Wright writes.....

[ardbealach]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

A glance at two current mainstream magazines just now reveal layouts which would be just about impossible to work if they were real, bridges which would collapse if a train ever went over them, the old chestnut of no lamps, gross couplings protruding from beneath loco buffer beams, curves on visible running lines which wouldn't even be tolerated on a dockyard, non-working semaphores (or if they work, it must be by magic!), trackwork so wonky that even the crudest wheelsets would derail, ballast with lumps larger than an obese bloke's torso, more platforms so high that all carriage doors would have to open inwards (in my pictures!), 'mining subsidence' where the nearest pit is 100 miles away and numerous other examples where 'realism' is completely compromised. 

 

 

 

I cannot disagree with your comments, Tony, but we are today in the age of instant gratification.  If you cannot do it - whatever you are doing - to perfection right away then the attitude is to move on to something else.  Sit down at a piano for the first time and expect to play any sort of tune is a disaster, it takes many hours - even years -  of practice.  Railway modelling also takes years of commitment to achieve an acceptable standard.  As they say in Scotland - railway modelling is like linoleum - you need a 'flair' for it.

 

At one time Railway Modeller carried the strap line 'For the average modeller'.  Many layouts featured in the magazine do just that.  They show what the average modeller can achieve with a bit of time, patience and an understanding of the subject.  If the bar is too high on those layouts illustrated then perhaps many prospective modellers might be put off producing anything.  

 

As the responder to your RM February 2019 article, my letter (AM) was printed in the March 2019 RM.  Like yourself I am at a loss to understand the further correspondence on the topic in the latest May 2019 issue of the magazine.  In particular the letter from Mr.Prince and his remarks on 'how Mr.Macdonald manages to avail his trains to pick real passengers' left me scratching my head.  For the record my layout 'Whithorn' (RM March 2018)  is based on the real location in SW Scotland.  The branch was closed to passenger services in 1950, having never made a profit.  So the chances of my trains picking up, or setting down passengers were probably very limited!    Who knows holograms might be the answer - after all when I started modelling back in the late 1950's who would have predicted DCC sound! (AM)

Edited April 11, 2019 by ardbealach

[grahame]

1 hour ago, ardbealach said:

 

 If the bar is too high on those layouts illustrated then perhaps many prospective modellers might be put off producing anything.  

 

 

I've heard that (or similar) said before and wonder if it is sometimes used as an excuse for not undertaking any constructional modelling or bothering to practice and learn. For me seeing high quality layouts is an inspiration and a reason to try harder to develop as a better modeller. It is certainly not a turn off (at least for me).

 

G. 

[Barry Ten]

I thought I'd put my money where my mouth is and try a mirror shot of my station:

 

 

This is shot into a mirror placed facing the desired view, with the mirror tilted back at a slight angle (and resting on a bottle of PVA!). Once I'd taken the shot, I flipped and cropped it using GIMP. It's a cruelly-low shot which wouldn't be possible by other means but does show up some things that need attention, such as the lean on that pannier's body. which isn't sitting level on its chassis. 

 

In this case the mirror was sitting with its lower edge on the rails, but the same thing could be done with it resting on the platform surface.

[Enterprisingwestern]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I pointed out to the layout builder the error of the signal box name font when I was taking the pictures, John.

 

He honestly didn't know. Lack of observation? Lack of prototype research? Not bothered? Who knows? 

 

Without being defensive, what should I have done? I was commissioned to photograph the layout, and I did. Is that where my responsibility ends? My brief, as always, was to provide photographs of good enough quality to publish without degradation. I think I satisfied that brief. Should I have not taking any views with the signal box in them? That would have been rather limiting to say the least. 

 

I probably am out of step now with the way the hobby is 'portrayed' in the printed media nowadays (with the exception of the MRJ). 

 

A glance at two current mainstream magazines just now reveal layouts which would be just about impossible to work if they were real, bridges which would collapse if a train ever went over them, the old chestnut of no lamps, gross couplings protruding from beneath loco buffer beams, curves on visible running lines which wouldn't even be tolerated on a dockyard, non-working semaphores (or if they work, it must be by magic!), trackwork so wonky that even the crudest wheelsets would derail, ballast with lumps larger than an obese bloke's torso, more platforms so high that all carriage doors would have to open inwards (in my pictures!), 'mining subsidence' where the nearest pit is 100 miles away and numerous other examples where 'realism' is completely compromised. 

