t-b-g

How on earth can anybody with any aspirations to be a modeller disagree with any of that? By all means collect and run your unmodified, out of the box RTR to your hearts content but please don't take it and run it on exhibition layouts and present it as if you have achieved something. You haven't. Your only skill is in opening a box without breaking the model. Hornby etc. did all the work for you! If I want to see lots of locos like that I can go to a model shop. I go to shows to see some good modelling, preferably locos and stock that people have made/modified or had some sort of impact on. It is getting harder to find and the only shows where I see much nowadays are the specialist scale shows like EXPO EM and Scaleforum. I have been to some shows and it is almost "spot the one that has been made" amongst all the RTR stuff. The quality of the locos may have improved but the amount of locomotve modelling has declined in direct proportion. The best scenic layout in the world loses much of its impact if all the locos and stock are RTR straight out of the box. I would add that much of this is only really applicable to 4mm OO modelling. As soon as you look at what is happening in other scales, you begin to see some really nice work being done. Tony

If your main interest is creating an operational layout, of a significant size and with a good number of locomotives and trains, then I don't see any problem in people using the excellent RTR products available nowadays. You will have the same locos and stock as lots of other people but if you want your layout/modelling to be that bit more unusual, you have the option of building kits or scratchbuilding. The trick is to model an unusual period/area. Anybody modelling the ECML in the 1957 is going to need lots of stock and many locomotives. Attempting to build everything you need when really good locos and carriages are available probably uses up lots of time that you could spend on the layout itself. So if I was building a large ECML layout I would certainly use much RTR equipment. From my personal point of view I have no more nostalgia for the ECML in the 50s than I have for any other steam operated railway as I just don't have enough years on me to remember them well. So my choice is to be less ambitious in the size of layout and length of train and to be satisfied with smaller locos and shorter trains, which means that I have a realistic prospect of building a layout (or several!!) on which I can build most, if not all, of the locos and stock. It is not that I think that is more of an accomplishment or any higher a concept, it is just that I really enjoy making things. To me, it is what my hobby is all about. I would rather run a less than perfect model I built, rather than an almost perfect one from a box. I have even had to wrestle with myself over recent introductions of RTR GCR locos. Part of me thinks that I should not partake because they will show up the ones I have built and they seem to not fit in with the reason I chose to model pre-grouping GCR. Part of me thinks of the time they will save for me, that I can put to other uses. If the J11 is half as good as I think it looks and comes out with a proper Robinson chimney and other fittings suitable for a GCR livery, I will probably weaken................... Tony

Thanks Gilbert. Presumably with either their (SE Finecast) or home made rivet overlays as the cast kit is for the flush sided variety. Very nice. Tony

Hello Gilbert, As a GCR fan, the N5 has to be on my "favourites" list, even with all those big engines around I am still drawn to it. I have done a number of N5s from whitemetal kits and also one from the etches produced through Judith Edge kits but I am struggling to identiify the origin of your loco. That is always a good sign because it means it looks like an N5 but I would love to know which kit it is or if it is scratchbuilt. Best wishes Tony

The Mallards round our way think they have done well if they get a few soggy breadcrumbs and a lump of stale cake. Wait till I tell them that their cousin is on Hot Chocolate and Mince Pies, they will be round your place in no time. Listen out for the sound of flapping wings....... Tony

In that case I accept it with my thanks and good grace! Tony

I can understand you wish to scratchbuild your underframes and I commend you greatly for wishing to do so. The last batch of 6 wheelers I did I chickened out and used the Cleminson type etched set from Brassmasters. It has pin point outside bearings on all 3 axles and is adjustable to many different wheelbases. The running of the carriages with those under them is far superior to a number of others I have with inside bearings and with the middle axle floating and the out pairs compensated (one fixed one pivotted - as per D & S kits) If you run into trouble with the scratchbuilds I can recommend them as an alternative. Tony

Must be the quality of the writing for the craftsmanship and my pure natural intelligence for the clever.............. It is an odd one but I will happily accept it!!! Tony

