Wright writes.....

[Lecorbusier]

But, I suspect we’re in the minority and I’m not convinced that such a programme would get a great audience. It would also take a lot more input from both the TV company and the (presumably amateur) participants.

 

The channel 5 programme involved £1000 per team (at least that’s what they told me when I was invited to participate) and 3 days hospitality so hardly big budget. For the teams the input was limited to some prep time and the 3 days of the event, so manageable alongside other commitments.

 

All too true Andy,

 

However, I may have remembered incorrectly, but the driving force behind Grand Designs (Kevin McCloud) I think at the start had very much to build his audience. The format on the surface did not appear a big audience grabber. The programmes were shot very much on a budget and relied on people coming forward with projects. Interviews were very much a man with a camcorder. Visits during the construction process were relatively low production value and it was only the final visit which was fully set up and lit to give the grand finale.

 

If there was someone within the model railway fraternity similar to McCloud with the drive and desire to make it happen, then I suspect there are the superstars  within the broader hobby with the commercial clout to mean it might be given a chance ... it would then sink or swim on merit.

 

But it would need a presenter with Charisma as well as a love of the hobby ... remove one of these and it would certainly flop. McCloud succeeded because he was personable and interesting and at the same time he managed to convey his very real love of modern architecture and design.

 

Thats my hunch anyway.

[Tony Teague]

I don't think that we can be alarmed about the decline of the hobby, and particularly younger people entering it, if we also decry it being portrayed as fun and enjoyable in a populist format.

 

Most mainstream TV programs portray life in an exaggerated way - more crashes, violence etc than would ever be seen in real life, because just to cover normal, everyday life - as Tony described it above - would be boring and unwatchable.

 

Additionally, we all have to start somewhere, and I personally doubt that anybody starting out in the hobby would know enough to go directly to finescale or to modelling a prototype to the standard of LB - so it comes as no surprise to me that in order to get a viable budget and a prime time slot, the production team have resorted to a populist approach.

 

My personal view is that the programme will attract new entrants to the hobby, which is most welcome, and that perhaps some of those might become the finescale modellers of the future - we all need to remember where we started.

 

Tony

[Chamby]

The problem here, with the Great Model Railway Challenge, is that it’s format drives the modellers to produce themed layouts with novelty features.

 

I felt sorry for the Missenden Modellers in the first episode, who were clearly trying to produce something akin to a quality model railway, but in the end could only achieve this by building large tranches of scenery in advance and even then they ran out of time. They were penalised for ‘cheating’ and this style of modelling was therefore portrayed critically rather than recognised as something equally valuable, albeit out of scope for the programme.

 

I for one appreciated what they were trying to portray about our hobby, and would have liked to see them treated more sympathetically even if they did break the producer’s rules.

[Bucoops]

But if the rules are to create something in a set time, and they pre-built items outside that time then they cheated. If you're only given a small length of time, attempting to create a show quality layout was foolish and doesn't deserve to win. 

[Jesse Sim]

Lift out section is in and track laying start again Tony. This is what I accomplished so far today, she works perfectly, nothing re wrired yet!

 

[chris p bacon]

I felt sorry for the Missenden Modellers in the first episode, who were clearly trying to produce something akin to a quality model railway, but in the end could only achieve this by building large tranches of scenery in advance and even then they ran out of time. They were penalised for ‘cheating’ and this style of modelling was therefore portrayed critically rather than recognised as something equally valuable, albeit out of scope for the programme.

 

I for one appreciated what they were trying to portray about our hobby, and would have liked to see them treated more sympathetically even if they did break the producer’s rules.

 

 

Although it was noted that they broke/bent the rules they were then judged on what they had done in the 3 days. It was acknowledged that the perspective terraces and scenic items were very good but the lack of ballast and large areas of ply/mdf still showing went against them.

 

On the GBMRC thread the rules can be downloaded.

[jukebox]

Lift out section is in and track laying start again Tony. This is what I accomplished so far today, she works perfectly, nothing re wrired yet!

 

292852E5-EA6B-4F62-B65A-8EAAAAECE5C8.jpeg

 

Don't forget to slit the copper between the rails, Jesse.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

[jollysmart]

But if the rules are to create something in a set time, and they pre-built items outside that time then they cheated. If you're only given a small length of time, attempting to create a show quality layout was foolish and doesn't deserve to win. 

 

You have to realise that it is a tv programme and without "drama" it is just routine and boring, hence the need to introduce dramatic events by whatever means. Just watching the creation of something where it all goes well would soon have viewers turning off, look at the recent programme about the NYMR who knew how dramatic it was behind the scenes?

