Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

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. 

Most eloquently put, if I may say so?

 

Without compromises, I don't think any model railway would be built. It's how any compromises are managed in my opinion, and there are some which I will not accept. Because I choose to model (or rather the guys I'm working with have chosen to model) an actual prototype location, how much compromise should one accept? It's a personal thing, of course, but I won't compromise running by trying to squeeze too much in (resulting in too-tight curves), neither will I compromise by going off-scene via ridiculously tight curves. Because I also model full-length main line trains, to run them on a layout where they effectively fill it would be daft in my view. That said, I'm lucky in having enough space for that not to happen. 

 

 

If you have the space to run full-length trains, then you need locos which will pull them. Today, this Heljan O2/3 took 75 wagons around Little Bytham with some slipping. In fairness, I discovered about five had their 'brakes on', so these were removed and the remaining 70 presented no problems. Running 70 wagons results in my no-compromise notions taking a dent, because the train just looked too long on the layout. It didn't fill the scenic section, but there wasn't a huge amount of empty track ahead of or behind it. Since my maximum freight is 50 wagons, then I can live with that. I did a few more comparative tests, just out of interest, with the following (predictable?) results. A Bachmann 9F had no difficulty on the 75 wagons, neither did one of my cast-metal O2/2s, nor a kit-built V2, nor an ancient K's 2-8-0. Both Bachmann's equivalent 2-8-0s had no chance with 70 - they just didn't move the rake at all, just slipped - neither did a Hornby O1. A Bachmann V2 with a new chassis just about made it on 65, though it was slipping every inch of the way. Though hardly scientific, I think the evidence is that Heljan's forthcoming 2-8-0 is more powerful than any of its RTR equivalents (though I don't have a Hornby 8F or 28XX). 

 

For anyone interested, I'll have the first 'production' Heljan O2s with me at St. Albans, Southampton, Stafford, Doncaster, Glasgow and York, should anyone wish to see them at first hand. If I can find layouts on which they can run at these shows (having asked politely first, of course), then so much the better.

 

 

If you don't have a huge amount of space for your layout, then you'll need more-dainty locos for short trains. I think 'dainty' sums up the LRM D2 perfectly. There's not much more to do now, and it'll be completed by St. Albans, and running (on the Saturday) on Grantham at Stafford (if I ask politely, but it is for that layout). I'll also have it with me at Southampton, Doncaster, Glasgow and York.  

Edited January 4, 2016 by Tony Wright

[PMP]

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 statement that the US has long had decent RTR models and track means they have more time for other things is wholly incorrect.

 

Like the UK RTR market they have had tiers of quality, from custom built, to L/E Brass and a complete cross section of quality and accuracy in the off the shelf RTR products. Its relatively recently that the manufacturers like Athearn have gone for detail specific models correct to road number, prior to that it would have been this an GP35 we can do it (and did) in any number of railroad company liveries that had GP35s regardless if it were that variant or not. One of the reasons Rapido came into being if I recall was that Jason wanted accurate Canadian prototypes, not re liveried US versions. 

The same was true of freight cars, there's any number of incorrect liveries for the freight car the scheme was applied to. Kaydee were one of the companies that got into correct livery+detail, when this happened the prices were higher (same for locomotives), than the corresponding versions applied to any moulding. There's a reason for the plethora of detailing and decal companies in the US market, that's largely because the products were incorrect, or too basic. As for passenger cars it has been a virtual desert until the past ten years or so, where we are now seeing correct prototype liveries on correct vehicles, prior to that is was worse than the freight car products.

 

Track in the US again has been widely available and of good quality, with Shinohara for example providing Code 100 and 75, as reliable/robust and visually good track meeting US prototype appearance since the 1970's. Also the likes of Peco have been in the market, Bachmann/Walthers providing track suitable for US modellers. The statement, 'they've had it better over there' is very often trotted out, but is no where near that simple, in many ways the OO here market has mirrored the US in terms of its recent development, particularly now with accurate to prototype locomotives and rolling stock.

 

Regarding operations and the US interest in timetable operations, there's a simple reason, that being the way the US largely operated, timetable and train order, and is completely different to UK operations. For a US modeller wanting to replicate their system, or operate their trains in a reasonably realistic way they need a basic understanding of the operating rules and protocols, just as 'we' need to have a good idea of how block signalling works for example. Lets not forget too there are an even greater number of modellers both sides of the pond who don't care, they just operate the railway as they see fit!

