The slow death of renumbering/repainting?

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Tony,

 

What you say is a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic point of view, but it is the position of a modeller whose principal interests are locomotives and correct passenger train formations. It would seem that Roy Jackson shared that position.

 

However, for those many modellers who have a special interest in freight wagons, the correct number, together with numerous other details of brakegear, buffers, suspension, etc., etc. are just as important as the locomotive at the head of the train, or the composition of the passing express.

 

My freight stock will ultimately number something approaching six hundred and, as far as my knowledge and skill permit, each one will be correct in detail and have a unique, authentic number.

 

We all have our priorities; none are 'correct' - just those aspects of the prototype that we cannot overlook.

 

John Isherwood.

John,

 

You're quite right. We do all have our priorities, and none is correct.

 

However, who knows? Were I to have numbered that Austerity in my pictures as, say, 90800, just about everyone viewing this thread would have said 'That's not right'. Now (even though the wagon numbers aren't visible in the picture) were I to have numbered those wagons completely wrongly (in ignorance), I wonder how many would notice? 

 

Their numbers aren't visible in these pictures, either.

 

 

 

These are typical mineral trains on Little Bytham - long and varied, with myriad different types of wagons. I honestly don't know whether the numbers carried by these wagons are right (they all do carry numbers), and, at the risk of being criticised, I'm not really bothered. Can I read and remember over 40 individual wagon numbers as trains such as this plod by? What's most-important is that all the vehicles are appropriate for the period (even some ex-PO ones) and that they're all weathered. 

 

I take my hat off to you with your 600+ correct wagon numbers. You're a much 'purer' modeller than I am. 

 

In this shot, the wagon numbers can be made out..........

 

 

Please ignore the ghastly tension-lock couplings (they're all now gone), because this shot was taken some time ago. As far as I'm aware, the five wagons seen are all RTR examples (all weathered, of course). I didn't even check if the factory-applied numbers are correct (how sloppy), but since I have no idea whether B151226 or B64430 are correct for BR built 16T minerals, or P308328 is correct for a 13T ex-PO wagon, I live in blissful ignorance. I do know (as would just about everyone else) that the late Dave Shakespeare's modified Bachmann Austerity carries the right number. 

 

Please don't think I'm advocating 'irresponsible' modelling, but the extent of my knowledge is limited.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Erichill16]

What makes me cringe is watching a rake of the same factory weathered wagons trundle bye, all with the same rust patterns.  

[Northmoor]

I want to repaint/renumber/weather my locos and rolling stock.  I've realised the simple way to avoid the worry over damaging expensive new models is to avoid buying expensive new models.  If you only have 1980s-90s models you can repaint and renumber to your heart's content.

 

As for people being reluctant to try, I believe Henry Ford once said: "If you believe you can or you believe you can't, you are usually right".

[Ravenser]

Some thoughts from a not very finescale perspective:

 

I try to get wagon numbers correct on kit built wagons. This is generally a question of finding a correct databox transfer on the mass of transfer sheets though. I am a little uncomfortable with applying a number that isn't valid.

 

With coaches, I would try to apply a correct number to anything that has been worked over. But I admit that I've never renumbered an unmodified RTR coach. Weathered, yes, but renumbered no. So long as it has an E or M prefix , it will pass. I assume that the RTR manufacturer has applied a number correct for the vehicle modelled - there's no urgent reason to say that particular coach couldn't have appeared on a layout set in a quite fictional location . Why renumber then? The layout is small enough to avoid duplicate items

 

With locos , I apply a correct number to anything worked over. But in two cases (Bachmann 20 / Lima 37) a loco came with the number of the intended target anyway. I think I've renumbered one RTR loco - That was a Bachmann  57 - someone in a club group bought the same model, and I renumbered /replated mine to preent confusion .

