Wright writes.....

[glo41f]

The picture of the model 61059 posted here is interesting. It was Ipswich depots favourite and kept in very fine order so the model one does not reflect the shiny condition that the original was kept. Even the valve gear was bulled up! I have a model of it in 7mm which is in the condition that I remember the original. In fact most of Ipswich depot allocation were kept in good order in the early 1950s and there was rivalry (as ever) between Ipswich and Norwich sheds as to the cleanliness of their locos. Stratford sadly due to a number of reasons were unable to keep their allocation up to the same standard.

 

Martin Long

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

quick reply as the stupid forum kicked me out again when I had almost completed a more comprehensive reply. Yes, some tender swapping did take place. I only need one and a half locomotives per train. Compromise is an essential quality in railway modelling, but I take a dim view of rewriting history. I must now depart the house, see you later.

Good afternoon, Andrew,

 

A 'dim view of rewriting history'? 

 

Am I guilty of that? I think we all are to some extent, though, I concede, both your diligence and model-making are superior to mine.  

 

Anyway, what is history? 

 

Regarding tenders, in the case of A4 60015, all the established works claim it never towed a 1928 corridor tender. Yet, I have one picture of it, in the late-'50s, towing just such a tender. Who knows, it might have only been for a day or two? It's clearly never been recorded, but one can imagine the scenario. Top Shed's shedmaster has need of an A4 for such-and-such a top-link duty. However, his foreman has told him that QUICKSILVER's tender (a 1935 streamlined corridor type) has a hot box. No matter, say, GANNET is out of action for a washout day, but her tender is fine. An hour or so later, a tender swop has been made, and the out-and-back duty has been fulfilled. Just the duty where a photographer took its picture. Next day, with 60015's own tender fixed, and GANNET ready to go back in steam, the tenders are swopped back. As I say, who knows?

 

And, who knows which 'established work' to believe with regard to history? Though I have nothing but admiration for the works of the like of the RCTS, Yeadon, Coster and so on, my volumes are covered in my scribblings, pointing out almost 'a mistake on every page'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Bob Reid]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Anyway, what is history? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

In simple terms, study of the past surely.  Where however that can go wrong in railway modelling is the reliance on single sources whether it's a published work, engineering drawings, photo's, including these days those from the Internet or even going direct to the NRM or the archives at Kew.  Without multiple sources and reference to original records, it is difficult to put a lot of what you think you see into context and apply it to your modelling.  Sometimes that's impossible perhaps due to the length of time that's elapsed or the plain fact that the why's and wherefore's were just never recorded.  Relying on so-called experts in their field even the renowned one's and those that were around at the time isn't a guarantee of accuracy, but at least it's a good place to start.  Just how far you want to take and use the information provided is entirely a matter of personal choice.  One man's inaccurate steam collector / dome is another's accurate enough representation. We all have to decide where those details sit in our modelling.

 

Bob.

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Bob Reid said:

 One man's inaccurate steam collector / dome is another's accurate enough representation. We all have to decide where those details sit in our modelling.

 

 

Don't they normally sit on top of the cylindrical bit of the loco (the boiler?) and a little behind the funnel? As such aren't they always in a specific location for each type of loco and not to locate it there would be folly. Isn't that where accuracy and realism fails when modelling becomes a bit of a 'that'll do' approach?

 

G

Edited April 30, 2019 by grahame

[Clive Mortimore]

30 minutes ago, Bob Reid said:

In simple terms, study of the past surely.  Where however that can go wrong in railway modelling is the reliance on single sources whether it's a published work, engineering drawings, photo's, including these days those from the Internet or even going direct to the NRM or the archives at Kew.  Without multiple sources and reference to original records, it is difficult to put a lot of what you think you see into context and apply it to your modelling.  Sometimes that's impossible perhaps due to the length of time that's elapsed or the plain fact that the why's and wherefore's were just never recorded.  Relying on so-called experts in their field even the renowned one's and those that were around at the time isn't a guarantee of accuracy, but at least it's a good place to start.  Just how far you want to take and use the information provided is entirely a matter of personal choice.  One man's inaccurate steam collector / dome is another's accurate enough representation. We all have to decide where those details sit in our modelling.

