Wright writes.....

[CUTLER2579]

46 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

If Tim Watson can create adjustable position valve gear in 2mm scale, it should be a doddle for mere mortals working in 4mm.

 

Especially in EM I would suggest 

 

Regards,Derek.

[TrevorP1]

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

>>>> We as a hobby seem to becoming experts at observing scenery and turning a blind eye to the railway.

 

I wonder if that’s because fewer and fewer of us have experience - either as passengers, observers or railwaymen - of what the railway was like ‘back in the day’? 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

I wonder if that’s because fewer and fewer of us have experience - either as passengers, observers or railwaymen - of what the railway was like ‘back in the day’? 

 

Afternoon Trevor

 

There is some truth in that. However, if you compare Railway modeling to warship modeling as an example, the historical record is very much the gold standard for warship modelers and remains so even though direct experience of Naval affairs is far removed from the experience of the majority.  First hand material is very well documented and second hand material is well researched by well regarded academics. In contrast, Railway modeling is often driven by nostalgia, the historical record is scattered and little interest is shown in it by second hand source material. The historical record requires far more direct research from the individual and few are interested in doing this

[grahame]

2 hours ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

I wonder if that’s because fewer and fewer of us have experience - either as passengers, observers or railwaymen - of what the railway was like ‘back in the day’? 

 

Although, of course, there's nothing to stop people observing, experiencing and modelling the current day railway scene, or even an era that they remember and watched during their formative years. And there does seem to be a growing wealth of railway information more readily and easily available through on-line facilities, new books published, and so on, to aid research.   

 

G

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

I do feel my English is getting betterer, cheers! 

 

Credit is due to you as well Tony, you really have given me a confidence boost the last year or two, as well as everyone else. 

 

Nine and half, I will not rest until I have reached a solid 10, is it hard to come by?

 

wackford what? I think I’m too young to understand.....’please’ enlighten me? 

 

Many thanks,

 

the long haired yahoo

 

Good afternoon, Jesse,

 

As Jamie has pointed out, Wackford Squeers was the odious headmaster of a Yorkshire school called Dotheboys Hall, in Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby (have I spelled that correctly?).

 

in 1982, the school I was teaching at (Aldersley High, in Wolverhampton) put on a staff/pupil performance called Smike, which was the musical interpretation of Nicholas Nickleby. Guess who played Wackford Squeers? It ran for more than a week and was a huge success, largely down to two main participants; the director/producer (Bev' Cooper, sadly now deceased) and the male lead (Roger Brotherton, a semi-professional singer). Both were brilliant, as was the cast of kids and all the other staff who participated. I say I 'played' the awful headmaster, but actually I didn't need to act at all - I just played myself. It involved the flogging of children, and, in one performance, I was encouraged by the audience to actually beat a boy - not a well-liked individual I'm afraid. However, at the end, Squeers takes a beating, so I had to be careful. 

 

With a paternal family originating in Yorkshire, I had no trouble speaking in Tyke dialect (Squeers being from God's own county), so much so that the father of one of the staff in my department thought it was my native tongue. The trouble with being a good mimic is that it went to my head, and during a particularly long speech (I had the part with most words) I started taking off the headmaster of my school (also from Yorkshire) and the senior staff. There were hoots of laughter and also the darkest of looks (do you wonder why I was never promoted?). 

 

I also caused the poor prompter (a most-diligent 6th form girl) to almost die from shame. How? During a very long monologue (is that tautology?), I pretended to forget my lines. Since I never said the same words in the same order twice, she never bothered to really follow me. I just stood there mute, for about 20 seconds (a lifetime on stage!), then, apologising to the audience for 'forgetting my lines', I jumped off the stage, grabbed the libretto/script from her hand and proceeded to read from it, to huge peals of laughter. She never forgave me.

 

The actual Squeers was a corpulent character, but I just played him as a slim villain.

