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

There's no doubt that that will be the case for the majority of models, especially RTR.  However I do think that those associated with certain names will either survive or be remembered.   Look at Buckingham, at the LNWR models by Jack Nelson and J P Richards, at the Madder Valley and Gainsborough.    There's still interest in a Beeson locomotive, for example, even though most of us (myself included) only have a vague idea of who Beeson was.

 

I also think that there's a significant minority who find much more fulfilment in a physical model and the achievement of making it work than any VR experience, however immersive.   That may not express itself in model railways, but I do believe that it will continue to exist.

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

  • RMweb Gold
13 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

However I do think that those associated with certain names will either survive or be remembered. 


What happened to the plans for a museum for ‘iconic’ layouts?  Is it still in the pipeline or has the idea been scrapped?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/07/2021 at 09:49, t-b-g said:

Very nice work!

My apologies Tony for delay in acknowledging your kind words - I only returned from my two day lodging turn last night ...

 

On 20/07/2021 at 09:49, t-b-g said:

I know from personal experience just how fiddly it is assembling the operating rods and cranks on signals like that.

Yes - that signal was particularly fiddly, as everything was in miniature being shunt arms. I wouldn't want to do too many more like that (famous last words)

 

On 20/07/2021 at 09:49, t-b-g said:

There can't be many signals left to do on Retford now. There are a couple for coming out of the shed/yard, maybe one on the down slow behind the station and one or two at Babworth.

 

Will you be doing those as well?

 

Well, there was some detailed discussions regarding the down gantry at Babworth, seen in the photos on this website:

http://www.signalboxes.com/babworth.php

 

Watch this space.

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

9 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

My apologies Tony for delay in acknowledging your kind words - I only returned from my two day lodging turn last night ...

 

Yes - that signal was particularly fiddly, as everything was in miniature being shunt arms. I wouldn't want to do too many more like that (famous last words)

 

 

Well, there was some detailed discussions regarding the down gantry at Babworth, seen in the photos on this website:

http://www.signalboxes.com/babworth.php

 

Watch this space.

 

That would certainly make a big difference at that end of the layout. I recall some discussions about that signal quite a few years ago as there was some doubt as to whether any of the commercially available etches were just right for it. The talk was about whether they could be adapted or whether it would need some new etches producing or whether somebody was brave enough to scratchbuild it from brass strip. I can't recall the outcome but there may have been an offer from somebody to "have a look at it". I don't think it ever progressed further than that.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bbishop said:

But maybe only for one or two modelling generations?  By 2121 who would pay a premium for a loco owned by Tony Wright?  Didn't he have a small layout called Bytham and apparently didn't like something called DCC.  Anyway he filled the loco body with lead, so you can't fit a linear motor.  

Bill

 

Not to mention locos manufactured from metals considered so hazardous that the Authorities would send men in white suits round to seize any that are detected....

  • Funny 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

That would certainly make a big difference at that end of the layout. I recall some discussions about that signal quite a few years ago as there was some doubt as to whether any of the commercially available etches were just right for it. The talk was about whether they could be adapted or whether it would need some new etches producing or whether somebody was brave enough to scratchbuild it from brass strip. I can't recall the outcome but there may have been an offer from somebody to "have a look at it". I don't think it ever progressed further than that.

 

 

Thanks Tony.

 

Andrew Hartshorne also joined us on Tuesday and it was good to spend some time with him considering the gantry and thinking about its component parts. Andrew was aware that somebody previously might indeed have been 'having a look at it' so we just need to check that out (I don't want to 'tread on toes'!) but otherwise I'm hopeful that between us we can work something out. It certainly looks a fun challenge to build!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Catching up on this thread and a few pages back someone posted about building a layout on a narrow baseboard; no one seemed to reply. 
 

If you do you need height at the back. The reason is that from the eye to the layout there is a V shape of what the eye is perceiving (eye at lower point of V) - a wide base fills that V in the horizontal plane, if you have a narrower base then you have to bisect the V vertically so that the V is still filled but with scenery and back-scene detail going up rather than across.

