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

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

If you total the wagons produced by Malcolm Crawley, Ken Hill and me (around 400) then add those produced by Mick Moore (around 350)and those on Retford from various sources, there will be well over 1,000. They are mostly kitbuilt but with a handful of scratchbuilt ones and a reasonable number of RTR types too.

 

I can't speak for whether or not the RTR ones still carry identical numbers on Retford as I had little to do with them but every single wagon from a kit or from scratch carries the correct number and the correct livery as far as we know. All apart from 3 or 4 "jokey" private owner liveries such as "Norton's Nuts and Cobbles". That was a gentle dig at the late George Norton by the late Malcolm Crawley as a response to "Crawley Scrap" from George (say it quickly!). I don't think you would ever get Geoff Kent building a meticulously researched wagon and just blobbing some spots on the side. 

 

If the information is available (which it nearly always is) and the correct transfers can be obtained (which they nearly always can) it is just as easy putting the right number on as a wrong one.

 

If it was a carriage in a named express, or the loco on "The Elizabethan" on LB, it would be researched down to the Nth degree to be made correct for the period.

 

Some of us accord the same attention to the humble goods wagon. Apart from anything else, a wagon in a goods yard will be "on scene" and standing still for much longer than an express and is therefore likely to be viewed much more than a train tearing by at 80mph.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the main, I can't disagree with anything you say, Tony,

 

However, comparing 'humble' goods wagons with the likes of 'The Elizabethan' doesn't make much sense to me. I'll explain...................

 

Stock for the 'Lizzie' was very limited, and exclusive. Some three sets were built (originally for the 1948 'Flying Scotsman'), so fewer than 40 cars. What do you say? Over 1,000 wagons. I take my hat off to you (and the others) for getting them all correctly-numbered. But how many folk will know if they're right or wrong? 

 

I'm not making excuses for inaccuracy, but if the 'Lizzie' numbers on the cars I'd made/painted were wrong, quite a large number of modellers would spot them instantly. As for the loco, well? I have three A4s rostered for the non-stop on LB; 60024, 60027 and 60032. Of course (as you allude to) I've made sure they're appropriate, but if I, say, jumbled up the names so that 60024 became GANNET and 60027 became KINGFISHER, just about every observer would say 'Just a minute!' 

 

As for the humble goods locomotive. For years I ran what I thought was an O4/3 - a ROD. I made it and chose what I thought was a suitable number, only to discover that years later I'd numbered it as an O4/1 - an ex-GC 8K. The difference? The O4/1s were vacuum-braked and had water pick-up gear. During those years, it ran on Fordley Park, Leighford, Stoke Summit and Charwelton, and finally Little Bytham (though it's now corrected). How many folk spotted that it was wrong at all those shows? None! Yet, when someone brought along a Doncaster-built A1 (with visible rivets) which he'd numbered as a Darlington-built one, it was very rapidly altered! 

 

I've now had hundreds of visitors to see LB (it's been my privilege indeed). Many wagons are 'on scene' (some are always 'on scene'). Yet, despite my not knowing whether any numbers on them are right or wrong (I assume those built by others are right), out of all the hundreds of visitors only one has questioned whether a wagon number was correct (on a van built by a mate). I later checked, and it was right!

 

I also don't think it's as easy to put the right number on a wagon as it is to put the wrong number on a wagon. Physically, yes - if the two transfers are side by side and you know which is right. But what happens if some research is lacking (or contradictory)? It's dead easy to put the wrong number on then!  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time back I acquired a 4 Bachmann Mk1 suburban stock.  All had a M prefix and the two brakes had the same number.  Simple solution but O so Wrong, removed the M and replaced it with an E from a transfer sheet, removed the last number from one of the brakes and put on a similar sized number from an old transfer sheet.  Works for me and I am willing to bet that nobody will ever click to what has been done

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave Hunt said:

Tony,

 

Many, many thanks for your hospitality today and for showing me how well LB runs (I wasn't going to mention the derailment on the M&GNR - honestly!). It goes to show how attention to the accuracy of trackwork and stock can achieve superb running that would be the envy of more than a few modellers I know and breaking Mallard's record with impunity through all that pointwork is admirable to say the least! Even apart from watching the trains run, though, just looking at the layout itself, the myriad details and cameos and the stock makes for a rewarding day. I must say, though, that it could do with a few more locomotives - it must be awkward trying to manage with just a couple of hundred!

