Wright writes.....

[Bucoops]

06-04 fr painted small.jpg

This A4 is 7mm from the Finney kit, it even has all the inside motion although you can't see it. Superb painting and photo from Ian Rathbone.

 

We are not worthy

[thegreenhowards]

 

Thanks, as always, for such stimulating discussion.

 

As promised, the rest of my A4 collection (the class, of course, being far more interesting to me, and no less stylish, than the Blue Pullmans). 

 

60008 on afternoon Talisman.jpg

 

This is a modified Hornby A4, which Ian Rathbone painted for me. It's happy enough on this eight-car (mainly kit-built) set, but on nothing heavier. 

 

60018 on Up express.jpg

 

This is my other modified Hornby A4 (which, forgive me, I'd quite forgotten about). It was supplied as SPARROW HAWK (which I saw quite often), and all I've done is fit scale plates and weathered it (John Houlden dusted over a final coat with his airbrush to unify its appearance; totally in the Gateshead tradition of BR standard grime). Other mods include close-coupling the loco to tender, replacing the bogie wheels with something much more realistic in appearance and removing the superfluous guard irons from the bogie (why do Hornby fit two pairs on the bogie? The extra ones - up to 1953 - should be on the frames). 60008 was altered in the same ways.

 

I rarely use either of the above A4s because they're no really 'mine'. Though they're my property, they're really the work of a far-away factory. Not only that, they're a bit feeble when it comes to hauling heavy, kit-built cars, and Hornby's basic finish doesn't really look 'right' to me.

 

60014 0n Down express.jpg

 

Though it could be argued (with justification?) that this old loco (40 years and counting) might look a bit lumpen in comparison, I still much prefer this prehistoric Wills creation, sitting on top of a scratch-built chassis, to anything RTR. Why? Because (apart from the superlative Ian Rathbone painting, which lifts it beyond the mundane), it's all my own work. She goes like a bomb and 'recreates' a treasured childhood memory of my seeing my first A4 - this one.

 

This preference might seem a bit perverse. Aren't we striving to produce the most 'accurate' models we can? If an RTR equivalent is better-looking and more accurate than anything we might have made, shouldn't this me used instead? My answer to that is a qualified 'no'. To me, and I hope this has come across throughout this thread, it's always far better to have made something for yourself (however humble in comparison) than to 'rejoice' in being the owner (however good it might be) of something straight out of a box. I qualified the 'no' because I feel there's also great merit in having adapted/altered/improved/weathered an RTR item, providing you've done it yourself. Then, it's a great deal more than just a possession.  

 

60027 0n Up Elizabethan.jpg

 

Speaking of possessions, this really is only that to me. It's a Golden Age A4, and I'm still puzzled why I bought it (other than I had, at the time, and very rarely, a bit of spare cash). At over £1,000 it's definitely a high-end, model railway possession, but I never use it. Why? For exactly the same reasons as cited before (though it will pull anything) - it's just not 'mine'. I'm quite happy to call the house I live in 'mine' and the car I drive 'mine', because neither of them represent a constructional hobby and I wouldn't dream of building a house or making a car; the former would collapse and the latter would crash! It is, of course, a personal point of view, but I couldn't be involved in a constructional hobby where I didn't construct things. 

 

As for this A4, though it's beautifully-finished, one might, at the price, have expected a shedplate to have been fitted. One might (and this is something I fit as appropriate) also have expected the strip (which used to carry the stainless steel embellishment) to have been present at the base of the tender's tank - something MERLIN's tender always carried. 

 

Might we see some other A4 models, please? 

Tony,

 

Gosh this thread moves on apace! I've been too busy to catch up for a few days, and there were about 10 pages to wade through covering a range from signal interlocking through coupling systems to Blue Pullmans...all very entertaining and informative. 

 

I'm interested in your oft quoted comments about the (lack of) haulage capabilities of RTR locos. I've found that with a little lead added they pull just about anything asked of them (although my 14 coach 'Aberdonian' rake is a tall order for most things including DJH kits). As a rule of thumb, I find 12-14 RTR cars or slightly fewer kit built cars are fine with an A4, and slightly less with an A3 (as there's less room for lead). I have a Wills A3 on a Hornby chassis which romps round even on the Aberdonian - my most powerful steamer. For example, this standard but weighted Hornby A4 romps round with no wheel slip on my newly completed 10 car Elizabethan rake. Apart from the 2 mark 1s at the back, these are all Southern pride brass sides on Bachmann donors with MJT heavy duty bogies. 

 

I recognise your other reasons for kit building which are certainly all valid - especially if one can build a chassis as well as you can. I must sort out the finish (and early crest) on the A4 above. Do others find that RTR locos are too weedy for prototypical length trains?

 

Please wish Mo a speedy recovery from me.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Headstock]

A most interesting post, Andrew; my thanks for writing it. 

