Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

21 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

What if you couldn't find the exit?

 

You would have to get use to living in a 4d space. Imagine a 2d creature that discovers the 3d world. Being a 2d creature it can't see all of a 3d object because it can't see height. Thus the way that objects appear, or disappear would be very different to the way we see and perceive objects in a 3d world. As 3d creatures we would have a similar experience in a 4d world. 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Headstock

[APOLLO]

Big exhibition layouts can be a bit boring, looking at miles of fiddle yards at the back with 'nowt moving (and no fiddling either). We pays money to see trains, not stand freezing / boiling at the lineside (with no trains OR jam butties) !!!!!! Having said that many layouts are operated constantly and interestingly.

 

Anyone remember Dewsbury Midland ? - A nice EM layout with two "signal boxes" communicating only with tinkling bells - at least things were happening, even when there was no train in sight,

 

It can be difficult. Take Wigan Central, a train (probably the same one) every three or four hours to Manchester Central. Usually a Stanier tank and five suburban coaches. in, run round, wait 20 mins, leave. Rinse & repeat - very boring. (no goods yard - that was half a mile away). That layout (if ever built) wouldn't be at all interesting. (Hence I built the goods yard !!!).

 

Here it is just before closure in Nov 1964. The water tank was the subject of the MRC article mentioned a few posts back.

And this is how it looked for most of the day.

 

 

Go back in time however it was a tad more interesting Note four platforms. This line was intended to be extended north, never happened, the GC built south to Marylebone. Wonder if the new Hornby 4 / 6 wheel carriages would be OK ?

 

 

Each to their own. I would like to see the Grantham layout one day.

 

Brit15

[APOLLO]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

You would have to get use to living in a 4d space. Imagine a 2d creature that discovers the 3d world. Being a 2d creature it can't see all of a 3d object because it can't see height. Thus the way that objects appear, or disappear would be very different to the way we see and perceive objects in a 3d world. As 3d creatures we would have a similar experience in a 4d world. 

 

Come to Wigan, we have ten dimensions (very mathematical, all involving pie !!!).

 

Brit15

[ecgtheow]

13 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Reading some of today's post I have been wondering where we were going.

 

Here is something I posted on my thread on Boxing Day.

 

"Been running trains, while I was watching a type 4 1/2 rolling along with a train of seven behind it I got into philosophical mode (by accident) and stated to consider what I like about my hobby of model railways. 

1, Who doesn't like to see toy trains running?

2, I like making models.

3, I like researching about railways, for my modelling. 

4, I like the escapism it offers. 

5, I like to be friends with like minded people.

6, There is no number 6

7, All the above make it a fun hobby for me."

Having read through many recent posts I agree with what Clive implies by "Reading some of today's post I have been wondering where we were going?".

 

Respect for others should always be paramount among members of any forum, but is seems to be slipping. There are just too many prickly responses followed by apologies that whatever was written it wasn't intended to offend. We all have different likes & dislikes, we all see the world real & model differently, we all have or lack competences that others excel in. My competence levels are low compared to most on this forum. I read it to learn & often marvel at what others achieve. For me it's generally been an inspiration, but it hasn't inspired me much recently. Let's adopt the dictum "Each to their own",which has been referred to recently & think more about how others may react before writing anything.

 

William

[Headstock]

2 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Come to Wigan, we have ten dimensions (very mathematical, all involving pie !!!).

 

Brit15

 

Around your belly by the sounds of it?

Edited January 6, 2021 by Headstock

[LNER4479]

3 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

I would like to see the Grantham layout one day.

 

Brit15

Well, keep yer fingers crossed. We were due to bring it to Wigan this year (2021) ... but we were also due to bring Shap to Wigan last year ... (!)

 

One year, hopefully not too distant

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

Morning Tony,

 

Let me say first of all that I was most emphatically NOT making any direct comparison between Buckingham and Little Bytham in my post! Come on - you know the sort of layout I'm (somewhat disingenuously) referring to - the one also with the fire brigade attending to a smoking building, a fox hunt going on, an aeroplane crashed in a field (etc, etc).

 

Against my 'fourth dimension' definition, I would say that Little Bytham was 10-25% (depending quite how you look at it) 'fourth dimension' and the pick-up goods certainly contribute to that. But you yourself cheerfully admit that Little Bytham is your 'trainset' and your great delight is to 'turn up the taps' and enjoyed the spectacle of an A4 on a 13-coach train doing what it does best. In that moment you are transported back to the 'wall' at Retford, crying out 'Streak!'

