Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

One thing that really, really, really hacks me off is those articles that say things like:  "Then I added a substitute sprocket wangler and a Gresley-pattern flange crinkler from the spares box".

 

In my view, that particular phrase should be utterly banned by magazine editors in connection with any article, by whoever written - from TW himself [God bless him!] downward - whose 'target audience' is any modeller likely to have built or heavily modified (whichever is applicable) fewer than six of this particular category of subject (plastic wagon/brass coach/card building/loco kit etc.) already.

 

Authors should bear in mind that just because you are lucky enough to have an abundance of leftover bits, the rest of us with less than 40-50 examples under our belt don't.  Even if that's how you built your own particular example, at least have the decency to do a little research and explain whereabouts those of us less well-endowed can currently obtain such a thing!

Thanks David,

 

I take on board what you're saying about sourcing things from spares boxes. It's a good idea as well to indicate where spares can be obtained, if possible. Certainly, if you take my piece on converting a Hornby 'Hunt' into a 'Shire' in the last BRM, I used parts from my 'box dating from many years ago. EAMES has ceased trading for years, though I'm sure brass washers could still be obtained from different sources (plumbers' supplies?). In that respect, and with the greatest of respect, the modeller should at least be able to do some finding out for him/herself. As for the smokebox doors, with the demise of adaptation bits and pieces from the likes of Crownline and others, things like that will be more difficult to obtain. But the likes of SE Finecast (and other kit manufacturers?) will sell separate parts. Having just acquired the old Nu-Cast range, a later-style more-bulbous door should soon be available. 

 

Of course, having built getting on for 500 locos down the years, my 'box ('boxes) are bulging with masses of spare/extra parts. One day I might try and sort them out, rather than rummage through them for ages when pupils come for tuition. None of these spares came from kits I was unable to build, just alternate parts supplied where there was a choice of, say, chimneys, domes, smokebox doors, axleboxes, etc, or parts bought separately. But, I think there's a responsibility on the individual modeller's part as well to source these odd bits and pieces for themselves. At the Wigan Show Millholme Models and Comet Models were selling a large range of bits and pieces respectively. Whenever I see purveyors like these I'll purchase lots of spares, even if I have no immediate use for them. And, always buy more than one individual item. Last year a chap was selling streamlined LNER domes. I bought the lot (all six!), so my apologies if anyone were next in the queue, Why buy six? Have you seen Bachmann's V2 dome? 

 

I have no wish to insult anyone, but some modellers (in my view) need to become a little more self-reliant. Please don't think I'm referring to you, but many's the time I've had e-mails/phone calls/letters asking me for information, say, on all the ECML carriage workings for 1958-59. I try to help if I can, but it isn't always possible, given time constraints. I have to say I've found this site immensely valuable when I needed information on things like diesel headcodes and bridge collapses. I just posted a request. Is there a thread on here where folk can ask about the availability of various bits and pieces?

 

On another occasion a chap asked me about all the variations in Thompson's Pacifics. When I told him my knowledge had been gleaned from the likes of the RCTS and Yeadon, plus hundreds of pictures in my collection, he said he didn't have the books in question nor any pictures. Is it not his responsibility to obtain such material, or at least source it from a library? Surely as well a few e-mails, phone calls or letters to a variety of suppliers (lots advertise) should result in parts being sourced. 

 

Of course, where the newcomer is involved, he/she might have no idea where to get information or various spare parts. It's the responsibility then of a magazine to provide as much information as possible relating to an article if that's the situation. And, in fairness, they do in most cases, though I was lacking in the D49 piece in that respect.

 

There is an article pending for BRM where I describe the construction of a Jamieson V2. Since the kit has not been in production for over 25 years (?), one might ask why bother? But, only this year I picked up three more - two were given to me and the other was bought incredibly cheaply from a second-hand stall at a show. I gave the latter to a chap who was contemplating making such a model. So, here is an ideal opportunity for someone to have a go at making a locomotive, assuming they have some skills; relatively cheaply. I say relatively because of the cost of wheels/motor, but also this year I acquired a mass of older-style Romfords. A couple of friends had them, one from his own supply (he's now an O Gauge modeller) and the other from a deceased's estate. How did I know about them? From contacts made on this site. I kept a few, Tony Gee now has several to ensure Buckingham's locos will run forever and many from the deceased's estate were sold on. 

