Wright writes.....

[Lecorbusier]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

As the older population leave us, there may be a glut of bigger and mostly unaffordable houses. If these are worth more as a building plot, they either get pulled down and replaced with apartments or flats or they get converted.  Many people with big gardens see them as an opportunity to make a chunk of money by selling off a building plot. So you end up with two properties, each with no room for a big shed. It is all about profit for developers, getting as many properties to sell in as small a land area as possible. Room for any hobbies is not on their agenda. 

 

By glut I mean .....if the statistics are to be believed.... a pretty large proportion of property outside the rental sector is now concentrated within the over 65 age bracket. When these houses come on to the market (which they will unless you are an only child and the inheritance tax rules change such that they don't force a sale (or the property is cheap enough to be below the threshold)), then there is likely to be a limited market for such properties at the current values. As such a glut will result and prices will tumble. Now whether  they tumble to the extent that they become affordable to those below the glass ceiling, or whether they find a higher level of value where they become pray to the landlord sector (re-enforcing that glass ceiling) only time will tell. It is certain that we currently have an unsustainable glass ceiling.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Lecorbusier

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Tony, do you not get pleasure yourself from just "watching the trains go by"?

I do to some extent, but then I've built them to work.

 

That, in itself can be a source of 'irritation'. I'll explain...

 

You've seen LB and know of my zeal with regard to 'perfect running'. Though impossible in reality (even full-sized railways never run perfectly) I always try to achieve it. Perfect running by the railway that is (I have to live with my own operator's incompetence level!). Now, how the locos and trains work is entirely up to me. I know the baseboards are flat, the trackwork is excellent and that the electrics are robust and reliable, so if anything doesn't run 'perfectly' it's because either I've been a clot in not setting a road/switch/controller properly or there's a fault with the loco/rolling stock. 

 

Someone has mentioned 'therapy' in running. Yes, therapeutic if the running is 'perfect. Last week, with friends over, I put an A1 I've just built on a train. Though it started the heavy train with ease, it then derailed its bogie (I've mentioned this before). I investigated and it appeared that the front shackle was fouling a guard iron. I thought this had cured it. However, after my friends had left, I tried the A1 once more, and the bogie derailed again! I checked the back-to-backs of the wheels - fine. Then I noticed some tightness in the pivot arm where it was attached to the pogie via a soldered-in pin. Over time, flux had penetrated the pivot and it had become stiff. A wiggle and a couple of drops of oil, and all was well. 

 

Why do I mention this? Because the running in that case was anything but therapeutic. It was very frustrating. There was therapy in my fixing it, but also annoyance that it had derailed in front of my friends! 

 

Of course, the 'ultimate' would be never run the railway at all - just photograph it, preserved in aspic so to speak. That's daft, and I accept that.

 

But it's what others accept with regard to running which puzzles me at times. Frequent derailments seem to be accepted, as does stuttering in the running (don't get me going on about this at shows!) and as for trains dividing/separating, it's endemic on some layouts. Yet, it doesn't seem to bother the builders/owners/operators that much.

 

Tony Gee mentioned my non-operation of Buckingham, but as an observer on the day, things happened which I would not tolerate under any circumstances on LB. A train divided and there were at least two derailments, not to mention a racket from one or two locos! Yes, I know it's very old (and it is still a fantastic creation) but there'd be no therapy for me in running it. There was a novice operator as well, but the problems weren't caused by operator error. 

 

As I've mentioned, the pleasure I derive from operating LB is when friends/visitors come round and I run it with them. We're getting there as well. Excluding operator errors (not many now), the two and a half hours' sequence can be run with no derailments, no stuttering and no trains dividing. Some 50 trains will have been operated, backwards/forwards/fast/slow and shunting. 

 

I could run the whole thing myself (though the sequence would take longer), but it's nowhere near as much fun!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Tony W showed his operating credentials when he came to see Buckingham with Jesse a few weeks ago. Jesse was happy to get on the controls at Buckingham and have a go at running some trains but Tony refused to touch the controls and his sole contribution to the operating was one rather dodgy attempt with a three link coupling!

 

To me, the hobby is a double pleasure. I build things, then I enjoy operating them. At present, none of my own layouts are set up at home but an hour or two running Buckingham is a fantastic way to forget all the troubles of the day.

 

I can't help but think that those who enjoy building things but not operating, or operating layouts but not building things, are somehow missing out on something.

