Black Marlin

Hello again Tony - greetings from the wilderness! Apologies for the very, very long silence - I have been exceedingly busy, but the upshot of it is that I now have a barn big enough for me to comfortably contain a 40' x 20' layout.... Oh, the plans I have...! I was sorry to hear of Mo's unwellness, and thoroughly heartened to hear that she's doing much better. Will I see you again at Glasgow this year? If so, I may have a couple of engines (DC analogue, naturally!) requiring your tender ministrations, if you're amenable? Best wishes, Gavin (of Aberdeen MRC)

I just got one of those Moguls. It now has a crew, a coaled tender and a lamp headcode. It's now my model, and no distemper to be seen!

Mine arrived today and, after the obligatory running-in before work began, I have started detailing it. And now I have a question. Has anyone removed the coal load from the tender and, if so, how?

I once had to phone my then-girlfriend (she is now my wife), a doctor, to ask how deep a cut had to be to require stitches. I had neatly bisected the top of my thumb (and thumbnail) with a scalpel while trying to cut a figure from a sprue. Her sympathy was not much in evidence: her exact words, I recall, were "Hahahahaha you just got your ass kicked by a soldier 72 times smaller than you!"

Can I ask what the (MX) and (SX) mean? (This thread has become a valuable resource for the Aberdeen Model Railway Club, of which I am a member, and we're starting to replicate some of these formations - or, at least, the ones we understand!) Thanks, Gavin

I believe there are popular calendars depicting very similar scenarios...

I would like, in view of the many carefully reasoned comments left above, to do something regrettably uncommon in this degraded age: I should like to amend my views and modify my original law. In fairness to myself, my error was in not fully thinking through the expression of that law; rather than some cataclysmic oversight on my part, my failure was to insufficiently contextualise. So let's try again, and this time I will copy the Inestimable Sir to whom this thread belongs. I will explain by example. When I was at Glasgow demonstrating, my demonstrations were of locomotive detailing practices and techniques. This is part of my journey towards becoming what Tony refers to with perfect fairness as a 'real modeller'. I was painting cab backheads, adding crew, adding real coal and so on - a small thing, but mine own, as the saying goes*. I had with me a Duchess and I bought from Tony a ROD 2-8-0. It was the ROD that I worked on first. I have a hundred or so locomotives to so detail and I quite agree that there should be a uniformity of quality. And I absolutely refute the notion of being happy with having done something badly. But I do have to prioritise my modelling efforts. To that end, my feeling is that I should concentrate first on those locomotives where the work is most evident. It is easier to see that the coal is real in the tender of a locomotive waddling past at a scale 10mph than it is to spot a similar feature in a pacific doing 90 or the ton. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter; it means that I view the act of modelling a railway as having to factor in the operation of that railway and how it affects the appearance of the stock on it. The impression of the train, not just the locomotive, must be considered. Which means that while additional weathering work may well pay enormous dividends on a heavy freight locomotive that's going to be slogging round and in view for a long time, perhaps one needn't devote the same time to upgrading a factory-weathered pacific if its only duties involve it hurtling past too quickly for extended study. With regards to Sir's reminiscences, he has touched upon another point that frankly I hadn't considered (more fool I!). There will be people for whom the act of modelling is an act of personal reclamation: "This is what I saw and therefore this aspect must be modelled, because in so doing I model not just the object but the circumstance, and I recapture the experience I once had". I envy such folk. As someone who has never - I confess this apologetically - even seen a pacific locomotive in steam, my modelling must take a different form, that of imaginative reconstruction rather than intimate recollection. I wonder if there's a connection between that fact and the disparity between my layout and Tony's, in that his is a real place and mine is entirely fictitious? Yet another thing to ponder... Gavin *Not to be confused with Daedalus's labyrinth on Crete, which was a small thing but Minoan...

Hi all Since I met Tony recently in Glasgow I've been pondering something he said about running trains at proper - that is, appropriate - speeds on Little Bytham. And, as a result, I think I've formulated a modelling 'rule'. I call it 'The Modeller's Law of Inverse Prestige'. My thinking is this. Big express engines, at the head of big express trains, will, when running at express speeds, flash past a viewer. The impression of a train at speed is the crucial thing being modelled; this is (to me) why good running is such a prime attribute and why P4 frequently makes for excellent dioramas but poor models. On the other hand, humble goods locos, shunters and other slow-movers will dawdle their way past a viewer. Therefore, since these less-iconic engines are in view for longer, they must be modelled and finished to a higher standard. The more prestigious the engine and stock, the less likely it is to be studied, and therefore the concentration of modelling resources must be afforded to the less glamorous items. Who's with me, and who thinks I'm well down the road of arrant nonsense? Gavin

