Wright writes.....

[robertcwp]

9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

 

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.

What about those who buy RTR and improve or alter the models? Or who take care to run RTR in a realistic way? Or who combine RTR with kits etc? 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, APOLLO said:

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

I regret chucking all those away.

 

If my memory serves, in conversation with Chris Leigh many years ago, the photographs were the work of Colin Gifford (or, if not him, another contemporary, famous railway photographer). They would set things up in the offices (in a kind of mini studio) and try all sorts of angles. The films then had to be developed and printed. If they didn't work, they had to be shot again (no digital image in the back of the camera in those days). 

 

I thought some were terrific.

 

I know Chris occasionally dips into here, so perhaps he might comment. 

 

Odd, isn't it, that the most forward-looking and 'creative' model railway magazine of the time was pulled by Ian Allan (with a circulation figure of the day which some current ones would love to have)? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[cctransuk]

2 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

What about those who buy RTR and improve or alter the models? Or who take care to run RTR in a realistic way? Or who combine RTR with kits etc? 

 

They are modellers - I have nothing against RTR; I buy (far too much of) it.

 

What I dislike is that today's model press fails to encourage such activities.

 

John Isherwood.

[Georgeconna]

9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

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.

 

Not everyone has a dedicated space for building , Spray painting and many use the kitchen table or such which not really suitable for your type of Modelling you envisage this leaving many able to do just as you describe, change a number and name and even some would not even try that. 

 

I have to agree though I find the magazines pretty boring now, Same as the plastic modelling and Aviation mags, Mini press releases it seems.

 

Personally I would have to get everything shipped across the water to Ireland ie from Crank pins, Wheels, Detailing part etc to complete a kit, The same for my RC boats, It makes it too expensive.

 

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Georgeconna said:

 

Not everyone has a dedicated space for building , Spray painting and many use the kitchen table or such which not really suitable for your type of Modelling you envisage this leaving many able to do just as you describe, change a number and name and even some would not even try that. 

 

I have to agree though I find the magazines pretty boring now, Same as the plastic modelling and Aviation mags, Mini press releases it seems.

 

Personally I would have to get everything shipped across the water to Ireland ie from Crank pins, Wheels, Detailing part etc to complete a kit, The same for my RC boats, It makes it too expensive.

 

 

I modelled at the kitchen table for fifty years; is UK to Ireland postage that expensive? All my components come by post.

 

John Isherwood.

[Chamby]

9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

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.

 

I consider myself a railway modeller even though, to date, I run mostly RTR or modified RTR stuff.  I am, after all, building a model railway.  I’m not averse to using RTP buildings and structures, ready made track etc. If it fits my needs and of sufficient quality, or can be adapted to suit.   I consider the creation of a model railway from component parts as railway modelling, and no different in principle to assembling (for example) a locomotive kit from pre-packed component parts, be they milled, cast or pre-cut... but all conveniently supplied all together in a box.

 

Of course the level of skill involved and the quality of output varies considerably.  But is someone who uses PECO streamline less of a railway modeller than someone who builds their own trackwork from C&L components... or what about someone who buys it in from someone else who builds it for them?

 

Or what about someone who builds their locomotives from kits, but then doesn’t bother to fit them with lamps, or run them prototypically?

 

I suggest that we are all railway modellers, it’s just that some are more skilled, and some more competent than others.  And we each have our own areas of knowledge, expertise and ability within different sub-sections of the hobby, such as signalling, locomotive building, track building, architecture... very few of us are the complete article, I venture to suggest.  So we all tend to model more of what we like, and are good at... and cobble together the rest!

[New Haven Neil]

20 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

What about those who buy RTR and improve or alter the models? Or who take care to run RTR in a realistic way? Or who combine RTR with kits etc? 

 

Indeed.

 

[Iain.d]

Probably a bit late to the piece on Southern Pride coaches, what with all this photography and layout status talk! That’s me all over, sorry!

