Wright writes.....

[robertcwp]

Tony,

 

Thank you to you and Mo for a lovely day yesterday, it was nice to see you both and also Robert and Mark. As always LB worked wonderfully and the only problems were due to my incompetence in operating it. It always amazes me how well LB operates, with locomotives never needing to be prodded to go and without derailments until we tried the Deltic with 33 coaches and some of the lightweight Bachmann coaches objected.

 

Thank you for posting photos of my feeble efforts, my only defence is that these two locomotives were built a long time ago and I hope I’ve improved a bit since then. The 61XX is from a Wills Finecast kit with Romford wheels and it originally had an XO4 type motor. However I rebuilt it about 20 years ago with a D13 type motor, added extra detail such as brake gear and I repainted it in early BR black.

 

 

Thanks from me too for a very good day.

 

Sandra's Prairie tank was far from feeble as it romped round hauling a long train. I have a video of it which I could upload to YouTube if of interest.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks from me too for a very good day.

 

Sandra's Prairie tank was far from feeble as it romped round hauling a long train. I have a video of it which I could upload to YouTube if of interest.

Yes please, Robert,

 

I had a marvellous day, too.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

Thank you to you and Mo for a lovely day yesterday, it was nice to see you both and also Robert and Mark. As always LB worked wonderfully and the only problems were due to my incompetence in operating it. It always amazes me how well LB operates, with locomotives never needing to be prodded to go and without derailments until we tried the Deltic with 33 coaches and some of the lightweight Bachmann coaches objected.

 

Thank you for posting photos of my feeble efforts, my only defence is that these two locomotives were built a long time ago and I hope I’ve improved a bit since then. The 61XX is from a Wills Finecast kit with Romford wheels and it originally had an XO4 type motor. However I rebuilt it about 20 years ago with a D13 type motor, added extra detail such as brake gear and I repainted it in early BR black.

 

The 43XX was built from a K’s kit about forty years ago. The tender was at one time used for a different project (an M & L Grange body on a Mainline under frame, not a success.) which is why it is black and the locomotive is green the tender has Comet frames but the locomotive is all K’s including the wheels and the gearbox type motor. I had a number of theses motors but apart from this one they all met a swift end in a nasty burning smell and the emission of blue smoke. This suggests to me that there may have been nothing wrong with the concept of these motors but perhaps the manufacture was variable in quality. Certainly this one still seems to work quite well after all this time.

 

The locomotives built by Eric Fry are beautiful and they put my efforts to shame, I will have to try harder in future.

 

I have donated a number of coach kits to Tony for sale by him towards a cancer charity which is a subject close to my heart. I realised I was never likely to build these kits and I thought it was better that they be sold and raise money for charity than they lie getting dusty in a cupboard.

 

Tony, once again many thanks to you and Mo for your wonderful hospitality and letting me operate the railway and I hope to see you in a few weeks by which time I hope I may have made more progress with the J38.

 

Sandra

You're far too modest, Sandra (and I'm not being patronising). 

 

It was a pleasure to have you, Robert and Mark as guests yesterday (and Robert has already started the ball rolling on the next book!). I had a marvellous time.

 

Part of that pleasure was your bringing those locos you've made - for us all to see, to run them and for me to photograph them. They are personal modelling of the very best kind - a sort of 'time capsule' of the things we used to do in our younger years. I'm astonished you've managed to get K's wheels and motors to work. You're way ahead of me in that respect; I just gave up, and yes, the HP2M what-nots I tried just made smoke. Lots of it! 

 

I don't think Eric's locos put yours to shame. Remember, he's got near 20-years more experience than us. From what I've seen of your latest work - in EM, and all done by yourself, it's quite outstanding. How nice, though, to have someone being so self-effacing about what they're doing. I do rather tire of seeing 'collecting' modelling or 'commission' modelling at times, where the owner is not really the 'modeller', no matter how good the results might be. Though I've oft-repeated this statement, personal modelling, the sort you're indulging in, has much greater merit and of much greater interest to me than anything made far away or by others for others. 