[PMP]

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.

 

 

Very true, whilst there will always be occasional errors in books they are still a hugely valuable resource. For my particular interests the Forest of Dean, there is no alternative to the books that are out there and finding images at swapmeets and exhibitions or digging through museum and personal archives. Trying to find quality 'data' on line for the Forest of Dean railway operations is a lost cause, there is pretty much nothing. What has been particularly rewarding is that people who know the area and remember what it was like have complimented me on how well I caught the area and its railway/trains. The information I have used has been gleaned largely from books and being able to speak to people who photographed and visited the area.

 

 

A key element though is simple observation, and pretty much copying what I see, simples! 

[Arthur]

The statement that the US has long had decent RTR models and track means they have more time for other things is wholly incorrect.

 

 

 

Is it now.

 

I modelled US prototype a good while back, pre 2000, and the general quality of US outline stock was way better than the general UK equivalent. Of course there were different 'tiers' of quality available but there were plenty of well detailed, accurate and good running models available RTR at reasonable cost while we were sticking bits from Crownline on dodgy Margate models. Several UK based modellers turned to modelling US at the time for this very reason.  As far as track is concerned, they have always, at least, had RTR track available to the correct gauge, something we still don't have in 4mm.  Most of their basement empires used RTR stock on RTR track of one form or another.

 

If you ain't building kits and hand laying track you have time to do something else, fact.  I merely suggested that studying operations might be one.

 

It remains, as an examination of US magazines over the years will testify,that they devote many, many more pages to operation than the UK magazines do.  

 

Not surprisingly, yes, if you want to operate accuratly you need to study your prototype be that US or UK.

 

That there are modellers both here and there that have no interest in operation is not in question, but it is undeniable that it has long formed a greater part of the hobby in the US than here.

[LNER4479]

For anyone interested, I'll have the first 'production' Heljan O2s with me at St. Albans, Southampton, Stafford, Doncaster, Glasgow and York, should anyone wish to see them at first hand. If I can find layouts on which they can run at these shows (having asked politely first, of course), then so much the better.

 

DSC_3604.JPG

 

If you don't have a huge amount of space for your layout, then you'll need more-dainty locos for short trains. I think 'dainty' sums up the LRM D2 perfectly. There's not much more to do now, and it'll be completed by St. Albans, and running (on the Saturday) on Grantham at Stafford (if I ask politely, but it is for that layout). I'll also have it with me at Southampton, Doncaster, Glasgow and York.  

In both cases, I think that can be arranged

[PMP]

 

Is it now.

 

I modelled US prototype a good while back, pre 2000, and the general quality of US outline stock was way better than the general UK equivalent. Of course there were different 'tiers' of quality available but there were plenty of well detailed, accurate and good running models available RTR at reasonable cost while we were sticking bits from Crownline on dodgy Margate models. Several UK based modellers turned to modelling US at the time for this very reason.  As far as track is concerned, they have always, at least, had RTR track available to the correct gauge, something we still don't have in 4mm.  Most of their basement empires used RTR stock on RTR track of one form or another.

 

If you ain't building kits and hand laying track you have time to do something else, fact.  I merely suggested that studying operations might be one.

 

It remains, as an examination of US magazines over the years will testify,that they devote many, many more pages to operation than the UK magazines do.  

 

Not surprisingly, yes, if you want to operate accuratly you need to study your prototype be that US or UK.

 

That there are modellers both here and there that have no interest in operation is not in question, but it is undeniable that it has long formed a greater part of the hobby in the US than here.

 

 We'll have to agree to disagree on the RTR matters, I was modelling US stuff in the late 70's 80's and the reason why I could get detail parts from MRM where I worked and Victors up the road was because the US models were inaccurate, hence we had stocks of  fans/winter hatches/sunblinds/lift rings/bells/horns etc etc from Details West, Detail Associates,Overland and others. Feel free not to take my word for it, however, the introduction in Modelling and Detailing Diesels Vol 1 (1991), ISBN 0-9612692-4-3 does confirm my experience of the same era.  I know of UK modellers who went over to the US side, and I've met more than a few whom didn't realise they were buying a different kind of wrong product! I too like you have done my UK apprenticeship, with Crownline/Puffers/Craftsman/Adpak/ABS et al for UK prototypes.