 

Yet, there are some real gems in there as well. 

 

Perhaps it always was the case.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I'm with you on this one.

Show me the perfect layout.

 

Mike.

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

He honestly didn't know. Lack of observation? Lack of prototype research? Not bothered? Who knows? 

That's the bit I don't get Tony. In every other respect the layout was very good. He must have looked at many photos of the prototype and other nearby localities to get that level of realism so not knowing doesn't make sense. Ignoring, or not caring, would be different.

 

I'll stop now before someone picks holes in my work and I'm hoist by my own petard...

[cctransuk]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I probably am out of step now with the way the hobby is 'portrayed' in the printed media nowadays (with the exception of the MRJ). 

 

 

Tony,

 

Being out of step is a wise precaution when crossing some of the more dubiously engineered bridges, increasingly seen in the model press !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, ardbealach said:

 

I cannot disagree with your comments, Tony, but we are today in the age of instant gratification.  If you cannot do it - whatever you are doing - to perfection right away then the attitude is to move on to something else.  Sit down at a piano for the first time and expect to play any sort of tune is a disaster, it takes many hours - even years -  of practice.  Railway modelling also takes years of commitment to achieve an acceptable standard.  As they say in Scotland - railway modelling is like linoleum - you need a 'flair' for it.

 

At one time Railway Modeller carried the strap line 'For the average modeller'.  Many layouts featured in the magazine do just that.  They show what the average modeller can achieve with a bit of time, patience and an understanding of the subject.  If the bar is too high on those layouts illustrated then perhaps many prospective modellers might be put off producing anything.  

 

As the responder to your RM February 2019 article, my letter (AM) was printed in the March 2019 RM.  Like yourself I am at a loss to understand the further correspondence on the topic in the latest May 2019 issue of the magazine.  In particular the letter from Mr.Prince and his remarks on 'how Mr.Macdonald manages to avail his trains to pick real passengers' left me scratching my head.  For the record my layout 'Whithorn' (RM March 2018)  is based on the real location in SW Scotland.  The branch was closed to passenger services in 1950, having never made a profit.  So the chances of my trains picking up, or setting down passengers were probably very limited!    Who knows holograms might be the answer - after all when I started modelling back in the late 1950's who would have predicted DCC sound! (AM)

Many thanks for your comments.

 

I'm sure you realise I was asked to make my original article 'typical Wright'. 

 

I really thought the whole thing was finished, with 'arguments' on all sides settled.

 

I think you're right in that layouts built to the 'highest standards' can be intimidating, even off-putting. Instead of being 'inspirational', they rather crush the observer's aspirations as he/she decides that he'll/she'll never get anywhere near those standards. But, they can also be the spur to lift a modeller's abilities and thus produce something of great merit (providing that that modeller is prepared to have a go, of course). 

 

Yet, how hard can it be to look at a real bridge and understand that it's built in a certain way to prevent it collapsing under load? Or, look at how a real railway planned/organised/did/ran things? What font did a railway use for its signage? How hard is it lop off a horrid coupling? How difficult is it to look at a prototype picture of a passenger platform and work out that none is higher than the middle of a buffer? Is it impossible to drill small holes in the base of lamps, fill them with Blu Tak and stick them (as appropriate) on to the brackets of a loco? Or, stick lamps on to the rear of a train? Is it the work of a gifted person to figure out that most signal boxes are parallel to the tracks they control (because cranks work best at 90 degrees?) and not placed at an angle because 'it looks more interesting'? So much more interesting that it required the building of a retaining wall into a cutting to accommodate it! Why do so many not know that signals must work and that they are safety devices - sited so that they protect what's ahead of them?

 

Are all the above questions asked by the majority of railway modellers? Or, are they only asked by 'nutters' like me? 

 

I'll stand by (and defend) the right of anyone to please themselves in their railway modelling. They can run what they like, be as unrealistic as possible and, above all, have fun. However, if work is put on show via whatever media, then shouldn't there be a greater responsibility to 'get things right'? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Clive Mortimore]

54 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

I'm with you on this one.

Show me the perfect layout.

 

Mike.