 

Was it really 37 years ago?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[t-b-g]

5 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Doesn't say a lot for me then Tony, I've not managed to do that yet in 7mm or even attempted to, however as the pile of unbuilt kits goes down, I might certainly give it a go. Perhaps on the 2P that's sitting there unbuilt.

 

Jamie

 

I am not sure I would bother with adjustable gear between the frames. Life is just too short! In 7mm, I think I would just be happy with either dummy gear or a representation of some bits of metal wiggling about in a vague fashion!

 

I have seen many models with inside working gear but the only time I can see it properly is either when it is static or on a rolling road. On a layout, I am not sure if the extra work is worth the effort.

 

Luckily, I don't have to even think about adjustable valve gear on my GCR locos. Although I might build a railmotor one day and might have to do something with that!

Edited March 5, 2019 by t-b-g

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

If Tim Watson can create adjustable position valve gear in 2mm scale, it should be a doddle for mere mortals working in 4mm.

Ah,

 

Quite so, but has he built well over 100 locos with outside valve gear to run on his railway? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Morning Tony,

 

it's the juxtaposition between the scenic work and that of the locomotives and stock, a mismatch. Out of the box RTR blends quite well the less 'realistic the scenery becomes. The layout in the photo has scenics that are so beautifully observed that the stock jars, it being of a different aesthetic, 'perfect' but poorly observed. There is some sort of truth in the best modeling, perhaps that is why too perfect so often fails, it is just not true to life.

 

There dose seem to be something of a trend here, last week I complained at the stock in your photograph of the beautiful N gauge layout in a cutting, no lamps, no weathering, unbelievable toy town train formation. We as a hobby seem to becoming experts at observing scenery and turning a blind eye to the railway.

I'm completely in agreement with you, Andrew,

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Atso]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Trevor

 

There is some truth in that. However, if you compare Railway modeling to warship modeling as an example, the historical record is very much the gold standard for warship modelers and remains so even though direct experience of Naval affairs is far removed from the experience of the majority.  First hand material is very well documented and second hand material is well researched by well regarded academics. In contrast, Railway modeling is often driven by nostalgia, the historical record is scattered and little interest is shown in it by second hand source material. The historical record requires far more direct research from the individual and few are interested in doing this

 

Researching Hadley Wood naturally developed into an interest in trying to represent a cross section of the trains that ran through it in the 1930's. Suffice to say I was not prepared for the shear scale of the mountain I've now found myself climbing. I think to represent the trains prototypically, one must also understand where the train originated, where it will terminate and what purpose does it serve. I've been interested in steam railways (specifically the LNER) for as long as I can remember and the biggest thing I've learnt so far from my intital research is just how little I actually know! The second thing I've learnt is that it will be impossible to represent more than a tiny fraction of the traffic that passed on a daily basis.

 

In many ways modelling a prototype location is easier as somebody else has already designed the track plan and located all of the features. However, identifying those features can be a bit challenging at times! I'm still trying to work out if the Up signal was still a somersault or an upper quadrant following the 1932 re-signalling works. The Down signal is easy, it is a colour light signal which features in several photographs. The only photograph I've found of the Up signal is from the 1950's, almost twenty years after the period I'm modelling.

[Ian Smeeton]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Ah,

 

Quite so, but has he built well over 100 locos with outside valve gear to run on his railway? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Not sure how many he has built, but it is quite a few! Many from scratch, rather than kits.

 

Had the pleasure of his company at a 2mm area group recently, and 'Mons Meg' in the flesh is quite something.

 

Regards

 

Ian

[Headstock]

16 minutes ago, Atso said:

 

Researching Hadley Wood naturally developed into an interest in trying to represent a cross section of the trains that ran through it in the 1930's. Suffice to say I was not prepared for the shear scale of the mountain I've now found myself climbing. I think to represent the trains prototypically, one must also understand where the train originated, where it will terminate and what purpose does it serve. I've been interested in steam railways (specifically the LNER) for as long as I can remember and the biggest thing I've learnt so far from my intital research is just how little I actually know! The second thing I've learnt is that it will be impossible to represent more than a tiny fraction of the traffic that passed on a daily basis.

