When the real thing looks like a model

[Steven B]

It's always a struggle to make a layout look realistic when you start with a flat baseboard:

Leeds, Holbeck 55A. by Keith Long, on Flickr

 

The builder is obviously a fan of Type 2's. They're nicely weathered.

 

 

Steven B

[railsquid]

Nice little Woodhead diorama, probably N-gauge.

 

https://flic.kr/p/2py8nyu

[steve1]

3 hours ago, railsquid said:

Nice little Woodhead diorama, probably N-gauge.

 

https://flic.kr/p/2py8nyu

 

2mm finescale maybe?

 

steve

[KeithMacdonald]

A couple of nice attempts of Midsomer Norton.  One with a Southern Parcels van (Hornby or Bachmann?) and a newly-painted cut & shut of a Ratio GWR Guards van kit. Obviously not anything like the real thing! This is before the obligatory Midsumer Murder...

 

 

.. and one after, with an excellent selection of Modelu figures showing the TV detectives at the scene of the crime.

How many glaring continuity errors can you spot?

 

 

[BoD]

On 25/02/2024 at 11:02, railsquid said:

Nice little Woodhead diorama, probably N-gauge.

 

https://flic.kr/p/2py8nyu

I don’t like the way the back scene just rises up with no attempt to hide the join/transition.

[kevsmiththai]

Most unrealistic paint job ever.Too glossy paint finish on loco and coach and no attempt at weathering! The white roof sticks out like a sore thumb And the cars in the background are the wrong period including my beloved, and dearly departed, Ford Granada 2.9I Scorpio in the classic Black with grey trim colour scheme ( Written off by a South Yorkshire transport single decker on the drivers' first day on the Drionfield route)

 

 

The Beet familys'  LMS 2-6-0 46441seen on a positioning move 15/05/1993 at Clay Cross with its support coach. Hoping to film it a lot on the L&H this summer

 

 

[keefer]

They're dedicated with the paint brush though - springs & dampers on the Mk1 (yellow bearing covers are easy-peasy)

[keefer]

45 minutes ago, BoD said:

I don’t like the way the back scene just rises up with no attempt to hide the join/transition.

But looks like the pantographs are fairly accurate and can actually pick up from the overhead.

Mind you, that's the advantage of 1500V DC - thicker wires!

[F-UnitMad]

52 minutes ago, kevsmiththai said:

Most unrealistic paint job ever.

You're not kidding!! Maroon on a small mixed traffic loco like that?? Would never happen in real life! 😉

One for the Fictional liveries Thread I think!! 😂

[kevsmiththai]

Back when we could all park on the site of the former Clay Cross station before they put the fences and gates up

 

Spoilsports!

 

Kev

[pH]

51 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

You're not kidding!! Maroon on a small mixed traffic loco like that?? Would never happen in real life! 😉

One for the Fictional liveries Thread I think!! 😂

But it has carried that livery far longer than it carried black. And others of the class carried green. So which is its ‘normal’ livery? 🤨

Edited February 26 by pH

[LMS2968]

Black or green.

[pH]

I am very conflicted about the liveries that owners of preserved locos use on their possessions. Should they only appear in colours they themselves appeared in “in service”? Or can they appear in any of the liveries that any member of the class appeared in “in service”? Or can they appear in any of the liveries that any loco belonging to the same company appeared in during the time that the specific preserved loco was “in service”? Or can they even be painted in a completely fanciful livery?
 

Owners of preserved locos while they were in service (I.e. railway companies) could paint locos any colour they liked. Why should owners of locos in preservation (heritage railways or individuals) not be able to paint them as they see fit?

 

Basically, I think owners, having spent time, money and effort on their engines, can paint them whatever colour they like. I (we?) don’t have to like it, but unless we’ve contributed in cash or kind, what we think is irrelevant.

Just to say (and this is a much wider subject), I have problems with the overall concept of “preserved” railways. As I’ve said, I really appreciate what owners and volunteers put into them. But they don’t ‘preserve’ what I remember from 60-65 years ago. I grew up with mostly Fairburn and Standard 4 tanks on a fairly intensive suburban service. Beyond a few weeks out from a repaint, the predominant colour of those engines was “dirt”. But they were kept in good mechanical condition and did their work well, occasionally quite spectacularly. I don’t see any preserved railway preserving that (and, of course, I can see why not!).

 

This is not a rant. It turned out to be much longer than I originally intended.  I accept that there are many different views, and all equally valid, based at least in part on people’s experiences. But, having written it, I’ll leave it here and go to bed. I expect to have been well roasted by the time I wake up tomorrow.