 

As for LB's running, since I'm 'fanatical' about good running, it was just 'normal' for me to just let you and Mark operate the railway while Robert and I looked at pictures. If either of you made mistakes, so what? Apart from chipping paint off a buffer (by sending a train into the wrong road), what harm can be done? I'm not in the least bit precious about LB - it's been made to have friends round and to operate it; however they like.

 

The twin-motor Deltic was just an example of my mucking around. I have no idea how many carriages it might pull, because simple physics (if physics can ever be simple) ensure that, after 30-odd cars are in tow, the train 'implodes' on the end curves and through points, especially if lighter-weight RTR cars are in it. One day, I'll set up, say, a 50+ car train, all kit-built in metal, and see what happens. The Deltic will probably rip the couplings off! 

 

Also remember, that LB is very much a team effort (far less noble than what you do, because you do everything yourself). I'm far to indolent or lacking in skill to contemplate doing everything. My making of locos and stock which really 'work' be would be of no positive consequence if the trackwork were poor, the wiring inadequate and the baseboards insubstantial. What good would 'good-looking' and reliable trains be if they ran through a scene which was no more than toytownesque? What pleasure would there be in my making apologies to guests because LB's running and appearance were poor? No good at all, hence my choice of my team members. 

 

I look forward to seeing you soon and to future visits.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

[mark54]

Thank you from me too, Tony (and of course to Mo). I really had a marvellous time the whole day.

[Tony Wright]

I had a most-interesting chat with an editor yesterday. 

 

I'd just handed over some pictures of a very well-modelled layout, and commented on one or two aspects which I thought, given greater observation of the prototype, might have 'improved' it. 

 

One thing concerned running-in boards - displaying the station's name (and status if necessary). It's my belief, particularly at wayside stations, that the station's name was only displayed at the end of the platform where trains entered. Obviously, at large, complex stations, where some trains terminated, or at main termini themselves, running-in boards would be at the end of every platform, but for a two-platform station, with just Up and Down roads? Would they have station names at both ends of each platform? I don't think so, but this layout had. 

 

The discussion went along the lines of 'does it really matter?', the main objective being enjoyment of the hobby. I couldn't disagree with the latter, but wouldn't any 'enjoyment' be greater, knowing a layout was more accurate in detail? 

 

As is well known, I always advocate the modelling of an actual prototype. What's put into the model is what was there during the time the model depicts - dead simple. Even if a model railway doesn't represent an actual location, surely it should follow prototype practice, shouldn't it? The reason I ask is that I've recently seen layouts (in the press and at shows) which purport to represent part of the Settle & Carlisle (ex-Midland Railway), and facing points and facing crossovers abound. That, and no trap points protecting access to main running lines from sidings. And don't ask me about MPDs, which couldn't possibly work in reality. Do modellers not observe the real thing these days? Did they ever? 

 

My belief is that by using observation of the prototype (either by direct observation today, or via historic source material) enjoyment in the hobby can be enhanced by knowing things are more 'right'. 

 

Or, am I just a miserable old reactionary who perceives a decline in 'accurate' railway modelling, particularly in the mainstream media these days and at many shows?   

[gr.king]

No matter how stylish the presentation and no matter how great the casual entertainment value, if the substance of something is wrong, then it is wrong. No quantity of fashionable modern excessive praise-lavishing can alter that.

[jamie92208]

Morning all from a sunny Bournemouth where Beth and I are relaxing half way through our move to France.   All the talk about the locos for the M & G N, has made me think more about the viaduct.   After 5 days without any work on it , due to other commitments, I have had chance to relax and do some more drawing.  Things are coming along and I'm currently working on the diagonal girders.   From careful study of photos and the drawings it turns out that each set are different in one way or another.   I think that I've now finally cracked the first set and have got the base drawing done for them and now have worked out how they should be built.   It is coming along and hopefully will translate into 3D and be buildable.

 

I have enjoyed the pictures of the absorbed locos in LNER livery.   I have plans for something similar on Green Ayre.   I have a spare etch for a Midland and North British Clerestory that was part of the Midland Scottish joint stock.  Several of these ended up with the LNER and I believe got painted in varnished teak livery.  It seems like a nice idea though how it would have appeared at Green Ayre I don't know.

