Wright writes.....

[Chamby]

Tony, you repeatedly assert that your own models are ‘layout loco’s’. Apart from the fact that they are indeed intended to be run on a layout, rather than being stuck in a display cabinet, is there anything in their construction or finishing that you believe is of lesser quality compared to other people’s builds that you might define as ‘masterpieces’? I’m just wondering exactly what it is that draws a distinction between the two definitions, in your view...

 

Phil

[Lecorbusier]

I think finescale (as a visual ethos promulgated by Iain Rice, perhaps) is an overall approach to all aspects of railway modelling. By that I mean, if one gets the track gauge correct, then everything else should follow. 

Tony ... please pardon a little pontificating .... here goes:-

 

Ethos I think is exactly the right term. As I see it, everything we do in modelling involves compromise and all is arguably slight of hand. I recall Ian saying on the 'Joy of Trains' TV programme that he believed model railways had much in common with the theatre. I took this to mean that it is about appearing convincing - as a display/show - not necessarily the ends by which this is to be achieved. I think such an interpretation gives 'finescale' a flexibility that allows personal choice and emphasis. That is to say for me it is not prescriptive.

 

In 4mm track some choose 18.83 gauge with wheel profiles to suit, others select EM - presumably because visually the difference is negligible and increased tolerances mean achieving reliability is simplified. 00 has a finescale option where such things as sleeper spacing, rail profile and flowing trackwork can be achieved, whilst still retaining the flexibility and universality of the adopted UK gauge. 

 

The same broadly can be said for the scenic modelling side of things, the detailing of locos and stock, the make up of the trains and the running schedules for the layout.

 

My observation is that each and all can succeed (and fail) within the overall framing of finescale and we get overly bogged down in specifics (kitbuilt vrs scratch built vrs RTR/or in 4mm 00 vrs Em vrs P4 etc etc). I think we should accept the basic choices/compromises a modeller has decided upon (normally for fully understandable and good reasons) and then move on to assess the overall offering. I have chosen P4 as my gauge for my own reasons, but many of my favourite layouts in 4mm are EM and 00 gauge and there are a number of P4 layouts (irrespective of reliability)  I find of limited interest.

 

As a term I think 'finescale' accurately defines what I am personally trying to achieve with my modelling and what I particularly enjoy in the modelling of others.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Tony Wright]

Tony, you repeatedly assert that your own models are ‘layout loco’s’. Apart from the fact that they are indeed intended to be run on a layout, rather than being stuck in a display cabinet, is there anything in their construction or finishing that you believe is of lesser quality compared to other people’s builds that you might define as ‘masterpieces’? I’m just wondering exactly what it is that draws a distinction between the two definitions, in your view...

 

Phil

Phil,

 

Other than quality of workmanship (and 'museum-standard' workmanship is not what I possess), I think there are one or two areas where a distinction can be made between the showcase loco and the layout loco.

 

These might include things such as ............

 

Simplified valve gear. On one of my locos, I actually made all the Walschaerts valve gear work - by that, I mean the radius rod actually moving backwards and forwards, actuating the piston rods. Since this is impossible to see on a layout where trains run at speed, what's the point?

 

Omission of too much fiddly detail, especially on the frames. I usually leave off sandpipes because they get bent over time, causing interference and shorts. 

 

Cylinder drain cocks often have to be cut a bit short or joggled out to give clearance for the pony/bogie wheels - V2s and B17s, for instance.  

 

Cylinders often have their insides nibbled away to prevent shorting and interference from the pony/bogie wheels on tighter curves.

 

Couplings; on the rear of tenders, I just provide a goalpost at S&W height to couple up to my rakes. 

 

A slightly greater gap needed between loco and tender, again to operate without interference on tighter radii.

 

Cab doors bent in too much - again to stop interference 'twixt loco and tender on bends. 

 

Most of the above might be referred to as 'mechanical' compromises. I don't leave off too much fine body detail, and it's always soldered on securely. 

