Willie Whizz

Oh dear, it would be very sad indeed if Leicester South Goods could no longer be seen. Being born and living a little further up the London Extension I never knew the original close-to as a lad, but I find it wonderfully evocative of the GC as I knew it - as the old model railway truism has it, you can instantly tell what line you're on without so much as seeing a train. Indeed a friend of mine (sadly deceased this year) who did grow-up in the area in the late 50s/early 60s, and did a lot of his spotting around it, literally had tears in his eyes when he first saw the layout at an exhibition last year; so many memories did it bring back. The trains themselves do appear spot-on, of course, and those working wagon turntables are quite amazing to watch. I'll gladly admit that the semaphore signals not working as yet barely registered with us, but that in itself may be indicative of sufficient atmosphere; the only thing we felt at all lacking was that there didn't seem to be many figures populating the scenery - railway or 'civilian'. Sometimes that can be way overdone, of course, but in this case it was if anything the other way; a bit "Sunday morning quiet". But no doubt all this can come in time if the building and operating crew are spared and don't lose their health or their mojos. The published articles have been inspirational, and certainly if I can make my own GC efforts just getting properly under way even half as good as yours, I'll call myself a modeller. I hope you can keep up the good work.

That's the one! Sorry, my memory was playing me false - like you, I read them to my children at bedtime, but we're talking nearly 30 years ago for me, after all. They both like trains still, which has to be a 'result' of sorts, but I can't get either of 'em remotely interested in my modelling, let alone doing their own. Heck, you've got me thinking now - I wonder if there ever was a real instance of an A3 (Gordon look-alike) ever "losing its dome"? Where can we find an expert on A3s when we need one ...?

I may be wrong, but I seem to recall something like that happening in one of the Thomas stories - and most of those were based upon, or at least inspired by, real events, so I'm sure someone must have ...

There is a remedy that would add strength of course ... but then no doubt you'll have people complaining that it's over-scale and clunky! Who'd be a manufacturer - you really, really can't please all the people all the time ...

Hi Andreas. I'm intrigued by this idea, as I'm always reluctant to build a coach as a sealed, solid box in case something comes adrift during use. But can I ask, do you find one magnet each end is sufficient? My fear is, what if over time the coach roof starts to bow or to swell in the middle, and there is nothing to help 'fix' it. Thanks.

I'm very pleased for those of you who have managed to build-up a large 'Spares box' over the years. And I concede that a certain self-reliance is to be encouraged in sourcing some of the absolute basics. But, like I said, authors should be thinking more about their 'Target Audience'. Unless I have mistaken the thrust of Tony's argument, he is seeking (on here and in some of his own articles) to encourage people who have very little experience to 'have a go'. Now, if one is writing for MRJ and believe the target readership likely to be inspired by your particular article to have perhaps 40-50 kits or major modification projects under their belt, then yes by all means assume a fair degree of knowledge,of technique, and of self-reliance as regards sourcing. If our hypothetical author is, however, writing for one of the more mainstream magazines and hoping to encourage complete or comparative novices, then for goodness sake write and support accordingly, because a certain amount of hand-holding is required at that stage. Such people may not know what a Gresley-pattern LNER flange crinkler even is; let alone where to source one. (Let's face it, even with t'Internet, a high proportion of 'cottage industry' websites are barely more than jargon-ridden lists with, at best, fuzzy photographs and often none at all;, and assume that the customer already knows the exact title, version, size, fixing method, part number and use of the product being looked-at. And if you think I'm just being facetious in having made that part name up, how many novices or near-novices would know what a 'snifting valve' looks like or does? Did you, two or three kits in to your career?). And if it becomes apparent from the article that the only likely source ever was (as another poster suggested) a firm that expired 20-30 years ago but the Author nonetheless managed to build/modify his project because he just "happened" to have one sitting in his extensive Spares Box built-up over that same 20-30 years ... well frankly, that is at best unhelpful and at worst a complete turn-off to the novice that also damages the author's reputation (except to his peers - which makes one wonder if they, after all, are sometimes the true 'Target Audience?). Is it asking too much for authors who spend many hours on their project and many more writing it up, and who are aiming their articles at the comparative novice, to actually say: "I used an old one I've had hanging around for several years, but to help you I took a few minutes to check and you can still obtain these from xxxxx"? Is it asking too much to ask Editors to insist they do? I think not! And conversely, if the kit/project covered by the article is such that only experienced modellers with confidence and a vast and relevant Spares Box should realistically even attempt it, then for Heaven's sake say so - at the start! That doesn't mean the Novice won't read it and perhaps yet be inspired - but it will stop him giving-up in despair part-way through; or never even making a start, because he thinks the task sounds beyond him. Which, if you experienced guys have been paying attention to what the rest of us have been saying, is still all too common and perhaps even getting worse. Right, enough, I'm getting back to my baseboard-cutting plan now ...

