Edwardian

Thanks. My ambition right now is to get to the stage at which I could actually frame a meaningful question.

Never have I felt so out of it. Downloaded Inkscape. Totally bewildering. Yet you all seem to understand it! I feel I could spend a thousand years stumbling around the thing and never learn to draw a straight line. It's worse than Templot (which had me in full Ed Reardon mode within minutes; I had to scrub that wretched program off my hard-drive and down 3 G&Ts before I could stop shaking). The Inkscape "guide" seems to relate to something with only a passing resemblance to the thing on my screen and was indecipherable in the absence of the knowledge the techies who wrote the guide assumed I had. As soon as it started gabbling about "snapping" in a way that assumed I was as familiar with this concept as with, say "walking" or "frowning", I was lost and never found my way back. How the Hell do you people do it?!? Quite possibly I'm a moron, but really, it's impenetrable to me! Yet you all post away as if using these programs is the most natural thing in the world.

I went to Hereford once. Regimental ball. All the chaps had black rectangles over their eyes. Most off putting. I went to Swansea once. Monumental Mumbles pub crawl. I went to Cardiff once (changing trains on a Sunday). It was closed.

I grew up on the borders of Danegeld. Inhabitants of the village 2 miles distant from ours spoke with a markedly different accent. This village's name had the 'by' ending associated with Viking settlements. Our village bore a name of Anglo-Saxon origin. I persist in the fanciful notion of a causal link between the differing accents and the differing origins of these two settlements.

Duncan, Hang on in there! I swore that, by a certain age, I would stop putting things off and take up modelling. I would make time. In fact, I vowed to do something worthwhile every day, even if that was research rather than hands on, because it would still be a necessary contribution to a given project. I did start, one year late, and it worked for a few weeks this spring, then a house move became necessary and every spare moment since has been devoted to getting the house ready for market. This, on top of a full time job, 2 young children and 4 dogs, has really done for the modelling, so I feel your pain. The good news is that, thankfully, the house received an offer almost immediately. We are making final preparations for the surveyor's visit tomorrow. Fingers crossed it passes muster. Wherever we go next will be a lot smaller, and, probably, a rental. It certainly won't have the 33' x 16' Games Room that could have hosted a model railway! If things go to plan, the next several weeks will be spent packing, not modelling! BUT, at the end of the process, at some point, I will have a large shed and time to do something in it. Goodness it's a job getting there, and I hope that you, too, can arrange things so that at some time in the not too distance future, you have the time to put Hinton Ampner together!

Chris, I meant to ask, what sleeper spacing did you go for in the end?

I went to a relatively minor exhibition 2-3 years ago, specifically to see Rowlands Castle. It was well worth the trip to see it in the flesh, furthermore, Peter Goss was an absolute gentleman, giving of his time to answer questions and delightful to meet. It is a beautiful model, and what I can only describe as a consistency in the way it is finished makes it very convincing. One of my favourites, without a doubt. Anyway, Hinton Ampner is a great concept and I look forward to seeing it 'emerge'.

So, Ashley Bridge:

Sorry to hear that and hope she is well. Mind you, could be worse; when the Memsahib pulled a similar stunt, she broke a George III tilt-top occasional table. Now it's not even a table occasionally.

Yes, strangely, I have a great reluctance to move past August 1914; when I think of pre-grouping, I think of pre-Great War, I suppose because this was the heyday, before the War took its toll. Though I read that some of the best locomotive performance was achieved meeting the traffic requirements of the war, we all know that this came at a cost. Post-war pre-grouping has less appeal, as does post WW2 pre-Nationalisation or Transition Era or "Death Steam". I suppose I am a heyday rather than a fag-ends enthusiast! From c.1895, by which time most of the familiar (to us) elements of the steam-age railway were in place, to 1914, is the most varied and colourful era, IMHO, though I do have a soft spot for that last great brief blaze of glory of the '30s, before it, too, was cut short.

My recollections were of stone-built terraces in the West Riding (I persist in the belief that Yorkshire is divisible by 3, not 4). Often hard to capture such details with confidence from old monochrome photographs.

