Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Tony, at the risk of sounding pedantic, extra weight does not increase the coefficient of friction but it does increase the actual tractive effort since tractive effort = weight x coefficient of friction. So if the weight doubles, for the same coefficient of friction, the tractive effort will also double.

 

Wheel/rail materials on the other hand do change the coefficient of friction. This has been discussed extensively elsewhere, but suffice it to say that steel on steel has been reported to give a higher CoE than nickel-silver on nickel-silver.

 

On top of all that is the separate question of weight distribution of course.

 

All the best.

You're not being pedantic - just right.

 

You'll have to forgive my lack of a fundamental grasp of physics. My teacher, you see, had been a Lancaster navigator in WW2 and the minute something 'hard' to be taught appeared, all we had to do was ask 'what was it actually like over Hamburg'? Thus stuff like Fletcher's Trolley, the Wheatstone Bridge Circuit, bi-metallic expansion, and anything else in Nelkon's Principles of Physics was discarded. The weighty tome did interest me on one page, however, for there was a picture of the Forth Bridge (in the section about cantilever structures) and underneath it was a Nelson class battleship. Capital ships are my second passion where man-made moving objects are concerned.

Similarly, my history teacher, a railway enthusiast of great age, could be instantly distracted from the Corn Laws or the 1832 Reform Act by the simple asking of the question 'were the Baltics on G&SWR very impressive in their original livery, sir?'

No wonder I ended up teaching art!

 

Best wishes. 

[Michael Edge]

Obviously weight is a factor in a loco's ability to move a heavy train. I assume it increases the coefficient of friction, and cast-metal kits do have that advantage. 

The material the tyres of the driving wheels are made of is also a factor; for instance, where I've used Alan Gibson's wheels (though they're a real fight to get concentric and prevent the tyres falling off), because they have steel tyres, locos thus fitted pull more. Compensation, in my experience, does not increase pulling power, even though I've heard advocates of it make claims to that effect.

I think my experience with more recent RTR OO locos is that they look fantastic and run very well, but they are still 'built for purpose', that purpose being to be able to operate over trainset track. Thus, on close examination, there appears to be a lot of inherent 'slop', particularly side-play in the axles. This definitely affects the running - not so much in its smoothness (though it can result in some pick-ups not touching) but in a pronounced wiggle from side to side, particularly under load. I don't think this has a detrimental effect on pulling-power, just the visual manifestation.

Still, we've never had it so good and the poor old kit manufacturers are squeezed more and more with each new release. But, and I know I've said this before, it can result in a 'sameness' in the appearance of locos and stock on layouts, particularly in OO.   

This sounds as if you haven't used any Gibson wheels since Colin Seymour took over - I use hundreds of theseand since then I have only had one wobbly wheel and no tyres have fallen off. Look at the address on the packet, if it's Oldham they will be fine.

[45609]

Beat me to it Mike.  The wheels since Colin took over have taken a quantum leap in quality.

 

Tony, some interesting comments on the K1 valve gear.  Some of the issues I found are listed on my blog here....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/281/entry-7108-fresh-from-the-plant/

 

....the body was certainly easy to put together although someone pointed out to me after the event that the cab windows are a bit on the small side.

 

Cheers...Morgan

Edited December 27, 2013 by mlgilbert30

[coachmann]

Look at the address on the packet, if it's Oldham they will be fine.

A told 'em Oldham...

[Gruffalo]

A told 'em Oldham...

You'll be up for assault and BATTERY then   

[coachmann]

You'll be up for assault and BATTERY then   

Funny how the old adverts stick in the mind. I had better re-phrase it then with a local dialect..........A t'owdem Owdem.  

 

 

"Look at the address on the package"

 

Hey Mabel look at the label....

[Tony Wright]

Beat me to it Mike.  The wheels since Colin took over have taken a quantum leap in quality.

 

Tony, some interesting comments on the K1 valve gear.  Some of the issues I found are listed on my blog here....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/281/entry-7108-fresh-from-the-plant/

 

....the body was certainly easy to put together although someone pointed out to me after the event that the cab windows are a bit on the small side.

 

Cheers...Morgan

Thank you Morgan.