 

I only have three Southern Pride carriages – and to me they don’t appear to be of the quality shown in Tony’s maroon BTK images or the blue/grey one. I have always been disappointed with them.

These are Bulleid examples with the some sort of matt PVC type tape overlaid on clear plastic sides. They came with a little brass fret with grab handles, door handles and representations of hinges. The hinges I stuck on but didn’t get the paint match right. The bogies are old Bachmann’s with plastic wheels. The underframe detail is rudimentary. I think I improved the brake gear, the filler pipes and end detail on the brakes. The pre-printed black lines representing the door openings are particularly poor and stick out like the proverbial dogs…

 

D2123 Semi Open Brake Third:

 

D2318 Corridor Composite:

 

D2125 Semi Open Brake Third:

 

It was the experience of buying them that I remember the most. I bought these about half a life ago from the SP stall at Warley in November 1998 and they were my first purchase in an attempt at more ‘serious’ carriage modelling, only having started a few months before by refurbishing 8 Lima Mk1s. What still riles me more than 22 years on was the reaction and diatribe of abuse I got from a team member on the stall when I purchased them. I asked a man behind the stand if he had two Bulleid BSKs and Bulleid CK in BR green, as I wanted to build a formation that might have traversed the Somerset & Dorset in the period 1963-1966. He replied that no, they had sold all the BR ones but still had some in malachite, but could only offer two different BSK diagrams and the CK. I agreed to purchase them knowing full well that I wasn’t getting exactly what I wanted but was still satisfied – it was the know-how of building them that interested me more, I could learn on these and if they were good, I could buy the others later.

 

It was then that someone else behind the stand came across and started speaking to the person selling them to me. So the comments weren’t to my face but they were about what I was doing. He contemptuously laughed at the naivety of the purchase, berating the purchaser’s failure to be authentic and the purchaser’s failure to do historical research. It was finished off with a comment to the fact that the novice purchaser was being so dumb as to buy them, they would probably make a complete hash of the build anyway. All of this was done at increased volume, such that other people in the area turned to look and see what the noise was all about. It was also done shrewdly, such that if the comments were countered, they could be defended as comments being made about anyone or a previous purchaser. But everyone who heard, and there would have been 5 or 6 people, knew he was referring to me.

 

I have no idea who he was or why he decided to have a go at me, through the salesperson. I recall the salesperson looking uncomfortable. I don’t know if he’d had a bad day or was tired at the end of a long show. Regrettably, I didn’t say a word but quietly and self-consciously purchased the models, put them in my bag and walked away. My only excuse is that I was younger then and didn’t know a lot about a lot and still had respect for my elders. Today, I still don’t know a lot about a lot, but I’d be less restrained. I have never bought or even contemplated buying another SP product, nor will I.

 

Wrong colour aside for my chosen period, the quality of these kits will not meet my current level of modelling acceptance, so they are in the queue to be refurbished with Comet sides, decent bogies with metal wheels and an improved underframe. They will be SP no more.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[t-b-g]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

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!

 

Now you are making my brain hurt. Apparently it is possible to overthink these things.

[grahame]

6 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I modelled at the kitchen table for fifty years; 

 

I still do. And it's been more than 50 years. Hence no photographs of fancy modelling workshop space, scruffy, tidy or otherwise, from me. But I do still try to have a bash at constructional modelling. 

 

 

 

 

[LNER4479]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

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!

My reference to 'the fourth dimension' is not really a reference to the TARDIS effect - a 2D picture can do that.

 

What I refer to is that, on an operational layout like Buckingham, how the layout looks at 9am is not how the layout looks at 9.15am. And how the layout looks at 9.15am is not how the layout looks at 9.30am (etc). On a roundy-roundy layout, once the train has passed through, the layout looks exactly the same. All day long. Even the wedding at the church is at the same stage!

 

The 'fourth dimension' is therefore what you would actually observe if you were standing on the platform at Buckingham, the comings and goings of the operational railway as it goes about its daily business of transporting passengers and goods traffic, with all the intricate logistical arrangements that go with that.

