The LNER Encyclopedia

These days, super-detailing seems to be more important than ever. It seems like every new model that comes out must top the last, and if it's not absolutely perfect, there are howls of protest from the more vocal contingent (who don't seem to be present on this forum, I hasten to add). Models that were considered top-of-the-range ten years ago are now derided as being hopelessly out of date.

Yet, looking at the average modeller, it seems to me that the rivet-counters are not an accurate reflection of the hobby. For all people complain that certain models are inaccurate or poorly detailed, they still sell enough for the companies to continue making them. I've even read messages from adult modellers who welcome the Railroad range for its budget-friendliness.

So, what I'm wondering is, how important is perfect accuracy to people? Do you aim for the perfect historical layout or are you happy to settle for less? In my case, accuracy would be nice, but I'm on a relatively low budget and I'll settle for something approximate, but I'd be interested in what others think.

Everyone is going to have their own view. If the market is large enough (eg. US N scale) then it is possible to have multiple price/quality levels - like Hornby are attempting.

I like a nicely detailed engine, but I think some people get obsessed - it seems a bit pointless worrying about some of the OO problems when the gauge is so narrow for the scale! These people should switch to EM or P4 first, in my opinion.

There's also always going to be a tradeoff. Eg. Dapol's new 9F is slightly too wide on the cylinders. This is publically acknowledged, and is necessary so that it can go around certain radii - far tighter than a real 9F, but necessary to sell to most people. I'm sure the Hornby version has the same compromise in OO.
Personally if I was to run a 9F, I would be happy only running it on larger radii curves than the current design - but most people can't.

On the other hand, I'm just entering O, and I'm aiming to be more detailed - there's more to be gained, and the fun is in the building rather than the running. I've only built two wagon kits so far, but I've added internal planking detail to both - something the manufacturer failed to add!

Oh, and Rules 1 & 2 always apply. (Rule 1: Have Fun; Rule 2: It is my railway and I'll do what I want)


Richard

Hi Guys
I agree with rules 1 and 2 wholeheartedly and follow both. I try to model LNER between wars but will run anything that gives me pleasure for example I have a GF maroon class 50 with the gold bands in the Heritage range and they pull a rake of maroon Mark 1s which I have close coupled. I am also going to get Dapol 9F because they look good but it will be an anachronism but who is going to know but me.
So run what gives you pleasure its your railway.
TonyM

Exactly, I want to model LNER, but in N this few and far between, but there's plenty in BR, so I intend to model 1956/57 as this is when the BR totoms changed over!

As Richard has said, individuals make their own mind up about accuracy. I, for one, am quite casual about it and am perfectly happy with models from 4 or 5 years ago (although some need a new paint job). The idea of getting rid of recently 'obsolete' models is quite ridiculous in my opinion: if it lacks a detail, put it on yourself I strive for reasonable, but not complete, accuracy because I think I find it highly rewarding to make something believable, but not so believable that it takes up a ludicrous amount of my time in kits/conversions in order to do this.

Besides, a bit of leniency gives your layout that vital sense of uniqueness and individual personality

I am so often disapointed by exhibition layouts where stock is incredibly built but scenery is just left to a pack of lichen left over in the club's stock cupboard since 1973. Super detailing is not my aim, never can be with skills, but I do like to try and get everything to look harmonious on a layout.

I just got a first 7mm loco, pretty much completely undetailed model from the 70's. but the sheer bulk of the model, the lines of it and the basic detailing really capture the look of a GCR 8F. (LNER B4). I'm still going to work on it as best as I can, but it'll never be a 'superdetailed' model, perhaps not even comparable in details to a rtr '00' model!

Will

One thing that ALWAYS makes me grind my teeth (not that I have many left now!!) is the number of layouts still using drivers sat on a box with his hand in the air wanting to go to the loo, or so it seems, and firemen busily shovelling coal into what is plainly a closed firebox door. As an occasional footplate rider, I can tell you that shovelling is only a part of a fireman's duties and that, on main line turns, he would have spent most of his time watching the road and generally assisting the driver.

Haven't these guys ever heard of Aiden Campbell? He does at least 10 different sets of footplate crews. I've just put one of his in my latest, a Hush-Hush, posed to appear as though they are sharing a joke across the cab. Pity they're almost invisible!

I get annoyed by bad rock work and most layouts here in the US have it. But then I have a geology background!


Richard

I have the Prototype Deltic, but this is only for display (won't fit on my 2mm track!) So I changed the couplings to the prototypical ones that were supplied.

On another subject, I have Mallard on my layout, b ut being in N, they seem not to want to make wings, so the fact that he has 4468 on the side is wrong, but hey ho Merlin and UoSA are correct, in BR!

I can tell you that shovelling is only a part of a fireman's duties and that, on main line turns, he would have spent most of his time watching the road and generally assisting the driver.

I don't understand "generally assisting the driver", firing a main line loco was mostly head down and arse up. There were some fireman's signals (unsighted for the driver) but the best assistance to the driver was feather flying and doing your own job competently. There were many who wished they could have spent most of their time watching the road but trips like that were fairly rare!

