Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

Thanks for your trap point illustration. They look good and easy to achieve...that is until I look at where they’re needed on Gresley Jn.! Can I ask for some advice? I have two sets of sidings that I think need protecting. The first is this one (sidings with five coal wagons and pipe and van):

 

I seem to have three options:

1. Fit it between the two points in the middle bottom of the photo;

2. Fit separate trap points on each siding; or

3. Relay the sidings (which probably won’t happen).

 

The second siding is below (with the coal wagons):

Should the trap point go inside the ‘gate’ (which isn’t yet built) or between the gate and the point onto the down slow? If the latter, should it face directly into the brick wall/ boiler house in the back scene as the alternative would be onto the running line which doesn’t make sense!

 

I’m sure you will tell me that this sort of question is why I should model a prototype, but all I can say to that is ‘next time’. In the meantime I want to finish Gresley Jn as accurately as I can.

 

Andy

 

You could replace the last siding point with a double slip or some railways built the trap blades into a turnout, like this example on my Church Warsop layout.

 

 

Unlike most of those illustrated so far, mine actually work! This single bladed (one blade for each line) variety is GCR pattern, some others had 4 blades. 

 

The one illustrated needs some home building or commissioning somebody else to built it for you.

 

 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

A runaway might inconvenience the signalman, but anything would be travelling slowly. 

 

 

 

NRM DY 581,  released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.

 

Wymondham, December 1892. The signalman got clear in time. A new frame and box was in place in under a week.

[Barry Ten]

31 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

3. Relay the sidings (which probably won’t happen).

 

 

 

 

 

I like a man who's realistic.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

So many seem so tiny these days. Are there that many modellers space-starved?

 

 

 

By your own writings, to model a main line and do it justice in terms of curves and train lengths, you need in excess of 30ft length of space. My house isn't that big!

 

If you look at how many years Little Bytham has taken to get to this stage and then look at how long it would have taken if you had done everything yourself, you would still be several years off completion.

 

Then you can look at the ages of most of us involved in the hobby and ask whether we have 20 good years of modelling left in us.

 

So I don't think it is just a case of being space starved. It is a combination of space, wanting to build something we can complete (usually as a solo effort) in a reasonable timescale and setting our ambitions accordingly.

 

Some of us actually like smaller layouts too. We don't all want to recreate 12 carriage trains on main lines and many of us enjoy railway backwaters and more obscure subjects. I have an involvement in layouts varying in size from just over a 4ft scenic section (Sutton Dock) to 120ft scenic run (Narrow Road) . I enjoy them all.

 

When it comes to coverage in the press and appearances at shows, I do feel that the present craze for "cameo" layouts has been done to death and beyond! I much prefer a balance of small, medium and large layouts but the balance seems to be swinging heavily in favour of "cameo" or "micro" layouts. As long as the people building them enjoy the projects, does it matter?   

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

Just now, Barry Ten said:

 

I like a man who's realistic.

Well when you see the barren industrial complex behind which still needs to be built and the whole station area is embryonic you will realise that I have other priorities!

[thegreenhowards]

24 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

You could replace the last siding point with a double slip or some railways built the trap blades into a turnout, like this example on my Church Warsop layout.

 

 

Unlike most of those illustrated so far, mine actually work! This single bladed (one blade for each line) variety is GCR pattern, some others had 4 blades. 

 

The one illustrated needs some home building or commissioning somebody else to built it for you.

 

 

Thanks for this - I think I could easily incorporate dummy blades into the point, and failing that the double slip is certainly an option which would require minimal relaying.

 

Thanks also to St Enodoc for your comments on the other siding.

 

Andy

[t-b-g]

5 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks for this - I think I could easily incorporate dummy blades into the point, and failing that the double slip is certainly an option which would require minimal relaying.

 

Thanks also to St Enodoc for your comments on the other siding.

 

Andy

 

I hadn't thought of that option! Adding dummy trap blades should be quite easy. I think the BR/LNER version would probably have 4 blades. The GCR type with a single blade was less common.

 

There must be a photo of a real one somewhere and I can recall seeing one but it isn't coming to mind at the moment.

[Barry Ten]

When my wife and I were house-hunting about twelve years ago, we had two stipulations: I wanted a "big" room for my train set, at least 10 x 20, and she wanted a garage for her Kawasaki.

