Older Inspirational Layouts

[south_tyne]

It's horses for courses, but I think RM still offers an excellent balance of content for the 'average' modeller, as I would class myself. Very average actually!! It's probably more layout-heavy than the alternative mainstream magazines but there is a comfort in knowing what you get. I am also a Model Rail fan and between the two I think they cover most of what I am after from a monthly publication. 

 

Of course there is always Model Railway Journal and society/scale specific journals and magazines to supplement the 'main four' magazines. These are useful for more specialised articles. MRJ is too high-brow for me but,as I said, I count myself as a very average, casual modeller and RM does for me. 

 

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, south_tyne said:

It's horses for courses, but I think RM still offers an excellent balance of content for the 'average' modeller, as I would class myself. Very average actually!! It's probably more layout-heavy than the alternative mainstream magazines but there is a comfort in knowing what you get. I am also a Model Rail fan and between the two I think they cover most of what I am after from a monthly publication. 

 

Of course there is always Model Railway Journal and society/scale specific journals and magazines to supplement the 'main four' magazines. These are useful for more specialised articles. MRJ is too high-brow for me but,as I said, I count myself as a very average, casual modeller and RM does for me. 

 

It is layout heavy, because well, there are more layouts contained within. 

These days there are significantly more editorial pages, than ever before.

Going back, the total editorial content was 24 pages, now normally more than 72.

 

Multi page reviews too.

[south_tyne]

6 hours ago, kevinlms said:

It is layout heavy, because well, there are more layouts contained within. 

These days there are significantly more editorial pages, than ever before.

Going back, the total editorial content was 24 pages, now normally more than 72.

 

Multi page reviews too.

 

That's fair enough. You know what you're getting with RM though, it's a steady reassuring presence in the hobby. Whether that's a good thing or it's bad, is down to personal preference I suppose. Ultimately, the quality of articles is dependent on those submitted by contributors. Is editorial content particularly a problem? 

[Pacific231G]

18 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Through the later 1950s, there was a whole series of 'How to' articles, usually around the 'Junior Modeller' layout. Most show no author, which I thought were written by Cyril Freezer. But others have suggested that they were written by Mr Pritchard. Since apparently he was very keen on young people joining the hobby, that makes sense.

Through most of the fifties they ran a regular "Peco Topics" article almost every month and until the late 1950s that carried S.C.Pritchard's byline. It was mostly about track laying using Peco components and seems to have begun when they had a problem publishing the Peco Platelayers Manual - a rather userful book that pre-dated their ownership of RM; the earlier Peco Topics were efectively a serialisation of its main parts.

Wherever possible How to articles were authored by various contributors but there were a good number that weren't. I think the style was more Cyril Freezer's but some of that may well have been penned by Sidney Pritchard. The author of the platelayer's manual was R. Watkins-Pitchford but I suspect that was a nom de plume for Pritchard.

[south_tyne]

20 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Through the later 1950s, there was a whole series of 'How to' articles, usually around the 'Junior Modeller' layout. Most show no author, which I thought were written by Cyril Freezer. But others have suggested that they were written by Mr Pritchard. Since apparently he was very keen on young people joining the hobby, that makes sense.

 

I always liked the Junior Modeller (Student Modeller in my time) article, there were often some high quality layouts featured. It was always my ambition to get an article featured in it, but I never finished a layout as a lad! 

 

I've never thought that the column which replaced it has been as good. 

[kevinlms]

19 hours ago, south_tyne said:

 

I always liked the Junior Modeller (Student Modeller in my time) article, there were often some high quality layouts featured. It was always my ambition to get an article featured in it, but I never finished a layout as a lad! 

 

I've never thought that the column which replaced it has been as good. 

The concept has certainly changed. It's now called 'Railway Modelling Explored' and is aimed at beginners to the hobby - not always juniors and specifically includes adults. I suspect since there are far less juniors/students joining the hobby, then it must be almost impossible to get such layouts submitted, in the traditional format. In fact some articles appear to be written by say grandfathers, for their grandchildren, with little if any, input by the youngsters.

