Wright writes.....

[Brian Kirby]

Tony will probably recognize this coach from a couple of months ago, it's a LNER Thompson Pantry 3rd, which i believe is from the late Geoff Brewin collection, which Tony was helping find new homes for. This carriage has been "re-allocated" to the Robert Carroll railway franchise, but has come to Holloway Works for coupling conversion. Off have come the fixed two-pin rake couplings, to be replaced with "British Standard" (!) Bachmann type, so it can couple to RTR types, although i do know that Robert uses Sprat & Winkle couplings on the outside of his coach rakes. I re-used the previously swivelling coupling bar, chopping it back and soldering it in solidly, so now it acts as a reinforcing torsion bar, otherwise the outside stretchers would be prone to bowing. The Bachmann couplings are mounted on the end of these bars, with a Peco trackpin acting as a fastening rivet (or use nut and bolt), with the whole joint locked and made stronger with superglue.

      Whilst modifying the bogies, i did wonder if the coach was carrying the correct number? Checking Harris's blue LNER coach book appendix revealed that seven were built, numbered E1330-5E + E1345E, this was backed up by the relevant Isinglass/John Edgson drawing, plus ironically by the Comet instructions. Unless anybody knows of any other pantry cars, it looks as though E1321E will be easily re-numbered to E1331E, although the number has been applied as a set waterslide and not with individual numerals, removal might be risky, an overlaid numeral may be safer. Another curiosity are the no-smoking labels, i would have thought the middle windows between labels would have carried them as well, unless perhaps a photo proves otherwise? I look forward to seeing this coach running regularly on Robert's layout, far better that it gets plenty of use, rather than being stored away for ages in a box.

                                       Cheers, Brian.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Tony will probably recognize this coach from a couple of months ago, it's a LNER Thompson Pantry 3rd, which i believe is from the late Geoff Brewin collection, which Tony was helping find new homes for. This carriage has been "re-allocated" to the Robert Carroll railway franchise, but has come to Holloway Works for coupling conversion. Off have come the fixed two-pin rake couplings, to be replaced with "British Standard" (!) Bachmann type, so it can couple to RTR types, although i do know that Robert uses Sprat & Winkle couplings on the outside of his coach rakes. I re-used the previously swivelling coupling bar, chopping it back and soldering it in solidly, so now it acts as a reinforcing torsion bar, otherwise the outside stretchers would be prone to bowing. The Bachmann couplings are mounted on the end of these bars, with a Peco trackpin acting as a fastening rivet (or use nut and bolt), with the whole joint locked and made stronger with superglue.

      Whilst modifying the bogies, i did wonder if the coach was carrying the correct number? Checking Harris's blue LNER coach book appendix revealed that seven were built, numbered E1330-5E + E1345E, this was backed up by the relevant Isinglass/John Edgson drawing, plus ironically by the Comet instructions. Unless anybody knows of any other pantry cars, it looks as though E1321E will be easily re-numbered to E1331E, although the number has been applied as a set waterslide and not with individual numerals, removal might be risky, an overlaid numeral may be safer. Another curiosity are the no-smoking labels, i would have thought the middle windows between labels would have carried them as well, unless perhaps a photo proves otherwise? I look forward to seeing this coach running regularly on Robert's layout, far better that it gets plenty of use, rather than being stored away for ages in a box.

                                       Cheers, Brian.

 

CIMG4979.JPG

CIMG4982.JPG

CIMG4980.JPG

CIMG4981.JPG

CIMG4983.JPG 

I do remember it Brian; it was posted to Robert just prior to Christmas last year. 

 

It was from the late Geoff Brewin's collection, but I don't think it's a Comet kit, at least not the sides. I think these are from Southern Pride (part of the series generated for Stoke Summit), married to Comet components. Since I already have two Thompson Pantry Thirds, a third seemed one too many, especially as I have a Gresley Pantry Third as well. To be honest, as I found a new home for it I didn't check its number. What concerned me more was the branding, with the BR roundel between the lettering, rather than below it. I don't think this is right. I mentioned this to 60022 at the time (Phil brought the cars to me at the time, along with several locos) and it was thought the asking price should be lowered. But Robert (bless him) disagreed and paid the full price. In fairness, it's well made and finished (by Alan Buckenham, I think). I did acquire its attendant Thompson Restaurant Car. That, too, had the incorrect branding, and also outside handles to the kitchen doors. For obvious reasons, the kitchen doors on LNER Restaurant Cars should have no means of getting in from the outside, apart from an attendant's key.  

