When TT3 was the next Big Thing

[PatB]

At risk of diverting this thread from TT3, I had a quick go at CJF's 1989 iteration of Small and Simple in SCARM in 00. As you can see from the screenshot, it doesn't look too bad. I found that using all R2, apart from a bit of an R1+ flexitrack fiddle to make the reverse loop work, it all just went into 6' x 3'6". Another 6" on the length and I reckon it could all be done at R2. Hmmm.... .

 

 

[Pacific231G]

At risk of diverting this thread from TT3, I had a quick go at CJF's 1989 iteration of Small and Simple in SCARM in 00. As you can see from the screenshot, it doesn't look too bad. I found that using all R2, apart from a bit of an R1+ flexitrack fiddle to make the reverse loop work, it all just went into 6' x 3'6". Another 6" on the length and I reckon it could all be done at R2. Hmmm.... .

 

 

Small & Simple 89.jpg

It's probably not a diversion as Small and Simple would be far less of a solid lump in TT than in OO. It's very  similar to Pint Pot (and I suspect "borrowed" from it) but the main innovation by Cyril Freezer was the double sided back scene dividing the terminus from the rest of the layout. That would also probably work bettter in the smaller scale as it would be easier to find room for such a "peninsular" double sided layout. There have been a few double sided layouts like this in 009, usually as point to points, but by using very tight curves Andrew Knights managed to get a 00 dockside railway, inspired I think by Great Yarmouth, into 4x2.

 

I did eye up Small and Simple as a possible basis for an H0m layout but decided that the multiple levels of track that work well in SG would be a bit unlikely for a bucolic light railway so opted instead for a conventional terminus-fiddle yard.

[NCB]

y

 

InterestingIMG_20171206_231907.jpgIMG_20171206_231920.jpgIMG_20171206_231933.jpgIMG_20171206_231943.jpg

 

Same month

IMG_20171206_232041.jpgIMG_20171206_232054.jpg

 

Standards ?IMG_20171206_232013.jpg

Interesting stuff, locomad. However, that wasn't the layout. It was a lot smaller. The short side at the back of the layout with the tunnel had a village (some houses, terraced I think) above the tunnel. A road ran from the village down the centre of the layout and eventually crossed the track at the front of the layout by a bridge; the road provided an effective scenic break between the two long sides of the layout, each of which had a rather different station. I think the track between the stations was double. The impression it gave to me was of a minor South Wales valley line.

 

I'll recheck the (few) MRCs I have of that period.

 

Nigel

Edited December 7, 2017 by NCB

[locomad]

Interesting stuff, locomad. However, that wasn't the layout. It was a lot smaller. The short side at the back of the layout with the tunnel had a village (some houses, terraced I think) above the tunnel. A road ran from the village down the centre of the layout and eventually crossed the track at the front of the layout by a bridge; the road provided an effective scenic break between the two long sides of the layout, each of which had a rather different station. I think the track between the stations was double. The impression it gave to me was of a minor South Wales valley line.

 

I'll recheck the (few) MRCs I have of that period.

 

Nigel

Sorry the pictures ended up upside down, and 90', something I've not mastered yet with the android system, still it's easy to right them.

 

RM's of this period are very interesting there's a wealth of information in them both in the adverts and content, it seems to be a golden age of rtr and kitbuilding.

 

I've always considered TT to be an idea guage or scale, small enough to get a decent layout, yet not too small like "N" where as you get older eye slight causes problems, same in some ways as "S" guage, bigger but not too big.

 

It's a shame no one else went into it, triang tried but by mid 60's model railways seem to suffer competition from model cars like Scalextric and other "distractions"

[Golden Fleece 30]

Sorry the pictures ended up upside down, and 90', something I've not mastered yet with the android system, still it's easy to right them.

 

RM's of this period are very interesting there's a wealth of information in them both in the adverts and content, it seems to be a golden age of rtr and kitbuilding.

 

I've always considered TT to be an idea guage or scale, small enough to get a decent layout, yet not too small like "N" where as you get older eye slight causes problems, same in some ways as "S" guage, bigger but not too big.

 

It's a shame no one else went into it, triang tried but by mid 60's model railways seem to suffer competition from model cars like Scalextric and other "distractions"

Don't worry about upside down etc, all I did was read it on my phone after turning off the auto screen position.

