t-b-g

Don't go thinking that I can remember GCR Steam! My memories of BR steam consist of one day at Winchester in 1967 as a small child. I can't remember if what I saw was clean or not but I do clearly remember standing in front of a big engine with 34100 on the front. I am primarily a modeller with a small interest in preservation and I know my expectations are very personal to me and unrealistic to many. I tend to hope that the preserved railways would strive for the same sort of realism that I do on my models. It doesn't happen often but when you get a loco and train that match in period, which also match nicely with their surroundings, the results are, to me, stunning. In all the photos I see of "real" railways, I don't see many of clean 8Fs working passenger trains. So seeing that in preservation doesn't stir my emotions as much as the time I saw one on the GCR at Loughborough looking a bit grimy on a nice long freight. 9Fs have a bit of a history at working passenger trains and so that works a lot better for me. As I said, mine is a highly personal view and I am happy to accept that many others have different views that are just as valid as mine, if not more so. It would be a dull world if we all thought the same way.

On a visit to the Bluebell Railway, the locos and carriages looked just right in their pre-grouping splendour. Seeing a 9F or an 8F in superb condition just makes me want to get out a huge brush and a big bucket of weathering gunk. Some preserved railways have done this sort of thing from time to time and although it tends to divide people, as everyday family visitors have said that they prefer their visit to be to a nice clean railway, I always think that the results go much further towards re-creating an authentic picture.

I should have specified "pre WW1". Things did seem to go downhill after that. Even then, the odd loco appears less than sparkling but as a general rule they were kept a lot cleaner. My main guide is "William Bradshaw - Leicester railway cameraman" and seeing some of the shots of locos in service makes heavy weathering seem almost a crime. But as I said, the main thing is to look at the prototype in the period you are modelling and copy it, not other models.

I have told this story before but you have set me up nicely to tell it again. Many years ago a family was watching one of my layouts at an exhibition in Doncaster and one young girl, around 10 years old, proudly came out with the old "My Grandad drove the Mallard". I said that I had heard of the names of some people who had driven Mallard and asked her what Grandad's name was. The answer was "Joe Duddington". So I never mock that statement now, just in case......

My views on the "finish" of models have changed over the years. I used to think that everything should have a dead matt finish but nowadays I prefer a degree of gloss on the finish of locos and carriages. My modelling period is admittedly a lot early than that of most people but in pre-grouping times most locos and carriages had a gloss finish and when I see the reflections in them in photos, I want to recreate that look on my models. A roof or an underframe, I am happy to see with a matt finish and that variation in finish adds to the realism. Some of the best looking models I have seen have been where a gloss finish has then been well weathered. The combination of textures and finish really brings the model to life. I recently saw a superb pre-grouping loco model, built and painted by one of the best regarded modellers around but it did nothing for me because it was modelled in a "clean" condition but with a dead matt finish. A nice gloss finish would have really lifted it to another level. I am not suggesting that all locos should have a full gloss finish and those modelling the 50s and 60s should probably avoid gloss except on an ex works passenger loco but I prefer to just look at photos of the real thing and model from that, rather than what our modellers eyes have got used to seeing.

Don't forget the quite different type of bogie that came out during the Thompson period too. Only a small number were put into service but they should be included.

I am with you Tony. Many of my locos and carriages (especially Midland/LMS types plus anything black) have been painted with a car spray. Good old Damask Red! As we have already established, a bit of experience and developing a technique can allow those of us who don't do such things all the time to get reasonable results that may not satisfy those seeking to attain the absolute highest standards possible but are perfectly acceptable for normal layout use. Once I learned just how to hold and use a spray can, it is rare for me to make a total mess of things and if I do it can always all come off for a second try. I am not sure that the modeller who never makes a mistake has been born yet. As Roy Jackson says, everybody makes mistakes, it is how much work you are willing to put in to sort them out that separates the good modellers from the rest. I know that my painting and lining skills could be improved and I am sure that they could if I did it more but I tend to be, as Peter Denny described himslef, a "Jack of all Trades, Master of None". I get by with most things but in each area of modelling, I know there are specialists who can do a better job than I can. It worries me not a jot. What will be interesting is to see how I get on with a full GCR pre-grouping livery in 7mm scale. I am looking forward to it and feeling trepidation in equal measure. If I can do a decent job with it perhaps I will consider myself to have reached the level I always hoped I would. If not, it might end up LNER black! Either way, it will be my own work.

