Wright writes.....

[Focalplane]

I remember a saying from way back when I first moved to Houston: an old dog is fed up of its tricks, it desparately needs to learn new ones. Have taken that to heart since retiring: first SketchUp, next Templot. Seems to have been good advice remembered!

Edited February 3, 2015 by Focalplane

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive,

 

very much on the point about the overall impression.

 

However, I wonder if the availability of such good RTR locos and stock can have a negative impact. I recently saw a nicely modelled "Suffolk" OO layout. The work that had gone into the buildings in particular really identified the location. However, the locos were a BR 08, a LMS 2-6-0, a GWR Pannier tank and a BR DMU I couldn't identify. Possibly all nice models in their own right but it seemed no effort had been made to go the extra mile and find/use/adapt something appropriate to place and time. Given the research and skill that appeared to have gone into the architecture it was really disappointing.

 

Jol

Hi Jol

 

The stock for this layout sounds terrible. Nothing looks worse than a layout with inapropriate items, some examples, stock wrong period, wrong region/railway, cars too old or too new, figures wearing wrong period fashion, Scammel mechanical horse/Scarab/Townsman in a country goods yard, wrong size signal box for the number of signals, points etc. The list could go on and on and on...........

[Andy Reichert]

Hi Jol

 

The stock for this layout sounds terrible. Nothing looks worse than a layout with inapropriate items, some examples, stock wrong period, wrong region/railway, cars too old or too new, figures wearing wrong period fashion, Scammel mechanical horse/Scarab/Townsman in a country goods yard, wrong size signal box for the number of signals, points etc. The list could go on and on and on...........

 

The acceptance of the "look" at an exhibition depends on the prior level of prototype knowledge and experience of the viewer.  To many it might look wonderfully "realistic".

 

Andy

[robmcg]

On the subject of realism at exhibitions or on layouts of any description, to me the pics below are realistic.

 

Model railway engines are beautiful objects as well as evoking a time and place gone.  These below pics break many of the rules expounded regularly in this thread; they are RTR, weathered by many and various means, (and they run silently and nicely).

 

Hand-built or kit-built they are not, they don't even exist in the exact form shown, except as pictures. I think there is a too much confusion about what we can or ought to enjoy in this hobby, but re-creating things using models should be accepted, because that it what models do. I collect RTR models too.... 

 

So a plug for RTR and manipulated photography of models at least...  I just bought the 2015 Hornby catalogue and the photography there is very attractive, I want to buy many models!

 

And Bachmann 00 models, like Hornby, are astonishingly good!  And this is in no way casting the slightest shadow on the brilliant and beautiful craftmanship and art displayed by Tony and many others here.

 

 

 

Rob

Edited February 3, 2015 by robmcg

[Clive Mortimore]

The acceptance of the "look" at an exhibition depends on the prior level of prototype knowledge and experience of the viewer.  To many it might look wonderfully "realistic".

 

Andy

Hi Andy

 

That is why the look needs to be correct, the viewer may have a wonderful knowledge. Is it better to cater for her/him rather than those who have less knowledge because if it is right it will still look realistic to them as well?

[Focalplane]

For a while I was beginning to think this was a clear cut divide between RTR and Kit Built. Now I think that each and every contributor has his or her own interpretation of a mix between the two, end members included. So be it. Perhaps it really is time to move on and do some kit building or box purchasing as the case may be.

[Andy Reichert]

Hi Andy

 

That is why the look needs to be correct, the viewer may have a wonderful knowledge. Is it better to cater for her/him rather than those who have less knowledge because if it is right it will still look realistic to them as well?

 

I wasn't passing judgement on the layout. Rather pointing out that not all visitors might be as discerning and/or as disappointed as you.

 

Who you cater for is your decision. In my case it's myself and I suspect that applies to most of us in where we build personal use layouts.

 

My personal dislike is wide flange ways and filed away Flat Bottom Stock rail bases, but most other people are first unaware, and if advised, then  find them OK if not completely "invisible".

[chrisf]

On the subject of realism at exhibitions or on layouts of any description, to me the pics below are realistic.

 

 

Rob

Well you would say that ...

 

 

Chris

[Mallard60022]

I wasn't passing judgement on the layout. Rather pointing out that not all visitors might be as discerning and/or as disappointed as you.

 

Who you cater for is your decision. In my case it's myself and I suspect that applies to most of us in where we build personal use layouts.

 

My personal dislike is wide flange ways and filed away Flat Bottom Stock rail bases, but most other people are first unaware, and if advised, then  find them OK if not completely "invisible".

