Wright writes.....

[Willie Whizz]

I agree with John.  I do still buy one or two magazines each month, but I find many of the layout photographs - though 'technically' superb and showing modelling of the highest quality - to be sterile and un-evocative.  They don't make me think:  "Hey, I could build one like that"; they don't make me think: "Wow, I must go and take a look at that in the flesh when it's being exhibited". 

 

Twenty years or so ago, even in the early years of the digital age, it was commonly a different story.  There are, of course, many honourable exceptions still; but generally speaking that technical perfection has got in the way of something atmospheric, and we are not better off as a result.  Years back I used to pull a face when I heard "old farts" saying that something - unquantifiable and indefinable perhaps, but something - had been lost in the transition from listening to music on vinyl records to listening to it on CDs.  But that's how I feel these days about modern model railway layout photography.

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

What kind of boots?

[Headstock]

13 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

How alarming! A Lancastrian three legged vegetarian rubber boot fetishist.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Tony,

 

I have to say that I think you're very unfair at times.

 

Read any book I've written, or any article I've written where Buckingham is mentioned and I have nothing but praise to say about it. It's, without doubt, one of the most influential layouts of all time (influential to me), but with regard to the picture in question, anyone with eyes can see the things I was mentioning. If you're so 'sensitive' to 'criticism' of it, why not mention those things in your description?

 

I have to say, I think there's a 'trap' which commentators can fall into with regard to older layouts, no matter how important and influential they might be (or have been) in the past. That's the trap of 'rose-coloured spectacles' in my view. 

 

I'll explain. Some years ago, some bits of Ken Northwood's Torreyford Station were placed in front of my camera (The North Devon Layout had been dismantled after his death). I looked at the rather sad state of affairs in front of me, and declined. It would have been cruel. Yes, there was some sign of damage, but at close-quarters, most of the modelling was crude. Yet, this was a layout I'd drooled over in my youth, seeing it the contemporary press. Ignorance at the time prevented me from knowing how poor a Graham Farish 'King' body was, or that Exley's GWR coaches were no more than LMS ones painted chocolate and cream! 

 

Borchester and its predecessors were most-influential to me, but the last time I saw Borchester Market, it was a shadow of what Frank Dyer had produced. 

 

Model railway layouts are transient things. They fade, degrade, wear out, crumble, decompose, de-laminate, corrupt, rot, disintegrate and suffer all manner of maladies as the years pass. I honestly think, even the best, are best remembered as they were in their prime, and quietly left to history. The Norris layout was light years ahead of its time in the '40s/'50s, but when I took some pictures of some of its buildings some years ago, I never used them (nor ever will). It would not have been fair. 

 

I'm also under no illusions about what Little Bytham's place might be in the 'history' of the hobby. A 'great fun' creation, made by some of the finest contemporary modellers (yourself included) and a wheeze to operate at high speed. But, though I'd like to think the locos and stock will survive, the rest will inevitably turn to dust. I certainly wouldn't want it to carry on well beyond its 'sell by date', especially as reliability inevitably declines. 

 

I think you've done a tremendous job in saving Buckingham for posterity, but any recent pictures of it are asking it (up to a point) to be judged against the best of today. You describe its creator as a 'genius', but I'm not so sure. Anyway, Peter Denny would never have accepted that epithet. He was a pioneer, self-reliant, inventive, consistent, influential and uniquely creative. Isn't that enough?

 

I'll be extremely disappointed if you cease to post on Wright writes, or cease to show pictures you've taken, but that's up to you.

 

Finally, I wonder what you'd have said if I'd posted that Retford's fast-line trackwork was wrong? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

We have been here before Tony, the wrong track on Retford and your thoughts on Buckingham are things that have come up before.

 

Buckingham never was your sort of layout. You have made that clear.

 

If it wasn't the best layout I have ever had the joy to operate, I would agree that it should be allowed to die off quietly.

 

As it is, I wouldn't swap it for any other layout I have ever built or seen. Running Buckingham with one or two good operators is the best experience I have had in model railways. I used the word genius to describe the control systems and I stand by that. They are still, to this day, the best I have ever seen on any layout, ancient or modern.

 

The quality of the modelling is what it is. A product of the 1940s, 50s and onwards. To me, its charm and sheer peronality far outweighs any shortcomings. 

