Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

I feel that we have been here before with this discussion about real places versus fictitious locations. Some modellers prefer one type of layout and others prefer the other.

 

Both views carry equal weight and equal validity and there is no right and wrong.

 

If I ever find a real location hat has everything I want from a model and that I can build in the space I have available, I will give it another try. Until then, I will carry on making up my own.

 

If you can paint and line locos as well as those two, then I would think that most people would be happy with the quality. But would they be as good if you didn't have any transfers available?

 

DSCN1163.JPG

 

Is a rather cruel close up of a 1947 built loco. But it was all lettered and lined by hand. Is the paint job really that bad?

Tony,

 

I think it's a wonderful example of painting/lining/lettering, let alone from over 70 years ago. And, if transfers had been available I'm sure that Peter would have used them.

 

As you say, though, things have improved and it's a staggering fact that GCR livery can now be seen, in all its glory (was there ever a more handsome colour scheme?) on an out-of-the-box model.

 

 

I think the standard of painting/lining/lettering on this Bachmann RTR GC 'Director' is as good as many a professional painter might achieve. Yet, and this is where I'm in agreement with you, though staggeringly-good, I'm much more interested in seeing Peter Denny's GC locos on Buckingham. This 'collectors'' item belongs in a glass case, and is really no more than a (highly-desirable?) possession as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

Speaking of heresy, who would do this to an ex-GC masterpiece? I would - it's just as I remember them at Chester Northgate, Sheffield Victoria, Kiveton Park and Retford. 

 

Finally, though I respect your views with regard to prototype v fictitious layouts (and we have been here before), may I ask you a question, please? Like me, you've judged at many model railway events, and to be invited as a judge is a testament to impartiality and fairness. Now my question, all other things being equal (difficult I know), if you had to decide between two layouts, one prototype-based and the other made-up, which one would you choose? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Tony Wright

[Andy Hayter]

Sorry Tony - a bit of a trite answer but...

 

The one that fits in the space available.  If both fit then prototype.

[Clearwater]

 

 

Finally, though I respect your views with regard to prototype v fictitious layouts (and we have been here before), may I ask you a question, please? Like me, you've judged at many model railway events, and to be invited as a judge is a testament to impartiality and fairness. Now my question, all other things being equal (difficult I know), if you had to decide between two layouts, one prototype-based and the other made-up, which one would you choose? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Tony

 

That's an impossible question to answer in the abstract. What's better? The perfect rendition of an operationally, and hence unentertaining, dull prototype, a bad rendition of an operationally varied prototype or well modelled but fictional model that is prototypical both in operation and setting? I guess the latter might win out if it's compromises result in a more entertaining layout.

 

David

[queensquare]

I feel that we have been here before with this discussion about real places versus fictitious locations. Some modellers prefer one type of layout and others prefer the other.

 

Both views carry equal weight and equal validity and there is no right and wrong.

 

If I ever find a real location hat has everything I want from a model and that I can build in the space I have available, I will give it another try. Until then, I will carry on making up my own.

 

If you can paint and line locos as well as those two, then I would think that most people would be happy with the quality. But would they be as good if you didn't have any transfers available?

 

DSCN1163.JPG

 

Is a rather cruel close up of a 1947 built loco. But it was all lettered and lined by hand. Is the paint job really that bad?

 

As I have said numerous times before, Buckingham remains my all time favorite layout. Kim and I have operated it on more than one occasion and hope to do so again sometime this year. The first time we visited Tony didn't have the bells working so we had to do the 'ding-dings' ourselves - lots of fun.

 

Likewise, I would agree that a well thought out 'might have been' type scheme can be every bit as inspiring as a model and often far more interesting than one based on a prototype although I have been very fortunate in that my chosen prototype, Bath Queensquare, is an extremely attractive,  moderately sized terminus with ample operating potential that plays host to my two favorite companies - MR and SDJR.

 

Touching on other subjects raised. I too like operating levers, this recently completed forty lever frame will form the basis of the main panel at Bath supplemented by smaller, local frames for the two goods yards, the two loco sheds and the station area. These will all be either analogue or wire in tube as appropriate. Trains will be driven by DCC.

 

I've also just completed the last of the signal boxes for Bath.

