Tony Wright

Thanks for your comprehensive post, though it leaves me slightly puzzled. I'm fully aware of the two separate systems adopted (despite your assumption that I need to understand them - I do); the buckeye type by the LNER/SR/Pullman/BR and the screw-link by the LMS/GWR, but why is that you think what I've done is superfluous on at least two levels? It's so long ago when I explained my system, but I find the Bachmann coupling you've illustrated pretty hopeless, particularly at the front of a (very) heavy train in being pulled and, particularly, in the same heavy train when being propelled. Because it doesn't pull/push off the headstocks (as the real things do) but via a sort of extending collar, it causes derailments in my experience (and I don't have particularly tight curves). It's inclined to 'snatch' under/over load, resulting in the bogies jumping. On all-Bachmann lightweight cars, no doubt it's fine but, having used it, at least in part (to save time), if any of the other cars in, say, a 13-car rake are heavy kit-built ones it's not suitable at all. Not only that, what a fag in coupling 10/11/12/13/14-car rakes together with it. I think you've also made the assumption that most of my corridor stock is RTR in origin (and, thus, equipped with NEM pockets). Granted, over 90% of the Mk.1 stock is, but there are well over a hundred kit-built Gresley/Thompson cars running on LB, as well as numerous Pullman cars which are adaptations using MJT cast bogies; none of which has proprietary bogies/couplings. I'm not saying that my coupling system is excellent but it works for me. It's 100% reliable (though it can only be employed in fixed rakes), cheap and easy to make and under a pair of gangways reasonably realistic. As alluded to, because it pulls/pushes off the headstocks, it gives a stable ride, doesn't cause derailments and is far more durable than bits of plastic. Hardly superfluous? Finally, if I may, please? Though I concede the close-coupling you've achieved is very realistic, why leave the grossly over-scale roof ribs on the Bachmann cars? If anything is superfluous, it's those and they greatly diminish realism in my view. Regards, Tony.

Andrew, Please explain why, if you don't mind.

Tim, In answer to your two questions; yes and no. This shows most of the backscene on Wickwar................. Regards, Tony.

I've not long returned from a most-enjoyable weekend at the Southampton Show. My thanks to David and Alison Barker and the rest of the club for putting on such a splendid event and making Mo and me feel so welcome. My thanks also to everyone I spoke to in my capacity as a demonstrator. And particular thanks to Petrovich (Peter) who donated so generously to Cancer Research, even though I fixed nothing for him. I hope one chap wasn't too offended when he pushed a brand new RTR locomotive under my nose and proudly proclaimed, after he'd just bought it, 'This is the way forward in the hobby, don't you think?' 'Not at all, as far as I'm concerned' said I, pointing to the models I'd made from kits which were on display. 'All you've done is bought that, surely the way forward in the hobby is for people to make things rather than just buy things? I'm not saying the ones I've made are better (the prototypes weren't the same, anyway), but these are unique'. He shuffled off, though he did return later, but not with any other 'treasure'. It could be the way forward for him (and for many others in the hobby?), but the demonstration room Mo and I were in (and it was a privilege to be among such top modellers in all scales) had examples of model-making, not out-of-the-box items. Anyway, what would be the point of the latter in a demo room? You could see loads of the stuff on the trade stands. It was also my privilege to be invited to be one of a quartet of (highly-experienced) judges, picking the Chairman's Cup for the most-outstanding layout. The unanimous decision was Wickwar, in N Gauge, built by the Farnham & District MRC. Burntisland was second (it was working much better than when I saw it at Glasgow last year), but Wickwar ran perfectly - until immediately after the cup was awarded! Another layout which was high on the judges' lists was Kitedale, modelled in P4. Both these layouts had very-effective backscenes, generated from prototype photographs. The Southampton Show is among the very best in the calendar, and certainly one to be recommended.