Hi Mike

 

The layout the owner enjoys operating and modelling.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Barry Ten said:

I thought I'd put my money where my mouth is and try a mirror shot of my station:

 

 

This is shot into a mirror placed facing the desired view, with the mirror tilted back at a slight angle (and resting on a bottle of PVA!). Once I'd taken the shot, I flipped and cropped it using GIMP. It's a cruelly-low shot which wouldn't be possible by other means but does show up some things that need attention, such as the lean on that pannier's body. which isn't sitting level on its chassis. 

 

In this case the mirror was sitting with its lower edge on the rails, but the same thing could be done with it resting on the platform surface.

Very effective, Al,

 

I'm not sure I'll use a mirror, but I've been squeezing my Behemoth of a camera into a few more tight corners.

 

 

Seen from the end of the Down island platform, the solitary (and rather unhappy) Thompson A1/1 GREAT NORTHERN heads its normal morning Doncaster-Kings Cross service. I built the loco from a Crownline kit, and Ian Rathbone painted it (as he did all the other Pacifics in the following shots). Tony Geary and I built the train. 

 

 

DANTE again, built by me from a DJH kit (this time with its coupling straight). It's taking empty stock alongside the Down slow platform face. 

 

 

'I'm' about to take a going-away-shot of Class A2/3 60516 HYCILLA (DJH/Wright/Rathbone) as she (and it is named after a filly) races south with an Up Newcastle service. 

 

 

Taken from the 'footbridge steps', Archie Brown's new K3 gets one more run on LB before departing for the north. 

 

 

Well over 40 years older than the K3, my ancient Nu-Cast O2/3 plods south on full minerals. 

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, do some modellers never look at the relationship between platforms and what runs past them? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[woodenhead]

How can this, with 'horrid coupling', not be seen as anything but inspirational modelling of a very high standard to be seen at exhibitions and in print.

 

On 08/04/2019 at 15:20, NHY 581 said:

Another Norman Lockhart image of Mutton. 

 

Rob 

 

I spent Saturday at Scalefour North, looking at the wonderful models people have built - I went expecting the highest standards and got it.

 

But if I go to a Wigan, a BRM or Model Rail exhibition I might expect more of a mix of layout standards, the exhibition needs to inspire yes, it needs to entertain yes but it also needs to represent the average modeller as much as the more exacting modeller otherwise those average modellers are going to turn away.

 

I will happily give plaudits to any excellent modelling I see, what I won't do and I think is unfair is to do is criticise other people's modelling at an exhibition - if it isn't for you walk on by, don't remark that it has the wrong couplings, or that bridge won't stand up or that road is too narrow.

Edited April 11, 2019 by woodenhead
remove an odd 41 text box

[Hroth]

4 hours ago, grahame said:

 

I have to admit that I do notice 'errors' on layouts that irk me. They are probably less about railway practice, as I'm still learning and lacking knowledge, but practical things like the doors on carriages not being able to open at platforms. Also things that are unfeasible, impossible or very unlikely to occur in real life. Such as incredibly narrow roads with buses on them that would never get around the hairpin bends modelled. And houses with no access to them.

 

G.

 

I'll see your roads and raise you depictions of canals......

 

Oh and A or B class roads that approach overbridges at what appears to be somewhat steeper than 1:10.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

 

I will happily give plaudits to any excellent modelling I see, what I won't do and I think is unfair is to do is criticise other people's modelling at an exhibition - if it isn't for you walk on by, don't remark that it has the wrong couplings, or that bridge won't stand up or that road is too narrow.

Sound sentiments,

 

However, I think if someone has been invited to pay to see an exhibit (which is what a model railway show is), then don't observers have a right to be 'critical' of what they see as being wrong? 

 

I'm not talking about different scale 'standards' in modelling here, but, if things don't run, then shouldn't spectators be critical? If a layout is riddled with anomalies (either through ignorance or indolence), then the modellers who built it will not learn or develop their skills if nobody points out any errors. 

 

I've learned a lot down my years exhibiting because many very helpful folk have been 'critical' of what I'm showing. They've pointed out errors and mistakes (for which I'm grateful); not in a sneaky, sniping way but in the true spirit of constructive criticism. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[KNP]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Kevin,

 

Many thanks. However, you must remember to whom you're talking. 

 

Tony Wright being able to use a compact camera and a mobile phone? I think not.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It is a lot simpler than you think.

For donkey years I never bothered and then when I retired I was talked into having a 'hand me down' iPhone instead of an aged Nokia 6310 (known by the family as 'the brick'), with some teaching from my son/daughter, a handwritten idiots guide written by them and it all became rather easy, now its second nature.