 

May I make a suggestion, please? This is to everyone. Instead of merely participating in the 'greatest pensioners scrum in history' (not my words) to get the best 'returned' bargain from Bachmann, or diving into the piles of the box-shifters to see what the cheapest RTR price might be, take time to rummage through the boxes 'beneath the counter'. Yes, at the principal shows, many traders who try to sell bits and pieces and lower-end second-hand items are priced out. But, swapmeets can provide rich pickings, as too can the club stands at smaller shows. Look out as well for the SH stands at the Society shows. 

 

You'll be surprised how quickly a spares box will fill. 

 

Edited to include an additional response. 

Edited November 5, 2015 by Tony Wright

[MJI]

I have 3 spares boxes, all recent but the contents go back years in some cases. If you do any modelling you will get spares.

 

Detailing parts from EE and MJT among others, left over bits from Parkside, Cambrian, Airfix and co

 

So I have some etched brass W irons of two BR types, loads of springs and axle boxes.

 

So when I built my rake of Parkside STVs a few years ago I was able to use axle boxes like the wagons I remembered seeing.

 

I am having to get creative due to gaps in the RTR ranges, and the poor examples we are sometimes given. Also I prefer kit wagons to RTR mainly due to the poor underframes we used to get.

 

I am currently off ill (nasty cold) so I am working on a few coaches at the moment, and I am using actual sets I saw in the 70s and 80s, correct numbers and bogies.

 

A few of the vehicles are not available RTR, so what do I do? I make them out of bits, BR 2C, Lima bases, etched frames, look good. Unusual catering vehicles, etched sides to the rescue.

[Poggy1165]

I think we all accumulate scrap box bits over time. For example, a year or so ago I built a particular wagon kit, and found that the brakes supplied were way too far off the wheels. So I scratched my head for a bit, and eventually realised it was a standard 9 ft. wheelbase (not 9' 6" as I had somehow imagined.) So I fitted a set of the rather wonderful etched brakes provided by Bill Bedford via Eileens Emporium. (Usual disclaimer). Did I chuck the rejected brakes away? Did I heck. They were put safely away against the day when I build a wagon with an 8' 6" wheelbase and don't have anything suitable. 

 

Indeed I rarely chuck anything away. Even badly cast lumps of whitemetal have potential as extra weight.

[Tony Wright]

While on a self-imposed sabbatical from modelling I have been surreptitiously following this discussion and feel at one with most of the comments thus far.  However, the magazine readership varies enormously in skills, interests and financial capability, so no one magazine can please everyone all the time.  That being said, when I retired I subscribed to several magazines.  Only one, BRM digital, remains on subscription.  The others helped me to catch up with the times and opportunities and helped to push me away from 4mm toward 7mm scale (though age also had something to do with that decision).  Simply put I want to build things and RTR doesn't do it for me.

 

But I had to laugh when watching a video on BRM about preparing real coal for scale applications.  The recommendation to use pliers to break up lumps of coal seemed quite ridiculous - coal dust is messy and the technique being touted put coal dust and fragments all over the place, apart from potentially ruining a good pair of pliers.  I just happened to be collecting and preparing some real coal myself and my technique makes a lot more sense - place coal pieces in a plastic bag and whack them with a hammer.  Pick out the scale pieces, whack the larger pieces some more.  Pliers remain in tool box where they belong!

Well said Paul,

 

Your desire to build things rather than be dependent on RTR (in whatever scale) is something I wholeheartedly approve of. 

 

I might have mentioned this already but I recall Jol Wilkinson exhorting folk to 'build a kit' if there were no RTR equivalent available (and even if there were), only to be 'popped' at by those who claimed they couldn't build kits. I'm sure Jol was really offering encouragement, but many must have felt excluded. But, if they won't even try and persevere, no exhortations, however intended, will succeed.

 

As for breaking coal up with pliers, I didn't see that. How many others do it in such a manner? I thought the method you describe was universally-known.    

[The Stationmaster]

While I don't do it so much as I once did I used to get considerable enjoyment from attending auctions of model railway items - for one very good reason - the 'box lots'.  These are effectively boxes - any old cardboard box will do - containing all sorts of bits & pieces which whoever put the auction together couldn't make sense of as a saleable lot on their own or they were, literally, the contents of somebody's 'spares box.