 

I, too, was taken to model railway shows as a wee boy by my dad. It would be in the '50s and they were staged in Chester's town hall. Chester MRC used to put it on, and (from memory) it was all their own work. There was usually an O Gauge layout and a large OO system, featuring a continuous run, with a terminus in the middle. Was it called Chestergate, I wonder? Everything on it was made, including some fantastic, elastic-band-driven chassis and Emmett/Heath Robinson-like creations, run sporadically, to a commentary, to please the kids (and not just the kids). It was wonderful modelling, and it left an indelible memory. 

 

A little later on in my life (though still a sprog), I was being fitted out for a new school blazer at Bradley's, in City Road in Chester (does anyone remember the firm's slogan 'Boys Can Be Boys in Bradley's Clothes?) . The chap who measured me up (it was a Barathea blazer, and I was under fear of death if I damaged it!) was a member of the club, and I recognised him. He invited my dad and me to the clubrooms (though I cannot remember where they were). I was still too young to take the hobby 'seriously', but later on I actually joined the club as a junior. There was a different OO layout there then (the clubrooms by now were in Chester Northgate Station - how appropriate), overseen by a fierce character called Ted. My friend and I started running some Hornby-Dublo two-rail stuff on it, at speed, and Ted nearly exploded. 'Get that rubbish off!' he exhorted' I've built that track and you'll damage it with your crude models!' 

 

It was clear, the philosophy at Chester MRC was 'we build things'. Granted, today's RTR offerings are probably superior to what the likes of Ted and the Bradley's man made, but the former's no-nonsense attitude probably sowed the seeds in my mind to follow a similar 'make-it' path. I'd like to think so.

 

What does all the above show? That we've actually gone backwards with regard to 'modellers' actually making things in this hobby (and not just locos/rolling stock)? Certainly, if recent visits to model railway clubs are anything to go by, a large majority of the members are just happy to turn up and run their latest purchases, round and round on the test-tracks. I took a couple or so of my recently-built locos along and there was incredulity among some; questions such as 'Did you really make those?' being asked, as if they'd never seen the like before. There was also incredulity at the price I'd paid for the bits. 'That's over twice as much as I paid for this' said one, as he proudly stuck a straight-from-the-box Hornby Pacific under my nose. And, he still thought that the prices he was having to pay now for his RTR items were 'stupid'.  

 

I am not denying anyone the right to own the models they wish, but is this typical of many model railway clubs these days? Though I'm still a member (I might even still be the President) of Wolverhampton MRC, because of geography now I rarely attend, but it was never like that there. The OO test tracks were Stoke Summit or Charwelton and, though these were both used for running RTR stock, there was always a majority of kit-built stuff which was being tested.

 

If the future for model railways (in all scales/gauges) would appear to be so RTR-dominated or 'modellers' being reliant on commissioned work, then, please, count me out. It certainly wasn't at Chester over 60 years ago, so why should it be now? 

 

I'm with you and your LS colleagues. Let's make things ourselves; it is, after all, a constructional hobby. Or, is that a bit 'elitist'? I hope not.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Elitist? certainly not in your corner of the playground. It seems to me that you encourage others to get involved and 'gently' prod people in the direction of better modelling, It would seem to be an inclusive approach, certainly this thread welcomes all, and of many different abilities. Some as experienced contributes and others as newbies, but all equals with a common interest in making things for themselves. RTR has become the de facto average in model railways, certainly in 4 mm scale, however, nobody was ever inspired by the average in any walk of life.

[Headstock]

 

Thanks, as always, for such stimulating discussion.

 

As promised, the rest of my A4 collection (the class, of course, being far more interesting to me, and no less stylish, than the Blue Pullmans). 

 

60008 on afternoon Talisman.jpg

 

This is a modified Hornby A4, which Ian Rathbone painted for me. It's happy enough on this eight-car (mainly kit-built) set, but on nothing heavier. 

 

60018 on Up express.jpg

 

This is my other modified Hornby A4 (which, forgive me, I'd quite forgotten about). It was supplied as SPARROW HAWK (which I saw quite often), and all I've done is fit scale plates and weathered it (John Houlden dusted over a final coat with his airbrush to unify its appearance; totally in the Gateshead tradition of BR standard grime). Other mods include close-coupling the loco to tender, replacing the bogie wheels with something much more realistic in appearance and removing the superfluous guard irons from the bogie (why do Hornby fit two pairs on the bogie? The extra ones - up to 1953 - should be on the frames). 60008 was altered in the same ways.

 

I rarely use either of the above A4s because they're no really 'mine'. Though they're my property, they're really the work of a far-away factory. Not only that, they're a bit feeble when it comes to hauling heavy, kit-built cars, and Hornby's basic finish doesn't really look 'right' to me.

 

60014 0n Down express.jpg

 

Though it could be argued (with justification?) that this old loco (40 years and counting) might look a bit lumpen in comparison, I still much prefer this prehistoric Wills creation, sitting on top of a scratch-built chassis, to anything RTR. Why? Because (apart from the superlative Ian Rathbone painting, which lifts it beyond the mundane), it's all my own work. She goes like a bomb and 'recreates' a treasured childhood memory of my seeing my first A4 - this one.