 

Thanks also to Mike Edge for pointing out the improved quality of AG wheels now. My experience with them was years ago, so isn't relevant now.

 

Morgan, my compliments on a very pretty K1, with excellent painting. However, might I query the presence of the 'bulge' on the top of the firebox for so late a date? According to Yeadon, these had all gone by 1960 (to be replaced on the older 'boxes by a very thin plate). However, I've seen pictures showing two of the class in the summer of 1961 with the bulge still present, but no later, both looking like they're ready for shopping. The emblem on the tenders was the later one but I cannot decipher whether they've got the correct-facing lion on the offside. If yours is correct, still with the bulge, electric warning flashes and the left-facing lion then I imagine it's unique. Do you have a prototype photograph you can post please, because it will then complete my research so to speak? 

Mine will be 62069, the last of the class. In late 1958 it was at March, still with the bulge on the firebox (though its presence on Little Bytham is a bit of a leap of faith). On page 92 of Yeadon's Register of the class there's a picture of 62039 which purports to show the loco descending Stoke bank towards Grantham. Although it's 62039, it's certainly not approaching Grantham, for there were three tracks from High Dyke to Grantham through Ponton and Saltersford. If it were the said location, I'd have made a model of 62039. 

 

I've included some further shots. Please excuse the 'messy' nature of the finish because she's yet to be cleaned up. So, flux residue, fibreglass filaments and general crud are still apparent. My Nikon D3 picks out any slight imperfections (especially under 2,000 Watts), so I have to live with those. The biggest problem I had with the gear was the crossheads (as mentioned), being so contaminated with flash. Clearances for the rest of the motion were a bit tight, but I managed to get everything in, as I hope the pictures show. I always use brass pins and solder for holding gear together - I cannot get on with rivets. And, you're right, the cab windows are a bit small.

 

Many thanks for the interest.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[great northern]

It's great to see that K1 on the road to completion Tony, having seen it "in the brass" for so long. It is very rarely that I get to pick you up on anything, but the last of the class was 62070!  Not long before his untimely death Andy Rush told me that the K1's were pool engines for most of the year, and that the only time that March could make full use of them was during the sugar beet season. Their allocations to March, and to York also he said, was really just to give them a formal place of allocation, but that they were available to be borrowed by other sheds as and when needed. Photographic evidence shows many of them on Stratford passenger duties in the peak holiday seasons, and it would seem from what Andy said that there was nothing illicit about that at all. On that basis, any shed in the East Midlands might have borrowed them, and if Colwick, for example, did so, then an appearance at Little Bytham would certainly be possible. I have a photo of 62070 on New England shed, so how did that get there? If it had come from March in 1958 it would have gone to Spital Bridge.

 

A point also on the "sameness" of locos and stock on layouts. Although there  were regional variations, surely fundamentally there was a sameness to the stock to be seen on the ECML south of Doncaster?  That surely means by definition that now there are so many ECML layouts around, at least a degree of sameness is inevitable? I'm not condoning the type of layout where everything is exactly as it came out of a box, without any attempt even at renumbering let alone weathering, but even an ECML layout which had no RTR stuff at all would, certainly to the untutored eye, look very similar to the next one down the line.

 

I would argue that the availability of very good quality RTR has in fact caused more diversity, in that those many people like myself who don't have the aptitude to build kits, can now, if we are prepared to do some research, go at least some way towards giving a layout  a fitting setting and correct locos and stock. Not so long ago that was absolutely impossible without kit or scratch building. If more people are able to produce results which get well above the train set level, isn't that a good thing?  Your experience when assisting Tom(2750) only reinforces that view in my mind. Without your expertise he would have abandoned that kit, and no doubt would have blamed his own deficiencies for the failure to complete it. How many people I wonder have given the whole thing up as a bad and expensive experience in the past when faced with such problems?

 

You will not be surprised, knowing me as you do, that my view is that there should be room for both the doers and the buyers within the hobby. That is because the "doers", or at least the competent ones, are very much in the minority. I'm sure that even back before the RTR revolution some of those who could build to a satisfactory standard chose esoteric prototypes to model, in order to produce something that didn't look similar to other layouts in the magazines or on the exhibition circuit. The gulf between the very talented few and those with less talent, or more thumbs than the regulation two, has narrowed, and I would argue that is a good thing.

