Wright writes.....

[Chas Levin]

22 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

By coincidence I just this evening started reading a Christmas present, the MRC 1983 Annual and the first article is all about how they came to do those terrific covers:

 

 

 

They put an enormous amount of work into each shot and it must have been great fun doing it!

Edited January 6, 2021 by Chas Levin

[queensquare]

I have to say there's an awful lot of 'rose tinted glasses' about old model railway magazines. One of the tasks I've set myself in lockdown is to get rid of a load of stuff cluttering up my loft. This evening I went through a couple of decades of Toddlers from the 70s and 80s and have to say that a very large proportion of the content really wasn't very good at all - aside from a handful of articles and a few drawings the rest is going in the recycling bin. There were some good construction articles but the bulk of the magazine was made up of RTR (which was nothing like as good as it is today). There was some good photography but there was an awful lot that wasn't very good.

 

It seems to me that today's  mainstream magazines, in terms of content, aren't really all that different. The style of presentation and photography isn't always to my taste but the consistency of quality, if anything is better. Likewise, the bulk of the content relates to layouts based around RTR equipment and articles on kit building and encouraging beginners to dip their toe in our wonderful hobby. This diet of improving and modifying RTR is occasssionally supplemented by more advanced kit and scratch building - much as it's always been!

 

Jerry

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I wrote a few prototype information articles for a couple of model magazines some years back but they seemed to lose interest and it was too time-consuming to write them anyway. I felt I could not do justice to the subject in a short enough piece. Nowadays, I do plenty of work on publications of a different kind as I'm in charge of 51 chapters of a huge accounting manual, but that's another story.

 

Picking up on assorted comments above, I don't like the way photo reproduction of layouts has gone in the magazines as the colours always look false to me. I don't buy any model magazines in hard copy regularly and have not done so for several years, although I currently have a digital subscription to BRM because it was cheap.  Around the time I ceased buying magazines regularly, I sensed that there was something of a race to the bottom in terms of subject matter and who they were pitched at, and I consider myself to be a very basic modeller not much removed from the train set end of the spectrum compared to many who post on this thread. However, I can usually marshal a passenger train correctly and attach it to appropriate motive power.

 

As for layouts, I remember the Buckingham tribute in Railway Modeller that was published not long before Peter Denny passed away. I thought it was a massive achievement and was probably decades ahead of its time in terms of the modelling. I think I still have that edition somewhere, although I threw out most of my modelling magazines. However good the modelling was, it's not really my kind of layout. I like the big main line layouts depicting the BR era up to the 1970s although earlier time periods are fine too. Trains have to be in a credible formation with appropriate motive power otherwise it spoils it for me, no matter how good the standard in other respects.

 

I am not sure if you were referring to Buckingham or not right at the end but if you were suggesting that the trains on the layout have non credible formations and motive power, I would be interested to be given examples as I may be able to re-arrange the trains to get them correct.

Edited January 6, 2021 by t-b-g
To eliminate lots of blank space after my post where I wrote lots of stuff but deleted it!

[APOLLO]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Dewsbury Midland or Heckmondwike (or both)?

 Probably Heckmondwyke - long time ago !!

 

Brit15

[APOLLO]

24 minutes ago, queensquare said:

I have to say there's an awful lot of 'rose tinted glasses' about old model railway magazines. One of the tasks I've set myself in lockdown is to get rid of a load of stuff cluttering up my loft. This evening I went through a couple of decades of Toddlers from the 70s and 80s and have to say that a very large proportion of the content really wasn't very good at all - aside from a handful of articles and a few drawings the rest is going in the recycling bin. There were some good construction articles but the bulk of the magazine was made up of RTR (which was nothing like as good as it is today). There was some good photography but there was an awful lot that wasn't very good.

 

It seems to me that today's  mainstream magazines, in terms of content, aren't really all that different. The style of presentation and photography isn't always to my taste but the consistency of quality, if anything is better. Likewise, the bulk of the content relates to layouts based around RTR equipment and articles on kit building and encouraging beginners to dip their toe in our wonderful hobby. This diet of improving and modifying RTR is occasssionally supplemented by more advanced kit and scratch building - much as it's always been!

