Leaderboard

Great to see progress Bryn. The colouring of everything is really on the money to my eyes.

Back to modelling, and thanks to Maurice and others who have shared their thoughts on this. Nearly 3 years ago I was gathering information on the East Fife Central [Lochty Branch] with a view to a modelling project. With the help of a few on this forum I got enough information on the Goods Offices used to model one, and spent Christmas making it. Ian Futers beat me to modelling Lochty, but the building is temporarily sited on the microlayout I built in Canada, now used for demonstration/testing, and as a backdrop for a Heljan 05. The building enabled me to model the contrasting sand coloured brick facings, marked out and cut from straw coloured paper. It was tedious to do, but there was learning, value and enjoyment in the process. Not a great model, but a pleasing one. Prototype photo by Ian Kirk.

As the editor of the MRJ which published Maurice's excellent article I would like to pick up on a couple of points. Firstly, the original text was not rejected, it was edited. As I said to Maurice I wanted readers to read it and in its original form it was too long and attempted to cover too much ground. It was an editorial decision to do this and whether it was the right one or not is for others to decide but I was keen that Maurice's article was included alongside the piece by Richard Ellis on Midland in Bristol and the editorial I penned. Secondly, the notion that MRJ was looking over its shoulders at what its advertisers might think, (or readers come to that) is just nonsense. A quick glance at any of the 270 odd MRJs to date will show that the RTR manufacturers have never advertised in its pages. If anything, an article championing self reliance and making things would be welcomed by those that do advertise. Thirdly, and most importantly, I rejected the basic premise of much of the argument. The notion that the use of plastics or other petrol based products is bad is simply wrong, its their single use that is the problem. If anything we should be encouraging modellers to make things from plasticard as its carbon footprint in terms of manufacturing it is many times smaller than that of card, paper or MDF which consume enormous amounts of energy in their production. Equating a single use plastic bag which ends up shredded and polluting our oceans with a plastic model which will hopefully last decades is a false comparison. For those interested, have a look at this article https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/31/plastics-cardboard regards Jerry

I liked the Lima class 31 and 47, transformed an off the shelf model to something that would hold it's own with stuff around today. I dug it out and had a look at it this morning! Steve.

Always good to see older models being upgraded to provides smooth running at 'realistic' speeds. Those older models were usually tough enough to survive a bit of rough handling by young enthusiasts. A very nice result.

Yep, pretty sure it did. Agreed, the colour supplement is where it comes to life. I remember being captivated by the mk1 coach. It looked so real!!!

Fifty years ago I converted three L1s into 2Ps. One went into LMS colours. The others went into SDJR versions - No. 77 of 1905 as shown in Athill plate 77 and the other no.70 was similar to the Midland versions. I only have a photo of the LMS version. The others are still packed away as they have been for 45+ years

Thanks for showing this, you have given me an idea for improving the older 2Ps I have acquired over the years. Jim

Very impressive. I enjoy seeing older models getting an upgrade.

Aren’t we really talking about envy? Jealousy is about me guarding my things from you: envy is about you wishing you had them... PS The evidence of overusing resources was present all along, well before 1970. What was lacking then - and still is now - is the across-the-spectrum political consensus required for climate control to become a sine qua non for any party hoping to win an election. President LB Johnson was made aware of this issue circa 1967/8, and was reportedly horrified not just by the prospect of resource depletion, but also the realisation that any party putting the issue (and the long term survival of the USA let alone the planet) was going to be wiped out at the next election. Easiest way to change attitudes is to tax products based on their total carbon footprint, to include distribution as well as manufacture. (It is possible to do this.) But which country is going to be prepared to do that? Who wants to put a tax on airline fuel? (All those cheap holidays suddenly become far too expensive. Airlines already fill up wherever fuel is cheapest, and carry literally tons of extra kerosene around to reduce the cost. To them. Not the cost to the environment.) The thing is, this isn’t that simple. Not taxing aviation fuel was probably the single most enduring feat of the Breton Woods conference. International commerce requires cheap international travel, and cheap international exchange of goods. Tax aviation fuel, and we return to a more localised production based on what is available in the neighbourhood. Which leads to a different form of constraint on resources, and ultimately means less international trade. And less international trade means more wars... Either way, human overpopulation results in high mortality rates: war, pollution or famine. Take your pick. The fourth horseman is going to be busy!

