Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

Andrew,

 

I probably haven't explained things very well about my future books. 

 

The book for The Crowood Press (which will be finished tomorrow and sent off Friday) is concerned with an approach to modelling a prototype location on the ECML in the BR steam era. Initially the brief was to be 'Modelling The East Coast Main Line in the BR Steam Period'. Having started it, it soon dawned on me that such a task would be impossible, at least for me. Though I have dozens of pictures of suitable layout candidates, how could I honestly tell the story of how the research was done, how they were built, how the architecture was constructed, how the stock was built, etc, etc? 

 

So, I sent a revised brief which was accepted where I've used the building of Little Bytham as an armature on which to hang the book. All the research methodology and constructional techniques are applicable to all scales and gauges and to all periods. For instance, the making of a signal and how it's operated, irrespective of whether it's an LB signal, could apply to the making of any model railway signal. Though I certainly didn't build and install the signals, I've taken pictures as progress has taken place and asked questions as to how things were done. The same is so for the buildings, where the work of Ian Wilson, Bob Dawson and Scott Waterfield has had pictures taken of it at various stages in the construction process, including during a trip up to York. Though this might sound a bit 'second-hand', I assure you I'm fully aware of all the procedures involved and can act as a reporter so to speak. Obviously, I'm happier commenting on the building/modifying of the locos and stock, which is all my own work (including building some wagons - yes, me building wagons!)

 

In the final analysis, I hope the book won't be seen as just an account of how LB was built. It's more than that I assure you.

 

Now to the Booklaw books. These are definitely on the prototype, in this case BR, ER/NER/ScR ex-LNER main line steam. The first one will be called something like LNER (or ex-LNER) Locomotives in Detail. David Allen has given me a disc of some of the most fantastic pictures taken by the late Keith Pirt. Most have dates and locations for, but not all. Now, without being disparaging to the deceased, as the late David Jenkinson once told me, 'KP is a fantastic photographer but cannot write a caption for toffee!' Most of Keith's captions referred to a subject's life history, just cribbed from the RCTS or Yeadon. Though I could be riding for a fall, I hope I can do more than that. One brilliant shot shows SIR NIGEL GRESLEY leaving Askham Tunnel on an Up working and all that's noted is when the loco was built, where it was shedded and when it was withdrawn. Not a mention of the train, which is The Northumbrian, by the way, without a headboard. 

 

As you might know, I write captions on a regular basis for BRILL on such matters. Often one finds evidence which contradicts the established works; like QUICKSILVER towing a 1928 corridor tender for just a month or two in 1960 - something not recorded as far as I know. Though all this might sound a bit (a lot!) anal, I hope it'll be of use to modellers. 

 

Further books from Booklaw will include captions written for classes A1, A2 (all varieties) and A3s. 

 

I also share your indifference when one sees BR steam-era layouts populated almost exclusively by RTR locos. I know not all can kit or scratch-build, but some are hardly altered. I have a great deal of respect for those who alter/modify/improve their RTR locos; less so for those who just farm the jobs out, though they do provide employment. Because the majority of the massive post-War baby-boomers (of which I'm one) are now well into retirement, they have the time, space and cash to (in many cases) return to the hobby, recreating, or attempting to, the halcyon days of their youth as trainspotters. I'm convinced this 'bulge' is what's driving the RTR market right now, and it will inevitably diminish. It's also the reason making my writing of books on the period, both model and prototype, viable. Or, at least I hope so. 

 

I hope all of the above makes sense.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

thanks for the clarification. There is nothing worse than a book full of build date captions with little of relevance to the photographs. So more of a historical photo restoration and rejuvenation project that puts them before the public in their proper context. I have some experience of this as a contributor to Banks and Carters LNER passenger trains and formations, although a couple of the captions got mangled in the final printed version. All power to your elbow with the book. You make a good point about the viability of such a project, and the connection with demographics. SMRS has a number of very talented modelers (I exclude myself) who are miles away from retirement age but still of the steam locomotive persuasion. They have more interest in the big four era rather than BR, and have adopted EM gauge as standard. I like to think of  this as a small but spirited youth rebellion against the box shifters and the baby boomers.

[Daddyman]

Now to the Booklaw books. These are definitely on the prototype, in this case BR, ER/NER/ScR ex-LNER main line steam. The first one will be called something like LNER (or ex-LNER) Locomotives in Detail. David Allen has given me a disc of some of the most fantastic pictures taken by the late Keith Pirt. Most have dates and locations for, but not all. Now, without being disparaging to the deceased, as the late David Jenkinson once told me, 'KP is a fantastic photographer but cannot write a caption for toffee!' Most of Keith's captions referred to a subject's life history, just cribbed from the RCTS or Yeadon. Though I could be riding for a fall, I hope I can do more than that. One brilliant shot shows SIR NIGEL GRESLEY leaving Askham Tunnel on an Up working and all that's noted is when the loco was built, where it was shedded and when it was withdrawn. Not a mention of the train, which is The Northumbrian, by the way, without a headboard. 