[Shed Driver]

With the greatest of respect to the other 'master' loco builders mentioned, the following pictures show the work of Geoff Holt, George Mackinnon Ure, Vic Green and Stanley Beeson. I can't find (at the moment) an example of the work of Tony Reynalds, nor that of James Harewood of New Zealand, also both master loco builders.

 

All of the following are low-res scans from medium format film stock. My apologies for the poorer quality. 

 

10 78XX rear view detaill.jpg

 

68XX front view.jpg

 

Shed Scene Group BW Smoke.jpg

 

lady godiva2.jpg

 

london25.jpg

 

london26.jpg

 

saint david.jpg

 

I don't think any of the others mentioned produce work to the standards of these. They are, of course, in O Gauge and Gauge 1. They once were part of the Waterman Collection - some might still be. 

 

Hi Tony

 

Great photos but I must correct your list of builders.

 

The  O Gauge Manor and the Grange were built by myself  and are correctly credited in Pete Waterman's book  " A Train is for Life".  Both built from Mitchell kits with lots of added details,  Coupling and connecting rods were machined from mild steel.

 

Regards 

 

Norman Blackburn

 

 

[Hollar]

For what its worth, I can appreciate the skill of display case models but for me a locomotive has to be set into a context. I much prefer to see locos photographed on a layout and weathered in to that layout. We don't like to look at models of buildings that are polished and pristine and the same goes for the stock as far as I am concerned. They are 'living' moving working objects within a microcosm and for me should be modelled as such ..... just saying

 

edit ... if I had a Mitchell Masterpiece I would insist on it being weathered and placed upon a model. ... Would Gordon Gravatt's Loco's fall into the high class category I wonder? They certainly look good on his layouts.

I couldn't agree more. No-one could question the breathtaking skill, thought and care that goes into making these "museum" model locos.  For anyone who likes steam engines they are glow-in-the-dark beautiful, but for me they do not capture the fundamental appeal of the working steam engine.  Give me the Martyn Welch, John Brighton and Tony Wright approach any day,beautiful though the showcase stuff undoubtedly is.

 

Tone

[Tony Wright]

 

With the greatest of respect to the other 'master' loco builders mentioned, the following pictures show the work of Geoff Holt, George Mackinnon Ure, Vic Green and Stanley Beeson. I can't find (at the moment) an example of the work of Tony Reynalds, nor that of James Harewood of New Zealand, also both master loco builders.

 

All of the following are low-res scans from medium format film stock. My apologies for the poorer quality. 

 

10 78XX rear view detaill.jpg

 

68XX front view.jpg

 

Shed Scene Group BW Smoke.jpg

 

lady godiva2.jpg

 

london25.jpg

 

london26.jpg

 

saint david.jpg

 

I don't think any of the others mentioned produce work to the standards of these. They are, of course, in O Gauge and Gauge 1. They once were part of the Waterman Collection - some might still be. 

 

Hi Tony

 

Great photos but I must correct your list of builders.

 

The  O Gauge Manor and the Grange were built by myself  and are correctly credited in Pete Waterman's book  " A Train is for Life".  Both built from Mitchell kits with lots of added details,  Coupling and connecting rods were machined from mild steel.

 

Regards 

 

Norman Blackburn

 

 

 

My apologies, Norman,

 

I know the 9F is by Vic Green, and I did photograph some Beeson locos at the same time. 

 

I think you deserve to go on the list of 'master builders' as well, with such high-quality work.

 

I should also have pointed out that the water tower/coaler is the work of Norman Solomon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Continuing the theme of layout locos, this morning I dry-brush weathered the painted SE Finecast J6 I built/painted a few weeks ago. If ever a loco deserves the epithet 'layout loco', it must be weathered to some extent or the other. Realism is abandoned if nothing but pristine, gleaming and shiny locos and stock are all that occupy a layout in my opinion.

 

 

 

One thing I should have mentioned in my list of what makes a layout loco is that I'll occasionally accept a 'visible' drive, in the interests of a balanced mechanism. This is apparent here, and I accept the DJH 'box is obtrusive - in close-up. 