 

Garry

[Pacific231G]

 

I've always considered TT to be an idea guage or scale, small enough to get a decent layout, yet not too small like "N" where as you get older eye slight causes problems, same in some ways as "S" guage, bigger but not too big.

 

It's a shame no one else went into it, triang tried but by mid 60's model railways seem to suffer competition from model cars like Scalextric and other "distractions"

I rather agree but unfortunately it never got anywhere in France and that's what I model. I've got some old Zeuke and Berliner Bahn stock bought for H0m and have sometimes felt tempted to use it to build a small layout but it would be a distraction.  Ironically, and perhaps usefully for anyone working in  3mm/ft scale is that a number of older building kits such as Jouef and MKD sold as H0 are really 1/100 scale which is almost spot on for. 

In TT-3 Minories was a five foot long layout.

[NCB]

Turns out I only have a couple of MRCs of the period, rather more MRNs. But no sign of the layout. Wonder if I have more somewhere; I used to have the RM which had Leo Pearson's North Midland in it but can't find it.

 

Nigel

[Golden Fleece 30]

Here is the part one video of my layout. Most of you will have seen the first part of it as it shows the basic construction etc but the latter part is a video I did this morning. It was very cold hence the coat on and only 3 different trains. As mentioned in the video the locos are a lot quieter, the noise is due to the track bolted to the baseboard. The controller is the basic H and M one that was built for Z and 00 with outputs of 9 and 12 volts (set still to 12v), it is not feedback or full/have wave etc but does reasonable slow running as it is.

 

 

Garry

Edited December 9, 2017 by Golden Fleece 30

[Robert Shrives]

Gerry,

Great show! Hopefully adding scenery will help deaden the soundbox of the bare baords and I look forward to developments.

 

It was good to stock responsive to the controller with no sign of the gerfingerpoken from the sky and a lovely history trip.

 

Robert 

[Golden Fleece 30]

When you look at the video of the goods train coming out of the reverse loop it makes you wonder how Mike Bryant fitted the layout in width wise. I used small radius curves, plus a quarter straight, but 2' only goes as far as the left hand brown strip which is the 6" extra width.

 

But, as someone mentioned if the framework was on the outside there would be another couple of inches to play with.

 

Garry

[Pacific231G]

When you look at the video of the goods train coming out of the reverse loop it makes you wonder how Mike Bryant fitted the layout in width wise. I used small radius curves, plus a quarter straight, but 2' only goes as far as the left hand brown strip which is the 6" extra width.

 

But, as someone mentioned if the framework was on the outside there would be another couple of inches to play with.

 

Garry

Wonderful stuff Gary and it's great to see it taking shape. The "ground floor" actually reminds me of the 5ft x 3ft  Hornby Dublo three rail layout I was given as a child even to the lever frame on the side (though mine operated the points using wire in tube)

 

This is how Mike Bryant fitted it in.

 

The version he built in 4x2, but with the outside frame stopping the tracks from being hard up against the edge of the board used, Gem flex track and 15" radius points plus one curved 12"/24" point so some of the curves must have been tighter than Tri-ang's set ones.

The version he designed using Tri-ang track but AFAIK never actually built, though he may well have laid it out,    required 4ft 4ins x 2ft 3ins. 

 

The main oval was laid out using half small radius and half large radius curves - the large radius presumably matching the junction point for the terminus branch- but the straight track in the reverse loop had to be cut to fit from two full length straights with the cuts used to form section breaks.This was his explanation.

"When you have screwed down the main oval including its points, insert the two half curves into the reverse loop but do not screw them down yet. Clip together the the two lengths of straight track and carefully measure the exact amount you require to  complete the reverse loop; mark both the rails and the plastic base where they have to be cut then withdraw the rails and cut them and the base to the length marked. Now remove fishplates to leave gaps in both rails at both ends of the straight section of the reverse loop and screw down the whole loop. The wiring and the DPDT switch are exactly the same with Tri-ang track as with GEM track so follow figure 9 for the wiring" 

I assume this means that he was using the plastic bases to align the unfishplated section breaks but I'm not familiar with this type of track, I had the later version with blak sleepeers rather than a solid base,  so don't know exactly how that would work.

  Figure 9 simply shows a DPDT switch connected to the relevant main power feed and feeding the centre of the straight section of the reverse loop which has section breaks in both rails at both ends.