 

Now the subject of criticism. 

 

How many people have posted photos including model buildings on here and how many have had it constructively pointed out the the corners on their Slater's bricks are slightly rounded and that if they had used stretcher bond instead of (The correct for the building) English Bond that it would have been easier to get the closure bricks right? Just me!

 

How many people even worry about rounded corners in brick plasticard (which had been sanded almost flat) or closure bricks in 4mm but mine got a mention or two?

 

I have seen plenty of model buildings with worse brickwork that never even got mentioned when photos were posted.

 

So yes, perhaps I am sensitive about criticism because the level seems to vary and there is no consistency in what gets mentioned and what doesn't.

 

Either way, I have had it up to here with the public criticism! I am my own worst critic and I have a very good circle of highly skilled friends who will put me straight if I make a mistake that slips through without broadcasting it to the world! We send photos of what we working on to each other and if anybody spots anything, they are happy to speak up but it is done behind the scenes. I prefer it that way.

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Willie Whizz said:

To my own eye, really sorry to say it but there seems so much else compositionally 'off' about that shot that the "day and night sky with incoming UFOs" is not the most distracting thing on there; and rectifying the sky just makes the other issues even more prominent.

That's why the shot was never used.....................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

We have been here before Tony, the wrong track on Retford and your thoughts on Buckingham are things that have come up before.

 

Buckingham never was your sort of layout. You have made that clear.

 

If it wasn't the best layout I have ever had the joy to operate, I would agree that it should be allowed to die off quietly.

 

As it is, I wouldn't swap it for any other layout I have ever built or seen. Running Buckingham with one or two good operators is the best experience I have had in model railways. I used the word genius to describe the control systems and I stand by that. They are still, to this day, the best I have ever seen on any layout, ancient or modern.

 

The quality of the modelling is what it is. A product of the 1940s, 50s and onwards. To me, its charm and sheer peronality far outweighs any shortcomings. 

 

Now the subject of criticism. 

 

How many people have posted photos including model buildings on here and how many have had it constructively pointed out the the corners on their Slater's bricks are slightly rounded and that if they had used stretcher bond instead of (The correct for the building) English Bond that it would have been easier to get the closure bricks right? Just me!

 

How many people even worry about rounded corners in brick plasticard (which had been sanded almost flat) or closure bricks in 4mm but mine got a mention or two?

 

I have seen plenty of model buildings with worse brickwork that never even got mentioned when photos were posted.

 

So yes, perhaps I am sensitive about criticism because the level seems to vary and there is no consistency in what gets mentioned and what doesn't.

 

Either way, I have had it up to here with the public criticism! I am my own worst critic and I have a very good circle of highly skilled friends who will put me straight if I make a mistake that slips through without broadcasting it to the world! We send photos of what we working on to each other and if anybody spots anything, they are happy to speak up but it is done behind the scenes. I prefer it that way.

 

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

It would seem that by putting anything on a forum like this 'invites' critical comment. Personally, I'd have it no other way.

 

Everything I've made which I show on here (or photographs of others' work I've taken) should be subject to scrutiny and criticism.

 

My ignorance of building construction precludes my making an objective observation; perhaps too many others don't know enough to pass comment.

 

Meanwhile, as you do, always be critical of what I show, please.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

As a fully paid-up member of the Ned Ludd Club, I'd better be careful what I say next............

 

Whilst I accept that not all progress is universally beneficial, with regard to model railway photography from the past, in comparison with the 'craft' today, I'd say there's no comparison; only contrast.

 

Years ago, the threat of collapsing ceilings caused by loft-stored 'tons' of magazines prompted me to either dump or give away hundreds (thousands?) of RMs, MRCs, MRNs dating from the mid-'50s onward. 

 

However, I still have a couple of MRC Annuals from near 40 years ago. I've just had a quick look. With regard to the photographs/printing, it's 'soot and whitewash'. Any 'criticism' of the modelling would be largely superfluous, because it's almost impossible to make an objective judgment on many of the images. 

