Wright writes.....

[Flood]

An on-going joke in the diesel modelling fraternity is from when a well known detailing and nameplate supplier was asked by a customer at an exhibition for some "OO gauge nameplates".

 

We now ask this as a matter of course, just to wind-up said proprietor (Brian at S**wp**n).

[Headstock]

Which A1s and A4s do you know of?

 

Good question, to be honest, I don't recall, I'll have to check through my notes.  We don't run any A1's, A2's or A4's on our layout because they were not very typical of everyday operation. The York A2's based on observations appeared on perhaps one in every ten fitted freights, but only then on a very limited time span that would exclude any working that included a large percentage of BR designed and built fitted stock. There wasn't a balanced working so the locomotives were often spotted returning north on an interesting range of workings. For example, in the case of Cock 'o' the North this was a twenty carriage ECS while Lord President was observed on a single brake van. Interestingly, at the height of the B1 controversy, the Railway press was full of rumors that A2.s would be deployed to the line in some numbers. In the event, A3 pacific's were allocated to Leicester and Neasden in 1949.

 

In the case of the big 8' 6" locomotives, they would have been even rarer. The Starlight Specials proved so popular that BR had to run extra trains to fulfill demand. Again these extras were beyond the remit of even a layout the size of LSGC so I don't recall asking what the numbers of the locomotives involved were. I do recall the A1's were northern engines, possibly Copley Hill and the A4 was rather a surprise to the crew involved. Showing my bias I'm afraid I was more interested in the train formations and workings rather than the more erudite motive power supplied to the extra extras. I will check my backup drives as I have tons more information on the Starlight specials so I may have noted down names or numbers, I know I have some for the A3's. On a final note (for now) I must clarify the above post in that the locomotives worked through to York with a crew change at Sheffield.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Headstock

[grahame]

 

As an aside, why do we now speak of O Scale, OO Scale and N Scale? It really has got me peeved - almost as much as the use of 'train station'!

Yep, agree there, especially as the N stands for 'nine' (millimetres) which is the 'gauge' and not the 'scale'. The scale for N Gauge is variable (mostly dependant on the country - 1:148 in the UK, 1:150 and 1:160 elsewhere) but all run on 9mm N Gauge track.

 

G.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Why were they called 'starlight specials'?  Was everyone going to look at the stars?  What were they for? Where were they going?

[great central]

Regarding Lord President on the GC, I remember as a very young train spotter no more than 5 years old, being thrilled at seeing 60503 on a passenger service arriving at Nottingham Victoria from the south. That is one of my abiding memories along with 92091 my first sight of a 9F around the same time.

[Headstock]

Why were they called 'starlight specials'?  Was everyone going to look at the stars?  What were they for? Where were they going?

 

The Starlight Specials were originally an LNER idea, they were cheap third class only overnight trains that ran from various locations around the country, for example, London to Edinburgh and return allowing a weeks stay in the Scotish capital. They were introduced in 1953 and proved to be  very popular. The name was the branding used in advertising for the service, the Inaugural train ran from Marylebone with a matching service departing Edinburgh. The first train carried roof boards proclaiming the trains identity.

[Clive Mortimore]

I do hate these debates about RTR verses kit built stuff. I am not a fine scale modeller, I do dabble in 00. I have been know to sometimes make my own locomotives, coaches, freight stock, buildings and so on and so on.....I sometimes even make a kit or two but prefer to make me own. It has been known for me to run my D5572, an unmodified Tri-ang Brush Type 2, at exhibitions alongside my scratchbuilt locos. "Why would anyone who builds his own run old RTR along side them?" some of you might be asking? Simple they fit the location and time period I am portraying because to me the overall visual impression is what is important. But that is me, a railway modeller who enjoys my hobby.

 

If you don't like what you are doing in the hobby then find another.

If you don't like what others are doing but are happy with your own modelling, ignore them.  

If you do something different to what others do but enjoy what they do carry on.

If you have fun with the hobby, carry on.

[Headstock]

Regarding Lord President on the GC, I remember as a very young train spotter no more than 5 years old, being thrilled at seeing 60503 on a passenger service arriving at Nottingham Victoria from the south. That is one of my abiding memories along with 92091 my first sight of a 9F around the same time.

 

Yes, that would be right. One of the York locomotives was diagrammed to work back north on one of the local services from Woodford. The reason being that the set employed had worked south  as part of another local set and then split. The two portions would then return north on timetabled services the first with the loco that had brought the amalgamated train south and the second with the loco off the York Woodford fitted freight.