 

Bob.

Hi Bob

 

Isn't this true of all research. The more sources the better and if you can do some original as well that helps. Having said that the number of "reliable" sources that repeat other peoples mistakes can be shocking. 

[RLBH]

26 minutes ago, grahame said:

As such aren't they always in a specific location for each type of loco and not to locate it there would be folly. Isn't that where accuracy and realism fails when modelling becomes a bit of a 'that'll do' approach?

But where does the modeller decide that his/her degree of precision is sufficient? The accepted tolerance in installing the real thing may have been (say) half an inch. At 1:76 scale, that's an error of about one-sixth of a millimetre. The valve gear must surely have been made to much finer tolerances than that.

 

Sooner or later, we all decide that we're accurate enough. For some people, the joy is in pushing accuracy to the limits of the tools. Fair play to them. For others, it's in making something that looks fairly similar to the prototype then using it to shuffle wagons around. Which is perfectly okay too. But if you insist that everything must exactly replicate the prototype down to the tiniest detail, you start needing to install working gauges in the cab - and that way, madness lies.

 

The trick, I think, is in recognising that you have made that decision about how much accuracy is enough accuracy, being honest about it, and sticking to that decision.

[Ray Flintoft]

Hello Tony ,

   If you look very closely at the photo of no. 61033 you can see the coping plate just above the lining . It was certainly more obvious from some angles than others . Regarding the two B.1's at Wakefield , nos. 61123 & 61189 ; they were both withdrawn in May from York shed . The last working B.1's were no . 61030 NYALA , 61306 & 61337 , all withdrawn from Low Moor shed on 30/09/67 .

                                                                               Ray .

[grahame]

18 minutes ago, RLBH said:

The trick, I think, is in recognising that you have made that decision about how much accuracy is enough accuracy, being honest about it, and sticking to that decision.

 

If you know accurately where it is located and can scale that location but choose not to stick it there on the basis of where you do stick it is 'accurate enough', is that really being honest? Maybe if you don't know the accurate location and take a punt (probably getting it wrong) then that might simply be ignorance. It also might be a whole host of other things.

 

I'm certainly not skilled enough to get things in my chosen scale of N/2mm spot on accurately (certainly not to the degree than many other fine modellers achieve) but I like to know what the accurate position is. I wouldn't pass off or claim my models are 'accurate enough', but more a result of that being as accurate as I'm able to get them. It's not about sticking to a decision to accept it is accurate enough but in accepting my limitations and trying to improve.

 

G.

Edited April 30, 2019 by grahame

[Bob Reid]

36 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Bob

 

Isn't this true of all research. The more sources the better and if you can do some original as well that helps. Having said that the number of "reliable" sources that repeat other peoples mistakes can be shocking. 

 

Yes it is Clive, but no doubt you (with ER EMU's  ) or like myself with Mk1 carriages, have to decide where all the research and achieving that higher level of accuracy stops and I have to start doing some modelling.  For some that's not an easy decision, for me its not the end of the world.

 

Bob

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

Don't they normally sit on top of the cylindrical bit of the loco (the boiler?) and a little behind the funnel? As such aren't they always in a specific location for each type of loco and not to locate it there would be folly. Isn't that where accuracy and realism fails when modelling becomes a bit of a 'that'll do' approach?

 

G

 

Funnel? I didn't know I had taken up model boat building.

[landscapes]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning David,

 

the Darlington built B1's didn't have flush sided tenders. They had a separate coping plate. The link below shows the prominent seem on 61025' tender were the coping plate is attached. Interestingly, this is the type of tender that Bachmann chose for their own B1 back in the day, despite it only being suitable for the Darlington batch. I hope that is of use.

 

 

Hi

 

Many thanks for the photo and explanation, I now know what a coping plate is.