Absolutely right on the content, couldn't agree more. And its nice to here that their'll finally be an edition of Pirts photographs that isnt littered with infuriating grammar mistakes - a first for Book Law to.  EDIT (the internet doesn't do irony well): And it's nice to hear that there'll finally be an edition of Pirt's photographs that isn't littered with infuriating grammar mistakes - a first for Book Law too. 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Daddyman

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

thanks for the clarification. There is nothing worse than a book full of build date captions with little of relevance to the photographs. So more of a historical photo restoration and rejuvenation project that puts them before the public in their proper context. I have some experience of this as a contributor to Banks and Carters LNER passenger trains and formations, although a couple of the captions got mangled in the final printed version. All power to your elbow with the book. You make a good point about the viability of such a project, and the connection with demographics. SMRS has a number of very talented modelers (I exclude myself) who are miles away from retirement age but still of the steam locomotive persuasion. They have more interest in the big four era rather than BR, and have adopted EM gauge as standard. I like to think of  this as a small but spirited youth rebellion against the box shifters and the baby boomers.

Thanks again, Andrew. 

 

I must be very wary of the saying 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones', especially as I've just noted one or two captioning bloopers in my just-published Deltic bookazine from Irwell. My geographical knowledge gets scrambled around Claypole with regard to river systems and, in one case, I don't seem to be able to tell my east from my west at Kings Cross.

 

I acquired the Banks/Carter book in the anticipation that, at last, we have the definitive work on the subject. Though I did not pay the full £45.00 for it, its price was greater than any other book in my library. Knowing the tremendous knowledge of Steve Banks and his peerless ability at building carriages, I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed, at least in part. Did your contributions apply to the following?...............

 

The bottom picture on page 50 refers to an ex-streamlined twin as a BTO-TO when in fact it's an FO-FO. On page 59 (top picture) it looks to me that every carriage in a four-car set is incorrectly described. Though principally concerned with carriages, it might still be reasonable to expect that the authors could tell the difference between a large-boilered GN Atlantic and a small-boilered one; on page 85 what's pictured is a C2, not a C1, one with inside cylinders as well. Again on the locomotive front, how can the picture on page 143 be dated 1935? The loco was brand new in the autumn of 1935 so how could it be 'running in after repair'? Running-in brand new, perhaps, except that it has full-length buffers and its number on the front so I'd say 1937 is the date. On page 206 the pair of Leeds-only cars in the QoS are described as 'strengtheners'. My understanding of that term is for carriages added (often at short notice) to a train because it was full up. These two cars were always in the formation. There are other 'mistakes', such as the describing of a Tourist twin where one carriage was referred to as a brake. All the Tourist brakes were single carriages.

 

I know it's very easy to be critical, especially where hundreds of pictures and tens of thousands of words are involved. Every article or book I've written always has mistakes, born out of ignorance or carelessness. The same also goes for the models I make.

 

Perhaps I should throw cushions instead.

 

Finally, may I say all power to the elbows of SMRS members, please? By adopting EM they must, by definition, be modellers - those who make things for themselves. Pre-Nationalisation as well - great (I was only just over 14 months old when that happened, so have no memories. A spirited youth rebellion against the box-shifters, too. What an encouraging thought to start the day! And, if they rebel against me, so much the better!!!!!!!

 

Edited to remove an apostrophe blooper!

Edited October 27, 2016 by Tony Wright

[robertcwp]

Thanks again, Andrew. 

 

I must be very wary of the saying 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones', especially as I've just noted one or two captioning bloopers in my just-published Deltic bookazine from Irwell. My geographical knowledge gets scrambled around Claypole with regard to river systems and, in one case, I don't seem to be able to tell my east from my west at Kings Cross.

 

I acquired the Banks/Carter book in the anticipation that, at last, we have the definitive work on the subject. Though I did not pay the full £45.00 for it, it's price was greater than any other book in my library. Knowing the tremendous knowledge of Steve Banks and his peerless ability at building carriages, I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed, at least in part. Did your contributions apply to the following?...............

