Jump to content
 

Annie's Virtual Pre-Grouping, Grouping and BR Layouts & Workbench


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

Hooray for Furness Railway! The A5’s (sorry shouldn’t use the Rush designation really) were lovely locos. The preserved one is a beauty - here she is when she visited the Great Central Railway back in 2010:

 

92F8A788-2462-4AD1-9FD4-8C681D2A1B2D.jpeg.441972a82a314391a8b3d3db5386fa83.jpeg

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I attempted to model the Furness Railway back in my late teens and early 20's Neil so I've always had a soft spot for the Furness.  Cameron Scott from Darlington Works has said that he has an extensive program of Furness wagon building on the go at the moment so hopefully it won't be too long before No.17 has some wagons of its own to bunt around.

I was aware of No.20 and its restoration and preservation so it was a lovely surprise when Cameron announced that he was going to release an example of the breed.  The model has clever scripting technology so it can change its number and become any 'A5' you might happen to want.  At the moment I don't really need any more than one so possibly that's something to explore later.

 

iwNAnoh.jpg

Edited by Annie
can't spell for toffee
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 13/10/2020 at 22:05, Annie said:

I own a truly ancient Nokia 'dumb phone' Jake which is fine for what I want.  Out here in the rural countryside the landline phone system tends to be unreliable in bad weather which is the main reason why I own a cellphone.  Only people I want to call me get my cellphone number and it's almost pretty much essential for two stage authentication with on-line banking and anything to do with money or on-line privacy.  My bank is 150 km away so doing things on-line is how I have to do things these day. 

You are living in New Zealand, whereas I am living in a geographically small & overcrowded country just on the opposite side of the disk... err... globe, in a half-million city; 1 km to the next bank, 1.5 km to the next post office...

A few years ago, before I had a paypal account, I made a strange deal with an Irish chess book salesman: I ordered a book by e-mail & paid by sending him a 10€ bank note by mail. 21st century meets 19th century... :D

 

11 hours ago, Annie said:

HTLJEqs.jpg

 

It seems I have six Claughton locomotives.  I don't know how that happened.  Thinking back it's likely that I may have purchased two and as Paul sometimes does with his regular customers who purchase his older models he added in the other four to my order as freebies.

I also have some Claughtons by another maker, but they have some serious errors as well as texturing problems that are horrible to repair so they dwell in the archive hard drive of shame and I never use them.

 

 

This one from the DLS, made by knucklesnvector?

capture_20201015_032918_032.jpg.a221e5883e4977e13af658e92412d50d.jpg

 

Maybe it's not perfect, but I liked it as the flagship of the black LNWR fleet on 'Rhye on Sea', & I like it in LMS crimson here on 'Exley Castle'; & I can choose from 4 different numbers & names. (This is No. 5946 'Duke of Connaught', & in the background you see No. 6229 'Duchess of Hamilton'; a duke & a duchess. :) )

 

Quote

...and anyway I'm having to be a bit careful with my money this week since my vacuum cleaner blew up and I had to get another one.  New engines are always a lot more fun than vacuum cleaners, but I'm having to be practical for once. (sigh)

 

If I had to make that decision, I would leave it to my cat. She hates the sound of the vacuum cleaner, but she has no objections against steam engines, at least digital ones. :biggrin_mini2:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The Furness really is a lovely railway. I've scratch built a few wagons and have three coach set of 4-wheelers to finish off. I just need to get round to sorting out a proper Furness loco to use with them, rather than my faux-Furness Connoisseur 'Nellie'...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, NeilHB said:

The Furness really is a lovely railway. I've scratch built a few wagons and have three coach set of 4-wheelers to finish off. I just need to get round to sorting out a proper Furness loco to use with them, rather than my faux-Furness Connoisseur 'Nellie'...

I absolutely agree.  It was only due to my lack of experience with model making that I didn't do so well with my own attempts with modelling the Furness when I was a lot younger than I am now.

 

10 hours ago, Jake The Rat said:

Maybe it's not perfect, but I liked it as the flagship of the black LNWR fleet on 'Rhye on Sea', & I like it in LMS crimson here on 'Exley Castle'; & I can choose from 4 different numbers & names. (This is No. 5946 'Duke of Connaught', & in the background you see No. 6229 'Duchess of Hamilton'; a duke & a duchess. :) )

Knucklesnvector's models manage to combine brilliance, strange modelling methods and a very odd texturing system all in one package.  I don't know what 3D modelling software he was using, but it's not the same one that most creators for Trainz use.  Textures made up of hundreds of tiny individual pieces and the use of impossible levels of reflection and shininess in the 3D meshes make his models an absolute nightmare to do anything with.  However as a rule they do run very well, - they just look.........awful.

