Wright writes.....

[Atso]

I think that there is often potential in older models of wagons for upgrading and improvements.

 

 

Above are three old Farish vans of c. 1960's-1970's vintage (picked up for c. £5 each) for which the body moulding is surprisingly good. The one on the right is as it was produced by Farish with the horrible generic 10' chassis that they fitted many of their wagons with. The other two have been repainted and fitted with 2mm Association etched chassis kits (with N Gauge wheels on adapter axles) to obtain the correct fitted 10' wheelbase (designed to work with the Parkside kits). Even factoring in the cost of the etches and other bits and pieces, these vans are much cheaper to make than purchasing the newer, more accurate, Farish vans (which still represent the war time builds and therefore technically out of period for me). Unfortunately, these chassis have just been withdrawn and the standard 152 scale chassis is too short for using with these N gauge bodies. I've still got three chassis kits left but another half a dozen vans to convert - hopefully the 2mm Association will reintroduce them at a later date.

 

Tony, your bogie brick wagon looks wonderful! I offer my own N Gauge efforts of the same design of wagon which were 3D printed.

 

 

These will eventually receive a load and end up providing additional braking power for my representation of the New England to Kings Cross coal trains.

 

All the above wagons will receive vacuum pipes one day!

[cctransuk]

These wagons are susceptibe to being greatly improved.

 

I have also done a number of other conversions - mostly based on the Hornby Dublo ICI chlorine and Traffic Services ferry tank wagons, or the Airfix / Hornby 20T RTR tank wagon. The chassis for many of these are based on the Airfix / Dapol 35Tglw ESSO tank wagon kit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Naturally, transfers for most of these wagons can found at https://www.cctrans.org.uk/products.htm .

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited December 13, 2018 by cctransuk

[t-b-g]

Dear Mr. Middleditch,

 

Thank you for your correspondence.

 

The cattle wagon you mention is, I think, a David Geen white metal kit. It was originally built by John Houlden for use on Gamston Bank (since cremated - the layout, not John!), but was not completed. I finished it and painted it. I also numbered it, though that number is for an ex-LMS cattle van, which might be incorrect. Could it be an ex-LNER 'van?  

 

This 'correct' numbering (or incorrect) brings me on to another point. When I photographed a famous layout, though I was unaware of the fact at the time, some of the rolling stock was just lettered/numbered with little paint squiggles. These were really 'meaningless', but the eye (if not the camera) was completely hoodwinked into believing that the brandings were entirely correct. That cattle van, for instance, has a black rectangle (denoting unfitted stock) with a number in it. The eye accepts that as being 'right', even though (I admit), it might not be. It's just chosen off an 'appropriate' transfer sheet. 

 

Certainly, an act of heresy such as described above would be intolerable on a loco (though one friend had 45753 applied to one cabside of his rebuilt Jubilee - a simple mistake of transposition). It's just that, in a train of, say, 25+ wagons, does everyone read every number? 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

A. J. Wright. 

 

Dear Sir,

 

If I may, I would like to add a small contribution to the discussion. I believe that the famous layout referred to above may well be the one known as "Buckingham".

 

If that is indeed the case, although some of the lettering on the rolling stock was never fully completed, the builder was gradually working through the vehicles and improving the liveries.

 

I have great pleasure in attaching a small sample of photographs, taken especially to illustrate the results.

 

Although the quality may not be fully up to the best standards of today, they are very pleasing to the eye and certainly look as though the livery has been correctly applied when observed at normal viewing distance on the layout. To refer to them as "squiggles" is, I feel, slightly harsh.

 

The six wheeled carriages are amongst the earliest built examples of rolling stock, dating back to 1947 and they are often the example quoted when others refer to the carriages on the layout as not having proper lettering.

 

I remain yours faithfully.

 

A B Gee

 

[Headstock]

Thanks for all the posts describing/showing the upgrades of those interesting old Tri-ang wagons. It's clear that the basic bodies were very sound indeed, and more-than-worthy of upgrading.

 

I have to say it amuses me sometimes when the position of a letter is questioned, or the position of an instruction, or whether a straight (or bent?) vacuum pipe should be present on something, or not. All of these observations reflect a laudable attention to detail, which should be encouraged. 

