Wright writes.....

[landscapes]

just found out about this thread a week ago before coming over for the day, thank you Tony

M&GN bridges by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham (4) by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham (3) by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham M&GN by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham station building and forecourt by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham station (2) by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham station and willoughby arms by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham goods yard by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham station by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham real station and forecourt by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham eal M&GN bridge by Sam, on Flickr

Bytham real willoughby Arms by Sam, on Flickr

 

Hi

 

Those are really nice photos of Tony's Little Bytham giving a good idea of just how large and detailed the layout is.

 

Also some very good overall high level angles as well.

 

I do hope you don't mind I have adjusted one of the photos colour balance in Photoshop Elements which gives a slightly more true colour.

 

Thanks for posting them.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited May 2, 2018 by landscapes

[Tony Wright]

Having just painted, numbered and lettered the recently-built SE Finecast J6 which has recently featured in these pages, I offered it to a friend (a very dear friend). I worked out the cost of all the parts and a mates' rate for building/painting it. It came out at £335.00. Unfortunately it was beyond his budget. 

 

This set me thinking as to how much kit-built locos are really worth. Were I to build a SE Finecast J6 on commission, the cost would be just over £500.00, complete and painted/weathered. Compared with an RTR loco of similar size, is that about five times more?

 

It made me think why RTR locos are now so popular. They're pretty good and cost much less than a kit-built equivalent (except there isn't an RTR J6). Is it any wonder why kit-building is declining? 

 

The difference is even more marked with larger, say, DJH ER locos. A DJH Pacific is getting on now for £200.00, and by the time one adds a motor/gearbox, a complete wheelset/axles/crankpins and bits and pieces to finish it, then £300.0 is near (or more?). 

 

Obviously, on commission, a kit-built loco will (should?) command a premium price; if it's built 'properly' that is. Many are the 'professionally-built' locos I've had through my hands which, though they cost a fair bit, were hopeless runners. What good are they? 

 

I'm told that some quite good kit-built locos struggle to recover even their component costs at auction. 

 

I'll post pictures of the finished (though not weathered) J6 tomorrow. Fear not, I'm keeping it.

[Tony Wright]

Hi

 

Those are really nice photos of Tony's Little Bytham giving a good idea of just how large and detailed the layout is.

 

Also some very good overall high level angles as well.

 

I do hope you don't mind I have adjusted one of the photos colour balance in Photoshop Elements which gives a slightly more true colour.

 

Thanks for posting them.

 

Regards

 

David

David,

 

Would you like to do them all?

 

There is a colour cast.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[edward66]

definitely better in red..

 

6229_DUCHESS_OF_HAMILTON_National_Railway_Museum_(3).jpg

I put some money towards the restreamlining of 6229 foolishly imagining the NRM would return it to steam so we could see an LMS streamliner in action. It appears that I was wrong and it will remain "stuffed and mounted" in York. Very disappointing!

[Headstock]

If the loco and tender were just rolled out of the paintshop would both be riding high on the springs due to empty boiler and tender??

 

Chris,

 

yes, but as I said above the difference would be negligible. Don't forget that the springing on a locomotive and tender are working to different constaints, a tender on a Britannia Pacific, to use an example, will have perhaps three times the extra weight added when fully loaded compared to the extra weight of coal and water in the locomotives boiler. The latter being a smaller percentage of the total weight on the carrying axles. Despite this and the fact that the tender is working with constantly shifting weights the two veichles still work in harmony ie a symbiotic rate of deflection. I would imagine that the six inch difference featured on the Hornby A3 would be enough to brake a spring many times over.

[landscapes]

David,

 

Would you like to do them all?

 

There is a colour cast.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hi Tony

 

No problem, hopefully now there is a slight improvement on the colour balance some adjusted easier than others, and that is the only adjustment I have carried out on all the photos.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited May 2, 2018 by landscapes

[Lecorbusier]

Having just painted, numbered and lettered the recently-built SE Finecast J6 which has recently featured in these pages, I offered it to a friend (a very dear friend). I worked out the cost of all the parts and a mates' rate for building/painting it. It came out at £335.00. Unfortunately it was beyond his budget. 

 

This set me thinking as to how much kit-built locos are really worth. Were I to build a SE Finecast J6 on commission, the cost would be just over £500.00, complete and painted/weathered. Compared with an RTR loco of similar size, is that about five times more?