 

I don't recall renumbering any RTR DMUs . Again - if it's the correct type of DMU in the correct livery , why am I saying that the factory-applied number is wrong, on a fictional layout? I don't quite see the argument "but that one couldn't have run there - and this one could". In principle any Central Trains 156 could have turned up at Blacklade - why not this particular one?

 

And nothing has been done to the kettles, because running a steam-era session on the layout is flagrently out of period on the layout, it's "funny trains" . And so renumbering is way down the vast jobs list. In any case what is the "authentic " number for a loco  running in an unprototypical period on a layout set in a fictional area??

 

 

[Dave John]

An interesting discussion. I don't really have much RTR, since there isn't much for my period of interest. So, not renumbering though I have changed a few as accurate documentation is published.  I do however try to get wagon numbers right, though sometimes with pre grouping stock one has to make an educated guess. 

 

Is it just me that tries to get the sheet numbers right as well ? They are much more obvious than the wagon numbers. 

 

 

 

 

One day I'll work out how to number ropes as well....... 

 

 

 

 

[cctransuk]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Please don't think I'm advocating 'irresponsible' modelling, but the extent of my knowledge is limited.

 

Tony,

 

I wouldn't dream of it - my point is that there are more of us than you may think who DO notice incorrect wagon numbers.

 

However - we just shake our heads, but are too polite to voice the fact.

 

(It's a banjo / streamlined dome thing)!

 

John Isherwood.

[The Johnster]

On 17/08/2021 at 20:17, westernviscount said:

Thats an interesting anology. I feel my modelling is the reverse of how artists (particularly modern) seem to work. As I progress, the greater the desire for verisilimitude not less. 

 

I just wish I could match the standard of an artist other than my modelling bench looking like Tracy Emin's unmade bed!!!

Wish my modelling bench looked as tidy as Tracy Emin’s unmade bed…

Edited August 19, 2021 by The Johnster

[westernviscount]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

However - we just shake our heads, but are too polite to voice the fact.

 

This is my experience of the high level modellers John. I have always thought the Chief inspector rivet counter an unfair stereotype. 

 

Those naturally gifted in observation skills, to the level that they notice incorrect numbers on wagons are usually also bright enough to intuit the intentions of the modeller they are observing and react accordingly. 

 

Some folk are hyper alert to the mythical rivet counter. I attempted to ask a simple question about the make of a point on a certain famously large layout in a cathedral city which led to a bizarrely defensive reply about why it mattered! It doesn't of course, but I was attempting a compliment. To use modern corporate language (which seems somehow appropriate); "lessons were learned". 

 

Here's another wrong un' with a bonus wonky buffer!! 

 

 

[The Johnster]

And then there's Rule 1, which each of us has to make our own arrangement with, another compromise between our desire to be as accurate as we can and the inevitable consequence of wanting to run marginally inappropriate locos and stock with anomalous numebers and liveries. 

 

I am old enough to remember the RTR-dominated exhibition roundyroundys of the 80s, on which one would see the same OOB condition rakes of Lima or Mainline mk1s, too many composites, all the same running number, alongside the same Lima 117 dmus with 2 DMBS, pulled by the 'usual suspect' locos.  A standard feature was the 60 wagon mineral, all with the same number and the wrong wheelbase unless they were Airfix kits.  Modern RTR uses the smaller production runs which are part of the Chinese way of doing things, and thus we get the same model re-issued in different guises, numbers, and liveries.  Hornby, Bachmann, and Accurascale will sell you 3-packs of wagons all with different running numbers, all of which are different from the current production single catalogue item. 

 

We also have transfer suppliers such as John Isherwood (CCT, no connection satisfied customer), who cater specifically to providing a range of numbers and brandings suitable for RTR and the better known kit wagons, coaches, and locos for the post-nationalisation.  Cut'n'shuts of these further extend the range of numbers available for fairly easy use.