[45609]

Morgan, my compliments on a very pretty K1, with excellent painting. However, might I query the presence of the 'bulge' on the top of the firebox for so late a date? According to Yeadon, these had all gone by 1960 (to be replaced on the older 'boxes by a very thin plate). However, I've seen pictures showing two of the class in the summer of 1961 with the bulge still present, but no later, both looking like they're ready for shopping. The emblem on the tenders was the later one but I cannot decipher whether they've got the correct-facing lion on the offside. If yours is correct, still with the bulge, electric warning flashes and the left-facing lion then I imagine it's unique. Do you have a prototype photograph you can post please, because it will then complete my research so to speak? 

Mine will be 62069, the last of the class. In late 1958 it was at March, still with the bulge on the firebox (though its presence on Little Bytham is a bit of a leap of faith). On page 92 of Yeadon's Register of the class there's a picture of 62039 which purports to show the loco descending Stoke bank towards Grantham. Although it's 62039, it's certainly not approaching Grantham, for there were three tracks from High Dyke to Grantham through Ponton and Saltersford. If it were the said location, I'd have made a model of 62039. 

 

I've included some further shots. Please excuse the 'messy' nature of the finish because she's yet to be cleaned up. So, flux residue, fibreglass filaments and general crud are still apparent. My Nikon D3 picks out any slight imperfections (especially under 2,000 Watts), so I have to live with those. The biggest problem I had with the gear was the crossheads (as mentioned), being so contaminated with flash. Clearances for the rest of the motion were a bit tight, but I managed to get everything in, as I hope the pictures show. I always use brass pins and solder for holding gear together - I cannot get on with rivets. And, you're right, the cab windows are a bit small.

 

Many thanks for the interest.  

 

Thanks for the kind words Tony and of course you are right to query the firebox bulge.  On the balance of probabilities it shouldn't really be there.  At the time I took the commission, despite trying, I failed to find a good photo of 62038.  I also didn't have the Yeadon's volume and had to rely on what was in the green book without specific dates on the discontinuation of the bulge.  You live and learn and so unfortunately I cannot help you finish the class research.  Although it now seems unlikely if I build another DMR K1 I'll also be filing out the cab window half etch and adding a new beading from soft wire. This, I think, would get them to about the right size.

 

I really can't see the junk you speak of in the photos.  It's a typically neat and tidy (and most liekly extremely fast) Tony Wright loco build.  Now that you say it I also recall having to use an escapment file to fettle the cross head slots.  I'm not averse to using brass pins but a couple of years ago I discovered the Markits nickel silver valve gear rivets in 3 different sizes. They deform easily and in extremis can be soldered.  Far better than the steel rivets I tried in the past and also found very frustrating. 

 

Cheers.....Morgan

[Tony Wright]

It's great to see that K1 on the road to completion Tony, having seen it "in the brass" for so long. It is very rarely that I get to pick you up on anything, but the last of the class was 62070!  Not long before his untimely death Andy Rush told me that the K1's were pool engines for most of the year, and that the only time that March could make full use of them was during the sugar beet season. Their allocations to March, and to York also he said, was really just to give them a formal place of allocation, but that they were available to be borrowed by other sheds as and when needed. Photographic evidence shows many of them on Stratford passenger duties in the peak holiday seasons, and it would seem from what Andy said that there was nothing illicit about that at all. On that basis, any shed in the East Midlands might have borrowed them, and if Colwick, for example, did so, then an appearance at Little Bytham would certainly be possible. I have a photo of 62070 on New England shed, so how did that get there? If it had come from March in 1958 it would have gone to Spital Bridge.

 

A point also on the "sameness" of locos and stock on layouts. Although there  were regional variations, surely fundamentally there was a sameness to the stock to be seen on the ECML south of Doncaster?  That surely means by definition that now there are so many ECML layouts around, at least a degree of sameness is inevitable? I'm not condoning the type of layout where everything is exactly as it came out of a box, without any attempt even at renumbering let alone weathering, but even an ECML layout which had no RTR stuff at all would, certainly to the untutored eye, look very similar to the next one down the line.

