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

1 hour ago, Clem said:

 

 

Morning Andrew,

That's a great snippet of research you've done. I do (vaguely) remember the gypsum trains on the GC but I don't particularly remember the consist of them. I still have a big interest in the GC having lived in sight of the line from 1960-1966. If I remember correctly the locos on the gypsum trains were pretty varied : J6, J11, O4, J39 but they generally stood out as most of the freight was in the hands of the 9Fs apart from the York-Woodfords which were either B16s or V2s.

 

Anyway,  I'll be using the 13T to help pad out my ironstone trains although they were as common as the Chas Roberts and the ex-LMS hoppers. I can't fathom why no-one has done a kit for the LMS hoppers - they were so common both on ex-LNER and ex-LMS lines and I think some even got down to South Wales. Looks like I make have to bite the bullet sometime soon and do a batch scratch build.

 

By the way, are you getting back into the club premises yet?

 

Clem

 

P.S.

 

I've completed two 13 ton hoppers so far but I think I shall replace the axel boxes. Another three kits are due to arrive tomorrow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Headstock said:

Re club rooms, they are open with restrictions. However, not being an elderly Edwardian gentleman or ancient boy racer, I only got my second 'Astrojab' a couple of weeks ago and it is only now operational. That said, I'm not in too much of a hurry to go down. I doubt if LSGC will ever go out again, so I'm just finishing up my modelling to my own satisfaction. Shame about the B7 but there you go. On the other hand, with the completion of the hoppers, I can claim that I achieved what I set out to do. That was to produce a set of authentic trains with a high degree of accuracy, not less than 90%, that would have been instantly recognizable to the lineside back in the day. Perhaps a last photo shoot would be a good idea, the majority of what I've built over the years has never been recorded in situ.

 

The thought of LSGC not going out again fills me with dismay. With the authenticity of the trains and the wonderful standard of modelling, it really must be allowed to survive this virus, if it's possible. I think it may be a year or so before we can be sure of shows. But I really believe they will be back and as strong as before. In any case I want to be able to see your D210 and other Gresley and GC carriages in action! And don't give up on the B7. It would be great to see one on LSGC. They've always been a loco of interest for me.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a huge loss if Leicester South GC were never to be seen public again (except at Baildon open days?).

 

I fear, however, it might not be alone. What is the average age of the surviving builders/operators of LSGC? Many more-recent highly-influential exhibition layouts have been built by members of the same, older generation. 

 

Let's hope there are some up-and-coming new layouts out there ready to 'burst' on the show scene when (if?) it ever gets going again. Newer layouts built by newer modellers............

 

As an 'ancient boy racer', I won't be involved with exhibition layouts any more, though I'll still do my demonstrating/loco-doctoring, even if it's at far fewer shows than in the past.

 

Speaking of demonstrating (well, sort of), this ancient boy racer's trainset was featured in a Zoom meeting on Sunday evening, generating over £500.00 for the GCR reunification project. My thanks to Tom Ingall for organising it and for the kind comments from the participants. Did anyone on here participate? 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It would be a huge loss if Leicester South GC were never to be seen public again (except at Baildon open days?).

 

I fear, however, it might not be alone. What is the average age of the surviving builders/operators of LSGC? Many more-recent highly-influential exhibition layouts have been built by members of the same, older generation. 

 

Let's hope there are some up-and-coming new layouts out there ready to 'burst' on the show scene when (if?) it ever gets going again. Newer layouts built by newer modellers............

 

As an 'ancient boy racer', I won't be involved with exhibition layouts any more, though I'll still do my demonstrating/loco-doctoring, even if it's at far fewer shows than in the past.

 

Speaking of demonstrating (well, sort of), this ancient boy racer's trainset was featured in a Zoom meeting on Sunday evening, generating over £500.00 for the GCR reunification project. My thanks to Tom Ingall for organising it and for the kind comments from the participants. Did anyone on here participate? 

 

Ancient boy racer turned poacher he he.

 

Manpower is the problem and there has been more recent bad news in that respect. So many things have changed in the hobby over the last year and the last decade for that matter. Many a society will not survive this. For the majority, there has  probably been lots of good stuff, especially if you are not a practical modeller. For my own part, my interest in the hobby is definitely on the wane but that feels right. 

  • Friendly/supportive 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Headstock said:

Just to show I'm still modelling despite reducing determination.

