Wright writes.....

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I have a rather 'simplistic' take on the whole discussion; how can one be concerned with the 'accuracy' of the items listed above (or the number and positions of rivets, or whether moving components are over-sized, etc), when a whole layout is not based on an actual prototype? The dichotomy is too great for me to understand. 

 

Says the person happily having fun in 00?

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, John Isherwood said:

 

....... only if you are one of the tiny minority of potential purchasers who KNOW - OR CARE - that the boiler band should line up with the rivets!

 

John Isherwood.

 

I am not even close to being a potential purchaser. I don't model the lines the streamlined B17s ran on, or the time period they existed. Hopefully some folk do care, even if it is a tiny minority.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I am not even close to being a potential purchaser. I don't model the lines the streamlined B17s ran on, or the time period they existed. Hopefully some folk do care, even if it is a tiny minority.

 

It seems to me an ideal model for those who don't have room for an A4.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

All comes under the heading 'Fun'.

 

There are  folk that spend a monster amount of money for a car capable of exceeding the speed limit several times over, which is b. uncomfortable to ride in, there's no space for shopping let alone a suitcase, and never take it out for a track day to wind her up, (and probably crash) while regularly complaining of underbody repairs due to sleeping policemen.

 

Others construct a hi-fi or home cinema system at vast expense and solely replay the Bay City Rollers or a few Disney animations. (Other poor audio quality recordings and puerile fillums are available.)

 

I could drone on about clothes and accessories never worn, regular extensive long distance travel and rarely leaving the residence to experience the unique features of the location, etc... I know these people, and it's what they apparently enjoy.

 

This lunatic has a prototype track formation but near zero scenic treatment. It was the railway trains operation that intrigued me, and I never looked further from the trains than the rust on the railsides and state of the ballast. All the rest my imagination 'paints in', and it's 'perfect'. For me!

Good afternoon,

 

'There are  folk that spend a monster amount of money for a car capable of exceeding the speed limit several times over, which is b. uncomfortable to ride in, there's no space for shopping let alone a suitcase, and never take it out for a track day to wind her up, (and probably crash) while regularly complaining of underbody repairs due to sleeping policemen.'

 

Are there?

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Says the person happily having fun in 00?

Good afternoon Stephen,

 

Taking the 'argument' further, it would seem that the only layouts (by suggestion?) with 'true' merit (in 4mm) are those which are built in P4 and are exact replicas of their prototypes. Laudable, of course, but 'practical' if modelling a prototype such as Little Bytham? In EM, probably (and that's what I might have done had I taken the 'right' path 50 years ago), but in P4? In an 'average' lifetime? In 32' x 12'?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 24 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

Returning to the lubricator drive on Hornby's streamlined B17................

 

 

I'm certainly glad it was included (and it definitely is a lot smaller than 'another' set of  valve gear). 

 

Rivets? 

 

Oh, and to pick up on another point, what's the gauge here? 

 

 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Taking the 'argument' further, it would seem that the only layouts (by suggestion?) with 'true' merit (in 4mm) are those which are built in P4 and are exact replicas of their prototypes. Laudable, of course, but 'practical' if modelling a prototype such as Little Bytham? In EM, probably (and that's what I might have done had I taken the 'right' path 50 years ago), but in P4? In an 'average' lifetime? In 32' x 12'?

 

My point exactly. Every modeller makes compromises, the biggest one of all being that of compression of the prototype. You have been in the unusual position of not having to worry too much about that but at the expense of compromising on fidelity of prototype appearance.

 

A good model of a fictional location can be more realistic than a compromised model of a prototype location; it's all a question of the balance of compromises that one is prepared to make, and what value you place on different aspects of realism.

 

But further, an individual model of a locomotive, carriage, wagon, signalbox, platform bench, etc. can in itself be more or less realistic and be judged on its own merits; you seemed to be suggesting that the only realism that counts is the realism of the entire layout.

Edited August 24 by Compound2632

[polybear]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Stephen,

 

Taking the 'argument' further, it would seem that the only layouts (by suggestion?) with 'true' merit (in 4mm) are those which are built in P4 and are exact replicas of their prototypes. Laudable, of course, but 'practical' if modelling a prototype such as Little Bytham? In EM, probably (and that's what I might have done had I taken the 'right' path 50 years ago), but in P4? In an 'average' lifetime? In 32' x 12'?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Would it not need to be S4 rather than P4?  

 

[Tony Wright]

Having run Heljan's latest O2s for over an hour each this afternoon, I'm delighted to report excellent, sustained performance...........

 

 

Though that 'British Railways' does look too big.

 

 

Could I do better?

 

 

Probably not, even with Tim Shackleton's weathering.

 

 

This 'Heinz 57' 2-8-0 doesn't even have brakes! 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

5 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Would it not need to be S4 rather than P4?  

 

What's the difference, Brian?

 

Nobody has explained it to me exactly.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Michael Edge]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Very thought-provoking. Thank you.

