When TT3 was the next Big Thing

[Golden Fleece 30]

Here is an RM advert from 1959 showing an Eames TT 94xx Pannier. I left school and started work in 1968 on £3-10s (£3.50 for the younger generation) so to see it at £9-19s-6d in 1959 made it very expensive. I guess Bec either bought the moulds or did a similar copy for their version later in the 60's.

 

There are not many Eames TT locos around although not having a 94xx to compare it to the Bec one I cannot definitely say, when people advertise them they may inadvertently say its Bec as that was the one still on the go for a while. There is a noticeable difference with their 57xx to the Gem kit though and I do have both, the main difference being the "skirts".

 

Garry

[chris45lsw]

Here is an RM advert from 1959 showing an Eames TT 94xx Pannier. I left school and started work in 1968 on £3-10s (£3.50 for the younger generation) so to see it at £9-19s-6d in 1959 made it very expensive. I guess Bec either bought the moulds or did a similar copy for their version later in the 60's.

 

There are not many Eames TT locos around although not having a 94xx to compare it to the Bec one I cannot definitely say, when people advertise them they may inadvertently say its Bec as that was the one still on the go for a while. There is a noticeable difference with their 57xx to the Gem kit though and I do have both, the main difference being the "skirts".

 

Garry

I suspect it probably is a Bec kit assembled by Eames, put on a Triang chassis and sold RTR under their name. From memory I think the 94xx originated with Esanel but Bec took over the Esanel range.

 

Chris KT

[NCB]

Think the Bec kit was a Bec kit. Reasonable amount of detail, looks far better than the Eames kit. 3SMR now offer an upgraded version of the Bec kit; haven't seen it in the flesh but looks OK in pics.

 

Nigel

[Golden Fleece 30]

Think the Bec kit was a Bec kit. Reasonable amount of detail, looks far better than the Eames kit. 3SMR now offer an upgraded version of the Bec kit; haven't seen it in the flesh but looks OK in pics.

 

Nigel

One thing I don't like on the 3smr site is using 00 locos to advertise TT ones but I don't think that includes the 94xx.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

BR in their wisdom have decided that the signalmen in the station area need a better view so have come up with a gantry style signal box. They have run out of materials and need to go to Wakefield this weekend to see if they can get some lattice girder work and steps. The model is a Hornby resin platform signal box which does not look too much out of place in this situation.

 

Garry

[NCB]

One thing I don't like on the 3smr site is using 00 locos to advertise TT ones but I don't think that includes the 94xx.

 

Garry

Me neither.

 

Nigel

[Golden Fleece 30]

Finally got the last board in place and now have up and down running. The fiddle yard still needs a little work on it to use all the lines so must refrain from putting more stock on. Even my wife likes it.

 

 

 

ps, we never noticed the cattle wagon off in the last clip until watching the video.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Golden Fleece 30

[Golden Fleece 30]

I could not get on with anything until I had seen one of the A4's running on the layout. The King in the last couple of shots is a beautiful runner so will be a good addition after its re-paint, new chimney and safety valve cover.

 

 

Garry

Edited November 15, 2018 by Golden Fleece 30

[Il Grifone]

Finally got the last board in place and now have up and down running. The fiddle yard still needs a little work on it to use all the lines so must refrain from putting more stock on. Even my wife likes it.

 

 

 

ps, we never noticed the cattle wagon off in the last clip until watching the video.

 

It rerailed itself so that's OK

 

Metal wheels just 'sound right' !

[Golden Fleece 30]

Garry

An apology for inserting myself into the TT3 topic, but I assume that ballast matters cross all scales. I recall two layouts (both 00 Edit -should be 4mm/ft:at least one of the two was EM ) of the 1960s which had a significant impact on me in my teens.  The first was the late Gavin Wilson's Highland Railway: stud contact, largely scratchbuilt, with the single track main line travelling through the pine-clad hills of Highland scenery.  The other was the late David Jenkinson's first Settle and Carlisle layout, "Marthwaite". As I recall, neither were ballasted, though David J. may have ballasted Marthwaite at a later date.  I don't have the relevant magazines on hand so can't confirm.  But both looked superb, especially compared to most of the other layouts which featured in the contemporary model press.  David J. commented in one of his articles that the absence of ballast was more apparent in photographs than on the model itself.