 

Helping a widow and her family at a time of great need was the least Phil Ramsay (who worked tirelessly) and I could do. I subsequently found good homes for all the models I had from Geoff's collection. There might well be more. 

Edited September 29, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Clive Mortimore]

I do remember it Brian; it was posted to Robert just prior to Christmas last year. 

 

It was from the late Geoff Brewin's collection, but I don't think it's a Comet kit, at least not the sides. I think these are from Southern Pride (part of the series generated for Stoke Summit), married to Comet components. Since I already have two Thompson Pantry Thirds, a third seemed one too many, especially as I have a Gresley Pantry Third as well. To be honest, as I found a new home for it I didn't check its number. What concerned me more was the branding, with the BR roundel between the lettering, rather than below it. I don't think this is right. I mentioned this to 60022 at the time (Phil brought the cars to me at the time, along with several locos) and it was thought the asking price should be lowered. But Robert (bless him) disagreed and paid the full price. In fairness, it's well made and finished (by Alan Buckenham, I think). I did acquire its attendant Thompson Restaurant Car. That, too, had the incorrect branding, and also outside handles to the kitchen doors. For obvious reasons, the kitchen doors on LNER Restaurant Cars should have no means of getting in from the outside, apart from an attendant's key.  

 

Helping a widow and her family at a time of great need was the least Phil Ramsay (who worked tirelessly) and I could do. I subsequently found good homes for all the models I had from Geoff's collection. There might well be more. 

Hi Tony

 

According to my copy of the BR Lettering and Numbering of Coaching Stock pages 38 and 41 the emblem should go below the lettering. Confirmed by the photos in the Harris LNER Coaches book.

[nerron]

I do remember it Brian; it was posted to Robert just prior to Christmas last year. 

 

It was from the late Geoff Brewin's collection, but I don't think it's a Comet kit, at least not the sides. I think these are from Southern Pride (part of the series generated for Stoke Summit), married to Comet components. Since I already have two Thompson Pantry Thirds, a third seemed one too many, especially as I have a Gresley Pantry Third as well. To be honest, as I found a new home for it I didn't check its number. What concerned me more was the branding, with the BR roundel between the lettering, rather than below it. I don't think this is right. I mentioned this to 60022 at the time (Phil brought the cars to me at the time, along with several locos) and it was thought the asking price should be lowered. But Robert (bless him) disagreed and paid the full price. In fairness, it's well made and finished (by Alan Buckenham, I think). I did acquire its attendant Thompson Restaurant Car. That, too, had the incorrect branding, and also outside handles to the kitchen doors. For obvious reasons, the kitchen doors on LNER Restaurant Cars should have no means of getting in from the outside, apart from an attendant's key.  

 

Helping a widow and her family at a time of great need was the least Phil Ramsay (who worked tirelessly) and I could do. I subsequently found good homes for all the models I had from Geoff's collection. There might well be more. 

Here is my coach entirely built from a Comet kit.

[Brian Kirby]

Yes, looking at the photo in Harris, the roundel should be lower (assuming all pantries were the same - probably), seems to be ER practice. The painter appears to have adopted the lettering position more commonly found on BR Standard catering cars. I started to think this wasn't the SP version, but the picture posted above by Ron shows the Comet etch in all it's glory, note the shallower pantry rear window vanes, whereas E1321E here has all window vanes at same height, so is presumably SP after all? Comet did add this Diag.355 to their range some time after the SP version. I always found Geoff B., Alan, Malcolm and the original Jeff A. to be most helpful (there was somebody else on the original team c.1980, who's name escapes me?) and it was always handy to pick their brains, thanks chaps. 

     I'll have to break the news gently to Robert C., i can always alter, repaint and re-line it for him, should he sanction this. As a compromise, maybe i could put a new emblem lower down, but it looks very tight, since the lettering should be higher in this case, the waist lining is a bit on the thick side too. (bitching now!) I know what i'd do.

                                                                                                         Cheers, Brian.

              P.S.  Another of my grammatic/lingo hates is when you ask someone "how are you?" and they reply "good" (another Americanism), i think to myself (or say)  "Good what?".