 

 

Happy New year all,

 

Jerry

[Tony Wright]

 

Finally, though I respect your views with regard to prototype v fictitious layouts (and we have been here before), may I ask you a question, please? Like me, you've judged at many model railway events, and to be invited as a judge is a testament to impartiality and fairness. Now my question, all other things being equal (difficult I know), if you had to decide between two layouts, one prototype-based and the other made-up, which one would you choose? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Tony

 

That's an impossible question to answer in the abstract. What's better? The perfect rendition of an operationally, and hence unentertaining, dull prototype, a bad rendition of an operationally varied prototype or well modelled but fictional model that is prototypical both in operation and setting? I guess the latter might win out if it's compromises result in a more entertaining layout.

 

David

Was I asking the question in the abstract, David? Perhaps. 

 

You've mentioned three possible layouts to consider. One of the finest layouts I ever photographed was Chris Lammacraft's (I think I've spelled his name correctly) Ashburton in EM. Yet, even its most ardent supporter would admit that, operationally, it's not that exciting. Even on market day (does Ashburton have a market?), seeing more than one engine in steam would be unlikely, and there'd be at least an hour or two between trains. Never mind, just cut out the times between the trains, which is one reason I believe it's impossible to operate a prototypical layout prototypically (if it's to be always entertaining for exhibition goers), unless it's a model of Clapham Junction or the like. The compromise is no more than a non-prototypical layout being operated to the extent that something is always happening.

 

Dull operation is not the sole preserve of the prototype-based layout.

 

I say again, all other things being equal - standard of modelling, consistency, sense of 'place', interesting operation, good-running, operators knowing what they're doing and anything else which makes up a fine model railway, if one is faced with having to judge between two very similar layouts (in size and concept?), and one is prototype-based (and accurate) and the other is fictitious (I don't like 'fictional' for some reason), then, surely, the one which can be compared favourably with prototype pictures must win. What's abstract about that?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Denbridge]

Was I asking the question in the abstract, David? Perhaps. 

 

You've mentioned three possible layouts to consider. One of the finest layouts I ever photographed was Chris Lammacraft's (I think I've spelled his name correctly) Ashburton in EM. Yet, even its most ardent supporter would admit that, operationally, it's not that exciting. Even on market day (does Ashburton have a market?), seeing more than one engine in steam would be unlikely, and there'd be at least an hour or two between trains. Never mind, just cut out the times between the trains, which is one reason I believe it's impossible to operate a prototypical layout prototypically (if it's to be always entertaining for exhibition goers), unless it's a model of Clapham Junction or the like. The compromise is no more than a non-prototypical layout being operated to the extent that something is always happening.

 

Dull operation is not the sole preserve of the prototype-based layout.

 

I say again, all other things being equal - standard of modelling, consistency, sense of 'place', interesting operation, good-running, operators knowing what they're doing and anything else which makes up a fine model railway, if one is faced with having to judge between two very similar layouts (in size and concept?), and one is prototype-based (and accurate) and the other is fictitious (I don't like 'fictional' for some reason), then, surely, the one which can be compared favourably with prototype pictures must win. What's abstract about that?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

may i ask this question please? Had life dealt you a different hand and you, like many (Most?) of us, didn't have the room for your prototype stretch of mainline, how do you think your ideals would have been met? Most people can only dream of having such a superb space to indulge in our hobby. Even many clubs are having to downsize. I personally was always very lucky to have a large room or attic. Now, if i am to have a layout at all, it has to share living space and be semi portable and stored away. I suspect this applies to many, if not the majority. I'm not being critical in any way, just interested.

[Lecorbusier]

 

As you say, though, things have improved and it's a staggering fact that GCR livery can now be seen, in all its glory (was there ever a more handsome colour scheme?) on an out-of-the-box model.

 

Bachmann GC D11 Butler Henderson 31-145NRM 01.jpg

 

 

 

(edit) ... Suddenly occurred to me that people might think that this is my build .... not the case just an example downloaded from the internet about 3 years ago - it was auctioned on Vectis but I could find no provenance so am afraid I don't know who built or painted it. It was titled as being scratch built rather than from a kit.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Lecorbusier

[Captain Kernow]

I've also just completed the last of the signal boxes for Bath.

 

20181226_162035.jpg

 

Lovely work, Jerry.

 

Is the bottom-left box Weston, by the way?

[Theakerr]

I know this is not really the place for this but there was an earlier comment about Protocab and their future and they they do not respond to e-mails.  Let me start by saying that something along their product line is the way of the future.  However, i am starting to wonder if it is their future.  I am really interested and have sent three e-mails but have had no response.  It might be said that they are not into e-mails but for a company that is essentially utilising the latest electronic wizardry I would suggest that the internet would be a media that would be embraced.  In any case if one doesn't want to use electronic media don't put a contact on the web page. 

