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

  • RMweb Premium

N definitely gauge has its place, my first proper model railway was in ‘N’ and it allowed me to construct something where I could run reasonable length trains in the more limited space available in the first home that I owned.

 

I am now fortunate to have sufficient space to produce something of similar proportions, but in 4mm scale.  If I had the space and funds, I would undoubtedly have upscaled even further to 7mm.  

 

But I do think that 4mm arguably represents an optimum size.  N gauge can lose too much detail at normal viewing distance, and in 7mm things start to get cumbersome whenever you want to transport your stuff around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Nothing to do with Jamieson although they were produced by the same methods - marketed by Charles Covey I think. I've built a few of them years ago and they were quite good, mostly accurate but of course needed a lot of detail work adding. Jamieson did do a Duchess kit as well as the streamlined version, in fact I think I've got one somewhere and my son has nearly finished building one.

Were they similar to the old Dawson kits, Mike?

 

I part-built a Stanier 2-6-4T in O Gauge for a friend, but he died before it was completed and it went with his estate (I seem to be causing quite a few modellers' deaths of late!). The Dawson kit was stamped-out of brass/nickel silver. Did the range go to CCW? 

 

I also looked at a Leinster B1 kit he had in O Gauge, but it went no further. That was made of stamped-out tinplate; very old-fashioned, but interesting..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

From Woodhead! Or the MSW electrification scheme. 

 

The layout was built by Garry Atkinson, if that's what you mean.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Perhaps the question was more in the sense of 'where do you get hold of a 2mm scale Woodhead electric locomotive (ie class 76)?' ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of browsing throws up a few Charles Covey (Models) 'Firmco' kits. As well as the Duchess, have come across a GW Castle and an A3 so far.

 

Looks to be more a case of scratch building with a few pre-cut parts to help you along. But reassured by Mike's opinion that the parts supplied were reasonably accurate. Can't see me taking it on any time soon though, despite it being a Duchess!

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chamby said:

N definitely gauge has its place, my first proper model railway was in ‘N’ and it allowed me to construct something where I could run reasonable length trains in the more limited space available in the first home that I owned.

 

I am now fortunate to have sufficient space to produce something of similar proportions, but in 4mm scale.  If I had the space and funds, I would undoubtedly have upscaled even further to 7mm.  

 

But I do think that 4mm arguably represents an optimum size.  N gauge can lose too much detail at normal viewing distance, and in 7mm things start to get cumbersome whenever you want to transport your stuff around.

Good evening Phil,

 

'But I do think that 4mm arguably represents an optimum size.'

 

I agree entirely. Believe it or not, I did consider doing an ECML steam-age depiction in N Gauge many years ago, but gave up because the RTR standards of the time were awful (to be fair, so were the equivalent OO ones). You see, I couldn't see myself being able to build mechanisms in the smaller scale, and would have been reliant on RTR chassis (at least to start with). What convinced me not to try was a coupling rod flying like a missile off a Farish J69 (yet the loco still ran!), a sort of B1 (origin unknown) which ran like a lame dog, a 9F (which all that could be said for it was that it had ten drivers!), an A4 which looked like no A4 I'd ever seen and a 'Britannia' of somewhat dubious appearance. Where did I see these? Operating a WMRC N Gauge layout at one Buxton Show. By lunchtime on the first day, Mo and I had a heap of dud N Gauge locos and by the Easter Monday all we had running was a Peco 'Jubilee' and a couple of Minitrix 'Warships'. Never again! 

 

I had 27' x 10' to 'play with' at the time, so it could have been interesting. 

 

O Gauge is just to 'big' for me, having built about eight locos in the 'senior scale'. Neither can it give me what I 'want'. By that, I mean an ECML steam-age depiction to scale. No doubt someone could do it, but I don't have the resources.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Perhaps the question was more in the sense of 'where do you get hold of a 2mm scale Woodhead electric locomotive (ie class 76)?' ?

Ah, thank Graham,

 

I suppose my answer stems from my days in teaching, where an ambiguous question was met with an even more ambiguous answer!

 

And, in answer to that question - I have no idea.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, Chamby said:

I am now fortunate to have sufficient space to produce something of similar proportions, but in 4mm scale.  If I had the space and funds, I would undoubtedly have upscaled even further to 7mm.  