 

I mentioned my attempts to get above 90% accuracy with trains built for LSGC. For some trains like the Newcastle York Bournemouth and the Master Cutler, this was relatively easy, as there was plenty of documentation and photographs and even individual carriage numbers were discovered, The locomotives working the services were even more well documented. 

 

What of the remaining 10%, are they totally moonshine? Not quite, some allowance had to be made for trains that ran in the middle of the night, were the formation could be gleaned from documentation but not confirmed by a photographs or even first hand accounts. For example, the exact types of BG's that were being used in some formations was unclear from a CWN's. In this case reference was made to photographs of BG's parked up or being loaded during daylight hours, at Sheffield, Nottingham and and Leicester. Reference was also made to documentation that listed BG's built for, or cascaded too the GCLE. 

 

The model shown below, is of a dia 260 steel panelled BG, renumbered as E 70532. It has recently been completed and is ready for running, hooray. The prototype was built new at York in 1942 and turned out in Wartime austerity brown. It was allocated new to the GCLE and went directly into service. As such, it is perfectly reasonable that it could have operated between Nottingham and Marylebone, even it is not an absolutely ascertained fact, that it did so. A good example of 10% modelling?

 

lots of yummy buffers and stuff arrived from MJT today, so I had better hopper off, Ho Ho.

 


971917911_Dia260SteelpaneledBG70532.jpg.055c95822407535b2f7e1a7f4c780447.jpg

Terrific model Andrew. May I ask, is it a from a kit and if so what make? It's beautifully finished and subtly weathered.

 

Interesting discussion re. 90%-10%. I attempt a similar approach except I think my 10% is more like 35%!    Robert has helped improve accuracy with correct CWNs but I really could do with a mid-50s freight WTT for the GN Derby line. I've been on the lookout for years and I think Tony (Dibatag) who is modelling Basford North is in the same boat. Photographs do help but it's much more satisfying if you can pin the photo down and be able to say for example  "that's the 6-30pm Burton-York beer train".

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Headstock said:

Just to show I'm still modelling despite reducing determination.

 

I mentioned my attempts to get above 90% accuracy with trains built for LSGC. For some trains like the Newcastle York Bournemouth and the Master Cutler, this was relatively easy, as there was plenty of documentation and photographs and even individual carriage numbers were discovered, The locomotives working the services were even more well documented. 

 

What of the remaining 10%, are they totally moonshine? Not quite, some allowance had to be made for trains that ran in the middle of the night, were the formation could be gleaned from documentation but not confirmed by a photographs or even first hand accounts. For example, the exact types of BG's that were being used in some formations was unclear from a CWN's. In this case reference was made to photographs of BG's parked up or being loaded during daylight hours, at Sheffield, Nottingham and and Leicester. Reference was also made to documentation that listed BG's built for, or cascaded too the GCLE. 

 

The model shown below, is of a dia 260 steel panelled BG, renumbered as E 70532. It has recently been completed and is ready for running, hooray. The prototype was built new at York in 1942 and turned out in Wartime austerity brown. It was allocated new to the GCLE and went directly into service. As such, it is perfectly reasonable that it could have operated between Nottingham and Marylebone, even it is not an absolutely ascertained fact, that it did so. A good example of 10% modelling?

 

lots of yummy buffers and stuff arrived from MJT today, so I had better hopper off, Ho Ho.

 


971917911_Dia260SteelpaneledBG70532.jpg.055c95822407535b2f7e1a7f4c780447.jpg

Exquisite modelling!

 

I wish I had the commitment (and the skills) to attempt to get 90% accuracy with regard to Bytham's trains. 

 

Many are created using photographs (which is fine for the first half of a rake in a typical three-quarter front view), and I have to accept that many of those pictures would have been taken on summer Saturdays (when extras wouldn't appear in the general CWNs). 

 

In my case, I usually say to myself 'Does it really matter?'. The answer is (or should be) 'Yes', but only up to a point, and certainly not 90% of that point. Take the stoppers at Bytham, for instance (few and far between). The appropriate CWNs I have suggest gangwayed stock, but prototype shots suggest anything but in many cases; almost anything which could turn a wheel (however arcane) seems to be employed at times. At the other extreme, a brand new Mk.1 appears in a three-car stopper at Essendine. 