 

 

Mike 

Hi Mike,

 

Strange as it seems but today I was at a local exhibition and looked through a lot of magazines for loco and signal drawings and the copy of RM June 1964 was there with Marthwaite inside as the feature layout just as I had seen it at York show just before.  Here is a scan of one page showing his unballasted track.  His statement on track building was " My track is not ballasted except for the cork underlay since loose bits can clog the works of locos however well the ballasting is done but when both underlay and track have been painted the cork looks surprisingly effective on its own".

 

I will do the same now for mine.

 

Garry

 

ps I did not but the magazine just for this I wanted the 3F tender loco drawing to make a model of one day.

[MikeCW]

Hi Mike,

 

Strange as it seems but today I was at a local exhibition and looked through a lot of magazines for loco and signal drawings and the copy of RM June 1964 was there with Marthwaite inside as the feature layout just as I had seen it at York show just before.  Here is a scan of one page showing his unballasted track.  His statement on track building was " My track is not ballasted except for the cork underlay since loose bits can clog the works of locos however well the ballasting is done but when both underlay and track have been painted the cork looks surprisingly effective on its own".

 

I will do the same now for mine.

 

Garry

 

ps I did not but the magazine just for this I wanted the 3F tender loco drawing to make a model of one day.

Thank you for this post Garry.  I haven't seen that magazine for many years now but your picture confirms my recollection of how good the trackwork on Marthwaite looked.  You won't go wrong following that style for your fine TT3 layout.

 

1964! Was it really 54 years ago?

 

Mike

[Golden Fleece 30]

Thank you for this post Garry.  I haven't seen that magazine for many years now but your picture confirms my recollection of how good the trackwork on Marthwaite looked.  You won't go wrong following that style for your fine TT3 layout.

 

1964! Was it really 54 years ago?

 

Mike

It certainly was Mike.  I also got RM for June 66 and recognised the cover immediately with the layout inside being of Sheffield Midland which again I had seen a couple of times earlier, and all this before England won the world cup.  Funny how we can remember so many past things and forget so many recent ones.

 

Garry

[NCB]

Think Marthwaite was an excellent example of how it's the consistency of the overall thing which matters. All the individual bits were built to the same sort of standard. The Settle & Carlisle style of buildings were all built using Faller embossed stone building card, maybe not exactly prototypical but near enough. It inspired me enough to build my own S&C goods shed.

 

Nigel

[Golden Fleece 30]

Think Marthwaite was an excellent example of how it's the consistency of the overall thing which matters. All the individual bits were built to the same sort of standard. The Settle & Carlisle style of buildings were all built using Faller embossed stone building card, maybe not exactly prototypical but near enough. It inspired me enough to build my own S&C goods shed.

 

Nigel

I used to like and use the Faller embossed card but it is quite expensive now, that is when you can find it. I do still have a few sheets but not enough for what I want. The card itself was not that big but now I use Country scenes embossed paper which is about twice the Fallers size. I used the Country scenes paper on the earlier layout and yesterday bought more sheets for the new layout.

 

Garry

Edited November 18, 2018 by Golden Fleece 30

[MikeCW]

I used to like and use the Faller embossed card but it is quite expensive now, that is when you can find it. I do still have a few sheets but not enough for what I want. The card itself was not that big but now I use Country scenes embossed paper which is about twice the Fallers size. I used the Country scenes paper on the earlier layout and yesterday bought more sheets for the new layout.

 

Garry

At least in part inspired by Marthwaite I too used Faller embossed stone paper for a building or two in the 1960s.  At least the stone walls looked good! I recall that, being German in origin, it was even at that time very expensive compared with the offerings from the UK - as Marklin trains were expensive compared with Hornby Dublo and Triang.  I didn't know that it was still available.

