johnarcher

When this matter of RTR/Making comes up, here and elsewhere, there are sometimes comments about who is a 'real modeller' or something like that, as though there were two distinct groups, one lot making everything (and no doubt quarrying their own ore, with a scratch-built pickaxe) while if you ever buy anything you are in the other group who are just collectors or something. That is of course nonsense. Everyone, I reckon, does some of each - even if someone uses mainly RTR/RTP, they probably make landscape, paint figures, change numbers, weather etc, while, on the other hand, not many nowadays make their own wheels and motors. So it's not a question of different types of people, but different activities (buying and making) which we all find our own balance between. I don't see why it's a problem to say that one finds models with a higher proportion of the second actvity more interesting.

I can't speak for Tony of course, but as one who has often agreed with him on this I'd guess that it depends what you mean by ruination. I wouldn't say it's made layouts worse (not ruination in that sense), but maybe less interesting (to me at any rate)? (As Tony said in #7965) However good much RTR is now (it certainly is) I still find it much more interesting to look at something someone has made (wholly or partly), even if it is less detailed etc. My only complaint about RTR is when there is no longer a kit for something because there is now a RTR model, otherwise I'm not interested in it either way, so I don't see why I 'should' be pleased about it, just as I wouldn't say that someone who doesn't want to make things should do so.

Shows how very subjective the idea of what is art is, maybe whether one has a pre or post Romantic taste? maybe it would be better to look more at the recently raised question of what makes a model scene 'move' one. For me I think it's to a big extent a sense of place, as Clive said about Valencia.

I would agree with the second statement, but I don't think originality is the only way to get it. After all some of the greatest art is not startlingly original (a lot of people had written fugues before Bach), and sometimes something has not been done before simply because it's not worth doing. The emotional impact can come from sheer quality of execution - what Pope described as 'what oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed'. In modelling terms I think I'd rather see 'yet another', but brilliantly executed, GWR BLT (Hemyock?), than something that has only originality going for it. Like others here I'd be fascinated to know what are the two models you mentioned.

Me - unoffended ex-teacher. I taught, in schools, both CDT and English (my degree subject). I was a rotten classroom teacher, I admit it, but since then I have successfully taught English as a foreign language to individuals, and, rather than teaching tool-use, made long-bows professionally - I couldn't teach so I did. So much for sayings.

I hope a bit more than that, also about nostalgia, history, aesthetics, landscape, craftsmanship, engineering etc. Whether any of that adds up to art (or even Art) I have no idea.

What about a model landscape with no working bits in it (ie no railway), hence nothing functional, purely visual, ie aesthetic? (Dave Rowe got close to that sometimes). I'm not making a point, I don't know the answer. Seems to me that, nowadays, something is art if produced by an artist (even the notorious bed) and you're an artist if you can convince people that you produce art. Circular definitions?

Yes, and also (does anyone agree?) some vehicles are apparently weightless. Tyres flatten where they touch the ground, so a small flat filed on the bottom of the tyre looks better too?

Thanks Tony, I intend to keep on building but at the moment have just sold off my Irish 00n3 stuff, and am in a state of desultory research and chronic indecision regarding a UK prototype. Still, as other people post pictures and there's been no evidence here that I've ever actually made anything, here's my (now sold) T&D Hunslet (Branchlines kit). . She had been in a box for a few years when the picture was taken (photography not up to your standard) so the paintwork has suffered a bit. I mentioned this one around here somewhere recently, saying that buying something has never given the sort of satisfaction I got when she ran OK, only my third chassis and first set of Walschearts.

I've been happy to agree with and enjoy your posts a good few times during the year so, Merry Christmas Tony, thanks for the most interestingly readable thread around. (Though I admit that the technical photography stuff sails distantly over my head).

I keep agreeing with you making this sort of point, Tony, so I shall do so again. I stopped even looking at most of the magazines long ago, when they began to look more like catalogues. The quality of RTR has certainly increased, so has the quality (if not range) of kits, but has the quality of actual modelling improved? On the scenic side, I would say, probably, but, remembering the work of people like Ross Pochin maybe not in other areas?

I thought that, but added up the price of this complete model,, the High Level chassis, Ultrascale wheels, motor and gearbox - scary.

You're dead right about the spread of interests. I personally was coming back into the hobby after some years (Irish 00n3 before that), heading back GW way - Cornwall is home. However I looked again at the Pendon 'Cottage Modelling' book and the real wood frame in the rectory (I think it is). Now I've always been interested in wood craft (a couple of model frigates, two lutes, several hundred lomgbows) so now I'm looking at Herefordshire branches and studying books on old timber frame buildings and the joinery techniques in them. You never know where this interest might lead you.

