Railway Modelling Hall of Fame

[Denbridge]

I would like to add a name that most people will never have heard of but who was actually responsible for inspiring many tens of thousands of railway modellers.

 

That man was John Anning. He was a Southern O gauge modeller, and for a good many years in the 1950s and 1960s, he was Chairman of the Model Railway Club and the prime mover behind the Club's annual five day Easter shows at the Central Hall, Westminster. He didn't do it all on his own, of course, he had a good, well motivated, team behind him, but he was unquestionably the man who made it all happen - and in his spare time too - his day job involved managing a factory.

 

Half a century plus ago, there were relatively few local shows and Central Hall was an annual national mecca, leading to attendances of well over 40.000 each year (and one year, when the counters were deliberately stopped to "keep within" insurance limits, over 50.000). Many of my generation will remember the Saturday afternoon queue which stretched right round the hall.

 

Many of the youngsters, taken by their parents, who saw the show year after year became active modellers and it is probably no coincidence that that generation continues to be very prominent in British railway modelling today even as age starts to take its toll. (And it is equally interesting that the "bulge" of modellers in continental Europe tends to be younger by perhaps 10 to 15 years.)

Before John Anning there was of course Geoffrey Keen. After John, Ron Parren ran the Easter show for years.

[F-UnitMad]

I think that to get into a Top 10 , or even a Top 20, you need to have made a sustained contribution across a considerable period, or in multiple areas

 

 

I'd add that they'd have to have been influential in one way or another across the whole spectrum, so to speak, and not 'scale specific'. There are several names on here that my reaction to is "Who??" and I've been modelling since the 1970s. The Top 10 should be instantly recognisable by most modellers, even younger ones, rather than just a certain group of people who share that particular interest.

That is why someone like P.D. Hancock is interesting; his interests were fairly specific, but his influence through his writings wide-ranging. I have never, and will never, model in 009, or the North British circa 1912, but I have a file of as many of P.D.'s Railway Modeller articles as I have seen, plus his book 'Narrow Gauge Adventure', which I still enjoy dipping into. Now I'd say that's being influential.

[w124bob]

Here is my small contribution, Teddy Boston. Well he certainly influenced me as a spotty teenage vistor to Cadeby, l lived fairly local so was lucky to cycle over to the vicarage on a regular basis. Not a modeller, but we'd have less knowledge withhout Ian Allen.

[Pacific231G]

I think this has to be more than just modellers whose work we happen to admire however greatly but rather those whose contribution has had a profound and lasting effect on the work of other modellers. These tend to be people who have not only been great modellers but have also been able to communicate their ideas, usually by writing about them.

From the period before 1945 I'd certainly include in my own list both Edward Beal and, a little later, John Ahern but also and rather reluctantly Henry Greenly . On the positive side Greenly, working with Basset Lowke,  almost invented railway modelling as a coherent hobby separate from model engineering on one side and toy trains on the other. The Model Railway Club also seems to have been his idea originally as was the very idea of a model;railway magazine well before the First World War. Unfortunately he also seems to have felt that inventing the hobby bestowed ownership of it and so foisted his minature railway preference, for locomotives noticeably over scale for the track gauge, onto scale railway modelling.

 

I'd love to also include A.R. Walkley but I can find almost no evidence that his pioneering work on small scale modelling from the mid 1920s was actually taken up by others. His 3.5mm/ft scale 00 gauge portable shunting yard from 1926 seems to have been seen by him more as a proof of concept than a fully developed layout. Though it included such novelties as scenery, reversible permanent magnet motors, two rail track and automatic couplers, most of these seem to have been re-invented later on rather than evolving directly from Walkley's own work. Certainly Alan Wright had never heard of Walkley nor his layout when he virtually re-invented it with his own Inglenook Sidings.

