Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

 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.

 

I don't think that anybody has actually said that about having a layout with RTR locos and stock. What you have described, weathering and renumbering RTR models to make them appropriate for the area and period you are modelling is very much putting your own personality and stamp onto a model. And nobody should have any problem with you ideas about wanting to operate you railway in a prototypical fashion. That sort of approach can lead to a realistic and totally absorbing layout.

 

For a home based layout, the only person who has to get any satisfaction from the layout is the builder/operator. As long as they enjoy what they are doing, that is really what it is all about. 

 

My only concern is the number of exhibition layouts where the stock is literally straight out of the box and little or no thought, creativity or imagination has been put into the design, presentation or operation. The locos have the dreadful plastic coal, there has been no attempt at any weathering (or they are the usually horrible factory applied weathering) and totally inappropriate locos and stock are run on the layout because the owner wants to show off that he/she has the latest new products.

 

That is absolutely fine in the privacy of your own home and a layout or two at a show to portray what can be done with RTR things is fine but (and we are down to personal choice and opinion here) it is not what I enjoy seeing at exhibitions.

 

I can learn something from seeing how a modeller has built a nice model of a box van. I can appreciate what work has gone into it and I enjoy seeing it all the more for that. Similarly with a RTR model that has been altered/detailed/weathered. Best of all is when you can't tell the origin of the model. When it just looks the way it is supposed to look and it blends in with its surroundings in a realistic fashion, with a good overall scene and nice palette of colours.

 

These things give a sense of the layout builder having achieved something.

 

I get none of that from looking at a straight out of the box RTR model.

 

It used to be the case that people decided what they wanted to build as a layout and then went about assembling a suitable stud of locos and appropriate rolling stock. Have things changed round now?

 

Do people look at the range of locos and stock available and think "I can get everything I need to model such and such a place (usually in the mid - late 1950s)"?

 

Could that be why many layouts have that "Same" look because lots have people have gone through the same thought process and come up with the same conclusions?

 

I don't know because I still work the other way, decide what to build and then seek out locos and stock but I can't help but think that there are people who base their modelling on what is available to run rather than on a place and time they would really like to portray.

 

Until I was around 17 or 18, my modelling was just like that. I had 95% straight out of the box RTR on a decent sized loft layout with a few Airfix wagon kits built up. I ran the layout to a sequence and I totally enjoyed every minute of it. I started building one or two loco "bodyline" kits to give me things that were not available RTR and I was immediately hooked on the satisfaction that running something I had built gave me over the satisfaction of something I had bought.

 

I can understand that some folk don't wish to go down that route but to me, making things will always be more satisfying than buying them. But I would never try to tell anybody else that they should be doing the same. This hobby has never been about all of us doing the same things.

 

Tony

[westerner]

Barry, I too admire Tom's (2750) work and I hope that my weathering etc is approaching his standard. Indeed at the Barrow Hill exhibition we had a good chat about weathering.

 Perhaps you'd like to have a look at my layout thread to see my efforts at weathering, from very filthy to been cleaned with an oily rag.

 

Tony, I do agree that an exhibition layout full of straight out of the box RTR locos and stock does not appeal to me either. Indeed I have always weathered stock as well as built wagon kits and even at a go at overlaying comet sides on Hornby donor bodies.

 

I think my point was gentlemen that it felt as if  you didn't build your own locos then you couldn't be a railway modeller and I always felt that being a railway modeller involved much more than that, ie building a realistic layout.

Edited December 29, 2013 by westerner

[t-b-g]

Barry, I too admire Tom's (2750) work and I hope that my weathering etc is approaching his standard. Indeed at the Barrow Hill exhibition we had a good chat about weathering.

 Perhaps you'd like to have a look at my layout thread to see my efforts at weathering, from very filthy to been cleaned with an oily rag.

 

Tony, I do agree that an exhibition layout full of straight out of the box RTR locos and stock does not appeal to me either. Indeed I have always weathered stock as well as built wagon kits and even at a go at overlaying comet sides on Hornby donor bodies.

 

I think my point was gentlemen that it felt as if  you didn't build your own locos then you couldn't be a railway modeller and I always felt that being a railway modeller involved much more than that, ie building a realistic layout.