 

I'm certainly not advocating a slipshod (inventive?) approach, more a pragmatic one. As I watch long expresses sweep past my vantage points on Little Bytham, I'm back seeing the 'real' things again, grubby notebook in hand, ready to note the loco's number. I see the train, but I'm not aware of its exact make-up. What's more important is that, in the main, I've made/modified it myself. I think that gives a greater satisfaction. Some rakes are certainly not near 90% accurate (though the likes of 'The Elizabethan', 'Queen of Scots' and other named trains should be), but they're 'mine'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 8
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

After the spending of (literally!) hundreds of pounds on postage, I've been able to settle down to a wee bit of modelling again.....................

 

107552460_ModelLoco9F03.jpg.9124f825e0186e18ecc30bff0c51140b.jpg

 

A fair bit of progress has been made on the Model Loco 9F, which Rob Kinsey started. 

 

I cannot find a picture of a 9F with this style of tender running on the ECML (other than around York), so I might well sell it on when complete (splitting the proceeds three ways among Rob, me and CRUK). We'll see.......................

 

What it might be worth is a good question. With Bachmann's already good one available, and Hornby's latest one forthcoming, what price a kit-built example in comparison? 

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

19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It would be a huge loss if Leicester South GC were never to be seen public again (except at Baildon open days?).

 

I fear, however, it might not be alone. What is the average age of the surviving builders/operators of LSGC? Many more-recent highly-influential exhibition layouts have been built by members of the same, older generation. 

 

Let's hope there are some up-and-coming new layouts out there ready to 'burst' on the show scene when (if?) it ever gets going again. Newer layouts built by newer modellers............

 

As an 'ancient boy racer', I won't be involved with exhibition layouts any more, though I'll still do my demonstrating/loco-doctoring, even if it's at far fewer shows than in the past.

 

Speaking of demonstrating (well, sort of), this ancient boy racer's trainset was featured in a Zoom meeting on Sunday evening, generating over £500.00 for the GCR reunification project. My thanks to Tom Ingall for organising it and for the kind comments from the participants. Did anyone on here participate? 

A great loss indeed. We are currently debating the future of Bournemouth West on the exhibition circuit. Too few operators, none of whom are getting any younger combined with COVID concerns (which hasn’t gone away despite what the government says). I’m not sure people fully understand what’s involved in transporting a very large layout long distances, setting up, two long days exhibiting combined with late nights and hotel rooms, packing up and getting home after midnight on the Sunday and- then for some, work on Monday.

one option may be to find a local home for the layout and have open days maybe twice a year.

  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Exquisite modelling!

 

I wish I had the commitment (and the skills) to attempt to get 90% accuracy with regard to Bytham's trains. 

 

Many are created using photographs (which is fine for the first half of a rake in a typical three-quarter front view), and I have to accept that many of those pictures would have been taken on summer Saturdays (when extras wouldn't appear in the general CWNs). 

 

In my case, I usually say to myself 'Does it really matter?'. The answer is (or should be) 'Yes', but only up to a point, and certainly not 90% of that point. Take the stoppers at Bytham, for instance (few and far between). The appropriate CWNs I have suggest gangwayed stock, but prototype shots suggest anything but in many cases; almost anything which could turn a wheel (however arcane) seems to be employed at times. At the other extreme, a brand new Mk.1 appears in a three-car stopper at Essendine. 

 

I'm certainly not advocating a slipshod (inventive?) approach, more a pragmatic one. As I watch long expresses sweep past my vantage points on Little Bytham, I'm back seeing the 'real' things again, grubby notebook in hand, ready to note the loco's number. I see the train, but I'm not aware of its exact make-up. What's more important is that, in the main, I've made/modified it myself. I think that gives a greater satisfaction. Some rakes are certainly not near 90% accurate (though the likes of 'The Elizabethan', 'Queen of Scots' and other named trains should be), but they're 'mine'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

When I was a kid, I use to marvel at how railway modelers recreated the past. Imagine my shock when I got seriously involved with the hobby and discovered that most of it was made up! Oh no, I thought, I've already done my Sci Fi phase, with Daleks fighting Dinosaurs down at the local station. There must be something better than this. Fortunately, I discovered that there was just as much work involved in making it up as there was in going for greater accuracy, why would you not?

 

Dose it matter? I would say yes. When it stops mattering, even geographically diverse layouts all start to look the same. I would argue that this had already occurred at pre pandemic exhibitions. I think that is important in steam age layouts at least, even BR layouts, to recognize that the Midland mainline didn't look like the East coast mainline, nor did either look  like that little route to the West. Each had their own unique identity that went way beyond the loco spotter blinkers.

