Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

36 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I don't know whether it's within any definition of "finescale" or not, but for me it's certainly about the builder's attitude of mind (and I am NOT a FS modeller, my limited skills mean my standards are nowhere near good enough).  Little Bytham is undoubtedly FS for me because everything is to a consistently high standard, thanks to the skills of all those involved.  That fact that the track standard is OO, means nothing. 

 

I will also say that LB "works" for me not because it is of a prototype or that it is "finescale", but because it is one of those layouts where I can see the builder had a vision - based on spotting ECML trains in the 1950s - which has been stunningly recreated in 3D.  Many such layouts, you can imagine yourself in 4mm scale or whatever, walking around the modelled location, because you can "get" the builder's vision.  Oddly enough, I can see the pleasure in the Hornby-Dublo layouts at shows, because what they are recreating the memory of the dream train set of 1950s children.

 

To be honest, I have seen one or two P4/S4 layouts (I wouldn't name them even if I could remember their names) which may have been technically superb but I found strangely soulless, as if the quest for technical perfection had removed any sense of the builder's vision or love for their work.  They were like the airbrush art which is so realistic it looks like a photograph, because it has been perfectly copied from a photograph.

Thanks for your kind comments about Little Bytham.

 

I'm not sure whether I've had 'visions' with regard to anything, though I can see myself in some of the definitions of visionary - indulging in fanciful theories, imaginary, fanciful..........

 

I think I'd describe it more as an idea; an idea to be turned into a 'practical' model railway. Something which could be built, given the resources at my disposal, in a 'reasonable' amount of time. The principal resources were my model-making mates! Nothing would have been achieved without their help. 

 

I don't have the resources of 'commission' - that is to pay for all the work; work to a high standard produced by professionals, at a high cost. As long as there is a clear objective, then this type of layout can 'work', though the owner/commissioner is always a 'hostage to fortune' when things go wrong. That said, Tony Gee once fixed a short caused by a Fulgurex point motor's switches which had completely bamboozled me. Thanks again Tony. 

 

I've been very fortunate to have the work of 'professional modellers' (some of the best in the business) in and on Little Bytham. That said, most of it has been 'paid for' by barter' (being a Yorkshireman's son saw to that!). I think the 'nicest' thing about the whole thing is, as well as having others' work on LB, work of mine is on their layouts, or they have photographs of their models or DVDs which feature them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[john new]

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I don't know whether it's within any definition of "finescale" or not, but for me it's certainly about the builder's attitude of mind (and I am NOT a FS modeller, my limited skills mean my standards are nowhere near good enough).  Little Bytham is undoubtedly FS for me because everything is to a consistently high standard, thanks to the skills of all those involved.  That fact that the track standard is OO, means nothing. 

 

I will also say that LB "works" for me not because it is of a prototype or that it is "finescale", but because it is one of those layouts where I can see the builder had a vision - based on spotting ECML trains in the 1950s - which has been stunningly recreated in 3D.  Many such layouts, you can imagine yourself in 4mm scale or whatever, walking around the modelled location, because you can "get" the builder's vision.  Oddly enough, I can see the pleasure in the Hornby-Dublo layouts at shows, because what they are recreating the memory of the dream train set of 1950s children.

 

To be honest, I have seen one or two P4/S4 layouts (I wouldn't name them even if I could remember their names) which may have been technically superb but I found strangely soulless, as if the quest for technical perfection had removed any sense of the builder's vision or love for their work.  They were like the airbrush art which is so realistic it looks like a photograph, because it has been perfectly copied from a photograph.

The most boring exhibition layout* (from those I have seen over the years) vote from me would go to one from a name modeller and it has inspired others. Very well made and with standards, P4 I think, many levels above mine. I’d looked forward to seeing it, given the reputation and clever angles used by those photographing it for the mags. In the show environment yes the skill levels in the input to it had obviously been great but, as a total package, rather bland and to be honest boring.
 

Do I aspire towards that level of modelling, in hopefulness as a target yes. Does nearer to fidelity in standards automatically make it more interesting as the whole, is perhaps debatable. Satisfaction to the builder I am sure, to a third party perhaps not. 
 

We talk about layout stock verses showcase models, I guess the same equivalent exists between magazine layouts and show layouts. Very few modellers, Gordon & Maggie Gravett for example, do have the “eye” and skill levels to be able to produce something that works in both.

 

* amongst the supposedly quality layouts.

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by john new
Corrected the credit.