 

Not long ago I found one lonely sheet, which must have been at least 50 years old, among some bits and pieces in a box in the railway room.  I didn't quite have the heart to bin it. Didn't David Jenkinson use it also for his 7mm layouts?  I can't remember  whether the Faller  sheets were produced in other than the notional "H0" that I used, or whether David J. just used the same sheets for the Midland buildings on his 7mm Kendal Castle(?) layout as for his 4mm buildings on Marthwaite and Garsdale Road.  Prototype cut stones come in different sizes after all.

 

Wasn't the UK "industry standard" of the 50s and 60s Merco brick paper?  Although the bricks were over-scale, in the hands of modellers like Peter Denny, (who scribed the horizontal courses and weathered the brick paper with charcoal) the results were very good indeed. If I recall correctly "Smokey Brick" was his Merco paper of choice.  But used on a TT layout, the bricks, overscale for 00, to my eyes just didn't quite look the part.

 

In my view, brick and stone papers, and Bilteezi card buildings, can still look good, especially on traditional, "retro" layouts featuring Triang TT, Hornby Dublo, and the products of the other contemporary manufacturers, as featured here and in other topics on RMWeb.  Did Hamblings scale down their 4mm Bilteezi sheets for TT3?  I believe they did for 2mm but don't know if any 3mm sheets were available.

 

Over the years I've used embossed, vacuum-formed, and injection-moulded plastic in model buildings, and even built some US manufactured resin building kits with some success, but I personally find traditional card and building papers the most satisfying materials to work with for making model buildings; and they can still yield excellent results.

 

Mike

Edited November 19, 2018 by MikeCW

[St Enodoc]

At least in part inspired by Marthwaite I too used Faller embossed stone paper for a building or two in the 1960s.  At least the stone walls looked good! I recall that, being German in origin, it was even at that time very expensive compared with the offerings from the UK - as Marklin trains were expensive compared with Hornby Dublo and Triang.  I didn't know that it was still available.

 

Not long ago I found one lonely sheet, which must have been at least 50 years old, among some bits and pieces in a box in the railway room.  I didn't quite have the heart to bin it. Didn't David Jenkinson use it also for his 7mm layouts?  I can't remember  whether the Faller  sheets were produced in other than the notional "H0" that I used, or whether David J. just used the same sheets for the Midland buildings on his 7mm Kendal Castle(?) layout as for his 4mm buildings on Marthwaite and Garsdale Road.  Prototype cut stones come in different sizes after all.

 

Wasn't the UK "industry standard" of the 50s and 60s Merco brick paper?  Although the bricks were over-scale, in the hands of modellers like Peter Denny, (who scribed the horizontal courses and weathered the brick paper with charcoal) the results were very good indeed. If I recall correctly "Smokey Brick" was his Merco paper of choice.  But used on a TT layout, the bricks, overscale for 00, to my eyes just didn't quite look the part.

 

In my view, brick and stone papers, and Bilteezi card buildings, can still look good, especially on traditional, "retro" layouts featuring Triang TT, Hornby Dublo, and the products of the other contemporary manufacturers, as featured here and in other topics on RMWeb.  Did Hamblings scale down their 4mm Bilteezi sheets for TT3?  I believe they did for 2mm but don't know if any 3mm sheets were available.

 

Over the years I've used embossed, vacuum-formed, and injection-moulded plastic in model buildings, and even built some US manufactured resin building kits with some success, but I personally find traditional card and building papers the most satisfying materials to work with for making model buildings; and they can still yield excellent results.

 

Mike

I guess that Merco was the first choice in the 50s (slightly before my time) but by the 60s SuperQuick had taken over. I still like SuperQuick brick paper as the colouring is nice and subdued and the mortar courses very fine. From the proverbial "normal viewing distances" you'd be hard pressed to see any relief on a brick wall on the prototype anyway.

[MikeCW]

I guess that Merco was the first choice in the 50s (slightly before my time) but by the 60s SuperQuick had taken over. I still like SuperQuick brick paper as the colouring is nice and subdued and the mortar courses very fine. From the proverbial "normal viewing distances" you'd be hard pressed to see any relief on a brick wall on the prototype anyway.