 

As Tony mentioned above, the Peter Denny and Frank Dyer types, the ones who saw both operation and construction as both giving great satisfaction, will always be the ones I look up to for my inspiration. 

'I can't help but think that those who enjoy building things but not operating, or operating layouts but not building things, are somehow missing out on something.'

 

I think you're right in this, Tony. 

 

However, though the vast majority can 'operate' a layout, a much smaller minority can actually build things for/on it. 

 

If I chose to (which I don't) I could operate a layout. Many can't build things, even if they wished they could. For them, the only pleasure in the hobby is operation. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[2750Papyrus]

In the context of reliable running, I found the earlier reference to 3 link couplings interesting. 

 

I have seen a number of beautifully modelled layouts at exhibitions where the trains run reliably until a shunting move is required, whereupon the great hand from the sky appears, clutching a tool to undo a 3 link coupling.  Whilst skilled operators familiar with the layout manage OK, sometimes those helping out for the occasion struggle and resort to using their hands to move stock and slacken the couplings.  On one layout previously discussed on this thread, the operator slid the whole train along the track so he could see better! 

[Lecorbusier]

1 hour ago, chris p bacon said:

 

Being one of those  'developers' these statements irk me somewhat. 

 

Planning policy as set by central government is what determines the density and what is built. Hence in this area the style of buildings changed overnight from 2 storey detached and semi detached, to 3 storey terraced as the density of housing increased per hectare.

I personally purchased a bungalow sitting in half an acre which had outline permission to demolish and replace with a large house, when I applied for detailed permission the local planning authority asked for the plans to be changed to multiple housing or the application would be refused.

 

The amount of amenity area associated with houses has decreased with recent planning policy, and shared areas such as green spaces are included in that calculation.

 

 

I take a slightly different view. Developers of all ilks (and I have both worked for them and been one myself in a small way) build as a business for profit  - whether to sell or to derive an income from rental. As such the main driver is not social need, but what within the market offers the most advantageous outcome. To some extent policy can drive and channel this by generating demand ... but choices are neither altruistic nor social.

 

If you want social outcomes, then it has always seemed bonkers to me to leave it to the market or expect the market to be a willing partner. The plight of developer driven social or "affordable"   housing is proof of this, and as far as satisfying demand is concerned, so long as there is a market and a return that is all that is required to drive the sector ....  outcomes do not prove to be predictable as far as social engineering is concerned. Housing associations have proved more successful.  In  London ... as well as many other city locations .... you will find many flats bought off plan as investments, often from abroad and often left empty, with negligible impact upon the housing crisis (and it often seems to be ignored that London has 3 boroughs with some of the highest levels of Poverty in the UK ). Again, if statistics are to be believed, it is not a shortage of property that the country suffers from, but rather a shortage of available property at affordable prices .... we actually have a surfeit of accommodation as things stand.

 

All very interesting ... and something for which a solution will need to be found - you can't disenfranchise too large a section of society without repercussions as we found out during the 1920s and 30s ....  40 - 60% of a persons income (in many cases a double income) going on accommodation costs is not sustainable. It is already having a statistical downward effect on peoples choices of when and if to have a family ... a fact currently partially masked by an ageing and increasingly long lived population.

 

But I find that railway modelling is a fantastic escape from the real world, I just wish I had more time to devote to it .....and to other leisure activities come to that. As things are going it doesn't look as if I will have any hope of retiring much before 70, which is when my own mortgage will be paid off --- but then I shouldn't grumble as I am lucky enough to have a mortgage! By comparison my father retired at 59 and will be 94 this year.

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

Being one of those  'developers' these statements irk me somewhat. 

 

Planning policy as set by central government is what determines the density and what is built. Hence in this area the style of buildings changed overnight from 2 storey detached and semi detached, to 3 storey terraced as the density of housing increased per hectare.

I personally purchased a bungalow sitting in half an acre which had outline permission to demolish and replace with a large house, when I applied for detailed permission the local planning authority asked for the plans to be changed to multiple housing or the application would be refused.

 

The amount of amenity area associated with houses has decreased with recent planning policy, and shared areas such as green spaces are included in that calculation.

 

 

 

I don't want to take a modelling thread down this route but from what you say, it seems as if you are being forced to make more money by the planning rules.

 

That must be awful for you!