 

You do yourself a great disservice calling it a 'trainset' as what it actually is a beautifully observed piece of modelling that absolutely conveys the 'unhurried' nature of a wayside station athwart one of Britain's great mainlines.

 

In making my 'fourth dimension' comments, I'm not in any way trying to make out that one layout type is superior to the other. What any one individual is drawn to in this great hobby of ours is a purely personal 'thing', based on what particular aspect floats their boat and that ends up driving the type of layout they end up building or are naturally drawn to. Including those that like creating the church scene or the crashed aeroplane. Good on 'em - they're making something and enjoying the hobby.

 

If I may use Grantham for a moment as an example? For me, that has far more appeal as a location to model than Little Bytham. Why? Because there's so much more going on of operational interest. You have the station itself where trains terminate as well as pause. You have the junction at the north end with two possible routes. You have the goods yards at the south end. And - best of all - you have the loco depot, with top link locos coming and going.

 

When it's all in full operation, sitting in the depot operator's chair, you're both absorbed in the rhythm of the depot workings, doing the forward allocation of locos, trying to make sure the next one or two locos to leave shed are in their designated spots so as not to delay the schedule ... and at the same time have a grandstand view of the parade of trains either flying through or making their scheduled stops at the station, including loco changes. So, I reckon I'm up to about 75%-ish 'fourth dimension' by my definition of things changing as the time goes on. Like Tony (t-b-g), I can look at a picture of the layout and usually work out which point of the sequence we're at.

 

BUT(!)

 

It's horribly compressed. To scale size, N gauge would fit the same footprint - Bytham is virtually to scale (you say you've lost 18 inches towards the bridge)

The trackplan is greatly reduced in the yards and sidings - Bytham has every piece last point and siding that was there in the real thing.

It uses Peco Code 100 track - Bytham has Norman Solomon's exquisite hand-built trackwork

We run typically 8-9 max train lengths (see above, re compression) - Bytham all are scale length

I could go on.

 

So which is the 'better' layout?! Answer - neither! Grantham is merely an expression of what particularly interests me as an individual. It also happens to have become a 'stage' on which good friends are able to run their stock, some built especially for the layout. That has been the making of it as a project.

 

But were it to be put to a vote, I suspect that Little Bytham would win every time.

 

Why do I say that? Well, at exhibitions, over the last five years, whilst we've generally had a good crowd around us, we're rarely the most popular layout. And why? (Stand by for the 'punchline') Because comparatively few viewers really 'get' the whole fourth dimension thing. Many are happy just to look at the overall scene for a little while, maybe pick up on a few scenic or loco details. Some are frustrated that the 'stars of the show' (ie the eponymous Streamliners) appear relatively infrequently and eventually wander off in a 'nothing moving on this layout' huff. But those few who realise what we're actually trying to do get into the schedule and what's happening and can stay for hours. One comment from such a viewer makes it all worth while - and I'll happily live with it not being to everyone's taste. There's plenty of other types of layout in the show for everyone to find one that appeals to them

 

Wow, what a comprehensive post, Graham! Great fun, too.

 

My original response, as you might expect, was 'tongue in cheek'.

 

Little Bytham a trainset? Since Roy Jackson always described Retford as a 'trainset' (not train set, which is something I played with as a boy), then that epithet is good enough for me. By the way, the main line depiction on LB is just under 14" short. 

 

I wasn't suggesting you were making a comparison between LB and Buckingham. The two are so far apart as to be superfluous to compare them. 

 

I think the main difference between how you and I perceive railway modelling is that I honestly do not enjoy operating. I enjoy seeing a layout operated well (that's why I was the 'mother hen' whenever Stoke Summit was exhibited, frowning at every operating mistake; of which there were very few, to be fair). I would appear to be 'concentrating' in your picture, operating Grantham's shed, but I'm far too lacking in the discipline of concentration to be any good at it; but, thanks for your tolerance. The things, as you know, I cannot tolerate in a model's operation are derailments and stuttering running  (which, I'm afraid, I do see on Grantham from time to time). Granted, Little Bytham is nowhere near as complicated, but I tolerate no derailments nor jerky running. 

 

And, as I've said many times, I only derive 'operating' pleasure on my trainset when guests are present.