 

Some of us are fascinated by such things; some (most?) are not!

Edited January 6, 2021 by LNER4479

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

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.

Some interesting (and, as usual, provocative) thoughts, John.

 

Many thanks.

 

As a one-time, fully paid-up member of the modelling press (now part-time), I have to say that the standard of visual presentation, photography (myself excluded) and printing is fantastic in comparison to the 'golden years' of model railway publishing you so fondly remember. Not only that, the standard of modelling presented is to a far higher standard than most achieved in the '60s. The big difference there is due to the development and increasing fidelity of RTR/RTP products in all scales and gauges. You might recall that the RM used to have a Proprietary Modeller section, such was the disdain with which 'out-of-the-box' products of the day were regarded. 

 

Of course, the Railway of the Month in each issue was full of examples of things which had been made (out of necessity) but I look back now (only from memory) and some were really quite crude in retrospect (I don't include Buckingham, even though I still don't 'get' it; nor, probably, ever will). 

 

I'd also state that the standard of reviews in the current press of new products/kits is also much more 'critical' than in those days of yore, though the MRC did try hard. 

 

I wish you'd been a bit more specific with regard to your statement '- the person who buys a completed model and runs it is not a modeller'. I'd have included 'unaltered/not improved/not personalised' in that. The reason for this is that I have around 90 Bachmann Mk.1s on Little Bytham. All are the appropriate types, straight-from-the-box to start with, but all have had their roof ribs removed, new wheels fitted, new couplings made, concertina gangways added and they've all been weathered (to a degree). Would you not agree that required some degree of 'modelling' on my part? 

 

What about the guy/girl who (by their own admission) cannot make models to the standard they desire, so gets someone else to 'do their modelling for them', either through building things or modifying RTR? Definitely not modellers then? 

 

May I finish with a current example of comparative RTR standards, please?

 

 

Seen before, but in a different context, this is Hornby's latest Thompson A2/2 (of which I was privileged to see an 'advanced' example). Soon to be available, I think it's fantastic (and I haven't added any of the various detailing bits and pieces). Yes, I know the colour causes questions, but an opportunity to improve it? 

 

Its price? Well under £200.00 from some outlets...................

 

And, prior to its being available? 

 

 

I built this for a customer from a DJH kit, and Geoff Haynes painted it. The final price, taking in all the components? Over £1,000.00. 

 

Could anyone claim that it's over five times better? Of course not! Is it more-realistic (the ultimate acid-test)? Maybe? 

 

I keep on 'banging the drum' about 'layout locos'. 

 

 

Is this not a 'perfect' example of one (even though it has no lamps and it's still devoid of its detail bits)? 

 

 

Close to the 'equal' of this? Better, because the one I made doesn't have cinder guards! 

 

Though the kit-built one will pull more, there's not much in it. 

 

I doubt if anything I've stated above 'proves' anything. Anyway, I don't think it could. 

 

What can't be taken away (at least on a personal level) is the pleasure I get from making things; far more pleasure that that derived from obtaining anything RTR. That said, I have to be pragmatic. Returning to the Bachmann Mk.1s, how much time might it have taken me to make the over-90 I needed from, say, Comet kits? I have made several Mk.1s from Comet kits - the types not available RTR. By exploiting them, does that make me any 'less' of a modeller?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

38 minutes ago, Iain.d said:

Probably a bit late to the piece on Southern Pride coaches, what with all this photography and layout status talk! That’s me all over, sorry!

 

I only have three Southern Pride carriages – and to me they don’t appear to be of the quality shown in Tony’s maroon BTK images or the blue/grey one. I have always been disappointed with them.