 

This preference might seem a bit perverse. Aren't we striving to produce the most 'accurate' models we can? If an RTR equivalent is better-looking and more accurate than anything we might have made, shouldn't this me used instead? My answer to that is a qualified 'no'. To me, and I hope this has come across throughout this thread, it's always far better to have made something for yourself (however humble in comparison) than to 'rejoice' in being the owner (however good it might be) of something straight out of a box. I qualified the 'no' because I feel there's also great merit in having adapted/altered/improved/weathered an RTR item, providing you've done it yourself. Then, it's a great deal more than just a possession.  

 

60027 0n Up Elizabethan.jpg

 

Speaking of possessions, this really is only that to me. It's a Golden Age A4, and I'm still puzzled why I bought it (other than I had, at the time, and very rarely, a bit of spare cash). At over £1,000 it's definitely a high-end, model railway possession, but I never use it. Why? For exactly the same reasons as cited before (though it will pull anything) - it's just not 'mine'. I'm quite happy to call the house I live in 'mine' and the car I drive 'mine', because neither of them represent a constructional hobby and I wouldn't dream of building a house or making a car; the former would collapse and the latter would crash! It is, of course, a personal point of view, but I couldn't be involved in a constructional hobby where I didn't construct things. 

 

As for this A4, though it's beautifully-finished, one might, at the price, have expected a shedplate to have been fitted. One might (and this is something I fit as appropriate) also have expected the strip (which used to carry the stainless steel embellishment) to have been present at the base of the tender's tank - something MERLIN's tender always carried. 

 

Might we see some other A4 models, please? 

Tony,

 

Gosh this thread moves on apace! I've been too busy to catch up for a few days, and there were about 10 pages to wade through covering a range from signal interlocking through coupling systems to Blue Pullmans...all very entertaining and informative. 

 

I'm interested in your oft quoted comments about the (lack of) haulage capabilities of RTR locos. I've found that with a little lead added they pull just about anything asked of them (although my 14 coach 'Aberdonian' rake is a tall order for most things including DJH kits). As a rule of thumb, I find 12-14 RTR cars or slightly fewer kit built cars are fine with an A4, and slightly less with an A3 (as there's less room for lead). I have a Wills A3 on a Hornby chassis which romps round even on the Aberdonian - my most powerful steamer. For example, this standard but weighted Hornby A4 romps round with no wheel slip on my newly completed 10 car Elizabethan rake. Apart from the 2 mark 1s at the back, these are all Southern pride brass sides on Bachmann donors with MJT heavy duty bogies. 

DSC_1586.jpg

 

I recognise your other reasons for kit building which are certainly all valid - especially if one can build a chassis as well as you can. I must sort out the finish (and early crest) on the A4 above. Do others find that RTR locos are too weedy for prototypical length trains?

 

Please wish Mo a speedy recovery from me.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

The combination of Heavy trains and weighted RTR definitely shortens the life of the locomotive. Usually the wheels axels and the valve gear are the most prone to failure but motors can go too.

[Northmoor]

What does all the above show? That we've actually gone backwards with regard to 'modellers' actually making things in this hobby (and not just locos/rolling stock)? Certainly, if recent visits to model railway clubs are anything to go by, a large majority of the members are just happy to turn up and run their latest purchases, round and round on the test-tracks. I took a couple or so of my recently-built locos along and there was incredulity among some; questions such as 'Did you really make those?' being asked, as if they'd never seen the like before. There was also incredulity at the price I'd paid for the bits. 'That's over twice as much as I paid for this' said one, as he proudly stuck a straight-from-the-box Hornby Pacific under my nose. And, he still thought that the prices he was having to pay now for his RTR items were 'stupid'.  

 

I am not denying anyone the right to own the models they wish, but is this typical of many model railway clubs these days? 

 

I'm with you and your LS colleagues. Let's make things ourselves; it is, after all, a constructional hobby. Or, is that a bit 'elitist'? I hope not.

Tony,

I'm still very much at the "starting out" in modelling - after about 35 years of not getting around to it - so I am decades of experience behind you, but reading this forum inspires me greatly to build and not just place on the track.  But I will make a few points in response:

1. I suspect most clubs 50 years ago, had as much RTR been available (even at the same quality as the contemporary models), would have been just as now.  

2. The reaction you received to having made something like a locomotive, is the same reaction I get from some people after I tell them I changed the oil on my car at the weekend.  Sometimes I even get weird looks when I admit to changing a headlamp bulb.  It is a lack of ability and desire to be independent which afflicts many of my own generation, let alone that of my children's.

3. People now expect everything to be perfect AND cheap.  After all, compared to 20 years ago, mobile phones now have about 1000x the functionality and in real terms cost about half as much, so there is an expectation that this should apply to everything.  The difference is that a batch of a thousand iPhones is probably made in one shift. A model locomotives batch of a thousand or two might be the total produced, so we don't benefit from anywhere near the same economies of scale.