 

As always, each to their own.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, geoff west said:

Tony,

Do you have any pictures of Hadley Green in your library?

I know it appeared in BRM years ago.

I seem to remember you going to photograph it on your birthday?

 

Regards,

 

Geoff.

Good afternoon Geoff,

 

I don't have any here, I'm afraid. They're in BRM's archive at base. 

 

Yes, I did take pictures of Hadley Green on my birthday - my 59th. It was in Richard Wilson's home (at the time) in London, and I had to climb over furniture to get the shots. Part of his living room's walls had ended up as over-sprayed green as damaged baseboard edges were attended to, such was the tight fit! Getting to the lavatory required climbing gear! Well done, Mo. 

 

We finished off with a wonderful Chinese meal. Thanks again Richard, Rob and Brian.................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, Iain.d said:

Probably a bit late to the piece on Southern Pride coaches, what with all this photography and layout status talk! That’s me all over, sorry!

 

I only have three Southern Pride carriages – and to me they don’t appear to be of the quality shown in Tony’s maroon BTK images or the blue/grey one. I have always been disappointed with them.

These are Bulleid examples with the some sort of matt PVC type tape overlaid on clear plastic sides. They came with a little brass fret with grab handles, door handles and representations of hinges. The hinges I stuck on but didn’t get the paint match right. The bogies are old Bachmann’s with plastic wheels. The underframe detail is rudimentary. I think I improved the brake gear, the filler pipes and end detail on the brakes. The pre-printed black lines representing the door openings are particularly poor and stick out like the proverbial dogs…

 

D2123 Semi Open Brake Third:

 

D2318 Corridor Composite:

 

D2125 Semi Open Brake Third:

 

It was the experience of buying them that I remember the most. I bought these about half a life ago from the SP stall at Warley in November 1998 and they were my first purchase in an attempt at more ‘serious’ carriage modelling, only having started a few months before by refurbishing 8 Lima Mk1s. What still riles me more than 22 years on was the reaction and diatribe of abuse I got from a team member on the stall when I purchased them. I asked a man behind the stand if he had two Bulleid BSKs and Bulleid CK in BR green, as I wanted to build a formation that might have traversed the Somerset & Dorset in the period 1963-1966. He replied that no, they had sold all the BR ones but still had some in malachite, but could only offer two different BSK diagrams and the CK. I agreed to purchase them knowing full well that I wasn’t getting exactly what I wanted but was still satisfied – it was the know-how of building them that interested me more, I could learn on these and if they were good, I could buy the others later.

 

It was then that someone else behind the stand came across and started speaking to the person selling them to me. So the comments weren’t to my face but they were about what I was doing. He contemptuously laughed at the naivety of the purchase, berating the purchaser’s failure to be authentic and the purchaser’s failure to do historical research. It was finished off with a comment to the fact that the novice purchaser was being so dumb as to buy them, they would probably make a complete hash of the build anyway. All of this was done at increased volume, such that other people in the area turned to look and see what the noise was all about. It was also done shrewdly, such that if the comments were countered, they could be defended as comments being made about anyone or a previous purchaser. But everyone who heard, and there would have been 5 or 6 people, knew he was referring to me.

 

I have no idea who he was or why he decided to have a go at me, through the salesperson. I recall the salesperson looking uncomfortable. I don’t know if he’d had a bad day or was tired at the end of a long show. Regrettably, I didn’t say a word but quietly and self-consciously purchased the models, put them in my bag and walked away. My only excuse is that I was younger then and didn’t know a lot about a lot and still had respect for my elders. Today, I still don’t know a lot about a lot, but I’d be less restrained. I have never bought or even contemplated buying another SP product, nor will I.

 

Wrong colour aside for my chosen period, the quality of these kits will not meet my current level of modelling acceptance, so they are in the queue to be refurbished with Comet sides, decent bogies with metal wheels and an improved underframe. They will be SP no more.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

Good afternoon Iain,

 

what a horrible story, I have some revenge for you. Firstly though, the evil Empires relentless march of fake green is all pervasive in model railway land. You may have a couple of the last Malachite green carriages in the world. I lament there passing.

 

Now for the good bit. There were Bullied carriages in Malachite green right up until their withdrawal. The BW&CW Bullied were so beautifully painted by BW&CW that they retained there original livery colour throughout (Mike King personal communique) I have a superb colour photo of a line of BR green Bulleid's with a BW&CW brake at the head in Malachite green, the difference in the colour green is profoundly striking. Neither colour matches that touted around by the evil Empire as a 'pod people' replacement of both.

