sulzer27jd

Of course I could ignore this thread, as suggested by @woodenhead and no doubt that is what I will end up having to do. My question then is, how do we learn? I was quite interested in this topic as operation is something I would like to understand better. I may not be alone in that desire. I never knew the steam era at all and my current project is set over 100 years ago so I need to draw on the knowledge of others. Having that knowledge available seems to be a good thing. I don't though, particularly want to wade through the stream of destructive comments, the "ah buts" and the "what aboutaries" I of course accept @Phil Parker that others disagree with me. I really don't have a problem with that. Where my issue lies is not with contrary viewpoints but with simply destructive comments that seem intended to belittle someone, mostly the OP (although to be fair he seems a quite resilient character). Language is of course powerful. In your statement above you determine that the OP has watched "a video" (singular) and it appears that this makes his views less valid than those on the other side who "actually carry out the operations". I suspect that both statements are probably not entirely accurate but it is certainly not a good look for an Administrator to be quite so partizan. You may not agree with what I said but I would ask that you point out exactly where my comment was either snide or unpleasant. Perhaps, if I am still allowed, I could draw the conversation back to operations. If those of us who care about the accurate operation of models (and I absolutely accept that no everyone does) are to improve the way we run our models, how do we learn those practices from a long gone era? If we consider as being appropriate; a track plan to be an accurate representation a suitable locomotive for the setting (one that would run on that line) in the correct livery for the depicted era a suitable set of rolling stock, to match the era and purpose Scenery that sets a location or time-period Signalling that is suitable Then as modellers we will go to various lengths to get accurate information. People for example, join scale societies to garner a greater understanding of how that chosen railway worked. We may pour over maps looking for features of the line. Others build, alter, rebuild, renumber and re-livery stock to make it more suitable for the chosen location. If (and I am just choosing one example) you model an A3, you may (or may not of course) take into account the correct livery at a given point in time. That being the case you will probably also consider it's allocation, if it were an A1 or A3, the boiler type, the dome, the tender, if it were right or left hand drive, the chimney and smoke deflectors, amongst other things. Yet we are led to believe that wanting to operate your layout as per the prototype is somehow less valid. On layouts we often see track work where there are no trap points, facing point locks or signals and I can accept that for the builder that is where they have decided to find their balance of accuracy. I have watched many layouts where there were glaring errors if you assessed it by the rule book but have enjoyed them none-the-less. It certainly didn't invalidate them as an exhibit or entertainment. This returns us to the point though, that if you are setting out to make the most accurate representation of a particular place or scene, then surely how that is displayed matters both on terms of the static scene and the moving scene. There are of course compromises in every scale and these vary between scales. Three link coupling being a good example. Part of this discussion would inevitably and rightly raise the topic of automatic versus hand uncoupling and how do we balance the lack of fidelity inherent in both approaches and all the various systems. That discussion/debate should be encouraged, I would suggest. I am currently putting door handles on coach doors that will never open, for passengers that don't exist. Crazy? possibly, maybe even probably. The point is I want it to look better with them, than without. But I also want them to represent a scale model of a train. One that will operate in a way that represents how they would have worked. Now, I may well be trying to turn my tanker in a canal but I would hope that there could be a discussion around how model railway operation, at home, at exhibition or - as we are seeing increasing - online via video could attempt to better match the level of detail and realism that has effectively become to norm. We are where we are in those terms, with some unbelievably realistic and beautiful models, because at some point someone was brave enough to say the lichen trees are really not that great at being scale trees. That perhaps scratch building your station would be more accurate than another Ratio or Superquick kit. That building your own track work might be more accurate than RTR. That having signals that work and that in some cases can even bounce is better than having them fixed. So maybe allowing time for your pretend fireman to couple up the pretend brake pipes and allow the pretend brakes to release it better than just bumping into them and shoving them into a platform. Perhaps. J

That's us now got 13 pages of mostly biter comments, often snide and generally unpleasant, simply because someone had the audacity to suggest that the operation of a model railway should probably reflect the standard of the work carried out in making it. There was an opportunity here for a sensible discussion but as happens so often here, that has been lost in the noise of those who would rather shout someone down than have a reasoned discussion. J

Thank you both. Very informative.