[Barry Ten]

Yep, agree there, especially as the N stands for 'nine' (millimetres) which is the 'gauge' and not the 'scale'. The scale for N Gauge is variable (mostly dependant on the country - 1:148 in the UK, 1:150 and 1:160 elsewhere) but all run on 9mm N Gauge track.

 

G.

 

Fair point there. I default to "N scale" as that seems to be the preferred style of Model Railroader and that's the only magazine where I've written anything about N scale ... er, gauge.

[Headstock]

;

 

The parallel thread on the hobby being at a crossroads continues to be very interesting.

 

 

 

My point is, shouldn't a brand new high-quality product be lubricated at source?

 

I've had a look at this thread tonight and for the life of me I can't find the interesting bit, is it the list of different types of modellers?

 

Perhaps it's an attempt by a guilty manufacturer to get people to do things for themselves, or at least get their friends to do it for them.

[asmay2002]

The scale for N Gauge is variable (mostly dependant on the country - 1:148 in the UK, 1:150 and 1:160 elsewhere) but all run on 9mm N Gauge track.

So is O. 1:43.5 here 1:48 in the US and 1:45 in some other places. 

[Tony Wright]

I do hate these debates about RTR verses kit built stuff. I am not a fine scale modeller, I do dabble in 00. I have been know to sometimes make my own locomotives, coaches, freight stock, buildings and so on and so on.....I sometimes even make a kit or two but prefer to make me own. It has been known for me to run my D5572, an unmodified Tri-ang Brush Type 2, at exhibitions alongside my scratchbuilt locos. "Why would anyone who builds his own run old RTR along side them?" some of you might be asking? Simple they fit the location and time period I am portraying because to me the overall visual impression is what is important. But that is me, a railway modeller who enjoys my hobby.

 

If you don't like what you are doing in the hobby then find another.

If you don't like what others are doing but are happy with your own modelling, ignore them.  

If you do something different to what others do but enjoy what they do carry on.

If you have fun with the hobby, carry on.

I agree with your four statements, Clive, but I don't know if there's any mention of RTR versus kit-built, other than tangentially with regard to haulage. 

 

I'm very much in favour of improvements in RTR and how those improvements might well be bringing folk into or back into the hobby (as alluded to by MickLNER). That said and despite my praise of it, I've decided it's now not for me; a personal choice fitting in very well with your four statements. As I said, I find the situation very liberating and am currently making six kits; four locos and two carriages. In only one case of the six is there a current RTR alternative, so it's very much a case of needs must. 

[Martino]

So is O. 1:43.5 here 1:48 in the US and 1:45 in some other places.

 

And don't even think about G 'scale'.

[unclebobkt]

  ... , it's like saying Goering had some good points. 

 

       In fact didn't the Herr Reichmarshal own a model railway?

  If so I  suspect that he would attract Mr. Wright's ire by being more of a cheque-book modeler.

 

       

[jwealleans]

He had a large railway which was mainly Marklin, I believe.  There are several pictures on the internet.

 

I bet he didn't have to pay for it, though.  Does that still make him a chequebook modeller?

[t-b-g]

He had a large railway which was mainly Marklin, I believe.  There are several pictures on the internet.

 

I bet he didn't have to pay for it, though.  Does that still make him a chequebook modeller?

 

On the ladder of human existence, I would probably put Goering several rungs down from your average chequebook modeller, probably on a completely different ladder.

 

I know some chequebook modellers. They are mostly very nice people who have done well enough to be able to have their dream layouts built for them even though they may not have either the skill or time to do it for themselves. As such, they provide employment for a good number of people who get to do what they enjoy to earn a living instead of having to go out into the world and find real jobs.

 

As such, I am not too keen at seeing such folk being derided. Without them, I would need to find another way to pay my bills!

[jwealleans]

No derision intended.  You're right, there probably ought to be a separate classification (thankfully quite small) for brutal psychotic intimidatory modellers.

[grahame]

You're right, there probably ought to be a separate classification (thankfully quite small) for brutal psychotic intimidatory modellers.

Snag is, that judging from some of the posts I've read (and not just on this forum), the ranks of that classified group might swell significantly.

 

Uuurgh, the thought of it.

 

G.

[polybear]

Tony

 

I must admit to smiling at the mention of the 00 scale modeller!  I think only the S4 types can legitimately claim that!  