 

Unfortunately  I have both types of Hornby tenders to their new B1's and neither have this plate and there would be to much work involved trying to replicate it.

 

But thank you again for the information.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited April 30, 2019 by landscapes

[Clive Mortimore]

23 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

Funnel? I didn't know I had taken up model boat building.

Mr Wilkinson

 

Have you not read the Railway Series of books by the Rev. W.Awdry? He often refers to the steam engine's exhaust pipe as a funnel.

 

Edward and James are my favorites as they are both really useful engines. 

[Clive Mortimore]

59 minutes ago, Bob Reid said:

 

Yes it is Clive, but no doubt you (with ER EMU's  ) or like myself with Mk1 carriages, have to decide where all the research and achieving that higher level of accuracy stops and I have to start doing some modelling.  For some that's not an easy decision, for me its not the end of the world.

 

Bob

Hi Bob

 

ER EMU information is nigh on impossible to find. My first post of RMweb many many moons ago was about the under gubbins on a class 308 and did anyone have a drawing. Never had a reply, how ever with the aid of photos and a plan view of the underframe of a class 302 which had very similar equipment I was able to do my own drawing, as you say "accuracy stops and I have to start doing some modelling".

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Bob Reid said:

 

Yes it is Clive, but no doubt you (with ER EMU's  ) or like myself with Mk1 carriages, have to decide where all the research and achieving that higher level of accuracy stops and I have to start doing some modelling.  For some that's not an easy decision, for me its not the end of the world.

 

Bob

Thanks Bob,

 

I like to think that my approach to railway modelling is pragmatic. We all have to work within our own limitations. These can include (in no particular order), skill-level, available space, resources (both fiscal and material), time, aptitude, knowledge (or ignorance!) and any others one can think of. 

 

My test (not very scientific, I know) is to try and photograph the model I've just made from the same sort of angle as the prototype picture(s) I'm using. Then, ask the question, how 'real' does it look? Not just by itself, but in context. Clearly, because I model mainly in OO, in front-on views, the trackwork looks 'narrow gauge'. My pragmatic answer to that is 'I know it works'. That's not to say the most-accurate gauge doesn't, but I'm not skilled enough for that. 

 

Other considerations (mentioned many times) are is the loco (if it is a loco) displaying the correct lamps? Is it crewed? Does its train have a tail lamp, and is that train's make-up 'accurate? Is it weathered? Does it have plenty of personal modelling in it? If it's, say, a Bachmann Mk.1 carriage, have the roof ribs been taken off, have the couplings been changed, does it have concertina gangways and has (at least) the underframe been weathered?  

 

Regarding layouts, does it look like pictures of the real thing? (That's why I always model an actual prototype). Are any visible curves not train-set in their tightness? Is the overall modelling consistent? Do any signals work? (I've just had one fail this afternoon!). Does it run without derailments or stuttering? And so on.............

 

Obviously, these 'necessities' do not suit everyone, nor should they. We each have to set our own 'standards', either personally or as a group. If we're satisfied with those standards, is that not enough? As long as we get enjoyment from what we do, do not take credit for the work of others and are not claiming that our modelling is anything better than it is, then 'Yes'. However, that said, if what we present to others, at shows or in any form of media where folk 'copy' what we do, and what we do (the generic 'we') is slipshod, inaccurate and misleading, then problems can occur.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

27 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Mr Wilkinson

 

Have you not read the Railway Series of books by the Rev. W.Awdry? He often refers to the steam engine's exhaust pipe as a funnel.

 

Edward and James are my favorites as they are both really useful engines. 

Clive,

 

Am I the only trainspotter out there who never had the Thomas books? 

 

Did I miss them as a child? When were they first published? I was a nipper in the early-'50s, but I don't remember them. I was bought railway books then, such as The Railway Album and The Eagle Book of Trains (still got them), but never Thomas. That said, having read them to my sons, I don't think I missed out!  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clem]

20 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Am I the only trainspotter out there who never had the Thomas books? 

