Tony Wright

Thanks Frank, I'm sorry I couldn't make it to Stafford. The reasoning behind my belief that split chassis are not really suitable for DCC operation is based on my conversations in more recent times with my friends at Bachmann. That's why locos like the A4 , B1 and V2 (and the J39?) are now coming out with new chassis, complete with pick-ups, which are more suitable for DCC-operation. Previously, it wasn't a simple procedure of just plugging in a decoder, and, often, where a decoder had been fitted into an old B1, the decoder had to be in the cab! Regards, Tony. P.S. Lovely work, by the way.

John, My mistake. The picture's description is correct, though. Regards, Tony.

Great stuff Jerry (as always), However, surely the body is not electrically-live? As would be the case with a 'live' chassis; that is only one set of wheels insulated.

Thanks for your thoughts, Sandra, Mo is recovering very well. I'm not saying that DCC is not suitable for kit-built metal locos; only, and this is born out from my own experience, it seems less likely (for obvious, non-conductive reasons) that any problems will occur if the body is all plastic. Though I'd never use DCC myself (surely the most axiomatic statement ever), I have built metal locos where the customer has requested decoders be fitted. That being the case, I've built the frames (not the chassis!) electrically-dead. That seems to be the perceived path of wisdom. Where a chip has been installed in what is essentially an electrically-live body (where only one set of drivers is insulated) I've actually seen chips fry (how appropriate?) when a short has occurred (a bogie wheel touching a frame, and so forth). This would never happen with an electrically-dead set of frames, would it? I've also spent hours fiddling with metal locos on Peterborough North, trying to obviate stray shorts and stuttering running in commission-built, live-chassis, metal locomotives. They run fine on DC (on test), but any problems are exacerbated with DCC. Whilst I'd never personally recommend anyone using DCC, I wouldn't like to think that I'd actively dissuade folk from employing it, even given my natural prejudice. It could be that chips and systems have improved since my days of destroying decoders (not deliberately) and the most recent one I've installed for a friend - inside an electrically-dead A7 body I've not long built - seems faultless, principally due to the sound advice I received from Jeremy at Digitrains. Regards, Tony.

Great stuff, John, Thanks for posting. Believe it or not, when I did the DVD with Nigel Burkin on DCC, he put a chip into a loco fitted with an old-fashioned, five-pole open-framed motor (a Jepson) and (I hate to admit this) it did run sweeter once the correct CVs were configured. My prejudice dictated that the decoder was later removed. It still runs (very well) without it, but it was just a (tiny) bit smoother.

I've built several Wills/SE Finecast A3s, but the DJH one (particularly with regard to the choice of tenders) is superior in my opinion.

Interestingly Charlie, I'm just about to order two more kits, one for an A3 and one for an A4. The A3 will be from DJH (to become MERRY HAMPTON) and I think I've found another Pro-Scale A4 (to become GANNET). Failing the Pro-Scale A4, it'll be SE Finecast. Mo's much brighter, thank you - the doc' confirmed that this morning. Of course I paid her back! Regards, Tony.

Thanks Andy, I wasn't suggesting that you use the older-fashioned XO4 type motors (though Pendon did, and I've still got a couple of very old kit-built locos with them inside). I doubt if they're happy with DCC, either. I think what you've also pointed out is true, that DCC is more-suited to plastic-bodied locos, though an electrically-dead chassis under a metal body should be OK. I hope you're not going to be disappointed, but one friend, with a substantial fleet of split chassis locos sees them failing one by one. I know split chassis aren't really suited to DCC; hence their being abandoned now. I'd persevere with building your own locos (and still carry on building rakes, now you're retired). They really are much more satisfying. Regards, Tony.