 

Yet, and I'm as guilty as anyone in this regard, at the same time as attention to some detail is scrupulously observed, other elements on a model railway seem to have been looked at via a 'blind spot'. These include (hobby horse time again!), non-working signals, or signals which couldn't possibly instruct/protect what they're intended to do because of daft siting, far-too-tight visible curves, and locations either made up or so compromised as to be unworkable. I do find it a bit odd that (some) folk will insist on the greatest zeal being applied to a singular model's accuracy, then run it on a complete figment of the imagination. The excuse? Because no actual prototype location suits the sort of service or types of trains those modellers wish to run. 

 

Might I have fitted six-wheeled bogies to that brick wagon because it would make it look much more interesting? 

 

Whether I alter it to correct mistakes or to complete it is a moot point. Its working through LB is rather tenuous, though it does make an interesting vehicle in a mixed train (heading for repair?). At least I can say (which is rare for me regarding wagons) 'I made it'. 

 

I try as best as I can to achieve 'accuracy' in and on LB, given the inevitable compromises OO imposes. Nobody (in my opinion) should be 'blind' to critical observation and constructive comment. I hope I'm not too myopic in that regard, though, I admit, some of my train formations are 'typical' rather than strictly 'prototypical'. That said, recent observations by Gilbert Barnatt and Andy Sparkes have made me alter the consist of a couple of trains, and also alter their positions in the sequence. Thanks indeed. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

personally I'm finding it a refreshing change for this thread to look at wagons for a change. Lets face it, wagons are last in line, a long way behind the working signals that get a mention every couple of pages. I would wager there are more model railway layouts out there with working signals than there are with good representations of freight stock. Certainly that was the case at the recent Wakefield model railway show. Admittedly I didn't see all the layouts, those that I did view all had working signals. In contrast there was some absolute howlers amongst the good stock.

 

With regard to your intolerance of non working signals (nothing wrong with that in itself) I would find more power in your grumblings if you were actually making them yourself. After all, it seems easy to my mind to insist on a proper way of doing things if somebody else is doing the work. On viewing one of your photographs the other day, I thought how fantastic the ground signals looked, unfortunately spoilt by another one of those stunted pseudo ex LMS vans. Funny how the likes of Triang could get so much right all those years ago, while the aforementioned van is still being sold as a premium product by a major manufacturer

[Bucoops]

Good evening Tony,

 

personally I'm finding it a refreshing change for this thread to look at wagons for a change. Lets face it, wagons are last in line, a long way behind the working signals that get a mention every couple of pages. I would wager there are more model railway layouts out there with working signals than there are with good representations of freight stock. Certainly that was the case at the recent Wakefield model railway show. Admittedly I didn't see all the layouts, those that I did view all had working signals. In contrast there was some absolute howlers amongst the good stock.

 

With regard to your intolerance of non working signals (nothing wrong with that in itself) I would find more power in your grumblings if you were actually making them yourself. After all, it seems easy to my mind to insist on a proper way of doing things if somebody else is doing the work. On viewing one of your photographs the other day, I thought how fantastic the ground signals looked, unfortunately spoilt by another one of those stunted pseudo ex LMS vans. Funny how the likes of Triang could get so much right all those years ago, while the aforementioned van is still being sold as a premium product by a major manufacturer

 

I seem to have "got lucky" with regards to signals - whilst the electrification of the line to Shenfield was disrupted by the War, the searchlight signals were in place by my chosen 1939 - so no moving parts I guess research may reveal the odd straggler but I can cope with that (hopefully).

[Enterprisingwestern]

Hi Baz

 

I have a bee in my bonnet about yard lamps and station lights on model railways. Most layouts one sees at exhibitions or in magazines are modeled as if it were daylight hours. Now the railways like your own council do not illuminate places when the sun is doing the same job, as it cost money. So why do (I have been guilty) railway modellers have the station and yard lights on if they are modelling in daylight?

 

I did try running Hanging Hill using the model  lights, it was a disaster. I kept bumping into things in the manshed.

s029.jpg

 

I prefer such an ambience, makes my layout look as good as everybody elses.

 

Mike.

[46256]

two layout wagons, both vintage Hornby...the brick wagon certainly the older of the two. I always wanted one of these having seen it on my next door neighbours tri ang layout when I was a young boy. This one bought for a few pence at my local model shop. New bogies and wheels fitted. One of my favourites

[Tony Wright]

Evening Tony,

 

 

Many thanks for the parcel, I’ve been in touch with Mr King about the meat containers. Thanks again.

 

Seeing that brick wagon you completed made me want to build the one I had in my draw.

