Wright writes.....

[Clive Mortimore]

52 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Rap?  Three-quarters of the way to Crap...

Nuff sed.

Sorry Tony, I should've said "Enough said".... 

I might not be a fan of rap music but I can see the artistry in a good rap song. I can identify with poetry in many rap songs more than traditional poetry where there is some poncy bloke waffling on about something I cannot understand.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[Tony Wright]

At the York Show, 31A (Steve) passed over to me a photocopy of the December 1959 Letters' Pages of the Model Railway News. In it was a letter from Ernest F. Carter (I assume THE E. F. Carter), bemoaning the loss of traditional model-making skills. In it he suggests asking the question 'More money spent on buying detail - with less work for the "modeller'" to do himself? Or save money and do more real model railway work oneself?'  He uses terms such as 'spoon-fed', and cites a modern trend (60 years ago, remember) of the 'easy-way-out'. He also draws parallels with those who buy various car components from different companies and 'build' a car from them. No, according to him, all they are are 'assemblers'. I think the most telling paragraph contains these sentences - 'By far the average so-called model railway hobbyist is quite contented to purchase as much as he can ready-made; or at least to buy those items of super-detail which he has either not the interest or the time to make for himself. Then, when he has a model railway in operation, he talks himself into believing that he has made it'. I'd also add 'not the skill' to that paragraph, and note the quaint, gender-specific references. No woman/lady modellers in his day, then! 

 

Does nothing ever change? The RTR stuff of 60 years ago would certainly not have been used by any 'serious' modeller in 1959 (apart from some loco-bodies?), so is he talking of kits? Certainly, the first white metal loco kits would be appearing, as would the first plastic ones. Did he think that those who were building kits at the time were taking the 'easy-way-out'? To him, was 'true railway' modelling making everything from scratch? He even suggests that the contemporary 'honest-to-God modeller despised (my emphasis) the use of ready-made bits and pieces when he was making a model' Operation of the finished model was of far less importance to him compared to 'the joy of the battle with solder and burnt finger-nails he had whilst making it'. I certainly can relate to that last sentence.

 

In my own approach to kit-building, I'd certainly fit into his category of 'assembler'. I take, say, a white metal loco kit from, say, SE Finecast. I buy-in wheels and axles from Markits, a motor/gearbox from DJH, some extra bits and pieces from whoever, and plates from 247 Developments - and so on. I then put the lot together into a working loco. 'Assembling' it, rather than building it? Or, are we down to semantics? 

 

What can one make of the situation today? My perception is of fewer folk actually making things for themselves (and I think Mr. Carter got it wrong with regard to those who alter/modify/improve/detail ready-made articles, as long as they do it themselves). Certainly, the 'scale/gauge' societies are in the van with regard to continuing the practice of actually making things. 

 

Returning to the letter in question, are there still folk out there who 'talk themselves into believing that they're railway modellers', when all they've done is buy stuff RTR/RTP or have acted as commissioners?

 

Interesting, or what? 

[Bucoops]

36 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

At the York Show, 31A (Steve) passed over to me a photocopy of the December 1959 Letters' Pages of the Model Railway News. In it was a letter from Ernest F. Carter (I assume THE E. F. Carter), bemoaning the loss of traditional model-making skills. In it he suggests asking the question 'More money spent on buying detail - with less work for the "modeller'" to do himself? Or save money and do more real model railway work oneself?'  He uses terms such as 'spoon-fed', and cites a modern trend (60 years ago, remember) of the 'easy-way-out'. He also draws parallels with those who buy various car components from different companies and 'build' a car from them. No, according to him, all they are are 'assemblers'. I think the most telling paragraph contains these sentences - 'By far the average so-called model railway hobbyist is quite contented to purchase as much as he can ready-made; or at least to buy those items of super-detail which he has either not the interest or the time to make for himself. Then, when he has a model railway in operation, he talks himself into believing that he has made it'. I'd also add 'not the skill' to that paragraph, and note the quaint, gender-specific references. No woman/lady modellers in his day, then! 

