Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Tony

 

        If you are seeing your photos printed in Books/Magazines etc, you should threaten action for breach iof your copyright. You may think its not worth bothering ? If so you may have a pleasant surprise, as a financial response from the publishers. I did on one occasion, and would do the same again if needed in the future.    

         Publishers know, that they can only print images that have been copyright confirmed and ownership listed for images. They may say they dont know that cannot hide behind that nonsense .They have a responsibilty to check all images for copyright before printing.

 

Mick

Thanks Mick,

 

Publishers should know about the need to check copyright, though, it would appear, many don't. 

 

To be fair, it's actually more difficult today to check copyright because of digital imagery. Time was, when my details and copyright sticker would be on the back of a print or a transparency's mount or sleeve. Even then, some publishers never seemed to check.

 

I recall one day seeing some black and white photos of mine published in a rival magazine (now defunct; you may guess why?) to the magazine which had commissioned them in the first place. I phoned up the editor and asked about them. 'They're the best prints we've ever had' said he. I thanked him for his flattery, but also asked him to look on the back of the prints. 'Oh, it says "copyright Tony Wright Photographer, 23 Broaxxxx, xxxxxxx, xxxx................... WV3.... Tel: 01902".........'. 'Did you not think to check first before publishing?' I asked. He had no answer, though he reiterated that they were the best pictures.................... Apparently, they'd been sent in by a club (whose layout I'd photograph) to publicise its show. So, a train of errors! 

 

REgards,

 

Tony. 

[robmcg]

10 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Robert,

I'm not keen on the way you do things rather than what you do, you sometimes take other peoples artwork, other peoples photographs and other peoples paintings and coble them together and claim it as your own work. I can see were you are getting some of your material from and it is not right. You provide no credits for sources and I doubt that you have asked permission of the copyright holders.

I'm a working artist who has had his work stolen in the past and used to advertise somebody else's digital services. I can tell you now, I sued their asses. The pandemic has been a difficult financial time for many creatives, especially freelancers. Their work is their income and their reputation. As for those who support what you are doing, no doubt they are in financial clover but the shoe would very quickly be on the other foot if it was their work that was being misappropriated.

Perhaps you would consider crediting the artwork and photographs that you are using or at least provide reassurance that you have received the creative persons permission to use their work. Expensive stock photography may not be an option for your hobby but I'm sure that if you can't do so yourself,  those who support you would be willing to go out and take suitable photographs for you to use. Tony or others may be able to help in this regard.
 

 

I do not steal others' artwork or photography, and claim it as my own. 

 

I sometimes take sections of public domain photos, like track or smoke,  and use them as templates for my own painting, which is where my skill are I think quite good, that is, painting with a computer mouse and software like Paintshop Pro. Not unlike making stencil over a photo and freehanding a painting from that.  Is it fair to describe my own computer painting over a small piece of a manipulated distorted re-sized re-coloured google image as misappropriated when it is not being used for any financial purpose whatsoever, and bears only superficial resemblance to a photo I didn't take myself..

 

Clearly we differ.  Tony and Andy York are pretty strict about respecting copyright, and I respect them. My own late father was a prolific author and publisher so I am not unaware of the value of copyright.

 

Your comparing of my usual computer artwork to the theft of your own commercial work for someone else's commercial benefit leaves me having to just politely disagree.

 

Back to modelling please. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by robmcg
typo

[Tony Wright]

Regarding 'rules' in model railways, then 'Rule 1' trumps all. Run what you like, where you like and when you like, having fun at the same time.

 

But, 'Rule 1' might differ from modeller to modeller. I don't think I'd like to have a trainset which had no actual sense of place or time; that wouldn't be fun at all to me. 

 

It's great to have visiting locos running on Little Bytham, but, for a 'proper' sequence's running it's as near as damn it the summer of 1958 with (some of) the locos and trains which actually ran through Little Bytham. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Northmoor]

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's great to have visiting locos running on Little Bytham, but, for a 'proper' sequence's running it's as near as damn it the summer of 1958 with (some of) the locos and trains which actually ran through Little Bytham. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tony,

 

I was reading on the train home tonight of a headboard for the "Fair Maid" being sold at auction; an ECML named train which only ran in 1957-58.  Do you run it in your sequence?