 

With regard to LB, I personally would never attempt to model the East coast mainline in the manor that I have the GCLE. It's just too big and too passenger train orientated. Even with a layout the size of LB, you have to chuck out 80% of the trains before you start, so a high level of fidelity goes straight out the window. The lesson to me is quite simple. Chose a prototype that is more compact and bisque and you have a better chance of achieving an accurate result. As an extreme example, throwing your resources at a branch line with two passenger trains and three freight trains a day, becomes not quite so daunting.

 

I can here you stamping your foot and muttering, that would be boring. To me it wouldn't, the making of things is the same, what I would lose interest in very quickly would be trying to construct a generic express, a thing with no real world purpose, I just couldn't see the point. I understand your reasons for doing so but I don't find it very logical. You could have constructed a genuine rake that runs multiple times, one that rather like a broken clock, is at least right some of the time.

 

What I set out to do is much more achievable on the GCLE than the ECML. Its the opposite of LB, lots of bloc freight, with a few individual sparkles and a limited passenger service. Though limited, that passenger service was far more distinct in its individual formations than the equivalents on the ECML, especially if you contrast 1950 with 1957. Even the Pullman trains don't add the same diversity as the interregional services on the GC, with the latter providing a larger percentage of the whole than the Pullmans ever did. If you were doing accurate percentages on LB, you might just find room for half a Pullman train. 

 

The point of all this, is not my brilliance, rather that it is much easier for me to have done what I have done on my chosen prototype than it is on yours. I can retain more and compromise less. My disadvantage is, I need another twenty years to build a replacement for LSGC and the additional trains. By that time, I shall be too old to exhibit and half of RM web will be deceased. In 2041, nobody will want a layout that occupies a real space, nor one without whatever beeping noises and flashing lights are the future fashion, better to stop now?
 

  • Like 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Clem said:

Terrific model Andrew. May I ask, is it a from a kit and if so what make? It's beautifully finished and subtly weathered.

 

Interesting discussion re. 90%-10%. I attempt a similar approach except I think my 10% is more like 35%!    Robert has helped improve accuracy with correct CWNs but I really could do with a mid-50s freight WTT for the GN Derby line. I've been on the lookout for years and I think Tony (Dibatag) who is modelling Basford North is in the same boat. Photographs do help but it's much more satisfying if you can pin the photo down and be able to say for example  "that's the 6-30pm Burton-York beer train".

 

 

Good morning Clem,

 

Do you think so? Many thanks, it's part of a raft of BG's of different diagrams within a formation, this one is not in Notts fag traffic service, hence the open window.  It's not a kit per say, rather my usual potpourri of bits. The floorplan and roof being slices of MJT bread squeezed onto a comet sides sandwich. The ends and angle iron are scratch built, while  the the 8' heavy duty single bolster bogies (are you paying attention Hornby?) are my last pair from  Mail coach. They are bulled up with Comet brake gear and bolster detail castings from scrap box number 5. The underframe bits and bobs are pure MJT goodness. Paint is by me.


A friend of mine has the FWTT for the GC mainline, I thought there was a possibility that it may also cover the GN lines around Nottingham, as both are part of the western operating area. Unfortunately it doesn't. I shall make some more enquires, I'm sure I've seen the Grantham route come up somewhere.

 

The FWTT really are fascinating, there was so much more going on than in the average PWTT. They are one of the reasons that we know the Gypsum trains stopped in South Loop to change locomotives. They also provide an explanation for the diversity of locomotives on the Gypsum trains North of Leicester. The locomotive having often worked local goods services from Leicester to such locals as Queens Walk and Abbey Lane. They returned to Leicester with the Gypsum train. 

 

That's the thing about the secret life of freight trains in the FWTT, they were always stopping and starting in order to take water, change locomotives, drop off or pick things up, or just stand about for reasons unknown to the casual observer. I suppose that railway modelers really should do more of those kind of things, with their freight trains and locomotives.

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Headstock said:

Just to show I'm still modelling despite reducing determination.

 

I mentioned my attempts to get above 90% accuracy with trains built for LSGC. For some trains like the Newcastle York Bournemouth and the Master Cutler, this was relatively easy, as there was plenty of documentation and photographs and even individual carriage numbers were discovered, The locomotives working the services were even more well documented. 