Added as an edit.  Note I live in Canada so I don't get to shows in the UK.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Theakerr

[Clearwater]

Was I asking the question in the abstract, David? Perhaps. 

 

You've mentioned three possible layouts to consider. One of the finest layouts I ever photographed was Chris Lammacraft's (I think I've spelled his name correctly) Ashburton in EM. Yet, even its most ardent supporter would admit that, operationally, it's not that exciting. Even on market day (does Ashburton have a market?), seeing more than one engine in steam would be unlikely, and there'd be at least an hour or two between trains. Never mind, just cut out the times between the trains, which is one reason I believe it's impossible to operate a prototypical layout prototypically (if it's to be always entertaining for exhibition goers), unless it's a model of Clapham Junction or the like. The compromise is no more than a non-prototypical layout being operated to the extent that something is always happening.

 

Dull operation is not the sole preserve of the prototype-based layout.

 

I say again, all other things being equal - standard of modelling, consistency, sense of 'place', interesting operation, good-running, operators knowing what they're doing and anything else which makes up a fine model railway, if one is faced with having to judge between two very similar layouts (in size and concept?), and one is prototype-based (and accurate) and the other is fictitious (I don't like 'fictional' for some reason), then, surely, the one which can be compared favourably with prototype pictures must win. What's abstract about that?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

I agree with your analysis around what does and does not work in terms of a layout and fully agree that time/timetable is one of the compromises that have to be made for a layout to be exhibitable. Implicit in that, and to your Ashburton point, is that you need a variety of stock. Watching the same fixed formation train shuffle backwards and forwards is dull (I was thinking of Stourbridge Town in its post 1970 state). You could make a beautiful diorama in effect but it becomes a photo plank.

 

In terms of 'abstract', my point was that unless you are at a particular show and selecting your best in show either as a judge or filling in your piece of paper for the prize draw, your question cannot allow the specific comparison to be made. I do, however, agree with your premise that given equal standards of modelling, the prototype based layout is likely to be the favoured layout.

 

David

[t-b-g]

Tony,

 

I think it's a wonderful example of painting/lining/lettering, let alone from over 70 years ago. And, if transfers had been available I'm sure that Peter would have used them.

 

As you say, though, things have improved and it's a staggering fact that GCR livery can now be seen, in all its glory (was there ever a more handsome colour scheme?) on an out-of-the-box model.

 

Bachmann GC D11 Butler Henderson 31-145NRM 01.jpg

 

I think the standard of painting/lining/lettering on this Bachmann RTR GC 'Director' is as good as many a professional painter might achieve. Yet, and this is where I'm in agreement with you, though staggeringly-good, I'm much more interested in seeing Peter Denny's GC locos on Buckingham. This 'collectors'' item belongs in a glass case, and is really no more than a (highly-desirable?) possession as far as I'm concerned.

 

B Times 29.jpg

 

Speaking of heresy, who would do this to an ex-GC masterpiece? I would - it's just as I remember them at Chester Northgate, Sheffield Victoria, Kiveton Park and Retford. 

 

Finally, though I respect your views with regard to prototype v fictitious layouts (and we have been here before), may I ask you a question, please? Like me, you've judged at many model railway events, and to be invited as a judge is a testament to impartiality and fairness. Now my question, all other things being equal (difficult I know), if you had to decide between two layouts, one prototype-based and the other made-up, which one would you choose? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

That D11 is in pure 1960s preserved condition! A repaint to BR black would be backdating it.

 

The details and the livery (particularly the lettering) are quite wrong for proper GCR condition. The application and the quality is superb though. I would suggest better than all but the very best modellers could manage.

 

I did get hold of a Bachmann Collector's Club "Pom-pom" in GCR livery. That is superb and the details and livery as, as far as I know, spot on. Yet it hasn't been out of its box yet as I prefer then kit and scratchbuilt versions that I have.

 

It is around 40 years since I got involved in exhibitions and in that time, I have only been a judge at a tiny handful, perhaps half a dozen shows. It has always been as a last resort and with my arm twisted up my back.

 

There are a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, there are too many prototypes, locos, stock, buildings or whole stations that I do not know well enough to tell if the model is any good.

 

Secondly because if there are 15 entries, you please one person and dash the hopes of 14!

 

So I haven't judged for a few years now and unless the show is really desperate, I won't do it again.