 

It made me think why RTR locos are now so popular. They're pretty good and cost much less than a kit-built equivalent (except there isn't an RTR J6). Is it any wonder why kit-building is declining? 

 

 

 

I just like making things ..... just saying   

[Headstock]

 

It made me think why RTR locos are now so popular. They're pretty good and cost much less than a kit-built equivalent (except there isn't an RTR J6). Is it any wonder why kit-building is declining? 

 

 

Yet your thread is one of, if not the most popular on RM web. The Wright methord is not dead and buried yet by a long mark.

[sir douglas]

there is another photo which i didnt post because of a strong sun sunshine across the down lines

[Northmoor]

Chris,

 

yes, but as I said above the difference would be negligible. Don't forget that the springing on a locomotive and tender are working to different constaints, a tender on a Britannia Pacific, to use an example, will have perhaps three times the extra weight added when fully loaded compared to the extra weight of coal and water in the locomotives boiler. The latter being a smaller percentage of the total weight on the carrying axles. Despite this and the fact that the tender is working with constantly shifting weights the two veichles still work in harmony ie a symbiotic rate of deflection. I would imagine that the six inch difference featured on the Hornby A3 would be enough to brake a spring many times over.

From my year working at Pandrol, I remember that very roughly an e20 clip spring rate is about 100kg/mm.  Looking at the size of tender leaf springs, they contain a lot more metal than an e-clip.  So a very rough estimate would tell you that for eight springs to deflect by 6", would require a water/coal load of about 1000 metric tons.........

[Clearwater]

Tony and ofhers

 

A modelling question if I may. I’m (still) building the Saint whose chassis I first got to work about 20 pages back. Progress has been slow for various trivial domestic and work related reasons. Chassis is together. Seems to run ok under its own power. Pick-ups attached. Still works. So far so good. Works fine when extra weight of footplate added on top.

 

Now I knew that the motor was a ‘snug’ fit into the narrow belpaire firebox but it will (just) fit. I’ve filed the inside metal down a bit to help. Unfortunately when I add the firebox/boiler on top of the footplate, I get a short. The short cures if I very slightly raise the firebox. I’ve tried putting insulating tape around the connection from the motor to the pick up pads and similarly treating the interior of the firebox. Not sure if that’s a good idea but struck me might work as a temporary fix. It didn’t. Still shorts.

 

I was wondering what advice there is for solving this problem. Given it works, I’m reuctant to go for an obvious solution of using a smaller motor. What other solutions/dodges have people used to prevent shorts inside the boiler?

 

Many thanks in advance

 

David

[Headstock]

From my year working at Pandrol, I remember that very roughly an e20 clip spring rate is about 100kg/mm.  Looking at the size of tender leaf springs, they contain a lot more metal than an e-clip.  So a very rough estimate would tell you that for eight springs to deflect by 6", would require a water/coal load of about 1000 metric tons.........

 

Thanks Northmore,

 

the only figures I have is for a Britannia Pacific, about 8 tons of water in the boiler (I would have thought other big Pacifics would be similar) and about a ton of coal in the box compared to 9 tons of coal in the tender and just short of 5000 gallons of water. In four mm scale bog all difference on the springs loaded or empty.

[Jack P]

This set me thinking as to how much kit-built locos are really worth. Were I to build a SE Finecast J6 on commission, the cost would be just over £500.00, complete and painted/weathered. Compared with an RTR loco of similar size, is that about five times more?

 

It made me think why RTR locos are now so popular. They're pretty good and cost much less than a kit-built equivalent (except there isn't an RTR J6). Is it any wonder why kit-building is declining? 

 

Tony, A personal example if I may, and I do apologize, because its the wrong shade of green!

 

 

These are two slightly modified 'Schools' Hornby locos of mine. The front one was 'Wellington' (now Eton) and cost me £70, the rear one was a damaged 'Cheltenham' (now Downside) and cost me £54 initially + £40 for another damaged schools class from Hattons, so £164 in total. One of the lovely PDK kits is £106 and then + wheels, motor and gearbox, you probably wouldn't see much change from another £100. 