These are Bulleid examples with the some sort of matt PVC type tape overlaid on clear plastic sides. They came with a little brass fret with grab handles, door handles and representations of hinges. The hinges I stuck on but didn’t get the paint match right. The bogies are old Bachmann’s with plastic wheels. The underframe detail is rudimentary. I think I improved the brake gear, the filler pipes and end detail on the brakes. The pre-printed black lines representing the door openings are particularly poor and stick out like the proverbial dogs…

 

D2123 Semi Open Brake Third:

 

D2318 Corridor Composite:

 

D2125 Semi Open Brake Third:

 

It was the experience of buying them that I remember the most. I bought these about half a life ago from the SP stall at Warley in November 1998 and they were my first purchase in an attempt at more ‘serious’ carriage modelling, only having started a few months before by refurbishing 8 Lima Mk1s. What still riles me more than 22 years on was the reaction and diatribe of abuse I got from a team member on the stall when I purchased them. I asked a man behind the stand if he had two Bulleid BSKs and Bulleid CK in BR green, as I wanted to build a formation that might have traversed the Somerset & Dorset in the period 1963-1966. He replied that no, they had sold all the BR ones but still had some in malachite, but could only offer two different BSK diagrams and the CK. I agreed to purchase them knowing full well that I wasn’t getting exactly what I wanted but was still satisfied – it was the know-how of building them that interested me more, I could learn on these and if they were good, I could buy the others later.

 

It was then that someone else behind the stand came across and started speaking to the person selling them to me. So the comments weren’t to my face but they were about what I was doing. He contemptuously laughed at the naivety of the purchase, berating the purchaser’s failure to be authentic and the purchaser’s failure to do historical research. It was finished off with a comment to the fact that the novice purchaser was being so dumb as to buy them, they would probably make a complete hash of the build anyway. All of this was done at increased volume, such that other people in the area turned to look and see what the noise was all about. It was also done shrewdly, such that if the comments were countered, they could be defended as comments being made about anyone or a previous purchaser. But everyone who heard, and there would have been 5 or 6 people, knew he was referring to me.

 

I have no idea who he was or why he decided to have a go at me, through the salesperson. I recall the salesperson looking uncomfortable. I don’t know if he’d had a bad day or was tired at the end of a long show. Regrettably, I didn’t say a word but quietly and self-consciously purchased the models, put them in my bag and walked away. My only excuse is that I was younger then and didn’t know a lot about a lot and still had respect for my elders. Today, I still don’t know a lot about a lot, but I’d be less restrained. I have never bought or even contemplated buying another SP product, nor will I.

 

Wrong colour aside for my chosen period, the quality of these kits will not meet my current level of modelling acceptance, so they are in the queue to be refurbished with Comet sides, decent bogies with metal wheels and an improved underframe. They will be SP no more.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Good morning Iain,

 

Despite your misgivings, I think they look rather good, and my compliments on your building skills. 

 

Were they not green, not Bulleids and had metal wheels, they'd quite happily find a place on LB.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

24 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

My reference to 'the fourth dimension' is not really a reference to the TARDIS effect - a 2D picture can do that.

 

What I refer to is that, on an operational layout like Buckingham, how the layout looks at 9am is not how the layout looks at 9.15am. And how the layout looks at 9.15am is not how the layout looks at 9.30am (etc). On a roundy-roundy layout, once the train has passed through, the layout looks exactly the same. All day long. Even the wedding at the church is at the same stage!

 

The 'fourth dimension' is therefore what you would actually observe if you were standing on the platform at Buckingham, the comings and goings of the operational railway as it goes about its daily business of transporting passengers and goods traffic, with all the intricate logistical arrangements that go with that.

 

Some of us are fascinated by such things; some (most?) are not!

 

That is a good point that not many appreciate. I can look at photos of the layout taken over the years and I can often tell what time it is on market day at Buckingham. I can also tell when a train has been put somewhere, or has a wrong loco rostered, for photographic purposes.

 

It is a bit like people looking at a prototype photo and seeing a wrong train formation due to carriage being out of service, or a train that has been diverted from its normal route. I can glance at it on Buckingham and say "Why is that there, it shouldn't  be".

 

 

[Tony Wright]

46 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

My reference to 'the fourth dimension' is not really a reference to the TARDIS effect - a 2D picture can do that.

