Wright writes.....

[Jol Wilkinson]

I am sure many Railway Modellers used to avidly collect scale drawings from the monthly magazines, and then there were the Skinley blueprints. However, scale drawings have always been meaningless in the world of people who depend totally on proprietary RTR, so I suppose one can blame their decline on traditional railway modellers. I started looking out for scale drawings of locomotives and carriages in the early 1960's when building stuff in plastikard in my spare while on the buses. This continued after our move to North Wales, with George Mellor (GEM) at Rhos-on-Sea selling me LNWR boiler mountings and other fittings from his kits. It wasn't until 1968 that I switched to building white metal kits and doing commission work.

 

Perhaps I am typical of older modellers who once built locos in taking full advantage of today's RTR, in fact I should probably be shot for saying I lack the interest in building loco kits today! Carriages are another matter with me though because it is impossible to accurately portray the steam-era without doing some coach building. That said, when coaches are of the caliber of the most recent products from Hornby and Bachmann, I consider building the same prototypes from brass utterly pointless.

 

Larry,

 

one thing that has changed since the 60's and 70's - beyond the move to collecting/modelling as opposed to model making -  is that original works drawings, well researched textbooks, etc. have become more readily available, often through the work of Line Societies. When building a LNWR carriage I can refer to five or more books containing prototype information, "reduced" works drawings, period photographs and drawings produced by someone who has closely researched the subject..

 

Modeler's drawings published in magazines have also been challenged as to their accuracy over the years. They were often drawn by experienced and skilled draftsmen, but as they were covering a wide variety of prototypes from different eras and railways, were understandably not always that familiar with the subject. So the change to improved RTR, together with a drift away from the "do it yourself" approach by the mainstream magazines, means that modeller's drawings are much less important to the magazine reader than previously.

 

Are there fewer traditional modellers? Who knows, although if you based  a view on RMWeb you would probably thinks so. However, nearly all the "model builders" that I know don't frequent this forum. Almost all are members of the "finescale" societies, Line Societies, etc. What I do believe has changed over the years is that the hobby now has a clearer separation between those that make their own "railway" models and those that buy them RTR. The one area of common ground is what we could call "scenic" modelling where the RTR or RTP option isn't so readily available.

 

Jol

[Headstock]

I am sure many Railway Modellers used to avidly collect scale drawings from the monthly magazines, and then there were the Skinley blueprints. However, scale drawings have always been meaningless in the world of people who depend totally on proprietary RTR, so I suppose one can blame their decline on traditional railway modellers. I started looking out for scale drawings of locomotives and carriages in the early 1960's when building stuff in plastikard in my spare while on the buses. This continued after our move to North Wales, with George Mellor (GEM) at Rhos-on-Sea selling me LNWR boiler mountings and other fittings from his kits. It wasn't until 1968 that I switched to building white metal kits and doing commission work.

 

Perhaps I am typical of older modellers who once built locos in taking full advantage of today's RTR, in fact I should probably be shot for saying I lack the interest in building loco kits today! Carriages are another matter with me though because it is impossible to accurately portray the steam-era without doing some coach building. That said, when coaches are of the caliber of the most recent products from Hornby and Bachmann, I consider building the same prototypes from brass utterly pointless.

 

Good morning Larry,

 

I'm perfectly happy to use RTR carriages if they are a good representation of the prototype, with suitable tweaking. The Hornby Maunsell carriages are very good but I wasn't happy with the colour, I decided to repaint (Precision) into malachite to match built examples in the same set  My views on the same companies Gresley corridor stock are probably well known by now, as a result, I still chose to build the prototype even if a RTR version is available.

[Headstock]

My wife and I returned last night from a most-enjoyable Easter weekend spent at the York Show, where I acted as a demonstrator/loco doctor. I also sold several locos/wagon kits once belonging  to deceased modellers/collectors on behalf of their families. 10% of these sales will be donated to Cancer Research. May I please thank all those who bought the items? There are still one or two locos left I've not shown images of - I'll post pictures of these later on. 