 

The bottom picture on page 50 refers to an ex-streamlined twin as a BTO-TO when in fact it's an FO-FO. On page 59 (top picture) it looks to me that every carriage in a four-car set is incorrectly described. Though principally concerned with carriages, it might still be reasonable to expect that the authors could tell the difference between a large-boilered GN Atlantic and a small-boilered one; on page 85 what's pictured is a C2, not a C1, one with inside cylinders as well. Again on the locomotive front, how can the picture on page 143 be dated 1935? The loco was brand new in the autumn of 1935 so how could it be 'running in after repair'? Running-in brand new, perhaps, except that it has full-length buffers and its number on the front so I'd say 1937 is the date. On page 206 the pair of Leeds-only cars in the QoS are described as 'strengtheners'. My understanding of that term is for carriages added (often at short notice) to a train because it was full up. These two cars were always in the formation. There are other 'mistakes', such as the describing of a Tourist twin where one carriage was referred to as a brake. All the Tourist brakes were single carriages.

 

I know it's very easy to be critical, especially where hundreds of pictures and tens of thousands of words are involved. Every article or book I've written always has mistakes, born out of ignorance or carelessness. The same also goes for the models I make.

 

Perhaps I should throw cushions instead.

Unfortunately, the captions rather let the book down. As I wrote in my review for the LNER Society, 'Several captions misidentify carriage types in the formations depicted, an aspect central to the subject matter of the book. To err is human and identifying the exact type of carriage is often difficult, but such errors are surprising given the authors’ assertion that “Analysis of photographs was key”.'

 

I also noted that the authors went into great detail on some notable trains, including almost 11 pages devoted to the ‘Flying Scotsman’. Pullman Car trains, few in number but high in prestige, were also afforded extensive coverage. By contrast, other principal services such as the ‘Hook Continental’ and Harwich-Liverpool were mentioned only briefly, with post-war developments omitted. Coverage of the Great Eastern in general was minimal compared to other areas including the East Coast Main Line, Great Northern and Great Central. Services during World War Two were a significant part of the LNER’s history but were mentioned only briefly. The authors acknowledged difficulties in sourcing detailed information, which probably goes some way to explaining this imbalance (especially the GE where information for the LNER years seems almost non-existent). However, this means that, arguably, the book did not portray how the LNER as a whole went about the business of carrying its passengers on its principal services during its 25-year existence.

 

I agree about the image on page 59. The upper photo caption lists the formation as SK, SK, CK, BSK on 8 June 1957 and the train is captioned as being the Bradford portion of the up ‘White Rose’. However, the first vehicle is clearly a Gresley 8-bay open second (formerly third) not an SK. The second vehicle is partially obscured by a signal post but appears to be a Diag 9 52’ 6” CK not an SK (formerly TK). The third vehicle is a BR Standard (Mark I) open second (formerly third) not a CK. The fourth vehicle is a Gresley 48-seat BSO (formerly BTO) to Diag 196 or 303. By 1954, the Bradford portion of the ‘White Rose’ was all BR Standard (Mark I) stock (BTK, CK, SK, BTK in winter 1954-5 and TSO, BSK, CK in summer 1958).

 

I could go into lots more detail but here is not the place. I would still like to see Volume 2, which was promised but seems to have disappeared from Ian Allan's list of forthcoming books. The secondary services are in need of some decent coverage.

 

Doubtless my latest article in BRM had errors in it!

Edited October 27, 2016 by robertcwp

[billbedford]

I also noted that the authors went into great detail on some notable trains, including almost 11 pages devoted to the ‘Flying Scotsman’. Pullman Car trains, few in number but high in prestige, were also afforded extensive coverage. By contrast, other principal services such as the ‘Hook Continental’ and Harwich-Liverpool were mentioned only briefly, with post-war developments omitted. Coverage of the Great Eastern in general was minimal compared to other areas including the East Coast Main Line, Great Northern and Great Central. Services during World War Two were a significant part of the LNER’s history but were mentioned only briefly. The authors acknowledged difficulties in sourcing detailed information, which probably goes some way to explaining this imbalance (especially the GE where information for the LNER years seems almost non-existent). However, this means that, arguably, the book did not portray how the LNER as a whole went about the business of carrying its passengers on its principal services during its 25-year existence.

 

 

I think this is down to the history of this work. Clive Carter wrote the original book in the late eighties which covered just the principle expresses on the ECML. Some time later Steve Banks took on the job of expanding the original book to include other expresses and some secondary services. SB's primary interest is in the GCR line, which is reasonably well catered for in terms servicing information. Putting these two together should help to explain why the book ended up in the form it has.

