Wright writes.....

[landscapes]

Thank you very much for your support, Tony. 

 

I think Larry (later), as well, has some wise words to say. 

 

Without considering semantics, what's been posted/said to me over the last few days has set the crumbling grey matter working. Today, Ben Jones, Ian Wilson and I mapped out a plan for producing the BRM Bookazine based around Little Bytham. I was astonished how much information has been accumulated, all ready to be knocked into something (we hope) which will be a coherent and interesting piece of work. 'My' layout will form the framework, but other prototype-based layouts will be included (obviously, not all ECML). After they'd gone, I started to piece together my photographs and was astonished how many highly-skilled modellers have been involved (and are to be involved). What I hope will eventually come across is how a bunch of like-minded souls can pool their collective talents to produce something 'worthy', even if it includes me. Teamwork, I think will be part of the emphasis, so I hope the Bookazine will be inspirational. Aspirational as well, because I wish to stress that, although costs are involved, it won't be just a case of throwing money at a project. In working with such talent, I've been very fortunate.

 

After admiring Sandra's single-handed approach yesterday to what she's doing, I then thought of others in the past who've approached their subject in the same 'solitary' way. 

 

Buckingham 14.jpg

 

Buckingham 20.jpg

 

Tony, knowing you're now the custodian of Buckingham, I couldn't think of a better example to use of a single individual's dedication to a project over decades. Even judged against today's ever-rising standards, this is still brilliant modelling. Imagine the 'moaners' bewailing that a Sacre or Pollitt loco were not on any RTR producer's schedule, let alone from a kit. The legacy is in good hands and the sensitivity shown in its preservation is commendable. 

 

It seems that GWR subjects are popular, so how about the following? 

 

Kingstorre 18.jpg

 

Kingstorre 23 cover.jpg

 

Kingstorre 37B.jpg

 

Kingstorre 37B.jpg

 

Kingstorre is a very different approach to producing a superlative model railway, but there is still a large degree of single-handed, personal input in it. Robert Dudley Cooke is an exceptionally busy man, and and also an exceptional modeller. However, in conversation with him, he acknowledges he can't do everything on such a large model (it's also in EM). So, for some of the jobs he's brought in professionals. This in no way makes him 'less of a modeller' (because he doesn't really build many locos). But, scenic and architectural modelling are his great skills, and I think it's right to say that much of his work is almost 'Pendonesque'. It was a joy to talk to him and ask him about how he built things. 

 

Yesterday Sandra and I discussed our two different approaches to achieving our respective railways, but we both agreed that a large personal input of actual modelling was desirable by the owner (our personal points of view). She then named some garden designers (of whom, I admit I'd never heard), suggesting that they 'created' superb gardens but never personally dug a sod, planted a bush or laid a path, or any of the other things I'm told are needed to make a garden. But, she maintained (quite rightly I think) that they were still great garden designers. Can the same be applied to some model railway owners/creators? Are they great 'designers', when everything on the layout is done by others? I'm not so sure, and I go back to the vast O gauge line I mentioned some months ago. In terms of size and the peerless stock it had on it, some might well call it great, but the owner appeared to be incapable of doing any actual modelling himself. A great layout owner, I think I'd call a person in that situation. 

 

Going back to great individual modellers, the guy who originally created Buckingham fits into that category. 

 

Edited to apologise for the jumbling up of the pictures.............

 

Hi Tony

 

I hope you are well, these photos are just pure magic.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

[corneliuslundie]

Yes, Tony (W), you would have a pretty big challenge providing stock (and fiddle yard) for a whole day’s sequence (and the night of course). I think your approach works well in your circumstances. Peter Denny was creating a much smaller “world” where it was possible to produce all the appropriate rolling stock for a day. I hate to think how many trains you would need for a full 24 hours, especially if you dealt with each mineral train individually, including any scheduled by “Control” rather than timetabled (did that happen on the ECML?) – and of course 50 years earlier, the period that interests me most, there would have been much more emphasis on mineral traffic, even allowing for the GN/GE joint line.

But there are other operational aspects which are important, though I did not emphasise them – correct use of the signals, correct operating procedures, appropriate intervals between trains etc.

