Jump to content

Andy Hayter

00 rtr Models with potential to be used on pre-grouping layouts

Recommended Posts

Indeed.  Imagine the hand wringing if they were all released with exclusively pre-Grouping tooling and had to be converted for use in the Transition Era!

Actually, that would be a much more sensible idea  as the real things were updated over the years and  in some cases bores the signs of this in a rather obvious manner.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I have an old Hornby A1, it was a tender drive but I have converted it to loco drive. I have always wanted to put it into GNR condition.

 

Does anyone know what needs doing to make it right? I'm not worried about doing major surgery to a loco...

 That's your cue to start a new thread in this section titled 'Hornby A1 to 1922 GNR condition' or similar...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is seriously lacking in RTR is an accurate 1907 spec. mineral wagon. Not only can these be finished as POs (obviously) but many mainline companies either hired or owned such wagons. I have loads of Slaters' kits finished as GC hired wagons, but I believe similar could be seen on the SECR and NSR, to give but two examples. I suspect even the GW might have had a few on hire - in fact, remembering the HMRS book on Ince Wagons, I know they did!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That's your cue to start a new thread in this section titled 'Hornby A1 to 1922 GNR condition' or similar...

 

I may well do that once it re-emerges from my stock cupboard.

 

Gary

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is seriously lacking in RTR is an accurate 1907 spec. mineral wagon. Not only can these be finished as POs (obviously) but many mainline companies either hired or owned such wagons. I have loads of Slaters' kits finished as GC hired wagons, but I believe similar could be seen on the SECR and NSR, to give but two examples. I suspect even the GW might have had a few on hire - in fact, remembering the HMRS book on Ince Wagons, I know they did!

I clicked agree, then remembered the Dapol model, discussed here.

 

Edit: the clincher for me would be this comment by Il Grifone

 

Dapol's is again a 1907 specification wagon, but the curb rail has not been notched to fit between the headstocks making the sides a bit too tall.

For clarification, compare the the Dapol model to a Slaters 7mm kit built by ThePurplePrimer of this parish. The curb rail is the lowest plank of the side and the lower part of it overlaps the solebar, to which it is fixed (the upper part keeps the floor planks in place). It should be notched to half height at each end to fit round the headstock but Dapol haven't bothered and as a result the wagon is too high.

 

I guess this would be fixable but it would probably be more of a pain than building a kit, so back to Poggy's original remark!

Edited by Flying Pig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t-b-g - G2s - Wiki has them being built 1921 -1922 so that suggests before grouping - but maybe not amalgamation with the L&YR.

 

 

 

According to Talbot the new standard Belpair boiler was first fitted in 1924.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is seriously lacking in RTR is an accurate 1907 spec. mineral wagon. Not only can these be finished as POs (obviously) but many mainline companies either hired or owned such wagons. I have loads of Slaters' kits finished as GC hired wagons, but I believe similar could be seen on the SECR and NSR, to give but two examples. I suspect even the GW might have had a few on hire - in fact, remembering the HMRS book on Ince Wagons, I know they did!

 

 

The SECR actually bought some batches of mineral wagons from private owners during the few five years of the 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t-b-g

 

you are right I should have written re-built in 1921 - 22.

 

its-er

I am loath to add anything to the list until we see them in the flesh and can judge at least superficially what needs to be done to give us the back dated version. For this reason the H class is not there and neither are the birdcage coaches.

Edited by Andy Hayter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is seriously lacking in RTR is an accurate 1907 spec. mineral wagon.

Not if you model 1905 and 1890!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if you model 1905 and 1890!

 

Different prototype locations favour different periods, but, with my very catholic tastes, I am finding that it helps to choose just a couple of periods and concentrate on them.

 

One is c.1904-1906.  So, I plumped for c.1905 for Castle Aching, and, apart from the freelance stuff, that involves contemporary GER locos and stock.  Once that is built up, it favours another project on my layout wish-list, Wolferton.

 

For the GW, I would concentrate on both 1904-1906 and 1912-1914.  I like the idea of these two periods showing very different characters for the GW.  The former, mainly Dean and Armstrong outline with an opulent red-framed (and red-wagon!) look. Six-Eight years later and we are seeing the Churchward revolution in greater evidence, with black-framed locomotives, strikingly modern designs, belpaire rebuilds, and the modern Toplights amongst the clerestories.

