Over thirty years since Model Railway Constructor passed

[33C]

Railway Modeller keep repeating the same plans, that's the problem. At least the MRC published a great variety of loco, coach, wagon, building and signalling plans and a lot of "off the beaten track" stuff too. I suppose the downfall was partly due to people become railway buyers rather than railway modellers.  

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Where has the time gone?

[kevinlms]

7 minutes ago, 33C said:

Railway Modeller keep repeating the same plans, that's the problem. At least the MRC published a great variety of loco, coach, wagon, building and signalling plans and a lot of "off the beaten track" stuff too. I suppose the downfall was partly due to people become railway buyers rather than railway modellers.  

I don't quite agree. Ian Beattie did a lot of locomotive drawings and if it suits something like a new model and an IB drawing is available, it makes sense to repeat it.

But now there is lots of drawings of stations, goods sheds, Welsh narrow gauge locos, Scottish locos, bridges, cranes and other stuff in the past 12 months. Most of the 'Scale Drawing' series are new.

 

Many of the MRC Plans Page drawings, made it into relevant books, notably Southern & LMS coaches, but the same applies to LMS & LNER wagons.

 

Many draftsmen contributed to MRC Plans Page, but Railway Modeller gets negative comments about Ian Beattie repeats. He was paid by Peco for years, so is it surprising that there was so many?

[kevinlms]

27 minutes ago, 33C said:

Railway Modeller keep repeating the same plans, that's the problem. At least the MRC published a great variety of loco, coach, wagon, building and signalling plans and a lot of "off the beaten track" stuff too. I suppose the downfall was partly due to people become railway buyers rather than railway modellers.  

Yes, I remember the first issue I purchased of MRC,  it had drawings of Wool station (I only started with the 3rd part, but years later I purchased some old MRC's which included parts 1 & 2 - August to October 1973).

I'm not interested in Southern stuff, but I was impressed with the quality of the drawings and the accompanying notes. That was a feature of MRC drawings and indeed superior to RM drawings, until later.

[kevinlms]

14 hours ago, dibber25 said:

 sadly things like scale drawings are no longer practical in a monthly mag.

I think the problem with Model Rail plans, is that they went for plans in multiple scales and fold out pages, so yes not surprising it proved to be expensive.

[dibber25]

Scale drawings (we shouldn't have called them 'plans') have always been a problem as far as I was concerned as an Editor. Firstly, you need a reliable, accurate, draughtsman to produce the drawing. Sad to say, many of them weren't. The notable exception were those from Paul Bartlett and his colleagues, which were always reliable. I had a drawer in my office, full of 'plans'. Some had been there for many years. They included the originals of the Roche drawings, all of which had been published in books, and the originals of the Bulleid coach drawings which subsequently appeared in a book. The Bulleid coaches were drawn on a type of film which was disintegrating with age and they were literally crumbling to dust. There were lots of others, on paper, that could have been used in MRC but their accuracy was in doubt. Occasionally I would publish one, only to have its accuracy shot down in flames by knowledgable readers, the moment it appeared in print. I recall some drawings of the Liverpool Overhead Railway stock. I particularly wanted to publish them but a quick look at some photographs showed obvious discrepancies. I don't think I ever used them. So, one came to rely on newer contributors whose work was known to be reliable. But, the budget never allowed for them to be paid the commercial value of their work. Basically, they had to have done the drawing for their own benefit and to be willing to accept whatever the mag could afford to pay for a one-off use. Of course, if the drawing had been commissioned and the copyright was owned, it could be repeated as many times as one wished. In the case of Model Rail's original fold-out drawings, they were part of the launch strategy and they were all by the late R.S. Carter, whose family had agreed to their use. We used most everything that was available but when the stock of drawings ran out, the fold-outs were dropped as commissioning new drawings was prohibitively expensive and willing, accurate, draughtsmen with the right research material were difficult to find. I hope this provides  a bit of useful background. Editors seldom do things on a whim and there are good reasons why few drawings are now published - not least the fact that there are fewer and fewer scratch-builders who need them. I do still have a book of Midland Railway wagon drawings (GAs) that I acquired somewhere along the way. I've never published any because they don't carry enough detail for modelling use. I built one of my only two scratch-built locos based on a magazine drawing (not naming the mag or the draughtsman) but it was lucky I noticed that the drawn cab-door cut-out was the wrong shape before I started filing brass! (CJL)