The launch of Superquick card kits (in 1960 I think) was one of those events which made the 1960s such a decade of change for railway modelling (as well as in society more generally). For example, the greater availability of whitemetal kits, plastic sleepered flexible track, and all kinds of accessories - not to mention that this was the decade of TT3 a.k.a. "the next big thing"!.

 

I binned most of my model railway magazines a few years ago, but kept a few with articles or items of interest from the likes of Denny, Jenkinson, Dyer etc.  Looking now at the magazines from the early 60s,(I have a 1963 "Constructor" before me), I'm struck by the limited amount of advertising space, relatively small numbers of advertisers, and the "traditional" products such as fibre-based "Chairway" track , Merco and other items from Hamblings, Exley coaches, H&M electrical items, and so on, which were still being advertised. There were a small number of white-metal offerings from Esanel, Bec, Wills, Ks and Gem, but overall it felt closer to the 50s than the 70s.

 

The layouts in the magazines of the early 60s were (naturally as they would have taken several years to build), dominated by the products of Eames, Hamblings, early Wrenn, modified Hornby Dublo, Exley and the like,and often had very few non-railway related items.  But by 1970 most "mainstream" layouts had the Superquick low relief Cinema and Post Office somewhere on the backscene.  While the average quality of the layouts no doubt went up with the greater availability of these and other products,my personal opinion is that there was an increasing sameness or loss in variety, and the numbers of layouts with "character" went down.  Maybe I was just looking at things with a more "adult" eye.

 

I don't know when the Superquick building papers first appeared; some time in the 1960s I assume.  I fully agree with you that from the "normal viewing distance" the texture of a brick wall is pretty smooth.  Frank Dyer had the same view and used Superquick papers on at least one of his railway buildings on Borchester Market. I recall that he considered it unnecessary to add (overscale) relief to buildings and that it was more important to have the building square and rigid.  That said, I have laboriously scribed the brick and plank courses on my Prototype Models card, kit-built, ex-LNWR station building and steam shed because (a) they are alongside moulded buildings and needed some relief for overall consistency and (b) the scribed grooves do take weathering more readily.

 

My wife and I have walked from Rock across the golf links, (avoiding the occasional pulled or sliced drive), to pay a visit to John Betjeman. St Enodoc's was readying for a wedding and on our walk back we passed the bride heading for the church on a golf cart.  It made a refreshing change from the stretched limo!

 

Mike

[NCB]

I used Superquick stone paper and thought it was great. The papers of that era were produced by talented artists. Also the kits like Bilteezi. Mike Corp of the 3mm Society does wonders with Bilteezi kits, as on his latest layout Heybridge Wharf:

 

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMEGwfQqqzWDCnOan8Oe6i-LbBKJvPo5-fuSU9TKkSUQ1jz3rOQGJKJdFLkvZSWIA?key=cG9RcXJNTG5SYnB5LVhFdlQ4cy1SZ3dRMTZIV3F3

[Wolseley]

My wife and I have walked from Rock across the golf links, (avoiding the occasional pulled or sliced drive), to pay a visit to John Betjeman. St Enodoc's was readying for a wedding and on our walk back we passed the bride heading for the church on a golf cart.  It made a refreshing change from the stretched limo!

 

Mike

 

 

OK, I'm going off topic but, when our daughters got married, neither of them (thankfully) wanted a stretch limo.  Our eldest daughter had two Austin Princess limousines, and our younger daughter had three FX4 taxis (two black ones and a white one for the bridal party)

Edited November 20, 2018 by Wolseley

[45568]

Couple of interesting items here? No connection at all, but he does post worldwide from Oz.

https://www.ebay.com.au/sch/plikess/m.html?item=323560074662&hash=item4b55aeeda6%3Ag%3A-DAAAOSwE9pb86Uf&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2562

 

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

[Wolseley]

Track Foundations?  Now I am curious.  What exactly are they and how were they to be used?