 

What of the remaining 10%, are they totally moonshine? Not quite, some allowance had to be made for trains that ran in the middle of the night, were the formation could be gleaned from documentation but not confirmed by a photographs or even first hand accounts. For example, the exact types of BG's that were being used in some formations was unclear from a CWN's. In this case reference was made to photographs of BG's parked up or being loaded during daylight hours, at Sheffield, Nottingham and and Leicester. Reference was also made to documentation that listed BG's built for, or cascaded too the GCLE. 

 

The model shown below, is of a dia 260 steel panelled BG, renumbered as E 70532. It has recently been completed and is ready for running, hooray. The prototype was built new at York in 1942 and turned out in Wartime austerity brown. It was allocated new to the GCLE and went directly into service. As such, it is perfectly reasonable that it could have operated between Nottingham and Marylebone, even it is not an absolutely ascertained fact, that it did so. A good example of 10% modelling?

 

lots of yummy buffers and stuff arrived from MJT today, so I had better hopper off, Ho Ho.

 


971917911_Dia260SteelpaneledBG70532.jpg.055c95822407535b2f7e1a7f4c780447.jpg

 

Very beautiful indeed - well done!

 

Gerry

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have a question for the assembled panel!

 

Perhaps I should start a separate thread but I know a good number of LMS/LMR enthusiasts frequent Wright Writes so I will ask here first.

 

Wrenn once produced a model of Duchess 46251 in BR lined black livery with the early crest on the tender. A good friend of mine really likes that livery and would like to model a Duchess in that condition but has been unable to find a photo of that loco or indeed any other Duchess looking like that. He has all the relevant books and they show that 46251 was black from April 1949 until October 1951 but don't say whether it "British Railways" in full on the tender of if it had the crest. All the photos we have found show "British Railways" on the tender side. 

 

Can anybody confirm whether the livery applied by Wrenn to their model is a real one or a fictional one and if it is real, which locos carried it?

 

Any help or information would be greatly appreciated.

Edited by t-b-g
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Clem,

 

Do you think so? Many thanks, it's part of a raft of BG's of different diagrams within a formation, this one is not in Notts fag traffic service, hence the open window.  It's not a kit per say, rather my usual potpourri of bits. The floorplan and roof being slices of MJT bread squeezed onto a comet sides sandwich. The ends and angle iron are scratch built, while  the the 8' heavy duty single bolster bogies (are you paying attention Hornby?) are my last pair from  Mail coach. They are bulled up with Comet brake gear and bolster detail castings from scrap box number 5. The underframe bits and bobs are pure MJT goodness. Paint is by me.


A friend of mine has the FWTT for the GC mainline, I thought there was a possibility that it may also cover the GN lines around Nottingham, as both are part of the western operating area. Unfortunately it doesn't. I shall make some more enquires, I'm sure I've seen the Grantham route come up somewhere.

 

The FWTT really are fascinating, there was so much more going on than in the average PWTT. They are one of the reasons that we know the Gypsum trains stopped in South Loop to change locomotives. They also provide an explanation for the diversity of locomotives on the Gypsum trains North of Leicester. The locomotive having often worked local goods services from Leicester to such locals as Queens Walk and Abbey Lane. They returned to Leicester with the Gypsum train. 

 

That's the thing about the secret life of freight trains in the FWTT, they were always stopping and starting in order to take water, change locomotives, drop off or pick things up, or just stand about for reasons unknown to the casual observer. I suppose that railway modelers really should do more of those kind of things, with their freight trains and locomotives.

Hi Andrew

In some ways I could have forecast this reply. Knowing your previous work, very little is a simple reproduction of a kit - probably why I asked. You always seem to go that extra mile (in some cases a few miles) to produce a model that is both accurate and looks the part to my eye.

You discussion on the FWTT is spot on to my way of thinking about running a layout. Considering the effort I've put in over the years I spend so much more time building than operating mainly because, without a WTT, there's no framework to build an authentic operating schedule on. You can deduce some things from photos but it's still just a well-informed guess and probably only a partial truth. For example, I have a picture of the beer train at Bulwell Common south with a B16 piloting a K2 coming in from the spur as the K2 had stalled on the sharp, tightly curved spur and the B16 had gone down to assist. I deduce from that that in all probability, the train changed engines at Bulwell with the York engine taking over there. But without the WTT it is just a guess. For me a 1954 or 1955 FWTT would be a game changer.

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

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

When I was a kid, I use to marvel at how railway modelers recreated the past. Imagine my shock when I got seriously involved with the hobby and discovered that most of it was made up! Oh no, I thought, I've already done my Sci Fi phase, with Daleks fighting Dinosaurs down at the local station. There must be something better than this. Fortunately, I discovered that there was just as much work involved in making it up as there was in going for greater accuracy, why would you not?

