Wright writes.....

[Dave John]

For me it is still about making things Headstock. I would far rather spend a few months hacking bits of brass about and come up with a reasonable model that represents some effort from me than spend a lot of money on rtr . Anyway, being one of those odd folk with EM its never going to be rtr , more ready to bash. However that is just my personal feeling. 

 

But just thinking, the big suppliers were always there and so were the kitbuilders and scratchbuilders ( and all the variations in between ). There were always people who were happy with dublo and those who wanted to go a bit further. I think that what happened is that instead of communicating in more specialised clubs or groups we all end up on forums such as this so that the perception of the hobby as a whole being pushed in one direction or another becomes amplified out of all proportion.  I am not convinced it is a bad thing, someone who fancies a go at railway modelling can read a site such as this and see examples of people enjoying modelling ranging from the very basic trainset to the finest scratchbuilding. Gives them an idea of the broadness of the church, a way to get started and something to aim for long term. 

 

The "small" suppliers are still about. There is bound to be a turnover, time is never on anyones side. The positive thing is that it is now so much simpler to find out about them and purchase specialised things. I find that a spur to making more models, I can assemble a kit of parts from a variety of sources much more readily than in the past. Not only that we now have new technologies for small suppliers to develop. Years ago loco kits were whitemetal or stamped brass. Then along came etched brass and kits took a quantum leap forward. Now resins, 3d printing,  laser cutting and so on are giving small suppliers the ability to produce items in exciting new ways. 

 

So I am hopeful for the hobby as a whole. It will change, but not I think for the worse. 

 

 

 

 

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Philou said:

......... but whose actual coach? Rhymney Railway, Taff Vale, LNWR, SECR, NBR, GN etc ? It'll be right for one company and not for anybody else. The market would be far more limited and at the end the commissioner needs to see a return on his money .......

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

No, no, no, no, no !!!!

 

WHY would the market be far more limited? The potential purchasers don't (apparently) care what the model resembles (or doesn't). Why would potential purchasers be deterred if the model actually looked like a real coach - apparently, they wouldn't know the difference anyway !

 

Please - let's have some logic here. As no-one can - apparently - put forward a case for the 'generic' coach, I must conclude that muddled thinking was indeed behind this project.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Chamby]

32 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

NOT Little Bytham though Tony, Your bridge(s) and main line entrances / exits to your fiddle yards are excellent - (I've read all about it in your book) - as to your coaches - simply superb !!!!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

 

Good points made, Apollo, but...  Errr... Dare I say... Tony had a ‘generic’ Airfix bridge carrying the M&GN line over LB for most of its life so far!  A reasonable representation of the real thing... a placeholder until he could source something more accurate.  Is that so different to what is being mooted here?  The market for coaches of each individual pre-grouping company is commercially unviable for RTR.  But these generic ones, with shared production costs, Hatton’s can make that work financially.  So:

 

Generic stuff certainly has its place, I expect the Hatton’s coaches will stimulate interest in, and therefore the availability of, more pre-grouping locomotives simply because there will now be something already out there for them to pull.  And in time, some of those buying the Hatton’s coaches will develop a deeper interest in their chosen pre-grouping company and want to move on to something more accurate.  In much the same way as Tony finally got his more accurate girder bridge.  So this may well end up in turn stimulating the pre-grouping kit market for more accurate pre-grouping rolling stock!  

[Headstock]

I've just seen the 'carriages' that people have been talking about. Very interesting and a genuine LOL moment. I'm sure they will make someone a lot of dosh. It is interesting that a major manufacturer introduced a  set of newly tooled fake wagons a couple of months back, is this a new thing?. I do like the suggested fake formations and services for the fake carriages ( at least they haven't used consist) a clever bit of sales marketing. I wonder why the LNER ones are in brown and not fake teak? I shall expect to see these all over exhibition layouts in the coming years, rather like a modal T ford but in any colour you like. I shall wish for a raspberry ripple version..

[The Johnster]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Interesting, John,

 

Were those old Tri-ang clerestories even right for GWR types?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I have 3 of them to use as a miner's workman's (not a Paddy) train at Cwmdimbath.  The last real non-gangwayed Dean clerestories ended their lives two valleys over in the 50s in such use.  I've worked them up a bit; new buffers, compartment dividers and seats, clerestory glazing, and the B1 bogies converted to ersatz Dean 8'6" by cutting out the tiebar and glueing footboards on.  Scale modelling it ain't, and I may yet make further improvement with 24/7 bogies and shoehorning a cut'n'shut extra compartment in to bring them up to the correct length.  

