Wright writes.....

[great central]

47 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Wish (jokingly) someone would pinch my Rover - She's insured for ten grand !!

 

Brit15

 

Careful what you wish for, very much desired in banger racing circles, like Ford Granadas, still seem to be plenty to be found?

Stripped and sold as a rolling shell. I was talking to a former racer last year who said he'd given up because of such things, he was disillusioned that people were paying big money for something just to wreck it. 

Another favourite is Toyota Supras, when did you last see one of those, but two were absolutely wrecked at a routine meeting at Yarmouth last year.

Sorry about the thread drift

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, LNERandBR said:

I concur that the second of the two images is best. My eyes are also drawn to the distracting background of the sign and curtain.

 

However, I would not be adverse to seeing wide angle shots of the entire room in publications, from either end if possible. That shows us the layout in it's home and how it's been designed to fit it. That's educational for anyone planning their own layout and wanting to know how to make the most of the space they have possible.

 

Fiddle Yards are also one of the things I often think are missing from article pictures and track plans.

Good afternoon Stephen,

 

I'll take some 'layout in its room' shots tomorrow...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

They are both fine with me. They show different aspects of the layout. One shows it in its surroundings, the other is to make it look as much like the real thing as possible. Which is "best" depends very much on what you want to show from them.

 

Photo 3, (the one you haven't put on!) which is photo 1 with the backscene cloned all the way to the top and the grass bottom left cloned out to the corner is the one I am not keen on. I am not saying that it is wrong, or shouldn't be done, just that I am not so keen on what I see as fairly obvious fakery and deception. Neither of your photos has any obvious fakery involved. If they have any at all, it is subtle and understated, unlike much of what appears in magazines. From a reasonable height, the chances of seeing sky through the arch of a bridge, or going down behind where the horizon should be are pretty slim in most locations, yet it appears often on models.

 

So I would enjoy looking at either of those but I probably prefer the second one as the format makes the composition more unusual and the whole picture is full of railway interest rather than just two thirds of the frame.

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

Though, in the second picture, I should have digitally removed the dead insect on the goods shed's extended roof.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, john new said:

 

As those who may have seen my earlier post on this as someone who quite likes some layout shots, but definitely not all, to show the layout's setting I will also comment, and I hopefully constructively, as LB is a fantastic creation.

 

The top shot - yes I concur re the intrusive elements as the image is mostly layout on a 1/3 to 2/3 split, in itself, showing the photographer's craft.

 

Earlier on in the thread you posted a shot from somewhere behind the spot that was taken from (or with a wider angle lens*) showing more of the room, and in that one the inclusion of the surroundings was useful in setting the overall scale and not as intrusive. In a magazine feature it would have only needed one such "in its' location" type shot. That said, even if you had cropped it to roughly level with the rear backscene top, the fact that image is in the as taken state as to subject matter shows the L angle corner (Left) disguised by a tree, and your use of angles in the right hand corner to smooth the backscene transition.

 

In the lower version it does show the layout in a better manner but those educational aspects are lost. The assumption from the lower shot, unless you look very closely to see the angle in the painted fields, would be you had used a single piece curved sheet backscene and also that there is more layout to the left and cropped off the image.  In the lower image you also lose the educational value of seeing the cottages as half-relief structures. 

 

There was a lot of comment on changes in magazine content earlier, and I think this type of change is actually the difference between then and now. You are a master of the craft (modelling and photography) and your lower shot undoubtedly shows off the layout in a better presentation than the top one, but in doing so some of the inherent  authenticity of the physical model (as in photo 1) is lost in photo 2. 

 

* possibly a still from the DVD.

 

Thanks John,

 

There's probably a case for both in a magazine article (as I mentioned earlier, I'll take some 'educational' shots tomorrow). 

 

I'm reminded of my art school days where I was told by the principal that 'Often what you leave out of a picture/drawing is just as important as what you put in'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Now, a coach quickie....................

 

Lockdown (again) has prompted me to investigate dusty boxes to see what's in them and what needs doing. 

 

In one, I found this................

 

I've just altered/repainted this Bachmann Mk.1 RB. Is it the old Mainline one, just re-hashed? 

 

 

I'm not even sure how, why or when I acquired it, but it was a bit rough (it might have been from a collection years ago).