No, you're not. I never saw them. Brought up on a diet of Ian Allan ABCs and Trains Illustrated that my brother bought occasionally. I was a nipper in the mid 1950s.

 

On another topic, I do a two and a half mile daily walk to increase my survival chances (I want to live forever.. or at least until I've finished all my kits). Today, I was walking past a house where two ladies were cutting their hedge. I was very tempted to stop and let them know that they lived in the house of one of the best railway photographers of the twentieth century. I didn't but I might if I see them again.

[Bob Reid]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Bob

 

ER EMU information is nigh on impossible to find. My first post of RMweb many many moons ago was about the under gubbins on a class 308 and did anyone have a drawing. Never had a reply, how ever with the aid of photos and a plan view of the underframe of a class 302 which had very similar equipment I was able to do my own drawing, as you say "accuracy stops and I have to start doing some modelling".

 

 

 

Do shout up directly if in the future if it is related to the Mk1 based derivatives Clive.  I might have the right or nearest drawing that could help you.  Amongst the several hundred I have there are the odd EMU one's though usually for the SR based stock....

 

Bob

Edited April 30, 2019 by Bob Reid
I can't construct a complete sentence :)

[Headstock]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Good morning Andrew,

 

Using a picture from yesterday, it would appear 61033 (built at Darlington) has a flush-sided tender (or the coping plate is extremely thin). Did B1 tender swopping take place? Also note the extra little balance weight; a rare addition?

 

A further point; regarding the GN-style smokebox door, with the hingestraps close together, the welded-on footplate was necessary because the top lamp iron had to be fixed higher - above the numberplate - thus making it less-accessible for the fireman to fix a lamp on, if he were merely standing on the footplate. However, this was not universal, and I've found pictures of the GN-style door with no footstep and other styles of door with a step welded to them.

 

All of which goes to show how far should we go with regard to detail in making our models? I think you go further than I do with your approach, but then I (I assume) have built far more locos/carriages than you have (I am, of course, quite a bit older), and adopt a more 'sketch-book' approach. 

 

It is interesting, though, that Bachmann has chosen to make a coping plate B1 tender and Hornby a flush-sided one. The Hornby type would certainly seem to be the more-numerous. The most-unusual B1 tender types (other than the self-weighing one) were those rebuilt from NER ones, where there was no flange at all along the base of the tank between the footsteps (though they had a coping plate). 61039 STEINBOK was one which towed this sort (Darlington-built). I took a picture of this at Chester, when it was on a ramblers' excursion to Malpas, and never noticed! 

 

All of which reveals that several of my dozen or so B1s are probably towing the wrong tender!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

gosh, the thread moves along, even in a day! I was expecting lots a wailing and gnashing of teeth and the invoking of rule one. The conversation has actually been pleasantly intelligent.

 

Back to B1's, more than half of the B1's, including the two preserved engines, retained their original tenders until the end. Tender changes were not rampant, in that most of the remainder only recorded a single change.

 

Ray Flintoff is right, if you zoom right in close, 1033 has got a coping plate.

[TrevorP1]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Clive,

 

Am I the only trainspotter out there who never had the Thomas books? 

 

Did I miss them as a child? When were they first published? I was a nipper in the early-'50s, but I don't remember them. I was bought railway books then, such as The Railway Album and The Eagle Book of Trains (still got them), but never Thomas. That said, having read them to my sons, I don't think I missed out!  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I read a lot as a child - my father bought me everything he could afford in order to encourage me to do so - but I'd never heard of Thomas until I was a teenager and 'he' began to visit preserved railways. I think even at the tender age of 5 I'd have said that engines with faces were silly!

[Bucoops]

Thomas T Tank was a BIG part of my reading as a child. Loved it - still do

[Headstock]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon, Andrew,

 

A 'dim view of rewriting history'? 

 

Am I guilty of that? I think we all are to some extent, though, I concede, both your diligence and model-making are superior to mine.  

