Ex GWR Loriot M Diagram G14 in BR livery!

[Gilbert]

Its about proportionality for me. The wrong number on a loco is usually avoidable and is something a lot of fellow modellers would spot - the wrong number on a lo**** will offend very few..but I do acknowledge that for some it will spoil their enjoyment of the model...

When I finally get round to compressing my photos I'll post a picture of my version of Jim's kit. It was my first and was started as part of a Gauge O Guild hands-on soldering session run by Peter Trigwell  at Telford last year. I assume Jim has provided the kit at reduced cost or GOG had subsidised it as all the bits cost more than the course fee!

[Kenton]

 

The wrong number on a loco is usually avoidable and is something a lot of fellow modellers would spot - the wrong number on a lo**** will offend very few..but I do acknowledge that for some it will spoil their enjoyment of the model...

It is not about being offended or spoiling enjoyment.

 

The issue is about the wrong number being held as being correct for the prototype simply by its existence as a model. In the days when our models were in very much a private viewing world it didn't matter, we could tell our visiting modeller friends that we "made it all up" it was just for fun or imagination or to make it look the part. But these days when images are placed globally on the internet for all to see things are different. Our imaginative use in positioning and actual numbering, even if it looks about right, can get used as definitive proof of reality. Misleading others into repeating the mistake, especially novices, thereby seemingly giving credence to the mistake ("look there are nnn images of the model produced and displayed so it must have existed like that!", "someone else must have done the research")

 

Wouldn't it be so much better if we could caption those finished images correctly describing and referencing the original material used even displaying the photo of the original prototype alongside the completed model or an admission in the caption that it bears little true likeness to the prototype and we have just taken someone else's word/example for it.

 

Sure it is just a hobby and a fictitious representation of history in a strange distorted world but we surely have some collective responsibility to not distorting facts?

[Il Grifone]

  It is not about being offended or spoiling enjoyment.

 

The issue is about the wrong number being held as being correct for the prototype simply by its existence as a model. In the days when our models were in very much a private viewing world it didn't matter, we could tell our visiting modeller friends that we "made it all up" it was just for fun or imagination or to make it look the part. But these days when images are placed globally on the internet for all to see things are different. Our imaginative use in positioning and actual numbering, even if it looks about right, can get used as definitive proof of reality. Misleading others into repeating the mistake, especially novices, thereby seemingly giving credence to the mistake ("look there are nnn images of the model produced and displayed so it must have existed like that!", "someone else must have done the research")

 

Wouldn't it be so much better if we could caption those finished images correctly describing and referencing the original material used even displaying the photo of the original prototype alongside the completed model or an admission in the caption that it bears little true likeness to the prototype and we have just taken someone else's word/example for it.

 

Sure it is just a hobby and a fictitious representation of history in a strange distorted world but we surely have some collective responsibility to not distorting facts?

 

True enough, but it's wise to assume that any model (or preserved loco/rolling stock come to that) is not correct). There are plenty of examples of commercial models that are incorrect - just as examples Wrenn* 'City of Glasgow' in blue and most of those P.O. wagons.

 

* I am not referring to the dimensional errors etc consistent with the model's prewar origins and ability to go around corners - more to do with the prototype originally being streamlined..

[Gilbert]

  It is not about being offended or spoiling enjoyment.

 

The issue is about the wrong number being held as being correct for the prototype simply by its existence as a model. In the days when our models were in very much a private viewing world it didn't matter, we could tell our visiting modeller friends that we "made it all up" it was just for fun or imagination or to make it look the part. But these days when images are placed globally on the internet for all to see things are different. Our imaginative use in positioning and actual numbering, even if it looks about right, can get used as definitive proof of reality. Misleading others into repeating the mistake, especially novices, thereby seemingly giving credence to the mistake ("look there are nnn images of the model produced and displayed so it must have existed like that!", "someone else must have done the research")

 

Wouldn't it be so much better if we could caption those finished images correctly describing and referencing the original material used even displaying the photo of the original prototype alongside the completed model or an admission in the caption that it bears little true likeness to the prototype and we have just taken someone else's word/example for it.

 

Sure it is just a hobby and a fictitious representation of history in a strange distorted world but we surely have some collective responsibility to not distorting facts?

