Wright writes.....

[coachmann]

 

 

My reference to pristine/weathered items was with regard to a conversation I had with the incomparable David Jenkinson some years ago. I'd photographed a trio of Royal Scots for Modellers' Back Track for him. Two were in original condition (parallel boiler) and one was BRITISH LEGION. They were built by the equally-incomparable Geoff Holt and were painted by either Brian Badger or Larry Goddard.

Take 20 lines and stay in after school young man.     The trio of Royal Scots were painted by Larry Goddard (coachmann)......I painted all Jenks red locos and all the carraiges. All credit to you, they were good photos.

[Tony Wright]

unfortunately yes they do. Someone loves them as he does have a reasonable turnover of stock.

 

Strangely enough I have sold some weathered stock on ebay recently for more than the equivalent unweathered item.  Its like RTR prices v kit built items at Auctions. There is no way an auctioneer can value a kit built item so prices are low... and some people do well out of buying these, sloshing brown rust paint everywhere and selling them on at a goodly profit.

 

baz

Thanks Barry,

 

I think there might be a difference where weathered stock is offered for sale by someone who is known in the hobby for his/her weathering, especially if, like you, they offer a weathering service. It's just that where it looks as if someone has just daubed gone-off paint on a hapless model, I find I'm astonished that anyone would wish to hand over cash for such awful stuff.

 

It comes down, in a way, to whether a weathered item is offered for general sale or is commissioned. If work like that illustrated were commissioned, then one would have to ask by whom? I cannot envisage anyone being in the least bit interested in asking somebody to effectively ruin a reasonable finish with such crude paint application, in a most insensitive manner and then be asked for the dubious privilege of paying for it.

 

As with any modelling, it's wise to consult prototype pictures. Recently, I dug out some trannies I'd taken at 6A 50 years ago, just 18 months before the shed closed. I'll post the results of the scans next week - there is no black anywhere, just various shades of grey and brown. Though they are real, I doubt if anyone would copy the locos illustrated for weathering - it's so extreme!  

[Tony Wright]

Take 20 lines and stay in after school young man.     The trio of Royal Scots were painted by Larry Goddard (coachmann)......I painted all Jenks red locos and all the carraiges. All credit to you, they were good photos.

Take a further 20 lines yourself! You should have written the trio of Royal Scots WAS painted by Larry Goddard, 'trio' being a singular noun in this case (if my grammar serves me). 

 

Really, my apologies Larry, I should have known that you painted all Jenks' stuff. It's just that Geoff built loads of models, some of which were painted by Brian Badger (often for Pete Waterman). To get out of doing my lines and being kept in, I'd say that the model-making and the painting with regard to those Scots was completely complementary. A compliment to the highest possible standards. 

 

Thanks for the comments on the pictures. It must be 20 years ago now that I went up to Rhos to photograph those Scots. It's a sobering thought that the guy I went with (John Horton), the guy I went to see (Geoff Holt) and the guy who commissioned me (David Jenkinson) have all now died. Irreplaceable giants in the hobby in my view. When I look at stuff I was asked to photograph by Jenks, the quality of the work and the quality of the subsequent writing I wonder just how far the hobby has come (or perhaps, gone) in those 20 years. In comparison, we seem to be now swimming in a mainstream (pun intended) of RTR/RTP-generated sameness. 

 

Articles in the model press which were once meaty and text-heavy (I didn't take many trannies of those Scots; just enough) are now digital picture-heavy (I'm guilty of that as well) often describing items that can be built in a very short time. I wonder what one of the greatest model railway journalists would have made of these. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Focalplane]

My wife and I visited a fascinating factory yesterday, Britain's oldest pewter manufacturer, A. E. Williams, established 1779.  Their place is one block away from St. Martins in the Bull Ring, Birmingham.  The coffee pot we took to be re-silvered had been identified as pewter but it turned out that the base alloy is zamak or mazak.  This zinc based alloy is not unlike white metal but a lot more robust.  However, like any similar alloy the individual metals can interact and the result can be a loss of finish or pitting.  In my experience BMC cars were famous for their poor quality mazak castings.

