Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, rowanj said:

I was posting a few pictures on my layout thread but, in view of the recent posts on coach sides, I thought I would put the photo of 60060 "The Tetrach" on an Edinburgh- Newcastle relief. It is an old Wills kit on a Comet chassis. The leading pair of coaches are Comet overlays on original Bachmann donors. The roofs are reprofiled as per Tony's work on the DVD, with corrected ventilator fittings, but very little done below the chassis. "Layout coaches" in the extreme, but a big improvement on the original Bachmann's.

Nice conversions, John,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

I first demonstrated the 'alterations' to Bachmann's Thompsons a quarter of a century ago in BRM, when I made 'The Elizabethan'.

 

 

Here's the real thing, flying through Little Bytham in the summer of 1958.

 

 

And the Saturday equivalent, when the load was increased and a stop made at Newcastle. In this shot, taken on Gamston Bank, the Thompson BG has been replaced by a MK. 1 equivalent. 

 

These Thompson cars had a most distinctive roof and side profile (the roof completely the wrong shape by Bachmann), especially the pressure-ventilated examples with their covered solebars. 

 

 

I made 'The Elizabethan' for Stoke Summit, using Southern Pride sides over the original Bachmann Thompsons. The bogies were changed where appropriate. It should be remembered that the latest Bachmann Thompsons owe nothing to their progenitors. 

 

 

 

 

Of course the train still sees everyday service on Little Bytham.

 

I wonder whether such an article would be published today in BRM (or any other model railway mag')? Ten cars, to make-up an actual model of a prototype train. Not only that, I also made the 'Queen of Scots' from Hornby donors, Comet sides and MJT bogies/components - eight cars in this one, later increased to ten - an article on which also appeared in BRM. David Brown (the original editor) couldn't get enough of this sort of stuff!  However, times change - are such pieces way too complicated, time-consuming and 'difficult' for today's magazine market? Could this be described as 'bodging'? Observation of the prototype was strictly adhered to. 

 

 

Such was the success of the Lizzie cars, that Dave Lewis expanded the Thompson side range, including the parts for a Thompson Kitchen Car. This, too, had a Bachmann donor, with many detail parts added from MJT and Comet. 

 

I'm puzzled in a way that modelling of this 'standard' (way below top-quality coach building, the like of which Headstock has shown us) should now be considered too 'high-brow' for current model railway publishing standards. Or is it? I hope not......................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error - why don't I check first!?

[Lecorbusier]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Sadly, I agree - and it's not just BRM; in all the mainstream magazines anything more challenging than renumbering / renaming a loco seems to be regarded as "too specialist".

 

.... and yet reams and reams of print are devoted to the intricacies of hacking models about in order to fit DCC control and sound.

 

I really think that the words 'Railway Modelling  / Modeller' should be replaced by 'Electronics' !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I look forward to each new issue of the MRJ ..... not sure if this would be classed as mainstream though? ..... I do buy it at WH Smith in Oxford.

 

Probably not up everyone's street, but I also find some very useful practical articles in the Scalefour News (certainly not mainstream).

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, glo41f said:

There has been mention of what could be called "dumbing down" of articles in the model press. I have noticed this in other ways. My local group of 7mm modellers have a large circular test track which is now some 30 years old. It was originally used to test models in the course of construction and to eliminate faults which emerged when models covered some distance circulating the tracks. These days that rarely happens and the only testing done is for the attendees trying to get the models from the complex packaging which most RTR models are shipped in today!

 

This is the reason why I very rarely purchase a model mag. I find often to my joy that there is a huge supply of older magazines often available for a small donation at the likes of heritage railways in which you find drawings and constructional articles galore. As our leader says we perhaps had the best of it on that aspect of our modelling.

 

Martin Long

 

 

The 'opening of boxes' is the only 'testing' that takes place at one of my local clubs as well, Martin (this time in OO).