 

Rob

[robmcg]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that Rob,

 

I think all of us find some aspects of railway modelling boring; I certainly do - all that Bytham point rodding, for instance; all 35' of it. Now it's done and finished, however, it really was well worth my efforts. 

 

In my usual 'hypocritical' way, I admit to finding RTR boring at times as well. Now that shows are coming back, I'll warrant that in the next few months I'll see a load of W1s (in all three forms) running on layouts. Almost all will be Hornby ones. There's nothing 'wrong' with that, but, hitherto, to see any W1 on a layout would mean its source would be scratch-built, kit-built or heavily modified. It thus, at least to me, would have a 'story' to tell, which I'd always find interesting. The fact that the Hornby 60700 is probably more accurate than my quarter-century-old kit-built one is rather annoying, I must admit.  

 

At one show, I saw two identical Bachmann Scottish D11s sitting side by side on a layout. Both had just been bought. They were both on the layout for the duration. I felt it was absurd, and 'questioned' one of the operators. I was told that they belonged to different club members (club democracy insisted that all members had a right to run what they liked). When I asked could they not be altered/renumbered/renamed/etc., I was informed that such actions would mean they'd be worth less. I walked away! 

 

I think part of my 'problem' is that current RTR is far superior to the vast majority of what's been made. Up to the end of the last century, it was the opposite. Most RTR up to then was awful - tender drives, armoured valve gear, split chassis (which did just that!), hopeless detail and crude finishes were endemic. Not now, and, especially with regard to complex liveries, even the top pro painters would struggle to match most. 

 

Yet, such is my 'obstinacy' that I still prefer to make my own locos and rolling stock. In the past, the reason was that I could always make mine 'better' than any RTR equivalent; or, in most cases, because there was no RTR equivalent. However, I don't now mind my efforts being 'worse' than RTR equivalents. They'll always by 'mine' in a unique way, but, I accept that others can derive a lot of pleasure from owning RTR stuff. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Thanks for that reply Tony, I don't think your preferred medium of enjoyment will die anytime soon, people love making things, and your skills and may I say character make such things the very essence of life. Your 'can do' approach is very refrreshing, and I can relate to it utterly after many years seeing people recovering from injury.

 

Thus I look forward to your latest 9F with full paint..  It will give me an opportunity to show one of 'mine'.   

Edited February 22, 2022 by robmcg

[westernviscount]

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

But, 'Rule 1' might differ from modeller to modeller. I don't think I'd like to have a trainset which had no actual sense of place or time; that wouldn't be fun at all to me

Indeed Tony. The problem is the interpretation of rule 1 being solely about someone running what they like, where they like, when they like. They are at the top of the pyramid in terms of having fun. Fun apparently diminishes as the standard of modelling increases and restriction of stock tightens!

 

This, through experience and observation of others seems completely wrong and a simplistic view of the hobby. As I have observed elsewhere, having fun and enjoyment can involve a concentrated face and deep immersion in the hobby. 

[Chamby]

I find that nothing in this hobby is an absolute.  I like to run my layout in a given time/place to the best of my ability... but then at times rule 1 is invoked, usually when I am alone and giving other stuff a run round, or when a friend is visiting and has something different to show.  And occasionally, dare I say it,  at an exhibition when things are quiet and a youngster is the primary audience, then the wee blue fella might pop out for a run-past.  

 

One of the most entertaining things I have seen was a stuffed mouse on a motorised ‘spud’ bogie, that darted the length of an otherwise very serious layout from one tunnel mouth to the other .  A mouse?  Where?

 

Rule 1 is fine, in the right place at the right time.  Those times are many... but I suggest that there are also other times when it just isn’t right!

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Chamby
Typo

[Jesse Sim]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding 'rules' in model railways, then 'Rule 1' trumps all. Run what you like, where you like and when you like, having fun at the same time.

 

But, 'Rule 1' might differ from modeller to modeller. I don't think I'd like to have a trainset which had no actual sense of place or time; that wouldn't be fun at all to me. 

 

It's great to have visiting locos running on Little Bytham, but, for a 'proper' sequence's running it's as near as damn it the summer of 1958 with (some of) the locos and trains which actually ran through Little Bytham. Nothing more, nothing less.