 

If that was the impression I gave, then maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully. I am not against people using RTR locos and stock, just against them using them straight out of the box and displaying them at exhibitions and trying to give the impression that they have accomplished something in the field of railway modelling by doing so!

 

What I do like is when people get hold of a RTR model and say "What can I do to this to make it even better?". Even my old Hornby Dublo A4 got real coal and brass nameplates. In a way it is sad that modern RTR stuff gives little opportunity for this as it is already so good in most cases. I am presently plucking up the courage to take my NRM "Butler Henderson" and alter it back to proper GCR condition, rather than have it "as preserved".

 

What you have achieved with your layout certainly qualifies as railway modelling in my book! It is about as far removed from the sort of things I was talking about as it is possible to get.

 

Very nice!

 

Tony

[Tony Wright]

Some interesting points; some of great validity.

 

Railway modelling certainly isn't just about building locos. That said, I might venture that it's the one facet which generates the greatest amount of interest, especially amongst those of us who were trainspotters in our youth. By that I mean those who grew up in the steam/diesel transition era, when there was vast regional differences and many locomotive classes were essentially parochial. For many, me included, my modelling motives are to recreate what I saw (readers must know this by now), mainly the locomotives. Thus, I've been able to 'indulge' in this passion by working with others whose interests included trackwork, wagons, architecture, scenery, signalling, etc. I'm not deriding those younger who trainspotted in a later era (say BR blue/grey) but it was certainly not the same. For instance, I've just completed the script for a book to be published next year featuring pictures I took in the '70s/'80s, and at one point in the early '80s I photographed 47555 near Thirsk, at Crewe and at Teignmouth, all within a fortnight! Hardly parochial, but, I admit, some of the above is off topic.

 

As for some folk feeling that they're 'looked down upon' because they don't build things (or have things done for them), perhaps that's an unfortunate inevitability of the all-embracing web. Previously, the only means of 'getting known' so to speak in the hobby was (at least in part) to be able to write properly, build a model worthy of note, take 'professional' standard pictures and become a demonstrator/tutor at exhibitions/events. For the the instant 'appreciation' of tens of thousands, this is not necessary now. I'm not suggesting that a lot of the stuff posted on this site doesn't satisfy the above criteria (I wish some of the marvellous material I see on here would find its way into the printed magazines, because some recent material I've seen in the traditional media has been very poor) but it's much easier, surely, to become a 'celebrity' on the web than ever it was in the 'good old days'. Perhaps that's why some traditionalists feel peeved at losing their status, and become critical or look down at others. In fairness, this is two-way because I recall giving a talk to Chiltern MRA some years ago, quoting the web names of many of BRM's critics where they hid behind anonymity and obviously must have blamed their teachers for their inability to write. If you think some of the looked-down-upon comments recently posted made you peeved, then I assure you they're nothing compared to some of the interweb flak I've received down the years.

 

As for the longevity of RTR locos compared with (well-built) alternatives, I can only state that, in my experience, they won't last as long, and they certainly (the P2 excepted) won't haul as much. Admittedly, they might look better - crisper, better-finished and so on but, as one observer has rightly stated, most of the work has been done for you. That said, what 'youngsters' like Tom Foster are doing is surely 'modelling' of the highest calibre - and he's now started making locos.

 

I sense a slight kinship with Coachman, in that all the dozens and dozens of locos I've built down the years have (almost without exception) become available in a proprietary fashion. Thus, kits appeared for all the scratch-built ones, then RTR for all the kit-built ones. I did find it a bit sickening, I must admit but that's egalitarianism for you.

 

Railway modelling should be as broad a church as possible, and RMWeb has undoubtedly contributed to that. Coachman summed that up in the most erudite manner recently - I wished I'd written that. However, folk are very sensitive (particularly if their stock is criticised) and one must be careful in 'criticisms'. Where I would say there are differences to note is obviously in the 'skill factor' amongst modellers. Some are gifted it, some acquire it through years of toil and some 'never make it', leaving it for others to do or give up. This must be true of all creative hobbies. Many, quite rightly, derive enormous pleasure in exploiting what the RTR chaps have given us (Bredon was one of the finest layouts I ever took pictures of), modifying it or personalising it as they choose. However, until you make a locomotive from a kit or scratch and watch it purr round and say 'I made that', you'll never enjoy the 'ultimate' satisfaction in railway modelling. But then, as a loco-builder, I would say that. 

