John Isherwood

Do any of the vans that are there now have chassis? If not, it is unlikely that they were de-chassised and the chassis scrapped after the branch was lifted. John Isherwood.

I doubt that any of these were 'left behind when the branch was lifted' - simply a case of bodies from scrapped wagons being bought as handy sheds. John Isherwood.

If I may - somewhat reluctantly - I would comment that the upper edge of the prototype end window appears to have a higher curve than is represented on the CAD image. John Isherwood.

Pretty good stocks of spares for most of the 4mm. scale range - and the prices do not seem to be bad, either. John Isherwood.

What a collection is worth 'in theory' is one thing; being prepared to sell and despatch it, item-by-item so as to realise it's 'true worth', is an entirely different scenario. ..... and first find the buyer who agrees with your valuation! John Isherwood.

I most certainly do - but I doubt that they will have the time or inclination to sell my collection in a way that will realise its true worth. A quick call to Hattons, and take what they offer, I suspect. It is a mistake to regard one's collection as an investment; enjoy it, but do not console yourself that it can be easily converted to ready money by those who follow on. John Isherwood.

So you buy models as an investment - or at least for resale? I buy them because I want to run them - I couldn't give a tinker's cuss what they'll sell for when I'm gone. Regards, John Isherwood.

Not much different to here in the UK then - the answer is a bit of planned purchasing so that the P&P is spread over a number of items. John Isherwood.

Simple : - i] a build of a loco kit - with particular reference to the deficiencies of the kit; and how to improve it to achieve better performance and detail; ii] similar, with reference to coaching stock and NPCCS - with reference to adapting the kit to cover variants not specifically covered by the kit; iii] similar, with reference to wagons. I could go on - but that would do for starters. Contrary to what is portrayed in the model railway press, kits are still widely available; indeed new ones are being introduced. It astonishes me that, whenever a new RTR item is announced, there is an outcry of "Well I won't be buying it because they haven't produced the one that had different windscreen wipers"; or some such inanity! John Isherwood.

I wouldn't dispute what you say at all; but what I wrote seems to have struck a chord, judging by the reaction. Clearly, I am not alone in my views. I often browse the railway modelling shelves, but I can't recall the last time that I came across content that inspired me to buy the magazine. John Isherwood.

Ruston, My Sheet BL101 :- Sheet BL101 – BR & ex-GWR CONFLAT A wagons to BR Diagrams 1/061, 1/062, 1/065, 1/067, 1/069 & 1/070 plus GWR Diagrams H6, H7, H8 & H10. This sheet provides transfers for TWENTY wagons. 2mm., 3mm., 3.5mm. & 4mm. scale price is £8.00 Contains the chain pocket lettering but not the 'flying crate' - that's getting into the 'boxed' style lettering and therefore outside my self-imposed remit. Regards, John Isherwood.

I believe - though I am open to correction - that High Level worms are available in a choice of bore sizes. Regards, John Isherwood.