 

 

However, I don't build my locos to be scrutinised at close-quarters. If ever, in my view, I've created a (yet another) layout loco, this is it. One of many, running on Little Bytham; just as this one is. 

 

What else constitutes a layout loco? Appropriate lamps, of course, and a crew. I understand if one models a terminus or a (steam) loco shed, then lamps and crews can cause problems. However, when did one see a steam loco hauling a train without displaying lamps or driving itself? 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Atso]

What a lovely J6 Tony! 'Layout loco' or not it is a stunning build and worthy of Little Bytham. I hope I get the chance to drive it later this year!

 

Your J6 reminds me that I really should get mine finished!

[Lecorbusier]

One thing I should have mentioned in my list of what makes a layout loco is that I'll occasionally accept a 'visible' drive, in the interests of a balanced mechanism. This is apparent here, and I accept the DJH 'box is obtrusive - in close-up. 

 

second SEF J6 weathered 03.jpg

 

However, I don't build my locos to be scrutinised at close-quarters. If ever, in my view, I've created a (yet another) layout loco, this is it. 

I can't help feeling that by using a high level gear box combination it might have been possible to avoid the visible drive whilst still achieving a balanced mechanism? Surely worth some experimentation on a future project? It looks as if it might be possible to tuck the motor up into the firebox with the linkage all but hidden behind the ashpan and frames.

 

For me the gear box does jar somewhat on what has to be said is a very nice build. I think that while ever you produce such high quality and evocative photos of your work on LB, it is a little contradictory to state 'I don't build my locos to be scrutinised at close-quarters'. Surely having spent the time and effort to get so much else right, it is then odd to accept the visible gearbox on the pretext that it is not noticeable from a distance? No sand pipes or inside motion (working or cosmetic) is a conscious and reasoned omission and fully understandable, but the gearbox is to my mind different as it constitutes a totally alien addition and once noticed is difficult to ignore.

[Tony Wright]

What a lovely J6 Tony! 'Layout loco' or not it is a stunning build and worthy of Little Bytham. I hope I get the chance to drive it later this year!

 

Your J6 reminds me that I really should get mine finished!

Thanks Steve,

 

It's really a testament to a very good kit. As mentioned, I've fitted an LRM tender (much more common on J6s than the one supplied), and I think the whole thing has turned out well. 

 

With a fair bit of modification, an example of the 521 Series can be made (a different cab is supplied), but I think the LRM kit is the better way to achieve this. 

 

What price an RTR J6? I know it's been mentioned before, but it does fit most of the criteria - long-lived (GNR/LNER/BR), numerous and quite widespread. OK, one doesn't exist in preservation, but it is a pretty loco, and very well thought of by those who drove/fired it. I'm sure it would be popular, but at least the kit market has the field to itself at the moment (for which, I'm glad). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I can't help feeling that by using a high level gear box combination it might have been possible to avoid the visible drive whilst still achieving a balanced mechanism? Surely worth some experimentation on a future project? It looks as if it might be possible to tuck the motor up into the firebox with the linkage all but hidden behind the ashpan and frames.

 

For me the gear box does jar somewhat on what has to be said is a very nice build. I think that while ever you produce such high quality and evocative photos of your work on LB, it is a little contradictory to state 'I don't build my locos to be scrutinised at close-quarters'. Surely having spent the time and effort to get so much else right, it is then odd to accept the visible gearbox on the pretext that it is not noticeable from a distance? No sand pipes or inside motion (working or cosmetic) is a conscious and reasoned omission and fully understandable, but the gearbox is to my mind different as it constitutes a totally alien addition and once noticed is difficult to ignore.

Good points, Tim,

 

However, it is one of over 150 locos I've built for LB, and one of 50 at any one time in operation on the layout. In operation, it is impossible, at 'normal' viewing distance to see the 'offensive' 'box, because it's in natural shadow and the eye is interested in other things. 

 

I turn a 'blind eye' to such things, in the same way that I don't particularly observe the too-narrow gauge, the fact that the crew is petrified, there's no smoke or steam coming from the loco, it doesn't 'chuff' (obviously, no DCC for me) and that it just goes round and round the trainset. 