 

The acurate track and gauge argument is I'd suggest null and void for UK 4mm scale RTR. We are where we are without going through the HO vs OO history debate, and that's not going to change. OO will always look 'wrong', but it can be made to look very good, masking its deficiencies. (N.B. I model in OO and EM) The US and Europe had the bread land butter side up as far as the track story goes. Basement style empires are not as widespread (according to a couple of Canadian shopkeepers I know), as it sometimes appears, but interestingly when you speak to and read of those large layout builders accounts, they often use the cheaper, 'railroad' type products where they have large numbers of rolling stock to utilise. They then detail the basic models with aftermarket products where a noticeable difference can be made effectively in cost/time like etched roof walkways, stirrup steps. It making more economic sense to buy several older Athearn Kits and superdetail them, for the price of a new high spec freight car.

 

 

I certainly agree that the US mainstream publishing media have made a far better job of covering operating issues than the UK equivalent has, and partly integrated that into the model railroading mindset. I can think of more US writers and planners than I can UK equivalents. For me the best UK pieces were Frank Dyers in MRJ, and going back a bit further some of the writings of Jenkins and Essery. The LMS Study Group seemed to get a handle early on, and write engagingly on these subjects as have a number of authors in GWRJ. I was fortunate to listen to Bert Collins and some of his associates too whilst working at Kings Cross, who had first hand knowledge of operations on the Eastern. Such a pity those sources are now gone.

 

edit 4 spellin

Edited January 4, 2016 by PMP

[coachmann]

I started into USA Diesels in 1988. They had central flywheel motors and I commented at the time in one of the model magazines about the crap UK chassis. One thing I did not realise at first was Athearn locos had overscale width bonnets that were a legacy from older motors and chassis so that when I did buy a loco with the correct bonnet, it looked too narrow!!!  At the time I started, the wide-cab diesels had yet to appear, but when they took hold I lost interest in the US scene. Detail-wise the USA knocked spots of anything the manufacturers were producing for the UK market.

[Arthur]

 

Yes, I visited Victors in the 70's and 80's when I lived in London.

 

You are seriously telling me that the general quality of diesel locomotives in particular available to the US modeller from then to around 2000 was no better than the likes of Hornby, Lima and even Airfix? The wheel standards and general running qualities were in another league. Choosing to stick on road specific details does not make the original model generally inaccurate.

 

US mags rarely featured that most time consuming of occupations, loco kit building.

 

The track gauge arguement is not null and void, how on earth can it be? In the most popular scales they have accurate gauge track, we don't, the historic reasons for that do not change the implications in time and effort for the relatively serious modeller in the UK.

 

I accept that basement Pikes were not the norm but virtually every layout featured in the mags was still largely RTR in nature.

 

I'd also suggest that the time saved in stock improvement possibly helped the general standard of US scenic detailing to be of a high quality.

 

Maybe we'll just have to disagree.

[PMP]

Probably best we do for Tony's threads sake. On your original point I suppose the definition of 'decent' obviously means different things to the pair of us. To me modifying the body/livery an US diesel of the era and a Lima Western to improve the fidelity of them are very similar tasks. Thinking retrospectively some of the US chassis did have far better running than ours. However at MRM whenever we sold a locomotive Brass/Kit/RTR of any outline or manufacturer, (in the shop or mail order) we always ran them first. I must have had thousands literally through my hands there, run on an H&M Clipper or Duette and there were very few failures, they all ran well on the whole. The worst/most frequent examples I can recall were the Mainline Warships, 04's and Std4's, then possibly Airfix with the 14xx's and Dean Goods/4F.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

There's certainly something to be said for being able to purchase a decent range of RTR and therefore being able to spend more time on other elements of model railroading, including operations and scenery.

 

I spent some time over the holiday period building a couple of O scale kits, to try and share the sense of accomplishment and virtue that comes from building something.

 

Personally, I felt uninspired by the whole process but that may have been the seasonal Black Dog taking all the fun out of everything I do at the moment.

[St Enodoc]

There's certainly something to be said for being able to purchase a decent range of RTR and therefore being able to spend more time on other elements of model railroading, including operations and scenery.

