Wright writes.....

[Killybegs]

There used to be a spotter who went round the layouts in the morning noting numbers of locos, wagons and coaches. He must have then gone off somewhere to do his checking because, in the afternoon, he would come back and point out any stock that shouldn't be there! He wasn't very popular and I believe that four letter words were often used.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm far (very) from being knowledgeable on signalling but I believe it's possible for an FPL to be controlled from the signal box but with the points worked locally by hand. 

 

Indeed it is - and it was done at a number of places and still is at one (on a preserved line but original equipment).  However if it was there would be a rodding run to the FPL and there isn't one in Tony's pics so we can assume that the points are not bolted.

 

However having said that, and read Tony's explanation of what we see in the picture, there were more than a few places where signalbox worked runround crossovers did not have FPLs and trains regularly started from standing above them with a coach bogie on the 'wrong' side of the point switches  (but they were on the Western ).

[Waterloo]

As always, thanks Martin

 

Why the insulators appear to be 'upside-down' has been explained by Buhar. Against the light, the swan-necks holding them in place are invisible (they'd be like a human hair in scale), giving the impression that the pots are upside down.

 

Little Bytham 01.jpg

 

Just like this. I think this is one of those occasions where one cannot win. I spoke to one bloke about it at a show and he suggested I make the proper swan-necks. With the other poles there are over 120 to make, possibly even more. Have you met many loonies at shows? How long did he expect me to live, I wonder?

 

Speaking of shows (and those who are grey), I've just returned from a most fantastic weekend at the Southampton Show. May I please thank all with whom I spoke, particularly those who were delighted with how LB came out in the MRJ? May I also thanks all at the Southampton Club for putting on a quite splendid show?

 

It was my privilege and pleasure to be one of the judges with regarding choosing the winner of the Chairman's Cup.

 

Pempoul 01.jpg

 

The winner (by a short head) was Gordon and Maggie Gravett's staggering Pempoul.

 

St Merryn 02.jpg

 

St Merryn 03.jpg

 

St Merryn 04.jpg

 

St Merryn 07.jpg

 

Second (it could have come first had we tossed a coin) was St. Merryn, by Eddie Bourne and friends. Built in P4, this is also a beautiful creation. Not only that, it ran superbly (apart from on one fiddle-yard-entering-occasion when I turned the death-ray up in my specs!) I think the good running was down to a number of factors, principally the skill-level of the team involved in its construction and their preparation and concentration in operation; I wish I were so diligent with regard to the last-mentioned. Here's a layout where everything works perfectly (admittedly slowly, though accurately) and one could not wish for a better advertisement for P4 running. I congratulated Eddie and his team (and thanked him for pointing out the error in LB's fencing). However (there's always an 'however'), in a couple of rakes they were running carriages, the like of which I wouldn't have used at any price on LB. These were re-wheeled, and sensitively-weathered, RTR carriages, still with battleship-deep sides, deeply-recessed windows and no footboards. They seemed rather incongruous to me, and illustrated (at least to me) a different approach to our respective modelling. That said, nothing could take away from the overall beauty of St. Merryn. Thank you, Eddie and his team, for allowing me to take pictures.

 

Further conversation with Eddie revealed that he'd never detected a 'holier-than-thou' attitude from those who model in P4. Thinking about it later, I'm not surprised; because he models (brilliantly) in P4. Obviously, I don't, but it's been mentioned to me on several occasions, why, after spending hours/days/weeks on research and on making my models, 'Why do I run them on narrow gauge track?'

 

Abingdon 01.jpg

 

Another layout which took my fancy was Abingdon, in O Gauge. This ran well, too. It was even worked by proper bell-code signals. However (!), none of the trains ran with lamps or had crews in the locos (at least the ones I looked at). There was even a Beeson loco. Am I a zealot with regard to what I consider essential to my modelling/operation, particularly in the instance of locos/rolling stock and correct operating practice, yet 'blind' to the gauge of my track? It makes me wonder.