The recent talk concerning 'averages' has set me thinking. As is probably well-known, I have a very extensive model railway photo library (unfortunately, it doesn't now include the majority of pictures I took of David Jenkinson's work, which seems to have disappeared into a black hole at PE10 9PH). I've just had a quick flick through a (tiny) part of it and dug out a few examples of what I consider above-average modelling.In some cases the examples are way above-average. My selection is entirely unscientific and not at all comprehensively representative, but, I hope, it's interesting and, even, inspiring. I've found a more up-to-date picture of a Bachmann Blue Pullman running on LB. I think it's safe to say that this is an above-average RTR product, though why does the set need a horrid tension-lock coupling on the front? Were the real sets ever coupled together? One of the finest builders of locos was the late Geoff Holt, and this superlative MR 4-4-0 in S7 is a fine example of his craft. It could well have been painted by Larry Goddard, one of the top (and way above the average) painters. Eric Farragher's Clifton and Lowther is N Gauge as it should be in my opinion. It's just featured in the RM (with my pictures) and at the Stafford Show over the weekend. It'll also be at Glasgow and Ally Pally. At a time when one still sees N Gauge layouts (and not just N Gauge to be fair) with everything crammed in and nowhere for the eye to rest, this is exquisite in my view. Many items of the locos/stock are modified RTR. Geoff Haynes (a very good friend) is now in business as a professional builder and painter. This Duchess is all his own work, built from a Finney kit. Like all successful professionals' work, it's never going to be an 'average' job; it's way above that! Another professional builder/painter whose work it's been my privilege to photograph is Steve Barnfield, creator of this scratch-built A1/1 in 7mm. Nick Dunhill is another top builder, as illustrated by this 7mm Princess. Warren Heywood did the painting. How one rates kits is often open to debate and many (even now) can fall into the 'below average' category. Not so one of Pete Waterman's JLTRT kits in O gauge, in this case a 2F. Are these among the best 7mm kits on the market? Returning to what might be perceived as 'average' in the OO RTR market, this Golden Age A4 is certainly way above that (as its price would indicate). It shouldn't have frame-mounted guard irons in this condition, though. I snipped the ones off mine. How one judges layouts in the 'average' stakes is very subjective and fraught with differences of opinion. However, I don't think that anyone would disagree that the Gresley Beat is up among the current best. And, another way-above-average layout under construction right now is Pelaw South in EM. As I say, this little selection shows how good some current modelling is. I admit that I'll never be able to achieve some of the standards shown above, but I can still find them inspirational. I hope you enjoy this selection.

Interesting, Andy, I have to say I've been surprised by the number (most usually Hornby, though not exclusively) of modern RTR locos which have appeared at my loco clinic at recent shows. It's either a poor motor (burnt out in a couple of cases), or a gear-train not working (a gear wheel split?) or the valve gear mangled, all of which results in a poor or non-runner. I've been able to fix a few. Bachmann split-chassis locos regularly appear as well - they fully live up to their description; they split! What's even more interesting is that older (much older) Tri-ang/Hornby locos which arrive for my 'doctoring' are much more easy to fix. For one, you can get into them, and, two, once the unbustable XO4s have had new brushes fitted, been cleaned and oiled, they carry on into the next generation. As for the more-modern Hornby tender drives I get to try and fix; let's not go there. Lima 'pancake' motors are a bit crude, but once cleaned and oiled, they, too, carry on for many more years. Older Farish N Gauge stuff I refuse to touch! It would seem to me that, with regard to more modern (OO) RTR, steam-outline locos, don't expect them to be anywhere near as robust (mechanically) as their predecessors and don't expect them to last anywhere near as long, especially if they're hauling heavy trains.

Good question, Alan, The mentioning of averages seems to suggest mathematics, which almost always baffles me (the only averages I was ever interested in were my bowling ones at the end of a season). The dear old Railway Modeller always used to have as its strap line 'For the Average Enthusiast', which rather seemed to imply, at least to me, that periodicals like The Model Railway News were for the 'Above Average Enthusiast', and as for the 'Below Average Enthusiast', who knows? Certainly (and this is not just the RM), from the media in general it would seem that today's average enthusiast is very reliant on RTR/RTP than ever was the case in the past. Which rather raises the question, or it does to me; are those who build things for themselves 'above average'? Perhaps a better question might be, are the results of what folk build for themselves generally better than something which is available out-of-a-box? To that, my answer would be (from my own observations) 'No'! How many kit-built SE&C loco models match, particularly in the finish, RTR equivalents? Averages change, of course. An 'average' RTR from the '70s (say, a Palitoy 4-6-0?) would be considered very much below the average today. One could argue that, from now on the RTR products can never get better - they're as good as anyone could hope for, especially at the price. But, whether hand-made things are better (and, by analogy) worse (or below average?) than ready-made things is entirely irrelevant to me. I include what you do with regard to improving RTR in exactly the same way as I do the work of those who build loco kits. It's personal, it's inventive, it's unique, it's creative, it's inspirational and (dare I say it?) it's definitely above average. In the final analysis, and this is my belief, it's the personal making of things (whatever it is, and however humble in comparison it might be) which is far more important than where what they make might be on a scale of comparisons. It's the folk in this hobby who make things/modify things/adapt things/ improve things by themselves who are 'above average'. And, always will be in my book. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Andy, Mo is getting better; it's kind of you to ask. For my own purposes on Little Bytham, I find RTR locos pretty hopeless. Yes, this evidence is anecdotal, but it has some empirical validity when friends/visitors bring RTR locos along to try. In fairness, they're not universally-hopeless (Westerner's Castle fairly flew round - but only on ten cars). Friends have brought Hornby A3s and A4s and they simply won't take the heaviest trains, two of which are 14-cars long (mainly kit-built). Bachmann's LNER Pacifics are a bit more sure-footed (with added weight and the bogie springs chucked away), but they give up at the top end as well. I haven't tried adding weight to Hornby's locos because there doesn't seem to be too much space inside and the A4s (in particular) are a bl**dy nuisance (with the lubricator drive) to get apart! Nothing of the above should be taken as a criticism of current RTR locos. Where has it ever been claimed by the RTR boys (and girls?) that their products will pull 'house bricks'? Never. They'll pull their own plastic rolling stock, and that's that. There are exceptions. Bachmann's 9Fs will take any of my trains, and so will Heljan's O2s. Any RTR diesels are pretty capable, too. Where there are other direct comparisons, however, the kit-built locos are more powerful, more reliable and, certainly, more robust. Regards, Tony.