 

From that same era, though his name seems amost forgotten now, I would definitely include Bill Banwell who, with Frank Applegate built Maybank while they were still teenagers. This O gauge main-line Great Central terminus, built in 1932, shortly before the GCR itself was swallowed up in the grouping, seems to have been the first terminus to fiddle yard layout, the result of the young Banwell not having room for a continuous run but a long narrow shed to play with. It was also possibly the first fully fledged portable layout to be exhibited (though its four six foot and one seven foot long, two foot wide baseboards must have been a handful) . It was first exhibited locally in Harrow towards the end of 1932 but after its first appearance at the MRC Easter show at Central Hall in 1933 became almost an annual fixture there until the war. Judging by contemporary accounts of the exhibtion Maybank seems to have often been almost the only fully working layout there and it was even operated prototypically to a sequence timetable. It certainly had a profound influence on the next generation of modellers especially a young Cyril Freezer but after the war, with a garden to play with Bill Banwell seems to have turned to more conventional indoor/outdoor O gauge themes.

 

From the post-war period I'd certainly include Cyril Freezer who, as editor of RM far more than from his own modelling, did more than almost anyone to encourage the idea that, even with only a modest space, the "average" modeller could build their own complete layout to a satisfyingly good standard. Perhaps more important was his ability to encourage inspirational modellers to write eloquently about their work. These included Pete Denny and Philip Hancock  who would also find a place in my own Hall of fame, as well as others like John Charman whose articles I find myself returning to quite often. That engagement with the personality of the modeller was a distinctive feature of RM right from the start of Freezer's editorship when the title still belonged to Ian Allan. I believe that really brought the hobby alive in a way that's lacking in many other periodicals.  

[LBRJ]

Following on (slightly) from David above - If there is to be one stand out figure, particularly post-war, it has to be CJF 

[Nearholmer]

231G

 

Maybank was hugely influential, but it definitely wasn't the first terminus to FY.

 

That format seems to have been established much earlier by some 'exhibition layouts' operated by main line railway companies at big public exhibitions (general exhibitions, not model railway shows) as publicity stands, from about 1909 onwards. These had a turntable FY at each end, so that full trains could be run end-to-end, turned and sent back, and they showed the latest locos and luxury carriages, in the same way that cruise lines sometime have stands with model ships these days.

 

Maybe Maybank was the first significant one where the FY was used to make and break trains to run a proper service, rather than a "parade".

 

Kevin

[PMP]

I think this has to be more than just modellers whose work we happen to admire however greatly but rather those whose contribution has had a profound and lasting effect on the work of other modellers. These tend to be people who have not only been great modellers but have also been able to communicate their ideas, usually by writing about them.

 

 

I think the above para cuts to the chase across the genres of the hobby.

I’d probably put CJF at the top for his plans and editorial skills at RM inspiring possibly two or three generations of modellers. And then in second place Iain Rice.

Followed in no particular order by

Frank Dyer

Barry Norman

Iain Futers

Bob Barlow

Sydney Pritchard

Guy Williams

Peter Denny

John Aherne

 

List edited to swap David Jenkinson for Peter Denny. Jenkinson and Dyer doing similar in opening eyes towards prototype modelling in different ways, Dyer just edging it for me in that he was modelling the contemporary scene rather than a historical era. A fag paper between them in terms of choosing though!

Edited May 2, 2018 by PMP

[Allegheny1600]

On the positive side Greenly, working with Basset Lowke,  almost invented railway modelling as a coherent hobby separate from model engineering on one side and toy trains on the other.  

I "like" your post and agree with most of it but Greenly 'inventing' this hobby?

Really? I thought "model Railways" were around a long time before him! Certainly, there were plenty of German manufacturers producing models, very early on.

I could agree with Greenly and Bassett-Lowke introducing commercial model railways into this country.

 

 

 

I'd love to also include A.R. Walkley but I can find almost no evidence that his pioneering work on small scale modelling from the mid 1920s was actually taken up by others. His 3.5mm/ft scale 00 gauge portable shunting yard from 1926 seems to have been seen by him more as a proof of concept than a fully developed layout. Though it included such novelties as scenery, reversible permanent magnet motors, two rail track and automatic couplers, most of these seem to have been re-invented later on rather than evolving directly from Walkley's own work. Certainly Alan Wright had never heard of Walkley nor his layout when he virtually re-invented it with his own Inglenook Sidings.