 

Considering that Triang had not made any coaches to scale length except the Maunsell luggage van and the coaches still sport the 'stick it on the bottom' underframe detail (another area for future improvement), dey am wot dey am, baas.  The moulded panelling is pretty good even by any modern standards, but it's significant that, having given us a full Edwardian liveried Dean Single to pull 'em, neither Triang nor their later iterations have ever attempted fully lined out livery for them.  Traing Hornby did fully line out the gangwayed clerestories, and managed to fit them with the right bogies, but didn't attempt a tooling for the moulded panelling, which must have dampened sales over the years.  

 

They must be the oldest tooling still in current RTR production, and if the panelling is praiseworthy that is in itself that is pretty remarkable.  H no doubt were reacting to 'Bay demand when they re-introduced them, and I suspect their main market is what it was 60 years ago, kitbashing and general bodgery.

[john new]

There is a good case for these coaches in the same way there still is for the GWR semi-lookie-likie, ex-Tri-ang, one's. With the Tri-ang (now Railroad coaches) I consider they are close enough for the non-expert and not too dissimilar to others so they can substitute until something better can be obtained. That is not the case with the more detailed Ratio kits, for example of the LNWR bogie stock, as they are much more distinctive in window lines etc., and stand out to even middle-knowledge modellers/viewers.

 

Back to the Hatton's coaches, the one I might buy in due course is the 6-wheel brake to "simulate" the ex-MSLR coach stored for ages at Cliff Common and ended up restored at Chasewater. Looking at the Hattons CAD versus a photo of the coach there is extra panelling between the guards door and the adjacent compartment. The Hattons cannot be an accurate MSLR coach but will make an acceptable substitute.  Where it will come apart is running generics behind locos that should have coaches with distinctive features like birdcage lookouts, or distinctive duckets like the LBSC one in Hattons own photo.

 

My guess is though this will be no more prevalent than all the PO wagons running in rakes with BR livery locos and other stock. Those who may not be running to absolute prototype fidelity, but have some knowledge of what works (what they are substituting for) will run acceptable choices, the fidelity experts won't buy (cos' it is wrong), the unknowing will just do their thing as they do now anyway.

 

 

The hobby is a progressive one, for those who want to learn, but there is starting point.

Edited October 18, 2019 by john new
To make better sense.

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

Because you could not then sell it as generic.  You could only sell it a (say) SECR and then sell others as in other liveries, but the "market" would know these were SECR ( and inherently wrong).  Sell them as wrong (generic) and 95%+ of the market is happy.  I know that makes little sense logically but since when have people been logical?one.   

 

You're correct - that does not make a scap of sense !

 

Generic stock can only appeal to purchasers who don't know - or don't care - what their chosen locos should be pulling. So long as the livery of the coaches is co-ordinated with the livery of the locos, they don't care. The fact that the coach - under it's incorrect livery - is an model of something that existed is equally of no consequence to them. They will still buy the model, and modellers of the railway that did own the coach may well do so as well.

 

Argue it as you will - with or without logic; generic = lost sales.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Anglian]

May I ask a simple question for those who make and paint metal kits, be they brass or white metal. Do you prime completed models and how do you go about doing it during the winter months. The spray primers I use in the summer need at least 16 C and less than 60% humidity to work. Right now the only solution I can find is to clear my porch and set up a temporary bench in there, then heat the space and dehumidify it before spray priming and opening the door to vent it. However, it's not an ideal situation.

 

Are there etch primers that I can apply by brush? I guess I could use enamel but it's not really a primer more an undercoat and thus won't make really good bold.

 

What do you do in the winter months? 

[Clive Mortimore]

6 hours ago, gr.king said:

I remain hopeful, although not very hopeful in view of the way that some seem to be trying to steer the Hattons vintage carriage design towards a close match for a few companies' coaches and nothing at all like others, that the eventual product might still be both sufficiently "typical" and sufficiently NEUTRAL to allow a fairly modest level of conversion or re-detailing work to produce vehicles that (while not exact, I openly admit) are at least reasonably believable impressions of even the more unusual carriage styles used by some of the pre-group railways.