 

Dose it matter? I would say yes. When it stops mattering, even geographically diverse layouts all start to look the same. I would argue that this had already occurred at pre pandemic exhibitions. I think that is important in steam age layouts at least, even BR layouts, to recognize that the Midland mainline didn't look like the East coast mainline, nor did either look  like that little route to the West. Each had their own unique identity that went way beyond the loco spotter blinkers.

 

With regard to LB, I personally would never attempt to model the East coast mainline in the manor that I have the GCLE. It's just too big and too passenger train orientated. Even with a layout the size of LB, you have to chuck out 80% of the trains before you start, so a high level of fidelity goes straight out the window. The lesson to me is quite simple. Chose a prototype that is more compact and bisque and you have a better chance of achieving an accurate result. As an extreme example, throwing your resources at a branch line with two passenger trains and three freight trains a day, becomes not quite so daunting.

 

I can here you stamping your foot and muttering, that would be boring. To me it wouldn't, the making of things is the same, what I would lose interest in very quickly would be trying to construct a generic express, a thing with no real world purpose, I just couldn't see the point. I understand your reasons for doing so but I don't find it very logical. You could have constructed a genuine rake that runs multiple times, one that rather like a broken clock, is at least right some of the time.

 

What I set out to do is much more achievable on the GCLE than the ECML. Its the opposite of LB, lots of bloc freight, with a few individual sparkles and a limited passenger service. Though limited, that passenger service was far more distinct in its individual formations than the equivalents on the ECML, especially if you contrast 1950 with 1957. Even the Pullman trains don't add the same diversity as the interregional services on the GC, with the latter providing a larger percentage of the whole than the Pullmans ever did. If you were doing accurate percentages on LB, you might just find room for half a Pullman train. 

 

The point of all this, is not my brilliance, rather that it is much easier for me to have done what I have done on my chosen prototype than it is on yours. I can retain more and compromise less. My disadvantage is, I need another twenty years to build a replacement for LSGC and the additional trains. By that time, I shall be too old to exhibit and half of RM web will be deceased. In 2041, nobody will want a layout that occupies a real space, nor one without whatever beeping noises and flashing lights are the future fashion, better to stop now?
 

 

I agree with all you say Andrew and I can understand your lack of enthusiasm. Putting so much time and effort into something like Leicester and reaching a stage where the chances of it being exhibited again are slipping away must be pretty disheartening.

 

It is one of the reasons why I have chosen to model secondary lines in a period that very few other people model. Building smaller but more achievable layouts with shorter trains and having models that are quite unlike the vast majority of what I see at shows have all led to a renewal of my enthusiasm.

 

I wouldn't want to embark on a long term major project now, at the tender age of 61! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

Dose it matter? I would say yes. When it stops mattering, even geographically diverse layouts all start to look the same. I would argue that this had already occurred at pre pandemic exhibitions. I think that is important in steam age layouts at least, even BR layouts, to recognize that the Midland mainline didn't look like the East coast mainline, nor did either look  like that little route to the West. Each had their own unique identity that went way beyond the loco spotter blinkers.

I tend to agree about lookalike layouts on the exhibition circuit, but in any era it has probably been the same. 

 

Surprisingly for a hobby that has never been "on-trend", model railways definitely go through trends; remember when every other layout in the magazines seemed to be a GWR branch line terminus (and almost half of them seemed to be Ashburton)?  Then in the late 80s/early 90s, "modern image" really took off with the availability of Lima's diesel and electric range.  However, a friend noticed that there seemed to be a lot of layouts representing, "a non-electrified loop off the West Coast Main Line, in the Warrington area".  Hardly anyone used to model the Southern, because there was so little RTR, but once there was, a good proportion of exhibition layouts became of Southern prototypes (or Southern-themed).  The LNER/ER was probably even worse off until barely a decade ago.

 

What has changed I think , leading to a lot of geographically-cloned layouts, is the availability of RTP buildings.  I have seen exhibition layouts where a Southern signal box controls a station with a GWR-design building, only WR/LMR stock running (often including loco types that would never have come within 100 miles or ten years of one another) and a red brick terraced street, with thatched cottages just down the road and a backscene that looks like the Lune Gorge.  Iain Rice wrote eloquently about just this sort of thing in one of his books.  It's easy to fall into these traps, I am only now realising how much of my BR steam and green diesels collected over many years, cannot realistically run together; 1948-68 was very far from one era!