Edited September 29, 2015 by Brian Kirby

[Jesse Sim]

 

My most grateful thanks To Tom Foster for shooting and editing the above DVD, and to Simon Roberts for his unstinting assistance on the day. 

wow Tony looks fantastic, i just got back from a little trip to the southern parts of oz and the first thing i did when i got home was get youtube up; (as a good friend had sent me the link with "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS YET?"). 

truly wonderful, i cannot wait to come and meet you and have a look at the layout and pay tribute to this glorious piece of modelling.

see you in december!   

 

Jesse

[grob1234]

Cracking video chaps. Really sets the 'benchmark' for my future project, though if I'm able to only get a little of the way there, I shall be very satisfied.

[Tony Wright]

Yes, looking at the photo in Harris, the roundel should be lower (assuming all pantries were the same - probably), seems to be ER practice. The painter appears to have adopted the lettering position more commonly found on BR Standard catering cars. I started to think this wasn't the SP version, but the picture posted above by Ron shows the Comet etch in all it's glory, note the shallower pantry rear window vanes, whereas E1321E here has all window vanes at same height, so is presumably SP after all? Comet did add this Diag.355 to their range some time after the SP version. I always found Geoff B., Alan, Malcolm and the original Jeff A. to be most helpful (there was somebody else on the original team c.1980, who's name escapes me?) and it was always handy to pick their brains, thanks chaps. 

     I'll have to break the news gently to Robert C., i can always alter, repaint and re-line it for him, should he sanction this. As a compromise, maybe i could put a new emblem lower down, but it looks very tight, since the lettering should be higher in this case, the waist lining is a bit on the thick side too. (bitching now!) I know what i'd do.

                                                                                                         Cheers, Brian.

              P.S.  Another of my grammatic/lingo hates is when you ask someone "how are you?" and they reply "good" (another Americanism), i think to myself (or say)  "Good what?".

Thanks again Brian,

 

There were two other members of the original Comet team, Steve and Malcolm, who both died far too young. 

 

I also hate the response of 'good' when asked how one is. Good for what?

 

I also really loath both 'yeah' and 'no' used together when someone is asked a question. This is very prevalent on TV and on the radio, and in general conversation. The two are complete opposites, a total contradiction. 

 

I didn't really want to get involved with this English thing, because of my well-know pedantry, but reading through some more recent posts there are a few things which have really irritated me. Including.......

 

It's used as the possessive, instead of its. It's, is the contracted form of it is.

 

Took instead of taken, as in 'the bridge has took another hit'.

 

Sat instead of sitting, as in 'the loco's been sat in that siding all day'.

 

Stood instead of standing, as in 'by where the loco is stood'. Examples of the last two are to be heard regularly on cricket coverage on the TV, not just on this site, as in 'the crowd are sat behind the bowler's arm' (it should actually be 'is') or 'I'm stood in the middle waiting for the toss'. 

 

May instead of might, as in 'it may have to stand there for the whole exhibition'.

 

Separation spelt as seperation (believe it or not by a writer!)

 

Definitely spelled (note that both are correct) as definately. 

 

There are many more. I do realise that one must be understanding and sensitive where folk have difficulties with English, but I can't help being irritated, especially as the two misspelt words on this page have a red line underneath them on my computer.

 

But, enough of my griping - making models is more important.  

[johnarcher]

When someone answers 'good' to 'how are you' it always sounds to me like a claim that they are virtuous. (A claim that is not always justified).

[unclebobkt]

      ... .

 

  A simple example of the kind of rule is that an e after a single consonant makes the preceding vowel long, whereas if there is a double consonant the preceding vowel stays short - so mile (long i) but millet (short i) (and there is another rule I can't remember which makes the i in mild long, but there are also quite a number that appear to be exceptions because a second even more obscure rule comes into play). There are dozens of these rules and we learn them unconsciously.      Jonathan

 

  Learning Latin - in my case, and that of many of my contempories, it was beaten into me! - does possess its advantages.  QED..

 

     

[edcayton]

Defiantly!

 

Ed

[Tony Wright]

wow Tony looks fantastic, i just got back from a little trip to the southern parts of oz and the first thing i did when i got home was get youtube up; (as a good friend had sent me the link with "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS YET?"). 

truly wonderful, i cannot wait to come and meet you and have a look at the layout and pay tribute to this glorious piece of modelling.

see you in december!    