 

 

Tony,

 

Your first paragraph reminds me of what a gearbox rebuilder once told me when I was learning to rebuild boxes - there's a gearbox rebuilder, and a parts monkey. A rebuilder takes the time to measure the wear, inspect everything for damage and then replacing what actually needed replacing. A parts monkey just swaps for new anything that may or may not be worn. You might pay more for a rebuilder to do the job but at least it's done properly!

 

It is amusing that the same arguments were being used then as now with regard to modelling.

[Barry Ten]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Your DoG, by the way, is ready in the stock box. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I think you'll be demonstrating at the Bristol show, Tony? Provided there are no dramas between now and then, I'll be hoping to attend so I could collect the DoG there, if it suits you.

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Returning to the letter in question, are there still folk out there who 'talk themselves into believing that they're railway modellers', when all they've done is buy stuff RTR/RTP or have acted as commissioners?

 

 

Most people will at least make something such as the scenery from materials or assemble buildings from kits. What is increasingly happening is that the majority don't make the locos, stock, track, signals and some of the railway infrastructure, but buy them ready to use. Although they are not making models of the railway"basics" but of its surroundings, so many will still consider themselves as "railway modellers".

 

Assembling and building are different things too. Putting together  a moulded, pre-painted, clip together item is assembly. Putting together a kit of parts that require some knowledge of gluing or soldering and then painting it is more complex and could reasonably be called "building". It's like the difference between putting up a tent and building a house.

 

Jol

 

p.s. the Parts Monkey is usually the person who goes to get the parts, he often doesn't know what to do with them.

 

[Ravenser]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

At the York Show, 31A (Steve) passed over to me a photocopy of the December 1959 Letters' Pages of the Model Railway News. In it was a letter from Ernest F. Carter (I assume THE E. F. Carter), bemoaning the loss of traditional model-making skills. In it he suggests asking the question 'More money spent on buying detail - with less work for the "modeller'" to do himself? Or save money and do more real model railway work oneself?'  He uses terms such as 'spoon-fed', and cites a modern trend (60 years ago, remember) of the 'easy-way-out'. He also draws parallels with those who buy various car components from different companies and 'build' a car from them. No, according to him, all they are are 'assemblers'. I think the most telling paragraph contains these sentences - 'By far the average so-called model railway hobbyist is quite contented to purchase as much as he can ready-made; or at least to buy those items of super-detail which he has either not the interest or the time to make for himself. Then, when he has a model railway in operation, he talks himself into believing that he has made it'. I'd also add 'not the skill' to that paragraph, and note the quaint, gender-specific references. No woman/lady modellers in his day, then! 

 

Does nothing ever change? The RTR stuff of 60 years ago would certainly not have been used by any 'serious' modeller in 1959 (apart from some loco-bodies?), so is he talking of kits? Certainly, the first white metal loco kits would be appearing, as would the first plastic ones. Did he think that those who were building kits at the time were taking the 'easy-way-out'? To him, was 'true railway' modelling making everything from scratch? He even suggests that the contemporary 'honest-to-God modeller despised (my emphasis) the use of ready-made bits and pieces when he was making a model' Operation of the finished model was of far less importance to him compared to 'the joy of the battle with solder and burnt finger-nails he had whilst making it'. I certainly can relate to that last sentence.

 

In my own approach to kit-building, I'd certainly fit into his category of 'assembler'. I take, say, a white metal loco kit from, say, SE Finecast. I buy-in wheels and axles from Markits, a motor/gearbox from DJH, some extra bits and pieces from whoever, and plates from 247 Developments - and so on. I then put the lot together into a working loco. 'Assembling' it, rather than building it? Or, are we down to semantics? 

