Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Why, I wonder, is there such a proliferation of layouts depicting the southern section of the ECML? The comparative LNWR main line to Crewe has nowhere near as many, does it? I've photographed a representation of Brinklow, and Rugby, but that's it. 

 

How does this compare to the other main lines of the Big Four?

  • GWR has been very commonly modelled but not many real locations, apart from a few either of Dawlish seawall or clearly based on it;
  • SR has seen a few, sometimes of the inner/outer suburban areas with 3rd rail.  Again, normally of fictitious locations;
  • LMS models tend to be of the Northern end of the WCML in Cumbria;
  • LNER, well I don't recall too many layouts based on the GEML.  Perhaps the OHLE* nearer the London end puts people off?

*On the subject of OHLE, I remember a friend mentioning some years ago that "modern era" layouts seemed all too often to be based on "a non-electrified loop off the WCML in the Warrington area".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning to the theme of 'glass case' models. Not all reside in glass cases, and some actually work on layouts. 

 

One way of displaying such eye-catching items is to 'show them off on shed' as it were. 

 

All the following items are in FS O Gauge. Some are the work of some of the finest builders/painters. Some are top-of-the-range RTR. Others are the work of their owners, and they're all worth a lot of money! 

 

2124250230_Bangor03.jpg.fa842a3340a2a544cd23bb69e0d23883.jpg

 

2130737647_Bangor04.jpg.dbf587f67bd0a48cd2f1b5e65f71c54e.jpg

 

36854236_Bangor40C.jpg.09cada538fddc4c1c509c39bd06f1d2b.jpg

 

1557573409_Bangor41Bcover.jpg.9381eaaed6c46971244de25799bb13ee.jpg

 

1452553389_DurhamStreet05.jpg.0caaf81ced189b28b0cdad5cfc200a3e.jpg

 

391627249_DurhamStreet07.jpg.60994fcf7a8f1776338170ddaf27933e.jpg

 

1699353578_DurhamStreet09.jpg.3042958a8bc7cfd33f7688c794b553b6.jpg

 

37963692_HollowBeck09.jpg.a385a34648f8fd905a02da772e19437b.jpg

 

I really feel I've been a lucky guy. Not all get the opportunity of taking pictures of stuff as good as this. 

 

More to follow....................

  • Like 17
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

Good afternoon Graham,

 

my comparison between Tebay and Shap wasn't a criticism, Shap has plenty of atmos, just of a different type. Picnicking by the lineside is relevant to your point in this post. 

 

I took it as a compliment!

 

All I'll say is that ... if you're going picnicking on Shap Fell, take a sturdy windbreak and a decent umbrella with you:mda:

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andrew,

 

I'm not sure if the ever-popular southern end of the ECML layouts copy (or copied) each other. I once was asked to supply some pictures for a friend who was giving a talk on 'A Journey up the ECML to Doncaster by Model Railways'. I had plenty of material.

 

Off the top of my head now, the list included Kings Cross (x2), The Gresley Beat, Copenhagen Fields, Welwyn North, Hitchin (x2), Arlesey, Biggleswade, Tempsford, Huntingdon North, Peterborough North (x2), Greatford, Little Bytham, Stoke Summit, Grantham, Gamston, Retford, Bawtry and so on. Strictly speaking, The Gresley Beat isn't an actual location, but it couldn't be anywhere else but the Kings Cross approaches. All but two (which are/were commissions) were built by clubs or individuals, in some cases with very different approaches to the task. I doubt if any 'copied' any other, though several of the trains will have been made-up from the same components (at least five 'Elizabethans' created from the same sources, for instance). 

 

There must be other layouts depicting other locations on the line which I've not photographed. 

 

Why, I wonder, is there such a proliferation of layouts depicting the southern section of the ECML? The comparative LNWR main line to Crewe has nowhere near as many, does it? I've photographed a representation of Brinklow, and Rugby, but that's it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

I think there is a certain amount of copying, or is 'inspired by' more acceptable. I don't see that as bad thing in itself, otherwise how dose anything become popular? I don't think that everybody can trace there interest in the southern end of the ECML, back to train spotting a particular location when they were a kid. Surely many people will have seen some of these layouts and wanted to do the same. The big thing in the past was GWR  branch lines, they proliferated to such an extent, they became a cliché. There is no doubt in my mind, they represented a trend or even a fashion of sorts. People will mimic what they see, only a few will create something new, hence why a few names in the hobby are revered as innovators.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

How does this compare to the other main lines of the Big Four?

  • GWR has been very commonly modelled but not many real locations, apart from a few either of Dawlish seawall or clearly based on it;
  • SR has seen a few, sometimes of the inner/outer suburban areas with 3rd rail.  Again, normally of fictitious locations;
  • LMS models tend to be of the Northern end of the WCML in Cumbria;
  • LNER, well I don't recall too many layouts based on the GEML.  Perhaps the OHLE* nearer the London end puts people off?

