Wright writes.....

[Michael Edge]

44 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Yes - but while all of those images are, in my opinion, realistic, they aren't all authentic as some are models of fictitious locations!

This is realistic.

But in no way authentic, the whole thing is significantly compressed, there are too few tracks in the foreground and the the gauge is 00, although that doesn't show much at this angle.

I like to build layouts based on large busy places but don't have the enormous space necessary, even Carlisle at 30m long would have been better if the room had been a metre or so wider - we would have got the goods lines in to scale as well as the main line and station.

[Tony Wright]

Realistic? Authentic? Interesting semantics?

 

I've been hesitant to put a shot of Little Bytham into this discussion. However..................

 

 

Is it 'realistic'? It's 'authentic' because it's based on an actual prototype. The train is about to pass underneath a girder bridge made by using the original drawings/CAD/etchings and the loco (60130) is authentic inasmuch as Copley Hill's A1s worked the 'Queen of Scots', and the train itself is the correct consist (made-up using BR's own documents). 

 

Even the really low telegraph pole to the right is authentic, and the buildings in the distance are based on actual prototypes, correctly sited. 

 

The signals are authentic and correctly-positioned.

 

Station Road (to the left) has all the authentic undulations of the real thing because it was measured using a theodolite. 

 

What isn't 'authentic' is the track gauge; it's only OO, though the formation is as correct as 'narrow gauge' will allow. 

 

Does it all really matter? At least I (and all my visitors) have great fun running LB. Some more are coming today..............

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony

 

You may recall that I 'notified' this thread about some items I was putting up for offer on RMweb Marketplace.

 

I'm pleased to say the Quint Art Kit has gone to a good home and to one who contributes here. Keeping to my word, I will make a donation direct to CRUK.

 

I will come back shortly about the B1 (but we have 'a bit of a family emergency' at the moment and I am not on line as much as usual).

 

Brian

[gingerangles]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning,

 

'Modelling that is both authentic and realistic is rare and to be treasured.'

 

Indeed!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Wow - some inspirational stuff in there for sure!  

[Barry Ten]

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Interesting Jesse - when I got onto bikes three decades ago (and have lapsed for far too long) - riders always acknowledged each other with a "nod", but non-Harley riders rarely got a nod back from Harley riders.  In the UK the latter really saw themselves as a different breed.

 

I think (hope) things have changed a bit now - a Harley or an MV Agusta rider round here is just as likely to work for the same merchant bank.......

 

That was my wife's experience, too. She would never get a nod back from a Harley rider, so in the end she considered them to be up-themselves *****s. Not that they all are, mind, as we know a few friendly ones now.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Realistic? Authentic? Interesting semantics?

 

I've been hesitant to put a shot of Little Bytham into this discussion. However..................

 

 

Is it 'realistic'? It's 'authentic' because it's based on an actual prototype. The train is about to pass underneath a girder bridge made by using the original drawings/CAD/etchings and the loco (60130) is authentic inasmuch as Copley Hill's A1s worked the 'Queen of Scots', and the train itself is the correct consist (made-up using BR's own documents). 

 

Even the really low telegraph pole to the right is authentic, and the buildings in the distance are based on actual prototypes, correctly sited. 

 

The signals are authentic and correctly-positioned.

 

Station Road (to the left) has all the authentic undulations of the real thing because it was measured using a theodolite. 

 

What isn't 'authentic' is the track gauge; it's only OO, though the formation is as correct as 'narrow gauge' will allow. 

 

Does it all really matter? At least I (and all my visitors) have great fun running LB. Some more are coming today..............

Yes, in my view, LB is one of those layouts that meets both criteria.

[BMacdermott]

Hello again Tony

 

I'm back quicker than expected!🙂

 

The Bachmann B1 - see photo below - has not (yet) been taken. As far as I am aware, there is nothing wrong with the body and tender. Up until very recently, she was running very well and I suspect the motor is in pretty good shape (without being an expert on these matters).