My biggest issue with his Claughton model is the outside cylinders and the valve motion and piston rods don't line up properly and are way off centre.  I know Paul's Claughtons have their issues too, but they are all minor ones by comparison.

 

This is my own much rebuilt, retextured and fettled Precursor tank engine alongside the original model by knucklesnvector.  It's not perfect by any means, but it is a lot better than it was.  I have to admit though that trying to improve his Claughton model completely defeated me.

 

a9kgah0.jpg

 

10 hours ago, Jake The Rat said:

 

If I had to make that decision, I would leave it to my cat. She hates the sound of the vacuum cleaner, but she has no objections against steam engines, at least digital ones. :biggrin_mini2:

 

I love cats, but I can't have one since there's too much risk of me tripping over a cat and having a nasty fall.  :cray_mini:

 

My new vacuum cleaner has arrived and it's really nice, - a good sensible piece of industrial design and it's a lot better than my old one.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm getting my foggy brain working again by reskinning coaches with artwork based on photos of late 1920s Marklin tinplate coaches.

Since I like making 3 rail 0 gauge Trainz model railway format layouts I really need some suitable rolling stock to run on them.

 

0sWAeSU.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AdamsRadial said:

Get something big like a tiger, less chance of it getting underfoot.

 

She might get underfoot herself, or underpaw. :mosking:

 

13 hours ago, Annie said:

Knucklesnvector's models manage to combine brilliance, strange modelling methods and a very odd texturing system all in one package.  I don't know what 3D modelling software he was using, but it's not the same one that most creators for Trainz use.  Textures made up of hundreds of tiny individual pieces and the use of impossible levels of reflection and shininess in the 3D meshes make his models an absolute nightmare to do anything with.  However as a rule they do run very well, - they just look.........awful.

 

Of course you can judge the technical details much better than I can; I wouldn't be quite as harsh, at least not about his later models.

 

Quote

My biggest issue with his Claughton model is the outside cylinders and the valve motion and piston rods don't line up properly and are way off centre.

 

Sadly, you're right...

 

capture_20201015_152001_033.jpg.58b98a5506c832ba92c3f8009d844fc0.jpg

 

... but if you hadn't mentioned it, I might have never noticed, because I'm a very superficial observer, & most of the time I watch my trains from a larger distance...

 

capture_20201016_030403_036.jpg.fc3c6d5eee55caf60dd322f3931bb2d9.jpg

 

... & from this angle she doesn't look too bad to me. The Claughton is such a beauty, that even a mediocre model is something that pleases my eyes.

So you are right from your point of view, & I think I am right from mine. :)

(& on my layout I am always right anyway. :P:D )

 

Quote

 

This is my own much rebuilt, retextured and fettled Precursor tank engine alongside the original model by knucklesnvector.  It's not perfect by any means, but it is a lot better than it was.

a9kgah0.jpg

 

 

:good::sungum:

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
45 minutes ago, Jake The Rat said:

Of course you can judge the technical details much better than I can; I wouldn't be quite as harsh, at least not about his later models.

Yes I agree his later models are a lot better.

 

46 minutes ago, Jake The Rat said:

So you are right from your point of view, & I think I am right from mine. :)

Exactly that.  I certainly wouldn't expect everyone to agree with my point of view.  I like the technical details of steam engines and I drive a lot using the 'advanced' steam control set so I tend to get in a lot closer to the engines I'm driving.  I don't mind models for Trainz being older rather than the latest thing, but I do like them to look like what they are supposed to.

 

I like LNWR engines, - it's a pity there are so few of them that have been created for Trainz.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Annie said:

Being a coarse scale '0' gauge enthusiast I really love those videos too James.

 

Presently looking at the possibilities of that 1925 MRN plan Kevin posted.

 

3LxQeo6.jpg

 

AXWMV5R.jpg

 

Oh I do love those 'system' layouts, which, like 009 rabbit warrens, are so unfashionable as to be hardly thought of these days.

 

I love the idea of a course scale Euston of just 3 platform faces, crossed by the approaches to Liverpool.  Presumably there is a 'res of the world' fiddle yard under Crewe.  it lacks only the option of a continuous run to be perfect.

 

If I every finish CA, I'd love an OO version as the perfect antidote to my spacious and bucolic BLT.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Oh I do love those 'system' layouts, which, like 009 rabbit warrens, are so unfashionable as to be hardly thought of these days.

 

I love the idea of a course scale Euston of just 3 platform faces, crossed by the approaches to Liverpool.  Presumably there is a 'res of the world' fiddle yard under Crewe.  it lacks only the option of a continuous run to be perfect.

 

If I every finish CA, I'd love an OO version as the perfect antidote to my spacious and bucolic BLT.