 

Meanwhile, please keep making things that inspire us all.

 

Rob

[CF MRC]

Elitist? certainly not in your corner of the playground. It seems to me that you encourage others to get involved and 'gently' prod people in the direction of better modelling, It would seem to be an inclusive approach, certainly this thread welcomes all, and of many different abilities. Some as experienced contributes and others as newbies, but all equals with a common interest in making things for themselves. RTR has become the de facto average in model railways, certainly in 4 mm scale, however, nobody was ever inspired by the average in any walk of life.

I think the thing that has revolutionised my approach to modelling and communicating with others is the phone camera. It enables one to show how something is made, very easily. So, my postings on the 2mm section are very much aimed at showing ‘how to do it’ and maybe encourage people to re-discover some almost lost techniques. I also use the camera to check if things are correct: the camera lens is far less forgiving than the British standard eyeball.

 

Tim

[westerner]

, nobody was ever inspired by the average in any walk of life.

A question: what if a persons best shot only approaches somebody else's average. Perhaps that average inspired them to produce their best, even if to others it is only average.

 

I'm sure you get my meaning.

[Headstock]

A question: what if a persons best shot only approaches somebody else's average. Perhaps that average inspired them to produce their best, even if to others it is only average.

 

I'm sure you get my meaning.

 

There is a poll on here somewhere that indicates that the average modeller uses RTR in preference to kit or scratch building. By definition anyone, regardless of ability, who makes things for themselves is not average and thus has the potential to inspire.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Headstock

[Clive Mortimore]

A question: what if a persons best shot only approaches somebody else's average. Perhaps that average inspired them to produce their best, even if to others it is only average.

 

I'm sure you get my meaning.

 

So they are both average, I'm not inspired.

Hi Alan and Andy

 

I am only an average modeller, if I need to be placed in a category.

 

I would rather spend time with an average modeller who through his company I can gain inspiration than a frustrated modeller who has reached the limit of his abilities but continues to aspire to something he/she will not achieve. I have a good friend who has abandoned more projects than I can count. Everything to him has to be 100%, yet when he has helped me with my layouts, which never will be 50% correct he has a good time.

 

Some so called higher than average modellers seem to be unable to inspire me. No matter how good their modelling is.

 

It is great to inspire people. A few years ago at the Nottingham exhibition a modelling friend was on a demonstration stand cutting bits of plastic. He express his gratitude to me for inspiring him to pick up a craft knife and have a go himself. His models are wonderful. Later on when the various prizes were being given out, he won one for his scratchbuilding. He came over to me to thank me again, I was just so pleased he had picked up that craft knife, made some models which someone else thought worthy of a prize. I felt I had a prize because I had inspired him, what a great prize that is.   

 

There are times when inspiration may not be a good thing when I am viewing a small diesel depot that would be a nightmare to operate in real life. "Thanks Clive, your layout Pig Lane was a real inspiration."

[Tony Wright]

 

Thanks, as always, for such stimulating discussion.

 

As promised, the rest of my A4 collection (the class, of course, being far more interesting to me, and no less stylish, than the Blue Pullmans). 

 

60008 on afternoon Talisman.jpg

 

This is a modified Hornby A4, which Ian Rathbone painted for me. It's happy enough on this eight-car (mainly kit-built) set, but on nothing heavier. 

 

60018 on Up express.jpg

 

This is my other modified Hornby A4 (which, forgive me, I'd quite forgotten about). It was supplied as SPARROW HAWK (which I saw quite often), and all I've done is fit scale plates and weathered it (John Houlden dusted over a final coat with his airbrush to unify its appearance; totally in the Gateshead tradition of BR standard grime). Other mods include close-coupling the loco to tender, replacing the bogie wheels with something much more realistic in appearance and removing the superfluous guard irons from the bogie (why do Hornby fit two pairs on the bogie? The extra ones - up to 1953 - should be on the frames). 60008 was altered in the same ways.

 

I rarely use either of the above A4s because they're no really 'mine'. Though they're my property, they're really the work of a far-away factory. Not only that, they're a bit feeble when it comes to hauling heavy, kit-built cars, and Hornby's basic finish doesn't really look 'right' to me.

 

60014 0n Down express.jpg

 

Though it could be argued (with justification?) that this old loco (40 years and counting) might look a bit lumpen in comparison, I still much prefer this prehistoric Wills creation, sitting on top of a scratch-built chassis, to anything RTR. Why? Because (apart from the superlative Ian Rathbone painting, which lifts it beyond the mundane), it's all my own work. She goes like a bomb and 'recreates' a treasured childhood memory of my seeing my first A4 - this one.

