Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

I am now a little confused. So steel couldn't be exported from the ports in the north east? Railway lines from the North East not going to Birmingham, a major manufacturing city that used loads of steel, would that help British industry?

 

The transport of coal was not highly efficient on any of our railways until the development of MGR trains by BR, using the lines, GCR, GNR and MR which were the most suitable for pit to power station routing. Remarshaling of trains in a village in Northamptonshire was not an efficient means of transporting coal, nor was it at Wellingborough or Peterborough or March.

 

The Midland Railway was also good at handling bulk freight, the banana trains from Bristol to London via the SMJR were faster than Burnel's direct route.

 

Woodford was pretty well a staging point in the same way Wellingborough was, particularly where coal is concerned. The majority of the coal continued south to London and Woodford had a stud of WDs for that purpose. The difference with the GC was how it was run from Annesley. The runners were tightly timed fast coal trains not the slow lumbering trips you found on the Midland. And yes the GC, constructed after the other lines South, didn't pass through the major towns as much only passing through Aylesbury whereas the midland had Kettering,  Bedford, Luton and St. Albans. But the GC had the potential of a very modern line for its time with no level crossings and gradients no more severe than 1 in 176 and with through lines radiating South and West from Woodford and Culford Junction, it provided a versatile long distance through route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I was amazed when Nottingham Victoria was closed in favour of the Midland station-a fast, segregated route through the city obliterated in favour of a lousy layout and a station that faced the wrong way, with inconvenient workings.  The GCR frieghts were fast, profitable and reliable, with the Windcutters years ahead of their time.

People keep saying the Windcutters were fast and profitable. No one has shown any figures that show a coal train from Decoy to March over the joint was any slower or more expensive to run or that of a train from Toton to Wellingborough (or straight through to Brent) was.

 

As for Nottingham the fastest route to and from London was closed, and that was the Midland via Melton Mowbray. Look at what the Midland was in 1923 and how BR carved it up. 

Edited by Clive Mortimore
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Richard

 

Saying Oakhampton looks nice in the winter is wicked?

 

Seriously the GCR as a North East to South West route misses out a lot of important towns, is that in the interest of those communities and business?

The GCR was the only mainline built in the UK to continental Berne gauge standards, with the intention to run high speed trains (Count all the mail line level crossings on the GCR) from the UK to the Continent via the SECR and a Channel Tunnel.   The GCR could have been developed as a major spine route for fast travel between Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and on to Leeds plus links to the WCML.  A good comparison would be the Woodhead Route and the Hope Valley line across the Pennines-one high speed and electrified, the other a steam age anachronism-and open.  Leaving the GCR girder bridge intact over Nottingham Midland, and then demolishing it before the trams were introduced, necessating a replacement, is a monument of sorts.

Clive's comment regarding steel movement-Steel was transported round the UK between different works for further treatment/refining.  Steel trains from Scunthorpe to South Wales via the GCR are an example.  BR moved coal as efficiently as they could with what they had-the Mines themselves delayed modernising, meaning BR had to use mineral wagons, and the advent of MGR had to wait-which needed diesel locomotives with Slow Speed Control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Tony posted..

And, where a prototype is so compressed because of space restrictions that it loses that essential sprawl in model form, I feel the builder(s) would be better making a location up.

I don't agree with that,Tony. My own layout, which will almost certainly be my last, is of a real location where I did most of my spotting. However, even with a loft, I have been barely able to make a reasonable representation of the south but only a rough facsimile of the north. It is a one man show, so I suppose the running is "boring". But being a real location, even in a fairly flexible 1955_63 period, has obliged me to build locos which had a good chance of actually passing there, and a representative rake of stock for them to haul. So I relive my childhood, visit old haunts,do research and try to build things which were there when I was a kid.

So for all the compromises,I find it much more satisfying than a fictional location. Of course, each to his own.

