Wright writes.....

[MJI]

31 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Have you got a photo of one with the serpentine lettering?

 

CJI.

 

Just sent some pictures I was sent which can't be put on forum

[Compound2632]

On 23/09/2023 at 10:21, Tony Wright said:

Interestingly (with the possible exception of Calderwood - please forgive me if I've forgotten which gauge it's in), none of the examples shown is modelled in 'mainstream' OO or N. I suppose it's because one needs to be a 'modeller' to contemplate making depictions of pre-Grouping times.

 

An interesting observation; apologies for coming late to this. I think that models of earlier prototypes often have more to gain in appearance from the finer standards - the difference is significantly more visible - plus modelling an inside-cylinder 0-6-0 or 4-4-0 in the finer standards does not present the clearance issues one has to face up to with outside valve gear!

 

For myself, my attempts at modelling pre-grouping are in 00; that is very much a compromise driven by the knowledge that if I attempted to build everything from the track up I would never get anywhere - but that's just me; plenty of others are masters of all the arts, and I profoundly admire what they achieve.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Compound2632

[Chas Levin]

On 23/09/2023 at 17:55, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Clive,

 

I don't know whether the 'super detail gang' constitutes a 'problem', other than if super-detailing compromises running (that's my opinion, anyway). 

 

I've said this before, but one of the great 'influencers' in this hobby, the late David Jenkinson, once said to me with regard to model-making 'Get as many prototype pictures as you can of the model you're making (a loco/carriage/wagon), taken from the equivalent of viewing your model at around 2' 6". Anything you can clearly see, incorporate. Anything you cannot see, even if you know it to be there, omit'. When asked (by someone else) why he didn't put every last detail on the underframes of the exquisite carriages he built, he said  'If the only way you can see all that detail is if your carriage derails, rolls down an embankment and lands upside down in a ditch, don't build a layout where this is likely to happen!'. Wise words indeed.

 

I've never been a super-detailer (indolence, lack of skill and speed of build being the principal reasons for this state). I very rarely incorporate items like sandpipes on the locos I build. Unless they're very-prominent. Prominent on something like a 'Schools', for instance........

 

 

Building this South Eastern Finecast 'Schools' (which Ian Rathbone painted for me), I suppose makes me something of a hypocrite, given what I've written above, but those boxes and pipes are really visible (from more than 2' 6" away). Further 'super-detailing' resulted in my fitting the rear bogie wheel splashers, the linkage for the cylinder drain cocks, the cocks themselves and the front steps (the last-mentioned hardly constitute 'super-detailing'). Fitting those little splashers, the cocks and the front steps dictated that I made the chassis as a sort of 'articulated 0-8-0', with very little bogie 'swing'. As it is, 3' is its minimum radius. 

 

However, where an RTR equivalent is expected to negotiate train set curves........

 

 

As with this Hornby 'Schools', then things like the 'niceties' on my 'Schools' cannot be incorporated, though the sandpipes are there. 

 

I should add that my main reason for omitting sandpipes is their tendency to get bent out of alignment in transit, resulting in interference and/or causing stray shorts

 

What's incorporated now into the latest RTR models with regard to detail is staggering, much of it (as you allude to) almost impossible to see from 'normal' viewing angles. 

 

I reviewed this Rapido ex-SECR brake van some three months ago.............

 

 

Does this 'qualify' for David Jenkinson's observation, I wonder?

 

 

Especially where one has to break the glue joint on the roof to be able to see inside! 

 

This amount of detail on this superb model is staggering. But, does it come now at a price? Not far off £40.00, if memory serves! 

 

Do current RTR manufacturers go to these lengths because of customer demand? Some 'modellers' I know wish a lot of fine detail were not present because it's too vulnerable. Or, they don't like the idea of having to fit bits themselves. I suppose manufacturers add it on because they can, such is the 'flexibility' in modern tooling suites. 

 

All I know is that the standard of detailing now on RTR models (even in N Gauge) is higher than many 'scale' models built by hand in the past. Indeed, most of mine! That said, I'm also very happy with my trainset which works, even though there's not a lot of RTR on it (other than loads of altered - though not super-detailed - Bachmann Mk.1s).

 

What do others think?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Good evening Tony and everyone, on the subject of detailing and whether it's excessive or not (apologies I'm a little late in replying) I think it's a different answer for one's own kit building as opposed to RTR.

