Wright writes.....

[96701]

50 minutes ago, Iain.d said:

I’m not a prolific poster on RMWeb nor am I ever likely to be. I’m reasonably displaced from the subject railway that interests me and I use this forum to keep the fire alive.

 

I like to make models of trains as a release from work where I continually interact with dogmatic people with heavily entrenched views, therefore, online, I don’t get involved in disagreements.

 

I have read the previous two pages with such disappointment and it makes me wonder why I should continue to come here. And for those that think this type of debate is healthy and constructive criticism? Its not.

 

Thank you to Phil Brighton, a few posts above, for showing us his work and trying to remind us of what we are really here for.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Iain,

 

Do not get downcast down. I read all sorts of threads on this wonderful forum and wonder where some people are coming from. then remember that I am friendly to people in real life because we have one or two connections, yet do not agree on other things, and will discuss all sorts of nuances on things that we do agree on. 

 

It is easy to forget these nuances when reading the written word, and it is even more difficult to write with nuance. There are times when I feel like putting fingers to keyboard to argue a point and then think about what I would say if I was sitting with them and others. That is when I decide not to put finger to keyboard and not take the written opinion too seriously.

 

Edited November 21, 2020 by 96701
Insufficient letter o on a too.

[APOLLO]

THIS is more like it !!! - You can just slightly see the tumblehome, don't know if the beading etc is correct.

 

Sittin' in a sleazy snack-bar suckin'
Sickly sausage rolls
Slippin' down slowly
Slippin' down sideways
Think I'll sign off the dole,

 

'Cause the fog on the Tyne is all mine, all mine
The fog on the Tyne is all mine
The fog on the Tyne is all mine, all mine
The fog on the Tyne is all mine

 

 

Atmosphere folks - that's what it's all about.

 

Brit15

[APOLLO]

Over here alongside the West Coast main line a tumblehome is what you (used) to do after a heavy Friday night out around Wigan !!!!

 

Oh The foggy station - The station canopy supports are very near the "platform" edge and the track is to far away from the edge - obviously therefore not a platform in use - but who would model this ?

 

Brit15

[96701]

50 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Over here alongside the West Coast main line a tumblehome is what you (used) to do after a heavy Friday night out around Wigan !!!!

 

Oh The foggy station - The station canopy supports are very near the "platform" edge and the track is to far away from the edge - obviously therefore not a platform in use - but who would model this ?

 

Brit15

Somebody who has the space for Colchester? Or a meringue?

 

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

So to expand on the women analogies a little more  (or should that be less?) Sophia is a Kirk and Jane more akin to a Hornby?

Being pedantic (who, me?) she's (was) Jayne, not Jane.

 

Actually, being even more pedantic, she was Vera Jayne Palmer.

[jrg1]

11 hours ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

So to expand on the women analogies a little more  (or should that be less?) Sophia is a Kirk and Jane more akin to a Hornby?

 

Love the wigs and all the other falsies

[Bucoops]

Just to stick my oar in on the shape of bottoms - isn't it a turnunder, not a tumblehome? A tumblehome is something to do with the top of a ship?

 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

A tumblehome is something to do with the top of a ship?

 

In naval architecture, yes - the narrowing of the waist above the waterline (vide Sophia Loren). But in railway carriage architecture, the word has become the usual enthusiast's term for the inward curve of the panelling below the waist (vide Sophia Loren). Whether the term was used in C&W drawing offices is an interesting question.

[grahame]

10 hours ago, john new said:

The criticism on the look of tension locks is valid, does anyone know why with modern improved plastics they are not supplied in clear? Is it too brittle or too costly versus black?

 

There was a producer of N/2mm wagons who supplied them with clear plastic couplings (the bulky traditional N gauge Rapido). They never really caught on. Although from some viewing angles they did appear transparent and disguised, in others they caught the light which was reflected off the facetted surface and made them twinkle and shine - making them more obvious.

 

 

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

45 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In naval architecture, yes - the narrowing of the waist above the waterline (vide Sophia Loren). But in railway carriage architecture, the word has become the usual enthusiast's term for the inward curve of the panelling below the waist (vide Sophia Loren). Whether the term was used in C&W drawing offices is an interesting question.

My understanding in railway terms is that turnunder is the curving in at the bottom of the coach sides and tumblehome the equivalent at the top. Tumblehome is often used for both as the last two day’s discussion proves.