I agree entirely. So far this week I have built 5 copperclad points on which will run my mixed collection of RTR and kit-built locos and rolling stock. Only another 45 to go for the storage loops.

[unclebobkt]

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? 

 

      Possibly easier to write than to do - especially if one is living at home. where the correct info. should be more easily obtainable.

 

  Sure - photos. are all very well,  but even coloured photos. do not render colours accurately all of the time - to take but one example.

  I know that one can quote "Rule One.",   and that "There's a prototype for everything.",  but  with the desire for authenticity the eagle-eyed will soon see errors:  for example  incorrect number of spokes in the coupled wheels; such a type of buffer is incorrect for the period being modeled;  milk-tankers  were never marshaled as you have done, your prototype railway never used that type of chair for that time-period - and so the list continues.

 

  I suppose that the answer is to become a member of one of the many Societies that have sprung-up to assist neophyte modelers and those wishing to make a representation of some desired area of Britain's green and pleasant land. 

 

  I do realize that I read like Mr. Faintheart to many of you, but it is a great commitment in both time and money to make what might pass for even a fair representation of a chosen location;  and finally on one's departure from this World    what might happen to one's efforts?  Into the skip for many of us,  I fear.

 

        

Edited January 5, 2016 by unclebobkt

[Chimer]

I agree entirely. So far this week I have built 5 copperclad points on which will run my mixed collection of RTR and kit-built locos and rolling stock. Only another 45 to go for the storage loops.

 

I'm looking at my 63" x 57" roundy-roundy and wondering why I'm feeling sympathy for someone with room for 25 storage loops ...... 

[coachmann]

Sure - photos. are all very well,  but even coloured photos. do not render colours accurately all of the time - to take but one example.

 

 

Colour photos render colours inaccurately all of the time. It isn't their purpose to render accurate colours. The whole process starts with the cameraman and any deviation from "correct" exposure begins there even before the processor develops the film, the printer scans the slide and the printing inks get to work...Copying from books merely means copying train consists, copying detail etc.

 

Colour is useful in so far as it shows where the colors were positioned and what is brass and what is copper. When Jane's colour albums were introduced, the first thing I looked at was the tops of splashers on locos in BR green. The Western Region showed some continued in black as per GWR days while others, particularly in the later BR period, were green. The London Midland, Eastern and Southern Regions appeared to be 100% green. Another area was the edge of cab roofs below railstrips...............Some were green and some black and it varied even within a single region. Then there was the matter of ejector pipes, some green (W.Region), some black (L.M.Region).   And Tender running plates.......The wider ones as on ex GWR Tenders were black but ex LMS Stanier Tenders were green.

 

The endless research for minutia is what keeps this hobby so absorbing, well to me at anyrate!

Edited January 5, 2016 by coachmann

[Headstock]

It's up to the viewer to judge whether this looks authentic. What I can tell you, is that it is full of compromises. I think that they are the right kind of compromises, if you can spot them dose it devalue the modelling?

 

Photo courtesy of Derek Shore.

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Headstock

[coachmann]

You have a brilliant railway there Andrew. Have you got a thread with more pictures? It reminds me of the lower reaches of the Woodhead line around Dukinfield, ignoring the GNR signal box and signals. I can easily ignore the flat-bottom track when looking at such fine modelling. Your unlined teak coaches are a delight and they really sum up the post-war 1940's.

[Tony Wright]

      Possibly easier to write than to do - especially if one is living at home. where the correct info. should be more easily obtainable.

 

  Sure - photos. are all very well,  but even coloured photos. do not render colours accurately all of the time - to take but one example.

  I know that one can quote "Rule One.",   and that "There's a prototype for everything.",  but  with the desire for authenticity the eagle-eyed will soon see errors:  for example  incorrect number of spokes in the coupled wheels; such a type of buffer is incorrect for the period being modeled;  milk-tankers  were never marshaled as you have done, your prototype railway never used that type of chair for that time-period - and so the list continues.

 

  I suppose that the answer is to become a member of one of the many Societies that have sprung-up to assist neophyte modelers and those wishing to make a representation of some desired area of Britain's green and pleasant land. 

 

  I do realize that I read like Mr. Faintheart to many of you, but it is a great commitment in both time and money to make what might pass for even a fair representation of a chosen location;  and finally on one's departure from this World    what might happen to one's efforts?  Into the skip for many of us,  I fear.