 

Jerry

 

I suppose for me it's nostalgia. Many old mags remind me of a time and date long ago. I have a 1964 Railway Modeler which I remember buying at Birmingham New St during the reconstruction, on the way home from holiday (Loco numbers written on the back cover !!). The mags were "of their time" no doubt, and more interesting as "Modern Image" was back then epitomised by New St  & the swish electrics then to come - I was fascinated by it all !!!

 

I'm also having a cull, anything after 2000 with boring GWR branch lines etc has to go !!!! (probably most of them !!). I'll keep a few with interesting layouts / articles though. I won't be buying many more. Interestingly I find the early BRM mags OK- I'll keep all the early ones. Just another mag now filled with useless reviews, oft repeated articles on how to do this & that, and adverts. Something is missing with our model railway press I find these days - Somehow they have lost their sparkle to me.

 

Brit15

 

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by APOLLO
typo

[APOLLO]

Just thought - An interesting layout would be a station being rebuilt / modernised / electrified in the 60's. You could have it all, Steam, diesel & blue electrics. Old semaphores & new colourlights, a few lines with overhead, some with none, some with masts, engineers trains etc, you name it.

 

Has anyone done this ? - If so THAT is when I would buy the mag.

 

Nearest one I've seen is "January 68" by Fylde MRC (I think) - Here the main line was being rationalised, station closed & under demolition, steam shed just about operating along with stored locos. Just as it was. A superb layout.

 

Brit15

Edited January 6, 2021 by APOLLO

[Bulwell Hall]

1 hour ago, queensquare said:

I have to say there's an awful lot of 'rose tinted glasses' about old model railway magazines. One of the tasks I've set myself in lockdown is to get rid of a load of stuff cluttering up my loft. This evening I went through a couple of decades of Toddlers from the 70s and 80s and have to say that a very large proportion of the content really wasn't very good at all - aside from a handful of articles and a few drawings the rest is going in the recycling bin. There were some good construction articles but the bulk of the magazine was made up of RTR (which was nothing like as good as it is today). There was some good photography but there was an awful lot that wasn't very good.

 

It seems to me that today's  mainstream magazines, in terms of content, aren't really all that different. The style of presentation and photography isn't always to my taste but the consistency of quality, if anything is better. Likewise, the bulk of the content relates to layouts based around RTR equipment and articles on kit building and encouraging beginners to dip their toe in our wonderful hobby. This diet of improving and modifying RTR is occasssionally supplemented by more advanced kit and scratch building - much as it's always been!

 

Jerry

 

Couldn't agree more Jerry!   A couple of years ago I was given a complete run of Model Railway News dating from around 1950 right through to the early 1970s when it changed to Model Railways - in fact there were quite a few of those as well.  They took up rather a lot of room so I decided that I would 'fillet' them and remove articles of interest and relevance and dispose of the rest.  After a couple of evenings I ended up with no more than a hand full of articles and drawings and the rest went to the recycle depot in Bath.  MRN always had a reputation for being the modellers magazine but looking at them from a 21st century perspective they are just so dated and almost irrelevant.  I suppose that they have a certain nostalgic appeal and they were undoubtedly inspirational at the time but otherwise the techniques and methods described have been so thoroughly improved that I would probably never refer back to them.

 

Gerry

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

With all these wonderful layouts being talked about, have you noticed, they all have 'Atmosphere'.

 

Terry. (aka manna)

[Jesse Sim]

On 05/01/2021 at 07:26, 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...........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow I forgot about that photo, thanks Tony. 
 

 

May I show the layout from the same spot now? 
 

This is more or less the same angle as the shot you took. Amazing what extending the layout to the full length of the room can do, no visible sharpe curve. 
 

 

The same viewpoint but facing towards the tunnel. 
 