 

Woodhead 01.jpg

 

This might seem a bit 'weird' but 'my' personal favourite at the show (the judging was democratic) was Woodhead, in N, by Garry Atkinson. It was a model of an actual place, and thus, in my book, extremely meritorious and very well done indeed.

 

Finally, may I thank those who've contributed so much to the 'debates' over the last three days on this thread? It has a lively life of its own, irrespective of whether I post anything.

[Waterloo]

Thank you for the kind words about St Merryn Tony.

 

Actually St Merryn was built and is operated by members of the South London Area Group of the Scalefour Society of which Eddie Bourne is a long term member.

 

Working as a group has given us many hours of pleasure in the planning, building and operating of our layout.

 

Our Group ethos towards operating at exhibitions is that we are there to provide the visitors with as good a show as we can. Hopefully we manage to do that.

 

Steve Carter

South London Area Group

[TrevorP1]

Indeed it is - and it was done at a number of places and still is at one (on a preserved line but original equipment).  However if it was there would be a rodding run to the FPL and there isn't one in Tony's pics so we can assume that the points are not bolted.

 

However having said that, and read Tony's explanation of what we see in the picture, there were more than a few places where signalbox worked runround crossovers did not have FPLs and trains regularly started from standing above them with a coach bogie on the 'wrong' side of the point switches  (but they were on the Western ).

 

 

I really do admire the work of 'old time' mechanical signalling engineers. If there is anyone on here who has never seen inside a locking room under a box and they get the chance then don't let it slip. I was once shown a set of locking tables - to me it may as well have been plans for the next mission to Mars!

 

Having said that, thanks to the GWS and the Swindon Panel Society, I once went on a tour around the control centre at Didcot. Fascinating in a different way.

Edited January 31, 2017 by TrevorP1

[Tony Wright]

Thank you for the kind words about St Merryn Tony.

 

Actually St Merryn was built and is operated by members of the South London Area Group of the Scalefour Society of which Eddie Bourne is a long term member.

 

Working as a group has given us many hours of pleasure in the planning, building and operating of our layout.

 

Our Group ethos towards operating at exhibitions is that we are there to provide the visitors with as good a show as we can. Hopefully we manage to do that.

 

Steve Carter

South London Area Group

Thanks Steve,

 

I should have credited the builders more properly, but Eddie has always been my contact. 

 

I'll be sending Eddie a disc of the high-res pictures tomorrow. Meanwhile, here are some more of those I took of St. Merryn at the weekend (there are others). For some reason, the close-ups of the WC didn't look right in colour, particularly the weathering, so I've reproduced those in B&W. As I said to Eddie, these pictures can be used wherever you all like (except in a model railway magazine). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what these pictures show (at least to me) is more than a question of the correct gauge, but a whole modelling ethos. I'm not saying the gauge is not important (it's vital to this layout) but there's a lot more here than 'just' a P4 layout. The whole thing 'works' on every level and is a visual and mechanical delight. 

 

Clearly, the team responsible is made up of some highly-talented modellers. Real modellers, who make things themselves, are self-reliant and a multi-skilled. 

 

One thing I've noticed more recently at shows is not only the (apparent) greater-reliance on RTR products, but also a greater reliance (if questions asked of me are barometers) on getting others to do the modelling. St. Merryn is an excellent example of a group using some RTR products (at source) and improving them (though I still wouldn't use those carriages). I might be wrong (and please correct me if I am) but both the the small Prairie and SR 2-6-0 appear to have plastic bodies, but haven't they been transformed into lovely locos? There is great merit in that, providing the modelling is personal. Returning to the questions, I've lost count of the times I've been asked recently 'How much are those, please?' with regard to the models I have on my demonstration display. Or, 'How much would you charge to make one, etc, etc,?' I'm no longer into professional model-making, but is this indicative of a situation where more 'modellers' are asking others to do their modelling for them? Most asking questions are men of more mature years, perhaps now with the fiscal resources to commission work. I have nothing against that (indeed, it was part of my living for over 20 years) but it looks to me like the craft of personally making things is diminishing across the whole age spectrum. Perhaps 'failing faculties' is one reason but, as I've said many times, personal model-making always has a greater appeal to me than the power of the chequebook. Hence my liking of St. Merryn (and others). 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

 

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a Dapol/Hornby Terrier body on a P4 set of frames, running on St. Merryn. Looks good to me. 