 

For the southern companies, I am finding a convenient period is c.1912-14.  This works well with the Bachmann Birdcages and LBSC E4 - as in the old Merstham concept - and perhaps a LSW Barnstaple, as that works for the Heljan L&B release, and for some of the GW stuff..

 

This approach allows the maximum opportunity for using some rolling stock and many accessories for more than one project and makes research much simpler! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Whilst you are mostly right about 1890, they should be acceptable for 1905.

 

RCH specs were generally issued once most manufacturers had adopted them, reflecting the current state of the art. We have kits for 1907 spec wagons in S: since the late 70s and until recently, they were cast whitemetal, but we now have plastic kits with etched brass underpinnings. I did some hunting around a few years back to see how "early" this basic 7-plank wagon appeared, and the earliest I found was a South Wales private owner (Ystradgynlais) in a photo dated 1894!

 

They lasted through the second world war, and outnumbered the 1923 specification right through the grouping period, with 3 wagons to the 1907 spec compared for every 2 to the 1923 spec when the railways were nationalised! However, as the youngest of these was likely to be pushing a quarter century old, they were very early casualties - what do you think the 16T rot boxes first replaced? I doubt that very many saw it through to the 50s, but it is a pretty impressive time span, pushing 60 years.

 

Lots of variations, of course, but this was often in the detail as well as the liveries, so a good, well proportioned and accurate model could provide the basis for a variety of wagons.

 

Indeed, and so the Cambrian kits RCH 1907 kits will be the basis of most of my C.1905 wagons!

Edited by Edwardian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite Andy's work in listing those RTR models suitable for backdating - and other members updates to his list - the one thing that does seem to be apparent is that the manufacturers are chiefly interested in producing later versions of those locos.

 

Perhaps it comes back to using what prototypes are still in existence to scan/replicate for model production. Designing models of Victorian and Edwardian locos from drawings and photographs is not straightforward and may be outside the manufacturers' comfort zone as well as being too time consuming - it will have taken Bachmann at least three years to get the LNWR Coal Tank into production and that is for a loco in regular operation and fairly accessible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite Andy's work in listing those RTR models suitable for backdating - and other members updates to his list - the one thing that does seem to be apparent is that the manufacturers are chiefly interested in producing later versions of those locos.

 

Perhaps it comes back to using what prototypes are still in existence to scan/replicate for model production. Designing models of Victorian and Edwardian locos from drawings and photographs is not straightforward and may be outside the manufacturers' comfort zone as well as being too time consuming - it will have taken Bachmann at least three years to get the LNWR Coal Tank into production and that is for a loco in regular operation and fairly accessible.

 

And/or short term commercial imperatives - only tool for the BR Modeller as this is perceived as the only market big enough to bother with.  That is why there will be more models on the list in need of a razor saw rather than just a re-paint.

 

But, I think this topic is very much in the spirit of making the most of what's available.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two sides to this. One is that the market for older locos in early condition must be tiny. Chicken and egg applies. No stuff available means that most modellers don't go there as it involves much kit and scratchbuilding.

 

The other thing is that I personally hope that situation remains. Modern RTR stuff is mostly just too good. By modelling pre-grouping, I can have a consistent standard and not have to put my locos and stock next to modern RTR items.

 

One of the reasons why I chose to model pre-grouping is that I like making things for myself and there seems little point in me spending ages making models that are easily (and probably in a more detailed form) available RTR.

 

If there was lots of RTR pre-grouping available, what would I model then to get the same outcome of having models that are not like the ones that everybody else has? I have been in a situation where people have asked if my efforts at kit building are "the latest Hornby" and it put me off spending time constructing items which could just be bought off the shelf.

 

So I really don't want loads of GCR period layouts, with locos and stock better than mine, appearing! I have never been one for going along with the crowd and don't want to start now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two sides to this. One is that the market for older locos in early condition must be tiny. Chicken and egg applies. No stuff available means that most modellers don't go there as it involves much kit and scratchbuilding.

 

The other thing is that I personally hope that situation remains. Modern RTR stuff is mostly just too good. By modelling pre-grouping, I can have a consistent standard and not have to put my locos and stock next to modern RTR items.