[Jol Wilkinson]

16 hours ago, Headstock said:

"I'm reminded what Tony said about modelers today being cash rich but Skills poor. Could it also be said that modelers are now cash rich and knowledge poor?"

The topics on new RTR loco announcements would seem to indicate that many modellers are both cash and knowledge rich.  Extensive discussion about the accuracy of specific features and fittings, the accuracy of the model for a specific location/period, etc.  Claims for how many models people have ordered, even if they don't fit into their usual modelling preferences, must bring joy to the hearts of the manufacturer while the demands for this or that particular version/livery/etc. give an indication of potential future sales.

 

Whether they are skills poor is a moot point. The unwillingness to consider something as simple as adding relatively simple lining (vis the Bachmann LNWR Coal Tank, still only available in plain LNWR black) might indicate a lack of skill or an unwillingness to devalue the model in the s/h market.

 

The debate about the Gresley stock would be, ironically, irrelevant to many people. RTR is very much a loco centric business, the accuracy of what is available to run behind it is much less important.

 

 

[Bucoops]

I wonder what percentage of these is correct?

 

 

Start at 0% and work down?

[micklner]

3 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

The topics on new RTR loco announcements would seem to indicate that many modellers are both cash and knowledge rich.  Extensive discussion about the accuracy of specific features and fittings, the accuracy of the model for a specific location/period, etc.  Claims for how many models people have ordered, even if they don't fit into their usual modelling preferences, must bring joy to the hearts of the manufacturer while the demands for this or that particular version/livery/etc. give an indication of potential future sales.

 

Whether they are skills poor is a moot point. The unwillingness to consider something as simple as adding relatively simple lining (vis the Bachmann LNWR Coal Tank, still only available in plain LNWR black) might indicate a lack of skill or an unwillingness to devalue the model in the s/h market.

 

The debate about the Gresley stock would be, ironically, irrelevant to many people. RTR is very much a loco centric business, the accuracy of what is available to run behind it is much less important.

 

 

 

     People appear to be very wary of altering very expensive r.t.r in any way. Weathering appears to be a particular no no for many people. You only have to look at ebay prices to see how it devalues some r.t.r.

      There are many strange tastes out there in what people buy in general, many just buy because its a nice colour or it looks pretty etc etc , historical accuracy is simply ignored by many buyers.

[t-b-g]

9 hours ago, Iain.d said:

I’m not a prolific poster on RMWeb nor am I ever likely to be. I’m reasonably displaced from the subject railway that interests me and I use this forum to keep the fire alive.

 

I like to make models of trains as a release from work where I continually interact with dogmatic people with heavily entrenched views, therefore, online, I don’t get involved in disagreements.

 

I have read the previous two pages with such disappointment and it makes me wonder why I should continue to come here. And for those that think this type of debate is healthy and constructive criticism? Its not.

 

Thank you to Phil Brighton, a few posts above, for showing us his work and trying to remind us of what we are really here for.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

I agree entirely, which is why I have kept out of the discussion. I thought it was just me that felt that way so I am glad you have spoken up.

 

"Wright writes" has changed in its tone and demeanour and not for the better.

[micklner]

3 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

I wonder what percentage of these is correct?

 

 

Start at 0% and work down?

Dont be silly look at that Tumblehome   it must be at least plus 1% !!

[Clearwater]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

 

The debate about the Gresley stock would be, ironically, irrelevant to many people. RTR is very much a loco centric business, the accuracy of what is available to run behind it is much less important.

 

 

I think there’s a more nuanced view on coaching stock.  The relatively frequent discussions on stock such as GWR toplights suggest that some purchasers are unwilling to contemplate buying because of the perceived complexity and changes to the stock over the years.  Yet, it looks like generic ranges such as the Hattons Genesis coaches will be a commercial success despite the inherent inaccuracies their approach entails.  I don’t think knowledge of prototype coaching stock is any less than that of loco stock.  Nor do I think that the majority of purchasers of locos are put off by the odd inaccuracy.  However, what you see on forums (fora?) such as this is the criticisms of a vocal minority.  Unless you can build, paint to a high standard or are willing to pay up to four figures, you have to adopt a FIFO principle to both loco and stock purchase.