 

Apart from suiting, straight out of the box, those who will accept wholly generic versions, the models may then find a market among those who want something better but who can't / won't try to build the whole lot for themselves, and those who want minimal effort (but reasonable) "place holders" until they reach the time of being able to have something even better on their layout.

 

£30 per small carriage purely as a basis for butchery may, I realise, seem expensive, but it may be an option. Better than no option at all?

Graeme's post has me thinking, most of us on here claim to be model makers. Now all we have seen from Hattons is their plans/suggestions. What if these little carriages turn out to be an ideal basis which we as model makers can use to make more accurate representations of real coaches? Wouldn't that be fun to modify them.

Having fun modelling whilst trying to make a Tri-ang Hornby Thompson coach become more representative as a LNER dia 330  TSO.

 

Let those of the can't do, shan't do and it will do part of the hobby enjoy their generic models. Those who embrace modelling have a look and they may be great for converting................wasn't the SR that converted ex SECR 6 wheelers in to suburban electric units, who knows we might be able to do something similar. Now wouldn't that be fun?

 

[Coach bogie]

7 minutes ago, Anglian said:

May I ask a simple question for those who make and paint metal kits, be they brass or white metal. Do you prime completed models and how do you go about doing it during the winter months. The spray primers I use in the summer need at least 16 C and less than 60% humidity to work. Right now the only solution I can find is to clear my porch and set up a temporary bench in there, then heat the space and dehumidify it before spray priming and opening the door to vent it. However, it's not an ideal situation.

 

Are there etch primers that I can apply by brush? I guess I could use enamel but it's not really a primer more an undercoat and thus won't make really good bold.

 

What do you do in the winter months? 

I have just been spraying a GWR 70ft diner made of brass, aluminium and cast white metal. As it is getting colder, I spray in the shed using Etched primer from Halfords, £9 a can. Not an ideal location, but needs must. I leave for a week to harden, in a warm room (aka my son's bedroom who is away at uni) before continuing.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

[Headstock]

54 minutes ago, john new said:

There is a good case for these coaches in the same way there still is for the GWR semi-lookie-likie, ex-Tri-ang, one's. With the Tri-ang (now Railroad coaches) I consider they are close enough for the non-expert and not too dissimilar to others so they can substitute until somethign better can be obtained. That is not the case with the more detailed Ratio kits, for example of the LNWR bogie stock, as they are much more distinctive in window lines etc., and stand out to even middle-knowledge modellers/viewers.

 

Back to the Hatton's coaches, the one I might buy is the 6-wheel brake to "simulate" the ex-MSLR coach stored for ages at Cliff Common and ended up restored at Chasewater. Looking at the Hattons CAD versus a photo of the coach there is extra panelling between the guards door and the adjacent compartment. The Hattons cannot be an accurate MSLR coach but will make an acceptable substitute.  Where it will come apart is running generics behind locos that should have coaches with distinctive features like birdcage lookouts, or distinctive duckets like the LBSC one in Hattons own photo.

 

My guess is though this will be no more prevalent than all the PO wagons running in rakes with BR livery locos and other stock. Those who may not be running to absolute prototype fidelity, but have some knowledge of what works (what they are substituting for) will run acceptable choices, the fidelity experts won't buy (cos' it is wrong), the unknowing will just do there thing as they do now anyway.

 

The hobby is a progressive one, for those who want to learn, but there is starting point.

 

Evening john new,

 

there is nothing wrong with PO wagons (I assume you mean PO liveried wagons) running in rakes with BR livery locomotives, they were more common than rakes of grey painted PO wagons. BR was really, really bad at painting PO wagons grey, in fact much of the time they didn't bother, just adding the number, tare etc until the original livery wore away to bare wood. The issue is more what kind of PO wagon livery could be seen in BR days. The major manufactures tend to put liveries on the their 1923 RCH mineral wagons that were actually from wagons twenty or thirty years older, the problem being that it is obviously the wrong  type of wagon and often carries the legend of a company that no longer existed in the 1920's, let lone the BR period. They are often quite easy to spot, even if your not a PO wagon expert, the livery usually displays a load in tons of a smaller wagon than the 1923 RCH configuration.

