Wright writes.....

[APOLLO]

My Dad was on that railtour! He still talks about it to this day. Thought he was on for the 'ton' descending Stoke Bank.

 

Dad's copy of the Colin Walker book has been on long term loan to me ever since the start of the Grantham project. An idea for the next time out with Grantham Tony as we could indeed try recreating the Colin Walker picture with the Grantham town scene in the background? Just need an 'elephants ears' version of 60106...

 

Nice to read that someone still remembers the railtour and the performance put up by Flying Fox that day - It's a superb photo and I'm only sorry it can't be posted here for all to appreciate. Aren't Colin Walkers photos & books simply superb - I have most of them, the Great Central Twilight trilogy being my favourite.

 

Dare I mention I have a Hornby 60106 Flying Fox with Elephants Ears - dreaded tender drive also - she runs just about OK but won't do "the ton" !!!

 

Thanks for the Shap memory photo on your fine layout. A couple more photos from that day perhaps of interest to modellers.

 

73045 leaves Huddersfield on her way to Scarborough (not via Leeds or we would have stayed on). Interesting LMS porthole coach.

 

 

Carlisle Upperby - couple of Met Vick Co-B0's on shed. One seems to have full yellow ends.

 

 

Somewhere on the WCML - telegraph pole & LNWR signals alas no more. (Note the cinder on lens !!).

 

 

We have lost a lot more than steam locomotives over the years.

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

I think many people feel that it's an infringement on Rule One, that they're being told "Well, you're having fun that way, but you ought to be having fun this way. I have fun this way, you should be more like me." Obviously that's an exaggeration, and I don't think anyone advocating "making" really does think that way. But there does seem to be this assumption from some modellers that those who build layouts using RTR are somehow inferior, as opposed to taking advantage of what is available to achieve the results they want from the hobby, and when they grow up they'll enjoy the hobby the way "makers" do. Worse, that those who are happy with RTR and RTP are somehow a problem in the hobby, that we must show them the way. I should point out that while the majority of my 00 stock is RTR, I do use kits and in 009 (for which there is very little appropriate to my interests RTR) I scratchbuild a lot of stuff, so I'm somewhere in the middle on all this.

A sound and reasoned post; my thanks.

 

I think what some of my critics missed was that I wasn't 'looking down' on those who used RTR (though the chap who showed me the loco might have thought that. However, he did shove it under my nose proclaiming the 'way forward'). In fact I was offering encouragement. That, and the reference to 'howlers' was with regard to articles I'd seen in the media over the last two or three years. Articles aimed at beginners, full of errors, written by some of those who should have known better.

 

As for 'knowing better', what better a way than to acknowledge the receipt of a bumper parcel of model railway items donated by a very kind guy from Northern Ireland called Syd. It arrived today, and the contents will be given away to well-mannered children or sold on behalf of CRUK. Many thanks Syd.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

[Chamby]

Since we’re into showing our Enterprises, here’s mine, in 1949 condition. A straightforward modification of Hornby’s current R3518 ‘Gay Crusader’, renumbered and relettered. There are so many versions of Hornby’s A3 available, this one comes close as she’s already in Apple green with a single chimney, Streamlined dome and right hand drive, but the tender has been swopped with another model to give her the correct high-sided non-corridor type.

 

Weathering, working lamps, coal and crew to follow... plus a sound chip is planned when Locoman releases his A3 chip. I think this illustrates the point well about simple detailing of RTR models being able to give you a pretty good representation of a prototype, well within the capabilities of most people.

 

Enterprise was the last A3 to receive her British Railways 60000 series number, by a clear three months, in October 1949 at the time she was repainted into express blue. I’m not exactly sure how long she kept the LNER lettering on her tender, it is most likely she ran with BRITISH RAILWAYS lettering for most of her time in Apple Green post nationalisation, but I can’t be sure... does anyone have a dated photo that can confirm this or otherwise?

 

Phil

 

[Headstock]

The last couple of posts, one from Tony and then from Eric (Merlin60027) prompted me to reply.

I am a distinctly average solo modeller, with no background or training in engineering, painting, carpentry, electrical work, etc. I will never, with the best will in the world, reach the calibre of some of the posters here, Grahame's architectural work, for example, is jaw dropping, and the same can be said for Tony's locos, Andrew (Headstock)'s coaches, just as examples., I'll never be able to build to the same standard as the best RTR, especially locos, and  I see no great point in trying to replicate them via a kit. Nor will I reach the modelling standard of those mentioned, and several others who inhabit this thread.

