MRJ 280

[Dunsignalling]

Irrespective of period and location, everywhere looks cleaner and tidier from a distance.

 

CF is a big layout made to a small scale so, by its very nature, tends to be viewed that way. Buildings made to look (for instance) heavily soot-stained from a typical viewing range, would appear drastically overdone when one was able to get closer. 

 

John

Edited October 27, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[grahame]

On 26/10/2020 at 13:19, Torper said:

 Something like CF may be fine if you have the premises, time, skills (in fact a multitude of skills), finances and knowledge to create such a thing.

 

I might not have those resources but that doesn't prevent me enjoying seeing CF and being impressed as well as inspired by it. I'd be rather disappointed if all the layouts featured in magazines or on display at exhibitions were "two sidings two buffer stops and long grass layouts" or those I could hope to achieve.

 

 

 

[Torper]

26 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

I might not have those resources but that doesn't prevent me enjoying seeing CF and being impressed as well as inspired by it. I'd be rather disappointed if all the layouts featured in magazines or on display at exhibitions were "two sidings two buffer stops and long grass layouts" or those I could hope to achieve.

 

So would I.  Unfortunately, you appear to have missed my point. Tim Watson appeared to be critical of layouts that are "researched extensively and exquisitely observed" with "two sidings two buffer stops and long grass" and the point I was endeavouring to make was that was somewhat insulting to those many modellers for whom space, time, finance, etc, allowed little more than that.  It had nothing to do with the excellence or otherwise of CF.

 

DT

[grahame]

50 minutes ago, Torper said:

 

So would I.  Unfortunately, you appear to have missed my point.

 

Nope, I didn't miss your point. I was making one of my own. And I didn't find TW comments insulting - thought provoking, maybe.

 

 

 

[CF MRC]

CF is a massive conglomeration of “two sidings two buffer stops and long grass” scenes, it’s just that they add up to a big picture overall, with trains running through the landscape - something I have always liked. In, fact we are making a “two sidings...” scene at the moment with the model of York Road tube and its underground crossover.  I have a very long term personal project that is an archetypal BLT, but when finished it may be a bit more expansive in its scenery, than is the norm.

The great thing about model railways is that it can be so many things to its followers. My article wasn’t aiming to say what is right or wrong in our hobby, and if people were insulted then I of course apologise, but I tried to indicate why we chose to make CF the way it is. 
 

Tim

Edited October 27, 2020 by CF MRC

[Bernard Lamb]

3 hours ago, CF MRC said:

 

The great thing about model railways is that it can be so many things to its followers. My article wasn’t aiming to say what is right or wrong in our hobby, and if people were insulted then I of course apologise, but I tried to indicate why we chose to make CF the way it is. 
 

Tim

To play devil's advocate. If people felt insulted then they should not have been reading MRJ.

Bernard

[Torper]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

To play devil's advocate. If people felt insulted then they should not have been reading MRJ.

Bernard

 

The logic behind that one, if any, escapes me.

 

DT

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, Torper said:

 

The logic behind that one, if any, escapes me.

 

DT

Which is probably why you should not be reading MRJ.

Bernard

[Not Jeremy]

I so love this hobby and this website - "normal" folk have to pay good money for this level of entertainment....

 

Please let nobody be put off though, as many people as possible should read MRJ - as well as BRM, RM, MR, HM et al.

 

Being serious for a moment, for me it is the difference between each of us and our individual approaches to railway modelling in all its guises that makes the whole thing so interesting and joyous even.

 

We are all very lucky, even those strange 2 millers and the wretched Scaleseven mob!!

 

Simon

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JinglingGeordie]

It is refreshing to see that the magazine printed both the article on CF without editorial censoring, and the letter from the gentleman expressing a view.   