 

Now these lots come with certain advantages - generally the dealers (including at least one who regularly gets his trading name in the Ebay madness thread on RMweb) don't know or really understand what is in the boxes or can't be bothered to look through a pile of seeming junk.  This means they don't bother to bid and that means the prices don't go leaping up.  Secondly when you get your new treasure trove home it's not unusual to find things even a cursory check in the saleroom didn't discover and while what comes out might reveal names often found in a Hamblings catalogue 50 years ago all sorts of useful bits and pieces emerge as well including complete kit built locos or enough parts to build a complete running chassis.

 

Great fun with (usually) useful results.

[Horsetan]

....only to be 'popped' at by those who claimed they couldn't build kits.... 

 

...or possibly who couldn't be bothered?

[Brian Kirby]

Most kits yield a certain level of spare or surplus parts, especially where detail options are provided. I remember one particular loco kit that provided a bumper harvest, and that was the re-vamped S.E.Finecast LNER K3 (c/w etched chassis), which gave us cab and tender variations, plus numerous other optional parts. Did they ever produce a "short kit", so one could build a second loco with the excess parts?       BK

[jwealleans]

They did, Brian. I haven't built one but they are still available.

 

I've converted two Bachmann K3s with surplus bits from my SEF kit.

[LNER4479]

As for breaking coal up with pliers, I didn't see that. How many others do it in such a manner? I thought the method you describe was universally-known.    

 

Note to self: stop crushing up coal with pliers...

[westerner]

I have been following this particular discussion with interest. There seems to be a certain amount of the converted talking, even ranting to the converted. I as a modeller who "only" weathers and alters names with the very occasional wagon kit build, feels slightly affronted that I am suppose to want to build loco kits etc. What seems to have been forgotten in the above discussion is that we all come into the hobby for our own reasons. If some want to build loco kits that's fine by me, but do not preach, harangue (Not sure which is the correct word) me that there is something wrong with a person like me who is quite happy doing my own thing and not building a loco. I certainly will not be going on about people who spend months building a loco. I've said this before, but nearly all who post on RMWEB have BUILT  something, whether it be baseboards, laid track(even if it is Peco or Set track), had a go at basic scenery and have even had to think about how their RTP buildings should go and normally by themselves. After all if they are satisfied with what they have created that's fine. I notice not much is said about those who, no matter how its done, get other people to build their layouts for them whether it by  having the money to pay people to build things for them or by having a large enough circle of model railwaying friends to do "swaps" )many are not so lucky or are not skilled enough to offer anything to swap. If that's the way they want to do their layouts, that's also fine by me.

Whilst I find the discussion interesting, entertaining and sometimes amusing, it may well put some people off.

Edited November 5, 2015 by westerner

[Willie Whizz]

I'm very pleased for those of you who have managed to build-up a large 'Spares box' over the years.  And I concede that a certain self-reliance is to be encouraged in sourcing some of the absolute basics.

 

But, like I said, authors should be thinking more about their 'Target Audience'.  Unless I have mistaken the thrust of Tony's argument, he is seeking (on here and in some of his own articles) to encourage people who have very little experience to 'have a go'.

 

Now, if one is writing for MRJ and believe the target readership likely to be inspired by your particular article to have perhaps 40-50 kits or major modification projects under their belt, then yes by all means assume a fair degree of knowledge,of technique, and of self-reliance as regards sourcing.

 

If our hypothetical author is, however, writing for one of the more mainstream magazines and hoping to encourage complete or comparative novices, then for goodness sake write and support accordingly, because a certain amount of hand-holding is required at that stage.  Such people may not know what a Gresley-pattern LNER flange crinkler even is; let alone where to source one.  (Let's face it, even with t'Internet, a high proportion of 'cottage industry' websites are barely more than jargon-ridden lists with, at best, fuzzy photographs and often none at all;, and assume that the customer already knows the exact title, version, size, fixing method, part number and use of the product being looked-at.  And if you think I'm just being facetious in having made that part name up, how many novices or near-novices would know what a 'snifting valve' looks like or does?  Did you, two or three kits in to your career?).

 

And if it becomes apparent from the article that the only likely source ever was (as another poster suggested) a firm that expired 20-30 years ago but the Author nonetheless managed to build/modify his project because he just "happened" to have one sitting in his extensive Spares Box built-up over that same  20-30 years ... well frankly, that is at best unhelpful and at worst a complete turn-off to the novice that also damages the author's reputation (except to his peers - which makes one wonder if they, after all, are sometimes the true 'Target Audience?).   