 

So after maybe 45 minutes work, here she is.

 

I will ask if possible, do you mind taking a photo of the underside of yours? As a couple of bits broke off and I want to double check where I need to run brass wire from the ‘V’s’ to the brake cylinder(?) is that right?

 

Like every other kit built wagon I have built, they never seem to enter the paint shop. Got some painting to do!

 

Jesse

Shame on me Jesse,

 

I didn't really bother with the underframe, other than fixing the brake cylinders in place. From ordinary viewing angles, they can't be seen. Thus, mine has no wires or rods.

 

Slipshod, lazy, taking short cuts or any other excuses we modellers come up with? Of course.

 

Have another look in your drawer (note the spelling, please). I looked in one of mine and found some old un-built Kirk Gresleys recently! You never know what you might find.

 

The meat containers are in the parcel, along with the brass buffer beam and Gibson buffers (but no dead wasp!). 

 

All the best,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Dear Sir,

 

If I may, I would like to add a small contribution to the discussion. I believe that the famous layout referred to above may well be the one known as "Buckingham".

 

If that is indeed the case, although some of the lettering on the rolling stock was never fully completed, the builder was gradually working through the vehicles and improving the liveries.

 

I have great pleasure in attaching a small sample of photographs, taken especially to illustrate the results.

 

Although the quality may not be fully up to the best standards of today, they are very pleasing to the eye and certainly look as though the livery has been correctly applied when observed at normal viewing distance on the layout. To refer to them as "squiggles" is, I feel, slightly harsh.

 

The six wheeled carriages are amongst the earliest built examples of rolling stock, dating back to 1947 and they are often the example quoted when others refer to the carriages on the layout as not having proper lettering.

 

I remain yours faithfully.

 

A B Gee

 

DSCN1720.JPGDSCN1721.JPGDSCN1723.JPG

Dear boy,

 

My apologies if my adjective was unfair.

 

What I'd hoped to convey was that the eye was entirely 'tricked' by the numerals/lettering being no more than a 'sketch'. It was entirely believable.

 

Regards,

 

Mr. Wright. 

[Theakerr]

One of my personal pet peeves when I look at some 50 and 60s layouts is the presence of lights that are on during daylight hours.  In this time period you simply did not leave lights on, energy was still in short supply and it cost an arm and a leg.  I suspect some modellers simply like to have them on because they can but for many others it might be more of a demographic issue.  They were not around or aware at the time they are modelling so would not know how we tried to save energy and the associated costs.  How many of us on this forum can remember being yelled at as we left a room ' Switch the lights off' .  

Edited December 13, 2018 by Theakerr

[Tony Wright]

With regard to your intolerance of non working signals (nothing wrong with that in itself) I would find more power in your grumblings if you were actually making them yourself. After all, it seems easy to my mind to insist on a proper way of doing things if somebody else is doing the work.

Good evening Andrew,

 

I agree, agree, agree, agree............................................

 

Surely you cannot have missed the fact that I keep on going on, and on, on this thread about folk having a go at making things themselves? One sees examples of 'modellers' 'basking in reflected glory' (sorry about the florid language), when all they've done is act as a commissioner. I accept their research might be considerable, but are the actual model-makers given the credit they should receive - always?  

 

Am I sounding a bit of a hypocrite, here? How do I mount a defence to your comments? 

 

I assume you haven't done all the work on LSGC? Of course not - you work as a member of a team. So do I. Is it any 'less noble' to trade skills (effectively barter) rather than make everything yourself? I've made signals, but I find them a chore. So, how about a bit of barter? How many locos (for Grantham) will I need to make to get all my signals working on LB? How much is painting a backscene worth (yet to be finished - it will be)? With regard to the wee ground signals, a dear friend insisted on making those for LB, and I insisted he had some models in exchange. What's a (professional) photographic portfolio worth? A few buildings? How much for some of the other buildings? A loco or two (or three), built by me? What's the making of a DVD worth? Some trackwork? What's loco-building tuition worth? Some locos weathered? What price a complete goods train or two? A few EM Gauge locos in exchange? Baseboards? Would four locos cover the cost of building them? What about providing the photographs for a book? A few locos professionally-painted. And, what do you do if a good friend offers to draw all the artwork for the etchings for a prototype girder bridge (which I'll build)? Refuse, because I'd like to do it myself? Of course not, largely because I can't. In the case of the M&GNR signals, they were started by a friend and completed by another - my dear friend, Tony Gee. The cost? Just the price of the components. Do I refuse such an offer? Does that deny me the right to pass comment on layout signalling, just because I didn't make such beautiful items? And so on, and so on.