 

In part three he did say that Tri-ang had not yet made a half length small radius curve but that you could either cut a small radius curve in half or if you didn't want to do that substitute half length large radius curves- neither of them were critical and I'd have thought a larger curve would be an advantage at the start of the steep terminus branch . The other thing he emphasised was the importance of making the terminus very easily removable. If you didn't, the points underneath it would inevitably fail and be almost impossible to work on.

 

It occurs to me that though Mike Bryant described in some detail how to build Pint Pot using first generation Tri-ang TT-3 track, the layout he built used Gem so you may be the first person to have ever actually built the Tri-ang version.  Excellent!

Edited December 11, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Golden Fleece 30]

Wonderful stuff Gary and it's great to see it taking shape. The "ground floor" actually reminds me of the 5ft x 3ft  Hornby Dublo three rail layout I was given as a child even to the lever frame on the side (though mine operated the points using wire in tube)

 

This is how Mike Bryant fitted it in.

pint pot 1 .jpg

 

The version he built in 4x2, but with the outside frame stopping the tracks from being hard up against the edge of the board used, Gem flex track and 15" radius points plus one curved 12"/24" point so some of the curves must have been tighter than Tri-ang's set ones.

The version he designed using Tri-ang track but AFAIK never actually built, though he may well have laid it out,    required 4ft 4ins x 2ft 3ins. 

 

The main oval was laid out using half small radius and half large radius curves - the large radius presumably matching the junction point for the terminus branch- but the straight track in the reverse loop had to be cut to fit from two full length straights with the cuts used to form section breaks.This was his explanation.

"When you have screwed down the main oval including its points, insert the two half curves into the reverse loop but do not screw them down yet. Clip together the the two lengths of straight track and carefully measure the exact amount you require to  complete the reverse loop; mark both the rails and the plastic base where they have to be cut then withdraw the rails and cut them and the base to the length marked. Now remove fishplates to leave gaps in both rails at both ends of the straight section of the reverse loop and screw down the whole loop. The wiring and the DPDT switch are exactly the same with Tri-ang track as with GEM track so follow figure 9 for the wiring" 

I assume this means that he was using the plastic bases to align the unfishplated section breaks but I'm not familiar with this type of track, I had the later version with blak sleepeers rather than a solid base,  so don't know exactly how that would work.

  Figure 9 simply shows a DPDT switch connected to the relevant main power feed and feeding the centre of the straight section of the reverse loop which has section breaks in both rails at both ends.

 

In part three he did say that Tri-ang had not yet made a half length small radius curve but that you could either cut a small radius curve in half or if you didn't want to do that substitute half length large radius curves- neither of them were critical and I'd have thought a larger curve would be an advantage at the start of the steep terminus branch . The other thing he emphasised was the importance of making the terminus very easily removable. If you didn't, the points underneath it would inevitably fail and be almost impossible to work on.

 

It occurs to me that though Mike Bryant described in some detail how to build Pint Pot using first generation Tri-ang TT-3 track, the layout he built used Gem so you may be the first person to have ever actually built the Tri-ang version.  Excellent!

Thanks for the information and drawings.  Previously I have only ever seen his track plan using Gem/Wrenn track but no list and certainly nothing regarding the track plan itself.

 

I don't know if he did try to loose lay it because as drawn the sides of the main loop would be different.  This is because the Large radius curves are the first two in the curve followed by the small radius which would not have ends in alignment.  Due to the point position the small radii should be the middle two pieces.  Also he states in the write up he states "insert the two half curves in the reverse loop" yet puts 2 full curves in the diagram.  I know it is a minor "slip up"? but due to the layout size half curves would not be enough.

 

It is difficult to understand his method of the track cutting etc as just cutting a piece in half (or to size) leave one end that will not fit the physical end connection of a normal piece.  Leaving the end fishplates off would still leave it impossible to insert the track later as they have a large off set from each other and the base has the tongues.

 

To cut a piece to fit you need to cut the base in three with the outer two parts the actual length required when placed together and the rail when cut holding them.

 

Having said all that it was still a good idea and as you say his flexible ends must have been tighter that Tri-ang's.  My upper level will only be as far back as the rear tracks allowing me access to the points for when Sods Law happens.

 

Garry

[Pacific231G]

Thanks for the information and drawings.  Previously I have only ever seen his track plan using Gem/Wrenn track but no list and certainly nothing regarding the track plan itself.

