Wright writes.....

[manna]

G'day Gents

 

From my point of view, one of the best parts of our hobby is taking a RTR loco and bashing it into something else, many years of reading the modelling comics has inspired me to 'get on with it'.

 

Some of them are new bodies (scratch built)on RTR chassis, others are modified bodies on there original chassis, most of these loco's are of Ex, GN prototypes not available at RTR.

 

manna

[cravensdmufan]

 

 

"Whenever I take close-up pictures of my work I'm often unimpressed with how it turns out (not the picture, the model). Every crinkle and crease, every blob and blemish is highlighted in extremis, especially on a cast-metal kit like this. I suppose it's the down side of taking a picture using a powerful camera with an unforgiving lens."

 

Very much agree - the digital lens can be cruel. I've often though that railway modelling magazines do models an injustice by enlarging photos too much. Every speck of dust shows. I have seen almost full page enlargements of N gauge locos many, many times bigger than they really are, and even some of the modern RTR stuff can look dodgy.

 

Arms length viewing (and I have fairly long arms!) for me every time. Well that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!

Edited November 3, 2015 by cravensdmufan

[corneliuslundie]

You are right about the J69. I think it must rank with the GWR Metro tank for the number of variations over the years. Really a case where one can only produce a model of a particular loco at a particular date, chosen also for where it operated at the time and on what kind of traffic. To me (not an expert on anything from east of the Midlands). it looks very convincing.

 

I am not sure if I have mentioned it here, but there is a lot about this loco family in a blog called Basilica Fields.

 

Jonathan

[AndyID]

Is RTR becoming too dominant?

 

 

I think it is, and it's definitely becoming too bl***y expensive (for me anyway)

[pete55]

......... but the extended articles (often over several issues) where 'quite hard' subjects were tackled seem to be in short supply. One editor told me a year or two back that he was 'twitchy' about including a piece which required modifying an RTR chassis (using a razor saw) and employing a soldering iron.

 

 

 

Has it come to that? Being "twitchy" about publishing articles that need the use of a saw and a soldering iron?

I know these things are no longer taught in schools, but words fail me!!

 

Pete

Edited November 3, 2015 by pete55

[Horsetan]

Has it come to that? Being "twitchy" about publishing articles that need the use of a saw and a soldering iron?

I know these things are no longer taught in schools, but words fail me!!

Probably because he suspects that his readership are so spoon-fed by RTR that they have lost the ability to do drastic things. Or maybe he thinks they never had the ability in the first place....

[AndyID]

Has it come to that? Being "twitchy" about publishing articles that need the use of a saw and a soldering iron?

I know these things are no longer taught in schools, but words fail me!!

 

Pete

 

It's probably a combination of the Nanny State and the risk of getting sued. A sad state of affairs indeed. 

[cravensdmufan]

Has it come to that? Being "twitchy" about publishing articles that need the use of a saw and a soldering iron?

I know these things are no longer taught in schools, but words fail me!!

 

Pete

Can understand the editor's stance to a certain extent though.

 

With most RTR locos costing over £100 and coaches and even some wagons approaching £50,  magazines publishers would be worried about being "blamed" if when something goes badly wrong!  Even if the "Difficulty grading" (as per Model Rail system) is 5 - actually now I come to think of it I can't recall ever seeing a project with that score!

 

Unfortunately we now live in a rather spoon fed (and compensation culture) society.

 

Edit - while I was typing, two members said the same - I must get faster with my keyboard skills!

Edited November 3, 2015 by cravensdmufan

[johnarcher]

Has it come to that? Being "twitchy" about publishing articles that need the use of a saw and a soldering iron?

I know these things are no longer taught in schools, but words fail me!!

 

Pete

 

Has it come to that? Being "twitchy" about publishing articles that need the use of a saw and a soldering iron?

I know these things are no longer taught in schools, but words fail me!!

 

Pete

Me too. Though basic use of saws is still taught in schools (or was a few years ago when I taught), and do those things really need to be taught there for people to learn them anyway? I learned to solder adequately (on a good day) with an Iain Rice chapter and some practice (and some Burn-eze).

If someone can't solder or cut straight with a saw it's because they don't want, or don't need, or can't be bothered to learn I suppose. Up to them, but it's boring if that has become the norm.