 

I would argue that the availability of very good quality RTR has in fact caused more diversity, in that those many people like myself who don't have the aptitude to build kits, can now, if we are prepared to do some research, go at least some way towards giving a layout  a fitting setting and correct locos and stock. Not so long ago that was absolutely impossible without kit or scratch building. If more people are able to produce results which get well above the train set level, isn't that a good thing?  Your experience when assisting Tom(2750) only reinforces that view in my mind. Without your expertise he would have abandoned that kit, and no doubt would have blamed his own deficiencies for the failure to complete it. How many people I wonder have given the whole thing up as a bad and expensive experience in the past when faced with such problems?

 

You will not be surprised, knowing me as you do, that my view is that there should be room for both the doers and the buyers within the hobby. That is because the "doers", or at least the competent ones, are very much in the minority. I'm sure that even back before the RTR revolution some of those who could build to a satisfactory standard chose esoteric prototypes to model, in order to produce something that didn't look similar to other layouts in the magazines or on the exhibition circuit. The gulf between the very talented few and those with less talent, or more thumbs than the regulation two, has narrowed, and I would argue that is a good thing.

 

You're dead right Gilbert - My K1 will be 62070, though by the time I saw it it was at Retford. How I made the mistake of mixing it up with 62069, I've no idea (fading faculties?). Many thanks as well for the justification of the K1 on LB.

 

I also agree with much of what you say with regard to the 'diversity' created by the excellence of current RTR products. As I've said to you on many occasions, one can't turn the clock back and we should exploit what's available. Indeed, I try to as well. You're also dead right, by implication, that many people have been put off by 'dud' kits in the past. Even the K1 featured has valve gear components 'impossible' to assemble without serious modification. And, if everyone could build kits to a 'professional' standard, then I would have been unable to earn (in part) a living for 20 years. 

 

Whether the gulf between the very talented few and those with less talent has narrowed, I'm not sure. Through not-excessive purchasing power (subjective, I know) it might have done. By that I mean it's possible to own, say, the whole A4 class now by exploiting what Hornby has done - merely renumbering/renaming. Previously, it would have required kit-building on the grand scale (or getting someone to do it), with enormous cost-imperatives. So, I agree, the gulf has narrowed between what the not so talented/not so rich and the highly-skilled/very well off can own, and that is a good thing. How it narrows the (fundamental) gap between the 'skilled' and the 'those with less talent' I don't know, because I don't think it can. I can qualify that by personal experience by comparing the stuff I've made with that of the calibre of Geoff Holt and George Ure. In photographing the work of the three of us, what I produced in front of the lens in comparison was very poor. It was, however, 'mine'.

 

Perhaps it's my being 'selfish' with regard to the making of models. Years ago I scratch-built the locos I needed, then built kits and, now, in many cases, there's no need. In fact, other than in haulage ability, many of today's locos are far superior  to the ones I've built down the years. But, and this is the point of my being selfish, 'anyone' can have them; all that's needed is purchasing power. However, the end result overall is probably superior, and that, in the final analysis, is what counts to the majority, especially as some 'professionally-made' locos I've examined don't work at all.  

 

May excellence in RTR standards continue, and we really have never had it so good. 

[Theakerr]

For the most part I consider the advent of the wide range and quality of RTR locos (and rolling stock) an excellent development for the hobby in that it allows a large number of individuals to more or less accuratly model their memories (or whatever it is they opt to model).  Further, I would suggest that the much of the sameness discussed in the thread is only really relative to layouts that are seen in the various media threads and even then only if one is focussing on the locomotives.  For the individual modelling his or her bit of Lincolnshire, or Sussex or whatever, their layout is, to them a 

singularly individual layout.   However, I would suggest though their is a real risk of losing an entire skill set from our hobby.  Specifically, rolling stock construction.  Years ago I built, from rather basic kits Kits, numerous locos that I wanted on my layout because I had cabbed them as a kid and if I wanted one on my layout that was the only way I was going to get one.  Of the locos I built, all but one are now available as RTR models, so the skill set I was sort of forced to develop would probably not be there today.  

