Wright writes.....

[unclebobkt]

      When I consider all that has to be known/understood before modelling even a small scene I shudder mentally:  Geology, Geography, History and time-period just for starters so as to set the scene.  Then there is the railway with all that are associated with it - correct classes of locos. and their numbers;  correct type of carriages and how they would be arranged;  then freight and how such trains are marshaled.  Then - and I haven't exhausted the list - there are the mysteries, (to me, at least.), of signalling and of movement-control;  and not forgetting DC. -v-. DCC., (or even Radio-control.),!

  I'm not writing that the list is endless - but it can and does become rather daunting, especially as real & helpful hands-on knowledge become scarcer by  the day - thanks to Olde Father Time.

 

  Does it become a matter of balance between research and just plunging in, having a go and d*mning the consequences?

 

       

Edited January 5, 2016 by unclebobkt

[coachmann]

I suspect that the problem with "unrealistic" trains is a general loss of knowledge about railway operations due to the passage of time rather than any distinction between RTR or non-RTR stock.

I'm afraid this doesn't wash with me and maybe others of my generation. Passage of time is irrelevant when there are books. In 1960 I learned a lot about the operation of the LNWR by joining St.Albans library while there on a short break, and the period that interested me was some 60 years before. So while reading might be too much trouble for some folk, it still remains the best way of obtaining knowledge.

[Tony Wright]

Perhaps an appropriate maxim – 'everything to a consistent standard.'

 

Far easier to write than achieve without buying in, or to coin Tony's phrase 'horse-trading' skill sets. Of course there are always folks who are good at every aspect of railway modelling but often the person who is good at making rolling stock is not so good at making trees and so the list goes on. At this moment in time I'm slowly trying to learn how to improve my skill set and every now and then I have a little break through. I'm along way from where I'd like to be. May be it's that aspect, the never ending quest, that keeps the hobby so interesting… 

 

To pick up on another point about the rewards of making and seeing models that have been 'hard won' by the endless hours of love (and of course skill) poured into them – this is why I enjoy seeing 3mm layouts at shows so much. Not only do I find the size of the models appealing but it's the fact that you are invariably looking at somebody own personal and unique model making journey. That alone is interesting and something I think I didn't fully appreciate when visiting and operating Little Bytham. Tony's roster is so comprehensive, that everything I had wanted to see in motion was made possible. However, once you are driving you are caught up in the moment – the drama of A3 meeting V2 at the head of big trains – you forget that you've the outcome of dozens of hours of skilled labour under your fingertips. Heady stuff but once the detailed inspection of stock began I was very surprised to have Tony tell me that he brush paints all his locomotives – the quality of the workmanship belies the means and again something that isn't always appreciated until you start to dig under the surface of the layout. I did also enjoy literally sitting under the layout for a few minutes – as I find the mechanics of operation so interesting. The signals had recently been installed and I marvelled at the loops in the sprung steel operating rods. Again the point being that somebody has worked hard and perfected a skill to create a little bit of magic. 

 

I wonder if in say ten, or even five, years time with the onward march of R-T-R how modellers will push themselves to make dissimilar layouts.

Thank you so much for your kind comments, Tim. 

 

I've said on many occasions that I'm very privileged to have the work of some outstanding modellers present on my railway, all working to a consistent (high) standard. Not everyone is in that privileged position; that's why I'm so taken with models built by individuals themselves, whether it be the whole layout or separate items on them. These are the folk who, in my opinion, deserve the greatest credit, for they're not professionals and often are working with limited resources. When I look at Little Bytham, so much is the work of professionals (or modellers if they chose to be would be - of the highest calibre). I suppose I could class myself in the professional category because I used to build locos professionally (and still do for mates). However, I don't want observers to run away with the idea that I'm loaded with dosh and have just commissioned what I want. As you say, much has been achieved through 'horse-trading' and (through the likes of your immensely kind donation of your professionally-painted figures) by visitors making things for the layout. I count myself so fortunate in having so many wonderful friends.

 

Where a model has been almost totally commissioned, the results can be exceptionally good - they should be if professionals have been involved - but I can never get really excited about them, because they're 'property' more than personal creations. I've photographed many of their likes, but the owners cannot really tell me how things have been made. They can claim it's their 'idea', and it's their money after all, but, as I say, there is far greater merit (in my view) in the work of the individuals who've made things for themselves. If it's by exploiting/altering/weathering what's available RTR/RTP, so what? As long as it's their work.  

 

Edited to clarify a point: I brush paint/weather the locos I paint. Those with the best finishes are painted by Ian Rathbone. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

I suspect that the problem with "unrealistic" trains is a general loss of knowledge about railway operations due to the passage of time rather than any distinction between RTR or non-RTR stock.