 

What can one make of the situation today? My perception is of fewer folk actually making things for themselves (and I think Mr. Carter got it wrong with regard to those who alter/modify/improve/detail ready-made articles, as long as they do it themselves). Certainly, the 'scale/gauge' societies are in the van with regard to continuing the practice of actually making things. 

 

Returning to the letter in question, are there still folk out there who 'talk themselves into believing that they're railway modellers', when all they've done is buy stuff RTR/RTP or have acted as commissioners?

 

Interesting, or what? 

 

 

Yes , kits. I remember seeing a comment from CJF in an old RM - possibly 1964 - to the effect that the target market for kits was the novice - "the skilled modeller of course builds from scratch"

 

I think in Britain we have tended to look down upon and downgrade the operational side of the hobby - modelling the working of a real railway - in favour of model engineering. Preferably in metal using machine tools.....

 

EF Carter had lost one arm , and as well as founding editing and writing the Model Railway Constructor was at one stage printing and binding and distributing it himself. His standards for "doing it yourself"  were probably rather high, and I suspect the wealthy 1930s "cheque-book modellers" like WS Norris are being targeted and despised here. The use of "components" - eg cast domes and  ready-made wheels  was clearly in his cross-hairs.  I suspect he was very much of the "turning up domes in the lathe is morally good for you" school ....

 

For me nothing is more frustrating than sinking a lot of time and effort into a model then finding it won't run reliably and well. The whole exercise then turns to ashes in the mouth, leaving a sense of futility and failure...

[Tony Wright]

5 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Yes , kits. I remember seeing a comment from CJF in an old RM - possibly 1964 - to the effect that the target market for kits was the novice - "the skilled modeller of course builds from scratch"

 

I think in Britain we have tended to look down upon and downgrade the operational side of the hobby - modelling the working of a real railway - in favour of model engineering. Preferably in metal using machine tools.....

 

EF Carter had lost one arm , and as well as founding editing and writing the Model Railway Constructor was at one stage printing and binding and distributing it himself. His standards for "doing it yourself"  were probably rather high, and I suspect the wealthy 1930s "cheque-book modellers" like WS Norris are being targeted and despised here. The use of "components" - eg cast domes and  ready-made wheels  was clearly in his cross-hairs.  I suspect he was very much of the "turning up domes in the lathe is morally good for you" school ....

 

For me nothing is more frustrating than sinking a lot of time and effort into a model then finding it won't run reliably and well. The whole exercise then turns to ashes in the mouth, leaving a sense of futility and failure...

Thanks for that,

 

You've expanded the topic a great deal. 

 

I take your point about being frustrated by using up lots of time in trying to get a model to run reliably and well, especially if it then doesn't. However, when it does finally run well, then the taste in the mouth is very sweet indeed. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

14 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

Most people will at least make something such as the scenery from materials or assemble buildings from kits. What is increasingly happening is that the majority don't make the locos, stock, track, signals and some of the railway infrastructure, but buy them ready to use. Although they are not making models of the railway"basics" but of its surroundings, so many will still consider themselves as "railway modellers".

 

Assembling and building are different things too. Putting together  a moulded, pre-painted, clip together item is assembly. Putting together a kit of parts that require some knowledge of gluing or soldering and then painting it is more complex and could reasonably be called "building". It's like the difference between putting up a tent and building a house.

 

Jol

 

p.s. the Parts Monkey is usually the person who goes to get the parts, he often doesn't know what to do with them.

 

Thanks Jol,

 

I suppose if a 'modeller' makes something himself/herself for his/her layout, whatever it might be, then they have the 'right' to call themselves 'modellers'. I'm trying to be careful here (difficult for me, I know), because I've no wish to stir up another hornets' nest of righteous indignation from some quarters. Where someone just puts together everything ready-made straight from a box, with no alterations/improvements made at all, whether it be locos, rolling stock, buildings, signals, civil engineering, Set Track or what you will, could that be called 'modelling'? 