 

Though the BW&CW Bullied's are of a different type to yours, here is the revenge. SP turned their BW&CW Bulleid's out in BR green, totally wrong. You can now look back with a rye smile, that you tormentor was not only a dumb ass but a double dumb ass, that wasn't half as smart as he thought he was.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Headstock
Corrected BW&RC to BW&CW on line 3

[Iain.d]

Thanks Andrew - maybe they'll stay as they are, but they will at least get new bogies.

 

Got these 4 sides prepped last night, just hinges and door stops at this stage; it's so much easier in brass! The bogies and under frames are done.

 

 

Tomorrow I'll start cutting the sides out of the Hornby donors.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

  

Edited January 6, 2021 by Iain.d
Add something

[Headstock]

24 minutes ago, Iain.d said:

Thanks Andrew - maybe they'll stay as they are, but they will at least get new bogies.

 

Got these 4 sides prepped last night, just hinges and door stops at this stage; it's so much easier in brass! The bogies and under frames are done.

 

 

Tomorrow I'll start cutting the sides out of the Hornby donors.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

  

 

As a postscript,

 

there were some ordinary Bullied carriages that retained Malachite green for sometime, skipping the Crimson and cream phase completely.

 

Watch those porthole brake thirds, I seem to recall that they require a strip adding at the top so that the whole side sits lower on the donor than other porthole carriages. Being a dumb ass myself, I think that I forgot with one of mine, they also had a different end profile from true PIII's I think.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, ecgtheow said:

Having read through many recent posts I agree with what Clive implies by "Reading some of today's post I have been wondering where we were going?".

 

Respect for others should always be paramount among members of any forum, but is seems to be slipping. There are just too many prickly responses followed by apologies that whatever was written it wasn't intended to offend. We all have different likes & dislikes, we all see the world real & model differently, we all have or lack competences that others excel in. My competence levels are low compared to most on this forum. I read it to learn & often marvel at what others achieve. For me it's generally been an inspiration, but it hasn't inspired me much recently. Let's adopt the dictum "Each to their own",which has been referred to recently & think more about how others may react before writing anything.

 

William

Wise words, William,

 

Many thanks.

 

Much, I think is over-enthusiastic 'banter', at least on my part, though I try to strike a conciliatory tone at times (which is against my usual, gut reaction).

 

Anyway, on a positive note, through this thread and because of some generous donations/contributions, over £300.00 has been raised for CRUK of late. My thanks to all; they know who they are.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Iain.d]

27 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

As a postscript,

 

there were some ordinary Bullied carriages that retained Malachite green for sometime, skipping the Crimson and cream phase completely.

 

Watch those porthole brake thirds, I seem to recall that they require a strip adding at the top so that the whole side sits lower on the donor than other porthole carriages. Being a dumb ass myself, I think that I forgot with one of mine, they also had a different end profile from true PIII's I think.

Thanks. Yes, you’re right about these sides sitting lower, the D1968 was the same. I will try and take that into account at the next step of the construction.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[bbishop]

Could I ask for some help, please.  A lockdown project is to build some npcs for Southwark Bridge in P4.  These include some Mallard / Blacksmith Models including the MR / SDJR 25' milk van.  The sides have top and bottom tabs.  The ends have a partial floor which has the W irons.  My question is, does the bottom tab on the sides sit above or below the partial floor?

 

The same format is adopted for the LSWR 24' luggage vans, but I haven't got to them yet.

 

Thanks,  Bill

[Northmoor]

5 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

 

I thought that photo looked familiar - I took that!  Not a problem to re-use it on RMWeb, by the way.

 

John CCTRans makes a fair point about the magazines now.   I prefer the RM and MRC of my youth, with their varied mix of creative and mostly-RTR layouts, how-to-build/convert things, prototype drawings or station plans.  Creative articles still get included now but tend to be based on a list of proprietary products, rather than how to make scenery from normal household items. Colour photos used to be included sparingly (due to printing costs?) but I will take good quality B&W photos like MRJ still use over the vivid colour full page photos many use now (although the composition used by Tony and other professionals is very much better).  The use of very large images seems to be used to disguise what are often very short articles which take only two minutes to read; I remember when RotM "Pendlebury" was spread across about six editions!  Can modellers not write any more, or do they have little to write about?