 

The driving wheels, however, have suffered the usual problem of the nylon(?) axles fracturing, causing it to run like a kangaroo.

 

Would you like the loco free, gratis and for nothing with the intent of you/someone fixing the wheels and selling on for a CRUK donation? It comes with a slightly used box.

 

I do not intend any 'pressure' on you personally and will happily extend the offer to any contributor here.

 

Sound fair enough?

 

Brian

 

 

[Re6/6]

 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

That's just a superb picture Tony.

 

Regarding Realistic? Authentic? Interesting semantics?"  I've attempted to get 'Parkend Marsh Sidings' as authentic as I can but some recent Facebook links on here revealed a number of pictures that showed me that I'd made several errors and omissions. There was me thinking that I had got things 'correct' until these new images appeared! The layout is to actual scale measured from O.S. maps and other sources (it's in P4, not that that is relevant to this discussion!).

 

 

Ctsy N.Parkhouse / Lightmoor Press 

 

 

 

 

[trw1089]

On 28/08/2024 at 18:24, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Jack,

 

I agree in many ways with what Kier said, but my comment about direct comparisons was a fact - nothing subjective or suggesting 'one is better than the other'. 

 

I think there'll be a degree of agreeing to disagree here.

 

Unless I've got this wrong (if I have, my apologies), isn't this the J6 you built for Gilbert Barnatt to run on PN; the one I fixed after the postal service did its best to spoil it?

 

 

 

It's a splendid models - my compliments.

 

Clearly, you've observed the prototype during its construction (the tablet exchange apparatus and the patch on the tender side?). 

 

That's my point - observation of the actual prototype. Not made up.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

That’s actually the one I built Tony

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Re6/6 said:

There was me thinking that I had got things 'correct' until these new images appeared!

And looking at your lower photo, the tops of the less-used rails (for 100.000% faithfullness to prototype) should be rusty. No. There will always be compromises between operable, perfect*, sensible, and achievable.

 

*Perfect: a word whose meaning varies from person to person, day to day, etc.

[gingerangles]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Realistic? Authentic? Interesting semantics?

 

I've been hesitant to put a shot of Little Bytham into this discussion. However..................

 

 

Is it 'realistic'? It's 'authentic' because it's based on an actual prototype. The train is about to pass underneath a girder bridge made by using the original drawings/CAD/etchings and the loco (60130) is authentic inasmuch as Copley Hill's A1s worked the 'Queen of Scots', and the train itself is the correct consist (made-up using BR's own documents). 

 

Even the really low telegraph pole to the right is authentic, and the buildings in the distance are based on actual prototypes, correctly sited. 

 

The signals are authentic and correctly-positioned.

 

Station Road (to the left) has all the authentic undulations of the real thing because it was measured using a theodolite. 

 

What isn't 'authentic' is the track gauge; it's only OO, though the formation is as correct as 'narrow gauge' will allow. 

 

Does it all really matter? At least I (and all my visitors) have great fun running LB. Some more are coming today..............

 

I'd absolutely say it would fit the bill of what we are trying to define with the terms.

 

I'm not sure about the terms though...

 

 

Every "authentic" (using the established terminology above) layout is definitely a "copy" 😀... I guess the "of undisputed origin" would fit nicely.

 

How about "bone fide" instead...

 

 

or "lifelike"...

 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

31 minutes ago, DenysW said:

And looking at your lower photo, the tops of the less-used rails (for 100.000% faithfullness to prototype) should be rusty. No. There will always be compromises between operable, perfect*, sensible, and achievable.

 

*Perfect: a word whose meaning varies from person to person, day to day, etc.

yes, and really the word "flawless" makes more sense here, considering that perfect just means forever complete, which is another different challenge of getting things actually finished!