My musings of yesterday evening seem to have been misinterpretted in some quarters - I'm sorry if I was less than clear in expressing myself. The concerns that I have relate to the content of today's railway modelling press - not in any way did I intend to denigrate those who buy RTR / RTP and improve or adapt it in the process of building a model railway; that is a large part of what I do. I believe that it is perfectly possible to be a railway modeller without ever building rolling stock from a kit or from scratch. However, I do not believe that purchasing RTR / RTP and running it in the condition that it came out of the box is railway modelling. What worries me is that today's model railway press seems to actively encourage the latter, non-creative activity. Going back to basics - one definition of modelling is "the activity of making three-dimensional models"; the operational word here is "making". If asked to decide if a person is a modeller, I would ask "What have you made"? I would expect the model to exhibit features that were the product of the modeller's labour - even if confined to the odd added detail or some weathering. Like Tony, I am a great believer in 'layout' models; ie. models that are faithful to the prototype as far as can be discerned at the normal viewing distance, but which do not incorporate every last detail - IMHO, life is too short. If I have to nominate a typical model that I produce, I would point to my current project. A Standard 3 2-6-2T, that started life as a Tri-ang RTR model; was modified and detailed in the 1980s but remained on the original chassis; and which is now having an ancient but excellent Kemilway etched chassis, with Markits wheels and a High Level / Mitsumi drive, fitted. The end product will still be 'out' in some key dimensions, but it will look the part and should haul prototypical trains. I have been producing rolling stock for sixty years, but have never had more than a test plank on which to run it. Yesterday, a builder started to convert our garage into a dedicated railway room. By early March I hope to be laying track, and by the end of the year, to be running trains composed of stock that has not turned a wheel since it was built. This first-and-last layout will need some buildings and scenery - but I have to admit that this aspect of railway modelling does not fill me with anticipation! So - I have been having an Ebay buying spree of (original) Airfix and Ratio building kits; with the aim of being able to present the layout in either BR (S&DJR) or BR (Midland Mainline) formats. I know that hands will be thrown up in horror at the prospect of 1960s Airfix-shire scenery, but I believe that I will be able to improve and adapt these kits, and give them an individuality which will raise them above their origins; (I have already acquired etchings for signalbox windows and station valances). What I want to achieve is a convincing setting in which to run trains - something that will complement Garrrats and 4Fs on coal trains and Scots and Jubilees on expresses or - with a quick change of buildings - 'Evening Star' on the 'Pines' and 7Fs on freight. Now this concept will never produce a model of the standard of LB; point rodding is unlikely ever to appear. Nonetheless, it will fulfil my long-felt ambition and, above all, will involve much modelling. John Isherwood.

I modelled at the kitchen table for fifty years; is UK to Ireland postage that expensive? All my components come by post. John Isherwood.

They are modellers - I have nothing against RTR; I buy (far too much of) it. What I dislike is that today's model press fails to encourage such activities. John Isherwood.

Some thoughts before bed-time ........ What is, or what should be, the purpose / ethos / mission statement / objective of the railway modelling press? Well - of course - to make a profit! Beyond that, could / should it be to promote railway modelling? One would hope so, but nowadays it seems to be much more about promoting model railway buying. Given the reliance of today's magazine press on advertising, this is perhaps not surprising. Where is more money to be made - selling materials and 'bits' to self-reliant modellers, or selling ready-to-run / plonk model railways to unskilled and relatively unknowledgeable purchasers? The model press of the mid twentieth century could rely upon the advertising revenue from only two market-leading manufacturers, plus a myriad of lesser and minor producers of (mainly) component parts. Their central editorial theme was to provide prototype knowledge and promote skills, so that modellers could aspire to go beyond that which the two main ranges provided; (the latter barely changed from decade to decade)! Nowadays, a plethora of established, up-coming and emerging RTR suppliers compete for custom - and advertising space. Model railway publishers have a strong motive to concentrate their editorial content on how to buy, maintain and operate these ready-to-run / plonk products. In particular, how to add value (and thereby considerable purchasing requirement) by incorporating the latest developments in operational technology - all to be supplied, as far as is practicable - in plug-and-play format. So, can we wonder that the practical skills demonstrated in these articles rarely go beyond the 'how to change the name and number of your latest glittering purchase? Is it surprising that the images that accompany these bland articles are processed to death, in order to eliminate any suggestion that, in achieving this apparent perfection, it might be necessary to cut (really?), glue (yuk!) or solder (ouch!)? I have been accused (often) of maintaining that much of what is published in the model railway press is not modelling at all - and I make no apology for that. I was not born with the skills that enable me to produce running models from kits, components and scratch materials - but the satisfaction that I gain from doing so is immeasurable. I owe it all to the modelling press, from the mid to the end of the twentieth century. Others will tell me - indignantly - that anyone who runs a model on two rails is a railway modeller - I stubbornly demur. The person or persons who build(s) the models is (are) the modeller(s) - the person who buys a completed model and runs it is not a modeller. A pedantic statemen, I agree - but one that is at the heart of the demise of modelling skills; aided and abetted by today's railway 'modelling' press. John Isherwood.