Interesting, Chris. Paths, their materials and arrangement. I tell you, it's a subject all in itself. There are references to cinder paths near railways (I believe there is even a Catherine - "will ye still love me with me wooden leg" - Cookson novel named for one), and I have tried to represent similar with very fine sandpaper. I've seen pictures of what are essentially brick setts in garden paths. I believe these were often yellow, hence the Road to Oz, I suppose, or blue. Now, there is something for Scalescenes et al to tackle. Seemingly terraces were often built with no apparent divisions between gardens; the fencing being, apparently, left to the occupiers to erect. In the Yorkshire of my youth I recall paths made of flagstones that led directly across the backs of terraced houses, dividing them from the gardens, with all the stone-built privies forming a terrace of their own, often at the end of a row. These terraces often had communal 'drying grounds'. Possibly due to my own lack of observational skills, I don't recall an example of such arrangements in model form, though I remember seeing them as clearly as I can hear the brass bands playing "From the New World" whilst going to buy a loaf of bread. But, then, in them days, we were grateful to live in a hole in the ground...

Well, Chris, I feel I am a similar place. I have very little time for modelling, so must creep forward, but you are right that one must first piece together the every day scene. I am aiming for around the turn of the century and constantly face the challenge of establishing how things looked then, as opposed to now or in the relatively familiar '50s and '60s. Just something as simple as a garden path requires a degree of thought; no concrete patio slabs in 1900s gardens!

A recent find for me, and I have enjoyed catching up. Very much my sort of thing, I find, and I look forward to the updates.

Presumably a 4mm scale Mr Robinson beside some 7mm scale chain. I just want that hat.

Mr Stroudley said it was green, and I think you should respect that! My dog is a not dissimilar shade of "green". Terms are interesting. We all need to pigeon-hole for the sake of order and brevity, yet they can cause difficulties! For instance, from the enviable position of complete indifference,I have watched people bicker endlessly over the term 'Modern Image'; what it means, to which period it should be applied, whether it should still be used or should ever have been coined! BG John makes a fair point about 'pre-grouping'. Presumably, if you were London & North Western inclined, for instance, you could happily regard 1846 as the Grouping, whereas pre-grouping would be the days of the London and Birmingham, Manchester and Birmingham and Grand Junction Railways! Anyway, I'd like to see a Prussian layout (pre or post Unification, surely?) I'm pretty relaxed about the terminology, provided that you use nothing so misleading and so imprecise as to be worse than useless as the egregious 'Era' system that Bachmann has attempted to foist upon the British Outline scene! There, we all have our pet hates! As to the second Ashley Bridge picture I found, if I were considering opening a model shop, I might ask her to pose provocatively with the stock, smouldering over a Pullman, perhaps, or stroking a Pendolino (whatever one of those might be). You could work in some sophisticated wordplay around the word "model", as John E suggests. You never know, it might catch on.

OK, what about Labradors? I have 4 well worth modelling, 2 in goods black, 1 in Marsh Umber and another in Improved Engine Green.

Likewise Macclesfield MRC's Butley Town. They used to run a fully-lined Great Western Railmotor, appeared generally Grouping in a vaguely inter-war way, but with a post-war policeman and Zebra Crossing, with standard issue '50s school children (Merit in both cases) and road signage that, while it had its origins pre-war, would probably not have reached such a location in the '30s. A truly fine example of 'finescale OO' (for those who permit such a term), with lovely track, but solecisms included the rendering of all the architecture in Western Region chocolate and cream! In the innocent world of c. 1975-85, nobody seemed to mind and they all had fun. We had fun reading of their efforts; I remember drooling over pictures of this layout in full colour in the late lamented Contsructor. Actually, I posit two layout schemes for my own consideration; one a prototype location set in a specific 2-week period in a particular year, the other, fictitious, providing a span of at least a dozen years and being geographically ambiguous enough for me to run everything that cannot run on the first mentioned. Once I have world enough and time ...

Chris, you are kind to suggest it, but all I have is a row of cottages that have yet to receive gardens. As I am planning to move house it could be months before I have a chance to produce baseboards. As it will be a freelance line set around the turn of the Century, it will certainly be pre-grouping era and I will post in Layout Topics and link here once things start to take place.

While admiring pre-grouping EM and P4 layouts, for practical reasons I stick to OO for my attempts at 'entry level' pre-grouping. I recalled a fine layout that showed how a bit of pre-grouping flair could be achieved in the popular gauge to the great encouragement of duffers like me. It was by a gentleman called Robert Tivendale and called Ashley Bridge. I tried to find some pictures of the layout, but only managed to find the following Ashley Bridge pictures; neither of which was quite what I had in mind. Can anyone help?