 

The point I was making is that it suits developers, planners and a growing population of smaller families/singles to have more smaller properties and that is what we are getting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Lecorbusier said:

By glut I mean .....if the statistics are to be believed.... a pretty large proportion of property outside the rental sector is now concentrated within the over 65 age bracket. When these houses come on to the market (which they will unless you are an only child and the inheritance tax rules change such that they don't force a sale (or the property is cheap enough to be below the threshold)), then there is likely to be a limited market for such properties at the current values. As such a glut will result and prices will tumble. Now whether  they tumble to the extent that they become affordable to those below the glass ceiling, or whether they find a higher level of value where they become pray to the landlord sector (re-enforcing that glass ceiling) only time will tell. It is certain that we currently have an unsustainable glass ceiling.

 

For many years I worked for a Building Society and in my view, the biggest problem in housing is the discrepancy between the rise in house prices and the rise in incomes. When I started work, interest rates were very high but you could still buy a decent house with a small mortgage based on 3 times your annual income. My first house, bought in the early 1980s, cost £24000 and I was earning £8000 a year. The interest rate was around 15% but the payments were OK as it was a small loan.

 

My children cannot ever get a decent house on their incomes unless they can borrow 6 or 7 times their annual income. One earns less than £20000 a year. One of the tiny new apartments just up the road is £285000. The cheapest most run down property in town is in excess of £100,000.

 

Property prices would have to go a long way before they become affordable!

 

   

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

As has always been the case, Clive.

 

All the 'best' layouts I've been involved with have resulted in (mutual) enjoyment in the building, in exhibiting or (as in the case of LB) inviting friends to see/operate. To me, all have been interesting. 

 

It comes down to personal choice, of course. Many of the splendid layouts you've built wouldn't (and don't) interest me a bit. This is my personal prejudice, but small diesel depot layouts (and large ones, if they exist) just bore me. Your Sheffield Exchange is much more interesting, though the City of Steel never had a terminus as such.

 

Larger layouts are often built by clubs, but in that is the potential Achilles' heel. By that I mean, in my experience, many fall into the 'lowest common denominator' trap, where, because of democracy, everyone has a right to contribute, whatever their skill-level. I've seen huge ones which don't impress me at all - they have no real sense of time nor place, and usually are awash with RTR/RTP, often unaltered. They're also usually in OO. 

 

As has also been mentioned, the time factor for building an 'accurate' large layout can be off-putting - in my own case, decades, all-in. And, that's with a highly-skilled team.  

 

Some, like Ian Futers, used to build a (simple) layout-a-year, often roundy-roundys. Popular at shows, they showed what can be done single-handed. They were very well-made. 

 

To some (like me, I suppose) it's the building of things which is most important. LB is only ever operated when friends visit (apart from my testing of new locos/stock). I never operate it on my own. Operating a layout (even big ones I've been involved with at shows) has never interested me, and how individuals manage to stay awake when operating their micro/cameo/shunting puzzle layouts for two/three days at exhibitions I don't know. 'Respect' I think is the term! 

 

To others, it's operating which is most-important, and here's where RTR really can come into its own. Some are not actual builders of things, but still derive satisfaction from just assembling a train set (which is how most of us started) or, with enough fiscal clout, get others to do their 'modelling' for them, basking (as is their right) in their acquisitions.

 

I suppose the 'ultimate' is/are the Peter Dennys of this world, or the Frank Dyers. Those who both make things (just about everything themselves) and have a fully-operational model railway. 

 

Whatever the situation, enjoyment in what one does in the hobby is paramount.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

They were fun to build, especially Hanging Hill, and with a frontage of 16 ft wasn't a small depot.  They were also fun to operate if prototype practice was kept to.

 

The research was good, take for instance the fuel supply. With the snippets of information I had at the time, I calculated what the average daily use of fuel would be using the number of locomotive diagrams operated by real depots of similar size. This involved knowing the fuel capacity of each class of loco, the range in miles that they could do and referring to a few diagrams noting when the locos came into refuel and how many miles they done between each top up. From that I was able work out how much reserve fuel would need to be stored and the size of the tanks to hold it, knowing that the ER used 25,000 gallon tanks, two tanks would be sufficient. I was armed with the knowledge that early built depots had double capacity because the newly delivered fuel was given time to settle, this was later proved not necessary. So I scratchbuilt four ER 25,000 gallon tanks with the piping correctly positioned, unlike the Bachmann tanks that have the discharge at the top.