 

What I refer to is that, on an operational layout like Buckingham, how the layout looks at 9am is not how the layout looks at 9.15am. And how the layout looks at 9.15am is not how the layout looks at 9.30am (etc). On a roundy-roundy layout, once the train has passed through, the layout looks exactly the same. All day long. Even the wedding at the church is at the same stage!

 

The 'fourth dimension' is therefore what you would actually observe if you were standing on the platform at Buckingham, the comings and goings of the operational railway as it goes about its daily business of transporting passengers and goods traffic, with all the intricate logistical arrangements that go with that.

 

Some of us are fascinated by such things; some (most?) are not!

I have to take issue with some of what you've said, Graham................

 

Firstly, though St. Medard's church is represented on Little Bytham's backscene, there is definitely no wedding (or funeral) taking place. 

 

And, though it's definitely a roundy-roundy layout, how it looks when the 'West Riding' sweeps non-stop through the platforms (when there are also respective Up and Down stoppers present; based on the PTT) is rather different from what it looks like as the 'Lizzie' sweeps by (when there are no other trains). 

 

What about the Up and Down pick-ups as well? Both subtract and add vehicles to the sidings during the sequence. 

 

I hope the LB sequence does represent the 'comings and goings of the operational railway as it goes about its daily business.................' The sequence is based on the actual PTTs and WTTs of the period, running through an actual place. Not every train is represented, however. I only have just over 60. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Tony Wright
tautology

[Chamby]

20 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

*snip*

 

What can't be taken away (at least on a personal level) is the pleasure I get from making things; far more pleasure that that derived from obtaining anything RTR. 

 

 

 

Indeed.  Enjoying the modelling journey is arguably more important than reaching the destination.  Especially during Lockdown.

 

Though I do linger rather more in the aspects of the journey that I enjoy the most, and take a short-cut through all the other bits!

 

Phil.

[30368]

32 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

What can't be taken away (at least on a personal level) is the pleasure I get from making things; far more pleasure that that derived from obtaining anything RTR. That said, I have to be pragmatic. Returning to the Bachmann Mk.1s, how much time might it have taken me to make the over-90 I needed from, say, Comet kits? I have made several Mk.1s from Comet kits - the types not available RTR. By exploiting them, does that make me any 'less' of a modeller?

 

I couldn't agree more Tony. My efforts at loco building (and now layout construction) are not that special - I try to improve with each loco built - but solving all the little problems during construction and the satisfaction on completion are so good for one's soul and yes give a lot of pleasure.

 

In these wretched times railway modelling is a gift!

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

PS Love the look of both A2/2's in the images!

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

What about those who buy RTR and improve or alter the models? Or who take care to run RTR in a realistic way? Or who combine RTR with kits etc? 

Or who build a layout, lay some track and wire it up to run their RTR  rolling stock?

 

We've been here before, many times.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

My reference to 'the fourth dimension' is not really a reference to the TARDIS effect - a 2D picture can do that.

 

What I refer to is that, on an operational layout like Buckingham, how the layout looks at 9am is not how the layout looks at 9.15am. And how the layout looks at 9.15am is not how the layout looks at 9.30am (etc). On a roundy-roundy layout, once the train has passed through, the layout looks exactly the same. All day long. Even the wedding at the church is at the same stage!

 

The 'fourth dimension' is therefore what you would actually observe if you were standing on the platform at Buckingham, the comings and goings of the operational railway as it goes about its daily business of transporting passengers and goods traffic, with all the intricate logistical arrangements that go with that.

 

Some of us are fascinated by such things; some (most?) are not!

Of course, we can do all that on a roundy-roundy too.

[cctransuk]

My musings of yesterday evening seem to have been misinterpretted in some quarters - I'm sorry if I was less than clear in expressing myself.