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

There's an awful lot one could pick holes in here, from the points of view of authenticity and prototype accuracy. One could start with the brickwork of the bridge arches... Many of the other photos in that post show modelling that is more correct in its accuracy to the prototype but come over as somewhat sterile, whereas this breathes atmosphere. It comes over, to me at least, as more realistic.

 

Only one of the layouts depicted have I seen in the flesh - South Pelaw - and in the flesh it certainly had atmosphere - it created the illusion that one was there. So maybe what I am feeling is a consequence of the limitations of photography - one needs the movement, the sense of expectation as the pegs come off, the noise of the train rattling by (even if that noise is simply toy train noise, not the sophisticated output of sound sampling and speakers). I can see that that is how Little Bytham works for Tony, in evoking the sights and sounds of his youth, in ways that it doesn't work for me, in photographs.* 

 

This makes me fear what my reaction to seeing Buckingham in the flesh would be. I've seen the plan; I've seen how cleverly it is composed of almost cameo sections that make possible such superb images as this. Would it just appear as an overcrowded train set?

 

*Great strides have been made in the artificial reproduction of odours. No longer is it necessary to nail an old haddock to the underside of your harbour scene. I was reading of an exhibition of Pre-Raphaelite paintings at which, at the press of a button, the smell of cowpats accompanies a painting of a peasant girl, or of incense, that of an Eastern Orthodox saint. How long before this olfactory dimension enters our hobby? Or should we just be happy with the distinctive hot Triang X04 smell, the madeleine to the remembrance of many modellers?

Edited August 29 by Compound2632
sterile - better word than clinical

[Bucoops]

Perhaps we could agree on "Pukka" as being a suitable word to describe someone's quality modelling, be it any combination of the above?

 

WW certainly inspires, I just need assistance with time, and procrastination reduction methods!

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There's an awful lot one could pick holes in here, from the points of view of authenticity and prototype accuracy. One could start with the brickwork of the bridge arches... Many of the other photos in that post show modelling that is more correct in its accuracy to the prototype but come over as somewhat sterile, whereas this breathes atmosphere. It comes over, to me at least, as more realistic.

 

Only one of the layouts depicted have I seen in the flesh - South Pelaw - and in the flesh it certainly had atmosphere - it created the illusion that one was there. So maybe what I am feeling is a consequence of the limitations of photography - one needs the movement, the sense of expectation as the pegs come off, the noise of the train rattling by (even if that noise is simply toy train noise, not the sophisticated output of sound sampling and speakers). I can see that that is how Little Bytham works for Tony, in evoking the sights and sounds of his youth, in ways that it doesn't work for me, in photographs.* 

 

This makes me fear what my reaction to seeing Buckingham in the flesh would be. I've seen the plan; I've seen how cleverly it is composed of almost cameo sections that make possible such superb images as this. Would it just appear as an overcrowded train set?

 

*Great strides have been made in the artificial reproduction of odours. No longer is it necessary to nail an old haddock to the underside of your harbour scene. I was reading of an exhibition of Pre-Raphaelite paintings at which, at the press of a button, the smell of cowpats accompanies a painting of a peasant girl, or of incense, that of an Eastern Orthodox saint. How long before this olfactory dimension enters our hobby? Or should we just be happy with the distinctive hot Triang X04 smell, the madeleine to the remembrance of many modellers?

 

There is much on Buckingham that is less than perfect in purely technical terms. I was surprised that Tony even included it in that collection of photos as he has pointed out some of Buckingham's shortcomings in the past.

 

Tight radii, stations too close together and suchlike. It certainly isn't a layout that stands the scrutiny of megapixel modern digital photography well.

 

He is quite right in many respects but the layout has a certain magic about it that I, my regular operators and our visitors seem to "get". When you are engrossed in running trains, you simply don't notice things like the brickwork on the bridge. You are too busy trying to get the right trains to the right places to worry about such things.

 

In terms of being a layout to sit and enjoy running trains, it is still the best I have ever seen. I wouldn't swap it for any layout ever built.