And then there is enough in the scenic aspects to keep most modellers occupied. In my (limited) experience it takes far longer to make even a simple building than to scratch build a traditional goods wagon. And on another thread we are having a discussion on Cambrian Railways staff uniforms and staffing levels in 1895. I trust you know the names of the staff at Little Bytham and have modelled them faithfully!

Jonathan

[t-b-g]

Delighted to see photographs of Buckingham-it is exceptional in my eyes because the whole layout diorama works perfectly in my opinion.  Rev. Peter Denny had an eye for how the finished project would actually LOOK-and it looks simply superb to me, and is the greatest inspiration to my modelling, and that is before even considering the operating potential.  Everything fits, Everything looks great-nothing jars the eye, and it really is a slice of pure GCR.  As a model railway it has never been surpassed in my opinion.  

 

I have said before and will no doubt bore people with it again! Although each individual aspect of Buckingham has been surpassed by others, I am pretty much convinced that as a whole package, it has never been matched. It is a superb, almost totally scratchbuilt working model railway, designed for complex, challenging and intricate operation.

 

Operation means many things to different people. To some, recreating the workings that happened at a real place, perhaps at a particular date, is the ultimate in operational realism.

 

This is one area where I disagree very amicably with Tony W. I can count the real places which would hold my interest operationally for any length of time and that are also attractive enough and the right sort of size to make a good model of on the fingers of one hand. Even a number of the superb ECML layouts around are basically operated as a procession of trains, however superbly modelled they are. I can enjoy watching the spectacle for a while but pretty soon I start looking at all the track and points and wondering what I could get up to with some complex shunting and re-marshalling!

 

I have had the great fortune to see and operate some fine layouts in my time. The top three in terms of satisfying operation have all had a few things in common. They all had multiple stations. they all had intricate sequences/timetables, they were all fictitious (although some had stations based closely on real places) and they all had block instruments used in a simplified form to send trains along from one station to the next.

 

Buckingham is the only one that is well known but the other two, built by the late George Morris and by Tony Stoker, have provided just as much operational enjoyment.

 

If Buckingham was in OO and modelled using entirely RTR locos and stock with resin cast buildings and Dapol signals, it would still be a superb layout to operate. I usually have two 3 hour sessions a week and they fly by. And that is before the Leighton Buzzard Branch is put back into use!

 

Tony G

[StephenB]

Over the years the one thing that people might genuinely be envious of is the space that you have had at your disposal for 'your' layouts.

 

I saw Stoke summit several times. On one occasion I remember once looking south from the tunnel mouth on Stoke Summit and watching a train approach, and didn't it seem to take a long time to arrive but it was worth it.

 

The along came Charwelton, which I saw at Railwells 2008. A bit different because there was a station.

 

Finally, we have Little Bytham.

 

Stephen

[richard i]

Buckingham photos were great, a masive insperation to me when building Dettingen.

Most is scratch built, kit built by necessity but i enjoy doing it.

I could only do that by learning from others TW included.

Through it i learn about so many aspects, that is the fulfilling aspect of the hobby to me...learning.

It keep the grey cells working.

Richard

 

 

[chris p bacon]

Over the years the one thing that people might genuinely be envious of is the space that you have had at your disposal for 'your' layouts.

 

I saw Stoke summit several times. On one occasion I remember once looking south from the tunnel mouth on Stoke Summit and watching a train approach, and didn't it seem to take a long time to arrive but it was worth it.

 

The along came Charwelton, which I saw at Railwells 2008. A bit different because there was a station.

 

Finally, we have Little Bytham.

 

Stephen

I'm sure Stoke and Charwelton were Wolverhampton MRC layouts

[chris p bacon]

I was thinking of not responding but decided to make this comment

 

I think "jealous" would be a better term for such as these. 

Couldn't be further from the truth.

*Envious

and getting even further away.

 

See posts 4058 & 4069

[Corbs]

Well, 'jealous' is when you are worried someone might take something of yours away, and 'envious' is when you want something someone else has I've been using the wrong one all my life! (Apologies for off topic)

[Tony Wright]

I'm sure Stoke and Charwelton were Wolverhampton MRC layouts

Just to put the record straight...