[Tony Wright]

Unfortunately, the captions rather let the book down. As I wrote in my review for the LNER Society, 'Several captions misidentify carriage types in the formations depicted, an aspect central to the subject matter of the book. To err is human and identifying the exact type of carriage is often difficult, but such errors are surprising given the authors’ assertion that “Analysis of photographs was key”.'

 

I also noted that the authors went into great detail on some notable trains, including almost 11 pages devoted to the ‘Flying Scotsman’. Pullman Car trains, few in number but high in prestige, were also afforded extensive coverage. By contrast, other principal services such as the ‘Hook Continental’ and Harwich-Liverpool were mentioned only briefly, with post-war developments omitted. Coverage of the Great Eastern in general was minimal compared to other areas including the East Coast Main Line, Great Northern and Great Central. Services during World War Two were a significant part of the LNER’s history but were mentioned only briefly. The authors acknowledged difficulties in sourcing detailed information, which probably goes some way to explaining this imbalance (especially the GE where information for the LNER years seems almost non-existent). However, this means that, arguably, the book did not portray how the LNER as a whole went about the business of carrying its passengers on its principal services during its 25-year existence.

 

I agree about the image on page 59. The upper photo caption lists the formation as SK, SK, CK, BSK on 8 June 1957 and the train is captioned as being the Bradford portion of the up ‘White Rose’. However, the first vehicle is clearly a Gresley 8-bay open second (formerly third) not an SK. The second vehicle is partially obscured by a signal post but appears to be a Diag 9 52’ 6” CK not an SK (formerly TK). The third vehicle is a BR Standard (Mark I) open second (formerly third) not a CK. The fourth vehicle is a Gresley 48-seat BSO (formerly BTO) to Diag 196 or 303. By 1954, the Bradford portion of the ‘White Rose’ was all BR Standard (Mark I) stock (BTK, CK, SK, BTK in winter 1954-5 and TSO, BSK, CK in summer 1958).

 

I could go into lots more detail but here is not the place. I would still like to see Volume 2, which was promised but seems to have disappeared from Ian Allan's list of forthcoming books. The secondary services are in need of some decent coverage.

 

Doubtless my latest article in BRM had errors in it!

Thanks Robert,

 

Though I tried very hard I could not find any errors in your latest piece in BRM. Must I try harder? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

Thanks again, Andrew. 

 

I must be very wary of the saying 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones', especially as I've just noted one or two captioning bloopers in my just-published Deltic bookazine from Irwell. My geographical knowledge gets scrambled around Claypole with regard to river systems and, in one case, I don't seem to be able to tell my east from my west at Kings Cross.

 

I acquired the Banks/Carter book in the anticipation that, at last, we have the definitive work on the subject. Though I did not pay the full £45.00 for it, it's price was greater than any other book in my library. Knowing the tremendous knowledge of Steve Banks and his peerless ability at building carriages, I have to say that I was somewhat disappointed, at least in part. Did your contributions apply to the following?...............

 

The bottom picture on page 50 refers to an ex-streamlined twin as a BTO-TO when in fact it's an FO-FO. On page 59 (top picture) it looks to me that every carriage in a four-car set is incorrectly described. Though principally concerned with carriages, it might still be reasonable to expect that the authors could tell the difference between a large-boilered GN Atlantic and a small-boilered one; on page 85 what's pictured is a C2, not a C1, one with inside cylinders as well. Again on the locomotive front, how can the picture on page 143 be dated 1935? The loco was brand new in the autumn of 1935 so how could it be 'running in after repair'? Running-in brand new, perhaps, except that it has full-length buffers and its number on the front so I'd say 1937 is the date. On page 206 the pair of Leeds-only cars in the QoS are described as 'strengtheners'. My understanding of that term is for carriages added (often at short notice) to a train because it was full up. These two cars were always in the formation. There are other 'mistakes', such as the describing of a Tourist twin where one carriage was referred to as a brake. All the Tourist brakes were single carriages.

 

I know it's very easy to be critical, especially where hundreds of pictures and tens of thousands of words are involved. Every article or book I've written always has mistakes, born out of ignorance or carelessness. The same also goes for the models I make.

 

Perhaps I should throw cushions instead.

 

Finally, may I say all power to the elbows of SMRS members, please? By adopting EM they must, by definition, be modellers - those who make things for themselves. Pre-Nationalisation as well - great (I was only just over 14 months old when that happened, so have no memories. A spirited youth rebellion against the box-shifters, too. What an encouraging thought to start the day! And, if they rebel against me, so much the better!!!!!!!

