thegreenhowards
-
Posts
3,381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by thegreenhowards
-
-
Today we have the up Norseman. This train was a different formation on most days of the week, but I have chosen to model the 1958 MO formation.
I’ve given you a choice of a lower ‘trackside’ image which results in an out of focus background with my iPhone and a higher viewpoint which has a better depth of field.
The formation was all Thompson until at least 1956, but I don’t have crimson and cream catering vehicles, so I’;ve had to go later when Mark 1s had started to infiltrate. There was still a four car catering core of Thompson stock:
FO/RF, and
RSP/RSO
I’ve also included a three compartment Thompson BSK vice Mark 1 at the rear which Andrew Neale (Headstock of this parish) tells me was a regular on the Norseman. The coach roof boards come from the excellent Pacific Models range (attached this evening before taking the photos!). Sadly, I seem to have mislaid my headboard.
Here is the video which shows the full formation.
-
11
-
-
Tony,
Many thanks for your comments. I certainly agree the aluminium angle is an elegant solution, but it’s more expensive and takes longer to make compared with my ‘three planks of ply and a bit of old track’ method. So I’m still weighing up which way to go. I think that my cassettes are shorter than yours which makes them easier to handle, but means I need more to make up a train. What size of aluminium do you use? I used 19mm x 11.5mm angle 1.5mm thick. The 11.5 is very tight in terms of fitting in the side of a vehicle’s body, so I would go for 19x19 if I use any more.
I like the idea of a sprung loaded safety system on your cassette road. Was this prompted by the ‘flying loco’ incident on my last visit when I had to catch a loco in mid air as it run off the cassette road at full speed?!
Andy
-
3 hours ago, bigwordsmith said:
I wouldn’t have the courage to run 40 odd wagons behind any loco- outstanding layout Andy!ATB
peter
Peter,
Many thanks for your kind words. I find 40-50 wagons the limit before derailments become commonplace. I think I get away with that number because I’ve kept the minimum radius to 36”.
Andy
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, 31A said:
I'd not particularly noticed the gas holders before but they look very impressive in that picture - how did you make them?
I've only made one steel BSK / SK pair for my "Peterborough" set too; I'm not sure whether I'll make another one!
Thanks, I’m quite pleased with them. I made them from laser cut kits by Modelux. The kits are great but the instructions are non existent, so you need to be a bit of a detective to build them. They come ready Painted and weathered.
I’ve already admired your twin artic - looks great. I started on my second one while at the B&B last week, but I doubt much more will happen until I’m away again as that’s when I get concentrated soldering sessions done.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Well I’ve finally got round to running another train. Next in the sequence is the 1619 King’s Cross-Peterborough. This was formed of a fairly standard Peterborough 5 set with a BG on the front. The photos I’ve seen often have a Stanier 50ft BG on, so that’s what I've used. The 5 set itself should be a pair of BSK/SK steel articulated twins with a mark 1 CK in the middle. However, I’ve only built one of the twins so far, so there’s an ordinary SK/BSK Standing in and the CK is a Thompson as happened from time to time. These trains were often headed by a New England Thompson Pacific and it’s a chance to run my DJH ‘Wolf’ before Hornby ruin its relative rarity value. This was one of the first complete kits I built with a lot of help from Tony Wright. She seems to have lost her smoke box number plate which I will have to hunt for.
Andy
-
14
-
-
2 minutes ago, davidw said:
Excellent I intend seeing him at Expo Em about some of his coaches.
Well if you want a 65ft sleeper drop him an email. He freely admits that emails bump things up his to do list!
-
1
-
-
I’ve also just finished off weathering this Heljan Class 16. It’s my first attempt at weathering diesels as I think they’re rather more difficult than steam engines. But I’m quite pleased with the way it’s turned out.
It will now enter service on Gresley Jn on trip freights. I’m not sure I can justify it working onto the GN, let alone getting home again without breaking down(!), but it makes for a bit of variety, so I’m going to run it anyway.
-
5
-
-
A Tale of Two Horseboxes.
