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

2 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Re layout photos just posted.

 

I'm pretty certain that 'Settle & Carlisle' is actually 'Moorcock Junction' by the late Andy Calvert (I assume it's OK to name the deceased?)

 

It is Graham,

 

It was Andy's 'last great project', though, when he started it, he probably didn't realise it.

 

I think he's one of the most-influential N Gauge modellers of all time (influential to other scales as well). 

 

It was a privilege to pop over at regular intervals to Barrow on Soar, photograph what he was doing (originally Nether Stowey) and finish the day with an excellent pub meal and a pint. 

 

He was a great 'disguiser', at a time when much in N Gauge was rather crude. Change the pony/bogie wheels on a loco and the effect was instant. 'Bury' the over-heavy trackwork, and it looked like a 'scale' road. 

 

He died far too young. At his funeral, it was 'standing room only', outside as well because so many attended. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CUTLER2579 said:

Tony.

any chance that you have some photographs of Fordley Park & Leighford that you could post for your younger modellers to see and for us old uns to reminise about.

 

Derek.

 

Good afternoon Derek.

 

I'm afraid not. Both those layouts were shot on film (Fordley Park, originally by Brian Monaghan) and, though I have the prints and negatives, they'll need scanning (something I can't do).

 

Both layouts spawned more articles - 'The Locomotives of Fordley Park' and 'The Locomotives of Leighford'. I squirm now at what I was producing in those far-off days. 

 

All part of history, I suppose.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony,

I have copies of magazines with photographs of both layouts in them,however they are stored away in the loft of the garage and I can't access them at present ( Torn Shoulder Tendon). I thought when I saw them in real life that they were very good layouts for there time and were a credit to the  Wolverhampton Club.

Keep safe,Regards,Derek.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony's latest batch of layout photos prove one thing to me. It doesn't matter if you're running RTR or scratch built stock - you need to get the ground cover and back scene right for a layout to go from good to outstanding.

 

The likes of Pempoul and Copenhagen Fields fields look great because of the scene the trains run through. The texture of the scenes are perfect - something very easy to get wrong.

 

Steven B.

Edited by Steven B
  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

And, for the moment, some more 'rediscovered' layouts............................

 

727173764_Stock101.jpg.c263a0d0df30b1befdc9ad7cb5aa8b02.jpg

 

No idea about this one, except it's N Gauge. 

 

Hi,

I have this one down as St Aidans, not to be confused with at least one other of that name. I've tidied the Derby '06 show guide away beyond recovery for now so I can't supply further details. Some of my snappery from the show:

1884141647_StAidans1.png.9f1e21e4521d78ba1e2f64aca97df80a.png

 

StAidans_2.png.aeab8fab45827ef485257daaddd0a39e.png

 

StAidans_10.png.6cf250f95f2cd4661de7ad3e3ab7f183.png

Nice couple of trophies there!

 

Regards, Gerry.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polybear said:

 

Does anyone happen to know who builds Pete Waterman's locos?  I believe he sold several via auction several years ago.

 

As for weathering, and based on Tony Geary's superb 9F above, for me it's an absolute yes.

 

 

Should you carry on painting and lining your own models?  Based on the results shown above I'd say absolutely yes - but doesn't it depend on whether or not you enjoy doing it?  If you hate every second of doing it and want to put it thru' the window then a bit of horse-trading does no harm.....

I photographed all Pete's collection, Brian.

 

Geoff Holt and George Mackinnon Ure built the Gauge 1 items, and Geoff built some of the O Gauge locos. 

 

The Beeson Atlantic was Pete's, and I think he had some of Tony Reynald's peerless work as well. 

 

It's an amusing story behind how I was commissioned to photograph The Waterman Collection. It would be at one of the first NEC shows, and Pete had part of the collection on display. One of the items on show was a Gauge 1 LMS Beyer Garratt built by Geoff Holt. Geoff came over to me and asked if it were possible to photograph it, getting everything in focus. 'Of course' was my reply. 

 

We went over to collect it to take to my portable studio, whereupon some 'follower' of Pete announced it was impossible to get such a huge model all in focus. Pete looked on and took this guy at his word. 'Can you do it?' he asked me. 'Yes, I've got a camera with movements'. 

 

So, I took its picture, along with several others. When they were processed, I sent them to Pete. On receipt, his comment was 'That guy was talking b*ll*cks!'. The next comment was 'When can you come up to Cheshire and down to London to photograph the rest?'. 

 

The rest, as they say, is history.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

So, I took its picture, along with several others. When they were processed, I sent them to Pete. On receipt, his comment was 'That guy was talking b*ll*cks!'. The next comment was 'When can you come up to Cheshire and down to London to photograph the rest?'. 

 

I've met Pete W on a couple of occasions and that would have been one of his more polite phrases!

 

You can tell he'd been a railwayman from the sharp end, but he's a good advocate for railway enthusiasm.