 

I don't know if he did try to loose lay it because as drawn the sides of the main loop would be different.  This is because the Large radius curves are the first two in the curve followed by the small radius which would not have ends in alignment.  Due to the point position the small radii should be the middle two pieces.  Also he states in the write up he states "insert the two half curves in the reverse loop" yet puts 2 full curves in the diagram.  I know it is a minor "slip up"? but due to the layout size half curves would not be enough.

 

It is difficult to understand his method of the track cutting etc as just cutting a piece in half (or to size) leave one end that will not fit the physical end connection of a normal piece.  Leaving the end fishplates off would still leave it impossible to insert the track later as they have a large off set from each other and the base has the tongues.

 

To cut a piece to fit you need to cut the base in three with the outer two parts the actual length required when placed together and the rail when cut holding them.

 

Having said all that it was still a good idea and as you say his flexible ends must have been tighter that Tri-ang's.  My upper level will only be as far back as the rear tracks allowing me access to the points for when Sods Law happens.

 

Garry

It definitely sounds like you'll be the first. Mike Bryant must have got his hands on the Gem track very early and the layout appeared on the Gem stand at the MRC exhibition in 1958 so I wondered if they effectively commissioned or sponsored the layout.

 

Do you happen to know when Type B track was introduced? I only ever had that and don't remember seeing much type A. That's clearly what he used or at least designed for Pint Pot as the parts list includes power tracks whereas AFAIK type B only had power clips. I never got good running with TT-3 and suspect that though they look cruder the type A points probably gave better running as they effectively had no frog so no dead frog.

I also didn't know that the type B power clip incorporated a TV interference supressor. There was a special track for that in type A but I suppose with type B you just inserted a couple of unpowered power clips and used their capacitors. Fortunately not a problem we seem to have these days. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Pacific231G

[AngusDe]

Interesting how small and simple layouts can linger in the memory for a long, long time. When TT3 first came out one of the magazines (RM?) built a rather nice compact scenic layout on a solid baseboard to show the possibilities. Interesting thing was that you viewed the baseboard end-on, i.e. a short side was nearest the viewer. This meant that you had good views of both long sides as well as the short side. The line at the far end was in a tunnel. Think it was partially double track and had two small but different stations. Probably only had a couple of Jinties to operate. I've yet to track down the magazine.

 

Nigel

 

 

As I remember it, this layout was used on the cover of CJF's Peco booklet, "A home for your railway". I think it was folded out of the way when not in use, but I've only the booklet now, rather than the RMs of the period. Always found the layout inspirational!

 

cjfbook.html

 

Angus

[Golden Fleece 30]

It definitely sounds like you'll be the first. Mike Bryant must have got his hands on the Gem track very early and the layout appeared on the Gem stand at the MRC exhibition in 1958 so I wondered if they effectively commissioned or sponsored the layout.

 

Do you happen to know when Type B track was introduced? I only ever had that and don't remember seeing much type A. That's clearly what he used or at least designed for Pint Pot as the parts list includes power tracks whereas AFAIK type B only had power clips. I never got good running with TT-3 and suspect that though they look cruder the type A points probably gave better running as they effectively had no frog so no dead frog.

I also didn't know that the type B power clip incorporated a TV interference supressor. There was a special track for that in type A but I suppose with type B you just inserted a couple of unpowered power clips and used their capacitors. Fortunately not a problem we seem to have these days. 

Type B was introduced in 1959 leaving Type A only being made for 2 years.  Type A track had a TV suppressor fitted in each power straight, each uncoupler then half straights could be bought with or without.  The with ones differed slightly having a small raised section of ballast between two of the sleepers.

 

You are correct regarding the points which is why I like them but also as the track seems more robust even though not as realistic and certainly not as easy to take apart if required.

 

I am led to believe that the modern TV's (Flat screens etc) and being digital do not suffer the electrical interference as the old sets did, especially with analogue.  I have to admit I have removed the suppressors from my locos when I clean them and also from the track even though they are supposed to also help the brush/commutator sparking. 

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

As I remember it, this layout was used on the cover of CJF's Peco booklet, "A home for your railway". I think it was folded out of the way when not in use, but I've only the booklet now, rather than the RMs of the period. Always found the layout inspirational!

 

cjfbook.html

 

Angus

Hi Angus,

 

I cannot get the link to show anything when downloaded, could you try to scan it into a JPEG format or something please?