 

I first read that in an old modelling mag from the late 50s so nothing new to the idea.

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

9 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

Absolutely.   I am lucky enough to have acquired locos built by yourself, by Graham Varley and Mike Edge and painted by Ian Rathbone and Larry Goddard.   That association, quite apart from the quality of the build and finish, makes them stand out in my collection.

 

It also ensures that most of them will not be altered or weathered in any significant way.

 

 

Thanks Jonathan,

 

Though I was not including myself as a 'name'. Nonetheless, I'm delighted that you own (at least) a couple of locomotives built by me, painted by Ian Rathbone and Geoff Haynes.

 

By the way, in case I didn't tell you, they're guaranteed for the rest of my life. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

46 minutes ago, john new said:

Catching up on this thread and a few pages back someone posted about building a layout on a narrow baseboard; no one seemed to reply. 
 

If you do you need height at the back. The reason is that from the eye to the layout there is a V shape of what the eye is perceiving (eye at lower point of V) - a wide base fills that V in the horizontal plane, if you have a narrower base then you have to bisect the V vertically so that the V is still filled but with scenery and back-scene detail going up rather than across.

 

I first read that in an old modelling mag from the late 50s so nothing new to the idea.

 

I would agree with that very much. Whether it is a backscene or some very low relief scenery, adding height certainly creates an illusion of extra depth. Running the tracks along a shelf with a drop at the front, such as an embankment, can have a similar impact on increasing the visual appeal. A few people posted suggestions, including me. The thread moves so quickly that a response an hour or two later can be so far away from the original question as to get a bit lost.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Jonathan,

 

Though I was not including myself as a 'name'. Nonetheless, I'm delighted that you own (at least) a couple of locomotives built by me, painted by Ian Rathbone and Geoff Haynes.

 

By the way, in case I didn't tell you, they're guaranteed for the rest of my life. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Apart from a few residuals, just about every loco in the collection of late has been sold (not bad in a fortnight!). My most grateful thanks to all who've bought them, and particular thanks for the kind messages and letters. 

 

What's really left is this trio..................

 

1936933617_G501.jpg.62fa222678821a01323eb0f41bb300dc.jpg

 

2143822591_G502.jpg.ce11411fb2265e69d2b1c92fe36ccc43.jpg

 

720461744_G503.jpg.2c78086e0ad1bdcacf35cd4df16d60b0.jpg

 

Nicely made and finished, I'm asking £120.00 for this G5. It's powered by a D11 motor.

 

 

 

298137703_Q601.jpg.34853ed4fe097a1dc908c5a0ba270bed.jpg

 

229851231_Q602.jpg.7fd7854deb503e5f23b133e636f4e8b9.jpg

 

878024344_Q603.jpg.1c9b1917a0ef5a08d9c6869ff36cf116.jpg

 

Also nicely made and finished is this Q6. I'm asking £150 for this. It, too, is powered by a D11 motor. 

 

1150806972_MillholmeIvatt401.jpg.c42f361bade4a51c2af8c71df0232199.jpg

 

453167024_MillholmeIvatt402.jpg.a208287a8e60d41b101d8fa601dedd76.jpg

 

1239651_MillholmeIvatt403.jpg.bfe353417af5596f8265cc215f8e5b50.jpg

 

Though not built to the same standard/finish as the previous two, this Millholme Ivatt 4 is Portescap-powered. I'm asking £120.00 for this.

 

All three run well.

 

Anyone interested, please PM me. 

 

 

 

 

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

1 hour ago, john new said:

Catching up on this thread and a few pages back someone posted about building a layout on a narrow baseboard; no one seemed to reply. 
 

If you do you need height at the back. The reason is that from the eye to the layout there is a V shape of what the eye is perceiving (eye at lower point of V) - a wide base fills that V in the horizontal plane, if you have a narrower base then you have to bisect the V vertically so that the V is still filled but with scenery and back-scene detail going up rather than across.