I recall seeing an article on 9Fs pulling passenger trains in a magazine quite a few years ago. It calculated how many RPM the wheels were doing at 90mph and it was quite scary! The article mentioned that although the locos were capable of high speeds, once such events became known to the authorities they were curtailed on the grounds that the locos were not designed to run at such speeds and that the lack of proper balancing of the loco for such speeds was likely to cause problems with hammer blow. There was, I think, a speed limit applied to them which pretty much ended their careers as express passenger locos. The 9F is a handsome and powerful looking loco but it doesn't score many points in artistry of design compared to a lot of pre-grouping locos. It came at a period of railway history when functionality and ease of access to parts for servicing were higher priorities than good proportions and elegance. Tony

Modelling pre-grouping, you can only model what existed before 1923. Model grouping and you can have anything built up to 1947 plus a very good proportion of pre-grouping stuff. Model BR steam and you can have BR produced stuff, plus grouping plus a lot of pre-grouping. It is only really after WW2 that a lot of interesting pre-grouping locos and stock were finally despatched in the face of BR standards and Mk 1s Plus it is within the living memories of many modellers, although another 20 - 25 years should put an end to that! So there a lot of plusses to modelling the BR period. There are down sides too. The main one being that so many other people are doing it that it gets difficult to make your models stand out from the crowd. If, however, your modelling is to please yourself rather than others (which is surely the best reason for doing it) then it probably doesn't matter a great deal if you have the same things running on your layout as everybody else has on theirs. My own choice is to model the pre-grouping era. Partly it is because I like making things and I can't do it as well as Hornby and Bachmann and I don't wish (or have the ability) to compete. Partly it is to recreate scenes that I have never seen other than in black and white photos in glorious colour and partly it is because of the style and elegance of the locos, rolling stock and other railway features, even including things like signalling, buildings and other infrastructure. I am not sure that a Garter Blue A4 looked too good pulling teaks (not as good as an LNER Green A3) but on a streamlined set like the pre war West Riding, or a Grey loco on the Silver Jubilee set ..... WOW! So I take on your BR Green A4 on a rake of Maroon Mk 1s and I open my bidding with a GNR Atlantic on a rake of 12 wheeled clerestories! Seriously, this variety of tastes and interests is just what makes our hobby so good! Tony (Gee - not Wright!!)

I know absolutely nothing about GWR 4-4-0s and precious little about diesels but I think the J11 looks really lovely! There is nothing that jumps out at me as being wrong and the only way I could begin to pick fault would be by getting a photo of the real thing and standing it next to the model to see if I could find some nits to pick! I already have 4 (two I built and two that came with Buckingham) so I was going to struggle to justify another one but as and when one comes out with a Robinson chimney, either in early LNER or GCR livery, I will be going for the wallet! There is a very interesting livery variation that I only found out about by reading the recent (and very good indeed) book on GCR liveries by John Quick. This was the repainting of 6 J11s with LD&ECR lining at Tuxford works just after the LD&ECR was taken over and the J11s were sent there by the GCR. They appeared with GCR lettering but with LD&ECR lning of yellow, blue and vermillion. So that will be my excuse to have another one for my LD&ECR based layout. Tony

Count me in! I did some artwork for some GCR lettering transfers (now in the "Steam and Things range) and for lining I use LNER ones from the HMRS. I put the LNER White/Black/White on first and then a single red round the outside for the black livery and for passenger livery the White/Black/White suffices. I did hand line a loco or two but even though I accept that good hand lining beats transfers, mine was simply not that good! The transfers are just that bit neater and more consistent than what I could do at the time. I will try again but I don't complete enough models to get the amount of practice that one needs to get really expert at lining. I have also done some LNWR and GNR items too. I now have several pre-grouping layouts, or at least set in the early grouping period with much stock in the earlier livery. Tony