 

Jamie

 

PS I couldn't agree more about accuracy when modelling a well known prototype.   As far as I know the only facing points on the S & C were are Settle Junction, Garsdale and Appleby.  The Midland made a lot of use of double slips to provide trap points on the exit of goods yards.

Edited June 12, 2018 by jamie92208

[Lecorbusier]

I had a most-interesting chat with an editor yesterday. 

 

I'd just handed over some pictures of a very well-modelled layout, and commented on one or two aspects which I thought, given greater observation of the prototype, might have 'improved' it. 

 

One thing concerned running-in boards - displaying the station's name (and status if necessary). It's my belief, particularly at wayside stations, that the station's name was only displayed at the end of the platform where trains entered. Obviously, at large, complex stations, where some trains terminated, or at main termini themselves, running-in boards would be at the end of every platform, but for a two-platform station, with just Up and Down roads? Would they have station names at both ends of each platform? I don't think so, but this layout had. 

 

The discussion went along the lines of 'does it really matter?', the main objective being enjoyment of the hobby. I couldn't disagree with the latter, but wouldn't any 'enjoyment' be greater, knowing a layout was more accurate in detail? 

 

As is well known, I always advocate the modelling of an actual prototype. What's put into the model is what was there during the time the model depicts - dead simple. Even if a model railway doesn't represent an actual location, surely it should follow prototype practice, shouldn't it? The reason I ask is that I've recently seen layouts (in the press and at shows) which purport to represent part of the Settle & Carlisle (ex-Midland Railway), and facing points and facing crossovers abound. That, and no trap points protecting access to main running lines from sidings. And don't ask me about MPDs, which couldn't possibly work in reality. Do modellers not observe the real thing these days? Did they ever? 

 

My belief is that by using observation of the prototype (either by direct observation today, or via historic source material) enjoyment in the hobby can be enhanced by knowing things are more 'right'. 

 

Or, am I just a miserable old reactionary who perceives a decline in 'accurate' railway modelling, particularly in the mainstream media these days and at many shows?   

Tony,

 

An interesting subject to mull over.

 

I do think it depends upon what the goal is. It also depends on the level of knowledge in both the observer and the modeller. That is why I like the various designations .... toy/model/finescale model etc, and perhaps these ought to be more overt.

 

My journey since restarting modelling over the past 5 years has been extraordinary. The amount I didn't know or simply had no idea about was immense. Now when I look at models my eye is far more discerning as to accuracy and understanding (though there is still a long way to go), but my ability to appreciate fine modelling was always there I like to think.

 

The new knowledge has in some ways increased my pleasure in appreciating excellent models, but in others has definitely decreased my overall appreciation and enjoyment. There are very well modelled layouts I now look at which jar and I can't enjoy because things are incorrect, there are also layouts where things are certainly correct but the modelling isn't to a high enough standard. P4 can also be a problem where things can be correct and the modelling pretty good but the layout is not interesting enough or due to the tighter tolerances the reliability is simply not there.

 

Over all I am happy with my new found viewing level, but this is mainly because it helps with my own modelling and i believe brings greater pleasure through discernment when a truly excellent model is encountered. However the sheer enjoyment and pleasure I have seen generated for many people by models which now jar for me do give a counter argument.

 

Same with the modelling itself .... there should I believe be room for many differing levels and approaches without disparagement .... disparagement should be reserved for false claims made or hubris, but to date I have been lucky enough to have avoided contact with much of this.

 

In the end I suppose everything is down to personal taste and in the hobby the more the merrier I suggest might be a good motto.

[Clearwater]

Tony

 

On the subject of "being right", an issue my own prototype research is highlighting is what to do when a picture doesn't appear to exist.

 

Whilst I've found photos of a particular bridge I'm interested in BR days, I've not seen one from the 30s. Not that surprising when you consider that with a few exceptions, photographing common place industrial scenes wasn't something that happened. The presence nearby of a way more photogenic bridge probably also doesn't help! I've seen shots of this bridge with 'mine' in the background but the perspective of the shot generally excludes the bit I'm unsure about. Unless I can find evidence to the contrary, I'm minded to assume that in the relative cash strapped 40s/50s, a bridge is unlikely to have been replaced unless absolutely necessary. Obviously "Sods Law" will dictate that as soon as I actually progress of building said bridge, a photo will miraculously turn up. I think I'll go with what I've seen in BR days and assume that's what was there in the 1930s.