One thing that really, really, really hacks me off is those articles that say things like: "Then I added a substitute sprocket wangler and a Gresley-pattern flange crinkler from the spares box". In my view, that particular phrase should be utterly banned by magazine editors in connection with any article, by whoever written - from TW himself [God bless him!] downward - whose 'target audience' is any modeller likely to have built or heavily modified (whichever is applicable) fewer than six of this particular category of subject (plastic wagon/brass coach/card building/loco kit etc.) already. Authors should bear in mind that just because you are lucky enough to have an abundance of leftover bits, the rest of us with less than 40-50 examples under our belt don't. Even if that's how you built your own particular example, at least have the decency to do a little research and explain whereabouts those of us less well-endowed can currently obtain such a thing!

To offer some context, the Local Authority I used to work for had a standard response expectation of 5 working days for staff just to acknowledge an e-mail, and 15 working days to actually reply. Which most of us used to think was pretty poor and tried hard to beat, but that was what the Public was told to accept. And if you were buying from Coopercraft, then according to some posters on another thread on here, you would be lucky if you would ever get a reply to a message, or even have your e-mail ever read in the first place (even though - allegedly - they would happily have taken your money ...).

I don't know whether the software would be capable of calculating it this way (and indeed whether you'd want to reveal the answer, if it could!), but I'd have thought a fair but sufficiently broad definition of an "active" member of RMWeb is one who has looked at the site at least once in the last three months. And conversely, that in order not to fudge the figures - not least to yourselves - any website like this should be automatically removing from 'membership' (or at least auto-generating an e-mail to check the intentions of) anyone who hasn't looked at the site in the last 12 months. If they haven't, over that timescale, it would surely be a reasonable presumption to say they'd died, grown too old or ill to care, found a better 'ole, or taken-up modelling the Titanic in matchsticks instead.

I wouldn't disagree with this, actually, and I didn't mean to give an impression I don't buy relevant books ... but the original grumble arose because it appeared to be suggested that in looking to build a loco kit pretty much 'out of the box' (i.e. as a relative novice to the process one should surely not be looking to introduce significant modifications and complications, but should pick an engine within the class that matches the kit as supplied?)that I should be buying books to verify that the manufacturer had got it right. That is, I suggest, a different issue to the adequacy or otherwise of the building instructions, and certainly to how the finished model should be weathered (in which respect though I entirely concur with you).

Thank you Tony - challenging but sound advice, as always. Actually I'm just returning to 'active' modelling after a very lengthy lay-off caused by a whole variety of factors, including especially the impact of some lengthy family illnesses. My first task has therefore been to get a shed built and insulated, and my next is about to be building some baseboards to get me at least part-way round it ... and after that, well, inspired by your articles, I recently bought some brass sides to convert a couple of Hornby donor coaches into a Gresley RC and SO which should get me back into the saddle of actual hands-on modelling. But after that ... well, there is an old unbuilt whitemetal kit of an N5 tank engine somewhere up in my loft - so old I can't immediately recall the manufacturer! - and I promise you as soon as I can I will get on with the job of taking a crack at building it. Many thanks for this blog to you and all the others who chip-in, it really is inspirational.

