Wright writes.....

[grahame]

Back to modelling and photography.

 

Over the last couple of days I've been making a steel framed building construction site. It's far from complete but I like to take a few snaps during the build as a way of documenting it. And I've found it a blinking tricky subject to photograph. Not only that but the build in joining all those styrene 'I' beams was was a slow and painful progress, very fiddly and needed lots of patience, rather liker like playing that Vulcan logic game of Kal-toh, especailly bearing in mind it is N/2mm scale.

 

[t-b-g]

I always feel that when somebody starts talking about admiring the functionality of a design, whatever it is, they are really saying "useful but not very interesting".

 

To me, design is about excitement, elegance,  a "wow factor".

 

Not my railway particularly but stand an LNWR 12 wheel clerestory next to a Mk1 and you will see me drooling over one of them and paying little attention to the other.

 

One of the reasons I model the pregrouping scene is the variety of carriage styles and liveries. I can have anything from 4 wheeled workman train "cattle boxes" to 12 wheel clerestory palaces on wheels. Plus I can have MR Crimson Lake, fully lined, GNR varnished teak and the GCR brown and cream.

 

I know some people find it fussy and over the top but in those days, railway companies won passengers from others by having the best looking trains. So the fancy liveries and styles were driven by good old capitalism. In those days it was "We need to build the best we can and make them look fantastic". In BR times it was more "How can we build lots of carriages cheaply and quickly".

 

As I remember neither period, that doesn't come into it for me. So I model the times when the railways were at their very best in terms of appearance. It just takes longer as there is no RTR and in that respect, my carriage stock is 100% kit or scratchbuild. I just don't have very much but that is a trade off I am happy with.

[bbishop]

16 hours ago, Steven B said:

 

Oddly enough I find a lot of Big-4 designs uniform. Each had it's own standard designs that only varied when the chief engineer changed. Surely a rake of 100% Gresley, Stanier, Maunsell or Hawksworth designed coached is just as dull. 

Steven B.

 

Maunsell never designed a coach in his life!  He just had an official sit and said "well done, Lionel".  The C&W chief was Lionel Lynes from the SECR, with Surrey Warner from the LSWR concentrating on electric stock.  What I find fascinating was the Lynes coach design was SECR externally but LSWR internally (logical really as the LSWR was the only main line constituent of the SR).  Twenty five years later, the Mk1 was externally an LMS design, but the "internal philosophy" was taken from Bulleid's post war 64' stock.  Of course the bogie design came from somewhere unmentionable.

 

Bill

[grahame]

4 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I always feel that when somebody starts talking about admiring the functionality of a design, whatever it is, they are really saying "useful but not very interesting".

 

 

Nope. I'm not really saying that at all. For me functionality of design is interesting and has its own elegance, economy and wow factor.

 

 

[Mark C]

Hello Tony,

 

Very much liking the M&GN...how did you modify the Bachmann 4MT?

 

Mark

[Tony Wright]

10 minutes ago, Mark C said:

Hello Tony,

 

Very much liking the M&GN...how did you modify the Bachmann 4MT?

 

Mark

Good morning Mark,

 

Very simply, really (perhaps 'modify' is an over-statement). 

 

I just chucked the original couplings away, closer-coupled the loco to the tender, added lamps, a crew and real coal, and then just weathered it. I fitted a screw shackle to the front end and my standard goalpost on the tender.

 

In many ways, I should have renumbered it, because 43106's (the preserved one) stay on the M&GNR was limited. Most M&GNR Ivatt 4s seemed to be unlined as well. Nonetheless, it's a very nice model, runs well and has a far less-interesting story about it than has 43127........

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Geep7]

39 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Which is more than can be said for the ride of the bogies.

I think they weren't too bad with a decent B4 or Commonwealth under them, but they definitely gave more bounce than newer stock. That was part of the charm of them, at least in my opinion. I certainly miss a lovely deep cushioned Mk1 EMU bouncing along the South Western Mainline. You could tell where you were just by the odd lurch and sound coming from the track, unlike today's more modern stock.

[Bucoops]

Coaches can be very good looking - to be honest a large part of it is livery.

 

 

Give me this over a visit to the Tate any day

[St Enodoc]

52 minutes ago, grahame said:

And I actually find the comfort of Mk1 seating to be more than adequately cosy and enjoyable.

The most comfortable seats I ever travelled in were in Mk1 first-class compartments.

[Tony Wright]

And now for some 'interesting' freight stock models on LB. Taken looking up as well!

 

 

I bought this ex-LMS 'Flatcase' and ex-GWR 'Tube' wagon from a second-hand stand at a show last year. They were in EM Gauge. The proprietor told me that many potential punters had picked them up, but, on finding they were not OO, put them back, disappointed. He simply couldn't sell them. 

