Wright writes.....

[MJI]

I reckon you've got a point, how many "punters" know the difference between a diagram 24 and 27 catering car, and how many realise it's not an ordinary coach anyway?

I like my coaches, don't get me wrong, but as long as the formation doffs it's cap towards reality that's fine for me if the real thing isn't immediately available as a kit or RTR, or if you haven't got the time or skills to adapt a model, as Brian Kirby so magnificently does.

Selective compression kicks in as well, how many modellers have enough room for full length trains, something has to be omitted.

 

Mike.

 

Mike.

 

Selective compression can be very difficult.

 

My HST I drop TGS and a FO, actually TGS may be too recent.

 

But I find it difficult to do 50% or more, so have now decided on 6 coaches, so need to modify my layout as the terminus station only does 4 plus loco. But that can wait until I have more time and less money. (turning into through and making a removable section is possible.)

 

I usually drop seconds and if more than one first a first.

 

One set a mix of Mark 1, 2A, 2B and 2C stock I drop one of two 2A TSOs, and two of three 2C TSOs, leaving BG, 2A TSO, 2B FK, RMB, 2C TSO, 2C BSO.

 

Not really that satisfying but may be one day I can run longer, but at least it represents part of the cross country expresses.

[Headstock]

Peterborough North is another I might mention as a 10% layout. I have never seen it in the flesh, but I love looking at photos of it. On the subject of 'dumbing down', some layouts definitely need a button for this mounted on the front while others need one for informative- interesting.

[MJI]

Also do not neglect earlier models, if they are accurate why not use them?

 

Airfix aircon stock is pretty good, still looks good with laserglaze and etched window frames. I originally had 12, now quite a few more FOs and BSOs to produce FKs BFKs and 2E TSOs

 

Triang Hornby Mark 1s, they were decent enough models, but unlike Bachmann very cheap. Replica glazing solves one issue, bogies, I used commonwealths off some Replica BGs which were then fitted with B4

 

TH Mark 2 stock is also quite decent, but flush glazing is hard work. Lima 2Bs are only acceptable rather than decent, but can detail up really well.

 

And also they are not out of box they are MY coaches.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Andrew - many thanks for the kind words on the Centenaries. I struggled with deciding what to use for the angle iron, eventually settling on square-section plastic rod, and hoping that when painted black it wouldn't look too out of place or too thick/thin (can't remember which, now!). I'd have had a concern with it being too fragile, but it's largely supported by the gas cylinders in this case. Having got a bit better with soldering since I did these, I'd probably try to do them out of metal now.

Alastair,

 

At the risk of being accused of dumbing-down, I make my 'angle' trussing out of Code 75 nickel silver bullhead rail. 

 

The following pictures were part of the sequence of my build of the Mailcoach Silver Jubilee catering triplet as it was in later BR days. The trussing supplied with this kit was plastic; I looked at it and it shattered!

 

Since my main concern in building loads and loads of stock (other than it must be as 'accurate' as I can make it) is robustness and reliability in operation, then plastic (or even flimsy etched brass) is out of the question for things like trussing. Speaking of etched brass, most etched brass coach kits just give you flat trussing, with no angle whatsoever. Purists solder an extra strip of brass to give a 3D-effect. Since I'm certainly not pure, and yet want an impression of an angle, that's why I use rail, because the eye is deceived into believing that it's a single angle.

 

 

 

I glue strips of copperclad to the soleplate to attach the queen posts and ends of the trussing. The queen posts were attached first, then cut to the right length using a simple plastic spacer. Then the trussing was formed to shape using the drawing as a guide and everything soldered up solid. 

 

 

This is what it looks like unpainted. It's very secure. There should also be cross-trussing but I'm indolent. 

 

 

When painted, can you tell it's rail? Possibly, at close range?

 

 

But can you tell at 'stand-off' scale?

 

 

And, in use on a Tourist brake. Though my methods will probably cause outrage among those who 'do things properly', as a layout coach among countless other layout coaches I think I can get away with it, especially as I don't have to go around the layout picking up bits of carriage which have fallen off. 