 

I will say though, what I said on another thread only recently; please, let's not start saying who is and who isn't a modeller.  That is just reverting to the British love of forming private clubs, because we get to decide who to exclude from them.

 

Rob

[t-b-g]

25 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I thought that photo looked familiar - I took that!  Not a problem to re-use it on RMWeb, by the way.

 

John CCTRans makes a fair point about the magazines now.   I prefer the RM and MRC of my youth, with their varied mix of creative and mostly-RTR layouts, how-to-build/convert things, prototype drawings or station plans.  Creative articles still get included now but tend to be based on a list of proprietary products, rather than how to make scenery from normal household items. Colour photos used to be included sparingly (due to printing costs?) but I will take good quality B&W photos like MRJ still use over the vivid colour full page photos many use now (although the composition used by Tony and other professionals is very much better).  The use of very large images seems to be used to disguise what are often very short articles which take only two minutes to read; I remember when RotM "Pendlebury" was spread across about six editions!  Can modellers not write any more, or do they have little to write about?

 

I will say though, what I said on another thread only recently; please, let's not start saying who is and who isn't a modeller.  That is just reverting to the British love of forming private clubs, because we get to decide who to exclude from them.

 

Rob

 

I haven't written many magazine articles but I have done a few over the last 25 years, including layout and constructional articles.

 

When I wrote about Narrow Road for BRM, it was somewhere around 6-7000 words and was spread over two issues. Last time I wrote an article I was asked not to go over 2000 words as nobody reads anymore, they just want to look at pictures. I wrote about 4000 words for a recent one and it was edited out of existence to the point of not being my article any more. The whole flow of the story was wrecked and disjointed. I cringed when I read it as it included things I would never have said.

 

It was about Buckingham and one of the things added by the magazine was "Peter Denny was one of the first finescale modellers to appreciate the possibilities that proprietary models could offer".

 

That appeared in a magazine as if I had written it.  The truth is that he converted 3 Triang Clerestories and wished he hadn't bothered as it was more work than scratchbuilding them. Anybody who knows me and anything about Buckingham must have thought I had lost my marbles!

 

As has been said, the idea of a layout where somebody didn't rely on RTR was probably too much for them to cope with.

 

I won't be writing for them any more.

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

I don't know whether it's cause and effect with magazine articles. The cause being the rise of digital imagery; the effect, more pictures and (much) fewer words.

 

The result is a series of step-by-step pictures, often running over a score (and more), with a short caption under each one. I plead guilty to the charge of doing that now. 

 

Time was, in the days of film (in my case medium-format) then an article I submitted might have no more than half a dozen shots (used bigger, if necessary), with the majority of the piece, the written word. 

 

It's just the way of the world now.

 

I heartily disagree with a contributor's article being so altered as to make it virtually untrue. I do proof-read BRM, and only correct grammar/spelling/syntax, etc., but I don't alter the gist of the piece. Admittedly, some submissions are written in fluent gibberish, but that wouldn't be the case with Tony Gee. Tony, if the magazine you won't be writing for any more is BRM, I assure you I had nothing to do with altering your text. In fact, I don't remember it at all. 

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't know whether it's cause and effect with magazine articles. The cause being the rise of digital imagery; the effect, more pictures and (much) fewer words.

 

The result is a series of step-by-step pictures, often running over a score (and more), with a short caption under each one. I plead guilty to the charge of doing that now. 

 

Time was, in the days of film (in my case medium-format) then an article I submitted might have no more than half a dozen shots (used bigger, if necessary), with the majority of the piece, the written word. 

 

It's just the way of the world now.

 

I heartily disagree with a contributor's article being so altered as to make it virtually untrue. I do proof-read BRM, and only correct grammar/spelling/syntax, etc., but I don't alter the gist of the piece. Admittedly, some submissions are written in fluent gibberish, but that wouldn't be the case with Tony Gee. Tony, if the magazine you won't be writing for any more is BRM, I assure you I had nothing to do with altering your text. In fact, I don't remember it at all. 

 

Thanks Tony but rest assured it wasn't BRM, who have been very good in that respect.

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

Thanks Tony but rest assured it wasn't BRM, who have been very good in that respect.

Phew!

