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

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I find your response somewhat odd, Clive.

 

Though some of the names I mentioned are (obviously) not known to you, does it matter? All have an excellent 'pedigree', and their work has regularly appeared in the model press and at exhibitions. 

 

Interestingly, I DO know some of the names on your list (I've photographed Tonbridge West Yard, and taken pictures of Wibnenshaw). Is Phil Eames of Calcutta Sidings? In that case, I've taken snaps of that. 

 

Why have the names on your list not appeared on Wright writes? Is it my fault? 'Wibble' (KH) posts on here from time to time, though I doubt if many (or any?) on my list post on diesel/electric sites. That said, John Phillips is building a cracking EM model of Doncaster in the 1970s, with Tony Gee making the pointwork. Do you know about that? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

If I want my involvement with John and his layout revealing to the world, it would have been nice to think that I could have been the one to mention it.

 

I am not sure John will be too pleased about his project being announced on here either.

 

Next time there is an opportunity for you to tell everybody what I am up to, please keep it to yourself so that I can decide if, when and where I tell people about it.

  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

That wouldn't be the one we had Cwmafon next to in the Corn Exchange? We couldn't even get the track clean, never mind keep it clean, with all the clag the meths fired steam locos were putting out. I think that was the last exhibition before I widened the layout - at least partly because a well known exhibition manager was struggling to turn round inside it.

I think it probably was, Mike. The fumes got me to the extent that I couldn't remember that I was operating a layout, never mind which one.

 

I presume that your last sentence refers to the manager of a well-known Easter show?

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Hmm, that makes it sound like this site is a steam only one (which it's not) and is not for diesel/electric modellers to post on, or that this thread is the preserve of steam era enthusiasts only. I thought it was for all modellers who make some constructional effort and presumably regardless of any scale or any genre.

 

 

It is Graham,

 

My comment was in reaction to a rather odd post.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Tim,

 

I know; it's one of the V2s. 

 

I really should have deleted it, but I was in a rush to get it 'shot' and didn't have time to check the footage before it went to Howard for editing. It occurred at the 'V' of the point, and is most-annoying. Needless to say, I've subsequently tried it again (and again) and nothing but smooth passage is the result! All I can put it down to is that one of the loco's drivers is not 100% at right angles to its axle; just a twitch, no more. Thus, the driver's gone through the 'V' at its tightest point (a one in 360 chance?), causing the jolt. 

 

It must also be remembered (though I'm not offering an excuse) is that LB's scenic-side pointwork is made to 'finescale' OO standards (an admitted misnomer), which means it will find an errant b-t-b. At least it didn't derail (if it had, I would have just scrapped the footage, of course), and it also shows (I hope) that all the other locos/stock are entirely compatible with the trackwork.

 

That said, since I'm zealous (overly so?) about good running, the loco will be investigated.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 


Tony,

It's good to read that it's a locomotive issue that you can resolve rather than being a track issue, as I'd wrongly assumed. Having seen first hand how well your locomotives perform that it hadn't even entered my mind that there could be the slightest chance of a problem arising with one of them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

If I want my involvement with John and his layout revealing to the world, it would have been nice to think that I could have been the one to mention it.

 

I am not sure John will be too pleased about his project being announced on here either.

 

Next time there is an opportunity for you to tell everybody what I am up to, please keep it to yourself so that I can decide if, when and where I tell people about it.

Goodness me, Tony,

 

Is there anything I mention that you approve of?

 

I seem to recall discussing a fair bit about John's layout with him at one Doncaster show where he had buildings on display and parts of the trackplan. I believe there were also examples of your excellent pointwork. I also seem to recall he had locos and stock on display, too.

 

I'm told that up to 10,000 visited the Donny Show. Some of those might even have seen what I've just mentioned.

 

In future, I'll mention nothing more about what you're doing, or have done (I assume you've never minded my praising your signals on LB?) and nothing more about Buckingham.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something Graham Nicholas mentioned yesterday set me thinking (good, provocative and challenging posts always do). The gist of it was about how our 'standards', 'opinions', 'perceptions' and 'observations', among others, might change over time. 