 

A. E. Williams has some beautiful products in their catalogue including pieces made for the movie industry.  We have been invited back for a tour of the factory because they knew of my father's metal finishing business in the Jewellery Quarter (on Legge Lane and the fictitious name for my Gauge 0 project, see below).  Nicer people you would be hard to find and with a great sense of humour.

 

I bring this up because I think some metal kits may include, or have included, pewter castings.  Is this correct?  And if so, is it that pewter is considered too expensive these days?  It is certainly a finer alloy than mazak or white metal.  And quite heavy as well.

[Horsetan]

....some metal kits may include, or have included, pewter castings.  Is this correct? ....

 

Alan Gibson used it for his smokebox/boiler/firebox castings when producing his LMS loco kits. They were quite solder-friendly in the sense that they didn't melt the minute you touched the iron in. The main problem I had with them was that the firebox castings were not symmetrical.

[coachmann]

Spot-on Tony....My wrist has been duly slapped........I was too busy to take on long term projects, and so Mr.Badger got Davids LNWR livery coaches and his Royal train in the end. I was looking at an LNWR 12-wheel coach in Geoff's house one afternoon admiring the LNWR livery when I learned he had obtained it through a swop with Jenks and the LNWR livery was on top of my full panelled LMS livery! 

 

The first person I got to know from the LMS Society was 'Smokey' Bourne in the early 1970's....He was the society's wagon man. Then I met Geoff Holt who was teaching in Boston at the time (I think) and gradually ended up painting for quite a number of LMS Society members. David Jenkinson had seen the coaches I had painted for Neil Corner, which is how we ended up getting together with Geoff Holt on 'projects'. Visitors to our home were really a who's-who of well known writers in the halcion days of magazine articles with meat on them. But as you say, so many of them have gone now.

Edited January 12, 2016 by coachmann

[5050]

Neil Corner, now that's a name to do magic tricks with.  Last time I heard of him he was racing ( and crashing?) classic cars.  I met him a couple of times professionally in the mid 70's and at the time had no idea that he was in any way interested in railways.  It wasn't until I went to Shildon in '75 and his company were sponsoring a loco (Gresley??) that this came out.  He had a lovely layout - but how much of it was his own work?

Edited January 12, 2016 by 5050

[Metr0Land]

Take a further 20 lines yourself! You should have written the trio of Royal Scots WAS painted by Larry Goddard, 'trio' being a singular noun in this case (if my grammar serves me).

Pedant alert: I'm pretty certain (and if Susie Dent says it's so, it must be true) that when you have a singular noun applying to a plural object that you can use the singular or the plural. ie the trio was and the trio were, are both grammatically correct.

[coachmann]

Pedant alert: I'm pretty certain (and if Susie Dent says it's so, it must be true) that when you have a singular noun applying to a plural object that you can use the singular or the plural. ie the trio was and the trio were, are both grammatically correct.

Interesting. The trio of Scots were........does sound better than the three Scots was.... or even the Scots wus....

 

  

Edited January 12, 2016 by coachmann

[glo41f]

Neil Corners layout was described in a very early Modeller's Backtrack. The accompanying words were on the the lines that Neil wanted to take over the mantle of Mr Norris and to this end had acquired some of the stock and buildings from the Norris layout. As far as I am aware the layout has never again appeared in print though I would love to know more about it. If anyone has more info I for one would be glad to learn more. 

 

I also found those Royal Scots mentioned superb. If only........(sigh). 

 

On the weathering topic, do we wish to have "realistic" models that portray the prototypes as they were or pristine show case examples which would protect the owner's investment? (I am not so sure that still applies today). I am with our guru Mr W.on this one and prefer my locos and stock to look as if they worked rather than they have just come out of a museum. Perhpas that will affect the resale value when I am no longer able to play. Should that concern me?

 

Martin Long

[micklner]

....but only sometimes.

Orrible all the time !!

[coachmann]

As a matter of fact Neils layout appears in 'Historical Railway Modelling' by David Jenkinson

[corneliuslundie]

"I'd say that the model-making and the painting with regard to those Scots was completely complementary. A compliment to the highest possible standards."

 

Congratulations on getting complementary and complimentary in the same sentence, both used correctly. It is probably the only time it has happened in the English speaking world this year!