 

Garry

[Pacific231G]

As I remember it, this layout was used on the cover of CJF's Peco booklet, "A home for your railway". I think it was folded out of the way when not in use, but I've only the booklet now, rather than the RMs of the period. Always found the layout inspirational!

 

cjfbook.html

 

Angus

The Thorpeness Branch,by N. Dodsworth of the Leeds MRS.  Railway of the Month in RM March 1962. 2ft 8ins by 5ft 6ins. with minimum twelve inch radius curves. From the larger version of the photo used in "A home for your Railway" it looks like he mostly used the same original 15" radius "closed frog"  Gem points that Mike Bryant used for Pint Pot. He does  though talk about the later Gem points being better so presumably there are one or of them as well. I think the main trackwork was all Gem but the 12" curves that turned it from a main line terminus to fiddle yard to a continuous run exhibition layout may have been Tri-ang type B. 

It was a curious layout in that in 1959 it was a four platform plus loco spur main line terminus on a 4ft 6in by 15inch board joined to a 4ft 6in by 4in fiddle yard that was converted in time for the Leeds 1960 exhibtion into its later form with almost no relaying of track apart from adding the end curves. It was operated from behind the back scene so was perhaps presented as a peninsula with the public on three sides.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Pacific231G

[AngusDe]

Hi Angus,

 

I cannot get the link to show anything when downloaded, could you try to scan it into a JPEG format or something please?

 

Garry

Garry,

 

 

What I thought I was doing on the phone, easier on the PC, lol!

 

Angus

[Golden Fleece 30]

Garry,

 

cjfbook.jpg

 

What I thought I was doing on the phone, easier on the PC, lol!

 

Angus

Thanks Angus,

 

I remember that photo now. Great memory although I don't remember ever having the book.

 

I know what you mean about phone v PC. I can do very little on my phone.

 

Garry

[roythebus]

Thanks Angus,

 

I remember that photo now. Great memory although I don't remember ever having the book.

 

I know what you mean about phone v PC. I can do very little on my phone.

 

Garry

 

Try holding a PC to your ear to make a phone call. It's not easy!

 

I remember that layout in the MRC many years ago, maybe 1962. It was originally a terminus but the owner converted it to a roundy roundy.

[Il Grifone]

Type B was introduced in 1959 leaving Type A only being made for 2 years.  Type A track had a TV suppressor fitted in each power straight, each uncoupler then half straights could be bought with or without.  The with ones differed slightly having a small raised section of ballast between two of the sleepers.

 

You are correct regarding the points which is why I like them but also as the track seems more robust even though not as realistic and certainly not as easy to take apart if required.

 

I am led to believe that the modern TV's (Flat screens etc) and being digital do not suffer the electrical interference as the old sets did, especially with analogue.  I have to admit I have removed the suppressors from my locos when I clean them and also from the track even though they are supposed to also help the brush/commutator sparking. 

 

Garry

 

 

Hi Garry,

 

Interference was a serious problem back then, due to us pioneering and getting things wrong (again!),

 

(Boring Technical Stuff....)

 

Back then TV was the old 405 line system using VHF bands I (BBC usually) and III (ITV usually). This had both vision and sound signals amplitude modulated and positve vision modulation*. A worse case scenario for susceptibility to impulsive interference as produced by model railways. Radio was almost invariable amplitude modulated on Medium and Long Waves as well. The slightest flash would produce crackles on both sound and vision (Track makes a good transmitting aerial!). Moving the TV to UHF with negative modulation and FM sound much diminished the interference problem and the adoption of VHF and FM radio solved it for the radio. Today's digital is almost immune to interference. It's basically on-off - below a certain signal strength you receive nothing and above you get a clean signal. The cost is enormous bandwidth and/or severe compression. The use of error correction can fill in the holes in the signal to a certain extent as well.

 

*Maximum modulation depth corresponds to peak white so interference appears as white flashes on the picture. As the sync pulses correspond to low modulation levels picture break up was also common (not helped by primitive synchronisation circuitry). Negative modulation puts the black level and sync pulses at the high modulation levels hence spots are balck and less noticeable and the sync is much more robust. 625 line sets hardly ever lost sync, partly though a better transmission system and partly better circuit design such that line/horizontal and frame/vertical hold controls disappeared.

 

David

Edited December 12, 2017 by Il Grifone

[Pacific231G]

Garry,

 

cjfbook.jpg

 

What I thought I was doing on the phone, easier on the PC, lol!