 

Who am I to criticise?  It's their layout and if they enjoy it, fine, but it goes to show - as so often espoused on this thread - that research is everything.  It's just that those railway enthusiasts with as you describe, "the loco spotter blinkers", tend to know (or think they do) everything about locomotives but have observed surprisingly little about the wider railway and even less of the wider world.

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

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

I have a question for the assembled panel!

 

Perhaps I should start a separate thread but I know a good number of LMS/LMR enthusiasts frequent Wright Writes so I will ask here first.

 

Wrenn once produced a model of Duchess 46251 in BR lined black livery with the early crest on the tender. A good friend of mine really likes that livery and would like to model a Duchess in that condition but has been unable to find a photo of that loco or indeed any other Duchess looking like that. He has all the relevant books and they show that 46251 was black from April 1949 until October 1951 but don't say whether it "British Railways" in full on the tender of if it had the crest. All the photos we have found show "British Railways" on the tender side. 

 

Can anybody confirm whether the livery applied by Wrenn to their model is a real one or a fictional one and if it is real, which locos carried it?

 

Any help or information would be greatly appreciated.

I haven't got any photos of black Duchesses with the BR crest, all have BRITISH RAILWAYS on the tender.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I haven't got any photos of black Duchesses with the BR crest, all have BRITISH RAILWAYS on the tender.

 

Thanks Mike. All the photos we have seen are the same. The last black liveried ones lasted until 1953, 4 years after the first totem was introduced, so we were wondering if one or more locos had visited works in that time and received the new totem. We know at least one Princess did run like that (46201) but we can't find any Duchesses. An internet and book search brought up nothing from the big railway but we did find the Wrenn model plus another Hornby model repainted in black with the totem. Both were 46251 "City of Nottingham". A coincidence or did it really run like that for a while?

 

Neither source indicated whether they were based on a real livery or a fictional one, so I thought I would ask to see if anybody knew which it is.

 

I don't know why my friend wants one in that livery, they look so much nicer in red, green or even blue!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
33 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I haven't got any photos of black Duchesses with the BR crest, all have BRITISH RAILWAYS on the tender.

Plate 85 of Power of the Duchesses shows 46242 in black with the early crest albeit the lining is LMS post war style

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Plate 85 of Power of the Duchesses shows 46242 in black with the early crest albeit the lining is LMS post war style

 

 

It is a very interesting period for liveries with many hybrid and transitional styles. Sadly neglected by the vast majority of modellers.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree with all you say Andrew and I can understand your lack of enthusiasm. Putting so much time and effort into something like Leicester and reaching a stage where the chances of it being exhibited again are slipping away must be pretty disheartening.

 

It is one of the reasons why I have chosen to model secondary lines in a period that very few other people model. Building smaller but more achievable layouts with shorter trains and having models that are quite unlike the vast majority of what I see at shows have all led to a renewal of my enthusiasm.

 

I wouldn't want to embark on a long term major project now, at the tender age of 61! 

 

Good evening Tony, 

 

when I was a little lad  my mother would sometimes work late shift as a nurse and my Father would have the night out. This was ostensibly  so that I spent some time with my  Aunty Mary who would baby sit. She was the properties Mistress at one of the big theatres in town. Her house was always full of Swords and masks and other paraphernalia.  Inevitably, I use to end up backstage helping to put on the show, what a playground. Possibly because of this, I really enjoy exhibiting and exhibitions, I like the preparation, the packing up, the going, the setting up, the doing etc, I must have sawdust in my blood, that I will miss. 

 

As far as being disheartened, the attitude of some people towards the layout was pretty disheartening, after I had been 'coned' into getting involved. However, The effort put into LSGC dose have its own rewards, I reached the goals I set for myself and exceeded what I said I would do and never let anybody down, or went back on my word. What ever the future holds, I can be quite happy with what I have done.
 

  • Like 8
  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony, 

 

when I was a little lad  my mother would sometimes work late shift as a nurse and my Father would have the night out. This was ostensibly  so that I spent some time with my  Aunty Mary who would baby sit. She was the properties Mistress at one of the big theatres in town. Her house was always full of Swords and masks and other paraphernalia.  Inevitably, I use to end up backstage helping to put on the show, what a playground. Possibly because of this, I really enjoy exhibiting and exhibitions, I like the preparation, the packing up, the going, the setting up, the doing etc, I must have sawdust in my blood, that I will miss. 