Edited December 27, 2013 by Theakerr

[coachmann]

 However, the end result overall is probably superior, and that, in the final analysis, is what counts to the majority, especially as some 'professionally-made' locos I've examined don't work at all.  

 

May excellence in RTR standards continue, and we really have never had it so good. 

I'll drink to that. Quite by chance I started off doing painting & lining for traders rather than lots of individual private customers, and it suited me financially. What they charged afterwards was up to them. Apart from the well known builders (most no longer with us), some home builders built locos 'straight from the box' and so they carried combinations of fittings that made finding a suitable running numbers and livery even beyond the powers of Mystic Meg.  Other locos would never have gone around curves so I always phoned to get clearance to proceed. The professional painter certainly earned his keep in my day.

Edited December 27, 2013 by coachmann

[Barry O]

I find it a shame that we now see layouts with lots of RTR which have had nothing done to them- laziness or lack of skills to improve RTR???  I liked layouts which had scratch or kit built locos and stock - now its a bit/lot samey... just think before we had Hornby A4s you would  need to build a kit to get a loco- now its out of the box, change the name/number and a squirt of dirt -- but how skilfull is that??   

 

i will stick to my mix of modified RTR and kits/scratchbuilt as this, for me , adds value to my modelling and sets me targets to aspire to...

[St Enodoc]

I have a slightly different take on this. I am by no means a modeller with the skills of Tony, Geoff Holt or Coachmann, to name but three whose names appear in this topic. I am, as Barry O can attest, what the Railway Modeller used to describe as "the average modeller". I am not rich, so I cannot afford to commission hand-built models, but neither am I poor, so I can afford to buy ready to run and kits. I work full time, and have other interests and activities as well as railway modelling that consume a good deal of my spare time. I also enjoy operating rather than building models for their own sake (Tony will remember our monthly sessions operating Bob P's Whitchurch).

 

So all this leads to a simple philosophy. I buy ready to run locos and rolling stock where I can, and I build kits for the rest. This allows me to optimise what I spend both in money and time, and also allows me to build up a larger fleet than would otherwise be the case. For example, I had on my shelf for many years three Triang Hornby Halls, plus various parts from Crownline, M&L and others to convert them to "scale" models. Time prevented me getting far on these before Bachmann introduced their RTR Halls. I now have 13 Halls, not three, all of which carry an approriate name and number and some of which have been subtly modified to represent better the prototype variations. To convert 13 T/H Halls, or even to build 13 DJH kits (which would also have cost a lot more) would never have been achievable in the context of getting my layout built and working.

 

The same is true of coaches, where half my fleet is made up of Bachmann and Hornby RTR Mk1s, GWR and LMS coaches, with the rest being various combinations of Comet, BSL/Phoenix, Westdale, Slaters, etc. some of which are in service and some yet to be built.

[t-b-g]

If your main interest is creating an operational layout, of a significant size and with a good number of locomotives and trains, then I don't see any problem in people using the excellent RTR products available nowadays.

 

You will have the same locos and stock as lots of other people but if you want your layout/modelling to be that bit more unusual, you have the option of building kits or scratchbuilding.

 

The trick is to model an unusual period/area. Anybody modelling the ECML in the 1957 is going to need lots of stock and many locomotives. Attempting to build everything you need when really good locos and carriages are available probably uses up lots of time that you could spend on the layout itself.

 

So if I was building a large ECML layout I would certainly use much RTR equipment.

 

From my personal point of view I have no more nostalgia for the ECML in the 50s than I have for any other steam operated railway as I just don't have enough years on me to remember them well. So my choice is to be less ambitious in the size of layout and length of train and to be satisfied with smaller locos and shorter trains, which means that I have a realistic prospect of building a layout (or several!!) on which I can build most, if not all, of the locos and stock.

 

It is not that I think that is more of an accomplishment or any higher a concept, it is just that I really enjoy making things. To me, it is what my hobby is all about. I would rather run a less than perfect model I built, rather than an almost perfect one from a box.