 

In my own case, I'm a user of RTR rolling stock, particularly Bachmann's Mk.1s, of which over 90 in number operate on LB. Granted, all have had their roof ribs removed, new wheels (and in some cases new bogies) fitted, concertina gangways added, new couplings made and weathering applied. To have made all those would have taken up time spent on modelling other things. Indeed, part of the time saved has been used up in making the Mk.1 types not made by Bachmann (or Hornby). I think that qualifies me as a 'modeller', even though in Mr. Carter's view I'm 'taking the easy way out'. 

 

Since I loath camping and have never built a house, I couldn't comment on your analogy. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Kingzance]

Is someone who cuts timber and builds baseboards, lays proprietary track, wires it all together, adds ballast, scenery and kit buildings but who buys RTR stock any less of a railway modeller? We all have some skills and can only admire others with a skill set to which we can only aspire. I class myself as being in the former camp (OO, not P4, EM or Scalefour) with minor forays into the latter but I do get inspired by the many superb illustrations we can find on RMWeb. These push me to better detail and higher levels of finish.

[Tony Wright]

56 minutes ago, Kingzance said:

Is someone who cuts timber and builds baseboards, lays proprietary track, wires it all together, adds ballast, scenery and kit buildings but who buys RTR stock any less of a railway modeller? We all have some skills and can only admire others with a skill set to which we can only aspire. I class myself as being in the former camp (OO, not P4, EM or Scalefour) with minor forays into the latter but I do get inspired by the many superb illustrations we can find on RMWeb. These push me to better detail and higher levels of finish.

In answer to your question, of course not! I'd say you're even more of a railway modeller than many, from looking at the list of all your modelling activities. How could anyone who does what you've described not be a railway modeller, in the truest sense of the word? 

 

I think those who just 'collect' or 'commission', but do no actual work on their models/layouts themselves could well be classed as being interested (very?) in the hobby of model railways. They should not be 'looked down upon' (unless they take credit for the work of others, which is downright wrong in my view) because they're participants in the hobby, and, as we're constantly observing, it is a broad church. 

 

The problem is (if it is a problem) is that they have precious little original to say. From my own point of view (as I've said many times), I look for a personal 'story' in a model, especially if I'm photographing it. Just the sort of story you have to tell. Please post pictures of your work if you can.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.   

Edited April 25, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Atso]

The County 99% completed, just some final adjustments to the pickups to make.

 

 

 

While I designed the body, it was 3D printed. The handrail knobs, buffers, coupling hooks, lamps, bogie and nameplates were all sourced from various suppliers. I didn't draw my own wire, nor did I wind the wire on the vacuum pipes (although I did bend them up). Finally, the chassis was sourced and adapted from a Farish Black Five.

 

I wonder what Mr E. F. Carter would have made of all this and what would he have classed me as?

[Tony Wright]

20 minutes ago, Atso said:

The County 99% completed, just some final adjustments to the pickups to make.

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder what Mr E. F. Carter would have made of all this and what would he have classed me as?

A very fine modeller indeed, Steve!

[Clive Mortimore]

As a creative hobby surely the chap who lays out the set track on the dining room table and makes up stories as Thomas the tank engine is bombing about to entertain his kids is as much a modeller as the bloke who makes his engines out plastic card and model people out of Miliput. Remember a model is a representation and provided it tells a story, sets the scene etc then it has worked.

[Clive Mortimore]

There is second part to my rambling. My own personal choice of what type of layouts and modelling I like, which is not the set track on the dinning room table but something where the owner has taken her or his time to make things, she or he has researched the subject they are modelling and operate the model like the prototype. Preferably in 4mm but I can be easily swayed by multiple units in 3mm. 

 

I accept there are modellers who do not follow what I like but I am sure there are modellers who do not like what I do. 

[APOLLO]

Clive if you enjoy what you do then that is 100% what a hobby is about. There is too much elitism (not on this thread) creeping into most hobbies etc these days - perhaps an internet / forum thing.

