly believe this thread is very representative of the hobby in general. Of course, by its very nature, it'll be frequented more by those who make things rather than those who simply do nothing, or, if they do anything it's just to moan. I've learned a vast amount from it over the last few years, and I know many others have. It's encouraged others not to just be happy with what they can achieve by just opening a box, and, as I've said many times there is great merit in detailing/improving/renaming/renumbering/weathering an RTR item, as long as the person does it for themselves. I have to say what's happened of late has really opened my (perhaps naive) eyes. It really does make me think 'what's the point?' Why should anyone seek to help others, encourage model-making, insist on accuracy and good practice, if what comes back from some quarters is vitriolic? Who needs this? I have dozens of kits to build, loads of pictures to take and (prototype) books to write. I wonder what some of the sternest critics (certainly not just of me) have contributed to the general hobby? I really do. Regards, Tony.

A sound and reasoned post; my thanks. I think what some of my critics missed was that I wasn't 'looking down' on those who used RTR (though the chap who showed me the loco might have thought that. However, he did shove it under my nose proclaiming the 'way forward'). In fact I was offering encouragement. That, and the reference to 'howlers' was with regard to articles I'd seen in the media over the last two or three years. Articles aimed at beginners, full of errors, written by some of those who should have known better. As for 'knowing better', what better a way than to acknowledge the receipt of a bumper parcel of model railway items donated by a very kind guy from Northern Ireland called Syd. It arrived today, and the contents will be given away to well-mannered children or sold on behalf of CRUK. Many thanks Syd. Regards, Tony.

Some marvellous discussion points of late. Thanks ever so much to all for posting. Having now emerged from my bunker, I've been conducting some tests...................... My new V2 had a really good run on Grantham over the weekend - many thanks Graham and team. Here she is belting round LB. And the new A3, heading uphill. This is the first time I've tried panning passing trains. I just put the F3 into burst mode, slow the shutter down, and fire away as the loco goes past. I thought, why not try with finished locos? Effective? Since I'm useless at adding 'smoke', I wonder if Andy York might oblige on these two. Just to see what they look like.

Thanks Alan, Lovely, inspirational work. I wonder why those (of us) who advocate making things (and are prepared to help) and encourage research are subjected to vitriol from certain types? Do you think some of them feel 'threatened'? I know it's very easy to glibly say 'Have a go at making things', when the recipient of the request has no experience, is on a limited budget (which we all are, in one way or another), despite being shown how, displays the dexterity of a new-born, and is terrified of messing things up; but everyone had to learn somewhere along the line. It's also very true that there a massively-different levels of skill, and (despite more-recent claims by those who believe to the contrary) we are not all 'equal'. Those who cannot make things (or worse, won't even try) can follow a couple of clearly-defined paths in my opinion. For one, they can just buy everything 'off-the-shelf' in all its myriad aspects or (and they can combine the two) commission others to do all their modelling for them. If that satisfies them, then I have no right to be judgmental, but where they stand in the 'hierarchy' of modelling would make an interesting debate. Do you think there might be a perception by some who feel 'threatened' that those who 'do' rather look down on those who 'don't', or 'can't'? I know I try to encourage others to have a go at making things for themselves, but I admit to having little tolerance for those who just moan that what they want is not available RTR/RTP. And, to be fair, those who just use RTR/RTP are probably in the majority in the 'congregation', while those who actually make things do no more than part-fill the lady chapel or even just the vestry in our broad church. Who knows?

Phil, Bob is very much alive and well, and living now in Lincolnshire in happy retirement. After EAMES, he went on to run Alton Model Centre.

An inspirational post, Steve, Many thanks. Regards, Tony. PS The only time I ever tried skating was on the Shropshire Union Canal in Chester in January 1963. I ended up on my @rse immediately! Got up, and immediately down again. My maxim (the opposite of yours) with regard to risking one's health on ice was if at first you don't succeed, don't try again!