John

There was a layout in the Railway Modeller way back in the 1970s which was based on the GWR main line. It had stations called Paddington, Bristol, Aberystwyth and many more. Each station was perhaps a couple of platforms and a loop with a couple of sidings. It wound round and round a room gaining height, so the stations were in front of each other.

 

Hardly an accurate copy of any individual prototype station but what a layout to operate!

 

Nothing wrong with a non accurate representation of a real place if it brings the builder satisfaction and perhaps brings some personal memories to life.

 

Many of my own layouts have been based on a single scene in a photo, often one from my late Dad's patch in Nottinghamshire. I don't have room for accurate recreations of such scenes but I hopefully get a flavour in a limited space. The layout I enjoyed operating least was the one I based on a prototype. The real place had limited operation, with most trains just going through. I couldn't bring myself to invent interesting workings that didn't happen in reality. So most trains on the model just went through and I soon tired of it.

 

With a fictitious location, I am quite comfortable inventing trains that perhaps terminate or shunt.

 

So even if I had unlimited space and resources, I still couldn't think of a real place I would want to model that has all I want from a layout.

 

If you have that place, then a representative layout has to be better than none at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

As for 'enjoyable' operation, two friends came today and we had a great time just running trains. The sequence was not even contemplated, and we just ran whatever took our fancies - several times round in most cases. It certainly wasn't prototypical, but it was huge fun. And, we almost had 'perfect running', until I forgot to set a road (wind-bagging, as usual), sending The Talisman into quite the wrong place! 

 

Thanks Tony and Arun for a wonderful day! 

 

 

Tony

 

My thanks to you and to Mo for your usual generous hospitality, as well as the stimulating, if not always PC, conversations!

I am also grateful for the (short) time spent by the 'loco doctor' in looking at my failed locos - so short in fact that I felt shamed that I had been unable to fix them myself in considerably more time!

LB is always stimulating to look at and to run, an inspiration.

Thanks

 

Tony

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The GCR was the only mainline built in the UK to continental Berne gauge standards, with the intention to run high speed trains (Count all the mail line level crossings on the GCR) from the UK to the Continent via the SECR and a Channel Tunnel.   The GCR could have been developed as a major spine route for fast travel between Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool and on to Leeds plus links to the WCML.  A good comparison would be the Woodhead Route and the Hope Valley line across the Pennines-one high speed and electrified, the other a steam age anachronism-and open.  Leaving the GCR girder bridge intact over Nottingham Midland, and then demolishing it before the trams were introduced, necessating a replacement, is a monument of sorts.

Clive's comment regarding steel movement-Steel was transported round the UK between different works for further treatment/refining.  Steel trains from Scunthorpe to South Wales via the GCR are an example.  BR moved coal as efficiently as they could with what they had-the Mines themselves delayed modernising, meaning BR had to use mineral wagons, and the advent of MGR had to wait-which needed diesel locomotives with Slow Speed Control.

From https://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/loadinggauges.php

 

"The frequently made statement that this line was constructed to the Berne gauge is a modern myth, since these drawings all clearly show the same gauge as other GCR lines, as, indeed, do the surviving structures. At 9ft 3in wide and 13ft 4in high the GCR gauge was one of the larger british gauges, but still very small compared to the Berne gauge, which was 14ft high and 10ft 2in wide. One should also note that the construction of the London extension commenced in 1894, but the Berne gauge wasn't agreed until 1912."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony

 

My thanks to you and to Mo for your usual generous hospitality, as well as the stimulating, if not always PC, conversations!

I am also grateful for the (short) time spent by the 'loco doctor' in looking at my failed locos - so short in fact that I felt shamed that I had been unable to fix them myself in considerably more time!

LB is always stimulating to look at and to run, an inspiration.

Thanks

 

Tony

Seconded - I liked the view from the down side better than the up side I think

 

Arun

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony

 

My thanks to you and to Mo for your usual generous hospitality, as well as the stimulating, if not always PC, conversations!

