Jump to content
 

Peterborough North


great northern
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, bigwordsmith said:

how can that be an honorary Deltic? It’s entirely the wrong shape!

 

It sounds like one, and goes like one .... 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, great northern said:

Today I have found a sheet of paper. It reminded me that years ago I worked out a lot of complex route settings, and allocated macro numbers to each one. Why then have I since been scratching my head and taking ages to set them manually each time?

 

Sitting quietly with my tea, I shall consider that question. I shall also deal with the afternoon image, which is another look at that Stanier tank.

 

 

3_2573_2.JPG.de2502b5348b755f730efcd2e69deaad.JPG

A nicely proportioned beastie, that.

 

Speaking for myself, I think that it is best if the operation of a layout reflects as closely as possible the way it was operated in real life.

 

So fine to have computerised control for a layout based on current day operation. Fine to have route-setting entry/exit panels for a layout portraying busy locations from 1960s onwards. But for a layout set in the late 50s, individual levers for each point, signal, etc.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This poll produced two resounding winners. The Deltics got 17 votes, the nearest challenger managing 2. On the freight side, Class 56 was again well ahead with 7 votes, nothing else getting more than 2.

 

We will move on to the suggestions some of you have kindly made for other polls, and start with an amalgam of Type 1 and diesel shunters. What was the most attractive design to be found amongst those?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

BTH Class 15.   Loads of character.  The only diesel I've built a model of.

Only one you have built?

 

Type 1s and Shunters mixed, not to sure on this.

 

Do I go for

 

100_5137a.jpg.9c6fecb19a232b921d0f243a8af9acc9.jpg

A BTH

100_5141a.jpg.b3a903e7a15a4f5d244e01e568efa724.jpg

Or Hawk

 

100_5128a.jpg.75dbecbe37f710b7dfc15c5f1cc5b1e3.jpg

Or a Cayton

 

100_5068a.jpg.88e57ebcdd0c66344a8b5511b3feb9ad.jpg

Or a NBL

 

100_5108a.jpg.5434e5dc9ef9d615567650ba5cd9b5bd.jpg

Or English Electric

100_5118d.jpg.b38ad8d404515a810c9c9264511d434f.jpg

Or something a bit more humble like a 350 Jocko

004a.jpg.59dc9c6f8a01b841f54cf98dd2666884.jpg

I think a little Barcaly gets my vote today.

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Speaking for myself, I think that it is best if the operation of a layout reflects as closely as possible the way it was operated in real life.

 

So fine to have computerised control for a layout based on current day operation. Fine to have route-setting entry/exit panels for a layout portraying busy locations from 1960s onwards. But for a layout set in the late 50s, individual levers for each point, signal, etc.

I agree with you entirely in theory, but in practice there is no chance my layout would have ever been built had I gone down that route. Control panel(s) of a size I don't have room for would be the first problem, and individual operation would be much more complex. I've said before that I tend towards idleness, so to be constantly walking up and down the room to set the route for a single train would not appeal.  I can do that with at most six key presses on one unit, and from one location, and that's what keeps me motivated.

 

I'll admit to double standards, as I'm quite prepared to spend time putting a single train together from cassettes and loose stock, but that's what I enjoy doing, which has to be the most important thing.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
45 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Only one you have built?

 

Type 1s and Shunters mixed, not to sure on this.

 

Do I go for

 

100_5137a.jpg.9c6fecb19a232b921d0f243a8af9acc9.jpg

A BTH

100_5141a.jpg.b3a903e7a15a4f5d244e01e568efa724.jpg

Or Hawk

 

100_5128a.jpg.75dbecbe37f710b7dfc15c5f1cc5b1e3.jpg

Or a Cayton

 

100_5068a.jpg.88e57ebcdd0c66344a8b5511b3feb9ad.jpg

Or a NBL

 

100_5108a.jpg.5434e5dc9ef9d615567650ba5cd9b5bd.jpg

Or English Electric

100_5118d.jpg.b38ad8d404515a810c9c9264511d434f.jpg

Or something a bit more humble like a 350 Jocko

004a.jpg.59dc9c6f8a01b841f54cf98dd2666884.jpg

I think a little Barcaly gets my vote today.