Rule 1 gets thrown around a lot. Mainly it’s an excuse for not caring. That’s why I use it for, can’t see something on a wagon from 4ft away, don’t worry about it rule 1. But where it annoys me is when you try to help someone and point out how to do something better and they just go rule 1 rule 1 rule 1. 
 

 

[Tony Wright]

54 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Tony,

 

I was reading on the train home tonight of a headboard for the "Fair Maid" being sold at auction; an ECML named train which only ran in 1957-58.  Do you run it in your sequence?

 

Rob

Yes, Rob,

 

As the morning 'Talisman' set, which is what that train became in 1958, after it was extended beyond Edinburgh to Perth.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Andy Hayter]

I think we ought to recognise that our hobby embraces a broad spectrum ranging from the circle of track on a floor through to the most accurate fully to scale representation of a real location.  

 

Within that spectrum, rule 1  will have different thresholds.  What is one persons rule 1 might be beyond the competencies of someone at the other end of the spectrum.

 

We should however be cautious of criticising other people's rule 1.  It may not be appropriate for me but it is for the modeller under discussion.  We all have our thresholds and they may be there for many and different reasons ranging from skill, knowledge, finance, time available and probably many other reasons.

 

If something is not right then we can politely and not critically point that out.  If the modeller says I know but rule 1 applies then we should accept that although we might ask politely (and certainly not critically) why the modeller does not try and correct the "error".

[St Enodoc]

48 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

I think we ought to recognise that our hobby embraces a broad spectrum ranging from the circle of track on a floor through to the most accurate fully to scale representation of a real location.  

 

Within that spectrum, rule 1  will have different thresholds.  What is one persons rule 1 might be beyond the competencies of someone at the other end of the spectrum.

 

We should however be cautious of criticising other people's rule 1.  It may not be appropriate for me but it is for the modeller under discussion.  We all have our thresholds and they may be there for many and different reasons ranging from skill, knowledge, finance, time available and probably many other reasons.

 

If something is not right then we can politely and not critically point that out.  If the modeller says I know but rule 1 applies then we should accept that although we might ask politely (and certainly not critically) why the modeller does not try and correct the "error".

There are more nuances to that.

 

Here's a thought experiment:

 

Which layout is more "realistic" (or authentic - but I think we've done that one to death):

 

- RTR trains, running on sectional track, that are operated to an exact representation of an actual timetable; or

 

- scratchbuilt trains, running on hand-built track, that just run round and round "because that's what the public like to see"?

 

I don't think that there is a "right" answer to that question. It all depends on each individual's version of Rule 1.

[Woodcock29]

2 hours ago, Chamby said:

I find that nothing in this hobby is an absolute.  I like to run my layout in a given time/place to the best of my ability... but then at times rule 1 is invoked, usually when I am alone and giving other stuff a run round, or when a friend is visiting and has something different to show.  And occasionally, dare I say it,  at an exhibition when things are quiet and a youngster is the primary audience, then the wee blue fella might pop out for a run-past.  

 

One of the most entertaining things I have seen was a stuffed mouse on a motorised ‘spud’ bogie, that darted the length of an otherwise very serious layout from one tunnel mouth to the other .  A mouse?  Where?

 

Rule 1 is fine, in the right place at the right time.  Those times are many... but I suggest that there are also other times when it just isn’t right!

The wee blue fella has been out on my layout for nearly two weeks now as the daughter and her family are still with us due to 4 of the 6 of us being covid +ve. The upside is the older granddaughter who was 7 last Sunday, now knows how to run all the trains around from the hidden storage loops and utilise the automatic stops in the loops. Whilst the 4 year loves running the wee blue fella.

 

Its fun watching the wee blue fella running around with two ex GN Howlden 6 wheelers. They run really well in reverse as well! So a good test to Danny Pinnocks 6 wheel arrangements.

Andrew

[96701]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding 'rules' in model railways, then 'Rule 1' trumps all. Run what you like, where you like and when you like, having fun at the same time.

 

I'm definitely at the fun end but some posters (not on WW) seem to thoroughly enjoy explaining defects in models just to show that they "know more" about the subject, and therefore suck the joy out of the model.