So do I draw the conclusion from this that when I exhibit my layout I should provide  a display board with a set of caveats pointing out all the inaccuracies and compromises I've used to build the model and any doubts I have about the authenticity of the rolling stock?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/67574-pixash-lane/?hl=%2Bpixash+%2Blane

Edited April 25, 2013 by Gilbert

[Kenton]

 

So do I draw the conclusion from this that when I exhibit my layout I should provide  a display board with a set of caveats pointing out all the inaccuracies and compromises I've used to build the model and any doubts I have about the authenticity of the rolling stock?

 

That would be great - especially if the layout in question is being displayed as a representation of an actual place or actual prototype.

 

I am sure it is never anyone's intention to mislead, and not for one moment am I suggesting that is what is occuring.

 

But it does seem to me that we are missing the point. If someone is seeking, as in this case, the correct livery details in an attempt to make their model correct in detail then we should not be offering anything but photographic or other quality research. Offering such poorly referenced material without qualification simply muddies the water for those that also seek the same information.

 

No matter how many times we copy one incorrectly numbered model (or has also been pointed out even if it occurs as rtr) does not make it correct against the prototype.

 

Some may see this attitude as rivet counting or an over obsessiveness with detail - and in many ways I fall a long way short of this ideal in my models - but I would never (I hope) present a model as a definitive piece of research in answer to a question regarding details of a prototype. Even a photograph, as you see from the above, I treat with guarded suspicion. I would hope others do likewise.

 

I can appreciate a model more highly for being honestly a model and declared as fictitious than I can a model that claims to be a scaled example of the prototype in every detail. In the first case it does not invite critical review and fault finding.

[The Dorset Wanderer]

Saves buying a new sheet of transfers for every wagon.

As to representation the engines are all driven by electricity- and its representative of what I remember without absolute fidelity to prototype which I doubt if everyone can remember 50 years ago in unquestionable clarity.

Steve

[Gilbert]

"Offering such poorly referenced material without qualification simply muddies the water for those that also seek the same information."

 

 

Are Jim's instructions wrong then?

[Kenton]

 

Are Jim's instructions wrong then?

Well lets say that they disagree significantly with the image I referred to above as given in Russell of No 42200 (with the caveats I have already given) I know which one I would refer to. The representation given in the instructions just happens to be in the same style as the LORIOT N No 42351 in the adjacent photo.

 

Of course this remains academic as we have already seen the request was actually for numbering in BR days when I suspect that not only the number change but certainly the telegraph code as described above. This making both the photo and the instructions equally as irrelevant to the OP's question.

 

Until someone can come up with a photo in BR use, that is.

[Il Grifone]

I haven't been able to find a photo of a LORIOT M (or LOWMAC WM if you prefer) in BR livery or even the similar (same?) BR design LOWMAC WE. However, as a next best, there is a photo of a G18 LOWMAC WR* (LORIOT D) in Russell's 'GW Wagons Appendix. This design differs mainly in width, buffers and capacity and would confirm the lettering layout given in the instructions.

 

*the photo is not 100% clear, but seems to be this.

[Kenton]

 

However, as a next best, there is a photo of a G18 LOWMAC WR* (LORIOT D) in Russell's 'GW Wagons Appendix. This design differs mainly in width, buffers and capacity and would confirm the lettering layout given in the instructions.

 

As stated above all of the other LORIOTS (and there seems to be quite a number of photographs of the other coded LORIOTS show the lettering in that same format) The problem here is that the only published image of the LORIOT M shows the lettering to be different.

 

I concede that in BR days there may have been more uniformity and that it was different (the G W would have been dropped for a start) but until a photo materialises it remains pure imagination and unsupported prototypically. And if you were modelling it in GW days it would be incorrect as the only photographic evidence presents contrary to this style.

[raymw]

Interesting points of view here. One thing you can never be sure of is colour. However, heavy rust or china clay dust on the relevant wagons, will take your eye from any errors. No point in looking at preserved items. For example, some current preserved locos are painted in colours unlike any they had pre preservation, and in a few years time folk will be referencing images of these, if we are not careful.  Basically, the best you can do is whatever you're happy with, unless your intention is to build a museum piece. 

