Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

Stunning looking modelling, not just the 1F but the wagons and track as well. I'm always interested in why some modellers choose ply sleepers over plastic – is it purely down to personal preference or are there benefits that I've missed?

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My New Year's resolution was to re-visit a couple of locos which had been giving me issues.

 

You know that you have too many locos when you discover there are 2 with the same number. Heaton only needs one of 61869, so the other is now St. Margaret's 61885. How long it would have stayed looking ex-works is a good question, as both photos I have of it on Edinburgh-Tyneside freights show it looking pretty grubby.

 

Anyway, here it is in the headshunt at Little Benton North, either waiting a path back home or waiting to take a freight out of the sidings. Passing it is Haymarket's Hornets Beauty, just back in service after being fitted with an SEF chassis,. The loco is a DJH kit, which I made a mess of several years ago. Regrettably, DJH wont sell their chassis as spares, at least not to the likes of me.

 

Talking of A2's, I am about a third of the way through modifying another SEF chassis to fit under A2/3 Ocean Swell. This is a GBL body with Graeme King resin castings, and was fitted to a modified Hornby Brit chassis. I did 3 of them and all 3 chassis have failed with the motor coming out of mesh.

I'll get them running just in time for Hornby's release.

 

John

IMG_20200111_103609.jpg

Edited by rowanj
  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anglian said:

 I'm always interested in why some modellers choose ply sleepers over plastic – is it purely down to personal preference or are there benefits that I've missed?

 

I like ply for two reasons ... firstly I think it takes paint/stain better and so is easier to make convincing; secondly you can buy uncut lengths as well as the pre-cut standard runs and this gives flexibility when working out sleeper arrangements for pointwork etc - varying lengths and widths etc etc. Having said that, it is probably really just a matter of preference. One advantage I like is that the chairs are fixed down with butanone which grips into the grain .. so  because the bond is weaker than onto plastic, it is possible to adjust and change things even after bonding, which can be a godsend.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bucoops said:

The marketing buffoons at my old place used to really wind the R&D designers (me amongst others) up. On a regular basis one would march into the design office with a huge grin on their face announcing they had sold a machine that could do XYZ. XYZ being something none of us had ever done, or had any idea HOW to do.

 

We were all for pushing the boundaries, but they really had no clue. Many a time they had to go back to the client and apologise profusely.

 

How that company is still going i have no idea.

Sounds more like sales than marketing, 

 

Tone

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, robertcwp said:

It was your articles in Model Railway Constructor about coaching stock over 40 years ago that set me off, even before Keith Parkin's book was published.

 

Carriage workings are not a great deal of use on their own. You need corroborative evidence from elsewhere, such as photos or logs, although even then it's risky as photo dates are often inaccurate and the few spotters who noted carriages probably made some mistakes too.

 

A recent example of where I have put the cat amongst the pigeons is on the Coronation Scot thread, where I asserted that the whole train was turned after each journey. Few, if any, believed me until none of them could find a photo of the train in regular service with the first class at the front in either direction.

 

I did.   :)

 

Probably because I actually read books and magazines written by the genuine experts rather than relying on assumptions.

 

I'm of the age when some major stations still had shunters moving trains to the carriage sidings. Maybe people now are used to the way multiple units work rather than loco hauled trains? 

 

I also remember when the prestigious trains got a proper clean rather than just a bloke walking along with a binbag for plastic coffee cups.

 

 

 

Jason

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Anglian said:

Stunning looking modelling, not just the 1F but the wagons and track as well. I'm always interested in why some modellers choose ply sleepers over plastic – is it purely down to personal preference or are there benefits that I've missed?

 

 

I used ply sleepers for the one and only layout I built using scratch built track.  The one advantage that I found was that I had used a Van Dyke brown stain to colour the sleepers.  When the ballast was laid and treated as always with the diluted PVA, the colour leached out of the sleepers.  The way this seemed to work was that the leaching was strongest at the middle of the track and at the sleeper ends.   This gave a very realistic grading of colour from the rail outwards along the sleepers.