 

Though I agree, today some images are 'over-processed', with often lurid colours and impossible tonal ranges, I'd never want to go back to the standards of 40/50/60 years ago in model railway publishing. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[APOLLO]

I'm a great fan of Peter Denny and his Buckingham layouts. I have his excellent pair of Wild Swan publishing books together with many articles in my old mags, the favorite being the railway Modeler "Denny Special" - Yes I used these articles to make a (rough!!) TT gauge gasworks and signal box back in the 60's.  I'm glad his layout still exists.

 

Frank Dyers "Borchester" is another favorite - a very "workaday" layout. My loft layout main station is named Borchester in honour (and it is also loosely based in North Notts). Another classic that survives (does it still ?). Pride of my mag collection is his full Borchester issue mag, now a bit dog eared !!

 

As to Tony's "Little Bytham" - well, any ECML layout can't be bad !! (Just joking - It's superb). I cut my teeth on Denny, Dyer, and the "long drag" layouts of Jenkinson. There are many, many more layouts and modelers I could mention from "my" era.

 

OO is a bit fiddly for me these days to do any serious modelling, I'm a buy it and run it person now in OO. I find my American O gauge commands most of my modelling time these days. Something about O gauge - just right. (And American stuff is affordable also).

 

Many posts ago there was a debate on couplings. Just before Christmas Hattons had a sale of Heljan BOC Cryogenic tank wagons at a reasonable price. I bought a rake, as I remember these block trains passing through Warrington in the mid 70's / early 80's. Lovely models though (as usual) the tension locks were abysmal, causing problems reversing etc. On another thread someone suggested plug in Hunt magnetic couplings - so I bought some. Quickly fitted and the results are excellent. The only downside is with a heavy rake a coupling will part it the loco snatches hard. Apart from this I can thoroughly recommend them (drive carefully !!). Of course in American O its Kadees for me, they are scale, look right, sound right (click click click on take up), and operate superbly. Not to open the coupling debate again, but there are some good alternative coupling systems on the market.

 

Brit15

Edited January 5, 2021 by APOLLO

[Clive Mortimore]

4 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

 

Faithful companion, an almost permanent fixture when I'm modelling.  She doesn't like the Dremel but is pretty tolerant about everything else.

 

I think I've at least as much clutter as everyone else has shown, its just mostly hidden away in those (really useful) plastic boxes!

Hi Phil

 

Is she a Nova Scotia Duck Tollying Retriever?

 

I use to walk one when I had my dog walking business, he was quite a character.

 

[Chas Levin]

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree entirely but there is a further change that digital photography has brought on. When my very first encounter with a proper photographer took place, with a certain Tony Wright, he was taking pictures of a layout of mine for Railway Modeller. He spent ages setting up each shot. The lighting, the framing, all the preparation was done before the shutter was pressed.

 

Anything that didn't look right was dealt with before the photo was taken and the photo was a true record of what the scene was. It took several hours, most of a day just to take around a dozen photos.

 

Now, the photos are taken by the hundred and the best ones are chosen and any problems are sorted out on the computer but it means that what you see in the magazine or on the internet may or may not be a true reflection on what the layout looks like. Light balance wrong, sort it digitally. Gap under a building, soon sort that. Gap in a backscene, gone.

 

I am not saying that one approach is better or worse than the other, just that it is different now and in my personal view, something was lost along the way, as other things have been gained.

 

 

For better or worse, digital technology has had the same effect in many areas: my day-time job is in the music industry, where once upon a time someone came into a studio and played a piece of music from beginning to end and what they played was released on a record. Now... well, it's a direct equivalent to your description of photography, where the finished product is as much a creation of post-production as of performance; likewise film - we've come a long way from Buster Keaton doing his own stunts in front of a single camera.

 

I'd agree something has been lost, but other things have been gained. We now have the ability to create things - in sound, film or photograph - that we could only imagine in the past and some of the things that are created are of lasting value and give great pleasure. Swings and roundabouts...

[Chas Levin]

On 04/01/2021 at 20:26, Tony Wright said:

Still more..................

 

 

Heanor South.

 

 

Under construction; Jesse Sim's Brighton Junction out in Oz.

 

I think taking out the background clutter has focused the eye on what's important.

 

 

And another down under. John Nuttall's under construction slice of the West Country. 

 

Given the 'chaos' in some of the recent shots, this is a blueprint for organisation and tidiness. Even Mo was impressed!

 

 

Law Junction.