 

My past included working on rail cranes, so I know a few things about them and breakdown trains but if I see somebody has modelled something wrongly, I don't even mention it because it might just make them like their model that little bit less. If however they ask for my help, they'll get chapter and verse.

[westerner]

Well said!

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, 96701 said:

If however they ask for my help, they'll get chapter and verse.

Is that all? When we were on the Eastern you'd have given them the footnotes, appendices and full bibliography too!

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

There are more nuances to that.

 

Here's a thought experiment:

 

Which layout is more "realistic" (or authentic - but I think we've done that one to death):

 

- RTR trains, running on sectional track, that are operated to an exact representation of an actual timetable; or

 

- scratchbuilt trains, running on hand-built track, that just run round and round "because that's what the public like to see"?

 

I don't think that there is a "right" answer to that question. It all depends on each individual's version of Rule 1.

Good morning John,

 

You're quite right; there is no 'right' answer.

 

You've cited (to some extent) a pair of extremes. I don't think an 'exact' representation of an actual timetable' is possible on a large/complex system because too many trains/movements would be involved. It's certainly possible on a bucolic branch line, but would that 'satisfy'? 

 

Take Moretonhamstead, for instance.......

 

 

 

 

When it was built by WMRC members (the principals, sadly now deceased) 40+ years ago, it was quite ground-breaking. A model of an actual prototype, built to scale with just about everything (out of necessity) made from scratch. A few (much-modified) RTR items were employed (I even built two locos for it!), but it was traditional 'do-everything oneself' modelling in the main. Yet, when it was run at shows it was entirely un-prototypical. Why? In the last shot, there are two locos present. This was a rare occurrence (other than on high days, holidays and market days at Newton Abbot), because, for most days, it was 'one engine in steam'. Occasionally, a loco would be stabled overnight in the tiny shed, but, apart from that (and those days mentioned) it would be the same loco shuttling back and forth down the single track branch to Newton. An 'exact representation of an actual timetable' would have bored spectators to death! 

 

Apologies for the poor pictures, by the way. They were taken (in the last century) using a first-generation digital camera. 

 

I think the roundy-roundy type of layout gets unfair criticisms at times. Just about all trunk main line depictions I've seen/photographed have been in the form of a circuit. For an end-to-end depiction (which was not an actual terminus) enormous fiddle yards at each end would be required, and there'd be endless turning of (steam-outline) locos; rather impractical. Roundy-roundy layouts can be run 'very realistically' if, say, an express train goes round just once (not round and round and round.............. continuously). 

 

The 'ideal', of course (at least to me) is scratch-/kit-built locos/stock, making up scale-length trains, running over hand-built track (at least in the scenic sections) on a layout based on an actual prototype, which is operated using (in part) the actual WTTs and PTTs of the period depicted. I think (with a huge amount of help), I've got near that with Little Bytham. 

 

And, it's fun to operate, though I wish I could concentrate!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tony Wright
typo error

[PMP]

12 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Quite honestly who cares ?

 

For me model railways / railroads is a relaxing enjoyable hobby, no rules - and I'll leave it at just that.

 

Brit15

No one at all probably, I don’t.

At home I run whatever I want

 

 

At a show it’ll be era/stock/location appropriate. 

 

Just seemed an odd statement to make using the US as an example, when you can replace the location with ‘british’ (or wherever), and shown an image of a preserved railway. Anyone who knows a prototype reasonably well will be able to spot discrepancies, which was why your initial statement and picture inclusion, of a preservation era event didn’t ’make sense’. You don’t have to justify why you model like you do, just do it.

[Northmoor]

7 hours ago, 96701 said:

I'm definitely at the fun end but some posters (not on WW) seem to thoroughly enjoy explaining defects in models just to show that they "know more" about the subject, and therefore suck the joy out of the model.

 

I avoid the new products area of RMWeb for this very reason.

 

Every hobby or interest has its know-alls; individuals who get off on demonstrating to all who will listen (and many more who wish they didn't have to) that someone else knows less than they do.  In my experience, these people are easily identified by a number of factors, one of the more obvious ones being an absence of friends.

[APOLLO]

Some nice modelling there PMP. The photo was the first one on the web I came across showing some diversity, Perhaps I could have chosen better.