Some very good points, Eric, Thanks for posting. I suppose it was around the turn of the century, with the release of the likes of Hornby's rebuilt Merchant Navy, when the difference between a good kit-built loco and an out-of-the-box loco virtually disappeared. And, as the century has gone on the difference has again increased. But, this time it's in the opposite direction, and very few modellers can match the excellence, both in terms of appearance and performance, of today's RTR items by building a kit. Is it any wonder why the kit-builders are becoming more and more marginalised? Add on to that the difference in price (in OO) and it's really a 'no brainer'. That said, the likes of us enjoy building kits - and always have done (and always will?). That they might not be as good as an RTR equivalent (and I say this both for myself and with respect for you) is rather irrelevant - it's the personal making of things which is still very important. And, in many cases still, the only way to get a particular class of loco is to make it. I don't have many RTR locos, and most of what I had have now been sold-on. I do have a few left, and some are illustrated below. Two modified Bachmann Peppercorn Pacifics, 60538 and 60125 respectively. Both have been renumbered/renamed, both have had their rear ends lifted up to match their tenders, both have had replacement bogie wheels fitted and lots of wiggly pipes have been added. 60125 has replacement DJH A1 etched brass deflectors. Tom Foster weathered VELOCITY and Ian Rathbone weathered SCOTTISH UNION. Both aren't used very much. Why? Neither will pull as well as my DJH equivalents and neither are 'mine' in the same way as I view my own constructions. That, of curse is purely personal, but I'll bet both of these are 'superior' to many DJH kit-built equivalents I've seen. Which, to me, means why waste time and money on building a kit when the end results won't be as good as something arrived at by modifying an RTR item? Other than the personal satisfaction of having made it oneself and the fact that the kit-built one will pull more, assuming the chassis is a good runner. This is an old Replica/Bachmann B1 which I've taken a fair bit further than just detailing. The original split chassis was just awful, and I've built a Comet replacement, using Markits wheels and a DJH gearbox. However, Bachmann's latest B1 has a very good chassis now, and Hornby produces a splendid B1. There must be hundreds of dud split chassis B1s still out there, though, just waiting for a Comet replacement. The bodies of both the loco and tender are very good. A Bachmann K3, altered beautifully by Tony Geary, to which I've added several wiggly pipes. Despite this looking very natural, the drivers are still underscale and its performance leaves something to be desired with regard to really smooth running. A modified Hornby O1, engaged in some pick-up duties. This is far, far better than my scratch-built O1 from over 40 years ago. However, I wish its footplate were not quite so wobbly. A Hornby modified Britannia and a Heljan modified O2. Both 'modifications' probably go a bit further than many might contemplate with regard to 'improving' their RTR locos. 70054 started life as a tender-drive 70046, and I've built replacement Comet chassis for both loco and tender. I turned the Heljan O2/3 into an O2/2 by fitting a new cab, making a new front buffer beam, adding new buffers, changing the drive to RH and making a GNR tender for it. What do all these show? That modified RTR locos are more than acceptable as 'layout' locos, even if they're not used very often. If nothing else, it illustrates how good current RTR locos are and how many more people can enjoy the benefits of far more accurate locos than in the past. Which, in many ways is good for the hobby. Regards, Tony.

Good evening Richard, Many, many thanks for posting examples of your work. It really is beautifully-done. This is exactly what folk should be encouraged to do. I would also think a lot of observation has gone into your constructions. The hobby is a broad church, but not broad enough for any 'extremists' in my view, who, whenever someone disagrees with their views produce the most vituperate of responses. Regards, Tony.

Great stuff John, Thanks for posting. I'd disagree strongly on one point. The last thing you've posted is an example of 'rambling'. Regards, Tony.

Many thanks, I've written about some simple detailing/renumbering/renaming techniques for Dennis, which went into Bachmann Times. He, and others, puzzled as to why some folk didn't seem to be able to do any 'modelling'. Yet, a few (a large 'few') then (as you describe) went on to complain that the particular manifestation of the loco/carriage/wagon they wanted was not made by Bachmann (or Hornby, or Dapol, or whoever.....). They couldn't change its identity and couldn't afford to have someone do it for them, so it was if their human rights were being violated! It beats me why such types indulge in what should be a creative hobby. Which rather leads me to believe that perhaps the 'church' is too broad. Though I'd defend the right of anyone to have whatever they like and enjoy a hobby in anyway they like (as long as it doesn't impact on anyone else in a wholly-destructive way), where is there any commonality between one who just moans and complains as to why his/her choice of loco is not available out-of-the-box and the guy/girl who changes it for themselves? Other than a love of trains? That, I think, is the only link. I don't believe any of the three 'conversions' of Bachmann steam-outline locos shown above should be beyond anyone who professes to be a 'railway modeller'. I described these in the hope they'd be useful to folk contemplating such 'detailing' for themselves. Yet, if recent electronic correspondence is to be believed (I must be careful because I've not seen it), it would seem to be thought by some (many?) that I'm 'hostile' to RTR and elitist in the extreme. Hostile and elitist to be, right now, actively helping three RTR manufacturers (in a tiny way, I admit) with the development of new models? Poacher turned gamekeeper? Regards, Tony.