 

I have a rather 'simplistic' take on the whole discussion; how can one be concerned with the 'accuracy' of the items listed above (or the number and positions of rivets, or whether moving components are over-sized, etc), when a whole layout is not based on an actual prototype? The dichotomy is too great for me to understand. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I like to think that my layouts fit all Northmoor's criteria apart from the sound but i don't make much use of rtr locos anyway so am not all that likely to complain. With my kit manufacturer's hat on I like them to make mistakes so we can keep selling our kits.....

On the argument about copying actual locations where does that leave Pendon? Top class modelling but it's not an actual scene although all the buildings are based on actual ones from a variety of different locations.

My view is that it's much more difficult to produce a realistic model if it's not based on an actual location. I tend to build models of actual locations now but without a vast amount of space a great deal of thought goes into how and how much they can be compressed. The easiest is probably an exact scale model of an actual location but this usually demands a huge space to produce an interesting (in my opinion) layout, Retford and Carlisle fit into this category but both are enormous by ordinary standards.

[Tony Wright]

25 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

My point exactly. Every modeller makes compromises, the biggest one of all being that of compression of the prototype. You have been in the unusual position of not having to worry too much about that but at the expense of compromising on fidelity of prototype appearance.

 

A good model of a fictional location can be more realistic than a compromised model of a prototype location; it's all a question of the balance of compromises that one is prepared to make, and what value you place on different aspects of realism.

 

But further, an individual model of a locomotive, carriage, wagon, signalbox, platform bench, etc. can in itself be more or less realistic and be judged on its own merits; you seemed to be suggesting that the only realism that counts is the realism of the entire layout.

Good afternoon again Stephen,

 

Any model could (and should) be based on its own merits. I judge the models I make against prototype photographs, accurate literature and accurate drawings. I call that 'evidence'. Evidence which can be consulted to accurately judge a model.

 

Where is the 'evidence' (overall evidence) which can be used to judge the accuracy of a model of a made-up, fictitious location? 

 

Is this compromising on fidelity of prototype? 

 

 

Perhaps not, from this angle (though there's no smoke).

 

This is what Little Bytham is all about to me. Big engines, going fast, hauling heavy, long-distance trains. Just as I remember them!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 24 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Where is the 'evidence' (overall evidence) which can be used to judge the accuracy of a model of a made-up, fictitious location? 

 

Does it authentically convey the practices of the railway company presumed to have built and operated it, at the period it is set? For example, does it follow the relevant prototype practice in terms of track layout, signalling, buildings, etc.? Does it shout "Great Eastern in Suffolk in the 1950s" or whatever, without a train or item of rolling stock in sight? 

 

Does it convince, as a railway?

 

To my mind, this is all harder to achieve than simply copying a prototype location, because it requires a more profound understanding of how and why the railway did things, and so, when it works, is a greater achievement.

 

But I'm in danger of appearing rude again, and I have to say that I have never come near building such a layout myself. 

Edited August 24 by Compound2632

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Does it authentically convey the practices of the railway company presumed to have built and operated it, at the period it is set? For example, does it follow the relevant prototype practice in terms of track layout, signalling, buildings, etc.? Does it shout "Great Eastern in the 1950s" or whatever, without a train or item of rolling stock in sight? 

 

Does it convince, as a railway?

 

To my mind, this is all harder to achieve than simply copying a prototype location, because it requires a more profound understanding of how and why the railway did things, and so, when it works, is a greater achievement.

 

But I'm in danger of appearing rude again, and I have to say that I have never come near building such a layout myself. 

'Rude'?

 

Never, just stimulating discussion.

 

As others have intimated (and yourself), it's actually easier to build a model of a prototype than a made-up one.

 

I like easier.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I like easier.

 

Hence the 00, and I'm with you there, however much I admire the EM, P4, S7, 2mm FS, etc., work of others. But on the other hand, harder can be more interesting and even more fun. I've seen no evidence that those working to the finer standards are getting less enjoyment out of their modelling.

 

A chacun son goût.

[polybear]

37 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

What's the difference, Brian?

 

Nobody has explained it to me exactly.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hello Tony,

 

I'll have a bash at it.....

 

From the Scalefour Society Website:

 

"The P4 Standard is generally a scale representation of prototype dimensions, but it has an allowance made for wheels to have a slightly narrower back-to-back so that they can get around the tight curves found on model railways. The S4 Standard removes this, for an exact-scale set of dimensions."

 

In effect this means (I think) that, for P4 some of the dimensions within the Turnouts have been "tweaked" very slightly from the "true scale" dimensions for smaller radii curves; as I understand it S4 does not employ such "tweaks" and is a "true scale" set of track dimensions based on the prototype.

As you would imagine this does mean you'd need a rather good Vernier to actually measure and find any difference.....

 

The vast majority of builders use the P4 standards, however.

 

I believe the late Ray Hammond was the first to construct an Exhibition Layout in S4 ("Buntingham") - simply to prove wrong those who said "it couldn't be done"; that layout still exists and I believe Ray's Daughter took it to Railwells(?) a few weeks back.