 

Anyway each to their own. I like the color (!!) schemes and road names of the 1960's, 70's & 80's

 

 

New colour schemes evolved as Railroads merged (or went bankrupt). Lots of short lines evolved each with it's own identity. And yes several standard boxcar red cars together as above was also an everyday sight.

 

My freight yards. The string of reefers (Refrigerated Boxcars) by the wall are all Intermountain pre painted kits built by me. I don't dare to weather such superb models.

 

 

I have weathered a few plain boxcars though. At the end of the sidings under the factory bridge is a mirror, so this yard looks twice as long as it actually is !!

 

 

I found this interesting car on ebay. And this is a real short line railroad that still exists today. I'd never heard of it till I saw this car advertised. Such is the diversity I enjoy with US Railroads.

 

https://www.gulfandohio.com/lancaster-chester-rr

 

 

What I really enjoy is constructing scenery and bridges - Rocky Mountain style. Still lots to do this spring & summer, and a few more kits to make also. The track construction crews are now gone, if I go any higher I'll be in the roof !!

 

 

And yes I'm a big fan of Tony's layout. One day in 1957, East Coast main line, all steam, big pacifics, fast long trains - absolutely wonderful. The Grantham and Peterborough layouts are superb also - just what is it about this particular main line and era that even a model layout can still stir excitement in us all ?

 

Brit15

[Headstock]

15 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

I do not steal others' artwork or photography, and claim it as my own. 

 

I sometimes take sections of public domain photos, like track or smoke,  and use them as templates for my own painting, which is where my skill are I think quite good, that is, painting with a computer mouse and software like Paintshop Pro. Not unlike making stencil over a photo and freehanding a painting from that.  Is it fair to describe my own computer painting over a small piece of a manipulated distorted re-sized re-coloured google image as misappropriated when it is not being used for any financial purpose whatsoever, and bears only superficial resemblance to a photo I didn't take myself..

 

Clearly we differ.  Tony and Andy York are pretty strict about respecting copyright, and I respect them. My own late father was a prolific author and publisher so I am not unaware of the value of copyright.

 

Your comparing of my usual computer artwork to the theft of your own commercial work for someone else's commercial benefit leaves me having to just politely disagree.

 

Back to modelling please. 

 

 

 

 

 

Good Afternoon Robert,

 

I don't wish to embarrass you by physically pointing out were you are not using public domain images. I've just looked at one of your images and found were you have got the original image from. The person that originally posted it holds the copywrite and makes it very clear that it is covered by 'All rights reserved'. At the very least, you must seek permission of the copywrite holder if you wish to use the image and provide a credit. It's simple with copyright images, illegal, don't use it. Legal, provide a credit. The responsibility is yours to check if the original image is genuinely in the public domain or not. This particular image makes it quite clear it is not.

 

All i'm asking of you, is if you use copywrite images, seek the permission of the copywrite holder and provide a credit. Some people will say yes, others may wish a payment, some will say no.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Headstock
add info

[john new]

It goes further surely? If it does not say released into the public domain or under Creative Commons you have to assume  it isn’t. I have images on line (mine and others on the websites I manage), so yes they are published/publicly available but are NOT public domain images.

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by john new

[bbishop]

I look after photographic collections in copyright for a line society.  We are happy for them to be used for research but not commercially without our permission.  I think RMWeb falls within research but it might be a good idea to acknowledge the source of a photograph. RMWeb is universally accessible so there is always the risk that an image could be purloined. 

I love the images that Rob posts on RMWeb from his little niche within our hobby.

A couple of musings: (1) the spelling is actually "copyright", caught me out in the past; (2) turning over a postcard made from a photograph taken in the nineteenth century, I was mildly surprised to find a copyright notice affixed in the last decade.  Just because one has purchased a postcard, it doesn't incur any rights on the original image!

Bill

[John Isherwood]

Anyone who uploads an image to the internet does so in the sure and certain knowledge that the horse, at that precise moment, has bolted!

 

Despite the legal nicities, the image is in the public domain for all practical purposes. In order to regain any control over its use, it will be necessary to resort to the legal profession; not something to countenance unless you have deep pockets.

