Wright writes.....

[ecgtheow]

My view is that that there are at least some old model railway magazines that are worth keeping as an inspiration, a word that I have used before to explain why I read this forum. My best example is MRJ No. 13 published in 1987 which celebrates the work of George Iliffe Stokes as well as other interesting articles. Incidentally there are lots of photos perhaps not surprising given the need to illustrate the scenes he created, but there are quite a few others too even if they are all B + W & rather blurred. I don't think that his grouping of buildings to create a realistic atmosphere has been surpassed even the though modern masters are technically better using superior construction materials & methods. Here is an example

 

William

 

[t-b-g]

42 minutes ago, Beechnut said:

Dewsbury Midland, and I assume we’re talking about the Manchester MRS model, was/is 00.

 

Brendan

 

I don't think the excellent Dewsbury layout from the Manchester club ever had the two signal boxes and "twinkling bells" mentioned in the original comment, so I ruled that one out.

 

Heckmondwyke had one signal box on the scenic section (as far as I recall) but did have communication to the fiddle yard via block instruments and bells.

37 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

I do very much agree Tony but between those halcyon days and todays picture book display we seemed to go though a stage (not entirely eliminated) of very formulaic articles  A typical example being:

 

Construction Techniques

 

Baseboards were constructed in the typical way with

6mm/9mm/15mm ply / chipboard / Sundela / MDF tops

supported by a 9mm/15mm ply / 2x1/3x1 soft wood frame

with legs made from softwood/ply  and fixed/designed to fold up for transportation for exhibitions.

 

Track work was from Peco code 100/83/75 / SMP/ Marcway and was ballasted using (insert favoured supplier).  The rails were weathered by painting the sides with (chose favourite paint supplier and shade(s)) and the tops of the rails were wiped clean for good electrical conductivity.

 

Ballasting was from (chose favourite supplier) with special attention being paid not to interfere with the operation of the point blades and fixed down with diluted PVA with a bit of washing up liquid added.

 

 

Delete as appropriate

 

Don't forget the obligatory "I started modelling with a Hornby Trainset" opening!

 

Formulaic is a very apt description.

 

I wonder if people read an article or ten like that and then, when the time comes for them to do an article, they think "That is what an article should be like" and just insert different names, periods and details as appropriate.

 

I have always approached writing articles as if I am writing a short story and I try to give them some sort of plot, or theme. I like to tell the story of the layout or model, rather than just describe it. If I got something wrong, I will say so and explain why, in the hope that it helps others thinking of doing the same thing.

 

One or two people have been kind enough to say nice things about them, so hopefully I haven't fallen into that mode of writing (yet!).

 

 

[chrisf]

The extent to which today's magazines set the agenda for or reflect the interests of their readers is a moot point.  For me, one unwelcome development is the addition of steam to photographs of model steam locomotives.   For goodness sake stop!  It is a waste of effort and an insult to the intelligence of the readership.

 

Chris

[robertcwp]

4 hours ago, robertcwp said:

Certainly not referring to Buckingham. It's about fifty years outside the era that I know anything much about so I don't have the knowledge to comment on the trains.

 

I was thinking of several large BR-era exhibition layouts that I have seen that depict real places, usually with a very high standard of modelling, but where the trains bear little or no resemblance to those which would have been seen at that location in the time period modelled. I have also seen layouts not based on a real location where vacuum-braked locos haul air-braked stock or there are absurd formations of stock that bear no relation to how trains of the period were marshalled. 

 

I contrast those with layouts such as Mostyn, Stoke Summit, Leicester South GC and Bournemouth West where there is or was a real effort to get the trains right as well as everything else. 

PS - how could I have forgotten!

 

The worst bugbears for me are Southern Electric exhibition layouts with Bachmann 4 Ceps with the centre trailers the wrong way round and even one layout that was running  2 Hal coupled to a 2 EPB.  

[robertcwp]

On 06/01/2021 at 09:31, Tony Wright said:

Some interesting (and, as usual, provocative) thoughts, John.

 

Many thanks.

 

As a one-time, fully paid-up member of the modelling press (now part-time), I have to say that the standard of visual presentation, photography (myself excluded) and printing is fantastic in comparison to the 'golden years' of model railway publishing you so fondly remember. Not only that, the standard of modelling presented is to a far higher standard than most achieved in the '60s. The big difference there is due to the development and increasing fidelity of RTR/RTP products in all scales and gauges. You might recall that the RM used to have a Proprietary Modeller section, such was the disdain with which 'out-of-the-box' products of the day were regarded. 

