Edwardian

I would not have thought so either, but Oxford's email to me say that the tooling suite will cater for all variants, and did so in the context of a question about the round-top version. Mind you, I will remain cautiously sceptical that Oxford will do this. Really looking the part. Excellent conversion.

John, I don't find I disagree with what you say, either. For the record, I did buy the umber E4, with the intention of, one day, building coaches for it. Because I need to master certain skills and then find the time to build the coaches, having first researched them adequately, of course, "one day" is the operative part of the last sentence! If there were RTR coaches to go with it, my first layout would likely have been LBSC rather than a freelance company in East Anglia! So, here is one example of why there is one less pre-grouping layout 'out there' than there might otherwise have been. On the plus side, by the time I have provided stock for my first, trial, railway, I ought to be able to tackle most rolling stock subjects, but it will still be a problem finding the time. Incidentally, no one should sensibly expect to create a pre-Grouping layout entirely from RTR stock, as Transitioners probably can. That is not my aspiration or complaint. Variety and kit or scratch-built items are, I feel, good things in themselves and they are necessary things to cover an early period subject. Having said that, if one or two locomotives and rakes out of, say, the half dozen you want to operate your layout with, were available RTR, that would make all the difference. It would be nice to have something to run while the balance is being built! But, without RTR support, earlier periods will remain necessarily marginalised, and, generally, layouts fewer and more modest. Hence I repeat the idea that it is chicken and egg. You need rising interest that could become demand combined with the encouragement that is provided by manufacturers' support. Each supports the other. You cannot say which has to come first. What is clear to me is that manufacturers have not yet 'grown a pair' and seen what can be done. Why should they? Well, arguably they shouldn't. But, if that is to be the attitude, I can only meet it with "why should I support manufacturers who ignore my interests?" If manufacturers are capable of taking a longer term view, they might consider how to maximise sales and extend the life of products by moving away from steam outline's 90% mono-period support base. I think you have provided my conclusion for me; "If earlier period modellers are prepared to buy the current limited offerings, and at the same time venture into kit-building for other rolling stock, then they may find in time that there is less need to take to the workbench." I agree, but it follows, for me, that each time a model is released that could be produced so as to represent an earlier period, but is not, it is a shame and a missed opportunity. I do not see that it is wrong to point that out and to call for better RTR representation of other periods. I see it as consistent with buying releases that do work for earlier periods and building what you need to in the meantime. My original point in this topic was that wish-lists are a waste of time, unless they are specific enough to signal interest in an earlier variant. The BRM poll is not, and it is clear that a vote for a pre-Grouping coach or locomotive is unlikely to result in a model in its pre-Grouping condition, unless, of course, it is a locomotive that was not rebuilt after 1923. If the poll means, or will be taken to mean, vote for a BR condition ex-so and so, that is possibly also OK for late Grouping, it should say so! It could also allow for the option of voting for early conditions or specific liveries. How can anyone taking notice of these polls know whether there is or isn't sufficient interest in earlier condition models if no distinction is made? One thing I'll throw into that. The GW 517 0-4-2T scored very respectably last year. Not as popular as a new Terrier, but scoring higher than some of the famous National Collection locomotives that might get commissioned by Locomotion/NRM. I point this out because it is a class that did not see service with the Nationalised railway, so voters must have been pre-war Groupers and/or Pre-Groupers! You could not dismiss these as votes for mono-period releases. As the wish-list disguise the true level of interest in earlier periods, it is hard to judge. It may or may not be sufficient, but little is being done, so far as I can tell, to explore that potential market or to foster interest in earlier periods by those in a position to influence the market. James