 

I would just like to clarify a point, that seems to have got garbled (my fault) in the post you quote.  You are correct this is not necessarily a distinction between RTR and non-RTR stock. My own approach, is quite happy to mix RTR

and other means to achieve the desired result. That will always be part of a compromise that involves time, cost, availability and ability. However If you are armed with even a bit of information this can help inform the choices you make in

this respect.

 

I think that a lot of the information is there, but often scattered all over the place. In contrast, the military modeller can draw upon a much wider range of accessible sources.  There are countless books that will analyse the  tactics, and strategies

of a military campaign, or the technical aspects of equipment in the most minute detail.  The first hand records, are much more extensive, and better documented, often by official custodians.  Fortunately the work of such individuals as

Robert Carol can provide the modeller with a wealth of information to help improve what is running on a layout.  This may only be a case of gilding the lily, rather then a more radical and time consuming solution. As an example, it was pointed out

to me that a typical model railway (steam era) has too much fitted and in particulate van traffic in contrast to unfitted open wagons.  Being armed with such a simple bit of information must be of assistance in creating more authentic scene.

[Tony Wright]

I'm afraid this doesn't wash with me and maybe others of my generation. Passage of time is irrelevant when there are books. In 1960 I learned a lot about the operation of the LNWR by joining St.Albans library while there on a short break, and the period that interested me was some 60 years before. So while reading might be too much trouble for some folk, it still remains the best way of obtaining knowledge.

Once more we agree..............

 

With regard to the make-up of trains on my railway, I've consulted BR's own documents and looked at pictures in books showing scenes from 50-60 years ago. I then 'copy' those trains. What could be simpler? 

[grahame]

So while reading might be too much trouble for some folk, it still remains the best way of obtaining knowledge.

Maybe, but judging by today's yoof culture it doesn't have the same kudos or entertainment value as playing games, texting or engaging with social media on an iphone or tablet.

 

G.

[billbedford]

There are loads of modellers who do not look at railway photographs. An example are freight trains, modernish block trains are easy, all the same wagon. Not so other trains, my main interest is the mid 1960s, I wanted to know what would be dragged by a loco hauling a class 7 train, an uniftted express goods. I found very few photos of trains that were totally unfitted wagons, mainly 16 ton minerals or 21 ton hoppers, most had a few vans and 5 plank opens marshalled behind the loco with the 16 tonners tailing behind. Why I asked myself, the answer was staring me in the face any vacuum fitted wagons which were to be conveyed on that train were bunged between the loco and the unfitted wagons as to give the engine diver more chance of stopping the train. Look at many layouts and the loco will have a class 1 headcode and the train have fitted wagons dotted all over the place. It doesn't take too much to do some research and make things look better.

 

Yes but, pick-up goods would have fitted and unfitted wagons mixed in the train. And a pick-up would be more appropriate for yer bog standard shunting plank.....

[billbedford]

The problem with all this soul searching about RTR is that however much people have pride in their kit built locos they still run them on RTP HO track and toy-train pointwork.

[St Enodoc]

Once more we agree..............

 

With regard to the make-up of trains on my railway, I've consulted BR's own documents and looked at pictures in books showing scenes from 50-60 years ago. I then 'copy' those trains. What could be simpler? 

Tony and Larry, I agree wholeheartedly regarding research but my point (which I may not have made very well) was that I don't believe that there is a correlation between how well or badly a model is researched and whether or not it uses RTR stock.

[johnarcher]

The problem with all this soul searching about RTR is that however much people have pride in their kit built locos they still run them on RTP HO track and toy-train pointwork.

I suppose some do, but surely all that's been said about RTR is also about RTP (track, buildings whatever)? Same preference in my case anyway.

 

I wasn't soul-searching, I don't do metaphysics.

Edited January 4, 2016 by johnarcher

[coachmann]

Tony and Larry, I agree wholeheartedly regarding research but my point (which I may not have made very well) was that I don't believe that there is a correlation between how well or badly a model is researched and whether or not it uses RTR stock.

Ah, that is different, and I cannot disagree.

[The Stationmaster]

I suspect that the problem with "unrealistic" trains is a general loss of knowledge about railway operations due to the passage of time rather than any distinction between RTR or non-RTR stock.

I've picked up this one more as the first of several on the theme rather than necessarily being in vague agreement with it.  Why vague?  Well the answer is simple - in many respects when it comes to prototype knowledge and practice the extent of knowledge among modellers is probably generally similar to the way it was 30 or 40 years ago.  While the steam railway has vanished there are umpteen more printed sources available today than there were at any time in the past, and some of them go back an awful long way into the era of the steam railway.