 

In view of this you are let off the 20 lines for a singular verb used with "the model making and the painting" as the subject.

 

And I too prefer my models weathered, not pristine. In my case it doesn't really matter as I doubt if they have any resale value anyway.

 

On the subject of selling EM models, a few years ago a collection from a deceased member was put on sale at Expo EM (I bought one for a very reasonable sum), They had almost all gone by the time the show opened.

 

Jonathan

[Clive Mortimore]

"I'd say that the model-making and the painting with regard to those Scots was completely complementary. A compliment to the highest possible standards."

 

Congratulations on getting complementary and complimentary in the same sentence, both used correctly. It is probably the only time it has happened in the English speaking world this year!

 

In view of this you are let off the 20 lines for a singular verb used with "the model making and the painting" as the subject.

 

And I too prefer my models weathered, not pristine. In my case it doesn't really matter as I doubt if they have any resale value anyway.

 

On the subject of selling EM models, a few years ago a collection from a deceased member was put on sale at Expo EM (I bought one for a very reasonable sum), They had almost all gone by the time the show opened.

 

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

 

But was you to try and flog 'em off at an ordinary show you would have an 'ell of a lot to carry 'ome.

[Tony Wright]

Pedant alert: I'm pretty certain (and if Susie Dent says it's so, it must be true) that when you have a singular noun applying to a plural object that you can use the singular or the plural. ie the trio was and the trio were, are both grammatically correct.

Grammatical rules are forever fluent it would seem. My use of the singular comes from an incident over 50 years ago when I was a prefect at my school. I was requested to look after a class of younger boys for a short time by my English teacher and on his return was asked to report. 'The class were very quiet' I said. 'WAS, WAS!' he roared - 'The class is a single unit in this case, Wright!' I've never forgotten it. 

 

Which reminds me; in my days as a free-lance railway/model railway contributor, I provided an historical piece about a certain LMS class for a major model railway title. In it I wrote 'none of the principal LMS works was in a position to build the locos at the time, so the job was sub-contracted to the NB Co'. Imagine my horror when the editor altered my piece to were. What ignorance, I thought, none being a contraction of not one - thus was. 

[Tony Wright]

Neil Corners layout was described in a very early Modeller's Backtrack. The accompanying words were on the the lines that Neil wanted to take over the mantle of Mr Norris and to this end had acquired some of the stock and buildings from the Norris layout. As far as I am aware the layout has never again appeared in print though I would love to know more about it. If anyone has more info I for one would be glad to learn more. 

 

I also found those Royal Scots mentioned superb. If only........(sigh). 

 

On the weathering topic, do we wish to have "realistic" models that portray the prototypes as they were or pristine show case examples which would protect the owner's investment? (I am not so sure that still applies today). I am with our guru Mr W.on this one and prefer my locos and stock to look as if they worked rather than they have just come out of a museum. Perhpas that will affect the resale value when I am no longer able to play. Should that concern me?

 

Martin Long

Martin,

 

A huge amount of the work on Neil Corner's layout was done by Norman Solomon, including all the trackwork and much of the scenery. He also wired it all up. 

 

The layout was designed by David Jenkinson and photographed by Ron Prattley for Modellers' Back Track. Apparently, according to anecdotal evidence, Neil was not very happy with the pictures (why, I don't know) and didn't want any more taken. Through DJH I investigated the possibility of taking further pictures but nothing came of it. Now retired, in my case, nothing ever will . A pity, because it would make a brilliant subject. 

[Tony Wright]

"I'd say that the model-making and the painting with regard to those Scots was completely complementary. A compliment to the highest possible standards."

 

Congratulations on getting complementary and complimentary in the same sentence, both used correctly. It is probably the only time it has happened in the English speaking world this year!

 

In view of this you are let off the 20 lines for a singular verb used with "the model making and the painting" as the subject.

 

And I too prefer my models weathered, not pristine. In my case it doesn't really matter as I doubt if they have any resale value anyway.

 

On the subject of selling EM models, a few years ago a collection from a deceased member was put on sale at Expo EM (I bought one for a very reasonable sum), They had almost all gone by the time the show opened.

 

Jonathan

Wrist duly slapped. 

 

If one gives, one also has to take! 