 

For kit building, I can't see that there can be a 'right' or 'wrong' - it must surely be whatever the builder wants to do! If fabricating and installing a large amount of very fine detail that will definitely be invisible without either dismantling the model or at the very least upending it makes the modeller happy, then where's the problem? The one possible issue is perhaps where a builder feels under peer pressure to include more detail than he would choose, in order to avoid negative comments, but hopefully we're none of us so much in fear of criticism that we would do that except perhaps occasionally?

 

For RTR, I believe it's almost entirely driven by a combination of market forces and manufacturing technology so again, considering whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' seems no more useful than considering whether it's right or wrong to live with inflation, planned obsolescence or increasingly multi-functional mobile phones - so the answer to your question tony about whether the extra detail is there to meet customer demand is 'yes'.

We - humans - have allowed this commerical system to grow up around us and this is the sort of stuff it now produces; it - the system - doesn't look as if it's going to change any time soon, so we need to exercise the same sort of choices in RTR as we do in kit building decisions and buy things with the amount of detail we actually want. Caveats there too, of course: if an RTR model someone particularly wants comes out but has more fragile detail than desired, the choice becomes more limited. The RTR practice of supplying models with detailing parts not fitted, so that the buyer can choose what to fit and what to omit seems a very sensible compromise, though as you note Tony, some dislike that too.

 

I say that RTR is almost entirely driven by a combination of market forces and manufacturing technology because I think there's also a human hobbyist element at play here too: I imagine there must be some manufacturers who get genuinely excited about being able to offer punters more and finer detail and who see their manufacturing machinery or factories in a similar way to the way a modeller sees his workbench, as something to be used to achieve ever higher standards. Some of the smaller boutique brands certainly seem to take genuine pride in the levels of realism they achieve and that seems very similar to a modeller's pride in something he built himself: perhaps that's the healthiest or the nicest type of RTR extra detailing?

[Staffordshire]

     Couple of recently finished  'unusual'  locos,   GWR/BR 1151  &  SR/BR  30458  Ironside .....

 

     Thes are both CSP 4mm kits, built by Nick Allport.

    

 

 

  

[Tony Wright]

Mentioning spiders............

 

 

Not only do they weave their pesky webs, but they also deposit their poo on the roofs of carriages!

 

Still, given that this last carriage is in a train which started from the Norfolk coast, I suppose it makes scale seagull cr@p! 

[Tony Wright]

I mentioned some little time ago that I'm conducting a series for BRM highlighting 'budget modelling'. 

 

I've acquired some 'tatty' OO locos and stock at very cheap prices (thanks Elaine) with a view to tidying them up, improving them, detailing them to turn them (I hope) into 'presentable' models.

 

However, what does one do with something like this?

 

 

This was given to me by Elaine of Elaine's Trains. I wonder who thought this was a good idea?

 

Anyway, as well as buying some low-cost models from her, I also bought this.........

 

 

A second-hand Hornby B12/3. The previous owner had done nothing to it, other than install a decoder in the tender; meaning it was DCC 'On-Board'. All for £75.00! 

 

I certainly think this qualifies as 'budget modelling', given that it's such an excellent model at source. 

 

Guess what was the first thing I did? Yes, get rid of the decoder (a Hattons' one - I assume that it's at the 'low-cost' end of chips?). 

 

And the second thing? Fix all the extra bits supplied by Hornby. 

 

Photographing this, set me thinking. With the discussion regarding RTR or kit-building, what about this below for a comparison?

 

 

I built this from a PDK kit which Ian Rathbone painted.

 

How does it compare? Well, from the 'cost' aspect, £75.00 wouldn't buy the drive which is in this! Then there's the cost of all the other components, plus the painting price. 

 

If anything, the Hornby driving wheels have better-looking spokes than the Markits ones under this. 

 

Of course I've had the 'pleasure' of making this model, which is difficult to put a price on. 

 

And, on the layout.............

 

 

I've added lamps, a crew and put real coal in the tender. 

 

 

Which are pre-requisites for any loco I build/modify.

 

 

The Hornby one is a bit 'bulled-up' in comparison, though I do have a picture of 61576 with brass beading on the splashers (though I'm not sure about the highlighted hinge straps or dart). Anyway, it'll be renumbered to a South Lynn-allocated B12 and weathered. 