 

Dave   

Thanks Dave,

 

And also thank you for commenting on the 'consistency' of the modelling all round. A tribute to the team which built it, indeed.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Not at all,

 

However, does anyone know if the wagon numbers in these two trains are correct? 

 

1397364678_O4and9Fpassing.jpg.3f650d56ce5d56189fa57a77208b7c39.jpg

 

This is a 'normal' viewing distance for visitors to Little Bytham. Note the next-but-last wagon to the right. Built by a friend 40 years ago, its number is just hand-done. 

 

John Houlden used to hand-number some of his wagons on Gamston. At exhibition-viewing distances, who could tell?

 

1145863438_Gamston1503.jpg.f2fd7a8fd9b846db228fd05a5b8e8db6.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I used to hand-letter and -number my wagons years ago, before the likes of Woodhead transfers became available, using a 0.1mm Rotring pen and white ink. Many of them are still in service. I also made sure they all had different numbers (whether they were all prototypical is a different question) as that was necessary for the wagon routing system I used at that time. With the passage of the years, meaning that it's harder to read the numbers, and also the larger layout I have now I've changed that system so it doesn't matter any more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I also don't think it's as easy to put the right number on a wagon as it is to put the wrong number on a wagon.

 

Nope, sorry Tony, but that is not the case nowadays. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the volume of detailed research that has been published concerning wagons WAY exceeds that devoted to coaches.

 

How do you think that I manage to produce a very broad range of wagon transfers which, unless someone cares to contradict me, provides prototypical markings for wagons within the period that you model? How? - almost exclusively from the writings and on-line postings of a body of dedicated enthusiasts, who devoted just as much time to studying the intricacies of wagons as others have devoted to the minutiae of locos of the LNER.

 

I do accept that, in your scheme of priorities, wagons are very much 'third class'; but that is probably because you subconsciously recognise that your time on this mortal coil is insufficient to produce Little Bytham, and stock it with locos, coaching stock, NPCCS and wagons all to the same standard of accuracy. That's fine, but I'm afraid that it is not true that it is difficult to get it right when it comes to wagons; it just requires the same level of dedication, (and investment in reference material), as making sure that the wash-out plugs on a Gresley Pacific are in the correct position.

 

We all have our self-imposed 'red lines'; some of us include authentic numbering of freight stock.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little excuse for getting it totally wrong nowadays though. There are numerous books on rolling stock and the magazines often have decent pictures and articles in them. Plenty of information on the internet as well.

 

It also helps that we have manufacturers who make good quality transfers that you don't have to make up the numbers by cutting them up. If you want twenty diagram 1/108 mineral wagon numbers then you can just buy a packet of them. If you want different numbers then try one of the other manufacturers as they are usually different.

 

Mineral wagon transfers by Modelmaster. Just an example, other manufacturers make transfers.

 

https://modelmaster.uk/search?controller=search&orderby=position&orderway=desc&search_query=mineral&submit=Search

 

The same goes for carriages. If you want a packet for BR Eastern Region Mark Ones. Modelmaster also do them. No messing about with individual transfers.

 

As an example.

 

https://modelmaster.uk/4mm-br-1948-1965-coaching-stock-decals/22848-mm4405-fifty-br-standard-coaches-e-prefixes-yellow.html

 

BR Suburban's as mentioned above?

 

There you are.

 

https://modelmaster.uk/4mm-br-1948-1965-coaching-stock-decals/2002-mm4420-numbering-lettering-for-576-br-standard-suburban-coaches-yellow.html

 

 

I hasten to add, I'm just a very average modeller trying to get things right. Mostly using readily available things. Why spoil a decent model for a few pennies?