 

This preference might seem a bit perverse. Aren't we striving to produce the most 'accurate' models we can? If an RTR equivalent is better-looking and more accurate than anything we might have made, shouldn't this me used instead? My answer to that is a qualified 'no'. To me, and I hope this has come across throughout this thread, it's always far better to have made something for yourself (however humble in comparison) than to 'rejoice' in being the owner (however good it might be) of something straight out of a box. I qualified the 'no' because I feel there's also great merit in having adapted/altered/improved/weathered an RTR item, providing you've done it yourself. Then, it's a great deal more than just a possession.  

 

60027 0n Up Elizabethan.jpg

 

Speaking of possessions, this really is only that to me. It's a Golden Age A4, and I'm still puzzled why I bought it (other than I had, at the time, and very rarely, a bit of spare cash). At over £1,000 it's definitely a high-end, model railway possession, but I never use it. Why? For exactly the same reasons as cited before (though it will pull anything) - it's just not 'mine'. I'm quite happy to call the house I live in 'mine' and the car I drive 'mine', because neither of them represent a constructional hobby and I wouldn't dream of building a house or making a car; the former would collapse and the latter would crash! It is, of course, a personal point of view, but I couldn't be involved in a constructional hobby where I didn't construct things. 

 

As for this A4, though it's beautifully-finished, one might, at the price, have expected a shedplate to have been fitted. One might (and this is something I fit as appropriate) also have expected the strip (which used to carry the stainless steel embellishment) to have been present at the base of the tender's tank - something MERLIN's tender always carried. 

 

Might we see some other A4 models, please? 

Tony,

 

Gosh this thread moves on apace! I've been too busy to catch up for a few days, and there were about 10 pages to wade through covering a range from signal interlocking through coupling systems to Blue Pullmans...all very entertaining and informative. 

 

I'm interested in your oft quoted comments about the (lack of) haulage capabilities of RTR locos. I've found that with a little lead added they pull just about anything asked of them (although my 14 coach 'Aberdonian' rake is a tall order for most things including DJH kits). As a rule of thumb, I find 12-14 RTR cars or slightly fewer kit built cars are fine with an A4, and slightly less with an A3 (as there's less room for lead). I have a Wills A3 on a Hornby chassis which romps round even on the Aberdonian - my most powerful steamer. For example, this standard but weighted Hornby A4 romps round with no wheel slip on my newly completed 10 car Elizabethan rake. Apart from the 2 mark 1s at the back, these are all Southern pride brass sides on Bachmann donors with MJT heavy duty bogies. 

DSC_1586.jpg

 

I recognise your other reasons for kit building which are certainly all valid - especially if one can build a chassis as well as you can. I must sort out the finish (and early crest) on the A4 above. Do others find that RTR locos are too weedy for prototypical length trains?

 

Please wish Mo a speedy recovery from me.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Thanks Andy,

 

Mo is getting better; it's kind of you to ask. 

 

For my own purposes on Little Bytham, I find RTR locos pretty hopeless. Yes, this evidence is anecdotal, but it has some empirical validity when friends/visitors bring RTR locos along to try. In fairness, they're not universally-hopeless (Westerner's Castle fairly flew round - but only on ten cars). Friends have brought Hornby A3s and A4s and they simply won't take the heaviest trains, two of which are 14-cars long (mainly kit-built). Bachmann's LNER Pacifics are a bit more sure-footed (with added weight and the bogie springs chucked away), but they give up at the top end as well. I haven't tried adding weight to Hornby's locos because there doesn't seem to be too much space inside and the A4s (in particular) are a bl**dy nuisance (with the lubricator drive) to get apart! 

 

Nothing of the above should be taken as a criticism of current RTR locos. Where has it ever been claimed by the RTR boys (and girls?) that their products will pull 'house bricks'? Never. They'll pull their own plastic rolling stock, and that's that. 

 

There are exceptions. Bachmann's 9Fs will take any of my trains, and so will Heljan's O2s. Any RTR diesels are pretty capable, too. 

 

Where there are other direct comparisons, however, the kit-built locos are more powerful, more reliable and, certainly, more robust. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Andrew P]

Good to hear Mo is improving Tony, please give her my regards.

[Tony Wright]

A question: what if a persons best shot only approaches somebody else's average. Perhaps that average inspired them to produce their best, even if to others it is only average.

 

I'm sure you get my meaning.

Good question, Alan,

 

The mentioning of averages seems to suggest mathematics, which almost always baffles me (the only averages I was ever interested in were my bowling ones at the end of a season). 

 

The dear old Railway Modeller always used to have as its strap line 'For the Average Enthusiast', which rather seemed to imply, at least to me, that periodicals like The Model Railway News were for the 'Above Average Enthusiast', and as for the 'Below Average Enthusiast', who knows? Certainly (and this is not just the RM), from the media in general it would seem that today's average enthusiast is very reliant on RTR/RTP than ever was the case in the past. 

 

Which rather raises the question, or it does to me; are those who build things for themselves 'above average'? Perhaps a better question might be, are the results of what folk build for themselves generally better than something which is available out-of-a-box? To that, my answer would be (from my own observations) 'No'! How many kit-built SE&C loco models match, particularly in the finish, RTR equivalents? 