I had the pleasure of visiting Barrie a few years ago with a bunch of friends. His railway is just lovely and we had a great afternoon looking around, admiring the huge loco roster and seeing them working on what is a "proper" operators layout.. Lovely stuff indeed. Many thanks for posting the photos. Tony G

Sorry to disagree Morgan but in my experience it is not a myth. When a friend of mine sprayed some Ratio plastic carriages with some cellulose car paint (many years ago when car paint was mostly cellulose), they were totally ruined. They distorted and the surface became rippled. That is not an opinion, a second hand tale or something I have made up just to be difficult. I saw it with my own eyes. I was in the room when he did it and the plastic started distorting immediately. We still have the ruined sides somewhere to remind us not to do it again.. Now there may be a technique that can be utilised to allow such paint to be used and I do recall reading once about "misting" it on in such a way that the paint is almost dry before it hits the surface. This may be where the experience comes in. If anybody can explain what happened and why it wasn't a case of the cellulose paint attacking the plastic, I would love to hear it. Tony G

I don't know what has gone on and since been deleted but I would just like to add my apologies if it was as a result of anything I have posted. Tony G

I did post a rather overly sarcastic response but deleted it after a few moments as I am really not that petty and I apologise if anybody saw it. I do know who you are and I respect your skills and abilities greatly but are you really suggesting that whatever you write cannot be questioned by others just because of your status in the hobby? Even I can be wrong sometimes! My experience is in all aspects of the hobby, also going back 40 years when I built my first loco kit as a 16 year old. As I said, between the two of us, Malcolm and I built over 150 locos, all but a tiny handful with push on wheels. They worked then and they work now. To write that all such locos are only fit for a glass show case is simply not an accurate statement. Now if you had written that you had not been able to make locos successfully using push on wheels, or you had seen locos with push on wheels that were not any good, or you didn't like them because of problems painting them, I wouldn't have raised so much as an eyebrow. That would be a personal opinion that I would have respected 100%. But to generalise and state that push on wheels are not any good on working locos at all for anybody was not something that I could leave unchallenged.

There was a bit of a fuss about the "nearly P4" standard following an article in MRJ a short while ago. People are using wheels with EM style flanges (and that makes them OO too) on "normal" P4 track. And claiming much improved running as a result. There was a big debate about it here on the relevant MRJ thread but I can't remember which issue it was to point folk in the right direction. As usual with such things on RMWeb, the thread got a bit heated and a bit silly and may have ended up being locked. There were people saying that it could not possibly work and others saying that they do it and it does work and neither side was giving an inch (or a fraction of a mm - being P4 and all).

A sweeping statement possibly intended to provoke a response! Have you any suggestions for the many locos I have been running for upwards of 35 years with push on wheels? Most of them are not really pretty enough to be "show case" models. I don't want to take them all apart to fit Romford/Markits as at the moment they all have the right sized wheels with the right number of spokes and crankpins in the right places, plus it seems a waste to take off wheels that have worked perfectly well for all these years. Between my locos and those of the late Malcolm Crawley, we ended up with around 150 kit or scratchbuilt locos, all with "push on" wheels. I even took some Romfords off some early kit built ones and replaced them with Sharmans to improve the appearance. Even Roy Jackson has some locos with "push on" wheels running on Retford. Hardly "glass case" models. To be fair, I did once have one wheel turn on an axle on one loco once. It derailed and jammed in a point but power was still on to the rather powerful motor. 10 seconds later all was well again. I later drilled and pinned that wheel onto the axle as a precaution. One failure in 150 locos over 35 years hardly puts "push on" wheels in the "not fit for purpose" category. I had a tyre come loose on a Romford wheel once too, so in my experience they can both fail once in a blue moon.

It is something that bothered me until I came up with a way round it. I used to get a tiny brush and paint between the spokes and then turn the wheels slightly until I eventually got all the area behind the wheels paintd but it was a bit of a faff. Then I went on to building the frames, spraying (or brush painting) them and then scraping the paint off the ends of the wire brake hanger mountings. Another way is just to paint the bits behind the wheels before assembly and then do the rest later. More recently, I have started to chemically blacken frames as it has several advantages, not least that it doesn't come off in the same way that paint can if something rubs against it and it doesn't blister if you get the frames hot when soldering bits on afterwards. All these appeal to me more than masking and spraying a completed mechanism. I just know that would go wrong for me and I would get paint where I don't want it.

Drop in wheel sets are an added complication that many modellers can manage perfectly well without. I include myself in that number. It is an advantage to be able to take wheels on and off during construction and if wheels are available that allow the modeller to do just that, it isn't really a problem. Even when the finished loco that I am working on will have "push fit" wheels I do the bulk of the assembly with a spare set of Romfords and only put the final wheels on right at the end, after the frames are painted but before attaching the brakes, so they only need to go on once. The locos on Buckingham are slabs of brass (mostly 1/16" thick) with holes drilled in them. They have run superbly for, in some cases, 70 years. Some have new motors but all have the original frames and wheels. They are shaped along the bottom edge to look like the real thing where the profile might cause a visual problem. As what Tony Wright would call "layout locos" the thickness of the frames is totally invisible when they are running and I really cannot see any disadvantage. It may be a throwback to another age and some folk may say that I am disregarding many years of "progress" but that fact is that they work and work very well indeed.