 

I tidied it up, attended to any damage and replaced the original Commonwealth bogies with re-wheeled Bachmann B1 types (along with the prototype of this diagram, several others were allocated to the ER with, I believe, the original-style bogies).

 

 

Definitely a 'layout coach' (I've yet to find a suitable train to put it in), but something a little different.

 

I believe Hornby is to release the same diagram. No doubt it'll be far superior, but this is cheap and cheerful....................... 

 

The different colours are down to different cameras and different lighting.

 

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, drduncan said:

Now I’ve only written a couple or so articles for the model railway press, but in writing them I have I supposed reflected not just what interests me but also how to write about it. (I suppose I should make time to write more.) So to the question to what articles would cause me to buy a magazine...

 

I like to pretend I’m a finescale modeller, so things that reflect a finescale approach and would encourage others to follow suit. So while rtr out of the box often leaves me cold, so too does the fortunately rare ‘hair shirt’ brand of finescale that seems to revel in the impossibility of anyone emulating it. And as someone who is scratching a Broad Gauge itch at the moment I’m very aware I’m probably running close to accusations of hypocrisy.  So while carving driving wheels by hand from mild steel because xxx’s products aren’t good enough shows dedication , I’d prefer to read to someone’s experience in getting xxx’s wheels to retain their tyres/add the crankpin holes that the manufacturer didn’t/stay on the axle. Or what have you.

 

Anything by Iain Rice (and his disciples) as they are thought provoking, full of ideas and prototype info, often humorous, and make finescale believable and achievable.

 

Any article that points out P4 running can be improved by using EM flanges....

 

[Such a shame Bob Barlow’s untimely death led to the closing of the Finescale Modelling Review so soon after it was launched.]

 

DrDuncan

 

Having once inadvertently fitted a set of Sharman 00/EM tender wheels to a LRM P4 tender, I didn't understand why it kept derailing through points on London Road. The wheels were in a packet labelled P4 and it wasn't until I looked more closely that I saw the tyre profile was not P4. So I don't accept that fitting EM wheels to P4 models works readily, at least not without some adjustment to wheels (B2B?) or track. Then it's not P4 but some other "standard".

 

I heartily agree that Ian Rice produced informative and entertaining books and articles. His WSP books on kit building, etc. remain some of the most inspirational books I have. Likewise Bob Barlow's untimely departure was a great loss. I was delighted to be asked by him to put together together some material for the Finescale Modelling Review, but it never came to pass.

[Steven B]

20 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

These days all we get are pathetic attempts to replicate a train using RTR coaches often twisting the facts to achieve it.

 

I'm not sure I'd describe my attempts at replicating a train using RTR coaches as pathetic, but it's what I've been doing for the last few years. Each of my passenger trains is now based on carriage working diagrams or period pictures/videos. 90% of my rakes are prototypically correct (down to exact vehicle types, and where pictures are available liveries) yet only have RTR coaches in them. The exceptions are my TPO rake which will have a DIY BSK-Courier van conversion in it and a couple of rakes that don't have the correct kitchen/buffet car. In the latter cases I've used a RTR alternative in lieu of the actual vehicles as the correct versions simply aren't available (RTR or kit) and I don't (yet!) have the skill to scratch build.

 

It has meant a few compromises - there are several Brake-second based trains I'd like to model but until a RTR model appears or I suddenly wake to discover I'm much better at scratch building they'll have to remain on the "to-do" list.

 

Steven B.

 

[t-b-g]

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

Though, in the second picture, I should have digitally removed the dead insect on the goods shed's extended roof.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It was too small to see what it was on my screen. If you had said it was a scale model of a pigeon you would have got away with it.

[john new]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Perhaps the editor(s) aren't looking widely enough? Scouring the forums looking for potentially interesting and appropriate material and inviting modellers to turn that material into magazine articles might prove rewarding.

Whilst this initially appears to make sense, as an Editor of a Society magazine, I add that the job of editing takes long enough as it is, for professional magazine editors their job will be hard enough already. Yes, when I see something interesting I have/will ask if the writer will contribute or use the idea as the idea for a new article. In the latest edition I have done just that, two sets of images of the same location 160 years apart, merged to a single feature. 
 

Trawling for material though, rather than just using the serendipity of seeing something potentially useful. is a whole league higher.