 

The problem in reality among many modellers, including those of superb hand-crafted items, is I think probably more down to 'too difficult' or 'not interested' rather than how they came to have an all singing and dancing model of, say, the Deltic prototype or an A4 or whatever.  It's also not helped by some abysmally misleading information which has appeared over the years in magazines or from well known writers in the hobby.  I notice Bill Bedford mentioned a 'pick-up goods' and yet I can't recall ever hearing the term 'pick-up goods' (or more correctly 'pick-up freight') ever used by railwaymen during my entire railway career and I worked or spent time at several freight marshalling yards, in England and Wales, working alongside men whose railway employment stretched back to pre-war years - but of course it was on the Western, and we had 'Local Trips' and 'trip freights'.  So terminology varied which perhaps doesn't help much and adds to the confusion.

 

And incidentally this lack of authentic operation makes things all the better on those layouts where it is observed (e.g Borchester, in its various forms) or even in photos when the 'railwaylike' atmosphere is conveyed by layouts such as Little Bytham and Peterborough.

[MikeOxon]

I've been reading the recent posts with interest and realising from them how many different aspects there are to this hobby of 'model railways'. 

 

For me, an important driver is my interest in how railways changed the whole fabric of society during the 19th century, by opening up a revolution in the freedom of movement of people from all social classes. 

 

I enjoy making things and I enjoy photography, so I use 'railway modelling' as a way of bringing these two interests together.  I get a lot of pleasure from stimulating my imagination as to how things were in those long-past times. 

 

I realise that many of the people who write in this thread are far more 'professionally' involved and I am glad to learn from their knowledge but, in the end, for me it's a 'pastime' that I find very enjoyable

 

Mike

[LNER4479]

Passage of time is irrelevant when there are books. In 1960 I learned a lot about the operation of the LNWR by joining St.Albans library while there on a short break, and the period that interested me was some 60 years before. So while reading might be too much trouble for some folk, it still remains the best way of obtaining knowledge.

 

 

With regard to the make-up of trains on my railway, I've consulted BR's own documents and looked at pictures in books showing scenes from 50-60 years ago. I then 'copy' those trains. What could be simpler? 

Have to say that I totally agree with this (very interesting) discussion point, very much a 'pet' subject of mine.

 

I have been modelling based on the prototype for 30 years now and have worked for the big railway all my professional career - yet I'm never too old to learn and can always find something useful to add to the knowledge bank when looking at a new book. Time spent looking at pictures of the real thing and absorbing the detail is rarely time wasted (and a particularly useful past time when travelling around and away from the modelling workbench). Time spent browsing second hand book racks is equally enjoyable and enlightening.

 

I would also add that there are few prototype lines or locations for which a specific book (or books) have not been published - just look at the range in the Middleton Press series in the Ian Allan bookshelves for example. Many of these contain details of working timetables, train formations, etc.

 

Bob Essery wrote a series of books on the subject of prototype operation for the modeller (others have probably done similar) and a book like that is a recommended introduction for any who may be daunted by getting to grips with this vast but totally absorbing subject.

 

There again - it is 'only' a hobby and Rule 1 can be invoked at any time!

Edited January 4, 2016 by LNER4479

[Dunsignalling]

Maybe, but judging by today's yoof culture it doesn't have the same kudos or entertainment value as playing games, texting or engaging with social media on an iphone or tablet.

 

G.

That's as maybe, but I have a long-term, multi-faceted  and sometimes challenging hobby which produces tangible results and satisfies me in ways that none of those ever could.

 

It doesn't bother me that overindulgence in such activities is promoted as essential "Popular Culture" (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

 

"Mainstream" equals "Mindless". Always has, always will; only the methods of wasting time change.

 

J.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Dunsignalling

[Focalplane]

The problem with all this soul searching about RTR is that however much people have pride in their kit built locos they still run them on RTP HO track and toy-train pointwork.

 

That is not always true,I have RTR locos on Templot designed copper clad track built to 00-SF standard.  And the reason is exactly what you say in your post.

[60526]

Yes terrible this HO track and toy train pointwork. Absolutely positive that Templot has been nowhere near this

 

[Clearwater]

Maybe, but judging by today's yoof culture it doesn't have the same kudos or entertainment value as playing games, texting or engaging with social media on an iphone or tablet.

 

G.

There is a great iPad/iPhone game called "TrackZ". It's an inglehook shunting puzzle with a weary looking pannier. I can't comment on the accuracy of the shunting operations but it is quite an addictive puzzle game. No connection other than as a user

 

I've played it with my nearly 4 year old son who loves it. Last weekend, I suggested to him we play the game "in real life" albeit in oo on his/our 6' by 4' baseboard. Got out a pannier and five different wagons, wrote each wagon's name on piece of paper, shuffled them and then shunted (we have suitable sidings). He loved it and shouted to his mum "look! We're playing the shunting game in real life!"