I am also grateful for the (short) time spent by the 'loco doctor' in looking at my failed locos - so short in fact that I felt shamed that I had been unable to fix them myself in considerably more time!

LB is always stimulating to look at and to run, an inspiration.

Thanks

 

Tony

I know it is terrifying how quickly he can diagnose and fix an issue. I had sworn at my P1 valve gear for a while, he had it for but a moment and had sorted the issue out. If I end up half as good as tony I will be happy with my skill level.

Richard

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I was sorting through some boxes of old stuff this weekend, and came across my first ever kit-build project, I must have been about nineteen when I built it.  I wanted something small and easy to build without specialised equipment, and painted it in Great Central green with a great big GC crest on the side.  Nothing like the real Y8's ever wore, but it pleased me at the time.  It ran backwards because I wired the polarity the wrong way round, but it worked, pulled wagons and gave me a real sense of achievement.

 

I have posed it next to my current project, one of the GC A3's from 1949, because I find the contrast fascinating.  This is a Hornby model, (Sorry, Tony) in the process of modification to become a reasonably accurate representation of 60049 Galtee More as in her Leicester days.  Although this model is a straightforward modification of R3518 Gay Crusader I have four in total going through the works at the moment, including 111 Enterprise; 60054 Prince of Wales and 60061 Pretty Polly.  Blue liveried versions of Sir Frederick Banbury and Prince Palatine will follow.  All are subtly different to accurately portray the class member in 1949, including boiler dome shape, tender version, some require the donors to be modified by reducing the cab cut-out and converting to right hand drive.  Still to do on Galtee More:  Add coal, wiggly wires, weathering, crew and working lamps.  I'm also still mulling over whether swopping the front bogie wheels to Markits ones is worthwhile.

 

attachicon.gifIMG_2698.jpg

 

The reason for prattling on about this is that it highlights the contrast of my modelling between then and now.  In my late teens, I was very naive about details such as liveries, locations and detail accuracy in general, mostly I just made stuff as I liked.  Fifty years on and I am much more concerned about accuracy, and research is at least as important as the modelling itself.   Sure, my modelling is much more accurate as a result... but with that comes a much more critical eye.   Rediscovering the little Y8 has reminded me that it is important to not lose sight of the simple joy of modelling, as I pursue ever increasing accuracy!

 

Incidentally, the recent comments about background clutter remind me of why I painted the walls of my railway room sky-blue, it has made a big difference!

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

Thanks for posting this interesting comparison. I think one could argue that what you’re doing to 60049 is more worthy of being called ‘modelling’ than the Y8, because the research and attention to detail is a critical part of modelling. The Y8 is clearly kit building, but given that the final result is somewhat fictitious it maybe is less of a ‘model’ than the Hornby A3.

 

In a piece in December’s RM on the Channel 5 programme, Steve Flint described the hobby as ‘fun, creative, relaxing, vision art, scholarly,authoritative, challenging and so on’. I rather liked this description although it’s probably missing ‘constructional’ from the point of view if this thread. I think the scholarly and authoritative parts are sometimes forgotten and this comes back to Tony’s points about modelling a prototype and correct train formations. I think we have a duty to educate, and for me, getting it right is part of the fun (even though I don’t always achieve it!) whether this is from modified RTR or a kit. Indeed sourcing the parts to make a model, whether bashing RTR or a kit is always enjoyable. That why I have such a large roundtuit pile!

 

Views?

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil,

 

Thanks for posting this interesting comparison. I think one could argue that what you’re doing to 60049 is more worthy of being called ‘modelling’ than the Y8, because the research and attention to detail is a critical part of modelling. The Y8 is clearly kit building, but given that the final result is somewhat fictitious it maybe is less of a ‘model’ than the Hornby A3.