 

 

There are two things where I think the Hornby B12 doesn't compare quite so well. It doesn't have the subtlety of Ian's painting (which is exquisite) and it can't take 'The Leicester', which is loaded to nine cars, six of which are metal kit-builds. This one, being packed with ballast, has no trouble. 

 

 

[Chas Levin]

Good evening Tony and everyone, here are some photos of a project I've just completed, a fairly vintage RAI-MO kit of two KWStE wagons - a little further East in origin than the ECML, but I hope still of interest:

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Chas Levin

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I mentioned some little time ago that I'm conducting a series for BRM highlighting 'budget modelling'. 

 

I've acquired some 'tatty' OO locos and stock at very cheap prices (thanks Elaine) with a view to tidying them up, improving them, detailing them to turn them (I hope) into 'presentable' models.

 

However, what does one do with something like this?

 

 

 

What one does with something like this, Tony, is exactly what I did to "get back on the horse", so to speak, last year.  I had six of those exact model of unpainted plastic Hornby brake van - without the rooftop addition though - left over from some eBay Job Lot purchases, which I used to practice painting and weathering on.  Using only the paints, some Modelmasters lettering sets (not exactly the right brake vans, but who cares with this model?) and a sheet of overhead warning flashes - all of which which I already had - I turned them into these:

 

 

Don't look too close please....... but for anyone who thinks model railways are too expensive, I think the total cost of these six wagons and all materials, came to about twenty quid.

[Andy R]

On 23/09/2023 at 21:21, Tony Wright said:

Speaking of pre-Grouping layouts............

 

A selection I've photographed..........

 

 

 

Kensington Addison Road in O.

 

 

Ambergate in EM (now in P4).

 

 

Blackfriars (under construction in P4).

 

 

Bridgwater in O.

 

 

Buckingham in EM.

 

 

 

Burntisland in P4.

 

 

Calderwood in, I think, EM.

 

 

Copenhagen Fields in 2mm FS (the earlier trains on this depict pre-1923).

 

 

Dewsbury in S7.

 

 

Dollgelley in O.

 

 

Edington Junction in O.

 

 

GWR broad gauge in 7mm.

 

 

Hope Under Dinmore in EM

 

 

London Road in P4.

 

 

Ogden Fold in P4.

 

 

St. George's Hill in O. 

 

Interestingly (with the possible exception of Calderwood - please forgive me if I've forgotten which gauge it's in), none of the examples shown is modelled in 'mainstream' OO or N. I suppose it's because one needs to be a 'modeller' to contemplate making depictions of pre-Grouping times.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely super set of photos there Tony. For us colonials so far away from the UK layout scene these are great to see. Thanks for sharing. Andy R NZ

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Andy R said:

Absolutely super set of photos there Tony. For us colonials so far away from the UK layout scene these are great to see. Thanks for sharing. Andy R NZ

Thanks Andy,

 

I'm glad you liked them.

 

I've probably got more pre-Grouping layout images (or shots of layouts with models in pre-Grouping condition), so I'll have a further look.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Of course, I've had at least one pre-Grouping loco running on Little Bytham.......

 

 

During the LNER 1938 weekend, five years ago now. This is the (at the time, brand new) RTR Stirling Single.

 

No doubt, it appears on Grantham now. However, prior to that............

 

 

 

It was Dan Pinnock's scratch-built Stirling Single which could be seen. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

After taking the pictures of Hornby's 61576 yesterday, I thought - that looks familiar..........

 

And it was..............

 

 

I'd built exactly the same locomotive for Gilbert Barnatt some 20 years ago for service on his original loft-based layout. 

 

I made it from a Crownline kit (later, PDK) and Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

At some point, it appears to have lost its front numberplate.

 

Whether it ever got a replacement, I don't know..............

 

 

But it's still running strong on his Peterborough North layout. 

 

Mr Rathbone's painting is superb!

 

And...........

 

 

Here's the prototype; at Ely in 1958.

 

Please observe copyright restrictions on the last image. 