 

One of the reasons why I chose to model pre-grouping is that I like making things for myself and there seems little point in me spending ages making models that are easily (and probably in a more detailed form) available RTR.

 

If there was lots of RTR pre-grouping available, what would I model then to get the same outcome of having models that are not like the ones that everybody else has? I have been in a situation where people have asked if my efforts at kit building are "the latest Hornby" and it put me off spending time constructing items which could just be bought off the shelf.

 

So I really don't want loads of GCR period layouts, with locos and stock better than mine, appearing! I have never been one for going along with the crowd and don't want to start now. 

 

You see, I take the opposing view.  The danger of your position is that it could be misconstrued as, or, even, stray into, a form of snobbery. 

 

Here, I pose as the Great Democrat.  Along with satisfying my own modelling inclinations, I would like to raise the profile of earlier periods.  I would like to see earlier periods more accessible.  I never fail to enjoy seeing pre-Grouping layouts, and am hungry to see more of them. If I can manage to model an earlier period and help to demonstrate its accessibility by examples or ideas, then I will.  By these means I aim to keep kicking the chicken until it lays enough eggs.

 

Nor do I feel that improved popularity and accessibility of earlier periods would lead to the situation you describe, and I believe there are good reasons not to be concerned.

 

First, there will be some who are satisfied with twin circles of Code 100 HO track and the major part of the Metcalfe catalogue. Such layouts do not attract my ire.  These are modellers who have achieved more than I have, for one thing, and, as we have agreed, to each his own.  Would it bother me if these layouts ran a succession of pre-Grouping locomotives, rather than black, black and Brunswick Green?  No, why would it?  There will always be layouts which are scrupulous as to detail, accuracy, finescale standards, period, location, plausible rationale, prototype practice etc.  The ready availability of RTR support does not dumb-down modelling to these standards; there are plenty of Transition Era layouts of this ilk.  If I had my way, there would be a deal more set earlier, too.

 

Second, the choice of pre-Grouping is vast.  No one location, timespan or company will ever be comprehensively supported by RTR.  Supplementing RTR releases with kit and scratch-building will always be necessary, and a Good Thing Too.  For example, the LB&SC or the SE&CR in the years before the Great War might one-day benefit from significant RTR support, but, if you have an RTR E4, you would still have an E3 and E5 to build.  If you had a RTR 60' 3-Set, you could still build your own 50' and 54' 3-Sets.  But, to have even a portion of the stock available would get many projects and many modellers off to a flying start. 

 

Third, if, notwithstanding the above, you want to avoid an area in which RTR has trespassed, simply delve further into the world of almost endless possibilities that British outline pre-Grouping encompasses. Some companies and, particularly, periods, will be barely, if at all, supported.  Can you seriously imagine a market in which, say Burntisland 1883 could be produced from RTR releases?

 

Fourth, and finally, if you insist on occupying inviolate territory, 2FS, 3mm Scale or S Gauge will remain the unassailable bastions of rugged individualism.  All 3 of these gauge/scale choices have advantages and attractions and I have admired much excellent work each of them.

 

Yes, there might be the odd curmudgeon horrified at the extension of RTR influence over his chosen pre-Grouping company, who wants to take back control of his period, and stem the inward tide of new releases, but I would like to think that you would not be one of them!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That's your cue to start a new thread in this section titled 'Hornby A1 to 1922 GNR condition' or similar...

 

Photos here about halfway down  will give a start of whats needed.

 

http://www.ianrathbonemodelpainting.co.uk/gallery-2---4mm-scale.php

 

 

The latest Great Northern A1 version by Hornby will be much easier to repaint as it already has the correct higher Cab modelled.

Edited by micklner
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I like more pre-grouping stock available RTR?  Certainly- Bachmann's Director, Pom Pom and ROD have been a leg-up to modelling the GCR, but that's a very limited loco stud.  Where are the mixed traffic types, the Pollitt 4-4-0s, the ubiquitous 0-6-2s and the earlier Robinson types?  (But then if all of those were to be announced tomorrow, could you imagine the indignant howls of outrage from modellers of other lines? "You've got three engines RTR already- where's my Kirtley 2-4-0/ Cardean/ Gladstone/ Aberdare?")