 

In a piece in December’s RM on the Channel 5 programme, Steve Flint described the hobby as ‘fun, creative, relaxing, vision art, scholarly,authoritative, challenging and so on’. I rather liked this description although it’s probably missing ‘constructional’ from the point of view if this thread. I think the scholarly and authoritative parts are sometimes forgotten and this comes back to Tony’s points about modelling a prototype and correct train formations. I think we have a duty to educate, and for me, getting it right is part of the fun (even though I don’t always achieve it!) whether this is from modified RTR or a kit. Indeed sourcing the parts to make a model, whether bashing RTR or a kit is always enjoyable. That why I have such a large roundtuit pile!

 

Views?

 

Andy

Whilst within my own framing of Railway modelling I fully subscribe to all of this ... I do think we need to be careful. Modelling ... and very fine modelling at that ... is a very broad Church. Preferences are fine, but many  will define their modelling within a different framing and under different terms .. but still be extremely fine modelling none the less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seconded - I liked the view from the down side better than the up side I think

 

Arun

Thanks Arun,

 

I think the term I'd use is 'different', if I may be so bold. What you do see from the Down side is a much clearer view of the station itself, the signal box and The Willoughby, all superbly-modelled by Bob Dawson. You can even see my half-relief cottages, though they're not completed in the following shots, taken a year ago.  

 

post-18225-0-21902300-1543916365_thumb.jpg

 

post-18225-0-44423300-1543916384_thumb.jpg

 

post-18225-0-85320500-1543916403_thumb.jpg

 

post-18225-0-70673100-1543916424_thumb.jpg

 

By the way, you forgot to sign my visitors' book (I forgot to ask you) and forgot your little LB leaflet. Next time.............

 

Many thanks for your donation to CRUK. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Phil,

 

Thanks for posting this interesting comparison. I think one could argue that what you’re doing to 60049 is more worthy of being called ‘modelling’ than the Y8, because the research and attention to detail is a critical part of modelling. The Y8 is clearly kit building, but given that the final result is somewhat fictitious it maybe is less of a ‘model’ than the Hornby A3.

 

In a piece in December’s RM on the Channel 5 programme, Steve Flint described the hobby as ‘fun, creative, relaxing, vision art, scholarly,authoritative, challenging and so on’. I rather liked this description although it’s probably missing ‘constructional’ from the point of view if this thread. I think the scholarly and authoritative parts are sometimes forgotten and this comes back to Tony’s points about modelling a prototype and correct train formations. I think we have a duty to educate, and for me, getting it right is part of the fun (even though I don’t always achieve it!) whether this is from modified RTR or a kit. Indeed sourcing the parts to make a model, whether bashing RTR or a kit is always enjoyable. That why I have such a large roundtuit pile!

 

Views?

 

Andy

 

post-1074-0-69567600-1543917217_thumb.jpg

This is my Tucking Mill layout in 2FS. By your rather strange logic it is somewhat less of a model than a modified Hornby A3 because its largely fictitious. The location is real enough as is the geography, background, and many of the buildings but the locomotive, much of the stock and even the railway company itself, The North Somerset Light, are completely fictitious - they are figments of my imagination! I did, however, make pretty much everything in the picture.

 

Jerry

Edited by queensquare
  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my latest project: a total rebuild/repaint of the Rails' Dynamometer Car from the ground up. A lot of errors and omissions had to be fixed along the way and I will be covering these in a separate topic when I can drum up the enthusiasm.

 

There are three photographs of the Dynamometer Car in colour that I know of, two being better than the third, however all show the vehicle with a very dirty roof and underframe so this is how I have modelled it.