I wonder if "avatar" was a coal burner driver, we had some at Darnall but most were not

I can assure you that working 9 or 10 bogies with a B1 over Woodhead was hard work but I still had time to see the scenery.

8 or 12 round the box exhaust steam injector working all the time and usually 225 on the clockand 3/4 of a glass.

One stop going uphill at Penistone and one uphill on the way back a Guide Bridge.

Never got a sweat on and always wore a tie with my shirt fastned.

Don't remember having to go into the tender at London Road to pull coal forwards and this was when we were burning mostly dust and briquettes.

Plenty of time to watch the road, scenery and signals.

Enjoyed every minute of it.

A question to Richard really, who raises the issue of rock-work in this thread. I have also seen a lot of bad rock-work - often made from polystyrene. Maybe it is possible to do a good job with that material (dunno), but tree bark just never looks even close! I just wondered what you think makes good rocks?

I have found that rock can make very convincing rock. Much in nature is what is known (to vision scientists) as scale-invarient. This means that a large enough expanse looks the same (at the risk of being a bit technical; it has the same image statistics) regardless of your viewing distance, and therefore scale. This is not true of all rocks - those with crystal deposits look very poor in 4mm, but I found that Careful selection of a sort of red and grey Welsh slate (I think; well, it broke like slate!) had all the necessary properties and worked well in my model quarry.

Needless to say, I don't lug my layout around the exhibition circuit...

BTW Thumbs up to rules 1 and 2.
I am reminded of a modelling dodge that I rediscovered (as it must have been many times over), which is this. To model different periods, use different liveries on each side of your model. This usually works just fine with wagons, but there is a problem with locos- what about the front? Do I go with the BR number plate, or the LNER buffer beam markings? More to the point, does the problem undermine the whole dodge, making my modelling efforts worthless and condeming me to nothing but derision? My wife came up with the answer. She pointed out that the only person who would ever notice is my daughter (age 4). If I could live with the dodge myself, that was all that mattered. And although only a half dozen or so of my locos use this dodge, I must say, I have never found myself offended by it (contrary to my initial expectations). To my mind, getting the rocks right was much more important...

Yes landscape is meant to be scale invariant or 'fractal' but this also breaks down. You hint at this with the crystalline rock comment - at a pinch a very fine grained 'microgranite' might work as a pegmatite (coarse grained granite).

Real rocks would work for some - and I think slates and things like mudstones (especially finely-laminated ones) would work well.

We don't see bark here in the US, but we do see polystyrene tiles - cut edge on. In theory it could work well for certain cyclical layering (eg. postulated 'Milankovitch' cycles seen on some of the Dorset coast, also the Yoredale cycles in the Yorkshire Dales), but this is fairly unusual and rarely modelled well.

Here in the US, lightweight hydrocal is the preferred approach, and this is what I've used for my Wyoming module. For exhibition work it is lighter than real rock. Moulds are readily available from Woodland Scenics/etc.
You need to work to get the moulded rock to go together. You also don't want to re-use the same bits - or not to make it obvious!
I guess you need a 'sympathy' as to how the rock features tend to look for your chosen landscape. Also, the loose bits need some thought. Eg. how the small and large boulders tend to fall.

Here's my "Wyoming" Module:

http://www.tex-n.org/Modules/wyoming/wyoming.html

This is actually the first bit of scenery that I did. There's no where in Wyoming like this, but it is "Wyoming inspired". The rocks are all hydrocal and all the stones & boulders are Woodland Scenics "talus" which I have coloured myself.

Colouring should not be uniform. The WS book actually has good instructions on how to colour hydrocal rocks. The same works for their "talus" - just treat them by size in plastic boxes. Then mix the sizes when you apply them to the scenery.

I've tried different scatters, but the WS fine burnt and yellow grass dominate, with other greens and a small amount of coarse scatter.

We have a club member who tends towards whites (ie. shades of grey). He's no geologist, but the result looks like limestone.

If you want a rock challenge, I have yet to see anyone attempt gneiss - like you find in the road cuts of West Scotland...

Richard

I agreed with the above statements, railway modelling's first objective is to bring enjoyment to those modelling. It is a wonderful thing that manufactures are bringing out models with even improving levels of detail, but what of the cost increases involved - many people are put off by the c. £100 price tags now being seen. The old Hornby A1 was a lovely model - fine, it could've been loco driven like the old Tring/Hornby A3 and the valve gear could've been more refined but it looked and felt like an A1 and for my modelling standards at the time, it fitted in perfectly.

It is about each modellers own personal preferences and I think that if the owner is happy with his loco, layout and anything else he has bought or made then they should be pleased.

Personally, my personal view on modelling is to look at the overall effect. Modelling in N doesn't allow accuracy very offer so I work to my own #1 rule - If it looks right, then it is right - now having said that, I find that making something look right often involves alot of work - but I enjoy it!

Hornby may well have the answer to your prayers, Atco. The "Railroad" range. An A1 No'd 4472 RRP £50.

OK, needs a repaint but at this price what do you expect.....