[Focalplane]

Tony

 

I certainly hope I am not alone in preferring the DIY approach to modelling, but there is also no doubt that, in 7mm, the RTR market is improving and expanding.  But when it comes to modelling a distinct location and/or era etc., the modeller must still return to kit building or cleverer means of realisation.

 

The only 7mm RTR I have is one Lee Marsh Jubilee (I've mentioned this before) but I hope to receive a second Lee Marsh RTR (Royal Scot) next year.  I told Lee at Bristol that if his model doesn't materialize I will build one from a kit!  You might call that subtle coercion, but the truth is there are two competing companies offering a future Royal Scot and one has to wonder if the market is there to support both.  So I may just be buying a kit anyway.

 

On the RTR rolling stock 7mm market I have to say I am pleased to have a few trucks and vans available but one look at the MTH coaches turned me off them completely.  Why?  Well, the actual range of coaches seems to be far from replicating a real rake of coaches.  The "four pack" consists of 2 corridor Firsts and two corridor Brake Firsts.  Not a Third Class coach in sight!  There is no doubt they are good value but in terms of reality the Lionheart/Dapol BR(W) Birmingham Division Suburban 4 coach set would make a real train behind a large Prairie tank (I know, I've travelled in them many times back when trains were trains!)

 

This raises the question, for me at least, if there is good quality 7mm scale rolling stock, then why not partake of a few, leaving more time to build the relevant locos that would have pulled them?  As a trainspotter I hardly noticed the coaches and wagons, being too busy to write the number of a new "cop" though today I try to be more catholic in my taste!

[Mallard60022]

Tony, thank you for posting further pictures of this wonderful layout. I have just spent many minutes just soaking up the detail, especially in the first one with the neat little Box.

Also the overview of the Station; beautiful colouring, unclutttered but still looking'busy'. Well observed modelling there. I am not a fan of the layouts that have so much going on I can't really see the railway.

Phil

[Tony Wright]

Tony, thank you for posting further pictures of this wonderful layout. I have just spent many minutes just soaking up the detail, especially in the first one with the neat little Box.

Also the overview of the Station; beautiful colouring, unclutttered but still looking'busy'. Well observed modelling there. I am not a fan of the layouts that have so much going on I can't really see the railway.

Phil

Thanks Phil,

 

I perhaps should say that I'm in a very privileged position when it comes to taking pictures at shows. Not everyone can commandeer a layout for half an hour or more before a show opens and after it closes, or even during the final hour open to the public to take pictures. My thanks to the layout owners and to members of the public who are quite happy to watch my taking of pictures, often asking questions as to how I do it.

 

Speaking of thanks..............

 

 

 

David West and a younger friend came today for an operating session. Prior to our driving the railway, David showed me what he's been recently working on - a detailed/modified Hornby A4 and an 11-car rake which included two Mk.1 BSOs, an FO and three Thompson cars, all of them produced using brass overlays over donor cars (the body of one isn't sitting quite square on its underframe in the picture). All his own work (apart from Graeme King's tender mod), and most encouraging. So, David, thanks for bringing this. It all ran really well, even though the loco is DCC-fitted. I showed him how to make 'my' couplings and he was well away.

 

I should point out that visiting locos have special dispensation with regard to carrying lamps.