Derek, It was called Kirkfield, and was jointly owned by Roy, Tony and Pete Lund. Rob Kinsey, Mick Peabody and I used to help exhibit it. It was originally built by Howard and Eileen Lawrence. What fun it was to operate!. Tony spent at least half the time at a show with a meter and soldering iron in his hands. Such was the weird stock (owned by Roy and Pete) that only locos/stock built by the Wulfrunian members would go round anti-clockwise (the tighter radius) and by the end of the first hour most of their 'junk' was banished and our stuff used. One thing I would say is that they had the most accurate breakdown train in history, because it always broke down! It was hauled by two J10s (of very dubious parentage) and whenever it appeared, the cry went out 'Not the J10s!). Needless to say, on one occasion it actually went round (once) without fuss or failure, and there was the throwing of hats in the air in celebration. The revelry was short-lived, because the next time, very accurately, it broke down. We did have some good times. I believe Kirkfield was sold and is now an SR-based system. The mind boggles.

John, I've mentioned this before, but, though both the yard and the mineral branch were fully-working, the operation of both (particularly linked to the Up line) meant it might be four/five minutes before another through train came along. Since the layout was 35' long, anyone by Catesby Tunnel mouth or the southern occupation bridge would only have seen 'movement' in the (relative) distance. On more than one occasion punters complained to me that 'Nothing is happening!'. What would you suggest we should have done? We ended up just shunting the yard for Down trains, always keeping something moving on the Up when this took place. I think what we have here is the paradox of creating an 'accurate' prototype location (though it was foreshortened - selective compression) but the prototype operation (in terms of the trains and the moments between them) was 'nonsense'. I had a passenger timetable for the period and (though we didn't have a WTT) assuming an average of a couple of freights each way per hour on the real thing (?) it would have been highly-likely that anything up to 45 minutes or even an hour might pass between trains on the real thing. During those gaps, of course, shunting would have taken place. Can you imagine the outrage of running an 'accurate' exhibition layout (even a main line one) using 'accurate' time? I think not.

Since corrected! Sloppiness on my part, and unforgivable. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Clive, May I make one correction, please? Like the MR and the GWR, the L&NWR also paired its four track sections by speed (with a few exceptions - parts of the N.W. Coast, for instance). From Euston as far as Roade, the fast lines were to the west, but between Stafford and Crewe, the fast lines were to the east. The GNR paired its four track sections by direction, as did the LNER (the section of the ex-NER between Northallerton and York). So did the L&SWR. There must have been odd sections which were different, but, you're right. Just by looking at the four track sections' pairings one can usually tell the railway of origin.

Some steam shots on Stoke Summit for you Clive. Although almost all of the diesel-period stock has been sold on, just about everything seen in the following pictures now runs on Little Bytham...................... With the exception of 60034 (which is a much-modified Bachmann A4), I've built all these locos and made/modified some of the trains. The others are the work of Rob Kinsey, Dave Lewis and Tony Geary. I don't think at the time we thought how 'revolutionary' the concept of Stoke Summit was (now 22 years since it was first built). What with just about everything which ran on it built (very, very little RTR) and correct train formations, I don't think anything on the same 'scale' (over 40 'correct' trains) had been attempted before in an exhibition layout. It proved to be a trainspotters' delight, and still lives on in use (though not with the original stock) in a Devon barn.

Cracking stuff! Thanks for posting.

Thanks Jol, I'm reminded of an art quiz I once participated in, where one of the questions was 'Where was Leonardo da Vinci born?'. Very few people put Vinci!

What a wonderfully-natural model. My compliments. You've taken it much further than I'll take mine. May I ask, did you put on the little lubricator drive off the offside front crankpin, a feature different from the English D11s? It's nice to see observation of the Inverurie-style of lining the cabside. And the small BR device on the tender.

