Regularity

All the best Gary. A bigger issue is where it has already been...

Good man! And in case anyone thinks this childish, they might be right but they should read Michael Palin’s sleeve liner notes on the first Travelling Wilburys album, or Eric Idle’s notes on the second. (Amusingly called “Vilume 3”. Oh how we laughed.) Unfortunately, there wasn’t a prototype called “Jampton”. Was there a GWR 2900 class called, “No, I always walk this way.”?

As indicated, we have taken our contretemps off-line, and had a very interesting discussion. At least, I think so, and I hope Dave thinks so, too. On with the love-in... My major concern is that the basic dimensions be accurate, and main features correctly proportioned. Since my major modelling activities, such as they are at the moment, are North American outline S Scale, even a “cheap” RTR freight car (goods wagon for those not bilingual in English and, er, English) costs a bit, what with VAT and shipping (and VAT is applied to that as well!) so I am extremely grateful that in the late 70s I started down the path of buying things like Hornby class 25s and replacing cast details, and adding screw link couplings, etc, as it means I have no fear of buying an expensive brass engine, such as my USRA 0-6-0*, and taking it apart in the cause of minor detail variations, but also re-profiling the wheels and probably replacing the drive with something more discreet. Most of my US friends (but bizarrely none of my Canadian friends) think I am brave to do this, and some wail that I am mad and have decreased the value of my model (bless ‘em: it has increased the value of theirs!) but I take the simple view that what I want to achieve is an accurate model. Whether the starting point is RTR, kit or raw materials is not always the point. The end result always is. What I have found is that if something is massively inaccurate, it isn’t worth buying to begin with as the amount if work is more than starting from scratch. I have also found that the more “input” I provide, the more personal satisfaction I derive from the finished model, but the fewer models I have as a result. Thus, dimensionally accurate RTR can be a real timesaver, even if some of the details are wrong, missing, or in need of refinement. In this day and age, where the hobby is no longer about selling toy train sets and getting kids to want extra items for birthdays/pocket money savings, but us about a serious adult pastime, then dimensional accuracy should be taken as read and Dave makes a valid point: why not be prepared to pay a bit more for the correct details, why not have the manufacturer design this in from the start? It’s not a new idea: after Chris Ellis modified a class 33 into a class 26, Lima were so taken with the result that they borrowed his Model for a number of years, and worked out that by having some sections of the moulds replaceable, they could ring the changes, e.g. a different cab roof, and you have the basis for a class 27, different pattern of grilles at the cantrail, and you cover the type 2/type 3 variations. Not every single detail can be covered this way, but many could. Not only that, but if (for example) there were two patterns of grille on the nose, then have a receptacle on the nose, and apply the appropriate grille for a particular version. This would be manna from heaven for detail freaks, as it would be easy to remove the moulding to replace it with an etching from the “after market”. If anyone thinks this is daft, it already happens in the USA and Canada, where the serious end of the hobby expects to see the correct detail variations, including the correct cab and dynamic brake blusters, match up with the paint scheme. Yes, these models do cost more, but many of them are superbly accurate and excellent runners. The extra cost is more to do with extra care and quality than having a multitude of variants, as the major units - the core part of the body, and the truck (bogie) side frames - see much more production, and therefore a better return on capital investment as well as a reduction in unit cost and therefore final sale price. When I heard the phrase “design clever” being used by Hornby, I thought the above was what they were going to do. Alas, I was wrong, but there is no reason why a manufacturer could not pick up on this. It would quite possibly lead to more use being made of the main body moulds, as rather than simply producing new liveries, the details can be modified to suit. The differentiation between their main range and the “Railroad” range does indicate some of this thinking, but more could be done. And even the Railroad range is streets ahead of what was available to me as a young teenager. (Some of it is on a par with the Airfix and Palitiy Models which forced Hornby to up their game. Some if it is the old Airfix and Palitoy models...) Threads like this one are important: it is not just about finding faults, it is about pointing out how they could have been avoided, and most importantly, it is about telling the manufacturers that we are not kids, we are adults who in return for a bit of respect from the manufacturers are prepared to pay a little bit more for an improved result. *The purchase of which caused not a little disruption to domestic harmony, when SWMBO found out!

Just make sure that the shelf is suitably braced! To assemble one, you might wish to visit this website: https://throwflame.com

Who will be first to call theirs “Hugh”?