 

This format is very similar to the articles in Model Rail, where it is about showing (with step-by-step photos), how to do simple modelling tasks, rather than the Junior/Student Modellers, where it was all about showcasing their layouts.

 

[RJS1977]

On 20/04/2019 at 18:23, Steamport Southport said:

 

I stopped buying it in the late 1980s and when coming back into the hobby I was surprised how much it had changed. Hardly any practical articles apart from scenery and mostly layouts. Far too much narrow gauge and seeming aimed at a younger generation than it was.

 

Hardly any loco or rolling stock articles apart from an occasional plan (often a reprint).

 

Maybe if you buy it regularly you don't notice the changes. I looked at it and went elsewhere.

 

 

Jason

 

I daresay this is at least in part down to the changing nature of the hobby.

 

With the current ranges of super-detailed models designed to cover off as many sub-classes/variations as possible, scratchbuilding/modifying/conversion has rather fallen out of fashion (not to mention that it takes a lot more courage to take a knife/razor saw/even a paintbrush to an expensive model). Similarly the rise of ready-to-plant buildings and increased availability of kits has reduced the amount of scratchbuilding. Even Model Rail's 'shows you how' type articles are often about fitting DCC chips/sound which is only of interest to anyone who (a) uses DCC and (b) has bought or intends to buy the loco in question.  

 

Whilst I do still buy Railway Modeller, I'll admit I probably don't read and reread it as much as I used to, and it certainly lost something when Ian Beattie died.

[south_tyne]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

The concept has certainly changed. It's now called 'Railway Modelling Explored' and is aimed at beginners to the hobby - not always juniors and specifically includes adults. I suspect since there are far less juniors/students joining the hobby, then it must be almost impossible to get such layouts submitted, in the traditional format. In fact some articles appear to be written by say grandfathers, for their grandchildren, with little if any, input by the youngsters.

 

This format is very similar to the articles in Model Rail, where it is about showing (with step-by-step photos), how to do simple modelling tasks, rather than the Junior/Student Modellers, where it was all about showcasing their layouts.

 

 

I've never thought of it like that but you're right. I suspect they may struggle to find 12 articles a year from 'junior' modellers given that there are less younger people involved in the hobby. There has clearly been a big growth in older folk both taking up the hobby and returning after a long hiatus. It's good that RM are catering for this market and we can all learn from these pieces whether 'beginners' or not. I certainly do. Mind, I still think it is a shame that younger modellers are not featured as prominently. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

On 18/04/2019 at 12:18, johnarcher said:

I agree. For me those days were not so much when I was very young (early '60's, Denny, Pyrke, Jenkinson indeed), but more when I took an interest again in the late '70's early '80's - early MRJ, 'Model Railways' in the Rice years, Tregarrick, Arcadia, several by Dave Rowe, etched kits coming of age etc. etc.

After that I had a good few years away again, until quite recently, and I must admit I find the scene a bit less interesting.

John,

 

a little late but I am interested in why you find the scene a bit less interesting?

 

On the face of it, the availability of better models in the three major gauges but especially 00, more variety, more features and accessories, better control though DCC, etc. would make  many modellers consider that the current modeling scene is more varied and interesting. On the other hand, the proliferation of Ready To Use items on layouts leads, as some claim, to an increasing sameness of layouts, especially at shows.

 

Jol

[johnarcher]

14 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

John,

 

a little late but I am interested in why you find the scene a bit less interesting?

 

On the face of it, the availability of better models in the three major gauges but especially 00, more variety, more features and accessories, better control though DCC, etc. would make  many modellers consider that the current modeling scene is more varied and interesting. On the other hand, the proliferation of Ready To Use items on layouts leads, as some claim, to an increasing sameness of layouts, especially at shows.