 

I thoroughly enjoyed myself; as usual I 'bored for England' and chatted to so many splendid folk. My thanks to all who took the time and trouble to talk to me. Many commented on my piece in the latest RM, saying how much they agreed with my sentiments - I was astonished! One thing I forgot to stress in the piece (and the guy who pointed it out was dead right), was the sense of satisfaction one feels in having made/modified something, by oneself. Not the (no doubt it's there) satisfaction in buying something or commissioning something, but being able to say 'I made that'. 

 

York 17 03 my stand.jpg

 

This was my stand, including two rather nice locos made by a friend. 

 

I also took the opportunity of taking one or two pictures of new/forthcoming products. 

 

Stirling Single 01.jpg

 

Stirling Single 04.jpg

 

The first 'test shot' of the Locomotion/NRM/Rapido Stirling Single was on display. This had arrived a day before the show and was hurriedly primed in readiness. It will drive off both the drivers and the pony wheels, giving adequate traction. 

 

NER Dynamometer Car.jpg

 

Also on display was the resin 'test' for the NER Dynamometer Car of Rails Exclusive/NRM/Rapido.

 

Charlie Petty 156 01.jpg

 

Charlie Petty 156 02.jpg

 

Charlie Petty also had this Scottish Class 156 set, again produced by Rapido. This will have full DCC-capability. 

 

My thanks to those on the Gresley Beat and Whiteacres for allowing me to takes these pictures on their layouts. 

 

May I also please thank Malcolm Scrimshaw and all his team for putting on such a superb York Show this year? There was plenty for real modellers in the form of specialist trade, no plethora of box-shifters and a wonderful selection of layouts. 

Tony,

 

I don't suppose you took any shots with the products out of the way? There are some very nice carriages in the background and a Fruit D up on the bridge. Tourist, Gresley teak and ex NE by the look of them.

[Tony Wright]

Tom, your C12 is lovely, well done on an excellent model! It reminds me that my N gauge version is in serious need of a chassis upgrade! Presently it runs on a modified Dapol 14xx chassis which is lively to say the least. However, it is lack of spoken wheels of this early Dapol effort that really jars with me so I'll have to look properly into an alternative arrangement once I've got some other bits and pieces completed.

 

Tony, I enjoyed your article in Railway Model, indeed it was the reason I bought the magazine. I've recently returned from a few days in Gloucestershire where my girlfriend and I visited both the Dean Forest and Gloucestershire and Warwickshire railways. While I thoroughly enjoyed travelling on the steam lines, my real cop was the purchase of many old magazines and a couple of second hand books for the princely sum of around £5. In nearly every case the magazines predate my birth but the wealth of information and scale drawings has made me rather happy (an unusual situation as I've suffered with serious depression since 2009) and has increased my list of projects for 3D printing quite substantially - Nick Camping's 'Lord Farrington' drawings and notes were a great find for me as I can now directly compare the differences between the Robinson B2s and B3s and modify my B2 CAD work accordingly to one day make a reasonable representation of Valour!

 

I also learnt something new from these references. While my own (embryonic) layout is of a fictional location, I have placed it south of Potters Bar. Over last week's purchasing and reading, I discovered that the LMS (via the old North London lines) ran services on LNER metals around this area and for a long time many of these formations were made up of old North London four wheel stock, hauled by Jintys (and occasionally a Fowler 2-6-2 tank). Further flicking through the magazines I'd purchased revealed that I now own some basic outline drawings of the four wheel stock so an LMS service will be modelled to represent the North London services once the layout is in a more complete state.