 

[F-UnitMad]

7 minutes ago, pH said:

Basically, I think owners, having spent time, money and effort on their engines, can paint them whatever colour they like. I (we?) don’t have to like it, but unless we’ve contributed in cash or kind, what we think is irrelevant.

That, in a nutshell.

There was much hoo-har around the painting of a GWR Prairie in lined BR Maroon a few years ago. The repaint had been commissioned by some group or body, and the owner of the engine summed it all up with "enthusiasts don't have to pay the bills to keep it running", or words to that effect.

[Wickham Green too]

3 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Black or green.

Did any Ivatt's carry green or was it only BR clones ?

[Wickham Green too]

2 hours ago, pH said:

... having spent time, money and effort on their engines, can paint them whatever colour they like. ...

... but please don't use the word 'preserved' when a spurious colour detracts from ANY sense of authenticity ( however reversible ) !

 

 

Edited February 27 by Wickham Green too
spilling

[KeithMacdonald]

5 hours ago, pH said:

I am very conflicted about the liveries that owners of preserved locos use on their possessions. Should they only appear in colours they themselves appeared in “in service”? Or can they appear in any of the liveries that any member of the class appeared in “in service”? Or can they appear in any of the liveries that any loco belonging to the same company appeared in during the time that the specific preserved loco was “in service”? Or can they even be painted in a completely fanciful livery?

 

And the nominations for "Worst Offender" are ... (roll of drums please) ....

 

#1, GWR 5972 'Olton Hall' in red.

 

 

[Wickham Green too]

Nah - I think the worst was that mauve thing on the Severn Valley .... which seems to have become black now : equally wrong but less hideous.

[pH]

4 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

... but please don't use the word 'preserved' when a spurious colour detracts from ANY sense of authenticity ( however reversible ) !

 

 

What word or phrase would you use instead? (Serious question.)

[Wickham Green too]

I wouldn't use any word - I try to ignore these things !

[KeithMacdonald]

57 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Nah - I think the worst was that mauve thing on the Severn Valley .... which seems to have become black now : equally wrong but less hideous.

 

Nomination #2

Bulleid West Country Class 34027 'Taw Valley' in a special temporary purple livery.

 

 

[MidlandRed]

These days, I don’t have a problem with odd locos being painted in fictitious colours and quite liked the occasional GWR in red or even the temporary purple on the WC Pacific - or the blue livery on D7535 (applied to a handful of repaints and new D7662-77 but not D7535!! And not two tone green as per D7672!!). These days I can’t get too energised about these things as there are plenty more preserved locos and stock in period correct livery of one sort or another. 

 

However back in the early days of preserved railways (say 1970) I remember being very disappointed with the fictitious liveries applied to multiple locos and stock at places like the Keighley and Worth Valley and the Lakeside and Haverthwaite - I don’t know why this was - and there weren’t lots of others around either. Particularly disappointing were the rail buses - indeed in the early days of preservation there were few locos preserved in BR livery - anything not pre-grouping or grouping accurate seemed to be anathema to some, some locos being painted as built despite few remembering them in that condition!! Many had survived into BR days of course!! 

 

I guess it’s down to the owners but for me, visiting the likes of the GCR these days and much stock being in BR colours is how I remember trains in my youth!! That said, places like the Bluebell with some of its fabulous pre grouping liveries are a joy.

Edited February 27 by MidlandRed

[iands]

13 minutes ago, MidlandRed said:

..... However back in the early days of preserved railways (say 1970) I remember being very disappointed with the fictitious liveries applied to multiple locos and stock at places like the Keighley and Worth Valley and the Lakeside and Haverthwaite - I don’t know why this was...... 

Wasn't this because BR had stipulated that 'preservation/heritage railways' couldn't paint loco's in 'BR House colours'?

[Wickham Green too]

I believe that was stipulated in the early yeas of the Bluebell etc .......... but BR house colours soon changed and I don't think there was much appetite for painting 'heritage' stuff in rail blue anyway !

[MidlandRed]

12 minutes ago, iands said:

Wasn't this because BR had stipulated that 'preservation/heritage railways' couldn't paint loco's in 'BR House colours'?

I’m not sure when the first standards appeared in preservation but certainly locos like 46443 (SVR) were in BR livery from the earliest days. I may be wrong but I’ve got the feeling the railways involved took the livery decisions off their own bat, as it were. 

Edited February 27 by MidlandRed