 

A friend and I go over occasionally, and when he and I put on a loco we've built or are in the course of building, these models are looked on with incredulity. 'Why are you building your own locos?' is the most-frequently-asked question, as they proudly take out their latest acquisition from Hornby/Bachmann/Heljan/Dapol/whoever. The fact that they actually have to ask, suggests to me that the route the hobby appears to be taking is not one in my 'road atlas'. 

 

It's their right, of course. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[5 C]

On 08/03/2019 at 18:35, Tony Wright said:

Because of my attendances at so many (marvellous) shows since the start of the year, my actual modelling output has slowed since building an A3 and V2 after Christmas and finishing off the odd project started by another. 

 

Thus, with no show to attend this weekend, I've completed yet another 'layout' carriage today....................

 

 

 

This is an ex-LMS Dia. 1791 Composite 'built' using an ancient Airfix donor and Comet sides/detailing bits. The painting is Halfords acrylic Burgundy red, and the lining is by Replica. The ends, underframe, bogies and roof are all brush-painted/weathered with enamels. 

 

There are several compromises, and it's definitely part of a 'layout train', for which it suits the purpose quite well. 

 

Not a big job at all, and certainly well within the capabilities of the beginner/inexperienced. The cost, too, is quite modest, and one gets a unique coach.

 

It should not really be compared with some of the recent examples of rolling stock posted on here.  

 

It's even got passengers! 

Tony,

 

Thanks for posting this as it's a conversion I'd like to do myself.

 

The Gresley conversion article shows completely removing the Hornby sides which makes sense as the MJT sides have foldable tabs to aid their fixing to the donor roof and ends. 

 

The Comet sides are just that - sides with no tabs. Do you use the Comet recommended method of creating a "postbox" on the donor shell and glueing the sides over the top, or do you use another method?

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, 5 C said:

Tony,

 

Thanks for posting this as it's a conversion I'd like to do myself.

 

The Gresley conversion article shows completely removing the Hornby sides which makes sense as the MJT sides have foldable tabs to aid their fixing to the donor roof and ends. 

 

The Comet sides are just that - sides with no tabs. Do you use the Comet recommended method of creating a "postbox" on the donor shell and glueing the sides over the top, or do you use another method?

I do, Andy,

 

I leave as many 'uprights' as I can after hacking away above the tumbleholme, otherwise the replacement sides have a tendency to 'bow-in'. Everything is then glued up solid. If the roof is part of the structure, I split the conversion at the solebar/floor pan. If the roof is 'loose' (as with the Airfix conversion), it's finally 'fixed' with a small dab of Evo Stik at each end (meaning it can be removed if necessary in future with ease).

 

Having carriages permanently sealed after finishing is very bad practice. Interiors/passengers/dividers/partitions/handrails/etc, WILL come adrift in time, unless they're soldered in place

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Why not arrange a day or two to pop over here Clive, and I'll take your pictures for you?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

Thank you for the offer, we need to arrange a date.

 

Likewise you know where the ranch is and your camera is as welcome as you.

 

Clive

Edited March 10, 2019 by Clive Mortimore
one too many es in we.

[davidw]

Retooled Thompson Conversions

 

Not the best of pictures and not complete due to a house move. I've a pantry 3rd to do. I am considering just a straight repaint of the TK/SK. But as I had the sides I used the comet etches.  The donors were cheap off ebay.  I'd hesitate to do this on vechicles costing  £55.00

Edited March 10, 2019 by davidw

[t-b-g]

 

I have not had a big number of magazine article published but there have been a few over the last 30 years. I have been very aware of a big change in that time.

 

In the last ten years the emphasis has gone from text with photos or drawings to illustrate the article to photos with a bit of text to describe what is in the photos.

 

The days of the "good read" have gone from all but MRJ.

[uax6]

Most articles go into great depth of how they built the scenery to depict one day in March in 1952, and then describe the work done on the stock as 'taken out of boxes and lightly weathered'.