This'll be a buy it / strip it / paint it job for me - the above is the livery that I want - but is it black or green? John Isherwood.

Despite the adverse comments, the image is a true record of what the camera 'saw' at that particular moment. I could find thousands of similar 'rejectable' photos in my collection of old model railway magazines - they all tell the 'truth' in a way that today's sanitised and supposedly perfectly composed (and amended) published images do not. We all know that no model railway is 'perfect'; why, therefore, do those involved in publishing now feel that nothing less than a 'perfect' image of what is not in reality 'perfect' will suffice? I'm afraid that most such publications have become largely divorced from the skills and the reality of railway modelling, in favour of becoming a sanitised gallery for the abilities of photographers to transform a human creation into something that does not exist in reality. I long since ceased to purchase them. Just MHO. John Isherwood.

I couldn't agree more !! I come here to discuss and view model railways - I know they're model railways; I want them to be model railways; I don't want them to be an attempt to convert an image of a model railway into a pastiche the real thing; (I believe that there is a thread for that called someing like 'When the model looks like the real thing). Seeing the context in which the model has been created and operated carries at least as much interest for me as the subject of the photos. It seems to be a trend in certain quarters to delete any and all context that might suggest that the subject of the photo is the result of sustained modelling effort. Is this something that arises from the 'joint undertaking' and / or 'barter' system of layout development, whereby the nominal owner does not have the full sense of 'ownership' of the resulting model? I have to say that, in general, modellers who 'plough their own furrow' seem far less concerned to hide evidence of the model's surroundings. Tony, this is just me musing - please do not read anything critical in my mulling over these matters. Regards, John Isherwood.

When a poster has to to abandon the subject under discussion and resort to slinging personal taunts, I draw the conclusion that he has run out of logical argument. I shall not engage in further futile discussion with you. John Isherwood.

What the h*ll has that got to do with anything?!? I paid what the market demanded at that time to obtain a model which I wanted - perhaps you can explain how that has any bearing on whether or not KRM have a sound business model? John Isherwood.

No - but I have placed an EOI for one of their projects. When, and if, GT3 is in general circulation, I will come to a conclusion as to whether I wish to purchase a future KRM model. Let it be clearly understood - I have nothing against KRM; they just seem to be particularly adept at putting themselves in a questionable light. My money is hard-earned - I don't dish it out on a whim and a promise! John Isherwood.

..... and look how that school of business management ended !! I don't think that KRM will thank you for drawing comparisons with DJM!!! Bottom line - KRM should have concentrated on getting their first model - GT3 - to the market, so that potential customers could come to realistic conclusions about their capabilities. By putting out more and more projects; asking for financial backing for them; and repeatedly failing to meet their own targets for the delivery of anything; they have stumbled into the perfect storm of criticism from those who are more guarded in their dispensation of cash than you seem to be. John Isherwood.

That (presumably) being the case - what we need is someone with 3D printing skills and capabilities to set to, producing side doors with interior detail, so that we can hack out the blank walls that KRM seems to think will suffice for interior detail. Regards, John Isherwood.

It all depends what you believe railway modelling is all about. I want to produce a railway setting that is complementary to my rolling stock - which I will enjoy running. However, in some cases, it would seem that the primary purpose of the railway is simply that of a glorified photographic backdrop. The aim seems to be to produce still photos of trains, that will attract the comment "I thought that it was the real thing!" I suppose that, if you are involved in publishing, that's fine - but it is not what I believe to be the prime objective of railway modelling. If this seems to be a bit harsh - by his own admission, Tony rarely operates his creation, except for the entertainment of visitors. John Isherwood.