 

Splendid GWR coach conversions, by the way. My compliments.  

Edited November 10, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Barry Ten]

That's excellent and informative, Tony - many thanks. I will definitely have a go at that method next time. I'd also far rather have something that stayed in place, even if it wasn't 100% accurate.

[Headstock]

That's excellent and informative, Tony - many thanks. I will definitely have a go at that method next time. I'd also far rather have something that stayed in place, even if it wasn't 100% accurate.

 

I would recommend L-shaped brass section available from purveyors of such stock. I believe that the GWR reversed the way this was fitted to at least some carriages compared to LNER practice so that a very fine top edge was visible when viewing the carriage from the side. In addition, the fitting of cross bracing will make the whole thing much sturdier as on the prototype.

[Tony Wright]

I would recommend L-shaped brass section available from purveyors of such stock. I believe that the GWR reversed the way this was fitted to at least some carriages compared to LNER practice so that a very fine top edge was visible when viewing the carriage from the side. In addition, the fitting of cross bracing will make the whole thing much sturdier as on the prototype.

I endorse your recommendation, Andrew. However, having used such items, I end up with a buckle when I put a bend in the L-shaped angle. Could it be my incompetence? Or, should I break it up into individual sections? 

 

Out of interest, I've just looked at some high-quality carriages produced, years ago, by Derek Lawrence. Though the painting is exemplary the trussing seems to be even more 'sketch-book' than mine; just a single strip of brass and no cross-trussing at all. 

 

I've also looked at a Comet etch for an LNER carriage underframe. The trussing is etched out of the soleplate, and just comes in the flat. 

 

I still think, for layout carriages in layout rakes (of up to 14/15 bogies), a 'sketch-book' approach to underframe detail can have merit.That said, having seen your carriages, I concede you're in a higher league than I am. 

 

Another thing I should have mentioned, and it's evident from the pictures, is my soldering of things like edges of battery boxes and the ends of dynamos to the trussing. Whilst this is not right (there should be slight gaps), when the carriage underframe is complete, painted and weathered, it's all but impossible to tell. For metal V-hangers I do the same. That way, nothing falls off. I wish I could say the same for some of the carriages I've photographed, both those built from kits by others and, particularly, more recent RTR. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Tony Wright

[cctransuk]

However, having used such items, I end up with a buckle when I put a bend in the L-shaped angle. Could it be my incompetence? Or, should I break it up into individual sections?

 

I file a narrow V into the vertical flange before bending; a touch of solder restores the integrity of the L section.

 

That said, the majority of my 'layout' carriages - most of which are modified / detailed Tri-ang Hornby and Lima Mk.1s - have square plastic strip truss rods.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[jwealleans]

Yes, what John said. Once you've soldered the queenpost on and filed it flat it's impossible to see once painted.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

What utter tosh.  I had a subscription to Dibber25's fine magazine right to the bitter end (MRC), when I was 9 to 11.  While there were things that were way above what I could do then, it was inspirational, and until replaced with a MRJ subscription when I was 14 or so, sadly missed.  I can't understand how dumbing down anything is going to make it better for the reader- they should be able to cope with what is written, but if you cannot, the answer is right at the tip of your fingers now, with a cell, laptop or tablet being everywhere.  As regards to reading, I conned my sister into reading "Big Red Train Ride" to me, when I was 6 or 7, and then my first real book is (I have it downstairs...) Fire on the Line (Avril Rowlands), so certainly a railway connection.  Dad had hundreds of copies of Model Engineer- I have the 39-52 spares here now, and certainly would feel no worries about jamming them into the hands of my big lad if he had any interest.  It's thought processes like that which I don't get.  If the article is reasonably well edited, then it will hold the readers interest even if they have no intention of doing anything with it.  (I'm never going to build Black Dog Halt, but I can remember reading about it, and have since then used some of the ideas from it).

 

 

James

Hello James,

 

I seem to have provoked a strong emotion in you? Sadly I have no clue as to whom 'Dibbler25' is.