 

As for the running - my usual operational cock-ups, but, apart from one non-starting loco (dirty wheels) and one derailment (the usual twisted coupling), over an hour and a half's great enjoyment, with over 50 trains run in that time. The sequence is really coming together. 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Teague]

To illustrate my 'different' approach, however, am I right in thinking that all the stock on show was re-wheeled/detailed RTR? Because my 'priorities' are far more concerned with my making my locos/rolling stock, I have very few modified RTR locos and about a third of my rolling stock is modified RTR. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I have not seen the layout concerned and so my comment is more general than specific, but I am not sure why one would take the trouble to model in P4 and get the track absolutely right only to run re-wheeled RTR stock on it?

Is the view within P4 circles that these days, RTR OO stock is perfect (or near enough) in every other way than track gauge?

Surely if it is important enough to get the track right then it must be important enough to go for a level of accuracy in everything else, which I would have assumed would make using RTR stock almost out of the question.

I should add that I am an OO modeller who has chosen to live with the myriad of compromises that entails, and I envy the patience of those who choose the EM or P4 routes.

 

Tony

[chrisf]

 

Is the view within P4 circles that these days, RTR OO stock is perfect (or near enough) in every other way than track gauge?

 

The view of this P4 practitioner is that much RTR stock these days is good enough to be worth improving.  Some is not.  It is all a matter of opinion!

 

Chris

[Daddyman]

I have not seen the layout concerned and so my comment is more general than specific, but I am not sure why one would take the trouble to model in P4 and get the track absolutely right only to run re-wheeled RTR stock on it?

Is the view within P4 circles that these days, RTR OO stock is perfect (or near enough) in every other way than track gauge?

Surely if it is important enough to get the track right then it must be important enough to go for a level of accuracy in everything else, which I would have assumed would make using RTR stock almost out of the question.

I should add that I am an OO modeller who has chosen to live with the myriad of compromises that entails, and I envy the patience of those who choose the EM or P4 routes.

 

Tony

This is more or less the position I've come to. I see P4 see diesel layouts at shows where the lack of windscreen grommets on the class 37 has not been attended to, or where - 5mm or so above the beautiful P4 track - the Heljan class 26 bogies have been left unmodified, as have all the window faults on that travesty of a model. Do these layout builders think everyone wears bifocals? It's the same in steam when the dreadful Bachmann A1 and A2 tender frames and cartazzi are not replaced, but the locos run on P4 track. All these mods are made on my 00 locos. When I showed Aerolite (scratchbuilt, see a few pages back) to a few people at Scaleforum the most common questions were "whose kit is it?" and "but it's 00... Isn't it?" and one trader said, "why don't you model in P4 if you're that good?!" 

 

As for Pendon, when I went a year or so ago I don't think I saw a single coal plate on a tender that was attached in a way I would accept on my models - straight, parallel and with no gaps (in most cases they failed on all three counts). And the roof-to-side bending on the Southern cabs was never parallel. I came home motivated to roll my first boiler and firebox - on a Bradwell J27 (and not just because I needed to look at a pretty engine after all the southern stuff). Pendon "reverse inspired" me to make damn sure I rolled it to a proper standard, even though it would run on narrow gauge track. The light in this photo confirms the bends are all even: 

On the other hand, Dave Bradwell and Ian Rathbone hate my boiler bands, so maybe I've gone bifocal! 

 

However, the fact that some people do P4 sloppily is no reason to denigrate it. When it's done well there's nowt like it. Chris Pendlenton is the benchmark for me. I'd say some 00 modelling is better than some (even "a lot of"?) P4 modelling (I hope mine is), but the best P4 models will always look better than the best 00 models. I do wake up in the night screaming sometimes due to the guilt of modelling in 00. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Daddyman

[johndon]

Chris Pendlenton is the benchmark for me.

 

As he is for me and even he is happy to use RTR bodies where appropriate these days - I recall from an MRJ that he has a K1 with a very slightly modified Hornby body?