Well, I have put my money where my keyboard is and just downloaded the new stables. Download looks good up close; a nice mellow brick. It's Flemish bond, for any who are interested. A particularly useful feature, which I have never seen modelled before, is the giraffe stable at the end. Need to find some decent horses in 4mm, oh, and a giraffe.

Gas Works - Good old steam age small town gas works a la Fakenham or the various Peter Denny schemes. The Aged Brown and Aged Red Brick textures would be perfect. Maltings - Snape, Dereham, Ely and a 100 more Small town brewery a la Southwold, Stamford, Wisbech etc etc

Well, what an attractive and unusual building, and executed very well in kit form. I can see I must have one of these, even at the cost of altering and expanding the planned facilities! Well done!

We are a funny lot and, and each has his bete noire, not least where model figures are concerned. Many descriptions one reads of layouts contain proud descriptions of the many cameo scenes dotted about 'to add to the interest', and the suggestion is that the exhibition going public enjoy them. Others, whom I think of as 'cameo-phobes', will invariably indicate their disapproval of this approach in print, and ensure that no one on their layouts can be accused of doing anything! The No Movement and Less is More schools of thought are clearly the fashion at the moment, but do not suit all modelled locations, and perhaps need not be applied so strictly in all instances. I think, though, that the potentiality of movement, rather than the dynamic pose, is a good compromise, and by this I mean what Alfsboy has just said. During the phase that I can now say I have finally left behind - 'Edwardian: The Armchair Years' - I absorbed much wisdom from books and articles and benefited enormously from it. Authors naturally have their preferences. Some authors are fairly forthright in tone, an example being what I think of as 'The Edicts of Freezer', which generally prove to be right, and which are ignored at one's peril. Mr Rice is a deal more subtle, but it is quite clear what his preferences are and Rice's Laws of Motion ((1) Never depict frozen motion, and, (2) If you must, make it minimal) are there for all to see in his writings. If I dare add my twopenneth: I would say that it is not necessary to be so prescriptive. A horses for courses (obviously the horses will be standing still, and certainly not racing) may be considered; if one is modelling a busy town street, for example, frozen horses with stationary carriages, and frozen walkers may be appropriate. People engaged in activity may be best represented in the more passive and less dynamic poses associated with the activity, as per Alfsboy's cricket illustration. The quality of the thing modelled and the success with which it captures its subject is more important than whether it adheres to any arbitrary set of rules. With figures, restricting your people to the best sculpts available, even if that means omitting scenes that otherwise interest you, and devoting time and technique to their painting, are the surest roads to realism, almost regardless of what the figure is doing. Apropos WW1 figures, the yet-to-be-released HaT Industrie BEF set will be infinitely superior to the old Airfix set. It, too, contains only 1 marching pose (I guess you will get 4 of these out of 32 in a box). The accuracy and sculpting will be far better and it will more correctly represent the 1914 equipment. The figures will be 1/72nd rather than the undersized (for that scale) early Airfix set. HaT guns and limbers have been used on the Plemsworth layout at Butterly. These are good wargames models, but the W D artillery is more detailed and, of course, to the correct scale. Nevertheless, the Butterly model is stunning and can only be counted a successful and attractive model. This only goes to show that getting too hung up about scale can be unnecessary.

That's because you both suffer from Ricean Angst. This is a morbid fear of breaking Rice's First Law of Motion: Never depict frozen motion. Try to overcome it by modelling a passenger walking up stairs. As your condition improves you may be able to attempt other depictions implying movement without inducing Mental Paralysis. For now, though, I would avoid modelling waterfalls, say, or speedboats cutting through water. I would insert a smiley thing at this point, just to show that I am joking, but I am not 12 and I consider that mankind has evolved sufficiently to detect the tongue when placed in the cheek. Mind you, it's an odd prototype that calls for running, crawling or shooting passengers in any case. WD are 1/76, not 1/72, and I believe are true to their stated scale. Elsewhere both nominal scales suffer from scale creep. 1/72nd wargames figures have been growing in size for years. Some nominally 1/76 railway figures are far too large. Mr Stadden's appear small by comparison, but Mr Stadden is the one who has taken the care to get the scale correct, and he has considered that people in past years were on average smaller in stature. Hurray for both ranges, I say.