John, You seem, I assume not wilfully, to have neglected my points with your answers. I did take the time to explain that I was very much a "doer" in terms of learning the skills etc. I made two points, neither of which I think you address in your answers. First, it takes a long time to master and apply those skills. As I suggested, far longer than it takes to unpack a rake of Mark Is. It follows that adequate trade support of pre and early grouping eras would be of considerable value. Like BG John, I'm not waiting for RTR to come over the hill like the cavalry to my rescue, but I don't see why I should not also continue to press for better coverage for earlier periods. I think the "build don't ask" argument, which I hear again and again, is long overdue for the dustbin of debate; the two are not mutually exclusive. Second, your answer merely confirms the point that pre-Grouping is relatively inaccessible, as it is a hard proposition to new entrants and established modellers alike unless and until you have mastered the skills and applied them over the time it takes to build nearly all the stock you need in addition to building the layout. If you visited my layout thread, you will see that I have not been discouraged from pursuing an earlier period and am 'DIYing' it, but, oh so slowly. Now, given the second point, how else, but through additional and 'joined up releases' (i.e. I have loco A that can run with coaches B), can you expect a significant number of modellers to choose an earlier period? As I say, chicken and egg. Again, it is not an answer to say, "model the Transition Era in the meantime" if you have little or no interest in that period and it was not what attracted you to railway modelling. James I think that is the right approach, John; get on with it in the meantime, but continue to ask for better support and encourage more modellers to try other periods. I like JC's 'mono-period' tag; steam outline modelling is 90% mono-period, and there is so much more out there to try.

Meanwhile, back in a sleepy village in West Norfolk, some of the background to a 4mm scale model is filled in with structures at approx. 3mm scale. More budget modelling with recycled packaging, office stationery, cocktail sticks, scouring pad and tea leaves.

John, Thanks. I think the comment "my expectations are unobjectionably low at present!" meets yours concerning RTR coming to my rescue. It could, but it won't. I can accept that reality whilst still regretting it. I returned to the hobby in earnest at the end of last year, aged 46. I am still of an age at which financial, family and work commitments very much hamper modelling, but I did not want to wait until retirement; who knows how long, healthy or affluent a retirement might be? If I had infinite world enough and time, you could dismiss me as merely impatient, but there is not enough of either for even a portion of the layouts and stock I would like, hence I see RTR, with its high standards, as a great short-cut, but, of course, the apparent paralysis of manufacturers in the face of anything but the Dominant Period and a few convenient spin-offs means that the route of convenience and practicality is not open to me. What I do not find at all persuasive is the idea is that I should allow practicality to dictate my choice of period. I did not have a childhood in the '50s and '60s, so the nostalgia thing does not draw me to the Transition Period. I can view it more objectively and find that, compared with other, earlier, periods, it's rather dull. It is also ubiquitous, and, really, I feel a change would be as good as a rest! The nostalgia cycle is currently starting to favour the blue diesel era, but, as a child, I did not find the Age of the Train remotely inspiring and I find that it has not become any more interesting in retrospect. What fascinates me is the ability to explore different places, periods and railway equipment that are beyond recall and otherwise only live in black and white photographs, and to do so through the medium of modelling. So, I will have a choice between a biggish layout with lots of high quality RTR trains set in a period that has no interest for me, or something far more modest that will progress slowly and struggle to reflect current standards but will at least represent a subject that does interest me. Obviously, I choose the latter. I cannot, thus, complain if that places me in a minority and manufacturers do not rally round to produce some of the models that I want. As I have said, on recent evidence, my expectations of RTR manufacturers in this regard are very, very, low. But, there is a more general point that modellers' interest in a period to a significant extent depends upon accessibility, which depends upon adequate trade support. For instance, what is the point of buying Bachmann's umber E4 when there is no prospect of ever having anything to go with it? l think there is potential for the support of a wider period. We have plenty of locomotives now that could, with the appropriate livery and tooling options, allow a far better coverage of the c.1900-1935 period than we currently enjoy. Such releases would promote better sales of the models that do fall into this period, allowing more layouts to be more easily set in earlier periods. Fostering interest in a wider period might help sell those locomotives after the generational demand for their BR incarnations inevitably tails off. So, every time a decision is made to limit the potential coverage of a new release, I am bound to regard it as regrettable, and as a missed opportunity.