 

I would mention - sorry to take up Thread space  - re the 'tosh' aspect of your Post, I never mentioned, for example, MRC or any other specific publication. I used to get given MRC Annuals etc as a child, for Christmas, and I still refer to certain articles within even now......

 

.......Also I am none the wiser as to your angle on my previous comments. Just to clarify though, and to be just a little controversial again, I have the hard-copy facts, in writing (letters and emails), from several, amateur authors/modellers, who, by their standing, leave my 'jottings' and model-making in the dark ages by comparison. I would not say, or write what I did in my previous Post, if it were not true. I wont, for obvious reasons, be mentioning the authors' or editor's names or indeed the magazine(s) in question either.

 

It is true to say that across the board standards have improved in almost every aspect of railway modelling over the past 30 years, of course they have - yet since the so called 'recession' (I say so called, as austerity, doesn't apply to everyone and certain factions have made a lot money out of others' misery), ie 2008 onwards, certain magazines have, subtly 'dumbed down', with a bias towards RTR.

 

Please allow me to hypothesise a little. Let us say that with a level of dumbing down in certain quarters, the readership, if loyal, ie only reading one or two of the mainstream mags., know no better (I realise that this is a very simplistic example), thus if manufacturer X releases a RTR model that is wholly inaccurate then the crowd knows no better, rather like the emperors' new clothes, yet purchases said model by the box load. In addition if only RTR is ever mentioned in terms of eg. coaching consist articles then the uninitiated/the newcomer is not aware of the kits available for said same models or to fill in the gaps. Simplistic examples, I know. In addition there are less 'how to articles' by amateurs and with the comments these other authors have made to me, they are slowing the level of submissions to certain magazines because they feel that they are being forced to dumb down and thus, in effect, short change, the readership and up to a point I can see their POV. Thus becoming an ever self-fulfilling prophecy. If kit and scratch building - ie tacit knowledge - becomes eroded, forgotten, then the RTR manufacturers have it all their own way. Although cheesy in places, I would recommend a viewing of 'They Live' (particularity the part whereby the protagonist, John Nada, views the glossy magazines on the news-stand, with the 'special glasses' on!). My examples are crass in their simplicity, yet I am sure that you will get my drift and the thrust of what I wrote earlier.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live

 

Certain pop-group combo's have also written about such phenomena  ....

 

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rageagainstthemachine/bulletinthehead.html

 

Remember that only 1/3rd of the world is on, or has access to, the internet......

 

I have, over the years, been lucky enough to have written for numerous magazines, including club journals/mags. etc., those outside of the world of model railways and the 'dumbing down' and advertiser led articles are much worse in other hobbies/past-times and started much earlier, some 25 years earlier in some cases/hobbies........

 

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at here, James. 

 

If you think what CME has written is 'utter tosh', I have to disagree. I do agree about Chris Leigh's Model Railway Constructor being a fine magazine, and it's the one I bought out of preference in the '60s/early-70s. Interestingly, I think Ian Allan closed it because of a circulation figure that many magazines would be happy with today. 

 

Returning to CME's points, I think there has been a dumbing-down in some areas of the hobby. Having once written a complete set of instructions for a kit, I was a bit miffed to find that many 'big' words had gone and the emphasis was more on the step-by-step pictorial approach. I've mentioned before how the instructions in the kits in my younger days (I'm speaking of Airfix and Kitmaster here) were incredibly educational, consisting of 'naming of parts', not just 'stick part 1 to part 2' as seems to be the case with many plastic kits these days.

 

I've also mentioned how one editor was very twitchy about an article he was presenting because it mentioned a soldering iron!