*On the subject of OHLE, I remember a friend mentioning some years ago that "modern era" layouts seemed all too often to be based on "a non-electrified loop off the WCML in the Warrington area".


There's Chiltern Green (CG) on the Midland. It makes the 'Greatest' list. I'm fascinated by the visual treat of a faster train overtaking a long goods train, where both travelling in the same direction on a four track section of mainline. There's something about it that captures the drama of the mainline better than a pair of passing trains. CG delivered this in bucket loads.

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Why, I wonder, is there such a proliferation of layouts depicting the southern section of the ECML? The comparative LNWR main line to Crewe has nowhere near as many, does it? I've photographed a representation of Brinklow, and Rugby, but that's it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

One theory of mine, which I will admit doesn't fully hold water(!) is that the WCML was (is!) a four track railway throughout from Euston essentially to Crewe, apart from the Northampton loop. By contrast the ECML is a double track railway beyond Stoke Summit, with sections of double track south of that - notably in the Welwyn area and, until the 1950s widening, Hadley Wood as well.

 

The theory being that a double track stretch of railway is somewhat easier to model than four track. I'm not sure I'd have tackled Grantham if it had been the four track equivalent?

 

But of course - before you say it - quite a few of the ECML layouts you list ARE four track ... that's the bit of my theory that doesn't hold water ... but it's a thought nonetheless?

 

For what it's worth, the Midland Mainline is (was) four track for its first 76 miles, GWML as far as Didcot (I think?). LSWR mainline as far as ...? (Woking?). etc.

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

One theory of mine, which I will admit doesn't fully hold water(!) is that the WCML was (is!) a four track railway throughout from Euston essentially to Crewe, apart from the Northampton loop. By contrast the ECML is a double track railway beyond Stoke Summit, with sections of double track south of that - notably in the Welwyn area and, until the 1950s widening, Hadley Wood as well.

 

The theory being that a double track stretch of railway is somewhat easier to model than four track. I'm not sure I'd have tackled Grantham if it had been the four track equivalent?

 

But of course - before you say it - quite a few of the ECML layouts you list ARE four track ... that's the bit of my theory that doesn't hold water ... but it's a thought nonetheless?

 

For what it's worth, the Midland Mainline is (was) four track for its first 76 miles, GWML as far as Didcot (I think?). LSWR mainline as far as ...? (Woking?). etc.

 

My theory is, going really really fast, hast more appeal to the kid in us, than slogging up a hill. There are also more toys to collect to do it with.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

One theory of mine, which I will admit doesn't fully hold water(!) is that the WCML was (is!) a four track railway throughout from Euston essentially to Crewe, apart from the Northampton loop. By contrast the ECML is a double track railway beyond Stoke Summit, with sections of double track south of that - notably in the Welwyn area and, until the 1950s widening, Hadley Wood as well.

 

The theory being that a double track stretch of railway is somewhat easier to model than four track. I'm not sure I'd have tackled Grantham if it had been the four track equivalent?

 

But of course - before you say it - quite a few of the ECML layouts you list ARE four track ... that's the bit of my theory that doesn't hold water ... but it's a thought nonetheless?

 

For what it's worth, the Midland Mainline is (was) four track for its first 76 miles, GWML as far as Didcot (I think?). LSWR mainline as far as ...? (Woking?). etc.

I think the main reason is that many of us are 'locoholics'. Big engine locoholics. 

 

The LNER and its successors had far more really big engines than all the other Big Four companies put together. It had the biggest, the most powerful express passenger type (according to tractive effort - admittedly a dodgy guide) and, obviously, the fastest. 

 

In the Class 7 category, only the BR Brits were heavier than the V2s (by less than a ton), and the V2 was heavier than a King. 

 

Counting the V2s, that makes almost 400 units in the Class 7 category and above for the LNER and its successors..

 

Since all incurable locoholics like big engines, I think that's the answer.

 

It's mine, anyway. I saw all the principal main lines under steam (other than any in Scotland and the GWR road to the far west) so had a fair comparison. And, made my choice. 

 

It carried on into the Deltic era as well, and even into the time of the long-lived Class 91s. The HSTs were too ubiquitous to count, but the British speed for the type was achieved on the ex-LNER main line. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 5
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Whether to weather?.. well items which have been weathered to look like the real thing do sell for as much as 

their clean equivalents now.  It is the RTR items sprayed with a brown mixture which don't seem to sell as well. 

 

I weathered some RTR wagons - including Graffiti as per his photos.. they sold on an auction site for 4 times what he had paid for them (and me weathering them).