 

Stoke Summit was my idea, funded by me and was built at my then-home in Wolverhampton. That said, it was built by five other WMRC members and me, meeting evenings twice a week and many weekends. I admit to being very 'selective' in my choice of the team, and it was detrimental to the rest of the club for a year. It wasn't democratic or inclusive in just about every aspect. In 2008, I donated it to the club, and it's since been sold. When Little Bytham was initially being built, three of that same group were vital to its construction, so that you can say, at least in part, that it's also a WMRC layout.

 

Charwelton was completely WMRC. The same team which built Stoke built Charwelton, but others were involved as well. It was more democratic (naturally). It, too, has since been sold. 

[Tony Wright]

It's certainly interesting to consider the notion of the designer and the builder. I work as a designer and yet I don't actually print or build the things I design. I do however create digital artwork or oversee its production and I art direct photography. I feel that I rightly deserve to be called a designer because I create the concept that specialists (eg. printers and photographers) then realise for me and ultimately our client.

 

What's interesting in the context of model railways is that usually, but not always, the designer is also the client. I'd suggest that David Jenkinson was a great layout designer – for example, he designed the superlative O gauge Lonsdale as well as many layouts of his own creation. I also align your own approach, that readily acknowledges the skills others have brought to Little Bytham, to Jenks' own methodology – he was a great advocate of team work.

 

So, perhaps because design and designing is my passion and my livelihood I'd suggest that one can be a great layout designer without being a great modeller or layout builder. Perhaps what we don't acknowledge enough within our ranks is the concept of 'the layout designer' and by that I don't just mean drawing, or copying, track plans in isolation. I consider great layout design, as an activity in its own right, to be epitomised by Jenks with his gradient profiles, traffic and locomotive allocations and other railway like considerations that all embed the railway within the geography of the locale and that ultimately make it come to life.

 

Buckingham is a great example of fantastic layout design – I've read of the operators becoming so engrossed that the room fell silent save for the bell codes ringing out and the rumble of wheels on steel (or nickel silver). Only great layout design could inspire such dedicated operation. Where Buckingham really delivers is the simple fact that the designer also built it himself from raw materials. Put those two creative activities together and perhaps the design and subsequent build could even be considered a 'fine art'.

Tim,

 

I'm in (almost) complete agreement. But, I think what must be emphasised is that David Jenkinson was also a most-proficient modeller himself (his carriages were peerless). Surely, having the ability to create models oneself (as your exquisite figures show you have), must also help in creating the design for a layout (though, I admit, figures aren't mechanical). For instance, if the designer/eventual owner/project manager has never built, nor can build, say, locos, carriages or wagons, how will they know personally of the minimum radii to employ for smooth, successful running? RTR won't give you too much of a guide, unless you're running nothing but RTR stock.

 

Ignorance (in its truest sense) can result in the two following scenarios in my opinion. One, the owner commissions a loco but because the brief has not been specific enough (because of his/her lack of knowledge), that loco will only run along a yard of straight track - showcase models, I think they're called. Or, two, such complex layouts are designed that, because of trying to squeeze too much in, running is compromised. Another vast O Gauge layout I photographed, built entirely on commission with no mechanical-input by its owner, was impossible to work. One went from a grand terminus, big enough to rival anything in a large provincial city to (by a series of complicated abstractions) a single track branch with such a tight 180% curve on it that only tiny 0-6-0s could struggle round. So, I took a picture of a magnificent 'Castle' on a full-length train, ready to depart, but we all knew it could only travel a short distance. It was completely trapped. Whoever designed the layout (I think I know, but won't tell) had never built locos and stock in his life. 

 

Surely (and I'm expressing an opinion here), aren't all the very best designs/interpretations/plans of layouts created by actual modellers? 

[Tony Wright]

Buckingham photos were great, a masive insperation to me when building Dettingen.

trees19.jpg

rmyard4.jpg

Most is scratch built, kit built by necessity but i enjoy doing it.

I could only do that by learning from others TW included.

Through it i learn about so many aspects, that is the fulfilling aspect of the hobby to me...learning.

It keep the grey cells working.

Richard

Terrific progress Richard.

 

My congratulations.

 

I know this sounds like a private joke, but is that a substantial lock on the railway room door? 

[St Enodoc]

I'm interested in your comments about operation, Jonathan.