 

I presume that your approach is either to take what you can find and assume it was there earlier, if plausible, or else take common prototypical practice from the company in question / general vicinity and adapt as appropriate.

 

David

[TrevorP1]

I had a most-interesting chat with an editor yesterday. 

 

I'd just handed over some pictures of a very well-modelled layout, and commented on one or two aspects which I thought, given greater observation of the prototype, might have 'improved' it. 

 

One thing concerned running-in boards - displaying the station's name (and status if necessary). It's my belief, particularly at wayside stations, that the station's name was only displayed at the end of the platform where trains entered. Obviously, at large, complex stations, where some trains terminated, or at main termini themselves, running-in boards would be at the end of every platform, but for a two-platform station, with just Up and Down roads? Would they have station names at both ends of each platform? I don't think so, but this layout had. 

 

The discussion went along the lines of 'does it really matter?', the main objective being enjoyment of the hobby. I couldn't disagree with the latter, but wouldn't any 'enjoyment' be greater, knowing a layout was more accurate in detail? 

 

As is well known, I always advocate the modelling of an actual prototype. What's put into the model is what was there during the time the model depicts - dead simple. Even if a model railway doesn't represent an actual location, surely it should follow prototype practice, shouldn't it? The reason I ask is that I've recently seen layouts (in the press and at shows) which purport to represent part of the Settle & Carlisle (ex-Midland Railway), and facing points and facing crossovers abound. That, and no trap points protecting access to main running lines from sidings. And don't ask me about MPDs, which couldn't possibly work in reality. Do modellers not observe the real thing these days? Did they ever? 

 

My belief is that by using observation of the prototype (either by direct observation today, or via historic source material) enjoyment in the hobby can be enhanced by knowing things are more 'right'. 

 

Or, am I just a miserable old reactionary who perceives a decline in 'accurate' railway modelling, particularly in the mainstream media these days and at many shows?   

 

 

I couldn't agree more Tony. If you know about how a real railway works, everything that does not follow full size practice 'jars'. Yes, I do believe it is important to get principles correct and to do your research because anything else is surely 'playing trains'.

 

On the subject of running in boards, the name says it all. I am currently researching ideas for my new project and I have just checked the prototype location. Sure enough the boards are as near as practicable to the platform ends where trains entered.

[sandra]

I had a most-interesting chat with an editor yesterday. 

 

I'd just handed over some pictures of a very well-modelled layout, and commented on one or two aspects which I thought, given greater observation of the prototype, might have 'improved' it. 

 

One thing concerned running-in boards - displaying the station's name (and status if necessary). It's my belief, particularly at wayside stations, that the station's name was only displayed at the end of the platform where trains entered. Obviously, at large, complex stations, where some trains terminated, or at main termini themselves, running-in boards would be at the end of every platform, but for a two-platform station, with just Up and Down roads? Would they have station names at both ends of each platform? I don't think so, but this layout had. 

 

The discussion went along the lines of 'does it really matter?', the main objective being enjoyment of the hobby. I couldn't disagree with the latter, but wouldn't any 'enjoyment' be greater, knowing a layout was more accurate in detail? 

 

As is well known, I always advocate the modelling of an actual prototype. What's put into the model is what was there during the time the model depicts - dead simple. Even if a model railway doesn't represent an actual location, surely it should follow prototype practice, shouldn't it? The reason I ask is that I've recently seen layouts (in the press and at shows) which purport to represent part of the Settle & Carlisle (ex-Midland Railway), and facing points and facing crossovers abound. That, and no trap points protecting access to main running lines from sidings. And don't ask me about MPDs, which couldn't possibly work in reality. Do modellers not observe the real thing these days? Did they ever? 

 

My belief is that by using observation of the prototype (either by direct observation today, or via historic source material) enjoyment in the hobby can be enhanced by knowing things are more 'right'. 

 

Or, am I just a miserable old reactionary who perceives a decline in 'accurate' railway modelling, particularly in the mainstream media these days and at many shows?