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by john new

[thegreenhowards]

32 minutes ago, Steven B said:

 

I'm not sure I'd describe my attempts at replicating a train using RTR coaches as pathetic, but it's what I've been doing for the last few years. Each of my passenger trains is now based on carriage working diagrams or period pictures/videos. 90% of my rakes are prototypically correct (down to exact vehicle types, and where pictures are available liveries) yet only have RTR coaches in them. The exceptions are my TPO rake which will have a DIY BSK-Courier van conversion in it and a couple of rakes that don't have the correct kitchen/buffet car. In the latter cases I've used a RTR alternative in lieu of the actual vehicles as the correct versions simply aren't available (RTR or kit) and I don't (yet!) have the skill to scratch build.

 

It has meant a few compromises - there are several Brake-second based trains I'd like to model but until a RTR model appears or I suddenly wake to discover I'm much better at scratch building they'll have to remain on the "to-do" list.

 

Steven B.

 

I meant no offence to you. But I do get annoyed when magazines present train formations which I know to be wrong or, at best, unusual, in order to be able to represent a train with RTR coaches. I would like magazines to set a good example. What an individual modeller does is up to them and if you’ve represented trains correctly then I’m delighted. That’s what I look for more than anything when I look at a layout.
 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, thegreenhowards said:

I meant no offence to you. But I do get annoyed when magazines present train formations which I know to be wrong or, at best, unusual, in order to be able to represent a train with RTR coaches. I would like magazines to set a good example. What an individual modeller does is up to them and if you’ve represented trains correctly then I’m delighted. That’s what I look for more than anything when I look at a layout.
 

Andy

Good evening Andy,

 

Some years ago, I wrote some articles regarding the 'correct' make-up of some of BR's principal trains (mainly ER, if I recall; obviously). 

 

To illustrate the writing, I took side-on pictures of the individual cars, which were then stitched together to make the complete train (or most of it). 

 

Try as I might, not many could be represented truly accurately by just using RTR products (this was before Hornby's more-recent Pullmans appeared, to be fair). 

 

Is the situation today no better (I don't see other magazines other than BRM and the RM)? Do the articles not state that, because only RTR cars have been used, they're, at best, just approximations, with no claim to fidelity? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[96701]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

I tidied it up, attended to any damage and replaced the original Commonwealth bogies with re-wheeled Bachmann B1 types (along with the prototype of this diagram, several others were allocated to the ER with, I believe, the original-style bogies).

Now, if you happen to have any Commonwealth bogies going spare, I feel a CRUK contribution coming on (hint, hint)

[thegreenhowards]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andy,

 

Some years ago, I wrote some articles regarding the 'correct' make-up of some of BR's principal trains (mainly ER, if I recall; obviously). 

 

To illustrate the writing, I took side-on pictures of the individual cars, which were then stitched together to make the complete train (or most of it). 

 

Try as I might, not many could be represented truly accurately by just using RTR products (this was before Hornby's more-recent Pullmans appeared, to be fair). 

 

Is the situation today no better (I don't see other magazines other than BRM and the RM)? Do the articles not state that, because only RTR cars have been used, they're, at best, just approximations, with no claim to fidelity? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I hesitate to mention the main culprit on here by name but it’s not one of the ones you read! I’m sure the situation is better now and some trains can be modelled accurately. However, I don’t think there are many ECML expresses in the ‘50s which could be modelled using RTR completely. Think of all the catering and the Mark 1 prototypes. Even on the Heart of Midlothian which was all Mark 1 in the early ‘50s, the RSO and RK need to be built from kits. It has to be said that the Hornby BSO and FO have helped considerably.
 

I think the situation gets easier from the sixties onwards. 
 

Pullmans would probably be possible now, but even then the Hornby wooden K Type is very generic and, while correct for some cars, many cars were different. 
 

I don’t remember any acknowledgement of inaccuracies but it’s a while since I read one.

 

I loved the sort of article that you (and others) used to do about forming up a train from a mix of RTR with some kit building thrown in. The exchanges that you, Tim and Gilbert had on Pullmans on here/ PN  a few years back were inspirational and I’ve drawn heavily from them for my Pullman rakes.
 