 

Averages change, of course. An 'average' RTR from the '70s (say, a Palitoy 4-6-0?) would be considered very much below the average today. One could argue that, from now on the RTR products can never get better - they're as good as anyone could hope for, especially at the price. 

 

But, whether hand-made things are better (and, by analogy) worse (or below average?) than ready-made things is entirely irrelevant to me. I include what you do with regard to improving RTR in exactly the same way as I do the work of those who build loco kits. It's personal, it's inventive, it's unique, it's creative, it's inspirational and (dare I say it?) it's definitely above average. 

 

In the final analysis, and this is my belief, it's the personal making of things (whatever it is, and however humble in comparison it might be) which is far more important than where what they make might be on a scale of comparisons. It's the folk in this hobby who make things/modify things/adapt things/ improve things by themselves who are 'above average'. And, always will be in my book. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited February 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

Good question, Alan,

 

The mentioning of averages seems to suggest mathematics, which almost always baffles me (the only averages I was ever interested in were my bowling ones at the end of a season). 

 

The dear old Railway Modeller always used to have as its strap line 'For the Average Enthusiast', which rather seemed to imply, at least to me, that periodicals like The Model Railway News were for the 'Above Average Enthusiast', and as for the 'Below Average Enthusiast', who knows? Certainly (and this is not just the RM), from the media in general it would seem that today's average enthusiast is very reliant on RTR/RTP than ever was the case in the past. 

 

Which rather raises the question, or it does to me; are those who build things for themselves 'above average'? Perhaps a better question might be, are the results of what folk build for themselves generally better than something which is available out-of-a-box? To that, my answer would be (from my own observations) 'No'! How many kit-built SE&C loco models match, particularly in the finish, RTR equivalents? 

 

Averages change, of course. An 'average' RTR from the '70s (say, a Palitoy 4-6-0?) would be considered very much below the average today. One could argue that, from now on the RTR products can never get better - they're as good as anyone could hope for, especially at the price. 

 

But, whether hand-made things are better (and, by analogy) worse (or below average?) than ready-made things is entirely irrelevant to me. I include what you do with regard to improving RTR in exactly the same way as I do the work of those who build loco kits. It's personal, it's inventive, it's unique, it's creative, it's inspirational and (dare I say it?) it's definitely above average. 

 

In the final analysis, and this is my belief, it's the personal making of things (whatever it is, and however humble in comparison it might be) which is far more important than where what they make might be on a scale of comparisons. It's the folk in this hobby who make things/modify things/adapt things/ improve things by themselves who are 'above average'. And, always will be in my book. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

This is all getting very Ruskinian. Not that I disapprove in any way. .... and of course it is raising many of the same issues. Rather ironic therefore that it is the railways (although admittedly modelling them) that is causing the debate.

[thegreenhowards]

The combination of Heavy trains and weighted RTR definitely shortens the life of the locomotive. Usually the wheels axels and the valve gear are the most prone to failure but motors can go too.

 

Andrew,

 

I have experienced that on one occasion when I stripped the plastic gears on a Hornby A3! But only once and the parts for the repair were pretty reasonable. Other locos seem fine, so I think it's luck on how well put together the RTR loco is.

 

Andy

[thegreenhowards]

 

 

Where there are other direct comparisons, however, the kit-built locos are more powerful, more reliable and, certainly, more robust. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

I've seen your locos run and recognise that they are as you describe. However, while thanks to your help (for which I'm very grateful), I've now got some kit built chassis to run reasonably well, I'd certainly say that they create far more problems than RTR chassis unless built be someone of your expertise. Part of my problems are caused by the difficulties of getting DCC to work on an all metal loco..... for which I expect no sympathy from you!

 

I'll continue trying to kit build the occasional chassis and I hope that they will get easier and more reliable with practice but for the time being, my preference will be to build the body and find an appropriate RTR chassis to put it on whenever possible - sacrilege, but I know what works for me. That way I have more time available to make prototypical rakes of coaches which, I hope you'd agree, is equally worthwhile model making.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

Andrew,

 

I have experienced that on one occasion when I stripped the plastic gears on a Hornby A3! But only once and the parts for the repair were pretty reasonable. Other locos seem fine, so I think it's luck on how well put together the RTR loco is.

 

Andy

Interesting, Andy,

 

I have to say I've been surprised by the number (most usually Hornby, though not exclusively) of modern RTR locos which have appeared at my loco clinic at recent shows. It's either a poor motor (burnt out in a couple of cases), or a gear-train not working (a gear wheel split?) or the valve gear mangled, all of which results in a poor or non-runner. I've been able to fix a few. 

 

Bachmann split-chassis locos regularly appear as well - they fully live up to their description; they split! 

 

What's even more interesting is that older (much older) Tri-ang/Hornby locos which arrive for my 'doctoring' are much more easy to fix. For one, you can get into them, and, two, once the unbustable XO4s have had new brushes fitted, been cleaned and oiled, they carry on into the next generation. As for the more-modern Hornby tender drives I get to try and fix; let's not go there. 