 

        

It's easy for me to write, because I've done it.

 

Having said previously, I loath pomposity, I hope you don't think the statement above is pompous; it's a matter of fact. It has taken a great commitment in time and money for materials, but it's what I've chosen to do over the last 30+ years. I obtained BR's appropriate Carriage Working books, identified which carriages were required and either made them from kits (self-generated with Dave Lewis on occasions) or adapted RTR examples as appropriate - a process I'm still continuing with because I enjoy making things. 

 

With regard to ER main line prototypes, others have done it/doing it as well; none better than Roy Jackson with Retford, or John Houlden with Gamston, or the guys who built Biggleswade and so on. If skill/time factors militate, then correct trains can be made for you, though there is a natural high cost involved. 

 

I don't think for one minute you're a 'Mr Faintheart'; perhaps 'Mr Pragmatic' is a better epithet, because I realise my approach to prototype modelling is not for all. Though I've had the time and (I hope) skills to obtain what I want (working, as always, with friends), I don't have the fiscal resource to commission just about everything I need/want for my railway. If one has, and that resource has been fairly earned, then that's one way of making dreams come true. 

 

As to what happens to our models after our deaths, who knows? I know everything I've built is listed (over £500.00) for insurance purposes and my wife and sons have access to an inventory of just about everything on the railway; thus, rather than make a list of every item of rolling stock, for instance, whole trains are listed (with their values well in excess of £500.00). As to whether or not any 'valuation' will be realised after my death, I very much doubt it. Why? Because the majority of folk interested in it will be my age or older; thus as near to their own ends as me. My apologies for appearing lugubrious, but, speaking to many in the hobby, these are what might be called the 'last of the golden years'. 

 

Some years ago, I attended a collectors' convention (I won't mention what or where, because it might be prejudicial). To call the attendees 'mature' would be an understatement. The ongoing problem was that as these descendants of Methuselah eventually became deceased, the only folk interested in their collections were just the same age. One item for sale was over £25,000! After I'd wondered whether anyone interested must be mad to pay that for some piece of 80-year old tinplate in a tattered, faded box, I made a mental note (with a friend, sadly now deceased) to look what it might be worth in a further few years. Looking recently, nothing near that! 

 

For my point, since I'm a signed-up atheist, it won't matter a fig to me once I'm done. My descendants will get what they can for the locos/stock and, after its been dismantled, what they can for the layout. One thought I did have was to ask my wife/children on my demise to put an advert in the model railway press stating this; 'Complete, fully-working, fully-stocked, accurate model railway depicting Little Bytham as it was in 1958. Demonstrations and advice for potential purchasers given. £500,000, plus free house!'

 

As to layouts ending upon skips on their builders' demises. The norm' I'd say.   

[Tony Wright]

It's up to the viewer to judge whether this looks authentic. What I can tell you, is that it is full of compromises. I think that they are the right kind of compromises, if you can spot them dose it devalue the modelling?

 

Photo courtesy of Derek Shore.

Brilliant modelling and an equally-brilliant photo. What more can one say?

[Tony Wright]

Probably best we do for Tony's threads sake. On your original point I suppose the definition of 'decent' obviously means different things to the pair of us. To me modifying the body/livery an US diesel of the era and a Lima Western to improve the fidelity of them are very similar tasks. Thinking retrospectively some of the US chassis did have far better running than ours. However at MRM whenever we sold a locomotive Brass/Kit/RTR of any outline or manufacturer, (in the shop or mail order) we always ran them first. I must have had thousands literally through my hands there, run on an H&M Clipper or Duette and there were very few failures, they all ran well on the whole. The worst/most frequent examples I can recall were the Mainline Warships, 04's and Std4's, then possibly Airfix with the 14xx's and Dean Goods/4F.

Paul,

 

This thread is not my property, intellectual or otherwise, so how it develops (or unravels!) is entirely up to others. I must say, though, I'm immensely gratified as to how much interest it seems to attract. 

 

I have very little experience of American-outline models, other than just a few observations. A friend collects (was it originally Japanese?) brass steam-outline US locos and has been doing so for quite some time. He has some from the '60s/'70s which are displayed in cabinets because their running is really awful, and always has been. Is this typical? He seems to think so. All are unpainted and appear to be finished in some kind of lacquer. 