 

To tie this in with your article, I think that it is a great shame that scale drawings of locomotives and stock is something that seems to have disappeared from modern magazines. While I appreciate that, due to the (potentially) more limited resources of the draftsmen of the era, the accuracy of the drawings may be questionable but, for me at least, they do provide a good (and cheap at the prices I paid!) starting point for further research before creating the CAD and final 3D prints. Could the withdrawal of regular scale drawings in magazines be linked to the apparent decline of modellers scratchbuilding more obscure prototypes or was the withdrawal due to a perceived lack of interest of the readers? I regularly spend a considerable amount of time finding out which previous editions of magazines published a certain scale drawing and/or suitable reference books and then trying to source copies. With all the drawings penned over the years, could a magazine such as Railway Modeller start to republish these in future editions for those of us not fortunate enough to gain from their benefit the first time around?

Thanks Steve,

 

My first model railway magazine purchases were from the late-'50s and, almost without exception, those of the day included scale drawings of just about everything. Their purpose was, without question, to help modellers make what was represented. Of course, one had to be cautious of the research which had gone into these drawings (and contemporary other drawings), because accuracy was not guaranteed. For instance, Wills designed its A2 kit from the Roche drawing and Millholme designed its A2/3 kit from the Skinley drawing; big, big mistakes! The issue of inaccurate drawings carried on for many years (Ian Beattie's are highly questionable - banjo domes on V2s and A4s with flat-fronted cabs!) 

 

I used to keep all the drawings of interest to me, and scrap the rest of the mags after a time. 

 

When Model Railways came along (under Roy Dock's stewardship), Portrait of a Locomotive used to be featured. These articles used to include accurate scale drawings (by whom?), photographs and full histories. They were invaluable, but extremely costly to produce because they often had gatefold pages (folded pages of greater size). MORILL did similar things. Such things in today's magazines are unheard of.

 

Having been in full-time employment as part of the editorial team of BRM, it's important that magazines live in the current world. They have to make a profit, and it's probably significant that the two magazines (two of the very best) I've cited have disappeared forever. I think it's a fact that fewer and fewer 'modellers' are actually making things in the traditional sense (by that I mean from traditional materials, using traditional methods) and even fewer are truly scratch-building (myself included). 

 

I suppose one converses (mainly) with those who hold similar views. I talked and talked at York, and the same conversations kept on being repeated. These included; how can anyone really be a participant in a constructional hobby when they only use RTR/RTP stuff or get others to do their modelling for them? All they've got are possessions. How can somebody participating in the hobby NOT be able to renumber/rename/weather an RTR loco or item of stock? The future for kits (of all kinds) seems bleak because of the rise of RTR/RTP - I would have thought the likes of London Road Models' products would be immune from the 'threat' of RTR, but not now. Why do folk moan about rising prices? Take the latest Bachmann Thompsons for instance. They're LESS than the component parts for a similar kit! How can one sell kit-built locos for anything but a loss? As is known, I'm selling models on behalf of bereaved families. What price a well-built Nu-Cast K1 when RTR ones were on sale at York for around £80.00? If you get the chance, buy kits/bits/motors/gearboxes/wheels, etc, when you can. A mate recently bought an ABS L1, complete with wheels for £30.00. Where will it all end? 

 

Edited to make grammatical sense. My apologies - I'd put a possessive apostrophe to a manufacturer then not qualified it!

Edited April 18, 2017 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

.......Are there fewer traditional modellers? Who knows, although if you based  a view on RMWeb you would probably thinks so. However, nearly all the "model builders" that I know don't frequent this forum. Almost all are members of the "finescale" societies, Line Societies, etc. What I do believe has changed over the years is that the hobby now has a clearer separation between those that make their own "railway" models and those that buy them RTR. The one area of common ground is what we could call "scenic" modelling where the RTR or RTP option isn't so readily available.

 

Jol

Hi Jol,  I cannot find anything to argue with. A scale drawing was a starting point, followed by scores of photographs which often highlighted any deficiencies in the drawings. And like you, nearly all the model builders i know are not members of RMweb. 

 

I must say that Stirling Single looks a beauty Tony. There must be some clever engineering in there somewhere if it is to go round Settrack curves...