Good Afternoon Tony,

 

No, nothing to do with me. My interests are rather parochial, being limited to the services on the Great Centrals London extension, that would cover a book or two on its own. In defence of the book, Steve Banks was just as disappointed, this should have really have been a multivolume work. That was never going to be acceptable to the publishers, probably because of limited market appeal. I suspect that many of the errors crept into the captions in the editing and re-editing to reach an acceptable format. Disappointingly, there are a couple of my own captions that got corrupted somewhere in the mix, I'm surprised Robert hasn't spotted them. The good news is that Steve Banks has a facility on his website where such things can be reported in the hope that if the book sells enough copies then a second print run will have the errors corrected. I'm certain it would be value to him if anything you spot is reported.

[Clearwater]

Good to hear a second run is contemplated correcting errors but wouldn't it also be useful if errata sheets can be published for downloading? For those of us who rely on such books for information, we tend to work on the assumption that a published source is correct. -n errata sheet would be helpful to add into the fly leaf of my copy for future reference

 

David

 

Edit : I fully appreciate the difficulty in proof reading!

Edited October 27, 2016 by Clearwater

[Headstock]

Unfortunately, the captions rather let the book down. As I wrote in my review for the LNER Society, 'Several captions misidentify carriage types in the formations depicted, an aspect central to the subject matter of the book. To err is human and identifying the exact type of carriage is often difficult, but such errors are surprising given the authors’ assertion that “Analysis of photographs was key”.'

 

I also noted that the authors went into great detail on some notable trains, including almost 11 pages devoted to the ‘Flying Scotsman’. Pullman Car trains, few in number but high in prestige, were also afforded extensive coverage. By contrast, other principal services such as the ‘Hook Continental’ and Harwich-Liverpool were mentioned only briefly, with post-war developments omitted. Coverage of the Great Eastern in general was minimal compared to other areas including the East Coast Main Line, Great Northern and Great Central. Services during World War Two were a significant part of the LNER’s history but were mentioned only briefly. The authors acknowledged difficulties in sourcing detailed information, which probably goes some way to explaining this imbalance (especially the GE where information for the LNER years seems almost non-existent). However, this means that, arguably, the book did not portray how the LNER as a whole went about the business of carrying its passengers on its principal services during its 25-year existence.

 

I agree about the image on page 59. The upper photo caption lists the formation as SK, SK, CK, BSK on 8 June 1957 and the train is captioned as being the Bradford portion of the up ‘White Rose’. However, the first vehicle is clearly a Gresley 8-bay open second (formerly third) not an SK. The second vehicle is partially obscured by a signal post but appears to be a Diag 9 52’ 6” CK not an SK (formerly TK). The third vehicle is a BR Standard (Mark I) open second (formerly third) not a CK. The fourth vehicle is a Gresley 48-seat BSO (formerly BTO) to Diag 196 or 303. By 1954, the Bradford portion of the ‘White Rose’ was all BR Standard (Mark I) stock (BTK, CK, SK, BTK in winter 1954-5 and TSO, BSK, CK in summer 1958).

 

I could go into lots more detail but here is not the place. I would still like to see Volume 2, which was promised but seems to have disappeared from Ian Allan's list of forthcoming books. The secondary services are in need of some decent coverage.

 

Doubtless my latest article in BRM had errors in it!

 

The publishers used the wrong photo, their mistake I believe.

 

Good to hear a second run is contemplated correcting errors but wouldn't it also be useful if errata sheets can be published for downloading? For those of us who rely on such books for information, we tend to work on the assumption that a published source is correct. -n errata sheet would be helpful to add into the fly leaf of my copy for future reference

 

David

I believe that such data is being added to his website.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Headstock

[Clearwater]

The publishers used the wrong photo, their mistake I believe.

 

 

I believe that such data is being added to his website.

Thanks - do you have a link?

 

David

[Headstock]

http://www.steve-banks.org/

[mullie]

I started out modelling the steam/diesel transition era in East Anglia. I had always been fascinated by the late 40s early 50s period and the amazing photos posted by Dave F on his thread were the tipping point. I have no idea why.

 

I took the decision to rip out all my generic buildings and take the diesels etc off the layout reverting to a period around 1948 to 55 allowing the very earliest diesels and some elderly steam locos and stock. Eighteen months in and working on a very limited budget (and time) I'm enjoying my modelling much more and adapting and building things. To date two Silver Fox J70s have been added to my largely rtr stud most of which have been renumbered and weathered and I've just finishing bashing some Triang clerestories into something passable until such time as I develop the skills and have the time to build some proper stock. Nearly all the BR wagons have gone as well. I started the layout eight years ago and it could easily take another eight years to get anywhere near completion although a new and improved version might come about by then building on the skills I've learnt.