 

We got neither. When we found the house we fell in love with, it didn't matter that there was no room for a big train set, nor anywhere to park a motorbike. It was just the right house for us and we both knew it.

 

I was very generously allocated a 12 x 11 foot room in which I started building a model of Shillingstone, where my dad was born. It was to be an impression, rather than an exact replica, but even with this modest station, there were so many compromises that it ended up becoming something only loosely inspired by Shillingstone, with elements of Sturminster Newton creeping in.

 

 

At some point, though, while laying the platforms, I foolishly plonked my old model of Abbotsbury station into place just to get a feel for how it looked, and then I realised that I could get a GWR-based layout up and running far more quickly than an S&D one, for which all the buildings (at the time) needed to be scratchbuilt.  By then, we were two steps away from any sort of attempt to model an actual location, and the layout has only diverged further from the S&D as time's passed.

 

Due to other constraints like doorways, out of that 12x11 I've only got a clear area of about 8 x 8 in which I can model an entire unobstructed landscaped scene, most of which is shown here:

 

 

What it does give me is room for 6 or 7 coach trains (or an 8 car Western Pullman) and a reasonable amount of off-scene storage.

 

A;

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, LNERandBR said:

 

I never realised that it was permissible for lay-by sidings to be positioned between the main Slow and Fast lines. I've always thought that they'd be on the outside of the formation. Is that something unique to Little Bytham or was that done in other areas of the ECML?

Hi Stephen

 

Tempsford had lay-by sidings both Up and Down between the fast and slow lines, both protected by wide to gauge trap points.

[micknich2003]

14 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

No prizes for spotting that this is just a dummy trap point as well:

 

 

I'm sure someone will know, but presumably the signal ought to be set back a little further from the end of the trap - or the trap moved a bit nearer the junction. I think the outer rail is soldered to the main running rail, but the one in the middle is just glued in place. I'm still working my way nearer with the point rodding.

 

Al

Here is a typical installation of the placing of signals in relation to Trap Points and Point Ends etc. As you can see, 6ft seems to be a typical dimension. At Facing Points fitted with a Mechanical Lock Bar the signal would be further back and by at least the length of the bar.  Ella Street H&B Section Hull c1925, copied from LNERly drawing.

[Dr Al]

Now that it's actually at the end of the year, I've reflected as others on what's been achieved this year. Looking back, apart from a load of repairs and servicing, I'm surprised quite how much that got done.

 

The year started out with a rebuild job - LMS patriot which showed potential:

 

 

Mid rebuild, with new tender, and stripped and detailed body:

 

 

Completed model:

 

 

 

Next was a detailing job on a Union Mills B12, starting with a pretty solid but very basic model:

 

 

Mid detailing with handrails, wiggly wires and suchlike:

 

 

After completion, it's probably the lining that stands out the most from the starting point:

 

 

 

Next was another rebuild - not by usual region but so unique it had to be done:

 

[/url]

 

Mid rebuild showing added side detail, and general clean up. The wheels were replaced with modern spoked Farish units too:

 

[/url]

 

Completed:

 

 

Beyond this I started to push to complete unfinished models, and models that'd been cluttering the workbench. First was a Atsocad V1 to complement another I'd previously built:

 

 

This became 67664, a model I had from Bachmann in OO many years ago:

 

 

 

Next, was a massive superdetail build of a GEM Fowler 2-6-4T. This used only the base of the kit, completely different chassis, superdetailed:

 

 

 

 

 

Next was an extreme restoration - basis being made by an unknown builder, and never completed. I think most folk would have chucked this body out, but it was actually well made and well shaped, so I took the plunge, from this....:

 

 

...to this (yes this isn't finished, but I think getting this far warrants some form of completion!):

 

 

 

 

 

One large task I took on this year was a request to build 3 (!) Z class 0-8-0 tanks - quite something for a prototype I've never looked in detail into, but the task has been challenging and enjoyable (apart from the the DCC fit requested....):

 

 

 

 

Back to my own builds, again, clearing the bench completed this second D49. Tony will be the first to scream that the valve gear is wrong, and that's absolutely true, but I've yet to work out the best modification to it. She's a runnable model in the mean time:

 

 

 

And to round off, just to show I do other than steam, this conversion of an 86/2 electric to 86/4 with full repaint and front end pipework detail:

 

 

All the best to those for the coming year, and hopefully this thread will continue to provide inspirational work of others in the year to come,
Best,
Alan

[St Enodoc]

42 minutes ago, micknich2003 said:

Here is a typical installation of the placing of signals in relation to Trap Points and Point Ends etc. As you can see, 6ft seems to be a typical dimension. At Facing Points fitted with a Mechanical Lock Bar the signal would be further back and by at least the length of the bar.  Ella Street H&B Section Hull c1925, copied from LNERly drawing.