There is much in what you say. Anyone sticking his head above the parapet and advocating earlier period RTR is apt to face certain, by now fairly familiar objections, usually amounting to a view that RTR has no business catering for earlier periods and I have no business expecting it to. I will add here that my expectations are unobjectionably low at present! I cannot help feeling that many of the people who do tell me to learn to build kits or modify RTR might model the periods currently catered for so well by RTR and do not face the reality of the time it takes to master and then apply the necessary skills to produce a decent amount of stock for a layout when simple unpacking another rake of Mk Is is not an option! Time, health and wealth permitting I fully intend to progress my modelling skills. I have committed to some hand-built track on my first ever layout, all my buildings are scratch-built so far, and I am slowly progressing RTR loco conversions and at the planning stage for kit and scratch-built rolling stock. In fact, now I come to think of it, the Oxford North British open is the only potential RTR rolling stock item. So, it's not that I am not prepared to make the effort! By the same token, anyone who produces a RTR loco or rake of coaches makes life easier and has my gratitude. I also think that modern RTR is almost too advanced, detailed, delicate and expensive for bodging, making it all the more important for the manufacturers to make the most of the subject and offer a few more variants. Bonkers decisions like pre-WW1 GW Railmotor but no LSWR Gate-stock & O2, or, pre-War King and Collett coaches but no pre-War 4800, and Umber E4 but no Umber H2 just make my head unscrew and clatter to the floor!

John, that's very much the territory I'm in at the moment - Hornby 14XX, Electrotren 0-6-0, Bachmann Pannier, and Hornby Terrier. Kind readers have pointed out that a L&Y 2-4-2T would make a good basis for a conversion, but that is a whole new price bracket, which is why I haven't sawn into a J15 yet, even though their prices have come down somewhat! By the same token, it's one thing cutting up Triang clerestories, quite another to contemplate replacing the ends of LSWR Gate Stock at £100 a set!

I confess, I have given up with Wish-lists as the official ones seldom distinguish between different versions and liveries of the subjects and experience is teaching me that a vote for "Loco X" merely means "Loco X in BR and, if you're lucky, late-Grouping guise". It matters not that the subject loco might have been introduced pre-WW1 or in the reign of Queen Victoria! I have been bitterly disappointed concerning a number of releases for which tooling variants for earlier incarnations have not been produced or planned for; Hornby T9, Class 700, Adams Radial, Hattons 14XX, Heljan 'Tango', Kernow O2 and Gate Stock, Hornby 'J15', etc, etc. I have to accept that mine is a minority complaint, but, then, I remain of the view that the popularity of earlier periods is a chicken and egg affair. So long as it is effectively inaccessible to new entrants or to any but those who have acquired fairly advanced skills, it will be less popular than it otherwise might be! Just two examples show what I mean. I voted for LSWR stock and we got a SR re-build from 1936 (and not one than can be practically back-dated, by all accounts). Recently I was utterly incredulous when it was revealed that the 'as built' 4800 was not to be produced, as I had not for a moment considered that the typical pre-War appearance of the class would be neglected, so, what a waste of a wish-list vote that was! I am now convinced that this will be true of any pre-Grouping and most Grouping designs canvassed, so I shall not waste my time. A vote for a certain prototype is not a vote for a broader range of period, rather, it merely serves to reinforce the current monomaniacal trend for anything that ran on the Nationalised system plus a few pointless 'as preserved' releases. The Railmotor would be a glorious exception, but one that merely high-lights the deliberate neglect of a comparable LSWR release - a c.1914 O2 and Gate Stock, and the long lacuna between the demise of the GW Railmotors and a war-time/post-war GW auto-train. Patchy, erratic and illogical doesn't begin to describe the 'coverage' of RTR 'ranges' pre-1950s. Yes, they can't do everything. But they could do more. The missed opportunity to produce the 4800 was the final straw for me; a much-loved prototype, the decision pretty much guarantees no 1932-39 version for at least a generation. There are other exceptions, but my shopping list has withered in the face of limited-late-period releases. Aside from the Hatton King, which I am very much looking forward to, my pre-order list is now down to 1 Heljan 009 L&B locomotive and 1 Hornby Peckett because, time after time, a potentially useful release has excluded itself by representing only a limited, late condition, period. It is saving me a small fortune! I should add that I do conversions and I do believe in developing my skills as a modeller. Although it's no easy thing to take a £125 model and attack in a warranty-invalidating conversion, eventually I might purchase some of the releases that I have hitherto rejected, where I think they can be successfully back-dated, but these become projects, and must join a very long back-log of projects, so no immediate purchase and far fewer overall purchases will result.