 

I was born in 1964 so have no recollection of steam at all as it had gone from Brentwood where I grew up. I consider myself to be doing a 'reverse modernisation plan' starting with diesels/BR stock and gradually removing it!

 

If anyone knows any good links for this period then hopefully Sir won't mind you posting them on here or on my Upbech thread below. I have most line books by Oakwood and Middleton press relevant to my area and have found some good links on the web but this does not seem to be a particularly well reported era perhaps because of restrictions imposed by rationing especially out in the wilds of Cambridgeshire.

 

My other interest is South and West London around the very end of steam in the area so perhaps I just like to make things hard for myself.

 

Martyn

[robertcwp]

The publishers used the wrong photo, their mistake I believe.

 

That would not surprise me but it must have been a different photo of the same engine at the same location (61268 at Lofthouse) or the publishers really screwed up and changed the caption to match the engine in the wrong image, which also would not surprise me.

 

I can also understand the authors' frustration at badly cropped images - in one or two cases the cropping lost part of what the caption was pointing out.

 

I did spot various other errors in captions and a few in text but I expect that most will have been picked up already.

 

I know someone who has written books for several publishers and who has had plenty of bad experiences with things that were correct when they left him and ended up wrong. Publishers are not inclined to give much time for checking proofs either.

 

Away from railways, I'm a contributor to my firm's annual accounting manual so I'm well aware of how difficult it is to get things right. We have the added issue of developments occurring all the time. No sooner have we submitted one year than we start building up the file of things to address next year.

[robertcwp]

Thanks Robert,

 

Though I tried very hard I could not find any errors in your latest piece in BRM. Must I try harder? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Clearly!

 

In fairness, there is a clue to the possible lack of errors at the end of the article. Error reduction was largely due to Messrs Kirby, Jenkins, Marsh and Teale.

 

The one disappointing thing was that I had no images of A3s on the GC when I submitted the article then purchased three very soon afterwards. So, to make amends, here is the Master Cutler image that would have been there had the article been done a few months later:

 

60107_up-Cutler_Belgrave-Birstall_1950 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

I find that articles take far too long to do so I don't plan on doing any more, even for society journals. I have turned down a couple of invitations recently, as well as approaches from two publishers to do books.

[robertcwp]

I started out modelling the steam/diesel transition era in East Anglia. I had always been fascinated by the late 40s early 50s period and the amazing photos posted by Dave F on his thread were the tipping point. I have no idea why.

 

I took the decision to rip out all my generic buildings and take the diesels etc off the layout reverting to a period around 1948 to 55 allowing the very earliest diesels and some elderly steam locos and stock. Eighteen months in and working on a very limited budget (and time) I'm enjoying my modelling much more and adapting and building things. To date two Silver Fox J70s have been added to my largely rtr stud most of which have been renumbered and weathered and I've just finishing bashing some Triang clerestories into something passable until such time as I develop the skills and have the time to build some proper stock. Nearly all the BR wagons have gone as well. I started the layout eight years ago and it could easily take another eight years to get anywhere near completion although a new and improved version might come about by then building on the skills I've learnt.

 

I was born in 1964 so have no recollection of steam at all as it had gone from Brentwood where I grew up. I consider myself to be doing a 'reverse modernisation plan' starting with diesels/BR stock and gradually removing it!

 

If anyone knows any good links for this period then hopefully Sir won't mind you posting them on here or on my Upbech thread below. I have most line books by Oakwood and Middleton press relevant to my area and have found some good links on the web but this does not seem to be a particularly well reported era perhaps because of restrictions imposed by rationing especially out in the wilds of Cambridgeshire.

 

My other interest is South and West London around the very end of steam in the area so perhaps I just like to make things hard for myself.

 

Martyn

Try the Great Eastern Railway Society if you are not already a member.

[Tony Wright]

Clearly!

 

In fairness, there is a clue to the possible lack of errors at the end of the article. Error reduction was largely due to Messrs Kirby, Jenkins, Marsh and Teale.

 

The one disappointing thing was that I had no images of A3s on the GC when I submitted the article then purchased three very soon afterwards. So, to make amends, here is the Master Cutler image that would have been there had the article been done a few months later:

 

60107_up-Cutler_Belgrave-Birstall_1950 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

I find that articles take far too long to do so I don't plan on doing any more, even for society journals. I have turned down a couple of invitations recently, as well as approaches from two publishers to do books.

Thanks again Robert,

 

What a fantastic picture, and an A3 still with right-hand drive as well. 