 

I suppose in the final analysis it's what gives pleasure to you and all those who view your creation. Whether it be the work of the finest craftsmen/women in the hobby, getting the most out of RTR stock/RTP buildings or just laying a circle of track and playing, as long as it satisfies you and you don't claim things it isn't, then this marvellous hobby is to be enjoyed by all.

 

Finally, the K1 featured doesn't deserve such plaudits. Model engineering is way beyond me!

Edited December 29, 2013 by Tony Wright

[westerner]

Tony, I did say a little peeved. 

 

Whilst I haven't built a loco I do agree with you about the satisfaction of having built something. I have had great satisfaction out of building wagons kits and I certainly agree that this a marvellous hobby and it should be enjoyed by all.

 

A couple of kit built ballast wagons

 

[Guest 2750]

That said, what 'youngsters' like Tom Foster are doing is surely 'modelling' of the highest calibre - and he's now started making locos.

 

Most kind of you Tony.

Speaking of making locos, some size 10 blades arrived this morning, so I made a start cleaning up the boiler. I'm not sure if the original photos I posted of the boiler on the chassis, showed the nasty seam on the boiler top, with a good 4mm of raised up whitemetal.

 

Here is how things look after filing, scalpel and burnishing brush work. 

 

 

 

 

It generally feels nicely smooth and rounded. Would you gents be happy with this, or suggest some more work on it?

 

Thanks

[Tony Wright]

Westerner,

                  Splendid examples of kit-building - completely natural and most realistic. Have you written anything for a magazine? If not, you should. 

[Tony Wright]

Most kind of you Tony.

Speaking of making locos, some size 10 blades arrived this morning, so I made a start cleaning up the boiler. I'm not sure if the original photos I posted of the boiler on the chassis, showed the nasty seam on the boiler top, with a good 4mm of raised up whitemetal.

 

Here is how things look after filing, scalpel and burnishing brush work. 

 

IMG_5850.jpg

 

IMG_5849.jpg

 

IMG_5848.jpg

 

It generally feels nicely smooth and rounded. Would you gents be happy with this, or suggest some more work on it?

 

Thanks

It looks fine, Tom. 

 

Remember, white metal is very soft and highly reflective, so shows up every scratch. A sensitive finger is as good as anything for checking if an object is round and smooth. One way of identifying surface imperfections, though it's a really time-consuming fag, is to prime the boiler at this stage. Primer always shows up any nooks, crannies and bumps, though it has to be taken off again before any more soldering takes place. Personally, I wouldn't bother, because primer (Halford's red-oxide acrylic) acts as a filler, anyway. 

 

Are you sure the boiler halves were 4mm out? A slip of the keyboard, perhaps? They were a bit out but not a scale foot!

 

Just for those who refuse/can't/won't do things for themselves, if my memory serves I soldered the firebox top seam and Tom soldered the boiler top seam. Can you tell which is which? 

[westerner]

Most kind of you Tony, and it's Alan.

 

 I have written in RM about the Layout (Wencombe Dec2012) and most recently (Nov 2013) about how I built the timetable for the layout. But nothing about kit building wagons.

[coachmann]

Western, I followed the link at the bottom of your post this morning and wondered how I had missed your layout on RMweb. I think the title of 'Wencombe: Western Queen' must have been the reason, as something like 'Wencombe: a BR(W) 1960s layout' would have hit the bell in my cranium. Anyway, 35 pages is a lot to get through when my PC stalls at every turn of a page but I like what I've seen so far. You have nothing to feel peeved about building a model of a real railway either. In fact you've got me thinking it was time I got back to some modelling as well! 

Edited December 29, 2013 by coachmann

[Oldddudders]

 

I think my point was gentlemen that it felt as if  you didn't build your own locos then you couldn't be a railway modeller and I always felt that being a railway modeller involved much more than that, ie building a realistic layout.

I think it inevitable that our hobby is loco-centric. After all, it was the steam locomotive that made railways viable in the first place, not simply steel wheel on steel rail, which already existed with horse etc power. That said, go back a few decades and kit-and scratch-building were much more common among modellers, as being the only route to having a balanced stud of locos. A 4mm Western Region layout in the early '60s could only really call upon a Hornby Castle and Graham Farish Pannier and Prairie as RTR items, for example.