 

However I do like to have a go, and therefore concentrate on things not available as RTR - locos being the main case in point, So I accept my locos or wagons wont look as good, though I insist they run just as well. I rename or renumber RTR locos to fit my prototypical location (though the cry of "Strangers in the House" is often heard) and I repaint stock to fit the location also. Because I chose a real location, I had to scratch build the signal boxes, and lay a 3rd Rail. I have also recently re-discovered the joy of wagon building, though don't go to the extent that many choose and fit added detail to the basic ,usually Parkside, kits.

 

What is the point of all this rambling? It is to suggest that aspiring to do your best doesn't mean that, because your skills are limited, you should be ashamed to try to build or modify.If you choose to put your work out there for others to see, while inevitably there will be those who laugh or worse, there will be many more who will help or encourage. 

 

Some folk are so ham-fisted, they will never build a satisfactory model. Others will never enjoy trying . This shouldn't prevent them enjoying running trains if they wish to do so, and RTR makes this possible.  But for those with sufficient resources - money, time, tools, workspace- who are prepared to have a go, try their best, want to improve, but RECOGNISE THEIR LIMITATIONS, supplementing RTR will normally greatly enhance the pleasure from their railway.

 

To illustrate what I mean, attached is a photo of my short LOCO coal train, now complete. The rake is all kit -built, as is the loco. It passes a rake of tank wagons, re-painted Bachmann/Mainline/Hornby with new transfers, So kit built and modified RTR in harmony. The signal box is scratch-built, but largely Metcalfe sheets, The signals are Ratio, and that on the main-line is the correct 3-way splitting Distant showing the train will leave the ECML to head down the Blyth and Tyne. It wont win any prizes, but I made it all. How cool is that?

 

Rowanj, you are a god of model railways.

 

I'm not too sure about the combination of Grahame's Architectural work, Tony's Locomotives and my carriages. The resulting anachronistic mash up could cause the implosion of the internet and a crack to appear in the space time continuum.

[RBAGE]

Thanks Alan,

 

Lovely, inspirational work.

 

I wonder why those (of us) who advocate making things (and are prepared to help) and encourage research are subjected to vitriol from certain types? Do you think some of them feel 'threatened'?

 

I know it's very easy to glibly say 'Have a go at making things', when the recipient of the request has no experience, is on a limited budget (which we all are, in one way or another), despite being shown how, displays the dexterity of a new-born, and is terrified of messing things up; but everyone had to learn somewhere along the line. It's also very true that there a massively-different levels of skill, and (despite more-recent claims by those who believe to the contrary) we are not all 'equal'. 

 

Those who cannot make things (or worse, won't even try) can follow a couple of clearly-defined paths in my opinion. For one, they can just buy everything 'off-the-shelf' in all its myriad aspects or (and they can combine the two) commission others to do all their modelling for them. If that satisfies them, then I have no right to be judgmental, but where they stand in the 'hierarchy' of modelling would make an interesting debate. 

 

Do you think there might be a perception by some who feel 'threatened' that those who 'do' rather look down on those who 'don't', or 'can't'?  I know I try to encourage others to have a go at making things for themselves, but I admit to having little tolerance for those who just moan that what they want is not available RTR/RTP. And, to be fair, those who just use RTR/RTP are probably in the majority in the 'congregation', while those who actually make things do no more than part-fill the lady chapel or even just the vestry in our broad church. 

 

Who knows? 

I'm sure you don't really think the "don'ts" feel threatened by the thought of being looked down on by the "dos". It may be more a case of irritation at the suggestion that running an RTR railway might have some adverse affect on "where they stand in the 'hierarchy' ". The prospect of this being debated would almost certainly encourage another wave of negative comment.

 

There won't be too many adverse remarks with regard to your comments on this platform but I don't suppose it represents a full cross section of the modelling fraternity. However, it may be worth considering how your comments might fuel elitist thoughts within the hobby. 

[Headstock]

Since we’re into showing our Enterprises, here’s mine, in 1949 condition. A straightforward modification of Hornby’s current R3518 ‘Gay Crusader’, renumbered and relettered. There are so many versions of Hornby’s A3 available, this one comes close as she’s already in Apple green with a single chimney, Streamlined dome and right hand drive, but the tender has been swopped with another model to give her the correct high-sided non-corridor type.

 

Weathering, working lamps, coal and crew to follow... plus a sound chip is planned when Locoman releases his A3 chip. I think this illustrates the point well about simple detailing of RTR models being able to give you a pretty good representation of a prototype, well within the capabilities of most people.