 

One of my "heros"!

I believe it was an illustration of some of his models from this time that convinced me that British modelling in 3.5mm/ft is viable. Beautiful models they were too, I'd love to track them down. 

Cheers,

John.

[Allegheny1600]

A further thought, if I may?

For me, Henry Greenly is a 'villain' - for promoting this narrow gauge 'top heavy' look that we are all stuck with these days.

Pick a 00 gauge loco up, turn it over and look at how narrow the wheels are in comparison with the rest of it, ugh. Look at it sitting on the track from in front, ugh.

I know that it's not so bad from the side view but that's a 2d view and I prefer the full 3d experience.

I'll probably be vilified for this but that is how I feel, sorry.

[Nearholmer]

Allegheny,

 

A popular, and very under-informed view of Greenly's contribution, if I may be so bold.

 

He made an absolutely huge contribution to the progression from 'toy train' to 'model railway', in that:

 

- a huge proportion of the background research, design etc for Bassett Lowke's small-scale ranges was undertaken by him from whenever he started consulting for them (1906?) until probably as late as the 1930s;

 

- he was the first person to properly codify a workable set of wheel and pointwork standards;

 

- he edited and provided a lot of the content for the worlds first model railway magazine;

 

- he had a major hand in the design of the first commercial 00 gauge system (Bing Table Railway);

 

- he wrote three massively influential text books, one on model steam locos, one on model electric locos, and one on model railways in general, which remained in print for donkey's years;

 

- I could go on, at great length.

 

It is a deep injustice to the man to posthumously beat him up for doing something that made eminent good sense at the time ( I think I just vilified you, as predicted).

 

I'd suggest that any search for a 'scale/gauge villain', not that I think there actually is one, should start with Frank Hornby.

 

He and his team made a brilliant decision in selecting the newly available high-quality permanent magnet motor in 1937, and that could have been accommodated in 3.5mm/ft housings (just about), which the preceding wound-field motors couldn't realistically. They could have 'broken the mound', but they chose to ride the wave that was already underway, and stick at 4mm/ft.

 

Kevin

[Pacific231G]

231G

 

Maybank was hugely influential, but it definitely wasn't the first terminus to FY.

 

That format seems to have been established much earlier by some 'exhibition layouts' operated by main line railway companies at big public exhibitions (general exhibitions, not model railway shows) as publicity stands, from about 1909 onwards. These had a turntable FY at each end, so that full trains could be run end-to-end, turned and sent back, and they showed the latest locos and luxury carriages, in the same way that cruise lines sometime have stands with model ships these days.

 

Maybe Maybank was the first significant one where the FY was used to make and break trains to run a proper service, rather than a "parade".

 

Kevin

Interesting Kevin. I'd not come across any references to these but looking in volume one of Henry Greenly's Model Railways & Locomotives magazine (the world's first dedicated model railway magazine AFAIK) I did find a description of two model exhibition railways at the British Empire Exhibition at White City in 1909. 

The GNR model was 60 feet long 2 inch gauge and built by Bassett-Lowke

This had three Atlantic locos, one for each of the GNR, NER and NBR,  and a train made up of ECJS stock, namely two brake vans, a sleeping car a first class dining saloon and a composite coach all lit with electric lights.  Typical operation consisted of a GNR loco taking the train from King's Cross to York where it would be replaced by an NER loco to take it to Edinburgh. There a NBR loco would be waiting for the return run to York where the GNR loco having been turned would take it on to KX. A certain amount of light engine working would also have been needed to turn the various locos at York to run back to the respective termini. 

 

This was the model of KX with three roads

 

Meanwhile on the other side of the Machinery Hall (where the railway companies also exhibited full size locos) was the rival LNWR model and this had recently been set up to operate in the pattern you describe.

The report didn't say what gauge this was built to  (update) but other information is that it was also 2inch gauge and built by Bassett-Lowke but the the two turntables were in tunnels and operated automatically when a train was run on to them- apparently to the amazemen of visitors.  I could be pedantic and say that this wasn't actually a terminus to fiddle yard but more a diorama fed by the two turntables but if I did I'd probably immediately find another exhibtion piece with one terminus and a turntable FY.