 

John

[micklner]

This is more or less the position I've come to. I see P4 see diesel layouts at shows where the lack of windscreen grommets on the class 37 has not been attended to, or where - 5mm or so above the beautiful P4 track - the Heljan class 26 bogies have been left unmodified, as have all the window faults on that travesty of a model. Do these layout builders think everyone wears bifocals? It's the same in steam when the dreadful Bachmann A1 and A2 tender frames and cartazzi are not replaced, but the locos run on P4 track. All these mods are made on my 00 locos. When I showed Aerolite (scratchbuilt, see a few pages back) to a few people at Scaleforum the most common questions were "whose kit is it?" and "but it's 00... Isn't it?" and one trader said, "why don't you model in P4 if you're that good?!" 

 

As for Pendon, when I went a year or so ago I don't think I saw a single coal plate on a tender that was attached in a way I would accept on my models - straight, parallel and with no gaps (in most cases they failed on all three counts). And the roof-to-side bending on the Southern cabs was never parallel. I came home motivated to roll my first boiler and firebox - on a Bradwell J27 (and not just because I needed to look at a pretty engine after all the southern stuff). Pendon "reverse inspired" me to make damn sure I rolled it to a proper standard, even though it would run on narrow gauge track. The light in this photo confirms the bends are all even: 

P1050055small.jpg

On the other hand, Dave Bradwell and Ian Rathbone hate my boiler bands, so maybe I've gone bifocal! 

 

However, the fact that some people do P4 sloppily is no reason to denigrate it. When it's done well there's nowt like it. Chris Pendlenton is the benchmark for me. I'd say some 00 modelling is better than some (even "a lot of"?) P4 modelling (I hope mine is), but the best P4 models will always look better than the best 00 models. I do wake up in the night screaming sometimes due to the guilt of modelling in 00. 

 

Not interested in P4 or EM either, life is too short.  

A1 and A2 Tender and Cartazzi conversions I would like to see please. !! . J27 use Magic tape a lot quicker to fit and thinner .

[CF MRC]

Pendon has always inspired me as a standard setter. When I was very young, the village scenes in their individual showcases were stunning. However, I am less convinced by the layout of the village in the full context of the vale scene. I think that the village is too concentrated and higgledy piggledy in x,y & z - it is implausible in the road layout. There should be more spaces between the groups of houses. It is not a nucleated village, not a linear village and could realistically be a dispersed village (as the one I grew up in); but it is not. The magical scene, for me, at Pendon is the bottom of the vale with the wonderful farm and cottages. Less is often more in model railways.

 

Tim

Edited February 1, 2017 by CF MRC

[Focalplane]

Boiler bands.  A lot depend on the thickness of the brass.  Most of the ones I have used (in 7mm I hasten to add) are thin enough to be realistic.  Moreover, using brass allows a slight offset of each band to cross the seam under the boiler (out of sight) which helps to strengthen the join.  I learned this trick from Warren Shephard at Bristol (BOGG) the other weekend.

 

Incidentally, Warren does not roll boilers in his kits, it is left up to the modeller.  His simple rule is to use a former 2/3rds the diameter of the boiler and start in the centre, moving out towards the ends.  he sees no need for anything more sophisticated and says that annealing is not usually required.  I have to admit I have yet to anneal any brass that needs rolling into shape.

[Tony Wright]

As he is for me and even he is happy to use RTR bodies where appropriate these days - I recall from an MRJ that he has a K1 with a very slightly modified Hornby body?

 

John

Thanks John,

 

As he is for me, too. And, also the late John Hayes. I have never seen better 4mm steam-outline modelling in all my years in the hobby than the locos produced by those two masters.  