Terry, A friend has just phoned me and told me yours was the best show he's been to in many a year. I'm glad it all went well, so my congratulations to all involved. I was sorry I missed it, but it was the right thing to do, though Mo is much better now. Regards, Tony.

I've seen no finer A4 model, even the one built from the same source built by Tim Watson.

Thanks Steve, I doubt if many modellers pay the RRP for their RTR items, but, even if they did, they'd still be excellent value for money. My only involvement with the production of RTR products has been as an adviser. I've helped Hornby a little in the past, but my 'input' in more recent years has been with Bachmann's Thompson cars and Heljan's O2s. Though I'm not claiming either product is 'right' or 'good' because of me, the amount of research, test model-making and effort which went into those models was incredible (not by me, I hasten to add). The research lead times were long, and that time/resource has to be paid for in the long run. Obviously, both products ended up with compromises, but I still think what ended up for sale was very good. Yet, didn't we have the moans along the lines of 'I'm not paying £50.00 for an RTR coach. You must be joking'? Yet, those same moaners (who are probably incapable of making anything to the same standard) conveniently forget that the cost of the bits for an equivalent kit is probably more. Heljan's O2s got a bit of a rough ride to begin with (largely, in my personal experience - I fixed over 40 of them - due to poor quality control and, in some cases, real clumsiness on the part of those who took them from their boxes). Yes, I agree, plastic handrail pillars are not the best, but the Heljan O2 is a very powerful 2-8-0 and, with a bit of work, a fine model at source. But, the moaners were out in force, bleating about how expensive it is. Have those bleaters built an equivalent kit, and made it run as well as the RTR O2? The kit, plus parts, will probably be £100.00 more than the RTR item. Anyway, who forces anyone to but things? The choice is always theirs. All the above might sound a bit hypocritical, especially since my last post moaned about the demise of folk actually making things. However, I still think I can exhort folk to have a go themselves by using RTR models as a starting point. They're no lesser modellers than those (like me) who prefer to make kits, and some of the end results can be stunning. They get far more respect from me than those whose principal skill is to open boxes or get others to do their 'modelling' for them. And, anyway, I'm in a bit of a no-win situation (of my own making). It's quite flattering to be approached by reputable firms asking me for my assistance. To turn them down would be churlish, though some might see my helping them as being a bit of a 'poacher-turned-gamekeeper'. Just how good a starting point the models mentioned above are, I hope is illustrated by the following pictures. I've done a fair bit of work on them, and the results have been seen in BRM. The O2 immediately above has since been sold-on, but the other (weathered perfectly by Geoff Haynes) and the carriages see regular use on LB. Keep up the good work, my friend.