 

Of course, the Railway of the Month in each issue was full of examples of things which had been made (out of necessity) but I look back now (only from memory) and some were really quite crude in retrospect (I don't include Buckingham, even though I still don't 'get' it; nor, probably, ever will). 

 

I'd also state that the standard of reviews in the current press of new products/kits is also much more 'critical' than in those days of yore, though the MRC did try hard. 

 

I wish you'd been a bit more specific with regard to your statement '- the person who buys a completed model and runs it is not a modeller'. I'd have included 'unaltered/not improved/not personalised' in that. The reason for this is that I have around 90 Bachmann Mk.1s on Little Bytham. All are the appropriate types, straight-from-the-box to start with, but all have had their roof ribs removed, new wheels fitted, new couplings made, concertina gangways added and they've all been weathered (to a degree). Would you not agree that required some degree of 'modelling' on my part? 

 

What about the guy/girl who (by their own admission) cannot make models to the standard they desire, so gets someone else to 'do their modelling for them', either through building things or modifying RTR? Definitely not modellers then? 

 

May I finish with a current example of comparative RTR standards, please?

 

 

Seen before, but in a different context, this is Hornby's latest Thompson A2/2 (of which I was privileged to see an 'advanced' example). Soon to be available, I think it's fantastic (and I haven't added any of the various detailing bits and pieces). Yes, I know the colour causes questions, but an opportunity to improve it? 

 

Its price? Well under £200.00 from some outlets...................

 

And, prior to its being available? 

 

 

I built this for a customer from a DJH kit, and Geoff Haynes painted it. The final price, taking in all the components? Over £1,000.00. 

 

Could anyone claim that it's over five times better? Of course not! Is it more-realistic (the ultimate acid-test)? Maybe? 

 

 

For me, this pair of photos show just how good RTR can be. If it wasn't for the colour and the lack of screw coupling on the front of the Hornby one, it would be hard work to tell which was which.

[Geep7]

17 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

PS - how could I have forgotten!

 

The worst bugbears for me are Southern Electric exhibition layouts with Bachmann 4 Ceps with the centre trailers the wrong way round and even one layout that was running  2 Hal coupled to a 2 EPB.  

I had this happen at the club I belong to, and one member was running his 4-TC set with the centre coaches the wrong way round as well, and it bothered my OCD so much I had to tell them..... Fortunately it was all taken in good spirits, although I do seem to have gotten a reputation for being a bit obsessive about such details since.

 

Doesn't help when I build an SR-based layout and insist that only plausable locomotives and stock appear on my fictional branchline. If there isn't photographic evidence that they appeared on the Coastway West route, then they don't appear on my layout. Is anyone else this obessive on their fictional layout?

Edited January 7, 2021 by Geep7

[Tony Teague]

34 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

For me, this pair of photos show just how good RTR can be. If it wasn't for the colour and the lack of screw coupling on the front of the Hornby one, it would be hard work to tell which was which.

 

21 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

I had this happen at the club I belong to, and one member was running his 4-TC set with the centre coaches the wrong way round as well, and it bothered my OCD so much I had to tell them..... Fortunately it was all taken in good spirits, although I do seem to have gotten a reputation for being a bit obsessive about such details since.

 

Doesn't help when I build an SR-based layout and insist that only plausable locomotives and stock appear on my fictional branchline. If there isn't photographic evidence that they appeared on the Coastway West route, then they don't appear on my layout. Is anyone else this obessive on their fictional layout?

 

The truth is, however, that not many exhibition go-ers or magazine readers, even amongst SR fans, would notice this sort of detailed fault.

[31A]

16 hours ago, johndon said:

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

 

I don't think your question has been answered yet; apologies if I've missed a reply!  Here is the LNER Full Brake that I made about 20 years ago(!) from an Ian Kirk kit, for which I used the Cooper Craft / Mailcoach bogies.  I don't think I had any instructions either but hopefully the picture from below shows where I put the bits you've got left on the sprue.

 

It looks as though I may have found the axles were a bit slack in the bearings, as I've put Plastikard shims behind some of the bearings.  Otherwise it was a very nice kit, and a pity no longer available.