 

I am by no means adverse to kit building, and I am not suggesting the Hornby version is perfect, but as I have not yet started building my own kits, I doubt as my first I could come even close to what Hornby has produced, and the price of the learning experience (using this as the example) is a bit steep. To me, the Hornby version, which can be picked up cheaply, does the job, has no massively glaring errors or discrepancies, and is an excellent runner. Although strangely, with a cast boiler, it still has the dreaded traction tyre, again it's not perfect, but it certainly is a nice model.

 

The question then, is why would I build the PDK model? I wouldn't. 

 

If you compare, £70, for a well detailed, RTR model, as opposed to a £200 (approx, for just the parts) for just the kit, I think it summarizes that the main factor in the decline of kit-building is simply the cost. I appreciate that once you are set up with the tools required for kit-building, (which can be a considerable outlay for quality items) they won't factor into the price of 'completing' a kit, but as a beginner, if you were to buy everything to get you started, and your first kit, it could be an outlay of £500+! Then if you factor in the cost of painting/lining/weathering - at this point some people have disregarded kit-building completely, and sadly, in some cases they have resigned themselves to wishlisting, due to what is probably not a lack of skill, but an unwillingness to go through the process to learn. I just want to point out that i'm not in the same boat, but I can empathize with people who can't afford this, or deem the learning of the 'black art' of kit- building to be too prohibitive. 

 

I don't know how much this will actually add to the discussion that's probably already been re-hashed a million times, but from a relative newbie, this is my take on things. I am lucky in that I am still relatively young, so I have time to learn, and hopefully make (and try to forget) a few expensive mistakes.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Jack P

[Tom F]

Tony, A personal example if I may, and I do apologize, because its the wrong shade of green!

 

 

 

 

What a lovely finish you have achieved on those two Jack! Very nice!

Edited May 3, 2018 by 9793

[jamie92208]

Just a quick visit this morning to say a big thank you to Tony for hosting the four of us yesterday.  We all enjoyed the visit and the chance to play trains for the day.  The layout ran without a problem.   The team weren't quite as successful but a good time was had by all.  A lovely layout to run and it was great to see the long trains running.   What we couldn't get over were the fabulous background sound effects that were so lifelike.  And all on analogue.

 

Thanks again.

 

Jamie

[Chamby]

Tony, A personal example if I may, and I do apologize, because its the wrong shade of green!

 

 

These are two slightly modified 'Schools' Hornby locos of mine. The front one was 'Wellington' (now Eton) and cost me £70, the rear one was a damaged 'Cheltenham' (now Downside) and cost me £54 initially + £40 for another damaged schools class from Hattons, so £164 in total. One of the lovely PDK kits is £106 and then + wheels, motor and gearbox, you probably wouldn't see much change from another £100. 

 

I am by no means adverse to kit building, and I am not suggesting the Hornby version is perfect, but as I have not yet started building my own kits, I doubt as my first I could come even close to what Hornby has produced, and the price of the learning experience (using this as the example) is a bit steep. To me, the Hornby version, which can be picked up cheaply, does the job, has no massively glaring errors or discrepancies, and is an excellent runner. Although strangely, with a cast boiler, it still has the dreaded traction tyre, again it's not perfect, but it certainly is a nice model.

 

The question then, is why would I build the PDK model? I wouldn't. 

 

If you compare, £70, for a well detailed, RTR model, as opposed to a £200 (approx, for just the parts) for just the kit, I think it summarizes that the main factor in the decline of kit-building is simply the cost. I appreciate that once you are set up with the tools required for kit-building, (which can be a considerable outlay for quality items) they won't factor into the price of 'completing' a kit, but as a beginner, if you were to buy everything to get you started, and your first kit, it could be an outlay of £500+! Then if you factor in the cost of painting/lining/weathering - at this point some people have disregarded kit-building completely, and sadly, in some cases they have resigned themselves to wishlisting, due to what is probably not a lack of skill, but an unwillingness to go through the process to learn. I just want to point out that i'm not in the same boat, but I can empathize with people who can't afford this, or deem the learning of the 'black art' of kit- building to be too prohibitive. 

 

I don't know how much this will actually add to the discussion that's probably already been re-hashed a million times, but from a relative newbie, this is my take on things. I am lucky in that I am still relatively young, so I have time to learn, and hopefully make (and try to forget) a few expensive mistakes.

Agreed.