 

Whether it's because I'm getting even more grumpy in my twilight years I'm not sure, but I'm convinced there has been a decline in folk actually making things in this hobby, or, perhaps, more complex things. At every show I go to the conversations seem to be much the same - the decline of kits and the rise of the 'easy-to-do'. If this is true, then might this be why there is a 'perception' among some that this is the reason why written articles appear to be 'dumbed down'? Certainly, when I look back at, say, an article I wrote 20 years ago on the building of a DJH Crosti-boilered 2-10-0 (actually, an ex-Crosti), I don't think I took more than five or six pictures (medium-format transparency in those days), letting several thousand words tell the explanation of how I did it. In my forthcoming book for Crowood I explain my building of a D2 and there are nearly 40 step-by-step pictures, each one with (I hope) an informative caption. Even with those captions, the word count is less than a quarter of that for the Crosti. I'm not suggesting this is an example of 'dumbing-down' on the part of a good publisher (if anyone accused me of dumbing-down anything, I'd become extremely hostile!) but that's just the way it is now.

 

Personally, I prefer word-meaty articles. That's what I write for BRILL. Though my latest Irwell book on the Deltics is pictorial, I've ensured there are as many extended captions as space permitted.  

 

Finally, as to whether there really has been a decline in the making of things, may I make this point, please? My work today is to take product pictures for BRM of several new Hornby locos. They include a Crosti 2-10-0. Even though it's in the 'Railroad' range and doesn't appear to have any brakes, it looks to be an excellent model. I haven't looked at its price but I imagine it's under £100.00, or thereabouts. To build a DJH equivalent (even if it did have brakes) I'd need more than that just for the wheels, motor and gearbox! My point? Why bother making anything like this, and why bother writing about it? 

Thank you Tony, I agree with your above mentioned comments.

 

Your last paragraph, ie reflecting 'progress' and we all have to adapt to such, I admit that we do. You mention why bother making such or writing about it - and I know that with fettling the Hornby RR 9F makes a good layout model - yet we are back to the concept/issue/construct? of, the satisfaction and joy achieved when being creative, thus the therapeutic aspect of the hobby, so perhaps the hobby cannot be measured by value for money (£s) alone? Hornby and other companies do, on the whole, a good job and the likes of Simon Kohler have helped us all in that regard, ie in moving the hobby forward. True to say that some folk are; 'cash rich and time poor', yet are they missing a trick too, ie about having life in balance - time to stop and smell the roses and/or build a kit or two? Instant gratification and 'retail-therapy' (yuk!) seem all too prevalent in this day and age....It is what it is though and the wisdom of King Canute will have to prevail I guess (as far as I am concerned).....

 

Magazine publishing is very different from back then. Print costs are far lower in real terms and potential advertising revenues way up. So circulation figures matter a bit less.

Indeed Joseph, so therefore who are the masters that certain publications now serve?

 

Methods and modes of communication change with the years and available technology. Certainly printing advances make pictures showing intricate detail possible in a way they weren't 30+ years ago. For example, Phil Mallard posted some excellent pictures of a comet coach the other day showing how to get the gap at the bottom. There are pictures in the comet guide but they're not as clear. In terms of other media, is interesting to note Tony's excellent DVD is linked to from DJH's front page.

 

With the rise of ipads, I rarely buy print copies of magazines but do buy them for my iPad. Increasingly those have 'smart' content - i.e. You can click on a picture for more pictures etc. If I was a magazine editor, I'd consider taking Tony's existing DVD and setting it step by step to an article or e-zine where you can read the description and then click on the picture to take you to a video clip of the technique being demonstrated.

 

I know I've found the DVD invaluable as have others (grob123 I think has commented similarly).

 

In terms of language, google is invaluable but sometimes particular jargon can't be found easily. e.g. Queen Post (try googling that - I worked it out but took a while to confirm what I thought.)

 

David

Good points David, digital photography is a real boon. Because of LS dyslexia I find reading on a computer screen a challenge and being 'middle-aged' I still relish the joy of holding a book in my hands, the smell and the feel of it are much nicer than a back-lit, blue-light machine. The Right-Track DVD's were excellent and I believe that there is still a great deal of scope and mileage in them (or the concept thereof) to be developed further in terms of technology/access and model-making subject matter. It is always pleasing to view layouts and the like on/from the cover DVDs (BRM), albeit they are often, out of necessity, tantalisingly too short though     I liked it when Model Rail produced longer DVDs/Videos. In fact I remember early MRs with the cover photo of a model loco photo-shopped onto a real background and all the 'doing' type articles within, although they tended to be staff modeller led, they did inspire the readership to have a go and MR must have been one of the first to do the step by step photo articles and issue videos? I guess it is about balance and perhaps certain publications have swung too far the other way now? But I digress....