 

Another friend has American-outline diesels in HO. Please don't ask me the types, because I haven't got a clue. There are several of the 'nosed' kind, with the central headlamp and tiny cab windows, through to ones with a cab at one end and tiny switchers. Many are from years ago and they all run superbly; quietly, smoothly and powerfully. I don't know any of the manufacturers, but good running is something he's not surprised at at all. Contemporary British RTR's running is rubbish in comparison. 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

He has some from the '60s/'70s which are displayed in cabinets because their running is really awful, and always has been. Is this typical? He seems to think so. 

 

That seems to be correct.  I recall the other great Tony (Tony Koester) spent a small fortune on getting his Japanese and Korean brass NKP steamers rebuilt by Cheat River Works in order that they could reliably haul realistic trains. 

 

90% of US diesel rtr was and is excellent.  The other 10% was Model Power/Tyco...

 

I abandoned UK outline model railways in the 90s for the following 3 reasons, 1) terrible couplers, and if you go prototypical, too tiny for my eyesight 2) narrow gauge track 3) awful mechanisms, high speed bag of spanners the lot of 'em.  Over 20 years later I see no compelling reason to return.  One of those problems has been improved, the other two are still deal breakers for me. 

 

My minimal interest in UK model trains is satisfied by occasional tinkering in O.

[Focalplane]

Tony, I have a small collection of American H0 locomotives and stock and many were acquired in the 1980s. The diesel electrics run better than the steam locos from that period, no doubt about it. More recently the steam locos have improved a lot, say starting around 2000.

 

I have a lot of Accurail box cars, with price tags around $10 each, that have more detail than many RTR British vans on sale today. With Kadee couplers they really look prototypical. Accurail seems to have disappeared and many modern box cars can cost a lot more money for very little improvement in detail, etc. Another brand by Walthers featured simple tank car kits of old oil companies like Sinclair and Cities Service. Easy to assemble and ready painted, a long rake was easy to put together.

 

The lacquer was used on brass models to stop the inevitable tarnish process. In this form the model was never intended to be painted and used, just part of a collection, perhaps even as an investment. The Brass Brown Book was and maybe still is the investor's bible. The best brass articulated steamers can change hands for several thousand dollars, but the value is all on the make, country of origin and size of run. Not my scene at all.

[Clive Mortimore]

OK in defence of the British outline diesel model locomotives. The above posts reflect on the state of play 30 years ago, they were not very good runners, but they were equal to most American outline diesels in detail and looks. Now lets look at what we have now, centrally mounted motors driving all axles form all wheel pick up. Detail that is the equal to any modern steam outline model locomotive, if not better in many cases.

 

Three of my purchases this year have been wonderful. Two from Heljan, the class 05 shunter looks good and runs beautify and the Gloucester Parcels DMU, again looks good and runs beautify. Now if Tony had one of these for his 75 wagon test, it would have even pulled the ones with their brakes on. They out haul most diesel loco models and think the real thing were only designed to pull a couple of vans behind them. The other loco is the Sutton Locomotive Works BR-Sulzer Type 2 Bo-Bo, it is outstanding. Not only is the level of detail brilliant but it is the first RTR locomotive that when you order it you can specify which of the 4mm gauges you model in. A RTR P4 loco or EM as well as 00.

 

On our club test track despite being built with no designed gradients does make many of today's steam outline locos slip with very moderate loads. None of the diesels that club members have ran in recent years have had this problem. So please can everyone stop knocking diesel models, the likes of Tri-ang and Lima are in the past so lets keep them there.

[Headstock]

You have a brilliant railway there Andrew. Have you got a thread with more pictures? It reminds me of the lower reaches of the Woodhead line around Dukinfield, ignoring the GNR signal box and signals. I can easily ignore the flat-bottom track when looking at such fine modelling. Your unlined teak coaches are a delight and they really sum up the post-war 1940's.

 

Thanks for the comments, the railway is Leicester South, to which I am a mere contributor. My biggest compromise (or advantage) is that I work as part of a team, so I am reliant on others to produce scenery, track ect. As a result I contribute a large percentage of the trains running on the layout.  The signal and and signal box, (built by John Marsh and Derek Shore) are authentic recreations of the prototypes.  The track is a compromise for practical reasons, it being easy to repair if damaged on the exhibition circuit. 