 

I suppose I'm a glutten for punishment modelling the Highland in LMS days (One day I'll actually have a bit of track to run trains on), but its really pleasurable (and painful in equal measures!) to build and bash kits around to make the stock. Its all a bit old fashioned to, who else would be buying up 1980's Bec's kits of LSWR 700's and cutting them down to make HR barneys, and CR Jumbos? I've got a K's terrier bashed into a Jones 4-4-0T, and then countless Sutherland Models kit 0-6-4T, and Sutherland (and SEF) small Bens etc, etc. They come up quite well given time.... I must finish some of them too!

 

Andy G

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

I look forward to each new issue of the MRJ ..... not sure if this would be classed as mainstream though?

 

So do I - I have it on subscription - but I'd not describe it as mainstream.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

33 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have not had a big number of magazine article published but there have been a few over the last 30 years. I have been very aware of a big change in that time.

 

In the last ten years the emphasis has gone from text with photos or drawings to illustrate the article to photos with a bit of text to describe what is in the photos.

 

The days of the "good read" have gone from all but MRJ.

I think what's driven the change in style as much as anything, Tony, is the advent of digital photography. Now, it's dead easy to just shoot dozens of images for a 'step-by-step' article, the like of which is now 'picture-heavy', rather than 'text-heavy'. 

 

I probably took no more than ten medium-format transparencies to illustrate the pieces on building the ECML trains mentioned on the last page. The rest was down to words. I'd do a bit, take a picture and then, either trust to luck that the picture had worked, or wait until I'd got them back from the 'lab before continuing. Now, it's just a doddle - do a bit, take a digital picture, check if it's worked and carry on..................

 

Whether I like the 'new' approach is a different matter, even though the photographic part is a lot easier. I do like a good read, and, as you and others have observed, that's what you get now with the MRJ. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Tony Wright]

7 minutes ago, uax6 said:

Most articles go into great depth of how they built the scenery to depict one day in March in 1952, and then describe the work done on the stock as 'taken out of boxes and lightly weathered'.

 

I suppose I'm a glutten for punishment modelling the Highland in LMS days (One day I'll actually have a bit of track to run trains on), but its really pleasurable (and painful in equal measures!) to build and bash kits around to make the stock. Its all a bit old fashioned to, who else would be buying up 1980's Bec's kits of LSWR 700's and cutting them down to make HR barneys, and CR Jumbos? I've got a K's terrier bashed into a Jones 4-4-0T, and then countless Sutherland Models kit 0-6-4T, and Sutherland (and SEF) small Bens etc, etc. They come up quite well given time.... I must finish some of them too!

 

Andy G

'Proper modelling', Andy,

 

Great stuff! 

[grahame]

22 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

In the last ten years the emphasis has gone from text with photos or drawings to illustrate the article to photos with a bit of text to describe what is in the photos.

 

The days of the "good read" have gone from all but MRJ.

 

Yes, in the past it seems that some magazines were decent reads with in-depth articles that were illustrated with photos, diagrams, tables, plans, etc., but these days it's all about large eye-candy style glossy photos with captions. The balance of content has certainly changed over the years. The majority of model railway mags these days are becoming like those photozines that feature celebrity pap where the picture 'is' the story rather than supporting it.

 

Perhaps people don't like to read any more rather like many don't like to undertake constructional modelling now. Maybe they don't have time for either. Is it what some people term as 'dumbing down'.

 

G

 

 

[Anglian]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

My son was awarded an MA in Journalism (Broadcast journalism to be precise but the basics were the same as for the print variety) and the tutors on his course at Sheffield Uni (the original one) concentrated very hard on correct usage of English  throughout the course.  When my daughter's PhD Naval History thesis was assessed the principal assessor, a well known naval historian,  commented very positively on her high standard of written English and punctuation - including the correct differentiations between the use of paired commas, dash symbols, and brackets.  