 

 

 

[Geep7]

5 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

 

 

The truth is, however, that not many exhibition go-ers or magazine readers, even amongst SR fans, would notice this sort of detailed fault.

I know, and that's what worries me.... am I being too obsessive over nothing.....?

[johndon]

3 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

I don't think your question has been answered yet; apologies if I've missed a reply!  Here is the LNER Full Brake that I made about 20 years ago(!) from an Ian Kirk kit, for which I used the Cooper Craft / Mailcoach bogies.  I don't think I had any instructions either but hopefully the picture from below shows where I put the bits you've got left on the sprue.

 

It looks as though I may have found the axles were a bit slack in the bearings, as I've put Plastikard shims behind some of the bearings.  Otherwise it was a very nice kit, and a pity no longer available.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Steve, that is extremely useful.

 

John

 

[johndon]

16 minutes ago, Geep7 said:

I know, and that's what worries me.... am I being too obsessive over nothing.....?

 

I don't think so but I guess we all have our areas of knowledge. 

 

Show me a Consett iron ore hopper (like the one KR Models are doing) and I can tell you everything that is wrong with it but, on the other hand, I couldn't tell you what a 2 Hal or a 2 EPB should look like, let alone whether they should ever be coupled together...

 

John

Edited January 7, 2021 by johndon

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, MikeTrice said:

It is not just magazines that have suffered this "dumbing down" (I think Your Model Railway started the trend). One of my pet hates is TV documentaries which start the episode telling you what is going to be covered for the rest of the program then when ad breaks occur have a "coming up" segment before the break, then a recap after the break and finally a "next time" at the end.

I think that's economic rather than intellectual - padding out the schedule at zero cost by stretching 30 minute programmes to fill an hour. 

 

What really gets my goat is that, when covering two or more topics, rather than dealing fully with one at a time, we get snippets of each spread through the programme. Do they think we all have the attention span of gnats?

 

John

Edited January 7, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Chamby]

I subscribe to a monthly magazine, and after reading, swop it with a couple of mates who subscribe to different publications.  We have BRM, RM and Hornby Magazine covered between us, and occasionally one of us buys Model Rail off the shelf, if tempted.  I rarely regret passing on a copy, even if I have only had it for a couple of days.  The content seems to be of much more transient interest than of old.

 

The presentation and format of the magazines have improved dramatically over the years, but I agree that the content is much less informative about modelling.  Reading the different magazines each month, it becomes clear how much common content they have, especially regarding manufacturer announcements and reviews of new releases.  These articles, that seem to be half of the content these days, you can lose track of which mag you are actually reading!

 

One thing I don’t miss from the old format, is the habit of listing the entire motive power and stock owned by the author.  That always seemed to be a waste of space to me.

 

I still prefer to read the paper rather than digital copy.  It is so much more relaxing sitting down with a mag and a cuppa, than spending even more time staring at that ever-intrusive I-pad.  And you can’t pass on the digital version to your mates either.

[PMP]

On 06/01/2021 at 10:33, cctransuk said:

My musings of yesterday evening seem to have been misinterpretted in some quarters - I'm sorry if I was less than clear in expressing myself.

(Snip)

. However, I do not believe that purchasing RTR / RTP and running it in the condition that it came out of the box is railway modelling. What worries me is that today's model railway press seems to actively encourage the latter, non-creative activity.

 

Going back to basics - one definition of modelling is "the activity of making three-dimensional models"; the operational word here is "making". If asked to decide if a person is a modeller, I would ask "What have you made"? I would expect the model to exhibit features that were the product of the modeller's labour - even if confined to the odd added detail or some weathering.

 

John Isherwood.

Ive no idea which magazines you’re referring to, you clearly aren’t reading any of the contemporary mainstream mags including RM/BRM/HM/MRJ/MR.

 

ive written north of 80 articles for the magazines (all of the above) and a huge majority have been constructional or review items.

 

Heres an image of easily found mancave artefacts that have appeared in recent years/months.  All have included cutting plastic and or major repaint. Including using CCT transfers and referencing them as a supplier source in the relevant pieces.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by PMP
Add pic

[rob D2]

I first remember reading RM in 1980 aged 8, then moved through all the mags , and came back to the conclusion I liked RM still over some of the bright flashy ones.

 

Reason being - it seems to have most layouts, which I like, other people’s ....art....is inspiring.

 

One of the brighter newer ones is constantly “ we show you how “ which means every few years you get “ how to model snow “, or the other extreme( which RM does too) is “ John shows us how to model 1923 LNER station toilets “.