[Tony Wright]

Lift out section is in and track laying start again Tony. This is what I accomplished so far today, she works perfectly, nothing re wrired yet!

 

292852E5-EA6B-4F62-B65A-8EAAAAECE5C8.jpeg

Great work, Jesse,

 

I'm glad I was 'instrumental' in getting the work 'approved'.

 

As someone else has suggested, don't forget to gap the copperclad between the rails. otherwise a mighty big short circuit will occur. Make sure the gap is plenty - stray filaments of copper can bridge the gap - I know!

 

Whatever you do, don't work against the tyranny of time. Take your time - there is no end prize for finishing something against a deadline. Make it it properly (as you're obviously doing). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[Denbridge]

The problem here, with the Great Model Railway Challenge, is that it’s format drives the modellers to produce themed layouts with novelty features.

I felt sorry for the Missenden Modellers in the first episode, who were clearly trying to produce something akin to a quality model railway, but in the end could only achieve this by building large tranches of scenery in advance and even then they ran out of time. They were penalised for ‘cheating’ and this style of modelling was therefore portrayed critically rather than recognised as something equally valuable, albeit out of scope for the programme.

I for one appreciated what they were trying to portray about our hobby, and would have liked to see them treated more sympathetically even if they did break the producer’s rules.

the missenden modellers probably did more harm to the hobby than any modelling. What a jumped up group, particularly the leader. What a jumped up arrogant man he was. Some of their modelling, even built at home wasnt much to crow about.

[chris p bacon]

the missenden modellers probably did more harm to the hobby than any modelling. What a jumped up group, particularly the leader. What a jumped up arrogant man he was. Some of their modelling, even built at home wasnt much to crow about.

 

That's a bit harsh.

 

I have read at least one post where the team are known and are very nice chaps, also don't forget that the producer will pick up on things said to create a little drama.

 

As for the modelling, there wasn't anything wrong with it, they had some good ideas which were ackowledged by the judges.

[Clive Mortimore]

I have resisted watching that telly program, instead I have been playing trains. Oddly it is fun running trains.

 

 

[Lecorbusier]

You have to realise that it is a tv programme and without "drama" it is just routine and boring, hence the need to introduce dramatic events by whatever means. Just watching the creation of something where it all goes well would soon have viewers turning off, look at the recent programme about the NYMR who knew how dramatic it was behind the scenes?

All depends on what audience you are aiming at really.

 

Dan Snow's Locomotion - History of the railways and Full Steam Ahead (victorian railways) were slow and measured with no drama, but proved successful.

 

I am not sure Railway modelling is prime time television ... but if you could tap in to the hobby you would have a large and loyal viewership.

[johnlambert]

I have resisted watching that telly program, instead I have been playing trains. Oddly it is fun running trains.

 

100_5243.JPG

 

100_5247.JPG

Me too, Clive, although I'm now so intrigued that I'm probably going to end up watching the program.

 

At least I've found a bit of motivation to do a few jobs on my layout.  There's ballast to re-lay and today I plucked up the courage to weather some more of my rolling stock.

 

A 'before' photo of two relatively modern Graham Farish wagons.

 

And the 'after' picture.  I know I've 'ruined' them as far as resale value goes (probably) but they look much less like plastic mouldings at least as far as I'm concerned.

 

I also had a go at some fitted stock. No before pictures this time.

 

Departmental stock also received some attention.

 

As has some parcels stock (which might not be dirty enough).

[jollysmart]

All depends on what audience you are aiming at really.

 

Dan Snow's Locomotion - History of the railways and Full Steam Ahead (victorian railways) were slow and measured with no drama, but proved successful.

 

I am not sure Railway modelling is prime time television ... but if you could tap in to the hobby you would have a large and loyal viewership.

 

Just by accident I was looking at some old magazines that I have and opened the first Railway Modeller that I bought, August 1965. The inside front cover advert was for a Triang Hornby Giraffe car where the giraffe's head  sticks out of the roof of the wagon and pops back in when it hits the tell-tale post as the train moves along, I wonder how many converts there were to railway modelling as a result of getting one of those?

 

I agree that it isn't prime time but perhaps the place to host a suitable programme would be the satellite channels which have other similar hobby programmes and have previously had some railway modelling  content. Didn't Bob Symes Schutzmann also present a more serious series of model railway programmes a few years ago on channel 4 some of which are still available on Youtube?

[chris p bacon]

. Didn't Bob Symes Schutzmann also present a more serious series of model railway programmes a few years ago on channel 4 some of which are still available on Youtube?

 

 

Model World,  10 programmes on Ships, Military, Aircraft and Model Railways (3 episodes) first shown in 1975.