Old dog, new tricks come to mind!!!!

Now with a compact I can place the camera where my Nikon D7000 could only dream of being - plus I don't demolish sections of the layout in trying to get the camera angle anymore.

 

[The Stationmaster]

24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Sound sentiments,

 

However, I think if someone has been invited to pay to see an exhibit (which is what a model railway show is), then don't observers have a right to be 'critical' of what they see as being wrong? 

 

I'm not talking about different scale 'standards' in modelling here, but, if things don't run, then shouldn't spectators be critical? If a layout is riddled with anomalies (either through ignorance or indolence), then the modellers who built it will not learn or develop their skills if nobody points out any errors. 

 

I've learned a lot down my years exhibiting because many very helpful folk have been 'critical' of what I'm showing. They've pointed out errors and mistakes (for which I'm grateful); not in a sneaky, sniping way but in the true spirit of constructive criticism. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

But sometimes woe betide you if you do.  a few years ago at a relatively local exhibition (I'll not say which one of the several) I was watching a GW branch terminus layout with almost correct signalling and a freight train arrived at the terminus - worked to the wrong line in the wrong way for such an arrival.  I duly explained to my daughter, not all loudly - who regularly accompanied me to shows - what had been done incorrectly and how it should have been done but somebody on the layout overheard what I said and took considerable exception to my critique of their operating methods.  They apparently had no interest at all in operating the layout like the sort of railway it purported to be.

 

In complete contrast talking at a show to those operating a layout well known on RMweb I explained that what they really needed to do to make things look right when crossing trains at a station on a single line was so & so and so & so - then their operating would look as good as their modelling.  They listened and took onboard what I had explained - and henceforth every time I came across the layout at a show trains were crossed as they should be in the real world, and the layout looked all the better for it.

[Chamby]

Hi Tony,

 

Having been through a learning experience with point rodding, you are now in a different place and maybe in time you will come to view point rodding as essential as locomotive lamps, in portraying a chosen location accurately.  Does that invalidate LB as a fine model in its pre-rodded state?  Not a jot.  It’s just at an earlier state in its development.

 

Other modellers have still to make that sort of transition with regard to tension lock couplings, locomotive lamps, signal box names, etc. etc.  I think of myself here, not all that long ago!  They are not so far down their learning curve as you, perhaps.  Does that invalidate their modelling efforts?  Not a jot.

 

I have a good friend who is very happy with his growing ‘train set’.  He knows that it is far from prototypical, but gets a huge amount of pleasure out of it, as do those who visit the wonderland in his train shed.  It’s not for me, but each to his own... as long as people are honest about their creations.  

 

Phil.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Chamby
Clarification

[woodenhead]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Sound sentiments,

 

However, I think if someone has been invited to pay to see an exhibit (which is what a model railway show is), then don't observers have a right to be 'critical' of what they see as being wrong? 

 

I'm not talking about different scale 'standards' in modelling here, but, if things don't run, then shouldn't spectators be critical? If a layout is riddled with anomalies (either through ignorance or indolence), then the modellers who built it will not learn or develop their skills if nobody points out any errors. 

 

I've learned a lot down my years exhibiting because many very helpful folk have been 'critical' of what I'm showing. They've pointed out errors and mistakes (for which I'm grateful); not in a sneaky, sniping way but in the true spirit of constructive criticism. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

If you've paid and don't like the exhibits, blame the organisers not the modellers - they've been invited so someone has chosen their layout to be of the type they want at their exhibition.

 

Pointing out anomalies needs to come with the spirit  of the railway being modelled, the finer the standard then the more acceptable it would be to offer constructive views, I don't doubt you have the best intentions.  But a lot of people see it as almost sport to pull someone else's work apart.

 

At Scalefour north they were a couple of chaps with niggles over Port Merryn, something about a forward facing point lock - whilst at the same time one of them was actually leaning on the layout's scenery.  Someone else criticised a single coach train hauled by a West Country, 'that wouldn't be on the ACE' he said,  if he had bothered to look at the description of the train he would have seen it was mean to be a local service using the locomotive from the ACE to keep the crew busy.  There was something similar at Stafford this year, a group sniggering at something on a layout and it really annoyed me, they were next seen at another nearby railway where they were at it again.  Sneering at other people's work is downright rude, at Stafford it actually ruined my day.