 

 

[Compound2632]

On 24/09/2023 at 21:57, Chas Levin said:

I imagine there must be some manufacturers who get genuinely excited about being able to offer punters more and finer detail and who see their manufacturing machinery or factories in a similar way to the way a modeller sees his workbench, as something to be used to achieve ever higher standards. Some of the smaller boutique brands certainly seem to take genuine pride in the levels of realism they achieve and that seems very similar to a modeller's pride in something he built himself: perhaps that's the healthiest or the nicest type of RTR extra detailing?

 

That's evidently the case. The point has been made repeatedly, though it seems to fall on deaf ears, is that all that extra detail - such as brake van interiors, to pick one example - costs next to nothing; just the CAD designer's time - and they're an enthusiast who isn't being paid an enormous salary. 

[A Murphy]

Tony, didn't you also run a GC special for the GCRS a few years back? 

 

Best wishes,

 

Alastair M

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That's evidently the case. The point has been made repeatedly, though it seems to fall on deaf ears, is that all that extra detail - such as brake van interiors, to pick one example - costs next to nothing; just the CAD designer's time - and they're an enthusiast who isn't being paid an enormous salary. 

 

I don't quite follow that!

 

When increased prices are queried, we are told that the market demands ever more visible detail, and it all costs.

 

However, when we query invisible detail, we are told that it costs next-to-nothing.

 

Do the Chinese ladies stick in and paint all those extra internal details free-of-charge?

 

Frankly, such statements are nonsense; ever more detail, visible or not, is provided in order to out-do the competition - it's a form of arms race!

 

I had hoped that this pointless competition would have stopped before we got into invisible additions - but it seems that I was over-optimistic!

 

Toilet rolls in the lavatory compartments, anyone? Who will be the first?

 

CJI.

[Andy Hayter]

15 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I don't quite follow that!

 

When increased prices are queried, we are told that the market demands ever more visible detail, and it all costs.

 

However, when we query invisible detail, we are told that it costs next-to-nothing.

 

Do the Chinese ladies stick in and paint all those extra internal details free-of-charge?

 

Frankly, such statements are nonsense; ever more detail, visible or not, is provided in order to out-do the competition - it's a form of arms race!

 

I had hoped that this pointless competition would have stopped before we got into invisible additions - but it seems that I was over-optimistic!

 

Toilet rolls in the lavatory compartments, anyone? Who will be the first?

 

CJI.

No of course the Chinese do not paint the interior for nothing. But if they do 100 in an hour - which I suspect is close to the truth - the extra cost will be of the order of 7p per wagon.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Andy Hayter

[Chas Levin]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

When increased prices are queried, we are told that the market demands ever more visible detail, and it all costs.

 

However, when we query invisible detail, we are told that it costs next-to-nothing.

 

I wonder whether this might be one of those cases of a single amount that seems tiny to us being seen as significant by a large company's accountants, because it's incurred so many times and adds up to a significant total?

 

In which case both of your statements John are true: extra detail does cost - in the aggregate - but it also costs next to nothing on an individual model...

[MJI]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

I

Toilet rolls in the lavatory compartments, anyone? Who will be the first?

 

CJI.

 

Rapido?

[LNERandBR]

I think what is telling is the price of older tooled models has also increased.

 

HAA Hoppers are the best example, the old Hornby versions being sold at the same price of those from Accurascale. Despite the Accurascale version being superior in terms of the amount of detail present.

[Jamiel]

16 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I mentioned some little time ago that I'm conducting a series for BRM highlighting 'budget modelling'. 

 

I've acquired some 'tatty' OO locos and stock at very cheap prices (thanks Elaine) with a view to tidying them up, improving them, detailing them to turn them (I hope) into 'presentable' models.

 

However, what does one do with something like this?

 

 

This was given to me by Elaine of Elaine's Trains. I wonder who thought this was a good idea?

 

Anyway, as well as buying some low-cost models from her, I also bought this.........

 

 

A second-hand Hornby B12/3. The previous owner had done nothing to it, other than install a decoder in the tender; meaning it was DCC 'On-Board'. All for £75.00! 

 

I certainly think this qualifies as 'budget modelling', given that it's such an excellent model at source. 

 

Guess what was the first thing I did? Yes, get rid of the decoder (a Hattons' one - I assume that it's at the 'low-cost' end of chips?). 

 

And the second thing? Fix all the extra bits supplied by Hornby. 