 

I am convinced the problem with many so called journalists is down to either very poor training or total lack of training and sloppy misuse of language they have picked up from speech rather than written work.  Should somebody happen to ask to say to me 'are you good?' I'm invariably tempted to reply 'at what?'

 

Ah but you got it wrong – the hyphen in your text should be an en dash shown within the text below in red. Hyphens are used between words with no word space on either side e.g. from time-to-time. If you use a dash as punctuation it should be an en dash with a space each side. Some use an em dash but that really comes down to the font, many modern fonts have en dashes that are too short to work well.

 

When my daughter's PhD Naval History thesis was assessed the principal assessor, a well known naval historian,  commented very positively on her high standard of written English and punctuation – including the correct differentiations between the use of paired commas, dash symbols, and brackets.  

 

Equally there should only be a single word space after a full-point – not the double word space you've used.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Anglian

[Clearwater]

32 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have not had a big number of magazine article published but there have been a few over the last 30 years. I have been very aware of a big change in that time.

 

In the last ten years the emphasis has gone from text with photos or drawings to illustrate the article to photos with a bit of text to describe what is in the photos.

 

The days of the "good read" have gone from all but MRJ.

 

I think the change in style from text plus the odd picture to pictures plus bit of text is as much a function of the improvements in print/desk top publishing technology over the last thirty years.  Just about any newspaper or

magazine shows the same trend.  I used to hate those articles with an indistinct picture that confused more than it informed.

 

David

[cctransuk]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Whether I like the 'new' approach is a different matter, even though the photographic part is a lot easier.

 

 

The 'new approach' works fine for simple projects, but it would not provide sufficient detail for more complex modelling such as 'cut-and-shuts' or loco conversions.

 

I strongly suspect that this is the reason for the 'dumbing-down' of current magazine articles.

 

Another reason may well be that the authors are not particularly accomplished modellers themselves!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Lecorbusier]

5 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Yes, in the past it seems that some magazines were decent reads with in-depth articles that were illustrated with photos, diagrams, tables, plans, etc., but these days it's all about large eye-candy style glossy photos with captions. The balance of content has certainly changed over the years.

 

 

Its such a shame really .... we now have the technology for fantastic and cost effective reproduction which could only have been dreamt of 20 years ago. I really like good photos and lots of them, but surely the trick is that they accompany not replace a damn good read .... that way (particularly in a craft article) you can get a good idea of what's being described - the next best thing to an actual demonstration.

 

Thankfully we have some really good workshop threads on the various forums to fill the gap.

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Yes, in the past it seems that some magazines were decent reads with in-depth articles that were illustrated with photos, diagrams, tables, plans, etc., but these days it's all about large eye-candy style glossy photos with captions. The balance of content has certainly changed over the years. The majority of model railway mags these days are becoming like those photozines that feature celebrity pap where the picture 'is' the story rather than supporting it.

 

Perhaps people don't like to read any more rather like many don't like to undertake constructional modelling now. Maybe they don't have time for either. Is it what some people term as 'dumbing down'.

 

G

 

 

Interesting observations, Grahame,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

As for 'dumbing-down', I think that many would agree that that 'definition' is prevalent throughout all media nowadays. 

 

I've mentioned before about current 'journalists' and 'presenters', where the inability to pronounce words properly is the norm. And, where speaking with the thickest of accents, and/or writing/talking grammatical tripe is seen as no barrier at all to getting a job. In fact, such things must appear to be a prerequisite nowadays. 

 

Is it more common in our hobby today? I think so, but I come from a time, long, long ago. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Clive Mortimore]

9 minutes ago, Anglian said:

 

Ah but you got it wrong – the hyphen in your text should be an en dash shown within the text below in red. Hyphens are used between words with no word space on either side e.g. from time-to-time. If you use a dash as punctuation it should be an en dash with a space each side. Some use an em dash but that really comes down to the font, many modern fonts have en dashes that are too short to work well.