 

I think the idea of using a very good RTR body on a 'decent' set of frames has great merit. After all, the likes of Comet has been providing decent sets of frames to go underneath a whole variety of RTR bodies for years, especially useful (as far as I'm concerned) for allowing the junking of split chassis and tender drives. The improvements have been incredible, whichever gauge is chosen. In many cases, the RTR bodies are better/more accurate/more realistic than many a kit-built or scratch-built one. So, it sounds common sense to me, providing any 'anomalies' in that RTR body are replaced/removed. For instance, what's the point in putting a P4 set of frames under an RTR body if, say, plastic smoke deflectors are retained, battleship cab and tender sides are left un-thinned-down (awful wording; my apologies) or, as in the case of Hornby's B1 or Heljan's O2, the chimney has not been removed and replaced? Or, as I've mentioned with regard to rolling stock, carrying on running RTR carriages (though re-wheeled) still with hugely deep window recesses and moulded-on grab rails/handles? 

 

Someone quite rightly said of me recently that there are things in my own modelling approach which I will not tolerate (lack of lamps, non-working signals, too-tight scenic curves, over-thick plastic effects, too much made up, etc), yet I turn a blind eye to the gauge being too narrow. We all make choices and we 'live' with the different approaches/compromises. I hope I can appreciate good modelling, whatever the chosen gauge. My/our modelling suits me (though I'm never really satisfied with my own efforts), as it does the band of merry men who've been involved in building LB. Does it 'work' in as many ways as possible? That's for others to decide.  

[Izzy]

 -  he sees no need for anything more sophisticated and says that annealing is not usually required.  I have to admit I have yet to anneal any brass that needs rolling into shape.

 

Annealing is a metal softening process that takes the 'spring' out of material. Rather than help curve stuff I have found it does quite the opposite, makes it harder to maintain a smooth consistent curve, and especially when rolling such as boilers. It's very easy to put a crease/kink in annealed stuff, and very hard to get it out. Some thin etched stuff can be like this if over-etched with too strong an acid bath, tends to anneal/soften the material involved.

 

On what can often be the vexed subject of P4 I have always used it simply for the track and wheel standards, nothing else. Everything is made to the same very average standards I use/am capable of achieving if another set of standards, or indeed another scale, are involved. We all have differing needs and desires and place certain requirements in the order of importance to us as individuals. This is what makes this thread so interesting for me. The exchange of views on how those affect what others model and the manner in which they do so, the relative importance placed on one aspect against another.

 

Izzy

[landscapes]

Thanks Steve,

 

I should have credited the builders more properly, but Eddie has always been my contact. 

 

I'll be sending Eddie a disc of the high-res pictures tomorrow. Meanwhile, here are some more of those I took of St. Merryn at the weekend (there are others). For some reason, the close-ups of the WC didn't look right in colour, particularly the weathering, so I've reproduced those in B&W. As I said to Eddie, these pictures can be used wherever you all like (except in a model railway magazine). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

St Merryn 01.jpg

 

St Merryn 05.jpg

 

St Merryn 06.jpg

 

St Merryn 08A.jpg

 

St Merryn 09.jpg

 

St Merryn 10.jpg

 

St Merryn 11.jpg

 

St Merryn 12.jpg

 

St Merryn 13.jpg

 

St Merryn 14.jpg

 

I think what these pictures show (at least to me) is more than a question of the correct gauge, but a whole modelling ethos. I'm not saying the gauge is not important (it's vital to this layout) but there's a lot more here than 'just' a P4 layout. The whole thing 'works' on every level and is a visual and mechanical delight. 

 

Clearly, the team responsible is made up of some highly-talented modellers. Real modellers, who make things themselves, are self-reliant and a multi-skilled. 

 

One thing I've noticed more recently at shows is not only the (apparent) greater-reliance on RTR products, but also a greater reliance (if questions asked of me are barometers) on getting others to do the modelling. St. Merryn is an excellent example of a group using some RTR products (at source) and improving them (though I still wouldn't use those carriages). I might be wrong (and please correct me if I am) but both the the small Prairie and SR 2-6-0 appear to have plastic bodies, but haven't they been transformed into lovely locos? There is great merit in that, providing the modelling is personal. Returning to the questions, I've lost count of the times I've been asked recently 'How much are those, please?' with regard to the models I have on my demonstration display. Or, 'How much would you charge to make one, etc, etc,?' I'm no longer into professional model-making, but is this indicative of a situation where more 'modellers' are asking others to do their modelling for them? Most asking questions are men of more mature years, perhaps now with the fiscal resources to commission work. I have nothing against that (indeed, it was part of my living for over 20 years) but it looks to me like the craft of personally making things is diminishing across the whole age spectrum. Perhaps 'failing faculties' is one reason but, as I've said many times, personal model-making always has a greater appeal to me than the power of the chequebook. Hence my liking of St. Merryn (and others). 