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

They're very convincing, Steve,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

However, the prototypes weren't always that clean. 

 

 

 

A steel-sided twin BSK/SK at Gamston in 1961.

 

 

 

My Tourist BSO might be a bit cleaner than this one.

 

Most ECML steam-age passenger rolling sock seemed to be kept clean, though. Note the different finishes in the following pictures, but the film emulsions of the day need to be taken into account.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone, please observe copyright restrictions on the above.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed so.  But you can see the reflections on the red sides of quite a lot of the coaches in those lovely pictures!


I'm off to renumber an A4, I think I've got 60532 on a transfer sheet somewhere .... :D

 

  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Nope, sorry Tony, but that is not the case nowadays. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the volume of detailed research that has been published concerning wagons WAY exceeds that devoted to coaches.

 

How do you think that I manage to produce a very broad range of wagon transfers which, unless someone cares to contradict me, provides prototypical markings for wagons within the period that you model? How? - almost exclusively from the writings and on-line postings of a body of dedicated enthusiasts, who devoted just as much time to studying the intricacies of wagons as others have devoted to the minutiae of locos of the LNER.

 

I do accept that, in your scheme of priorities, wagons are very much 'third class'; but that is probably because you subconsciously recognise that your time on this mortal coil is insufficient to produce Little Bytham, and stock it with locos, coaching stock, NPCCS and wagons all to the same standard of accuracy. That's fine, but I'm afraid that it is not true that it is difficult to get it right when it comes to wagons; it just requires the same level of dedication, (and investment in reference material), as making sure that the wash-out plugs on a Gresley Pacific are in the correct position.

 

We all have our self-imposed 'red lines'; some of us include authentic numbering of freight stock.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I take your point entirely, John,

 

And thanks for making it.

 

My explanation was lacking to some degree in that I didn't mention the period of time I was speaking of. Many of my wagons/vans on LB are over 40 years old. Most kit-built ones are at least 30. A large number has been built by friends, some of whom are now deceased (so I can't now ask them where they got their information). 

 

I accept that the collective volume of knowledge regarding wagons is now enormous, but 40+ years ago? There's no way I'm going through my 300+-strong wagon/van fleet checking that all the numbers are correct. As you say 'mortal coil' and 'third class' come to mind (though the physical modelling of the wagons is 'top class' in many cases). 

 

And, it's through the likes of your good self that the hobby is so well-served with accurate transfers today. I hope folk use them. They should.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just done some more checking, and I'm not the only one to incorrectly number an ex-GC 2-8-0.

 

551093369_TGO43.jpg.f265073101b309dd28e17e1a92006c07.jpg

 

When dear friend, Tony Geary moved to O Gauge, he sold-off all his OO Gauge stuff. It was so good that I bought some of it. Including this Little Engines O4. Isn't it beautifully-natural? Except that it's been numbered as an O4/3, a ROD!

 

With that number, it should be an O4/1 (an original GC 8K 2-8-0 with vacuum ejector, vacuum standpipe and water pick-up gear - though the last-mentioned was latterly removed in some cases).

 

230227222_JBO4102.jpg.efffca1bbb58954b2c3b2104d8e9f356.jpg

 

This is an O4/1; note those detailed differences. (Builder unknown, rebuilt by me - mainly mechanically - and repainted/numbered/lettered/weathered by me). It could really do with a snifting valve as well, and most vacuum-braked locos had a screw shackle.

 

What's interesting is that 63707 has been running on LB now for over four years. Yet, in all that time nobody has noticed it's wrong; nobody, including those with a great knowledge of the GC and its successors! 

 

If a locomotive's wrong number is not noticed (and the numbers are big), what hope is there (at normal viewing distances) for noticing that a wagon's number is wrong?

 

Again, I'm not advocating being slipshod or abandoning research. Just being pragmatic, that's all!  