Mick, I've seen that "6 feet" dimension before. I was told that it was to allow space for the detection equipment between the signal and the stretchers.

[micknich2003]

18 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Mick, I've seen that "6 feet" dimension before. I was told that it was to allow space for the detection equipment between the signal and the stretchers.

 Here's a typical arrangement of a signal at a Facing Point, as you can see the Detector is in line with the "Switch Extender"  and the signal set approx six feet back.

Edited December 31, 2019 by micknich2003

[Michael Edge]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

Thanks for your trap point illustration. They look good and easy to achieve...that is until I look at where they’re needed on Gresley Jn.! Can I ask for some advice? I have two sets of sidings that I think need protecting. The first is this one (sidings with five coal wagons and pipe and van):

 

I seem to have three options:

1. Fit it between the two points in the middle bottom of the photo;

2. Fit separate trap points on each siding; or

3. Relay the sidings (which probably won’t happen).

 

The second siding is below (with the coal wagons):

Should the trap point go inside the ‘gate’ (which isn’t yet built) or between the gate and the point onto the down slow? If the latter, should it face directly into the brick wall/ boiler house in the back scene as the alternative would be onto the running line which doesn’t make sense!

 

I’m sure you will tell me that this sort of question is why I should model a prototype, but all I can say to that is ‘next time’. In the meantime I want to finish Gresley Jn as accurately as I can.

 

Andy

For the first one you will have to put two traps in, a single one would leave the derailed vehicle still foul of the running line. Second one definitely outside the gate.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, LNERandBR said:

 

I never realised that it was permissible for lay-by sidings to be positioned between the main Slow and Fast lines. I've always thought that they'd be on the outside of the formation. Is that something unique to Little Bytham or was that done in other areas of the ECML?

The short answer is I don't know whether the same situation was found elsewhere on the ECML. I'll check if it was the same (or similar) at Corby Glen, because the stations themselves were very much the same. 

 

I think the lay-by sidings are arranged that way because of the the island platforms, 'forcing' the slow roads further away from the fast. 

 

What is interesting is that the Up lay-by can be accessed (by reversing) from both the fast and slow running lines, yet the Down (south) lay-by can only be accessed (by reversing) from the fast running line. 

 

Ultimately, it comes down to modelling an actual prototype; copying the track layout as it were. No need for invention and far less a likelihood of committing bloopers. One only has to look at so many layouts in the press, the electronic media and at shows to see how little observation of the prototype has taken place. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Philou]

@thegreenhowards Hello Tony,

 

Sorry for intruding into your thread a little late but I thought this arrangement of a double trap within a single point might avoid thegreenhowards having to lift any trackwork to cover the exit of his goods siding. The photo is a little grainy but shows the arrangement very clearly in the bottom right hand corner. The sidings no longer exist today.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited December 31, 2019 by Philou
Happy New Year to you all!

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

Thanks for your trap point illustration. They look good and easy to achieve...that is until I look at where they’re needed on Gresley Jn.! Can I ask for some advice? I have two sets of sidings that I think need protecting. The first is this one (sidings with five coal wagons and pipe and van):

 

I seem to have three options:

1. Fit it between the two points in the middle bottom of the photo;

2. Fit separate trap points on each siding; or

3. Relay the sidings (which probably won’t happen).

 

The second siding is below (with the coal wagons):

Should the trap point go inside the ‘gate’ (which isn’t yet built) or between the gate and the point onto the down slow? If the latter, should it face directly into the brick wall/ boiler house in the back scene as the alternative would be onto the running line which doesn’t make sense!

 

I’m sure you will tell me that this sort of question is why I should model a prototype, but all I can say to that is ‘next time’. In the meantime I want to finish Gresley Jn as accurately as I can.