 

Jesse

Thanks Jesse,

 

I'm looking forward to meeting you. 

 

What you say is very kind, but I'm always uncomfortable with such 'gushing praise'. This is not false modesty, just realism, I hope. Yes, what you see in part on Little Bytham is the work of some highly-talented individuals, working collectively and helping each other in a variety of ways to create as realistic an impression as possible of what the station and its immediate environs looked like getting on for 60 years ago. But, compared with some of the really great layouts its been my privilege to photograph down the years it's not in the same class. It works, because I insist on that and will not tolerate poor running. But, to obtain that, it's seriously compromised inasmuch as it's not P4. Without being contentious, I couldn't fit a P4 depiction into the same space (the end curves would be way too tight), but looking along the rails, even with Mr Solomon's splendid track, it's narrow gauge.

 

The overall scene is very much 'broad brush', so much so that a well-known modeller thought some of it was cr*p, compared to the way he'd do things. Needless to say he'll never be part of the team, nor ever be invited to visit again. He might well be right, and he's entitled to his opinion, but he doesn't build anything on a large scale, and spends hundreds of hours on single models. I'm slow if it takes me over 45 hours to build a Pacific.

 

I don't even like the 'like' response to items, even though I use it myself. Though the likes of this excellent site has allowed mass-communication and many more folk to see examples of modelling, I find I'm cross with myself for spending too much time at the computer. A friend said 'a computer is the thief of time', and he's right.

 

Please don't think me rude by stating the above, and it's only common courtesy to respond to questions and comments. However, I've been commissioned to write a book by Crowood Press (there might be more than one), I'm writing on a regular basis for Irwell press (my next book for them should be on sale very soon), taking product pictures and writing articles for BRM and making models. Right now I'm preparing several models for forthcoming Wigan Show at the weekend. 

 

It was good to do the DVD, though, and for it to be placed on YouTube. The original idea was that it would be an add-on to the putative BRM Bookazine on Little Bytham, but that never came to fruition. So, with thanks to Tom Foster and Simon Roberts, we made it ourselves. I'm glad it's been well received but I'm conscious of how much better I should have come across, compared with the Right Track DVDs. Lack of practice, I suppose. 

 

Praise where praise is due, but the highest (glorious) should be reserved for those who really deserve it. 

[Taz]

I think you do yourself a disservice here Tony.

Your individual models might not be highly detailed P4 masterpieces but they are still superb examples of modelling. You also need to look at what you have achieved here. 30+ feet of East cost mainline, 40 + trains and dozens of locos all create a picture of a scene long gone. You have created a classic layout here and although you have many friends who have helped and contributed it is your vision which has driven it forward.

Are there any P4 equivalents? This layout represents the accumulation of your adult modelling efforts. If the extra effort of doing it all in P4 (assuming you had the space) was factored in could you have ever built it all?

I'm sure it is one of the reasons why there are very few large P4 layouts.

As someone who has feet in both the P4 and OO camps I appreciate that all layouts have a compromise. I would never have the time (or the space) to build my planned home layout in P4 so I have to accept the OO compromise. If I wanted to do P4 I would have to compromise on the scale of my plan. So I P4 as part of a group project and OO at home.

 

Also whilst I take your point about the time spent on a computer I for one appreciate your postings here (and your DVD/Youtube efforts). Not knowing you and living in Devon this is the only way I would ever get to see Little Bytham and it is one of my favorite layouts on the forum.

So thank you for showing us your 'train set'. It is much appreciated.

[Taz]

Sorry Coach, didn't mean to imply that just because something was P4 that it would be a masterpiece (although of course some P4 locos/layouts can be masterpieces). My inclusion of P4 in my reply  was just a continuation after the mention of it in Tony's entry above.

I'm not trying to start a gauge war (my favorite layouts on this forum happen to be OO) so maybe best forget I ever mentioned it

[coachmann]

Is there an automatic link link between P4 and masterpiece? Is a Hornby 3-rail Stanier 8F a masterpiece when it has been fitted with P4 wheels?  That question is rhetorical of course. Track and wheels are but one part of the overall to my mind and I have seen great layouts where track and wheel standards hardly matter.

 

EDIT : Apologies Taz, I decided to delete my earlier post and replace it with something more subtle but you caught it before i had time to delete (my PC is ever so slow).

