Stephen Williams

Regarding the photograph on p.288 (upper), since the engine would have been coaled by hand, it is possible that the mystery frame did indeed provide support for the large plank. In this instance the purpose of the plank would be to provide a removable staging between the store and the support frame on which the man might stand when tipping coal into bunker space located on the far side of the engine. SW

I understand that the original comment by "Richard T" about MRJ 275 was a criticism of the content as a whole, and of which my contribution was but one part. But my point remains that I don't feel it is appropriate to make critical comment in a public forum on material that one has not read. I have no problem at all with people describing something that I have written as "dull" once they have read it, especially if they can tell me why they feel that description is warranted. But to tell me that something I have written looks "dull" ahead of any perusal of the actual content is, quite literally, uninformed comment. SW

Just to be clear, the purpose of my previous post was not an attempt to deny individuals the right to express a critical opinion or to advocate some kind of unquestioned acceptance of the intrinsic quality of all that appears in MRJ. That is not a view that I hold nor is it one to which I would ever subscribe. As an MRJ reader from day 1, I have always taken each issue on its merits and like most of us, I am sure, I read some articles closely whilst others don't detain me for too long at all. As "Grahame" states, we all have our likes and preferences and that is exactly as it should be. As I said in the post, as an author I am happy to receive constructive comment, as long as it is reasoned, fair and is based on a reading of the material in print. This is helpful to me as that is one of the ways in which I can improve the work that I publish. But I am much less happy in situations where individuals resort to a public forum to post critical comment about material that they have not examined. Better to say nothing in those situations than to forward a view that can only be based on assumptions that may, or may not, be valid and which fails to afford the authors the respect that "Grahame" rightly states should form the basis for the way that we interact as a community of model makers. Stephen Williams

As a regular contributor to MRJ from the earliest days and as someone who has written widely in both a professional capacity and as a hobbyist (with 16 books and more than 80 published articles to my name), I have always understood that my work will only ever exert a selective appeal. I think that is an inevitable consequence of the diverse nature of any readership and, as a writer, it is not a problem for me. I am equally happy to hear constructive criticism, provided it is grounded in a careful consideration of what I have written and is reasoned. But to have a piece categorised as "dull" before it has been read is something of a new departure for me. We live in strange times indeed. What's that old maxim? Never judge a book by its' cover. Come on chaps; at least afford contributors the courtesy of looking at their work before forming a damning view! I think the notion that the Christmas MRJ always used to be a special issue is something of a myth and I wonder whether the "rose tinted" spectacles of our memory is playing tricks here. Yes, I remember some issues that did dress the content with Christmas themes or showcased classic layouts of the past with more than a hint of a nostalgic gaze, and the Christmas competition was always something I enjoyed and which I do miss. But if you actually look back through the many Christmas MRJs that have been published (and I happen to have several on my desk as I write), then I think you will find that the content is, for the most part, the normal MRJ "fare". So I really don't think MRJ 275 is atypical in this regard. I have always enjoyed reading MRJ because I feel it takes its' subject matter seriously and provides in depth explanation of modelling techniques combined with truly inspirational images that none of the other magazines come close to equalling. To that extent it doesn't matter to me whether a particular article reflects my specific interests or not; there are always lessons we can learn from the work of other good exponents of railway modelling, irrespective of company allegiance or modelling period. The "Station Road" series is a case in point, as whilst I suspect some of the contributors to this forum have mentally categorised the articles as "GWR" (because the scene I am describing is attached to a Great Western branch layout), the articles are actually dealing with scenic modelling techniques and are almost entirely generic in nature. Any publisher will tell you that they can only publish material that they receive, so for those forum contributors who are unhappy about perceived imbalances in recent content, the answer surely lies in your own hands. Write some articles around the themes and ideas that interest you and submit them to the editors. Just don't make them too dull, that's all... Stephen Williams

The brief reply to Martin T is "no". When the coach modelling series was planned it was intended that Part 3 would deal with scratch-building coaches, but in the time that it took to prepare and publish Parts 1 and 2, the late David Jenkinson published his own work for Wild Swan on scratch-building coaches. Since David's approach was essentially similar to my own, Paul Karau and I felt that there was no longer a need for Part 3 and that the market for a similar book from the same publisher would probably not be commercially viable. So "The 4mm Coach" will remain as a two part work, but I can recommend David Jenkinson's book for anyone who is interested in scratch-building coaches. He was a master of the craft. Stephen Williams

First, can I thank "Barry Ten" for his kind comments on my GWR books on branch line modelling? As an author it is always gratifying to know that one's efforts are appreciated. However, I should add that much of the praise for these volumes is due as much to Paul Karau as it is to me. Not only did the initiative originate with him, but his excellent design skills and his almost inexhaustible supply of prototype photographs contributed significantly to the overall success of these books. I owe Paul a great debt which I am more than happy to acknowledge. Returning to the original matter of the reproduction of photographs of Faringdon and Black Lion Crossing in MRJ 270, I can only repeat that as far as Faringdon is concerned, the printed photos are essentially a true reproduction of those that I supplied. The comparison with the photos of the same layout in BRM is, in some respect, unfair in so far as the BRM photos were taken by a professional (Andy York), with photographic lighting and then significant recourse to Photoshop (again by an expert user) to adjust matters such as the colour balance and exposure. Needless to say, each of the BRM images is a composite, built up from as many as twelve or more individual shots at differing focal lengths, to provide the depth of field. In contrast, the photos of Station Road Faringdon were taken by an amateur (me), working with whatever ambient lighting was available and with conventional F-stop/shutter speed manipulation to try to maximise depth of field and then adjusted in Photoshop by an inexpert user (me again). So in some senses "Torper" is not comparing like with like and any dissatisfaction with the photos of Faringdon in MRJ 270 really belong at my door, not Cygnet Magazines. Stephen Williams

As the creator of Faringdon, I have followed the discussion of the colour of the roads on my model and on Black Lion Crossing (as seen in the current MRJ) with interest. With regard to the veracity of the printed photographs, as far as Faringdon is concerned the colour match with the original photographs that I submitted to Cygnet Magazines is a close one and I can see no real evidence that the process of printing has altered the colours on the images to any significant degree. As to whether the road surfaces are too light - well, that's maybe a matter of opinion. When the layout is exhibited, the general effect of the layout lighting is designed to suggest a bright, summer's day. In constructing the new area of the model I spent some time looking at coloured photographs of roads in summer in the 1950s and the general conclusion that I formed was that they were essentially a light grey in colour, and this is what I have attempted to replicate in my model. Don't forget that in the 1950s, road traffic was light and the accretions of rubber that often darken the surface of modern roads would have been much less pronounced. My memories of the time are also that roads were often quite dusty, which would also have lightened the tone. So that was the effect I was trying to achieve, but they are certainly not white and neither are the roads on Black Lion Crossing, as the contrast between the white lines and the road surface on Geoff Kent's model actually reveals (see p.92 for an example). As an aside I would add that I never use pure white in any scenic modelling and even when I am trying to replicate something that is actually white, I always tone the colour down with a complementary colour just to flatten the effect a little. This is one of the factors that contributes to the restrained colouring of the layout which a previous contributor has commended. The attached image provides a greatly enlarged view of the edge of the road surface and perhaps gives a better impression of the colour palette that I used for the different surfaces, as well as the texture of the road itself. And please note, none of these colours is a pure white. Stephen Williams