What about me? And thanks, Jol, for your most-generous donation to CRUK. Tony.

Some pictures from the weekend; also on Wright Writes..............

A few more shots of Grantham from the weekend. Interestingly, some of these models are RTR-based.

Thanks Doug, The cost of RTR items astonished me in Australia when I visited the Liverpool Show. Jesse Sim and I looked at an Adams Radial and we figured that it was near twice the price as a similar one from Hattons, even taking postage into account. I know the Chester retailer will have lost money from my purchase of the 9F, but what could I do? I didn't haggle about the price, just asked him 'How much?' I suppose he got a percentage of something, rather than 100% of nothing. The irony was it wasn't even on display in the shop. After looking around with a friend, I asked him if he had any kits for sale, there being none I could see (he had plastic kits, of course). 'I don't know, but give me a minute'. With that he disappeared into a stockroom and came out with the dust-covered 9F's box. 'I'd forgotten about this'. It was the only loco kit he had. Regards, Tony.

Is that complete, Mick? For a DJH 9F. Wheels and motor/gearbox would surely add up to near £150.00 alone, maybe more. DJH no longer provide wheels in their kits, so is that just the price of the bodywork? If so, then by the time everything has been factored-in, not far off £350.00 will be the total. Quite a bit more than an RTR equivalent. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Jol, Though I have no empirical evidence (I don't 'do', nor ever will, Facebook - RMweb is my sole contact with social media), it would appear that most of those I 'upset' by the article would appear to be RTR-users. Thus, suggesting we should try and make things for ourselves (and help those who can't), observe the prototype, follow (if possible) prototype practice, do some research, etc, etc, etc would appear to be antagonistic to them. Or, it might have been my style of writing which they objected to. I wonder if those who object will ever produce a reasoned counter-argument? Would they suggest that time spent in research and getting things right is wasted, that making models by/for yourself is also a waste of time because there's a Cornucopia of RTR magnificence out there? Or, does it matter if so many of their layouts all look the same and are a bit inaccurate? This has nothing to do with scale/gauge, just does it look, in miniature form, a bit like the real thing - or not? If I were putting a counter-argument for their ilk, how would I go about it? For one, though it might be robust, it would not be vituperative and personally derogatory. It would also have my name on it. Might it also go along the lines of lack of time, lack of experience/skills, lack of space, lack of resources and any other perfectly acceptable reasons for not making things for oneself? Even with those restrictions, though, observation of the real thing could still be made and their models assembled to look more accurate than just a mish-mash. Not that I'm denying anyone the right to do as they please. What some of the critics appeared to have missed was that my descriptions of 'howlers' in my article were what I've seen in the media in the last two or so years, many made by those who should know better. Finally, and I write this with some trepidation; one commentator at the weekend thought that a lot of sniping (definitely not just at me) was out of jealousy). The likes of you and I can have a foot in 'both camps' if we wish. For instance, I ordered an RTR Hornby Britannia at the weekend for a friend (I'll detail it for him as part of a barter). Need I say more? Other than to say (with even more trepidation!) will we ever get demos at shows showing punters how to earn money, write cheques/present credit cards, open boxes and put purchases on the track?! Do you think I write too provocatively? Finally, it's up to the likes of me to support those who wish to take their hobby beyond just the ability to buy RTR, to help them by showing them techniques/methods/dodges for improving their models, to offer encouragement and guidance where I can and to ultimately (I hope) give them the opportunity to say 'I made that'. I've said on many occasions, there is a good deal of skill in personalising RTR items, and those who do such things are just as much 'modellers' as anyone in my book. I despair, though, at those who won't even try.

Thanks Andy, Point taken. I think what I was trying to get over was with regard to observation of the prototype when making models. Of course, all sorts of liberties have to be taken. Some of the finest loco models I've ever photographed, built by the likes of Beeson, Holt and Ure, had a great big electric motor where a firebox/ashpan should have been. These were invisible from normal, prototype-like viewing angles, so the models appeared to copy the prototype, 'exactly' to scale. Observation of the prototype would include the siting of signals, track formations, train make-ups and operation (among many other things). I think many just don't really 'look'. Regards, Tony.

