Wright writes.....

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I think you’d find that quite a small proportion of all modellers would buy a pre grouping book. [...] Personally speaking, I’d consider buying books on the GNR but probably not on other railways.

 

Well, there you are. You're in that small proportion.

 

The GNR Soc has published a number of books on aspects of the GNR. I haven't bought any of them because the GNR lies outside my areas of interest.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Compound2632

[robertcwp]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I know but the front is a bit like a Craven unit and it was just about worth it for the humour.

Those who know me will know that whenever the subject of wishlists is mentioned, my reflex reaction is to say "Swindon Cross-Country unit".

[Jon4470]

3 hours ago, bbishop said:

Ladies and gentlemen.   May I ask a question?  What proportion of modellers are interested in the pre grouping era?  I'm not asking if they actually model pre grouping, but interested enough to purchase a book specialising in that era.  Bill

I like to research my local railways. Not just what was there,  but also, why was it there. That can take me back to very early pre grouping times. I find it fascinating in its own right - as well as helping with the model railway research!

 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

Those who know me will know that whenever the subject of wishlists is mentioned, my reflex reaction is to say "Swindon Cross-Country unit".

 

I rarely go anywhere near RTR wishlists so I wasn't aware of the significance of the image.

 

I will know next time.

[chris p bacon]

6 hours ago, bbishop said:

Ladies and gentlemen.   May I ask a question?  What proportion of modellers are interested in the pre grouping era?  I'm not asking if they actually model pre grouping, but interested enough to purchase a book specialising in that era.  Bill

The GN and the library is 60-70% pre-grouping books.

 

I do have a book on Pacifics, as apparently there were more built after 4470....

Edited November 29, 2020 by chris p bacon

[Dave John]

Heh , Tony is going to wake up to a long thread about pre grouping books. 

 

Now , as Tony points out you cannot really understand post grouping activities unless you study pre grouping activities. The big four were short lived compared to the pre grouping companies, much of what they did was based on what they inherited and in terms of infrastructure much still exists today. 

 

Anyway, how about pre pre grouping ? About time I sorted out my bookshelves so I'll give you all this one. Lovely engravings in there if you get a copy . 

 

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

I do have a book on Pacifics, as apparently there were more built after 4470....

 

1470 surely? But yes, there was 1471 wasn't there? 

[jamie92208]

I am certainly in that number Bill. Yes many of my pre grouping books are Midland related but I've always had other interests such as The Highland, along with US railroads. So the answer is, Yes I would buy a pre grouping book if the subject matter tickled my fancy.  Who mentioned the GS &WR.

 

Jamie

[Dunsignalling]

On 27/11/2020 at 22:52, LNER4479 said:

Time to revisit long firebox Jubilee?

Stanier 3,500 gallon tender to go with them (50 of the class towed them)

A 'proper' welded Stanier 4,000 gallon tender for that matter (Hornby one is a fudge as the rear is rivetted)

 

Sorry - am deeply into LMS 4-6-0s at the moment!

Also revisit the Rebuilt MN which is now showing its two decades. This time with the "missing" tenders enabling them to cover the ignored first ten of the class and those that received new tanks and bodywork under BR.

 

John

[Dunsignalling]

13 hours ago, bbishop said:

Ladies and gentlemen.   May I ask a question?  What proportion of modellers are interested in the pre grouping era?  I'm not asking if they actually model pre grouping, but interested enough to purchase a book specialising in that era.  Bill

LSWR yes. Anything else, probably not unless it's on wagons.

 

John

[Denbridge]

21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm sure the new (long-awaited) Bachmann V2 will be with us in the New Year. 

 

Most of the other suggestions seem to want revisions (improvements) of what's already been available RTR (weren't the two rebuilt 'Jubilees' identical - or near enough - to the rebuilt 'Patriots'?). 

 

I hadn't considered the original 'Royal Scots', but the survivors didn't last long in BR days. Who know, though? 

 

As for different tenders, at least the loco types themselves have been available for years. 

 

I assume every GWR 4-6-0 type has been available RTR in OO. Or, are there some missing?

 

A 'centenary' FLYING SCOTSMAN would be a very interesting idea from Hornby, though they've probably made every (potential) manifestation in one form or another already - boiler fittings and cab heights, A1 or A3, most of the tenders (FS towed every sort at one time or another, even two of the 1948 cut-down 1928 corridor types) and every possible livery. 

 

THE GREAT BEAR? Certainly not in BR days, except in rebuilt 'Castle' form? Neither the Raven A2s I'd think. 