 

However, because they aren't available I have to make recourse to kitbuilding and scratchbuilding.  Here's the rub; the latest efforts of Messers Bachmann and Hornby are far, far in advance of anything I can make with my limited range of handtools, a Dremel and the use of the kitchen table for a few hours each evening.  Nor am I likely to gain a fully-equipped watchmakers workshop any time soon, nor critically are my skills going to improve overnight.  It looks more than a little incongruous having a Bachmann 'Director' rubbing shoulders with a lumpen shapeless mass that looks vaguely like a loco (I'm describing most of my earlier efforts here).  Most pertinately to my own priorities, such a set-up detracts from the realism of the scene.  I try to model to a consistant standard throughout and make it all look 'of a hand'- which to my mind is the key to realism. 

 

Now obviously the manufacturers can't make a model of every loco that ever ran from say the 1890s to 1960.  But what I would like to see, rather than more locos, is some appropriate stock for what we already have.  It's all very well having Butler Henderson, but the appearance is ruined somewhat by having nothing appropriate to put behind it.  Ditto the Pom Pom and the ROD- the Bachmann LNER fish vans are fairly close to GCR covered vans and what about a 6-wheel brakevan to complete the set?  

 

It strikes me that there are a couple of companies where it could be possible for an enterprising manufacturer to do a complete train or two and then let us modellers pick up where they leave off; you can then have the consistant standard throughout simply by imposing little rules on what should be run with what (eg 'those Bachmann Barnums [like that will ever happen!] should only be run with the Bachmann Director' would be a rule of mine). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a OO topic, but it's interesting to see who's commented on buying a Dapol O gauge Terrier. Most people who have bought a pre-grouping version seem to have done so because they like it, rather than because they are modelling the period. Kirtleypete's Saltdean is about the only layout I can think of where Terriers in Improved Engine Green are actually at home. From what I can see, buyers of the K&ESR version have either repainted them, or dirtied them up to run on a freelance light railway set later than the early 1900s livery they were produced in. I bought my two with a plan to build a K&ESR layout set in 1905, which is just right for them.

 

A lot of people are building small and micro layouts nowadays, and all the layouts I'm currently building have been planned to be able to be worked with one loco*, and really only need two. It's quite practical to buy one RTR pre-grouping loco for a layout like that, then have go at kit or scratchbuilding another, or attempting a bash of a later period RTR. If that's too challenging, buy two and make some minor changes to one, possibly just renumbering. To model the era, you'll need some skill with tools and paintbrushes. My two Dapol Terriers are all I need for my O gauge layout, and one will just have a few straightforward changes made and be renamed. Then when another pre-grouping RTR loco you fancy comes along, build another small/micro layout for it!

 

* Except Cheapside Yard that needs one for each of the two gauges!

Edited by BG John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photos here about halfway down  will give a start of whats needed.

 

http://www.ianrathbonemodelpainting.co.uk/gallery-2---4mm-scale.php

 

 

The latest Great Northern A1 version by Hornby will be much easier to repaint as it already has the correct higher Cab modelled.

 

Thanks! What a great site. The pictures on there will be a great help when I look into this more. I am getting tempted now.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, I take the opposing view.  The danger of your position is that it could be misconstrued as, or, even, stray into, a form of snobbery. 

 

Here, I pose as the Great Democrat.  Along with satisfying my own modelling inclinations, I would like to raise the profile of earlier periods.  I would like to see earlier periods more accessible.  I never fail to enjoy seeing pre-Grouping layouts, and am hungry to see more of them. If I can manage to model an earlier period and help to demonstrate its accessibility by examples or ideas, then I will.  By these means I aim to keep kicking the chicken until it lays enough eggs.

 

Nor do I feel that improved popularity and accessibility of earlier periods would lead to the situation you describe, and I believe there are good reasons not to be concerned.

 

First, there will be some who are satisfied with twin circles of Code 100 HO track and the major part of the Metcalfe catalogue. Such layouts do not attract my ire.  These are modellers who have achieved more than I have, for one thing, and, as we have agreed, to each his own.  Would it bother me if these layouts ran a succession of pre-Grouping locomotives, rather than black, black and Brunswick Green?  No, why would it?  There will always be layouts which are scrupulous as to detail, accuracy, finescale standards, period, location, plausible rationale, prototype practice etc.  The ready availability of RTR support does not dumb-down modelling to these standards; there are plenty of Transition Era layouts of this ilk.  If I had my way, there would be a deal more set earlier, too.