 

My big problem is just using an air brush or dry brushing leaves a "flat" finish.. and  doesn't give a texture which dirty locos do have..

 

Baz

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

 People will mimic what they see, only a few will create something new, hence why a few names in the hobby are revered as innovators.

 

 

Yes, I do get the impression that many layouts are based on others and tend to be copy-cats, at least in some ways. And even when layouts are based on a more unique real location their approach, build, scenics and presentation tends to reflect other similar layouts. Perhaps there is nothing new in model railway layouts.

 

I certainly recall many people asking at exhibitions for details of a layout I was showing "so that they could make something similar". Some asked to look around behind the layout and one chap used a tape to measure up dimensions and sketched the track plan.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Yes, I do get the impression that many layouts are based on others and tend to be copy-cats, at least in some ways. And even when layouts are based on a more unique real location their approach, build, scenics and presentation tends to reflect other similar layouts. Perhaps there is nothing new in model railway layouts.

 

I certainly recall many people asking at exhibitions for details of a layout I was showing "so that they could make something similar". Some asked to look around behind the layout and one chap used a tape to measure up dimensions and sketched the track plan.

 

 

 

Thanks Grahame,

 

that's very interesting.

 

Perhaps that's why so many wanted to look at the legs on LB and I didn't get it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Just in case anyone thinks this thread takes itself too seriously at times, three delightfully-absurd Norman Turner wagons..................

 

2091693486_Flyingpigvan.jpg.d47157d014c513eb75ab854f8b9959da.jpg

 

A flying pig van. The pigs inside actually whirl around, activated by an ingenious series of rods and cams. 

 

I love the couplings!

 

237749042_Teabreakvan.jpg.c86266a7422c263bdb7ed141aed634c3.jpg

 

And a funny play on words.

 

661785347_Urinetankwagon.jpg.79c26d07a3bbd517560d5a243587fc94.jpg

 

And one for the real 'hair shirts'.

 

I'm amazed what I'm finding on some of these discs.....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was a rivet counter detector van too. 
richard 

  • Like 2
  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

 

 

For what it's worth, the Midland Mainline is (was) four track for its first 76 miles, GWML as far as Didcot (I think?). LSWR mainline as far as ...? (Woking?). etc.

Waterloo to Worting Junction (a few miles west of Basingstoke) is quadruple track. 

 

Midland Main Line is once more four tracks all the way from Kentish Town to just north of Kettering.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, grahame said:

I certainly recall many people asking at exhibitions for details of a layout I was showing "so that they could make something similar". Some asked to look around behind the layout and one chap used a tape to measure up dimensions and sketched the track plan.

 

 

 

I've done that on more than one occasion.  The problem is that large layouts look a lot smaller than they really are when they're in a school hall.......and the tape measure soon reveals that even a very large shoe horn just won't make a similar version fit in that spare bedroom.....

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

Yes, I do get the impression that many layouts are based on others and tend to be copy-cats, at least in some ways. And even when layouts are based on a more unique real location their approach, build, scenics and presentation tends to reflect other similar layouts. Perhaps there is nothing new in model railway layouts.

 

 

Just don’t say so in an MRJ article...

 

Tim

  • Like 3
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Somewhere, Paul, somewhere............................

 

Digging through some old CDs last evening, some just marked 'miscellaneous' (what a brilliant way of arranging files!), I found some long-forgotten 'gems'.

 

I've shown layouts so far, but these two beauties appeared on one of the discs.......................

 

882330172_BeesonIvattAltlantic.jpg.a25741fe573c71ebf60ff566e35045b1.jpg

 

A Beeson Ivatt large Atlantic in O Gauge.

 

1173813437_JamesHarewoodMidland4-4-0.jpg.4a4f2ce5d0c0085bad442643f0bd0a6a.jpg

 

And a James Harewood (of New Zealand) Midland 4-4-0 in Scale Seven. 

 

Both these are 'museum-standard' locos, though both work beautifully (as expected). Beeson is long-deceased, but James is (as far as I know) still going. 

 

Two of the greatest builders of all time?

 

Though not intended for 'comparative' purposes, I'm sure Tony Geary won't mind if I slip an example of his 7mm work in here....................

 

1300574110_Lough03.jpg.d112267a69f53f6f4485d0e43f081273.jpg

 

I reiterate, this is not meant for comparison, but I (personally) find this much more 'realistic'. A 'natural' loco in its natural environment.

 

The other two (though arguably peerless) seem a bit sterile to me (is this heresy?). 

 

Interestingly, since the great man has been mentioned of late, David Jenkinson never had his locos (many built by Geoff Holt and painted by Larry Goddard) weathered. He always thought that their potential resale value would be lessened, though, as it transpired, some which were sold after his death at auction went for ridiculously low prices.