 

Hi Tony

 

Great layout, thank you for posting the superb photos, I can definitely see images of Padstow terminus in the layout, one of my favourite stations.

 

If I had not modelled Haymarket then Padstow would have been my next choice, it sums up Cornwall.

 

Sun, Sea and Steam well until 1964 anyway.

 

Regards

 

David

[Clive Mortimore]

This is more or less the position I've come to. I see P4 see diesel layouts at shows where the lack of windscreen grommets on the class 37 has not been attended to, or where - 5mm or so above the beautiful P4 track - the Heljan class 26 bogies have been left unmodified, as have all the window faults on that travesty of a model. Do these layout builders think everyone wears bifocals? It's the same in steam when the dreadful Bachmann A1 and A2 tender frames and cartazzi are not replaced, but the locos run on P4 track. All these mods are made on my 00 locos. When I showed Aerolite (scratchbuilt, see a few pages back) to a few people at Scaleforum the most common questions were "whose kit is it?" and "but it's 00... Isn't it?" and one trader said, "why don't you model in P4 if you're that good?!" 

 

As for Pendon, when I went a year or so ago I don't think I saw a single coal plate on a tender that was attached in a way I would accept on my models - straight, parallel and with no gaps (in most cases they failed on all three counts). And the roof-to-side bending on the Southern cabs was never parallel. I came home motivated to roll my first boiler and firebox - on a Bradwell J27 (and not just because I needed to look at a pretty engine after all the southern stuff). Pendon "reverse inspired" me to make damn sure I rolled it to a proper standard, even though it would run on narrow gauge track. The light in this photo confirms the bends are all even: 

P1050055small.jpg

On the other hand, Dave Bradwell and Ian Rathbone hate my boiler bands, so maybe I've gone bifocal! 

 

However, the fact that some people do P4 sloppily is no reason to denigrate it. When it's done well there's nowt like it. Chris Pendlenton is the benchmark for me. I'd say some 00 modelling is better than some (even "a lot of"?) P4 modelling (I hope mine is), but the best P4 models will always look better than the best 00 models. I do wake up in the night screaming sometimes due to the guilt of modelling in 00. 

Hi daddyman

 

I cannot see the grommets on a model class 37 windscreen at 2ft so what is your concern if I don't model them? I have scratchbuilt a class 37 sans grommets not just tinkered with a RTR model.

 

When I made my class 48 there were members of DEMU who didn't know about the class 48s or the difference between a V engine (class 48) and a twin bank engine (class47).

 

Too many diesel modellers get tied up in trying to out do each other with minor details then place their locos on unmanageable layouts.

[coachmann]

That 00 gauge is far too narrow is patently obvious and it is no use anyone telling me it can be made to look acceptable with careful ballasting and colouring.......I know, I've tried it many times. But in moving to EM or P4, it is obvious some people then start putting the cart before the horse and focus all their attention on track and wheels to the exclusion of all else. The result is unmodified RTR plastic coach bodies with battleship thickness window frames & lozenge windows on finescale bogies, plus much else. I simply wont tolerate such things in 00 and while the obvious move for me was to go EM gauge, I'm not afraid to say that dicking about altering steam loco chassis is not my game, besides, I wonder how EM gauge track would stand up to the elements in the garden.