I haven’t done much rolling stock work recently because I’ve been so busy running trains and taking videos on Gresley Jn. However, I was away last week at a B&B and that means getting the soldering iron out. I managed to finish the structural work on my D&S LNER Diagram 4 horsebox. This was easily the most detailed kit I’ve ever built. It was fantastic in terms of how it all fitted together perfectly and the instructions are great, but it took a long time. I reckon it took me 12-15 hours which is quite a lot for one wagon.
By contrast, I also built a Parkside diagram 5 horsebox just before Christmas. This was also a lovely model which went together very well as one expects from Parkside. Clearly not as detailed as the D&S kit, but it only took one evening in front of the telly, 2-3 hours in total.
Here they are:
They are both lovely kits, but as a fairly impatient modeller who likes to see results quickly, I think the Parkside one wins for me.
Next step is a good wash for the D&S kit and then priming tomorrow.
Andy
-
4
-
-
53 minutes ago, JeffP said:
Used to cycle to Scunthorpe and Frodingham station, light nights, 19:30 to watch the Brit come in and leave for Doncaster. Last train of the day came through there instead of the East lincs line. Boadicea was a favourite.
I wish I had witnessed such sights. Must have been fantastic.
-
12 minutes ago, great northern said:
Looks good, Andy. The aluminium angle looks prettier, but I'm not convinced it is more functional. I'm exchanging PMs on the subject with Peter (bigwordsmith) at the moment, and have just suggested having four wheel stock in the fiddle yard rather than in cassettes, as it is much more easier to derail very light wagons while moving a cassette from store to layout. Did I mention that when you were here?
No you didn’t mention that. I think it will be a mixture for me. I have far too many wagons, so some will need to go in cassettes to be used occasionally. I also think I’ll move one or two complete trains like the Flying Scotsman which only runs once in my sequence to free up room for loose stock ion the fiddle yard.
-
1
-
-
I’m still busy woodworking so haven’t run any trains for a while. The cassette system is working well. I’ve now finished the storage shelves and two cassettes. My standard cassettes are built from three 1220x50mm strips of 9mm ply. I then lay conventional track down them and put a block at the end. Very simple, they work and they’re cheap provided you use second hand track. Here is an example. In this case, I’ve used old unused steel track which I picked up cheap from a friend. As stuff only gets pushed onto the cassettes I don’t have to worry about electrical conductivity.
I’ve also tried building one from aluminium as seems to be trendy. In this case screwed onto a standard 1220x50mm strip of 9mm ply. It looks quite smart, but I’m yet to be convinced that the extra cost and effort is worthwhile. I’ll give it a test and then decide on the rest of the cassettes I have to make up. Here is the aluminium version.
And here it is being loaded into my storage unit.
Still lots of space to fill with rolling stock
-
5
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, davidw said:
Is the "Isinglass Dias 307 twin third" a 3d Print? If so do let me know how you get on
They’re ‘3D printed in resin’. I think the resin bit is significant as they don’t seem to suffer from the lines that conventional 3D printing exhibits.
It’s next on my to do list and I will write it up on ‘Coulsdon Works’. I’m nagging him for some Gresley 65 ft sleepers which he says he can do, so I want to see how this goes together.
Andy
-
6
-
-
30 minutes ago, 2750Papyrus said:
I'm pleased that the wagon turntable worked when you saw the layout. When I was watching, the operator removed a wagon from the loading spur by hand and placed it on the siding feeding the turntable. Another operator happily pushed a rake of wagons along a siding to where he wanted them by hand.
Burntisland is a remarkable layout which I've seen before, when it ran well, but it wasn't at its best on Saturday.
I’ve seen Burntisland two or three times and the running has always been poor, but I tend to forgive it for the scale of ambition. And they’re very good at having a chap out front to interpret the scene.
I went on Sunday, so perhaps a few gremlins had been sorted out. In my opinion it’s a shame it wasn’t built in EM to give a better chance of good running. But I suppose that it would then be set in 1820 rather than 1883 and nothing would need to run at all!