A most interesting post, Andrew; my thanks for writing it. I, too, was taken to model railway shows as a wee boy by my dad. It would be in the '50s and they were staged in Chester's town hall. Chester MRC used to put it on, and (from memory) it was all their own work. There was usually an O Gauge layout and a large OO system, featuring a continuous run, with a terminus in the middle. Was it called Chestergate, I wonder? Everything on it was made, including some fantastic, elastic-band-driven chassis and Emmett/Heath Robinson-like creations, run sporadically, to a commentary, to please the kids (and not just the kids). It was wonderful modelling, and it left an indelible memory. A little later on in my life (though still a sprog), I was being fitted out for a new school blazer at Bradley's, in City Road in Chester (does anyone remember the firm's slogan 'Boys Can Be Boys in Bradley's Clothes?) . The chap who measured me up (it was a Barathea blazer, and I was under fear of death if I damaged it!) was a member of the club, and I recognised him. He invited my dad and me to the clubrooms (though I cannot remember where they were). I was still too young to take the hobby 'seriously', but later on I actually joined the club as a junior. There was a different OO layout there then (the clubrooms by now were in Chester Northgate Station - how appropriate), overseen by a fierce character called Ted. My friend and I started running some Hornby-Dublo two-rail stuff on it, at speed, and Ted nearly exploded. 'Get that rubbish off!' he exhorted' I've built that track and you'll damage it with your crude models!' It was clear, the philosophy at Chester MRC was 'we build things'. Granted, today's RTR offerings are probably superior to what the likes of Ted and the Bradley's man made, but the former's no-nonsense attitude probably sowed the seeds in my mind to follow a similar 'make-it' path. I'd like to think so. What does all the above show? That we've actually gone backwards with regard to 'modellers' actually making things in this hobby (and not just locos/rolling stock)? Certainly, if recent visits to model railway clubs are anything to go by, a large majority of the members are just happy to turn up and run their latest purchases, round and round on the test-tracks. I took a couple or so of my recently-built locos along and there was incredulity among some; questions such as 'Did you really make those?' being asked, as if they'd never seen the like before. There was also incredulity at the price I'd paid for the bits. 'That's over twice as much as I paid for this' said one, as he proudly stuck a straight-from-the-box Hornby Pacific under my nose. And, he still thought that the prices he was having to pay now for his RTR items were 'stupid'. I am not denying anyone the right to own the models they wish, but is this typical of many model railway clubs these days? Though I'm still a member (I might even still be the President) of Wolverhampton MRC, because of geography now I rarely attend, but it was never like that there. The OO test tracks were Stoke Summit or Charwelton and, though these were both used for running RTR stock, there was always a majority of kit-built stuff which was being tested. If the future for model railways (in all scales/gauges) would appear to be so RTR-dominated or 'modellers' being reliant on commissioned work, then, please, count me out. It certainly wasn't at Chester over 60 years ago, so why should it be now? I'm with you and your LS colleagues. Let's make things ourselves; it is, after all, a constructional hobby. Or, is that a bit 'elitist'? I hope not. Regards, Tony.

Lovely work, Jon; my compliments. What's its origin, please?

Great stuff Steve, many thanks for posting. This sort of personal work is exactly what I was mentioning earlier...............

Thanks, as always, for such stimulating discussion. As promised, the rest of my A4 collection (the class, of course, being far more interesting to me, and no less stylish, than the Blue Pullmans). This is a modified Hornby A4, which Ian Rathbone painted for me. It's happy enough on this eight-car (mainly kit-built) set, but on nothing heavier. This is my other modified Hornby A4 (which, forgive me, I'd quite forgotten about). It was supplied as SPARROW HAWK (which I saw quite often), and all I've done is fit scale plates and weathered it (John Houlden dusted over a final coat with his airbrush to unify its appearance; totally in the Gateshead tradition of BR standard grime). Other mods include close-coupling the loco to tender, replacing the bogie wheels with something much more realistic in appearance and removing the superfluous guard irons from the bogie (why do Hornby fit two pairs on the bogie? The extra ones - up to 1953 - should be on the frames). 60008 was altered in the same ways. I rarely use either of the above A4s because they're no really 'mine'. Though they're my property, they're really the work of a far-away factory. Not only that, they're a bit feeble when it comes to hauling heavy, kit-built cars, and Hornby's basic finish doesn't really look 'right' to me. Though it could be argued (with justification?) that this old loco (40 years and counting) might look a bit lumpen in comparison, I still much prefer this prehistoric Wills creation, sitting on top of a scratch-built chassis, to anything RTR. Why? Because (apart from the superlative Ian Rathbone painting, which lifts it beyond the mundane), it's all my own work. She goes like a bomb and 'recreates' a treasured childhood memory of my seeing my first A4 - this one. This preference might seem a bit perverse. Aren't we striving to produce the most 'accurate' models we can? If an RTR equivalent is better-looking and more accurate than anything we might have made, shouldn't this me used instead? My answer to that is a qualified 'no'. To me, and I hope this has come across throughout this thread, it's always far better to have made something for yourself (however humble in comparison) than to 'rejoice' in being the owner (however good it might be) of something straight out of a box. I qualified the 'no' because I feel there's also great merit in having adapted/altered/improved/weathered an RTR item, providing you've done it yourself. Then, it's a great deal more than just a possession. Speaking of possessions, this really is only that to me. It's a Golden Age A4, and I'm still puzzled why I bought it (other than I had, at the time, and very rarely, a bit of spare cash). At over £1,000 it's definitely a high-end, model railway possession, but I never use it. Why? For exactly the same reasons as cited before (though it will pull anything) - it's just not 'mine'. I'm quite happy to call the house I live in 'mine' and the car I drive 'mine', because neither of them represent a constructional hobby and I wouldn't dream of building a house or making a car; the former would collapse and the latter would crash! It is, of course, a personal point of view, but I couldn't be involved in a constructional hobby where I didn't construct things. As for this A4, though it's beautifully-finished, one might, at the price, have expected a shedplate to have been fitted. One might (and this is something I fit as appropriate) also have expected the strip (which used to carry the stainless steel embellishment) to have been present at the base of the tender's tank - something MERLIN's tender always carried. Might we see some other A4 models, please?