 

 

Little Salkeld.

 

 

London Road.

 

 

Melangoose.

 

 

Peterborough North.

 

 

Purgatory Peak.

 

 

Scarlington.

 

 

And another from the antipodes; Uley Junction.

 

There are loads more layouts, but that's enough for now...........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony, thank you for posting more of the decade's photos, absolutely wonderful stuff!

And yes, Annan Road does look better without the overhead lights!

[Chamby]

29 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Phil

 

Is she a Nova Scotia Duck Tollying Retriever?

 

I use to walk one when I had my dog walking business, he was quite a character.

 

 

Yes she’s a Toller, and typical of the breed.  She has got us well trained, a very strong willed, persistent dog but oodles of character and very loyal, loves kids.  She’s ten years old next month but will still play ball on the beach for hours... and is fearless in the waves.  But thankfully sleeps it off when she gets home so I am able to get some modelling done.

[t-b-g]

34 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

I'm a great fan of Peter Denny and his Buckingham layouts. I have his excellent pair of Wild Swan publishing books together with many articles in my old mags, the favorite being the railway Modeler "Denny Special" - Yes I used these articles to make a (rough!!) TT gauge gasworks and signal box back in the 60's.  I'm glad his layout still exists.

 

Frank Dyers "Borchester" is another favorite - a very "workaday" layout. My loft layout main station is named Borchester in honour (and it is also loosely based in North Notts). Another classic that survives (does it still ?). Pride of my mag collection is his full Borchester issue mag, now a bit dog eared !!

 

As to Tony's "Little Bytham" - well, any ECML layout can't be bad !! (Just joking - It's superb). I cut my teeth on Denny, Dyer, and the "long drag" layouts of Jenkinson. There are many, many more layouts and modelers I could mention from "my" era.

 

OO is a bit fiddly for me these days to do any serious modelling, I'm a buy it and run it person now in OO. I find my American O gauge commands most of my modelling time these days. Something about O gauge - just right. (And American stuff is affordable also).

 

Many posts ago there was a debate on couplings. Just before Christmas Hattons had a sale of Heljan BOC Cryogenic tank wagons at a reasonable price. I bought a rake, as I remember these block trains passing through Warrington in the mid 70's / early 80's. Lovely models though (as usual) the tension locks were abysmal, causing problems reversing etc. On another thread someone suggested plug in Hunt magnetic couplings - so I bought some. Quickly fitted and the results are excellent. The only downside is with a heavy rake a coupling will part it the loco snatches hard. Apart from this I can thoroughly recommend them (drive carefully !!). Of course in American O its Kadees for me, they are scale, look right, sound right (click click click on take up), and operate superbly. Not to open the coupling debate again, but there are some good alternative coupling systems on the market.

 

Brit15

 

Although many of the Buckingham articles were in the magazines before I was born, my dad was a modeller and I often used to thumb through his old copies.

 

My favourites were also Buckingham and Borchester but there were many others too. Some haven't stood the test of time and when I look back at the magazines now, they look very dated. Others just have an indefinable something that still works for me today.

 

The first time I got to visit Peter Denny in Truro, when he was already in his high 80s in terms of age, I was so pleased to be able to tell him how much he had influenced me and that my modelling the Great Central Railway in pre-grouping times, in EM, was as much due to him as anything.

 

I said that I hoped he didn't mind but I had brought along something and wondered if he would sign it for me.

 

With a huge twinkle in his eye, he just chuckled and said "I hope you haven't brought every article, I should take all afternoon to sign them."

 

There were nearly 200 in total, including ones in Japanese and American magazines, plus appearances on the telly.

 

So my signed copy of the Wild Swan book is a very prized possession. Spending a couple of hours working Grandborough Junction with Peter working Buckingham is a memory I hope I never lose.

 

I never got to say "Thank you" in person to Frank Dyer but his series in the MRJ is something I still read and the Borchester Market special issue is much thumbed.

 

I think that the reason I admired them both is the fact that they were the ultimate all rounders to my eyes. There didn't seem to be any job on a model railway that they didn't do for themselves.

 

Modelling standards have clearly moved on since those days and a Denny or Dyer loco would be no more than "average" compared to what is around today but to me, especially the Buckingham locos, they are like old friends that I care for very much. Each one has a personality and responds to the controller differently but if you really get to know them inside out, so you learn how to get the best from them, they will still run very nicely indeed.