 

Andy

Many folk have answered your questions, Andy.

 

However, in the case of the top picture, what's needed (in my opinion) is not a trap point but a headshunt, acting as both an operational priority and a safety feature. If any shunting of wagons were to take place (at that goods shed?) and the cut of wagons were more than a dozen, then that shunting would foul a running line - surely not allowed. If I may be so bold, you seem to be falling into the trap of fitting sidings wherever a space allows, no matter how short they might be. In this respect I'm reminded of the 'shunting puzzle' type of layout, where to work it the most DIFFICULT arrangement is arrived at, rather than (in reality) the EASIEST arrangement adopted. No real railway makes operation more difficult by design! 

 

I take it in the bottom left of the same picture that point off a running line leads directly into a fan of dead-end sidings? That would never be allowed, surely? Off a siding itself, perhaps, but not directly off a running road. 

 

Perhaps those with an understanding of correct railway working practices might elaborate (and I could be wrong) but it seems to me to fly in the face of 'safety first'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

By your own writings, to model a main line and do it justice in terms of curves and train lengths, you need in excess of 30ft length of space. My house isn't that big!

 

If you look at how many years Little Bytham has taken to get to this stage and then look at how long it would have taken if you had done everything yourself, you would still be several years off completion.

 

Then you can look at the ages of most of us involved in the hobby and ask whether we have 20 good years of modelling left in us.

 

So I don't think it is just a case of being space starved. It is a combination of space, wanting to build something we can complete (usually as a solo effort) in a reasonable timescale and setting our ambitions accordingly.

 

Some of us actually like smaller layouts too. We don't all want to recreate 12 carriage trains on main lines and many of us enjoy railway backwaters and more obscure subjects. I have an involvement in layouts varying in size from just over a 4ft scenic section (Sutton Dock) to 120ft scenic run (Narrow Road) . I enjoy them all.

 

When it comes to coverage in the press and appearances at shows, I do feel that the present craze for "cameo" layouts has been done to death and beyond! I much prefer a balance of small, medium and large layouts but the balance seems to be swinging heavily in favour of "cameo" or "micro" layouts. As long as the people building them enjoy the projects, does it matter?   

 

 

I fully agree with your last paragraph, Tony,

 

We've had layouts (or scenes) in more recent times built in small boxes, large boxes (but still boxes), on shelves, on bookcases and in cupboards and wardrobes. Forgive me (though I doubt anyone will), but, yawn.....................! 

 

Of course I understand that to build the likes of Little Bytham needs a huge resource on all levels, but also a huge commitment. Folk have accused me of being 'wealthy', and to have 'achieved' my goals because of the power of the chequebook. I can assure them I'm not rich. Granted, I had a good teaching job and now have a decent pension, and I'd like to think I was successful in my subsequent 'career', but, as you know, much of what's been achieved has been by barter. 

 

If folk derive pleasure from building small layouts and they satisfy any 'ambitions', then I'm not going to argue against that - I have no right to. But what about 'inspiration' on the 'grand' scale? It is achievable without having a bottomless wallet, but I return to commitment. Last week, two friends came round to run LB and of the 50+ locos run, all but two had been built by me (the over a hundred which we didn't use were also built by me). This is not a boast, but a fact.

 

Where am I going with this? To show that it can be done with commitment. A commitment not to waste precious (and diminishing) time sitting in front of the telly, or spending too much time in pubs (or on a golf course, or endless holidays, or walking, or any of the numerous other things I've chosen not to do). I still have a full social life, and I'm not a hermit, but if all we're shown (the generic 'we're') is how to build weenie systems (often against the tyranny of time), then the hobby (and shows) will be much the poorer. 

 

I've been thrilled to bits by the response to my piece on LB in the current RM. Many comments have been along the lines of 'You've shown what can be done by working together'. I know I'm very fortunate to have such a skilled team in which to work, and I appreciate that it's not for all. I also concede that there is an immense satisfaction to be gained by doing all the work on a layout by and for oneself. Even assuming I could have built all of LB myself (which I know, because of restricted skills and poor motivation, would have been impossible), only a fraction of it would be done by now. 