 

post-3717-0-66838500-1543917238_thumb.jpg

 

Yes, my model has the lining:

post-3717-0-65504200-1543917256_thumb.jpg

 

Full roof detail as carried by the prototype has been added. You can also just see the correct pattern lino on the interior floor:

post-3717-0-97919800-1543917289_thumb.jpg

 

The interior, specifically the recording desk has been superdetailed:

post-3717-0-66603300-1543917329_thumb.jpg

 

The end duckets have been correctly rebated into the panelling and the top panel remodelled:

post-3717-0-12820600-1543917388_thumb.jpg

 

Bespoke "DYNAMOMETER CAR" lettering fabricated matching the 1938 original. Employees wishing to spend a penny can now do so in privacy:

post-3717-0-23230000-1543917423_thumb.jpg

 

There were many moments that I thought "I must be mad?" and on a couple of occassions the model was nearly thrown across the room, but I must admit I am really pleased with the result.

post-3717-0-66838500-1543917238_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-65504200-1543917256_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-97919800-1543917289_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-66603300-1543917329_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-12820600-1543917388_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-23230000-1543917423_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-66838500-1543917238_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-65504200-1543917256_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-97919800-1543917289_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-66603300-1543917329_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-12820600-1543917388_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-23230000-1543917423_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-66838500-1543917238_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-65504200-1543917256_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-97919800-1543917289_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-66603300-1543917329_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-12820600-1543917388_thumb.jpg

post-3717-0-23230000-1543917423_thumb.jpg

Edited by MikeTrice
  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

attachicon.gifJC 1 - 5795mod.jpg

This is my Tucking Mill layout in 2FS. By your rather strange logic it is somewhat less of a model than a modified Hornby A3 because its largely fictitious. The location is real enough as is the geography, background, and many of the buildings but the locomotive, much of the stock and even the railway company itself, The North Somerset Light, are completely fictitious - they are figments of my imagination! I did, however, make pretty much everything in the picture.

 

Jerry

Jerry,

 

That looks superb, and I certainly didn’t mean to offend or demean such works of art. Your layout clearly has more ‘merit’ than a modified Hornby A3. And I presume you follow prototypical practice which is an important part of modelling. I guess it comes down to definition of the word model.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony

 

My thanks to you and to Mo for your usual generous hospitality, as well as the stimulating, if not always PC, conversations!

I am also grateful for the (short) time spent by the 'loco doctor' in looking at my failed locos - so short in fact that I felt shamed that I had been unable to fix them myself in considerably more time!

LB is always stimulating to look at and to run, an inspiration.

Thanks

 

Tony

Thanks Tony,

 

It was a delight, as always, to have you visit. 

 

Please let me know if those locos I 'doctored' work now on your railway. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Arun,

 

I think the term I'd use is 'different', if I may be so bold. What you do see from the Down side is a much clearer view of the station itself, the signal box and The Willoughby, all superbly-modelled by Bob Dawson. You can even see my half-relief cottages, though they're not completed in the following shots, taken a year ago.  

 

attachicon.gif60014 0n Down express.jpg

 

attachicon.gif60027 0n Up Elizabethan.jpg

 

attachicon.gifRM Little Bytham 15.jpg

 

attachicon.gifRM Little Bytham 24.jpg

 

By the way, you forgot to sign my visitors' book (I forgot to ask you) and forgot your little LB leaflet. Next time.............

 

Many thanks for your donation to CRUK. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Agreed Tony, poor choice of words. The view from the down side is markedly different to that from the upside and comes as something of a surprise oddly enough because it makes the whole scene look wider with perhaps more emphasis on the buildings.

 

Looking forward to it.

 

Arun

Link to post
Share on other sites

attachicon.gifJC 1 - 5795mod.jpg

This is my Tucking Mill layout in 2FS. By your rather strange logic it is somewhat less of a model than a modified Hornby A3 because its largely fictitious. The location is real enough as is the geography, background, and many of the buildings but the locomotive, much of the stock and even the railway company itself, The North Somerset Light, are completely fictitious - they are figments of my imagination! I did, however, make pretty much everything in the picture.

 

Jerry

Good morning Jerry,

 

I don't think anyone can suggest that what you do is somehow 'less than modelling'. Despite the 'fictitious' (thanks for using that - I dislike 'fictional') nature of part of your modelling, it all has an absolute 'sense of place'. Is it because the actual site itself is 'real'? 