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 6
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Surely having each locomotive, coach, wagon and road motor correctly liveried and numbered for the time period one models is one of personal satisfaction.  We are all keen on running the correct locomotives but I often see wagons that would have been withdrawn or not even built running on layouts which are modeled to a specific timescale. This is either a lack of knowledge or a disinterest in creating an accurate overall scene.

 

However I can appreciate that some railway modellers are very happy to mix and match time scales, and stock that would have never run together because that is what they enjoy.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There used to be a guy who went round exhibitions armed with all his rolling stock data and would make a point of checking the numbers on wagons and coaches and drawing one's attention to anything he thought was wrong. We thought he was a bit sad but each to their own.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi

 

if it’s a wagon or coach I’ve built myself either from a kit or scratchbuilt I will do my best to apply the correct numbers, however if RTR then I tend to leave them alone. Locomotives on the other hand I will renumber to get those that I have evidence that they appeared at the location I’m modelling.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just done some more checking, and I'm not the only one to incorrectly number an ex-GC 2-8-0.

 

551093369_TGO43.jpg.f265073101b309dd28e17e1a92006c07.jpg

 

When dear friend, Tony Geary moved to O Gauge, he sold-off all his OO Gauge stuff. It was so good that I bought some of it. Including this Little Engines O4. Isn't it beautifully-natural? Except that it's been numbered as an O4/3, a ROD!

 

With that number, it should be an O4/1 (an original GC 8K 2-8-0 with vacuum ejector, vacuum standpipe and water pick-up gear - though the last-mentioned was latterly removed in some cases).

 

230227222_JBO4102.jpg.efffca1bbb58954b2c3b2104d8e9f356.jpg

 

This is an O4/1; note those detailed differences. (Builder unknown, rebuilt by me - mainly mechanically - and repainted/numbered/lettered/weathered by me). It could really do with a snifting valve as well, and most vacuum-braked locos had a screw shackle.

 

What's interesting is that 63707 has been running on LB now for over four years. Yet, in all that time nobody has noticed it's wrong; nobody, including those with a great knowledge of the GC and its successors! 

 

If a locomotive's wrong number is not noticed (and the numbers are big), what hope is there (at normal viewing distances) for noticing that a wagon's number is wrong?

 

Again, I'm not advocating being slipshod or abandoning research. Just being pragmatic, that's all!  

 

 

Tony,

 

i think it depends a bit bit on what one is trying to achieve.

 

If it’s a model railway as a whole with all the parts blending nicely together and creating a full picture, then it doesn’t really matter about those wagon numbers because nobody is going to read them. LB clearly achieves this superbly.

 

However, if we’re building model trains, and in so doing, trying to get each one as accurate as possible,  then getting the number right is part of the project. I wouldn’t be happy building any item of rolling stock, loco, carriage or wagon and then sticking any old number on it, because researching and finishing the item correctly right is part of the fun.  Having said this, Like you some of my older wagons probably have incorrect numbers, because I didn’t know better at the time. And in some cases that’s only 5 years ago!

 

Andy

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I take your point entirely, John,

 

And thanks for making it.

 

My explanation was lacking to some degree in that I didn't mention the period of time I was speaking of. Many of my wagons/vans on LB are over 40 years old. Most kit-built ones are at least 30. A large number has been built by friends, some of whom are now deceased (so I can't now ask them where they got their information). 

 

I accept that the collective volume of knowledge regarding wagons is now enormous, but 40+ years ago? There's no way I'm going through my 300+-strong wagon/van fleet checking that all the numbers are correct. As you say 'mortal coil' and 'third class' come to mind (though the physical modelling of the wagons is 'top class' in many cases). 

 

And, it's through the likes of your good self that the hobby is so well-served with accurate transfers today. I hope folk use them. They should.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

The basis of my wagon stock is a few Hornby Dublo and Airfix kit wagons, dating from the 1960s, which have been improved over the intervening years. Serious wagon building started in the early 1970s with Ian Kirk's basic kits which, even then I seem to recall, provided numbering information. Since then, it has become something of an obsession, and the turning point came with the purchase of a full set of David Larkin's rolling stock data sheets.