 

Jol

I would agree with the point about shows, also, as well as sameness, for me, at least, the point of looking at models is admiring what someone has made (or weathered, altered etc)

Otherwise it's a personal feeling that, while I'm happy that those who want RTR have a wider range and better quality available, that does seem to have the effect that the other, more craft, side of the hobby has less emphasis. Several above have commented on there being fewer making articles in most magazines (as Tony has), there are fewer drawings for making too.

I have remarked before how a good few popular prototypes have no decent kit available now (or even any at all), and some of the kits and bits ranges that do still exist are only occasionally available (or to special order) - Gibson kits, Ultrascale eg. When a kit producer retires it always seems doubtful if the demand is there for a new person to take it on.

To me the hobby just felt more individualistic and creative at the time I mentioned.

(Just personal opinion and taste, as ever)

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by johnarcher

[south_tyne]

49 minutes ago, johnarcher said:

To me the hobby just felt more individualistic and creative at the time I mentioned.

 

That's certainly true. Lack of rtr, kits and materials etc meant that people had to be far more innovative and resourceful. I would suggest that the lack of exposure to other people's modelling, due to limited 'media' outlets, meant that modellers were more individualstic and creative. 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Just wondering if the layouts that have inspired us the most are the ones in the magazines at the time we are around 11-12 years old, when we move up to "big" school? 

[JohnR]

1 hour ago, south_tyne said:

 

That's certainly true. Lack of rtr, kits and materials etc meant that people had to be far more innovative and resourceful. I would suggest that the lack of exposure to other people's modelling, due to limited 'media' outlets, meant that modellers were more individualstic and creative. 

 

I think its a case of in days gone by, Magazine editors would have struggled to find enough truly inspirational layouts of a high standard. Layouts took years to develop and build.  So we kept going back to those same few - hence why the likes of Buckingham, Berrow, Marthwaite, etc are in our memories - its the "repeats".

 

But now, a much wider range of people have access to models of a much higher standard, so it is much easier to build something that could feature in "Layout of the MOnth" for example. The end result being these are "one hit wonders" (at least in terms of impinging on our imagination), so we have no soooner drooled over one, than we move onto the next. 

[south_tyne]

4 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Just wondering if the layouts that have inspired us the most are the ones in the magazines at the time we are around 11-12 years old, when we move up to "big" school? 

 

That's definitely true for me, hence why I still treasure those mid- to late-'90s RMs.

 

Actually, my first magazine was the Autumn 1998 Model Rail, which included an excellent Isle of White based layout. It was in the very early days of the magazine. First RM was August '98, from that same summer. I remember being on holiday down in East Anglia and reading the spots off them! Days before the internet I suppose......... 

 

We then acquired a complete set of RMs for 1996 and 1997 and, as I have already said, I still treasure those to this day. 

 

3 hours ago, JohnR said:

 

I think its a case of in days gone by, Magazine editors would have struggled to find enough truly inspirational layouts of a high standard. Layouts took years to develop and build.  So we kept going back to those same few - hence why the likes of Buckingham, Berrow, Marthwaite, etc are in our memories - its the "repeats".

 

But now, a much wider range of people have access to models of a much higher standard, so it is much easier to build something that could feature in "Layout of the MOnth" for example. The end result being these are "one hit wonders" (at least in terms of impinging on our imagination), so we have no soooner drooled over one, than we move onto the next. 

 

Yes that's very true. That context explains why there are relatively few long-term 'lifetime' layouts being built these days. Projects where people add, extend, amend a layout over the years - see Denny, Hancock et al. I also think there is a degree of truth in the fact that modern attention spans are shorter too...... it would go a little way to explaining some reasons for the growth in small and micro layouts (outside of the time/space reasons too). We live in a short-term disposable world now in many strands of life; I would say that can be applied to modelling too. Personally, I am an example. I like small, manageable projects, where I can make quick progress, and know I would have the concentration span or 'stick-a-bility' for a 20-30 year project. I some ways I wish I did but I'm too much of a scatterbrain to be honest....