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, john new said:

The most boring exhibition layout* (from those I have seen over the years) vote from me would go to one from a name modeller and it has inspired others. Very well made and with standards, P4 I think, many levels above mine. I’d looked forward to seeing it, given the reputation and clever angles used by those photographing it for the mags. In the show environment yes the skill levels in the input to it had obviously been great, but as a total package rather bland, and to be honest boring.
 

Do I aspire towards that level of modelling, in hopefulness as a target yes. Does nearer to fidelity in standards automatically make it more interesting as the whole, is perhaps debatable. Satisfaction to the builder I am sure, to a third party perhaps not. 
 

We talk about layout stock verses showcase models, I guess the same equivalent exists between magazine layouts and show layouts. Very few modellers, Gordon Gravett is one, have the “eye” and skill levels to be able to produce something that works in both.

 

* amongst the supposedly quality layouts.

 

I have found that too. Sometimes layouts that I should have enjoyed have disappointed because they don't get that magic balance of artistry and engineering right. The pursuit of fine standards can sometimes leave the visual and operational aspects as afterthoughts.

 

A technically superb layout that is dull to view, either from the visual aspect or the operational aspect, is never quite as inspiring to me as a less "fine" layout that looks good and is interesting operationally.

 

The very best layouts get that mixture right and I can stand at a show and watch them for quite a while. A good example would be "St Merryn" which I enjoyed every time I saw it. Everything about it looked right and it was full of operational interest too. It seemed that every move made had a purpose and that it wasn't the same as the one before or after it.

 

I found that truly inspirational.

[DenysW]

Tony -

 

If some-one challenges you on using code 100 rail, you are complying with a statute of William the Conqueror. From Wikipedia:

 

3 William I c. 7 (1068):

De mensuris et ponderibus

Et quod habeant per universum regnum mensuras fidelissimas, & signatas, & pondera fidelissima & signata, sicut boni Praedecessores statuerunt.[19][20]

 

On measures and weights

We ordain and command that the weights and measures, throughout our realm, be as our worthy predecessors have established.[This is not a complete translation of the Latin.][22]

 

Slightly less frivolously, the purpose of "standards" is to facilitate trade. So if your finescale doesn't rely on other people working to the same dimensional standards, it's a fine scale.

Edited December 23, 2022 by DenysW
typo

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, john new said:

The most boring exhibition layout* (from those I have seen over the years) vote from me would go to one from a name modeller and it has inspired others. Very well made and with standards, P4 I think, many levels above mine. I’d looked forward to seeing it, given the reputation and clever angles used by those photographing it for the mags. In the show environment yes the skill levels in the input to it had obviously been great but, as a total package, rather bland and to be honest boring.
 

Do I aspire towards that level of modelling, in hopefulness as a target yes. Does nearer to fidelity in standards automatically make it more interesting as the whole, is perhaps debatable. Satisfaction to the builder I am sure, to a third party perhaps not. 
 

We talk about layout stock verses showcase models, I guess the same equivalent exists between magazine layouts and show layouts. Very few modellers, Gordon Gravett is one, have the “eye” and skill levels to be able to produce something that works in both.

 

* amongst the supposedly quality layouts.

 

'Very few modellers, Gordon Gravett is one, have the “eye” and skill levels to be able to produce something that works in both.'

 

Don't forget that it's his wife, Maggie's work as well...............

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

45 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have found that too. Sometimes layouts that I should have enjoyed have disappointed because they don't get that magic balance of artistry and engineering right. The pursuit of fine standards can sometimes leave the visual and operational aspects as afterthoughts.

 

A technically superb layout that is dull to view, either from the visual aspect or the operational aspect, is never quite as inspiring to me as a less "fine" layout that looks good and is interesting operationally.

 

The very best layouts get that mixture right and I can stand at a show and watch them for quite a while. A good example would be "St Merryn" which I enjoyed every time I saw it. Everything about it looked right and it was full of operational interest too. It seemed that every move made had a purpose and that it wasn't the same as the one before or after it.

 

I found that truly inspirational.

Good evening Tony,

 

'A good example would be "St Merryn" which I enjoyed every time I saw it. Everything about it looked right and it was full of operational interest too. It seemed that every move made had a purpose and that it wasn't the same as the one before or after it.

 

I found that truly inspirational.'

 

Which makes it all the more heart-breaking that it was severely damaged by vandals...............

 

 

Does anyone know if it could be repaired? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

RTR 'finescale'?

 

 

Heljan's latest OO Gauge 'Hymek' in weathered condition. 