[Stramon]

Hello there

 

I do have the same problem like Willy 6 years ago. I'm trying to find images of the Ex GWR Loriot M Diagram G14 in BR livery to paint my waggon properly but only found one 7mm image and I'm not sure,  if I could use it as a sample.

http://www.gwr.org.uk/galkanas.html

Its the 22nd image.

Could you help me out?

 

Kind regards from Switzerland

Simon

[K14]

1 hour ago, Stramon said:

Hello there

 

I do have the same problem like Willy 6 years ago. I'm trying to find images of the Ex GWR Loriot M Diagram G14 in BR livery to paint my waggon properly but only found one 7mm image and I'm not sure,  if I could use it as a sample.

http://www.gwr.org.uk/galkanas.html

Its the 22nd image.

Could you help me out?

 

Kind regards from Switzerland

Simon

 

Not found a photo of any Loriot to Digaram G.14, but 'GWR Goods Wagons' by Atkins, Beard & Tourret (ISBN 0-905878-07-8) has a shot (Plate 147 p.151) of G.18 No.W42142 in BR livery labelled in **almost** the same fashion as the model you found. The difference is that the Tare is written in full GWR script.

 

LOWMAC WV                                                                                                                WB 21-0

                                      W42142                                       15Tons.Tare 8-7

 

The photo has a reference of: HMRS ref M14737, but that doesn't seem to work. @hmrspaul

 

Paul Bartlett's excellent site has this photo of G.18 42155 taken at Swindon in 1975 showing a very similar layout:

 

https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/gwrloriotlowmac/h3e98b8e#h3e98b8e

 

Pete S.

[hmrspaul]

1 hour ago, K14 said:

 

 

The photo has a reference of: HMRS ref M14737, but that doesn't seem to work. @hmrspaul

 

 

 

https://hmrs.org.uk/15t-loriot-d-gw-42142-diag-g18-in-unidloc-yard-f3r-4-6-0-gw-4079-background.html

 

And to correct the much earlier, spiteful, exchanges BR wagons were LOWMAC  (not LOMAC)

Paul

Edited April 12, 2019 by hmrspaul

[K14]

3 hours ago, hmrspaul said:

 

https://hmrs.org.uk/15t-loriot-d-gw-42142-diag-g18-in-unidloc-yard-f3r-4-6-0-gw-4079-background.html

 

And to correct the much earlier, spiteful, exchanges BR wagons were LOWMAC  (not LOMAC)

Paul

 

My apologies, I saw that image of 42142, but it's not the one shown in Atkins et al despite the reference numbers being the same. That shows a right 3/4 view of the suspect, allegedly at Old Oak. The same photo is reproduced in Jim Russell's "Wagons Appendix" book on page 148 (Fig 249).

 

Pete S.

[Stramon]

I'm not sure if I got the point.

On 12/04/2019 at 21:10, K14 said:

Not found a photo of any Loriot to Digaram G.14, but 'GWR Goods Wagons' by Atkins, Beard & Tourret (ISBN 0-905878-07-8) has a shot (Plate 147 p.151) of G.18 No.W42142 in BR livery labelled in **almost** the same fashion as the model you found. The difference is that the Tare is written in full GWR script.

 

LOWMAC WV                                                                                                                WB 21-0

                                      W42142                                       15Tons.Tare 8-7

So I have to use this at my Ex GWR Loriot M?

LOWMAC WM                                                                                                                WB 21-0

                                           W42197                                      20 Tons Tare 9-12

 

Or whats the correct lettering?

I'm a very beginner with 7mm kits.

 

Thanks for your help

Simon

Edited April 30, 2019 by Stramon

[K14]

7 hours ago, Stramon said:

I'm not sure if I got the point.

So I have to use this at my Ex GWR Loriot M?

LOWMAC WM                                                                                                                WB 21-0

                                           W42197                                      20 Tons Tare 9-12

 

Or whats the correct lettering?

I'm a very beginner with 7mm kits.

 

Thanks for your help

Simon

 

Looks about right, but don't feel compelled to adopt the italic Tons/Tare script. That photo is dated 1950 & the wagon is rather less than pristine, so I suspect it was a case of the signwriter rebelling somewhat against the new regime.

 

If you went for Gill Sans for all the lettering, that'd conform to the official instructions.