 

One of the things that I am weighing up at the moment is the return on the investment that has to be made in taking up kitbuilding. Back in the days of Triangle Hornby, the investment in kit building would very quickly give you a return regarding improved quality and a wider choice of prototypes to model. As Tony has pointed out, today there is a much better range of RTR model, of better quality, so the ROI for kitbuilding is tather less. Kitbuilding now represents a lot of work, involving additional time, effort and cost, for what is in some cases only a modest improvement over an RTRitem. For a beginner, the ROI will be even less due to the learning process and reduced quality of the finished product compared to an experienced builder.

 

For those of us who are relatively cash rich but time poor, most will simply decide the ROI is just not worth it. For me at the moment, kit building to the standard shown by Tony et al remains an aspiration in the future. There are many aspects of this diverse hobby that I am still working my way through, mostly focused on building the layout for now: building baseboards, laying track, the electrickery and scenic developments. Yes, the stock is being steadily assembled, starting with the ready to run, or fairly straightforward conversions of RTR items. I reckon I can get a good 80% of what I need this way, so a pretty good representation of the prototype.

 

I wonder how much time, effort and expertise it has taken Tony, with support from his friends, to develop LB and the associated stock to its current level. As a returnee to the hobby following retirement, starting from ground zero so to speak, I suspect that I will have rather less time! So I have to be realistic about the compromises that need to be made, what I can realistically achieve within the time and space available to me. This thread of Tony’s is proving invaluable in assisting that decision making. Perhaps ironically, the major impact it has has is in showing me just how much can be achieved with some of the available RTR stuff... so long as you don’t need to pull housebricks around your layout! But I have also come to the conclusion that kit building for stuff not available RTR is something that lies ahead for me, higher up the hill that I am currently climbing. I only hope that I am not over the hill myself before I reach that point!

 

Phil

[Tony Wright]

Just a quick visit this morning to say a big thank you to Tony for hosting the four of us yesterday.  We all enjoyed the visit and the chance to play trains for the day.  The layout ran without a problem.   The team weren't quite as successful but a good time was had by all.  A lovely layout to run and it was great to see the long trains running.   What we couldn't get over were the fabulous background sound effects that were so lifelike.  And all on analogue.

 

Thanks again.

 

Jamie

Thanks Jamie,

 

I had a great time, and many thanks to you all for your hospitality. 

 

By the way, I think Mick has left his (rather natty) flat 'at (is that Yorkshire enough?). If you give me his address, I'll send it back to him. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Enterprisingwestern]

By the way, I think Mick has left his (rather natty) flat 'at (is that Yorkshire enough?). If you give me his address, I'll send it back to him.

 

Just give it a saucer of milk every now and again and he'll pick it up next time he's passing!

 

Mike.

[johnarcher]

Re the posts of Phil and Jack above. What you say gentlemen is certainly true, a kit-built loco will often (usually?) cost more than (hopefully improved) RTR, learning to build kits costs money (in tools or failed kits), many people would no longer have the time to make something on Little Bytham scale based on kits.

 

From those facts it is quite reasonable to conclude that, for you, the path ahead will include limited kit building.

 

I would just like to point out (it is a theme of this thread) that it is possible to look at those facts differently (no suggestion that this approach is better or obligatory). If you are the sort of person for whom a modelling hobby is essentially about making models (kit or scratch) then you accept the start-up costs as part of taking up a new activity, as you would have to put time and money into learning to play golf or the trombone. (Incidentally if one of those costs is a failed first kit don't throw it at the wall or in the bin (yes, I did, I admit it), a few kits later you will probably have the skills to correct it.)

If you haven't time, or money, to produce something extensive based on making then you can choose to do something on a smaller scale that you can do that way.

 

As I say it's just an alternative point of view, chacun a son gout.

[sir douglas]

Tony and ofhers

 

A modelling question if I may. I’m (still) building the Saint whose chassis I first got to work about 20 pages back. Progress has been slow for various trivial domestic and work related reasons. Chassis is together. Seems to run ok under its own power. Pick-ups attached. Still works. So far so good. Works fine when extra weight of footplate added on top.

 

Now I knew that the motor was a ‘snug’ fit into the narrow belpaire firebox but it will (just) fit. I’ve filed the inside metal down a bit to help. Unfortunately when I add the firebox/boiler on top of the footplate, I get a short. The short cures if I very slightly raise the firebox. I’ve tried putting insulating tape around the connection from the motor to the pick up pads and similarly treating the interior of the firebox. Not sure if that’s a good idea but struck me might work as a temporary fix. It didn’t. Still shorts.