 

As far as being disheartened, the attitude of some people towards the layout was pretty disheartening, after I had been 'coned' into getting involved. However, The effort put into LSGC dose have its own rewards, I reached the goals I set for myself and exceeded what I said I would do and never let anybody down, or went back on my word. What ever the future holds, I can be quite happy with what I have done.
 

 

You should be! The layout remains one heck of an achievement and you certainly played a big part in that.

 

We used to have a team of 8 when we exhibited Narrow Road and we needed 4 people to take Tickhill out. As the years passed by, we lost one or two of the older crew and a few others felt that it was getting to be hard work.

 

Then I discovered that taking a small layout, 2 people and one car, gave me all the same fun of exhibiting with a fraction of the hassle of organising lots of people and transport.

 

Nowadays I find that a well designed layout with some fairly intricate operating can give me all the satisfaction I need plus it can entertain people for a while. They will never be "show stoppers" like LSGC but they do give me just the same buzz as the bigger layouts.

Edited by t-b-g
To add content
  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Clem said:

Hi Andrew

In some ways I could have forecast this reply. Knowing your previous work, very little is a simple reproduction of a kit - probably why I asked. You always seem to go that extra mile (in some cases a few miles) to produce a model that is both accurate and looks the part to my eye.

You discussion on the FWTT is spot on to my way of thinking about running a layout. Considering the effort I've put in over the years I spend so much more time building than operating mainly because, without a WTT, there's no framework to build an authentic operating schedule on. You can deduce some things from photos but it's still just a well-informed guess and probably only a partial truth. For example, I have a picture of the beer train at Bulwell Common south with a B16 piloting a K2 coming in from the spur as the K2 had stalled on the sharp, tightly curved spur and the B16 had gone down to assist. I deduce from that that in all probability, the train changed engines at Bulwell with the York engine taking over there. But without the WTT it is just a guess. For me a 1954 or 1955 FWTT would be a game changer.

 

Evening Clem,

 

I'm not super up on the beer trains from (Midland?) can you spell out the route please. Wouldn't the loco change be in the GC FWTT?

Edited by Headstock
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Clem,

 

I'm not super up on the bear trains from (Midland?) can you spell out the route please. Wouldn't the loco change be in the GC FWTT?

Evening Andrew,

Certainly. The GN route to Burton-on-Trent was via Derby, Eggington Junction and then via the North Staffs (GN had running powers) to Burton where the line crossed the Midland on an overbridge (although there was a connection at Horninglow) and into the GN sidings at Hawkings Lane. The GN sidings there connected up to Burton's Brewery lines. I think the Burton-York beer train left Burton at around 6-30pm and comprised of open wagons containing barrels, vans, many shock-absorbing, and flat wagons carrying road hauled tanker trailers. It turned on to the GC at Basford and Bulwell (Basford North). There were also a significant amount of traffic between Colwick and Burton.

I think there is every reason to expect the loco change to be in the GC WTT. Probably around 7-30pm. I'd be very interested if you can find it.

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Evening Andrew,

Certainly. The GN route to Burton-on-Trent was via Derby, Eggington Junction and then via the North Staffs (GN had running powers) to Burton where the line crossed the Midland on an overbridge (although there was a connection at Horninglow) and into the GN sidings at Hawkings Lane. The GN sidings there connected up to Burton's Brewery lines. I think the Burton-York beer train left Burton at around 6-30pm and comprised of open wagons containing barrels, vans, many shock-absorbing, and flat wagons carrying road hauled tanker trailers. It turned on to the GC at Basford and Bulwell (Basford North). There were also a significant amount of traffic between Colwick and Burton.

I think there is every reason to expect the loco change to be in the GC WTT. Probably around 7-30pm. I'd be very interested if you can find it.

 From 14 June - 19 September 1954 Freight WTT:

 

618 FO 6.15 Burton - York

 

Basford North 7.24

Bulwell Common 7.29

Annesley South Junction 7.41

Annesley Yard Arr 7.45

Annesley Yard Dep 8.10

 

Locos changed at Annesley Yard

 

From 13 Jun - 18 Sep 1955 Freight WTT:

 

618 FO 6.18 Burton - York

 

Basford North 7.24

Bulwell Common 7.26

Annesley South Junction 7.38

Annesley Yard Arr 7.45

Annesley Yard Dep 8.10

 

Locos changed at Annesley Yard

 

 

  • Like 2
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...