 

But, who knows? The larger, more-exotic RTR types are always more popular with 'locoholics' than the more-mundane (it's the same with loco kits, which means most of them are never successfully completed). Large numbers in a class used to be one reason for the RTR choice, but one-offs (like the W1) seem now to be considered (as they were with the non-steam types - astonishing; aren't we going to see GT3, 'Kerosene Castle' and the Fell on sale soon?). Who'd have believed it? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

A big ommision in the ranks of GWR locomotives is the Saint. Probably one of the most significant designs in UK locomotive development history. There aren't even decent kits available. Hornby produced a Saint many years ago, but it was pretty dreadful.

[Woodcock29]

I have a significant book collection. Many are on pre-grouping subjects. I use them mainly to study rollingstock, both coaching stock and wagons. So yes from me.

Andrew

[bbishop]

43 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

LSWR yes. John

So at least one interested party.  Bill

Edited November 29, 2020 by bbishop

[MJI]

I have quite a few carriage books from pre group to Mark 2.

 

This year I have referred to a few of them.

 

The biggest gap in BR DMUs are the low density long framed units. Most notably the GRCW 119 and Swindon 120 cross country sets.

 

I do have a 119. But need a 120.

[St Enodoc]

20 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

A GWR 4-6-0 that is missing is a decent model of a Saint, particularly given the creation of Lady of Legend. Of course I'm not interested in one but I expect Hornby might do that eventually. They do seem to be more interested in large locos than smaller ones.

 

Andrew

A better Manor has been long-rumoured but hasn't yet appeared. The Hornby County could do with retooling and the Bachmann Modified Hall is all wrong at the front end - the Replica body got it right nearly 40 years ago.

[Tony Wright]

Regarding what's not available RTR (and thankfully no moans on here because of it - unlike elsewhere in some cases), there used to be (is there still?) a whole 'industry' of different parts/kits/adaptations/bits and pieces/etc., enabling the 'modeller' to change, say, a tender, or make a different sub-class of loco and so on. I recall grafting-on cast metal extensions to make a BR Standard high-sided tender from one off a WR 9F. Yes, the joints showed (slightly, but disappeared after weathering) but it was the done thing way back then. 

 

I know Crownline's 'postcard-turning' display at shows was packed with all sorts of most-useful bits (I still have some). The sort of stuff that encouraged 'personal', creative and inventive modelling. 'The RTR boys don't make exactly what I want/need, but no matter, I'll change it myself'.

 

Granted, much in the way of adaptation long ago was needed to, say, change a Tri-ang B12/3 into a B12/3, but it did allow the development of modelling skills all round. 

 

I wonder if we're (the generic 'we're') in (collective) danger of becoming so RTR-dependent that the likes of suggesting making a different tender (a smaller Stanier one for a 'Jubilee'?) is met will howls of anguish from some quarters because it would be far too difficult.

 

Regarding tenders, I know that SE Finecast will sell all the range of tenders as separate items; as used to Crownline, and, I assume, now PDK. 

 

There were many diesel adaptation kits as well. Have most of these disappeared now because of the increase in RTR options?

 

Just some thoughts on a very dull Sunday morning........................

[ecgtheow]

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

100% of modellers in this household. But I've several shelves of books specialising in that era so another one would probably need to be specific to my areas of interest. That's the problem: it's a bit like asking, would you be interested in buying a novel? The range is so diverse. A monograph on GER carriages is unlikely to appeal to someone whose primary interest is in the G&SWR.

Totally agree with this. You have hit the nail on the head, though perhaps a book on coach consists for the major pre-grouping companies would sell? I would certainly be interested & there were quite a lot os shared running powers in that era so it might well interest others even if there main focus is a single pre-grouping company?

 

William

[3rd Rail Exile]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I wonder if we're (the generic 'we're') in (collective) danger of becoming so RTR-dependent that the likes of suggesting making a different tender (a smaller Stanier one for a 'Jubilee'?) is met will howls of anguish from some quarters because it would be far too difficult.

 

I see (at least) four factors at play here...