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by coachmann

[APOLLO]

I understand where you are coming from Tony, but for me railway modelling is different strokes for different folks.  My OO loft layout is mostly RTR / RTP though I have made many building kits and even built the odd loco adapting RTR chassis / bodies (A K3 was described on an earlier post). It's basically a large train set running trains etc manufactured from the 60's to current. Not everyone's cup of tea for sure - but it pleases me.

 

I like building layouts scenery and buildings, especially in O scale The biggest modelling "kick" for me was constructing the Rocky Mountain scenery on my O gauge North American layout (link below). 4" x 2" supports, very large & heavy - (hence 4" x 2") rocks of actual  red sandstone, red house plaster on sacking over chicken wire etc. Quite monumental, the highest bit is 6ft 5" above the floor. 

 

I bought a boatload of unmade passenger & freight car kits quite a few years ago. Some were "shake the box" kits, just add trucks and couplers, and a few are "craftsman" kits with just bare materials and a plan. I'll get round to them one day - and if I don't then at least one day they will be made available to some future model builder.

 

Here is some of my own O gauge work. The two Sierra Electric Interurban cars were built from All Nation kits many years ago. Pantographs by Sommerfeldt and powered by a Lima motor bogie. I've yet to add overhead catenary. Spray painted dark Pullman green, lettered using gold Lettraset. The Santa Fe baggage car similar, Rock Island locos & stock (and SP loco) all my own repaints of Atlas RTR.

 

 

I have a few coach kits yet to make. This is what you get. The sides are punched Aluminium (Yanks call it Aluminum !!), Roof is the hard bit. The bass wood clerestory roof section is pre formed, but needs cutting to exact length THEN both ends need rasping down to form the complex curves. Well I managed it OK 20 odd years ago !! There is a large well detailed plan & instruction sheet though

 

 

 

Time marches on. I'm 65 in a couple of months so I had better get cracking on with some of these long postponed projects.

 

Brit15

 

 

[Tony Wright]

I understand where you are coming from Tony, but for me railway modelling is different strokes for different folks.  My OO loft layout is mostly RTR / RTP though I have made many building kits and even built the odd loco adapting RTR chassis / bodies (A K3 was described on an earlier post). It's basically a large train set running trains etc manufactured from the 60's to current. Not everyone's cup of tea for sure - but it pleases me.

 

I like building layouts scenery and buildings, especially in O scale The biggest modelling "kick" for me was constructing the Rocky Mountain scenery on my O gauge North American layout (link below). 4" x 2" supports, very large & heavy - (hence 4" x 2") rocks of actual  red sandstone, red house plaster on sacking over chicken wire etc. Quite monumental, the highest bit is 6ft 5" above the floor. 

 

I bought a boatload of unmade passenger & freight car kits quite a few years ago. Some were "shake the box" kits, just add trucks and couplers, and a few are "craftsman" kits with just bare materials and a plan. I'll get round to them one day - and if I don't then at least one day they will be made available to some future model builder.

 

Here is some of my own O gauge work. The two Sierra Electric Interurban cars were built from All Nation kits many years ago. Pantographs by Sommerfeldt and powered by a Lima motor bogie. I've yet to add overhead catenary. Spray painted dark Pullman green, lettered using gold Lettraset. The Santa Fe baggage car similar, Rock Island locos & stock (and SP loco) all my own repaints of Atlas RTR.

 

DSCF8386rszd.jpg

 

I have a few coach kits yet to make. This is what you get. The sides are punched Aluminium (Yanks call it Aluminum !!), Roof is the hard bit. The bass wood clerestory roof section is pre formed, but needs cutting to exact length THEN both ends need rasping down to form the complex curves. Well I managed it OK 20 odd years ago !! There is a large well detailed plan & instruction sheet though

 

DSCF8384rszd.jpg

 

DSCF8383rszd.jpg

 

Time marches on. I'm 65 in a couple of months so I had better get cracking on with some of these long postponed projects.

 

Brit15

Thanks indeed.