 

The concerns that I have relate to the content of today's railway modelling press - not in any way did I intend to denigrate those who buy RTR / RTP and improve or adapt it in the process of building a model railway; that is a large part of what I do. I believe that it is perfectly possible to be a railway modeller without ever building rolling stock from a kit or from scratch. However, I do not believe that purchasing RTR / RTP and running it in the condition that it came out of the box is railway modelling. What worries me is that today's model railway press seems to actively encourage the latter, non-creative activity.

 

Going back to basics - one definition of modelling is "the activity of making three-dimensional models"; the operational word here is "making". If asked to decide if a person is a modeller, I would ask "What have you made"? I would expect the model to exhibit features that were the product of the modeller's labour - even if confined to the odd added detail or some weathering. Like Tony, I am a great believer in 'layout' models; ie. models that are faithful to the prototype as far as can be discerned at the normal viewing distance, but which do not incorporate every last detail - IMHO, life is too short.

 

If I have to nominate a typical model that I produce, I would point to my current project. A Standard 3 2-6-2T, that started life as a Tri-ang RTR model; was modified and detailed in the 1980s but remained on the original chassis; and which is now having an ancient but excellent Kemilway etched chassis, with Markits wheels and a High Level / Mitsumi drive, fitted. The end product will still be 'out' in some key dimensions, but it will look the part and should haul prototypical trains.

 

I have been producing rolling stock for sixty years, but have never had more than a test plank on which to run it. Yesterday, a builder started to convert our garage into a dedicated railway room. By early March I hope to be laying track, and by the end of the year, to be running trains composed of stock that has not turned a wheel since it was built.

 

This first-and-last layout will need some buildings and scenery - but I have to admit that this aspect of railway modelling does not fill me with anticipation! So - I have been having an Ebay buying spree of (original) Airfix and Ratio building kits; with the aim of being able to present the layout in either BR (S&DJR) or BR (Midland Mainline) formats.

 

I know that hands will be thrown up in horror at the prospect of 1960s Airfix-shire scenery, but I believe that I will be able to improve and adapt these kits, and give them an individuality which will raise them above their origins; (I have already acquired etchings for signalbox windows and station valances). What I want to achieve is a convincing setting in which to run trains - something that will complement Garrrats and 4Fs on coal trains and Scots and Jubilees on expresses or - with a quick change of buildings - 'Evening Star' on the 'Pines' and 7Fs on freight.

 

Now this concept will never produce a model of the standard of LB; point rodding is unlikely ever to appear. Nonetheless, it will fulfil my long-felt ambition and, above all, will involve much modelling.

 

John Isherwood.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Now you are making my brain hurt. Apparently it is possible to overthink these things.

 

Good morning Tony,

 

imagine a layout built in 4D space rather than 3d space. If you find the entrance, you could see every shunting movement that has ever happened or will ever will ever happen on Buckingham, all happening at once. Indeed, every instance in the life of Buckingham, from inception to end, happening simultaneously. Of course Frank Dyer would be there, at every age that his life intersected with Buckingham and more,  you would be simultaneously old and young and every age between. A mind blowing photo opportunity and quite a conversation I suspect.

[St Enodoc]

8 minutes ago, Headstock said:

If you find the entrance

What if you couldn't find the exit?

[geoff west]

Tony,

Do you have any pictures of Hadley Green in your library?

I know it appeared in BRM years ago.

I seem to remember you going to photograph it on your birthday?

 

Regards,

 

Geoff.

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I have to take issue with some of what you've said, Graham................

 

Firstly, though St. Medard's church is represented on Little Bytham's backscene, there is definitely no wedding (or funeral) taking place. 

 

And, though it's definitely a roundy-roundy layout, how it looks when the 'West Riding' sweeps non-stop through the platforms (when there are also respective Up and Down stoppers present; based on the PTT) is rather different from what it looks like as the 'Lizzie' sweeps by (when there are no other trains). 

 

What about the Up and Down pick-ups as well? Both subtract and add vehicles to the sidings during the sequence. 