 

Enterprise was the last A3 to receive her British Railways 60000 series number, by a clear three months, in October 1949 at the time she was repainted into express blue. I’m not exactly sure how long she kept the LNER lettering on her tender, it is most likely she ran with BRITISH RAILWAYS lettering for most of her time in Apple Green post nationalisation, but I can’t be sure... does anyone have a dated photo that can confirm this or otherwise?

 

Phil

 

E2D6725A-0A68-46B1-85E2-D0476581AF49.jpeg

 

As far as I recall, Enterprise only carried LNER on the tender while in grass geen, the only one of the GC A3 locomotives to retain its LNER identity. I can tell you though that it was absolutely filthy until it received BR blue.

[Clem]

I'm sure you don't really think the "don'ts" feel threatened by the thought of being looked down on by the "dos". It may be more a case of irritation at the suggestion that running an RTR railway might have some adverse affect on "where they stand in the 'hierarchy' ". The prospect of this being debated would almost certainly encourage another wave of negative comment.

 

There won't be too many adverse remarks with regard to your comments on this platform but I don't suppose it represents a full cross section of the modelling fraternity. However, it may be worth considering how your comments might fuel elitist thoughts within the hobby. 

 

I'm sorry but I just don't get this 'elitist' argument. To me it smacks of paranoia. Most people on here love modelling and that is their number one aim. Being in some kind of hierarchy is, I'm sure, the last thing that enters their heads. This really is a problem for those who see the problem and feel offended. The only time they're ever criticised is when they complain that the RTR companies are somehow being neglectful because they don't make exactly what they want. They own the problem. All anyone on here does is try to encourage all to find the joys (and sometimes the frustrations!!)  of having a go.

[RBAGE]

I'm sorry but I just don't get this 'elitist' argument. To me it smacks of paranoia. Most people on here love modelling and that is their number one aim. Being in some kind of hierarchy is, I'm sure, the last thing that enters their heads. This really is a problem for those who see the problem and feel offended. The only time they're ever criticised is when they complain that the RTR companies are somehow being neglectful because they don't make exactly what they want. They own the problem. All anyone on here does is try to encourage all to find the joys (and sometimes the frustrations!!)  of having a go.

Post 31400 is where the suggestion of hierarchy comes from. It's not from an someone who feels offended.

[RBAGE]

Hierarchy: a system, especially in a society or an organization, in which people are organized into different levels of importance from highest to lowest the social/political. 

[Craigw]

 Worse, that those who are happy with RTR and RTP are somehow a problem in the hobby, that we must show them the way. I should point out that while the majority of my 00 stock is RTR, I do use kits and in 009 (for which there is very little appropriate to my interests RTR) I scratchbuild a lot of stuff, so I'm somewhere in the middle on all this.

 

In a great number of cases on forums, you see that a good number of the RTR modellers are not happy.

 

They are not happy that the particular loco they want is not made, that the particular number they want is not released or the livery.

 

Yet, when someone points out that there are kits available or they can renumber models you get howled down.

 

I honestly do not care one way or another how people  approach things -  more power to them if it brings them satisfaction.

 

What I have noticed on the one particular face ache group that was mentioned is that the attacks on "rivet counters" are continual and literally never ending.

 

Far from the more pedantic amongst us having a chip on our shoulder, I would suggest a very large part of it is the other way round

 

Craig W

 

(Yes, I have commented on that facebook page)

Edited January 16, 2019 by Craigw

[Headstock]

Let them eat cake, err plastic coal.

[grahame]

Post 31400 is where the suggestion of hierarchy comes from. It's not from an someone who feels offended.

 

I'm sure the hierarchical thing has been suggested and mentioned many pages and posts before that. Didn't someone suggest that the Cleese, Barker and Corbet class hierarchy sketch was representative of railway modelling hierarchy? 

 

I must admit that I don't like the analogy that some people 'look down' on others in the hobby.

 

G

[Headstock]

The idear of a hierarchy based around grown men playing with or building trains has to be my the funny highlight of my week.

[RBAGE]

I'm sure the hierarchical thing has been suggested and mentioned many pages and posts before that. Didn't someone suggest that the Cleese, Barker and Corbet class hierarchy sketch was representative of railway modelling hierarchy? 

 

I must admit that I don't like the analogy that some people 'look down' on others in the hobby.

 

G

I hoped that you might realise, based on all of my posts on this subject, that nor do I.