I am not against modern technology in modelling. I just prefer taking a sheet of metal/plastic/wood and using such skill as I have to mark it out and cut it to size. In a way, which I can't really put my finger on, cutting parts from a sheet of metal is somehow more in keeping with the idea of the railways of 100 years ago. Similarly things like DCC and operating layouts with mobile phones or keypads seems OK for a modern layout but not appropriate to a pre-grouping one, where big old fashioned toggle switches and mechanical rodding fit the general feel of the period better. Scratchbuilding is not difficult, unless you want to be a Guy Williams or a Tony Reynolds. If you are happy being a peter Denny or a Frank Dyer, then you need some very basic skills in marking out and cutting metal (or plastic - there is one plastic scratchbuilt loco on Buckingham). The thing is you have to want to do it. If you are happy openng boxes, then carry on and enjoy your hobby that way. If you want to have a layout where you can say "I made that" then pre-grouping is a superb option to go for. There are a good number of kits around, so you could choose a railway that can be modelled from them. Lines like the LNWR are well catered for. Others are less well covered and require some lateral thinking, with clever conversions or scratcbuilding. Whichever somebody chooses, it is great fun and you have a good chance of building a layout that has your personal "style" to it, rather than that being another Hornby/Bachmann/Heljan/Dapol production. Tony

Apart from the appeals of the pre-grouping period in terms of appearance and design, there is another very good reason for modelling that time in our history, which has been touched upon already. This is the matter of having to build things from kits or from scratch. It is not, in my view, a case of having to build things. It was my choice to do so. There are so many excellent RTR locos available that only the very best modellers could hope to match or improve on them. So, rather than run something I have built alongside a RTR beauty, I prefer to run them alongside others that I have made. I would rather have a smaller layout, on which I could say "I made that" rather than a bigger layout running RTR stuff. Agreed it takes longer. It is not really in tune with the instant satisfaction that so many people seem to need nowadays but it requires me to develop my skills beyond opening a box and is massively more satisfying and enjoyable. Tony

Tower Pier is a lovely layout. Well thought out and very nicely built. I agree that it is not an ideal layout for exhibitions but when it appeared at EXPO EM it was possible to get in close and really appreciate it. I am not sure exactly how close to "Minories" it is. The absence of a loco release crossover was a key feature of the design and Tower Pier has one. Having said that, it would be easy to see it as having been inspired by "Minories". This is a really nice thread with loads of thought provoking and insightful postings. The idea of having the whole layout live and then incorporating isolating sections (as on Tower Pier) is one that Peter Denny adopted on Buckingham, as I am finding out during the rewire of Grandborough Junction. It seems quite odd at first but the more I look into it the more I like it! Tony

I model pre-grouping although I have only the haziest memories of any steam at all, pre 1968. I firmly believe that the railways were at their peak in the years just before the first world war. It wasn't just a case of good engineering, it was that, plus superb elegance in design and livery. Not just in locos and rolling stock but in buildings, signalling and all the little bits that make up the whole railway picture. Having given the matter some thought, I reckon that I model that wish I wish I had seen, rather than what I actually saw. Most of us only know the pre-grouping era from black and white photos and a small number of colour images, either tinted photos or paintings. So creating a moving 3D picture in model form is as near as we can to seeing what it was like until somebody invents a real time machine. Tony

I had a good look at the model in the showcase at Warley and I think it looks just lovely. I always thought that the high level of cab detail (including printed dials with lettering only legible with a strong eyeglass from a couple of mm away) was a total waste of time, effort and money. The only RTR loco I have bought for many a long year is the Bachmann Director in GCR livery but I will be having a P2, despite it being out of my chosen period and area of interest. So well done to Hornby for getting my wallet open, it was no mean feat! Tony

But when did the "diesel era" start? The transition from steam to diesel was a long period of time. Is modelling a preserved railway in 2013 "modern image"? Is a modern train running through 1890s infrastructure really an example of "modern image"? I agree that no discussion on here will pin down a firm conclusion but I was just putting forward my thoughts on what I consider to be meant by the term "modern image". It is interesting to see what others think about it especially as there is no "right" answer. Tony