 

I must say that I too have mixed feelings about Henry Greenly. On the one hand he did do a great deal to promote the hobby of railway modelling to occupy an unclaimed space between toy trains at one end and model engineering at the other. Model Engineers tend to just want a track that their models can run on and it doesn't need to be in anyway realstic as a visit to any Model Engineering Society's running track will demonstrate. Model Railways seem right from the start to have been about incorporating aspects of real railway operation into layouts that were more than just somewhere to set model trains running. That first volume  does include locomotive drawings but also various plans to allow for something tending towards realistic operation and quite a lot on signalling including the building of interlocking frames.  He also established standards that while very crude now did at least offer the possibility of trains staying on the tracks. Unfortunately he seems to also have been rather arrogant and couldn't see why anyone would want to improve on his standards "now that they've been established for once and for all" He clearly saw model railways as very small miniature railways where scale compromises would be of little or no consequence so long as the layout could be run something like a real railway. .    

Edited May 6, 2018 by Pacific231G

[Denbridge]

I wonder if the proposed hall of fame needs a new title? People such as CJF and Greenly regularly crop up. Yet Greenly was not a modeller and CJF as a modeller was of a very low standard. The same applies to some other suggestions. I feel there is a marked difference between a Railway Modelling Hall and a model railway hall.

[Nearholmer]

See post 1.

 

The sole criterion for inclusion is influence in the field, and there are all sorts of ways of wielding influence,

 

We do need to whittle down to the totally arbitrary number of ten, though, which won’t be easy. I haven’t counted, but I’d guess we are in the twenties at least.

[Ravenser]

Interesting Kevin. I'd not come across any references to these but looking in volume one of Henry Greenly's Model Railways & Locomotives magazine (the world's first dedicated model railway magazine AFAIK) I did find a description of two model exhibition railways at the British Empire Exhibition at White City in 1909. 

The GNR model was 60 feet long 2 inch gauge and built by Bassett-Lowke

Block plan GNR model electric rly BE exhibtion 1909.jpg

This had three Atlantic locos, one for each of the GNR, NER and NBR,  and a train made up of ECJS stock, namely two brake vans, a sleeping car a first class dining saloon and a composite coach all lit with electric lights.  Typical operation consisted of a GNR loco taking the train from King's Cross to York where it would be replaced by an NER loco to take it to Edinburgh. There a NBR loco would be waiting for the return run to York where the GNR loco having been turned would take it on to KX. A certain amount of light engine working would also have been needed to turn the various locos at York to run back to the respective termini. 

 

This was the model of KX with three roads

GNR Kings Cross.jpg

 

Meanwhile on the other side of the Machinery Hall (where the railway companies also exhibited full size locos) was the rival LNWR model and this had recently been set up to operate in the pattern you describe.

Block plan LNWR elecrtric rly BE exhibition 1909 .jpg

The report didn't say what gauge this was built to but the the two turntables were in tunnels and operated automatically when a train was run on to them- apparently to the amazemen of visitors.  I could be pedantic and say that this wasn't actually a terminus to fiddle yard but more a diorama fed by the two turntables but if I did I'd probably immediately find another exhibtion piece with one terminus and a turntable FY.

 

I must say that I too have mixed feelings about Henry Greenly. On the one hand he did do a great deal to promote the hobby of railway modelling to occupy an unclaimed space between toy trains at one end and model engineering at the other. Model Engineers tend to just want a track that their models can run on and it doesn't need to be in anyway realstic as a visit to any Model Engineering Society's running track will demonstrate. Model Railways seem right from the start to have been about incorporating aspects of real railway operation into layouts that were more than just somewhere to set model trains running. That first volume  does include locomotive drawings but also various plans to allow for something tending towards realistic operation and quite a lot on signalling including the building of interlocking frames.  He also established standards that while very crude now did at least offer the possibility of trains staying on the tracks. Unfortunately he seems to also have been rather arrogant and couldn't see why anyone would want to improve on his standards "now that they've been established for once and for all" He clearly saw model railways as very small miniature railways where scale compromises would be of little or no consequence so long as the layout could be run something like a real railway. .    