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

On the subject of "quality" at exhibitions, We're going round in circles yet again, we had this discussion a while back.

Some of us maintain that as railway modelling is a broad church then exhibitions are a reflection of that very fact, you do not, IMHO, pay your entrance fee for the ability to criticise what is laid out before you.

 

Mike.

[grahame]

5 hours ago, woodenhead said:

 

I will happily give plaudits to any excellent modelling I see, what I won't do and I think is unfair is to do is criticise other people's modelling at an exhibition - if it isn't for you walk on by, don't remark that it has the wrong couplings, or that bridge won't stand up or that road is too narrow.

 

The comment about 'too narrow' roads was one that I made and this appears to be critical of me for simply noticing it. I said that it irks me; I didn't say that I point out mistakes or openly criticise fellow modellers at exhibitions. One can only 'walk on by' having seen the errors and noticed things that irk. I drew attention to it here, not at an exhibition and I haven't named any layouts.

 

G.

Edited April 11, 2019 by grahame

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

If you've paid and don't like the exhibits, blame the organisers not the modellers - they've been invited so someone has chosen their layout to be of the type they want at their exhibition.

 

Pointing out anomalies needs to come with the spirit  of the railway being modelled, the finer the standard then the more acceptable it would be to offer constructive views, I don't doubt you have the best intentions.  But a lot of people see it as almost sport to pull someone else's work apart.

 

At Scalefour north they were a couple of chaps with niggles over Port Merryn, something about a forward facing point lock - whilst at the same time one of them was actually leaning on the layout's scenery.  Someone else criticised a single coach train hauled by a West Country, 'that wouldn't be on the ACE' he said,  if he had bothered to look at the description of the train he would have seen it was mean to be a local service using the locomotive from the ACE to keep the crew busy.  There was something similar at Stafford this year, a group sniggering at something on a layout and it really annoyed me, they were next seen at another nearby railway where they were at it again.  Sneering at other people's work is downright rude, at Stafford it actually ruined my day.

 

If my intentions (best or not) appear to some that I'm indulging in the 'sport' of pulling others' work apart, then all I can say is either I'm totally hopeless at expressing myself or folk don't understand what I'm on about - or is that cause and effect?

 

Sometimes I think to myself, just stuff the lot. 

 

Why should I spend hours and hours at shows explaining how I do things, demonstrating to questioners how they might improve their modelling, offering 'constructive' criticism of what they bring to show me and helping them with their modelling? Not just empty gestures, but having folk here at my home giving them one-to-one tuition. Should I spare their feelings when what they've produced is less than they're capable of? Should I tell lies by saying something is excellent when clearly it's not? How do folk learn without learning from their mistakes? 

 

I certainly don't have all the answers (far from it) but having built near-500 locos, might I be in a position to offer advice and 'criticism' with regard to loco building? Having attended hundreds of shows operating a variety of layouts, might someone with experience in that field be in a good position to offer advice on, say, good running? Or, fidelity to prototype?

 

Can nobody these days express an honest opinion without someone being 'offended'? If I've got things wrong, I expect folk to tell me. I don't say 'get stuffed' to those who write in pointing out the occasional errors in the books or articles I've written. 

 

Though this might seem extreme, if we just become a hobby where accuracy to prototype, good running, real railway observation, challenging and complex projects, careful work and constructive criticism are things to be cast aside on the altar of being inclusive and not wishing to hurt the feelings of anybody, then I'll cheerfully pull up the metaphorical drawbridge and just do my own thing. 

 

As I've alluded to, I have no time for those who just snigger and sneer at the work of others, especially those who've never made anything themselves. I learned (from the late George Pring) that the style of tiles/slates on Stoke Summit's signal box were wrong. I changed them. I learned that my Queen of Scots had a car in the wrong place in its formation. It doesn't now. I learned from Steve Hall that the Bradford cars were at the rear of The West Riding, not the front. Where do you think they are now? I'll never stop learning and needing to correct my mistakes. How? By being told what's wrong! 

 

If you think I'm sneering, then you're miles wide of the mark. If we've met and I've spoken to you and if that's the impression I've given, then my first paragraph of this response applies. You know me. It would be nice if I knew who you were. 