 

I don't enter things into competitions either now. The last show I was a judge at had one of those moments that changed how I look at things. I was asked to judge the "best loco" category and although there were many hundreds of locos at the show, only 3 or 4 were entered into the competition. They were all decent models but there were several around the show that were better but hadn't been entered. I talked to one bloke who had a superb model of a Royal Scot in 7mm, which would have won if it had been entered. I asked the chap why he hadn't entered it and we had a long chat about whether model railways should have a "best" and he was firmly of the opinion that for a judge to decide that one person's model was better than another person's model was not something he had the slightest interest in.

 

So what I considered the nicest loco in the show didn't win the trophy but another modeller went away thinking that he had the best loco in the show.

 

It was the day I lost interest in deciding what was "the best".

 

I never did judge "best layout" and I can't honestly say what I would have done. Is a layout like St Merryn "better" than Copenhagen Fields? There is no "right" answer and it has to be down to personal preferences. The only thing I would say that if it is a case of good modelling copying a real place versus good modelling plus imagination and creativity of concept and design, then my personal choice would always favour the creativity side.

 

My favourite layouts have always turned out to be fictional, just as yours have been based on prototypes. It is like choosing between two films, say one a true story and one based on a fictional novel. They are different things altogether. We can all have a preference but to try to say to anybody else that one is better than the other because we prefer it is just not something we can ever prove to be true.

 

A very good friend of mine always says that he has to model real places because he can copy anything he can see in a drawing or a photo but he has no imagination to create his own scene. He sees that as a skill that he lacks.

 

The hobby would be a lot less interesting if we all liked the same thing. If we went to a show and every layout was a prototype based, ECML, 1950s/1960s 35ft tailchaser, even you might think it a bit "samey" after the first few!

[t-b-g]

As I have said numerous times before, Buckingham remains my all time favorite layout. Kim and I have operated it on more than one occasion and hope to do so again sometime this year. The first time we visited Tony didn't have the bells working so we had to do the 'ding-dings' ourselves - lots of fun.

IMG_4171.JPG

IMG_4126.JPG

 

Likewise, I would agree that a well thought out 'might have been' type scheme can be every bit as inspiring as a model and often far more interesting than one based on a prototype although I have been very fortunate in that my chosen prototype, Bath Queensquare, is an extremely attractive,  moderately sized terminus with ample operating potential that plays host to my two favorite companies - MR and SDJR.

img030.jpg

 

Touching on other subjects raised. I too like operating levers, this recently completed forty lever frame will form the basis of the main panel at Bath supplemented by smaller, local frames for the two goods yards, the two loco sheds and the station area. These will all be either analogue or wire in tube as appropriate. Trains will be driven by DCC.

20181206_211651.jpg

 

I've also just completed the last of the signal boxes for Bath.

 

20181211_171054.jpg

20181226_162035.jpg

 

Happy New year all,

 

Jerry

 

Lovely stuff Jerry and please get yourself here for another session whenever you are up this way.

 

Whatever anybody says or thinks, it is still a very cracking layout to play trains on and much more fun to operate than many more modern and technically "better" layouts. 

[polybear]

If it's a toss-up between real location and imaginary (and assuming quality of modelling, layout size etc. are all similar) then I'd choose the one which would give me the most fun when operating.  To me there's little fun in having a perfectly modelled, dead accurate layout based on a real location if there's little or no scope for operating enjoyment.  However, I do appreciate that for many the fun is in creating the layout in the first place - once it's finished they then want to move on to a new project.

[MJI]

Tony,

 

I think it's a wonderful example of painting/lining/lettering, let alone from over 70 years ago. And, if transfers had been available I'm sure that Peter would have used them.

 

As you say, though, things have improved and it's a staggering fact that GCR livery can now be seen, in all its glory (was there ever a more handsome colour scheme?) on an out-of-the-box model.

 

Bachmann GC D11 Butler Henderson 31-145NRM 01.jpg

 

I think the standard of painting/lining/lettering on this Bachmann RTR GC 'Director' is as good as many a professional painter might achieve. Yet, and this is where I'm in agreement with you, though staggeringly-good, I'm much more interested in seeing Peter Denny's GC locos on Buckingham. This 'collectors'' item belongs in a glass case, and is really no more than a (highly-desirable?) possession as far as I'm concerned.

 

B Times 29.jpg

 

Speaking of heresy, who would do this to an ex-GC masterpiece? I would - it's just as I remember them at Chester Northgate, Sheffield Victoria, Kiveton Park and Retford. 