Hoorah! At last someone has hit the nail........personal use.

Although some folk will still want total accuracy for a 'personal use layout', there are hundreds of us out here that just want to create a 'look' and that involves compromise. The degree of compromise accepted is very variable indeed.

However, on RMWeb or at Exhibition, if one is brave enough to display one's work, one has to accept constructive criticism that is given in a helpful and sympathetic way.

Sometimes some folk can't quite achieve the helpful  and/or the sympathetic and that is sad. That's life.

Phil

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... I recently saw a nicely modelled "Suffolk" OO layout. The work that had gone into the buildings in particular really identified the location. However, the locos were a BR 08, a LMS 2-6-0, a GWR Pannier tank and a BR DMU I couldn't identify. Possibly all nice models in their own right but it seemed no effort had been made to go the extra mile and find/use/adapt something appropriate to place and time. Given the research and skill that appeared to have gone into the architecture it was really disappointing...

Did you ask the layout owner about this? Strange things happened in the former GER territory in BR days. A GWR design pannier tank was certainly tried on some branch locations, the LMS ''Mucky Duck' 4MT 2-6-0 was allocated in some numbers and there were a few of 2MT 2-6-0 also, and BR class 08s and DMU's certainly appeared. It might just have been an accurate depiction of a particular moment in time.

[Tony Wright]

On the subject of realism at exhibitions or on layouts of any description, to me the pics below are realistic.

 

Model railway engines are beautiful objects as well as evoking a time and place gone.  These below pics break many of the rules expounded regularly in this thread; they are RTR, weathered by many and various means, (and they run silently and nicely).

 

Hand-built or kit-built they are not, they don't even exist in the exact form shown, except as pictures. I think there is a too much confusion about what we can or ought to enjoy in this hobby, but re-creating things using models should be accepted, because that it what models do. I collect RTR models too.... 

 

So a plug for RTR and manipulated photography of models at least...  I just bought the 2015 Hornby catalogue and the photography there is very attractive, I want to buy many models!

 

And Bachmann 00 models, like Hornby, are astonishingly good!  And this is in no way casting the slightest shadow on the brilliant and beautiful craftmanship and art displayed by Tony and many others here.

 

45593_Jubilee_portrait17_3ab_r1200.jpg

 

45562_Jubilee_portrait1_3abcdef_r1200.jpg

 

Rob

Rob,

 

I have great admiration for your photographic manipulation skills, though what's 'realistic' about the wheelbase on ALBERTA's tender? 

[Tony Wright]

Did you ask the layout owner about this? Strange things happened in the former GER territory in BR days. A GWR design pannier tank was certainly tried on some branch locations, the LMS ''Mucky Duck' 4MT 2-6-0 was allocated in some numbers and there were a few of 2MT 2-6-0 also, and BR class 08s and DMU's certainly appeared. It might just have been an accurate depiction of a particular moment in time.

Perhaps Jol meant that they were the only locos. For a Suffolk-based layout in BR steam days, what about a J15, B1, B12, K1, J17, etc, etc, etc? Far more appropriate. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Did you ask the layout owner about this? Strange things happened in the former GER territory in BR days. A GWR design pannier tank was certainly tried on some branch locations, the LMS ''Mucky Duck' 4MT 2-6-0 was allocated in some numbers and there were a few of 2MT 2-6-0 also, and BR class 08s and DMU's certainly appeared. It might just have been an accurate depiction of a particular moment in time.

No I didn't enquire. It was one of those layouts where the operators seemed so preoccupied that it felt rude to intrude.

 

However as the 2-6-0 was in LMS livery and the Pannier tank in GWR livery they did seem rather incongruous. 

[Tony Wright]

I am sure that for many modellers putting the model together (baseboards, track, scenery, buildings, signals, locos, rolling stock etc) is a route to producing a railway they can operate. It certainly is for me. I will use whatever helps me to achieve that at a standard I am happy with within one lifetime. That will include RTR and even RTP if the standard is high enough and it fits the bill (which is very rare, in fact).

 

True, I build wagons which are not actually relevant  to the layout because I enjoy it. Currently some 1870s Mid Wales Railway timber wagons.