Edited August 24 by polybear

[Roger Sunderland]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Yet being critical of a new RTR model draws comments about rivet counting and expecting too much.

 

I will explain what I was on about with the rivets in a bit more detail. It has nothing to do with expectations of everything being correct to a fraction if a mm. I can't tell from looking whether the rivets are in the right place or there are the right number.

 

I can tell, without measuring anything, that the vertical line of rivets that should be directly under the front boiler band isn't. It is a clear mistake that shows without a micrometer or hair shirt being anywhere near it.

 

Once I saw it, I tried but I just couldn't " unsee" it.

 

I am not going to be drawn yet again into a discussion about prototype versus fictional layouts.

 

As with all these things, there are facts and there are opinions. The latter is very much a matter of opinion.

 

The boiler band on the B17 not lining up with the rivets as it should is a matter of fact.

 

 

You might just know, and that’s fine but I suspect 99.9% of people can’t.

[t-b-g]

39 minutes ago, Roger Sunderland said:

You might just know, and that’s fine but I suspect 99.9% of people can’t.

 

I didn't know at all. It isn't a prototype that I am familiar with. It is only when people post photos of the real thing and the model and I look at the two together that differences seem to jump out at me. I rarely comment on such things when it is a model somebody has made, unless I am specifically asked to do so. I know what it is like to have somebody pick fault with your pride and joy. With a commercial RTR model, I don't feel that I am in danger of upsetting a fellow modeller by drawing attention to the things I see.

 

I saw a couple of other discrepancies on the B17/5 but I wouldn't dream of mentioning them now!

 

Clearly people are happy enough (apart from one or two) with the models as they are and that seems to be all that matters.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Hence the 00, and I'm with you there, however much I admire the EM, P4, S7, 2mm FS, etc., work of others. But on the other hand, harder can be more interesting and even more fun. I've seen no evidence that those working to the finer standards are getting less enjoyment out of their modelling.

 

A chacun son goût.

Good evening Stephen,

 

I think the evidence is that folk who work to finer standards actually get lots of enjoyment out of their modelling; they wouldn't do it if not, would they?

 

Enjoyment is why we (the generic 'we') pursue this hobby, isn't it? I try to remind myself of that when a set of valve gear solders up solid for the second/third time!

 

To me, the greatest enjoyment (and I've said this many, many times) is to be able to say 'I made that'. That's not to deny the right of those who (for whatever reasons) don't make things to enjoy the hobby, but the personal pleasure of having built something unique is boundless. That's not to say that what I've made is superior to an RTR equivalent; not at all - could I build/paint a B17/5 to match Hornby's LNER rendition? Of course not. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 24 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Keith Turbutt]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Does it authentically convey the practices of the railway company presumed to have built and operated it, at the period it is set? For example, does it follow the relevant prototype practice in terms of track layout, signalling, buildings, etc.? Does it shout "Great Eastern in Suffolk in the 1950s" or whatever, without a train or item of rolling stock in sight? 

 

Does it convince, as a railway?

Being an enthusiast of LNER/GE in BR days two of my favourite exhibition layouts, that I was delighted to see again and again, that fit the above criteria were the MRC's 0 gauge Happisburgh and Geoff Kent's EM Blakeney. Both sadly no longer on the exhibition circuit.

[AdamOrmorod]

2 hours ago, Roger Sunderland said:

You might just know, and that’s fine but I suspect 99.9% of people can’t.

 

At risk of confirming your hypothesis, I've been looking back and forth between the model and prototype photos and I can't spot it, though I've never really looked at the B17/5s closely until seeing this discussion. Can someone put me out of my misery?

[davidw]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Having run Heljan's latest O2s for over an hour each this afternoon, I'm delighted to report excellent, sustained performance...........

 

 

Though that 'British Railways' does look too big.

 

 

Could I do better?

 

 

Probably not, even with Tim Shackleton's weathering.

 

 

This 'Heinz 57' 2-8-0 doesn't even have brakes! 

 

 

I thought I had enough Heljan O2s until I saw these.

[Compound2632]

37 minutes ago, Keith Turbutt said:

Being an enthusiast of LNER/GE in BR days two of my favourite exhibition layouts, that I was delighted to see again and again, that fit the above criteria were the MRC's 0 gauge Happisburgh and Geoff Kent's EM Blakeney. Both sadly no longer on the exhibition circuit.

 

It was in fact Jas Millham's S scale Yaxbury Branch that I had in mind.

[Keith Turbutt]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It was in fact Jas Millham's S scale Yaxbury Branch that I had in mind.

Yes, another good one. Also his latest Abbey Gate, loosely based on St Botolphs, Colchester.

[mullie]

28 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

It was in fact Jas Millham's S scale Yaxbury Branch that I had in mind.

Did Jas have an East Anglian TT layout before he went S scale? I saw it at what could have been the first Mid Essex MRC exhibition in a small hall near Brentwood Station I think.

 

As a 14 year old just starting out it blew me away,  I spent ages watching it, could have been based on Stour Valley practice if I remember correctly.  This would have been around 1978.

 

Martyn