 

Few can have had the resolve of, say, the likes of Peter Denny (I'll not mention his layout) who, over 60 years maintained a consistency of standard so that everything was harmonious. 

 

I can only cite my own modelling 'journey'; not over 60 years, but over the last 45, since I took railway modelling 'seriously'. I can look back at things I did/tolerated, which I wouldn't do/tolerate now (this is not an implied criticism of anyone else's standards, just my own).

 

Regarding layouts I built or was involved with the building of in the early years; to start with, none was based on an actual prototype, the trackwork on the scenic section was all Peco and none of the signals worked. Points were also just finger-worked. 

 

As for locos, far too many were RTR, any early kit-built ones were glued together and rode on proprietary chassis (not even re-wheeled in many cases), none was glazed, nor carried lamp brackets (so, no lamps), had no brakes and were not crewed. Early couplings were Peco/Hornby-Dublo metal types (the kits accommodated these). Even when I did build 'proper' chassis (and how daft is this?), in the case of my A4s I stuck them underneath Hornby-Dublo bodies (repainted, though).

 

Rolling stock was almost exclusively RTR (yes, on my first non-childlike layout I used Hornby-Dublo SD Mk.1s!), and no thought was given to modelling 'accurate' trains. 

 

Scenery was very basic and any buildings were just card or plastic kits, with no observation of 'reality'. 

 

The potential list could go on and on...............

 

It's largely through the influence of other modellers that my 'standards' improved and the list of things I'd 'tolerate' would get smaller. Thus, comments in the past (the bookazine in question, I think, comes from the last century) I made might not be the same as the ones I'd make now. Is that not 'progress'? 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Tony, a quick question if I may.

I have found your coach couplings have worked very well on Brent so far.  Given that I have quite a few wagons in various stock boxes which are without couplings, I am interested to hear what you have used for couplings on freight stock for Little Blytham.

 

I have settled on using Dinghams on the stock which is going to be shunted (on the very rare occasions that I decide to do some shunting!)  But really don't fancy having to buy and solder up couplings for all of the mainline wagons which will remain as a fixed rake in the fiddleyard.

 

Thanks 

Rich 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Something Graham Nicholas mentioned yesterday set me thinking (good, provocative and challenging posts always do). The gist of it was about how our 'standards', 'opinions', 'perceptions' and 'observations', among others, might change over time. 

 

It's all part of 'continuous improvement' and the desire to produce more accurate, more reliable and better performing models. And, of course, it doesn't only apply to individual modellers. Manufactures too have changed over time and now produce RTR product that is more detailed and with greater fidelity than ever (not so sure about reliability/performance for some thou).

 

I doubt anyone aspires not to improve their standards, although rate of improvement change will vary depending on the individual. Mine is slow, but like BR 'we're getting there' .

 

 

 

 

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a brief thought or two on what may or may not count as a great layout, and whether such a classification matters. Some (many?) modellers may be very happy to admire accurate, large re-creations of real places, the building of which has been a real self-inflicted "rod for the owner's back", others may prefer to admire layouts that operate exactly as per the prototype, even if they have to stand there all day, mostly watching nothing happen if it is absolutely prototypical (or perhaps watching the operators having nervous breakdowns trying to follow all of the rules in order to operate at a fast pace even when items or systems mal-function), and if the die-hard observers stand there all day, they prevent others from getting a view. Some modellers may want both physical and operational accuracy. 

 

At least some modellers may not get "up tight" about whether their preferred layout, or their own layout, is classified as a "great", providing that it gives them personal satisfaction.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fatadder said:

Tony, a quick question if I may.

I have found your coach couplings have worked very well on Brent so far.  Given that I have quite a few wagons in various stock boxes which are without couplings, I am interested to hear what you have used for couplings on freight stock for Little Blytham.

 

I have settled on using Dinghams on the stock which is going to be shunted (on the very rare occasions that I decide to do some shunting!)  But really don't fancy having to buy and solder up couplings for all of the mainline wagons which will remain as a fixed rake in the fiddleyard.