Edited September 30, 2015 by coachmann

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks again Brian,

 

There were two other members of the original Comet team, Steve and Malcolm, who both died far too young. 

 

Yes, i mentioned Malcolm (Bowers), it was Steve i couldn't recall, i was told he did a lot of the original artwork. A further point on the pantry car situation, i noticed Comet had reproduced shallow window vanes on their pantry rear, no doubt correct, which you don't get with the Southern Pride, nor do they appear on the Isinglass/John Edgson drawing dated March 1995, which the SP are probably based on. So Comet must have received new information or found a photo of the rear side, can anyone point to any pictures of this side?

       Some favourite words for misspelling in our hobby are: Parallel, Separate, Gauge and Britannia, but we're all guilty of the odd faux pas (French creeping in), we just try our best. Tony W is guilty of a very minor misdemeanour, just above he spelt "realise" with a "s", which is the modern influence from Old French, now found in so many of our words. The correct British English spelling is "realize" with a "z" (zed, not zee), which ironically is nowadays more commonly maintained in the U.S.A. and Canada. I blame the Common Market.  My memories of Latin classes consist of reciting verbs: Fucio, Fucis, well you know the rest . . . .        (My damned computer spell-checker thingy has just queried my spelling of "misdemeanour", if i remove the British "u" the American technology is happy. Bleedin' cheek.)         BK

[corneliuslundie]

I don't model in P4, never could, and even in EM am never likely to have a big layout, or one which does not have massive compromises in terms of compression. But I do subscribe to the P4 philosophy of getting as much right as possible not just the track gauge. That is one reason why I never complete much! What I like about Little Bytham is that it looks like a railway in the countryside. It may not be perfect in every way, and it is not complete, but it is convincing, and that to me is what I want to achieve. So many layouts are made up of a large number of very accurate components but are simply not convincing - at least not to me.

 

But for others the aim is different - some build carriages, some locos, some wagons, some just collect things in boxes, some build complete layouts but never want to operate them, some concentrate on operation and make compromises in appearance to achieve this. We are all modellers.

 

And even wilder, some model those funny trains they have across the Atlantic. My son invited me on Saturday to attend with him a meeting of a group which builds layout modules to US HO standards and then gets together to operate them. It was something completely different. About 20 modules of varying sizes and states of completion, all put together and run with train orders and a dispatcher, even using radio between drivers and base. Nothing like anything we do in the British railway scene but nonetheless railway modelling and great FUN. It was "good".

 

Jonathan

[Tony Wright]

Sorry Coach, didn't mean to imply that just because something was P4 that it would be a masterpiece (although of course some P4 locos/layouts can be masterpieces). My inclusion of P4 in my reply  was just a continuation after the mention of it in Tony's entry above.

I'm not trying to start a gauge war (my favorite layouts on this forum happen to be OO) so maybe best forget I ever mentioned it

It was not my intention to start a gauge war, either.

 

What I meant to get across was the difference between, say, a Chris Pendlenton-built ex-LNER Pacific and one of mine. Chalk and cheese, especially below the footplate. His work is 'glorious' in comparison.

 

And, if one wants an example of a P4 'masterpiece' (which also worked superbly) look no further than Adavoyle, the work of the late Tony Miles. This eclipses any other OO or EM layout in my view.

 

I think there's a danger of too much 'gushing praise' in the hobby. The work of the top professionals should be praiseworthy (and if it's not then they're not going to last long), which is why I always acknowledge any professional input on mine. But, because the high-expectation of professionals' work is axiomatic I'm more inclined to see greater merit in what others have done.Things donated, like the beautiful figures, platform furniture, ground-signals, fencing configurations and scenic work. None of these was made/done by a professional model-maker. There are also the locos and rolling stock folk bring when they visit or those I'm helping them with - models built by those who've made things by themselves, with just a little help at times. They're the types who deserve the greatest praise. 

Edited September 30, 2015 by Tony Wright

[APOLLO]

 

I didn't really want to get involved with this English thing, because of my well-know pedantry, but reading through some more recent posts there are a few things which have really irritated me. Including.......

 

Well Tony if you're visiting sunny Wigan this weekend, tha'll need these owd corran !!!

 

http://www.wiganworld.co.uk/stuff/dialect1.php?opt=dialect1

 

http://www.wiganworld.co.uk/stuff/dialect2.php?opt=dialect2

 

(Lots of good Wigan railway pix on this site also)..