 

Is it asking too much for authors who spend many hours on their project and many more writing it up, and who are aiming their articles at the comparative novice, to actually say:  "I used an old one I've had hanging around for several years, but to help you I took a few minutes to check and you can still obtain these from xxxxx"?  Is it asking too much to ask Editors to insist they do?  I think not!

 

And conversely, if the kit/project covered by the article is such that only experienced modellers with confidence and a vast and relevant Spares Box should realistically even attempt it, then for Heaven's sake say so - at the start!  That doesn't mean the Novice won't read it and perhaps yet be inspired - but it will stop him giving-up in despair part-way through; or never even making a start, because he thinks the task sounds beyond him.  Which, if you experienced guys have been paying attention to what the rest of us have been saying, is still all too common and perhaps even getting worse.

 

Right, enough, I'm getting back to my baseboard-cutting plan now ...

[APOLLO]

I suppose the whole of my loft is a "spares box" such is the amount of spares  / junk / tat/ etc I have accumulated over the years.

 

I rarely start a project then go looking for suitable bits from my various boxes - rather I look at the stuff I have, have a think, get various bits together and build something. Just before Bachman brought out the K3 I made one, using a de-motorised Bachmann V3 chassis, V2 body suitably cut down, hand turned dome, Hornby footballer motorised chassis and V2 tender top. Looks reasonable, runs well & quite pleased with it !!

 

As to mags, I rarely buy them now. However I have many boxes of old mags from the 60's 70's & 80's I like to flick through now and again. My favourites are a set of American "Model Railroader" mags, complete years for 1952 to around 1970. You certainly see the changes in the hobby (over there) during these years. Large hand built O locos and stock on mainly un-sceniced layouts scale was the rule in the early 50's, Transistorised throttles and HO plastic was king in the 70's. The transition in the mags over the years is absolutely fascinating.

 

Brit15

[t-b-g]

Modelling Rule No 32. Never chuck anything out. It might be useful one day.

Edited November 5, 2015 by t-b-g

[Tony Wright]

I have been following this particular discussion with interest. There seems to be a certain amount of the converted talking, even ranting to the converted. I as a modeller who "only" weathers and alters names with the very occasional wagon kit build, feels slightly affronted that I am suppose to want to build loco kits etc. What seems to have been forgotten in the above discussion is that we all come into the hobby for our own reasons. If some want to build loco kits that's fine by me, but do not preach, harangue (Not sure which is the correct word) me that there is something wrong with a person like me who is quite happy doing my own thing and not building a loco. I certainly will not be going on about people who spend months building a loco. I've said this before, but nearly all who post on RMWEB have BUILT  something, whether it be baseboards, laid track(even if it is Peco or Set track), had a go at basic scenery and have even had to think about how their RTP buildings should go and normally by themselves. After all if they are satisfied with what they have created that's fine. I notice not much is said about those who, no matter how its done, get other people to build their layouts for them whether it by  having the money to pay people to build things for them or by having a large enough circle of model railwaying friends to do "swaps" )many are not so lucky or are not skilled enough to offer anything to swap. If that's the way they want to do their layouts, that's also fine by me.

Whilst I find the discussion interesting, entertaining and sometimes amusing, it may well put some people off.

I'm sorry if you feel affronted Alan, particularly if it's because of something I've mentioned.

 

I've seen your work, run it and photographed it, and it's worthy of considerable praise. Don't feel affronted just because you don't want to, or don't need to build loco kits. At least you're doing the modelling work yourself, which is something I've always tried to encourage. 

 

As for folk having layouts (and most of what goes on it)  built for them, what might there be to say? The most popular layout on this site is an example of just that. But it proves of great interest to many followers and showcases examples of some high-quality professional modelling. 

 

I certainly fall into your second category with regard to having many modelling friends who swap skills to produce a layout. I agree, in that respect I'm fortunate, as is the person who has enough money to commission just about everything. And, as you allude to, it's a matter of choice.