I agree and I think this is why most of the best model railways are (with the exception of some prodigious individuals) usually collaborative efforts. For instance, those at clubs, where the expertise of many individuals can come together to build something much more life-like. Your example of the bridge reminds me of a layout I saw quite recently which had a scene where a JCB was digging a hole in the road to install pipes... the only problem was it was on a bridge! I think you're right that in some cases ignorance is bliss, and for those people I tend to just leave them alone. If people ask for information I give it to them, but otherwise I just try to make the information available to those who are looking. This is why in the opening statements of my post I mentioned the chap on here who wanted a smaller dry than in existed in reality. Rather than tell him all the reasons why this would be wrong, I just let him get on with it. If he's happy to make that compromise then so be it. However I will say that forums, books, and the internet are just another way that a layout can be a collaborative effort rather than a solo project. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" and all that. Without RMweb I doubt I could build a layout at all... my knowledge of trackwork, signalling, and accurate railway operational practice is woefully lacking. For instance not too long ago I had to ask some really basic questions about couplings! But the great thing is that RMwebbers are always more than happy to help out, and I am eternally grateful for their assistance, even if at times we don't always see eye to eye. And that's fine, people build stations in the same manner, and if you're happy with it then fine. The only problem I have with this, and the motivation for the post, is that to me it's just a crying shame of a missed opportunity if this is the only thing anyone ever does with china clay on a layout. But there needs to be more than me just saying that, I think I need to actually show people what can be done by building my own layout, and that's just what I intend to do. I've pretty well resolved to write a book now - I had planned to do so years ago, however at the time I was thinking to use archive photos and simply couldn't afford the licenses to publish them. But upon rethinking, I don't think archive photography are really what's needed, I think an example layout is what's needed, and then lots of drawings, diagrams, and written information will be more helpful.

The problem with having this attitude is that trains do not exist in a vacuum, and if you become too narrowly focused on them, you just end up with yet another peco-on-plywood. If that's what you're happy with then by all means don't let anyone stop you, but this post or indeed really anything I've ever posted on RMweb aren't really aimed at those people. The fact is that (some) people care enough about structures not to put an LMS signal box on a GWR layout, and they care about scale enough to want platforms that match realistic train lengths. If you ignore the interplay between structures and trains, what operational interest do you really even have? Trains have to come from and go to somewhere... unless you're content to watch a roundy roundy. Now personally, I suspect that the real reason for the lack of good representations of the trackside element of the china clay industry is entirely down to the lack of good reference material on the subject, and very little else. If you want to know how long and wide the average station platform is, or find drawings for a standard GWR signal box, guaranteed you can find that information in more than one book. But to the best of my knowledge there is no single source for similar information as it relates to china clay trains. The whole point of my efforts on RMweb have been to try to provide some of this information, but maybe I really should just take it a step further and publish a book, both in print and as an e-book. That way the info is there for those who want it, and those who don't give a toss can simply give it a miss and carry on.

Very interesting blog. I built Wheal Elizabeth a few years ago and based the dry and linhay on Great Wheal Prosper on the Wheal Rose branch from memory. I was struck by how little that dry changed, being served in the end by a 37 and a single tiger. I can’t remember how long I built the shed, 21” from memory. I can remember sticking the 10,000 plus tiles onto the roof individually though! The dry has been converted to holiday lets now. Quite fancy trying to stay there at some point. I’ve been drawing up plans for another China clay layout (as you do) and had intended to include more of the works than I did on Lizzy, though the length of trains is, was and will remain an inevitable compromise.