-
2
-
2
-
-
Thanks, I stand corrected. It was that photo which had confused me. However, all the examples you list above are more similar than the V fronted cab and original boiler required for the early A2/2s. I don’t know how much that saves in tooling.
-
The chair has been resurrected! It was only killed off temporarily as it blocked the view and I couldn’t be ar..ed to move it out of the way completely as it’s a heavy brute.
-
2
-
-
Tony,
I was surprised at the choice of Best in show for Stevenage. The first time I saw Brinklow, I saw one RTR 9F whizz past at a ridiculously high speed and moved on. I did go back for a second look after I heard it had won, and can appreciate that it is a well modelled prototypical location with good scenery (and I appreciate that scenery was an important part of the criteria) and I enjoyed the constant action and reasonably accurate formations - no C1 on Thompson stock! But it seems to represent a lot of what you complain about in the modern hobby. I.e. RTR/ course scale/ Unrealistic operation/ non working signals.
There were many better contenders in my view. And my own best in layout was either East Colne - a delightful small east Anglian Branchline terminus, Little Salkeld as already mentioned or Burntisland 1883. I appreciate that Burntisland had a lot of running issues and that certainly spoilt it. But that has to be set against the enormity of the challenge that they have set themselves. Everything is Victorian kit or scratch built stock and the ability to get wagons to run up and down a ramp onto a ferry with a rope capstan (reliably when I watched it) was truly stunning. Also coal wagons being worked via working wagon turntables to a waiting ship and then discharged into the hold was really impressive.
They get a perfect 10 for difficulty in my book if only a 5 out of 10 for attainment. Whereas the winner was the opposite.
Andy
-
2
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, micklner said:
19 engines really ? Are you saying , the A2/2 and A2/3 are being made with the same Boiler by Hornby ? I havent checked any details at the moment .
Yes. That’s my understanding. No doubt someone will correct me if I’ve misunderstood but as I understand it a d.117 and d.118 boiler are essentially the same externally apart from things like dome position which can be added to the basic moulding.
It wasn’t until I saw these two photos that I twigged.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, t-b-g said:
In Tony's list of exhibition operating, I would agree with all but point 8.
Other than that, I like to think that is how I would do things unless major problems prevented me. There has been the odd show where transport or other problems meant setting up on the morning of a show, which I always hated doing. I needed to know that all was well before I left the layout on the Friday night and would never truly relax and start enjoying myself until we had proved that it still worked on the Saturday morning, perhaps running through a sequence fully.
One of the great joys in exhibiting, especially my recent experiences with Leighton Buzzard, have involved seeing somebody who is clearly showing an interest in how the layout works and giving them the opportunity to have a go. Under close supervision of course and if any sign of not wanting to run it properly is spotted, they are off straight away.
Apart from anything else, other viewers seemed to enjoy the explanations of what was happening and why as the new operator worked under full instruction. The pleasure and joy that it gave others was many times over worth the risk of an inexperienced operator making a mistake.
So if I ever exhibit a layout again, I won't be banishing any guest operators. If it encourages a newcomer to the hobby by making their visit to a show a bit more memorable, it is worthwhile.
If we could do it on a terminus/shunting layout, how much easier should it be on a "turn controller on/turn controller off" roundy roundy?
I fully agree with Tony. My exhibition experience is pretty limited and only at local shows, but I have found it very rewarding to invite enthusiastic youngsters behind to have a go at the controls - sometimes just to sound the whistle, but some have stayed operating for an hour or more under supervision and have done a better job than some of my club members! We intend developing the layout so that we ask the public to operate one of the signals to keep them involved.
I also know the delight from my own kids when they have been asked to operate a layout for a few minutes. It helped keep them interested in the hobby (although sadly now lapsed).
I think this depends on the type of exhibition. For the more ‘serious’ affairs such as Stevenage or Railex, then it’s probably less appropriate, but for local shows, then I think it’s a great way of engaging with our future hobbyists.