I think you're dead right, Phil, The demise of the 'proper' model shop has been mentioned before. The same question keeps on coming up as to why they disappeared. As Clive Mortimer has so rightly pointed out, a shop won't stock what it can't sell. Years ago, I'd often travel to Reading to visit EAMES there. I could go into that great shop, chat to Bob Treacher, and come out with all the parts to either scratch-build or kit-build a loco or carriages. I'd do the same at Kings Cross, where Bert Collins would often be in there. 43 years ago, all the bits to scratch-build GREAT NORTHERN went to Paris with us, where we spent a week's holiday and I called in at Kings Cross Model Shop on the way there. Modellers Mecca used to be a fabulous model shop in the West Midlands. Just about every major city/town had at least one 'proper' model shop. Is it a chicken and egg situation? More recent high quality RTR stuff has meant a drop off in kit-building, so why should model shops stock the bits for builders which aren't now asked for in such numbers? Or, would-be builders are frustrated at not being able to buy the bits they need because model shops are just packed with RTR stuff, which does sell. I've mentioned before that at last year's Ally Pally Show (one of the most important in the calendar?) I was unable to buy any motors, gearboxes, wheels, loco-fittings or even complete loco kits (other than some available on the MRC's SH stand). My advice? I've said it before, whenever and wherever you see anything kit-like, buy it now - and buy the bits you need to complete it as well. It might mean you'll become a sort of 'collector', but it'll mean the kit-builder has something to carry on with. Another 'stumbling block' to kit-building is rising prices. Markits drivers are now around £7.00 per wheel. Imagine building a 4mm 9F now. With axles, carrying wheels and crankpins, close to £100.00 will be needed to just wheel it. Then add around £40.00/£50.00 for a decent motor/gearbox (nearer £60.00 if it's a DJH one), and then buy the kit, and gosh! Factor in the chance of cocking the whole lot up, and one can see the attraction of 'just' buying a Bachmann or Hornby one if one needed (or wanted) a 9F (or more than one). Time was, of course, that an RTR 9F meant a glossy piece of tender-drive 'nonsense' from Hornby - not now. I bought this Model Loco (DJH) 9F as a complete kit (ex-motor) from the one remaining model shop in Chester (there used to be five) about four years ago. Blowing off the dust of decades from the box, the proprietor said '£60.00, please' (see what I mean about getting stuff when you see it?). I built it just over a year ago. Anyone know the current, complete cost of a DJH 9F and everything needed to make it go, in comparison with a Bachmann or Hornby one? More of a contrast than a comparison I'd guess. I think kit-building will become even more niche than it ever was, and not before long. Regards, Tony.

Thanks again Tim, I take pictures of what I'm making all the time, throughout the build-process. All my grotty building is highlighted in the extreme. I very often wish I wasn't quite so good at photography! I hope that doesn't come across as immodest. Regards, Tony.

Which just goes to show how much I'm a follower of fashion. Actually, Mo buys all my clothes. She knows my size (and it's a lot bigger than in 1958 - and 1978!). I don't wear jeans (were they very common in 1958?); mainly old-style cords (which were), open-necked shirts and comfy jumpers most of the time. I don't wear trainers (pumps in 1958), just 'sensible' shoes, so, yes, I haven't altered sartorially at all. Except that I'd have been wearing shorts in 1958 - something I've never worn (except to play sports) for the last near-60 years! Regards, Tony.