 

When my daughter's PhD Naval History thesis was assessed the principal assessor, a well known naval historian,  commented very positively on her high standard of written English and punctuation – including the correct differentiations between the use of paired commas, dash symbols, and brackets.  

 

Equally there should only be a single word space after a full-point – not the double word space you've used.

Well I never, every day is a school day.

 

It took me well into my forties before I plucked up the courage and say to someone who was ridiculing my poor written English to say to them, "Did you understand what I wrote?" They answered "Yes" with a quizzical face. To which I said "So what is your problem".

 

Please can all the English teachers on this thread remember some of us have difficulty with English and would rather see nice modelling than have another lesson which we don't understand.

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Well I never, every day is a school day.

 

It took me well into my forties before I plucked up the courage and say to someone who was ridiculing my poor written English to say to them, "Did you understand what I wrote?" They answered "Yes" with a quizzical face. To which I said "So what is your problem".

 

Please can all the English teachers on this thread remember some of us have difficulty with English and would rather see nice modelling than have another lesson which we don't understand.

I'm afraid the genie's out of the bottle now, Clive,

 

I unscrewed the cork to begin with! 

 

I do take your point, though.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Miss Prism]

The 'what' and the 'how' are both generally now successfully supplanted by pics and captions. A better and more interesting purpose for the accompanying words are for the reasons why.
 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Miss Prism

[Nearholmer]

By no means everything written for model railway magazines “in the good old days” was interesting and well written. There was a fair bit of pompous windbaggery alongside the good stuff, and a fair few of the ‘constructional’ articles left out important steps in the process and/or assumed that everyone had both infinite skills and a ready supply of unobtanium.

 

In short, not every amateur author was a Beal or an Ahern then, any more than they are now.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

By no means everything written for model railway magazines “in the good old days” was interesting and well written. There was a fair bit of pompous windbaggery alongside the good stuff, and a fair few of the ‘constructional’ articles left out important steps in the process and/or assumed that everyone had both infinite skills and a ready supply of unobtanium.

 

In short, not every amateur author was a Beal or an Ahern then, any more than they are now.

 

 

I think I'm inclined to agree.

 

But, where are the current successors to the Beals and Aherns, I wonder?

 

Please list, and then we can agree or disagree as we see fit. There are some very good authors out there now in my view. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Anglian]

I've always enjoyed reading Trevor Potts' pieces in MRJ that detail the development of his GWR Churston layout, in much the same way I enjoyed David Jenkinson's work.  I think they are (were) able to convey the trials and tribulations of their layout planning, development and the construction of their exceptional stock.


 

Edited March 10, 2019 by Anglian

[Nearholmer]

“But, where are the current successors to the Beals and Aherns, I wonder?”

 

That is a very good question.

 

Of the ‘WHS’ magazines, I only buy Railway Modeller these days, and although I read most of every edition, I can’t think of a single regular/frequent contributor, let alone one of that sort of power. Iain Rice was, I thought, up there among the stars when he contributed a lot to (IIRC) MRC, but that was a good while ago, and Gordon Gravett writes very well, but I don’t think is a regular in any one place.

 

I usually read some of MRJ, weeks late, on loan from a friend, and a great deal of the work on display is stunning, but very few of the articles are a ‘ripping read’; mostly rather dry.

 

So, the great modeller-communicators of today ....... they probably write all those articles about DCC that I don’t read!

 

And, off at a tangent, a lot now gets published in ‘club’ magazines, some of which are substantial publications, the G0 Gazette for instance, so the overall quantity of material put into print now must be greater than it has ever been. Certainly some of the detailed constructional material seems to find a happy home in such publications. Jim Snowdon does a good job with ‘blow by blow’ advanced loco kit building in G0G, IMHO, balancing pictures and words to communicate effectively.

 

Kevin

Edited March 10, 2019 by Nearholmer