 

Second, the choice of pre-Grouping is vast.  No one location, timespan or company will ever be comprehensively supported by RTR.  Supplementing RTR releases with kit and scratch-building will always be necessary, and a Good Thing Too.  For example, the LB&SC or the SE&CR in the years before the Great War might one-day benefit from significant RTR support, but, if you have an RTR E4, you would still have an E3 and E5 to build.  If you had a RTR 60' 3-Set, you could still build your own 50' and 54' 3-Sets.  But, to have even a portion of the stock available would get many projects and many modellers off to a flying start. 

 

Third, if, notwithstanding the above, you want to avoid an area in which RTR has trespassed, simply delve further into the world of almost endless possibilities that British outline pre-Grouping encompasses. Some companies and, particularly, periods, will be barely, if at all, supported.  Can you seriously imagine a market in which, say Burntisland 1883 could be produced from RTR releases?

 

Fourth, and finally, if you insist on occupying inviolate territory, 2FS, 3mm Scale or S Gauge will remain the unassailable bastions of rugged individualism.  All 3 of these gauge/scale choices have advantages and attractions and I have admired much excellent work each of them.

 

Yes, there might be the odd curmudgeon horrified at the extension of RTR influence over his chosen pre-Grouping company, who wants to take back control of his period, and stem the inward tide of new releases, but I would like to think that you would not be one of them!

 

To some extent, I agree that all that you say is just how I should feel. If the RTR folk offered a full range of GCR period locos and stock in 4mm scale, I would simply change to a different scale/gauge.

 

The problem comes when the RTR people do a small selection for a particular company. Take my beloved GCR for example. Bachmann have done the Director, Pom-pom and the 2-8-0 in GCR livery. If they produced suitable carriages and a few wagons including a brake van, there would soon be a selection of GCR layouts to look at and all would have identical stock lists. The fact that the Director and the O4 are quite wrongly detailed for the GCR period won't bother many.

 

I don't actually have anything against any modelling. Anybody who is having a go is OK by me. What I do like to see is a good mix of periods and prototypes at an exhibition and I feel that the BR period, anything from 1948 onwards, is hugely over represented at most shows. I understand that many people like to model what they saw. I model what I wish I had seen. I also much prefer to see model that people have made for themselves rather than bought RTR. At many a show, I find that I have to hunt down perhaps one or two layouts where RTR stuff is absent. I can't help but think that some people look at the RTR items available and then decide what layout to build that they can have them on. I prefer to decide what area/prototype my layout is going to be based on and then start to assemble suitable locos and stock that would run there.

 

So my choice to make my own pre-grouping trains is partly a reaction to the "sameness" that I see at most shows. I accept that it is potentially selfish and quite understand why people may disagree with me.

 

Having said that, a change is as good as a rest and currently there are two 7mm scale locos on the workbench. Both GCR, one a kit and the other a scratchbuild. The scratchbuild is such an obscure class that I would be gobsmacked if anybody did a kit in any scale, let alone a RTR. I have two scratchbuilt ones in EM, plus the 7mm one, which represents 75% of the whole class in real life!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a fascinating topic.  I have seen a thread, although I cannot find it quickly now of using a Dean Goods to produce a Jones Goods, that is a GWR version of the Cambrian Jones Goods.  It is not pre-grouping as such but is halfway there as it would need all the Swindon fittings removed.  It is a 'gives the impression of' type of model rather than an accurate model.

 

Of course this topic does not cover what R-T-R chassis can be used for scratchbuilt/ 3D printed/ resin bodies.  I think that has been partly covered elsewhere although I am still looking for a small 0-4-0 or 2-4-0 or 0-4-2 for a 0-4-2 Volunteer Class loco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To some extent, I agree that all that you say is just how I should feel. If the RTR folk offered a full range of GCR period locos and stock in 4mm scale, I would simply change to a different scale/gauge.