 

The interpretation of, say, a BR timetable (public and working) and using it to compile a working sequence for a layout like Little Bytham will form a part of the forthcoming Bookazine. Right now, the sequence is still being tweaked so that it is interesting to operate, yet doesn't result in states of panic; it should be a servant, not a master. I only have siding space for 34 trains on the main line. For the Up and Down light engine movements (an N2/C12/N5 on the Up, and a Baby Deltic/Birmingham RC&W Co. Type 2 on the Down), I just lift these on/off by the yard control panel once they've run round, so that gives me 36. The very first movement is the Glasgow-Colchester, which is made up in the fiddle yard before the sequence begins (mainly vans with just a few carriages), runs round once and is immediately taken off again. This gives me 37. The number of train movements needed as a 'representation' of a typical weekday (6.00 am - 8.00 pm) on the main line in the summer of 1958 is over 80. So, over twice as many trains as I have space for. The problem is exacerbated by several trains only running once - 'The Elizabethan', the four Pullmans and the cements. Thus, many trains have to double/treble/quadruple-up, meaning there are generic Leeds sets (two each way), Newcastle sets and Edinburgh sets, plus those to Hull or York, not to mention the shorter-distance rakes. Not only that, there should be two 'Elizabethans', two 'Queens of Scots' and two 'Hearts of Midlothian' and three 'Talismans', etc. Because the Up and Down fiddle yards are not linked, I can't run the rakes both ways (though having just the one rake represent both Up and Down trains is just as much of a 'cheat' in my view). So, we have about 90 train movements but many of the sets run several times, but with different locos every time. Some of the earlier-seen Up locos, do return towards the end the sequence heading Down. One train of full minerals represents all the Up trains of this type (running three times) and there's one train of empties to do the same for the Down.

 

How it will all work out will be explained in the Bookazine, with moving pictures on the DVD.  

Tony, this is good stuff and very much in line with my own aims, which as you know are more inclined towards operation than construction. For my layout (see the link below) I have generated a sequence based on the Summer 1952 service (= WR-speak for working) timetable for a Friday and Saturday. Even by cutting out approximately half the real trains and applying my rule whereby passenger trains are 60% of the length of their prototypes, I still need well over 200 coaches to work the sequence.

 

I for one would like to see more discussion of why and how we operate our layouts in our particular way, alongside all the excellent constructional conversations that go on.

 

Good luck with the bookazine - and make sure Warner's send enough copies down under!

[Focalplane]

I've been following this thread for the past week in "background mode" and have been thinking about where I might be within the gamut of railway modelers.  Sadly I have never completed a model railway in my life.  But since 1968 I have lived in 12 houses/apartments on three continents.  Being a nomad is no way to think about a permanent or near-permanent layout.  It is only now that I think I have the time and where with all to start and finish something.

 

I have a hard back book which I bought early in my adult life which has photos and descriptions of the layouts by Messieurs Jenkinson and Denny.  Buckingham and Dent (if I remember correctly).  Buckingham was certainly the most complete model railway in the book and I will take it as read from this thread that it was (and is) also the most operational.  It was a genuine example of what I have always hoped to emulate.

 

There were long hiatuses* in my progress toward modeling - 8 years in Singapore was a railway modeling desert - and then a move to Texas meant a love affair with the Southern Pacific (some of us can really be masochistic in our choices!)  But returning to Europe and Africa ten years ago set me to thinking about the good old days in the 1950s and I have got involved in a more serious way than ever.  But still no completed project.

 

I envy those who have stayed more or less in one place, developing ad hoc teams and cooperating on projects bigger than I can imagine.  As a nomad I have also been on my own much of the time (in a modeling sense) and have had to develop what I would call the jack of all trades, master of none approach.  Sometimes there was only the RTR route to take, but more recently I have taken up kit building again.  But most of my recent time has been spent on research with the aim of making more accurate models.  The internet, is, of course, a newish resource that really helps, not only in supplying the prototypical details, but also the camaraderie and examples of how things can or should be done.

 

I have shared this personal perspective to demonstrate that there are many ways to skin a rabbit, and some of them may never result in a final result.  But the key is to enjoy the journey and hope there is a destination at the end of the road.  But along the way the greatest achievements are likely to be simple improvements in one's aspirations, skills and results.  And it is only through discussion forums like this that the sights can be set and the aims be true.

 

* hiatuses or hiati - you choose!