Thanks Steve, My model of SILVER LINK has electric warning flashes and a Smith-Stone speedometer fitted (April 1961). The double chimney is correct, though the other two are tantamount to apostasy according to my own principles. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Tony, I don't think Steve Flint specifically asked me to write in a 'provocative' way, just write in my 'normal' manner, which is just about the same thing I suppose. I was chatting to him at the Southampton Show (an excellent one, by the way) last year when he requested a write a piece from the position of my observations of the current state of the hobby. Would it surprise you that my article was 'toned-down'? Our conversation went along the lines of (my) perception being that........... The hobby is becoming more RTR-dominated (and not just in OO). More folk seem to moan today (through social media?) about such and such a loco/carriage/wagon not being available RTR, yet don't seem prepared to make/modify it for themselves; because they can't/won't, or can't afford others to do the things for them. Many of the sternest moaners are anonymous. There's been a dropping off in folk actually making things (cause and effect?). We (and include all modellers in this 'we') should encourage others to have a go at making things for themselves. We (same 'we') should be prepared to offer advice and assistance. Any advice should be treated with a little caution (especially that given by self-proclaimed experts). Reliable research is paramount. Time taken carefully in making models is never wasted The best way to make a model is to copy prototype practice. Anyone writing about the hobby in the media should make sure that what they're writing about is good advice, shows best practice and is not misleading. Which, give or take, is what I said in the article. Talk about social media being highly inflammable! I must remind myself not to use must too much - once a teacher, always a teacher................................ I had a good chat with Roy Johnstone today, one time editor of the late Model Railways. He told me that when he took over the role, just about everything handed over by the previous editor consisted of how to make things, mainly in metal. He thought it was all a bit too 'high brow' at the time (20 years ago). My word, such stuff today would be considered very elitist - much higher than high-brow. He also told me how Iain Rice had picked him up for suggesting (in an editorial) that model railways should be fun. 'No, it's a very serious hobby' was the comment. Which rather suggests to me (at least in some circles) that being 'serious' about one's railway modelling and having fun are incompatible. I find that deeply depressing. I admit, that I do the 'serious' research whenever I begin making a model, and I'm serious as to how accurate it is and, particularly, how well it runs. But, when it runs, it's great fun, especially in the company of others. I know Buckingham is huge fun to run, but Peter took his modelling seriously, I know. I've also been told that the Facebook page in question has now been closed down. TW breaks the Internet! My. Finally, we're all told that the hobby is a broad church. Which it is, I suppose. Except that, as in all religions, there are many different interpretations, many ending up being incompatible, or even hostile with/to each other. Though I'm against hostility, perhaps the hobby is becoming more fragmented. As long as we respect others' (valid) points of view, then we should all get along. I thought my points of view in my article were reasonably well-presented, yet, I'm told that some of the comments on Facebook were vituperative in the extreme. I hope I never come across as that, even though I've never understood collecting, would much sooner see something made by someone than something just out of a box or made for them, would quite happily see a 'collectible' model's value slashed by someone detailing/improving/altering it and cheerfully chuck away (responsibly) any packaging. Regards, Tony.

It's interesting how folk can take offence so easily, isn't it Clem? I reckon, in my case, I must have a gift for it, because I do it so easily. The 'howlers' I referred to in the article are ones I've seen (in the flesh and in all forms of the media) over the last couple of years. Some complainants (it would appear) must believe that I can see through walls and be able to nit-pick with regard to what everyone is doing, model railway-wise. I would defend everyone's right to do whatever they wish on their own model railways, but if it's seen in the wider world, isn't there a responsibility to get things as correct as possible? To some, obviously not. Someone made a very valid point earlier on the thread regarding several other articles in the same RM issue. The Hybrid Highs Variants, Towester, Wrington Vale, Milton Street, Class 123 in 2FS, Ventnor West, Moorside, Oakham, Fish Traffic for Dent, Weatherbury Magna, Milton Quays and Easy loads for modern wagons all show (in one form or another) what I was trying to get at in my piece. I thought it was an excellent issue (abstracting my article, of course). Regards, Tony.

Is this the ultimate in 'elitist' modelling? Two years ago, I was scanned by ModelU and a model of me, in picture-taking mode was created. Yesterday, Mr Anglian presented me with me, absolutely beautifully-painted. Thanks ever so much, Tim. Today, then, I've planted myself on Little Bytham. If I'm standing on a station platform and a train is coming, I'll take its picture. 60014 has a special significance for me. It's the first A4 I actually can remember seeing, in the early/mid-'50s, though, as a sprog, I didn't have a camera at the time. So, some 65 years later, here we are again. Those Facebookers will have a field day with this. Little Bytham is representative of the summer of 1958, yet, clearly, SILVER LINK is in 1961 condition. Outrageous, misleading, hypocritical, just plain-wrong and an insult to those who know of such things - in fact worse, to those who don't! I made the loco from an old Wills kit (scratch-building a chassis for it), and Ian Rathbone painted it. Must do better next time will be on the report!

Thanks Colin, Definitely not me. Though I'm puzzled how anyone could believe that I 'do' Facebook. Regards, Tony.