 

Tony,

 

This is an interesting topic. The problem is that if you are not modelling an actual location then almost anything can go as undoubtedly somewhere on the BR network there was a wayside station with running-boards at both ends of the platforms. I agree that it would be better and more typical to have them only at the end at which the train runs in.

 

As to the question of “does it matter”. It does in the sense that having a model which is generally inaccurate would perhaps lower your esteem in the eyes of fellow modellers. But if nobody apart from the owner sees the layout and if he or she is happy with it then “ignorance is bliss”. After all even if you, as I do, model an actual location you never have all the information you need and there are many occasions when you have to take an educated guess as to how things were likely to be on the real railway.

 

I must say, that with this hobby there is a danger of becoming so swamped in minor detail that you never actually produce anything because you are too afraid of getting things wrong. I think it is better to go-ahead and have mistakes pointed out to you than not to produce anything at all. However one of the great joys of the hobby is getting to know about a subject about which you were previously totally ignorant. By the very nature of the prototype to build a model of it requires an immense range of knowledge and skills and nobody can know everything and we are all learning all the time.

 

Sandra

[Bucoops]

I'll be happy if I can get a reasonable approximation - I don't have a lot of time to model (at the moment I'm so busy I've not been able to fire up the soldering iron in a few weeks ), and my armchair research so far hasn't yielded a single photo from the year I want to do. Track layout i have, and even managed to find the size of the turntable despite the documentation I've found being unreadable for that bit - but no photos showing the simple things like signage and platform furniture etc. Will I have the time to go to records offices etc.? Hopefully one day!

[grahame]

I had a most-interesting chat with an editor yesterday. 

 

I'd just handed over some pictures of a very well-modelled layout, and commented on one or two aspects which I thought, given greater observation of the prototype, might have 'improved' it. 

 

One thing concerned running-in boards - displaying the station's name (and status if necessary). It's my belief, particularly at wayside stations, that the station's name was only displayed at the end of the platform where trains entered. Obviously, at large, complex stations, where some trains terminated, or at main termini themselves, running-in boards would be at the end of every platform, but for a two-platform station, with just Up and Down roads? Would they have station names at both ends of each platform? I don't think so, but this layout had. 

 

The discussion went along the lines of 'does it really matter?', the main objective being enjoyment of the hobby. I couldn't disagree with the latter, but wouldn't any 'enjoyment' be greater, knowing a layout was more accurate in detail? 

 

As is well known, I always advocate the modelling of an actual prototype. What's put into the model is what was there during the time the model depicts - dead simple. Even if a model railway doesn't represent an actual location, surely it should follow prototype practice, shouldn't it? The reason I ask is that I've recently seen layouts (in the press and at shows) which purport to represent part of the Settle & Carlisle (ex-Midland Railway), and facing points and facing crossovers abound. That, and no trap points protecting access to main running lines from sidings. And don't ask me about MPDs, which couldn't possibly work in reality. Do modellers not observe the real thing these days? Did they ever? 

 

My belief is that by using observation of the prototype (either by direct observation today, or via historic source material) enjoyment in the hobby can be enhanced by knowing things are more 'right'. 

 

Or, am I just a miserable old reactionary who perceives a decline in 'accurate' railway modelling, particularly in the mainstream media these days and at many shows?

 

Hmm, thought provoking, as usual from Tony. And, if I may, I'll throw in a few of my thoughts.

 

I don't like the 'does it really matter" riposte. Obviously it does matter to the person voicing the observation and it may or may not do to the builder. There will be plenty who do consider inaccuracies or errors to matter to them and plenty who don't care, yet both sides are more than likely to be looking for enjoyment out of the hobby. So why make that the issue?

 

My other thought is that, coming from a position of complete ignorance like myself, to learn, understand and apply everything necessary to build an absolutely accurate model railway may well take an extortionate amount of time meaning that I may never get the model made. In such circumstances I'd be grateful for some latitude towards the errors I do make.

 

But then, having had them pointed out (hopefully, gently and with consideration) it is a matter of how one reacts. Does one quietly accept, learn and correct, simply ignore the advise or hit back with "does it really matter?" It seems that all of those responses are often played out, but I know what I prefer to see/hear, even if I'm not sure I always behave that way.