[t-b-g]

I've been following this thread for the past week in "background mode" and have been thinking about where I might be within the gamut of railway modelers.  Sadly I have never completed a model railway in my life.  But since 1968 I have lived in 12 houses/apartments on three continents.  Being a nomad is no way to think about a permanent or near-permanent layout.  It is only now that I think I have the time and where with all to start and finish something.

 

I have a hard back book which I bought early in my adult life which has photos and descriptions of the layouts by Messieurs Jenkinson and Denny.  Buckingham and Dent (if I remember correctly).  Buckingham was certainly the most complete model railway in the book and I will take it as read from this thread that it was (and is) also the most operational.  It was a genuine example of what I have always hoped to emulate.

 

There were long hiatuses* in my progress toward modeling - 8 years in Singapore was a railway modeling desert - and then a move to Texas meant a love affair with the Southern Pacific (some of us can really be masochistic in our choices!)  But returning to Europe and Africa ten years ago set me to thinking about the good old days in the 1950s and I have got involved in a more serious way than ever.  But still no completed project.

 

I envy those who have stayed more or less in one place, developing ad hoc teams and cooperating on projects bigger than I can imagine.  As a nomad I have also been on my own much of the time (in a modeling sense) and have had to develop what I would call the jack of all trades, master of none approach.  Sometimes there was only the RTR route to take, but more recently I have taken up kit building again.  But most of my recent time has been spent on research with the aim of making more accurate models.  The internet, is, of course, a newish resource that really helps, not only in supplying the prototypical details, but also the camaraderie and examples of how things can or should be done.

 

I have shared this personal perspective to demonstrate that there are many ways to skin a rabbit, and some of them may never result in a final result.  But the key is to enjoy the journey and hope there is a destination at the end of the road.  But along the way the greatest achievements are likely to be simple improvements in one's aspirations, skills and results.  And it is only through discussion forums like this that the sights can be set and the aims be true.

 

* hiatuses or hiati - you choose!

 

If it is any consolation, the first few Buckingham layouts were fully portable and at least one was built in a "bedsit" flat! When the layout was set up, it blocked every item of furniture including the bed.

 

And Peter Denny described himself as a "jack of all trades, master of none".

 

So you are following in some decent footsteps.

 

Tony

[johnarcher]

I've been following this thread for the past week in "background mode" and have been thinking about where I might be within the gamut of railway modelers.  Sadly I have never completed a model railway in my life.  But since 1968 I have lived in 12 houses/apartments on three continents.  Being a nomad is no way to think about a permanent or near-permanent layout.  It is only now that I think I have the time and where with all to start and finish something.

 

 

You have been positively sedentary, since 1968 I make it 27 residences I have been in, rented or owned. Not as far afield as yours though, in England, Cornwall, Scotland, Italy and France.

No, I haven't completed much either. Fortunately I am less tempted by major main line projects, as I am chiefly interested in minor, intensely rural, impecunious and eccentric railways, much more practical as a single-handed effort, possible in whatever lifetime I have left. So maybe I'll get somewhere on this return to the fold.

My best wishes for your renewed efforts.

Edited February 27, 2015 by johnarcher

[t-b-g]

Buckingham photos were great, a masive insperation to me when building Dettingen.

trees19.jpg

rmyard4.jpg

Most is scratch built, kit built by necessity but i enjoy doing it.

I could only do that by learning from others TW included.

Through it i learn about so many aspects, that is the fulfilling aspect of the hobby to me...learning.

It keep the grey cells working.

Richard

 

Lovely stuff!

 

I agree 100% about the constant learning. Whether it be prototype research or modelling techniques, developing skills and learning play a huge part in my enjoyment of the hobby too.

 

Tony G

[chris p bacon]

Just to put the record straight...

 

Stoke Summit was my idea, funded by me and was built at my then-home in Wolverhampton. That said, it was built by five other WMRC members and me, meeting evenings twice a week and many weekends. I admit to being very 'selective' in my choice of the team, and it was detrimental to the rest of the club for a year. It wasn't democratic or inclusive in just about every aspect. In 2008, I donated it to the club, and it's since been sold. When Little Bytham was initially being built, three of that same group were vital to its construction, so that you can say, at least in part, that it's also a WMRC layout.