 

Anyway - it's past Easter and warming up in our (north facing) conservatory, the season for getting out some pile of tat (old magazines) to peruse with a cup of tea when gardening / railroad chores are done. A box of 1973 "Model Railroader" mags this afternoon. Each has a "model of the month" which earned a small $ reward. Usually scratch built or kit bashed locos, freight cars, buildings etc - each with a description by it's builder. Some cars I noticed were cut & shut RTR models just like you do. One steam loco, scratch built but using commercial wheels / motor etc took the builder over 400 hours - truly a labour of love (though not for me). Even back then talk was of the increase of commercial RTR and demise of building - over 45 years ago !!.

 

Around Christmas I bought (again off ebay) a Weaver SD40 loco - again twin motored. Weighs an absolute ton, runs superbly but the leading wheel derailed on bad joints on curves. I waited till the warmer weather to sort this out. Not the loco - just my track. It took a couple of hours this morning but she now runs like a runs like a Rolls Royce (or should I say Cadillac !!). The bogie power arrangement is strange, I de tensioned the spring on the idle leading wheel a little which seems to have helped. This arrangement is on both bogies.

 

Sometimes "Ready to run" just, err, isn't !!

 

 

This is my only 12 wheel CO CO loco, all my others (BO BO's) put up with my bad track !! I note the newer Atlas versions of this and other CO CO locos have 12 wheel drive with fixed wheels. I wonder how they would perform on my layout ?.

 

Brit15

Edited April 25, 2019 by APOLLO
comment added

[westerner]

All my railways have used RTR stock and locos  , my hands don't often do what my brain tells them to, although I have made many Parkside kits. What I did discover that I could do scenery, particularly countryside and also I can weather locos and stock to a standard, unfortunately nowhere near the Martyn Welch standard.

Wencombe my first layout to appear on RMWeb was built like this and with a rudimentary bit of research I felt I developed a believable back story to which, again through some simple research  I made up a timetable that made sense and worked. When I scrapped Wencombe and moved on to the end of the line, Kingsbridge Regis I was faced with building a small harbour side town with its harbour and boats, this was constructed using kits some kit-bashed and in the end a couple of ready to plant buildings. Likewise Louville Lane presented new problems to overcome, a much more urban feel.

Although as stated I used what was available commercially, track locos etc I still rate my self as a railway modeller.

Interestingly now I have started an O gauge layout Blakeney (Glos) I am again building Parkside kits.

 

 

 

     

[Barry Ten]

I'm happy to call anyone in this hobby a modeller, whether or not they're making kits or scratchbuilding, or just putting together a layout from RTR and RTP elements. A week or two ago I was really taken with this 5 x 4 train set layout built by Chris Nevard, using off-the-shelf products. It could be done badly but in Chris's hands, the end result is (in my view) fantastically well achieved, with a better sense of realism than I've seen in a lot of layouts which involve scratchbuilding and the finer standards:

 

http://nevardmedia.blogspot.com/2019/03/trainset.html

 

I think what counts here is Chris's eye for spaciousness and convincing composition, rather than the origins of the various elements.  I had an 8 x4 layout as a kid, but (as much as I loved it) it looked busier and more cramped than this one. That's modelling, to me - taking what's available and putting it to good effect, whether it's a glorified train-set like this or one of the mega-sized prototype-based layouts we see on this forum.

[Northmoor]

On 24/04/2019 at 12:19, Fat Controller said:

The spirit of the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation walks the land; that poor machine's probably had to have counselling. 

Wasn't it their marketing slogan which was accidentally corrupted during recording, and sounds like "Go stick your head in a pig"?

[Craigw]

Quote

"Clive if you enjoy what you do then that is 100% what a hobby is about. There is too much elitism (not on this thread) creeping into most hobbies etc these days - perhaps an internet / forum thing."