 

Personally, I think it comes down to the level of compromise you’re prepared to accept.  To me it jars far more to see a Class 66 diesel hauling private owner wagons or a shirt button GWR loco hauling blue/grey mark ones where the  error is obvious as opposed to seeing a garter blue A4 with Hornby teak coaches.  With the latter, if the presentation is acknowledging the errors, then at least it is showing the presence of error rather than wilful ignorance.  
 

However, at a top level exhibition like Warley or Railex/other ones at Stoke Mandeville, my expectations as to what is an acceptable level of compromise will be higher than on a thread on here or the show at the local village hall.

 

David

Edited November 21, 2020 by Clearwater
Clarification

[Headstock]

37 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

My understanding in railway terms is that turnunder is the curving in at the bottom of the coach sides and tumblehome the equivalent at the top. Tumblehome is often used for both as the last two day’s discussion proves.

 

Good morning Greenie,

 

there was a tumblehome on Gresley carriages, as you have described it. Folk tend to concentrate on the bottom half. The widest point of the sides was at the waist, they tapered in towards the top, under the cornice. It is that top half that is missing from certain products, contributing to a slab sided aspect.

[LNER4479]

11 hours ago, Iain.d said:

... dogmatic people with heavily entrenched views ...

One of the best definitions of the species human being I've heard in a long time ...

[MikeTrice]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

In naval architecture, yes - the narrowing of the waist above the waterline (vide Sophia Loren). But in railway carriage architecture, the word has become the usual enthusiast's term for the inward curve of the panelling below the waist (vide Sophia Loren). Whether the term was used in C&W drawing offices is an interesting question.

In the case of the LNER: Turnunder:

[gr.king]

18 minutes ago, MikeTrice said:

In the case of the LNER: Turnunder:

 

QED.

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, Iain.d said:

I’m not a prolific poster on RMWeb nor am I ever likely to be. I’m reasonably displaced from the subject railway that interests me and I use this forum to keep the fire alive.

 

I like to make models of trains as a release from work where I continually interact with dogmatic people with heavily entrenched views, therefore, online, I don’t get involved in disagreements.

 

I have read the previous two pages with such disappointment and it makes me wonder why I should continue to come here. And for those that think this type of debate is healthy and constructive criticism? Its not.

 

Thank you to Phil Brighton, a few posts above, for showing us his work and trying to remind us of what we are really here for.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Good morning Iain,

 

(Well, morning here, just).

 

I'm disappointed you feel this way. I don't believe this thread is 'dogmatic' to an extreme. All I'd say is this; I've learned a lot more from contrary points of view than I have from those which are in complete agreement.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

With in excess of 2,000 pages now, Wright Writes is bound to change over time. Some will consider it for the worst; others for the better. It is a matter of opinion.

 

I encourage robust debate (as long as it's not personally 'abusive'), and I think Wright Writes (and other threads) allow this. 

 

As has been said already, we all have levels of 'tolerance' towards what we'll accept in a model and what we won't. If we go along the path of greater 'accuracy' in our model-making, it doesn't make us dogmatic. More discerning, perhaps? 

 

That said, nobody has the right to dictate to others what they 'must' or 'must not' do in their modelling, though constructive criticism is often helpful.

 

Regards to all correspondents. 

 

Tony. 

[grahame]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'd say is this; I've learned a lot more from contrary points of view than I have from those which are in complete agreement.

 

 

It's often nice to hear alternative view points and can make you think and consider them. But it's all a matter of how they are expressed. Generally I don't think there is OTT discussion on this thread, occasionally a little amusing ribbing but nothing abusive.

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Progress on the latest SEF A4.................

 

 

Accepting the limitations of my building skills, there are several elements in this model which are (and will be) 'incorrect' and compromised. They're either through indolence, ignorance, resources (or lack of them) or pragmatism. 

 

I'd expect nothing else than these being commented on................... 

 

 

[ScRSG]

2 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

In the case of the LNER: Turnunder:

 

I must confess to have been surprised by this diagram in that it would seem that, to scale the tu(mblehome)urnunder is only 1mm.

 

I attach below a (rough) experimental picture i have taken this morning of a Hornby (left) and a Kirk Gresley coach with a straight edge placed between them. Interestingly the gap at the bottom of the Hornby coach looks closer to 1mm than the Kirk which most seems to agree has the better "look" (Sorry, I have nothing better to gauge these by). I have to agree, though, that the Hornby coach side looks flat. 

 

 

Interesting?