 

I hope it's accepted that I always give credit for the work of others.  

 

I admit, I've been humbled by some of the 'gifts' provided by friends for the layout, particularly figures and platform bits and pieces. Should I refuse these because I haven't made them myself? 

 

Thus, I think I reserve the right to express my opinions (are they grumblings?). Of course there's been a monetary imperative, but please don't think LB is the product of 'chequebook modelling'. If you think that, then my writings have been a waste of time. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited to add credit.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

 Does that deny me the right to pass comment on layout signalling, just because I didn't make such beautiful items? And so on, and so on.

 

 

 

Evening Tony,

 

Of course you can pass comment on a layouts signaling, it's just that those comments are not as worthy as if they were coming from somebody who had produced their working signals all by themselves. I'm sure that you are more likely to respect the opinion of a master locomotive builder on your own work, rather than an armchair expert that has never picked up a soldering iron.

 

I do think that there is a difference between passing comment on something and being intolerant off it. The former may be expressed in a positive manor, ie your layout would be even better if the signals worked, while the latter is negative, it implies a superiority on the part of the speaker that they may be able to justify only if they make rather than just own something better themselves.

 

.

[Headstock]

I assume you haven't done all the work on LSGC? Of course not - you work as a member of a team.

 

P.S. I have done all the work on the LSGC in my minds eye version, it's brilliant, honest.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Headstock

[St Enodoc]

Shame on me Jesse,

 

I didn't really bother with the underframe, other than fixing the brake cylinders in place. From ordinary viewing angles, they can't be seen. Thus, mine has no wires or rods.

 

Slipshod, lazy, taking short cuts or any other excuses we modellers come up with? Of course.

 

Have another look in your drawer (note the spelling, please). I looked in one of mine and found some old un-built Kirk Gresleys recently! You never know what you might find.

 

The meat containers are in the parcel, along with the brass buffer beam and Gibson buffers (but no dead wasp!). 

 

All the best,

 

Tony. 

I'm glad you didn't write "Have another look in your drawers"...

[St Enodoc]

One of my personal pet peeves when I look at some 50 and 60s layouts is the presence of lights that are on during daylight hours.  In this time period you simply did not leave lights on, energy was still in short supply and it cost an arm and a leg.  I suspect some modellers simply like to have them on because they can but for many others it might be more of a demographic issue.  They were not around or aware at the time they are modelling so would not know how we tried to save energy and the associated costs.  How many of us on this forum can remember being yelled at as we left a room ' Switch the lights off' .  

... or the ARP Warden shouting "Put that bl00dy light out!" (cue Susannah York "Don't you yell at me Mr Warwick!").

[Guest]

Or rather

“Put that cigarette out. The mains have gone. Can’t you smell gas”.

[Barry O]

Must have been the elves and pixies who weathered the locos on Carlisle as well as fitting sound systems to them Tony. A nice article with lovely photographs.

Baz

 

edited..there are no locks on Carlisle..just a lot of locomotives...

Edited December 14, 2018 by Barry O

[Tony Wright]

Must have been the elves and pixies who weathered the locks on Carlisle as well as fitting sound systems to them Tony. A nice article with lovely photographs.

 

Baz

Thanks Baz,

 

I haven't seen it yet, though.

 

Did I not mention you? If not, my apologies. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Evening Tony,

 

Of course you can pass comment on a layouts signaling, it's just that those comments are not as worthy as if they were coming from somebody who had produced their working signals all by themselves. I'm sure that you are more likely to respect the opinion of a master locomotive builder on your own work, rather than an armchair expert that has never picked up a soldering iron.

 

I do think that there is a difference between passing comment on something and being intolerant off it. The former may be expressed in a positive manor, ie your layout would be even better if the signals worked, while the latter is negative, it implies a superiority on the part of the speaker that they may be able to justify only if they make rather than just own something better themselves.

 

.

Good morning Andrew,

 

If ever I've come across as being 'superior' with regard to my comments on railway modelling, then my writing has been very bad indeed. Intolerably bad!

 

I hope I express a series of personal opinions, as to my likes and dislikes in observing/photographing/writing about/building model railways over the decades, particularly with regard to being part of a team. Thus, at the risk of repetition, I like.......