 

You're quite right - railway modelling is all things to all men (and women) and the chaps (and chapettes) I tend to chat to are all model-makers (a good definition, Jol; many thanks) as opposed to users of just RTR/RTP equipment, collectors or commissioners. I think you, judging by what you're doing, can call yourself a model-maker. I 'admit', I use RTR rolling stock (why would I be mad enough to make over 90 Mk.1s when Bachmann does splendid appropriate examples?), but nothing of it is as it was out of the box and I wouldn't dream of paying someone to alter/improve/renumber/detail/weather it for me. It's this kind of 'simple' thing which I believe every railway modeller should at least be prepared to tackle; otherwise they're just collectors or commissioners, at least in my opinion. That said, as I say, I talk mainly to folk with the same viewpoint.

 

I recall an incident (have I mentioned this before?) when I was full-time on BRM, and I'd just written something about a latest manifestation of Hornby's Class 50. Someone phoned up and complained that it wasn't the one he really wanted (with 50 in the class, it's a one-in-50 chance it would be). He wanted such-and-such (I can't recall which), so I said there were many firms who'd supply him with transfers, names, etc, for it to be changed. I was told that he couldn't do that himself. I then gave him a list of professionals who'd do it for him. He couldn't afford their rates. Yet, he went 'ballistic' when I told him he couldn't have it, telling me I was being very unprofessional. The phone went down fast, and he probably never read BRM again! On reflection, I thought why is this guy into railway modelling? It is (above all others?) a multi-faceted creative hobby. If you can't 'create', why take it up? Yes, great enjoyment can be derived from using RTR (I managed that as a kid), but it is much, much more if one alters/improves things; by/for oneself. I'm sure those who get others to do things for them also derive enjoyment, but it'll never be the joy of one who's made/modified it for him/herself, even though the results might not be fantastic.

 

The hobby is about all things, etc, but this thread is a model-makers' thread, for which I'm delighted. 

[grob1234]

Lovely stuff Tom,

 

Just some ten-spoke bogie/pony wheels to finish it off? 

 

And also, and this happens to my weathering all the time, check for 'whiskers' on the INSIDE of handrails, particularly at the front. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thank you for the feedback as ever, Tony. There was me thinking I'd sneak the 12 spokers past you - no chance!

 

Thanks also to everyone who has liked my C12, really rather humbling, especially on a thread like this with so many excellent modelers. 

 

Fully charged up with inspiration and renewed vigor, the W1 will be ready for inspection in the next week or so.

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

I don't suppose you took any shots with the products out of the way? There are some very nice carriages in the background and a Fruit D up on the bridge. Tourist, Gresley teak and ex NE by the look of them.

Sorry Andrew,

 

I didn't. 

[Tony Wright]

Hi Jol,  I cannot find anything to argue with. A scale drawing was a starting point, followed by scores of photographs which often highlighted any deficiencies in the drawings. And like you, nearly all the model builders i know are not members of RMweb. 

 

I must say that Stirling Single looks a beauty Tony. There must be some clever engineering in there somewhere if it is to go round Settrack curves...

 

WEB Stirling Single.jpg

I think a lot of clever engineering has gone into this model, Larry. 

 

It drives off the 8 footers and the rear carrying wheels and the bogie splashers move with the bogie wheels. By restricting the sideplay on the bogie slightly, it actually allows the loco to negotiate quite-tight curves. That might sound daft at first, but what one gets is a short-wheelbase 0-8-0 with more than enough sideways movement. It looks a winner, and it certainly won't affect kit sales, because I don't think there is a current Stirling Single kit in 4mm, or is there? 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

The last Stirling Single that passed through my mits was a Kitmaster I built for display in our local model shop. Geesh....1963? I hadn't started spraying then so I gave the model several coats of much-diluted green enamel (Cherries gloss paint I think) over several days. It was like glass! Lining it out taught me a few lessons haha....

 

Anyway, it is a model I just might get to kick start a funny hour!  It looks neater with that tender than the outside frame version. 