So often it seems that dissent, or controversy is avoided, swept away or censored.  I appreciate noone benefits from handbags at 20 paces but informed debate is healthy 

 

[Doncaster Green]

3 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

 

.......even those strange 2 millers........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Careful Simon - I could resemble that remark!   Seriously though, I have devoured MRJ since Issue 0 (my word, that's 40 years!) and have always found it to be a superb showcase for all that's best in railway modelling.   Its coverage of layouts such as Chee Tor, Chiltern Green, Inkerman Street, Hepton Wharf and, not least, Copenhagen Fields is nothing short of inspirational to someone like me who aspires to standards like those, but, probably, will never achieve them.   As 279/280 show, its not afraid of a little bit of controversy and I like that, we don't all like the same things, but I did think the letter criticising CF was a little OTT.   I have seen CF in the flesh on a number of occasions, the first one back in the old IMREX days in the early 1990s and its never failed to impress,   Looking back at some of the photographs I have taken of it over the years, it looks so right; the landscape, the colours, the modelling all combine to make it, to me, just like an aerial picture of the area in the 1930s and, essentially, that is what a viewer at an exhibition is seeing, although I do like the way the front is being developed for those that can manage to get close enough (about 4pm on Sunday at Warley?).

By the way, has anyone heard from Mrs Trellis recently?

 

John

 

[Gilbert]

5 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

Being serious for a moment, for me it is the difference between each of us and our individual approaches to railway modelling in all its guises that makes the whole thing so interesting and joyous even.

Simon

 

 

and unlike many pastimes, hobbies, sports etc. there is no universal definition of success or indeed what or who is "best"....

[RichardT]

3 hours ago, Doncaster Green said:

Seriously though, I have devoured MRJ since Issue 0 (my word, that's 40 years!)

Steady on John - I've just pulled it off the shelf behind me, and Issue 0 came out in 1985, "only" 35 years ago!   Phew, that means I'm not old after all.

 

1985 was my last year as an undergraduate, during which period I'd become only an occasional buyer of the Modeller, which seemed to have lost its way a bit, and Model Railways had decided to go down the populist (and ultimately dead-end) road of morphing into "Your Model Railway".  The arrival of MRJ was like a blast of fresh air.

 

RT

Edited October 28, 2020 by RichardT
Clarity

[Doncaster Green]

2 hours ago, RichardT said:

Steady on John - I've just pulled it off the shelf behind me, and Issue 0 came out in 1985, "only" 35 years ago!   Phew, that means I'm not old after all.

 

1985 was my last year as an undergraduate, during which period I'd become only an occasional buyer of the Modeller, which seemed to have lost its way a bit, and Model Railways had decided to go down the populist (and ultimately dead-end) road of morphing into "Your Model Railway".  The arrival of MRJ was like a blast of fresh air.

 

RT

Now who feels old - l’d left college nearly fourteen years then!  Memory was telling me I bought Issue 0 in Plymouth and we left there in ‘83.  Must have been Smiths or John Warner’s model shop in Huntingdon.

 

John

 

[Rosedale]

Another angle to this interesting debate is that perhaps MRJ could now do with a permanent Editor rather than the current approach of a rotating pool? Although it is now fashionable to believe in controversy and that even bad publicity is good publicity (look at the current POTUS and Michael O'Leary of Ryannair), perhaps a permanent Editor would have had the confidence to swish the blue pencil over Tim Watson's more controversial comments (but thanks for the apology Tim - takes a big man etc) and would not have published Mr Bennett's second paragraph which was too angry (he had clearly worked himself up into a lather before pressing send?). Just a thought.

 

I have every MRJ since 0 and although it sometimes disappoints, and occasionally infuriates, it is full of so much inspiration across the scales and varied subject matters of this marvelous hobby. I also wish they would make it easier to buy and renew - online banking anyone - to have a more secure income and be a safer treasure for us all in the years to come. 

[Compound2632]

I suspect there's a reliance on guest editors pulling together a wider variety of material through their contacts.

[Captain Kernow]

 

Your L&B layout sounds fascinating, Tim, but please note the correct spelling of Barnstaple, otherwise I shall have to call a constaple.

 

[grahame]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I suspect there's a reliance on guest editors pulling together a wider variety of material through their contacts.

 

And very welcome that is. It probably helps keep the content fresh with a broad appeal, and prevents complacency, staleness and sameness creeping in.

 

 

[Mrhoppity]

I think the only person being "priggish and self-righteous" is the gentlemen from Towcester.