 

Rob

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick one from me regarding the discussion back in June/July about the Comet V2 chassis which I’ve had a few issues with. It merely backs up what others have said, so builders beware!!

 

There is a problem with the motion assembly on the comet chassis. The relationship between the motion support and the slide bars was all wrong as I initially built it. Additionally, the crosshead was interfering with the front of the slide bars at the most forward portion of travel. After much swearing and cursing, (oh bother, and damn you for example) I did a bit of research, and found that the slide bars were about 2mm too long. So, I unsoldered them, lopped off 2mm and refitted them. Next was to tackle the motion support bracket. Measuring off the isinglass drawing, showed the depth of these to be about 8mm. Mine were closer to 10mm. So, I re bent the brackets, and trimmed off the excess. Now I feel that the relationship is correct (or less wrong) and the motion support bracket just touches the end of the slide bars. Now I just need to repaint the cylinder castings as the paint bubbled with all the extra soldering I was doing, and then refit the valve gear. Simple.

 

IMG_7516.JPG.b1d9e6d1c6c5f807d9b74c23d356bfc1.JPG

 

IMG_7518.JPG.578ad84726265b5344ade1e11cd4cb26.JPG

 

And the finished article, much better I think. Let's hope it works.

 

IMG_7521.JPG.0e13079d07b44ac80941a740ad8aafb9.JPG

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Craftsmanship/clever 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Whether to weather? Discuss, please. 

 

Tony,

 

I think the answer to this is it depends on what you're trying to achieve. For a working loco on a scale model railway trying to depict a scene from a point in history, clearly the answer is "yes". I suspect that includes all layouts that you're likely to be involved in!

 

However, the answer would be very different for a museum quality loco built for a display case. I'd prefer to see that in pristine condition, partly to show off the workmanship but also because its purpose is different. It's broadly the model equivalent of the Doncaster Works shot showing off the livery in all its glory. There are also occasions on a model railway where it would be valid not to weather. As an extreme example consider a model of the Isle of Sodor. As the model is trying to represent the fiction presented in the books then weathering would not be valid. Other examples might include a model railway which is trying to present an idealised version of history. If that is a stated aim then I think it's valid to display the models in ex works condition.

 

Where the hobby falls down in my view is the standard RTR satin finish which is neither one thing nor the other. There have been attempts to present models with a gloss finish to represent them being ex works - I like this and have a couple running round like that on my layout. But the standard Bachby finish needs either shining up or weathering down - that's not to say I've done all mine but I am working on it!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

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

3 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

I think the answer to this is it depends on what you're trying to achieve. For a working loco on a scale model railway trying to depict a scene from a point in history, clearly the answer is "yes". I suspect that includes all layouts that you're likely to be involved in!

 

However, the answer would be very different for a museum quality loco built for a display case. I'd prefer to see that in pristine condition, partly to show off the workmanship but also because its purpose is different. It's broadly the model equivalent of the Doncaster Works shot showing off the livery in all its glory. There are also occasions on a model railway where it would be valid not to weather. As an extreme example consider a model of the Isle of Sodor. As the model is trying to represent the fiction presented in the books then weathering would not be valid. Other examples might include a model railway which is trying to present an idealised version of history. If that is a stated aim then I think it's valid to display the models in ex works condition.

 

Where the hobby falls down in my view is the standard RTR satin finish which is neither one thing nor the other. There have been attempts to present models with a gloss finish to represent them being ex works - I like this and have a couple running round like that on my layout. But the standard Bachby finish needs either shining up or weathering down - that's not to say I've done all mine but I am working on it!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Good afternoon Andy,

 

I'm sure you're right (you're definitely right with regards to the layouts I'm involved with). 

 

It would also take a 'brave' person to weather a museum-standard model; painted to a museum standard by those who've liveried the likes of Pete Waterman's collection - Larry Goddard, Brian Badger and Beeson himself. 

 

Though all the locos I've had professionally painted have a 'degree' of weathering, I'm not daft enough to obliterate such wonderful work. If 'heroic' weathering is called for, I'll paint a loco myself!

 

Perhaps there are two distinctions here. The 'glass case'/museum standard model which, even if it does work, will never be run on a layout (and running on a layout has inherent risks to paintwork/detail). Then there's (literally?) the 'layout' model, which is made to work, look realistic (weathered) and will run the risk of getting damaged in use. You know which one I prefer. 

 

By the way, I'll never 'consider' an Isle of Sodor layout. As for an 'idealised' model railway, that'll never be ideal for me.

 

I can (and do) admire some of the 'glass case' models it's been my privilege to photograph. They are the ultimate in modelling ability (indeed, they're better-built than the real things) and they definitely have their place; in a museum or a private collection.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

 

You can tell he'd been a railwayman from the sharp end, but he's a good advocate for railway enthusiasm.