[forest2807]

I think a lot of clever engineering has gone into this model, Larry. 

 

It drives off the 8 footers and the rear carrying wheels and the bogie splashers move with the bogie wheels.

 

Forgive me if I am being a bit slow Tony, but as the wheels are different diameters surely they will revolve at different speeds if powered by the same motor? Or does the clever engineering overcome that?

[Tony Wright]

Forgive me if I am being a bit slow Tony, but as the wheels are different diameters surely they will revolve at different speeds if powered by the same motor? Or does the clever engineering overcome that?

You'll be no slower than I am, Adrian,

 

Speaking to the designer, it looks like he's configured it so that there are (obviously?) different gear ratios for driving each axle. The 'clever' engineering (not design-clever, which was a bit of a disaster) must mean that both sets of wheels revolve exactly as they would if only the drivers were driven.

 

I've tried to get my head round this, but I've just confused myself. I assume the bigger wheels will have a greater gear ratio, or could it be the other way round? Whatever, the motor does drive both respective axles, there's plenty of traction and (thankfully) no need for traction tyres. 

 

There is a separate thread about the single, and Phil Parker also took pictures of it. That thread is probably better-informed about it than this one. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

I think a lot of clever engineering has gone into this model, Larry. 

 

It drives off the 8 footers and the rear carrying wheels and the bogie splashers move with the bogie wheels. By restricting the sideplay on the bogie slightly, it actually allows the loco to negotiate quite-tight curves. That might sound daft at first, but what one gets is a short-wheelbase 0-8-0 with more than enough sideways movement. It looks a winner, and it certainly won't affect kit sales, because I don't think there is a current Stirling Single kit in 4mm, or is there? 

 

Tony,

 

I can't claim to know much about clever engineering in my own modeling but I am not a fan of excessive side play or floppy bogies. I always fit some form of side control to bogies or pony trucks that work's as a self-centering mechanism that guides the driving wheels through curves and point work. Admittedly I work in OO and to a three-foot minimum radius, even so, I have never had to resort to cutting away the back side of cylinders, even on the likes of the B16. It usually consists of a piece of steel wire soldered to the chassis with two vertical prongs that gently curve forwards at right angles like a letter L. This bears on the bottom plate and side frames of the bogie, allowing a little verticle play. It will flex to allow the bogie to move sideways but not enough for the wheels to hit things like cylinders. The restriction effectively steers the front driving wheels into the curves thus avoiding jack-knifing. If the bogie has a top plate rather than a bottom plate, the arrangement is reversed with 'Ski poles' as I call them, bearing on the locomotives mainframes. The double arrangement prevents the bogie lifting as the locomotive corners.

[Headstock]

Being a sort of unofficial loco wrangler on our layout, some absentee landlord kit built locomotives leave a lot to be desired in comparison to modern RTR in that respect. Fortunately, such things have been pretty much eliminated in the early days. I do maintain a small backup stud of RTR locomotives just in case. Back in the day, there was enough people kit building to fulfill all eventualities as regard motive power. Obviously, the rise of RTR is partly the cause of that decline, however with the possible exception of the most exacting duties suitably enhanced RTR do make excellent backup locomotives. I include a photo of one of my three, it isn't often seen on the layout, touch wood I haven't had any failures, though it has been out on loan. It has the usual fiddling with pipe runs, injectors, coal etc.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Tony,

 

the subject of "high" or "low" gear ratios is a confusing and contradictory one.

 

A "low gear" ratio has more output revs for a given input speed than a "high gear" ratio (think low gear and high gear on a road vehicle). The contradiction is that the quoted numerical ratio is the opposite way round. So 2:1 gives a higher output speed than 5:1.

 

Driving wheels of different sizes as in the Stirling Single will require a lower output speed for the for the big wheel and a higher one for the small wheel. The two ratios will be in proportion to the difference in the two wheel diameters. 