 

[St Enodoc]

On 20/04/2019 at 22:19, Pacific231G said:

Not quite Jason. The Railway Modeller Cup has always been awarded to the articles getting the most votes from the magazine's readers. In practice that almost invariably is one of the Railways of the Month but it doesn't have to be.

That was the case originally but at some time in I think the 1960s the "Cup" competition was changed to RoTMs only. There was a separate ranking for "other articles".

[Nearholmer]

South Tyne

 

i think that the availability of information plays a part in the shortening of “layout life cycles” too. There is such a vast amount of info freely available that all but the most dogged are likely to get distracted.

 

Again, this applies well beyond toy trains, and leads to one getting out of practice with deep consideration and rumination of any one things ........ I do wonder how youngsters born into the information overload age, since on-line stuff became genuinely usable, and huge in scope, ever actually acquire the habit or skill of deep consideration ......... it must make it a bit difficult for them when they get into the further stages of education.

 

Kevin

[Barry O]

29 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

South Tyne

 

i think that the availability of information plays a part in the shortening of “layout life cycles” too. There is such a vast amount of info freely available that all but the most dogged are likely to get distracted.

 

Again, this applies well beyond toy trains, and leads to one getting out of practice with deep consideration and rumination of any one things ........ I do wonder how youngsters born into the information overload age, since on-line stuff became genuinely usable, and huge in scope, ever actually acquire the habit or skill of deep consideration ......... it must make it a bit difficult for them when they get into the further stages of education.

 

Kevin

They just continue the same way at Uni and then into work. 

 

Baz

[awoodford]

On ‎18‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 23:44, St Enodoc said:

H Eric Fisher had an earlier layout called something like the Cornwall and Devon Railway. I've seen a write up but it wasn't in the Modeller. Possibly an MRC from the 1950s?

Yes that was the one I was thinking of. If I remember rightly the model was a representation the main line between Exeter and Truro, including all the stations en route!

Alan.

[south_tyne]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

South Tyne

 

i think that the availability of information plays a part in the shortening of “layout life cycles” too. There is such a vast amount of info freely available that all but the most dogged are likely to get distracted.

 

Again, this applies well beyond toy trains, and leads to one getting out of practice with deep consideration and rumination of any one things ........ I do wonder how youngsters born into the information overload age, since on-line stuff became genuinely usable, and huge in scope, ever actually acquire the habit or skill of deep consideration ......... it must make it a bit difficult for them when they get into the further stages of education.

 

Kevin

 

I think you're right there. Certainly I think the internet has changed the way we learn, store and recall information. Why research something when you can 'Google it' and have the answer in seconds. 

 

When I did my degrees the internet was very useful and much used, but it wasn't as all encompassing as it is now. The emphasis 15 years ago was still on academic journals and books. However I wonder whether this has now changed. 

 

None of the above is a criticism at all of young people. The 'information overload' in all aspects of life in general must make it so hard at times to focus and concentrate on things. 

 

To draw a parallel..... My other (main) interest is in music. I am a brass musician and have achieved a relatively high performance standard based on years of dedication and practice and have been lucky enough to perform in some amazing venues all around the world. However, there is real concern across the music world that kids these days don't have the determination or concentration to practice for hours every week. It is really affecting instrumental teaching. Again, that's not a criticism of the kids, just that there are so many more distractions in modern life that draw them away from such pursuits. It is an 'instant' world nowadays and there is less desire to commit the time to long-term learning and practice. I imagine something similar could be seen in all creative and artistic pursuits. 

 

I don't half feel old...........

Edited April 23, 2019 by south_tyne
Spelling

[Clive Mortimore]

On 22/04/2019 at 11:24, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Just wondering if the layouts that have inspired us the most are the ones in the magazines at the time we are around 11-12 years old, when we move up to "big" school? 

Not a layout but series of articles on modifying diesels in MRC by someone who I understand has spent a lot of his life in "little" School.