Andy
-
2
-
4
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, micklner said:
Tony
Not a problem for Hornby if they had chosen the other Locos to make in the first place, too late now anyway. Hopefully they will be a success , I see little reason why they would'nt , at the moment.
cheers
Mick
Mick,
I think the point is that with minimal changes, Hornby can make 19 locos with this tooling as strip away the smoke deflectors and tender and there’s not much difference between an A2/3 and a reboilered A2/2. To do the early A2/2 tooling would limit them to 6 engines in LNER days and only two in the most popular Transition era.
Andy
-
Sorry, I’ve just realised that I’ve almost repeated Kevin Roche’s post on cement trains from a couple of pages ago. But I do recommend that link for anyone interested in the subject.
-
11 hours ago, micklner said:
In Tatlow's East Coast Pacifics at Work , the A2/3 working is mentioned , it may however the way it is worded a one off trial run ., no other details.
There is a good discussion of this issue on this thread.
I’ve done a fair bit of puzzling to work out what is right to run on my layout and decided that the A2/3 was either a one-off or a rarity. As has been stated, the ECML cement traffic really started in 1960 with a Purfleet to Cambuslang and Leith service with Presflo wagons. This changed to Cliffe-Uddinsgton in August 1962 and simultaneously changed to Cemflo wagons. Townsend (p154) is talking about the Cliffe-Uddingston train (I.e. Cemflos) and states that an A2/3 was sent out one day and was reported as the only loco to master the job. It’s easy to read the implication that it became a regular, but it doesn’t say so, and most of the photos I’ve seen are 9Fs.
My conclusion (but I don’t claim 100% historical rigour in this) is:
pre 1960: no regular block train of Presflo or Cemflo wagons
1960-61: Regular block train of Preflos starting at 15 wagons and growing normally hauled by 9Fs
1961 onwards: Regular block train of c.28 Cemflos hauled a pair of 33s to North London and then a 9F onwards later changing to a pair of 33s as far as York and later still a single 33. At some point it was diverted via the GN/GE joint line. A2/3s substituted on this train at least once and maybe more often.
I hope this is useful.
Andy
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Lecorbusier said:
Ahhh .... the joys of Protocab and battery operation. It allows me to do all of this with 1/10th of the skill and I am driving the actual train rather than the track!
I would love to have a go on Buckingham, and get to know how such complex manoeuvres are achieved ... but equally there is something viscerally satisfying about actually driving the locomotive with no impact on any other locomotive (in principle).
Whisper it quietly but just like DCC - Lights blue touch paper and stands back!
-
1
-
1
-
-
Yesterday was a day out at the excellent Stevenage show. I spent too much (as normal), so a new loco will be appearing before long. As a clue, it may not be very reliable! I also bought a couple of kits - an Isinglass Dias 307 twin third and an O gauge Kirk Gresley non corridor brake third. Both are a departure from the norm for me, so will be interesting.
Anyway, today’s train in the sequence is the 1230 Hull-King’s Cross which was the regular diagram from Deltic when on loan to the East Coast. Here she is.
It’s not the most exciting formation apart from Deltic herself consisting mainly of Mark 1s with just a Gresley Buffet to break the monotony. So I thought I’d take a wider view for the video, giving you an idea of what the railway room looks like as the train runs round.
-
11
-
-
2 minutes ago, great northern said:
I wish I could claim that Andy, but it isn't so. I did a fair bit this afternoon, and found several Bachmann MK1s with non standard couplings. I think that happened when you couldn't get any replacement ones for ages, so I used those I had. I do now have more correct ones, so I've put that right. I also discovered that one bogie on an offending car had restricted movement. A slight easing of the fixing screw cured that, and it now gives no trouble......so far.
Someone said this earlier, but particular care is needed with NEM pockets which are not at the right height and which therefore need one of the cranked Bachmann couplings. If a normal coupling is used this causes uncoupling and derailments.
-
2
-
1
-
Gresley Junction
in Layout topics
Posted
I agree. But if I'm spending more I want to be convinced that it's actually better. Apart from elegance (which doesn't matter in the fiddle yard of a home layout) I can't see any advantage in the aluminium. That's why I'm going to pause building any more until I've tested what I have.