 

'How much each, please?', I asked. 'They're no good, I can't sell them', replied the proprietor. 'No problem' I'll buy a load'. 'You can have them for £3.00 each'. They were re-gauged to OO within minutes of my returning to my demonstration stand! I didn't even have to change the wheels.

 

Are these models correct? I have no idea, such is my ignorance of freight stock, but they do look rather good (at least to me). 

 

 

Here's another from the same parentage, this time an ex-LNER 'Boplate'. At £3.00, a bit of a gift? 

 

 

As was this ex-GWR Bogie Bolster A, complete with timber load. 

 

It's highly-unlikely that such lumber could have been unloaded at Little Bytham, but at £3.00? 

 

I recall when I used to buy timber from Venables' wood yard in Stafford, the exposed ends of planks were treated with pink preservative, but I think this load could do with toning down. 

 

For those in the know regarding freight stock, perhaps they'll comment, please. I assume they're built from kits, but I don't know.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

I think this is the most 'interesting' item of freight stock I've got on Little Bytham.

 

 

It's an LNER (or earlier?) bogie bolster wagon of some description. It was scratch-built over 50 years ago by the late Cliff Bate of WMRC. I was asked by his widow if I'd like something which Cliff had made as a memento of our friendship, and I chose this. 

 

It's all hand-lettered (as was typical of the time), but I think that adds to its charm. 

 

It's a cherished possession. 

 

Can anyone enlighten us as to what it actually is, please?

 

 

[Tony Wright]

I'll finish with some freight stock I've built myself (which hardly qualifies it as 'interesting').

 

 

A Parkside bogie brick wagon. Normally, these would only be seen south of Peterborough, but this one's on its way north for repair, probably at York? 

 

 

And two LMS CCTs, again built from Parkside kits. 

 

It's to my shame that I've built no more than about 30 of Bytham's freight vehicles, but that's the way it is.

 

 

[Paul Cram]

22 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I think this is the most 'interesting' item of freight stock I've got on Little Bytham.

 

 

It's an LNER (or earlier?) bogie bolster wagon of some description. It was scratch-built over 50 years ago by the late Cliff Bate of WMRC. I was asked by his widow if I'd like something which Cliff had made as a memento of our friendship, and I chose this. 

 

It's all hand-lettered (as was typical of the time), but I think that adds to its charm. 

 

It's a cherished possession. 

 

Can anyone enlighten us as to what it actually is, please?

 

 

Looks like a NER quad (ex WD) tatlow vol2 page 113

Edited May 28, 2020 by Paul Cram
insert ref

[Darryl Tooley]

Just now, Tony Wright said:

It's an LNER (or earlier?) bogie bolster wagon of some description.

The quad bogie bolsters were originally warflats.  The North Eastern, and later the LNER, bought a number of these from the War Department.

 

Are you sure it is scratchbuilt?  It looks for all the world like one of Mr Swain's.

 

The hole in the side is where the brake handwheel should go.

 

D

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

Nope. I'm not really saying that at all. For me functionality of design is interesting and has its own elegance, economy and wow factor.

 

 

 

I know some people do think that functionality, economy and simplicity is a big plus point in design. It is just that I am not one of them! It is a good job we don't all like the same things, the hobby would be a lot less interesting if we did.

 

It is a bit like most modern architecture. You either "get it" or you don't. I don't! It doesn't mean that those who like it are wrong, just that if the best word that can be used to describe something is "functional", it is probably not for me.

 

 

[cctransuk]

41 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

 

 

FLATCASE probably ABS; TUBE Ratio; BOPLATE B probably Ian Kirk with Ratio bogies; BOGIE BOLSTER A Ratio.

 

John Isherwood.

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, Darryl Tooley said:

The quad bogie bolsters were originally warflats.  The North Eastern, and later the LNER, bought a number of these from the War Department.

 

Are you sure it is scratchbuilt?  It looks for all the world like one of Mr Swain's.

 

The hole in the side is where the brake handwheel should go.

 

D

 

The ABS kit was provided with a strip of planked plasticard for the decking. So at first glance, it would be easy to mistake it for a scratchbuild. I built one many years ago from the ABS and the rivets do look just like the ones on mine. So I would support the idea that it is from the kit.

[St Enodoc]

6 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I know some people do think that functionality, economy and simplicity is a big plus point in design. It is just that I am not one of them! It is a good job we don't all like the same things, the hobby would be a lot less interesting if we did.

 

It is a bit like most modern architecture. You either "get it" or you don't. I don't! It doesn't mean that those who like it are wrong, just that if the best word that can be used to describe something is "functional", it is probably not for me.