 

Thanks 

Rich 

Good afternoon Rich,

 

Glad to help. 

 

I have three types of couplings for the freight stock on Little Bytham. On some fixed rakes (which merely go round), I have screw-/three-link shackles. These are on the rakes which are not pushed to/from any kick-back sidings.

 

On other sets, where some propelling is required (though still fixed rakes), I have my 'own' hook and bar system; a discreet hook on the towed wagon, engaging with a 'goalpost' on the towing wagon. Because there's no risk of buffer-locking by this system, it works well. It's really the same as my coach couplings, but without the extra pipes. 

 

For the pick-ups (which have stock which can be uncoupled) I use Sprat & Winkle couplings (which also can work, at least in part, with my own couplings).

 

I hope this makes sense.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Tony might have left this particular can of worms rather less stirred had he used the word "reputation", indicating ability and merit, rather than "pedigree" which, all too often merely implies status. :mellow:

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought on mentioning 'names'.

 

I consider it an imperative to usually credit those who've done any work in pictures I post on here, or where I make comment as to certain layouts' 'pedigrees'. I think that's only fair, because I cannot stand the notion of those who 'bask in praise' by omission. 

 

If anyone is 'offended' by my doing that, I'll happily delete their names.

 

Many thanks. 

  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think Tony might have left this particular can of worms rather less stirred had he used the word "reputation", indicating ability and merit, rather than "pedigree" which, all too often merely implies status. :mellow:

 

John

Thanks John,

 

However a 'reputation' can be a dubious one. 

 

Semantics, I suppose...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

Just a thought on mentioning 'names'.

 

I consider it an imperative to usually credit those who've done any work in pictures I post on here, or where I make comment as to certain layouts' 'pedigrees'. I think that's only fair, because I cannot stand the notion of those who 'bask in praise' by omission. 

 

If anyone is 'offended' by my doing that, I'll happily delete their names.

 

Many thanks. 

 

I can't see my name there so it must already have been deleted....:D

  • Round of applause 1
  • Funny 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

I can't see my name there so it must already have been deleted....:D

No matter how hard I try to write something which is unambiguous, there's always one...........................

 

Thanks Dave.

 

Speaking of writing, something was mentioned yesterday about how many articles on model railway matters an author might have written. 

 

I've never counted up mine, but I've just done a little piece of mental arithmetic (difficult for me, I know). My first piece in the model railway press was published over 40 years ago now, and for the last 30 years I've written 'professionally' for the press, both model and prototype; articles, bookazines and books. 

 

Assuming a rate of ten articles a year, that's over 400 pieces! In some years there was one, or more, a month. 

 

No wonder folk get fed up with what I write!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Goodness me, Tony,

 

Is there anything I mention that you approve of?

 

I seem to recall discussing a fair bit about John's layout with him at one Doncaster show where he had buildings on display and parts of the trackplan. I believe there were also examples of your excellent pointwork. I also seem to recall he had locos and stock on display, too.

 

I'm told that up to 10,000 visited the Donny Show. Some of those might even have seen what I've just mentioned.

 

In future, I'll mention nothing more about what you're doing, or have done (I assume you've never minded my praising your signals on LB?) and nothing more about Buckingham.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Tony, I have no problem at all with you writing about what I have done on Little Bytham (your project), Retford (you have Sandra's blessing) or Buckingham (probably the most talked about in public layout ever). 

 

For other projects I would prefer to be able to have some control over who knows what I am doing and who I am doing it for.

 

Some people I do some modelling for are happy for the arrangement to be known in public and some prefer to keep things more private. I would just like it to be able to ask for permission from the person behind the project before anything is said in public about what I am contributing.

 

It just seems the right way to go about it as far as I am concerned.

 

Both John and I have had instances where our work has been published by third parties before, without permission being sought and with inaccurate descriptions of what was being shown and my case, somebody else got paid for what I had contributed! So perhaps I am a bit sensitive about such things. 