 

The oldest is now in its 75th year and still going strong!   

[LNER4479]

For what it's worth ...

 

I for one think that Peter Denny WAS a genius, certainly in relation to the era (immediate post-war) when he was first modelling. Materials, parts etc were in short supply, and the ability to model anything at all, let along pre-grouping in EM was something of a challenge. The electro-mechanical computer that drove the 'automatic Crispin' fiddle yard is something that Charles Babbage would have been proud of.

 

I have a selection of magazine articles describing the layout - possibly my favourite is MR August 1977 (a cracking issue, with RotM being Keith Ledbury's amazing multi-level GW 'system' layout depicting the route from Paddington to the Cambrian Coast) - the Denny article is entitled 'Operation inside and out'. It's a wonderful record of the day editor Cyril Freezer visited, with sons Nicholas (whatever happened to him?) and Andrew to operate the layout; Crispin was on hand as well.

 

But what stands out to me is a picture of the great man himself, engrossed in the operation of his own layout. The caption simply reads: 'Contentment is a thing called Buckingham'.

 

I have an instant vision of Tony (t-b-g!) now being able to take up the exact same position, some 40 odd years later and have exactly the same rewarding experience, as he describes.

 

An image of a layout in a magazine can only ever be in two dimensions (ignoring the occasional 3D glasses gimickry). See it at an exhibition and you experience it in three dimensions. But it's only when the trains start to move that you get the fourth dimension as the thing comes to life.

 

Tony (W!) - by your own admission, operation doesn't hold any special interest to you. But for those of us who do, Buckingham has always been a remarkable layout; thanks to Tony (t-b-g)'s heroic efforts, he and others can still enjoy that which Buckingham excels in - the fourth dimension. Crude mechanisms and fading brick paper are not what concern you when you're running a railway ...

 

Each to their own

[micknich2003]

Nick Freezer is still around and still modelling, he is involved with "The Model Railway Club", London.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

I'm a great fan of Peter Denny and his Buckingham layouts. I have his excellent pair of Wild Swan publishing books together with many articles in my old mags, the favorite being the railway Modeler "Denny Special" - Yes I used these articles to make a (rough!!) TT gauge gasworks and signal box back in the 60's.  I'm glad his layout still exists.

 

Frank Dyers "Borchester" is another favorite - a very "workaday" layout. My loft layout main station is named Borchester in honour (and it is also loosely based in North Notts). Another classic that survives (does it still ?). Pride of my mag collection is his full Borchester issue mag, now a bit dog eared !!

 

As to Tony's "Little Bytham" - well, any ECML layout can't be bad !! (Just joking - It's superb). I cut my teeth on Denny, Dyer, and the "long drag" layouts of Jenkinson. There are many, many more layouts and modelers I could mention from "my" era.

 

OO is a bit fiddly for me these days to do any serious modelling, I'm a buy it and run it person now in OO. I find my American O gauge commands most of my modelling time these days. Something about O gauge - just right. (And American stuff is affordable also).

 

Many posts ago there was a debate on couplings. Just before Christmas Hattons had a sale of Heljan BOC Cryogenic tank wagons at a reasonable price. I bought a rake, as I remember these block trains passing through Warrington in the mid 70's / early 80's. Lovely models though (as usual) the tension locks were abysmal, causing problems reversing etc. On another thread someone suggested plug in Hunt magnetic couplings - so I bought some. Quickly fitted and the results are excellent. The only downside is with a heavy rake a coupling will part it the loco snatches hard. Apart from this I can thoroughly recommend them (drive carefully !!). Of course in American O its Kadees for me, they are scale, look right, sound right (click click click on take up), and operate superbly. Not to open the coupling debate again, but there are some good alternative coupling systems on the market.

 

Brit15

Thanks for your comments, and your kind words regarding Little Bytham.

 

I think what must never be forgotten is that the likes of Buckingham and Borchester (and North Devon, Berrow and other contemporary layouts) were (are) respectively the work of one man (not the same, obviously). The epitome of the all-round, self-reliant modeller. Not for him (or her) the power of the chequebook, nor working as a team, but making everything, often with very limited resources.