 

As others have pointed out, the availability of pretty reasonable ranges of RTR locos for many prototypes does mean the modeller can cut corners, but it also means they have more time and money to spend on scenery and structures, whereas back in the '60s those were seldom of the sort of quality we see now - well-exemplified by Alan's Wencombe. I feel I see more "complete" layouts now, where the railway is in decent landscape, than would have been the case then.

[Guest 2750]

 

Are you sure the boiler halves were 4mm out? A slip of the keyboard, perhaps? They were a bit out but not a scale foot!

 

 

 

My mistake Tony, I meant to say that there was a ridge on top of the boiler either side of the seam, about 0.5mm thick.

I was a bit  worried about the scratch marks, but as you say the white metal is very reflective, so what you say makes me feel better.

 

Next step will be tidying the cab front up so the boiler can be fixed in place.

Edited December 29, 2013 by 2750

[queensquare]

I've been following this debate with some interest and agree with others in that we are all big boys and girls playing trains in one form or another and all are equally valid. The hobby is a broad enough church to provide us all with fun and entertainment although I am very much in the camp of gaining the most satisfaction from making things

. 

The only thing that peeves me a little is when I have spent ages building a loco only for the said prototype to appear in RTR format. I have recently completed a MR 4F (2mm scale), probably a matter of a couple of months before the new Farish one hits the shops. That said, it would be difficult to have too many 4Fs on a early 20s Midland layout so I will be finescaling and otherwise personalising at least one of the new offerings. It will be interesting to see if it gives as much satisfaction as my metalsmithing - it will almost certainly be crisper and a lot quicker!!

 

 

I'm currently working on an eight coach rake of Midland clerestories for the Manchester Diner (renamed Pines Express in 1927) - the odds of anyone doing these RTR are slim! See my Bath Queensquare thread for pictures.

 

Apologies for hijacking this largely 4mm thread but with Tony's recent excellent articles on upgrading the new Bachmann 4Fs I thought it would be relevant.

 

Jerry

[Tony Wright]

I think it inevitable that our hobby is loco-centric. After all, it was the steam locomotive that made railways viable in the first place, not simply steel wheel on steel rail, which already existed with horse etc power. That said, go back a few decades and kit-and scratch-building were much more common among modellers, as being the only route to having a balanced stud of locos. A 4mm Western Region layout in the early '60s could only really call upon a Hornby Castle and Graham Farish Pannier and Prairie as RTR items, for example.

 

As others have pointed out, the availability of pretty reasonable ranges of RTR locos for many prototypes does mean the modeller can cut corners, but it also means they have more time and money to spend on scenery and structures, whereas back in the '60s those were seldom of the sort of quality we see now - well-exemplified by Alan's Wencombe. I feel I see more "complete" layouts now, where the railway is in decent landscape, than would have been the case then.

 

Well said, and I think everyone will be in agreement.

 

It's also true that there are many more exceptional layouts in all forms of the media than ever there were in the '60s. Even many of the most famous from the period probably wouldn't stand direct comparison with the 'best' that's on offer today. I once had the opportunity to photograph Ken Northwood's outstanding North Devon Railway; well, what remained after his death. I didn't because I thought it would have been cruel and unfair. Why? Because a re-painted and 'fiddled with' Farish 'King' could only ever be that, and Exley LMS carriages, though painted chocolate and cream, were only LMS, after all. The scenery and buildings had suffered down the years, and to photograph what was left (in razor-sharp clarity) would not have been fair to a great railway modeller's memory. All that said, and despite my above observations of the selected stock, Ken's outstanding railway was made by him, with generally precious little in the way of RTR support. It was creative railway modelling in the finest tradition - no waving of chequebooks, and what he wrote was first-person singular - how he did things. 

 

In a similar vein, when the late Frank Dyer brought the great Borchester up to Wolverhampton, I took some pictures. One of his scratch-built V2 did it no favours, for the painting was a bit scruffy and it wasn't entirely straight in places. But, I say again, he made things and was inspirational to a generation and more of modellers, and he wrote about how he made things.