I also do not intend to tell anyone to do anything, I just want to counteract phrases like 'precision miniature engineering', and say that making such things (if you want to) is not so dauntingly difficult or expensive as sometimes seems to be implied.

I agree absolutely about the 3D lamp, there are new ways of making things. Scratch building, etched or cast kit, 3D design is all making, new skills.

Actually I wasn't, there was very little handcraft at school, my dad died when I was 7, so at one point in my '30's I sat down with a new soldering iron (had never used one) and Iain Rice's etched kit book and learned.

Just two points. Firstly the older modellers, building models and regretting how things are going were once new entrants, with limited RTR in those days. I was. So I'm not so sure about 'no rtr, no new entrants'. They learned the skills and acquired the tools gradually. Let's not overestimate the obstacles, you can certainly put something together for less than £220, and there need not be much precision engineering involved (certainly not in my case), using a file and a soldering iron doesn't need a long apprenticeship, more like a bit of explanation and an hour's practice. You're right though, as you say you can't expect the manufacturers not to meet the demand. Your last paragraphs are also true of course (that's why I am about to make a loco that I could buy rtr from a kit), but what if so many people watch and so few play that you can no longer buy balls or boots to play yourself? As has been suggested often here, with falling demand kit and component ranges disappear.

Thanks for that reply, actually I have seen similar (or the same) pictures online - http://www.archive-images.co.uk/gallery/Archive-Colour-Images-of-the-Railways-of-Herefords/pages/5/ There are some pictures after WW2 and a few before WW!, it's the bit between I was having trouble with. I suspect the story would be, roughly, small saddle tanks and 517's and 4-wheelers till early 30's, probably some old Dean bogie stock for a while (as on the Golden Valley), maybe a 58XX or two, and 1420 arriving at some date and lasting until the end. If anyone can confirm or correct (or tell me where the 1937 picture of clerestories is) I'd be grateful.

Has anyone ever landed their ball in an open wagon? My name here is not my real one (don't know why I didn't use that), but was chosen because I was an archer for many years, and, like golfers it's the sweet, seemingly effortless shots I remember. More relevantly I remember equally clearly when my Branchlines T&D Hunslet first moved off under power, with my first set of Walschearts rotating successfully - now that's this hobby providing enjoyment.

Thank you, that's very helpful. I had hoped for early 58xx's. I had thought/hoped there might be old Dean panelled stock between the 4-wheelers and more modern things (as at Looe, Culm Valley etc), as in the 1930's photo wagonman mentions. So, a promising combination so far - for later '30's - 58xx, maybe Dean stock, the photographed AA3 road van. I am surprised how unrecorded these lines seem, compared to the Devon/Cornwall branches I'm more familiar with, but Presteigne is attractive, even has my favourite Clarke buildings. Only two objections - the difficulty of amassing enough information, and the fact that it's on the edge of just about the most attractive area of vernacular buildings I know, but too far from the town to include any. If anyone has numbers for the MRC and the GWJournal you mention that would be nice (the online GWJournal index doesn't seem to find Kington).

Thank you for that answer, could you tell me where you saw the Kington clerestories photo? If anyone has more information about what was used on the Leominster - Kington services in the '30's I'd be interested in that too. Even locomotive allocation to Kington (sub-shed of Hereford then?) in the '30's? These lines don't seem well covered in books (except New Radnor), there is the Middleton 'Ludlow to Hereford' book but I'm reluctant to buy it in case it has very little on the branches

Interesting comparisons Tony (especially the first two pictures). I've never felt really happy with normal lining transfers for the reasons you mention. (I take the coward's way out and stick to subjects and periods that don't need lining). I am often struck by how inconspicuous lining can be in old photos - in some 1890's GW photos it is hardly visible. This is often put down to the colour sensitivity of photography of the time, and I'm sure that's true, but I suspect fading and weathering, and the fineness of the lines, are involved as well. (The lack of colour-fastness in paints then is also often mentioned.) Do lining transfers look over-prominent because they are too wide (I've never measured) or just too bright, or both? Surely it would be possible for someone to produce lining transfers in more muted colours?

As you may see above, the actual set did appear, but thanks again for your offer.

I believe the Broad Gauge Society do an etched 6' 4" bogie (in both BG and SG), I think I have heard that non-members can buy, but I may be wrong.

Thank you, I have received it OK. I assume you have made one of these, how did you find it to put together? Thanks again John