 

Brit15

 

 

[Focalplane]

A little anecdote on Anglo-American enunciation and it went "out of control".  I do apologize for getting things off topic.

 

But I am most interested in the responses as I am probably bilingual in this respect, having spent half my adult life in either England or Texas.  I suppose that "when in Rome" should be the order of the day, and since I am now resident in the UK I should switch back to British English spelling, etc.  But for a 70 year old this does not come easily.  I did at one time have a strong Texas drawl but it has just about gone, mainly because I can talk faster now I have left Texas (terrible cliché, that, Texans are not at all dumb.)

 

I understand the pedantry in others, but in this respect I must rejoin with the observation that when you travel you have a wonderful opportunity to study, embrace and even adopt other cultures.  And by "travel" I don't mean the annual vacation to some Mediterranean watering hole that advertises "Knickerbocker Glory" outside the promenade café.

 

I hope this doesn't sound elitist, it is not meant to be.  I have become much broader in mind as a result of these observations.  So when I read about EM vs P4 vs 00, I quietly move on to the next posting.

 

All this being said, I have been too busy modeling (modelling in UK English, apparently) to write this earlier.  Which is as it should be.

[Brian Kirby]

I dabbled in P4/S4 for a few years, it's a great concept, but can take an awfully long time to achieve what you want. If you're a one-man-band, a simple P4 branch line terminus is within most people's grasp, with say four P4 compensated chassis locos, half-a-dozen coaches and a handful of wagons. If, like me, you want to run main-line 12 coach trains on a much larger layout, then it must become a team effort in P4, or else you stay in every night and live like a hermit, working on your layout seven days a week. I never bothered with 'EM', at the time i thought it too much of a compromise, "if i'm doing any converting, i'm going the whole hog", but then we're all a bit more radical in our youth. I think things changed about 15 years ago, when RTR 'OO' started to seriously improve, many of us were seduced by beautiful models (trains) without all the hassle, and were prepared to overlook the track deficiencies, i slowly slide back to modelling 'OO', mostly through lack of spare time. If you watch a finescale 'OO' layout side-on with trains passing from left to right and reverse, you'd be hard pushed to distinguish between whether it was 'OO','EM' or even 'P4'. Where 'OO' falls down slightly, is the end-on view, especially the spacing of double tracks, where the six-foot (between running lines), has to become six-foot-and-a-bit, but then you could always model ex-Broad Gauge GWR or BR/WR, the wider gap is still evident to this day in many places.

 

                                                                                                                              Cheers, Brian.

[Jesse Sim]

Thanks Jesse,

 

I'm looking forward to meeting you. 

 

What you say is very kind, but I'm always uncomfortable with such 'gushing praise'. This is not false modesty, just realism, I hope. Yes, what you see in part on Little Bytham is the work of some highly-talented individuals, working collectively and helping each other in a variety of ways to create as realistic an impression as possible of what the station and its immediate environs looked like getting on for 60 years ago. But, compared with some of the really great layouts its been my privilege to photograph down the years it's not in the same class. It works, because I insist on that and will not tolerate poor running. But, to obtain that, it's seriously compromised inasmuch as it's not P4. Without being contentious, I couldn't fit a P4 depiction into the same space (the end curves would be way too tight), but looking along the rails, even with Mr Solomon's splendid track, it's narrow gauge.

 

The overall scene is very much 'broad brush', so much so that a well-known modeller thought some of it was cr*p, compared to the way he'd do things. Needless to say he'll never be part of the team, nor ever be invited to visit again. He might well be right, and he's entitled to his opinion, but he doesn't build anything on a large scale, and spends hundreds of hours on single models. I'm slow if it takes me over 45 hours to build a Pacific.

 

I don't even like the 'like' response to items, even though I use it myself. Though the likes of this excellent site has allowed mass-communication and many more folk to see examples of modelling, I find I'm cross with myself for spending too much time at the computer. A friend said 'a computer is the thief of time', and he's right.

 

Please don't think me rude by stating the above, and it's only common courtesy to respond to questions and comments. However, I've been commissioned to write a book by Crowood Press (there might be more than one), I'm writing on a regular basis for Irwell press (my next book for them should be on sale very soon), taking product pictures and writing articles for BRM and making models. Right now I'm preparing several models for forthcoming Wigan Show at the weekend. 