 

I first read that in an old modelling mag from the late 50s so nothing new to the idea.

Hi John

I'm just not sure about this, though it may be a matter of degree. Clearly you don't want a backscene that the eyes just jumps past but I thunk that's true for any width. This does affect me as all my layouts have been and will certainly continue to be relatively narrow shelf type schemes.  I think you  need enough height that the eye isn't immediately drawn to alien objects above the layout but, for a home layout, I think that can just be a sky cyc. (a pale blue painted wall for example) For exhibition layouts with operators behind (though I prefer end or front operation) it may be different.

My current H0 layout is a tapered design that goes from a width of about 8 inches at the left hand (throat) end of its roughly five foot length to about 15 inches at the right hand (buffer end. The backscene is about eight inches high from track level but most of that is just sky. Building and tree heights peak are are about four to four and a half inches high. I've never felt that the backscene  would be better if it too was tapered in height. I did try some taller trees at the narrow end but they just seemed to make it look too narrow.

What really made me think about this was the EM gauge Minories layout that Tom Cunnington and several colleagues built. This is a layout that I very much like and am drawn to like a moth at any show where it appears. However, the one thing that does jar on me is the very high retaining wall at the back of the fairly narrow layout. Whether a lower retaining wall with low relief buildings or even trees above it would have been better I'm not sure, but other versions of the same layout with fairly low backscenes actually seem to work better, at least to my eyes. Whether that's just the rather stark retaining wall making the bacskcene over dominant and a bit opressive I'm not sure.   

Can you remember which magazine you saw that article in ? I have a fairly good collection of those (including all RMs) from the 1950s and would be interested to read it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I don’t think it was RM, more likely MRN or MRC. Sadly not going to be home for a few days so can’t flick through the back pile.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding models built by “ names” one that should be added to the list is the late great John Hayes who built mainly in P4 with some O Gauge commissions. Not only were the locos superbly built, but they ran like I  sowing machines. John did not build many locos on commission but I have been fortunate to see a number of his locos. The P4 locos would also give a lie to the view that models in P4 would not attract high prices as I would suspect that they would fetch prices north of £800.00. John was not only a great modeller but a lovely man who was willing to help anybody. Sadly missed.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Norton961 said:

Regarding models built by “ names” one that should be added to the list is the late great John Hayes who built mainly in P4 with some O Gauge commissions. Not only were the locos superbly built, but they ran like I  sowing machines. John did not build many locos on commission but I have been fortunate to see a number of his locos. The P4 locos would also give a lie to the view that models in P4 would not attract high prices as I would suspect that they would fetch prices north of £800.00. John was not only a great modeller but a lovely man who was willing to help anybody. Sadly missed.

I think John Hayes was one of the greatest loco builders of all time.

 

During the last decade of the last century, I was privileged to be invited as 'official photographer' at the Scaleforums held in Leatherhead at the time. John was always present as a demonstrator and invariably seemed to win the 'best locomotive' in the competitions. I photographed them (on film, so cannot show them here), including one stunning A3, 60058 BLAIR ATHOL, built from a Finney kit with a Crownline streamlined non-corridor tender. '£800.00'? It cost considerably more than that then - well north of £1,000.00 I'd imagine, maybe £2,000.00. It was craftsmanship of the highest quality. All his work was signed, of course. 

 

The fact still remains that, at least in my experience, models built in the finer 4mm gauges (unless they're built by a 'name') are more difficult to sell-on than those built in OO. I'm convinced that it's because the market is much, much smaller and also that those who model in EM and/or P4, in the main, tend to make things for themselves, anyway.