 

I have even had to wrestle with myself over recent introductions of RTR GCR locos. Part of me thinks that I should not partake because they will show up the ones I have built and they seem to not fit in with the reason I chose to model pre-grouping GCR. Part of me thinks of the time they will save for me, that I can put to other uses.

 

If the J11 is half as good as I think it looks and comes out with a proper Robinson chimney and other fittings suitable for a GCR livery, I will probably weaken...................

 

Tony

[t-b-g]

I find it a shame that we now see layouts with lots of RTR which have had nothing done to them- laziness or lack of skills to improve RTR???  I liked layouts which had scratch or kit built locos and stock - now its a bit/lot samey... just think before we had Hornby A4s you would  need to build a kit to get a loco- now its out of the box, change the name/number and a squirt of dirt -- but how skilfull is that??   

 

i will stick to my mix of modified RTR and kits/scratchbuilt as this, for me , adds value to my modelling and sets me targets to aspire to...

 

How on earth can anybody with any aspirations to be a modeller disagree with any of that?

 

By all means collect and run your unmodified, out of the box RTR to your hearts content but please don't take it and run it on exhibition layouts and present it as if you have achieved something. 

 

You haven't. Your only skill is in opening a box without breaking the model.

 

Hornby etc. did all the work for you!

 

If I want to see lots of locos like that I can go to a model shop. I go to shows to see some good modelling, preferably locos and stock that people have made/modified or had some sort of impact on. It is getting harder to find and the only shows where I see much nowadays are the specialist scale shows like EXPO EM and Scaleforum.

 

I have been to some shows and it is almost "spot the one that has been made" amongst all the RTR stuff. The quality of the locos may have improved but the amount of locomotve modelling has declined in direct proportion.

 

The best scenic layout in the world loses much of its impact if all the locos and stock are RTR straight out of the box.

 

I would add that much of this is only really applicable to 4mm OO modelling. As soon as you look at what is happening in other scales, you begin to see some really nice work being done.

 

Tony

[coachmann]

Speaking as an old timer, I am still doing today exactly what I did in the early 1960's, that of using whatever is useful to create an end product. If the day ever dawns when HornBach have done a Belpaire L&Y 2-4-2T,  LNWR Coal Tank, LNWR 5' 6" 2-4-2T, LMS Fowler Class 3 2-6-2T and Fowler 7F 0-8-0, RTR will have caught up with what I built 50-odd years ago!  

Edited December 28, 2013 by coachmann

[APOLLO]

I go to shows to see some good modelling

 

 

So do I, also I want to see plenty of operation, different era's, different settings, different scales, etc etc etc. If a nicely presented, operating layout holds my attention for a while, and gets on my "second viewing" list, I'm not over bothered if ALL the stock is RTR.

 

I like to see good track work / buildings / infrastructure, the nitty gritty detail of which I'm not too fussed, it's the overall impression that counts for me, is it realistic ?. Also I like to see the pro's at work in their demonstrations of soldering, metal bending etc etc. Not for me though, not got the skill, but I admire those that have, - it's great to see.

 

Not arguing - just a different point of view - which, indeed we all have. I think the word is diversity. That's the great thing about our hobby.

 

By the way, that K1 above, it is not model making, it is model engineering, simply superb !!

 

Brit15

Edited December 28, 2013 by APOLLO

[t-b-g]

So do I, also I want to see plenty of operation, different era's, different settings, different scales, etc etc etc. If a nicely presented, operating layout holds my attention for a while, and gets on my "second viewing" list, I'm not over bothered if ALL the stock is RTR.

 

I like to see good track work / buildings / infrastructure, the nitty gritty detail of which I'm not too fussed, it's the overall impression that counts for me, is it realistic ?. Also I like to see the pro's at work in their demonstrations of soldering, metal bending etc etc. Not for me though, not got the skill, but I admire those that have, - it's great to see.

 

Not arguing - just a different point of view - which, indeed we all have. I think the word is diversity. That's the great thing about our hobby.

 

By the way, that K1 above, it is not model making, it is model engineering, simply superb !!

 

Brit15

 

Couldn't agree more. Diversity is what makes the hobby so good. Everybody from the Hornby Dublo 3 rail collector to the best scratchbuilder has an equally valid place.