 

The LNWR layout is a bit limited, but the GNR layout is rather interesting , and must have had real operating potential.

 

There are a few things I can't quite work out at Edinburgh and KX :

 

- How does Edinburgh actually work? If the train runs into the long platform it can't get out onto the other line. It would make more sense if the crossover faced the other way . There is no obvious place to hold the NBR Atlantic - unless the short platform is intended to take the whole train + NER Atlantic, and the NBR loco backs on after being held in the long platform (which is really nothing more than a loco spur)

 

- There is no need to turn either the NER or NBR locos , which just run back tender first to their home stations right line. But what happens with the GN loco is more difficult...

 

- I can't quite see how KX can have been worked without a fourth engine - there's no run-round or turntable. A second Atlantic, held in the front road at KX could back on, act as station pilot to pull the ECS over to the departure road and back in , allowing the engine of the incoming train to be released.

 

But running this loco back to York tender first, to be turned there, and then sent back to KX again tender first, to shunt back and forth to get into the front road , seems very awkward indeed

[Denbridge]

See post 1.

The sole criterion for inclusion is influence in the field, and there are all sorts of ways of wielding influence,

We do need to whittle down to the totally arbitrary number of ten, though, which won’t be easy. I haven’t counted, but I’d guess we are in the twenties at least.

if you discount actual modellers and only judge by influence you will arrain your top 10. However, when it comes down to modelING the choice will become more difficult and i suspect nigh on impossible. As i said modellers and those said to influence the hobby are 2 distinct areas. CJF could never be classed as a modeller. Nor could many others who had a profound influence.

[Nearholmer]

I’m not at all seeking to discount actual modellers.

 

Some people have had huge influence by their modelling, possibly Ahern top among them. There were other scenicists in Britain, but he practically single-handedly showed everyone else how to do it.

 

Iain Rice has, again practically single-handedly, established a whole new “school” in approach to layouts in small spaces, and he’s done it by doing it himself, and, like Ahern, elequontly showing the rest of us.

 

The Rev Beal was another ace practitioner who had great influence, and previous nominations include several more.

 

The one thing that unites the influencers, of course, is their ability to communicate. Beeson might be the rare example of the incommunicado influencer.

[brack]

I'd forgive greenly most of his alleged sins just for river esk, but add in the Romney locos and the original Bassett lowke Atlantics/pacifics and I'd say he's definitely in credit.

[Denbridge]

I’m not at all seeking to discount actual modellers.

Some people have had huge influence by their modelling, possibly Ahern top among them. There were other scenicists in Britain, but he practically single-handedly showed everyone else how to do it.

Iain Rice has, again practically single-handedly, established a whole new “school” in approach to layouts in small spaces, and he’s done it by doing it himself, and, like Ahern, elequontly showing the rest of us.

The Rev Beal was another ace practitioner who had great influence, and previous nominations include several more.

The one thing that unites the influencers, of course, is their ability to communicate. Beeson might be the rare example of the incommunicado influencer.

But your criteria is therefore about those who influenced the hobby through their prowess of the pen. So it isnt really a 'modellers' hall a fame, but a hobby writers hall of fame.

[Denbridge]

Roye England never wrote articles. Nor did many of our most notable modellers

So as i said this isnt really a modellers jall of fame it is about modelling authors.

[Nearholmer]

Denbridge

 

No, it isn’t just about writing, it’s about influence, by whatever means.

 

And, influence is impossible without communication.

 

The greatest artist, musician, arc-welder, poet, chef, milliner, or whatever would wield no influence whatsoever if they practiced their craft in hermetic isolation.

 

Roye England sure as eggs is eggs knew how to communicate, both to enlist helpers and to make known the collective endeavour that he orchestrated.

 

And the “most notable modellers” that you refer to either had influence, because they communicated effectively, or they had little or no influence, because they didn’t.

 

Kevin

Edited May 1, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Denbridge]

Denbridge

No, it isn’t just about writing, it’s about influence, by whatever means.