 

The train is the 10.35 pm off Manchester London Road, so would never be seen in daylight.  On departing Leicester it was formed of three passenger carriages, with a through carriage from Liverpool, and seven BG's, most picked up on route. At Leicester an XB, containing bakery items and 5 vanfits (fish) where added to the tail end. The Locomotives are both modified RTR. They are Woodford K3 1870 and Neasden D11 Jutland.  The intention is to replace the K3  with a Sheffield B1, more appropriate for the train, and time period. It would also be symbolic of the impact that these locomotives had on the indigenous GC locomotives at that time.  The K3 will find employment on the return working of the 'Banbury motor'.  As you can see my own preoccupations are with the trains, and also the sequence we run at exhibitions.  The sequence is based on prototypical working, with the compromise that it must entertain.  After all people pay good money to visit an exhibition.

 

Regarding a thread of my own, I have considered it, but presently feel that it would seriously infringe on my modelling time. Perhaps in the future, as I am interested in promoting more prototypical trains.  Others may disagree, but I think you can spot made up trains on a model railway quite easily. I would add that my comments come from the point of view of an exhibitor. My feelings are that if you expect people to pay for the privilege, you need to go the extra mile. 

 

In order to produce prototypical trains, you really can't do it with RTR alone. I would always encourage a bit of kit building because I think it makes your trains better.  However, I would not like to tell people what they should be doing in their own homes, but on an exhibition layout, there is really no excuse in my opinion.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

OK in defence of the British outline diesel model locomotives. The above posts reflect on the state of play 30 years ago, they were not very good runners, but they were equal to most American outline diesels in detail and looks. Now lets look at what we have now, centrally mounted motors driving all axles form all wheel pick up. Detail that is the equal to any modern steam outline model locomotive, if not better in many cases.

 

Three of my purchases this year have been wonderful. Two from Heljan, the class 05 shunter looks good and runs beautify and the Gloucester Parcels DMU, again looks good and runs beautify. Now if Tony had one of these for his 75 wagon test, it would have even pulled the ones with their brakes on. They out haul most diesel loco models and think the real thing were only designed to pull a couple of vans behind them. The other loco is the Sutton Locomotive Works BR-Sulzer Type 2 Bo-Bo, it is outstanding. Not only is the level of detail brilliant but it is the first RTR locomotive that when you order it you can specify which of the 4mm gauges you model in. A RTR P4 loco or EM as well as 00.

 

On our club test track despite being built with no designed gradients does make many of today's steam outline locos slip with very moderate loads. None of the diesels that club members have ran in recent years have had this problem. So please can everyone stop knocking diesel models, the likes of Tri-ang and Lima are in the past so lets keep them there.

Clive,

 

I've re-read the last two or so pages and I can't find anyone 'knocking diesel models', other than what you've reiterated in your first paragraph above. My quote regarding 'contemporary British RTR's running is rubbish in comparison' was just that - British RTR's running contemporaneous with 30-year old (and more) American-outline HO, and not just diesel-outline. 

 

Do you also think that anyone might be surprised by your observation that 'today's steam outline locos slip with very moderate loads?' Why do you think I choose to build my own steam-outline models? I'm delighted by three of your purchases this year having been wonderful (you've been quick off the mark!). Of course, today's diesel-outline RTR models have fantastic haulage. They've now got it right - decent motors/flywheels, all-wheel pick-up, all-wheel drive and plenty of ballast. I have a Heljan BTH Type 1, and that will pull 75 wagons with ease (far more than the prototype). It looks good, too. It was a gift from a friend and I'm very appreciative of it.

 

And I don't think anyone's suggested that we don't leave Tri-ang or Lima diesels where they belong - in the past.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Tony Wright

[5050]

Following the above discussion about the relative merits of US and UK outline locos, particularly diesel outline, here is an American (well, Austrian to be precise) and British combination.  A Roco chassis from a Baldwin 'Shark Nose' diesel with a baked bean tin size motor/flywheel wedded to a Class 22 body converted from the Hornby Class 29, all done WELL before the RTR version arrived!  I've heard of other US/UK combinations being performed BITD before the 'modern generation' UK outline models appeared on the scene.

 

Needless to say it runs well, far better than the Hornby original!

 

One of these days I might finish it...................