 

Unless there was another series elsewhere.

[KalKat]

I have the book for that somewhere

 

 

 

Emma

[Tony Wright]

You have to realise that it is a tv programme and without "drama" it is just routine and boring, hence the need to introduce dramatic events by whatever means. Just watching the creation of something where it all goes well would soon have viewers turning off, look at the recent programme about the NYMR who knew how dramatic it was behind the scenes?

Speaking of 'drama' on a TV screen, one day I'll ask Chris Walsh to dig out the out-takes from the Right Track series on railway modelling. 

 

For instance, when I soldered the tender sides on a Gibson 4F the wrong way round! Brass can bounce, and I used up at least half of my dictionary of profanity in no time at all! 

 

Rather than watch telly (other than a great, B&W sci-fi B movie), I've started building the Acro 4F. I'll post pictures as I proceed, but what an interesting project - a sort of Jamieson brass kit from over half a century ago. The next stage on from scratch-building, with still a lot of bits to make from scratch. 

 

Though I'm in no position to be censorious (is there such a word?), and I admit to first bringing up the subject of those TV programmes, may we (as many have done) return to modelling projects, please? 

 

My point of view is well known (and I said I'll comment no more), and they're certainly not for me. If they entertain young girls (and boys?) and usually uninterested wives/partners, then good on them.

[Willie Whizz]

...

 

One of my other passions is capital ships. I actively seek out programmes which feature great naval battles. Yet, in some, the accuracy is appalling (the Barham blowing up in the Med being used as a picture of the Hood's destruction, for instance). Do we not have a right to point out the puerile nature of such mistakes? I know the model railway programme makers weren't attempting to be 'historically accurate', but none to me seemed to consider historical research as being a principal facet of the hobby (though, because I watched so little, they might have done and I missed it). 

 

...

 

 

A little late with my reply, but ...

 

In principle I agree with this.  In practice, however, as a fellow 'warship enthusiast' I'd have to point out that there simply is no known film of the event of HMS Hood blowing-up, other than some grainy German footage of the immediate aftermath shot from so far away you don't even see a flash or any flame, just a small smear of smoke against a hazy and already smoky background.

 

In that situation - and for much of WWII at sea similar problems arise - what should a programme producer and director do?  'Doing without' and relying on a spoken description will convey little of the drama and horrific spectacle of the event.  Creating some CGI footage would be costly and risks being visibly artificial (like those 'featherweight' fighter-planes in the Pearl Harbor movie, which are technically accurate but seem to have no 'mass' whatsoever).  Blowing-up a model is difficult to control, you can only do it once, and it still may not be 'right' (q.v. 'Sink the Bismarck' [c.1960] where the explosion of Hood is certainly dramatic but looks nothing like any description of the actual event.

 

To give the viewer - especially the 'lay' viewer - at least some impression of the 'spectacle' it may therefore make good sense to show authentic film of a comparable event - which the awesome footage of Barham blowing apart certainly is, especially if most of the lead-up in which the battleship rolls gradually onto her beam-ends is cut.  Obviously it would be appropriate and truthful to explain what the viewer is seeing in a voice-over.

 

To put this in a model railway context, so far as I know there's no aerial footage of Mallard's record-breaking 1938 run.  In a film about that, which might give the 'lay viewer' a better idea - filming a model, or genuine film of (another) A4 on a passenger train at high speed?

[rob94]

Afternoon everyone I thought I'd share some progress on a few projects

Here's A DJH A3 which I have erected the frames for. I have since fitted the pickups and one side of the valve gear which seems to be running sweetly and I'm quite happy with it for a first attempt hopefully the other side goes just as well. I'll post some more updates when I make some more progress.

 

Tony may recall tinkering with this chassis it's a comet J39 chassis which has had a replacement motor and gearbox in the form of a Mitsumi motor and a High level roadrunner plus 60:1 box. It could do with a lower ratio to be honest as it is a little slow for my liking.

 

Here is how it fits in the frames, it replaced a drive train of a DS10 with the traditional gear mount and Romford gear set. This had to be done as the DS10 had burnt out.

 

Apologies if I have made any language cock ups. 

 

Cheers Robin

[gr.king]

It may be of interest to some to know that when fitting a little Mitsumi motor of that type to a High-Level Roadrunner earlier this year, for a loco with little space between the lower firebox sides, I found no great difficulty in drilling carefully located new mounting holes in the gearbox frame so that the motor would sit with its flat sides aligned properly with the length of the loco.

[rowanj]

It may be of interest to some to know that when fitting a little Mitsumi motor of that type to a High-Level Roadrunner earlier this year, for a loco with little space between the lower firebox sides, I found no great difficulty in drilling carefully located new mounting holes in the gearbox frame so that the motor would sit with its flat sides aligned properly with the length of the loco.