Edited August 8, 2021 by dibber25

[Steamport Southport]

3 hours ago, kevinlms said:

I don't quite agree. Ian Beattie did a lot of locomotive drawings and if it suits something like a new model and an IB drawing is available, it makes sense to repeat it.

But now there is lots of drawings of stations, goods sheds, Welsh narrow gauge locos, Scottish locos, bridges, cranes and other stuff in the past 12 months. Most of the 'Scale Drawing' series are new.

 

Many of the MRC Plans Page drawings, made it into relevant books, notably Southern & LMS coaches, but the same applies to LMS & LNER wagons.

 

Many draftsmen contributed to MRC Plans Page, but Railway Modeller gets negative comments about Ian Beattie repeats. He was paid by Peco for years, so is it surprising that there was so many?

 

The problem is many of the Ian Beattie drawings have known errors.

 

They're still useful, but just be aware and check if you are using them for making a model. The same applies to the Roche drawings.

 

 

This is a useful book. Has a list of the drawings up to 1985 and includes the big three railway modelling magazines. Unfortunately misses out on many of the BR wagon drawings mentioned above by date as I think some were after 1985.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Model-Railway-Constructor-Special-Reference/dp/0711015252

 

 

Jason

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks,

 

I used to get Model Railway Constructor every month and thought it was great, my friend David took the Railway Modeller and so we had the best of both worlds. We did however have our own names for magazines that being the, Model Railway Destructor and the Railway Meddler, it amused our teenage selves !

 

The datafile series has been mentioned and I have to say I found articles such as that very informative although I perhaps should have taken more notice at the time. It is fair to say back in the 1980's I was much more interested in locomotives than wagons, probably a function of age.

 

Gibbo.

[kevinlms]

4 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The problem is many of the Ian Beattie drawings have known errors.

 

They're still useful, but just be aware and check if you are using them for making a model. The same applies to the Roche drawings.

 

 

This is a useful book. Has a list of the drawings up to 1985 and includes the big three railway modelling magazines. Unfortunately misses out on many of the BR wagon drawings mentioned above by date as I think some were after 1985.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Model-Railway-Constructor-Special-Reference/dp/0711015252

 

 

Jason

Yes, there are some errors, but the current alternative seems to be to not have drawings! How does that help and ignores the point I made earlier that plenty of other drawings appear in Railway Modeller on a regular basis. It simply isn't true as someone said earlier, that they are all Ian Beattie repeats.

 

An awful lot of drawings have appeared since 1985. That is 36 years ago!

 

Scary thought for you. If we go back 36 years before 1985, that takes us back to 1949!!!!

 

I do have a copy, but not to hand at present.

[5050]

Something I do remember about MRC was that there was occasionally a 'free' centrefold pull-out in thin card.  The one I specifically remember was one of signs - especially some of the obscure ones like the red and white limited clearance 'chequer board' found on some narrow shed doors etc.  I'm sure I kept mine for years intending to use it when I got round to building a 'decent' layout but, as usual, when I tried to find it - it had gorn!

[hmrspaul]

7 hours ago, Gibbo675 said:

 

 

The datafile series has been mentioned and I have to say I found articles such as that very informative although I perhaps should have taken more notice at the time. It is fair to say back in the 1980's I was much more interested in locomotives than wagons, probably a function of age.

 

Gibbo.

You were not alone; as I mentioned when this topic was new there is more interest now in our wagon Datafile than ever there was at the time. 