Thanks very much, Scottish Modeller. I am not, at least at present, a modeller of LMS lines; however, my pre-Grouping interests will involve Midland coaching stock sooner rather than later, and my long-term GW project will involve painting a couple of LMS coaches in pre-1933 livery and also a couple of NPCs. Given all the various influences that affect colour on the prototype and the effect of light and scale, I have come down on the side of "looks right" over theoretical accuracy. From what I have seen, the combination of paints mentioned certainly looks the part. The lined red/crimson liveries of the MR and LMS are stunning, and a great incentive for including such stock on any layout!

A very useful tip. Based upon the preceding posts, would I be correct in assuming that Rover Damask red over red oxide is good for LMS crimson (though perhaps this is not the right word?), as opposed to the maroon which, I seem to recall, was a post-war thing? It certainly seems to look the part on the pre-1933 lined LMS coaches livery. Further, I had always understood LMS crimson to be an extension of Midland livery, so could I further assume that Rover Damask red over red oxide would be a fair representation of Midland livery? I speak from a position of ignorance, so please make excuses!

Nearholmer, on 20 Aug 2016 - 10:26, said: Castle Aching is looking so good that it is in danger of becoming a tourist 'honey trap', which is the quickest way to the ruination of any place. K Unfortunately, the Promoters of the Line have thus far lacked the wherewithal to construct the Permanent Way. Funds need to be raised to insulate and weather-proof the railway room and baseboards constructed before track laying can commence, so CA is safe hoards of tourists for the moment. Shadow, on 20 Aug 2016 - 11:51, said: All I did was take a photo. You've turned it into believable building in a believable town. Really great modelling. Dave Yes, but you did take it, and a good one too, and I am grateful for the time and trouble you have taken to help. Guy Rixon, on 20 Aug 2016 - 13:02, said: If you have access to old MRJs, Chris Croft's series of articles lists the fastener sizes for 1923-spec wagons. I've just looked at an RCH specification-drawing from the 1906 spec, for a 12-ton wagon. The body fastenings, holding the sheeting to the side knees and the diagonal braces, are specified as half-inch bolts. The only other fastener size I can make out (my scan of the drawing isn't perfectly clear) is some 5/8" bolts in the underframe. I would guess that a nut on a half-inch bolt might be 0.75" across the flats (having just looked at a modern, M12 nut), or possibly up to 1" if they were being generous with the metal. Presumably there was a standard for imperial fasteners. POWsides do dry-print transfers for GE open wagons and ventilated vans in 4mm scale. PS: the village is looking lovely and quite inspiring. That is helpful, thank you. I did not know about the POW Sides transfers. For the small lettering era on GW, GE and GN, I still think I need to produce my own stuff if I can. mullie, on 20 Aug 2016 - 13:32, said: Village is looking great and desperately needs a layout to go with it. The people of Pott Row were getting restless as their service has been really poor over the last year. A passenger must be staging a sit in on the light railway platform because she has a wait of at least 4-6 months before a suitable carriage is available. As we are coming out of wartime and rationing is still in place services are well used but stock is very run down. If you don't give your community some trains soon their might be a protest meeting in the local pub as the line from Pott Row could easily have passed through Castle Aching and I will draw a map of the route the Pott Row sits on one day. Yes, we are 60 odd pages in and not a rail has been laid nor a train run. Not even a baseboard. I am very conscious of the need to address this absurd situation sooner rather than later!! You are most welcome. I can remember distinctly exactly when and why my railway mania was re-kindled as an adult, which is why I know it was 17 years that passed in the Armchair before I did anything about it; I hope it was not so long in your case, but, as the Memsahib is prone to say "Just F-ing do it!" Hope to see the results posted on RMWeb in due course. Well, that's the answer. Many thanks again, Simon.

Excellent find. It would be great to work out how to light models that convincingly. I have taken to posting pictures of other people's superb work on the Pre-Grouping Layouts topic. As these pictures are taken at exhibitions, they tend to be on the dark side and I have to lighten them a bit. By accident I clicked on an option that made an image black and white. Then, for some reason, I had the idea of dialling up the saturation. This restored colour, but in a sort of bleached way that resembled colour prints from the Seventies. I have not tried this technique on models; I don't model anything set in the '70s, but the closeness of the effect to my childhood holiday shots of the Dart Valley was striking!