 

Whether to weather? Discuss, please. 

 

 

Wow: the Atlantic and the 4-4-0 are absolutely stunning!

I'm afraid I'm firmly in the non-weathering category; my daughter however is quite the opposite. When I first started taking her to model railway fairs she was about 12 and I thought she was still firmly in the 'everything dad says and does is perfect and brilliant' stage... but to my surprise, after we'd walked round a while and looked at various different layouts, models and stalls with materials, she wanted to know why I didn't do 'that weathering thing' on my models and calmly told me she thought it made them look much better and more realistic:rolleyes:.

After that, every visit to a fair became a good-natured tussle between looking at pristine and looking at weathered models, as she tried to convert me. She failed, and I still model a pristine world.

Two main reasons, I think. One is aesthetic: I love the look of shining paintwork, gleaming metal, and immaculate varnished wood and seeing it 'dirty' makes me itch to clean it (Freud 4-6-2, anyone?).

The second reason is perhaps a little more fanciful: with a pristine loco, I know it can stay that way - and could have been seen that way - for quite some time; but if I weather something, it seems to me that it would only have looked exactly that way for perhaps a split second, before more dirt was deposited, or a rain shower removed some. A weathered loco in a painting or a photo looks fine to me, because they are media that capture a single moment, but a model loco is like a full-sized loco in that it is a moving - living? - thing and having fixed, unchanging dirt (that should also move and change) doesn't seem to fit.

That being said, I always enjoy well executed weathering done by others, for its skill and workmanship, just like a fine painting or sculpture, even though I don't do it myself: each to their own:).

Edited because I just read a phrase in thegreenhowards' post on this subject that struck a chord: "trying to present an idealised version of history"! I think that probably describes part of my motivation and enjoyment with this hobby, and why clean locos look so lovely to my eye...

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

I've done that on more than one occasion.  The problem is that large layouts look a lot smaller than they really are when they're in a school hall.......and the tape measure soon reveals that even a very large shoe horn just won't make a similar version fit in that spare bedroom.....

 

Blimey, brave to admit to that. It makes it sound like you'd prefer to build a similar layout rather than design one or base it on a real location. And confirms that many layouts are copy-cat me-toos and not something new, exciting or innovative.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

....

 

with a pristine loco, I know it can stay that way - and could have been seen that way - for quite some time; but if I weather something, it seems to me that it would only have looked exactly that way for perhaps a split second, before more dirt was deposited, or a rain shower removed some. A weathered loco in a painting or a photo looks fine to me, because they are media that capture a single moment, but a model loco is like a full-sized loco in that it is a moving - living? - thing and having fixed, unchanging dirt (that should also move and change) doesn't seem to fit.

That being said, I always enjoy well executed weathering done by others, for its skill and workmanship, just like a fine painting or sculpture, even though I don't do it myself: each to their own:).

 

I have the same problem with crews fitted to even open-cab locos.  Static while the train moves. I'd rather imagine the crew thankyou. Each to their own indeed.

 

Last night I was enjoying reading 'Eric Treacy's LMS' by David Jenkinson and Patrick Whitehouse and remarked to myself that while the Lizzes and Duchesses 1938-52 were often clean the Jubilees and Black 5s hardly ever were. Also of note was the chapter on Liverpool Lime Street to Edge Hill, with stunning photos in the sun-and-shadow 'valley' and beyond on the 1-in-70-ish grade, sometime 13 or 14 behind an unassisted Jubilee...  quite a bit of smoke in these! Imagine a Jubilee throuh Tebay rushing at Shap with 13-on.     these LNER types don't know they are born! :)  

 

I decided therefore it was time to photograph some weathered Bachmann Jubilees. With smoke.

 

Inspiring book, rather as I imagine to ER ones can be. Treacy did a fair few photos around Leeds-Bradford I think, but you probably know this better than me.

Edited by robmcg
correction, typos
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Blimey, brave to admit to that. It makes it sound like you'd prefer to build a similar layout rather than design one or base it on a real location. And confirms that many layouts are copy-cat me-toos and not something new, exciting or innovative.

 

 

 

If you see a layout/track plan that works, is interesting and has visual appeal then why not?  There are so many variations other than the basic track plan (buildings, scenery etc ) then the finished article could well be un-recognisable from the original.

Let's face it, isn't a layout based on a real location a copy, albeit in a smaller scale?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Blimey, brave to admit to that. It makes it sound like you'd prefer to build a similar layout rather than design one or base it on a real location. And confirms that many layouts are copy-cat me-toos and not something new, exciting or innovative.

 

 

 

He never said that at all. We all take inspiration from others, and taking measurments does not imply copying.

 

Edit,  sorry, I am wrong, I just read your previous post, I retract mine!

Edited by robmcg
correction
  • Like 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...