 

I have used High Level 'boxes, and I accept they're very good. However, no 'box I've made runs as sweetly as the ready-made DJH 'box. 

 

All the above just goes to prove that I never will be (nor ever could be), a 'master builder'.  

[Lecorbusier]

Good points, Tim,

 

However, it is one of over 150 locos I've built for LB, and one of 50 at any one time in operation on the layout. In operation, it is impossible, at 'normal' viewing distance to see the 'offensive' 'box, because it's in natural shadow and the eye is interested in other things. 

 

I turn a 'blind eye' to such things, in the same way that I don't particularly observe the too-narrow gauge, the fact that the crew is petrified, there's no smoke or steam coming from the loco, it doesn't 'chuff' (obviously, no DCC for me) and that it just goes round and round the trainset. 

 

I have used High Level 'boxes, and I accept they're very good. However, no 'box I've made runs as sweetly as the ready-made DJH 'box. 

 

All the above just goes to prove that I never will be (nor ever could be), a 'master builder'.  

Good points, Tony,

 

I forget the sheer number of locos you run .... wow!

 

Over time I might get up to a dozen perhaps .... so my priorities I suspect will be different - not withstanding the fact that at present I would kill to reach the standards you effortlessly achieve.

 

However, as to date I enjoy your work from afar and digitally via photos and videos, your J6 gearbox will continue to jar in a way that the "too narrow gauge" track work, petrified crew, lack of chuff or indeed smoke somehow fails to .... hey ho!

Edited September 4, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Chamby]

Phil,

 

Other than quality of workmanship (and 'museum-standard' workmanship is not what I possess), I think there are one or two areas where a distinction can be made between the showcase loco and the layout loco.

 

These might include things such as ............

 

Simplified valve gear. On one of my locos, I actually made all the Walschaerts valve gear work - by that, I mean the radius rod actually moving backwards and forwards, actuating the piston rods. Since this is impossible to see on a layout where trains run at speed, what's the point?

 

Omission of too much fiddly detail, especially on the frames. I usually leave off sandpipes because they get bent over time, causing interference and shorts. 

 

Cylinder drain cocks often have to be cut a bit short or joggled out to give clearance for the pony/bogie wheels - V2s and B17s, for instance.  

 

Cylinders often have their insides nibbled away to prevent shorting and interference from the pony/bogie wheels on tighter curves.

 

Couplings; on the rear of tenders, I just provide a goalpost at S&W height to couple up to my rakes. 

 

A slightly greater gap needed between loco and tender, again to operate without interference on tighter radii.

 

Cab doors bent in too much - again to stop interference 'twixt loco and tender on bends. 

 

Most of the above might be referred to as 'mechanical' compromises. I don't leave off too much fine body detail, and it's always soldered on securely.

 

Thanks Tony, that makes a lot of sense. I would suggest that these differences are all deliberate and for sensible and specific reasons. Does this make the workmanship of an inferior quality? Absolutely not... you are making each model fit for its intended purpose, surely a ‘layout locomotive’ can be as fine a piece of work as a showcase model in its cabinet. Each built fit for its own purpose.

 

On the subject of sand pipes, I do agree with your decision to omit them... and wish RTR manufacturers would do likewise. Whilst more prototypically accurate, they always seem to be more trouble than they’re worth, if you’re seeking reliability in a locomotive that is regularly handled. A detail too far, in my book.

[Jesse Sim]

No, keep it in man bun and get multiple tattoos. .

 

What did I do now? 

[John Isherwood]

.... your J9 gearbox will continue to jar...

 

I'm afraid that I have to agree re visible gearboxes - it just isn't necessary nowadays, and someone of Tony's abilities can easily build a High Level gearbox that has no equals - even from DJH.

 

If missing or incorrect lamps offend the eye, then surely a great rectangular slab of metal, where the lower section of a boiler and fresh air should be, must be far more intrusive?

 

I know that we all have priorities, and that Tony's are robust construction and haulage ability, but there ARE alternatives to the kind of inflexible mechanism that was unavoidable in times past.