 

Charwelton was completely WMRC. The same team which built Stoke built Charwelton, but others were involved as well. It was more democratic (naturally). It, too, has since been sold. 

Ah Ok, I was sure when I saw Stoke it was WMRC so was probably post 2008, same for Charwelton (St Albans I think, no idea when though).

[richard i]

You have been positively sedentary, since 1968 I make it 27 residences I have been in, rented or owned. Not as far afield as yours though, in England, Cornwall, Scotland, Italy and France.

No, I haven't completed much either. Fortunately I am less tempted by major main line projects, as I am chiefly interested in minor, intensely rural, impecunious and eccentric railways, much more practical as a single-handed effort, possible in whatever lifetime I have left. So maybe I'll get somewhere on this return to the fold.

My best wishes for your renewed efforts.

Do i win 38 homes in 39 years on 3 continents? I do have a railway, fortunately it comes apart to travel otherwise there would have been many restarts.

[Tony Wright]

Ah Ok, I was sure when I saw Stoke it was WMRC so was probably post 2008, same for Charwelton (St Albans I think, no idea when though).

Whenever anyone saw Stoke Summit it was always under the banner of Wolverhampton MRC, because it was built by WMRC members (even though it was a 'private' project). I wanted to build it in the first place, but wasn't sure if such a project could qualify as a club project. Why? Because it was very time/site-specific. Nobody else in the club was a GNR modeller, though Tony Geary modelled the GC. So, and I'm forever grateful for this, the other five (and latterly Dave Lewis after he joined us) got on with building stock which wasn't necessarily their first interest. 

 

On many occasions one sees club layouts (often massive) which are neither time nor site-specific, because too many interests have to be catered for. That's why Charwelton (or any other prototype location on the London Extension between Nottingham and Woodford) was chosen for a club project. In BR days we could legitimately run ER, MR and WR locos and stock and SR stock as well. 

[Tony Wright]

Tony, this is good stuff and very much in line with my own aims, which as you know are more inclined towards operation than construction. For my layout (see the link below) I have generated a sequence based on the Summer 1952 service (= WR-speak for working) timetable for a Friday and Saturday. Even by cutting out approximately half the real trains and applying my rule whereby passenger trains are 60% of the length of their prototypes, I still need well over 200 coaches to work the sequence.

 

I for one would like to see more discussion of why and how we operate our layouts in our particular way, alongside all the excellent constructional conversations that go on.

 

Good luck with the bookazine - and make sure Warner's send enough copies down under!

In many ways, all the layouts I've been involved with have been very simple in their operations, some might say even dull. Because most have been exhibition layouts, the aim was always to keep trains moving. Though I've probably mentioned this before, one guy at one York show said to me on watching Stoke 'I don't think much of this at all, it's just train after train going by - look, there's another!' He was puzzled when I firmly shook his hand! 

 

I think it probably stems from my not being particularly interested in how real railways operated. Places like Chester, Crewe, Doncaster, York, Shrewsbury, Waterloo and other big stations where I trainspotted were obviously popular because of the large number of locos one saw, but it was the seeing of the locos which was most important, rather than how the railway worked. In fact, for the pure acquisition of numbers, a Sunday shed bash (with a permit, of course) around, say, 5A was fantastic, and nothing was operating at all!

 

I don't think I actually enjoy operating a model railway, well nowhere near as much as I enjoy being involved in the building of it. I can understand the intense fascination of Buckingham's operation and how the time must fly, but Little Bytham is (and never could have been) as 'interesting' operationally. It was an insignificant wayside station which just happened to be situated on the fastest stretch of main line in the land. Those whom I've spoken to who saw it steam days just say how exciting it was - watching, say, an A1 pounding up the bank on 14 bogies and a 'Streak' flashing by going south on the ten-car 'Elizabethan'. When I saw such things further north (between Newark and Darlington) over the years, those same things excited me, particularly on the 'open' stretches of the line at places like Markham Moor, Gamston, Botany Bay, Askern, Riccall, Otterington, Croft and so on, where trains were going fast, but just going by. That said, to work with good friends properly through the operation sequence on Bytham (which we've probably made a bit more complicated than the real thing - slow to fast/fast to slow, multi-train movements at once and so on) is good fun. But only because it really 'works' - right through from its design and construction, which goes back to what I've been saying over recent days.