 

Martin Long 

 

But presumably only if they model everything on the layout strictly to scale, and not just the track dimensions....

 

Hat, coat, gone.....

[richard i]

In fact didn't the Herr Reichmarshal own a model railway?

  If so I  suspect that he would attract Mr. Wright's ire by being more of a cheque-book modeler.

 

       

And for trying to blow up his parents house by sending bombing raids over Chester.

Richard

[grahame]

Yep, agree there, especially as the N stands for 'nine' (millimetres) which is the 'gauge' and not the 'scale'. The scale for N Gauge is variable (mostly dependant on the country - 1:148 in the UK, 1:150 and 1:160 elsewhere) but all run on 9mm N Gauge track.

 

G.

 

 

So is O. 1:43.5 here 1:48 in the US and 1:45 in some other places. 

 

I didn't realize that those scales also run on 9mm gauge track.

 

G.

 

[Tony Wright]

No derision intended.  You're right, there probably ought to be a separate classification (thankfully quite small) for brutal psychotic intimidatory modellers.

You're right, Jonathan, and I agree that there was no derision intended with regard to chequebook modellers. 

 

Tony Gee is also quite right in that commissioners of models provide employment for a number of highly-skilled exponents of the craft of railway modelling, and then we, as spectators, can see the excellent results at exhibitions, in the press and via the internet. Without patrons, many of those outstanding models would never exist. 

 

Where the term could be derisory is where owners of some of these models don't always tell the whole truth. I'm not suggesting they tell lies (not in a million years) but the acknowledgement for the work of others is not as forthcoming as it should be. I've come across it with regard to some high-profile layouts and some high-profile modellers who've commissioned items to be made. Credit is not always given where credit is due. One well-known author whose layout I photograhed didn't always mention contributors to it as much as he might have. Worse still, some owners of layouts who've made virtually nothing in or on it then get reputations as being some sort of modelling guru. That they are facilitators, there's no doubt, but it's wrong, in my view, that they gain a status which is wholly undeserved, at least at a practical level. Of course, there's an ability in planning a project, getting the right people to build it, seeing it through to completion and planning a running timetable. However, if anything goes wrong, some layout owners are completely stuffed, then having to go back to the builders to help them out.

 

At the risk of sounding a hypocrite, having knackered a point motor, I got Norman Solomon back to help me, only to find (typically) that I could have fixed it myself. In my own case, where I've been involved with the building of layouts where the group has pooled resources and helped each other, I've left the electrickery to others. That said, most of the wiring on LB is mine because if it goes wrong I need to be able to fix it and not be beholden to others. For the person who has done virtually nothing, then they're always going to be in a hostage to fortune situation. 

 

And, what about the chequebook modeller who isn't happy with what's been done? I've known some who now won't be touched by folk who've done work for them in the past. 'Too much hassle' was one comment by one professional model-making friend. That's not to say that anyone should accept work that isn't right, but on one occasion a loco was criticised by the owner for the occasional derailment and 'it was going to have to be fixed'. I investigated, and a bogie wheelset was ever so slightly tight on gauge. I fixed it in moments. How skilled does one have to be to check a b-t-b?

 

Finally, I'm getting back to supporting a chequebook modeller situation, building locos on commission. Two of them should be seen on Grantham at the forthcoming Woking and Warley Shows.  

Edited August 16, 2016 by Tony Wright

[asmay2002]

I didn't realize that those scales also run on 9mm gauge track.

 

G.

 

A scale can run on any gauge. O9 is used to represent 15" gauge.

[Martino]

A scale can run on any gauge. O9 is used to represent 15" gauge.

And there's the rub. We model railway folk often confuse by mixing scale and gauge. My own soap box is the term G Scale, which appears either meaningless or with many meanings! I model in 15mm/ft scale on 45mm gauge track. I understand this is F scale in the US, but falls within G generally.

 

It confuses me, let alone Joe Public!

[grahame]

O9 is used to represent 15" gauge.

Not quite. Surely O9 is 'code' for 9mm gauge track with 'O gauge' stock - but at what scale? 1:43.5, 1:48, 1:45, and so on. And at different scales that 9mm will represent different narrow gauge sizes.

 

The scale gauge combination can be very confusing to the public so as model railway enthusiasts why do we insist on perpetuating that confusion with rather meaningless terms like 'N scale'?

 

G.