 

May I please wish you and all other posters a very happy and prosperous (even preposterous!) New Year?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I take it in the bottom left of the same picture that point off a running line leads directly into a fan of dead-end sidings? That would never be allowed, surely? Off a siding itself, perhaps, but not directly off a running road. 

 

 

 

 

 

Milverton on the Taunton to Barnstaple line had a set of  dead end sidings worked by a facing point off the running line. Since it's such an unusual arrangement you'd expect it to be commented on in the various books on the subject but I've yet to see it noted or explained.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Dr Al said:

Now that it's actually at the end of the year, I've reflected as others on what's been achieved this year. Looking back, apart from a load of repairs and servicing, I'm surprised quite how much that got done.

 

The year started out with a rebuild job - LMS patriot which showed potential:

 

 

Mid rebuild, with new tender, and stripped and detailed body:

 

 

Completed model:

 

 

 

Next was a detailing job on a Union Mills B12, starting with a pretty solid but very basic model:

 

 

Mid detailing with handrails, wiggly wires and suchlike:

 

 

After completion, it's probably the lining that stands out the most from the starting point:

 

 

 

Next was another rebuild - not by usual region but so unique it had to be done:

 

[/url]

 

Mid rebuild showing added side detail, and general clean up. The wheels were replaced with modern spoked Farish units too:

 

[/url]

 

Completed:

 

 

Beyond this I started to push to complete unfinished models, and models that'd been cluttering the workbench. First was a Atsocad V1 to complement another I'd previously built:

 

 

This became 67664, a model I had from Bachmann in OO many years ago:

 

 

 

Next, was a massive superdetail build of a GEM Fowler 2-6-4T. This used only the base of the kit, completely different chassis, superdetailed:

 

 

 

 

 

Next was an extreme restoration - basis being made by an unknown builder, and never completed. I think most folk would have chucked this body out, but it was actually well made and well shaped, so I took the plunge, from this....:

 

 

...to this (yes this isn't finished, but I think getting this far warrants some form of completion!):

 

 

 

 

 

One large task I took on this year was a request to build 3 (!) Z class 0-8-0 tanks - quite something for a prototype I've never looked in detail into, but the task has been challenging and enjoyable (apart from the the DCC fit requested....):

 

 

 

 

Back to my own builds, again, clearing the bench completed this second D49. Tony will be the first to scream that the valve gear is wrong, and that's absolutely true, but I've yet to work out the best modification to it. She's a runnable model in the mean time:

 

 

 

And to round off, just to show I do other than steam, this conversion of an 86/2 electric to 86/4 with full repaint and front end pipework detail:

 

 

All the best to those for the coming year, and hopefully this thread will continue to provide inspirational work of others in the year to come,
Best,
Alan

This is fantastic work, Alan,

 

Thanks ever so much for showing us.

 

Are you sure that it's all N Gauge? The amount of fine detail you've incorporated is incredible, putting many models I've seen in the larger scales to shame!

 

Thank you again - great commitment and it's inspirational.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Milverton on the Taunton to Barnstaple line had a set of  dead end sidings worked by a facing point off the running line. Since it's such an unusual arrangement you'd expect it to be commented on in the various books on the subject but I've yet to see it noted or explained.

Thanks Al,

 

It could be more common than I believed. I assume it's on a secondary line, even single track? I don't know of such an instance off a four track main line.

 

Just north of Little Bytham there was a brickworks, served by sidings off the Down slow, but access to them was by reversing. There was a ground frame working the points, but they could only be unlocked by Bytham 'box. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Al,

 

It could be more common than I believed. I assume it's on a secondary line, even single track? I don't know of such an instance off a four track main line.

 

Just north of Little Bytham there was a brickworks, served by sidings off the Down slow, but access to them was by reversing. There was a ground frame working the points, but they could only be unlocked by Bytham 'box. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Yes, it's a mostly single line with double track through the stations. I find it frustrating that it's not mentioned in the book captions, as I'd like to know how it was worked. I wonder if the topography prevented the more usual arrangement of trailing access to the sidings. Presumably however it was justified, the Board of Trade were persuaded.