Now the problem is that there is insufficient detail in what is going on underneath as modellers appear to be running their models on mirrors. One excuse being that going underneath a wagon and staying there for an hour or so,  in an active yard, wasn't too smart an idea. With very few exceptions our drawings were based on real wagons and not what a draughtsman hoped for on the GAs (and of course all of the changes made in the intervening years which is why dating them is so important). 

 

The new generation of drawings by David Monk-Steel- as in the HMRS book on MGRs have a lot more detail. 

 

Paul

[Gibbo675]

2 minutes ago, hmrspaul said:

You were not alone; as I mentioned when this topic was new there is more interest now in our wagon Datafile than ever there was at the time. 

Now the problem is that there is insufficient detail in what is going on underneath as modellers appear to be running their models on mirrors. One excuse being that going underneath a wagon and staying there for an hour or so,  in an active yard, wasn't too smart an idea. With very few exceptions our drawings were based on real wagons and not what a draughtsman hoped for on the GAs (and of course all of the changes made in the intervening years which is why dating them is so important). 

 

The new generation of drawings by David Monk-Steel- as in the HMRS book on MGRs have a lot more detail. 

 

Paul

Hi Paul,

 

A super body of work and credit to all of you that contributed. Unfortunately as I was in my early to mid teens at the time, and 17 when MRC ceased, the more detailed aspects of model railways were lost upon me at the time.

 

Is there any way the work could be republished as a volume or as a website ?

 

Gibbo.

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, 5050 said:

Something I do remember about MRC was that there was occasionally a 'free' centrefold pull-out in thin card.  The one I specifically remember was one of signs - especially some of the obscure ones like the red and white limited clearance 'chequer board' found on some narrow shed doors etc.  I'm sure I kept mine for years intending to use it when I got round to building a 'decent' layout but, as usual, when I tried to find it - it had gorn!

I've still got some carriage nameboards somewhere!

[dibber25]

On 08/08/2021 at 23:11, St Enodoc said:

I've still got some carriage nameboards somewhere!

We did fold-out cards of both carriage roof boards and a huge array of signs and posters more recently in Model Rail. I don't have the dates of the issues concerned, though I did keep a couple of the sheets for my own use. I guess they were about 15 years ago. They were much more comprehensive than the MRC ones (although I'll readily admit that I copied the idea) and it took me ages to compile enough to fill the sheet. They were mainly 'OO' but there were some 'N' and 'O' examples, too. (CJL)

[Pint of Adnams]

On 08/08/2021 at 11:17, dibber25 said:

Scale drawings (we shouldn't have called them 'plans') have always been a problem as far as I was concerned as an Editor. Firstly, you need a reliable, accurate, draughtsman to produce the drawing. Sad to say, many of them weren't. The notable exception were those from Paul Bartlett and his colleagues, which were always reliable. I had a drawer in my office, full of 'plans'. Some had been there for many years. They included the originals of the Roche drawings, all of which had been published in books, and the originals of the Bulleid coach drawings which subsequently appeared in a book. The Bulleid coaches were drawn on a type of film which was disintegrating with age and they were literally crumbling to dust. There were lots of others, on paper, that could have been used in MRC but their accuracy was in doubt. Occasionally I would publish one, only to have its accuracy shot down in flames by knowledgable readers, the moment it appeared in print. I recall some drawings of the Liverpool Overhead Railway stock. I particularly wanted to publish them but a quick look at some photographs showed obvious discrepancies. I don't think I ever used them. So, one came to rely on newer contributors whose work was known to be reliable. But, the budget never allowed for them to be paid the commercial value of their work. Basically, they had to have done the drawing for their own benefit and to be willing to accept whatever the mag could afford to pay for a one-off use. Of course, if the drawing had been commissioned and the copyright was owned, it could be repeated as many times as one wished. In the case of Model Rail's original fold-out drawings, they were part of the launch strategy and they were all by the late R.S. Carter, whose family had agreed to their use. We used most everything that was available but when the stock of drawings ran out, the fold-outs were dropped as commissioning new drawings was prohibitively expensive and willing, accurate, draughtsmen with the right research material were difficult to find. I hope this provides  a bit of useful background. Editors seldom do things on a whim and there are good reasons why few drawings are now published - not least the fact that there are fewer and fewer scratch-builders who need them. I do still have a book of Midland Railway wagon drawings (GAs) that I acquired somewhere along the way. I've never published any because they don't carry enough detail for modelling use. I built one of my only two scratch-built locos based on a magazine drawing (not naming the mag or the draughtsman) but it was lucky I noticed that the drawn cab-door cut-out was the wrong shape before I started filing brass! (CJL)