 

The gear train will need additional gears but as long as there are an even number of extra gears in the train to the extra axle, the rotation will be in the same direction (I knew my Mech. Eng. course with Ford Motor Co. would come in useful one day).

 

Jol

[Focalplane]

Aluminium or aluminum. The explanation is quite simple. The Aluminium Company of Canada (Alcan) decided to have some stationary printed and submitted Aluminum to the printers. It stuck for posterity in North America. I have always had a conflict over this because the pronunciation of aluminum at an American hardware store had to be understood while the elemental chemist in me says that most elemental metals do seem to end in -ium.

 

Edited to correct Alcoa to Alcan

Edited April 18, 2017 by Focalplane

[APOLLO]

Damn Yanks !!!!

 

At least the C&NW was titled as a Railway (and not a Railroad) - Their double track mainline west out of Chicago was left hand running British style also !!

 

 

 

Brit15

Edited April 18, 2017 by APOLLO

[Focalplane]

Humble apologies.  Alcoa should have been Alcan.  Don't damn the Yankees coz you damn me as well and I made the mistake!

[Tony Wright]

More in the way of locomotives from the estates of deceased modellers/collectors...............

 

I've been requested to find new homes for the following locos. 

 

 

An Alan Gibson F7, built and painted professionally (I don't know by whom, since it's not signed). 

 

 

Another Alan Gibson kit, this time a J15. Built and painted by the same individual (a bit glossy, but well-done).

 

 

A SE Finecast N7.

 

 

And a SE Finecast K3. 

 

All the above locos are OO and run very well. I've cleaned, oiled and adjusted them to make sure they work.

 

Anyone interested, please PM me. 

 

Thanks in anticipation. 10% of the sale of these will go to Cancer Research. 

[glo41f]

Nice to see some GE stuff displayed here. That livery was one of the most attractive along with the SE&CR and the Great Central. It must have been lovely to see those engines in their prime when they were well tended and loved. There is nothing wrong with the models that a judicious flattening would not cure.

 

I made a Gibson J15 once and finished it in scruffy black which is how I remember them. Seeing this one makes me wish I had done it in GE blue. Too late now.

 

I have a friend who has an extensive GE layout with the locos in blue and GE black and seeing it evokes an era long gone where the world was more happy perhaps. Then came WW1!

 

I hope these find excellent new homes.

 

Martin Long

[CoViAnna]

PM sent.

[The Johnster]

Nice to see some GE stuff displayed here. That livery was one of the most attractive along with the SE&CR and the Great Central. It must have been lovely to see those engines in their prime when they were well tended and loved. There is nothing wrong with the models that a judicious flattening would not cure.

 

I made a Gibson J15 once and finished it in scruffy black which is how I remember them. Seeing this one makes me wish I had done it in GE blue. Too late now.

 

I have a friend who has an extensive GE layout with the locos in blue and GE black and seeing it evokes an era long gone where the world was more happy perhaps. Then came WW1!

 

I hope these find excellent new homes.

 

Martin Long

 

I've been a lifelong Great Western man (and think GWR lined green suited every loco BR applied it to) but I have to agree that the GE's livery was one of the best, especially clean.  I've also got a lot of time for early Southern dark green.

[gr.king]

I've been a lifelong Great Western man (and think GWR lined green suited every loco BR applied it to)

Soap. Mouth. Wash.

[The Johnster]

Soap. Mouth. Wash.

 

Though that might happen!  I even think Gresleys look better in it, particularly A3s and V2s, so am quite approving of the liveries on LB.  More blasphemy; the only loco in my view that GW lined BR green didn't suit was the LMS Duchess, which looked magnificent in LMR BR Maroon.  I find Caley blue and LNER apple green a bit gaudy, and SECR just over the top; likewise Stroudley 'improved engine green'.  Locomotives are supposed to work for their living, not look pretty on mantlepieces whatever Ahrons said.  LBSCR Marsh umber brown is a lovely livery.

 

Having set the cat amongst the pidgeons, I'll just get my coat...