Regards

 

Andy

[Headstock]

I don't read any of the magazines, so I know nothing about them. From what I've gleaned from the thread, I have the impression that that they are aimed at the stupid, have terrible photography and their rewriting of history is of Orwellian proportions. Should I subscribe?

 

Only if Tony was to do a series of photographic articles on wallpaper formations.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Headstock
clarification

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, 96701 said:

Now, if you happen to have any Commonwealth bogies going spare, I feel a CRUK contribution coming on (hint, hint)

With pleasure, Phil.

 

Do I have your address, please? Just PM me, and I'll post them straight away. 

 

You can then make whatever donation you wish. That said, your giving Geoff's 71000 to the charity is more than enough.............. Much more...........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

I don't read any of the magazines, so I know nothing about them. From what I've gleaned from the thread, I have the impression that that they are aimed at the stupid, have terrible photography and their rewriting of history is of Orwellian proportions. Should I subscribe?

 

Only if Tony dose a series of photographic articles on wallpaper formations.

But I find decorating abhorrent! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

But I find decorating abhorrent! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I can't say that I'm that excited about it myself.  However, I'm sure that many would pass out, at the thought of a shot showing a glimpse of the carpet under an LB leg.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

I hesitate to mention the main culprit on here by name but it’s not one of the ones you read! I’m sure the situation is better now and some trains can be modelled accurately. However, I don’t think there are many ECML expresses in the ‘50s which could be modelled using RTR completely. Think of all the catering and the Mark 1 prototypes. Even on the Heart of Midlothian which was all Mark 1 in the early ‘50s, the RSO and RK need to be built from kits. It has to be said that the Hornby BSO and FO have helped considerably.
 

I think the situation gets easier from the sixties onwards. 
 

Pullmans would probably be possible now, but even then the Hornby wooden K Type is very generic and, while correct for some cars, many cars were different. 
 

I don’t remember any acknowledgement of inaccuracies but it’s a while since I read one.

 

I loved the sort of article that you (and others) used to do about forming up a train from a mix of RTR with some kit building thrown in. The exchanges that you, Tim and Gilbert had on Pullmans on here/ PN  a few years back were inspirational and I’ve drawn heavily from them for my Pullman rakes.
 

Regards

 

Andy

Thanks Andy,

 

I think the 'pioneer' of modelling actual passenger trains was the late David Jenkinson, with his EM Garsdale Road. Granted, the various trains might have been a car or two short (the layout was quite small), but the core was certainly there.

 

I know when WMRC members first started building Stoke Summit, little did we realise how 'unusual' our approach to creating 'correct' ECML sets of the period was. It required a lot of kit-building, and also the input of Dave Lewis, who, as a manufacturer (Southern Pride) produced much of what was required in the way of complete kits or etched sides. 

 

I'd approached the original Comet guys with a suggestion that they make the etched sides for 'The Elizabethan'. Without being unkind, the gist of the answer was 'No interest in those'. Really? Goodness knows how many Dave sold, but I know Retford has a set, Biggleswade had a set, Peterborough North has a set, and Stoke Summit got the prototypes; do you have a set? Anyone else out there got a 'Lizzie' set? 

 

Dave also produced the Cravens prototype Mk.1s to fit into their respective sets, and so on.

 

I'm not saying every rake we made was 100% accurate, but most were. Some rakes were based on prototype photographs, so they might have been one-offs, but 'right', at least for a day.

 

What we found was that SS was highly-entertaining (despite its operational simplicity; or, because of it?) to punters. To both those who knew what we were trying to do, and those who couldn't care less. Just great fun to watch. 

 

The layout's first showings were not long after BRM was born. Thus, my accounts of building the likes of 'The Elizabethan' and 'The Queen of Scots' were early submissions. Had anyone written stuff like this before? If so, not many. 

 

Would such articles be suitable for today's model railway press? Building ten-car rakes, requiring metal-bashing, soldering, donor alterations, gluing, adaptations and what have you. Too complicated? I wonder.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robertcwp]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andy,

 

I think the 'pioneer' of modelling actual passenger trains was the late David Jenkinson, with his EM Garsdale Road. Granted, the various trains might have been a car or two short (the layout was quite small), but the core was certainly there.