 

I model Cwmdimbath, a ficticious South Wales mining valley terminus in a real location that would have been supplied with locos and passenger stock from Tondu shed, 86F, in the 1948-58 period.  Getting the loco numbers right is easy with the aid of websites like BRDatabase, especially if you can cross refer with another source.  Liveries are a bit harder to be certain of; reliably provenanced photographic evidence is best but not always available.  Where it is not available, I use best guess but will repaint into a correct livery if I am later proven wrong.  I am, for instance, fairly happy that 9649 and 6762, panniers supplied brand new to Tondu in the 1945-7 period, would have been in the appropriate G W R initials livery until well into the 50s, and have modelled 9649 in unlined G W R green and 6762 in similar unlined black.  But I have 5643 in BR unlined black with the 6/48-9/49 Gill Sans lettering, a pure punt on my part, a Rule 1 use of a livery I have no idea that the loco ever carried. 

 

Another one is 4557, produced by Bachmann in unicycling lion lined black. so I assume Bachmann, who usually get this sort of thing right, are correct in using this livery.  But the only photo I have seen of it in this livery is of it at Whitland, where it was xfer from TDU; I don't know that it looked like this at TDU!

 

My auto trailers are mostly numbered correctly, but I have made some livery assumptions, and some of loco hauled coaches are guesstimates for numbers and livery, and some are completely incorrect Rule 1 interlopers, though I intend to put correct Comet sides on my Hornby 57' non-gangwayed bowenders eventually, upon the acquistion of my long awaited round tuit. 

 

Wagons and NPCCS are less of a problem in this respect, being pool and not actually allox anywhere.  My brake vans are proper TDU allocations but, again, I am not 100% certain of liveries or branding.  There is a Rule 1 loco, 82001, xfer from Barry, justified on the basis that TDU, having to provide locos for Cwmdimbath in addition to the 4 branches it actually had to cope with, has an extra allocation of up to 10 locos which it never really had, and these can be anything I like so long as it spent some time in the Newport Division during my period.  Same goes for post 1953 auto trailers, and there are 2 worked up K's A31s. 

 

I removed the top feed from 5707, and later discovered that this loco had a top feed during it's time at TDU, but 5797 did so I renumbered, also altering the smokebox top lamp bracket to the position it occupies in the photo, down on the top of the smokebox door rather than in front of the chimney. 

 

All of which is a description of my relationship with accuracy, Rule 1, and the desire to include as many livery variations as I can get away with, this being one of the attraction of this very interesting transition period.  It is my way of doing things, and it would be wrong to insist that it is the only correct, or even the best, way of doing things, though I would contend that it is not the worst.  I try to be accurate, with a degree of Rule 1 invention backed up by 'probablility' justification, and some guesstimation in leiu of confirmed fact.  Absolute impossibilities are avoided; there are no Flying Scotsmen here...

 

Most of us probably do something like this as the period is 70 years in the past and indifferently documented; in fact, I am surprised at the amount of photographic information that is available!  TDU was a shed with some oddball allocations; various Bulldogs in the inter-war years for the Porthcawl-Cardiff commuter 'residential', 44xx, again for the Porthcawl branch, 3100, a Collett large prairie with a no.4 boiler and 5'3" driving wheels, doyen of a class of 5 and for the post-war Porthcawl residential , and, after 1953, Clifton Downs auto trailer W 3338 W in an 'incorrect' (not really incorrect since the coach carried it) lined carmine livery, re-instated after withdrawal and the last of it's kind in service, and a Cardiff Railway twin auto set, followed by the 3 TVR gangwayed auto sets in turn until 1957.  3100 certainly worked into the mountain fastnesses; there is a photo of it at Abergwynfi, and a model of it is therefore justified.

[D9020 Nimbus]

Of course, the numbers on British wagons are pretty small — especially in N gauge — as are those of European stock too. The numbers on US wagons are quite a bit larger, and US enthusiasts interested in "operation" will no doubt want to make sure that there are no duplicates.