Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by LNERandBR

  1. 35 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

    Ah!!! Crews for trains. I like my DMUs and running in multiple with each other. My layout is a terminus station.


    Do I have a driver in each end? One in the rear cab looks daft.


    When running a eight car train made up of four 2 car units that would be eight drivers with six of them looking out the front window at a bloke doing the same back at them. To me that is even dafter.


    A DMU without a driver just looks silly.


    What does one do in this situation? Look daft, look dafter or look silly?


    A crewmember in the rear cab could be the Guard. 


    Crew in the 'inner' cabs of trains made up of 'multiple' units could just be travelling and making sure they're not taking up seats for passengers.

    • Like 4
    • Agree 2
  2. In my experience finger pressure should be enough to gently ease the wheels into the correct position. It can be annoying sometimes when some wheels decide to stay put until a lot of force is used and then move by a large amount or come off the axle completely though!

    • Agree 4
    • Informative/Useful 1
  3. The only time I have enjoyed watching Lime Street was when the barriers once got pushed right up to it. Wait your turn to get to that position and you could see into the overall roof and the movements taking place within. 


    I do agree that at shows it is important to try and keep something moving as much as practically possible. Everyone's opinion of 'correct' operation will be different of course but you get far more people seemingly interested if there is plenty of movement. 


    I hate seeing layouts where the operators are stood around doing nothing looking board whilst nothing is moving on scene. Even if Stoke Summit's operation was boring at least it kept something moving.

    • Like 2
    • Agree 2
    • Thanks 1
  4. For a layout as large as Little Bytham I do feel that a 'how it's designed' type article is justifiable. Especially as it's one which never leaves home and is designed to make as much use of the given space as possible. I do like how you've managed to add in as many sidings as possible in the fiddle yard to give as much variety as possible to the operating sequence. 


    For many layouts, a single overall image of their setting at home alongside the prototypical images normally seen would be sufficient to help people understand how it fits into it's home location.  Of course there are those layouts which only ever get set up at exhibitions.


    Thank you for taking those images Tony :)

    • Agree 4
    • Thanks 1
  5. I concur that the second of the two images is best. My eyes are also drawn to the distracting background of the sign and curtain.


    However, I would not be adverse to seeing wide angle shots of the entire room in publications, from either end if possible. That shows us the layout in it's home and how it's been designed to fit it. That's educational for anyone planning their own layout and wanting to know how to make the most of the space they have possible.


    Fiddle Yards are also one of the things I often think are missing from article pictures and track plans.

    • Like 1
    • Agree 5
  6. 2 hours ago, t-b-g said:


    Perhaps I should have digitally altered the signals and the ride heights to make them look better than they really are and stacked the focus (as if my camera has that facility!).


    Or perhaps I should just show the layout as it really is.


    I know which I prefer but as I said, I fully accept that I am but an amateur with a point and shoot camera and a minority view.


    I did tell you, when you came here, that much work still needs to be done to fully restore the layout, including the signals and the springing on some of the stock. So you should have known about that but of course you have to tell the world what you see that is wrong, showing great disrespect to modellers who have passed away, as discussed previously.


    My aim in posting that particular shot was to show that you can take a view of a layout without having to add fake sky or foreground if you frame it carefully. I hope it achieved that if nothing else.


    Perhaps it is time I stopped showing stuff on Wright Writes as Buckingham and my photography are clearly not up to the required standard and my photography isn't going to improve!


    I think you are taking things a little too personally there. I feel that Tony's 'criticism' was only supposed to show he would have rejected the image as it doesn't show the model in the best way possible. Ultimately, it depends on what you are taking the photos for. If for publication then these things need to be spotted and corrected or someone else could get the wrong impression when they read the article. 


    I'm sure Tony's method would be to spot the issues before hitting the shutter rather than digital manipulation of the image. Having had him take photos of one of my layouts in the past I remember him insisting the tension locks were removed from the NEM pockets on my locos and the images looked all the better for it.

    • Like 3
    • Agree 1
    • Thanks 1
  7. I really do think there is a place for both 'realistic' model railway photography and for seeing a model railway in its natural state. 