 

 

 

 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I wonder whether that's how he got hooked on railway modelling...

Not that singer, the chap concerned was far more dandy and charming ;) He also turned out to have girlfriends all over the country, which did not result in a happy blonde...

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

Tony, I have no problem at all with you writing about what I have done on Little Bytham (your project), Retford (you have Sandra's blessing) or Buckingham (probably the most talked about in public layout ever). 

 

For other projects I would prefer to be able to have some control over who knows what I am doing and who I am doing it for.

 

Some people I do some modelling for are happy for the arrangement to be known in public and some prefer to keep things more private. I would just like it to be able to ask for permission from the person behind the project before anything is said in public about what I am contributing.

 

It just seems the right way to go about it as far as I am concerned.

 

Both John and I have had instances where our work has been published by third parties before, without permission being sought and with inaccurate descriptions of what was being shown and my case, somebody else got paid for what I had contributed! So perhaps I am a bit sensitive about such things. 

 

 

 

 

Points taken, Tony,

 

Thank you.

 

However, Doncaster, in its embryonic state, has been seen before, in public; as Graeme King has mentioned.

 

I've never written anything about it, apart from my mentioning it on here. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Points taken, Tony,

 

Thank you.

 

However, Doncaster, in its embryonic state, has been seen before, in public; as Graeme King has mentioned.

 

I've never written anything about it, apart from my mentioning it on here. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony. Yes, John and I have shown some items of track, buildings and rolling stock at a few shows as part of our EM Demo stand.

 

So it isn't a secret. It is just that if I wanted to write on here that I was building points for John, I would have asked him if it was OK first and I would hope the same would apply to others.

 

I certainly don't try to make an issue out of all you write. I quite enjoy a lot of it!

 

Cheers

 

Tony

  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Just a thought on mentioning 'names'.

 

I consider it an imperative to usually credit those who've done any work in pictures I post on here, or where I make comment as to certain layouts' 'pedigrees'. I think that's only fair, because I cannot stand the notion of those who 'bask in praise' by omission. 

 

If anyone is 'offended' by my doing that, I'll happily delete their names.

 

Many thanks. 

I too am really offended not to have been mentioned by name...  it's just not good enough ( a bit like my modelling).

 

Some folk are just too ruddy sensitive. By all means, take a bit of care with what you post, but also recognise the nature of the beast which is online posting.., quick and easy, communication,... and don't analyse every word to look for hidden nuances which don't exist.

Edited by rowanj
  • Like 8
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unable to make out all the layouts listed in the magazine's Top100 so I can't tell for sure if a couple haven't made the cut. Both are large 7mm layouts, one influencing the other. At the time of their construction I'd regard both as marking significant milestones.

 

The first being the Norris Layout, which at best had a loose sense of geography and as far as I've read didn't operate to any sort of timetable, yet it remains significant in my eyes at least.

 

The second: Lonsdale by Neil Corner and team. I think this layout has pretty much existed under the wire. I rarely see it mentioned and I have seen precious few images of it. Whilst it depicts a very plausible 'might-have-been' the main station is based on Hellifield.

Edited by Anglian
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anglian said:

I'm unable to make out all the layouts listed in the magazine's Top100 so I can't tell for sure if a couple haven't made the cut. Both are large 7mm layouts, one influencing the other. At the time of their construction I'd regard both as marking significant milestones.

 

The first being the Norris Layout, which at best had a loose sense of geography and as far as I've read didn't operate to any sort of timetable, yet it remains significant in my eyes at least.

 

The second: Lonsdale by Neil Corner and team. I think this layout has pretty much existed under the wire. I rarely see it mentioned and I have seen precious few images of it. Whilst it depicts a very plausible 'might-have-been' the main station is based on Hellifield.

 

I think they would both be in my top 100 favourites too and quite high up. Neither would be my sort of layout operationally but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be impressed by them. Both people with great vision and the ambition and resources to back it up. I think they are good examples of how employing top quality modellers can enhance rather than detract from a project.

  • Agree 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...