 

Tony can clearly use his 'Nelson's blind eye' when it comes to such matters, but his less experienced followers would be mislead if they were to get the impression that such compromise is inevitable in order to ensure good running.

 

Sorry to be 'negative', but it had to be said; nonetheless, Rule 1 overrides all criticism.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited September 4, 2018 by cctransuk

[Jesse Sim]

1100 pages!

 

Wow! Thanks for all your contributions. 

 

Just for the record, over the weekend at Loughborough, Mo and I raised nearly £30.00 for CRUK through donations, sales of models and my loco-doctoring. 

 

With all the 'royalties' from the 1938 DVD and the articles accompanying it in the November issue of BRM going to CRUK, we should get near £3,000 this year. 

 

My thanks to all who've contributed so generously.

I'll send you the bill for my services shall I?

 

Filming

Assistant Director 

Assistant Editor

Laborer (putting the 58 stock back on)

oh and your lodgings down under 

[Tony Wright]

I'm afraid that I have to agree re visible gearboxes - it just isn't necessary nowadays, and someone of Tony's abilities can easily build a High Level gearbox that has no equals - even from DJH.

 

If missing or incorrect lamps offend the eye, then surely a great rectangular slab of metal, where the lower section of a boiler and fresh air should be, must be far more intrusive?

 

I know that we all have priorities, and that Tony's are robust construction and haulage ability, but there ARE alternatives to the kind of inflexible mechanism that was unavoidable in times past.

 

Tony can clearly use his 'Nelson's blind eye' when it comes to such matters, but his less experienced followers would be mislead if they were to get the impression that such compromise is inevitable in order to ensure good running.

 

Sorry to be 'negative', but it had to be said; nonetheless, Rule 1 overrides all criticism.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Excellent points, as always, John,

 

And, just to prove I can disguise the drive in a J6.

 

 

This is a LRM  earlier-type J6 I built about nine years ago. The drive is under-slung and (obviously) hidden. Admittedly it isn't a High Level 'box (it's LRM's own little fold-up job), and, though it's all right, it isn't quite as sweet and smooth as the DJH one. 

 

For the beginner, the DJH-type ready-assembled 'box (though obtrusive) is easier to get to work, and I'm tempted to recommend it for that reason alone. 

[Tony Wright]

I'll send you the bill for my services shall I?

 

Filming

Assistant Director 

Assistant Editor

Laborer (putting the 58 stock back on)

oh and your lodgings down under 

Please do............

 

I'll then send mine, which includes.........

 

Accommodation for at least a fortnight.

 

At least three round trips to Grantham to collect/return you.

 

A GNR tender and GNR cab.

 

Meals bought for you at pubs.

 

One-to-one tuition in the black arts of loco-building.

 

Taking you to see both Retford and Peterborough North (the former in a gas-guzzling TVR!). 

 

Fixing locomotives you've bought.

 

Taking pictures of your locos and printing them for you. 

 

Anything else? 

 

Quid pro quo? 

 

All the very best..............

 

I don't know how to do the smiley face thing.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Tony Wright

[jamie92208]

Now now Tony all this talk of loco building and nothing about the serious business of viaduct building. I'm waiting in eager anticipation for some photos of it finished.

 

Jamie

[Atso]

Goodness, I hope you never bill me for all those wonderful photographs you've taken for me; I'd have to declare myself bankrupt!

Edited September 4, 2018 by Atso

[Jesse Sim]

Please do............

 

I'll then send mine, which includes.........

 

Accommodation for at least a fortnight.

 

At least three round trips to Grantham to collect/return you.

 

A GNR tender and GNR cab.

 

Meals bought for you at pubs.

 

One-to-one tuition in the black arts of loco-building.

 

Taking you to see both Retford and Peterborough North (the former in a gas-guzzling TVR!). 

 

Fixing locomotives you've bought.

 

Taking pictures of your locos and printing them for you. 

 

Anything else? 

 

Quid pro quo? 

 

All the very best..............

 

I don't know how to do the smiley face thing.

Ahuh ahuh 

 

We'll call it square aye? 