• The increasing quality of RTR makes it almost impossible for things like replacement tenders to be put together to an equivalent quality that won't stand out like a sore thumb next to the loco.  The same goes for the addition of detailing parts, conversion kits etc...
• The increasing complexity of RTR products, particularly the electrical connections between locomotive and tender, make simple substitution of tenders nowhere near as simple as it should be.  
• At the sort of price that RTR currently (and perfectly reasonably, IMHO) demands, a significant sector of the market is very wary of modifying their RTR models, even just a light weathering.  That's not confined just to the "collector" market, but also covers a lot of people who make a layout with appropriate stock, keep it for a few years (and exhibit it, during less restricted times) but then sell up and start again modelling a completely different area/time frame.  They want the stock to "hold value" for the time when they sell up, so are loathe to make any changes.  That might explain the propensity of unmodified RTR on superb scenic layouts that is commented on from time to time.  
• The general cultural shift towards the "disposable economy" has robbed a lot of people of the ability to modify anything.  "If it no longer does exactly what you want, throw it away and buy something that will" seems to be the current mantra, though there does seem to be the beginnings of a realisation that this isn't sustainable... 

Just my twopenneth...

[Chamby]

In modelling terms, it is a fallacy to think that there is just one BR, predated by the ‘big four’ then the host of smaller pre-grouping companies.  I used to think this way when my interest in railways first kicked in.  I used to think on an LNER line, you could run anything carrying an LNER livery.  Then the more you get into the subject, you begin to realise just how complex it is, and how different each line is in terms of character, what ran on it... and how it changed over time.

 

If you really want to understand your subject, you have to get into pre-grouping because this is the foundation that the ‘big four’ and, to a more diluted extent, early BR were built on.  Certainly if you are modelling the ‘big four’ in the thirties, you will be very heavily influenced by pre-grouping matters.  Understanding the GC in the post-war era also takes you into different bits of GWR, Southern and LMS subjects and through-running practices, as well as the former GC itself and, even further back, the MS&LR.  Indeed it has been MS&LR archive material that helped me to understand how the GC permanent way was built and provided key dimensions and embankment profiles, for example.   

 

Probably 25% of my reading and pictorial archive is pre-grouping material, it makes fascinating reading and deepens my understanding of the context of my own modelling interests.  

 

As for the LSWR and G&SWR, I have nothing, won’t buy any, but would no doubt enjoy leafing through such material with general interest.

Edited November 29, 2020 by Chamby
Corrected grammar.

[chris p bacon]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

1470 surely? But yes, there was 1471 wasn't there? 

You're correct Stephen, but I thought I'd type it so the majority of the posters understood 

[Dunsignalling]

59 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding what's not available RTR (and thankfully no moans on here because of it - unlike elsewhere in some cases), there used to be (is there still?) a whole 'industry' of different parts/kits/adaptations/bits and pieces/etc., enabling the 'modeller' to change, say, a tender, or make a different sub-class of loco and so on. I recall grafting-on cast metal extensions to make a BR Standard high-sided tender from one off a WR 9F. Yes, the joints showed (slightly, but disappeared after weathering) but it was the done thing way back then. 

 

I know Crownline's 'postcard-turning' display at shows was packed with all sorts of most-useful bits (I still have some). The sort of stuff that encouraged 'personal', creative and inventive modelling. 'The RTR boys don't make exactly what I want/need, but no matter, I'll change it myself'.

 

Granted, much in the way of adaptation long ago was needed to, say, change a Tri-ang B12/3 into a B12/3, but it did allow the development of modelling skills all round. 

 

I wonder if we're (the generic 'we're') in (collective) danger of becoming so RTR-dependent that the likes of suggesting making a different tender (a smaller Stanier one for a 'Jubilee'?) is met will howls of anguish from some quarters because it would be far too difficult.

 

Regarding tenders, I know that SE Finecast will sell all the range of tenders as separate items; as used to Crownline, and, I assume, now PDK. 

 

There were many diesel adaptation kits as well. Have most of these disappeared now because of the increase in RTR options?

 

Just some thoughts on a very dull Sunday morning........................

The trouble with changing tenders on r-t-r locos (which I have done before now) is that one can seldom get the paint to match the loco and will end up having to completely paint and line the whole thing. Avoiding that is my main motivation for buying r-t-r in the first place.

 

It might just be my lack of skill but the fact that the tender (brass) and loco were made from different materials stuck out like a sore thumb even when I'd got a decent match for shade.

 

However, I've recently got hold of a spare Hornby 5100g MN tender body that I think will stand the amount of surgery required to turn it into the first series 5000g type. Aberdeen Commonwealth here we come, or it will do as soon as I've cleared the present backlog of unfinished wagons and coaches! Of course, as soon as I do Hornby will take the hint and do it better....