 

Little Bytham can never claim to be that (I'm certainly not an all-round modeller), and it's very different. The resources behind its creation have been enormous compared to those of the pioneers; the leaders. That must never be forgotten. 

 

When you look at all the current achievements in railway modelling, across all the scales and gauges, how much anyone has achieved is because they've been carried on the shoulders of giants (a Newton crib). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[LNER4479]

46 minutes ago, micknich2003 said:

Nick Freezer is still around and still modelling, he is involved with "The Model Railway Club", London.

I was being impish! Nick was responsible for Grantham's appearance at Ally-Pally in 2018 and we were due to be there with Shap this year. I was amused to see him referred to by his full name in the 1977 article and I had to do a double take before I recognised him in the picture of him operating Grandborough Junction ...

Edited January 5, 2021 by LNER4479

[cctransuk]

Some thoughts before bed-time ........

 

What is, or what should be, the purpose / ethos / mission statement / objective of the railway modelling press?

 

Well - of course - to make a profit! Beyond that, could / should it be to promote railway modelling? One would hope so, but nowadays it seems to be much more about promoting model railway buying.

 

Given the reliance of today's magazine press on advertising, this is perhaps not surprising. Where is more money to be made - selling materials and 'bits' to self-reliant modellers, or selling ready-to-run / plonk model railways to unskilled and relatively unknowledgeable purchasers?

 

The model press of the mid twentieth century could rely upon the advertising revenue from only two market-leading manufacturers, plus a myriad of lesser and minor producers of (mainly) component parts. Their central editorial theme was to provide prototype knowledge and promote skills, so that modellers could aspire to go beyond that which the two main ranges provided; (the latter barely changed from decade to decade)!

 

Nowadays, a plethora of established, up-coming and emerging RTR suppliers compete for custom - and advertising space. Model railway publishers have a strong motive to concentrate their editorial content on how to buy, maintain and operate these ready-to-run / plonk products. In particular, how to add value (and thereby considerable purchasing requirement) by incorporating the latest developments in operational technology - all to be supplied, as far as is practicable - in plug-and-play format.

 

So, can we wonder that the practical skills demonstrated in these articles rarely go beyond the 'how to change the name and number of your latest glittering purchase?

 

Is it surprising that the images that accompany these bland articles are processed to death, in order to eliminate any suggestion that, in achieving this apparent perfection, it might be necessary to cut (really?), glue (yuk!) or solder (ouch!)?

 

I have been accused (often) of maintaining that much of what is published in the model railway press is not modelling at all - and I make no apology for that. I was not born with the skills that enable me to produce running models from kits, components and scratch materials - but the satisfaction that I gain from doing so is immeasurable. I owe it all to the modelling press, from the mid to the end of the twentieth century.

 

Others will tell me - indignantly - that anyone who runs a model on two rails is a railway modeller - I stubbornly demur. The person or persons who build(s) the models is (are) the modeller(s) - the person who buys a completed model and runs it is not a modeller. A pedantic statemen, I agree - but one that is at the heart of the demise of modelling skills; aided and abetted by today's railway 'modelling' press.

 

John Isherwood.

Edited January 5, 2021 by cctransuk

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

For what it's worth ...

 

I for one think that Peter Denny WAS a genius, certainly in relation to the era (immediate post-war) when he was first modelling. Materials, parts etc were in short supply, and the ability to model anything at all, let along pre-grouping in EM was something of a challenge. The electro-mechanical computer that drove the 'automatic Crispin' fiddle yard is something that Charles Babbage would have been proud of.

 

I have a selection of magazine articles describing the layout - possibly my favourite is MR August 1977 (a cracking issue, with RotM being Keith Ledbury's amazing multi-level GW 'system' layout depicting the route from Paddington to the Cambrian Coast) - the Denny article is entitled 'Operation inside and out'. It's a wonderful record of the day editor Cyril Freezer visited, with sons Nicholas (whatever happened to him?) and Andrew to operate the layout; Crispin was on hand as well.

 

But what stands out to me is a picture of the great man himself, engrossed in the operation of his own layout. The caption simply reads: 'Contentment is a thing called Buckingham'.