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Headstock

[Theakerr]

Appreciate the comments regarding my video observations.  Do have a couple of comments.  First, the standard of layouts for the most part is not consistently high.  At certain shows the quality is generally good to very good,  but at many other shows the quality varies from pretty good all the way through bad and being frank I wonder why they are there.  Regarding soldering, I see more than 1 good layout with what have to be soldered signals running with modified RTR stock.  One thing that does annoy me is a good layout where RTR right out of the box is run.  Re multiple versions of the same thing, I have probably 7 modified Bachmann B1s running on my layout.  Further, I chose to stay with Bachmann because I wanted them to all look the same (and I could use my upgraded split chassis bodies on cheap new chassis  as the old split chassis fell apart)  even though I appreciate the Hornby version is more accurate. The reason I have so many B1s is because the layout is based on the Grimsby  to Boston line and B1s were the predominant passenger loco.   Some are much modified some are not.  (BTW I am in the process of converting one to  Mayflower and  If anyone has an old B1 body with the AWS battery box on the rt hand side cab steps are interested in selling it or the footsteps please PM me).    Tony, I do agree it is a big step backwards but I look at the steps forward.  I see many and they make me feel positive about the Hobby both in the UK and in the US.  The Hobby is now bringing in new members who did not grow up with Railways or Railroads and I suspect they are coming in because they are able to use their artistic, engineering, electrical skills, etc.  to create a total something that gives them a sense of satisfaction.  Locally, a prime example is the transition of some incredibly good military diorama modellers to Railroad modelling using RTR rolling stock weathered and detailed to the same standard as their static models.    I am certain this transition would not have happened if they had to build their own stock.  So to me the steps forward  are many, newcomers, some pretty good historically accurate modelling which not that long ago was rarely seen, some amazing scenic work, some excellent building construction both railway related and non railway, much more realistic trackwork, even if PECO code 75 points are used,  more period accuracy in that there are area or period  layouts with appropriate wagon types, and  more creativity.  IMHOP, todays RTR product allows more people to create a model not a trainset.

[Hitchin Junction]

 

30 Quid per coach may not sound much, but I suspect modelling this ordinary suburban train is going to cost 450 Pounds before buying the loco.  If the  generic shorties are going to be modified to all the various (and typical?) GER variations in one train shown, it's also going to be  a heck of lot of work.

 

Tim

[john new]

43 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening john new,

 

there is nothing wrong with PO wagons (I assume you mean PO liveried wagons) running in rakes with BR livery locomotives, they were more common than rakes of grey painted PO wagons. BR was really, really bad at painting PO wagons grey, in fact much of the time they didn't bother, just adding the number, tare etc until the original livery wore away to bare wood. The issue is more what kind of PO wagon livery could be seen in BR days. The major manufactures tend to put liveries on the their 1923 RCH mineral wagons that were actually from wagons twenty or thirty years older, the problem being that it is obviously the wrong  type of wagon and often carries the legend of a company that no longer existed in the 1920's, let lone the BR period. They are often quite easy to spot, even if your not a PO wagon expert, the livery usually displays a load in tons of a smaller wagon than the 1923 RCH configuration.

Don't disagree for early-BR days and tatty ex-PO wagons as I saw them myself as a boy with bits of the old lettering showing through. However, at some shows (as the videos on Youtube mentioned here by others confirm) there are modellers running pristine items in trains which scream wrong.

 

We can all commit howlers until we know better, I can't remember when/how I learnt the maxim "knowing what you don't know is key" but it is valid. Wagons, as an example, are a field where I know many of mine have the wrong brake gear etc., as supplied but I don't yet know enough to modify them. That ignorance, currently, works in my favour as I don't spot the errors, but will really begin to annoy me when I do. Step one for the wooden bodied opens will be modelling some form of internal planking via an insert sleeve; it may be generic but these three photos from the example at Swansea Harbour museum are a start point for what the insides are like when new. The steel bodied, still to find some examples.

 

Another example, I have pre-ordered the new Class 66 with the SLS name on it, IIRC it is air brake only, my choice of a few bits of dual braked/air braked stock to run behind it will be done. (I am hoping the inspection coach I own is dual braked) I expect some purchasers wont either know or care what their 66 will be pulling. 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by john new
To make better sense.

[Headstock]

2 minutes ago, john new said:

Don't disagree for early-BR days and tatty ex-PO wagons as I saw them myself as a boy. However, at some shows (as the videos on Youtube show) there are modellers running pristine items in trains which scream wrong. We can all commit howlers until we know better, I can't remember when/how I learnt the maxim "knowing what you don't know is key" but it is valid. Wagons, as an example, are a field where I know many of mine have the wrong brake gear etc., as supplied but I don't yet know enough to modify them. That ignorance, currently, works in my favour as I don't spot the errors, but will really begin to annoy me when I do.