 

It was good to do the DVD, though, and for it to be placed on YouTube. The original idea was that it would be an add-on to the putative BRM Bookazine on Little Bytham, but that never came to fruition. So, with thanks to Tom Foster and Simon Roberts, we made it ourselves. I'm glad it's been well received but I'm conscious of how much better I should have come across, compared with the Right Track DVDs. Lack of practice, I suppose. 

 

Praise where praise is due, but the highest (glorious) should be reserved for those who really deserve it. 

as they say each to there own. some people find different taste in the modelling. 

nonetheless it is still a fantastic model. and if i ever get the chance to talk/ meet in my travels of england and Warley any others that have put in there creative work on Little Bytham, i willl give my congratulations to them also!  

[johnarcher]

I dabbled in P4/S4 for a few years, it's a great concept, but can take an awfully long time to achieve what you want. If you're a one-man-band, a simple P4 branch line terminus is within most people's grasp, with say four P4 compensated chassis locos, half-a-dozen coaches and a handful of wagons. If, like me, you want to run main-line 12 coach trains on a much larger layout, then it must become a team effort in P4, or else you stay in every night and live like a hermit, working on your layout seven days a week. I never bothered with 'EM', at the time i thought it too much of a compromise, "if i'm doing any converting, i'm going the whole hog", but then we're all a bit more radical in our youth. I think things changed about 15 years ago, when RTR 'OO' started to seriously improve, many of us were seduced by beautiful models (trains) without all the hassle, and were prepared to overlook the track deficiencies, i slowly slide back to modelling 'OO', mostly through lack of spare time. If you watch a finescale 'OO' layout side-on with trains passing from left to right and reverse, you'd be hard pushed to distinguish between whether it was 'OO','EM' or even 'P4'. Where 'OO' falls down slightly, is the end-on view, especially the spacing of double tracks, where the six-foot (between running lines), has to become six-foot-and-a-bit, but then you could always model ex-Broad Gauge GWR or BR/WR, the wider gap is still evident to this day in many places.

 

                                                                                                                              Cheers, Brian.

You're right of course, I suppose in a way I'm lucky in that I'm not especially keen on mainlines, but am fascinated by small, rural, light, branch etc prototypes. So it is more practical to follow the P4 route, despite, at my time of life, having limited time. As you say, it's different if you want a mainline prototype.

 

Incidentally, when you say 'without all the hassle' you mean making or adapting models?

I suppose there are two approaches to the hobby, on the one hand one is mainly interested in the finished result, and, as some have said on here, will feel that when a RTR model appears it is no longer 'necessary' to make a model of that prototype.

On the other hand for some the making is an interest in itself, and a self-made result (from scratch or kit) is far more satisfying than a bought one. Being in the latter camp I rather regret the developments of 15 years ago that you mention, look at the popular prototypes (Terrier, Beattie well tank, 14xx, 57xx) for which I don't think there is a current kit, presumably because of the popularity of the RTR version.

Both approaches are fine, of course, a personal choice, but it's a shame if the success of the first limits the second.

Edited October 1, 2015 by johnarcher

[Tony Wright]

Some days ago I showed a Jamieson V2 which I was constructing. It was attached to a Hornby ex-Shire tender. I wasn't entirely happy with this, so built a PDK GS tender for it - much more in keeping. 

 

 

It'll be on my demonstration stand at the Wigan Show over the weekend. 

 

 

I'm also building a different-style PDK GS tender, in case I choose one of the slightly later-build V2s for Grantham. 

 

 

More for the demonstration stand at Wigan. In this case yet another Trice/Hornby conversion; a full Kitchen Car Dia. 293. It rides on cast-metal heavy-duty bogies.

 

I hope to see you there. 

 

Looking at John Archer's post above, I'm very much in agreement. Today, an old friend came round. He's building a DJH Standard Five in 7mm scale, and need some information. I've done some of the primary construction, but he's getting on with the rest. He also possesses an RTR A4 of quite the highest quality. Between us, we can't even begin to equal this. But, he's getting far more personal satisfaction from building his loco. The A4 is a possession; the Standard Five is his creation. 

Edited October 1, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Brian Kirby]

Tony, i admire, and yet am puzzled by, your nice looking "Jamieson" V2? With Jamieson i would expect a brass or nickel boiler, footplate and cab sides?    BK