 

Knowing the amount of fuel lead me on to how much would need to be delivered, what type of tank wagons and which company would be delivering them. The ER had six monthly contracts which appear to be more commonly won by Shell-BP, sometimes Esso or Mobil. I have since built up quite a collection of Shell-BP 1960s tank wagons, RTR, RTR modified and scratch built.

 

Scratch built engine shed, with number 19 departmental loco resting between carriage heating duties.  Photo by Andy Jupe  (I think so)

Inside the shed. Photo Andy Jupe

 

Loco storage sidings, at least 3 scratch built locos, and 6 converted ones. Photo Peter Rye

 

Perhaps I should build another large depot layout. 

 

[Tony Wright]

6 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

They were fun to build, especially Hanging Hill, and with a frontage of 16 ft wasn't a small depot.  They were also fun to operate if prototype practice was kept to.

 

The research was good, take for instance the fuel supply. With the snippets of information I had at the time, I calculated what the average daily use of fuel would be using the number of locomotive diagrams operated by real depots of similar size. This involved knowing the fuel capacity of each class of loco, the range in miles that they could do and referring to a few diagrams noting when the locos came into refuel and how many miles they done between each top up. From that I was able work out how much reserve fuel would need to be stored and the size of the tanks to hold it, knowing that the ER used 25,000 gallon tanks, two tanks would be sufficient. I was armed with the knowledge that early built depots had double capacity because the newly delivered fuel was given time to settle, this was later proved not necessary. So I scratchbuilt four ER 25,000 gallon tanks with the piping correctly positioned, unlike the Bachmann tanks that have the discharge at the top.

 

Knowing the amount of fuel lead me on to how much would need to be delivered, what type of tank wagons and which company would be delivering them. The ER had six monthly contracts which appear to be more commonly won by Shell-BP, sometimes Esso or Mobil. I have since built up quite a collection of Shell-BP 1960s tank wagons, RTR, RTR modified and scratch built.

 

Scratch built engine shed, with number 19 departmental loco resting between carriage heating duties.  Photo by Andy Jupe  (I think so)

Inside the shed. Photo Andy Jupe

 

Loco storage sidings, at least 3 scratch built locos, and 6 converted ones. Photo Peter Rye

 

Perhaps I should build another large depot layout. 

 

I'm not sure I'd call 16' large, Clive.

 

I never bothered with diesel depots as a trainspotter (steam sheds were still going strong, anyway) so I had no idea at the time what constituted large or small in that regard.

 

I visited a few as a photographer; Buxton I'd have called small, though I doubt if it could have been built to scale in 16'. Perhaps, but with all its sidings, only just. 

 

I've mentioned this before, but I find the current trend towards micro diesel depot layouts puzzling. At best, they could only be sidings for taking fuel, never 'depots'. They could never operate in reality, surely? 

 

I suppose I'm not really sure; it's not my area of interest or study. However, currently, one area of interest and study is the B1 4-6-0s. As you've modelled, one or two had an extended life in Departmental use for train heating. One condition of that further use was that they lost their couplings, front and rear. I see you've left yours on! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[chris p bacon]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I don't want to take a modelling thread down this route but from what you say, it seems as if you are being forced to make more money by the planning rules.

 

That must be awful for you!

 

I can name 3 local builders who purchased sites with outline permission for modest houses. At Full planning application the LPA changed course  and they ended up with sites with poor quality housing and  that ultimately they couldn't afford to build. The sites themselves then become difficult to sell.  The banks are very quick to take control of such sites and to take assets and all 3 are now at the end of their working life with very little left. So yes it can be awful trying to make a living in this sector. 

 

I saved and sold all I had and risked everything on a gamble because I was fed up with customers that decide not to pay because they think that if they take you to bankruptcy they get stuff for free.  I've worked hard and never borrowed and have been successful at it.  I'd suggest you risk all you have before making such glib comments.  

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, chris p bacon said:

 

I can name 3 local builders who purchased sites with outline permission for modest houses. At Full planning application the LPA changed course  and they ended up with sites with poor quality housing and  that ultimately they couldn't afford to build. The sites themselves then become difficult to sell.  The banks are very quick to take control of such sites and to take assets and all 3 are now at the end of their working life with very little left. So yes it can be awful trying to make a living in this sector. 

 

I saved and sold all I had and risked everything on a gamble because I was fed up with customers that decide not to pay because they think that if they take you to bankruptcy they get stuff for free.  I've worked hard and never borrowed and have been successful at it.  I'd suggest you risk all you have before making such glib comments.  