 

In many ways modelling a prototype location is easier as somebody else has already designed the track plan and located all of the features. However, identifying those features can be a bit challenging at times! I'm still trying to work out if the Up signal was still a somersault or an upper quadrant following the 1932 re-signalling works. The Down signal is easy, it is a colour light signal which features in several photographs. The only photograph I've found of the Up signal is from the 1950's, almost twenty years after the period I'm modelling.

 

I have always thought that modeling a real location is much harder than a made up one, hence why they are a minority pursuit. After all, with a made up location you can invoke the Perfidious rule one every time things get difficult. Good luck on the ECML, it's a bit big. The GC is just about the right size to model a big LNER (and GWR and SR) mainline with far fewer compromises.

 

I should try posting an image of your signal, somebody may be able to identify the period of its construction.

[Lecorbusier]

21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

My point (and it's been made before) is that the current RTR selection is to a higher standard than the majority of railway modellers can ever hope to aspire to (and achieve) in their personal model-making. 

 

That depends .....

 

For me RTRs always look plastic, lack any sense of weight and as a result appear 'toy like'.

 

I have seen weathered and personalised RTRs depicting specific prototypes at a point in time which I have really liked .... but I would then argue that they are no longer RTR - there is considerable skill in the alterations made.

 

Personally if I were not wishing to make my own models and money was not a stumbling block, I would have any of your kit built offerings over an RTR, they just look more substantial and from the videos have that sense of weight which convinces ..... same goes for much of what I see on this thread.

 

Obviously, when you make your own models (or make your own alterations/weathering of RTR) this trumps all - because of the entertainment of the process and the very real pride and sense of achievement  - irrespective of whether the end result it is as good as other peoples offerings.

[Jon4470]

1 hour ago, Atso said:

 

Researching Hadley Wood naturally developed into an interest in trying to represent a cross section of the trains that ran through it in the 1930's. Suffice to say I was not prepared for the shear scale of the mountain I've now found myself climbing. I think to represent the trains prototypically, one must also understand where the train originated, where it will terminate and what purpose does it serve. I've been interested in steam railways (specifically the LNER) for as long as I can remember and the biggest thing I've learnt so far from my intital research is just how little I actually know! The second thing I've learnt is that it will be impossible to represent more than a tiny fraction of the traffic that passed on a daily basis.

 

In many ways modelling a prototype location is easier as somebody else has already designed the track plan and located all of the features. However, identifying those features can be a bit challenging at times! I'm still trying to work out if the Up signal was still a somersault or an upper quadrant following the 1932 re-signalling works. The Down signal is easy, it is a colour light signal which features in several photographs. The only photograph I've found of the Up signal is from the 1950's, almost twenty years after the period I'm modelling.

 

Hello Steve

 

I totally agree with you about the mountain climbing!

 

I have decided to model a section of line as it was in 1938 ( ish). As a positive, it really helps me to focus on the correct models and resist the temptation to wander aimlessly. On the other hand, I then need to make sure everything is as it was in 1938.....signals, lineside fencing, the woodwork colour on the signal box steps etc.

 

I enjoy the research ( luckily) but it does make me realise how little I really know!

 

Jon

[micklner]

5 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

That depends .....

 

For me RTRs always look plastic, lack any sense of weight and as a result appear 'toy like'.

 

I have seen weathered and personalised RTRs depicting specific prototypes at a point in time which I have really liked .... but I would then argue that they are no longer RTR - there is considerable skill in the alterations made.

 

Personally if I were not wishing to make my own models and money was not a stumbling block, I would have any of your kit built offerings over an RTR, they just look more substantial and from the videos have that sense of weight which convinces ..... same goes for much of what I see on this thread.