It did, Mike. Largely, particularly from my point of view, because it ran so well (not always the case with N Gauge, or even the 'finer' gauges). Thanks, by the way, for being one of the contributors who've pushed this thread now to 900 pages! Gosh.

Tim, I took your response as nothing more (or less; which is more correct?) than gentle irony. My posts are always 'tongue in cheek', even those which purport to express contriteness. Above all else, I think we should never take ourselves too seriously, especially in friendly banter (which is a marvellous feature of this thread, thanks to all the contibutors). Of course, if I make a model, I treat its making with some 'seriousness', if only because I wish it to be as correct as I can make it, especially if I've posted pictures of it and written about it. I think what helps me is the fact that I don't think I've ever really grown up. Though I've grown upwards over the years, I'm still that trainspotting kid at heart, eagerly anticipating that next cop. When I just sit and watch trains running round my trainset, I'm transported back those 60 years and more, hence my personal motivation for modelling my memories. Regards, Tony.

I'm sorry you had an uncomfortable experience at Southampton, Bill. I'm also sorry we never got a chance to chat. It's interesting that you observed a lot of 'poking and prodding' on some 'dioramas', because poor-running (not on many, I have to say, and this is at all shows) precludes my voting for any layout. As for poor manners, perhaps the older generation might learn from younger ones. Certainly, the youngsters I encountered at Southampton were very well-mannered and well-behaved. What amuses me (I'm easily amused) is the difference in approach by the likes of Jerry Clifford (bless him), who was next to me, when children appear at demonstration stands, from the approach I adopt. He instantly engages with them, is warm and welcoming and quite avuncular. In contrast, I glare at them and grunt, and they flee! I assume my being invited as a demonstrator is to 'appeal' to folk of more advanced years. That said, I did once show a young girl (who was with her dad and brother) how to solder. She was better at it than either her elder sibling and her father. Maybe my 'defences' are suspect! As for your having long hair; should that be a problem? Having been dazzled by many a shining bonce (and mine's heading that way), I'll bet some of those who've waved farewell to any cranium coverings would love to still have hair, of any kind! Many thanks for your thoughts about Mo. She's a lot better, thank you. Regards, Tony.

Tim, My most-profound apologies if I came across as 'telling you!' I'm afraid near a quarter of a century of telling (younger) folk what to do is difficult to shake off. It was because of someone 'telling us' in a most arrogant and objectionable manner which caused the recent 'upset'. Now there's my being a hypocrite (though, that's nothing new) by coming over in the same manner. Speaking of being a hypocrite (and my apologies to Clive), I found, just rummaging through an old Ian Allan abc last night, that I had underlined one or two DMUs! Shock, horror! Not many, so the urge couldn't have lasted long, but my word. And, I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the visual appearance of the Blue Pullmans (though they still weren't stunning enough for me to take their numbers, wherever they might have been applied. However, I was a mere sprog at the time). The (original) livery was beautiful and fully-complemented the styling and, though it wasn't 'traditional' Pullman inside, the interiors were clean-looking, fresh and dignified (though I read that were some complaints because none of the cars had coupes - is this right?). What has happened to dignified, complementary liveries in more recent times I cannot tell. Just to prove I'm not entirely prejudiced, a Blue Pullman has run on Little Bytham............ It was far more complete than the layout at the time! The Bachmann model must rate as being one of the finest RTR-creations of all time. Simply-stunning! Any more Blue Pullmans out there, please? My apologies, once more, if I came across as a bit of knob-head, though I tend to do and be things which I'm good at!

Andrew, Many thanks. I did tell the group which built Wickwar that they were running an individual WD far, far away from its native road. I stopped short of saying it should have a different top feed and a tunnel for the fire-irons - correct for WR-allocated ones. I must have the condition.................................

I'm told it's scheduled to be renumbered. Perhaps I should take cr@p pictures, with nothing legible. Just a thought.............................