Interesting. My understanding was that the rules were designed to avoid the engine being there and forgotten about. Perhaps track circuiting would impact on how this operated? In the case you mention, how would the DMU driver know to anticipate a shorter than normal platform? Would that not be two trains in the one section? Certainly at DTB in mechanical signalling days the starter was promptly returned to danger and the following engine pulled up there.

I didn't say that it would. I said it would come out as far as the platform starter. The signal would be restored, usually during the move, so when the train engine came out as far as that the starter, it wouldn't go beyond that until signalled - obviously.

This may be of some assistance. LNER A1 & A3 lists consolidated.pdf

Remember also that if there is a loco 'trapped' at the far end of the stock , it will follow the ECS out as far as the platform starter. The bays at Dundee Tay Bridge were like your diagram, with outgoing ECS generally heading on the same route as if they were departing and then setting back into the other bay. John

I think everyone accepts there are, in most cases, limitations. That of course was not what was being raised in the OP. I for one would be grateful for more knowledge on how the real railway operates/operated as I would like to try and show that in my operating. J

Similar could be said of differing types of exhibition. A show that is intended for a wide general audience is perhaps more suited to the type of layout with lots of movement etc. Whereas the more specialist shows will perhaps allow a more nuanced approach. The OP was discussing things he noticed on a video taken at Scaleforum, where the hosting society at one time had a strapline of "getting it all right". I would expect the attention to operation at such a show to match the level of detail in the construction of the model. Someone earlier pointed out that we have the ability to select the appropriate 2,3 or 4 bolt chairs, so surely the operation should strive to reflect that degree of authenticity. One suggestion I would make is to better explain to an audience what is going on. What that train is, why it looks like it does, why is there a sequence of movements and what do they represent. The stopping to recouple before moving coaches is an example. There is a reason for it, so explain it. If I already know, I will skip past that or accept the information as helpful. In these discussion there is often a dig at branch line operation, usually along the lines of, you wouldn't see constant movement on a small branch line. The statement is absolutely correct but one way to overcome that is to simply state the time of day. As one train leaves, the information can be changed to state, "The time is now xxx and the next train is ....." When I operate my own layout I use a sequence rather than a timetable and large chunks of the day are discarded - or used as a coffee break! x I appreciate the effort that goes into building and presenting layouts at shows and would hate to think that I would discourage anyone from doing so. There is a question as to whether layouts are there to entertain or educate and to what extent to they do either or both. They are not mutually exclusive and helping people understand what they are seeing goes some way at least to informing them why certain things look the way they do. The more one moves towards a fine scale (whatever that means) approach to building the important more it is - I would suggest - to reflect that in the operation. The use of video and YouTube etc is really interesting as it potentially gives a far wider audience and home based layouts have an opportunity to be seen by the public. John

Surely, even on RMWeb, the poster is entitled to an opinion.

The challenge with self adhesive vinyl is getting it applied by hand to the surface without any bubbles or distortion. It can be pre-applied to either a foam (hard foam) backing to give a rigid sheet or to composite aluminium. There are lots of options available.

Seems to be a case of measure once and cut twice!

Very much so, yes.

100 was of course previously the locomotive of the author Toram Beg (Norman McKillop), who wrote extensively in the railway magazines in the 50's and 60's. He was a great advocate of keeping driver with engine, at least for the top link, which he writes about in one of his books, Enginemen Elite. Well worth a read. John

When borrowed northbound, she would have gone as far as Dundee Tay bridge and been replaced. A lay-over on shed (very often the Caledonian shed was used for this) and then been an engine change for an up express. Also - just for info, it was very common for up expresses from Aberdeen to have the restaurant car next to the engine. Lovely work John