 

I won't ask which one it was, but it's pretty disingenuous to say the least.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robertcwp]

5 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Watch those porthole brake thirds, I seem to recall that they require a strip adding at the top so that the whole side sits lower on the donor than other porthole carriages. Being a dumb ass myself, I think that I forgot with one of mine, they also had a different end profile from true PIII's I think.

I have posted this image before:

 

45569_Harrow_1952_crop by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

It shows the differing profiles and the lower sides of the brake third. The one with the really non-standard profile was the CK. Nothing much about it matched any other LMS design. The roof cross-section was the same as used on BR Standard (Mark 1) stock.

[Jol Wilkinson]

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I thought that photo looked familiar - I took that!  Not a problem to re-use it on RMWeb, by the way.

 

John CCTRans makes a fair point about the magazines now.   I prefer the RM and MRC of my youth, with their varied mix of creative and mostly-RTR layouts, how-to-build/convert things, prototype drawings or station plans.  Creative articles still get included now but tend to be based on a list of proprietary products, rather than how to make scenery from normal household items. Colour photos used to be included sparingly (due to printing costs?) but I will take good quality B&W photos like MRJ still use over the vivid colour full page photos many use now (although the composition used by Tony and other professionals is very much better).  The use of very large images seems to be used to disguise what are often very short articles which take only two minutes to read; I remember when RotM "Pendlebury" was spread across about six editions!  Can modellers not write any more, or do they have little to write about?

 

I will say though, what I said on another thread only recently; please, let's not start saying who is and who isn't a modeller.  That is just reverting to the British love of forming private clubs, because we get to decide who to exclude from them.

 

Rob

Rob,

 

as a modeller in P4 for the last forty years, I've been excluded from the club for a long time.

 

Jol

[johndon]

I wonder if might make use of the collective knowledge with regards to a Cooper Craft (Ex Ian Kirk) kit of a Gresley Open Third Brake I'm building.  I'm actually building and modifying the coach after conversion to form part of the BR Weedkiller train.

 

The instructions are, to put it kindly, non existent but I've built the basic bogies (side frames and end stretchers).  The rest of the sprue for the bogies is shown bottom right below but I have absolutely no idea what the remaining parts are for and would be grateful if there is anyone who can enlighten me.

 

By the way I am aware of the multiple things wrong with the kit (end profile is wrong, roof profile is wrong etc.) but, I've never built a coach before so want to get this one built for practice and, at some, point, I'll gather all the relevant parts to do the coach properly...

 

 

John

[robertcwp]

I wrote a few prototype information articles for a couple of model magazines some years back but they seemed to lose interest and it was too time-consuming to write them anyway. I felt I could not do justice to the subject in a short enough piece. Nowadays, I do plenty of work on publications of a different kind as I'm in charge of 51 chapters of a huge accounting manual, but that's another story.

 

Picking up on assorted comments above, I don't like the way photo reproduction of layouts has gone in the magazines as the colours always look false to me. I don't buy any model magazines in hard copy regularly and have not done so for several years, although I currently have a digital subscription to BRM because it was cheap.  Around the time I ceased buying magazines regularly, I sensed that there was something of a race to the bottom in terms of subject matter and who they were pitched at, and I consider myself to be a very basic modeller not much removed from the train set end of the spectrum compared to many who post on this thread. However, I can usually marshal a passenger train correctly and attach it to appropriate motive power.

 

As for layouts, I remember the Buckingham tribute in Railway Modeller that was published not long before Peter Denny passed away. I thought it was a massive achievement and was probably decades ahead of its time in terms of the modelling. I think I still have that edition somewhere, although I threw out most of my modelling magazines. However good the modelling was, it's not really my kind of layout. I like the big main line layouts depicting the BR era up to the 1970s although earlier time periods are fine too. Trains have to be in a credible formation with appropriate motive power otherwise it spoils it for me, no matter how good the standard in other respects.

[96701]

I'm happy to see images of models with the background "disappeared" because I have plenty of my own photos of layouts taken at exhibitions with background clutter. With regard to magazines, one of my pet hates is text written on the photo rendering the text virtually illegible without a strong light, absolutely no use to me where  I usually read model railway magazines.

Edited January 6, 2021 by 96701
tryping instead of typing.

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Anyone remember Dewsbury Midland ? - A nice EM layout with two "signal boxes" communicating only with tinkling bells - at least things were happening, even when there was no train in sight,

Dewsbury Midland or Heckmondwike (or both)?