 

I certainly do not set out to build a layout with what I can buy, whether it be locos, wagons, buildings or backscenes - all of which can be bought. I decide on a prototype place (even if it is imaginary but with a feasible story), look at what rolling stock is appropriate, and then try to acquire that. Same with the buildings. I don't think I have used a kit built building larger than a PW hut for 30 years but only because nothing has been exactly what is appropriate. But whereas it is very, very unlikely that for a particular location one would be able to buy many of the buildings (possible Little Bytham one day?), I would almost certainly be able to buy a good proportion of appropriate stock. Since I find loco building difficult and unreliable, I prefer to let someone else apply their skills to it (though I am about to try another kit shortly which will run along two converted RTR locos and one scratch built example by someone else.). But I will have no RTR coaches and hardly any RTR wagons on the layout

 

And I think if you look at many layouts it is the same. Modellers are scratch building and kit building but often on the scenic side rather than the rolling stock. But they to me are equally part of the railway even if the skills needed are a little different.

 

I think also that when it comes to modern image locos it is perhaps more difficult to get the kind of finish one seeks than  it is with steam locos (Though I have never seen on a model the kind of rippling one sees sometimes in sheet metal on the prototype.) which encourages use of plastics mouldings.

 

So while I have sympathy with Tony's view, I feel that he is looking at just part of what makes up a model railway. There is nothing wrong with enjoying building locos but 100 locos do not make a model railway (unless like Tony you can barter half of them for all the other aspects).

 

But that does not mean that I like out of the box locos in out of the box scenery surrounded by bright green grass with BR liveried diesels pulling RTR 1930s PO wagons.

 

Whiteacres at the Stafford show illustrates this, I think. Most of the stock was RTR but it was a well designed and built layout with intelligent use of a mix of kits and scratch built scenery (six different styles of steel bridge if I remember rightly), and it was operated in a realistic manner with appropriate trains. In fact it was some time before I noticed that almost all the stock was RTR because it presented a convincing overall picture of a railway system.

 

But Tony, please keep writing those articles encouraging people to build kits and scratch build.

I'm in complete agreement with just about everything you say, though I'm not sure that I feel it's only the locos and rolling stock which go to make up a model railway (as implied?).

 

The main emphasis with the comments I make are selfish, I admit. Yesterday, I spoke to two principal loco kit manufacturers in 4mm. With the first, no new investment in 'traditional' kits (or non-traditional either), though a few kits do trickle out. Oddly enough, they're the older ones, for which there is no RTR equivalent (or that might not be odd, thinking about it). With the second, I'm helping out with some new work (including testing out some different driving wheels!) and investigating the possibility of some re-releases (watch this space). But, overall sales are down. If traditional kits become rarer, and my layout is scenically-finished (it's well on the way), how then do I occupy my time? Running is interesting, but if running is all a modeller seeks then RTR stock is great. I do alter RTR stuff (and have written about it on numerous occasions), but I'd much sooner build things. And, if all the fittings I need disappear, scratch-building becomes more difficult as well.

 

Finally, if things do not work on a model railway at a show, however well the architecture/scenery has been made, spectators vote with their feet. In the main, they like to see trains moving. In my case, even if the trains are moving, if what moves is just out of the box, I vote with my feet, even though the layout might be quite well made. In fairness, at least RTR stuff does work well, and that's surely better than a kit-built loco which staggers along. But, as at Stafford, the minute captured my eye - not the products of mass-purchasing, but some little creative kit-built/scratch-built gems. 

 

My views, of course, are personal and I respect those of others. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Perhaps Jol meant that they were the only locos. For a Suffolk-based layout in BR steam days, what about a J15, B1, B12, K1, J17, etc, etc, etc? Far more appropriate. 

Tony,

 

yes they were the only locos and, given the liveries (see above) they didn't seem right in terms of place or period.

 

A GWR branchline on display at the show seemed to present a realistic picture , although as anything with those initials is an anathema to me, I don't know whether the locos and stock matched the period set by the infrastructure.

 

Jol

[The Stationmaster]

For me the important thing about a layout is that it believable 'captures the look' and then ideally  'the essence' of what it is purporting to represent.  that doesn't necessarily mean everything has to be absolutely right but equally it very definitely means that nothing should be very noticeably 'wrong'.  Perhaps rather difficult to define but it is all about more than what the eye sees - it is about seeing and sensing enough to believe.  And the way it is worked will then either make or break the illusion.

 

Thus a layout can be track from Mr Peco's box but nicely finished it works as part of the illusion or it could be beautiful handmade stuff of soldered construction and the lack of something giving the impression of chairs jars.  It can be models which might have started life in a box from China but have been weathered and altered to create the impression of 'railway' and it works, or superb handcrafted models from an artist in scratch building who (or the layout owner) just hasn't captured the everyday reality of appearance.  And of course it can be running on any superbly accurate gauge of track but operated like a trainset and thus destroying the illusion.

