PGN

Aha! Another modelling cliche that I had forgotten all about made its presence known to me at an exhibition at the weekend ... on a layout which took one of the exhibition's trophies, no less. Sheeted wagons, with a sagging sheet and a little pool of water in the middle!

If we were to follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, would we not have to argue that having trains running through the station is also a cliche, because most of the time there are no trains there in fact?

In general, that's a definite maybe ... BUT the railway is going from somewhere and to somewhere, and the civil engineer wasn't always willing (or able) to bend it in the middle to take it closer to the town or village (especially village) that it was nominally serving. Always beware a station called something-or-other ROAD ... it notmally means it's on the road to that place, not at that place itself, and you may have a very long walk from station to settlement. As the ultimate expression of this phenomenon, I give you the northernmost extent of the Metropolitan Railway, where the stations beyond Aylesbury were Waddesdon Manor (to serve the Rothschilds, obviously), Quainton Road, Grandborough Road, Winslow Road and Verney Junction. There wasn't even anything at the junction ... which was therefore named after the local landowner (a direct descendant of King Charle I's standard bearer, who died at Edgehill, for those of you with an interest in 17th century history ...) The stations on the LNWR's Cambridge - Oxford line were pretty good at being a long way from the settlements they served, too. There was nothing much at Lord's Bridge or Old North Road. Kempston & Elstow Halt was a good walk from either (particularly Kempston); Lidlington is at the very edge of the settlement of that name; Ridgmont is at the foot of the hill whilst the village of that name is up the top; beyond Bletchley I'm not really qualified to comment but I daresay it's more of the same. However, ladies and gentlemen, for the ultimate in stations serving absolutely nothing and nowhere at all I give you ... ... SALCEY FOREST, on the Stratford-upon-Avon and Midland Junction Railway

You've just described Flitwick to a T ... and if you follow the line North a little ("down the line" to the modern railwayman; but "up" to the Midland Railway ...) you'll come to the Ampthill cutting and tunnel ... Speaking personally, though, I think that maybe the meticulously researched prototypically-correct layout which is an exact replica of how the real thing appears / appeared may have had its day and be becoming a bit of a cliche. I mean, seriously guys - let the builder build what he pleases! Is a Turner seascape a "cliche" because ALL his paintings (give or take) were seascapes? No? Then why does something on a model railway become a cliche just because lots of model railways have it? Sure ... discuss the question of whether a particular scene is REALISTIC or not if you wish (and I'll happily point out the flaws in the "countryside" scenes built by townie modellers if you ask me to); and many of these so-called cliches jar because they are NOT realistic and are just shoved on as a substitute for proper research of the subject. BUT if your conclusion is that it's not realistic, then make that your conclusion and keep it to yourself UNLESS the builder asks you whether you think it realistic or not. Because not every builder WANTS to make realistic landscape the focus of his modelling. There are some who want to focus on operation, and are quite happy to run their trains through a cliched landscape of unrealistic cameos, so long as their trains are realistic. And what's wrong with that? Nothing at all I say. There is no such thing as a right or a wrong approach to railway modelling. Sure, there may be approaches that are right or wrong for you; but that's no excuse for projecting your own personal prejudices onto the next guy and saying that they make his modelling "wrong" when it happens to be right for him. My pet hates ... which you see often enough that they may fairly be said to be cliches ... 1. Modern image which doesn't actually look like what I see around me 2. Graffitti everywhere on modern image layouts (yes, I KNOW it's everywhere on the real thing ... but it spoils the look of the real thing and it spoils the look of a model to, in my opinion. Let your imagination run riot, I say, and model it as it ought to appear if all those louts stopped spraying everything like incontinent Tom cats ...) 2 1/2. Pedants who suggest that there is an inconsistency between my point 1 and point 2 3. "Big 4" secondary passenger services made up of identical rakes of matched stock 4. Transitional period layouts (and there are very few periods where there wasn't some sort of transition going on) where it appears that we all woke up one morning to find that the livery fairies had been round and repainted every item of rolling stock in the same livery overnight 5. Layouts on which all the stock is uniformly weathered, and nothing ever appears as if it has been outshopped or cleaned more recently than anything else But perhaps the two biggest cliches which jar with me are operational, and they are: 6. L........a........y........o........u........t........s....................w........h.........e........r..........e.....................e........v.......e........r.......y.........t........h.........i.......n.......g h....a....s..........t.....o................m........o........v.........e..................t..........e........r........r.........i........b.........l........y..................s.........l..........o.........w...........l..........y 7. Layouts where a train stops over the uncoupler and the locomotive immediately reverses away having uncoupled then stops the moment it is clear of the point blade and the point is thrown the instant the locomotive has stopped and the locomotive then instantly starts up again and couples up with something else and immediately backs away pulling it with it and .... you get the idea. I mean, what IS the point of going to all that effort to make sure that it doesn't LOOK like a toy train set, if you then make the trains behave in a way that only trains on a toy train set ever behave??