 

But I do think that 4mm arguably represents an optimum size.  N gauge can lose too much detail at normal viewing distance, and in 7mm things start to get cumbersome whenever you want to transport your stuff around.

I think it's a trade off, your choice depends on whether you want a model of a railway or a model of a railway in a landscape.  I've never seen Pendon "in the flesh" but it's one of very few 4mm scale layouts that really give a sense of the railway being in a much bigger landscape.  It is very hard to do in the sort of space most of us would have available.  Some manage the cramped, urban landscape very well (Wibdenshaw is one) but they are often notable for what they leave out rather than what is included. 

 

There are many 2mm scale layouts where the railway is almost lost in a rural landscape, which really appeals to me.  Had I not committed to OO from an early age, I would probably have gone down the N-gauge route for this reason.

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

13 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Perhaps the question was more in the sense of 'where do you get hold of a 2mm scale Woodhead electric locomotive (ie class 76)?' ?

 

I don't think there has ever been a RTR EM1/2 class 76/77. IIRC those on Garry's layout are bashed from resin body kits from Cenpro (NLA). There have been several other kits; I've an etched NS class 77 and I understand that there are 3D printed bodies on Shapeways.

 

 

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Chamby said:

N gauge can lose too much detail at normal viewing distance, 

 

 

I guess that depends on who/what one considers is the final arbiter of 'too much detail' and how far a normal viewing distance is. No doubt both vary depending on the individual. There is no one fixed specification.

 

But yep, all scales/gauges have their place in the railway modelling hobby and each has various benefits that deserve to be supported. After all there are people who model in them and produce wonderful layouts.

 

What is good for some is not necessarily appropriate for all. Just because a person can't see N gauge doesn't mean everyone else can't. I'm very myopic so tend to get close to my models to see them well focussed (consequently my NVD is very small) and N/2mm suits that well. I find that if I wear my correction glasses I need to be too far away from OO/4mm to see the detail on it.

 

 

 

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

58 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

A bit of browsing throws up a few Charles Covey (Models) 'Firmco' kits. As well as the Duchess, have come across a GW Castle and an A3 so far.

 

Looks to be more a case of scratch building with a few pre-cut parts to help you along. But reassured by Mike's opinion that the parts supplied were reasonably accurate. Can't see me taking it on any time soon though, despite it being a Duchess!

 

I knew there was a reason for keeping 45 years of Gauge O Guild Gazettes!  Firmco kits were manufactured by F H Smith of Birchington Kent and marketed by Charles Covey.  Many years ago, I kitbashed a T9 into an L11, borrowing a soldering iron from my father.  Since superseded by a Finney kit.  Bill

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I’m a bit late to the discussions on the details on 2mm / N gauge models versus the larger scales.  The art of railway modelling is knowing what detail to leave off and the fun bit is letting people imagine they are seeing details that are illusory.
 

If you can’t put the detail on to scale then don’t include it. I feel that the majority of N scale layouts (and quite a few in 2mm scale) are too coarse in their scenic textures and finishes. 
 

Tim

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CF MRC said:

I’m a bit late to the discussions on the details on 2mm / N gauge models versus the larger scales.  The art of railway modelling is knowing what detail to leave off and the fun bit is letting people imagine they are seeing details that are illusory.
 

If you can’t put the detail on to scale then don’t include it. I feel that the majority of N scale layouts (and quite a few in 2mm scale) are too coarse in their scenic textures and finishes. 
 

Tim

 

Well said Tim - that rule should be applied to 4mm scale models as well.

 

Gerry

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Were they similar to the old Dawson kits, Mike?

 

I part-built a Stanier 2-6-4T in O Gauge for a friend, but he died before it was completed and it went with his estate (I seem to be causing quite a few modellers' deaths of late!). The Dawson kit was stamped-out of brass/nickel silver. Did the range go to CCW? 

 

I also looked at a Leinster B1 kit he had in O Gauge, but it went no further. That was made of stamped-out tinplate; very old-fashioned, but interesting..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I've not come across Dawson kits but I have built one or two from Leinster - as you say tinplate but I've no objection to that, i do a lot of work in steel.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, CF MRC said:

I’m a bit late to the discussions on the details on 2mm / N gauge models versus the larger scales.  The art of railway modelling is knowing what detail to leave off and the fun bit is letting people imagine they are seeing details that are illusory.
 