 

If you are precious about your images, don't post them on the internet - it's as simple as that.

 

CJI.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

Anyone who uploads an image to the internet does so in the sure and certain knowledge that the horse, at that precise moment, has bolted!

 

Despite the legal nicities, the image is in the public domain for all practical purposes. In order to regain any control over its use, it will be necessary to resort to the legal profession; not something to countenance unless you have deep pockets.

 

If you are precious about your images, don't post them on the internet - it's as simple as that.

 

CJI.

 

People don't take image theft seriously, until something serious happens. In cases were photographs of peoples family, kids and Grand kids have been taken without permission and digitally manipulated, people suddenly have a much better appreciation for the law. Just recently in America, there was an instance related to a famous case, were a man stole online photographs from a trendy young mans website. He then used the photographs to pretended to be that young man, in order to set up a catfishing operation to lure young girls.

 

2 hours ago, bbishop said:

I look after photographic collections in copyright for a line society.  We are happy for them to be used for research but not commercially without our permission.  I think RMWeb falls within research but it might be a good idea to acknowledge the source of a photograph. RMWeb is universally accessible so there is always the risk that an image could be purloined. 

I love the images that Rob posts on RMWeb from his little niche within our hobby.

A couple of musings: (1) the spelling is actually "copyright", caught me out in the past; (2) turning over a postcard made from a photograph taken in the nineteenth century, I was mildly surprised to find a copyright notice affixed in the last decade.  Just because one has purchased a postcard, it doesn't incur any rights on the original image!

Bill

 

I'm sure that there are plenty of fans of Roberts work, such as yourself, who would supply him with free photographs if he was to actually ask for them.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Headstock
clarify a point

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Some nice modelling there PMP. The photo was the first one on the web I came across showing some diversity, Perhaps I could have chosen better.

 

Anyway each to their own. I like the color (!!) schemes and road names of the 1960's, 70's & 80's

 

 

New colour schemes evolved as Railroads merged (or went bankrupt). Lots of short lines evolved each with it's own identity. And yes several standard boxcar red cars together as above was also an everyday sight.

 

My freight yards. The string of reefers (Refrigerated Boxcars) by the wall are all Intermountain pre painted kits built by me. I don't dare to weather such superb models.

 

 

I have weathered a few plain boxcars though. At the end of the sidings under the factory bridge is a mirror, so this yard looks twice as long as it actually is !!

 

 

I found this interesting car on ebay. And this is a real short line railroad that still exists today. I'd never heard of it till I saw this car advertised. Such is the diversity I enjoy with US Railroads.

 

https://www.gulfandohio.com/lancaster-chester-rr

 

 

What I really enjoy is constructing scenery and bridges - Rocky Mountain style. Still lots to do this spring & summer, and a few more kits to make also. The track construction crews are now gone, if I go any higher I'll be in the roof !!

 

 

And yes I'm a big fan of Tony's layout. One day in 1957, East Coast main line, all steam, big pacifics, fast long trains - absolutely wonderful. The Grantham and Peterborough layouts are superb also - just what is it about this particular main line and era that even a model layout can still stir excitement in us all ?

 

Brit15

Good afternoon Apollo.

 

'just what is it about this particular main line and era that even a model layout can still stir excitement in us all ?'

 

The 'big engine' policy? Counting the V2s, the LNER and its successors had more RA9 locos than all the rest put together. It had near 400 units bigger and heavier than a King, and only the Princess Royals, Princess Coronations and Merchant Navies came near to the heaviest/largest. 

 

I've put together a 'model journey' north from Kings Cross showing the GN main line layouts I've photographed, which might help explain. These are the layouts I've photographed. I'm sure there are more. Several of the shots are from some time ago and the layouts have either developed more or ceased to exist. I know of no other trunk main lines which have been modelled more.

 

I'm splitting the journey into three posts, so as not to exceed file limits.......

 

 

Kings Cross in N.

 

 

 

And in O Gauge.

 

 

 

Copenhagen Fields in 2mm.

 

 

 

The Gresley Beat in OO. Though not strictly speaking an actual prototype, there's no doubt where it's set. 

 

 

Welwyn North in OO.

 

 

Hitchin in OO. 

 

More to follow.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.