 

Lovely loco there by the way  

 

Please excuse the horrible photos as they’re screenshots of videos I have taken for up coming YouTube video. 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Jesse Sim

[t-b-g]

For me, the main difference between older magazines and more modern ones is the switch from a text based article illustrated with some pictures to an emphasis on pictures, which often don't show a layout as it really looks, with minimal text.

 

It is not so much about the quality of the modelling as the style of presentation.

 

Looking back, the choice of subject matter was also much wider. Perhaps one layout, two at most. Constructional articles, prototype drawings, RTR improvements, scenic work, scratchbuilding, signals, track and kits were all covered.

 

I saw one magazine recently with 6 layout articles, all with lots of pictures and little text that told me little about what techniques had been adopted, plus 20 pages of RTR reviews, mostly for models that had sold out before the magazine was distributed.

 

So I would agree with those who say that the quality in older times wasn't always as good but the style and balance of content suited me much better and articles from many decades ago have stayed with me since I first saw them. Very few modern articles have done that. They are far more "disposable".

 

I like a good read and back in the day, the way the magazines were set out allowed that.

 

When I was told by an editor that was what "readers" want nowadays, they want to look at pictures rather than actually read, I realised how out of step I am with the modern world!

[jrg1]

8 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

For me, the main difference between older magazines and more modern ones is the switch from a text based article illustrated with some pictures to an emphasis on pictures, which often don't show a layout as it really looks, with minimal text.

 

It is not so much about the quality of the modelling as the style of presentation.

 

Looking back, the choice of subject matter was also much wider. Perhaps one layout, two at most. Constructional articles, prototype drawings, RTR improvements, scenic work, scratchbuilding, signals, track and kits were all covered.

 

I saw one magazine recently with 6 layout articles, all with lots of pictures and little text that told me little about what techniques had been adopted, plus 20 pages of RTR reviews, mostly for models that had sold out before the magazine was distributed.

 

So I would agree with those who say that the quality in older times wasn't always as good but the style and balance of content suited me much better and articles from many decades ago have stayed with me since I first saw them. Very few modern articles have done that. They are far more "disposable".

 

I like a good read and back in the day, the way the magazines were set out allowed that.

 

When I was told by an editor that was what "readers" want nowadays, they want to look at pictures rather than actually read, I realised how out of step I am with the modern world!

I managed to acquire nearly three dozen RM Wagons of the LMS articles that ran from 1963 to 1970.  Terrifically informative, inspiring and encouraged me to have a go, and move up from Airfix minerals.  Going by today's editorial dogma, they would be rejected-lots of words, usually one picture and a drawing.  Rather regressive to me.

[robertcwp]

12 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

When I was told by an editor that was what "readers" want nowadays, they want to look at pictures rather than actually read, I realised how out of step I am with the modern world!

It probably says something for modern-day social media such as Twitter and Facebook, or am I just showing my age? I do use Facebook groups a lot and there is a great deal of interest from a railway point of view, but by its nature it is largely images with some comments. 

[Northmoor]

9 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

When I was told by an editor that was what "readers" want nowadays, they want to look at pictures rather than actually read, I realised how out of step I am with the modern world!

I sometimes think this reflects a mainstream media mindset more than the general public.  If no-one wanted to read, no-one would buy fiction books, but they sell just as much as ever; if no-one could concentrate for long enough, cinemas would be deserted, but until 2020 they were as busy as ever.

Not everyone has the attention span of a three year old, but having worked with some mainstream media "professionals" - not model railway journalists - it seems they assume the general public does, when actually it's something unique to their profession.

[queensquare]

10 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

Looking back, the choice of subject matter was also much wider. Perhaps one layout, two at most. Constructional articles, prototype drawings, RTR improvements, scenic work, scratchbuilding, signals, track and kits were all covered.

 

I saw one magazine recently with 6 layout articles, all with lots of pictures and little text that told me little about what techniques had been adopted, plus 20 pages of RTR reviews, mostly for models that had sold out before the magazine was distributed.