 

I hope the LB sequence does represent the 'comings and goings of the operational railway as it goes about its daily business.................' The sequence is based on the actual PTTs and WTTs of the period, running through an actual place. Not every train is represented, however. I only have just over 60. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Morning Tony,

 

Let me say first of all that I was most emphatically NOT making any direct comparison between Buckingham and Little Bytham in my post! Come on - you know the sort of layout I'm (somewhat disingenuously) referring to - the one also with the fire brigade attending to a smoking building, a fox hunt going on, an aeroplane crashed in a field (etc, etc).

 

Against my 'fourth dimension' definition, I would say that Little Bytham was 10-25% (depending quite how you look at it) 'fourth dimension' and the pick-up goods certainly contribute to that. But you yourself cheerfully admit that Little Bytham is your 'trainset' and your great delight is to 'turn up the taps' and enjoyed the spectacle of an A4 on a 13-coach train doing what it does best. In that moment you are transported back to the 'wall' at Retford, crying out 'Streak!'

 

You do yourself a great disservice calling it a 'trainset' as what it actually is a beautifully observed piece of modelling that absolutely conveys the 'unhurried' nature of a wayside station athwart one of Britain's great mainlines.

 

In making my 'fourth dimension' comments, I'm not in any way trying to make out that one layout type is superior to the other. What any one individual is drawn to in this great hobby of ours is a purely personal 'thing', based on what particular aspect floats their boat and that ends up driving the type of layout they end up building or are naturally drawn to. Including those that like creating the church scene or the crashed aeroplane. Good on 'em - they're making something and enjoying the hobby.

 

If I may use Grantham for a moment as an example? For me, that has far more appeal as a location to model than Little Bytham. Why? Because there's so much more going on of operational interest. You have the station itself where trains terminate as well as pause. You have the junction at the north end with two possible routes. You have the goods yards at the south end. And - best of all - you have the loco depot, with top link locos coming and going.

 

When it's all in full operation, sitting in the depot operator's chair, you're both absorbed in the rhythm of the depot workings, doing the forward allocation of locos, trying to make sure the next one or two locos to leave shed are in their designated spots so as not to delay the schedule ... and at the same time have a grandstand view of the parade of trains either flying through or making their scheduled stops at the station, including loco changes. So, I reckon I'm up to about 75%-ish 'fourth dimension' by my definition of things changing as the time goes on. Like Tony (t-b-g), I can look at a picture of the layout and usually work out which point of the sequence we're at.

 

BUT(!)

 

It's horribly compressed. To scale size, N gauge would fit the same footprint - Bytham is virtually to scale (you say you've lost 18 inches towards the bridge)

The trackplan is greatly reduced in the yards and sidings - Bytham has every piece last point and siding that was there in the real thing.

It uses Peco Code 100 track - Bytham has Norman Solomon's exquisite hand-built trackwork

We run typically 8-9 max train lengths (see above, re compression) - Bytham all are scale length

I could go on.

 

So which is the 'better' layout?! Answer - neither! Grantham is merely an expression of what particularly interests me as an individual. It also happens to have become a 'stage' on which good friends are able to run their stock, some built especially for the layout. That has been the making of it as a project.

 

But were it to be put to a vote, I suspect that Little Bytham would win every time.

 

Why do I say that? Well, at exhibitions, over the last five years, whilst we've generally had a good crowd around us, we're rarely the most popular layout. And why? (Stand by for the 'punchline') Because comparatively few viewers really 'get' the whole fourth dimension thing. Many are happy just to look at the overall scene for a little while, maybe pick up on a few scenic or loco details. Some are frustrated that the 'stars of the show' (ie the eponymous Streamliners) appear relatively infrequently and eventually wander off in a 'nothing moving on this layout' huff. But those few who realise what we're actually trying to do get into the schedule and what's happening and can stay for hours. One comment from such a viewer makes it all worth while - and I'll happily live with it not being to everyone's taste. There's plenty of other types of layout in the show for everyone to find one that appeals to them

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by LNER4479

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Of course, we can do all that on a roundy-roundy too.

Think I've just 'QED'd that with the above post?

Edited January 6, 2021 by LNER4479