 

Interestingly, the two worst-running layouts I ever photographed (not named, of course, though some might guess) were one in EM and one in P4. The former had locos built by a 'name', which ran like lame dogs. I'd taken along (on request) one of my EM locos (which is now on Retford) to see if that would run, and it did - just fine, so it wasn't the trackwork (which had been built by the late Norman Saunders). The latter layout had previously been built in EM (which, in that form, it had run superbly). It had been converted to P4 (by a top 'name' indeed), whereupon I was unable to move any train into position for photography other than by hand. The loco-building was dire in my opinion!  Also interestingly, both the owners were incapable of doing any of the work themselves. They were both (and this is not meant to be disparaging) 'chequebook modellers'. Fine, that is their right, but the type is stuffed when things don't work and they're constantly in a 'hostage to fortune' situation'. I've seen it many times................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 5
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Tony

Reading the above you appear to contradict yourself with the value of “named “ builders , for me like yourself good running is more important than looks.

I have mentioned this before , I have an old friend who you could call a cheque book modeller , because my brother was to busy to build a loco for him he bought a lot of locos from a guy /stand at York or from his north east shop , a lot of money to me and all required attention from me or my brother to get them to run.

I sold a lot of these locos later on along with my brothers on EBay , locos that had cost up to £400 I was lucky to recover £150 , I also sold a lot of my brothers for my nephew, his locos ran like sewing machines , again they went for similar prices , the odd one out was a 47xx which raised £400, what would that raise now with a RTR version available ?

Bit like loco nameplates , if you bought these items as a long term investment well , I think their value peaked a few years back ,  and like our collections it’s all down hill in their valuations  , I’am not bothered with that , I’ve had my money’s worth out of them with the pleasure  gained from building them and running them .

Dennis 

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Is the Q6 a Chivers, or the NuCast kit?

It’s in a DJH Banbury box, so possibly a Comission build by them in Ye Olde Days. It’s with me currently, is there any definite way of determining kit origin? Wheels are Gibson’s (possibly MayGib) depending on build date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the motive of the original commissioners of hand-built locos, the fact that OO examples sell easier and for higher prices than EM / P4 suggests that subsequent owners at least intend to use them.

 

As for duff build quality/running/both, if it hadn't been noticed when they were first built, they were clearly bought for a layout that didn't yet exist so the position wasn't that much different.

 

I once bought a SR Z Class tank in OO built from a Millholme kit; not badly executed (apart from the Olive green paint) but it had a high revving motor with insufficient gear reduction. The chassis was dead square but lacked side-play and wouldn't look at any curve under about 5' radius. Wholly inappropriate for a shunting loco on all counts!

 

I stripped one side off the chassis, replaced the drive train with a big Mashima, flywheel, and Branchlines gearbox, and transferred half-a-dozen surplus washers to a 35mm film tub labelled "washers". Upon reassembly, it worked beautifully and twenty-odd years on, still does. The thing is, though, that the original product was unusable, but it wasn't badly built. It just wouldn't go round corners or run smoothly below a scale 30mph through a poor choice of the parts that didn't come in the kit.

 

I doubt its builder knew enough to work out what he'd done wrong. Had he built it in the first place, he certainly had the ability to go back and sort it out. That makes me wonder if he'd got the chassis built by an alleged "professional" and just assembled the body himself. It would be a shame if the result put him off making his own locos for life....

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

The chassis was dead square but lacked side-play and wouldn't look at any curve

 

I've had a couple of second hand locos like that.   A Q1 which would only go in a straight line because the builder had used the kit loco-tender coupling, which had made the whole thing rigid.   Replace with a hook and goalpost and she trundles round Grantham quite happily.  I also had a J6 with no sideplay at al in the (cast whitemetal) chassis.   Shame as it ran beautifully on straight track.    New set of frames from Branchlines and it's all set to appear the next time Grantham goes out.

Edited by jwealleans
  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

Nu-Cast Q5/6 hybrid. 

Agree. You can tell its NuCast by the crossheads that lack any form of detail. I built one in the early 80s which I still have but I never run it now. So as Pebbles indicates its undersize for a Q6.

Andrew

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...