 

In the end, wood does look like wood but plastic does not always look like wood if the colouring is not sympathetic.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, robertcwp said:

It was your articles in Model Railway Constructor about coaching stock over 40 years ago that set me off, even before Keith Parkin's book was published.

 

Carriage workings are not a great deal of use on their own. You need corroborative evidence from elsewhere, such as photos or logs, although even then it's risky as photo dates are often inaccurate and the few spotters who noted carriages probably made some mistakes too.

 

A recent example of where I have put the cat amongst the pigeons is on the Coronation Scot thread, where I asserted that the whole train was turned after each journey. Few, if any, believed me until none of them could find a photo of the train in regular service with the first class at the front in either direction.

 

For me it was seeing weird coaches nothing like I had seen in a catalogue, and the fact I found a coach spotting book very soon after I started on locos.

 

I reckon coaches started about a month after loco names.

 

I started collecting wagon details for my own models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

It was a photo of the 3 GWR Clerestories, which he had converted to EM gauge and altered slightly to look more GCR. I spoke to him about them and he told me that it was a lot of work to end up with inaccurate models and he wished that he hadn't bothered and wouldn't be doing any more.

I remember the RM article describing those - getting on for 60 years ago now!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/01/2020 at 17:53, Ray Flintoft said:

You're quiet right , Tony , I have never seen any mention of the repositioning of the nameplates , even though it is clearly obvious in photographs . The other points you make are also correct , I think we have spoken about inaccurate statements in books & articles , especially with regard to photographs , which seem to be common nowadays . Trust nothing without corroboration !

   One question ; whist I know Peter Townend has written about the use of class A.2/3 on the cement train , I had always understood that it was at the instigation of Jack Somers , then Assistant DMPS at Peterborough . I may be wrong , but would like to know .

   I won't be buying any Hornby A.2/2 because I already have 5 plus the DGH kit for 60506 ; however I may buy a couple of the A.2/3 to replace my oldest , most inaccurate & poorest running Millholme efforts . Having looked in my cupboard I have realised that I may need to live longer than is likely to complete all the kits I still have !!

                             

     Best Wishes ,

                      Ray . 

Thanks Ray,

My source regarding the A2/3s on the cement train came from Peter Townend's LNER Pacifics at Work (my copy of which is still with Hornby). It could well have been in consultation with Jack Somers (I know his son, David, so I'll ask him), but once the big Thopmson Pacifics were on the job, any timekeeping problems disappeared. 

 

Occasionally, there's some surprise shown when the inability of the 9Fs to keep time on the train (the heaviest on the line?) is mentioned. The point is, the 9Fs aren't that big in comparison with an A2/3 (or even a V2). A 9F weighs 86 tons 14 cwt, with a tractive effort of 39,670 lb. An A2/3 weighs 101 tons 10 cwt, with a tractive effort of 40,430 lb (I know the TE is not entirely indicative of a loco's strength, but it's an interesting comparison, especially as the 9F has four more drivers). A V2 weighs 93 tons 2 cwt. I mention the weight because, if related to my models, the heaviest ones always pull the most, and, although any of the five 9Fs I've built can haul the 29-wagon cement train on LB, any of the four A2/3s I've built can take the rake with even greater ease! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

  • Informative/Useful 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/01/2020 at 20:40, mullie said:

Tonight my J72 ran along my layout, a Comet chassis built in EM with High Level gears running on PCB track. This is the first chassis I built, the J39 chassis also shows promise. This short video shows it running tonight. Hope it is of interest, for me this is a big step.

 

 

Thanks for looking, now need to finish it off.

 

Martyn

That's beautifully-smooth, Martyn,

 

Well done, and thanks for showing us.