[Compound2632]

38 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

There is much on Buckingham that is less than perfect in purely technical terms.

 

I hope it was clear that my object was to praise, not to disparage. 

 

39 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

In terms of being a layout to sit and enjoy running trains, it is still the best I have ever seen. I wouldn't swap it for any layout ever built.

 

Which is an aspect that was somewhat overlooked in yesterday's discussion. One can have great operational satisfaction, even prototypically correct operation, without worry too much about accuracy of appearance.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I hope it was clear that my object was to praise, not to disparage. 

 

 

Which is an aspect that was somewhat overlooked in yesterday's discussion. One can have great operational satisfaction, even prototypically correct operation, without worry too much about accuracy of appearance.

Good evening Stephen,

 

I once took some pictures of the clockwork stock in O Gauge which once operated on 'The Sherwood Section' (Norman Eagles?). There was also some track on a section of the Section. It was not ballasted and rather crude. Looking at pictures in old magazines, revealed almost nothing scenic-wise on Sherwood; operation was paramount- even down to the precise number of turns of the clockwork key in order that a train (of given weight) would stop precisely at a station. Though I never saw it in action, I'm told the operation was 'gripping' (I believe a similar regime existed on Crewchester before that was electrified, though I could be muddling things up. Was the Sherwood Section ever electrified?). 

 

I wonder whether a similar layout would make it into the media today; just a totally-operational model railway, with little thought given to scenic realism. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

There is much on Buckingham that is less than perfect in purely technical terms. I was surprised that Tony even included it in that collection of photos as he has pointed out some of Buckingham's shortcomings in the past.

 

Tight radii, stations too close together and suchlike. It certainly isn't a layout that stands the scrutiny of megapixel modern digital photography well.

 

He is quite right in many respects but the layout has a certain magic about it that I, my regular operators and our visitors seem to "get". When you are engrossed in running trains, you simply don't notice things like the brickwork on the bridge. You are too busy trying to get the right trains to the right places to worry about such things.

 

In terms of being a layout to sit and enjoy running trains, it is still the best I have ever seen. I wouldn't swap it for any layout ever built.

Good evening Tony,

 

I included it because Buckingham has that quality (which, as far as I know has only been mentioned once in the recent discussions), 'atmosphere' Something that can be lacking in some superbly-accurate systems, which can appear sterile in pictures.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 29 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello again Tony

 

I'm back quicker than expected!🙂

 

The Bachmann B1 - see photo below - has not (yet) been taken. As far as I am aware, there is nothing wrong with the body and tender. Up until very recently, she was running very well and I suspect the motor is in pretty good shape (without being an expert on these matters).

 

The driving wheels, however, have suffered the usual problem of the nylon(?) axles fracturing, causing it to run like a kangaroo.

 

Would you like the loco free, gratis and for nothing with the intent of you/someone fixing the wheels and selling on for a CRUK donation? It comes with a slightly used box.

 

I do not intend any 'pressure' on you personally and will happily extend the offer to any contributor here.

 

Sound fair enough?

 

Brian

 

 

Thanks Brian,

 

I can certainly obtain some new axle muffs from Bachmann and 'put it right'; then sell it on behalf of CRUK.

 

I'll PM you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I hope it was clear that my object was to praise, not to disparage. 

 

 

Which is an aspect that was somewhat overlooked in yesterday's discussion. One can have great operational satisfaction, even prototypically correct operation, without worry too much about accuracy of appearance.

 

Don't worry, I didn't take your post as any sort of running down of the old layout. I just accept that Buckingham is more of a pure model railway than a model of a real railway. It isn't the sort of model railway where you can take a photo that might fool people into thinking it might be the real thing. Although as I have had pointed out, it is real, just small.

 

I felt the same way when I first got to see the layout in Truro, visiting during one of Peter Denny's regular running sessions. I wondered if I would be disappointed. It was all about the dangers of "meeting your heroes" and coming away wishing you hadn't.