 

 

I agree, Tony, but it's important that "form follows function" as the saying goes. First and foremost a thing must work - then, if it looks good too, we have a winner. The converse, where something looks delightful but it as much use as a chocolate teapot, is the real problem for me.

[t-b-g]

6 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

I agree, Tony, but it's important that "form follows function" as the saying goes. First and foremost a thing must work - then, if it looks good too, we have a winner. The converse, where something looks delightful but it as much use as a chocolate teapot, is the real problem for me.

 

I agree but it applies in real life more than in models railways. A good looking real loco that didn't perform very well can be made into an attractive and good running model. A poor looking but but good performing real loco will not do the opposite!

 

I am reminded of the quote attributed to Winston Churchill, after a woman accused him of being drunk. Some thing along the lines of "Yes madam and in the morning I shall be sober but you will wake up and still be ugly"

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

The most comfortable seats I ever travelled in were in Mk1 first-class compartments.

When the country end Driving Trailer Composites of the class 309s first class was derated to standard class I would always try and get a seat in the Clacton (buffet) sets because if you were lucky you would get a single seat in the single non-smoking bay. Sitting in an armchair traveling at 100mph through Essex in a commuter train on commonwealth bogies. Luxury to a mere peasant like me.

 

My mate would go for a Walton set with compartments in the old first class end, you could end up with an unknown person either side of you. Even some of us peasants have standards.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Clive Mortimore

[thegreenhowards]

12 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Apologies Andy,

 

the dividing line is a bit undulating and seems to be different on the corridor and kitchen sides. How are you masking? Also, are you sure about the door furniture, I thought that it was absent on the Kitchen Cars.

 

Beauty and ugliness is in the eye of the beholder, as Tony has pointed out. The two things about the MK1's, they look harsh, and they look cheap in their detail design. The proportions are slightly off, the Golden section doesn't work properly on them. The window size is slightly wrong, the solebars two thin, the end of the roof like an unfinished razors edge. They are just psychologically disturbing

 

Compare and contrast the similar layout of the MK1 corridor third with the better detailed aesthetics of the Bulleid corridor third. The latter has all the élan lacking in the former.

Schoolboy error on the door furniture - it will be removed.

 

I don’t find blood and custard easy - which is why I go for maroon on most coaches I build. I masked with Tamaya tape and hand painted the sides using the lining to disguise the join. It’s not perfect but probably one of my better efforts! I think you’ll find the apparent difference in height is down to window depth.

 

You’ve lost me slightly with all your technical stuff about design, but I agree that the Bulleid (and Thompson) equivalents looked slightly better. I still regard mark 1s fondly - much better than a Mk 3 or 4 although the early (pre aircon) mark 2s were probably the pinnacle of BR coach design for me. I have very happy memories of travel  behind 37s in declassified Mark 2C BFKs on the North Wales Coast.

 

Andy

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Darryl Tooley said:

The quad bogie bolsters were originally warflats.  The North Eastern, and later the LNER, bought a number of these from the War Department.

 

Are you sure it is scratchbuilt?  It looks for all the world like one of Mr Swain's.

 

The hole in the side is where the brake handwheel should go.

 

D

Were the kits available 50-odd years ago, Darryl? 

 

Cliff must have made this in the late-'60s, maybe earlier. I was told it was scratch-built.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

59 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

FLATCASE probably ABS; TUBE Ratio; BOPLATE B probably Ian Kirk with Ratio bogies; BOGIE BOLSTER A Ratio.

 

John Isherwood.

Thanks John,

 

Good value at £3.00 each, then?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[grahame]

51 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

It is a bit like most modern architecture. You either "get it" or you don't. I don't! It doesn't mean that those who like it are wrong, just that if the best word that can be used to describe something is "functional", it is probably not for me.

 

 

 

There are many who don't 'get' lots of things and, of course, preference is a personal choice thing. But it is often helpful to look and try and understand rather that react and condemn.

 

Also I very much doubt that 'functional' is the best descriptive word. And 'modern architecture' is a rather bland catch-all for a whole host of modern styles such as post modern, deconstructionist, brutalist, neo-futurism, international style, contemporary and even revivalism. Even Bauhaus is considered modern and that dates from the 1920s - a century ago. It's rather like lumping all pre-Mk1 coach designs together as being from the 'fussy' era. Even I can see that there are some from that period that have redeeming and interesting features as well as the grossly over-worked styles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Darryl Tooley]

Just now, Tony Wright said:

Were the kits available 50-odd years ago, Darryl?

I don't know Tony, I only bought mine about 40 years ago.  I must get round to finishing them sometime.

 

D