Edited January 16, 2019 by RBAGE

[St Enodoc]

From what I've seen of Maggie Gravett's childrens hand-on modelling sessions (at Warley) they are popular places where children appear to be enthused to have a go and enjoy themselves. That seems an ideal starting point for the young.

 

 

I do tend to agree with this and that building a loco demo at a show is probably not the best way to get people enthused to start unless they specifically know and want to built a kit in the first place. It's very unlikely that a demo about building a kit loco will get that model finished within the exhibition open hours. And people are unlikely to sit and watch and learn for the whole exhibition. Plus loco kits often look complex and difficult and are likely to put new starters off. Videos (many on you-tube) and books are just a few alternative options for showing how to build loco kits and those using them can go through them at their own pace in their own time.

 

Quite honestly I can't see loco building demos at shows as a way of interesting and encouraging many non-modellers to get started. Most people probably go to exhibitions because they want to see the layouts and buy boxes from traders. I think that modelling demos at shows are better when they are aimed at clinic type efforts and/or offer a taster of a range of techniques and options (like the DEMU stand was apparently undertaking).

 

Perhaps a smaller simpler kit would be better. For example the NGS got together with a wagon kit manufacturer and ran demo sessions at their stand at several exhibitions around the country during one year to show how to build the kit and then to provide a kit for the attendees to try for themselves. And they were allowed to keep and take away their kit built wagon effort.

 

G.

I often demonstrate at our local show. Some years I build a plastic wagon kit and some years I build a copperclad point. Both are very popular. I think one factor is that people can sit for 10 minutes and see things actually taking shape before their very eyes. I once had a young lad sit for a full hour watching me put a Ratio wagon together. 

[St Enodoc]

From personal experience tramcar side panels can show significant waves along their length.

 

Jamie

And many railway coaches too.

[davidw]

Some marvellous discussion points of late. Thanks ever so much to all for posting.

 

Having now emerged from my bunker, I've been conducting some tests......................

 

test running V2 03.jpg

 

My new V2 had a really good run on Grantham over the weekend - many thanks Graham and team. Here she is belting round LB.

 

test running A3 02.jpg

 

And the new A3, heading uphill. This is the first time I've tried panning passing trains. I just put the F3 into burst mode, slow the shutter down, and fire away as the loco goes past.

 

I thought, why not try with finished locos?

 

Test running A1 03.jpg

 

Test running A2 2.jpg

 

Effective? Since I'm useless at adding 'smoke', I wonder if Andy York might oblige on these two. Just to see what they look like.

I don't think those really need smoke. Very effective, showing how good the profile of ER locomotives were.

Edited January 16, 2019 by davidw

[Bob Reid]

And many railway coaches too.

 

 

You do realise how difficult it was for us to build those ripples into the bodyside

[St Enodoc]

You do realise how difficult it was for us to build those ripples into the bodyside

Of course Bob!. Some manufacturers nowadays, though, seem to manage it without any trouble at all.

[Tony Wright]

Hierarchy: a system, especially in a society or an organization, in which people are organized into different levels of importance from highest to lowest the social/political. 

Dear RBAGE,

 

As one of those who used the word 'hierarchy' in recent posts, may I comment please?

 

You seem to imply that I could be seen as 'fuelling' elitist tendencies in the hobby. Is it 'elitist' to encourage folk to make things for themselves? Or to assist them in their model-making? Or to strive for greater accuracy?

 

Today four chaps came from the Ely club to visit and run LB. Though of 'mature' years, in some ways they're beginners at model-making. Would anyone who harbours 'elitist' thoughts offer to help them on a one-to-one basis with their model-making? The stipend? A donation to CRUK. We had a splendid day, they certainly did not feel looked down upon and are as keen as mustard to learn. Though, at the moment, they're more reliant on RTR, they really want to do things for themselves. 

 

I think there is a hierarchy in any creative hobby. Whether it's social or political, I'm not sure, but it's been my privilege to work with and for many of those who, on merit, are towards the 'top' end. These are top model-makers (in some cases the best) and there are also respected historians/authors. These are the men (and women) who've driven the hobby forward, who care about passing on skills and ensuring information is correct. It would be disingenuous of me to even consider that I might have a 'positive' effect in even a tiny way, compared with those of high stature. 

 

Yet, when one tries to put a reasoned point of view across, instead of an equally-reasoned counter-response (which I would deeply respect), some of the responses must have seen as being potentially libelous. Can you see those who encourage model-making, offer assistance and strive for greater accuracy writing in such a vituperative way? Which 'side' of the debate should be careful in how they express their points of view I wonder? 