 

Seeing as I was prepared to settle for a small wayside station and go to the trouble of sinking additional posts around the garden to extend the run of the railway, I chose to go 0 gauge with its nearer to scale 4' 7" gauge (or whatever) track. Additional benefits came quite by accident and while I have been very active painting 0 gauge locos and coaches for other modellers for goodness knows how many years, I cannot figure out why I did not chose 7mm myself from the outset when contemplating building a layout a few years ago. 

[rowanj]

There have been some fantastic pictures of wonderful models, and some deep and meaningful discussions on the merits or otherwise of EM,P4 etc, Really enjoyable stuff..

Just to lower the tone, here is a J2 converted from Graeme King's excellent J6 resin kit, I only did it because I noted Graeme's own superior conversion, and the fact that I had a damaged resin chassis and footplate from the J6. What I didnt realise on setting out was that ,by BR days, almost every one of the 10 strong class had noticeable differnces, and that the blasted things were fully lined in early BR days, Hey ho.

 

Anyway, here it is. The idea is that it's workstained but not totally scruffy. Wheels are 22mm W&T, motor Masima 1024, with Highlevel Compact+ gearbox. Otherwise, all the parts are from Graeme's kit.

[Tony Wright]

There have been some fantastic pictures of wonderful models, and some deep and meaningful discussions on the merits or otherwise of EM,P4 etc, Really enjoyable stuff..

Just to lower the tone, here is a J2 converted from Graeme King's excellent J6 resin kit, I only did it because I noted Graeme's own superior conversion, and the fact that I had a damaged resin chassis and footplate from the J6. What I didnt realise on setting out was that ,by BR days, almost every one of the 10 strong class had noticeable differnces, and that the blasted things were fully lined in early BR days, Hey ho.

 

Anyway, here it is. The idea is that it's workstained but not totally scruffy. Wheels are 22mm W&T, motor Masima 1024, with Highlevel Compact+ gearbox. Otherwise, all the parts are from Graeme's kit.

Thanks John,

 

The most important thing about this most-interesting model is that you've done it all yourself. Nothing can take away from that, whatever its gauge. 

[johndon]

I think the idea of using a very good RTR body on a 'decent' set of frames has great merit. After all, the likes of Comet has been providing decent sets of frames to go underneath a whole variety of RTR bodies for years, especially useful (as far as I'm concerned) for allowing the junking of split chassis and tender drives. The improvements have been incredible, whichever gauge is chosen. In many cases, the RTR bodies are better/more accurate/more realistic than many a kit-built or scratch-built one. So, it sounds common sense to me, providing any 'anomalies' in that RTR body are replaced/removed. For instance, what's the point in putting a P4 set of frames under an RTR body if, say, plastic smoke deflectors are retained, battleship cab and tender sides are left un-thinned-down (awful wording; my apologies) or, as in the case of Hornby's B1 or Heljan's O2, the chimney has not been removed and replaced? Or, as I've mentioned with regard to rolling stock, carrying on running RTR carriages (though re-wheeled) still with hugely deep window recesses and moulded-on grab rails/handles? 

 

 

I'd agree with every word you've said.  

 

Despite being in my late 40s, I've only, in the last 4 years or so got back in to railway modelling so didn't have the 'baggage' of a vast collection of rolling stock so I made the decision to go P4 which, as a diesel modeller, can be very simple albeit I have started a programme of adding sprung bogies (thanks to Ian at Penbits) to my locos so they are, effectively, getting a new chassis.

 

I'm also kit building wagons (out of necessity for the iron ore hoppers) but will, where appropriate, use RTR wagons as well but none of the rolling stock has a simple wheel change, every piece will be weathered or modified in some way so none of it is out of the box.

 

I do have a Dave Bradwell kit for 9F chassis to build but, as I've never even built an 0-6-0 chassis, starting with a 2-10-0 might be a step to far to start with.  Who knows, one day I'll get it done and it might even manage to go round a corner with an 11 coach train behind it

 

John

Edited February 1, 2017 by johndon