 

Alastair,

 

At the risk of being accused of dumbing-down, I make my 'angle' trussing out of Code 75 nickel silver bullhead rail. 

 

The following pictures were part of the sequence of my build of the Mailcoach Silver Jubilee catering triplet as it was in later BR days. The trussing supplied with this kit was plastic; I looked at it and it shattered!

 

Since my main concern in building loads and loads of stock (other than it must be as 'accurate' as I can make it) is robustness and reliability in operation, then plastic (or even flimsy etched brass) is out of the question for things like trussing. Speaking of etched brass, most etched brass coach kits just give you flat trussing, with no angle whatsoever. Purists solder an extra strip of brass to give a 3D-effect. Since I'm certainly not pure, and yet want an impression of an angle, that's why I use rail, because the eye is deceived into believing that it's a single angle.

 

Mailcoach carriages 13.jpg

 

I glue strips of copperclad to the soleplate to attach the queen posts and ends of the trussing. The queen posts were attached first, then cut to the right length using a simple plastic spacer. Then the trussing was formed to shape using the drawing as a guide and everything soldered up solid. 

 

Mailcoach carriages 14.jpg

 

This is what it looks like unpainted. It's very secure. There should also be cross-trussing but I'm indolent. 

 

Mailcoach carriages 18.jpg

 

When painted, can you tell it's rail? Possibly, at close range?

 

Mailcoach carriages 37.jpg

 

But can you tell at 'stand-off' scale?

 

Mailcoach carriages 38.jpg

 

And, in use on a Tourist brake. Though my methods will probably cause outrage among those who 'do things properly', as a layout coach among countless other layout coaches I think I can get away with it, especially as I don't have to go around the layout picking up bits of carriage which have fallen off. 

 

Splendid GWR coach conversions, by the way. My compliments.  

.....I believe that the focus has to be about robustness and practicality for hard-working models - for dumbing down with coach construction please see the bottom of this page....

 

I endorse your recommendation, Andrew. However, having used such items, I end up with a buckle when I put a bend in the L-shaped angle. Could it be my incompetence? Or, should I break it up into individual sections? 

 

Out of interest, I've just looked at some high-quality carriages produced, years ago, by Derek Lawrence. Though the painting is exemplary the trussing seems to be even more 'sketch-book' than mine; just a single strip of brass and no cross-trussing at all. 

 

I've also looked at a Comet etch for an LNER carriage underframe. The trussing is etched out of the soleplate, and just comes in the flat. 

 

I still think, for layout carriages in layout rakes (of up to 14/15 bogies), a 'sketch-book' approach to underframe detail can have merit.That said, having seen your carriages, I concede you're in a higher league than I am. 

 

Another thing I should have mentioned, and it's evident from the pictures, is my soldering of things like edges of battery boxes and the ends of dynamos to the trussing. Whilst this is not right (there should be slight gaps), when the carriage underframe is complete, painted and weathered, it's all but impossible to tell. For metal V-hangers I do the same. That way, nothing falls off. I wish I could say the same for some of the carriages I've photographed, both those built from kits by others and, particularly, more recent RTR. 

I clicked on Andrew's comments, as technically, he is right, yet bending 'L' section through certain planes, is often, nigh on impossible without it kinking, I have opted, philosophically, to model, only the pertinent (seen and obvious) parts of the under-frames of my coaches. I avoided bending 'L' section in several instances on the MK1's and no one has noticed yet and the parts are stronger for it - especially for a garage-garden-garage railway. The photos hereunder; the models have more detail to be added as they are WIP when these photos were taken, yet not much more detail...

 

Kindest regards to all,

 

CME

Edited November 10, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[chris p bacon]

 Sadly I have no clue as to whom 'Dibbler25' is.