 

Photographing this, set me thinking. With the discussion regarding RTR or kit-building, what about this below for a comparison?

 

 

I built this from a PDK kit which Ian Rathbone painted.

 

How does it compare? Well, from the 'cost' aspect, £75.00 wouldn't buy the drive which is in this! Then there's the cost of all the other components, plus the painting price. 

 

If anything, the Hornby driving wheels have better-looking spokes than the Markits ones under this. 

 

Of course I've had the 'pleasure' of making this model, which is difficult to put a price on. 

 

And, on the layout.............

 

 

I've added lamps, a crew and put real coal in the tender. 

 

 

Which are pre-requisites for any loco I build/modify.

 

 

The Hornby one is a bit 'bulled-up' in comparison, though I do have a picture of 61576 with brass beading on the splashers (though I'm not sure about the highlighted hinge straps or dart). Anyway, it'll be renumbered to a South Lynn-allocated B12 and weathered. 

 

 

There are two things where I think the Hornby B12 doesn't compare quite so well. It doesn't have the subtlety of Ian's painting (which is exquisite) and it can't take 'The Leicester', which is loaded to nine cars, six of which are metal kit-builds. This one, being packed with ballast, has no trouble. 

 

 

I would also add that the small details do not seem anywhere near as good as your model. Yes, the overall Hornby model is very nice, and the body very good, but guard irons are too thick and plasticky as are the details ahead of the splashers, which are not helped by being picked out in red. Similarly for the brake gear.

It may be an optical illusion but the front bogie wheels also look too wide compared with your PDK kit. The cab glazing is made to be handled and not break but doesn’t have the subtlety of your build.

 

Small details like the wire from the side of the boiler are rarely fitted to RTR locos, and are difficult to add to a plastic model.

 

Such details are easier to fit and stronger when made of metal and can be soldered on, so part of the comparison is the benefits of working with brass and metals compared with plastic.

Ian Rathbones’ painting does make a huge difference as you say.

 

I do have a Hornby B12, and think it is a lovely model, but compared with your build it doesn’t have character, and somehow feels too precise compared to the original engines which had a lifetime of wear. It is a nice model to start detailing though.

I bought it second hand missing a guard iron, so rather than adding one replacement, make new ones for both sies would be an improvement. Personally, on the plus side, but definitely a negative for Tony, it has a quite an expensive DCC sound chip fitted and sounds great.

[polybear]

2 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

No of course the Chinese do not paint the interior for nothing. But if they do 100 in an hour - which I suspect is close to the truth - the extra cost will be of the order of 7p per wagon.

 

That might be the cost to Hornby etc., but what does it cost us, the Customer by the time it's used as an excuse to jack the price up?

[Chamby]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Toilet rolls in the lavatory compartments, anyone? Who will be the first?

 

CJI.

 

That would require modelling tissue in the four foot... and I’m certainly not going to that level of detail!

[Roger Sunderland]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I don't quite follow that!

 

When increased prices are queried, we are told that the market demands ever more visible detail, and it all costs.

 

However, when we query invisible detail, we are told that it costs next-to-nothing.

 

Do the Chinese ladies stick in and paint all those extra internal details free-of-charge?

 

Frankly, such statements are nonsense; ever more detail, visible or not, is provided in order to out-do the competition - it's a form of arms race!

 

I had hoped that this pointless competition would have stopped before we got into invisible additions - but it seems that I was over-optimistic!

 

Toilet rolls in the lavatory compartments, anyone? Who will be the first?

 

CJI.

Can’t agree with this. I’ve never heard it definitively claimed by any manufacturer that the improved detail is responsible for the increase in prices.  Instead it is fat more reasonable to believe that the price increases are as a result of increased manufacturing costs in China and other countries rather than a bit more plastic used/ design time.

look around, cost of everything manufactured in China has risen.

[stewartingram]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

 

Rapido?

Kitmaster coaches - or to be pedantic, the Peco interiors - had detailed toilets which couldn't be seen behind frosted windows. Now that must have been late 50s?

[Coach bogie]

24 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

Kitmaster coaches - or to be pedantic, the Peco interiors - had detailed toilets which couldn't be seen behind frosted windows. Now that must have been late 50s?

 Still using some of the Peco parts myself. Toilets still on the card. NO point in making them up, or the luggage racks!

Mike Wiltshire