 

Thank you Peter.

[ikks]

This thread should be pinned, it's evil,terrible......shocking!!!!. It tells me that I am nearly 73 and will never achieve what these masters of their craft have done.  Their work has been and still is an inspiration to all of us, the old RM, MRC and their latter spawnings like MRJ, Model Rail, BRM etc. etc. etc..  I feel , through the pages of these mags. we have been able to view the best of our hobby, long may we be able to appreciate the craftsmanship illustrated, . 

 

Mike

[south_tyne]

17 minutes ago, ikks said:

This thread should be pinned, it's evil,terrible......shocking!!!!. It tells me that I am nearly 73 and will never achieve what these masters of their craft have done. 

 

This is a terrible cliche, but sometimes it's all about the journey and not so much the destination. As long as we enjoy the ride then we have fulfilled our objectives. 

 

For every Denny featured in the modelling press there are hundreds of average Joe's, such as myself, who tinker away alone and never really achieve anything much! Despite my very humble efforts, I still enjoy the hobby and it gives me much pleasure 

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by south_tyne
Clarification

[Pacific231G]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

That was the case originally but at some time in I think the 1960s the "Cup" competition was changed to RoTMs only. There was a separate ranking for "other articles".

I've just checked and you're quite right that the Railway Modeller Cup has indeed had a rather more convoluted history than was apparent from comparing its orginal rules with the current version .

 

Until the 1969 cup (voted for in early 1970) it was still for the "best" article based on readers submitting a list of their choice of ten  in descending order. For the 1969 cup it went as you say, to a system where readers gave four votes in order for Railway of the Month  and six for other articles. The Cup went to the most favoured RotM and cash prizes of £10 were given to the authors of the three most favoured "other articles".

Cyril Fereezer was clear that this change was because so many people were simply voting for Railways of the Month* (eleven of the top twelve articles in 1968) that the competition wasn't telling him enough about the relative poularity of other articles. That problem must though have been compounded by the fact than for many years until 1987 they were making what seems like a classic error for such a competition. Cash prizes were awarded to the readers whose own voting lists came closest to the final result of voting. This might have provided an incentive for readers to vote but cearly would have distorted their votes if they tried to second guess what would be popular rather than voting for the articles, even specialist ones, that they really preferred.

 

At some point RM reverted to the cup being awarded for "Best Article" (The Junior Modeller Cup Competition  that started for 1983 and presumably ran as long as Junior Modeller was always for best article)

 

https://peco-uk.com/pages/railway-modeller-competition

 

"Every January, Railway Modeller invites its readers to decide who will receive the RM Cup for the best article published during the previous 12 months. All you have to do is list, in order of preference, your three favourite articles from last year’s 12 Railway Modeller issues. The author of the winning article will be presented with the RM Cup, and every reader who submits their choice is entered into the prize draw with over £1,000 worth of prizes."

 

*They have an archive gallery at the bottom of the RM competition page on their website and you can see that, even when it was for best article,  almost every winner has been an RoTM  (or sometimes a pair of articles the first of which was RoTM)  The only exceptions I've found were the first cup to N.S.Eagles for a pair of articles in 1953 on timetable operation on his Sherwood Section (coarse scale O) and in 1961 to Peter Denny for seven articles in the June "Denny Special" which naturally included that edition's RoTM.

 

 

[Pacific231G]

On 18/04/2019 at 23:44, St Enodoc said:

H Eric Fisher had an earlier layout called something like the Cornwall and Devon Railway. I've seen a write up but it wasn't in the Modeller. Possibly an MRC from the 1950s?