 

So I would agree with those who say that the quality in older times wasn't always as good but the style and balance of content suited me much better and articles from many decades ago have stayed with me since I first saw them. Very few modern articles have done that. They are far more "disposable".

 

I like a good read and back in the day, the way the magazines were set out allowed that.

 

When I was told by an editor that was what "readers" want nowadays, they want to look at pictures rather than actually read, I realised how out of step I am with the modern world!

 

Until the last couple of evenings Tony I would have agreed with you but having sat through several piles of mags it's not the case. There are some excellent articles and some useful drawings but, like the music of our youth, those are the ones we remember and are very much in the minority - not the dross that makes up the majority.

 

jerry

[robertcwp]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am not sure if you were referring to Buckingham or not right at the end but if you were suggesting that the trains on the layout have non credible formations and motive power, I would be interested to be given examples as I may be able to re-arrange the trains to get them correct.

Certainly not referring to Buckingham. It's about fifty years outside the era that I know anything much about so I don't have the knowledge to comment on the trains.

 

I was thinking of several large BR-era exhibition layouts that I have seen that depict real places, usually with a very high standard of modelling, but where the trains bear little or no resemblance to those which would have been seen at that location in the time period modelled. I have also seen layouts not based on a real location where vacuum-braked locos haul air-braked stock or there are absurd formations of stock that bear no relation to how trains of the period were marshalled. 

 

I contrast those with layouts such as Mostyn, Stoke Summit, Leicester South GC and Bournemouth West where there is or was a real effort to get the trains right as well as everything else. 

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

Until the last couple of evenings Tony I would have agreed with you but having sat through several piles of mags it's not the case. There are some excellent articles and some useful drawings but, like the music of our youth, those are the ones we remember and are very much in the minority - not the dross that makes up the majority.

 

jerry

 

I wasn't suggesting that older magazines were better Jerry, just that I prefer them.

 

If I have a few minutes spare, not worth starting anything much, I will grab a magazine from the shelf. I will always go for either a copy of MRJ, or an old Constructor or Modeller.

 

I just find the way they are set out and the balance of the content suits me.

 

Now don't get me started on music. Almost every artist I like is either in their old age or deceased!

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

My work bench.

AKA rare plant sanctuary and hospital for Easter bunnies.

The signal box is a Wills kit undergoing a move to the North East.

The A3 has to join in as at least one is essential in any post in this thread.

Bernard

 

[Tony Wright]

Regarding magazines of old, there is a danger of looking back through those 'rose-coloured spectacles'. However, that said, they were definitely more text-heavy and a much more-substantial read. 

 

Because I proof-read BRM, when a new copy arrives, I just skip through it (hoping to not find a blooper which I should have intercepted!). The other mag' I have each month is the dear old RM (I contributed a little piece to another mag recently and didn't even get a complimentary copy, so that's on the 'never look at again' pile). 

Now, despite its excellent presentation, the RM is read now in 'one sitting' so to speak.

 

Contrast that with 50+ years ago. Every fortnight, I'd travel back home from my teacher training college in Ormskirk to Chester. Leaving Liverpool Exchange to walk to Central Station meant passing the bookstall. If a new issue were on display I'd buy the RM and/or the MRC (the MRN was too high-brow for me). By the time I'd reached Chester in a DMU, there was still some more to read. Yes, to read, and the issues were much thinner. The pictures were often grim, and some of the modelling rather crude (I recall an O Gauge P2 on one RM cover which looked awful), but there was always plenty of 'meat' in the articles. I have to admit that my reading was often interrupted by the passage of filthy dirty, Birkenhead-allocated fag-end steam, but I still spent much more time on the mags than I do these days. 

[MikeTrice]

It is not just magazines that have suffered this "dumbing down" (I think Your Model Railway started the trend). One of my pet hates is TV documentaries which start the episode telling you what is going to be covered for the rest of the program then when ad breaks occur have a "coming up" segment before the break, then a recap after the break and finally a "next time" at the end.