 

Step one for the wooden bodied opens will be modelling some form of internal planking via an insert sleeve; it may be generic but these three photos from the example at Swansea Harbour museum are a start point for what the insides are like when new.

 

 

I'm not an expert on the interiors  of the 1923 PO wagons but a couple of things don't look quite right there. Idon't think that they had the clips on the top plank, I think that was a post war BR period feature. A number of people are offering, or at least intending to offer interior overlays for these wagons, one is a friend of mine, he may be able to comment.

[Compound2632]

Eh, that wagon's a case in point - it's a RCH 1923 wagon, possibly not even a South Wales one at all (8 planks), painted up with reference to a photo of an RCH 1907 wagon (or older) - note "Load 10 Tons"!

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Headstock said:

 

I'm not an expert on the interiors  of the 1923 PO wagons but a couple of things don't look quite right there. Idon't think that they had the clips on the top plank, I think that was a post war BR period feature. 

 

... applied to older wagons - the capping strip on the top of the top plank would originally have been screwed down, but it became easier and cheaper to replace the screw with the fold-over strip and through bolt. Inferior timber? That's probably the condition it was in when it came to be preserved, though I don't think there is very much of the original wagon left - at least not the sheeting planks.

[john new]

11 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

I'm not an expert on the interiors  of the 1923 PO wagons but a couple of things don't look quite right there. Idon't think that they had the clips on the top plank, I think that was a post war BR period feature. A number of people are offering, or at least intending to offer interior overlays for these wagons, one is a friend of mine, he may be able to comment.

 

This is a recent project. I know somewhere I have other photos of the inside of wagons, for example the Hull & Barnsley wagon at Grosmont. Problem is finding them in the hundreds of NYMR visit photos and other railway pictures I have! I'm working on it.

[Northmoor]

9 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I've made some more progress with the N2 kit I showed earlier this week. As a reminder I bought this with very old fashioned wheels and motor and have replaced them with a DJH GB1 and Romford wheels; the body is mainly brass.

 

It's now run in and working smoothly. I have tested it's haulage capability and it can do everything I hoped for and more! Here is a video showing it on 17 coaches which is more than I will ever need it to do in practice. My Hornby ones just laughed when asked to pull the same train!

Wow, I never knew DCC sound had that feature.  Do the locos tell dirty jokes to each other on shed at night too?

[Headstock]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

... applied to older wagons - the capping strip on the top of the top plank would originally have been screwed down, but it became easier and cheaper to replace the screw with the fold-over strip and through bolt. Inferior timber? That's probably the condition it was in when it came to be preserved, though I don't think there is very much of the original wagon left - at least not the sheeting planks.

 

Probably only the washer plates and other metal components. I must admit, I was so taken with the shiny interior I didn't immediately see photo number three, I wonder if they copied the Bachmann wagon, thus providing a prototype for the model. Model railways, you gota laugh.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Headstock
full stop

[Headstock]

3 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Wow, I never knew DCC sound had that feature.  Do the locos tell dirty jokes to each other on shed at night too?

 

Old Greenie H telling off his laughing engines, now that is a video I would love to see.

[Craigw]

41 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Eh, that wagon's a case in point - it's a RCH 1923 wagon, possibly not even a South Wales one at all (8 planks), painted up with reference to a photo of an RCH 1907 wagon (or older) - note "Load 10 Tons"!

 It also has hex headed bolts with washers on the ironwork (washer plates!).

 

A museum should be about displaying the technology and that does nothing.

 

Craig W

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Graeme's post has me thinking, most of us on here claim to be model makers. Now all we have seen from Hattons is their plans/suggestions. What if these little carriages turn out to be an ideal basis which we as model makers can use to make more accurate representations of real coaches? Wouldn't that be fun to modify them.

Having fun modelling whilst trying to make a Tri-ang Hornby Thompson coach become more representative as a LNER dia 330  TSO.

 

Let those of the can't do, shan't do and it will do part of the hobby enjoy their generic models. Those who embrace modelling have a look and they may be great for converting................wasn't the SR that converted ex SECR 6 wheelers in to suburban electric units, who knows we might be able to do something similar. Now wouldn't that be fun?