 

I have an instant vision of Tony (t-b-g!) now being able to take up the exact same position, some 40 odd years later and have exactly the same rewarding experience, as he describes.

 

An image of a layout in a magazine can only ever be in two dimensions (ignoring the occasional 3D glasses gimickry). See it at an exhibition and you experience it in three dimensions. But it's only when the trains start to move that you get the fourth dimension as the thing comes to life.

 

Tony (W!) - by your own admission, operation doesn't hold any special interest to you. But for those of us who do, Buckingham has always been a remarkable layout; thanks to Tony (t-b-g)'s heroic efforts, he and others can still enjoy that which Buckingham excels in - the fourth dimension. Crude mechanisms and fading brick paper are not what concern you when you're running a railway ...

 

Each to their own

 

You have it absolutely.

 

I am not sure about me being heroic! More just very lucky.

 

A "regular" operating session on Buckingham (regular as in the regular operators rather than visitors) involves starting around 8.30pm and finishing around 15 minutes later at 11pm. The time really does just fly by.

 

The level of concentration needed to do it well is really quite something. Is the loco to take the next train out turned and ready? Is the horsebox on the front of the train (as it is loaded)? Do I have time to shift the empties from the gasworks to the yard before the next train is due? We have worked the same 100 move sequence, sometimes to the clock and sometimes just as a sequence many dozens of times and it is so intricate that we haven't learned it off by heart yet and if we try to get clever it catches us out.  

 

Any chat during such a session is very limited. Each operator knows their job and what they need to do and they don't want to be the one that isn't ready when a train is due to run. If you stop to chat, you may well just forget something. So we chat and have a cuppa and then start and we chat again when we have reached a stopping point.

 

It is a side of the hobby that people either "get" or they don't.

 

I don't know who wrote the "Contentment is a thing called Buckingham" line. Probably CJF. It was spot on! 

[Clive Mortimore]

Reading some of today's post I have been wondering where we were going.

 

Here is something I posted on my thread on Boxing Day.

 

"Been running trains, while I was watching a type 4 1/2 rolling along with a train of seven behind it I got into philosophical mode (by accident) and stated to consider what I like about my hobby of model railways. 

1, Who doesn't like to see toy trains running?

2, I like making models.

3, I like researching about railways, for my modelling. 

4, I like the escapism it offers. 

5, I like to be friends with like minded people.

6, There is no number 6

7, All the above make it a fun hobby for me."

[APOLLO]

Anyone remember the series of "Model Railway Constructor" front covers from the 60's, with staged atmospheric shots. There were some superb photos, most using proprietary models of the time. Caused a bit of controversy back then.

 

This was the most inspirational issue to me. The water tower if I remember correctly was modelled on the one at nearby to me Wigan Central, the article was by Chris Leigh. I built a TT gauge one using various bits of junk !!

 

 

Varnish on the platform, A Trix Western loco. All the rage back then !!

 

 

 

 

Trix standard (I think)

 

 

 

And, for me, the best of the lot, another Trix loco. Would be phoo phood today, but a bit of creative photography back then worked wonders and got the imagination going.

 

 

Happy days !!  All I had back then modern image was a pair of Tri-ang TT Brush type 2's, a 7' x 3' roundy roundy and lots of (free) imagination. 

 

I fear we are loosing our imagination these days in this hobby.

 

Brit15

[micknich2003]

For their time they were fantastic.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

 

An image of a layout in a magazine can only ever be in two dimensions (ignoring the occasional 3D glasses gimickry). See it at an exhibition and you experience it in three dimensions. But it's only when the trains start to move that you get the fourth dimension as the thing comes to life.

 

 

Good evening Graham,

 

Buckingham can travel in the 4th dimension?

 

What!

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Graham,

 

Buckingham can travel in the 4th dimension?

 

What!

 

 

 

I have been trying to say how special it is. It does transport you to 1907 and it does pass a few hours in what seems like 15 minutes, so it is as close as you can get.

[Headstock]

Just now, t-b-g said:

 

I have been trying to say how special it is. It does transport you to 1907 and it does pass a few hours in what seems like 15 minutes, so it is as close as you can get.

 

So, time as a non spatial 'dimension' not true 4d space? The latter would be truly amazing if recorded. I'm not clear how the former works backwards. This  is not entirely clear in your photo!