Also, it depends on whether individuals are prepared to make modifications to their expensive purchases. Back in the late 70s when moulded handrails and worse yet mounded painting guides were the norm, then a bit of replacement/removal was a gentle introduction into modifying RTR, which removed any reverence for the as-bought condition of the model. The quality of most of the recent new releases is astounding, and to be applauded, but it can be rather intimidating.

Some of their kits, including the 48DS, were also available in Gauge 3, albeit I think under a different trading name. If you thought 1:32 was big... A lot of gauge 1 manufacturers advertise within the G1MRA Newsletter as this means they reach at least 95% of the market. Similar for small suppliers in G0: until I saw a G0G Gazette and visited a traders show, I had no idea how much was available in that scale. This is a big problem for the less popular scales. Small suppliers simply cannot afford to advertise in the mainstream press, and why should they when they are unlikely to generate many if any new sales? And yet at the same time, how do the scales themselves make modellers aware of how much is actually available, as a means of attracting new entrants? Anyone wondering about changing or trying a different scale is encouraged to visit the annual meetings of the specialist societies, to find out more about what is and isn’t available. Hope you don’t mind the diversion: that’s a nicely finished Model.

Dave and I are exchanging cordial PMs over the matter. As far as we are concerned, the matter is closed, at least in public.

It has to be experienced to be believed.

I wish it was that simple in my case - my modelling mojo is lacking even when I don’t have a lot on my plate! Nothing like a spell of wading knee-deep in sh1t to make one truly grateful for getting out of it. Good luck with sorting things out.

That will be interesting to see.I recommend securely glueing the timbers down before you cut the webs.

Ah, but do you have a copy of the Ian Allan “Train Spotter Spotter’s Guide”? Spotters are classified by loudness crossed by waistline, subdivided by apparel - mostly plastic-based coats, which provide of course for increased BO.

Ram it home, why don’t ewe?

Will you be using the new Peco bullhead track and points?

It’s quite large, isn’t it? Looks like it might catch on anything in the four foot.

How do you get it hot enough? Coat and hat at the ready...

That girl on the platform, she’s not going to suddenly turn round and start telling us all about Hotel Trivago, is she?

Probably the most sensible remark made in this thread. I am sure that they are fully aware of the interest in class 25, not least because they want some for themselves, but given the development costs, the availability of slots in the production environment, and the requirement to get a good return on initial investments before making new ones, then then no amount of wishlist frothery is going to change the hard economic and business facts which will determine when such models will make it to market. The alternative is for SLW to provide another example of the old saw, “Easiest way to make a small fortune supplying the hobby is to start with a large one.” And then we wouldn’t get a class 25 to this standard at all.

Mark, The issue is that no one can really “approve” someone else’s layout plan. What suits you may not suit them, and vice versa. What we can do, is to ask questions; make you think about what you want and how you will operate the layout, and comment about how the prototype might have done things (usually in the simplest manner to meet the needs of the traffic). If you are lucky, someone may have detailed knowledge of what was typical for a particular railroad, locality or area and provide specific advice, but other than that, you are not (hopefully) going to be granted approval from some all-knowing entity, and any individual providing approval is probably just a know-all. That said, there are some weird things in the real world, but for every prototypical anomaly, there are approaching 100 modellers using the exception as an excuse for breaking the rules, rather than for testing them. The best approval will come by copying prototype practice, and through a thorough understanding of it. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how good the modelling is, it’s just playing with toy trains.

Not so much a case of life I imitating art as a Model imitating the Prototype!

I recall a review of a book, something like, “An Illustrated History of GWR Fire Buckets” in the Modeller many years ago when the occasional glimpse of humour was still permitted, and thinking, “Dear God, they’ll write a book about anything Great Western.” Then I realised that the cover date was April...

Or you could use 10 thou plasticard for the basic body shell (too thin for use on a layout, where 20 thou would give you the required robustness) but ideal here. I already have a small 12” x 8.5” diorama for displaying a wagon: I could cut it down, I suppose, but then it would hardly be longer than the length over buffers.

The cost is simply a reflection in the increase in size: the etched will be in thicker material, but the area of the sheet increases by the square of the increase in scale. For castings, the relationship is cubic. IIRC, the kit is fairly basic.