 

Edited to insert a comma.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Tony Wright

[unclebobkt]

  ... .

 There were long hiatuses* in my progress toward modeling -

 

* hiatuses or hiati - you choose!

 

 

  Hiatus is taken directly from the Latin word - 4th. declension, isn't it? - basically meaning a 'Gap.' or an 'Omission.'.  Gramatically same declension as 'Exercitus.', m.,  army.

  If so then the correct, (Latin), plural would be 'Hiatus.'?  (NB.: gramatically there should be a bar above the final 'us.' to denote that it is long.),.

  My dictionary also gives 'Hiatuses.' presumably as the Anglicised form of the plural.

  -- Apologies for this OFF-topic entry. 

[corneliuslundie]

Tony, I need to come clean and admit that I have never properly finished a layout either. And I can't blame house moves as I have lived in only six houses in 45 years - and one of those was for only a year when I was first married. True, the nearest thing I ever had to a complete layout went in the skip when I moved abroad in 2007. Now I am determined to succeed. I do not have children at home, a demanding job or any other excuse.

 

However, the time abroad was not all loss, as it is when I started building wagons from "scratch" because it was something I could do with minimal facilities and with materials and components I could transport by air (though I have only recently realised that I really shouldn't have been carrying bottles of Mekpak in my baggage!)

 

But enough of me. The comments about where it is possible to have a layout brings a memory. I am sure that one of the iconic layouts of the 1960s was built originally in a caravan. Was it Charford? Or the first Brent? I do not have the magazines now but I am sure someone will.

 

And for more on Buckingham I can truly recommend the trilogy by Peter Denny. That and David Jenkinson's Historic Railway Modelling, and you don't really need much else to inspire you - although layouts such as High Dyke, Little Bytham, Chiltern Green, Cheedale, the North Devonshire and Jim Russell's Little Western will certainly help if you like main lines. (Why does my spell check want to spell it Bythem?)

 

Jonathan

[coachmann]

In many ways, all the layouts I've been involved with have been very simple in their operations, some might say even dull. Because most have been exhibition layouts, the aim was always to keep trains moving. 

These words are timely, as I am struggling with the present layout although it has taken a long time for the penny to drop. As soon as the branch to Delph was underway the Junction and mainline looked very dull fare. I considered trans-Pennine passenger trains and built the LMR and ER coaching stock to suit. I also considered the long coal trains, but no sooner have they entered the long straight than they disappear through a hole in the shed wall and into the fiddle yard. In contrast, the Delph-bound two and three-coach trains stop at Moorgate before branching off and meander along the branch to Delph. Such trains are providing far more entertainment as is the local shunt. I'm one of those saddo's who can sit looking at a station with nothing moving while my mind drifts back to another time. I know......I'm losing some of my key marbles,  but passing expresses do not work very well in a restricted space, and in this respect you have it right Tony.

Edited February 28, 2015 by coachmann

[92220]

Tony,

 

I hope this doesn't come across as sycophantic because it certainly is not written in that tone,

 

I'd just like to thank you for all the inspiration that you have provided for me, both in this thread and in your numerous DVDs, articles and books. Your teachings and writings have been a significant and very positive influence.

 

Like you, I am a teacher, an opening bowler in my younger years, and now I'm attempting to be a mainline prototype modeller. Please rest assured that I'm not stalking you......! I've no idea how my teaching or bowling compared to yours, and neither comparison matters one jot anyway, but I'm hoping my modelling might eventually approach the standards set by you and many others.

 

When I saw LIttle Bytham on a BRM dvd perhaps 3 or so years ago, I knew that the big-mainline-in-a-big-shed was going to be the only way properly to satisfy my modelling interests. It was also interesting as I spent many school and university holidays working in forestry in the area - Easton, Burton Coggles, Corby Glen, Castle Bytham, Stainby, Stoke Rochford, Great Ponton etc. I can remember working out how many thorn bushes I needed to plant in a replacement hedgerow to buy the recently released DJH/Model Loco 9F kit in the mid 80's. I planted them (as I recall it was 5p a thorn so about 1800 of them), got paid, bought the kit and on opening the box realised it was a bit harder than I thought. Modelling then took a back seat in favour of cricket, golf, university and so on.