[Golden Fleece 30]

Track Foundations? Now I am curious. What exactly are they and how were they to be used?

They were used for inclines and upper level track. Slots underneath held the pier clips.

 

Garry

Edited November 20, 2018 by Golden Fleece 30

[Golden Fleece 30]

The launch of Superquick card kits (in 1960 I think) was one of those events which made the 1960s such a decade of change for railway modelling (as well as in society more generally). For example, the greater availability of whitemetal kits, plastic sleepered flexible track, and all kinds of accessories - not to mention that this was the decade of TT3 a.k.a. "the next big thing"!.

 

I binned most of my model railway magazines a few years ago, but kept a few with articles or items of interest from the likes of Denny, Jenkinson, Dyer etc.  Looking now at the magazines from the early 60s,(I have a 1963 "Constructor" before me), I'm struck by the limited amount of advertising space, relatively small numbers of advertisers, and the "traditional" products such as fibre-based "Chairway" track , Merco and other items from Hamblings, Exley coaches, H&M electrical items, and so on, which were still being advertised. There were a small number of white-metal offerings from Esanel, Bec, Wills, Ks and Gem, but overall it felt closer to the 50s than the 70s.

 

The layouts in the magazines of the early 60s were (naturally as they would have taken several years to build), dominated by the products of Eames, Hamblings, early Wrenn, modified Hornby Dublo, Exley and the like,and often had very few non-railway related items.  But by 1970 most "mainstream" layouts had the Superquick low relief Cinema and Post Office somewhere on the backscene.  While the average quality of the layouts no doubt went up with the greater availability of these and other products,my personal opinion is that there was an increasing sameness or loss in variety, and the numbers of layouts with "character" went down.  Maybe I was just looking at things with a more "adult" eye.

 

I don't know when the Superquick building papers first appeared; some time in the 1960s I assume.  I fully agree with you that from the "normal viewing distance" the texture of a brick wall is pretty smooth.  Frank Dyer had the same view and used Superquick papers on at least one of his railway buildings on Borchester Market. I recall that he considered it unnecessary to add (overscale) relief to buildings and that it was more important to have the building square and rigid.  That said, I have laboriously scribed the brick and plank courses on my Prototype Models card, kit-built, ex-LNWR station building and steam shed because (a) they are alongside moulded buildings and needed some relief for overall consistency and (b) the scribed grooves do take weathering more readily.

 

 

 

Mike

To a degree Mike a lot of layouts these days have a sense of sameness using the Metcalfe card kits.  Quite a few still make individual buildings as there are more items like plastic brick walling in various disguises, self adhesive textured sheets, nice roof tiling etc  to make use of but Metcalfe do appear a lot.  Just look at how many layouts these days use the Townscenes series back scenes, all a lot better than the Peco ones though.  At the moment some good ones are the photographic scene sheets which I suspect will become used more frequently.

 

The one Merco sheet I liked was the roll of a retaining wall with arches printed on giving a supposed "3D" look.  This was more of an orange brick look but was good for walls and inclines.

 

Garry

[Golden Fleece 30]

Here is a comparison of papers and buildings.  The paper used on the layout is Superquick which is all getting replaced soon (as is all the scenery).  A piece of Faller embossed stone followed by the Country Scenes embossed paper.  This is actually Italian embossed wall paper with a brick, stone etc print on one side.  The view at an angle shows it better.

 

To me a few Bilteezi kits are a little on the small side and I am replacing a few with Hornby 00 Skaledale items.  In one view is the Bilteezi signal box is behind the J39 which has the loco height close to the roof height whereas in another view (to me anyway) the 00 signal box looks more in scale with the loco.  The gantry box is a Skaledale platform one I have put on a gantry.  The brickwork underneath is Faller which is a close resemblance to the Hornby models base.  Again this box looks in a suitable scale for TT.  One item that also looks out of place is the Bilteezi station building which looked more like N gauge than TT so this has been replaced with a Hornby 00 one which looks too small for 00 but very good for TT.  Across the road is the Skaledale 00 church entrance which will soon have the Church in its grounds.  The church will hardly be noticeable scale wise as in real life the doors and windows are always well over normal dwelling ones.