 

Thanks for showing it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This is my latest project: a total rebuild/repaint of the Rails' Dynamometer Car from the ground up. A lot of errors and omissions had to be fixed along the way and I will be covering these in a separate topic when I can drum up the enthusiasm.

 

There are three photographs of the Dynamometer Car in colour that I know of, two being better than the third, however all show the vehicle with a very dirty roof and underframe so this is how I have modelled it.

 

attachicon.gifIMG_7656.JPG

 

Yes, my model has the lining:

attachicon.gifIMG_7657.JPG

 

Full roof detail as carried by the prototype has been added. You can also just see the correct pattern lino on the interior floor:

attachicon.gifIMG_7660.JPG

 

The interior, specifically the recording desk has been superdetailed:

attachicon.gifIMG_7662.JPG

 

The end duckets have been correctly rebated into the panelling and the top panel remodelled:

attachicon.gifIMG_7666.JPG

 

Bespoke "DYNAMOMETER CAR" lettering fabricated matching the 1938 original. Employees wishing to spend a penny can now do so in privacy:

attachicon.gifIMG_7671.JPG

 

There were many moments that I thought "I must be mad?" and on a couple of occassions the model was nearly thrown across the room, but I must admit I am really pleased with the result.

Mike, what a wonderful post, and not just for the workmanship. Not only are you going to re-ignite the recent debate about superlatives, but adding the lining will be like igniting a blue touch paper elsewhere on the forum! You’re a braver man than me, in several respects!

 

Phil

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Jerry,

 

That looks superb, and I certainly didn’t mean to offend or demean such works of art. Your layout clearly has more ‘merit’ than a modified Hornby A3. And I presume you follow prototypical practice which is an important part of modelling. I guess it comes down to definition of the word model.

 

Andy

 

On Tucking Mill I didn't follow prototype practice as there is no prototype, its completely freelance. I'm sure you didn't mean to offend or demean, and certainly none was taken, but for me all modelling has merit. The moment you start trying to define what has most merit is the time to put the shovel away and stop digging. The hobby is a very broad church and as Clive has said, the right way is that which brings us most pleasure and satisfaction. 

 

post-1074-0-50457400-1543920719_thumb.jpg

 

post-1074-0-16847300-1543920775_thumb.jpg

 

Regarding modelling a real place, my home layout is very much based on a prototype, Bath Queensquare in the decade following WW1 and the other layout I'm involved with is Wadebridge - links to threads on both are in my signature below. Both are examples of locations that are reasonably compact whilst still offering great operational potential - not always easy to find. I wouldn't have hesitated to invent a fictitious location if that were not the case. 

With a descent sized pre-grouping terminus and a fictitious light railway to my name it will come as no surprise that the two layouts that influenced me most were my all time favourite, Buckingham, and Iain Rice's North Cornwall Minerals.

 

Jerry  

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Good morning Jerry,

 

I don't think anyone can suggest that what you do is somehow 'less than modelling'. Despite the 'fictitious' (thanks for using that - I dislike 'fictional') nature of part of your modelling, it all has an absolute 'sense of place'. Is it because the actual site itself is 'real'? 

 

Thanks for showing it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Morning Tony,

 

The site is indeed real, the railway just never made it that far! The cottage is still there, the mill was demolished in 1927 - in my reality its the other way round.

 

post-1074-0-81518200-1543922261_thumb.png

 

post-1074-0-51040300-1543921899_thumb.jpg

 

post-1074-0-84823400-1543921884_thumb.jpg

 

Jerry 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chipping in here as a wargamer as well as railway modeller: the important thing from my point of view as a club chairman is to get people in the door of the hobby, and to do so while encouraging what passion they came in with, be it (as one of my favourite historical rule writers has it) 'space pixies' or whatever. The fact that they are interested in moving miniatures on a table/putting trains on a track is a far far bigger step than exactly what they model or play. If they get to do that in a supportive and friendly environment, who knows what will ensue - things rub off :D 

 