 

Right now, because of responses such as yours, I'm not far off saying 'That's it!' I'll just build what I want, work with like-minded friends, enjoy my hobby without offending anyone and actually achieve a lot more on a personal modelling level.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Tony Wright]

32 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

On the subject of "quality" at exhibitions, We're going round in circles yet again, we had this discussion a while back.

Some of us maintain that as railway modelling is a broad church then exhibitions are a reflection of that very fact, you do not, IMHO, pay your entrance fee for the ability to criticise what is laid out before you.

 

Mike.

We have Mike,

 

However, what would you think if two identical RTR locos, just bought by two different people, were placed on a layout and ran for the duration without being altered/improved/detailed/renumbered/renamed? I witnessed this some little time ago at a large show. I did 'criticise' that situation, or explained that I thought it might be better if one were to be altered. Was I wrong? The response I got was 'They'll lose their value'. I walked away!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[woodenhead]

I don't think you are sneering Tony, not at all but it is something I witness time and time again at exhibitions and it irks me.  If i was giving the impression I thought you were sneering then I apologise profusely.

 

The people you spend time with at exhibitions, who sit with you on your stands choose to ask questions and take on board the experience you have to offer.  Likewise those people who have one on one tuition they have invited your opinion, but others may be happy with how their layout looks and operates as it suits them that way.

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I don't think you are sneering Tony, not at all but it is something I witness time and time again at exhibitions and it irks me.  If i was giving the impression I thought you were sneering then I apologise profusely.

 

The people you spend time with at exhibitions, who sit with you on your stands choose to ask questions and take on board the experience you have to offer.  Likewise those people who have one on one tuition they have invited your opinion, but others may be happy with how their layout looks and operates as it suits them that way.

I don't think I could agree more with you, though there is no need to apologise.

 

My main point (and I stick by it) is if a modeller's (or modellers') work is put on display at a show or appears in print (for which folk have either paid to see it or bought a magazine - or both), then I think there is a responsibility to get things as 'right' as possible. 

 

I don't have the slightest problem with folk pleasing themselves how they wish in this hobby, but if other people see their work and (in ignorance) copy what's wrong, I don't believe that's right. Nor ever will.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Enterprisingwestern]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

We have Mike,

 

However, what would you think if two identical RTR locos, just bought by two different people, were placed on a layout and ran for the duration without being altered/improved/detailed/renumbered/renamed? I witnessed this some little time ago at a large show. I did 'criticise' that situation, or explained that I thought it might be better if one were to be altered. Was I wrong? The response I got was 'They'll lose their value'. I walked away!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

With respect, your opinion counts for nothing in that situation.

What if they did that, are they not allowed to enjoy the hobby in the way they see fit?

We, (and I use the royal we), have no right to impose our standards and wishes upon others. If advice were sought, then that is a different scenario, but to "criticise" others because they don't confirm to our percieved standard is just plain wrong, and could even drive people away from the hobby.

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Chamby said:

Hi Tony,

 

Having been through a learning experience with point rodding, you are now in a different place and maybe in time you will come to view point rodding as essential as locomotive lamps, in portraying a chosen location accurately.  Does that invalidate LB as a fine model in its pre-rodded state?  Not a jot.  It’s just at an earlier state in its development.

 

Other modellers have still to make that sort of transition with regard to tension lock couplings, locomotive lamps, signal box names, etc. etc.  I think of myself here, not all that long ago!  They are not so far down their learning curve as you, perhaps.  Does that invalidate their modelling efforts?  Not a jot.

 

I have a good friend who is very happy with his growing ‘train set’.  He knows that it is far from prototypical, but gets a huge amount of pleasure out of it, as do those who visit the wonderland in his train shed.  It’s not for me, but each to his own... as long as people are honest about their creations.  

 

Phil.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Phil,

 

By the way, for the last 30 years I've considered point rodding as an essential for any layout. I made it for Stoke Summit, and had started making it for Charwelton. It's just there are 'miles' of it on LB!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

With respect, your opinion counts for nothing in that situation.

What if they did that, are they not allowed to enjoy the hobby in the way they see fit?

We, (and I use the royal we), have no right to impose our standards and wishes upon others. If advice were sought, then that is a different scenario, but to "criticise" others because they don't confirm to our percieved standard is just plain wrong, and could even drive people away from the hobby.

 

Mike.

I should have perhaps mentioned that I was privileged to be a judge on the occasion mentioned. And, I was invited to express my views.