If you can’t put the detail on to scale then don’t include it. I feel that the majority of N scale layouts (and quite a few in 2mm scale) are too coarse in their scenic textures and finishes. 
 

Tim

 

 

I sometimes wonder how many people go straight into 2mm modelling and how many formerly worked in 4mm and use the same scenic techniques that they used in the larger scale.

 

I have always admired 2mm layouts. Chiltern Green, Chee Tor, Copenhagen Fields, the wonderful Bodmin/Wadebridge empire and Jerry Clifford's work are superb examples.

 

It is only really since I have got to know Laurie Adams and seen what he does at close quarters, with time to talk about the techniques and ways that such models are created that I have begun to appreciate it properly, to the extent that I am even doing a little bit on his Yeovil Town layout. I have had to change the techniques I use quite a bit but I enjoy that aspect of the hobby so it is good fun.

 

As you say, there are quite different ways of looking at things and deciding what needs to go in and what is best left out. Looking at textures in particular often means going finer and finer until there is almost none and on the finished model, less can often look better than more.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

I sometimes wonder how many people go straight into 2mm modelling and how many formerly worked in 4mm and use the same scenic techniques that they used in the larger scale.

 

I have always admired 2mm layouts. Chiltern Green, Chee Tor, Copenhagen Fields, the wonderful Bodmin/Wadebridge empire and Jerry Clifford's work are superb examples.

 

It is only really since I have got to know Laurie Adams and seen what he does at close quarters, with time to talk about the techniques and ways that such models are created that I have begun to appreciate it properly, to the extent that I am even doing a little bit on his Yeovil Town layout. I have had to change the techniques I use quite a bit but I enjoy that aspect of the hobby so it is good fun.

 

As you say, there are quite different ways of looking at things and deciding what needs to go in and what is best left out. Looking at textures in particular often means going finer and finer until there is almost none and on the finished model, less can often look better than more.

 

 

 

 

Interesting Tony. One of my hobby-horses is overscale relief on brick walls. From any distance a real wall looks completely flat. I still like to use brickpaper (usually SuperQuick, although Merco with extra horizontal lines drawn in would also be good...) for these.

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

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, St Enodoc said:

Interesting Tony. One of my hobby-horses is overscale relief on brick walls. From any distance a real wall looks completely flat. I still like to use brickpaper (usually SuperQuick, although Merco with extra horizontal lines drawn in would also be good...) for these.

 

Mine too. Railway buildings were usually very well built, yet I see many that look more like a rustic barn.

 

My main contribution to Yeovil is an unfinished goods shed, the corner of which appears in one of Tony's photos. After much deliberation and looking at what others have used, we went for brick paper. My only concern is that it was done on a home printer and I am worried about fading.

 

I do use embossed plastic brick in 4mm but I sand it almost flat to reduce the relief to next to nothing. It narrows the mortar courses and really improves the look.

 

In many cases, brick paper, used well, can give a superb result. I have seen some building kits in 7mm (Purple Bob Models) that use photographic reproductions of brick which look superbly realistic and technology has really lifted brick paper to a new level.

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

8 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Mine too. Railway buildings were usually very well built, yet I see many that look more like a rustic barn.

 

My main contribution to Yeovil is an unfinished goods shed, the corner of which appears in one of Tony's photos. After much deliberation and looking at what others have used, we went for brick paper. My only concern is that it was done on a home printer and I am worried about fading.

 

I do use embossed plastic brick in 4mm but I sand it almost flat to reduce the relief to next to nothing. It narrows the mortar courses and really improves the look.

 

In many cases, brick paper, used well, can give a superb result. I have seen some building kits in 7mm (Purple Bob Models) that use photographic reproductions of brick which look superbly realistic and technology has really lifted brick paper to a new level.