[2750Papyrus]

"I'd say that the model-making and the painting with regard to those Scots was completely complementary. A compliment to the highest possible standards."

 

Congratulations on getting complementary and complimentary in the same sentence, both used correctly. It is probably the only time it has happened in the English speaking world this year!

 

In view of this you are let off the 20 lines for a singular verb used with "the model making and the painting" as the subject.

 

And I too prefer my models weathered, not pristine. In my case it doesn't really matter as I doubt if they have any resale value anyway.

 

On the subject of selling EM models, a few years ago a collection from a deceased member was put on sale at Expo EM (I bought one for a very reasonable sum), They had almost all gone by the time the show opened.

 

Jonathan

 

Pretty good to get both in two sentences.......

[Horsetan]

....Neil was not very happy with the pictures (why, I don't know) and didn't want any more taken. ....

Sounds a bit like "it's my layout, and none shall enjoy it except me"....

[PMP]

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. 

Tony et al, apologies for the delay in responding 'life' getting in the way for a while!, and thank you Tony regarding 'flow' and inputs of the thread.

 

Regarding US vs UK 'quality' from earlier periods perhaps Arthur and certainly myself have recalled that in the past that particular debate on various fora has on occasion got un-constructively passionate, if that occurred that would do a great dis-service to this thread. Having had a few days giving a bit of thought to the matter my time lines may have got a bit skewed. It is probably fair to say that the US RTR diesel mechanisms in the 70's through to the mid/late 80's were definitely better overall than our UK versions. By the 90's my recollection having sold plenty of the Lima/Hornby/Mainline varieties at MRM is that UK mechanisms were getting better, I had some really nice running Lima 'pancake' driver 26/7/73's and 31's in particular.

 

The US steam outline in mainstream RTR was and to a degree, (diesel stock being ahead in quality/fidelity) still is quite poor in fidelity and running. It is definitely improving but I think it fair to say the contemporary UK RTR steam types are still overall better than the equivalent US types. I was lucky in that the US brass outline stock we had though the shop was at the top end of quality,  eg PFM (Pacific Fast Mail) being a stocked manufacturer which was particularly good. They were expensive being around the £150 mark at the time, todays equivalent price being £500-700. Again I tested them before despatch, and can't recall a single failure. Our test was limited to a run on a few lengths of straight Peco Streamline, so I never got to see them stretch their legs, but one customer in particular was always very positive about their performance, and he had a standing order almost for one of each new type received. There were/are other brass manufacturers out there and it seems there were very different running qualities from some manufacturers. I was likely very fortunate to be only dealing with the top end of the quality spectrum. I too recall reading of Tony Koesters 'tuning' of his US brass steam fleet, its worth noting that he also fine tuned the running of his stock at the same time, replacement wheelsets for example to overcome some of the RTR stock deficiencies, important when running long trains and climbing/descending/turning. Some of his layouts gradients were also adjusted to assist reliable operation so very much a reasoned and consistent approach to getting reliable and realistic operation.

[PMP]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching such layouts too, either when I visit them or see them at shows. I can watch a "train going by" layout such as Copenhagen Fields or Pendon (or indeed Little Bytham) for ages and just enjoy the spectacle of seeing accurate models of trains running through a convincing scene. Perhaps the biggest crowds round any exhibition layout I have been involved with were around Gresley Beat, which is basically four circuits with trains going round. 

 

The thing is that I enjoy watching them but I don't enjoy operating them. Having an interesting and absorbing layout that can be operated for hours on end without getting bored is something that is new to me and it has hugely increased the satisfaction I get from the hobby.

 

Not everybody wants that from their hobby and it wasn't something I thought I wanted for 30 years but now that I have it, the pleasure I get from it has taken the hobby to another level for me.

 

Regards

 

Tony

 

The bit highlighted in red really resonates for me. t-b-g was kind enough to offer me an opportunity to see and operate Buckingham. Like t-b-g I've been involved with a good few projects over the years, and they've all been a model of a location rather than a system. Operating Buckingham in an evening opened up my imagination and has significantly changed how I'm thinking going forwards. I'm fortunate in having a potentially large space to accommodate a layout, which prior to the above evening would have been a 'location'.