I've been trying to persuade him for as long as I can remember of the merits of producing models of pre-grouping prptotypes which ran through into BR days without any major rebuilding ... so that even if he only offers them in "Big 4" and BR liveries, the option for retro-painting them will always be there. Personally, I should like to see one of the GER 2-4-0s ...

What a fascinating debate - and what a wide variety of points of view. Why, there are almost as many different points of view expressed here as there are different approaches to railway modelling! But isn't that the whole point??? Our hobby is a broad church and there is room for anyone and everyone. For some modellers, it's all about making as nearly as possible an exact replica of an actual location, at an actual date, with the very stock that ran there at that time (or, if your initials are PD, the very stock that NEVER ran there ... but totally convincingly so!!). For others it is about accurate operation of their replica railway. For others again, it is about having a nice scene through which they can run their stock and "watch the trains go by". For others it is about ... well, I think you have probably got my point. And railway preservation? Well, here again, it seems to me that there are as many different approaches as there are preserved railways. I'm familiar with more than a few of them: and each has its own merits and demerits. Model one? I might be tempted. If I do, I would probably want to model it on a gala day, to justify having more than a measly two or three locomotives running. And why not? Real or imaginary? A bit of both, probably. The location, and the preserved line, might well be fictitious. But the operational side? The choice of stock? I'd try to give the right "feel" of preservation, recognising the factors that give the preserved scene its feel. Factors like ... in the rush to rescue locomotives from Barry, the mix of locomotives which was saved from the cutter's torch was all wrong. Big powerful types were saved in abundance ... but unless they're big enough and iconic enough to be worthy of main line railtour work, they're a pain in the preservationist's bum, tbh, because they burn too much fuel and don't get enough work to justify their existence. Moguls and 56xx tanks and locomotives in that sort of power bracket are much more useful ... but are there enough to go around? And then, of course, there's the industrial saddletanks. Meaty, powerful, easy to maintain (why did the NCB choose to keep these ones on, do you suppose?? It was a kind of "survival of the fittest") so everyone has one or five. But what kind of "preserved train" is an Austerity tank with a string of five Mk I coaches rattling along behind it? Yet it's a pretty ubiquitous sight, so if you're modelling the "British railway preservation scene" then it seems to me that this is the kind of thing you ought to be running. Or should you? What about preserved lines like the Bluebell? They were first in there, and so they got the pick of the locomotives. And what locomotives they picked! Much of it runs, or has at some time been run, in pre-grouping livery: and why not, if it is a pre-grouping prototype? Many of their freight vehicles are beautifully painted in pre-grouping colours - predominantly those of the constituents of the Southern Railway because of their location. There is an overall coherence to what they offer - the Southern and its constiuents predominate so if you are looking for "locational fidelity" then here it is. The Severn Valley offers "locational fidelity" o fa different kind - but has built up rakes of LMS and LNER coaches, as well as their "prototypical" GWR stock. And then ... and then ... Yes, there are plenty of different approaches ot preservation; and there are plenty of ways you could go abotu modelling preservation. But if it's not for you, then fine: don't do it. Do what fires your enthusiasm. If it's not what fires my enthusiasm, then no matter. It's your model not mine, and I'll not knock you for your personal choice. And I hope you'll want to reciprocate that tolerance of the other man's point of view ...

A little birdie tells me that, provided you switch to N, you may have your Director sooner than you think ...

The Dunalastair II would invite a special edition in that rather gorgeous chocolate brown Belgian livery, would it not??

Once upon a time there was a member of RMweb whose job it was to wind up football clubs who didn't pay their taxes on time ...

Do not forget, either, that just about every railway that was ever built in Britain was authorised by Act of Parliament. The Act was introduced as a Bill. And the Bill had no end of information lodged with it - including drawings, plans, schedules of landholding etc. ALL of these remain available to be consulted at the House of Lords Records Office. Of course, once the land had been compulsorily purchased and teh track laid, subsequent alterations to the track layout which did not require the acquisition of additional land could be done without further authorisation by further Act. But for many loactions, the papers which were lodged with the Bill will give you no end of useful material.

Are you sure you don't mean Glen Sannox?

This is quite simply one of the most amazing pieces of modelling I have ever seen. And to see the steady progress of the project through the photographs is truly wonderful. Having travelled on most of the CalMac fleet, I certainly think it looks the part. At the end of the day, though, my heart will always belong to Isle of Arran (although I might be unable to resist the odd infidelity with Pioneer ... ) Just looking back up at the picture of the Holyhead ferry, did they REALLY paint the double arrow BR logo the wrong way round on the funnel? Or has some numpty in the dark room put the negative in the enlarger teh wrong way up, and failed to notice?