 

Finally, though I respect your views with regard to prototype v fictitious layouts (and we have been here before), may I ask you a question, please? Like me, you've judged at many model railway events, and to be invited as a judge is a testament to impartiality and fairness. Now my question, all other things being equal (difficult I know), if you had to decide between two layouts, one prototype-based and the other made-up, which one would you choose? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

The loco with the family name of a TV motoring presenter

 

[Tony Wright]

may i ask this question please? Had life dealt you a different hand and you, like many (Most?) of us, didn't have the room for your prototype stretch of mainline, how do you think your ideals would have been met? Most people can only dream of having such a superb space to indulge in our hobby. Even many clubs are having to downsize. I personally was always very lucky to have a large room or attic. Now, if i am to have a layout at all, it has to share living space and be semi portable and stored away. I suspect this applies to many, if not the majority. I'm not being critical in any way, just interested.

Please, ask as many questions as you like. 

 

I think I've always been fortunate in my railway modelling to be able to work with highly-skilled groups, mostly at Wolverhampton MRC. With plenty of space (for years we were blessed with a marvellous clubroom) and a collective desire to build large, main line layouts, I suppose the results were inevitable. After dabbling with large fictitious layouts (though based on prototype practice), prototype-based main line layouts such as Stoke Summit and Charwelton were constructed. The reason for there being a preponderance of ER locos/stock was down to me. 

 

Moving east, 15 years ago, I took the decision (along with Ian Wilson) to build a further prototype-based main line, ECML layout, in this case Little Bytham. Much the same team from Wolverhampton built it. There was plenty of space to erect a purpose-built structure to accommodate it, and I had the funds. Please don't take it that that last comment implies that I'm well-off. Having worked full-time for over 40 years at various careers (with my wife teaching for a good deal of time as well), I think it's safe to say that we were reasonably prudent. 

 

What shouldn't be forgotten is that LB is the culmination of over 40 years of my own modelling. I've built most of the locos for it and made/modified most of the passenger rolling stock. It's taken me all that time to build it all, and it's still on-going. Obviously, there is a cost-imperative, but that's been spread over the decades, and much has been achieved by barter. 

 

I suppose one might call it being single-minded to some extent. I realised at an early stage what I wanted, what was achievable and over what length of time. I'm not suggesting I carefully planned everything (planning is not my strong-point) but if one sticks to a set of principles then, over time, much is possible. Being single-minded also means that endless hours 'wasted' watching TV are not an option, neither is going out every night getting tight, nor smoking, over-indulgence with fancy meals out all the time, following football teams all over the place; though it helps to have a pathological hatred of gardening! An understanding wife is a prerequisite. 

 

Whether or not advocating such an approach will have much appeal today, in this 'instant gratification' society. Can you imagine what a TV company would make of someone suggesting that it'll take over 40 years before a model railway comes to fruition? 

 

All I'd say is that (with great help) I've done it my way, 'a' way, not 'the' way. Others might achieve what they want much sooner (in the large layout sense) by acting as a commissioner, getting others to do their modelling for them. The method has merit in that it keeps professional model-makers in work and the standards will (or should) be high. That such an approach is not for me is down to two factors. One, I don't have the fiscal resources, and; two, it's vital that I do a lot of the model-making on the layouts I've been involved with myself. 

 

Is it down to commitment as well? 

 

 

The commitment to keep on building things. This late-afternoon, I started yet another V2. It's being built from an old Nu-Cast kit (which I found in a drawer, having forgotten about it), underneath of which I'm putting a (modified to suit) Comet chassis. This morning I did some more work on a K3 I'm building for a friend. I mention the above not to boast (please don't think that) but to show that to achieve a large layout, with consequent large amounts of locos/stock, one has to be prepared to put the time in. Or, as I've mentioned, pay someone else to do it for you.

 

Please keep on asking questions.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

My layout is a made up place, I have called it Sheffield Exchange, I could have called Halham Victoria and had the same excuse for the rolling stock I want to mix. I have been inspired by a real location track plan, inspired not copied. It has no platforms, as they are not built, much of the stock is unfinished or only temporary (I am watching a pair of Hachett Mk1s pass by as I type), and the only structure so far is a paper mock up of the signal box. So nowhere complete but it has potential. Most of it works, even if the operator keeps making errors.

 

Now I like to see good operating layouts. No good having the best detailed prototype layout down to the last detail like the length of the stationmaster's moustache, if the trains don't run. A fictitious layout with realistic movement is far more pleasing.

 

I am really lucky to have my model room and to have my layout which I am enjoying.