There are a number of members of our club who joined us to play Warhammer, Warmachine or other fantasy/SF quasi-wargames, and many of them are now deep into various historical era (to quote one of them: "You know, I can't remember the last time I painted a figure without going to check what colour trousers it should have worn for the period"). Heck, time was when I as a railway modeller would have been happy with anything RTR in GWR green or LMS black or crimson on my proposed layout - now I'm trying to track down exactly which loco I should be attempting to model and tracking down kits for stuff that is in period :D People evolve, and grow into different aspects of their hobby - if we feel that /our/ particular branch is the Grail, then we shouldn't belittle or criticise, but engage. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too literal an interpretation of Forester's comments for me I'm afraid.

 

And, what's the point of adding those 'little extra flourishes' to a model railway which is just plain nonsense? By that I mean, a made-up system which just would not 'work' - incorrectly-placed signals, a daft track layout (impossible to work satisfactorily), safety features ignored (no trap points for instance) and a jumble of incompatible structures (no sense of 'geography'). Not to mention all those awful cliches which modellers will insist on putting on to their layouts - blazing buildings, flashing lights, weddings, funerals, accidents, brawls, and so on and so on.............. All, no doubt, added with a 'flourish'. 

 

I didn't read in to 'extra flourishes'  what I think of as a Children's entertainment layouts (a perfectly valid type of modelling I might add within its own framing ... though not at all to my taste)

 

I don't disagree with your comment about some of the greatest paintings ever produced being impressionist in their style (Monet is one of my favourite painters). However, apply those 'impressionistic' features to a model railway and the result will mean it just won't work (surely an essential feature of any model railway). Take Monet's paintings of the Paris stations for instance. There is no consistent track gauge - it goes wide, then narrows for instance - and the locos are just inventions of his (vivid) imagination. One of the forebears of Impressionism, J.M.W. Turner (another of my favourite artists) painted the firebox on the front of the engine in Rain, Steam And Speed.

 

I think you can have flourishes of interest on a layout which are impressionistic of the tableau trying to be recreated -  despite not being actually present on the particular prototype -  redolent of the scene without demonstrable contradiction or inaccuracy.

 

A direct comparison between a painting and a model layout is I submit a tad disingenuous ... the original comparison (as far as impressionist painting was concerned) was between differing types (genres) of painting.

 

I don't believe that those 'little extra touches' are the sole preserve of those who model freelance locations. May I please present a selection of models of actual locations where very little has been forgotten, and they all give a wonderful impression of reality? Surely, that's the acid test. Some are still in the process of being built, but that realism (impossible in a made-up location?) is there. 

 

True .. but far more freedom and therefore arguably impact can be derived within a fictitious layout. Also, a literal representation can be more false than an impression in some cases because it does not capture the 'impression' of the real time observer. The eye at the best of times is a highly selective organ - think 'dead pot plant syndrome' - we filter what we are not interested in.

 

Each to there own I say and lets critique the results rather than the chosen genre.  I have had so many of these debates within architectural theory and it all has an element of 'angels on pin heads' about it .... the real proof is in the end product and if it is good it can break every pre conceived rule in the book for my part.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Morning Tony,

 

The site is indeed real, the railway just never made it that far! The cottage is still there, the mill was demolished in 1927 - in my reality its the other way round.

 

attachicon.gifIMG_1514.PNG

 

attachicon.gifP259997.jpg

 

attachicon.gifIMG_1758.JPG

 

Jerry 

 

A fictitious layout, simply oozing realism.

 

It is this combination of great modelling plus the artistry to compose and design a totally believable scene that perhaps illustrates my approach to modelling. Take a pinch of reality, add a load of imagination, some lovely modelling and come up with a truly original and very realistic model of a scene that never existed.

 

I was once with a friend at a show and we were looking at a particularly good and realistic looking model.

 

One of us commented "That could be real".

 

Quick as a flash the chap there with the model said "It is real......... just small".

 

We have adopted it as our stock answer to all queries about things looking real or not!