I rest my case, M'Lud ... Yes, the Tony Wrights and the Coachmanns of this world can do it with their eyes shut (and bless them for sharing their knowledge with us, say I). But for the less experienced modeller - let alone the complete first-timer - not only does it seem here that you want us to read between the lines of whatever instructions the manufacturer deigns to provide as part of their product - now you seem to expect us to spend forty or sixty quid more on buying books, so as to make sure the manufacturer got it right! I say again: many of us could not/cannot afford the cost of going up such a learning curve, and many of us become so disheartened by failing to build satisfactorily something that is barely buildable anyway without years of experience and intimate knowledge, that it is small wonder loco kits are in such decline. It's sad, but too many of them were/are simply not fit for purpose as far as 80% of would-be builders are concerned It's a pity the model railway press never came up with any kind of universally accepted 'scoring system' for the quality and buildability as per what comes in the box, where '5' is "everything you could reasonably need is right here" and '1' is one of what Tony calls merely an "aid to scratchbuilding".

Couple this kind of thing with the usual indifferent (at best) quality of the instructions and diagrams that used to come with the majority of loco kits 10-20 years ago when I was trying to make them and usually failing, and is it any wonder that so many of us give up and keep our fingers crossed for Hornby or Bachmann to get around to what we want? I don't doubt that Tony and others with years of experience can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse, but for many of us the combination of the not inconsiderable wasted cost and the ... not so much complexity as such, but unfathomability ... of how to go about the job left so many people feeling it was beyond them. I can build and paint plastic models till they're coming out of my ears, but loco kits? Especially with (back then) a young family, I couldn't afford the price of the 'learning curve'! Are things any better today? Many of the kits still around seem to be the old ones from back then, just with a new producer! I suppose the 'step-by-step' pictures in the magazine articles these days might make-up somewhat for the dud instructions - maybe it's time I tried again?

Very true ... up to a point. But in many such cases (e.g. furniture) quite commonly you look in a showroom and order what you want, which they then manufacture "to order" and have it delivered to you within a matter of a few weeks. In Bachmann's case, you know the capability to re-produce a past product exists (albeit perhaps in a different livery etc.), but once a previous run has sold out you don't know when - if ever - they'll actually bring it out again. And if they do, commonly the "wait" is then 18 months-3 years following the announcement. For stuff they already have the wherewithal to make! I don't underestimate the particular difficulties which the model railway manufacturers have faced in recent years - but not many other industries would get away with that sales and production model. We are all being remarkably tolerant, in my view. But roll-on the day (perhaps 5-10 years away yet) when I can say: "I'll have one of those, in livery appropriate for 19XX, numbered 54321 and shedded at 16X" and it will be produced for us within 2-3 months largely by 3-D printing. And yes, if that costs another 10-20% on the purchase price it'd probably be worth paying.

Recently discovered this thread and had begun to worry that other than the general location there wasn't much resemblance to the "real" Rise Park and Top Valley at all - nor even to the older buildings at Bulwell just down the road. But then saw the Housing Estate being built, and was very pleased to see that at least the detached houses do actually look quite close to the real thing. (I should know, I live in one!). Do be aware though - if you can be sufficiently bothered - that they were built in the first place with numerous small variations such as number and position of chimney stacks, extended lean-to kitchens etc. The builders (Ennis was the firm, I believe, if you need to put a signboard up) apparently allowed the initial purchasers a much wider degree of input into the specification than would be the case nowadays on a large new development, so my elderly neighbour tells me who has been here since the mid-60's. So even from the outset they were only 90% identical but each one had 10% of its external and internal structure comprised of numerous permutations. Now then - how about an extension with a version of Rigley's Wagon Works, where Tesco Top Valley now stands? You can see one of their main buildings to this day, it was rebuilt at Butterley. Good luck, keep it coming.

What was the nature of the objections, I wonder? "Toy trains" trivialising the serious image of the organisation, perhaps? Wouldn't be the first time, if so ...

Isn't that what usually happens these days with the second (and subsequent) batches of the same product?

There are, quite simply, times when "the best" is the enemy of "the good enough". It's a different context, but I understand the RAF enquired of the scientists early in 1938 how long it would take to get this new 'Radar' gadget they were testing, perfected and installed for the air defence of Great Britain. "Oh, about four years" they said. "Er, no ... we may have two years - if we're lucky!" was the rejoinder. "So do the best you can in that timescale". They did, and the chain of radar stations was just fully completed, in service and tested by the Spring of 1940, in time for the Battle of Britain. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it did the job sufficiently to meet the need. If they'd insisted on having "the best" ... well, we'd never have made it to 1942 ... and if we were free enough to be running model railways in Britain today at all, they'd probably be Marklin with skid pick-up.