 

G

[Chamby]

There is nothing wrong in being fastidious in ones approach to modelling... up to a point. Like many others on this forum, there are some things that just irritate me when I see them, to the extent that it can taint my appreciation of the rest of the modelling therein. I often find myself thinking ‘that’s a superb model, if only the modeller had not used (insert pet hate)’. Yes, even with some of Tony’s stuff... even though he models to a standard and scale that I will never, ever attain! The fact that he can still be open about the imperfections though, and be philosophical about them, says a lot.

 

I always try and remember the old adage, that when you point a finger somewhere else, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself. And as Lecorbusier so elegantly says, the more you learn and the more fastidious you become, the more you are going to find things that put you off. Which means that you end up with even more fingers pointing back at yourself!

 

At the end of the day though it comes down to ones motive when passing comment. Constructive criticism, offered as an encouragement to improve, should always be welcome. But if this is delivered in a disparaging, discouraging way, that is intended to make you feel superior, or hurtfully find fault, then it’s better not said.

 

Phil

[ecgtheow]

Tony,

 

An interesting subject to mull over.

 

I do think it depends upon what the goal is. It also depends on the level of knowledge in both the observer and the modeller. That is why I like the various designations .... toy/model/finescale model etc, and perhaps these ought to be more overt.

 

My journey since restarting modelling over the past 5 years has been extraordinary. The amount I didn't know or simply had no idea about was immense. Now when I look at models my eye is far more discerning as to accuracy and understanding (though there is still a long way to go), but my ability to appreciate fine modelling was always there I like to think.

 

The new knowledge has in some ways increased my pleasure in appreciating excellent models, but in others has definitely decreased my overall appreciation and enjoyment. There are very well modelled layouts I now look at which jar and I can't enjoy because things are incorrect, there are also layouts where things are certainly correct but the modelling isn't to a high enough standard. P4 can also be a problem where things can be correct and the modelling pretty good but the layout is not interesting enough or due to the tighter tolerances the reliability is simply not there.

 

Over all I am happy with my new found viewing level, but this is mainly because it helps with my own modelling and i believe brings greater pleasure through discernment when a truly excellent model is encountered. However the sheer enjoyment and pleasure I have seen generated for many people by models which now jar for me do give a counter argument.

 

Same with the modelling itself .... there should I believe be room for many differing levels and approaches without disparagement .... disparagement should be reserved for false claims made or hubris, but to date I have been lucky enough to have avoided contact with much of this.

 

In the end I suppose everything is down to personal taste and in the hobby the more the merrier I suggest might be a good motto.

 

Though I might know a bit more about the M&GNR than many on this site I am not an expert, but the photos & comments about Eric Fry's beautiful ex-M&GNR LNER locos could be a case in point about what is & what is not correct? At least according to one book on M&GNR locos number 13 was fitted with an extended smokebox AND a Melton chimney to replace the Johnson one in 1908 as were most BUT NOT ALL of the C Class which retained their original boilers. Does anybody know whether a Johnson chimney had replaced the Melton one by the time number 13 became 013 of the LNER in 1937? Does it matter? There were other locos in the C class that would have looked just like Eric Fry's model. So my point is really that being correct or not correct is a question of degree not an absolute especially when it concerns lesser known prototypes & practices.

 

William

[Clem]

I had a most-interesting chat with an editor yesterday. 

 

I'd just handed over some pictures of a very well-modelled layout, and commented on one or two aspects which I thought, given greater observation of the prototype, might have 'improved' it. 

 

One thing concerned running-in boards - displaying the station's name (and status if necessary). It's my belief, particularly at wayside stations, that the station's name was only displayed at the end of the platform where trains entered. Obviously, at large, complex stations, where some trains terminated, or at main termini themselves, running-in boards would be at the end of every platform, but for a two-platform station, with just Up and Down roads? Would they have station names at both ends of each platform? I don't think so, but this layout had. 

 

The discussion went along the lines of 'does it really matter?', the main objective being enjoyment of the hobby. I couldn't disagree with the latter, but wouldn't any 'enjoyment' be greater, knowing a layout was more accurate in detail? 