 

I quoted the words of Apollo because I find them of interest. I have noticed on many Facebook groups as well as forums a sort of "inverse snobbery" Firstly, there are a lot of posts (far too many) where people tend to diminish their own effort. Not in a modest way but more in a way of trying to justify why they do things as they do which i find a bit off putting.

 

The second thing you see far more of is an outright aggression towards any modelling to a perceived higher standard. So many posts talk about "Rivet counters" and pedants with out any examples being present. One only has to look at the sheer personal venom that was directed at TW from some quarters over his opinion piece in Railway Modeller. I really do not see how this is healthy. If something is of no interest to me I scroll past it and most people seem to do just that.

 

Regards,

 

Craig w

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Atso said:

The County 99% completed, just some final adjustments to the pickups to make.

 

 

 

While I designed the body, it was 3D printed. The handrail knobs, buffers, coupling hooks, lamps, bogie and nameplates were all sourced from various suppliers. I didn't draw my own wire, nor did I wind the wire on the vacuum pipes (although I did bend them up). Finally, the chassis was sourced and adapted from a Farish Black Five.

 

I wonder what Mr E. F. Carter would have made of all this and what would he have classed me as?

Wot, you mean you didn't smelt the copper ore either?

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, westerner said:

All my railways have used RTR stock and locos  , my hands don't often do what my brain tells them to, although I have made many Parkside kits. What I did discover that I could do scenery, particularly countryside and also I can weather locos and stock to a standard, unfortunately nowhere near the Martyn Welch standard.

Wencombe my first layout to appear on RMWeb was built like this and with a rudimentary bit of research I felt I developed a believable back story to which, again through some simple research  I made up a timetable that made sense and worked. When I scrapped Wencombe and moved on to the end of the line, Kingsbridge Regis I was faced with building a small harbour side town with its harbour and boats, this was constructed using kits some kit-bashed and in the end a couple of ready to plant buildings. Likewise Louville Lane presented new problems to overcome, a much more urban feel.

Although as stated I used what was available commercially, track locos etc I still rate my self as a railway modeller.

Interestingly now I have started an O gauge layout Blakeney (Glos) I am again building Parkside kits.

 

 

 

     

Very few folk are in the Martyn Welch class when it comes to weathering, Alan, if any,

 

But, so what? 

 

In my time as an art teacher, each year I'd take my O Level/A Level pupils down to London to see various exhibitions at the National Gallery and the RA. I took them to The Tate once (remember the pile of bricks and the heap of blankets?), but the observations were 'mixed'. I doubt if any one of them would ever achieve 'greatness' in painting/drawing/sculpture (as I certainly never did!), but what they saw was inspirational.  Most came back enthused to try things for themselves; and did.

 

You have done things for yourself, and succeeded in a very competent and completely-personal way. What you've illustrated is inspirational in its own way. My thanks for showing us.

 

When I spoke earlier of 'personal stories', this is a good example. Nobody has the right to dictate what others can or cannot do with regard to how they participate in this great hobby, but I see little in the way of an 'interesting' personal story in something just from a box, with nothing altered on it, whether it be a whole layout or individual items from it. 

 

This thread is all about personal modelling - just the sort of stuff you do. Long may it continue!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I'm happy to call anyone in this hobby a modeller, whether or not they're making kits or scratchbuilding, or just putting together a layout from RTR and RTP elements. A week or two ago I was really taken with this 5 x 4 train set layout built by Chris Nevard, using off-the-shelf products. It could be done badly but in Chris's hands, the end result is (in my view) fantastically well achieved, with a better sense of realism than I've seen in a lot of layouts which involve scratchbuilding and the finer standards:

 

http://nevardmedia.blogspot.com/2019/03/trainset.html

 

I think what counts here is Chris's eye for spaciousness and convincing composition, rather than the origins of the various elements.  I had an 8 x4 layout as a kid, but (as much as I loved it) it looked busier and more cramped than this one. That's modelling, to me - taking what's available and putting it to good effect, whether it's a glorified train-set like this or one of the mega-sized prototype-based layouts we see on this forum.