I should have included "since the phrase was coined in the early 1960s." when the first major modernisation of the major parts of our railway network started to be carried out. Railways were, other than advances in locos and rolling stock, pretty much the same in many places from the earliest days right up until recent times. Although constant improvements were always under way, the 1960s saw the start of the biggest change in the appearance of the railways since they were invented. Before then, it was a gentle evolutionary change but the "Modernisation Plan" (the clue is in the title) was the first attempt to create, from a corporate point of view, a new, "modern" image for the railway system. It didn't happen everywhere overnight though, which makes pinning a date on it tricky. As an example, I used to go to watch the trains at Stainforth and Hatfield in the mid 1970s. We had a signal box, semaphore signals and buildings dating back to the 1800s. You could have modelled that as it was in 1974 and you could hardly call it modern image. Now it is a bus shelter and high security fencing and not much else. I am not sure what date that happened but that is, to me, "modern image". Going back the the GWR broad gauge, many stations and structures survived the change of gauge and are there to this day. It is hardly appropriate to call a station with lovely original Brunel buildings "modern image". Knock them down and put up a bus shelter or a concrete and glass box and yes, that is modern image. The point I was trying to make is that I feel that the phrase "modern image" is more about the appearance of the railway than about a specific date. If it is used in that context, it makes a bit more sense than trying to use it to describe a period of time. At the moment, people use the phrase to mean different things and that renders it very misleading. Tony

Maybe "Modern Image" is a description of the scene being viewed rather than a period of time. Is it a model of a railway that has been substantially modernised (infrastructure rather than locos and stock - they constantly changed)? If so, it portrays the modern image. When it was modernised is irrelevant and there are still a few places you could model today that wouldn't class as "modern image" to me. Tony

Looking very nice indeed! For the underframe, it is certainly worth doing a new one as the GNR pattern underframe was quite distinctive. I can thoroughly recommend the 6 wheeled underframe from Brassmasters. It runs really well and has outside pin point bearings. There is a 4mm scale drawing in Campling/Jenkinson Historic Carriage drawings book or there was an article in Model Railway Journal by Nick Campling but I can't recall which issue it is in. For the ducket, is there any mileage in cutting one from clear plastic sheet then doing a panelling overlay? Just an idea thrown into the pot! Tony

Richard Hardy wrote about being at Retford during the war. There was a bit of a commotion on the platform and everybody turned out to see what the fuss was about. It was a GCR 4-6-0 Class B7 on a 32 coach train. Apparently the loco had to work rather hard to start the train moving again. I also recall reading about a V2 taking 26 carriages (fully loaded) out of Kings Cross during the war. Tony

Luckily, the real vehicle was measured and drawn in the 1960s and the dimensions are based on that drawing. I drew out the side on some plasticard and worked from that. The bolections were shown on the drawing so I didn't have to do anything other than follow that for sizes. The windows in what were the 3rd Class compartments look tiny and I did wonder just how good the drawing was but when you look at the real thing, they really were that small. You are right about the colour though! The real vehicle was saved for preservation and is now at the KWVR as part of the Vintage Carriage Trust collection. It is their MS&LR Tri Composite and it looks superb. My only excuse is that it wasn't for one of my own layouts otherwise it would have been in GCR livery. Tony

Very clever! Have you explored the limits of just how thin you can get a bit of plastic with the cutter? Is the limit the settings on the machine or the strength of the plastic, which will probably wave about and break below a certain size? To make the grooves I use a scraperboard knife, which is just a handle with a diamond shaped blade, available from most good art suppliers. It is used for making those foil pictures. Recently I purchased an OLFA cutter and that does the job too. Either will make a nice even groove with little or no burr to clean up. Tony

I forgot to include that bit in the sequence shot! I just scrape it with a scalpel blade to create a slight chamfer. I feel the same about trying harder. I look at the photos and just see the slight gaps and inconsistencies here and there! A coat of paint hides much and the photo is quite a bit larger than real life. At least that is my excuse! It comes from seeing the work of the master of plasticard modelling, Geoff Kent, at close quarters. Sometimes he inspires me and sometimes I just have to accept that I will never ever be that good! This is what it looked like after a coat of mucky black. I can't seem to find the photos of it lettered at the moment. Tony