 

We also have Microsoft train simulator. I've learnt as much as to how to drive a steam engine from that than I have from any book. Indeed, when I went on a footplate experience on a heritage line, the basics I'd gathered from train sim were invaluable.

 

As with most things, there is a benefit technology can bring in showing old ideas to a new generation. My son and I are never going to see real steam age shunting but the game has given an appreciation of what it involves. I doubt without the game, he would have understood what he needed to do on the oo model.

 

David

[ROY@34F]

...........  I notice Bill Bedford mentioned a 'pick-up goods' and yet I can't recall ever hearing the term 'pick-up goods' (or more correctly 'pick-up freight') ever used by railwaymen during my entire railway career and I worked or spent time at several freight marshalling yards, in England and Wales, working alongside men whose railway employment stretched back to pre-war years - but of course it was on the Western, and we had 'Local Trips' and 'trip freights'.  So terminology varied which perhaps doesn't help much and adds to the confusion.

Sorry Mike,but I have to say in my time at Grantham we used to have a "pick up goods" job to New England . Not sure if we had a northbound equivalent .So as you say just a local thing I guess.

 

Regards,Roy. 

[Willie Whizz]

The problem with all this soul searching about RTR is that however much people have pride in their kit built locos they still run them on RTP HO track and toy-train pointwork.

 

We don't live in an 'ideal world' though.  Isn't it preferable that people do this than that they don't build at all? 

 

Time, space, money and ability are all restricted, to a greater or lesser extent (but with varying proportions in every single case), for - I'd suggest - 97% of railway modellers.   Virtually all of us have to compromise somewhere; the issue of where comes down to individual choice.  I have heard of a couple of cases where a modeller became so deeply committed to his ideal that those compromises were made in other aspects of their life that should have been just as important if not more so; resulting in relationship and financial breakdowns.

 

Show us what is possible yes please; aim to inspire us by all means; but at the risk of my sounding like the Devil's Advocate, please stop telling us we can all 'have it all'.

[wagonbasher]

Bill and Mr Wizz are both correct of course.

 

We do all compromise and we all choose the things we compromise on.  I don't mean to speak for Bill but I think the point he was making is that no one should criticise a modeller for buying RTR stock (that modellers compromise) when there are aspects of the persons own modelling that could be criticised (their compromises).

 

As Spike Milligan said:

 

 

People who live in glass houses

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should pull down the blinds before removing their trousers!

 

 

 

 

Andy 

[Arthur]

in many respects when it comes to prototype knowledge and practice the extent of knowledge among modellers is probably generally similar to the way it was 30 or 40 years ago.  While the steam railway has vanished there are umpteen more printed sources available today than there were at any time in the past, and some of them go back an awful long way into the era of the steam railway.

 

Indeed Mike. I recall reading letters, from those who knew, to the model railway press thirty years and more ago lamenting the poor operating practices on model railways. It has often been said that modellers in the US display more interest in timetables and prototype operations. Possibly because they've long had decent RTR models and track whilst we spent our time improving RTR and building track and kits?

[The Stationmaster]

Indeed Mike. I recall reading letters, from those who knew, to the model railway press thirty years and more ago lamenting the poor operating practices on model railways. It has often been said that modellers in the US display more interest in timetables and prototype operations. Possibly because they've long had decent RTR models and track whilst we spent our time improving RTR and building track and kits?

I think there is something in that Arthur.  Not, I'm sure, the total answer but definitely something to do with it for many (but not all) modellers.

[Poggy1165]

I think the only way to avoid compromise would be to have a stately home, a vast fortune and an incredible range of skills, to say nothing of a comprehensive knowledge of architecture, engineering, railway and social history, etc., etc. Even then the railway would have to end somewhere, unless you were literally in a position to model the whole network, so you would still have the compromise of a fiddle yard, or alternatively a line running from one terminus to another over a mile or two of track, or something of that sort.

 

I suspect we are all selectively blind, in that we just don't notice some 'defects' while others stand out. I really don't notice the odd pipe on a loco that may or may not have been present at such-and-such a date, but I really hate plain wagon interiors, or a rake of PO wagons with all the same number, or no numbers at all. 

 

Some of the fine operational stuff just flies over many people's heads. The traditional steam railway - and the green diesel era which was operated in a similar way - are receding further into history with every day. Yes, there are books you can read, but that's not the same as seeing it yourself. I recall seeing an absolutely beautiful P4 layout a few years back, far superior to anything I could ever attain. But when a train appeared, he shunted it by just about the most laborious and time-consuming method possible. I doubt the train would even have been composed in the way he had it if vehicles were to be detached at the station modelled, but that's another story. 

[Tony Wright]

Ah, that is different, and I cannot disagree.

Neither can I.