 

It's a pity that a large layout (in the same scale, but a different gauge) didn't run so well at Stevenage over the weekend. Far too many derailments for me! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

On 11/01/2020 at 09:18, richard i said:

I was looking on the Hornby page for what they were saying about the A2s and saw that for the A2/2 it said that they worked out of York shed down the GCR. I was told at a recent GCRS meeting that the only known picture of a Thompson pacific on the GC was of 500 at Nottingham Victoria going for naming. So is there other proof that Hornby’s statement is correct? 

Many thanks

Richard 

'So is there other proof that Hornby’s statement is correct? '

 

There is Richard,

 

I can't immediately find it, but I have a shot of 60501 at Nottingham Victoria. Based on that, you will have driven my model of 60501 on Charwelton. 

 

You'll also have driven a few other Thompson and Peppercorn Pacifics on the same layout. Any of York's loco types could be used (borrowed?) on the ex-GC main line. I believe the Pacifics tended to work at night on the line, on heavy freights, so, obviously, are rarely photographed. 

 

Good to see you over the weekend.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

On 11/01/2020 at 10:50, gr.king said:

Excellent! Is that step in the leading edge of the top access plate for the superheater header a genuine feature of the real thing?

Good morning Graeme,

 

'Is that step in the leading edge of the top access plate for the superheater header a genuine feature of the real thing?'

 

I would think so. It's on Bachmann's new V2.

 

It's something I've never put on the umpteen V2 models I've ever made. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

19 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Ray,

My source regarding the A2/3s on the cement train came from Peter Townend's LNER Pacifics at Work (my copy of which is still with Hornby). It could well have been in consultation with Jack Somers (I know his son, David, so I'll ask him), but once the big Thopmson Pacifics were on the job, any timekeeping problems disappeared. 

 

Occasionally, there's some surprise shown when the inability of the 9Fs to keep time on the train (the heaviest on the line?) is mentioned. The point is, the 9Fs aren't that big in comparison with an A2/3 (or even a V2). A 9F weighs 86 tons 14 cwt, with a tractive effort of 39,670 lb. An A2/3 weighs 101 tons 10 cwt, with a tractive effort of 40,430 lb (I know the TE is not entirely indicative of a loco's strength, but it's an interesting comparison, especially as the 9F has four more drivers). A V2 weighs 93 tons 2 cwt. I mention the weight because, if related to my models, the heaviest ones always pull the most, and, although any of the five 9Fs I've built can haul the 29-wagon cement train on LB, any of the four A2/3s I've built can take the rake with even greater ease! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

As I understand it, the problem with Pacifics vs, in this case, 9Fs, isn't that they don't have good TE (as you point out above, Tony, they certainly do), but it's getting the power down on starting that's the issue. The contact surface between wheel and rail is small, so 10 drivers are going to be better than 6. Then there's the issue of smaller driving wheels being less likely to slip on starting because the starting torque can be controlled more finely; the turning moment being less...

 

Mark

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

On 11/01/2020 at 14:58, Headstock said:

 

Good Afternoon Great Central,

 

it's a no-go on Lord President I'm afraid, silly old Hornby have not produced the tooling for that particular locomotive. The DJH kit is also of no use for the same reason, Your best option is the PDK kit or the old Crownline one if you can find one. Alternatively, some sort of complicated cut and shut based on the Bachmann A2 that Mick LNER could show examples of. A2/3 steady Aim is a loco that pops up in a number of 1950s references.

 

P.S. You may have witnessed one of the final runs over the London extension by a Thompson Pacific. I don't have any references or evidence  later than 57.

'silly old Hornby have not produced the tooling for that particular locomotive.'

 

Though you might have intended the above comment to be 'tongue in cheek', Andrew, I think it's rather unfair. 