One of the many things that have always impressed me looking at Buckingham are the brick built buildings. By embossing the horizontal courses of Merco brick papers Peter Denny transformed the 2d appearance of the product.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

With a bit of extra relief embossed in, even stone  ‘brick’ papers can work. 
0AC29631_0D77_4D55_86B2_57066F438AB0.jpe

B4458488_7C04_4B01_B03E_6F26D1EEF1E1.jpe

 

We have used both on CF. I prefer styrene for buildings, but the two can work together perfectly well.  Subdued painting is probably the most important factor. 
 

Tim

Edited by CF MRC
  • Like 8
  • Agree 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, Denbridge said:

One of the many things that have always impressed me looking at Buckingham are the brick built buildings. By embossing the horizontal courses of Merco brick papers Peter Denny transformed the 2d appearance of the product.

 

He did and they still look as good as many more modern buildings today. It was a very subtle line, almost invisible to the naked eye, that just breaks the surface ever so slightly.

 

He also used various other brick papers to create variety and also weathered them to vary the finish, so you don't end up with all the buildings looking alike.

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CF MRC said:

With a bit of extra relief embossed in, ‘brick’ papers can work really well. 
0AC29631_0D77_4D55_86B2_57066F438AB0.jpe

B4458488_7C04_4B01_B03E_6F26D1EEF1E1.jpe

 

We have used both on CF. I prefer styrene for buildings, but the two can work together perfectly well. 
 

Tim

 

Fabulous Tim - modelling the L& B as it should be done!  More of this please!  The view inside the shed just breaths atmosphere.

 

Gerry

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 hours ago, Chamby said:

N definitely gauge has its place, my first proper model railway was in ‘N’ and it allowed me to construct something where I could run reasonable length trains in the more limited space available in the first home that I owned.

 

I am now fortunate to have sufficient space to produce something of similar proportions, but in 4mm scale.  If I had the space and funds, I would undoubtedly have upscaled even further to 7mm.  

 

But I do think that 4mm arguably represents an optimum size.  N gauge can lose too much detail at normal viewing distance, and in 7mm things start to get cumbersome whenever you want to transport your stuff around.

I think you’ve summed up the situation very well. I would always go for the largest scale in which I had the space and money to be able to achieve what I wanted to. 2mm/N is great for trains in the landscape but the attention is on the overall picture rather than the locos/ rolling stock (with some honourable exceptions). As I am less interested in scenery and more in the train themselves this doesn’t suit me.  I have recently been dabbling in O gauge. I love the sense of mass and the sound as trains make their way over complex point work is fantastic but, as Clive says, you need space to be able to have a decent run - a shunting plank doesn’t do it for me (although I would make an exception for Arun Quay!).

 

Like Tony, I love full length ECML expresses and I’m lucky enough to have the space to do that justice in 4mm, so that is where my main interest will remain for the time being. I do feel a garden railway in O gauge coming on at some stage though - plenty of space and no need to bother with too much pesky scenery!

 

Andy

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

4 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

I've not come across Dawson kits but I have built one or two from Leinster - as you say tinplate but I've no objection to that, i do a lot of work in steel.

 

Many  years ago I built several Dawson kits for a friend. I built the Stanier 2-6-4T, 8F and Britannia. The it was the turn of the Jubilee. I cheated on that one, I made templates from the first and built two! The second was sold to another friend. In retrospect I wish I had photographed all of them. I do have photos of the Jubilee (attached) and a poor one of the Britannia. I don't know what happened to them as my friend died some time ago.Slide1905.jpg.0675d52acb9323b716db8df2c26a9768.jpg

 

ArthurK

  • Like 14
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I think you’ve summed up the situation very well. I would always go for the largest scale in which I had the space and money to be able to achieve what I wanted to. 2mm/N is great for trains in the landscape but the attention is on the overall picture rather than the locos/ rolling stock (with some honourable exceptions).

 

I'd take a different approach - going for a smaller scale in a larger space. I like seeing a train in the landscape so N works well for me. I can get an accurate, full length train in a reasonable space with plenty of room for scenery.

 

With a smaller physical area to work with I'd go up in scale. There's no way with say a 1x4' board you can get any distance from it before the magic is lost (i.e. you start seeing 1:1 furniture etc). You need to be close, meaning you need the extra detail only the larger scales. A physically longer layout can be seen from further away before your eye starts getting distracted by real world objects, meaning much of the fine detail isn't needed.

 

Steven B.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 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...