 

I know when WMRC members first started building Stoke Summit, little did we realise how 'unusual' our approach to creating 'correct' ECML sets of the period was. It required a lot of kit-building, and also the input of Dave Lewis, who, as a manufacturer (Southern Pride) produced much of what was required in the way of complete kits or etched sides. 

 

I'd approached the original Comet guys with a suggestion that they make the etched sides for 'The Elizabethan'. Without being unkind, the gist of the answer was 'No interest in those'. Really? Goodness knows how many Dave sold, but I know Retford has a set, Biggleswade had a set, Peterborough North has a set, and Stoke Summit got the prototypes; do you have a set? Anyone else out there got a 'Lizzie' set? 

 

Dave also produced the Cravens prototype Mk.1s to fit into their respective sets, and so on.

 

I'm not saying every rake we made was 100% accurate, but most were. Some rakes were based on prototype photographs, so they might have been one-offs, but 'right', at least for a day.

 

What we found was that SS was highly-entertaining (despite its operational simplicity; or, because of it?) to punters. To both those who knew what we were trying to do, and those who couldn't care less. Just great fun to watch. 

 

The layout's first showings were not long after BRM was born. Thus, my accounts of building the likes of 'The Elizabethan' and 'The Queen of Scots' were early submissions. Had anyone written stuff like this before? If so, not many. 

 

Would such articles be suitable for today's model railway press? Building ten-car rakes, requiring metal-bashing, soldering, donor alterations, gluing, adaptations and what have you. Too complicated? I wonder.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Stoke Summit was one of my favourite exhibition layouts principally because it ran models of the trains that would have been seen on the line in the late 1950s or thereabouts. 

 

In addition to those mentioned, Gamston Bank had an Elizabethan set. I don't know if it was sold in one piece or split up. I recall when Mark Jenkins and I saw the layout at Spalding on one of its last outings, the team kindly ran the Elizabethan round for us out of sequence so we could see it before we headed home.

 

Brian Kirby built an Elizabethan set (1957 formation) for a customer using the SPM sides. That customer later sold it piecemeal as I have the RF and SO. I'm sure there are lots more out there. 

 

There were magazine articles on train formations in the late 1970s. Peter Kazmierczak wrote one, as part of a series of articles about carriages, for MRC. Those articles were what sparked my interest in coaching stock and train formations, even before Keith Parkin's book on Mark 1 stock was published.

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Stoke Summit was one of my favourite exhibition layouts principally because it ran models of the trains that would have been seen on the line in the late 1950s or thereabouts. 

 

In addition to those mentioned, Gamston Bank had an Elizabethan set. I don't know if it was sold in one piece or split up. I recall when Mark Jenkins and I saw the layout at Spalding on one of its last outings, the team kindly ran the Elizabethan round for us out of sequence so we could see it before we headed home.

 

Brian Kirby built an Elizabethan set (1957 formation) for a customer using the SPM sides. That customer later sold it piecemeal as I have the RF and SO. I'm sure there are lots more out there. 

 

There were magazine articles on train formations in the late 1970s. Peter Kazmierczak wrote one, as part of a series of articles about carriages, for MRC. Those articles were what sparked my interest in coaching stock and train formations, even before Keith Parkin's book on Mark 1 stock was published.

Thanks Robert,

 

I'd forgotten about Gamston's 'Elizabethan'. It remained as a set when it found a new home, but not by me.

 

Of course, John Houlden built the 'Lizzie' for Peterborough North.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robertcwp]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I hesitate to mention the main culprit on here by name but it’s not one of the ones you read! I’m sure the situation is better now and some trains can be modelled accurately. However, I don’t think there are many ECML expresses in the ‘50s which could be modelled using RTR completely. Think of all the catering and the Mark 1 prototypes. Even on the Heart of Midlothian which was all Mark 1 in the early ‘50s, the RSO and RK need to be built from kits. It has to be said that the Hornby BSO and FO have helped considerably.
 

I think the situation gets easier from the sixties onwards. 

If you model the Western Region, September 1957 is when things get easier as that is when the first batch of Mark 1 RUs entered service. From then on, trains such as The Torbay Express, The Cornishman and The Cambrian Coast Express come straight out of the box. 

 

Even in the 1960s, some ECML trains still need a bit of modelling as some sets included an RKB and many included an RUO, although one of those is a fairly easy conversion of an SO. You still need a mix of Hornby and Bachmann stock to cover some trains though, such as those that included a BSO and an RU.