 

Modelling an actual prototype.

Working signals.

Kit-built locos/stock rather than principally RTR (however well it's been detailed/improved).

Personal work, rather than commissioned work (I suppose barter can be a sort of commission, to be fair).

Good running locos and stock. 

As near as is practicable, 'prototypical'  operation/running.

Prototypical curves on visible sections.

A willingness to share ideas and to pass on skills.

 

There are probably more, but it's still a bit early in the day for my brain to work.

 

I 'dislike' the opposites of those listed above, though there have been some excellent layouts based on prototype practice, even if their location is fictitious. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Tony Wright

[stewartingram]

One of my personal pet peeves when I look at some 50 and 60s layouts is the presence of lights that are on during daylight hours.  In this time period you simply did not leave lights on, energy was still in short supply and it cost an arm and a leg.  I suspect some modellers simply like to have them on because they can but for many others it might be more of a demographic issue.  They were not around or aware at the time they are modelling so would not know how we tried to save energy and the associated costs.  How many of us on this forum can remember being yelled at as we left a room ' Switch the lights off' .  

 

Swavesey station, on the Cambridge-St.Ives-March loop, had modern fluorescent lighting in the late '50s. Whenever Grandad came along the road which passed over the L/C, only if the lights were on (but not in broad daylight!), he would pull over. Sure enough, within a couple of minutes the gates would be closed and I was able to see a train. They were very conservative about wasting electricity!

 

Stewart

[grahame]

 Thus, at the risk of repetition, I like.......

 

Modelling an actual prototype.

Working signals.

Kit-built locos/stock rather than principally RTR (however well it's been detailed/improved).

Personal work, rather than commissioned work (I suppose barter can be a sort of commission, to be fair).

Good running locos and stock. 

As near as is practicable, 'prototypical'  operation/running.

Prototypical curves on visible sections.

A willingness to share ideas and to pass on skills.

 

 

Lamps on locos?

 

G.

[Tony Wright]

Lamps on locos?

 

G.

And at the back of trains!

[grahame]

 

I have a bee in my bonnet about yard lamps and station lights on model railways. Most layouts one sees at exhibitions or in magazines are modeled as if it were daylight hours. Now the railways like your own council do not illuminate places when the sun is doing the same job, as it cost money. So why do (I have been guilty) railway modellers have the station and yard lights on if they are modelling in daylight?

 

 

Yep, true.

 

And, for me, it's not just station/yard lights but street lights switched on which one sees increasingly so on layouts these days. If the street lights are on shouldn't the road vehicle (running) lights in the streets also be on and then wouldn't there also be house lights on, bus and train coach lights on, loco and signal lamps working, shops and advertising blazing away and a multitude of other artificial light sources? A fully lit layout (in the dark/dusk) would probably take a huge number of lamps/bulbs/LEDs and which is something you don't often see on layouts.

 

But what you do often see is gimmickry cameo flashing lights (fire engines, police cars, welders, road work lights, etc) which tend to make the layout look a little like a Christmas tree - but, I guess, appropriate at this time of year.  

 

G.

[Hollar]

One thing you might try is a blue light casting over the whole scene, which gives a nice moonlit feel and - importantly - enables you to find your way around the manshed!

 

 

I got a basic LED lamp on a stalk and glued some blue cellophane-type stuff over it, but these days you can get colour-variable

LED lamps as well.

 

I agree with you regarding layouts modelled as if it's broad daylight, but with the lights all on - few things look less realistic than blazing

blue skies (with fluffy white clouds) and all the yard lamps glaring.

 

I remain, sirs, your obedient servant etc

 

Al

Very nice.  And nostalgic too because it reminds me of TV adventure series in the 60s and 70s (Danger Man, Avengers, etc) where they could not afford proper night shots and so used camera settings that cast some little pall of greyness over everything, but still left clear shadows on the ground to give the game away..

 

Continuing the wagon conversation, I've just finished the paint job on one of the new Hornby SR cattle wagons; the level of decay being aimed at was just enough life left in the wagon for it to be worth replacing a couple of planks.  If I do another one I will remember to drill out the rivets, separate the body and repaint the inside to resemble more closely a space inhabited by nervous cattle.  Also, at some point I will replace the outside brake hangers which are far too delicate for my clumsy (wicket-keeper's) fingers.  I've not found anything yet that looks better than empty space.

 

Tone

[grahame]

And at the back of trains!

 

And working?

 

G