I think that,most things in model railways can be made to work. That includes P4, push on wheels, disguising the end of Romford axles and many other matters. Some things may work better than others for particular individuals, depending on their skill levels and their willingness to spend a particular amount of time and effort to get something right. If we all built our model locos just like the real railways built theirs, then I am sure that we would all be using all metal wheels and axles (no insulation), fitted to axles just like the real thing and with the quartering preset during assembly. We would assemble our axleboxes around the axles and gently lower our frames onto a ready assembled set of wheels. But we don't. We compromise and decide which version of the available model railway wheels we prefer and use them. They can (apart from the odd rogue) all be made to work and locos have been built that run well with pretty much all types of wheel available. So it really must come down to personal choice or using whatever the trade provides that is a good size and shape (No. of spokes etc.) to use in the loco we want to build.

I remember seeing one of Iain Rice's layouts at an exhibition one time and it struck me that although I knew it was P4 it might have just as easily been Hornby Dublo 3 rail because I couldn't see the track. Neither could he without standing on a box. As the years have gone by, my views on layout heights have changed many times and may well change again but for home use, a layout that can be operated from a nice comfy chair seems just right! Being on my feet all day at exhibitions isn't as attractive a way to spend a weekend as it used to be either. One of my exhibition layouts has quite short legs which were actually built by my father when I was nowt but a lad. Probably too low for comfortable viewing standing up but if I can get three or four chairs in front of the layout any number of people have commented on how much better it is to be able to sit down to watch the operation. I have also had layouts around 4' high which have been commented on favourably by adults and complained about by youngsters and those in wheelchairs. I always end up very much more weary after exhibiting the taller layouts. Has anybody suggesting periscopes considered that they work the other way up too? All those tall people who want the layout at eye level could just as easily make one, so that we poor operators don't have to be on our feet all weekend and can operate sitting down at a layout that is just right for youngsters and those unable to see at 4' and above. It is one of those questions to which there can never be an answer that suits everybody. The best that we can do is to please ourselves with our own layouts and accept that some will like it and some won't.

Lots of bad things happened during those years but to blame the whole French nation and population for the actions of a small number of individuals is just unfair. There were French folk fighting alongside our troops, sailing in a ships and flying our planes. Did they deserve to be tarred with the same brush? I don't want to turn a model railway thread into a history of WW2 but it would be like me saying that I hate Germans because they bombed my Mum's house during the war and nearly killed her. My Mum didn't hate German's, just Hitler and the Nazi mob.

Now that is good news!

Isn't having a general dislike for all the people of a particular nation bordering on "racism"? I think it is fine to have a dislike of particular individuals or groups but to dislike a whole nation as a bit harsh. I can pretty much guarantee that every single nation of the world has some decent people in it somewhere. To automatically dislike something or somebody because they are French (or from anywhere else) really is a tad unfair.

Absolutely spot on. If anybody thinks that bullhead rail and more realistic sleepers are going to make a big loco with a main line train look "realistic" going round a 2' radius curve, then they are in for a huge let down. That applies to plain track just as much as it does to points.

A couple of very interesting comments there. I agree 100% about the new era of digital photography. It seems to me that some modellers are no longer content with what looks good to their eyes, they have to have something that looks good to a camera that can focus down to a few millimetres and will allow a sharp image to be blown up to many times life size. On one of my layouts I took the trouble to search out correct P. Way drawings for the prototype I was building. I had sleepers specially produced because my prototype uses 14" wide sleepers through points. I handbuilt all the points to the correct pattern of sleepers, with the right sized sleepers and correct pattern chairs. And nobody has ever noticed. It is perhaps a good job that I do my modelling for my own satisfaction first, rather than to impress others! So I would suggest that for most modellers, a "close enough" generic track, without the need for details like keys facing the correct direction, is probably enough. Also, track work that is more accurate in terms of sleepers etc. will always be a let down if it is badly laid, painted and ballasted, with dodgy running as a result. I would much rather have less accurate track, well laid, ballasted and painted and with good running. Best of all is if we can have both together. Up to now that has required some input from the modeller in terms of building points. Hopefully, if a range of good looking points (by which I mean of a radius suitable for model railways rather than train sets) then Peco might have made the sorts of layouts that could only be produced by handbuilding to be available to anybody. The track will still need careful laying, painting and ballasting but the sorts of people who care enough to want to build good looking layouts won't be put off by that.

It does seem to have got itself back on track. Permanent Way based Humour. I knew I could do it if I tried!

Some of the comments might have been funny. In the hands of a decent comedian (comic timing doesn't come across well on an RMWeb thread - perhaps that is why I am not laughing) and if they were being posted for the first time. I am not against humour. I have some myself and I use it sometimes. It just seems a shame that what should be an interesting thread on a major new product is being swamped by page after page of exactly the same sort of comments that got the previous OO track thread locked. Back on topic. I recall that C & L explained their lack of keys when they launched their flexible track. They said that they had tried to incorporate them but the shape of a decent key on each chair made it difficult to form a mould that the plastic base could be extracted from easily and reliably. That was a while ago and maybe moulding technology has moved on but it might explain why there is a "stump" of a key rather than a full one on the Peco product.

I can be grumpy any time of day with very little effort!