 

In other words “ we show you how “, is either too generic ( if you’ve done a bit of modelling ) or too specific to appeal to a very wide audience. I wouldn’t want to be in charge of choosing articles .

 

 

[Paddy]

3 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

I do very much agree Tony but between those halcyon days and todays picture book display we seemed to go though a stage (not entirely eliminated) of very formulaic articles  A typical example being:

 

Construction Techniques

 

Baseboards were constructed in the typical way with

6mm/9mm/15mm ply / chipboard / Sundela / MDF tops

supported by a 9mm/15mm ply / 2x1/3x1 soft wood frame

with legs made from softwood/ply  and fixed/designed to fold up for transportation for exhibitions.

 

Track work was from Peco code 100/83/75 / SMP/ Marcway and was ballasted using (insert favoured supplier).  The rails were weathered by painting the sides with (chose favourite paint supplier and shade(s)) and the tops of the rails were wiped clean for good electrical conductivity.

 

Ballasting was from (chose favourite supplier) with special attention being paid not to interfere with the operation of the point blades and fixed down with diluted PVA with a bit of washing up liquid added.

 

 

Delete as appropriate

This was one of the reasons I cancelled all my subscriptions.  There is no doubt the presentation of today’s magazines is excellent but I realised over time that I was reading the same thing over and over again but with different pictures.

 

It amazes me that there are enough layouts for the four main titles to cover each month!  Especially when you consider each has 2 or 3 included.

 

Occasionally I will buy RM if there is something that interests me.  Personally, I think HM is one of the better ones as I like Mike’s style of modelling and the inclusion of prototype articles, but not enough to subscribe anymore.

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

 

 

[ecgtheow]

1 hour ago, Geep7 said:

I had this happen at the club I belong to, and one member was running his 4-TC set with the centre coaches the wrong way round as well, and it bothered my OCD so much I had to tell them..... Fortunately it was all taken in good spirits, although I do seem to have gotten a reputation for being a bit obsessive about such details since.

 

Doesn't help when I build an SR-based layout and insist that only plausable locomotives and stock appear on my fictional branchline. If there isn't photographic evidence that they appeared on the Coastway West route, then they don't appear on my layout. Is anyone else this obessive on their fictional layout?

Far from it! My layout has, or will shortly have the track layout of Thetford Bridge station & sidings (GER) to scale with bullhead rail, but will run in different periods with appropriate stock; pre-grouping GER/M&GN/GNR/MR/LNWR; LNER; BR early, but now & again the New York Central steam era will take over the rails only to be supplanted by the Deutsche Bahn/SBB Swiss Railways steam era & sometimes by the New South Wales Government Railway. You can discern that I like variety, which may have something to do with the  "Trains of the World" book I was given as a kid & the fact that my grandfather was an engine driver for the LNWR. Could anything be worse for our purist friends?

 

William

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

Ive no idea which magazines you’re referring to, you clearly aren’t reading any of the contemporary mainstream mags including RM/BRM/HM/MRJ/MR.

 

ive written north of 80 articles for the magazines (all of the above) and a huge majority have been constructional or review items.

 

Heres an image of easily found mancave artefacts that have appeared in recent years/months.  All have included cutting plastic and or major repaint. Including using CCT transfers and referencing them as a supplier source in the relevant pieces.

 

 

 

I wouldn't dispute what you say at all; but what I wrote seems to have struck a chord, judging by the reaction. Clearly, I am not alone in my views.

 

I often browse the railway modelling shelves, but I can't recall the last time that I came across content that inspired me to buy the magazine.

 

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, robertcwp said:

For me, this pair of photos show just how good RTR can be. If it wasn't for the colour and the lack of screw coupling on the front of the Hornby one, it would be hard work to tell which was which.

I take that as a compliment, Robert.

 

Thank you. 

 

Time was when you could always tell if a loco on a layout were kit/scratch-built, because it was usually far superior to the contemporary RTR stuff. 

 

Not now, and I don't count myself in this category (though I do count my painters), it would take a top-builder and a top painter to match what's now available, let alone surpass it. 