 

Though I claim no ownership of this thread, what would a reader think I might post the most about? Building kits or doing modifications of course, particularly with regard to locos. Without appearing smug, I hope I can appeal to all levels (though not the highest). May I cite two different examples in the last and latest issue of BRM? In the last issue there's a piece on converting a Hornby Railroad 'Hunt' into something 'better'. Something I believe to be within the range of the less-experienced (though, I admit, I should have given more information on how older parts might be sourced). In the latest issue there's my piece on building a Brassmasters 0-8-4T, in which I make clear it's way beyond the abilities of a beginner (or at least in my view). I hope nobody infers any 'snobbishness' in that regard on my part. At its most basic, all I'm trying to do is to encourage folk to have a go. That's something I've always advocated, whether it be through my writings, my tutorials, my demonstrations or my talks. If that results in some modellers being affronted, then so be it. 

Edited November 5, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Jol Wilkinson]

Well said Paul,

 

Your desire to build things rather than be dependent on RTR (in whatever scale) is something I wholeheartedly approve of. 

 

I might have mentioned this already but I recall Jol Wilkinson exhorting folk to 'build a kit' if there were no RTR equivalent available (and even if there were), only to be 'popped' at by those who claimed they couldn't build kits. I'm sure Jol was really offering encouragement, but many must have felt excluded. But, if they won't even try and persevere, no exhortations, however intended, will succeed.

 

As for breaking coal up with pliers, I didn't see that. How many others do it in such a manner? I thought the method you describe was universally-known.    

Tony, 

 

at the time my "exhortation" was driven by frustration with those on RMweb who go on continually about wanting/needing such and such model from the RTR manufacturers, when they are available as kits, often from at least one supplier and in different "formats", degree of difficulty (from "Bodyline" resin castings upwards), etc.

 

Add to that a genuine belief that actually making something is enjoyable and rewarding and you may share my view that it is worth having a go, to paraphrase Wilfred Pickles. One thing I learned during my career is that people, when challenged to do something a little outside of the normal usually succeed, enjoy the achievement and recognise that they have abilities/resources they weren't aware of (or should that be "of which they were not aware"?).

 

Jol

[corneliuslundie]

It has been interesting reading the comments on "levels" as I am just reading a new book (borrowed from the public library) entitled "Model railway stations. A practical guide" by Ian Lamb. Though I have reservations about the book (mostly about the colour photos which are sometimes garish) what is relevant that after some introductory text  in chapter 3 he starts with improving RTP buildings, in chapter 4 he moves on to card kits and then plastic kits, in both cases discussing how to improve them. And in chapter 5 he gets to scratch building. He makes it clear at the start that he wants to get his readers to follow the same path. A laudible aim and one I think most readers of this thread will approve of.  The other theme is the need for research even if working with RTP models to ensure that you end up with something that looks like the real thing. And to use accessories to set up realistic scenes. As it happens I am happy to scratch build buildings (not that I have actually completed too many, but give me another 70 years), but I felt that there was information in the book that was useful to me.

 

Re the spares box, as most of my kit built models are of wagons, I have a very good selection of brake gear - all nominally for 9ft wheelbase but in practice suitable for everything from 8ft 6in up to about 9ft 3in. But the other part of my "spares" box is the bits that I intentionally buy and keep in stock for when I need them such as wheels, axle boxes, buffers and springs.

 

But sometimes the spares box is no use at all, such as when creating wooden brake blocks. However, a bit of plastic sheet of the right width and a bit of suitable brass strip and it can be done. That's why I keep a stock of every thickness of plastic sheet (and I find that there are often sheets in "nonstandard" thicknesses too) and a fair range of plastic and brass strip and wire. It all gets used up. OK, it needs some expenditure up front but the money I would have to spend to acquire an RTR loco goes a very long way.

 

And at approaching 70 I am still trying to improve my rather poor skills.

 

Jonathan

[Clearwater]

[quote name="Tony Wright" post="2079586" timestamp="1446743307

 

May I cite two different examples in the last and latest issue of BRM? In the last issue there's a piece on converting a Hornby Railroad 'Hunt' into something 'better'. Something I believe to be within the range of the less-experienced (though, I admit, I should have given more information on how older parts might be sourced). In the latest issue there's my piece on building a Brassmasters 0-8-4T, in which I make clear it's way beyond the abilities of a beginner (or at least in my view). I hope nobody infers any 'snobbishness' in that regard on my part. At its most basic, all I'm trying to do is to encourage folk to have a go. That's something I've always advocated, whether it be through my writings, my tutorials, my demonstrations or my talks. If that results in some modellers being affronted, then so be it.