 

Finally, on this issue, I pulled-back slightly when photographing some of the late Peter Denny's stock nearly four years ago because, in close-up, it didn't do some of it any favours. But, as with the two above, he was a creative modeller of the highest calibre, and he also wrote about how he made things. 

 

Though maybe not up to the 'standards' of today, it's my belief that those three layouts, in terms of personal creativity, were/are far more important to the history of the hobby than many 'better' ones seen today. They all represented an input of real skill across the whole spectrum of the hobby, and gave an 'impression' of the real railway in a hugely personal manner. Even the very best of box-openers and modifiers, despite the current very high standards of RTR and RTP, will struggle to be as influential in the hobby in my opinion.

 

Finally, despite the overall excellence of what's now available (narrowing the gap between those who can/cannot and have/have not?) it still takes critical observation of the real railway to create a believable model railway, whoever built it. In a current issue of a model railway magazine there's one layout which appears to exploit what's currently on offer to the full, yet it's really unbelievable because almost nothing of it appears to be based on prototype practice. The creator might have been 'freed up' to produce scenery, structures and what have you, but the end result is unrealistic, however pretty. Still, if it pleases him (and those who read about it), then does it matter?

[Tony Wright]

I've been following this debate with some interest and agree with others in that we are all big boys and girls playing trains in one form or another and all are equally valid. The hobby is a broad enough church to provide us all with fun and entertainment although I am very much in the camp of gaining the most satisfaction from making things

. 

The only thing that peeves me a little is when I have spent ages building a loco only for the said prototype to appear in RTR format. I have recently completed a MR 4F (2mm scale), probably a matter of a couple of months before the new Farish one hits the shops. That said, it would be difficult to have too many 4Fs on a early 20s Midland layout so I will be finescaling and otherwise personalising at least one of the new offerings. It will be interesting to see if it gives as much satisfaction as my metalsmithing - it will almost certainly be crisper and a lot quicker!!

 

IMG_0999a.jpg

 

I'm currently working on an eight coach rake of Midland clerestories for the Manchester Diner (renamed Pines Express in 1927) - the odds of anyone doing these RTR are slim! See my Bath Queensquare thread for pictures.

 

Apologies for hijacking this largely 4mm thread but with Tony's recent excellent articles on upgrading the new Bachmann 4Fs I thought it would be relevant.

 

Jerry

Jerry,

         Hijack away, and my most sincere compliments on an outstanding locomotive. You must have good eyes!

[St Enodoc]

It used to be the case that people decided what they wanted to build as a layout and then went about assembling a suitable stud of locos and appropriate rolling stock. Have things changed round now?

 

Do people look at the range of locos and stock available and think "I can get everything I need to model such and such a place (usually in the mid - late 1950s)"?

 

Could that be why many layouts have that "Same" look because lots have people have gone through the same thought process and come up with the same conclusions?

Tony, a few questions there. Let me try to answer some from my own perspective.

 

First, I'm not sure that the idea of deciding what you wanted before starting a layout was universally true. Two other approaches were to accumulate an eclectic (posh word for random) collection of stock then build a layout that some or most of it suited, either disposing of or storing the rest; or to look at what was available and build a layout to suit. I'm thinking here of all those GWR branch termini with K's 0-4-2Ts and Gaiety panniers that sprang up in the late 50s/early 60s. There were other forces at work here - the influence of CJF, space and funding constraints for example - and I'm not going into a discussion of which was cause and which effect.

 

Second, I think that there is indeed a tendency for many layouts to look similar (they don't look the same though). Any layout based on say the ECML (e.g. Stoke Bank and Little Bytham?) will have a strong family resemblance to others of that ilk - as indeed it should. Longer ago, the North Devonshire and the Little Western also shared this characteristic, although in most other respects they could not have been more different.

[PGC]

.......I have recently completed a MR 4F (2mm scale),

 

 

 

 

I am gobsmacked that this is 2mm scale - outstanding workmanship. Massive congratulations to the builder, could you give me the name of your optician, please! 

 

Moving to the point about layouts seeming to have a "sameness" at exhibitions, rather than this being a fault of layout builders, isn't it, in reality, the fault of exhibition managers who don't have the imagination or gumption to get out and see the many layouts that aren't made of out of the box stock etc.