Edited November 3, 2015 by johnarcher

[Tony Wright]

Can understand the editor's stance to a certain extent though.

 

With most RTR locos costing over £100 and coaches and even some wagons approaching £50,  magazines publishers would be worried about being "blamed" if when something goes badly wrong!  Even if the "Difficulty grading" (as per Model Rail system) is 5 - actually now I come to think of it I can't recall ever seeing a project with that score!

 

Unfortunately we now live in a rather spoon fed (and compensation culture) society.

 

Edit - while I was typing, two members said the same - I must get faster with my keyboard skills!

Dear, whoever you are - it would be nice to know.

 

Many thanks for your comments (and others who've posted as well). 

 

In fairness to the editor, he (and his publisher) knew the market they were aiming at and were (and are) successful with their product. It might well be, with the litigation culture so dominant, that a publication which catered more for the beginner/less experienced modeller did not wish to be 'responsible' for someone spoiling a model as a result of following advice. That said, I don't see how any publication could be taken to task for showing a procedure which any half-competent modeller should be able to achieve, whatever their experience. 

 

Magazines have to sell to survive, and if the market is greater with regard to the less-experienced, then any magazine which caters for that might well sell more. As I've mentioned, certain titles which 'aimed' higher in the past ultimately failed. I thought the Freezer/Rice Editor/principal contributor combination at Model Railways was brilliant, but the magazine folded. Which editor today would produce a magazine devoted to the work of just one man? In this case, Frank Dyer. Here's a guy who made just about everything and explained how he did it. There was very little RTR stuff on Borchester (I think the front cover had a scratch-built A5 on it) and nothing RTP. Which mainstream editor today would contemplate featuring (at length) an article on scratch-building DUKE OF GLOUCESTER? I lapped it up - this was the sort of stuff I was contemplating (not DoG, though), and what an inspiration. I remember writing regularly for MORILL, where the successive three editors (Iain Rice included) were most insistent on featuring 'how to' articles which included far more than a bit of sawing or soldering. Yet that (because of me?) folded because it never made any money. 

 

There may well be more participants in the hobby because the need (perceived or otherwise) to actually make or modify things is now considerably less, especially in OO. In many ways that's a good thing. However, what three friends and I ran today on LB was mainly built from kits or through extensive modifications. In the case of the likes of the Thompson Pacifics, A5s, A8s, B16s, J6s, J27s, J73s and N10s, there was no other way. But would articles on their various constructions be the stuff which sells mainstream magazines these days? 

Edited November 3, 2015 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

It is probably safer to write on here than for the printed page, after all how many eggshells are going to blame a forum member for promoting sawing & soldering if a finger is removed or the house burned down. 

[richard i]

It is probably safer to write on here than for the printed page, after all how many eggshells are going to blame a forum member for promoting sawing & soldering if a finger is removed or the house burned down. 

yes write on here then i get some quality (informed) tips on improvng my modelling. I can't/ don't get the magasines in the states.

Richard

[wagonbasher]

Dear, whoever you are - it would be nice to know.

 

Many thanks for your comments (and others who've posted as well). 

 

In fairness to the editor, he (and his publisher) knew the market they were aiming at and were (and are) successful with their product. It might well be, with the litigation culture so dominant, that a publication which catered more for the beginner/less experienced modeller did not wish to be 'responsible' for someone spoiling a model as a result of following advice. That said, I don't see how any publication could be taken to task for showing a procedure which any half-competent modeller should be able to achieve, whatever their experience. 

 

Magazines have to sell to survive, and if the market is greater with regard to the less-experienced, then any magazine which caters for that might well sell more. As I've mentioned, certain titles which 'aimed' higher in the past ultimately failed. I thought the Freezer/Rice Editor/principal contributor combination at Model Railways was brilliant, but the magazine folded. Which editor today would produce a magazine devoted to the work of just one man? In this case, Frank Dyer. Here's a guy who made just about everything and explained how he did it. There was very little RTR stuff on Borchester (I think the front cover had a scratch-built A5 on it) and nothing RTP. Which mainstream editor today would contemplate featuring (at length) an article on scratch-building DUKE OF GLOUCESTER? I lapped it up - this was the sort of stuff I was contemplating (not DoG, though), and what an inspiration. I remember writing regularly for MORILL, where the successive three editors (Iain Rice included) were most insistent on featuring 'how to' articles which included far more than a bit of sawing or soldering. Yet that (because of me?) folded because it never made any money. 