 

I, too, find it very frustrating when a published work differs from what I sent out. The cropping of images is a constant problem and makes a caption bizarre on occasions. I recall once commenting on the bow end of an A4's corridor tender and the provision of a buckeye coupling in a three-quarter rear shot, only to find the image cropped as far as just the tender's front handrail. 

 

Whenever I submit a piece, I always give more than is required; working on the principle that it's easier to remove material than try and make something up. The problem is, even though I might insist (in block capitals) that such and such a photograph or such and such a paragraph be retained at all costs, they're often dumped. Then there's the issue of the incorrect caption, where a designer has copied and pasted a previous one to arrange a text box, but then just left it. It's especially galling when the missing caption is an introduction to subsequent ones. 

 

There's also the sub-editor who sub-edits everything to the extent that the piece no longer makes sense or is applicable to what's described. Years ago I submitted a piece on my making of a strung drawbar for kit-built locos. By its very design and application it HAD to be solder-fixed. For some reason glue started to be mentioned; because a wider audience-appeal was sought? At that point I thought, why bother? And submitted nothing more. 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Tony Wright

[mullie]

Try the Great Eastern Railway Society if you are not already a member.

Been a member since around 1980, also a member of the M & GN society, both excellent.

 

Many thanks

 

Martyn

[Headstock]

The Master Cutler, about 8 or 9 months earlier than the photo above. The question is, is it the up or down train?

 

One of my articles was tweaked in the proof with made up gunk. Once I explained it was made up the magazine was fine, and I got an extra word count so everybody was happy. I have to agree with Robert writing articles is incredibly time-consuming. I try to avoid them if at all possible.

 

Photo courtesy of Derek Shore

Edited October 27, 2016 by Headstock

[Headstock]

Clearly!

 

In fairness, there is a clue to the possible lack of errors at the end of the article. Error reduction was largely due to Messrs Kirby, Jenkins, Marsh and Teale.

 

The one disappointing thing was that I had no images of A3s on the GC when I submitted the article then purchased three very soon afterwards. So, to make amends, here is the Master Cutler image that would have been there had the article been done a few months later:

 

60107_up-Cutler_Belgrave-Birstall_1950 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

I find that articles take far too long to do so I don't plan on doing any more, even for society journals. I have turned down a couple of invitations recently, as well as approaches from two publishers to do books.

Hi Robert,

 

I never did read your finished article, when and where may I find it?

Edited October 27, 2016 by Headstock

[Willie Whizz]

The Banks and Carter book is not perfect (there's a small issue with the coverage of my own part of the world too) - but IMHO it remains the best (and indeed quite possibly the only) comprehensive introduction to this most complex subject.  If anyone has published a better one, please let us know!  Anyone who thinks they could do better, overall, well I look forward to reading yours when it's published ...

 

As has been mentioned, Mr Banks has listed a number of corrections and additions to the book on his website.  Some months ago I was given to understand that 'Volume 2' was still hoped to be published but had been 'delayed by illness', but since then it has all gone completely quiet, and though his website still suggests it will be issued "in about a year or so", that wording itself is at least a year old.  There was even for a time a picture of the proposed cover on Amazon (featuring an A5 tank) as a forthcoming item, but again that disappeared from view some months ago.

 

Many years ago I was for a time a member of the Great Central Railway Society; and we were excited in my local branch to be able to book a talk by a chap who was about to have a book on the GC London Extention published.  This was Robert Rowbotham, and by the time the meeting actually came around his book "The Last Years of the Great Central Main Line" had come out - and had been torn to pieces by 'knowledgeable' GC enthusiasts, so riddled was it (allegedly) with errors in the captions to the pictures.  When this was raised with him, Rowbotham - quite a young man - became rather emotional, and told us in visible despair that when the 'proofs' came back from Ian Allen he had identified virtually every single one of them, and sent back corrections of them in ample time before printing - only for his corrections to be completely ignored, and indeed a whole series of additional errors to have crept in!  Although he went on to write a couple more works along a similar theme, his reputation as a serious railway author was basically trashed as a result.

 

The moral is, I suppose, that we should always be a little careful in criticising the Author if a book contains errors.  Often it will be their fault; but sometimes it won't necessarily be.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Years ago I submitted a piece on my making of a strung drawbar 

 

Was it nervous and highly strung Tony?

 

Mike.

Apologies,

[Blandford1969]

Been a member since around 1980, also a member of the M & GN society, both excellent.

 

Many thanks

 

Martyn

 If you want to look at some GER station views - which were supposedly taken F.V Russel one of the founders of the Jazz service, have you seen my selection on Flick https://www.flickr.com/photos/29644579@N07/albums/72157650517526631 . As more information has come to light quite a few appear to be around 1947 official views 5 years after he died.!