 

Looking at prototype track plans more generally, I've often been stumped by how a particular siding was worked. i forget the station, for instance, but it's somewhere on the former Southern Railway: there's a bay which is accessed by a trailing point back into a headshunt, then a facing point into the bay. A train could detach a van and shunt it back into the headshunt, but how was it moved forward into the bay, other than by horse, winch, bar, or another locomotive? It seems bizarre when the obvious solution is a bay accessed from a trailing point in the conventional manner.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Barry Ten

[APOLLO]

Here's a trap point in action.

 

Ouch !!

 

 

No big hands from the sky unfortunately, but the Cavalry soon arrives to save the day.

 

 

I've just finished my last running session on my 3 layouts for this year.

 

Happy New Year everybody,

 

Brit15

[Ray Flintoft]

Just to wish Tony , Mo , & everyone else on wright writes a Happy New Year , good health & lots of modelling ( railways , that is ) . This thread is full of inspirational modelling & information . Keep it coming !

                                                                            Cheers ,

                                                                                       Ray .

[Northmoor]

50 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I fully agree with your last paragraph, Tony,

 

We've had layouts (or scenes) in more recent times built in small boxes, large boxes (but still boxes), on shelves, on bookcases and in cupboards and wardrobes. Forgive me (though I doubt anyone will), but, yawn.....................! 

 

Of course I understand that to build the likes of Little Bytham needs a huge resource on all levels, but also a huge commitment. Folk have accused me of being 'wealthy', and to have 'achieved' my goals because of the power of the chequebook. I can assure them I'm not rich. Granted, I had a good teaching job and now have a decent pension, and I'd like to think I was successful in my subsequent 'career', but, as you know, much of what's been achieved has been by barter. 

 

If folk derive pleasure from building small layouts and they satisfy any 'ambitions', then I'm not going to argue against that - I have no right to. But what about 'inspiration' on the 'grand' scale? It is achievable without having a bottomless wallet, but I return to commitment. Last week, two friends came round to run LB and of the 50+ locos run, all but two had been built by me (the over a hundred which we didn't use were also built by me). This is not a boast, but a fact.

 

Where am I going with this? To show that it can be done with commitment. A commitment not to waste precious (and diminishing) time sitting in front of the telly, or spending too much time in pubs (or on a golf course, or endless holidays, or walking, or any of the numerous other things I've chosen not to do). I still have a full social life, and I'm not a hermit, but if all we're shown (the generic 'we're') is how to build weenie systems (often against the tyranny of time), then the hobby (and shows) will be much the poorer. 

 

I've been thrilled to bits by the response to my piece on LB in the current RM. Many comments have been along the lines of 'You've shown what can be done by working together'. I know I'm very fortunate to have such a skilled team in which to work, and I appreciate that it's not for all. I also concede that there is an immense satisfaction to be gained by doing all the work on a layout by and for oneself. Even assuming I could have built all of LB myself (which I know, because of restricted skills and poor motivation, would have been impossible), only a fraction of it would be done by now. 

 

May I please wish you and all other posters a very happy and prosperous (even preposterous!) New Year?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony - While I agree with your general sentiment, there is rather more to the growth in micro-layouts than just commitment.  

 

I see LB as like a club exhibition layout that's permanently located on one club member's property.  However your (and your friends') achievement is based to a degree on the availability of the SPACE which can be devoted to one purpose only, which many of us in many parts of the country simply do not and are unlikely to ever have available, at least until retirement.  My 2.5 bedroom semi-detached house has a loft 16ft long, more than enough for a layout (the framework was all built but the arrival of a family has filled the loft with "stuff") but this will never be as convenient as a proper room.  Like so many of us, I would dearly love a separate railway room - just as my children would also like bigger rooms - but the price increment around here between my house and one big enough to make the upheaval of a house move worthwhile, i.e. an extra room and a garden the size of two postage stamps, as opposed to the current one - is more than I paid for my existing property in the first place.

 

I have absolutely no doubt that you worked hard to earn the property you are now in.  There are many of working age for whom no amount of hard work, at what they are good at, will enable them buy a property large enough for a "large" layout.  Sadly (over-priced) new properties are getting smaller and old ones, as they have more space, can be just as out of reach for many of working age.  The days of pay rising (significantly) faster than house price inflation are long gone.  

 

Ending on a lighter note - a prosperous and preposterous New Year to all on RMWeb.

 

Rob

Edited December 31, 2019 by Northmoor
wrong word