 

As a, to date, non brass kit builder, I have read and enjoyed your article on the 0-8-4 tank. My take aways / observations:

1) it is clearly flagged as a non beginner kit

2) if someone with your experience struggles with aspects, it's actually ok to amend the instructions to what you can do. Perversely that gives me more confidence to tackle other things. As a beginner, nothing is more disheartening than getting stuck on a particular point and not being able to progress - showing the thought process on how to resolve is instructive in other contexts

3) it's interesting to see how something more complicated is constructed

4) probably most importantly, it introduced me to a class of locomotive I'd never heard of

 

David

[Allegheny1600]

Regarding 'spares', even folk who "only" operate rtr locos and stock should build up certain levels of spare parts, whether it be extra air/vacuum pipes, crew, loco lamps or whatever.

I appreciate that any absolute beginner would not have such spares but anyone who has been in the game long enough to be reading this thread (if not this website) surely must have changed something on an item of rolling stock?

If you're someone who is starting out by building plastic wagon kits for example, you will be saving the various bits of straight sprue and various other components, surely?

As for Tony W. (and others) exhorting folk to have a go building something, why not?

It really is good fun and very satisfying, I'm sure that those who would exhort anyone to build only do so because they know the feeling one would get is so good.

Cheers,

John E.

[coachmann]

I wonder how many of the folk who appear to depend totally on RTR have mastered computer programs , ipad and other technologies, can rustle up really good dishes, put up shelves and cupboards, drive a car and master the lathes and machines in their workplace?  I rather suspect now it is down to choices with RTR-reliance being a very conscious decision.  However, we are occasionally in danger of forgetting this and accusing others of what we are ~ intolerant. Yup, me included when I wonder why people would stubbornly choose to build an old kit when there is an almost perfect representation available RTR. Then I reflect it is down to them thar choices again and Tony W's thread is about building things.

Edited November 5, 2015 by coachmann

[johnarcher]

. Yup, me included when I wonder why people would stubbornly choose to build an old kit when there is an almost perfect representation available RTR. Then I reflect it is down to them thar choices again and Tony W's thread is about building things.

Ah, well, I have just been stubbornly seeking a Perseverance 48xx kit, (eventually, I hope, getting one from Chris Parrish) when I suppose I could put an Airfix body on a Comet or High Level chassis for about half the price, or simply have a RTR one for less still, and improve/detail it for not much more.

Choices as you say, personal taste - for me modelling is about making things, buying ready-made defeats the object.

Edited November 5, 2015 by johnarcher

[westerner]

Tony, I did say only slightly affronted, as I said I do find the discussion, interesting, entertaining and amusing, I also should have added informative. but occasionally it does come across from some replies on your thread, that we should all aim to build locos etc. I was just pointing that, for many people that is not the be all and end all of the hobby. In fact I suspect for many it doesn't even enter their heads.

 

The brilliant thing about our hobby is that encompasses all sorts, both of what people want to build and to what they ultimately want to achieve, and one hopes that we all find an area that we at the very least regard ourselves as competent , if not fairly good at. ( should I end a sentence with the word at?)

[Tony Wright]

I wonder how many of the folk who appear to depend totally on RTR have mastered computer programs , ipad and other technologies, can rustle up really good dishes, put up shelves and cupboards, drive a car and master the lathes and machines in their workplace?  I rather suspect now it is down to choices with RTR-reliance being a very conscious decision.  However, we are occasionally in danger of forgetting this and accusing others of what we are ~ intolerant. Yup, me included when I wonder why people would stubbornly choose to build an old kit when there is an almost perfect representation available RTR. Then I reflect it is down to them thar choices again and Tony W's thread is about building things.

What a splendid post Larry.

 

My most grateful thanks. What you've posted really set me thinking, particularly to the extent of how much of a hypocrite I am. A hypocrite in that I will NOT attempt to master much in the way of new technologies at any price. Here are a few examples. I (think) I have a mobile phone. If it exists, it's in one of the cars, switched off! In fairness, that's all it is - a phone. Last week, a younger modeller I'm helping produced his iphone (is that the right description?), which also is a camera. In less than a minute, he'd brought up Comet's instructions, prototype pictures of the coach he's building plus prototypical notes. I held it, must have touched something, because the picture twizzled round, then went dim, then disappeared! I handed it back in disgust. Despite the lack of speed, give me books any time. 