 

Graeme. I quite like these little motors when used for appropriate small locos. Do I assume you used self-tapping screws to fit them to the gearbox? If so, what size drill/screw did you use?

John

[Tony Wright]

A little late with my reply, but ...

 

In principle I agree with this.  In practice, however, as a fellow 'warship enthusiast' I'd have to point out that there simply is no known film of the event of HMS Hood blowing-up, other than some grainy German footage of the immediate aftermath shot from so far away you don't even see a flash or any flame, just a small smear of smoke against a hazy and already smoky background.

 

In that situation - and for much of WWII at sea similar problems arise - what should a programme producer and director do?  'Doing without' and relying on a spoken description will convey little of the drama and horrific spectacle of the event.  Creating some CGI footage would be costly and risks being visibly artificial (like those 'featherweight' fighter-planes in the Pearl Harbor movie, which are technically accurate but seem to have no 'mass' whatsoever).  Blowing-up a model is difficult to control, you can only do it once, and it still may not be 'right' (q.v. 'Sink the Bismarck' [c.1960] where the explosion of Hood is certainly dramatic but looks nothing like any description of the actual event.

 

To give the viewer - especially the 'lay' viewer - at least some impression of the 'spectacle' it may therefore make good sense to show authentic film of a comparable event - which the awesome footage of Barham blowing apart certainly is, especially if most of the lead-up in which the battleship rolls gradually onto her beam-ends is cut.  Obviously it would be appropriate and truthful to explain what the viewer is seeing in a voice-over.

 

To put this in a model railway context, so far as I know there's no aerial footage of Mallard's record-breaking 1938 run.  In a film about that, which might give the 'lay viewer' a better idea - filming a model, or genuine film of (another) A4 on a passenger train at high speed?

Good points, but I still cough and splutter when such 'liberties' are taken. 

 

You're right, of course, with regard to the destruction of the Hood, other than some grainy, distant stills taken from the Prinz Eugen, there is no photograph of the great battle cruiser's death. By the way, in the 1960 film 'Sink The Bismark', they have the Hood shooting with all her guns (to port!), as well as numerous other liberties taken with accuracy - was there ever a destroyer called the Solent? Certainly not one sunk by the Bismark. 

 

I've just finished reading a book about British capital ships in WW2, where the author considers the pre-War view of the aerial lobby (Billy Mitchell, etc) which opined the notion that the great ships were obsolete because of their vulnerability to attack by planes. Yet, on dozens of occasions, bombers, both torpedo and dive, failed to sink a 'moving' capital ship. It was only after scores of planes were deployed, with no fighter cover for the ships (Prince of Wales and Repulse) that moving capital ships were sunk from the air. The Americans took this to the ultimate conclusion with the sinking of the Yamato, after dozens of bombs and torpedoes struck the ultimate battleship. Again, she had no fighter cover. 

 

Interesting stuff. 

[Tony Wright]

Afternoon everyone I thought I'd share some progress on a few projects

A3 Chassis.jpg

Here's A DJH A3 which I have erected the frames for. I have since fitted the pickups and one side of the valve gear which seems to be running sweetly and I'm quite happy with it for a first attempt hopefully the other side goes just as well. I'll post some more updates when I make some more progress.

 

J39 Chassis.jpg

Tony may recall tinkering with this chassis it's a comet J39 chassis which has had a replacement motor and gearbox in the form of a Mitsumi motor and a High level roadrunner plus 60:1 box. It could do with a lower ratio to be honest as it is a little slow for my liking.

 

Gearbox.jpg

Here is how it fits in the frames, it replaced a drive train of a DS10 with the traditional gear mount and Romford gear set. This had to be done as the DS10 had burnt out.

 

Apologies if I have made any language cock ups. 

 

Cheers Robin

Thanks for posting those, Robin,

 

Coincidentally, I've just replaced a DS10 in a chassis for a friend. It, too, had burnt out. I don't like those motors at all. 

 

Did my tinkering with the J39 chassis help?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[cctransuk]

Graeme. I quite like these little motors when used for appropriate small locos. Do I assume you used self-tapping screws to fit them to the gearbox? If so, what size drill/screw did you use?

John

 

When purchased from me, Mitsumi motors come with a diagram showing how to mark out and drill the additional mounting holes in an etched gearbox.

 

I also provide two M2 screws to fit the tapped holes in the motor.

 

Mitsumi motors are significantly slower than Mashima motors; a lower gearbox ratio should be selected when using these motors.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

https://www.cctrans.org.uk/products.htm