 

Going into the 1970s, the lack of a Mark 2d BFK presents challenges even if you can get away with all the other air-cons being Mark 2f (which is just about possible on the ECML from c1974), as does the absence of an RKB. I don't rate the ex-Airfix 2d stock as being up to modern standards.

 

Buffet cars are still a bit of an issue even with the RB from Hornby as lots of 1970s LMR trains had RB(K)s (ie rebuilt RFs) which are very different once you look at them. Similarly, an RB(S) needs a rebuild of an RU.

[Dunsignalling]

23 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

True enough, Tony, but I think there's a difference between the viewer not knowing and the exhibitor not knowing/not caring. Discuss.

Agreed, and I'd guess even fewer know which way round the composite should be in a Southern loco-hauled 3-set.

 

John

 

So as not to keep anybody awake wondering, the first class end goes against the lower-numbered brake 3rd/2nd.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Chas Levin]

On 07/01/2021 at 21:03, Willie Whizz said:

Now, in terms of constructional articles, I do find the modern picture-heavy style easier to follow than the text-heavy approach, in the sense that it is much easier to see what the words are meant to be describing - especially if there's a big helpful arrow pointing at the part being mentioned.  A nearly-all-words article that says "position the sprocket wangler carefully behind the widget futtock" is not much help to a modeller who doesn't explicitly know what either looks like, let alone what they do.  So some change is undoubtedly for the better!

What I don't understand is why we can't have the two styles combined: lots of good quality pictures (which I agree make understanding far easier) plus lots of written description and explanation? Modern mags are quite thick so page count is presumably not an issue?

[Headstock]

58 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

If you model the Western Region, September 1957 is when things get easier as that is when the first batch of Mark 1 RUs entered service. From then on, trains such as The Torbay Express, The Cornishman and The Cambrian Coast Express come straight out of the box. 

 

Even in the 1960s, some ECML trains still need a bit of modelling as some sets included an RKB and many included an RUO, although one of those is a fairly easy conversion of an SO. You still need a mix of Hornby and Bachmann stock to cover some trains though, such as those that included a BSO and an RU.

 

Going into the 1970s, the lack of a Mark 2d BFK presents challenges even if you can get away with all the other air-cons being Mark 2f (which is just about possible on the ECML from c1974), as does the absence of an RKB. I don't rate the ex-Airfix 2d stock as being up to modern standards.

 

Buffet cars are still a bit of an issue even with the RB from Hornby as lots of 1970s LMR trains had RB(K)s (ie rebuilt RFs) which are very different once you look at them. Similarly, an RB(S) needs a rebuild of an RU.

 

Good evening Robert,

 

it might get easier after September 57 but I don't personally see that as a plus point, as it  excises a great deal of the character of the Great Western and Western R.  It always intrigues me that a railway that was so obsessed with locomotive standardization, thought stuff this and went bat s**t crazy with their carriages. Those glorious pot Pori formations of eclectic passenger transporters, the latter often looked like two teams of carriage builders would start at each end of a vehicle and cared little if they would meet in the middle. Awesome stuff, oh to see it more in model form. The moto of the GWR, it must be Tuesday, time to change liveries.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Headstock

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I'd approached the original Comet guys with a suggestion that they make the etched sides for 'The Elizabethan'. Without being unkind, the gist of the answer was 'No interest in those'. Really? Goodness knows how many Dave sold, but I know Retford has a set, Biggleswade had a set, Peterborough North has a set, and Stoke Summit got the prototypes; do you have a set? 

 

Of course! And and as I model the 1957 formation, this is one of the rare occasions when I can say mine’s bigger than yours! 10 of Dave’s excellent brass side conversions with a Mark 1 BCK on the back. Here’s a video of it in action on Gresley Jn.

 

 

Quote

Dave also produced the Cravens prototype Mk.1s to fit into their respective sets, and so on.

I’ve also got several of his Mark 1 prototype kits and I’ve built a few but haven’t got round to the Cravens yet.

Quote

 

Would such articles be suitable for today's model railway press? Building ten-car rakes, requiring metal-bashing, soldering, donor alterations, gluing, adaptations and what have you. Too complicated? I wonder.
 

I’d buy it!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by thegreenhowards