 

 

CME

Dibber25 is Chris Leigh (Model Railway Constructor and Model Rail editor)

[Barry Ten]

I might be wrong here, but my reading of Peach James's post was that he actually agreed with CME's sentiments, but he was just saying that it was "utter tosh" to go down the dumbing-down road.

[westerner]

I must admit that's what I thought. In my opinion he was saying it was utter tosh to dumb down, not that you were talking tosh.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Dibber25 is Chris Leigh (Model Railway Constructor and Model Rail editor)

Thanks Chris, I now Know who Dibbler25 is.....had a few chats with Mr Leigh over the years...

 

I might be wrong here, but my reading of Peach James's post was that he actually agreed with CME's sentiments, but he was just saying that it was "utter tosh" to go down the dumbing-down road.

 

 

I must admit that's what I thought. In my opinion he was saying it was utter tosh to dumb down, not that you were talking tosh.

 

Thanks chaps - I have amended my previous Post (in reply) a little...so we are saying that James may have not dotted the I's and crossed the Ts in his opening statement?

 

I took no offence per se, just wanted to clarify the facts - I know how hard it is to try and portray what one wants to say on-line, and have to check and triple check what I have written such are my reading and writing skills/lack of them.

 

ATVB and kind regards,

 

CME

Edited November 10, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Dibber25 is Chris Leigh (Model Railway Constructor and Model Rail editor)

Loving your Avatar/Icon Chris      

[Lightning]

Selective compression can be very difficult.

 

My HST I drop TGS and a FO, actually TGS may be too recent.

 

But I find it difficult to do 50% or more, so have now decided on 6 coaches, so need to modify my layout as the terminus station only does 4 plus loco. But that can wait until I have more time and less money. (turning into through and making a removable section is possible.)

 

I usually drop seconds and if more than one first a first.

 

One set a mix of Mark 1, 2A, 2B and 2C stock I drop one of two 2A TSOs, and two of three 2C TSOs, leaving BG, 2A TSO, 2B FK, RMB, 2C TSO, 2C BSO.

 

Not really that satisfying but may be one day I can run longer, but at least it represents part of the cross country expresses.

At the risk of appearing controversial , as an Irishman was used to saying "No compromise".  A TRAIN IS A TRAIN ! Not half a train.

[coachmann]

Selective compression is probably forced on just about all of us, but is it a bad thing? I have seen a minor station built to scale and it looks so long and sprawling that it fails to capture the essence of the real thing. I recon it's to do with our eyes and the fact that we generally view everything from ground level. While we don't have telephoto-vision, we tend to isolate the things we see in the distance such as an approaching train. As it approaches I think our eyes compress it due to us scanning along it length rather than on the bufferbeam. Another example that springs to mind is platform length. The one at my local station is quite long yet I can clearly see people at the other end. It is only when I walk to meet them that i realise it's a long walk! 

 

When you move to a larger scale, selective compression means a lot more because you selectively compress your wallet and buy only the things you really need. My wife understands selective compression too.... "Keep that railway away from my washing line..."!  

Edited November 10, 2016 by coachmann

[Headstock]

I endorse your recommendation, Andrew. However, having used such items, I end up with a buckle when I put a bend in the L-shaped angle. Could it be my incompetence? Or, should I break it up into individual sections? 

 

Out of interest, I've just looked at some high-quality carriages produced, years ago, by Derek Lawrence. Though the painting is exemplary the trussing seems to be even more 'sketch-book' than mine; just a single strip of brass and no cross-trussing at all. 

 

I've also looked at a Comet etch for an LNER carriage underframe. The trussing is etched out of the soleplate, and just comes in the flat. 

 

I still think, for layout carriages in layout rakes (of up to 14/15 bogies), a 'sketch-book' approach to underframe detail can have merit.That said, having seen your carriages, I concede you're in a higher league than I am. 

 

Another thing I should have mentioned, and it's evident from the pictures, is my soldering of things like edges of battery boxes and the ends of dynamos to the trussing. Whilst this is not right (there should be slight gaps), when the carriage underframe is complete, painted and weathered, it's all but impossible to tell. For metal V-hangers I do the same. That way, nothing falls off. I wish I could say the same for some of the carriages I've photographed, both those built from kits by others and, particularly, more recent RTR. 