[Chuffer Davies]

For me the term finescale made much more sense in the 1960s when the dominant standards were those of Triang (Rovex) and Hornby Dublo.  Anything built to a more accurate standard could then reasonably be called finescale and there was plenty of scope for improvement.

As the quality of proprietary models has improved  the accuracy gap between finescale modelling and off the shelf models has narrowed and, as has been said many times, we can now buy models as accurate (or more so) than we can build ourselves. I welcome this because I have no concerns with using proprietary models as a short cut to reproducing a specific prototype in EM.  

The one standard that to me is critical for any model railway (as Tony W has previously hinted at) is the track standard.  This lesson was brought home to me when (soon after joining the club)  I was asked to try and sort out some problematic track on the club’s Leicester South layout.  In time it became obvious to me that the problem was not with the hand built track so much as with the many and varied wheel standards adopted by the members building stock for the layout.  It proved impossible to adjust check rail and crossing clearances so all stock ran through smoothly.  In hindsight the track standard should have been agreed up front and then all stock should have been built to be compatible with that standard.  It would have saved considerable time and anguish on the part of the members responsible for building the track work in the first place.

Frank

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, john new said:

The most boring exhibition layout* (from those I have seen over the years) vote from me would go to one from a name modeller and it has inspired others. Very well made and with standards, P4 I think, many levels above mine. I’d looked forward to seeing it, given the reputation and clever angles used by those photographing it for the mags. In the show environment yes the skill levels in the input to it had obviously been great but, as a total package, rather bland and to be honest boring.
 

Do I aspire towards that level of modelling, in hopefulness as a target yes. Does nearer to fidelity in standards automatically make it more interesting as the whole, is perhaps debatable. Satisfaction to the builder I am sure, to a third party perhaps not. 
 

We talk about layout stock verses showcase models, I guess the same equivalent exists between magazine layouts and show layouts. Very few modellers, Gordon Gravett is one, have the “eye” and skill levels to be able to produce something that works in both.

 

* amongst the supposedly quality layouts.

 

 

What this makes me think of is another aspect of what we could consider 'finescale' albeit at a slight remove. How does a layout that is 'finescale' in its overall presentation (rolling stock, trackwork, scenery) measure up in terms of its operation? Is it correctly signalled (and perhaps uses bell codes to represent that, for the operators benefit at least) , does it display the correct lamps on trains (probably a given), or work to a timetable (of a real location or based on realistic possibilities)? Or does simply it run a sequence of trains appropriate to the location of the model? Or apply Rule 1?

 

If we truly are 'railway modellers' in all the expansive glory that phrase implies, then how much weight do we give to the things are to some extent intangible in that they cannot be obviously represented in a physical manner? That is to say, how does the fact that the real life railway operates to a predictable operational pattern (a timetable, in other words) impact on the way in which we design, build, and operate our layouts? Particularly 'finescale' ones.

[D-A-T]

I wasn’t aware St Merryn had been vandalised. That is very sad and makes me angry. St Merryn was in my Top 3 current exhibition layouts. I do hope it can be repaired. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, john new said:

The most boring exhibition layout* (from those I have seen over the years) vote from me would go to one from a name modeller and it has inspired others. Very well made and with standards, P4 I think, many levels above mine. I’d looked forward to seeing it, given the reputation and clever angles used by those photographing it for the mags. In the show environment yes the skill levels in the input to it had obviously been great but, as a total package, rather bland and to be honest boring.
 

Do I aspire towards that level of modelling, in hopefulness as a target yes. Does nearer to fidelity in standards automatically make it more interesting as the whole, is perhaps debatable. Satisfaction to the builder I am sure, to a third party perhaps not. 
 

We talk about layout stock verses showcase models, I guess the same equivalent exists between magazine layouts and show layouts. Very few modellers, Gordon Gravett is one, have the “eye” and skill levels to be able to produce something that works in both.

 

* amongst the supposedly quality layouts.

 

 

"Boring" is subjective. I too have seen some highly regarded layouts, some quite large and operationally busy that have not "grabbed" me. As you say John,

what sometimes works in print, doesn't always work in the flesh and vice versa.

 

In particular I can't really appreciate large MPD's and other "modern image" layouts or small closely packed small industrial scenes, even those of the highest modelling standards. On the other hand pre-group, grouping and BR steam period are likely to hold much more attraction for me.

[t-b-g]

32 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tony,

 

'A good example would be "St Merryn" which I enjoyed every time I saw it. Everything about it looked right and it was full of operational interest too. It seemed that every move made had a purpose and that it wasn't the same as the one before or after it.