[Clearwater]

2 minutes ago, MikeTrice said:

It is not just magazines that have suffered this "dumbing down" (I think Your Model Railway started the trend). One of my pet hates is TV documentaries which start the episode telling you what is going to be covered for the rest of the program then when ad breaks occur have a "coming up" segment before the break, then a recap after the break and finally a "next time" at the end.

 

The recent , and otherwise good, C5 Dan Snow documentary on the Dambusters did exactly that and drove even my 8 year old son barmy!  One of the advert breaks even promoted the programme we were actually watching which is, ahem, novel.

 

David

[Northmoor]

5 minutes ago, MikeTrice said:

It is not just magazines that have suffered this "dumbing down" (I think Your Model Railway started the trend). One of my pet hates is TV documentaries which start the episode telling you what is going to be covered for the rest of the program then when ad breaks occur have a "coming up" segment before the break, then a recap after the break and finally a "next time" at the end.

Mitchell and Webb parodied this almost perfectly:

 

 

[t-b-g]

There ought to be a TV series about grumpy railway modellers moaning.

 

It could be called grumpy old gits but the Gauge O Guild might object to the use of their initials.

[rowanj]

I actually prefer/enjoy the "modern" way magazines use pictures, accompanied by illustrative text, to show how to build or adapt a model, and certainly don't see it as "dumbing down". Given the adage about "a picture tells a thousand words" comes from 1911, it can hardly be ascribed to the influence of social media.

But as I hardly ever buy them nowadays, nor can stand at the stall browsing whilst Mrs Rowanj goes around Morrisons with the shopping trolley, it is all a bit academic.

Sometimes this thread can start to resemble "Last of the Summer Wine". When I were a lad...

Edited January 7, 2021 by rowanj

[Beechnut]

13 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Dewsbury Midland or Heckmondwike (or both)?

Dewsbury Midland, and I assume we’re talking about the Manchester MRS model, was/is 00.

 

Brendan

[Andy Hayter]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

For me, the main difference between older magazines and more modern ones is the switch from a text based article illustrated with some pictures to an emphasis on pictures, which often don't show a layout as it really looks, with minimal text.

 

It is not so much about the quality of the modelling as the style of presentation.

 

Looking back, the choice of subject matter was also much wider. Perhaps one layout, two at most. Constructional articles, prototype drawings, RTR improvements, scenic work, scratchbuilding, signals, track and kits were all covered.

 

I saw one magazine recently with 6 layout articles, all with lots of pictures and little text that told me little about what techniques had been adopted, plus 20 pages of RTR reviews, mostly for models that had sold out before the magazine was distributed.

 

So I would agree with those who say that the quality in older times wasn't always as good but the style and balance of content suited me much better and articles from many decades ago have stayed with me since I first saw them. Very few modern articles have done that. They are far more "disposable".

 

I like a good read and back in the day, the way the magazines were set out allowed that.

 

When I was told by an editor that was what "readers" want nowadays, they want to look at pictures rather than actually read, I realised how out of step I am with the modern world!

 

I do very much agree Tony but between those halcyon days and todays picture book display we seemed to go though a stage (not entirely eliminated) of very formulaic articles  A typical example being:

 

Construction Techniques

 

Baseboards were constructed in the typical way with

6mm/9mm/15mm ply / chipboard / Sundela / MDF tops

supported by a 9mm/15mm ply / 2x1/3x1 soft wood frame

with legs made from softwood/ply  and fixed/designed to fold up for transportation for exhibitions.

 

Track work was from Peco code 100/83/75 / SMP/ Marcway and was ballasted using (insert favoured supplier).  The rails were weathered by painting the sides with (chose favourite paint supplier and shade(s)) and the tops of the rails were wiped clean for good electrical conductivity.

 

Ballasting was from (chose favourite supplier) with special attention being paid not to interfere with the operation of the point blades and fixed down with diluted PVA with a bit of washing up liquid added.

 

 

Delete as appropriate