Thanks Tim, Very sound points, well-explained. However, may I adopt pedant mode, please? It's Michelangelo - his Christian name, to describe probably the greatest sculptor of all time and one of the greatest draughtsmen, painters and architects ever. His surname was Buonarroti. He's quoted as being 'the archetype of genius'. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Clive, Stoke Summit keeps on coming up, and I can only conclude (from the empirical evidence of its having attended nearly 80 shows in its 14 year career on the circuit) that it was very popular. I know when WMRC was building it we weren't sure if it would 'work' (we knew it would work electrically and mechanically), but it did. I must have mentioned this before, but at one York Show a punter said to me he thought it was boring. 'All it is are trains going past - look there's one, then another, and another............' He was surprised when I shook his hand and thanked him! I assume when you saw it you were more interested in it in diesel mode? Just about everything seen above has now been sold on. Fortunately, the diesel period we depicted finished in 1976, so punters were spared the likes of this! Regards, Tony.

Tim, I think you're right in suggesting how studying what others have done is well worth while; complementing it by studying the prototype, of course. I've already mentioned the modellers and their layouts which have been inspirational and influential to me, and, in every case, although not all the layouts were based on a prototype, all followed prototype practice. What I never did, nor would ever advocate, is to model a model (not that I'm suggesting you're advocating that). Some little time ago, I was asked for (most politely, by a friend) close-up pictures of how I'd fixed the little deflectors on both sides of the chimney of an A2/2 I've just built. I politely declined, because I cannot guarantee that I've fixed them in the right place. The pictures I used for plotting their positions were prototype pictures, nothing else. As I say, model the prototype, not a model. I think it's different where I'm asked how I arrange pick-ups and the like. There is no prototype to consult for this sort of thing; neither is there for arranging a motor/gearbox assembly and so on. I'm more than happy to visually-assist in that respect, in the same way that when my friend pops over again, I'll help him solder the deflectors on if he wishes. I'm always very twitchy when folk have taken pictures and made notes of the models I've made and/or the layouts I've been involved in building. Not because I'm afraid of being rumbled (that happened years ago!), but because everything I've made has been my personal interpretation of the (a) prototype, not a replica (I don't have the skills to produce the latter). It's flattering to have my work 'copied' but any mistakes I've made (and there must be many) are then perpetuated. The other side to this is the type of person who refuses to share information or divulge techniques. I've been very fortunate in my modelling career in not having met many such pusillanimous and parsimonious souls.

Thanks Andy, When you're next over, why not fix up a visit to see Little Bytham as well? It's nowhere near as complicated to operate as Buckingham (though Buckingham's operation is what's so appealing about it as well). Regards, Tony.

Remember, Tom, you're flying around the World most of the time and have the responsibilities of the young(er). I'm just a retired, grumpy old git!

Alan, You're right. Bob wrote the words and I took (most of) the pictures. He's brilliant to work with.

I photographed Chee Tor (of course, I should have included that), but not the others. Wyndlesham Cove was Barry Norman's work. I did take pictures of his S Scale Lydham Heath. When I wrote my book A Lifetime with Locomotives and Layouts (which sold reasonably well - thanks to all who bought it), I included many pictures of layouts I found most inspiring (though not all of them - there were too many!). Obviously, these were layouts I'd photographed as well. The list comprised............... Midsomer Norton Kendal Castle Dewsbury Totnes Burntisland Knutsford Cheddar East Lynn Bromsgrove Brockholes Coldrennick Road Teign House Sidings Bagborough West Dewsbury Midland Chee Tor Runswick Leamside (one for Clive!) Runswick Bay Pendon Ballyclare Greystones Knockmore Junction Adavoyle Kilbrandon Urlingford Copenhagen Fields Halifax King Cross Holiday Haunts Dainton Gamston Bank Layouts featuring MPDs (including diesels) comprising Peterborough, Eastgate MPD, Buxton, Engine Shed Road, Sowerby Road, The Gresley Beat, Pete Waterman's shed scene, Kensal Green, Maindee East, St. Marnock, Tolcarn and A Shop Alloa Allan Downes' steelworks Ambergate East Wheal Dream Gifford Street Burnden Park Heyside Bucks Hill Borchester Market Somweir Junction Oakhurst Harlyn Road Rothern Bridge Tetleys Mills Kendale Kings Cross Pempoul Lydham Heath Stodmarsh East Dean Bangor County Gate Monks Eleigh Bath Green Park Hitchin Retford Blakeney Bramblewick I'm not sure whether there'd be another book on 'Classic Layouts', though there are many more I could add to the list (not to mention those examples I shot on film). I'll make some enquiries.......................

