Debunking the Model Railway 'Rebels'

Another digression into model railways, I'm afraid.  I was at the local toy and train collector's fair again this evening, buying yet more tatty looking, but cheap, wagons, all in need of minor repairs and/or repainting.  As I've noted before, if you don't mind putting a bit of effort into these things, then the bargain bins of various traders represent a cost effective way of building up rolling stock.  Especially if, like me, you've become enough of a regular that you sometimes get given a discount on multiple purchases from individual traders.  Anyway, this all set me to thinking that I read and hear a lot of utter balls about model railways on the web these days.  Earlier today I watched a YouTube video about how N gauge was the 'best' scale for beginners and that 00 was too big, requiring too much space and was really about producing and collecting detailed models of real rolling stock.  Which is fine if you just want to build a tiny generic freelance layout representing nowhere in particular and running generic (not to mention fiddly due to its small size), stock, with very limited operating interest.  There seems to be a lot of similar sentiment out there on the web, particularly those operating YouTube channels highlighting their own layouts.  Even in 00 gauge, if you have the temerity to try and model an actual location or era with any degree of fidelity, you are dismissed as a 'purist' or a 'rivet counter'.  Most of these guys just run what they want, regardless of era or location.  Again, this is fine if that's what floats your boat, but to me, it just looks like a meaningless jumble of models being run by people who, despite identifying themselves as 'railway modellers', often seem to know little about the prototypes they model or have much grasp of actual railway operations.

There are, of course, exceptions and some modellers can justify their 'mix and match' approach - they either model a 'heritage railway', giving them much leeway over stock, or they are collectors who focus on the products of, say, Triang, or Trix, having examples of their production from specific periods running on their layouts.  Personally, I don't consider myself a 'purist' or a 'rivet counter', despite the fact that my aim is to represent mainline services on the Western Section of British Rail Southern Region around 1960-67.  I don't go for absolute authenticity in buildings, train formations and so on, but I do try to run stock representative of what was running in this location and era and create track formations and stations that look vaguely like actual locations on the route.  Moreover, I tend to do it using older stock: I have a nostalgic love of model railway equipment from the sixties, seventies and eighties, (although I do have one locomotive and some freight stock made in the nineties - if a more recent model is the only way to get a prototype I want, then I'll go down that route).  So I'm part collector.  Most of these models lack the detail of modern product but nonetheless capture the 'essence' of their prototypes.  Not only that, but they are far more robust than anything produced today.  So, I'm clearly not a 'purist' or a 'rivet counter' as I use these models rather than more modern, detailed and expensive stuff.  The expensive bit, in part, lies behind the rationale for that video's claims that N is better for beginners: the continental and Japanese, generic stuff is far cheaper than either its UK 00 or N equivalents.  But, to return to my original point, if you buy older, second hand stuff, especially if it needs attention, then you really can do 00 on a budget.  Moreover, all those repairs and repaints I do represent, well, the 'modelling' aspect of the hobby.

There's more to this online reaction against these mythical 'purists' and 'river counters' than just questions of cost and space, of course.  I've heard a lot of talk about them supposedly 'gate keeping' the hobby and discouraging new modellers by prescribing 'rules' about having to choose a location and era from the outset.  The established railway modelling magazines come in for a lot of flak in this respect.  While it is true that the, mainly, exhibition standard layouts featured in these publications since some when in the seventies, (sixties magazines are, by contrast, full of wondrous articles about building stuff from repurposed household items, or simply converting existing models into something else and featured actual home layouts built to standards I can relate to), can be very intimidating to average bodgers like me, nobody ever said that you had to model like this.  All they are doing is providing examples of what is possible with sufficient time money and skills.  To be fair, the magazines still do contain plenty of material on at least one aspect of freelance railway modelling not necessarily based on a real location or real prototypes in the form of narrow gauge layouts, which typically feature entirely fictitious light railways.  Less well represented, though, are freelance standard gauge model railways which were once popular - at their best these involved their creators designing and building their own locos and stock, (often by modifying existing ready to run models).  I've seen some excellent examples of this, which have clearly given their creators many hours of enjoyment.

Besides, recreating in miniature a detailed replica of the real railway isn't the only approach to 'proper' railway modellimg.  The operational layout is often neglected by both these self styled model railway rebels and what they see as the bastions of stifling traditions.  This features a representation rather than a replica of the real thing, with stations and yards featuring only those features essential to the builder's operating intentions, the idea being to run a representation of real operations, both freight and passenger, on that line.  This can involve the marshalling of trains into representative formations and matching them with appropriate motive power, the running of these services on the mainline, scheduling and sequencing trains as appropriate and breaking up the formations as appropriate upon their arrival at their destination.  Some of my favourite layouts and track plans are based around this concept of representing railway operations in a particular location and era.  Not surprisingly, it's the approach I favour.  The railway rebels, however, seem to have little idea of operations, seemingly randomly forming up stock into trains and running them around their layouts.  Not that there's anything wrong with that. It can be fun and I'm sure that we've all done it.  But I found that there came a point when I wanted it all to have some sort of logic and purpose.  It's the dismissal of anyone who seeks to create anything along these lines as a 'purist' or 'rivet counter' and the implication that by doing this we somehow stop others from doing as they please, which offends me. 

Look, you can build your model railway any way you like.  If you want to have a haphazard collection of locomotives and rolling stock where Pendolino units rub shoulders with seventies diesels and pre-nationalisation liveried steam engines hauling MkIII coaches, tail-chasing around your layout, then that's your prerogative.  But surely a large part of the fun of model railways is the research you put into your chosen location and era?  Just as the challenge of actually recreating a representation of that location and era is a large part of the enjoyment of the hobby?  Believe me, I've derived a lot of enjoyment from researching such things as Southampton boat train operations and trying create representations of typical boat trains using and sometimes modifying second and ready-to-run items.  I can't imagine approaching the hobby any other way.  But I'm not stopping anyone else from doing it differently and neither is anyone else.  These false narratives about 'gate keeping' or how it's just too difficult and/or expensive to create something approximating real railways and their operations, especially in 00, are really not helpful.  You can recreate mainline railway operations in model form in limited space and with limited money, even in 00.  You don't have to settle for an N gauge shunting layout in a corner of the living room. (Ironically, back in the day the 'orthodoxy' was that if you didn't have an attic, shed or large downstairs room you could commandeer, then the only possible railway in 00 gauge you could build was a branchline terminus - we seem to have come full circle).  Let's not forget that 00 was the original 'table top' railway scale in the UK, designed to be run on kitchen tables or living room floors.  Like I said, there seems to be a lot of balls being talked about model railways these days.