 

I was one of those lenders! Or I worked for one, it wasn't my money going in. 

 

We (The Building Society) lost a load of money (in millions) due to developers promising the earth and not delivering. Hence my somewhat biased view. Some good friends of mine lost their jobs and subsequently their homes as a result of the failure of projects that they had authorised loans on. Luckily for me, my role at the time was more administrative than decision making, so I wasn't blamed. Even when I saw a flaw in a business plan, the ones writing the cheques were so pleased to be seen to be lending lots of money that they ignored any warnings I gave them.

 

We would lend money and when it was their turn to put their share in, all of a sudden they didn't have any. Trying to get funds released in excess of the total site value was common but we were limited to he terms of our mortgage contract as to how much we could release at any one time.

 

Trying to sell a plot with a few part built houses isn't easy, especially when they are built where the developer wanted to put them, not where the planning permission said!

 

So not glib comments. Based on experience in the sector.

 

But can I suggest that we leave the discussion on housing policy to one side and talk about model railways instead?

 

I hope we can agree that, for whatever reason and whatever is driving it, most modern houses are smaller than in previous times and have smaller gardens, therefore less room for a model railway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

On 31/12/2019 at 15:25, Tony Wright said:

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. 

Thanks for your comments Tony and ‘ Philou’, constructive criticism is always welcome.

 

I had to wait to reply until I returned home as, despite having lots of photos of the layout they all had trains in the way obscuring the point I want to make. You are certainly right that I squeezed in sidings where I could, and it’s likely that in some cases, I’ve made situations that are improbably with regard to the prototype. However, I don’t think it’s as bad as you suggest. This is a view looking the other way from the position where the previous photographs were taken.

 

 

I hope this shows that the fans of five sidings leads into a headshunt. The running lines drop from 4 to 2 at about this point and that headshunt provides protection for the up fast as the down slow/ station access diverges from it as well as access to the fans of five sidings. I can not see that there’s anything wrong with this arrangement, but I stand to be corrected if I’ve missed anything. 

 

On the down side, the sidings are accessed directly off the down slow just before it joins the down fast. There is a headshunt for the sidings as seen terminating to the left of the tunnel mouth. Again this is the same headshunt which provides protection for the down fast as the down slow joins it.

 

Following this discussion, I suspect I should have put the crossover from down slow to down fast (seen centre right in the photo) further back (behind the camera). Then what is currently the down slow could have been a dedicated siding access line at this point. However, it’s too late for that, so I think I will have to add a couple of trap points and accept that it’s a ‘less common’ operational feature.

 

I attach a plan of the layout below to allow readers to make a bit more sense of the photos.

 

 

On the subject of large layouts, I hope that Gresley Jn. qualifies (it's c.32ftx10ft). I’m lucky enough to have a large converted loft in which to base it. Indeed, that loft rather sold the house to me!

 

Andy

 

Edited January 1, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Adding track plan

[robertcwp]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Unfortunately not,

 

Not by me, anyway.

 

Everything was shot on medium-format transparency, and all that film is in Warners' archive somewhere. I lent all my early BRMs to a chap who has since 'disappeared', so I no longer have copies!

 

Can someone who has access to them scan them, and put them on here please? I doubt if copyright will be an issue. I built the trains, wrote about them and photographed them.

 

Perhaps Andy York might advise.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

There was something of a fracas a few days ago on another thread (a thread which I had started) when a now-ex-RMWeb member posted scans of an article he had written for a magazine about one of his modelling projects. It was taken down because of copyright and things became rather difficult! See this post and ones around it.

 

As BRM is under the same ownership as this site, perhaps copyright permission could be obtained? I think I have the Elizabethan issue and probably several others with coaching stock articles (I wonder why...). I also have Tony's bookazines written for Irwell many years ago if I recall correctly.

Edited January 1, 2020 by robertcwp
Typo.

[polybear]

7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Round our way, former colliery sites are being developed with nearly 1000 tiny houses crammed in and blocks of flats and apartments are appearing at a great rate.

 

 

All that weight on top of all those mine shafts.....

[robertcwp]

Interesting discussion about space and trends in layouts. I bought my house in Greater London almost 26 years ago. It's a modest size for the area - essentially a small 2 bedrooms plus cupboard (which estate agents will tell you is a 3rd bedroom) semi-detached and the plot on which it stands is 100' x 32', the width is mainly on account of there being a garage next to the house. It cost £87,500 and needed some work. The house next door sold for around £475,000 a few months ago, and that has a smaller plot and no garage.