 

Obviously, when you make your own models (or make your own alterations/weathering of RTR) this trumps all - because of the entertainment of the process and the very real pride and sense of achievement  - irrespective of whether the end result it is as good as other peoples offerings.

Doesn't really hold water anymore. A lot of r.tr. now being produced has metal boilers, footplates and are heavy e.g Hornby P2 a plastic body and still weighs a ton. Current r.t.r is much much  better moulded than any of the old white metal kits , poor etched kits etc etc. 

 

The problem with 4mm kits are how few are readily available to buy nowdays that are of  good quality, that is as good as current r.t.r, even more so if you are actually modelling a particular era and company, r.t.r.also suffers as everything nowadays is a limited edition in the amount made at least . How many popular r.t.r subjects of say a year ago is still available to buy at any one time .

 

Without eBay my collection would be sparse indeed . 

[Clive Mortimore]

22 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

That depends .....

 

For me RTRs always look plastic, lack any sense of weight and as a result appear 'toy like'.

 

I have seen weathered and personalised RTRs depicting specific prototypes at a point in time which I have really liked .... but I would then argue that they are no longer RTR - there is considerable skill in the alterations made.

 

Personally if I were not wishing to make my own models and money was not a stumbling block, I would have any of your kit built offerings over an RTR, they just look more substantial and from the videos have that sense of weight which convinces ..... same goes for much of what I see on this thread.

 

Obviously, when you make your own models (or make your own alterations/weathering of RTR) this trumps all - because of the entertainment of the process and the very real pride and sense of achievement  - irrespective of whether the end result it is as good as other peoples offerings.

Oi Tim 

 

Some of us model in plastic. Even "Sir" remarked on how heavy my LMS jackshaft 0-6-0 350hp shunter was. 

 

As Mick says some of today's RTR is very good and I don't always seen a need to muck it up by altering it. Would you hack a Sutton Locomotive Works BR/Sulzer Type 2 Bo-Bo about? No need because it is a wonderful model, much better than my Hornby conversions from yesteryear. 

[Jesse Sim]

55 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

I have always thought that modeling a real location is much harder than a made up one, hence why they are a minority pursuit. After all, with a made up location you can invoke the Perfidious rule one every time things get difficult. Good luck on the ECML, it's a bit big. The GC is just about the right size to model a big LNER (and GWR and SR) mainline with far fewer compromises.

 

I should try posting an image of your signal, somebody may be able to identify the period of its construction.

I partly agree with you, I always thought a real location would be difficult. At the same time I was young and just wanted trains, I also have a vivid imagination, I am able to look at a blank board and imagine what I want on it and decide what to do, sometimes it never worked. I laid and ripped up track for a good couple of years, until I actually planned Brighton Junction. I wouldn’t have been able to fit a full size LNER layout into my room with severe compromises, so I took away the LNER and thought GNR. Surely the trains of the early late 1800s and early 1900s were smaller then those of the 1930s, so I created a ficticious GNR Railway set in LNER days and to be honest, it’s worked. I’m still in shock that it’s worked. 

 

My next major project will be a real location, I’m looking towards Welwyn North, Viaduct included!!!! This will take place later in my life when I have the space. A huge purpose built shed is on the menu, luckily enough I have chippy mates who have all agreed, if they’re still fit and not smoking a pack of winfield blues a day, they’ll help me out for a small cost!! 

 

The great thing about a real location is that, you look at a phot and everything’s there. Scale drawings are hard to come by, but I’m sure ill

be able to charm someone into finding some! 

[Jol Wilkinson]

59 minutes ago, micklner said:

"The problem with 4mm kits are how few are readily available to buy nowdays that are of  good quality, that is as good as current r.t.r, even more so if you are actually modelling a particular era and company, r.t.r.also suffers as everything nowadays is a limited edition in the amount made at least . How many popular r.t.r subjects of say a year ago is still available to buy at any one time .