 

John

[Northmoor]

30 minutes ago, Chamby said:

In modelling terms, it is a fallacy to think that there is just one BR, predated by the ‘big four’ then the host of smaller pre-grouping companies.  I used to think this way when my interest in railways first kicked in.  I used to think on an LNER line, you could run anything carrying an LNER livery.  Then the more you get into the subject, you begin to realise just how complex it is, and how different each line is in terms of character, what ran on it... and how it changed over time.

So very true; I learned this at a young age from Dad who was brought up "Great Eastern".  I quickly learned that this excluded operating A1/A2/A3/A4/V2/W1 (for weight reasons) plus any number of classes who wouldn't come within 200 miles of East Anglia.  Even the more "consistent" Great Western had loco types that were specific to certain areas, or definitely didn't appear in others.  There are plenty of layouts in magazines and even at exhibitions where this isn't adhered to though.  As Tony has observed, it can be because the democracy of a club means they don't set rules on what their members can run (and why should they, it's meant to be a fun hobby), so when Old Brian turns up with his new Merchant Navy he's allowed to send it round the layout hauling the express from Glasgow to Aberdeen.

 

Such is the nature and importance of research, brilliantly articulated in one of Iain Rice's books on using Will's Structure Kits.  There is no point modelling a GWR Devon Branch Line if it slavishly adheres to GWR branch line operational practice, but the landscape looks nothing like Devon.

 

Rob

[Dave Hunt]

The vast majority of my railway books are concerned with the pre-grouping era, many of them Midland related but lots of other companies including American and other countries as well. I agree that to gain a reasonable understanding of the railways, even if your main interest is in the present day, at least some knowledge of what went on  in the early days is needed.

 

Dave

[Tony Wright]

45 minutes ago, 3rd Rail Exile said:

I see (at least) four factors at play here...

• The increasing quality of RTR makes it almost impossible for things like replacement tenders to be put together to an equivalent quality that won't stand out like a sore thumb next to the loco.  The same goes for the addition of detailing parts, conversion kits etc...
• The increasing complexity of RTR products, particularly the electrical connections between locomotive and tender, make simple substitution of tenders nowhere near as simple as it should be.  
• At the sort of price that RTR currently (and perfectly reasonably, IMHO) demands, a significant sector of the market is very wary of modifying their RTR models, even just a light weathering.  That's not confined just to the "collector" market, but also covers a lot of people who make a layout with appropriate stock, keep it for a few years (and exhibit it, during less restricted times) but then sell up and start again modelling a completely different area/time frame.  They want the stock to "hold value" for the time when they sell up, so are loathe to make any changes.  That might explain the propensity of unmodified RTR on superb scenic layouts that is commented on from time to time.  
• The general cultural shift towards the "disposable economy" has robbed a lot of people of the ability to modify anything.  "If it no longer does exactly what you want, throw it away and buy something that will" seems to be the current mantra, though there does seem to be the beginnings of a realisation that this isn't sustainable... 

Just my twopenneth...

I entirely agree,

 

However, having a loco made of one material and a tender from another can 'work'.

 

 

This is a much-modified Bachmann A4. Its body is made of plastic and its tender (Crownline) is made of etched brass.

 

The whole thing has been painted by Ian Rathbone to represent a typically-grubby 52A 'Streak'. 

 

Granted, this quality of painting doesn't come cheap and it certainly wasn't a case of matching the Bachmann paint finish (which was a bit garish, with its 'wasp-like' lining), so it's hardly typical. That said, I've seen some pretty decent 'amateur' combinations as well.

 

It can 'work' the other way, too.

 

 

I built the nearer 4F from a SE Finecast kit (the farther one is modified Bachmann) and, for time-expediency, fitted a modified Bachmann Fowler tender. Both were then painted/numbered/lettered/weathered together. I concede that this isn't the same as matching a lined loco/tender, and, in both cases, complete paints/repaints have been undertaken. 

 

As for the potential for 'devaluing' RTR items by 'improving' them, my personal point of view on this is that the greatest value I put on my own 'modelling' (however its derived) is how much pleasure/enjoyment/fun I get from it. I'm not saying I don't consider what the finished thing might be 'worth' (whatever its origins) but if it's worth less than when it was 'unmolested', it's really not important to me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

Very much agree on the desirability of improving the realism of r-t-r. Once fully tested to confirm I'm keeping a loco, off I go.

 

My take is that I bought it to enjoy, not as an investment to be cashed in by my executor. In any event, once a model shows evidence of use, its resale value drops anyway. I do own untouched models in boxes, but that's just the to-do pile....

 

John