 

One of my main criteria in selecting a house was being close to a station and model railway space was some way down the list. However, the garden space gave me the opportunity to have a large outbuilding constructed for a layout. If I were doing it now, the building would be wider to allow for more generous curves and would be built differently, but It gave me an unobstructed interior space of 25'4" x 10'. My layout was designed in 1997 and things have moved on a bit since then. The track plan was to give me the kind of layout I wanted to operate, as that is my main interest. I don't do scenery but there are some buildings and the track is ballasted (not by me). The track layout is not strictly correct and I would do things a bit differently now, eg put in a few trap points, but fundamentally, given the same space, I would still have pretty much the same layout. 20 years on from when it was completed, and with very little modification, it still does what I want it to do. All I really need is more time for it but work has a habit of getting in the way and is likely to do so for a few more years yet.

 

I did have the idea to build a small, portable, Southern Electric layout but rapidly came to the conclusion that I would need at least 23' to do anything worthwhile. Meanwhile, my EMUs have an occasional 'Rule 1' outing on my existing layout. I could put up an end-to-end 23' x 2' layout in my through lounge but would have nowhere to store it and it might get in the way of living in the house somewhat.

 

Incidentally, the room in which Roy Jackson had 'Retford' was 80' x 40', which is the same area as the plot on which my house stands.

[APOLLO]

Some interesting remarks regarding modern housing above. I'll not add other than agree the whole shenango is crazy, even up 'ere in sunny Wigan these days.

 

Before I got married, at my old house (a 3 bed semi) back in 1982 I bought a 22ft x 12ft concrete sectional shed for my O gauge layout, which filled most of the back garden !! I subsequently dismantled, moved and re-erected  this garage on a house move & marriage back in 1993. A logistical nightmare but with some friends we managed. It still houses my O layout and is still doing sterling service - It will probably outlast me !!. Suffice to say when I moved here I chose my plot carefully with this in mind. I suppose my house (and estate) was one of the last to have decent size gardens and rooms etc.

 

I built a small OO layout in a spare bedroom here, but this had to go (up in the loft) when our twin girls were born in 2001. Two layouts up there now, soon to be three with a lightweight O gauge (British) plank in development.

 

As to operation, I am (and always have been) a lone builder / operator and I envy a little those of you who help / operate etc together. None of my mates these days are model or rail enthusiasts (including family - though they put up with me and occasionally give me a bit of help when asked). I don't operate to any particular sequence or timetable, just run trains (whilst doing other jobs, repairs, maintenance etc).

 

I enjoy this hobby immensely, and have never been without a model railway / railroad since I was about 8 or 9 years old - a long time ago.

 

Happy model railways to all in 2020. 

 

Brit15

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm not sure I'd call 16' large, Clive.

 

I never bothered with diesel depots as a trainspotter (steam sheds were still going strong, anyway) so I had no idea at the time what constituted large or small in that regard.

 

I visited a few as a photographer; Buxton I'd have called small, though I doubt if it could have been built to scale in 16'. Perhaps, but with all its sidings, only just. 

 

I've mentioned this before, but I find the current trend towards micro diesel depot layouts puzzling. At best, they could only be sidings for taking fuel, never 'depots'. They could never operate in reality, surely? 

 

I suppose I'm not really sure; it's not my area of interest or study. However, currently, one area of interest and study is the B1 4-6-0s. As you've modelled, one or two had an extended life in Departmental use for train heating. One condition of that further use was that they lost their couplings, front and rear. I see you've left yours on! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

A RTR loco that has only had its number changed, and you pick up it has couplings. Never mind the scratch built building that is over two feet long and a foot wide with interior detail behind it.

 

In the past I have been told many times that they had their couplings removed,  but I still cannot recall seeing a photo with the couplings removed. I have just done a very quick google search on Departmental B1s and the two photos that came up show numbers 21 and 32 with couplings.

 

I have also been told by many experts that they had their coupling rods removed and had to be moved around by a shunter. They were self-propelled.

 

The one based at Ipswich rescued a failed DMU stuck at Manningtree, with no couplings and coupling rods was the driver also able to walk on on the River Stour because he could perform miracles with his loco. 