 

As is well known, I always advocate the modelling of an actual prototype. What's put into the model is what was there during the time the model depicts - dead simple. Even if a model railway doesn't represent an actual location, surely it should follow prototype practice, shouldn't it? The reason I ask is that I've recently seen layouts (in the press and at shows) which purport to represent part of the Settle & Carlisle (ex-Midland Railway), and facing points and facing crossovers abound. That, and no trap points protecting access to main running lines from sidings. And don't ask me about MPDs, which couldn't possibly work in reality. Do modellers not observe the real thing these days? Did they ever? 

 

My belief is that by using observation of the prototype (either by direct observation today, or via historic source material) enjoyment in the hobby can be enhanced by knowing things are more 'right'. 

 

Or, am I just a miserable old reactionary who perceives a decline in 'accurate' railway modelling, particularly in the mainstream media these days and at many shows?   

 

I am very much in agreement with you and what's been said by others. I would add that - importantly - I think that we have some responsibility to anyone viewing our layouts to get it right wherever possible. Not following correct railway practice and model representation can lead and has led to perpetuation of non-railway practices in models (facing points where they shouldn't be the most obvious example, but there are many others). I think these errors are a great source of irritation to most scale modellers when they come across them at shows. Personally, (with subsequent regret) I am modelling a fictitious place. However, I strive to make it so that a) prototypical layout rules are obeyed, b) the pre-grouping origin is recognisable and c) where possible, the actual line I model is recognisable too, even if the station/place is fictitious. 

[Jesse Sim]

I hate to be the one to change the subject, Tony, or anyone else that can help actually, I cracked on with my first DS kit and I found it tremendously difficult to get a perfect straight or flat edge on the body assembly. Is there a trick to the trade, a bending tool or someway instead of using your hands and trying hard not to bend an area thats not meant to be bent?? 

 

The kit is a NER milk van.

 

Cheers 

 

Jesse 

[The Stationmaster]

An interesting thing about running-in boards - when you think about it - is that the both platforms on a double track line are really running-in locations because passengers can sit at either side of the train.  Thus someone who is not on the platform side could well also be interested in knowing that they have arrived at their destination or a junction where they need to change trains.

 

So back to the real world and seek out photos of stations belonging to the company/BR Region you are modelling on the sort of route you are modelling.  For example memory suggested to me (after over 50 years ) that an intermediate station on our local branch line had running-in boards at both ends of the platforms and a bit of delving on the 'net found various old photos which illustrated that was indeed the case on at least one of its two platforms platforms.  The other intermediate station also had running-in boards at both ends but it was a rather different case as it had an island platform thus the boards were double-sided to suit.

[N15class]

To me these things should be got right there are enough layouts being modelled on other layouts rather than real practice. Even fictional layouts need to follow the parent company. I know you cannot get every detail right because of scale restraints.

Not doing so is a bit like learning your history from Hollywood. It's all there but it just ain't right.

[jwealleans]

 

I found it tremendously difficult to get a perfect straight or flat edge on the body assembly. Is there a trick to the trade, a bending tool or someway instead of using your hands and trying hard not to bend an area thats not meant to be bent??

 

Run a knife blade along the fold line a couple of times using a ruler.  Don't cut through it, but you should be able to see where you've scored it on the other side.

 

Place the etch along the edge of a piece of wood (the edge of your bench/layout) and lay the ruler on top ,lining both up with the line where you want to bend.  Press down with the heels of your hand while using your fingers to bend the folding part up or down.  Up is better as you can go slightly past where you want it to bend to then allow it to spring back.

 

A set of bending bars are useful - I've never owned a Hold'n'Fold but I'm told they're good too.

[Enterprisingwestern]

I had a most-interesting chat with an editor yesterday. 

 

I'd just handed over some pictures of a very well-modelled layout, and commented on one or two aspects which I thought, given greater observation of the prototype, might have 'improved' it. 