Good evening Tony I thought you might like to see this: the first train I've ever put together that I'm proud of as a model in its own right. Everything in it, although RTR, has been modified for increased accuracy. The coaches all have roof boards and some have been correctly renumbered; the locomotive has been crewed, coaled, lamped and headboarded appropriately. This is, I hope, a model along the Wright lines! Here is my Queen of Scots: Regards, Gavin

Hi Tony It was lovely to see you and Mo again at Glasgow. You'll be pleased to hear that the kit-built ROD I bought from you is now sitting on the sideboard with plenty of airflow to allow the PVA'd coal in the tender to dry thoroughly this time - and without risk of upset! (For those of you wondering what the story is, I was at Glasgow demonstrating what few skills I possess when it comes to loco modelling - painting cab backheads, adding crews, lamps, coal and that sort of thing - when I bought one of the kit-built examples Tony had brought with him. I set about detailing it, adding coal to the tender with PVA. When I came back the next morning, I discovered that one of my more clottish companions had knocked the damn thing over inside its box, resulting in PVA pouring over the engine and wrecking considerable amounts of paintwork. Fortunately - not least for my companion, who might otherwise have been strung up from the rafters - I discovered that the paint I had with me was a perfect match with the original finish, and I have managed to repair the damage. But I was very cross at the time, and even more so when he nearly did the same thing again. There may, at that point, have been an explanation of why he ought not to touch things he didn't understand, delivered with some force and in robust Anglo-saxon...) Even more happily, the chap from t'other forum who amused himself by taking surreptitious photographs of me has kept his promise not to publish them. Seriously, what kind of deranged individual believes that paparazzi-like behaviour will endear himself to his fellow modellers? Or that this is the perfect manner by which to introduce himself for the first time? "Hello, I'm not a stalker, but..." My thanks, Tony, for being an island of good sense among the currents of lunacy that threatened to leave me adrift and awash amidst the madmen! And now, I am researching weathering patterns on Robinson O4s...

Believe me, I'm quite aware of how ghastly that sofa is. What no photo will tell you is just how desperately uncomfortable it is. Ugly and backache-inducing - what a double whammy!

The thought occurs - I know I'm a bit late to the party with this, but bear with me - that in all the discussions on liveries and locomotive/stock combinations the notion of freight workings has been somewhat underappreciated. GWR green married to blue Express Dairies tankers works well, as it does when combined with the dark brown of Ocean Coal's wagons. However, I am in a privileged position. I have spent years accumulating the stock necessary to model one of the most glorious trains ever to run in Britain. Although regarded by some as a sober and austere working, for the connoisseur there is much to admire. The harmony of the composition. The magnificent marriage of glorious motive power with a humble - but somehow elevated - form of rolling stock. The loads themselves hold more than a passing interest, and much has been made of their mysterious origins. Even small children can be made to care, and care deeply, about a train such as this. Unfortunately my example has yet to appear on my layout, which is in a different country, but I will present a photograph of the train made up on my sideboard. And it will be, I think we can all agree, a sight to warm the heart of any finescale modeller. I know Tony may well be so appreciative that the whole panoply of the English language could prove insufficient to record his strength of feeling. Do please prepare yourself. This is a sight not often seen. Regards, Gavin

Thank you all for your assistance. Thus reassured, my train of thought can move on! Gavin

Hi Headstock First of all, thanks for providing the photograph. It's a great resource. However, as I said, I'm well aware of the need to apply a headcode. My question, though, was whether it was appropriate to model that particular locomotive, 8900 Claud Hamilton, at the head of a parcels train. Can anybody help with information on the trains headed by 8900 Claud Hamilton in the 1930s? Regards, Gavin

Can I please pose a question to all the Eastern/LNER modellers enjoying this thread? My wife continues to demonstrate her general loveliness by having bought me Hornby's D16/3 'Claud Hamilton' for my birthday. I was running it on a parcels train and was all set to apply the appropriate headcode when I started to wonder: was Claud Hamilton, as the lone LNER-liveried apple-painted example, reserved for more august duties than mere parcels workings? In other words, does my photo below show a train that, while technically possible, never actually ran? I've been struggling to find information on the actual day-to-day workings of Claud Hamilton, particularly in the 1930s, so any information would be most gratefully received. Many thanks, Gavin