Edited by t-b-g
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I don't know whether I entirely get this. May I explain, please? 

 

An 'obsession' with accuracy can lead to the greatest model railways ever created in my view.

 

And, what's the point of adding those 'little extra flourishes' to a model railway which is just plain nonsense? By that I mean, a made-up system which just would not 'work' - incorrectly-placed signals, a daft track layout (impossible to work satisfactorily), safety features ignored (no trap points for instance) and a jumble of incompatible structures (no sense of 'geography'). Not to mention all those awful cliches which modellers will insist on putting on to their layouts - blazing buildings, flashing lights, weddings, funerals, accidents, brawls, and so on and so on.............. All, no doubt, added with a 'flourish'. 

 

I don't disagree with your comment about some of the greatest paintings ever produced being impressionist in their style (Monet is one of my favourite painters). However, apply those 'impressionistic' features to a model railway and the result will mean it just won't work (surely an essential feature of any model railway). Take Monet's paintings of the Paris stations for instance. There is no consistent track gauge - it goes wide, then narrows for instance - and the locos are just inventions of his (vivid) imagination. One of the forebears of Impressionism, J.M.W. Turner (another of my favourite artists) painted the firebox on the front of the engine in Rain, Steam And Speed.

 

I don't believe that those 'little extra touches' are the sole preserve of those who model freelance locations. May I please present a selection of models of actual locations where very little has been forgotten, and they all give a wonderful impression of reality? Surely, that's the acid test. Some are still in the process of being built, but that realism (impossible in a made-up location?) is there. 

 

attachicon.gifAlloa 01.jpg

 

attachicon.gifAmbergate 018.jpg

 

attachicon.gifBurntisland 02.jpg

 

attachicon.gifCarlisle.jpg

 

attachicon.gifCaroline Concrete Works 17.jpg

 

attachicon.gifClifton and Lowther 21.jpg

 

attachicon.gifDsc_5770.jpg

 

attachicon.gifEuxton Junction 12.jpg

 

attachicon.gifGamston 53.jpg

 

attachicon.gifGrantham Ally Pally 04.jpg

 

attachicon.gifGuildford 05.jpg

 

attachicon.gifMidhurst 21.jpg

 

attachicon.gifPlanning 03.jpg

 

attachicon.gifPlanning 05.jpg

 

attachicon.gifPlanning 07.jpg

 

attachicon.gifPlanning 08.jpg

 

attachicon.gifShap 13.jpg

 

attachicon.gifSignals 18.jpg

 

attachicon.gifSouth Pelaw 16.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

I am sure there are many of us who would love to be able to model one of our favorite locations. Space and time are normally the enemies of such ambitions.

 

I had dreams of building Kings Cross. I hand drew the track in 4mm scale, rescaling from a large scale OS map. I was prepared to shorten the station but to fit a workable fiddle yard where the slow lines crossed from one side to the other was a nightmare and would have ended up with a fiddle yard bigger than the viewable layout. As many of the points were non standard the track would have to be hand built. I kept the project ticking along for nearly 30 years but last year when I retired I realised that I would never have the space or the time left to build it.

 

I have how ever incorporated the later track plan (the 1977 remodelling) of the throat in my make believe terminus station in Sheffield using Peco track. I am only modelling within the railway boundary and will try my best to model features of the two railways it is supposed to have been built by, the L&YR and GNR (and there successors). Modelling on the layout is quite slow as running it has taken priority, and good running if I can achieve it before the scenery. I am enjoying my layout and feel lucky to have the space to build a big layout.

 

I have looked at other real locations, the small two road servicing shed at Tinsley was quite compact within the large yard, it works out at 23 feet long by 3 feet wide. That is a small diesel depot. Another place was my home town of Bedford, I looked at the ex MR station. The road bridge at the southern end of the station, Ford End Road is in 4mm over 15 feet long. A layout 15 feet wide?

 

For most of us to model we have to make a representation of a location real or fictitious so we can enjoy our hobby.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...