 

 

I have now changed the thinking to produce a 'railway' closely based on the Severn and Wye and Forest of Dean branches. It will consist of a pastiche of locations from across the FoD, with recognisable track layout and structures and operating practices from the railways of the area. A slight adjustment of history will allow a few more passenger trains, the era being 1955-63.  A good element of the stock is based on modified RTR locomotive and rolling stock a mix of RTR and kit built. Without RTR it would be a very different project, there not being available a good quality kit for large pannier, the four above are all modified RTR, nothing remains standard out of the box for long.

 

So in similar style to US thinking I'm using an accurate base RTR model/s, and modifying them to specific locomotives for my era and geographical location. This saves me time, gets me a good unique result, allowing time for development of the layout and other items of stock. I've already tried a US style card/waybill system which is proving quite challenging, most 16T minerals looking pretty similar! What has been interesting is researching how the lines operated and thinking how that can be built into how the model will run to reflect what would have been seen by a lineside viewer. But the real catalyst for this was a 50+ year old layout which by todays standards is quite crude, but very very engaging to operate. The trains have a 'reason' to be moving rather than just passing by and that seems to add something. My proposed design will still have a full circuit capability though, because I still like sitting back on occasion and just watching the trains.

Edited January 12, 2016 by PMP

[St Enodoc]

Grammatical rules are forever fluent it would seem. My use of the singular comes from an incident over 50 years ago when I was a prefect at my school. I was requested to look after a class of younger boys for a short time by my English teacher and on his return was asked to report. 'The class were very quiet' I said. 'WAS, WAS!' he roared - 'The class is a single unit in this case, Wright!' I've never forgotten it. 

 

Which reminds me; in my days as a free-lance railway/model railway contributor, I provided an historical piece about a certain LMS class for a major model railway title. In it I wrote 'none of the principal LMS works was in a position to build the locos at the time, so the job was sub-contracted to the NB Co'. Imagine my horror when the editor altered my piece to were. What ignorance, I thought, none being a contraction of not one - thus was. 

Here in Australia the singular is used when referring to a team, a company or a group, as in "India was beaten by 5 wickets in last night's ODI", whereas in the UK this would be "India were beaten...".

[Barry O]

Here in Australia the singular is used when referring to a team, a company or a group, as in "India was beaten by 5 wickets in last night's ODI", whereas in the UK this would be "India were beaten..."]

Obviously they were taught by my Primary School Teachers .. He said a " team" is a single entity made up of one or more individuals"


Weathering..Tony, many people want locos to look like they did in 1965,66,67 and 68. Unloved and uncared for. I remember them greycoated with patches of brown and while but I prefer them looking like a used loco not an abused one. EBay generates a lot of abused locos including diesels such as very rusty green Deltics...mmmh! St Paddy was scrapped in BR Blue and the steel alloy it was mainly clad in didn't rust a bit like aluminium. But people still buy them...the is no accounting for taste.

Baz

 

edited as it was a Deltic not Celtic...spell checkers are great aren't they..not!

Edited January 13, 2016 by Barry O

[LNER4479]

EBay generates a lot of abused locos including diesels such as very rusty green Celtics...mmmh! St Paddy was scrapped in BR Blue and the steel alloy it was mainly clad in didn't rust a bit like aluminium. But people still buy them...the is no accounting for taste.

 

Baz

...or ignorance.

 

Rusty Celtics eh? Is that a Scottish football team that hasn't played for a while?...

 

 

Here in Australia the singular is used when referring to a team, a company or a group, as in "India was beaten by 5 wickets in last night's ODI", whereas in the UK this would be "India were beaten...".

 

No, no John - you've still got that wrong. In the UK it would be England were beaten by 5 wickets....

[coachmann]

When it comes to weathering locos, folk are perhaps literally using the colours and tones they see in colour albums.  The years 1964-68 were quite unique in peace time in that maintenance was minimal and cleaning non-existent as an actual policy. So obviously those years did not represent preceding years although this did not mean that filthy locos did not exist earlier. I saw some howlers emanating from the Yorkshire side! If rusty metal was showing through on smokeboxes and doors, then out came the trusty gloss black. Now that is something I haven't seen on model locos.

Edited January 13, 2016 by coachmann