 

I was wondering what advice there is for solving this problem. Given it works, I’m reuctant to go for an obvious solution of using a smaller motor. What other solutions/dodges have people used to prevent shorts inside the boiler?

 

Many thanks in advance

 

David

 

if youve isolated inside the firebox and on the pickups, could the short be elsewhere inside the body?

[Tony Wright]

Tony and ofhers

 

A modelling question if I may. I’m (still) building the Saint whose chassis I first got to work about 20 pages back. Progress has been slow for various trivial domestic and work related reasons. Chassis is together. Seems to run ok under its own power. Pick-ups attached. Still works. So far so good. Works fine when extra weight of footplate added on top.

 

Now I knew that the motor was a ‘snug’ fit into the narrow belpaire firebox but it will (just) fit. I’ve filed the inside metal down a bit to help. Unfortunately when I add the firebox/boiler on top of the footplate, I get a short. The short cures if I very slightly raise the firebox. I’ve tried putting insulating tape around the connection from the motor to the pick up pads and similarly treating the interior of the firebox. Not sure if that’s a good idea but struck me might work as a temporary fix. It didn’t. Still shorts.

 

I was wondering what advice there is for solving this problem. Given it works, I’m reuctant to go for an obvious solution of using a smaller motor. What other solutions/dodges have people used to prevent shorts inside the boiler?

 

Many thanks in advance

 

David

David,

 

It sounds like the wheels' flanges are touching the inner 'cheeks' of the firebox. 

 

Wait until it's dark, then put full power to the loco (holding it). See where the sparks are, and you've identified the short. 

 

Hope this helps. 

[Tony Wright]

Tony, A personal example if I may, and I do apologize, because its the wrong shade of green!

 

 

These are two slightly modified 'Schools' Hornby locos of mine. The front one was 'Wellington' (now Eton) and cost me £70, the rear one was a damaged 'Cheltenham' (now Downside) and cost me £54 initially + £40 for another damaged schools class from Hattons, so £164 in total. One of the lovely PDK kits is £106 and then + wheels, motor and gearbox, you probably wouldn't see much change from another £100. 

 

I am by no means adverse to kit building, and I am not suggesting the Hornby version is perfect, but as I have not yet started building my own kits, I doubt as my first I could come even close to what Hornby has produced, and the price of the learning experience (using this as the example) is a bit steep. To me, the Hornby version, which can be picked up cheaply, does the job, has no massively glaring errors or discrepancies, and is an excellent runner. Although strangely, with a cast boiler, it still has the dreaded traction tyre, again it's not perfect, but it certainly is a nice model.

 

The question then, is why would I build the PDK model? I wouldn't. 

 

If you compare, £70, for a well detailed, RTR model, as opposed to a £200 (approx, for just the parts) for just the kit, I think it summarizes that the main factor in the decline of kit-building is simply the cost. I appreciate that once you are set up with the tools required for kit-building, (which can be a considerable outlay for quality items) they won't factor into the price of 'completing' a kit, but as a beginner, if you were to buy everything to get you started, and your first kit, it could be an outlay of £500+! Then if you factor in the cost of painting/lining/weathering - at this point some people have disregarded kit-building completely, and sadly, in some cases they have resigned themselves to wishlisting, due to what is probably not a lack of skill, but an unwillingness to go through the process to learn. I just want to point out that i'm not in the same boat, but I can empathize with people who can't afford this, or deem the learning of the 'black art' of kit- building to be too prohibitive. 

 

I don't know how much this will actually add to the discussion that's probably already been re-hashed a million times, but from a relative newbie, this is my take on things. I am lucky in that I am still relatively young, so I have time to learn, and hopefully make (and try to forget) a few expensive mistakes.

No need to apologise, Jack,

 

The shade of green is very attractive.

 

As are the two models. You should be very pleased at having achieved such a natural finish. What's most important is that you've done all this yourself. 

 

I cannot argue with your logic, and the current Hornby Schools is a splendid starting point.

 

 

This is my own Schools, built from a SE Finecast kit, and painted by Ian Rathbone. I built it to run on Charwelton, but since that layout has been sold, the loco now lives in its box. 