[John Isherwood]

Excellent points, as always, John,

 

And, just to prove I can disguise the drive in a J6.

 

J6 15 painted.jpg

 

This is a LRM  earlier-type J6 I built about nine years ago. The drive is under-slung and (obviously) hidden. Admittedly it isn't a High Level 'box (it's LRM's own little fold-up job), and, though it's all right, it isn't quite as sweet and smooth as the DJH one. 

 

For the beginner, the DJH-type ready-assembled 'box (though obtrusive) is easier to get to work, and I'm tempted to recommend it for that reason alone. 

 

Tony,

 

Lovely model - and please don't take my negative comments personally; I would agree that a 'fit and forget' ready-assembled gearbox is ideal for the first time chassis builder.

 

My point was that, if a novice can solder two frames together with spacers, square enough to produce a smooth-rolling chassis, he / she can DEFINITELY assemble a High Level chassis. The latest iteration of these is fool-proof, and the instructions are exemplary - you really would have to try very hard to mess one up!

 

This is NOT a commercial for High Level gearboxes - there are excellent alternatives - but the HL range is so broad and accommodating that it should be possible to find a solution to virtually any drive requirement WITHOUT the drive train being visible.

 

To any modeller - novice or expert - I would say; if you haven't visited http://173.254.28.51/~highlev3/chris/Pages/gearboxplanningpage.html already, you really should do.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. It DOES read like a commercial, doesn't it? Just my personal experience of building very many chassis with these excellent gearboxes.

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

Lovely model - and please don't take my negative comments personally; I would agree that a 'fit and forget' ready-assembled gearbox is ideal for the first time chassis builder.

 

My point was that, if a novice can solder two frames together with spacers, square enough to produce a smooth-rolling chassis, he / she can DEFINITELY assemble a High Level chassis. The latest iteration of these is fool-proof, and the instructions are exemplary - you really would have to try very hard to mess one up!

 

This is NOT a commercial for High Level gearboxes - there are excellent alternatives - but the HL range is so broad and accommodating that it should be possible to find a solution to virtually any drive requirement WITHOUT the drive train being visible.

 

To any modeller - novice or expert - I would say; if you haven't visited http://173.254.28.51/~highlev3/chris/Pages/gearboxplanningpage.html already, you really should do.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. It DOES read like a commercial, doesn't it? Just my personal experience of building very many chassis with these excellent gearboxes.

Thanks John,

 

 I didn't take your comments as negative. Neither did I take them as personal. Indeed, I think they're incredibly-constructive, and I'd advise others to welcome such observations and advice with open arms. 

 

We all have 'blind spots' of one kind or another. Commenting critically is something to be engendered, and, if anyone takes 'offence' at constructive criticism then they're not just blind - they WON'T see!

 

Speaking of seeing (or looking), I've let those involved see the DVDs of LB in 1938 and 1958 respectively, inviting critical comments. I think, in general, they've turned out well, but I'm not a professional film-maker, nor am I a professional presenter, nor a professional voice-over man. Fortunately, they have been edited professionally. With the former facts explained, I think they've turned out quite well, and, I hope, will prove popular when they appear as cover-mounts on BRM in November and next year. I hope folk comment-critically on these after they've seen them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Now now Tony all this talk of loco building and nothing about the serious business of viaduct building. I'm waiting in eager anticipation for some photos of it finished.

 

Jamie

Sorry Jamie,

 

It's my winter project.

 

And, thanks once again for all you've done.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Barry O]

Tony

If a locomotive (or coach or wagon) which belongs to you is ok to you ..fine. For LB the J6 is fine as unless you tell people the gearbox is visible very few would notice it.

 

It may be the same with track and track gauges. On occasion some people have thought that track on Mike Edges' Cwmafon layout and the Leeds MRS Chapel-en-le-Frith layout is EM. It is fine scale OO well laid and ballasted using less than steam roller flanges. In one case a well respected EM gauge modeller tried to put one of his locos on the track....oops.

 

It's your layout and if it is ok for you, it's OK by me.

 

Baz

 

Ps enjoy Oz.