Edwardian Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 This morning I had the pleasure of reading the article Edwardian Splendour, which features Darren Ray's Handcross, a very good use of the 6'x4' format, based upon Rev. Awdry's Ffarquhar layout, which, I am told, was in turn based on a Maurice Deane plan, popularised by CJ Freezer. I have always been very fond of the Rev. Awdry's Ffarquhar, and there is a really superb reconstruction of that layout here on RMWeb. Handcross uses the same plan, but has a very different character; I found the layout a refreshing change of scene and really quite captivating. It is deceptively simple, but I think, quite brilliant. Yes, it has a solid grounding in the form of a clever plan, but I think the layout builder has done a really good job in realising the potential of the scheme. He has eased the set-track curves on the front half, and done a very good job to make the Peco track look as good as it does, so the track looks quite natural. The solid 6'x4' arrangement makes sense, as both the fiddle yard and station are to the rear of the board, so there is no advantage to expanding the design to incorporate an operating well, which would deny the layout the great depth of view that the 4' wide boards provide. His scenic planning, if I may call it that, is deft. It is a very cleverly contrived scene and the 'less is more' approach and the chosen composition very much adds to the naturalness of the scene. Whereas Awdry relied on an on-stage tunnel, necessitating something of a quarry to be dug to accommodate the station, the use of a backscene and a scenic break disguised by a bridge results in a far more open and natural appearance. I disagree with the builder's reservations about not placing the underbridge against the backscene. At least from the angle pictured in the magazine, I think the placing of the bridge works perfectly, suggesting as it does, the continuance of the line beyond it. Then there is the execution of the scenery. This again is subtle and natural. In particular I love the way the roads look. He has tackled building kits very well, and his scratch-built pub is a joy. Clearly the RTR locomotives represent a compromise, but the E4 is a splendid model, and he has toned down the E2 and made it look very presentable. As Blue Lightening of this parish has done, he has made good use of a Ratio Midland suburban kit and fully captured the overall look of Brighton coaches. I'd say that this is a successful model railway on every level. Well done to the layout builder and well done to RM for featuring it. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 Intriguing! Thanks for posting this, mate - I shall have to go and obtain a copy. I presume this is the same chap: http://jollytanners.com/jolly-tanners-in-miniature/ What a lovely model. John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted January 24, 2018 Author Share Posted January 24, 2018 Intriguing! Thanks for posting this, mate - I shall have to go and obtain a copy. I presume this is the same chap: http://jollytanners.com/jolly-tanners-in-miniature/ What a lovely model. John. Yes, that's right. The pictures show the model in situ on the layout. It is, I think, the only non-railway structure on this small, but beautiful uncrowded layout, and what a structure! Thanks muchly for the link. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted January 24, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 24, 2018 I think Handcross is an absolute delight of a layout. It reminded me of Bredon, in that it's a 6 x 4 layout which looks much, much larger, by dint of very good composition and a restrained approach to texturing and detail. The roads, as Edwardian notes, are particularly well done. I think it's one of the most inspirational things that's been in Railway Modeller in quite a while, and all the more so because it's essentially a glorified train set layout. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Ray Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Thank you Edwardian for your very kind words! I was a little worried about what Handcross would look like in the article but everyone has been polite.. and not scoffed too loudly at my use of settrack points and vintage Hornby engines. It's amazing what a coat of watery brown paint will do to make a model look more 'real'. I'm afraid I still have not used the Deane fiddle yard to its full potential. I have so few trains to run that the two parallel fiddling tracks are more than enough, without needing to use the set back siding! And yes, Barry Ten, I came across Bredon fairly recently. It was in the September 1981 Railway Modeller that I bought primarily to read about Barry Norman's Wyndlesham Cove. It seems to conjure up a feeling of spaciousness even more than the photographs of my 24 square feet! And I like the lack of people, relying on open windows etc. to suggest that there are people about. A clever idea.. I don't know if the attached photo will be of interest. Perhaps the modeller lurking in the background helps to give it a sense of scale? Something I'd like to see more of in magazines. Thanks all! Darren 19 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Yep, it’s an absolute cracker of a layout. You’ve captured the look and feel of the countryside thereabouts perfectly. One to cut out and keep. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Ray Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Thank you Kevin! .. I'm half tempted to go up to O gauge for my next project, and your utility room layout may well be the inspiration that I need. Darren 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 Thank you, Darren, it's good to hear from you. To embarrass you further(!), in the topic by which CKPR first brought Handcross to our attention, I recently added that yours "is turning out to be quite an important layout - showing the longevity of a good plan, the benefits of the overlooked 6'x4' format and the ability to represent the pre-Grouping scene using RTR and plastic kit-built equipment". Always glad to see another picture (and please don't move the bridge!). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Darren If you can get a room/garage, I’d encourage you to go 0, and would await the results with keen anticipation. I’m not advocating ‘coarse’, which is an acquired taste, and wouldn’t suit your style of scenic modelling at all, but ordinary, so called, ‘finescale’ using Peco track. With small, Victorian and Edwardian locos, and short stock, you should be able to use almost the same radius that I’ve used (mine is actually R38”; Peco set-track is cR39”), so get a circuit in a typical garage. The “you must have >6ft radius” thing is no more true, if you go carefully about matters, than would be “you must have >3ft radius” in 00. If you do go 0, please stay LBSCR. Kevin 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2018 It really is a cracking layout, and it's nice to see it in-situ with the builder. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2018 Yes really a lovely layout which looks bigger than 6x4. I like the track disappearing into the back scene . Very effectively done . As Eric used to say “you can’t see the join”. Scenery is terrific too . I would be very interested in the timetable if you do introduce that. Operation of layouts is rarely done in mags these days but is one of the more interesting parts for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Ray Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Kevin, Many thanks for the tips. My usual way of getting to sleep at night is to ponder possible track plans and where I could put them in my house, so tonight I shall be thinking in terms of 39" radius O gauge! If only I had a garage.. I haven't even got a utility room. Oh well! ....but I have got a garden.... Edwardian, Thanks for causing further blushes! I think Castle Aching's building stock is very convincing indeed; nicely grouped together, etc. I shall have a closer look one day and pinch some ideas if I may?! (Incidentally, I think CKPR might have been passing our house when reading his RM - we live within earshot of the line at Leominster, one stop down from his destination) Legend, thank you! Yes, I must write out a timetable similar to Rev'd Awdry's. It would be an interesting exercise. Trouble is I have lost his article from the December 1959 issue of Railway Modeller and can't get at it on the internet. I know it's there somewhere...? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 3, 2018 Author Share Posted February 3, 2018 Kevin, Many thanks for the tips. My usual way of getting to sleep at night is to ponder possible track plans and where I could put them in my house, so tonight I shall be thinking in terms of 39" radius O gauge! If only I had a garage.. I haven't even got a utility room. Oh well! ....but I have got a garden.... Edwardian, Thanks for causing further blushes! I think Castle Aching's building stock is very convincing indeed; nicely grouped together, etc. I shall have a closer look one day and pinch some ideas if I may?! (Incidentally, I think CKPR might have been passing our house when reading his RM - we live within earshot of the line at Leominster, one stop down from his destination) Legend, thank you! Yes, I must write out a timetable similar to Rev'd Awdry's. It would be an interesting exercise. Trouble is I have lost his article from the December 1959 issue of Railway Modeller and can't get at it on the internet. I know it's there somewhere...? I think I can lay my hands on this without too much excavation, so if I find it, I'll PM a copy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Ray Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 Not to worry, Edwardian - the 1959 Ffarquhar article (which also contains the Rev'd Awdry's timetable) can be found here https://issuu.com/thomastankcollectables/docs/railway_modeller_12.1959 Darren Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouser Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 This really is a delightful layout. I think the black and white photo is incredibly atmospheric. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northroader Posted February 3, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2018 Interested to see from your photo that you operate from behind the layout. The genesis forms of that plan were fitted into much smaller rooms, so there was no room behind, leading to the hollow centre. Since the originals were made cassettes have appeared, which would simplify the fiddle yard. Possibly if you upsize to an O version, you might have to lose the back space for access, and have difficulty getting at the fiddle yard. However , with the here and now, it is a very good looking line and has a “just right” feel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Ray Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 (edited) Thank you, Scouser! I think everything looks better in black and white! (or sepia if I'm in a colourful mood) Darren Edited February 3, 2018 by Darren Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Is that you with the bike? Nicely retro. Did you build that too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Ray Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Interested to see from your photo that you operate from behind the layout. The genesis forms of that plan were fitted into much smaller rooms, so there was no room behind, leading to the hollow centre. Since the originals were made cassettes have appeared, which would simplify the fiddle yard. Possibly if you upsize to an O version, you might have to lose the back space for access, and have difficulty getting at the fiddle yard. However , with the here and now, it is a very good looking line and has a “just right” feel. Thank you Northroader! .. and yes, some radical change of fiddle yard location would be required should I start in O gauge. I shall be spending many hours browsing your Washbourne photos for inspiration! D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Ray Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Is that you with the bike? Nicely retro. Did you build that too? Yes, but I value my safety too much to start building full-scale bicycles! It's my Pashley Guvnor (since fitted with plywood mucguards) D 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now