 

I found that truly inspirational.'

 

Which makes it all the more heart-breaking that it was severely damaged by vandals...............

 

 

Does anyone know if it could be repaired? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I haven't heard any news as to the condition and possibility of repairing the layout. I do know the team behind it have been working on a new layout called "Bankside", so maybe that is a replacement or an additional layout. It is likely that somebody who knows will drop in and be able to tell us more.

 

It would be very sad if it was damaged beyond repair.  

[Northmoor]

24 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

What this makes me think of is another aspect of what we could consider 'finescale' albeit at a slight remove. How does a layout that is 'finescale' in its overall presentation (rolling stock, trackwork, scenery) measure up in terms of its operation? Is it correctly signalled (and perhaps uses bell codes to represent that, for the operators benefit at least) , does it display the correct lamps on trains (probably a given), or work to a timetable (of a real location or based on realistic possibilities)? Or does simply it run a sequence of trains appropriate to the location of the model? Or apply Rule 1?

 

If we truly are 'railway modellers' in all the expansive glory that phrase implies, then how much weight do we give to the things are to some extent intangible in that they cannot be obviously represented in a physical manner? That is to say, how does the fact that the real life railway operates to a predictable operational pattern (a timetable, in other words) impact on the way in which we design, build, and operate our layouts? Particularly 'finescale' ones.

Careful!  Someone started a thread saying much of what you've said above and it ended up being locked, when a few people started taking the subject MUCH too seriously.......

[melmoth]

22 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Careful!  Someone started a thread saying much of what you've said above and it ended up being locked, when a few people started taking the subject MUCH too seriously.......

 

Thanks. I've been absent for a couple of years and am probably not yet completely up to speed with current shibboleths, faux pas, and other examples of poor form.

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tony,

 

'A good example would be "St Merryn" which I enjoyed every time I saw it. Everything about it looked right and it was full of operational interest too. It seemed that every move made had a purpose and that it wasn't the same as the one before or after it.

 

I found that truly inspirational.'

 

Which makes it all the more heart-breaking that it was severely damaged by vandals...............

 

 

Does anyone know if it could be repaired? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I had a conversation at Scaleforum with one of the original builders of St Merryn about the layout. They were clearly devastated when it was vandalised by some young boys. The damage has been assessed and it would need a lot of work to rebuild and replace the stock.

 

They have moved on to another layout, Bankside, which was on display as a work in progress. I was told that the original group rather felt that they had "exhausted" (my interpretation) St Merryn and displayed it as much as they had wanted to. Newer members of their group still felt enthusiasm for resurrecting the layout but he felt that was unlikely to happen.

 

A great shame, but understandable in the circumstances.

[john new]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

'Very few modellers, Gordon Gravett is one, have the “eye” and skill levels to be able to produce something that works in both.'

 

Don't forget that it's his wife, Maggie's work as well...............

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Very true. Now I am back home have corrected it - yes bad oversight missing out a York Show regular!

 

Edited December 23, 2022 by john new

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

Careful!  Someone started a thread saying much of what you've said above and it ended up being locked, when a few people started taking the subject MUCH too seriously.......

Yes, it got rather personal too. I'm sorry to say that it brought out a distinctly nasty side of several contributors.

 

No, I'm not going to post the link.

[D-A-T]

I find that rather sad. This is a hobby for enjoyment and relaxation not personal attacks and abuse. The hobby is a big church and embraces many differences; from coarse scale to finescale, from T gauge to Gauge 3(?) and much more besides. All are (should be) welcome and encouraged not abused. 

 

I am very much a ‘lone Wolf’ modeller in Doncaster but enjoy a bit of banter at exhibitions with nodding acquaintances and the layout operators about scale, gauge, period, chosen company etc. But in the words of a bygone entertainer it’s all said ‘in the best possible taste’ with a twinkle in the eye. I would be dismayed if anyone took it seriously and I’m sure they don’t.

 

PS The only people who should be gently admonished are ‘rivet counters’. They deserve all they get! 🤣

[Chas Levin]

25 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

I find that rather sad. This is a hobby for enjoyment and relaxation not personal attacks and abuse. The hobby is a big church and embraces many differences; from coarse scale to finescale, from T gauge to Gauge 3(?) and much more besides. All are (should be) welcome and encouraged not abused. 

 

I am very much a ‘lone Wolf’ modeller in Doncaster but enjoy a bit of banter at exhibitions with nodding acquaintances and the layout operators about scale, gauge, period, chosen company etc. But in the words of a bygone entertainer it’s all said ‘in the best possible taste’ with a twinkle in the eye. I would be dismayed if anyone took it seriously and I’m sure they don’t.