 

None of the above will suit everyone but looks better in my view, and I am not a building maker.

 

Garry

[MikeCW]

Here is a comparison of papers and buildings.  The paper used on the layout is Superquick which is all getting replaced soon (as is all the scenery).  A piece of Faller embossed stone followed by the Country Scenes embossed paper.  This is actually Italian embossed wall paper with a brick, stone etc print on one side.  The view at an angle shows it better.

 

To me a few Bilteezi kits are a little on the small side and I am replacing a few with Hornby 00 Skaledale items.  In one view is the Bilteezi signal box is behind the J39 which has the loco height close to the roof height whereas in another view (to me anyway) the 00 signal box looks more in scale with the loco.  The gantry box is a Skaledale platform one I have put on a gantry.  The brickwork underneath is Faller which is a close resemblance to the Hornby models base.  Again this box looks in a suitable scale for TT.  One item that also looks out of place is the Bilteezi station building which looked more like N gauge than TT so this has been replaced with a Hornby 00 one which looks too small for 00 but very good for TT.  Across the road is the Skaledale 00 church entrance which will soon have the Church in its grounds.  The church will hardly be noticeable scale wise as in real life the doors and windows are always well over normal dwelling ones.

 

None of the above will suit everyone but looks better in my view, and I am not a building maker.

 

Garry

Garry, you've put your finger on the fact that many proprietary buildings marketed for "00" have been selectively "shrunk", presumably to fit "everyman's" layout where room for non-railway items is at a premium. And if the layout builder can fit three buildings in a space which would, if they were true scale, fit only two, that's even better for sales. I suspect that the plastic "Hansel and Gretel" Faller buildings, which were everywhere in the 60s and 70s, were also underscale for "H0". (Do you have battered, poorly made, glue-smeared examples, with hopeful price labels, sitting on the second-hand sales tables at exhibitions, as seems to be the case at every show in this country?)

 

I think too that modellers have got used to this distortion of scale, hence the modelling cliches of tiny trees and pocket handkerchief sized fields which we see so often. (I see that the previous owner of your layout was also a user of dyed lichen, used in the 50s and 60s to simulate shrubbery before the advent of Woodland Scenics materials.) 

 

The good news, as your photos nicely demonstrate, is that many of the supposedly "00" items fit very well on your TT3 layout, better than the buildings supposedly to 3mm scale.  The Bilteezi signal cabin definitely looks too small, and the supposedly 4mm/ft Skaledale models look spot on. I wonder if the Bilteezi cabin were planted on underlay the same thickness as that under the track, it would look a bit more to scale. On my 00 "scale" layout the track (SMP plain track and copperclad pointwork) is laid on American "Midwest" rubberised cork roadbed.  Prior to ballasting I was playing around with the siting of a Prototype Models card signal cabin which, supposedly to scale, didn't look right at all, especially if stock was on the adjacent track. The light bulb went on when I realised that the cabin was sitting on the baseboard, about a scale 4 feet below the rail head.  Putting it on an appropriate base, later covered in ground material, transformed its visual proportions. The photo below shows the "after" scene.  Unfortunately I didn't take a "before" picture. (Apologies. Another 4mm photo on a TT3 thread.)

You can see that the steam shed in the background still needs to be "jacked up".

 

Also on mixed scale buildings, on my layout I am using American "HO" buildings, heavily "anglicised", for an urban area on the far side of the tracks.  They fit well and give a little bit of forced perspective.  That might be a role for your non-railway Bilteezi items, like the stone hotel I can spot on the road behind the station.  They are true to the TT3 period if not exactly to scale.

 

The Country Scenes embossed paper certainly looks the part, and if it comes in larger sheets than Faller, then I will be investigating further. You're developing a unique and interesting layout there Garry, and I'm following your progress with interest.  No chance of that "sameness" in this case!

 

Now, back to the Dublo Class 20 which I'm converting to 3 rail and which should appear on the Hornby Dublo Forum in a day or two.

 

Mike