Yes exactly, such layouts are completely old fashioned and beyond the pale these day, but I do like them since they are a snapshot of another time and a different approach to building a model railway.  I'm sure that a very satisfying timetable could be run with clockwork 0-4-0 engines and four wheel coaches with one's imagination filling in all the details.

I haven't made any kind of a beginning with laying out gradients and embankments yet since that is likely to involve a lot of thoughtful frowning; - and I do think some form of offstage fiddle yard will be needed to add further interest.

 

An OO version would certainly be interesting and a lot of fun.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Annie said:

Yes exactly, such layouts are completely old fashioned and beyond the pale these day, but I do like them since they are a snapshot of another time and a different approach to building a model railway.  I'm sure that a very satisfying timetable could be run with clockwork 0-4-0 engines and four wheel coaches with one's imagination filling in all the details.

I haven't made any kind of a beginning with laying out gradients and embankments yet since that is likely to involve a lot of thoughtful frowning; - and I do think some form of offstage fiddle yard will be needed to add further interest.

 

An OO version would certainly be interesting and a lot of fun.

 

Mind you, I daresay the gradients suit clockwork motive power.  Although people get away happily with model railway gradients of 1 in 60, I reckon my safety margin for the sake of the mechanisms of electric motors in OO gauge locos would be a minimum 1 in 80.

 

Assuming a minimum of 3" to clear the tracks below, that means approx. 20' of track required to clear the line to be crossed.

 

Here, despite the downward 1 in 60 shown to the left, the best place to site the gradient is the right curve, though actually where you need the decisive 3" rise is between where you pass under Liverpool and the bridge over Euston, which is necessarily mainly on the level to accommodate Crewe.  

 

The answer must be to place Liverpool, say, 6" above Euston, using the bridge over the tracks at Euston and the ensuing embankment to make up enough height to allow the climb from Euston to start immediately after the cross-over by the turntable.

 

Or have I got myself confused?

 

I don't mind the lack of realism inherent in a 'system' layout; perfectly realistic scenes can be modelled, so from any given point of view, what one sees looks reasonable. Yet I still don't like the look of coaches jack-knifing round tight curves. Assuming a pre or early Grouping setting with 6-wheel or bogie coaches up to 50' would help, and I wonder if a minimum radius on the mainline of 4' would prove a happy compromise, appearance wise.  Judging from CA's 3' radius entry curve, I reckon that would look perfectly fine and dictates a width of 10' for an OO gauge version of the plan.  I reckon that would also provide enough track length for the two 3" climbs required. 

 

Incidentally, query if there is space under Liverpool for the double track to divide to form a return loop (with storage sidings under Crewe) thus giving the point-to-point format an out-and-back option.

 

1013068384_MrEvansOGaugeLayout.jpg.e9cdade1dd273f9fa5491386fe9495b7.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I love the idea of a course scale Euston of just 3 platform faces, crossed by the approaches to Liverpool.  Presumably there is a 'res of the world' fiddle yard under Crewe.  it lacks only the option of a continuous run to be perfect.

 

In Trainz this could be done. The AI drivers are capable of a run-around-train maneuvre, & in case of tender locos, they can decouple the old loco & couple a new one at the other end of the train. What they cannot do, is turn around a loco on a turntable; at least I haven't found out how. This would have to be done by some invisible loopings or triangles or turning stars at the termini.

So I can imagine this layout with 3 fiddle yards: 2 small ones at Euston & Liverpool for turning around tender locos & a large one representing the 'rest of the world' (or rather the rest of the LMS system), which could be somehow connected to the tunnel under 'Liverpool'.

Portals are another option...

 

I guess, the gradients would not be much of a problem, if one uses the whole length of a baseboard, which is 27 ft in H0, 31ft in 00 & approximately half a mile in real. If it's still too steep, take 2 baseboards, they don't cost much...:)

(That's one thing I like about digital railway modelling: if I want to expand my layout, I don't have to buy a new house with a larger basement, I simply click on 'new baseboard'. :biggrin_mini2: )

Edited by Jake The Rat
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jake The Rat said:

 

In Trainz this could be done. The AI drivers are capable of a run-around-train maneuvre, & in case of tender locos, they can decouple the old loco & couple a new one at the other end of the train. What they cannot do, is turn around a loco on a turntable; at least I haven't found out how. This would have to be done by some invisible loopings or triangles or turning stars at the termini.

So I can imagine this layout with 3 fiddle yards: 2 small ones at Euston & Liverpool for turning around tender locos & a large one representing the 'rest of the world' (or rather the rest of the LMS system), which could be somehow connected to the tunnel under 'Liverpool'.

Portals are another option...