I have some of those so will check. He did have an article, Modelling Prototype Structures (in summary, take plenty of photos of them!) , in the October 1964 RM. This includes a couple of photos of buildings on his previous Cornwall and Devon Model Railway that he started building in 1948 as well as two from his later Birkenhead Joint. The article was clearly rewritten as though it was published a year after Birkenhead Joint was Railway of the Month in October 1963 (and winner of the RM Cup for that year)it refers to the Cornwall and Devon in the present tense even though elsewhere he describes it as his previous layout. The two station buildings shown on the C&D, Ealing Broadway as Truro and, even more so, Reading as Exeter St. David's are frankly rather crude, but his later model of Newbury (representing Chester on the Birkenhead  Joint) is a very fine model as is the layout itself. 

 

On 18/04/2019 at 23:47, St Enodoc said:

I don't remember seeing a full layout plan (of S.F. Page's Longdon, but I have seen a block plan of how the stations related to each other - possibly in the August 1964 Modeller, although the layout was also featured regularly in the Meccano Magazine (due to its extensive use of Hornby-Dublo equipment I assume).

I've dug this out and, comparing it with the photos, what we've both always assumed to be a block plan in the August 1964  RM (Proprietary Modeller) is actually be a track plan though not to scale and missing details of a couple of goods yard and a loco depot (though one of the yards does appear with a plan  in a separate article Expansion at Easthyde July 1964). In fact re-reading the article he does describe it as a track plan in which "you can see that the whole layout is single track"

S.F. Page is interesting because though his modelling was average he was clearly an enthusiastic modeller of the then contemporary scene with A4s rubbing shoulders with Deltics and  contributed a number of mostly short articles to RM in the early 1960s. He also incorporated roadrailer wagons into his layout with two depots and models of roadrailers were a Peco product att hat time. There is a gap in my bound volumes of RM between 1964 and 1969  but I don't recall anything much from him after the layout description in 1964.

The whole run of Meccano Magazine is available online so do you have any dates for his articles in it?

Edited April 23, 2019 by Pacific231G

[St Enodoc]

On 24/04/2019 at 02:50, Pacific231G said:

I've just checked and you're quite right that the Railway Modeller Cup has indeed had a rather more convoluted history than was apparent from comparing its orginal rules with the current version .

 

Until the 1969 cup (voted for in early 1970) it was still for the "best" article based on readers submitting a list of their choice of ten  in descending order. For the 1969 cup it went as you say, to a system where readers gave four votes in order for Railway of the Month  and six for other articles. The Cup went to the most favoured RotM and cash prizes of £10 were given to the authors of the three most favoured "other articles".

Cyril Fereezer was clear that this change was because so many people were simply voting for Railways of the Month* (eleven of the top twelve articles in 1968) that the competition wasn't telling him enough about the relative poularity of other articles. That problem must though have been compounded by the fact than for many years until 1987 they were making what seems like a classic error for such a competition. Cash prizes were awarded to the readers whose own voting lists came closest to the final result of voting. This might have provided an incentive for readers to vote but cearly would have distorted their votes if they tried to second guess what would be popular rather than voting for the articles, even specialist ones, that they really preferred.

 

At some point RM reverted to the cup being awarded for "Best Article" (The Junior Modeller Cup Competition  that started for 1983 and presumably ran as long as Junior Modeller was always for best article)

 

https://peco-uk.com/pages/railway-modeller-competition

 

"Every January, Railway Modeller invites its readers to decide who will receive the RM Cup for the best article published during the previous 12 months. All you have to do is list, in order of preference, your three favourite articles from last year’s 12 Railway Modeller issues. The author of the winning article will be presented with the RM Cup, and every reader who submits their choice is entered into the prize draw with over £1,000 worth of prizes."

 

*They have an archive gallery at the bottom of the RM competition page on their website and you can see that, even when it was for best article,  almost every winner has been an RoTM  (or sometimes a pair of articles the first of which was RoTM)  The only exceptions I've found were the first cup to N.S.Eagles for a pair of articles in 1953 on timetable operation on his Sherwood Section (coarse scale O) and in 1961 to Peter Denny for seven articles in the June "Denny Special" which naturally included that edition's RoTM.

 

 

Good research David, thanks.