 

There may well be more participants in the hobby because the need (perceived or otherwise) to actually make or modify things is now considerably less, especially in OO. In many ways that's a good thing. However, what three friends and I ran today on LB was mainly built from kits or through extensive modifications. In the case of the likes of the Thompson Pacifics, A5s, A8s, B16s, J6s, J27s, J73s and N10s, there was no other way. But would articles on their various constructions be the stuff which sells mainstream magazines these days?

 

I wonder if a magazine could achieve the wishes of its mass market whilst pushing the ambition of us all by pitching projects at different levels...

 

In the same article you could take the latest RTR release and level 1 might be the addition of vac pipes, crew, real coal and Tony's essential head lamps etc and then cover level 2, replacement chimney, closer coupling with tender, flush glazing or maybe introduce a craftsman detailing kit.

 

What matters to me, (whatever level we all model at ) is that we are being encouraged and helped to push our skills and aspirations. A hand held approach to level 2 and then level 3 (I am making these levels up for the sake of this argument I'm not suggesting we start scoring / qualifying our skills or that the magazine refers to them as levels) will introduce modellers to another set of suppliers and new world of modelling possibilities.

 

We all need some inspiration to push us... Whatever we model there are still things we can do better, and skills and talents inside us that can be drawing out.... I'm not suggesting we won't screw stuff up along the way... That stuff just move to the projects in progress box to be looked at periodically and maybe moved on a bit.

 

you can't beat the feeling when your modelling works out and you get the 'I did that' feeling - even if no one else knows or can even see what you have done.

 

Come on, I would love to see a flexi chassis from Tony - It's in there, it just needs coaxing out.

 

Andy

[2ManySpams]

Best thing I did was to move on to 7mm. There's very little in the way of RTR stock or RTP buildings that suits my layout, particularly if budget is taken account. It is, for me at least, a builders scale, and making the move has well and truly kicked me out of my comfort zone and on to tackling the dark arts of board construction, track building, etched kits, DCC and (to come) electrical work.

 

Previously I worked on group projects and had my niche in scenic work and buildings. Others in the group did all the other stuff. I'm not yet 45 but the past 2 years working in 7mm have been some of the most enjoyable and educational of my modelling career. I now regret not tackling some of the dark arts, particularly soldering, much earlier.

 

Scales have been shed from my eyes and, as a result of my own experience, I am saddened that many, like I did, have convinced themselves they can't do something and therefore don't ever try.

 

Most of my newly acquired skills have been taught via friends and many fine folk on here. When it comes to moving beyond a diet of RTR I don't find the magazines overly useful and no longer have any on subscription.

 

One big plus side of moving to 7mm and making my own stuff is that I can completely disengage myself from the 4mm RTR bunfight threads. You know the ones...why oh why doesn't X make Y... now that X has announced Y, why aren't they making variant Z just for me... manufacturer X is an idiot because of all these issues with Y... manufacturer X is deliberately delaying Y just to personally victimise me and I really, really can't do without my new toy... Y has been delivered but I've now gleefully found all these issues... now that Y has arrived, why oh why don't they do model A. And on and on and on....

[Mark Forrest]

As Chris and Andy have said, there is something about stepping outside my "comfort zone" (in my case, diesel era in EM) that appeals. My initial taste of this was to move to P4, but with diesel era stock that has proved relatively straightforward by converting RTR. Looking for my next challenge I considered following Chris into 7mm, but have settled on a change of era (grouping to about 1930) for my next project which will force me into the world of etch brass kit construction for the locos I will require.

 

My journey from hacking Lima diesels in my youth, to buying (but not yet building!) my first loco kits as I fast approach my 40th birthday has been gradual and I've learnt a lot along the way. Andy's idea of multiple "levels" of work undertaken, maybe on the same loco, spread over a number of issues of a mag sounds a good way of showing how over a period of time skills can be developed and the difference in the end results that can be achieved. Of course, whether the end results are worth the effort put in would remain a matter of personal opinion.