 

Phil (edited to get rid of duplicate text)

Edited December 29, 2013 by PGC

[queensquare]

Many thanks Phil and Tony for your kind comments regarding my 4F. Comments are often made regarding the size of 2mm and my eyesight, the truth is that its no more than average. If a detail is too small to be added reliably and, most importantly, robustly, then it is left off. Models I build in other scales are far more detailed, and often more challenging as a consequence. The trick with 2mm is to resist the temptation to beef up details in order to make them easier/stronger. If that is deemed necessary they are best omitted

 

Jerry.

[t-b-g]

Some interesting comments from all sides there.

 

Firstly, as the custodian of Buckingham I can see exactly where Tony is coming from with his comments. There is much on Buckingham that doesn't stand close inspection. I recall that Peter Denny always said that he was looking for an overall effect and that his models were not meant to be looked at from closer than 2ft. If there was one weakness in the Denny armoury it was in the painting and lining of locos. Having said that, he once described building a loco from scratch, including painting, in 7 days. So scratchbuilding doesn't have to be the massive user up of modelling time that some folks think it needs to be.

 

Modern photography is superb in quality but very unforgiving and I have seen many photos of modern layouts that have made me cringe on behalf of the layout builder because they have been done no favours whatsover.

 

Sometimes it seems to me that the urge for the photographer to show how good they are takes grip and they forget that they should be there to make the railway look good instead. Close up front views of locos with huge coupling pockets and wide wheels on OO track? Oblique angles that make transfer numbers seem like thick plates? There was one photo of a layout where the signals are lit by fibre optics. In normal viewing these are invisible, tucked away on the non viewing side but stick a camera in the middle of the layout and take a close up photo of the signal and they stick out like sore thumbs.

 

I would happily exempt Tony from those comments. I have been with him when he photographed a couple of my layouts and he was always on the look out for a different angle or field of view that would leave a perhaps slightly dodgy bit of work out of the scene!

 

I can see that models of Stoke Summit, Peterborough North, Little Bytham and Retford, all set in the late 1950s should have pretty much the same trains on them. If all 4 were at a show together (impossible - I know) , seeing the same trains 4 times might just become a little "samey".

 

Now if all 4 were the same gauge and connected together..........

 

The older layouts mentioned by Tony Wright have one thing in common. They were designed and built for operation. I don't just mean running a train round a circuit. Operating Buckingham and operating Stoke Summit must be two entirely different experiences. I am not sure how long Stoke would hold interest as a "home" layout for operation or if it ever has been operated for pleasure back at base, although it was a real crowd pleaser at shows. Gresley Beat is similar in that respect.

 

Buckingham was operated for several hours twice a week for many years and the operators never got bored. It was (and hopefully will be again) challenging, interesting and fun to run it to the timetable and the clock. That is an aspect of the layout that doesn't come across in still photos.

 

Again, the broad church and the difference between the home layout and the exhibition layout comes into play and both have their place but a layout with interesting and realistic operating patterns, well run by people who know what they are doing, is a real joy to see and is, sadly, somewhat rare.

 

I also agree that if there is a degree of sameness in a show, the only person responsible is the person booking the layouts. You can't really blame the layout builders.

 

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

 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.

 

Surely the hobby is about having fun.

 

I like building my own stuff, locos, multiple units, coaches, wagons, buildings, track (sometimes), road vehicles and figures. I have even done trees in the past. Now some of my stuff is not that wonderful but I had fun researching it, working out how to make it, as well as making it. I am more inclined to scratch build than make a kit or convert a RTR loco into something I want to make.

 

I have had a few days off and in that time I have been working on some class 40s, 3 stretched Tri-ang class 37 bodies, 2 MTK class 40s*, a pair of Vi Trains 47s converting them back to the 60s, a 104 DMU and a 107 DMU. And had a little play with both layouts.

 

When viewing the work of others I try to see where they have had fun achieving what they have done. Well-presented layouts being all scratch or all RTR or somewhere in between I really enjoy. I enjoy layouts where the modeller has looked at the prototype and said that is what I want to model. I do find layouts where someone who has looked at someone else’s model of a model not so enjoyable. There are some things, sound fitted diesels being one, that no matter how much the owners enjoy them I don't, but that is my personal choice.