The quality of etched kits depends on what you are modelling.  Etched kits from High Level, Judith Edge, Arthur Kimbers NER Kits, Dave Bradwell, London Road Models, 52F and several others all appear to be well received by RMweb members. The former Martin Finney etched kit range, now available through Brassmasters are reputedly excellent, as are their own designs. Even their old originals LNWR kits make up into excellent models. There are those manufacturers who also produce well received w/m kits including SEF, while DJH seem to have a good following.  I would however agree that some of the "older" w/m kits that are still in production often don't match up to more recent offerings.

 

Of course it may be that the models you specifically want are not available from any of those suppliers. There are some manufacturers whose products do not have a good reputation but I would suggest they are in the minority.

 

The short term availability of some RTR models is possibly a result of the effect of the RTR manufacturers and commissioners targeting the "collectors" section of the hobby, by restricting production volumes of a particular derivative to maximise sales of that version and increase interest/sales of subsequent other, different names/number/livery, versions.

[Northmoor]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Why should anyone (regardless of their experience) pay to see something they can see for nothing in a shop window? 

 

I think you're right that RTR items represent a more-accessible route into the hobby (that's how I started), but surely it's more 'instructive' to show something that's been altered/improved/detailed/etc? That way, the inexperienced modeller can embark on the greatest journey this wonderful hobby has to offer - that of having a go! 

 

Seeing the loco in context - operating on a model railway - sells it much better than on a shelf in a shop window.  In the same way that any number of cars and motorbikes have seen increased sales following (preferably televised) motor sport success, or even because of a well-targeted advert (who doesn't see a Ford Puma and remember Steve McQueen apparently driving one, two decades after his death?).  Which guitar would you want, the nice one in the local music shop, or the same one you watched Eric Clapton play?

 

It's all about advertising and the model manufacturers know that good layouts do their promotion for them.

 

Rob

[mullie]

Modified ready to run and not worth the money it was but who cares. Hornby J15 renumbered as a Norwich loco seen at Wells Next the Sea in 1952, tarpaulin rail from scrap brass and re gauged to EM with Gibson wheels. Still some work to do before it goes to the weathering shop and the garage needs to warm up too.

 

 

Seen on my EM test plank. Water in the foreground still needs finishing.

 

Martyn

[Lecorbusier]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Doesn't really hold water anymore. A lot of r.tr. now being produced has metal boilers, footplates and are heavy e.g Hornby P2 a plastic body and still weighs a ton. Current r.t.r is much much  better moulded than any of the old white metal kits , poor etched kits etc etc. 

 

My reaction is not to do with what the RTR is made of .... more the impression it makes on me. Tony's posted streamliner is a case in point ... to my eye it looks artificial and toy like. If adapted to a given prototype and fully weathered with perhaps some indication of wear and tear .... then I would fully expect the model to pass muster  - but then for me it is no longer RTR .... just my take, nothing more definitive, 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Atso said:

 

Researching Hadley Wood naturally developed into an interest in trying to represent a cross section of the trains that ran through it in the 1930's. Suffice to say I was not prepared for the shear scale of the mountain I've now found myself climbing. I think to represent the trains prototypically, one must also understand where the train originated, where it will terminate and what purpose does it serve. I've been interested in steam railways (specifically the LNER) for as long as I can remember and the biggest thing I've learnt so far from my intital research is just how little I actually know! The second thing I've learnt is that it will be impossible to represent more than a tiny fraction of the traffic that passed on a daily basis.

 

In many ways modelling a prototype location is easier as somebody else has already designed the track plan and located all of the features. However, identifying those features can be a bit challenging at times! I'm still trying to work out if the Up signal was still a somersault or an upper quadrant following the 1932 re-signalling works. The Down signal is easy, it is a colour light signal which features in several photographs. The only photograph I've found of the Up signal is from the 1950's, almost twenty years after the period I'm modelling.