 

I honestly believe this thread is very representative of the hobby in general. Of course, by its very nature, it'll be frequented more by those who make things rather than those who simply do nothing, or, if they do anything it's just to moan. I've learned a vast amount from it over the last few years, and I know many others have. It's encouraged others not to just be happy with what they can achieve by just opening a box, and, as I've said many times there is great merit in detailing/improving/renaming/renumbering/weathering an RTR item, as long as the person does it for themselves.

 

I have to say what's happened of late has really opened my (perhaps naive) eyes. It really does make me think 'what's the point?' Why should anyone seek to help others, encourage model-making, insist on accuracy and good practice, if what comes back from some quarters is vitriolic? Who needs this? I have dozens of kits to build, loads of pictures to take and (prototype) books to write. 

 

I wonder what some of the sternest critics (certainly not just of me) have contributed to the general hobby? I really do.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Tony Wright

[96701]

On the subject of loco kit building, nobody seems to have talked about cost vs risk of loss. I built Airfix buildings and spitfires etc so long ago that I do not remember when I started. There is a black and white photo of me proudly holding a shop that I had built and painted, and I was probably about 9 years old, and the building didn't have to move.

 

Then I moved on to Airfix wagons, which did have to move, so I had to be more careful with the tube of glue to make sure the wheels went round and the couplings moved. Managed that, then horror of horrors, the couplings didn't match, and I discovered that if I wasn't careful, the axles would bend when I held them until the glue set. Result? none of the stuff that I'd built ever ran. Never mind, I enjoyed building them.

 

Anyway, I started reading Railway Modeller and was looking at adverts for kits. "Needs motor, gearbox, wheels and paint to complete", price not much different to ready to run Triang stuff, so I was not particularly tempted to buy something that would cost me a lot of money, knowing that the first attempt would probably end in failure, just as some of my Airfix wagons had. I decided that it wasn't worth the risk, so I was not an early starter with loco kits, so even though I have had some engineering training (nearly an apprenticeship) the closest I've got to a major alteration was converting a Hornby Dublo English Electric type 1 from 3 rail to 2 rail using one of my mum's knitting needles as axles. It seemed to work, except my version of pick-ups resulted in lots of sparks and little movement due to drag.

 

At the age of 63 (64 on 06/02/55 - goodness me I'm lucky) I still have not managed what some would term a kit built loco, not even a functioning 0-6-0 chassis, mind you, I have significantly altered some ready to run stuff, so I feel quite good about some stuff that I've done, but I just don't have the wherewithal to risk my cash on a steam loco kit. I'm hoping to start with a GT3, at least it is a 4-6-0, not a ready to run Bo-Bo or Co-Co which are within my comfort zone.

Edited January 16, 2019 by 96701

[AndyID]

How many of us have a large quantity of Airfix wagons?

 

Guilty as charged. Bought over forty years ago and some still await construction. (Most run with Peco wheels in delrin bearings.)

[Killybegs]

Guilty as charged. Bought over forty years ago and some still await construction. (Most run with Peco wheels in delrin bearings.)

Only forty. Peanuts!

[Doncaster Green]

Good evening all

 

Further to my post (31401) of earlier today, there are two things I must attend to.   Firstly, I must apologise to Jerry (queensquare) for the use of the word 'officiando'.  I should have said 'Aficionado'.  Not only did I use the wrong word, I spelt it wrongly as well!   So much for a Grammar School education!   In my defence, I was, as I was drafting my post, also involved in a 'phone conversation between my wife and a jobsworth receptionist at our GP practice and the word officious got stuck in my head!

 

Secondly, partly because of this conversation and partly because I was late for an appointment, I didn't properly finish my post.   I was going to go on and say that although my journey in this hobby may not be untypical of some, it is by no means typical of all.   I have a good friend who's main delight is playing trains, not making anything or adhering to prototype practice, just playing trains.   He does not really care if the trains he runs are totally anachronistic, he will run an HST alongside a J15 and enjoy it.   To him it is relaxation from the trials of everyday life.   He is, however, appreciative and supportive of the way I choose to 'play trains'.   It is this live and let live attitude that I am beginning to believe is being lost.   Not only from the frothing and trolling on social media but also from the 'superior' attitude adopted by some in the more specialist areas of the hobby.   Not, I hasten to add, that that accusation applies to any that post here, but I will give an example I came across a few years ago.   At an exhibition I chanced across a layout (no names no pack drill) representing an area familiar to me from my own research into my prototype and I mentioned to the owner that I was trying to portray an area less than a mile from his and there was a very good photograph of the area in such and such a book.   His response was that he modelled in 'X' scale and did his research in learned tomes not coffee table books (the inference being you are obviously not my equal in this hobby) and returned to fiddling with his iPhone (I think he was DCC)!  Not being one to cause a fight (I am basically a coward) I left him to it.  Such a shame, as, if he'd bothered to pick up that book, he would have realised he'd included a detail that didn't exist at the time of his model.