And, influence is impossible without communication.

The greatest artist, musician, arc-welder, poet, chef, milliner, or whatever would wield no influence whatsoever if they practiced their craft in hermetic isolation.

Roye England sure as eggs is eggs knew how to communicate, both to enlist helpers and to make known the collective endeavour that he orchestrated.

And the “most notable modellers” that you refer to either had influence, because they communicated effectively, or they had little or no influence, because they didn’t.

Kevin

okay. Whatever. But i disagree whole heartedly. You terms of reference disqualify many of the most influential and talented modellers. Therefore under these rules this hall of fame is geared more towards writers rather than the cream of model MAKERS.

[Nearholmer]

Denbridge,

 

If you don’t like the question, which I can quite understand you might not, you are free to start a thread posing a different one, and to treat this thread with disdain.

 

What I don’t think is logically possible is to disagree with a question, any question. It is logically possible to dislike a question, or to be able to pose a far more useful or interesting question, or to disagree with all or any of the answers tabled, but the question is the question, and it remains the question. A question doesn’t require agreement to exist, it just exists.

 

Kevin

[PMP]

okay. Whatever. But i disagree whole heartedly. You terms of reference disqualify many of the most influential and talented modellers. Therefore under these rules this hall of fame is geared more towards writers rather than the cream of model MAKERS.

You’ve missed the point of this entirely. The concept is about influencing the hobby by a noticeable impact, not about who’s best. CJF was a modeller, but his influence was in getting some of the very best modellers across the genres to put pen to paper, or submit material that could be worked into articles.

Iain Rice for all his skills isn’t in the same class of loco building as the late John Hayes, but Iain’s writings over the years have undoubtedly encouraged more to try ‘finescale’ in 4mm, than John’s fewer and equally well written pieces have. That’s what influence means in the context of this thread.

[Allegheny1600]

- I could go on, at great length.

 

It is a deep injustice to the man to posthumously beat him up for doing something that made eminent good sense at the time ( I think I just vilified you, as predicted).

 

I'd suggest that any search for a 'scale/gauge villain', not that I think there actually is one, should start with Frank Hornby.

 

He and his team made a brilliant decision in selecting the newly available high-quality permanent magnet motor in 1937, and that could have been accommodated in 3.5mm/ft housings (just about), which the preceding wound-field motors couldn't realistically. They could have 'broken the mound', but they chose to ride the wave that was already underway, and stick at 4mm/ft.

 

Kevin

Hello Kevin,

I don't mind your reasoned argument at all, thank you and I don't really feel 'vilified' however, allow me to observe if I may, please.

You are apparently a 'fan' of the man, that's fine and I don't object to anyone admiring him and I do allow that he did a lot.

How can it be an injustice for me to "posthumously beat him up " as you say, when I was born after he died? Would I not be allowed to say anything negative about other people who are no longer here, like Douglas Haig for example? Or, even Edward Thompson? I chose these as also being controversial figures of history.

 

I can't let pass your observation of Frank Hornby though! He may have continued the 4mm scale body on 3.5mm track controversy but that is surely, a sin of omission, rather than commission - which is why I 'attack' Mr Greenly. As noted previously in this topic, there was sufficient proof that British outline models in 3.5mm scale could be made to work just as well as could 4mm models. Seeing as these models had been made in the 1920's, Mr Greenly could have compromised his own standards but didn't. Mr Hornby and so many others subsequently, simply followed where he led.

Cheers,

John.

[Nearholmer]

Greenly divided opinion in 1920, and probably will do as long as there are british model railway enthusiasts to argue about him.

 

And, yes, I suppose I am a ‘fan’, largely because I think his legacy ought to be recognised a great deal more widely than it is.

 

It’s a very poor show that a high proportion of those current model railway hobbyists that have heard of him at all know only one “fact” about him: he saddled us with an erroneous scale/gauge combination.

 

It’s a bit like a bunch of English Civil War hobbyists knowing only one “fact” about Oliver Cromwell: that he had a wart on his nose.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Nearholmer