It's a somersault, Steve; or it still was in 1938. The centre picture on page 6 of Yeadon's Register Volume 2, the A4s and the W1 shows it clearly. It's also on the front cover. Willie states SILVER KING is on the UP FS, but it's actually on the Down working. This shows that one should always treat any captions with suspicion. Many of Willie's are incorrect.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Lecorbusier]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Oi Tim 

 

Some of us model in plastic. Even "Sir" remarked on how heavy my LMS jackshaft 0-6-0 350hp shunter was. 

 

As Mick says some of today's RTR is very good and I don't always seen a need to muck it up by altering it. Would you hack a Sutton Locomotive Works BR/Sulzer Type 2 Bo-Bo about? No need because it is a wonderful model, much better than my Hornby conversions from yesteryear. 

Each to their own Clive .... not being prescriptive here. By weight I was not meaning to be literal but visual ... I have seen plastic bodied locos which have a real appearance of weight and solidity.

 

Personally I would always advocate 'Mucking up' RTR .... meaning a thorough weathering and maybe the odd evidence of damage or maintenance. I am not an expert in anything ... but particularly not things diesel/electric etc .....but there does seem to be far less variety and reworking than with the long lived steam classes so major surgery might not be necessary for prototypical appearance.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Lecorbusier

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

My reaction is not to do with what the RTR is made of .... more the impression it makes on me. Tony's posted streamliner is a case in point ... to my eye it looks artificial and toy like. If adapted to a given prototype and fully weathered with perhaps some indication of wear and tear .... then I would fully expect the model to pass muster  - but then for me it is no longer RTR .... just my take, nothing more definitive, 

I'm fully in agreement, Tim,

 

What an RTR loco is made of is rather irrelevant; its overall appearance is the give-away. Many now have metal footplates, but the boilers are still mainly in plastic, and it shows.

 

Your comment about all-metal locos appearing to have weight is entirely apposite. I'm delighted when visitors comment about the prominent mechanical noise which my locos and trains make - a satisfying 'clunk' as they take points/crossings. 

 

Though much-altered RTR locos take them (as you so rightly say) far beyond just 'opening the box', that's still what they are at 'heart'. They never sound 'heavy' and, apart from the likes of Hornby's P2, are never able to haul the weight of train a soundly-built, metal kit loco can manage. Not only that, I wonder how long the more modern RTR steam-outline locos will last. Earlier split chassis ones are falling apart in epidemic proportions, and the more recent ones display split gears or crumbling gear towers. Not good. 

 

Clearly, there is merit in improving and altering RTR locos, but it's not for me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Northmoor]

12 hours ago, Headstock said:

We as a hobby seem to becoming experts at observing scenery and turning a blind eye to the railway.

I have seen plenty of exhibition layouts with locomotives 50 miles from their likely prototype operating area or in the wrong livery, but I have seen considerably more:

- thatched cottages in Yorkshire

- Cumbrian Fells or Scottish Highland backscenes, in rural Sussex

- railways deliberately routed through the nearest hill instead of round it

- roads descending at 1 in 3 from overbridges in flat landscapes

- rivers not at the lowest point of a landscape

.... and many other examples.

 

Rob

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Ian Smeeton said:

 

Not sure how many he has built, but it is quite a few! Many from scratch, rather than kits.

 

Had the pleasure of his company at a 2mm area group recently, and 'Mons Meg' in the flesh is quite something.

 

Regards

 

Ian

I'm a great admirer of Tim's work, Ian,

 

My point was not to boast (my apologies if it came over that way) but to point out that pragmatism comes in when building so many outside valve gear locos.

 

What have I scratch-built down the years? The A1/1, two A2/2s, an A2/3, a K1, the K1/1, a K4 (now wrecked) and an O1 (probably others). Not many, I know, but all had outside valve gear. I started to scratch-build after seeing the (great) work of Mike Edge, and listening to the late Brian van Meeteren, over 40 years ago now!  

 

Regards,

 

Tony.