Jon, Brakes now on........... I have dozens of spare etched brake frets, so I just chose the most suitable. The trick was to 'under-sling' them, so to speak. I just tinned the base of the frames (with the wheels still on!) and the frets with 145 degree solder, then fixed them on with low-melt. Not the best practice; it should have been done before the wheels went on, but the effect is all right, I think. One needs, of course, an extensive spares' box. I hope this helps, Regards, Tony.

Robert, You mean Paston Ridings? Are you suggesting it's in the same class as those I've illustrated earlier? When I last saw it working (?), I have to say I was not very impressed. The architectural modelling is very good, but non-working signals, locos carrying no lamps, (some) incorrect liveries and poor operation rather militated against it for me. My opinion, of course. Paul's a very good photographer, though. Regards, Tony.

You are quite right to be suspicious of some authors' work. I hope I'm not on your list. The problem I find with my own published works (including those containing my own photographs and the pictures of others) is that every time I see a printed (and final) copy, a neon arrow pulses alongside a glaring mistake I've made. Yet, it was missed at the proofing stage, and not just by me. In my latest Booklaw book describing ex-LNER locos, I've got one date totally wrong - two years out! Despite my own maxim of NEVER automatically believing what's written on a print, transparency or digital image, I just copied what Keith Pirt had written by way of a date on a picture of an A3. An A3 with German blinkers, in 1959!!!!!!!!!!! Though I'm no great example, I do strive for accuracy in my captions. It's easier in my describing my own pictures but the human memory (especially mine) isn't infallible. All I can offer by way of advice is always treat printed information with suspicion, and only believe it when it's compared with substantial corroborative evidence.

More classics................. Ken Payne's essays down the years have also been influential, culminating in his O Gauge Kendale. Pendon is an automatic entry, though they insist it's not a 'layout'. Thankfully, Geoff Kent is still very much alive and well. His seminal Blankeney is simply stunning. Barrie Walls' Wallsea would (should) be in any list of classics. The Gainsborough Society's massive ECML depiction is worthy of note. And Trevor Nunn's East Lynn in S Scale is simply wonderful. John Birkett Smith's Totnes in H Gauge is a modern classic. I'll try and find some more, though much of what I took of older classic layouts - Ken Northwood's North Devon, The Sherwood Section, part of the Keen system and some of the Norris buildings, for instance - was shot on film. Jon, I'm still working out how....................

It will have brakes, Martin; eventually. In response to your request.................... Though I don't have any of my own pictures of Marthwaite or Garsdale Road, I did take pictures of David Jenkinson's beautiful Kendal Branch, after his death. I've written a piece about him for BRM. His great friend and co-author of many books, Bob Essery took his own modelling into the realms of Scale Seven with Dewsbury. With locos built by James Harewood, John Horton and Geoff Holt, it was really something. Borchester was as influential as Buckingham, perhaps more so to me. The stock in these pictures belongs to the team which bought it; none of Frank Dyer's stock went with the layout, which has since been resold. Bert Collins' Hitchin was also hugely influential. But little in the way of layouts had as much influence (and continues to do so) as Peter Denny's Buckingham. Brilliant modelling of Irish broad gauge, and in P4. Tony Miles' Adavoyle, which worked as well as it looked! Every picture I took of Andy Calvert's Nether Stowey was shot on film. I only have digital images of his last N Gauge masterpiece, based on the Settle & Carlisle. No selection would be complete without Tetleys Mills by Dave Shalespeare. It's sad to relate how many of the creators of the layouts pictured above are now deceased. The hobby is much the poorer for it. More to follow.............

I take it the K2 is still working well, Gilbert? I should have altered the angle of the return crank when I fiddled with it last month. It should lean forwards at bottom dead centre................I'll do it next time. I'll also bring along a front numberplate for BONGRACE with the correct '6'.