 

Rob

 

I've met Pete Waterman only once. I'll keep the details sketchy to avoid possible embarrassment. He was at a railway I had the priviledge of working on in order to perform an 'official function'. As soon as he spotted people in overalls he broke away from the 'suits' and headed for us. Somebody tried to drag him away but he made them wait. Eventually he had to go, saying "I'll be back in a bit!". He was! A 'proper bloke' I think.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Should I carry on painting my models? This is all done with a sable and transfers.................................

Yes: I would kill for a K4 built and painted to that standard. Re. weathering, Tony Geary's 9F speaks volumes in favour.

Edited by James Fitzjames
Typo
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Being of LMS/LMR persuasion myself, I regard him as my modelling muse. I never met him, but his writings were inspiration enough (as well as forever being  a hero of mine for his role on bringing the incomparable No.46229 first back to the NRM and then into working order for mainline railtours - yes, I know many others were involved as well!).

 

I noted your estimate of the number of articles you've written yourself and started me thinking. DJ was also a prolific writer (as well as a prolific producer of drawings). Aided and abetted by the likes of Bob Essery, the railway and modelling press of the 1970s and 1980s were awash with LMS-biased articles and projects.

 

Could it be the case therefore that, since his passing, the LMS/LMR has not had such a high profile? Meanwhile, with 400 articles to your own name in more recent times (and I'm sure there are others who could be named), does the LNER / ECML currently enjoy a correspondingly higher profile?

 

Just a thought!

 

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. Tebay was a great favourite with the crowds and real railwaymen, not so much the 'in crowd' (there is a story there but I would have to PM), it was the first to provide a spotters handbook. 

 

The LNER is the ultimate train spotters railway, having more classes and sub classes of locomotive than the LMS. It also has a system of identification that is more user friendly than the LMS, collectors love categorization systems. The classes of LNER locomotives are often geographically unique, so that the GE, or NE areas for example, all have their own individual identities.

 

When I was a kid, modelers use to make things, this was less necessary with the LM, as you could go out and buy an LMS express locomotive, a mixed traffic locomotive or a heavy freight locomotive.  I think that more 'proper' modelers were naturally drawn to the LNER  and they had a free run and things for some time, as the RTR manufactures were slow to catch on. Now a days they have realised the potential in the vast range and variations within classes to sell to the largest market, the collectors. Simon Kohler noted in a recent interview that Big boys sell in large numbers across a range of peoples model railway interests. The LNER has a large number of locomotives with 'Big boy' appeal. Hornby's upcoming releases feature various iterations of Hush Hush A2, and P2. Big prestige locomotives and incidentally a new range of generic coaches not much change in the last thirty years.

 

There has been a whole series of almost identikit layouts based on the southern end of the ECML, all set in the roughly the same period and running the same trains. You have to wonder how much one is copying the other. For example, once the research into trains is done once, it needn't be done again. Over twenty years ago, Tony did an influential article on modelling the Elizabethan. It was recently proposed to submit a new article, modelling the same train and using exactly the same methodology. Not much has changed!

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 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.....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those are excellent, made me laugh.

 

And so realistic as well, and I like the details like No1, P155, CHAR, Return empty to sty

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 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. Tebay was a great favourite with the crowds and real railwaymen, not so much the 'in crowd' (there is a story there but I would have to PM), it was the first to provide a spotters handbook. 

 

The LNER is the ultimate train spotters railway, having more classes and sub classes of locomotive than the LMS. It also has a system of identification that is more user friendly than the LMS, collectors love categorization systems. The classes of LNER locomotives are often geographically unique, so that the GE, or NE areas for example, all have their own individual identities.

 

When I was a kid, modelers use to make things, this was less necessary with the LM, as you could go out and buy an LMS express locomotive, a mixed traffic locomotive or a heavy freight locomotive.  I think that more 'proper' modelers were naturally drawn to the LNER  and they had a free run and things for some time, as the RTR manufactures were slow to catch on. Now a days they have realised the potential in the vast range and variations within classes to sell to the largest market, the collectors. Simon Kohler noted in a recent interview that Big boys sell in large numbers across a range of peoples model railway interests. The LNER has a large number of locomotives with 'Big boy' appeal. Hornby's upcoming releases feature various iterations of Hush Hush A2, and P2. Big prestige locomotives and incidentally a new range of generic coaches not much change in the last thirty years.

 

There has been a whole series of almost identikit layouts based on the southern end of the ECML, all set in the roughly the same period and running the same trains. You have to wonder how much one is copying the other. For example, once the research into trains is done once, it needn't be done again. Over twenty years ago, Tony did an influential article on modelling the Elizabethan. It was recently proposed to submit a new article, modelling the same train and using exactly the same methodology. Not much has changed!

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. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

4 minutes ago, Anglian said:

There have been two Brinklow layouts – 7mm and N. 

 

Berkhamsted (4mm 00) is one I recall. It certainly featured in RM back in the day.

 

 

And Tring in New Zealand................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1
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

14 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

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:

 

And your wellies.

  • Agree 3
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...