 

From a relatively standing start, I've been attempting to recreate a representation of a piece of the old LNWR mainline just out of Euston alongside Camden Shed, albeit with some compression. The bridges that mark both ends of the scenic section should be a few feet further apart, and the curve of the main lines should, for once, be sharper than it is on my model.

 

At least in part thanks to you, I've:

Built my own track (with considerable help from Norman Solomon on the right track dvd and in person at Warley; also from Gordon S on here),

Built and wired my own control panel

Built my own representations of some of the prototype buildings

Rebuilt rtr coaches with etched brass sides

Built a few complete coach kits from scratch and begun to put rakes together according to prototype formations

Modified, heavily modified or simply detailed several rtr locos

Begun to build a couple of loco kits.

 

A few pictures are below.

 

There is - for me, I stress, not necessarily for everyone - an inherent joy in building something that is the ultimate point of modelling for me. It will cause me to continue to try to modify even the best rtr models, and even to build kits of things that are available rtr anyway. Even if that is just for the fun of making it. For that reason if no other, I shall continue to enjoy and to learn from what you share in whatever way.

 

I've also bought some loco lamps..... They will be used in due course!

 

With thanks and best wishes,

 

Iain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

I hope this doesn't come across as sycophantic because it certainly is not written in that tone,

 

I'd just like to thank you for all the inspiration that you have provided for me, both in this thread and in your numerous DVDs, articles and books. Your teachings and writings have been a significant and very positive influence.

 

Like you, I am a teacher, an opening bowler in my younger years, and now I'm attempting to be a mainline prototype modeller. Please rest assured that I'm not stalking you......! I've no idea how my teaching or bowling compared to yours, and neither comparison matters one jot anyway, but I'm hoping my modelling might eventually approach the standards set by you and many others.

 

When I saw LIttle Bytham on a BRM dvd perhaps 3 or so years ago, I knew that the big-mainline-in-a-big-shed was going to be the only way properly to satisfy my modelling interests. It was also interesting as I spent many school and university holidays working in forestry in the area - Easton, Burton Coggles, Corby Glen, Castle Bytham, Stainby, Stoke Rochford, Great Ponton etc. I can remember working out how many thorn bushes I needed to plant in a replacement hedgerow to buy the recently released DJH/Model Loco 9F kit in the mid 80's. I planted them (as I recall it was 5p a thorn so about 1800 of them), got paid, bought the kit and on opening the box realised it was a bit harder than I thought. Modelling then took a back seat in favour of cricket, golf, university and so on.

 

From a relatively standing start, I've been attempting to recreate a representation of a piece of the old LNWR mainline just out of Euston alongside Camden Shed, albeit with some compression. The bridges that mark both ends of the scenic section should be a few feet further apart, and the curve of the main lines should, for once, be sharper than it is on my model.

 

At least in part thanks to you, I've:

Built my own track (with considerable help from Norman Solomon on the right track dvd and in person at Warley; also from Gordon S on here),

Built and wired my own control panel

Built my own representations of some of the prototype buildings

Rebuilt rtr coaches with etched brass sides

Built a few complete coach kits from scratch and begun to put rakes together according to prototype formations

Modified, heavily modified or simply detailed several rtr locos

Begun to build a couple of loco kits.

 

A few pictures are below.

 

There is - for me, I stress, not necessarily for everyone - an inherent joy in building something that is the ultimate point of modelling for me. It will cause me to continue to try to modify even the best rtr models, and even to build kits of things that are available rtr anyway. Even if that is just for the fun of making it. For that reason if no other, I shall continue to enjoy and to learn from what you share in whatever way.

 

I've also bought some loco lamps..... They will be used in due course!

 

With thanks and best wishes,

 

Iain

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

 

image.jpg

Iain,

 

This is terrific stuff, and all your own work I'll warrant. Am I right in assuming that one of the carriages you're making is an LMS Kitchen Car? 

 

If I've been just one tiny bit instrumental in 'helping' in your railway modelling, then I'm absolutely delighted. 

 

The only peripheral point I'd make is that I'm no longer a teacher - I gave that up over 20 years ago, largely because I was having to accept standards of behaviour that I wouldn't have tolerated as a rookie, in the late '60s. That, and the fact I had no wish to be prosecuted for swatting some odious little twerp!