 

All of course is easy to say - and not necessarily easy to do but as I said to someone a year or so back, when asked by someone associated with it what I thought of a certain layout, 'it's a railway'.  Mind you I can also look at at enjoy (some) other sorts of layouts - but the 'railways' are the ones which really tick my box.

[coachmann]

Just my tuppence worth. Even with no trains in sight, the pre-grouping origins of a layout based in steam days should be identifiable from the architecture, and the part of the country the layout is based on should be identifiable from the scenery. If one is really trying hard, the station should be identifiable to people who know the place. Having ticked all the boxes and it is identified as on the old L&Y system (for example), our expectations have been raised and one then expects to see locos and operations that would be normally on that line. 

Edited February 4, 2015 by coachmann

[edcayton]

Tony, what do you mean by "traditional" kits please? And what is the opposite?

 

Ed

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... If traditional kits become rarer, and my layout is scenically-finished (it's well on the way), how then do I occupy my time? Running is interesting, but if running is all a modeller seeks then RTR stock is great. I do alter RTR stuff (and have written about it on numerous occasions), but I'd much sooner build things. And, if all the fittings I need disappear, scratch-building becomes more difficult as well...

But nothing is going to truly disappear this century. There's a mountain of unused / part used / finished kits out there, and these regularly surface for sale. I have several glaring at me accusingly from the shelf as I type.

[jwealleans]

glaring at me accusingly from the shelf

Put them in a cupboard.  I find it helps.

[corneliuslundie]

I am sorry if I was not clear, Tony. I actually think that in some ways the layout is more important than the stock, which can easily be changed and improved. And I think there is now much more emphasis on making the overall surroundings convincing so that, as has been said above, you can look at a layout with no stock on and say "LYR", "BR in east Lincolnshire" or even "Northern Rail in Cumbria"; and also including such things as trap points fogmen's huts and the many smaller details which are so often missing from model railways. I looked at the layout where we met at Stafford and it shouted B&M to me before I saw any locos, though with almost no change it could legitimately have been populated by LMS or BR locos (the goods stock is not generally so company specific except for brake vans). Whatever the stock it would still have shouted South Wales valleys.

 

But a wonderful layout with inappropriate stock, stock that doesn't run well or is not operated in an authentic manner spoils the illusion for me.

 

For me still some of the iconic layouts are those from the past such as Buckingham, Portreath and Marthwaite, because to me they oozed railway even if they neither the layouts nor the stock were completely accurate.

 

And you ask what you can do when the layout is complete. Well, you could replace those wagons other than the 36 mentioned above by scratch or kit built versions, preferably of prototypes for which there is no RTR model (I appreciate that you may not want to build 70 BR diagram 108 minerals). Now, I know that doesn't really interest you, and it's your railway, built by a group of friends to produce an incredibly convincing result which also runs well. I very much hope when it is finished you will find it enjoyable to operate, and that it is not simply a rather grand test track for newly built models. So operating to a timetable is one option if that appeals to you and your friends, as did Peter Denny and David Jenkinson (I assume from his writing).

 

Jonathan

 

Jonathan

[Tony Wright]

Tony, what do you mean by "traditional" kits please? And what is the opposite?

 

Ed

Ed,

 

I suppose metal locomotive kits; either mainly white metal, such as the Autocom range which comprised the old K's, Nu-Cast, Sutherland? and several others. These are now unavailable, anyway. Or Little Engines' kits, again now unavailable. In many ways, critics might say they're obsolete anyway, and who'd buy them? But, if one wanted, say (speaking personally), a J6, O4/7, O4/8, G5, Q6, J27 or those sort of locos, they were a means to an end. Obviously, things like a B1 and V2 are dead in the water, but the A2/1 kit wasn't bad. There's now the re-releasing of the Millholme range as well, which is encouraging. All the above usually have etched chassis - thankfully, no more cast-metal lumps. 

 

Then there's the mixed-media ones (cast metal and etched brass) of which DJH is one of the best-known examples. As mentioned, sales of the kits where there is now an RTR example are not many (though A1s and A2s still trickle out), but if you want a B16, NER Atlantic and so on, they do provide a means. SE Finecast fit into this category, and many of the current kits have much in the way of etched-brass/nickel silver components. 