Some progress at last on the village. I have been researching and compiling material for a wagon-build programme. I have reached 20 vehicles and decided to stop! I need to establish what I need for each vehicle (I think only 4 will be OOB kits and one a new chassis for an RTR body, and one of the kits is OOP), and then scrape my coppers together (that's a lot of Gibson axles!). For 1905 in Norfolk, I find that suitable rolling stock will need to be the product of much bashing and bodging. One area that requires further research is the use of Archer's rivets - I have no idea what the best size for wagon bodies might be. Another area is that of producing homemade transfers; West Norfolk Railway and fictitious POs need lettering, though the latter might be supplied by HMRS generic lettering sheets. I also find that the Great Eastern seems to lack transfers. Further, just about every company I would want to represent, save the Midland, would still have been typified by small lettering, not large initials, in 1905. So, I the meantime, I have pressed on with one end of the village, where it is built into the lee of the old castle walls. I am indebted to Shadow for the picture of the 3-storey Georgian gable elevation, which was really the basis of this whole development, as it was just too good a feature not to include. It is from Burnham Market, I believe. Construction is the usual Edwardian home-made affair. The distant chimney pots are from cocktail sticks, the hedge from scouring pad and the wisteria from tea leaves.

Good to see you able to fit some modelling in around Real life. Which reminds me ....

For the present, I will only need rivets for one task - traditional wooden-bodied and wooden framed goods wagons, in 4mm - I wonder if anyone can please advise the best size Archer's rivet to use?

Looks impressive, but I will wait to see if a version suitable for the mid-thirties emerges.

Well, Jonathan, I am glad that you did post today, as it caused me to stumble upon your topic, which had somehow hitherto eluded me. I have very much enjoyed catching up.

Perfect, Stephen, many thanks. James

Interesting point, John, as the literature tends to be by company, rather than period. It takes a long time and a substantial investment to amass the literature on all the pre-Group companies whose wagons and through coaches might appear on a given layout! Thus far, I have expanded my knowledge outwards from my traditionally GWR base to encompass GE, LNWR (to a limited extent), LBSC and LSWR. Next things to mug up on are GN, MR and SECR, but I lack dedicated volumes for any of those. I believe that the GNR had a particularly interesting 'small letter' variant of 'G Northern R', pre-1898, but I don't have the detail I'd like for this company.

Look forward to that, as I contemplate dusting off mine! If I might ask you to share some of your Midland expertise ... I am currently modelling 1905. In terms of most company goods wagons, this is the small letter era. The GER did not adopt its large 'G E' until circa 1903, the GWR, as you have noted, adopted larger initials from 1904. LSWR and LB&SC were early adopters of larger lettering (c.1891 and 1897 respectively), but the big 18" 'LBSC' letters did not come in until 1911. The Premier Line, as noted, waited until 1908 to put any initials at all on its wagons, and these were of the large variety then prevalent. So, in 1905, most or all, depending upon the company, company wagons feature small letters. What about the Midland? Was it an early adopter of large lettering? I note you model "early Edwardian", so I am assuming a relatively early date for the big 'M R'. Further, I cannot recall a picture of a Midland wagon in anything other than those very large initials.

Hello Alan. I have just found this topic. It was good to meet you and see Outwell Village at Thirsk last month. I hope you do not mind if I post some of the pictures I took.

Beautiful work. I am sorry to hear of your difficulties, and very much sympathise, but I am glad things seem to have turned around. I think you have achieved a very subtle and realistic effect. I love the figure painting and the consistency in finish between them and the subtly weathered buildings and stock. Again, the, somewhat bleak, atmosphere is perfectly captured.

Forgive me, Hroth, but that could have been more happily phrased!

A wonderful bit of nostalgia for me there, Kevin. My three childhood influences were (1) the Railway Series, which was the only reason I learnt to read, (2) Repeated visits to the Dart Valley and Torbay & Dartmouth, and, (iii) my father's stack of '50s RMs. So, Rev. Awdry's Ffarqhar in RM was a bit special. To my regret, I never met Rev. Awdry, but I have fond memories of a visit to Cadeby to see the "Fat Clergyman".

It certainly used to be, and hopefully still is, an offence to deface coins of the realm. You bad man. Dimes (worth significantly less than pennies) are great to mount war-games figures on. And cheaper than washers.