[Mallard60022]

Yes, I too think Andy's idea about the 'levels' is a very good one. Magazine Editors take note says I.

Chris makes a very interesting point re his move to 7mm. An admirable step in my opinion and one I do not feel I have the time left to take so I stay in 'bunfight' land. However, as you may or may not know, I won't get into that sort of nonsense as I am grateful for what's provided but as with others, the costs are getting seriously high for a 'pensioner'.

Phil

Edited November 4, 2015 by Mallard60022

[micklner]

As Model Rail are now doing Airplanes (padding) for a least a quarter of the current issue !! a serious revamp needs to be done on most magazines.

 

I haven't bought one for months, just nothing or enough of interest to justify the cost.

[Clearwater]

To date, I've never built a complex brass etch kit or done much above basic adjustments to RTR models.  One day, I will have a go but will try a coach first.  I suspect that if you are competent in building the most complex kits, articles about how you do it are not necessary or interesting.  Those persons needs to discuss, learn and challenge are probably fulfilled by threads such as this or perhaps MRJ.  I'd guess then venn diagramme of beginners / inexperienced modellers whobuy both Hornby Magazine and MRJ is small...

 

However, for those of us with less experience the layered articles suggested above make sense.  What to someone who has build 100+ kits is basic and routine is new to someone and needs explaining.  articles that go "and I just did x and Ta-DA" there's your fully built and functioning model don't really help or encourage the beginner much.  Similiarly I groan when a writer says "I did it in the usual way."  (btw, I apply this maxim as much to articles on baseboard construction, scenery and buildings as rolling stock). 

 

Also, sometimes, articles can be full of jargon eg  "I applied a wash of x and dry brushed it".  The beginner wants to know what went into the wash, what consistency, what type of bruh you used, how much came off on the paper, what to do if it goes wrong etc.  FWIW, Tony's 0-8-4T article is good and interesting to read as it is very detailed.  It is also clear that it is way beyond beginner level given the equipment required and the nature of the kit.  I also think the "practical BRM" DVDs / weblinks are good (usual disclaimer of no connection).  By way of example, my sub 4 year old boy watched Phil's article on scribing plaster walls and recited it back to me the other day.  if he can follow it, it is pitched at the right level for beginners (for the avoidance of doubt I would not give him the sharp implements required!).

 

David

[Markeg]

Hi Mick and one and all,

 

I have just renewed my digital subscription to BRM.  Am pondering whether to renew hard copy of Hornby Mag. and I occasionally buy the Railway Modeller at the local newsagent.

The RM is A$9.95 whereas the others are A$14+ here in OZ.  Model Rail seems to be much the same.  I was looking at some 2013-14 issues when I subscribed to them and found at least one article of relevance/interest in each.  One about rail connection on a cassette system layout.  Perfect timing as that's what I was about to work on.  Have not bought a MR mag for about a year.

 

So as I am reviewing these expenses, I think I may not subscribe to HM since it is due soon.  I have every copy from no 1.

I should say that I subscribe to BRM digital edition because of one TW who continues to inspire and challenge some to have a go at loco kit building.

I will be one of those soon after I finish building a small O gauge layout (8'x18") end to end exhibition layout for the exhibition I am organising for the Bendigo club. It will be the smallest layout at the exhibition.  Though I am waiting to hear from a N gauge modeller.  All other are from 3.6metres to 9m long/wide. So was very hard to fit them all in.  Actually I had to knock one large layout back.  enough of the dribble

 

Mark in Oz

[Jol Wilkinson]

Best thing I did was to move on to 7mm. There's very little in the way of RTR stock or RTP buildings that suits my layout, particularly if budget is taken account. It is, for me at least, a builders scale, and making the move has well and truly kicked me out of my comfort zone and on to tackling the dark arts of board construction, track building, etched kits, DCC and (to come) electrical work.

 

Previously I worked on group projects and had my niche in scenic work and buildings. Others in the group did all the other stuff. I'm not yet 45 but the past 2 years working in 7mm have been some of the most enjoyable and educational of my modelling career. I now regret not tackling some of the dark arts, particularly soldering, much earlier.

 

Scales have been shed from my eyes and, as a result of my own experience, I am saddened that many, like I did, have convinced themselves they can't do something and therefore don't ever try.