[Tony Wright]

The Banks and Carter book is not perfect (there's a small issue with the coverage of my own part of the world too) - but IMHO it remains the best (and indeed quite possibly the only) comprehensive introduction to this most complex subject.  If anyone has published a better one, please let us know!  Anyone who thinks they could do better, overall, well I look forward to reading yours when it's published ...

 

As has been mentioned, Mr Banks has listed a number of corrections and additions to the book on his website.  Some months ago I was given to understand that 'Volume 2' was still hoped to be published but had been 'delayed by illness', but since then it has all gone completely quiet, and though his website still suggests it will be issued "in about a year or so", that wording itself is at least a year old.  There was even for a time a picture of the proposed cover on Amazon (featuring an A5 tank) as a forthcoming item, but again that disappeared from view some months ago.

 

Many years ago I was for a time a member of the Great Central Railway Society; and we were excited in my local branch to be able to book a talk by a chap who was about to have a book on the GC London Extention published.  This was Robert Rowbotham, and by the time the meeting actually came around his book "The Last Years of the Great Central Main Line" had come out - and had been torn to pieces by 'knowledgeable' GC enthusiasts, so riddled was it (allegedly) with errors in the captions to the pictures.  When this was raised with him, Rowbotham - quite a young man - became rather emotional, and told us in visible despair that when the 'proofs' came back from Ian Allen he had identified virtually every single one of them, and sent back corrections of them in ample time before printing - only for his corrections to be completely ignored, and indeed a whole series of additional errors to have crept in!  Although he went on to write a couple more works along a similar theme, his reputation as a serious railway author was basically trashed as a result.

 

The moral is, I suppose, that we should always be a little careful in criticising the Author if a book contains errors.  Often it will be their fault; but sometimes it won't necessarily be.

Willie,

 

You're quite right, it is all too easy to be critical of published works,even though the critic might never have written anything him/herself. One also sees this sort of things at exhibitions, where (often loud-voiced) critics pontificate on why this or that cannot possibly be right. I've mentioned before about my secret weapon of being a photographer and requesting that I take pictures of their layout (implying that is must be wonderful), only to find those Stentorian opinioners (I've just invented a word!) disappearing at great speed. That said, though I'd never have been able to play cricket for England (because of lack of skill), I still I can retain the right to be highly critical of an individual's performance - bowling pies or making a rash stroke. Just in the same way that we can all be critical of the England football team's miserable performance in Europe last summer. 

 

I've had some critics which have been quite strident, vowing NEVER to buy a magazine with my work in it ever again. One fellow Cestrian, on reading my urchin tales in BRILL, considered my parents to be highly irresponsible in letting their young charge out in the dead of night to watch The Irish Mail. When I pointed out to him that the train of that name ran during the day, he rather shut up. He'd got muddled up with the overnight mail trains for Ireland. One Scotsman, bless him, thought his idea of infernal damnation was to spend eternity talking to me in a non-corridor carriage! Another Scot opined that I wrote the most useless drivel and he'd never look at any (really boring) layout I'd been involved with. I sent him him a complimentary ticket for the Glasgow Show where Stoke was being exhibited. He didn't show up, or, if he did, he was a wimp!  One guy sent one of my books back, demanding a refund. 

 

Though I think you're right that the book in question is by far the best on the subject, at £45.00 one might have expected better? Anyway, one of the authors has been known in the past to be highly critical of others' published work, so he can't expect to be always bullet-proof. 

 

Me? I'm just completing the manuscript for my Crowood book - pages and pages of it. Believe me, unless one writes a best-seller, one'll never get well-off writing railway books. 

[Headstock]

Thanks again Robert,

 

What a fantastic picture, and an A3 still with right-hand drive as well. 

 

Didn't you mean to say, 'what a fantastic picture, no less than five carriages in a row providing first class accommodation, and not obscured by the right-hand drive A3 thingy'.

[robertcwp]

A while back, followers of this thread will have seen that Tony helped John Houlden dispose of his 00 stock following the retirement of his exhibition layout 'Gamston Bank' - a sad loss in my view. I bought a few of the carriages and today I put two of them into running condition for my layout, which basically meant fitting Sprat & Winkle couplings and trying to persuade them to take Peco double slips.

 

An LNER-designed (but BR built) BZ and an LMS Stove R, both Comet kits.  They need a bit of attention as they have suffered some knocks from exhibition use. Here they are on their trial run today:

 

P1070884am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The BZ was fine. The Stove R is a bit fussy on the slips but managed to remain on the track in its last few test runs.

Edited July 7, 2017 by robertcwp