 

 

Spot on! Those of us who like doing things to our models rather than just running them out of the box can take them as a cheap starting point and carry out some mods.

 

It seems odd me defending such a decision from Hattons but I can see several reasons why they are going down this route. Cost and time making accurate models of a particular type will only add to the price ticket as much more research would be required to get them perfect, which is what proper modellers of whatever company they chose would demand. The price seems very reasonable at the moment. I would rather pay £30 for a generic GCR carriage than £40 for a SECR one in GCR colours. I use very little RTR and the last few times I have exhibited layouts I can honestly say that every single item was either from a kit or scratchbuilt. In earlier days I used RTR wagons, on loan from a friend, until my kit ones were ready. I see these from Hattons in a similar way. Building enough carriages to run a pre-grouping layout takes an awful lot of time. I would rather run some I have built. So the Hattons examples would do as a short term stop gap until I get mine built. Mind you, if I have to wait 2 years I might have built mine anyway but I have had a rake of 6 wheelers part built for several years! I don't want the Hattons ones to be perfect and right for the railway I model. There would be no point in me building mine if they were.

 

A generic carriage in decent liveries is somehow, in my mind, less wrong than an accurate carriage from one company masquerading as a carriage from another. It will be more wrong on some layouts than others. Nobody can honestly say which company has enough support from the pregrouping community (no company has any big level of support) to warrant accurate coaches just for them and for nobody else. A generic one is not pretending to be anything other than generic. It will be equally wrong for everybody!

 

All this is academic as my next layout is in 7mm (with everything kit or scratchbuilt) but there may be another 4mm EM layout after that. I will have to have a joint Midland GCR layout sometime to run all the lovely MR carriages and wagons I have obtained, that were from the late Sid Stubbs and are stunning. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by t-b-g

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Theakerr said:

Appreciate the comments regarding my video observations.  Do have a couple of comments.  First, the standard of layouts for the most part is not consistently high.  At certain shows the quality is generally good to very good,  but at many other shows the quality varies from pretty good all the way through bad and being frank I wonder why they are there.  Regarding soldering, I see more than 1 good layout with what have to be soldered signals running with modified RTR stock.  One thing that does annoy me is a good layout where RTR right out of the box is run.  Re multiple versions of the same thing, I have probably 7 modified Bachmann B1s running on my layout.  Further, I chose to stay with Bachmann because I wanted them to all look the same (and I could use my upgraded split chassis bodies on cheap new chassis  as the old split chassis fell apart)  even though I appreciate the Hornby version is more accurate. The reason I have so many B1s is because the layout is based on the Grimsby  to Boston line and B1s were the predominant passenger loco.   Some are much modified some are not.  (BTW I am in the process of converting one to  Mayflower and  If anyone has an old B1 body with the AWS battery box on the rt hand side cab steps are interested in selling it or the footsteps please PM me).    Tony, I do agree it is a big step backwards but I look at the steps forward.  I see many and they make me feel positive about the Hobby both in the UK and in the US.  The Hobby is now bringing in new members who did not grow up with Railways or Railroads and I suspect they are coming in because they are able to use their artistic, engineering, electrical skills, etc.  to create a total something that gives them a sense of satisfaction.  Locally, a prime example is the transition of some incredibly good military diorama modellers to Railroad modelling using RTR rolling stock weathered and detailed to the same standard as their static models.    I am certain this transition would not have happened if they had to build their own stock.  So to me the steps forward  are many, newcomers, some pretty good historically accurate modelling which not that long ago was rarely seen, some amazing scenic work, some excellent building construction both railway related and non railway, much more realistic trackwork, even if PECO code 75 points are used,  more period accuracy in that there are area or period  layouts with appropriate wagon types, and  more creativity.  IMHOP, todays RTR product allows more people to create a model not a trainset.

 

It occurs to me that a market place that supports fictitious wagons and carriages, in fictitious liveries, hasn't improved in the way that you suggest.

[APOLLO]

You know, one aspect of modeling that is hardly ever modelled is weather. Yes some snow scenes have been done - one North Eastern layout at Wigan show many years ago was superb, a snow scene at dusk with many lights etc. 

 

Would anyone model this  (using dry ice as fog etc) ? Generic stock would be OK here as no one would have the foggiest !!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Atmosphere (in all its forms) is as important as detail - but many otherwise superbly detailed fine layouts lack it.

 

Brit15