 

Finally, there's the mainly brass/nickel silver kits, of which LRM is a good example, or Alan Gibson. Also PDK (though some have resin boilers), plus the more specialist end such as Finney (though hasn't Martin retired?) and Mitchell. 

 

Obviously, there are others, and there are choices amongst the ranges, with duplication. 

 

Perhaps the 'opposite' might be a 3D-printed kit, where you buy a disc, load it into your computer/printer and away you go. The really hard work has been done by someone else (in fairness, there is a parallel in part with pattern-makers, designers and manufacturers) and the manual skills required will be more in the way of cleaning the finished thing up. Or, as usual, am I talking nonsense? 

 

Please don't think I'm labouring the point but since 'returning' to the hobby after this bout of depression, every kit manufacturer I speak to tells me the same thing; the market is contracting rapidly, though there are one or two chinks of light. Every one of my mates I'm getting back together with again says the same - fewer folk making things (at least locos and rolling stock). These are all modellers, mind - not just RTR box-openers (and, to be fair, several produce incredible results altering RTR stuff). Perhaps we are dinosaurs (I know I am), and there'll still be a mountain of kits, bits and pieces out there which might appear on the SH market. But, with more and more of the 'specialist' manufacturers not attending shows, rows and rows of RTR box-shifters might become the norm when you visit an exhibition. Please forgive me if I can't get excited about that.

 

Edited to clarify a point.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

I am sorry if I was not clear, Tony. I actually think that in some ways the layout is more important than the stock, which can easily be changed and improved. And I think there is now much more emphasis on making the overall surroundings convincing so that, as has been said above, you can look at a layout with no stock on and say "LYR", "BR in east Lincolnshire" or even "Northern Rail in Cumbria"; and also including such things as trap points fogmen's huts and the many smaller details which are so often missing from model railways. I looked at the layout where we met at Stafford and it shouted B&M to me before I saw any locos, though with almost no change it could legitimately have been populated by LMS or BR locos (the goods stock is not generally so company specific except for brake vans). Whatever the stock it would still have shouted South Wales valleys.

 

But a wonderful layout with inappropriate stock, stock that doesn't run well or is not operated in an authentic manner spoils the illusion for me.

 

For me still some of the iconic layouts are those from the past such as Buckingham, Portreath and Marthwaite, because to me they oozed railway even if they neither the layouts nor the stock were completely accurate.

 

And you ask what you can do when the layout is complete. Well, you could replace those wagons other than the 36 mentioned above by scratch or kit built versions, preferably of prototypes for which there is no RTR model (I appreciate that you may not want to build 70 BR diagram 108 minerals). Now, I know that doesn't really interest you, and it's your railway, built by a group of friends to produce an incredibly convincing result which also runs well. I very much hope when it is finished you will find it enjoyable to operate, and that it is not simply a rather grand test track for newly built models. So operating to a timetable is one option if that appeals to you and your friends, as did Peter Denny and David Jenkinson (I assume from his writing).

 

Jonathan

 

Jonathan

A superlative response, Jonathan. I cannot argue!

 

Believe it or not I'm building a plastic kit for a horse box (of which there is no RTR equivalent) and Ian Wilson and I are currently working on a sequence. But, last night, three 'new' friends came round, all of whom have lived in the area near Stoke Bank all their lives. Like me, they were trainspotters in the '50s. Though they all complimented the team on the layout's appearance, in no time it was 'have you got all those namers, one or two of the Thompson Pacifics, the W1, and all the myriad classes which we saw?' And, 'the articulated carriages?' Of course, and here they are, romping round as we pleased. Great fun, but impossible fully without the building of kits. To them, the things which ran by were the most important. However, each to their own.  

[edcayton]

Tony, thanks for that full reply.

 

Ed

[Jol Wilkinson]

The question of the declining market, whether for RTR or kits, doesn't have a clear answer.

 

One thing that is sure however, that those manufacturers that bring out new models are in a stronger position that those that don't. The frothing that accompanies any new RTR model announcements is good evidence of this.

 

Kit manufacturers that continue with the same unchanging range are dependant on either new customers coming onto the market, or existing customers buying multiples of the same kits. New models will sell to the existing customers who wish to extend their fleet. A variety of different models rather than a collection with multiples of the same loco (which may be more prototypical) is what most people go for. So for some kit suppliers things look poorer than for others. 

 

The RTR manufacturers are fairly heavily dependant on enthusiasm for new releases, where people buy a new model because it "looks nice", even if it doesn't fit their normal model interests.

 

Jol