 

With that I have now finished and thank you for your time.

 

Regards to all

 

John

[RBAGE]

Dear RBAGE,

 

As one of those who used the word 'hierarchy' in recent posts, may I comment please?

 

You seem to imply that I could be seen as 'fuelling' elitist tendencies in the hobby. Is it 'elitist' to encourage folk to make things for themselves? Or to assist them in their model-making? Or to strive for greater accuracy?

 

Today four chaps came from the Ely club to visit and run LB. Though of 'mature' years, in some ways they're beginners at model-making. Would anyone who harbours 'elitist' thoughts offer to help them on a one-to-one basis with their model-making? The stipend? A donation to CRUK. We had a splendid day, they certainly did not feel looked down upon and are as keen as mustard to learn. Though, at the moment, they're more reliant on RTR, they really want to do things for themselves. 

 

I think there is a hierarchy in any creative hobby. Whether it's social or political, I'm not sure, but it's been my privilege to work with and for many of those who, on merit, are towards the 'top' end. These are top model-makers (in some cases the best) and there are also respected historians/authors. These are the men (and women) who've driven the hobby forward, who care about passing on skills and ensuring information is correct. It would be disingenuous of me to even consider that I might have a 'positive' effect in even a tiny way, compared with those of high stature. 

 

Yet, when one tries to put a reasoned point of view across, instead of an equally-reasoned counter-response (which I would deeply respect), some of the responses must have seen as being potentially libelous. Can you see those who encourage model-making, offer assistance and strive for greater accuracy writing in such a vituperative way? Which 'side' of the debate should be careful in how they express their points of view I wonder? 

 

I honestly believe this thread is very representative of the hobby in general. Of course, by its very nature, it'll be frequented more by those who make things rather than those who simply do nothing, or, if they do anything it's just to moan. I've learned a vast amount from it over the last few years, and I know many others have. It's encouraged others not to just be happy with what they can achieve by just opening a box, and, as I've said many times there is great merit in detailing/improving/renaming/renumbering/weathering an RTR item, as long as the person does it for themselves.

 

I have to say what's happened of late has really opened my (perhaps naive) eyes. It really does make me think 'what's the point?' Why should anyone seek to help others, encourage model-making, insist on accuracy and good practice, if what comes back from some quarters is vitriolic? Who needs this? I have dozens of kits to build, loads of pictures to take and (prototype) books to write. 

 

I wonder what some of the sternest critics (certainly not just of me) have contributed to the general hobby? I really do.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Whilst you were encouraged to write an article that was almost required to be controversial, it has caused some irritation amongst those who might be not be involved in the creative side of railway modelling. More likely with those who are also not familiar with who you are or what you do. It is likely that the vast majority of railway modellers have not heard of Tony Wright. Many modellers have are not aware of RMWeb.

The type of response experienced on Facebook are not acceptable under any circumstances but the depth of feeling must be considered.

 

The word "elitist" whilst perhaps not used by you, has been used several times by contributors of late. Not unreasonably, I have linked the related sentiment of a number of contributions so to demonstrate how the suggestion of modellers are more or less important based on their approach is unhelpful. The suggestion that the position of RTR modellers might be an interesting study is worse than unhelpful.

 

My earlier post of Cleese, Barker, Corbett was intended to raise a question about a OO gauge modeller (which we both are) suggesting that we should build things and make them more accurate. Whilst some considered the sketch as humorous, it has been referred back to me as me suggesting elitism or hierarchy. The point was missed by some.

 

Your earlier response to some of my contributions rebutted my assumptions about your layout. At no time did I suggest cheque book modelling but my point was to ask if having your trackwork done by a professional any different to RTR?

 

I hope that I have made it clear elsewhere that I am not upset or offended by what has been written here or elsewhere and I hope I haven't cause any offence. I agree that we should all encourage others in the hobby but we should not suggest that the way that any of us works is the right way. Give advice and let others make their mind up.