 

If a book has been published on pre-Nationalisation and BR wagons, it's on my bookshelf - and these volumes are used continuously. My wagon stock, including as-yet unbuilt kits, stands at 590 and each has, or has been allocated, an authentic number.

 

Obsessional - probably; (but very satisfying)!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to view rolling stock as the "supporting cast" to the locomotives; they complete a scene, but are not necessarily the star attraction (I appreciate that not everyone will agree with me).

 

That said if I can find a correct number, I will use it. However, it becomes difficult when you are building multiples of the same design and can only locate one or two clear photographs of prototypes. As very little will be left standing on display on my layout, and also factoring in the scale, I don't think that many will noticed the incorrect numbers.

 

I also like to try and model correct vehicles (and formations) for my chosen modelling period; I've found that, by covering a seven year period, this is nowhere near as straight forward as I first thought... 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

We all have things that matter to us and things that don't.

 

To me, it is nothing to do with "Will other people know or notice that I have bodged it"

 

I don't model to please others or to fool people by getting away with things that I can't be bothered to do properly.

 

My modelling is strictly for my own enjoyment and going to the trouble of building a wagon from a kit or from scratch and then giving it a wrong would never even cross my mind. I usually have prototype details to hand when building the wagon anyway, so a photo is usually on the workbench as it is built.

 

I like to see what something should look like before I build it (or repaint it), not worry about finding photos afterwards. So a number is usually decided on before the wagon is built.

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, Killybegs said:

There used to be a guy who went round exhibitions armed with all his rolling stock data and would make a point of checking the numbers on wagons and coaches and drawing one's attention to anything he thought was wrong. We thought he was a bit sad but each to their own.

Two war stories/anecdotes:

 

1. Years ago I was operating Dave Walker's 0 gauge Laxford Bridge (or Laxative Bridge as we called it) at an exhibition. In the station was an unfinished Skye Bogie (I think), painted but with no lettering or number. Some fellow on the other side of the barrier asked me what number it was. Of course, I had no idea so just said something like 37. "Oh good" said our friend, "I haven't got that one" and promptly wrote it down in his book.

 

2. About the same number of years ago a friend and I were on a railtour that had stopped at York. All the gricers were calling out and writing down loco numbers and carriage numbers, so we thought we'd have a bit of fun and call out some point machine numbers, which were at that time quite prominent, to each other: "351" - "Got it"; "407A" - "Ooh, that's a new one"; and so on. The joke backfired when some of the gricers started to copy what we were doing.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,


Thank you for two fabulous photo essays, one of models and the second the real thing. On balance I think semi-gloss is about my personal preference but I've still not made up my mind about how I think lustre scales. For example, if we saw an ex works coach at a distance to make it appear the size of a 4mm model right in front of us, would be be able to tell if it was gloss, matt or somewhere between? I'm guessing we could tell if it was clean and there might be a reflection or highlight glinting in the sun. When I see images of the real thing in good condition with gloss paintwork I'm always amazed at how rough flat panels were, for example tender sides. I doubt that could be modelled convincingly without looking a right mess. Has anybody done it?

I came across this gem which I'm sure lots have seen. Other than the script I enjoyed it, especially HRH the Queen announcing the departure of her namesake from Kings Cross…

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqjfTv8UAOw

 

Edited by Anglian
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Two war stories/anecdotes:

 

1. Years ago I was operating Dave Walker's 0 gauge Laxford Bridge (or Laxative Bridge as we called it) at an exhibition. In the station was an unfinished Skye Bogie (I think), painted but with no lettering or number. Some fellow on the other side of the barrier asked me what number it was. Of course, I had no idea so just said something like 37. "Oh good" said our friend, "I haven't got that one" and promptly wrote it down in his book.

 

2. About the same number of years ago a friend and I were on a railtour that had stopped at York. All the gricers were calling out and writing down loco numbers and carriage numbers, so we thought we'd have a bit of fun and call out some point machine numbers, which were at that time quite prominent, to each other: "351" - "Got it"; "407A" - "Ooh, that's a new one"; and so on. The joke backfired when some of the gricers started to copy what we were doing.