 

As for the length of the layout it was longer than many branch line stations, far bigger than most depot layouts. Had I not used Peco points but built my own C8 points it might have been 20 foot as there was no compromise on siding lengths or the size of the building.

 

Sorry they are out of your sphere of interest despite the modelling and research, was it not you who told me off because I said the subject matter of a French narrow gauge layout didn't enthuse me no matter how well it was modelled.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Clive Mortimore

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, polybear said:

 

All that weight on top of all those mine shafts.....

 

I am sure they thought about that before they started building.

 

Or I hope they did.

 

Just imagine a lift through the floor down to the mile long railway room in the former mine workings. It might even have a narrow gauge full size railway to play with.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2020 by t-b-g

[jamie92208]

Tony, if you need access to old BRM's talk to anyone at the Wakefield club they have an excellent library.

 

Jamie

Edited January 2, 2020 by jamie92208

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

However, currently, one area of interest and study is the B1 4-6-0s. As you've modelled, one or two had an extended life in Departmental use for train heating. One condition of that further use was that they lost their couplings, front and rear. I see you've left yours on!

 

Tony,

 

I think that you overstate the actual situation.

 

I have a lot of photos of Departmental B1s, and it is true that some have had their screw couplings removed, but not their coupling hooks.

 

On the other hand, a lot (the majority?) of photos show the screw couplings to be present.

 

As always - follow a photo of your prototype.

 

Happy New Year,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

16 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

A RTR loco that has only had its number changed, and you pick up it has couplings. Never mind the scratch built building that is over two feet long and a foot wide with interior detail behind it.

 

In the past I have been told many times that they had their couplings removed,  but I still cannot recall seeing a photo with the couplings removed. I have just done a very quick google search on Departmental B1s and the two photos that came up show numbers 21 and 32 with couplings.

 

I have also been told by many experts that they had their coupling rods removed and had to be moved around by a shunter. They were self-propelled.

 

The one based at Ipswich rescued a failed DMU stuck at Manningtree, with no couplings and coupling rods was the driver also able to walk on on the River Stour because he could perform miracles with his loco. 

 

As for the length of the layout it was longer than many branch line stations, far bigger than most depot layouts. Had I not used Peco points but built my own C8 points it might have been 20 foot as there was no compromise on siding lengths or the size of the building.

 

Sorry they are out of your sphere of interest despite the modelling and research, was it not you who told me off because I said the subject matter of a French narrow gauge layout didn't enthuse me no matter how well it was modelled.

'A RTR loco that has only had its number changed, and you pick up it has couplings.'

 

Constructive criticism, Clive. I'd expect it in response to anything I post. Or what anyone else posts. 

 

When the B1s became Departmental stock their coupling shackles were removed, but the hooks in the 'beams remained (last-but-one photograph in the appropriate Yeadon). That was how the your example was able to rescue a DMU. Nothing miraculous at all! 

 

'as there was no compromise on siding lengths or the size of the building.'

 

Please forgive my ignorance; I didn't realise it was an actual prototype.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

I think that you overstate the actual situation.

 

I have a lot of photos of Departmental B1s, and it is true that some have had their screw couplings removed, but not their coupling hooks.

 

On the other hand, a lot (the majority?) of photos show the screw couplings to be present.

 

As always - follow a photo of your prototype.

 

Happy New Year,

John Isherwood.

Thanks John,

 

Please see post above.

 

And (and I didn't really want to mention this), no B1, whether in general or Departmental service had a tension-lock coupling!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

....the hooks in the 'beams remained (last-but-one photograph in the appropriate Yeadon).

 

 

No, Tony - by no means always - would you like me to send you the photos?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, cctransuk said:

 

No, Tony - by no means always - would you like me to send you the photos?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Thanks again John,

 

The perils of believing what is written in the 'established works'.

 

Please put the pictures on here if you wish.

 

And, a very Happy New Year to you and yours.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[D-A-T]

26 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am sure they thought about that before they started building.

 

Or I hope they did.

 

Just imagine a lift through the floor down to the mile long railway room in the former mine workings. It might even have a narrow gauge full size railway to play with.

 

 

Back in 2006, when married, we bought a new 4 bed detached house on the former Markham Main pit top (Armthorpe, Doncaster). In 2007(?) we were on the fringe of an earthquake. The rumble and noise woke us up. My first thought was the shaft had collapsed! I decided it was a warning and sold the house soon after!