 

I do not feel superior because I have in the past scratch built locos nor do I feel inferior when I view the excellent models others have made. I just have fun being a railway modeller.

 

Off me soap box now.

 

* Anyone got any ideas of how to seperate white metal which has been glued together with epoxy, very badly? (Please PM me)

[Mallard60022]

A wee comment to end this year.

RMWeb has enabled me to 'become involved' in a number of layouts that I otherwise would probably never have known existed. These are the layouts that remain in the builder's home and Peterborough North, Little Bytham and A Nod to Brent are on the top of my list just now (apologies to others I admire from afar). This 'involvement', to me, is another quite recent and rather unique part of our great hobby. A few years ago all these hidden gems and so many wonderful pieces of work would have remained unknown except to maybe just a few people.

One thing RMWeb has achieved is to get me out to some shows to meet new 'friends', see specific layouts and to actually take my layout to our local show.

OK so it has not yet got me to sit down and model more often but, hey ho, there's always time   

Being 'involved' in (say) the tribulations of Coach and his trackwork, Tom F and his move into kit building and others on their quest to attain a high standard of prototypicality (is there such a word?) is absolutely great; long may we continue to interact. Perhaps the most enjoyable parts of all this are the 'banter' and armchair views of other's work?

Sincerely and my very best wishes for 2014 to you all.

Phil @ 36E

Edited December 31, 2013 by Mallard60022

[Guest 2750]

All the best Phil, hope to see you at a show soon!

 

Happy New Year Tony, thank you for all your help and time over the last few months. I look forward to seeing you in the New Year, with 60054.

[Tony Wright]

All the best Phil, hope to see you at a show soon!

 

Happy New Year Tony, thank you for all your help and time over the last few months. I look forward to seeing you in the New Year, with 60054.

 

Many thanks to you Tom, to Phil and all the rest for the good wishes, which I sincerely reciprocate.

 

It is my pleasure to help wherever I can, particularly where someone is prepared to have a go themselves. This hobby is about creativity, and although the work of the professionals is to be admired and used as inspiration, I must say I derive the much greater satisfaction from seeing an 'ordinary' modeller's work - stuff like the models of Tom, and Alan and Jerry posted recently (though the latter might well be classed as 'extraordinary'). Without people developing skills of their own, I don't see a really 'constructive' future for the hobby. Whether there has been a decline in the overall skill-base, I'm not sure (perhaps I'm too old and reactionary) but as fewer and fewer kits seem to be built (at least it seems that way to me) and greater dependence is placed on RTR stuff (here we go again), then is this the inevitable way forward? 

 

Speaking of kits, and the lessening need for them (by the way, Jol Wilkinson, I'm 100% behind you in your imploring of folk to build kits and not bleat about things not being available RTR, or that they don't have the skills/resources - what happened to the notion of a meritocracy, and why should folk demand equality all the time?), and showing my hypocrisy once more, I've included pictures of my 'fiddlings over the holiday. I've already mentioned the need no longer to build a J11 kit because of Bachmann's forthcoming little wonder, and here's the reason. Doing my best, I doubt if I could get as good a model as this out of a kit (other than the chimney being slightly out of plumb - I pushed at it, but an ominous cracking sound occurred, so I left it). All I've done is renumber it (only one digit needing changing), add a crew, dispense with the 'nasty' DCC in the tender, add the tools and weather it. I admit, the crew is a little blobby (made worse by my unforgiving photography) but without them it's not right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's seen at work on Little Bytham (unlikely for an Immingham J11?), pottering round with a light goods and shunting in the up lay-by. The weathering is my standard dry-brushing mixture of matt greys, browns and black and it only took an evening to complete.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

How did one picture appear twice? Sorry!!!!!

 

I've amazed myself by being able to delete one. I'll never get on with this interwebby thing!

Edited December 31, 2013 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Other things - my faculties are fading fast, I also altered the BR emblem on the tender to the earlier cycling lion (more appropriate for a J11 for my period). I also added real coal to the huge lump in the tender. For those who think the coal load might be excessive, please take a look at page 59 of Steam Colour Portfolio Eastern & North Eastern Region by Keith Pirt (Book Law). This shows a J11/3, with the final (correct) manifestation of the BR heraldic device - only the second picture I've seen of a J11 with this.