    I remember an overwhelming sense of pride when each of my layouts appeared in the model railway press. The feeling that the images shown were produced partly due to my efforts to make the layout as good as they could be. Anyone can take a photo of a layout in its basic form, it's only those with the time, patience and inclination to go through the trouble of photoshopping.

    • Like 2
  8. I think there's room for both. I very much enjoy operating model railways but I also enjoy viewing photos of them. Often, you spot things in a photograph that you never spotted before and can go back to the layout and rectify them.


    In the current climate, how are we to show our models off other than through the medium of photography? 

    • Like 1
  9. I think it's nice to see behind the scenes sometimes but I also like the images that have had those 'background distractions' removed. The latter show up the modelling better without any distracting bookcases or other furniture. It is good to see how people have constructed and layed out their fiddle yards but that's still a 'model railway' not a bookcase of railway books.


    I also do think the method of just cloning the existing backscene sky is the better option then adding a fake sky. 

    • Agree 2
  10. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 3 different toolings or they designed it in such a way that they could mix and match parts to make it correct. That seems to be the approach Heljan is taking with the Peaks and Class 47's in OO. They are basically trying to get as much variation out of their tooling as possible.

    • Like 1
  11. 28 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

    When Ian Wilson (who doesn't read RMweb) and I exchange Christmas presents, we like to give each other something we've personally made/modified.


    This year, the little item below will be one of his presents from me.








    His little OO layout, Edenham, has coal staithes which allow the fuel to be discharged by gravity, from above, into bunkers below (rather like the NER used). 


    This will be (obviously) a static model, designed to sit on the top of the staithes.


    It's a Bachmann 16T mineral wagon (fitted?), with bottom-opening doors. All I did was cut apertures in the floor of the wagon body and the floor of the chassis (removing the metal weight at the same time) and made a drop-down door out of Plastikard. 


    I admit, I have no idea if this is right (if it's hopelessly wrong, then so be it), but I hope it'll make a nice touch.


    Dry-brush weathering completed the job.....................






    Not sure, but somehow I think one of the side doors would be open so that the poor chap can extricate himself after pushing the remaining coal through the bottom doors.

    • Agree 2
  12. Would depend if the coaches are touching on the curves or not. If they are, you would probably need the next size up of coupling. This is why they do different lengths so that you can pick and choose depending on the radii on your layout.


    What I would do is purchase the next size up of coupling then see if you can mix the two sizes together. You'll probably find that you can use the couplings you don't use in the HST on other stock.

    That's certainly been my experience in OO at least ;)

  13. Personally I think the amount of content was a good thing. It allowed for a continual stream of updates throughout the day and the quality was very very good. 


    Maybe if people are struggling to see everything the pages could remain available for upto a week afterwards. Then people could revisit videos they enjoyed and catch up on anything they have missed. With the amount of effort put into putting it all together then surely continued exposure is a good thing.


    I saw you were doing a 'Show Guide' for continual access but you could still have that as it would still allow access to the content after the extended period is over.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  14. That's very interesting. Maybe the thing to do then is wait for it to appear and either see it in the flesh or view more photos of it before deciding on a purchase or not.


    It's the look of the cabside Railfreight logo that makes me think they're working from a prototype image somewhere. Which means the model would fit a later set layout better.

  15. I think pointing out things that are 'wrong' in peoples models is important as it allows them to correct the error and makes sure that others don't make the same mistake.


    Let's take the positioning of this A4 number plate. If Tony didn't mention it then some unsuspecting modeller could think 'it's like that on Retford so it must be correct'. This being more about the high standing that Retford has and the assumption that 'everything' will be correct. 


    Of course, what people should do is get a photo of the actual prototype and do their own research but I expect there are many who will be more than happy to cut corners if they can.


    Tony doesn't only point out errors in other people's modelling by way of constructive criticism. He's pointed out errors in his own work and I'm sure he's more than happy for people to find his errors and point them out to him too.

    • Like 3
    • Agree 7
    • Thanks 1
  16. I think the main thing that can put people's noses out when it comes to N vs OO prices and how close they are is the feeling of getting less for your money with the N gauge version. Simply because of the smaller size of N, one can be forgiven for thinking the cost should be lower than OO. However, the amount of fine detail being packed into N Gauge stock now is often just as much if not more than the OO counterpart.

    • Like 1
    • Agree 2
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.