 

When I built it, the Hornby Schools of the time was really awful - tender drive, armoured valve gear, ghastly wheels, etc. Not that that would have made any difference, even if the current one were available. I cannot stand traction tyres and I wanted by Schools to be as detailed as possible in OO, including the bogie splashers over the rear wheels. To include these, I effectively made this loco as an 0-8-0, restricting the bogie movement to the minimum and making the frames electrically-dead. Of course, it won't go round Settrack radii, though it'll go round 3 feet curves. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jwealleans]

The finish on those Schools really is excellent.

[Tony Wright]

The previously-mentioned J6 is now painted, and it awaits (essential) weathering. 

 

 

 

 

The logic of acknowledging the (very large?) difference in price between a kit-built loco and an equivalent RTR one is irrefutable; as long as there is an RTR equivalent. In the case of the J6, there isn't. Since it tends to score highly on 'wish-lists', who knows in future? 

 

Certainly, anyone wishing to build a layout depicting GNR/LNER/BR (ER) main line or branch line practice would need several. The path then for getting one (or more) of this large, long-lived and ubiquitous class has several options. These include.........

 

1. Scratch-build.

2. Kit-build.

3. Make one of Graeme King's excellent resin J6s.

4. Get someone else to do it for you, from whichever source. 

 

Options 1 and 3 are probably the least expensive (relatively), though the former requires considerable skill/expertise. Options 2 and 3 also require some skill and expertise. Option 4 requires no modelling skills whatsoever, though being good at writing cheques helps. Option 4 will also be the most-expensive. 

 

What does all this 'prove'? Probably little, other than building things for oneself does not usually mean that the final products are cheaper. Certainly, investing in a large tool-kit (of high-quality products) is not going to be cheap, though it will last a modelling lifetime. Kits are certainly not cheap; however, the pleasure derived from eventually finishing one to your satisfaction (whatever that might be) can only be experienced by those who've actually done it.  

 

Don't expect it to happen in a short time, either. It's taken me over 45 years now (and still counting) to build the locos and stock running on LB. There are many items from the earlier years which I no longer possess, including several scratch-built locos; these having been sold-on because they've been replaced by better kit-built examples down the years. Some very early creations of mine have been useful, not as a finished product but by what I learned from making them. In this respect, don't expect early work to be of the standard one will eventually achieve. 

 

The hobby now seems to be full of 'returnees' to the pastime. Those who remember 'proper' trains from their youth, and might have had train sets as boys (girls?). Since that time, 'life' has rather got in the way, until now, in retirement, they have the cash, the space, the time (up to a point) and the will to create a more realistic model railway. I've never not been a railway modeller, so have had the 'luxury' of years of building things; a 'luxury' not available to others of more mature years, unless their name is Methuselah! So, they now exploit what the RTR boys have to offer (light years from the 'toy' trains of their youth). However, as in the case with the J6, not all is available just 'out-of-a-box'. They, thus, have to have a go themselves (and many succeed - I've witnessed this as a tutor), learning quickly because future time is not infinite. Or, they become commissioners, which, at least, keeps professional model-makers in work. 

 

Let's hope that not everything mainstream will become available RTR. That would be so boring in my opinion. 

 

 

[Bucoops]

 

The hobby now seems to be full of 'returnees' to the pastime. Those who remember 'proper' trains from their youth, and might have had train sets as boys (girls?). Since that time, 'life' has rather got in the way, until now, in retirement, they have the cash, the space, the time (up to a point) and the will to create a more realistic model railway. I've never not been a railway modeller, so have had the 'luxury' of years of building things; a 'luxury' not available to others of more mature years, unless their name is Methuselah! So, they now exploit what the RTR boys have to offer (light years from the 'toy' trains of their youth). However, as in the case with the J6, not all is available just 'out-of-a-box'. They, thus, have to have a go themselves (and many succeed - I've witnessed this as a tutor), learning quickly because future time is not infinite. Or, they become commissioners, which, at least, keeps professional model-makers in work. 

 

 

That's kind of me - although I was born the same year the HSTs were introduced to service, so have no memory of proper trains (which I think I've said before somewhere probably explains my dislike for everything being dark green as opposed to Garter Blue, Doncaster Green etc - preserved locos were predominantly in those colours growing up. I do like HSTs mind...

 

However - I'm ignoring the RTR offerings as I much prefer the idea of building things, Just a shame I've not managed to finish anything yet!