I think I've cracked it! Some things worth noting, as I have been keen student of the Tony Wright School of Modelling (Correspondence Course): the locomotive heading towards the camera is a) Eastern, b) carrying the correct lamp headcode, c) crewed, d) loaded with real coal, e) set up with the closest possible tender-loco coupling, and f) at the head of an appropriate and scale-length rake of wagons. I apologise for the quality of the picture - I was lent the camera because, like a clot, I managed to return to Northern Ireland (where my layout lives) having forgotten to bring my own, and so I wasn't familiar with the Nikon I was using or its settings. I plead ignorance, m'luds. Oh, and on the other line, heading away from the camera, an O2 with a whitemetal crew provided by Pete Goss. It's hard for me to see that engine now without immediately thinking of the RMWeb community...! Gavin

Is it the case (and this is a genuine question) that the magazines have their own 'style guides' that cover not simply in-house graphical design and copy-writing but also model photography? I've been aware of the long-running debate in the letters page of one particular monthly about whether or not to include steam effects, among other things. In my view, I quite like the idea of it occasionally cropping up: what I have yet to see, however, is any magazine doing it convincingly. So far the standard seems to be a slightly-darkened shimmer of barely-visible smoke. I understand why this has been the default setting - the visual editor doesn't want to obscure the rest of the photograph - but this misses the point of the drama inherent in a steam locomotive's volcanic eructations. I would love to see the occasional (!) foray into this aspect of representation. After all, if in real life steam photographers were sometimes captioning their pictures with 'smoke by arrangement', then surely the judicious use of photoshop to create the same effect is, in fact, the modeller's equivalent? Done too much or too often it would quickly become tiresome; but its never being done at all seems to be missing a trick. I suppose, in the end, it depends on the intent of the photographer (and photograph): is it a picture of a model railway, or is it a picture that happens to be of a model but which intends to invoke the real thing? Gavin

As regards colour combinations and liveries, might I make mention of one excellent one from my own neck of the woods? Locomotive = GNR(I) pale blue with red footplate; Coaches = dark green (slightly darker than Bachmann's interpretation of British Rail's Southern Region green). Seldom seen because rarely modelled, it is nevertheless awfully pretty... *edit - Wikipedia has a photograph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNRI_Class_V#/media/File:Steam_Train_approaching_Peter%27s_Bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_344126.jpg

I don't know how others are feeling - many, I am sure, are back at work, with all concomitant woe - but I am happy for I am using my time off to add lamps, a crew and coal to my O2. Many thanks again, Sir.

Good news! I have just been given 8900 Claud Hamilton as a birthday present. I have run it and I am delighted with it. This means that, since I now know I don't need to return it to anyone, I can get on with detailing it. Which brings me to my question. I have an LNER 8-coach corridor express; 2 rakes of LNER Gresley non-vestibuled stock; and a short LNER parcels train. Which of these rakes is most suitable to hang off the back of my D16? I ask because I am trying to determine the most appropriate lamp headcode... Any suggestions gratefully received! Gavin

John Coaltrain, surely?

Some time ago - around page 480 - there was a discussion of the perils of photograph captioning in the railway press. A few weeks ago I was at the Aberdeen Model Railway exhibition (where my complete Queen of Scots rake, renamed and renumbered where appropriate, thanks to Tony's encouragement, made an appearance) and I bought a book of impeccable pedigree: 'Roaming the Northern Rails' by Eric Treacy and first published in 1976 by Ian Allen (although my copy is a 1994 reprint). Unfortunately, there is such a double-whammy of a howler in the captioning that I'm not sure how much of the book I can trust. Page 167 features a picture captioned "Kestrel at Sandal with the Up 'Yorkshire Pullman'." Meanwhile, on page 188, there is a picture captioned "Falcon adds the Harrogate portion of the 'Yorkshire Pullman' to the Leeds cars at Leeds Central." Not only is the locomotive identified as both Kestrel and Falcon the same locomotive, neither identification is correct - it's Lion! This provokes a whole host of questions for me (mostly of a professional bent: I work as a copy-editor and proof-reader) but the biggest one is this: when a book from a well-known publisher, by a well-known author and photographer, can drop a clanger on a scale such as this, what faith are we to put in the reference sources at our disposal? And who, with the best will in the world, would lay such claim to their own infallibility that they would prowl confidently round an exhibition and disparage the rivets?! Gavin

Following the wedding, during which I had happily discarded my 60537, it was time for the honeymoon. With my fellow 60158 we passed first through 60159 and thus began our 60146 wanderings. From 46242 we left the 60161 in search of the 60072, and 16 hours later we overflew the 60526s lining the shores of our spectacular destination, 45617!

Their origins were Divine...

The Americans, who had shot over to attend the wedding...