 

PS The only people who should be gently admonished are ‘rivet counters’. They deserve all they get! 🤣

I'm sure many - perhaps most - would agree with your words there (well, except perhaps the rivet counters 😉 who are also valued participants!) but passions sometimes run high where hobbies are concerned.

 

To paraphrase a well-known film director, maybe we try to get things to come out right in our creative hobbies because it's so difficult to get them to come out right in life, so in a strange way, there can be a lot riding on our models -  sorry, no pun intended but hey, it's Christmas so I'll let that pun stand and, as I'm writing this on Christmas Eve, may take the opportunity to say Merry Christmas to Tony and to everyone! 👋🎅🥂

[Hollar]

9 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

I had a conversation at Scaleforum with one of the original builders of St Merryn about the layout. They were clearly devastated when it was vandalised by some young boys. The damage has been assessed and it would need a lot of work to rebuild and replace the stock.

 

They have moved on to another layout, Bankside, which was on display as a work in progress. I was told that the original group rather felt that they had "exhausted" (my interpretation) St Merryn and displayed it as much as they had wanted to. Newer members of their group still felt enthusiasm for resurrecting the layout but he felt that was unlikely to happen.

 

A great shame, but understandable in the circumstances.

I also had a long conversation at Scaleforum with one of  the St Merrin team  and understood that it was beyond saving. Apparently the building were stamped on.  In the circumstances. all credit to them for deciding to go again.

 

Tony

[polybear]

22 minutes ago, Hollar said:

I also had a long conversation at Scaleforum with one of  the St Merrin team  and understood that it was beyond saving. Apparently the building were stamped on.  In the circumstances. all credit to them for deciding to go again.

 

Tony

 

I do hope that whoever was responsible was/will be caught - though I suspect in this day and age that may well be a bit hopeful, and appropriate punishment even less so.

[Jol Wilkinson]

43 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

I do hope that whoever was responsible was/will be caught - though I suspect in this day and age that may well be a bit hopeful, and appropriate punishment even less so.

I believe there was a good idea as to had done it but as they were from a tight knit community that pretty much lived on the edge of legality, it wasn't possible for the police to prove it.

[Jol Wilkinson]

2 hours ago, D-A-T said:

I find that rather sad. This is a hobby for enjoyment and relaxation not personal attacks and abuse. The hobby is a big church and embraces many differences; from coarse scale to finescale, from T gauge to Gauge 3(?) and much more besides. All are (should be) welcome and encouraged not abused. 

 

I am very much a ‘lone Wolf’ modeller in Doncaster but enjoy a bit of banter at exhibitions with nodding acquaintances and the layout operators about scale, gauge, period, chosen company etc. But in the words of a bygone entertainer it’s all said ‘in the best possible taste’ with a twinkle in the eye. I would be dismayed if anyone took it seriously and I’m sure they don’t.

 

PS The only people who should be gently admonished are ‘rivet counters’. They deserve all they get! 🤣

 

Please don't bring a comparison with religion into it,which has been responsible for many of the wars this world has suffered over the years.

 

I must also admit to being a rivet counter (a disparaging term), but as someone who has designed a number of kits over the years, it is something you have to do when creating a hopefully accurate model design.

 

I believe is is also an increasingly popular activity amongst those who buy the latest RTR models as they seek to confirm/dispute the accuracy of the latest offerings

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Hollar said:

I also had a long conversation at Scaleforum with one of  the St Merrin team  and understood that it was beyond saving. Apparently the building were stamped on.  In the circumstances. all credit to them for deciding to go again.

 

Tony

So, architectural modelling of this quality was 'stamped on'?

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard to believe that the creators of these exquisite structures and the perpetrators of their destruction are the same species! 

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

2 hours ago, D-A-T said:

 

 

PS The only people who should be gently admonished are ‘rivet counters’. They deserve all they get! 🤣

Merry Christmas to you as well. Even with an emoji I find that remark offensive.

One of my more unusual jobs involved building shelving storage units in earth quake zones. To prevent the structures coming apart extra rivets were required either side of the node points where the rivets were usually located. I worked with a chap in South America as there was nobody in Europe or the USA who knew enough about the subject. I also worked on a prototype machine, in the same workshop as another machine was being developed, that had a number of drill heads that could be programmed to drill out rivets in various seuences during the repair of aircraft wings. Rivet counting is a serious business and is rather more important than a source of amusement.

Bernard