 

I guess, the gradients would not be much of a problem, if one uses the whole length of a baseboard, which is 27 ft in H0, 31ft in 00 & approximately half a mile in real. If it's still too steep, take 2 baseboards, they don't cost much...:)

(That's one thing I like about digital railway modelling: if I want to expand my layout, I don't have to buy a new house with a larger basement, I simply click on 'new baseboard'. :biggrin_mini2: )

 

 What if, you took the lines on the left that disappear under Crew and there divided them.  Along the front you have your large rest-of-world fiddle yard, but along the back you take a double tack up under Liverpool to break cover and form a junction with the line coming out of Euston.

 

Would that not provide a continuous run option?

 

Indeed, provided you de-conflicted use of the Euston-to-tunnel section, you could run a service round and round the layout in combination with services between Euston and Liverpool. 

  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have laid a 72 x 36 grid over the map, to see how the layout might fit into 1 baseboard (or rather, half a baseboard). The resulting platform lengths were 150 meters for Euston, 120 for Liverpool & 110 for Crewe; not enough for a decent main line express train. :nea:

So if I were to make the layout, I would use 2 baseboards. This would also allow for a little more open track between the stations & mitigate the gradients problem.

In Trainz this would still be a small layout, in 0 scale it would be 30m x 15m though...:scratchhead:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The Basemapz software I use to lay down a copy of a trackplan on a Trainz baseboard can be a bit flakey when it comes to 'O' gauge so after some experimentation I'm working with a 35ft X 18ft sized trackplan.  25ft X 11ft is just too small and it's difficult to layout gradients, bridges & etc in that size without everything ending up in a mess.  As it is I very much doubt the accuracy of the trackplan and I've had to make a lot of adjustments.

It's plainly a layout that was designed around the small clockwork 'O' gauge models available during the 1920s and not the kind of scale models we are familiar with today.  I'm using LNWR 5ft 6in tank engines and 4 and 6 wheel coaches for testing and they work out just fine.

 

Pictures later because everything is still too much of a construction site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Still an awful lot to do.  I decided to not try and put in any hidden sidings since there just isn't the room to make a connection to the tunnel under 'Liverpool' without increasing the size of the layout even more.  As a layout it might seem strange to modern eyes, but having been a Hornby Collectors Association member and a part of the tinplate 'O' gauge scene for some years this all looks perfectly fine to me.  The station over roof is based on Glasgow (or so the model description says) and the chair is sized for 7mm scale model railways.

 

zOv9IId.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Annie said:

Still an awful lot to do.  I decided to not try and put in any hidden sidings since there just isn't the room to make a connection to the tunnel under 'Liverpool' without increasing the size of the layout even more.  As a layout it might seem strange to modern eyes, but having been a Hornby Collectors Association member and a part of the tinplate 'O' gauge scene for some years this all looks perfectly fine to me.  The station over roof is based on Glasgow (or so the model description says) and the chair is sized for 7mm scale model railways.

 

zOv9IId.jpg

 

Looking good, Annie

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Annie said:

  The station over roof is based on Glasgow (or so the model description says)

Does it say which one?  It has to be either St Enoch or Queen Street.   The former was modelled on St Pancras, being the northern terminus of the MR/GSWR Anglo Scottish route, but it looks more like the latter from what I can see.   Central has ridge and furrow roofing (recently re-glazed, but still largely original, as is much of the station) and Buchanan St was a collection of 'temporary' wooden buildings with platform awnings right to the end.

 

Jim

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Does it say which one?  It has to be either St Enoch or Queen Street.   The former was modelled on St Pancras, being the northern terminus of the MR/GSWR Anglo Scottish route, but it looks more like the latter from what I can see.   Central has ridge and furrow roofing (recently re-glazed, but still largely original, as is much of the station) and Buchanan St was a collection of 'temporary' wooden buildings with platform awnings right to the end.

 

Jim

Unfortunately no Jim.  Creators of assets for Trainz tend to be very economical with their descriptions of what they have made which can be very annoying sometimes.  It does look a lot like Queen Street from the picture you linked to though.  My main reason for using that particular over roof model was that it fitted the trackplan better than anything else I had.

 

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

Looking good, Annie

Thanks very much James.  I will have some more pictures soon as I only have track laying at 'Crewe' to do now after I finish tidying up 'Liverpool'.  It was difficult to make 'Liverpool' look anything except a country terminus in the space available.  At this stage of things I didn't want to go outside the boundaries of the original trackplan with extensions and additions.

The gradients make things awkward with 'Crewe' and 'Liverpool' both being partly built on gradients.  I think 'Euston' is supposed to be a bit lower than I modelled it with a gradient climbing up to the tunnel, but I cheated and built it all on the level.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...