 

My concern is that the growing range and quality of modern RTR stuff is killing off the art of building models because people used to have to learn the skills to make what they needed and now they don't.

 

Would that lovely K1 have been built if the Hornby one was out and of a decent quality? I think probably not.

 

I tend to find that the approach that people adopt with their buying policy reflects in the overall standard of the layout they produce. People who care enough to modify/weather and detail a model to get it just right for the period and prototype they are modelling seem to also pay attention to the design, presentation and operation of the layout.

 

Those who plonk stuff straight out of the box also seem to have the same approach to the layout. Whatever is quickest and easiest and takes as little hassle (and thought) to do as possible.

 

Tony

[Gruffalo]

Kit building takes time and skill, scratch building even more so. R-t-r offers a shortcut on the basic construction and then you can personalise from that point on adding dirt, wear and tear, numbers, name boards etc.

 

I have a number of old GWR clerestories that I am in the throws of weathering and paint-ageing, re-bogieing with the Bachmann 9' GWR style (after I have removed the couplings ND substituted the draw-bar variety explained by Tony a hundred or so posts ago) to give me a rake of 7 or 8 vehicles that won't look too out-of-place behind my newly acquired Hornby Star. I am part way through building a few old PC Models 57' Toplights so hopefully I can get a decent mix that suits the era of 1929-33 I intend to attempt replicating. 

 

Yes, some may say that is all r-t-r but to me, it is r-t-r with added sparkle and I will be happy at that. I am putting on my tin helmet and flak jacket prior to posting this message...

[coachmann]

A 'Broad Church' has existed for decades as we are all buyers of printed magazines. But a broad church in contact with one another as on RMweb is a comparatively new development.  In the world outside of forums 'railway modellers' are quite clubby and rarely mix with collectors and 'trainset modellers', therefore It seems reasonable to expect friction will arise on occasions. The fact that we do co-exist fairly ammicably is something we can be proud of. I would go so far as to say RMweb has been responsible for quite a bit of cross-pollination!

Edited December 28, 2013 by coachmann

[Judge Dread]

In the too far and too distant past, it was said by fellow club members of the ERFG that "we" attended exhibitions to "Learn, educate and have a good time, but not necessarily in that order". We now admit that the credo been added to with "To steal other people's ideas". This does work in several directions, that is to say, we thank any person admitting they have seen something on the layout that they now wish to copy. We take it for what it is, a complement and assure them this is what we are doing with other people's ideas. The final rider must be that we are also watching out for examples of poor or bad planning, construction or what ever and logging them down as ideas not to be copied! 

Life's to short, be happy.

[westerner]

 Certain comments I have read above imply that Railway modelling is only about building locos. To me it is about building a railway and running it as near as possible in a prototypical way in the amount of time we have allowed ourselves to model. For me that means I will buy RTR and weather and renumber locos that would have run in the area I am building the layout. That is my version of Railway modelling. I certainly would not criticize those who get their enjoyment out of kit building like they appear to criticize those like me.

 

I do get a little peeved when others whose idea of Railway modelling is kit building locos appear to look down on the likes of me and imply that what I do is not railway modelling.

[Barry O]

Westerner

 

if you can't (or don't want to) build stock from kits etc that is no problem. I look at the way people like 2750 can take a Hornby A3 and breath life into it - its still an RTR model but there has been some good modelling to change it from an out of the box to an exhibition standard loco.

 

If you happen to model in the 1950s period of BR then, unless I want to limit my trains to the best RTR coaching stock in particular -its down to kits and bits for me. 

 

What i also have yet to see - and hopefully we can have feedback from people like Tony is a review of the durability of the RTR locos etc. compared to kit built - any comment on the mutlitude of A4s you have Tony?

 

and apologies for barging in on the thread..

 

 

edited for spelling

Edited December 29, 2013 by Barry O

[Barry O]

 

 

May excellence in RTR standards continue, and we really have never had it so good. 

Tony

 

Would agree except for the wheel profiles which are getting worse - or is it just my "Verynears" telling me something incorrect?

 

Barry