Tony,

 

sorry for the delayed reply, I had to go help pack the layout up for its trip up to Newcastle. I commend your belt and braces approach, an individual who's stock falls apart at an exhibition is probably second only to dirty wheel syndrome on the bad list. I would still recommend L section because it is strong and is actually used on the real thing. With Comet kits I usually remove the fold down trussing from the floor and solder L-shaped angle to the backs. I then reattach it to the back of the solebars. This also has the advantage that the queen posts are the correct length, Comet often will have one size to fit all. For example, Thompson carriages have deeper trussing than Gresley carriages, and Bulleid carriages are shallower than either. The cross bracing on LNER carriages is very simple represented, it consists of an L section that sits in the right angle formed by the main longitudinal trussing and the Queen posts. I believe that Comet produces simple brass etches for the cross bracing supports for a variety of carriages. Alternatively, on LNER carriages, it can be formed by bending L-shaped angle into a V shape using the notch method as described by other posters. I don't have any problems with trussing being represented by solid metal as you have done. On most carriages, this is how it would appear from normal viewing angles. However, just to be different, the GWR used the L-shaped section the other way about so that it would look more like the thin etches you describe from a normal viewing angle.

 

I must add that your tourist brake is a fine looking carriage, I would be most pleased with the results if it was one of mine. I'm especially drawn to the pipe running down the solebar as being very characteristic of these carriages. At the end of the day, the trussing that you have produced is a vast improvement on what is supplied in the kit, both in terms of looks and durability.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Dibber25 is Chris Leigh (Model Railway Constructor and Model Rail editor)

 

That's as maybe, but who is Dibbler25?

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

I must admit that's what I thought. In my opinion he was saying it was utter tosh to dumb down, not that you were talking tosh.

Alan,

 

Many thanks and I'm now inclined to agree with you and Alastair. However, even accepting my less-than-intelligent brain, the opening statement was ambiguous. 

[glo41f]

Fascinating stuff on this thread as ever. I feel that a model railway is a combination of various elements which , if done well, come together to project a wholly believable scenario. Train formations is one such element along with track and locomotives etc. I was privileged to be at a friends house on Tuesday.He has an extensive layout which has four stations. \Each station operator just got on with the sequence timetable and one was soon absorbed into the system becoming a part of a "real" railway where trains went about their business. It helped that there were no derailments and everything worked as it should,the whole being controlled by signals used properly. I came away inspired and wanting more. Contrast this to a visit to a local show where "realism" was not evident with layouts that were almost caricatures. I wondered if the modellers had ever looked at a real track layout such was the fanciful nature of some of them.

 

I suppose I am saying that it is possible to get it right (as is down at LB) but it requires dedication and effort which sadly seems in short supply these days.

 

Martin Long

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Selective compression is probably forced on just about all of us, but is it a bad thing? I have seen a minor station built to scale and it looks so long and sprawling that it fails to capture the essence of the real thing. I recon it's to do with our eyes and the fact that we generally view everything from ground level. While we don't have telephoto-vision, we tend to isolate the things we see in the distance such as an approaching train. As it approaches I think our eyes compress it due to us scanning along it length rather than on the bufferbeam. Another example that springs to mind is platform length. The one at my local station is quite long yet I can clearly see people at the other end. It is only when I walk to meet them that i realise it's a long walk! 

 

When you move to a larger scale, selective compression means a lot more because you selectively compress your wallet and buy only the things you really need. My wife understands selective compression too.... "Keep that railway away from my washing line..."!  

Indeed, railways, by their nature are linear and there is a complex equation re the MK1 eyeball, scale, viewing distance, viewing angle etc etc. The best explanation I have seen/heard was in on an episode of Model Town (copied for me by a good friend - thanks for copying that for me Chris) whereby the resident expert, which IIRC, was the fellow from Old Barn Models, came up with a very sensible and plausible explanation - but muggins here cant fully remember or elucidate the theory fully! Suffice to say we all have to compress our models and allow for the use of, often unrealistic and dissimilar materials when endeavouring to 'ape' the prototype.