 

Lima 'pancake' motors are a bit crude, but once cleaned and oiled, they, too, carry on for many more years. 

 

Older Farish N Gauge stuff I refuse to touch!

 

It would seem to me that, with regard to more modern (OO) RTR, steam-outline locos, don't expect them to be anywhere near as robust (mechanically) as their predecessors and don't expect them to last anywhere near as long, especially if they're hauling heavy trains. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[thegreenhowards]

Interesting, Andy,

 

I have to say I've been surprised by the number (most usually Hornby, though not exclusively) of modern RTR locos which have appeared at my loco clinic at recent shows. It's either a poor motor (burnt out in a couple of cases), or a gear-train not working (a gear wheel split?) or the valve gear mangled, all of which results in a poor or non-runner. I've been able to fix a few. 

 

Bachmann split-chassis locos regularly appear as well - they fully live up to their description; they split! 

 

What's even more interesting is that older (much older) Tri-ang/Hornby locos which arrive for my 'doctoring' are much more easy to fix. For one, you can get into them, and, two, once the unbustable XO4s has had new brushes fitted, been cleaned and oiled, they carry on into the next generation. As for the more-modern Hornby tender drives I get to try and fix; let's not go there. 

 

Lima 'pancake' motors are a bit crude, but once cleaned and oiled, they, too, carry on for many more years. 

 

Older Farish N Gauge stuff I refuse to touch!

 

It would seem to me that, with regard to more modern (OO) RTR, steam-outline locos, don't expect them to be anywhere near as robust (mechanically) as their predecessors and don't expect them to last anywhere near as long, especially if they're hauling heavy trains. 

 

That all sounds plausible, and mine don't get used anywhere near as much as yours, so in time I may be very disappointed! I've had a few valve gear mangles on both RTR and kit built locos, but they're normally easy enough to fix so I wasn't counting that. Obviously old X04/ Lima stuff has other issues which mean that it's not really worth considering them.

[Tony Wright]

The recent talk concerning 'averages' has set me thinking. 

 

As is probably well-known, I have a very extensive model railway photo library (unfortunately, it doesn't now include the majority of pictures I took of David Jenkinson's work, which seems to have disappeared into a black hole at PE10 9PH). I've just had a quick flick through a (tiny) part of it and dug out a few examples of what I consider above-average modelling.In some cases the examples are way above-average. 

 

My selection is entirely unscientific and not at all comprehensively representative, but, I hope, it's interesting and, even, inspiring.

 

 

I've found a more up-to-date picture of a Bachmann Blue Pullman running on LB. I think it's safe to say that this is an above-average RTR product, though why does the set need a horrid tension-lock coupling on the front? Were the real sets ever coupled together? 

 

 

One of the finest builders of locos was the late Geoff Holt, and this superlative MR 4-4-0 in S7 is a fine example of his craft. It could well have been painted by Larry Goddard, one of the top (and way above the average) painters. 

 

 

Eric Farragher's Clifton and Lowther is N Gauge as it should be in my opinion. It's just featured in the RM (with my pictures) and at the Stafford Show over the weekend. It'll also be at Glasgow and Ally Pally. At a time when one still sees N Gauge layouts (and not just N Gauge to be fair) with everything crammed in and nowhere for the eye to rest, this is exquisite in my view. Many items of the locos/stock are modified RTR.

 

 

 

Geoff Haynes (a very good friend) is now in business as a professional builder and painter. This Duchess is all his own work, built from a Finney kit. Like all successful professionals' work, it's never going to be an 'average' job; it's way above that!

 

 

Another professional builder/painter whose work it's been my privilege to photograph is Steve Barnfield, creator of this scratch-built A1/1 in 7mm.

 

 

Nick Dunhill is another top builder, as illustrated by this 7mm Princess. Warren Heywood did the painting.

 

 

How one rates kits is often open to debate and many (even now) can fall into the 'below average' category. Not so one of Pete Waterman's JLTRT kits in O gauge, in this case a 2F. Are these among the best 7mm kits on the market? 

 

 

Returning to what might be perceived as 'average' in the OO RTR market, this Golden Age A4 is certainly way above that (as its price would indicate). It shouldn't have frame-mounted guard irons in this condition, though. I snipped the ones off mine. 

 

 

How one judges layouts in the 'average' stakes is very subjective and fraught with differences of opinion. However, I don't think that anyone would disagree that the Gresley Beat is up among the current best. 

 

 

 

And, another way-above-average layout under construction right now is Pelaw South in EM. 

 

As I say, this little selection shows how good some current modelling is. I admit that I'll never be able to achieve some of the standards shown above, but I can still find them inspirational. 

 

I hope you enjoy this selection. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[60526]

So Tony, if you were to start today on building a kit for an A3 and an A4, which manufacturers would you choose irrespective of whether they are still available.