 

Yet, in all this, something has been lost; that certain unique quality that a hand-built model possesses, even though it might be 'inferior'. Not only that (as a one-time journalist), where's the story? 'Oh, I've just bought that. Isn't it good?'. 'Yes, but that's all'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Northmoor]

12 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Yet, in all this, something has been lost; that certain unique quality that a hand-built model possesses, even though it might be 'inferior'. Not only that (as a one-time journalist), where's the story? 'Oh, I've just bought that. Isn't it good?'. 'Yes, but that's all'. 

 

This applies in many fields of journalism.  Back in the old Top Gear days, there was quite a range of guests.  Sometimes a Hollywood millionaire moviestar would talk about their huge range of cars, but their only input had been to buy them.  It was always more interesting to get someone like Mick Fleetwood who didn't own £Ms of cars (although he could afford to), but did own and still regularly drove the Austin Seven that his father drove him around in over 60 years earlier.  That car represented a story.

[Barry O]

Problem is that some of the reviews published seem to be a bit less than factual.. back to the old days in the toddler of saying "this Winston Churchill captures the shape of the real thing " but was it the right length? was the wheelbase anywhere near?

 

I only occasionally read the railway modelling magazines but they are all getting very samey ( with the exception of MRJ)  - too many layouts - the odd "how to do "X" which is good if you are starting off in the model railway world.  Some of this doesn't go far enough.. I read an article not that long ago about 3D CAD and printing.. seemed very easy  but from my Engineers viewpoint it was strong in self gratification and very limited in knowledge transfer.

 

Luckily for me I have enough people in the Leeds MRS who have the knowledge (and are willing to freely offer their support) to fill in my knowledge gaps.  

 

Baz

 

 

 

 

[Steven B]

I don't think model magazines have changed that much. There's been a move away from some of the articles that covered butchering locos into different sub classes as more and more become available RTR.

 

Personally I stopped buying magazines regularly 10+ years ago. None of them were giving me what  wanted to read. To some extent my modelling interests & abilities out grew the contents of 98% of their content. The likes of DEMU, and the BR Coaching Stock IOGroup giving me the nerdy info I need and RMWeb the high quality modelling with plenty of background info storey and including the warts as well as the perfect models.

 

As for the older magazine reviews, who could forget "improves with running in"?

 

Steven B

Edited January 7, 2021 by Steven B

[Jol Wilkinson]

I have only bought MRJ regularly for the last twenty or more years. Modelling the LNWR  in P4, there is rarely anything of interest in the "mainstream" magazines. I find them too RTR centred, even through they often still feature very fine layouts.

 

I haven't bought any RTR since I was a teenager, finding that making models (including R/C boats and aircraft at a time) was much more rewarding. As Tony points out, the latest RTR models are very good, better than most of us can make/paint/line. That shouldn't be a surprise as the latest sophisticated manufacturing techniques have been used to create them.  Despite the quality/accuracy or RTR I still prefer to make my own models and probably any enjoyment I might get from buying the forthcoming LNWR Precedent wouldn't last long. Perhaps that is where the RTR manufacturers benefit, as customers need to come back for repeated "fixes".

 

Nowadays people tend to value themselves and other by what they buy/own, rather than what they actually do. Looking at some of the RTR new product topics shows an amount of "me too", "I've ordered one of each", etc. presumably from people deriving satisfaction from displaying their ability to own the latest models.

 

 

 

[PMP]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I wouldn't dispute what you say at all; but what I wrote seems to have struck a chord, judging by the reaction. Clearly, I am not alone in my views.

 

John Isherwood.

I’d suggest that’s based on lack of knowledge in terms of not actually taking time to read or inspect enough of the publications, and coming to a faulty conclusion.

 

I’ve no problem with the ‘nothing in it for me’ response , I too rarely buy regularly apart from MRJ. But what is wrong is to suggest that the mainstream media is not covering model building. It does offer significant coverage, and the fact there’s four major newsstand with monthly issues, means that a good number of readers are buying them, and the content therein appeals to those readers.

 

Genuine Q., What articles do you actually want to read?
Please try and be specific and give an example of one that would make you part with a fiver for that one article.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by PMP
Adding question

[Georgeconna]

On 06/01/2021 at 08:54, cctransuk said:

 

I modelled at the kitchen table for fifty years; is UK to Ireland postage that expensive? All my components come by post.

 

John Isherwood.

I certainly would not get away with that! Fair play.

 

Your eye would water a some of the Prices I have been given, Worse now. €6.95 it will cost me per UK item at least even for a little bag of Brass Bearings or Say Southern Head code discs.