 

Most of my newly acquired skills have been taught via friends and many fine folk on here. When it comes to moving beyond a diet of RTR I don't find the magazines overly useful and no longer have any on subscription.

 

One big plus side of moving to 7mm and making my own stuff is that I can completely disengage myself from the 4mm RTR bunfight threads. You know the ones...why oh why doesn't X make Y... now that X has announced Y, why aren't they making variant Z just for me... manufacturer X is an idiot because of all these issues with Y... manufacturer X is deliberately delaying Y just to personally victimise me and I really, really can't do without my new toy... Y has been delivered but I've now gleefully found all these issues... now that Y has arrived, why oh why don't they do model A. And on and on and on....

I suggest that modelling in 4mm but to EM or P4 track/wheel standards can have the same effect. Especially so if you decide to model an era or location (whether factual or fictional) that requires kit building/bashing or adapting RTR products. Joining one of the "scale " Societies can be a most enlightening experience.

 

The 4mm hobby is, for many "modellers" in an inward spiral, driven by the manufacturers and supported, unwittingly or otherwise, by the mainstream magazines. What they are able to "model" is defined by what appears in the catalogues, online manufacturers sites and in the review/news pages of the monthly publications.

 

Just because you model in 4mm, doesn't mean you have to be a RTR slave.

 

Jol

[t-b-g]

I suggest that modelling in 4mm but to EM or P4 track/wheel standards can have the same effect. Especially so if you decide to model an era or location (whether factual or fictional) that requires kit building/bashing or adapting RTR products. Joining one of the "scale " Societies can be a most enlightening experience.

 

The 4mm hobby is, for many "modellers" in an inward spiral, driven by the manufacturers and supported, unwittingly or otherwise, by the mainstream magazines. What they are able to "model" is defined by what appears in the catalogues, online manufacturers sites and in the review/news pages of the monthly publications.

 

Just because you model in 4mm, doesn't mean you have to be a RTR slave.

 

Jol

 

Spot on Jol!

 

I think that you and I have also worked out that modelling the pre-grouping scene in EM/P4 takes you a step further away from the world of RTR. Although even that has been threatened by one or two RTR productions.

 

It also happens to be the period when the railways were at their absolute best in terms of the combination of superb liveries, with design and artistry going hand in hand with innovative engineering.

[coachmann]

I realize modelling in 4mm EM or P4 makes one change the axles and wheels and build turnouts etc, but I have noticed many such people still convert RTR locos and rolling stock. Some people build locos and coaches and choose to run them on '00' code 100. People are what they choose to be whether 'slaves to RTR' or whatever.

Edited November 4, 2015 by coachmann

[gr.king]

It's a rarity for me to buy a magazine these days too, finding just as Mick says not enough of interest to justify the price. I've reached the stage where I've seen a lot of ideas before. I also see lots of things on the internet, or at shows, or at meetings with friends far in advance of any appearance in a magazine. I find too that magazines can get into phases of repetitive coverage of themes that don't interest me at all, such as several consecutive issues packed with GWR or diesel drivel, no matter whether the latter covers exotic individual axle-hung motors or tedious restyling of N-gauge locos  and DMUs with vinyl overlays. I even stopped MRJ a few months ago for that sort of reason. I'm certainly not interested in seeing umpteen layouts all featuring the same pieces of RTR stock or ready to plonk buildings, nor in reading " Janet and John" articles telling the incompetent how to produce a very dodgy model within their deficient attention spans of 90 minutes maximum. Yet another article on how to install a chip  is an immediate turn-off.

 

Why would a magazine have to go so far as to stick its neck out by "advising" modellers of unknown intelligence and ability on the subject of how to hack expensive models around? All that is required is to publish an article that says "this is how I did it, but I'm not saying that you should do it this way". No "advice" given.

[Pebbles]

The occasional detailed locomotive, carriage or wagon drawing would be useful. I have read that the publishers would find this expensive. I am afraid I hark back to the days of MRN and Constructor when most issues contained "excitement" not merely reviews etc.  As the current crop of magazines simply do not cater for my interests I stopped buying them years ago; indeed I found that I was purchasing them merely out of habit.

[Mallard60022]

I do get some MR mags, however I'm really thinking that the Backtrack series may well be more relevant to my current interests.

Phil