 

Angus

 

Though it's shown on the cover of  "A home for Your Railway" with surrounding artwork suggesting a fold down layout it never was that and the controls were behind the low relief raised street. The same photo appeared rather larger and slightly less cropped in the 1962 RM article. A plan of the Thorpeness branch,  along with the terminus layout it was reversioned from, was also in the article so I've rescaled the terminus plan for comparison

 

 

From the photo, the line of the edge of the original terminus board is very obvious and the double track on the other side was originally the "storage sidings" ((fiddle yard)  The new layout was designed to fit on a fully extended  5'6" by 2'8" dining room table but with 12 inch radius curves in the hidden section (or possibly Tri-ang type B small and large radius curves- it's hard to tell from the photos) that would have increased the length by more than a foot from the 4'6" of the terminus board so it was  maybe 5'8" rather than 5'6"

 

In his article N. Dodsworth said that the only changes he made to the original trackwork were to shorten two platform roads and change a point on the hidden siding crossover to give a smoother run through. He changed the layout to show that an interesting and complete continuous run layout could be made to fit on a small table and in this form it was exhibited at the Leeds MRS show in November 1960. After that It was going to be incorporated into a large layout so that may have been its only showing. Though the article was published in March 1962 it was likely written fairly soon after the 1960 show.

 

I'll have a look to see whether Mr. Dodsworth's name ever reappears. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Pacific231G

[NCB]

That's the beast!!!! Thanks a lot. This has been bugging me for years. It's a tad later than I thought it would have been. Always thought it was an attractive layout. I remembered it as having a road bridge at the bottom of the layout and hadn't remembered the stream, so obviously I was wrong.

 

Cheers

Nigel

Edited December 12, 2017 by NCB

[Ravenser]

It's probably not a diversion as Small and Simple would be far less of a solid lump in TT than in OO. It's very  similar to Pint Pot (and I suspect "borrowed" from it) but the main innovation by Cyril Freezer was the double sided back scene dividing the terminus from the rest of the layout. That would also probably work bettter in the smaller scale as it would be easier to find room for such a "peninsular" double sided layout. There have been a few double sided layouts like this in 009, usually as point to points, but by using very tight curves Andrew Knights managed to get a 00 dockside railway, inspired I think by Great Yarmouth, into 4x2.

 

 

 

[My added emphasis.]

 

That was the basis of Ravenser Mk 1 - Mk2 still hasn't happened. I had 4'6 x 2'3 in OO , and introduced a point to a fiddle yard. The resulting curve proved intolerably tight in places - anything longer than a Pipe needed a reach wagon (Triang Single Bolster) or the  tension locks dragged it off the track. Only small shunters could manage the curve with marked slowing on the curves....

 

The curves were in practice unworkably tight for anything except possibly a tram

 

Though in TT-3 it might have worked quite satisfactorily. A 15" radius point with 11" radius curve would be a little more generous than radius 1 curves and Setrack points in OO, train lengths would have gone up to 3/4 wagons not 2/3, and even an 0-6-0 might have gone round onto the quay.

 

As I had it , it was a "mu-shaped" layout, with mainline locos (well Cl 20s) working into an exchange loop and siding , and a curve round onto the quay and sidings. The quayside buildings provided a scenic break down the middle.  Operating potential high - reliability of running desperately low......

Edited December 12, 2017 by Ravenser

[Pacific231G]

That's the beast!!!! Thanks a lot. This has been bugging me for years. It's a tad later than I thought it would have been. Always thought it was an attractive layout. I remembered it as having a road bridge at the bottom of the layout and hadn't remembered the stream, so obviously I was wrong.

 

Cheers

Nigel

I suspect RM had been sitting on his article for a while as in it he talks about the Nov 1960 Leeds show as a fairly recent occurence. He had the terminal version at the time of the 1959 show though that doesn't mean he exhibited it there and apparently the club needed a roundy round for the 1960 show so he converted it.

 

Given that TT-3 probably didn't really get into the market until about mid 1957 Mr. Dodsworth must have been a relatively early adopter though I suspect his terminus layout  was a quickie try out, possibly inspired by Minories though six inches shorter (Cyril Freezer originally designed Minories as a 5ft long folding layout for TT-3 layout to show that the new scale enabled one to have a main line terminus in a very small space) hence having the second crossover in the "hidden sidings" . 

I've emailed the Leeds MRS to see if they have any records of it or Mr. Dodsworth.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Pacific231G