 

In my case it was quite the opposite. We arrived after the session had started. The sounds of the block bells and the gears in the old locos grinding away coming through from the railway room drew me in and I was totally smitten!

 

Getting my hands on the controls at Leighton Buzzard and running trains to and from Grandborough Junction was just magical. The sense of satisfaction at getting through the running session without making a big mess of things is something that has never left me.

 

Edit to add a gratuitous snap taken on the occasion of my first visit. I was able to take some of my locos along to run and this is me assembling a goods train at Leighton Buzzard with my own Pollitt 0-6-0, with my "Pom pom" in the goods yard and my "Tiny" on shed. Happy days!

Edited August 29 by t-b-g
To add photo

[Tony Wright]

I've mentioned earlier that I had some visitors today - my dear old teacher training mate (we first met in 1967!), his wife and two of his grandsons; one of whom, Jack, is really keen on model railways - what's this, a 16 year old interested in model railways? A well-rounded, first class young man as well. 

 

We all had great fun running the railway. 

 

Jack tells me that Hornby is running another model railway photographic competition this year (I believe Jesse Sim has won it in the past), and asked if he could take pictures for it on Bytham. Of course. He used his grandad's camera at first, but its minimum aperture was only F8. I asked him if he'd like to use mine, showed him what to do, and he took the following pictures; yes, HE took the following pictures. If there's a similarity to ones I've taken it's because he was using my cameras. 

 

I honestly think they're rather good, and I wish him well in the competition...............

 

 

 

This is his grandad's detailed/weathered Hornby A2/3. 

 

 

At speed as well! 

 

Best of luck, Jack. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bbishop]

Many years ago, I was involved in a club 7mm exhibition layout of the Southern Region.  Everything was accurate, so a LSWR station, LBSC signal box, actually a GWR goods shed.  In other words, an abortion and it ran badly as well.

 

Nowadays I am involved with Southwark Bridge.  The LSWR planned a city extension from Waterloo in the 1840s terminating near St Saviour and St Mary Overie (Southwark Cathedral since 1905).  This never happened except in our imagination.  So our Southwark Bridge is in P4 some 50' long ending in a terminal station with six platform faces.  This makes it about a third of the size of Waterloo but even so there are 120 levers in our main frame, plus three subsidiary frames. 

 

It is already about 30 years old and we know it will never be finished scenically.  But we meet up every two months and spend a day running about three hours of our 24 hour timetable.  Our timetable is set on Wednesday 16 October 1912 and we have selected about a third of that day's Waterloo timetable.  We operate properly, so trains must be offered and accepted before they can move and the route set correctly before the signals can be pulled.  This all needs about 35 locos, about 15 coaching sets, countless NPCS and (being the LSWR) just 2 goods trains.  All built and painted to a professional standard, even if they do occasionally fall of the track.  Well SB is an elderly lady and doesn't like changes in the weather.

 

Anyway Southwark Bridge has published a book.  It is a South Western Circular monograph and is 276 pages of full colour in A5 format.  We are selling it at £15-00, so please PM me if you would like a copy.  Bill

 

 

[Keith Turbutt]

12 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

 

I like to build layouts based on large busy places but don't have the enormous space necessary, even Carlisle at 30m long would have been better if the room had been a metre or so wider - we would have got the goods lines in to scale as well as the main line and station.

I was always told that size doesn't matter. It's what you do with it that really matters!

[bbishop]

PS - I forgot to mention, I'm on duty at Lord's for the Test Match so internet access is limited.

Edited August 29 by bbishop

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Many of the other photos in that post show modelling that is more correct in its accuracy to the prototype but come over as somewhat sterile, whereas this breathes atmosphere. It comes over, to me at least, as more realistic.

That's a better way of expressing what I was trying to say.

 

At the risk of upsetting some folk (again...) I always saw the ScaleSeven Dewsbury Midland in that "sterile" light.

Edited August 29 by St Enodoc
clarification