 

Good to here that Mo is on the mend, did you pay her back for the Mailcoach brake you bought at Stevenage? Charlie

[Tony Wright]

That all sounds plausible, and mine don't get used anywhere near as much as yours, so in time I may be very disappointed! I've had a few valve gear mangles on both RTR and kit built locos, but they're normally easy enough to fix so I wasn't counting that. Obviously old X04/ Lima stuff has other issues which mean that it's not really worth considering them.

Thanks Andy,

 

I wasn't suggesting that you use the older-fashioned XO4 type motors (though Pendon did, and I've still got a couple of very old kit-built locos with them inside). I doubt if they're happy with DCC, either. 

 

I think what you've also pointed out is true, that DCC is more-suited to plastic-bodied locos, though an electrically-dead chassis under a metal body should be OK. 

 

I hope you're not going to be disappointed, but one friend, with a substantial fleet of split chassis locos sees them failing one by one. I know split chassis aren't really suited to DCC; hence their being abandoned now. 

 

I'd persevere with building your own locos (and still carry on building rakes, now you're retired). They really are much more satisfying. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

So Tony, if you were to start today on building a kit for an A3 and an A4, which manufacturers would you choose irrespective of whether they are still available.

 

Good to here that Mo is on the mend, did you pay her back for the Mailcoach brake you bought at Stevenage? Charlie

Interestingly Charlie, I'm just about to order two more kits, one for an A3 and one for an A4. The A3 will be from DJH (to become MERRY HAMPTON) and I think I've found another Pro-Scale A4 (to become GANNET). Failing the Pro-Scale A4, it'll be SE Finecast. 

 

Mo's much brighter, thank you - the doc' confirmed that this morning. 

 

Of course I paid her back! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[chrisf]

The recent talk concerning 'averages' has set me thinking. 

 

As is probably well-known, I have a very extensive model railway photo library (unfortunately, it doesn't now include the majority of pictures I took of David Jenkinson's work, which seems to have disappeared into a black hole at PE10 9PH). I've just had a quick flick through a (tiny) part of it and dug out a few examples of what I consider above-average modelling.In some cases the examples are way above-average. 

 

My selection is entirely unscientific and not at all comprehensively representative, but, I hope, it's interesting and, even, inspiring.

 

Bachmann Midland Pullman 02.jpg

 

I've found a more up-to-date picture of a Bachmann Blue Pullman running on LB. I think it's safe to say that this is an above-average RTR product, though why does the set need a horrid tension-lock coupling on the front? Were the real sets ever coupled together? 

 

 

Yes, when they had been transferred to the WR after the Midland Pullman ceased.  The two 6-car sets were fitted with jumper cables and came up from Bristol in the morning as a 12-car, returning in the evening.  During the day, for a time, one set ran to Oxford and back but this working was not a great success.  I'm not sure what the other 6-car did but someone will know!

 

Chris 

[60526]

Interestingly Charlie, I'm just about to order two more kits, one for an A3 and one for an A4. The A3 will be from DJH (to become MERRY HAMPTON) and I think I've found another Pro-Scale A4 (to become GANNET). Failing the Pro-Scale A4, it'll be SE Finecast. 

So would you consider the SEF A3 too old? I'm just looking ahead to retirement in about 18 months, I've already got a DJH A3 to make, I also picked up an unmade SEF A3 for a possible 60113 conversion although it could be POW 60054, finally decided that they are going to be EM for a bit of a challenge.

[Tony Wright]

So would you consider the SEF A3 too old? I'm just looking ahead to retirement in about 18 months, I've already got a DJH A3 to make, I also picked up an unmade SEF A3 for a possible 60113 conversion although it could be POW 60054, finally decided that they are going to be EM for a bit of a challenge.

I've built several Wills/SE Finecast A3s, but the DJH one (particularly with regard to the choice of tenders) is superior in my opinion. 

[thegreenhowards]

Thanks Andy,

 

I wasn't suggesting that you use the older-fashioned XO4 type motors (though Pendon did, and I've still got a couple of very old kit-built locos with them inside). I doubt if they're happy with DCC, either. 

 

I think what you've also pointed out is true, that DCC is more-suited to plastic-bodied locos, though an electrically-dead chassis under a metal body should be OK. 

 

I hope you're not going to be disappointed, but one friend, with a substantial fleet of split chassis locos sees them failing one by one. I know split chassis aren't really suited to DCC; hence their being abandoned now. 

 

I'd persevere with building your own locos (and still carry on building rakes, now you're retired). They really are much more satisfying. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

Thankfully I don't have any split chassis locos. My return to the hobby 5ish years ago post dated split chassis for most locos, and I only had a couple from my teenage years which have since been sold. I've avoided buying any, both because they're difficult with DCC and because I read that they were poor runners/ unreliable.

 

Don't worry, I'm not giving up on any form of model making - just concentrating my efforts on what I feel is time efficient.

 

Regards

 

Andy