 

Surely the most important thing about the layout you own, involved with, help operate etc is one that you are having fun with, learning with, getting a good experience with, basically enjoying it. If others are doing the same what a great hobby we have.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[LNER4479]

I wonder whether it's worth starting the New Year off with a few controversial observations? 

 

I say the above in the light of mulling over some etches for a B3 which Graham Nicholas has produced. I know a B3 is way later than Buckingham's time period, but what would Peter Denny have made of them? A wonderful model, no doubt, because the etches are superb (though I won't be using the suggested resin boiler when I build it). The point is, once the finished B3 model appears (not built by me), if painted well, it'll represent current state-of-the-art standards in mainstream 4mm modelling. It will be (dare I say it?) superior to all of the locos running on Buckingham. 

 

Thanks for the mention Tony and I'm sure you weren't trying to be controversial in saying what you did above (in red) but, in the spirit that you very much advocate on this thread, I feel I should point out that the B3 etches have been produced by Nick Easton; my involvement has merely been to coordinate the whole thing, with just a little bit of input to the design process.

 

I look forward to the day when your set of B3 etches rises to the top of your inexhaustible build pile; in the meantime, here's the prototype build getting close to completion.

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

With regard to the prototype versus imaginary location debate, the real skill happens when someone builds an imaginary location and some observers remember going there, as has happened with a few layouts.

 

Mike.

[Clive Mortimore]

Tony,

 

I think it's a wonderful example of painting/lining/lettering, let alone from over 70 years ago. And, if transfers had been available I'm sure that Peter would have used them.

 

As you say, though, things have improved and it's a staggering fact that GCR livery can now be seen, in all its glory (was there ever a more handsome colour scheme?) on an out-of-the-box model.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Load Haul

 

Colas Rail

 

Or

 

GWR green applied to an ECML racehorse?

[Clive Mortimore]

With regard to the prototype versus imaginary location debate, the real skill happens when someone builds an imaginary location and some observers remember going there, as has happened with a few layouts.

 

Mike.

Hi Mike

 

My mate named a layout after a Gloucestershire village ( I cannot remember the name) which never had a railway line through it. He made a model of the bus he use to ride to school on when he lived in Gloucestershire. He was displaying his layout at a show in Essex and this lady said the number 47 never went through the village he had modelled.

[mullie]

Is the appeal of Borchester, Buckingham and other such layouts that they were built for operation as well as being visually appealing and demonstrating the craftsmanship of the builder? I still find Borchester (Which I did see at Central Hall) and Buckingham a source of inspiration.

 

Martyn

[APOLLO]

Layout operation - a rarely discussed topic I think. I would rather these days run trains than build them, though I still have a list a mile long of "things to do / make / alter etc. 

 

I didn't do any modelling this afternoon, but up in the loft for a couple of hours I had a good running session on all lines whilst doing a bit of tidying up. Everything behaved itself - no derailments, stalling etc. I ran a couple of locos that have not run for ages to stretch their legs (wheels !!) - I hope 2019 carries on like this !!

 

Brit15

[St Enodoc]

The latter of course were, as any railway operator will tell you, 'down to the Perway' (usually).

Invariably - although, strangely, my civil engineering counterparts didn't always agree with me...

[Chamby]

If we all liked the same things, this would be a very boring hobby.

 

Phil.

[bbishop]

Whilst our 2mm brethren have a fair chance of modelling a prototype, and our 4mm colleagues can replicate a small prototype or, with acceptable compromises, a simple main line prototype (Tony and friends with Stoke Summit, Charwelton and LB), what can those of us who model in 7mm achieve? Everyone for Holywell Town?

 

With enough time and money, a fair sized prototype can be replicated in 7mm, but layouts like Leamington are fixed structures. Frankly, how many exhibition managers can provide the space and the set up time for a layout of that size; and how many 7½ tonners would be required to transport it. You may have seen Lancaster Green Ayre at Ally Pally or Warley, you really should read Jamie's thread on RMWeb then realise the time and effort needed to build that layout. It was designed to (just) fit into his church! It is a very big layout, even so significant compromises has to be made.

 

Many 7mm modellers follow Eric Morecambe, all the right features but not necessarily in the right order. I am further burdened in modelling in Spur Null (7mm in Germany). Falls was a very simple junction station, but to replicate it I would need a 100ft scenic section plus 30ft fiddle yard each end. So I've compressed it to 56ft, moved the level crossing and adjusted the run round loop. It is still properly signalled and I hope is recognisable as a German track plan but it ain't Falls and won't be called as such.

 

So in 7mm we can represent, we can't replicate.

 

Bill