Some years ago on a railtour, I was sat too close to a serious spotter (and stranger to personal hygiene).  He was quite an animated character who not only took train numbers - I did that - but took aircraft serials as we passed Southend Airport and got particularly excited when we stopped alongside a bus depot and got all the fleet numbers of those as well.

Hey, each to their own.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

We all have things that matter to us and things that don't.

 

To me, it is nothing to do with "Will other people know or notice that I have bodged it"

 

I don't model to please others or to fool people by getting away with things that I can't be bothered to do properly.

 

My modelling is strictly for my own enjoyment and going to the trouble of building a wagon from a kit or from scratch and then giving it a wrong would never even cross my mind. I usually have prototype details to hand when building the wagon anyway, so a photo is usually on the workbench as it is built.

 

I like to see what something should look like before I build it (or repaint it), not worry about finding photos afterwards. So a number is usually decided on before the wagon is built.

 

 

I wouldn't deliberately put a wrong number on a wagon, Tony,

 

I hope I observe the necessities of acquiring all the information beforehand when building a model (though I don't always get it right - as mentioned earlier, I cocked up one complete wagon number, so put a different one on the other side. The numbers were correct for the wagon type, but who can see both sides of a wagon at the same time?). 

 

My main point (and apologies for labouring it) is that one way or another my wagon/van fleet on LB is largely the work of others or is (modified) RTR-derived. That being the case, I don't have the time to check whether all the kit-built wagons have the right number, nor if any of the RTR stock has duplicate numbers. This has nothing to do with fooling anyone, though when I've given talks to photographic societies and slipped in a model picture, many are convinced at first that it's real! Which, I suppose, is a sort of fooling. 

 

I'm not sure whether your 'not modelling to please others' approach holds water. Perhaps, not by yourself, for yourself, but what about models you display at exhibitions? I can't believe that Leighton Buzzard pleases so many spectators by 'accident'. 
 

I know every exhibition layout I've been involved with has been designed to 'entertain' punters. And, they all have done, and viewers are pleased in the main. What's the point of building something which, when on show, displeases spectators? 

 

Finally, on many occasions on building a model, I think I've got all the information I need, only to find (usually moments after it's finished) a drawing/document/photograph which contradicts what I thought. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I wouldn't deliberately put a wrong number on a wagon, Tony,

 

I hope I observe the necessities of acquiring all the information beforehand when building a model (though I don't always get it right - as mentioned earlier, I cocked up one complete wagon number, so put a different one on the other side. The numbers were correct for the wagon type, but who can see both sides of a wagon at the same time?). 

 

My main point (and apologies for labouring it) is that one way or another my wagon/van fleet on LB is largely the work of others or is (modified) RTR-derived. That being the case, I don't have the time to check whether all the kit-built wagons have the right number, nor if any of the RTR stock has duplicate numbers. This has nothing to do with fooling anyone, though when I've given talks to photographic societies and slipped in a model picture, many are convinced at first that it's real! Which, I suppose, is a sort of fooling. 

 

I'm not sure whether your 'not modelling to please others' approach holds water. Perhaps, not by yourself, for yourself, but what about models you display at exhibitions? I can't believe that Leighton Buzzard pleases so many spectators by 'accident'. 
 

I know every exhibition layout I've been involved with has been designed to 'entertain' punters. And, they all have done, and viewers are pleased in the main. What's the point of building something which, when on show, displeases spectators? 

 

Finally, on many occasions on building a model, I think I've got all the information I need, only to find (usually moments after it's finished) a drawing/document/photograph which contradicts what I thought. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I enjoy showing layouts at exhibitions and it is lovely when they work well, look reasonable and people say nice things about them.

 

Leighton Buzzard is an odd one out as I had nothing to do with the construction but yes, I have had a great time taking it out so people can get to see part of what I firmly believe to be the single most important layout ever built.