 

The problem comes when the RTR people do a small selection for a particular company. Take my beloved GCR for example. Bachmann have done the Director, Pom-pom and the 2-8-0 in GCR livery. If they produced suitable carriages and a few wagons including a brake van, there would soon be a selection of GCR layouts to look at and all would have identical stock lists. The fact that the Director and the O4 are quite wrongly detailed for the GCR period won't bother many.

 

I don't actually have anything against any modelling. Anybody who is having a go is OK by me. What I do like to see is a good mix of periods and prototypes at an exhibition and I feel that the BR period, anything from 1948 onwards, is hugely over represented at most shows. I understand that many people like to model what they saw. I model what I wish I had seen. I also much prefer to see model that people have made for themselves rather than bought RTR. At many a show, I find that I have to hunt down perhaps one or two layouts where RTR stuff is absent. I can't help but think that some people look at the RTR items available and then decide what layout to build that they can have them on. I prefer to decide what area/prototype my layout is going to be based on and then start to assemble suitable locos and stock that would run there.

 

So my choice to make my own pre-grouping trains is partly a reaction to the "sameness" that I see at most shows. I accept that it is potentially selfish and quite understand why people may disagree with me.

 

Having said that, a change is as good as a rest and currently there are two 7mm scale locos on the workbench. Both GCR, one a kit and the other a scratchbuild. The scratchbuild is such an obscure class that I would be gobsmacked if anybody did a kit in any scale, let alone a RTR. I have two scratchbuilt ones in EM, plus the 7mm one, which represents 75% of the whole class in real life!

I do have some sympathy with your point of view.

 

Back in the 80s one of the reasons I moved from the LNER to the French PLM was exactly because with so many new LNER releases there was a spate of samey NE layouts.

 

It's not a question of being snobby but one of doing something different and not following the herd.

 

However I do think if you look at the lists, the one thing that is clear is that while you could model a locomotive depot with a very restricted and strange selection of locomotives, anything else would be a challenge with a dearth of suitable rtr wagons (yes I know there are/were some very good kits)and zero coaching stock.

 

Since you have clearly done the work already, I would be interested to learn what would need to be done to the GCR locos to back date them to pre-grouping.

 

 

I doubt that pre-grouping will ever be herd fodder, although the birdcage coaches might just cause a nudge towards the SECR - especially with the Terrier and H class. It hardly constitutes the stock to build something semi-realistic though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you have clearly done the work already, I would be interested to learn what would need to be done to the GCR locos to back date them to pre-grouping.

 

 

 

So would I.

 

And I do have some sympathy with the position adopted.  I suspect, however, the more prototypical one makes a layout, the less likely it is to be mistaken for one of the "herd's". 

 

For example, an unrealised long-term project for me is the South Devon Mainline in the 1930s.  As countless Railway Modellers from the '70s testify, this is not exactly virgin territory, yet, a layout based on a reasonable amount of research would probably look fairly unlike most such essays I have seen, were it, for instance, to run representative stock and formations of the period, or to use 2-bolt chairs!  I daresay that there are already finescale representations of the subject, at Pendon for one, but I do not think other layouts, built to whatever aims and standards, would make my efforts any less worthwhile to me.  Every man and his dog could have a model of the same subject; I would still build mine simply to satisfy my wish to model it.

 

So, even if there were a rash of pre-Grouping RTR layouts (not, I confess, an imminent risk), I reckon anything I produced, good, bad, or indifferent, would be individualistic enough.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, an unrealised long-term project for me is the South Devon Mainline in the 1930s.  As countless Railway Modellers from the '70s testify, this is not exactly virgin territory, yet, a layout based on a reasonable amount of research would probably look fairly unlike most such essays I have seen, were it, for instance, to run representative stock and formations of the period, or to use 2-bolt chairs!  I daresay that there are already finescale representations of the subject, at Pendon for one, but I do not think other layouts, built to whatever aims and standards, would make my efforts any less worthwhile to me.  Every man and his dog could have a model of the same subject; I would still build mine simply to satisfy my wish to model it.

 

So, even if there were a rash of pre-Grouping RTR layouts (not, I confess, an imminent risk), I reckon anything I produced, good, bad, or indifferent, would be individualistic enough.  

I could make an exact copy of your layout then, but set 50-60 years earlier. If they appeared next to each other at an exhibition, it would be interesting to see how many people recognised my single track broad gauge line as being the same location!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.