 

We are all guilty of that, but it is better to make informed choices rather than act out of ignorance.

 

I call poo bah on the modelling thing. LB is a fantastic achievement, I couldn't have produced it.

 

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Anyway, what is history? 

 

Being an empirical Englishman (with a bit of Irish) not a philosophical Frenchman, history is stone cold fact backed up by evidence of multiple sources.

 

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Regarding tenders, in the case of A4 60015, all the established works claim it never towed a 1928 corridor tender. Yet, I have one picture of it, in the late-'50s, towing just such a tender. Who knows, it might have only been for a day or two? It's clearly never been recorded, but one can imagine the scenario. Top Shed's shedmaster has need of an A4 for such-and-such a top-link duty. However, his foreman has told him that QUICKSILVER's tender (a 1935 streamlined corridor type) has a hot box. No matter, say, GANNET is out of action for a washout day, but her tender is fine. An hour or so later, a tender swop has been made, and the out-and-back duty has been fulfilled. Just the duty where a photographer took its picture. Next day, with 60015's own tender fixed, and GANNET ready to go back in steam, the tenders are swopped back. As I say, who knows?

 

It is to be remembered that the established works are secondary source material and should be treated as such. The instance you mention was recorded, you have the photographic evidence. I could think of a number of items of my own research that makes a nonsense of things in the established works some of it quite controversial.

 

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

And, who knows which 'established work' to believe with regard to history? Though I have nothing but admiration for the works of the like of the RCTS, Yeadon, Coster and so on, my volumes are covered in my scribblings, pointing out almost 'a mistake on every page'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I think that you should publish your annotated versions, I hope that you noted your sources. My annotated ( not by myself, original owner) CWN's would give The Green Howards a surprise or two.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

We are all guilty of that, but it is better to make informed choices rather than act out of ignorance.

 

I call poo bah on the modelling thing. LB is a fantastic achievement, I couldn't have produced it.

 

 

Being an empirical Englishman (with a bit of Irish) not a philosophical Frenchman, history is stone cold fact backed up by evidence of multiple sources.

 

 

It is to be remembered that the established works are secondary source material and should be treated as such. The instance you mention was recorded, you have the photographic evidence. I could think of a number of items of my own research that makes a nonsense of things in the established works some of it quite controversial.

 

 

I think that you should publish your annotated versions, I hope that you noted your sources. My annotated ( not by myself, original owner) CWN's would give The Green Howards a surprise or two.

As usual, thanks Andrew,

 

And more thanks for your comment on LB. I couldn't have produced it either; not without the considerable input of a highly-skilled team. Which brings me to one thing I loath (which I've mentioned before); folk taking credit for the work of others by omission, thanking observers for compliments and then not stating LOUDLY and CLEARLY who has actually done the work. I've come across this too many times. The likes of Norman Solomon is hardly mentioned on occasions, when he's done most of the work on a layout. Or loco-builders, coach-builders, detailers, painters, weatherers. Every time their work is featured, it should be made clear whose it is, not just someone's property. 

 

My sources? Me, mainly, by cross-referencing other material, by never believing captions and being naturally-suspicious! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Mallard60022]

Would anyone agree that History is that which happened, from just a few minutes ago to the dawn of time, but then is only seen by others from someone's interpretation of what happened, including perhaps their own version(s) ? Not sure I've asked that very clearly but I shall leave it as it is.

Phil

[Jon4470]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Clive,

 

Am I the only trainspotter out there who never had the Thomas books? 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I grew up in the 1960s and have vague recollection that I read some of them - probably on loan from the local library ( anyone remember them?)

 

What I will say is, that watching Thomas on television with my son is probably what got me back to railway modelling in my 40’s. The quality of the scenery and track work struck me as pretty good. That’s when I got my old K’s kits out and the rest, as they say, is history. (Tenuous link to another post entirely intentional! )

 

Jon

[Bob Reid]

First published for Awdry in 1945 apparently...