 

Computers, I consider to be the 'spawn of Satan', especially when applied to model railways. Though thus described, I have two. One is my digital darkroom (and, despite my hypocrisy, I'll never go back to old-fashioned wet-processing) the other the one I use for e-mails and RMweb. In fairness, both are a bit old, but they do the job - if slowly. As for computers with model railways, every time I see one being used to 'control' a layout, I cringe. I have no interest in such applications and refuse to learn otherwise. 

 

Though I've no wish to go over old ground, the minute I'm confronted with faffing around with DCC, again, I refuse to even try. It all seems too complicated to me. 

 

An old friend has an ipad. He's two months younger but is obviously more willing to learn. But, he never seems to be able to escape his e-mails, even though he's retired. He's almost constantly looking at it to check things, even when we're in conversation. Both my sons have gadget phones, and they're always looking at them. Look around any restaurant/pub; do folk indulge in interactive, face-to-face conversation any more? 

 

As for my cooking ability, let's not go there.

 

So, I've been rumbled. I go on and on about people not willing to try things, and yet I'm the worst offender in many ways. 

Edited November 5, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Tony, I did say only slightly affronted, as I said I do find the discussion, interesting, entertaining and amusing, I also should have added informative. but occasionally it does come across from some replies on your thread, that we should all aim to build locos etc. I was just pointing that, for many people that is not the be all and end all of the hobby. In fact I suspect for many it doesn't even enter their heads.

 

The brilliant thing about our hobby is that encompasses all sorts, both of what people want to build and to what they ultimately want to achieve, and one hopes that we all find an area that we at the very least regard ourselves as competent , if not fairly good at. ( should I end a sentence with the word at?)

Thanks Alan,

 

I don't know the answer to your question - grammarians, please respond. Perhaps if not fairly good at it might be a better way to finish.

 

Having seen your work, I think it sums it up very well. Indeed, very good! 

[Clive Mortimore]

Tony, 

 

at the time my "exhortation" was driven by frustration with those on RMweb who go on continually about wanting/needing such and such model from the RTR manufacturers, when they are available as kits, often from at least one supplier and in different "formats", degree of difficulty (from "Bodyline" resin castings upwards), etc.

 

Add to that a genuine belief that actually making something is enjoyable and rewarding and you may share my view that it is worth having a go, to paraphrase Wilfred Pickles. One thing I learned during my career is that people, when challenged to do something a little outside of the normal usually succeed, enjoy the achievement and recognise that they have abilities/resources they weren't aware of (or should that be "of which they were not aware"?).

 

Jol

As a diesel modeller much of the fun enjoyment and reward has been taken out my modelling with all the mainline classes  and many of the larger shunting classes being available in RTR form. Gone are the days when I would wake up on a Saturday morning and think I would like a so-and so class. Nip down to my local model shop and come home with some sheet of plastic card and a second hand loco for its power unit. By bed time on the Sunday most of the hard work had been done ready to show my fellow club members what I was building on Monday night. No point now the wish listers have got there way and it is too easy for all of us to nip down to our model shop and on Monday night get the new toy out the box to show our mates.

 

It might be I am getting older or a loss in MoJo but I keep finding I start a project but never seem to finish any these days.

 

By the way did anyone else fill in this years wish list.......the only thing I have ever seriously asked for on a wish list is a Flatrol EN, complete with counter balance weights and the two four wheeled flatrols and the two 80ton Warflats. It wasn't on the list. :no: :no:

[Craigw]

I wonder how many of the folk who appear to depend totally on RTR have mastered computer programs , ipad and other technologies, can rustle up really good dishes, put up shelves and cupboards, drive a car and master the lathes and machines in their workplace?  I rather suspect now it is down to choices with RTR-reliance being a very conscious decision.  However, we are occasionally in danger of forgetting this and accusing others of what we are ~ intolerant. Yup, me included when I wonder why people would stubbornly choose to build an old kit when there is an almost perfect representation available RTR. Then I reflect it is down to them thar choices again and Tony W's thread is about building things.

 

We have a similar issue here in Australia, where the kit market is slowly, but surely being strangled. 

 

What is common through out forums is people who would prefer to wait 3 or 4 years for a model rather than build an existing kit. "I cant solder, paint etc" is the common cry. Have you ever tried? In most cases the answer is no. Quite how you can develop a skill without having a go is beyond me. We all have to learn new skills in our workplace or our home life. Why the reluctance to do so in the hobby?

 

Craig W