 

One thing concerned running-in boards - displaying the station's name (and status if necessary). It's my belief, particularly at wayside stations, that the station's name was only displayed at the end of the platform where trains entered. Obviously, at large, complex stations, where some trains terminated, or at main termini themselves, running-in boards would be at the end of every platform, but for a two-platform station, with just Up and Down roads? Would they have station names at both ends of each platform? I don't think so, but this layout had. 

 

The discussion went along the lines of 'does it really matter?', the main objective being enjoyment of the hobby. I couldn't disagree with the latter, but wouldn't any 'enjoyment' be greater, knowing a layout was more accurate in detail? 

 

As is well known, I always advocate the modelling of an actual prototype. What's put into the model is what was there during the time the model depicts - dead simple. Even if a model railway doesn't represent an actual location, surely it should follow prototype practice, shouldn't it? The reason I ask is that I've recently seen layouts (in the press and at shows) which purport to represent part of the Settle & Carlisle (ex-Midland Railway), and facing points and facing crossovers abound. That, and no trap points protecting access to main running lines from sidings. And don't ask me about MPDs, which couldn't possibly work in reality. Do modellers not observe the real thing these days? Did they ever? 

 

My belief is that by using observation of the prototype (either by direct observation today, or via historic source material) enjoyment in the hobby can be enhanced by knowing things are more 'right'. 

 

Or, am I just a miserable old reactionary who perceives a decline in 'accurate' railway modelling, particularly in the mainstream media these days and at many shows?   

 

Point me towards an "accurate" layout Tony please.

 

Mike.

[Lecorbusier]

I hate to be the one to change the subject, Tony, or anyone else that can help actually, I cracked on with my first DS kit and I found it tremendously difficult to get a perfect straight or flat edge on the body assembly. Is there a trick to the trade, a bending tool or someway instead of using your hands and trying hard not to bend an area thats not meant to be bent?? 

 

The kit is a NER milk van.

 

Cheers 

 

Jesse 

For what its worth i use a variety of lengths of paired aluminium angle in my vice. I find I can clamp most bends that are larger than can be handled with a pair of box pliers. To bend the brass over I generally use a steel straight edge ... again I have a number of lengths.

 

Others may have better suggestion but hope that helps.

[t-b-g]

There are many different reasons why modellers get things wrong.

 

It may be lack of knowledge, lack of information, carelessness, oversight, "can't be bothered" or perhaps other reasons.

 

Amongst our little gang of friends we often point out things when others in the group have done something that is not quite as it should be. It is done to encourage each other to be that little bit better and there are always some matters where one of us knows a prototype a bit more in depth, or has a good photo that the one building the model hasn't seen.

 

Each of us have our own "blind spots" when it comes to what we think looks right and what doesn't and even the best modellers can drop clangers or not see something that may be obvious to others.

 

So a bit of informed and genuinely constructive comment is not a bad thing as long as the person receiving the comments is the sort of person who wants to make the effort to get things right.

 

There are many layouts and models where I think "If they are happy with that then good luck to them and I hope they enjoy it" and I will say nothing.

Edited June 12, 2018 by t-b-g

[Barry O]

I hate to be the one to change the subject, Tony, or anyone else that can help actually, I cracked on with my first DS kit and I found it tremendously difficult to get a perfect straight or flat edge on the body assembly. Is there a trick to the trade, a bending tool or someway instead of using your hands and trying hard not to bend an area thats not meant to be bent?? 

 

The kit is a NER milk van.

 

Cheers 

 

Jesse 

Jesse

 

I use a hold and fold for bending longer etchings..boy what a difference that made to building brass coaches and wagons.

 

I also use a Kaufman(?) clamp for getting square corners when soldering things together. (thanks to JW for recommending these). I got my clamp from Branchlines. They do a variety of sizes but don't have a website.

 

Baz

[Jesse Sim]

Jesse

 

I use a hold and fold for bending longer etchings..boy what a difference that made to building brass coaches and wagons.

 

I also use a Kaufman(?) clamp for getting square corners when soldering things together. (thanks to JW for recommending these). I got my clamp from Branchlines. They do a variety of sizes but don't have a website.

 

Baz

I know doubt know that I will have a message from JW very soon. He has been ever so helpful. 

 

Cheers Baz, I am slowly getting used to the kit building side of things, practice makes perfect.