 

 

Clive, did you really build all that lot? Or have you found a way to get them to breed? 

  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 minutes ago, great northern said:

I agree with you entirely in theory, but in practice there is no chance my layout would have ever been built had I gone down that route. Control panel(s) of a size I don't have room for would be the first problem, and individual operation would be much more complex. I've said before that I tend towards idleness, so to be constantly walking up and down the room to set the route for a single train would not appeal.  I can do that with at most six key presses on one unit, and from one location, and that's what keeps me motivated.

 

I'll admit to double standards, as I'm quite prepared to spend time putting a single train together from cassettes and loose stock, but that's what I enjoy doing, which has to be the most important thing.

 

I do understand that, especially in the context of operating a layout on your own. And, of course, nothing wrong with operating the fiddleyard with a maximum of automation because that does not represent "real railway".

 

We all of us have to make some compromises. I am planning a layout of similar size and complexity to yours. It could be built to have four signal boxes and therefore four operating panels but I think that I can justify the LMS having modernised to having just three with one of those "locked out" except when needed to shunt a freight train into the small goods yard there. The design reflects my love for operating a layout more as a signalman than as a locomotive driver.

 

The necessary compromise is that I won't be able to have a operating timetable that covers all the trains that would have run over a 24-hour period. It will just be a sequence that represents a part of the service. I'm not too bothered if, as a single operator, the trains don't all run on time because I can't keep up.

Edited by Joseph_Pestell
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I’ve never seen one and know very little about them but I’ve always thought the Clayton Class 17s were attractive locos. I think having non-standard window shapes is part of the appeal. The concept was obviously sound as I see many examples of centre-cab Bo-Bo locomotives shunting and pulling local freight traffic whenever I catch a train here in Germany. 

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

18 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I do understand that, especially in the context of operating a layout on your own. And, of course, nothing wrong with operating the fiddleyard with a maximum of automation because that does not represent "real railway".

 

We all of us have to make some compromises. I am planning a layout of similar size and complexity to yours. It could be built to have four signal boxes and therefore four operating panels but I think that I can justify the LMS having modernised to having just three with one of those "locked out" except when needed to shunt a freight train into the small goods yard there. The design reflects my love for operating a layout more as a signalman than as a locomotive driver.

 

The necessary compromise is that I won't be able to have a operating timetable that covers all the trains that would have run over a 24-hour period. It will just be a sequence that represents a part of the service. I'm not too bothered if, as a single operator, the trains don't all run on time because I can't keep up.

 

 

When I set out to build my Waverley East layout in our last house I had visions of 10 coach trains hacking round a decent run - I did after all have 36' x 11 and Gilbert very wisely as it turned out counselled me to wards keeping it simple, especially if I was planning to turn it on my own. 

 

As you'll see if you can be bothered to trawl through the 20-odd pages of drivel in my own thread, this actually got to the building of the main lines and fiddle yard, and the setting out of the main station. I realised that operation was going to be way beyond me, and in fact with my eyesight getting slightly less sharp I found I couldn't really see much of the long train in the distance - The length of my room meant that a train at the other end of the room is a scale half a mile away, so all detail, even the number on the loco side, gets lost.

 

We moved a couple of years ago so the railway had to be dismantled, and my new room is 21'x9'6. That is much more manageable, and while I will continue to have a very complex engine shed and a six road station to play with so I can terminate trains to send them off in the opposite direction, complete with loco change, I'm eschewing a fiddle yard in favour of semi-concealed storage loops so trains don't have to go round lots of times. The theory is that I should give myself a lot less of an operational headache.

 

IN fairness I'm not massively enthused to get on with it at the moment, partly due to injury and partly due to having got a bit disillusioned at the last line by biting off too big a mouthful!

 

There's a reason most layouts never get finished - ambitions are often much larger than the practicality. In that respect layouts like PN and Little Bytham are unusual, but they serve much more as a backdrop to the owners' main interests - in Gilbert's case realistic operations and Tony as we all know is an amazing builder of models.

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
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...