Thanks Al,

 

Chris Nevard's example of a 'train set' is brilliant. Though he's used off-the-shelf items in its building, none of them is unaltered. All have been improved and personalised - in fact, made more realistic. 

 

My 'gripe' at times (not at Chris) is this. Though I'm not the greatest user of RTR and no user of RTP, I have nothing against it at all. In fact, as 'starting points', it's excellent. However, when I see just straight-from-the-box examples running or sitting on exhibition layouts or in the press, I feel 'short-changed'. They have no personal story to tell me. 

 

May I use your 'Schools' as an example of a 'story', please?  

 

Though I don't have an image of a Hornby 'Schools' in SR green, this is one in BR black.............

 

There are few detailed bits left to fit on.

 

It's accurate, the livery is beautifully-applied and it runs superbly. A casual observer might conclude that this is 'superior' to your Airfix/Comet adaptation. If it is, so what? Anyone can own this, as long as they can pay for it. That is their right and nobody can deny them that. However, the owner(s) would have no personal story to tell me, unless they then took it further by renumbering/renaming/detailing/weathering/coaling/crewing/etc it. 

 

As I've said so many times, personal modelling (exactly what you do) holds far more interest to me than just the acquisition of (very high standard) out-of-the-box examples. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[NHY 581]

10 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I'm happy to call anyone in this hobby a modeller, whether or not they're making kits or scratchbuilding, or just putting together a layout from RTR and RTP elements. A week or two ago I was really taken with this 5 x 4 train set layout built by Chris Nevard, using off-the-shelf products. It could be done badly but in Chris's hands, the end result is (in my view) fantastically well achieved, with a better sense of realism than I've seen in a lot of layouts which involve scratchbuilding and the finer standards:

 

http://nevardmedia.blogspot.com/2019/03/trainset.html

 

I think what counts here is Chris's eye for spaciousness and convincing composition, rather than the origins of the various elements.  I had an 8 x4 layout as a kid, but (as much as I loved it) it looked busier and more cramped than this one. That's modelling, to me - taking what's available and putting it to good effect, whether it's a glorified train-set like this or one of the mega-sized prototype-based layouts we see on this forum.

Totally agree Al. 

 

This layout that Chris has created is a great example of what may be acheived with off the shelf products. 

 

I take the easy route and use what is available off the shelf  for my modelling. 

 

Of course,  have great admiration and appreciation for those modellers who spend many hours and years even building everything themselves.

However this is just not me and my approach allows me to build a model that ticks my particular boxes. 

I quietly collect bits and bobs over a period of time. Therefore, when it comes to building a layout, I generally have most things I need to put it together quite quickly. 

 

However, everything is personalised by weathering or painting to some degree. 

 

Modellers can be very critical, picking up on minute detail and not seeing the overall picture. 

 

Anyone who plays with trains is a modeller simply because it comes down to the enjoyment it gives the individual. 

 

 

 

 

 

Rob 

 

 

[Fat Controller]

11 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Wasn't it their marketing slogan which was accidentally corrupted during recording, and sounds like "Go stick your head in a pig"?

It sank to halfway up the letters in a mire, and so it was the top half of the letters that gave the new 'mission statement'

The audio books have a  version, sung not-quite-in harmony by the cast.

[Craigw]

While i do comment on here, I don't have a work bench thread as I keep that on the S4 society forum. It is not a one or the other thing, simply that I just cannot get enthused to continue threads all over the place. posting the occasional photo is easy. These are three POWsides wagons that are just about ready for final painting and weathering. Two of them use Bill Bedford W-irons and various bits of etched brake gear whilst the one on the right uses the new Brassmasters sprung underframe. I quite like these and these will be my preferred path for any future PO wagons I build. The base is my photographic base I am slowly working on. I really should do a back scene for it too.

 

Anyway, this is what I am working on at present.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W