It feels like if they take much more time to appear, they will have taken longer to get our hands on since the first announcement than some of the originals lasted in service!!!

Apologies for not responding sooner but I was away from my PC yesterday. Thank to to all who commented on the Gresley HD bogie question; I am duly enlightened and duly grateful. However, other than counting the rivets, it seemed to me from Dr. G-F's picture that insofar as there is extra depth to the side plate (sorry, mind gone blank and I forget the correct term!) between the axleboxes, it is on the lower edge rather than the upper one. Which probably means the whole thing is so comparatively small and subjective in the context of model bogies on "layout coaches" being viewed from two or three feet away that, as the Good Doctor says, "If you can't see the difference, the difference won't bother you!" So in the end I'll probably put the time to better use on other things with greater impact, and just turn the lights down a little and rely on replicating prototypical 'shadow' to conceal the difference on my carriages.

Hello Tony. Your post 4656 says "Have you fitted heavy-duty bogies to the carriages? They're too much in shadow to see, but all the PV stock was fitted with them." Now, I'm going to confess to a howling sin for an Eastern Region modeller: all Gresley bogies look alike to me! I've looked at pictures of carriages - real and model - which I know should be fitted with the heavy-duty variety and those which shouldn't. But all that really stands out is that lovely wavy top-line ... I think the main problems are that (a) as you say, whether real or 4mm-scale model, they are too often 'in shadow' to make out much other detail; and (b) no-one ever seems to publish a picture of the two side-by-side (or end-to-end) so that a simple visual comparison of the key features can be made. Would it be possible please therefore, when you have time, to post on here a clear shot of two carriages end-to-end, one with each correct style bogie? I suspect that would clear-up no end of uncertainty for me and others. Do you think it would be a difficult job to add something to Bachmann or Hornby bogies to make a better visual representation of the HD type? My carriage-building skills are growing, thanks in large part to inspiration from yourself and Coachmann's work here on RMWeb, but time is my enemy and if I can get 'close enough' to get the look fairly quickly by such means, that may have to suffice. Many thanks WW

That's Consultants for you, all over. They pick the brains of your own staff, then produce a report and recommendation that is 75%- 80% what your people were telling you all along, but you didn't like hearing it from them, didn't trust them, and thought that because you could see their foibles and faults, the grass was certain to be greener on other hills. Most of the time though, it isn't.

Bear in mind also that, as any solicitor, bank manager (old style!), accountant, medical consultant etc. etc. will tell you ... you aren't just paying for their time; you're paying for their years of professsional experience that enables them to know that the right thing to do to meet your specific need is X, not Y or Z. How many of us have made a mess - or at least a poor job - of our own first efforts through wanting, or needing, to DIY. Yes,of course it's the only way to learn - but it can be an expensive learning curve sometimes ... so if you want to be sure ...

Thanks for the comments, gentlemen; your efforts to help are appreciated. It seems, having already placed my order and not wanting to cancel, 'just in case', that I have three options: Do a lot more research, in a field I have very little material (my main interest being elsewhere in both time and location, so this is effectively a 'diversion'). Move back the period to model by 20 years or so, so black late-crest Calbourne is appropriate. Let the celebrated "Rule No. 1" apply, repaint and run what I like (!) I'll have a think ...

"AFAIK, Calbourne was the only O2 to have the steel plate welded to the bottom of the side tanks, so this model cannot be used to represent another member of the class." Thank you. That would alas have been useful information back in October when I posted my question - but unfortunately it came to "make your mind up time" and neither this thread nor my own attempts at research had produced this plate as the 'defining difference' (over and above the obvious one of the boiler types), so in effect I tossed a metaphorical coin and went with Calbourne. Let me now put the question a different way, then. Do you know (even approximately) when this welding was actually carried-out, please, either to Calbourne or any other loco so treated? Since there seems to be no current intention of producing an IOW O2 in SR livery, I'm interested in the possibility of backdating the BR one.