Edited November 10, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[Tony Wright]

Selective compression is probably forced on just about all of us, but is it a bad thing? I have seen a minor station built to scale and it looks so long and sprawling that it fails to capture the essence of the real thing. I recon it's to do with our eyes and the fact that we generally view everything from ground level. While we don't have telephoto-vision, we tend to isolate the things we see in the distance such as an approaching train. As it approaches I think our eyes compress it due to us scanning along it length rather than on the bufferbeam. Another example that springs to mind is platform length. The one at my local station is quite long yet I can clearly see people at the other end. It is only when I walk to meet them that i realise it's a long walk! 

 

When you move to a larger scale, selective compression means a lot more because you selectively compress your wallet and buy only the things you really need. My wife understands selective compression too.... "Keep that railway away from my washing line..."!  

Larry,

 

You're probably dead right, and selective compression will always be necessary eventually, if only to go on and off scene convincingly. 

 

I'm not entirely sure, though, whether shortening trains to suit a more restricted location always works, especially if one has the space to model a real location to scale, or almost to scale. I have a nearly-50 wagon empty coal train on LB; the fiddle yard road it's in will accommodate more but I like to leave several wagons' length of plain track beyond a point so as to make sure a subsequent passing train doesn't clout it. The corresponding fulls are loaded to 42 wagons - again it could be longer, but safety-first.

 

 

 

Both trains are featured in this picture, and the empties is in the middle. For the purpose of this picture I made the rake up to 49 wagons and the brake van. You can just see the van in the station. Though I accept the limitations of space most modellers have to work with, if I shortened this train could it look wrong? I accept that there were much shorter freights but looking at some of Colin Walkers pictures taken in the area, most empties were longer than this. I realise if one takes lengths to extremes, trains can appear to be on the (model) horizon, which could be 'miles' away. Then they look wrong.

 

 

But what if the real horizon isn't that far away? When I met Gavin Morrison on BRM's business he said it was all right for me to use his pictures, if credited. So, I use this one here. It was taken in the winter of 1958, and shows an unfitted load of empties labouring up Stoke Bank through Little Bytham. I estimate there are about 50 wagons in this train. The loco is just short of the MR/M&GNR overbridge and the 'van is in the station.

 

 

 

Replicating this as best I could (even down to the same locomotive) means that, to be 'realistic', my train has to be the same length. The inevitable differences in the relative sizes of cameras mean I cannot get exactly the same angle, but I hope it illustrates my point. That point being, in order to accommodate 'scale length' ECML trains I would not attempt to model a prototype location in less than 30'. To me it wouldn't look right. Too many trains would have to be shortened, and, has 'Lightning' has mentioned 'no compromise'. I wish I could say that with conviction; however, I have not compromised on the length of my trains. 

 

 

This is my longest passenger train, and it's 14-cars long. It really represents an 'extra' and is taken from a prototype picture. 'Only' about seven cars can be seen, but one is 'aware' of more, or, at least, I hope so. 

[coachmann]

Selective compression cannot really work on a stretch of open track, as who is to say whether it is compressed or not. Station sites is where selcom comes in (See wot I dun?....I've just avoiding two big word haha). My version of Oswestry station is a joke really, but 3-coach train will have a good run out in the garden at a pedestrian pace. E.Region Pacific's on 10 bogies would be round the circuit in next to no time of course. 

[Headstock]

My longest express is formed of only 3 carriages, oh and 7 BG's, 1 BZ and 5 fish vans. I was pondering whether you would ever see such a train on a model railway without recourse to copying the prototype. I would mention that it is an express and not some type of parcels train. For those who have an interest in modeling train formations, I can thoroughly recommend the GC's London extension. Despite the above-mentioned example, the trains were generally shorter than on the ECM and can provide examples of formations from all the big four railway companies. I even here that the MK1 thing appeared sometime in the late period.