 

When I say that I model to please myself, I am talking about the style of the layout, the period, the scale, the methods of construction and suchlike. When I am building something, I never wonder about if others will like it or not. I just try to design and construct a layout that will satisfy me. If others like it, that is a lovely bonus. If nobody else likes it but I do, then I will still be happy with what I have done and know that I did it to the best of my ability. There are models I have built that may never be seen by a wider audience but that doesn't mean I would take short cuts like having wrong numbers on wagons.

 

You did say that you just used random wagon numbers without checking if they were correct for the wagon you were putting them on and that some have different numbers each side because of cock ups applying transfers. I can understand why it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things but I am just saying that it is not something I could bring myself to do.

 

It is a little different when it comes to models built by others or altering RTR items. There are vehicles on Buckingham that have incorrect liveries and one loco that has run for 60 years with no number at all (Again, has anybody ever noticed?). I don't get any sort of feelings that I should correct them out of respect for their builder.

 

 

Edited by t-b-g
  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I enjoy showing layouts at exhibitions and it is lovely when they work well, look reasonable and people say nice things about them.

 

Leighton Buzzard is an odd one out as I had nothing to do with the construction but yes, I have had a great time taking it out so people can get to see part of what I firmly believe to be the single most important layout ever built.

 

When I say that I model to please myself, I am talking about the style of the layout, the period, the scale, the methods of construction and suchlike. When I am building something, I never wonder about if others will like it or not. I just try to design and construct a layout that will satisfy me. If others like it, that is a lovely bonus. If nobody else likes it but I do, then I will still be happy with what I have done and know that I did it to the best of my ability. There are models I have built that may never be seen by a wider audience but that doesn't mean I would take short cuts like having wrong numbers on wagons.

 

You did say that you just used random wagon numbers without checking if they were correct for the wagon you were putting them on and that some have different numbers each side because of cock ups applying transfers. I can understand why it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things but I am just saying that it is not something I could bring myself to do.

 

It is a little different when it comes to models built by others or altering RTR items. There are vehicles on Buckingham that have incorrect liveries and one loco that has run for 60 years with no number at all (Again, has anybody ever noticed?). I don't get any sort of feelings that I should correct them out of respect for their builder.

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

When I say I used 'random' numbers on wagons, it's not entirely at random.

 

For instance, I use a lot of Modelmasters' transfers for 'bespoke' types, including loads of them for 16T mineral wagons. These in their various forms (the ones I use in the main) cater for ex-LMS, ex-LNER and BR-built examples. I try to identify which is right for which (I have plenty of source material), but I couldn't 'swear' that I get it right every time. As for ex-PO wagons with their 'P' prefix, how many RCH examples of mineral wagons were there still operating on BR in the '50s? 

 

Many of the steel mineral wagons running on LB were built (by others) from the ubiquitous Airfix kit. How many different numbers did Airfix provide with those? Not hundreds, perhaps half a dozen? Thus (and I haven't checked) several (because at least four different guys built them) might have the same number. That might well be the reason why my dear-departed and very dear friend, Pete Lander, hand-lettered several he made, but it was over 40 years ago!  As you say 'in the great scheme of things', and I'm certainly not altering anything he did.

 

This 'same-numbering' illustrates the different 'status' afforded to locomotives in comparison with 'humble' wagons. Shortly after Bachmann brought out its Scottish 'Director', I was observing a layout where two of them (identical) were running, almost side by side, for the duration of the show (they belonged to two club members). I noticed this instantly, as I'm sure most spectators did. However, there was also a rake of RTR Bachmann 16T mineral wagons circulating. Would it surprise you that I never took any notice if the numbers were duplicated, incorrect or even missing? 

 

Finally, though I acknowledge the rightful place which Buckingham holds as being very high up in the 'influential' stakes in the history of our hobby (it influenced me immensely), I can't class it as 'the single most important layout ever built' (my opinion, of course). Retford would be my choice, even though it isn't (nor ever will be?) finished. But then, it's a model of an actual place (which, as you know, is paramount to me) and it's one of the locations I used to trainspot at.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 1
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...