The Kenneth Werrett drawings were also deemed to be inaccurate, but the critics in general failed to itemise the specific errors.

 

I do have in my garage storage crates with most of the useful drawings and a few articles extracted from the Destructor, Toddler, MRN and certain other railway modelling magazines from c1960 to the early part of this century if they were relevant to East Anglia, principally concerning the GER and LNER. However, given their ubiquity, I also retained almost all of the wagon drawings, together with any letters pages where there were meaningful comments or additional detail provided by readers.

[kevinlms]

10 hours ago, Pint of Adnams said:

The Kenneth Werrett drawings were also deemed to be inaccurate, but the critics in general failed to itemise the specific errors.

 

I do have in my garage storage crates with most of the useful drawings and a few articles extracted from the Destructor, Toddler, MRN and certain other railway modelling magazines from c1960 to the early part of this century if they were relevant to East Anglia, principally concerning the GER and LNER. However, given their ubiquity, I also retained almost all of the wagon drawings, together with any letters pages where there were meaningful comments or additional detail provided by readers.

Those updated details, is normally what gets missed, especially in things like indexes. So the original inaccurate information gets the bad wrap. Even when the original author corrects the information, in say a later edition.

[kevinlms]

On 25/08/2021 at 09:47, kevinlms said:

Those updated details, is normally what gets missed, especially in things like indexes. So the original inaccurate information gets the bad wrap. Even when the original author corrects the information, in say a later edition.

Here's an example.

In RM for 1991 June issue, Ian Beattie published a drawing for the Southern Q Class 0-6-0. In the October issue, he apologises for an error in the drawing about the footplate width and so provides a corrected drawing.

That surely is what drawings should be, acknowledging mistakes and correcting them.

[peach james]

I’ve been sorting several lifetimes of magazines that came to me,  and thought mostly of Chris L, and the shock of MRC going away…

[hmrspaul]

On 08/08/2021 at 21:24, hmrspaul said:

You were not alone; as I mentioned when this topic was new there is more interest now in our wagon Datafile than ever there was at the time. 

Now the problem is that there is insufficient detail in what is going on underneath as modellers appear to be running their models on mirrors. One excuse being that going underneath a wagon and staying there for an hour or so,  in an active yard, wasn't too smart an idea. With very few exceptions our drawings were based on real wagons and not what a draughtsman hoped for on the GAs (and of course all of the changes made in the intervening years which is why dating them is so important). 

 

The new generation of drawings by David Monk-Steel- as in the HMRS book on MGRs have a lot more detail. 

 

Paul

And now the series is continued with 

An illustrated history of British Railways Hopper Wagons

David Monk-Steel

Published by the Historical Model Railway Society

248 + iv pages     ISBN: ISBN 978 0 902835 42 9

https://hmrs.org.uk/british-railways-hopper-wagons.html 

[cctransuk]

On 24/08/2021 at 14:23, Pint of Adnams said:

The Kenneth Werrett drawings were also deemed to be inaccurate, but the critics in general failed to itemise the specific errors.

 

You know it's a bad 'un when you just look at a drawing and think 'No chance'!

 

Take, for instance, a published drawing of a BR-built van, 16'-6'' over headstocks and 10'-0'' wheelbase!

 

Also, in a then-respected book of diesel loco drawings, GT3 (!) with its coupling-rod bearings on the wheel centres!

 

Trust nothing!

 

CJI.