 

Though I'm not claiming any credit for what Hornby is doing (nor responsibility!) with regard to the Thompson Pacifics, Pauls Isles and I discussed at length which A2/2s to do. Because the first Hornby RTR Thompson Pacific was going to be the A2/3, when the A2/2 options were discussed, it made sense to exploit the commonality of parts - especially the later Thompson/Peppercorn boilers. It might have been very nice to tool up to be able to do the A2/2s as originally rebuilt (and 60503/4 until the end of their lives), offering them in full LNER regalia, but (as I've mentioned before) if it costs £6,000 to tool up for a new chimney on an RTR model, think what it would cost to make an entirely new (and substantially-different) smokebox, boiler, firebox, cab and footplate? 

 

It was exactly the same situation when I advised DJH (years ago) as to which A2/2s were viable, after the firm had produced the A2/3.

 

It really begs the question (or at least it does to me) what do folk expect? Since you've 'suggested' the question, in your case (I assume) you couldn't really care less. If you want something, because you're a most-accomplished modeller, you'll make it. The majority can't.

 

By the end of this year (or early next year), anyone (providing he/she has around £200.00) will be able to buy an RTR model of a Thompson A2/3 (for the first time ever!). If, by exploiting commonality of parts, an A2/2 can be produced as well (remember, Hornby already make both tender types for the P2 rebuilds), even though it's only four out of the six, why is that silly?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

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

35 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The point is, the 9Fs aren't that big in comparison with an A2/3 (or even a V2). A 9F weighs 86 tons 14 cwt, with a tractive effort of 39,670 lb. An A2/3 weighs 101 tons 10 cwt, with a tractive effort of 40,430 lb (I know the TE is not entirely indicative of a loco's strength, but it's an interesting comparison, especially as the 9F has four more drivers).

Looking at it from a slightly different point of view - a steam locomotive is a means of turning coal into power at the wheels. Provided that the designer did his job right (and I suspect it always was a man), and therefore all the gubbins between the fire and the wheels can cope with the energy produced, a bigger fire will result in more power and therefore a locomotive that can pull a bigger, or faster, train.

 

The 9F has a 40 square foot grate, a Thompson Pacific has a 50 square foot grate. Since we can assume that both Thompson and Riddles were basically competent engineers producing the best locomotives they could, whatever one's quibbles with particular decisions, it stands to reason that an A2/3 should be able to produce about 25% more power than a 9F. Provided all other things are equal, of course. LMS power classification worked more-or-less on that basis, and the BR passenger power classification also did so to a lesser extent - the BR formula tried to ensure proper proportions of boiler, cylinder, and grate, but basically two-thirds of it comes from being able to burn enough coal.

 

It's also possible to come up with a figure based on cylinder dimensions, which gives the A2/3 about 35% more power. Even the V2 has about 13% more than a 9F, despite its' lower starting tractive effort. I've not figured out the formula for boiler power yet, but good design practice was for the boiler to be capable of generating more steam than the cylinders could use.

 

Interestingly, and surprising nobody, there's very little in it between a Coronation, a Peppercorn A2, and a Merchant Navy - a King or Princess is about 100hp less, and an A4 about 200hp less. The P2s knock them all for six, of course . Seriously impressive machines, and I look forward to seeing a 12":1 foot model of one running on the main line in a few years.

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

I'm away for the weekend, and Wright Writes is more active than ever (is there a message here?). 

 

My thanks to all those who've contributed over the last three days. Most-interesting. 

 

Mo and I had a great time at the CMRA Show at Stevenage over the weekend. It really was an excellent event. All together, we made £66.00 for CRUK (a very good start to the year) through my fixing locos and most-generous donations (many thanks, Bill). I was able to repair/fix everything brought to me, apart from a Bachmann DCC-fitted Brush Type 4. Having finally got inside it, all I found was a serpent's nest of wires, none of which made sense. I did get its lights working, though - then gave it back! 

 

143011094_mystand.jpg.35472b2571a24b9077755a6839c45786.jpg

 

This was my stand. Does its number suggest anything? 

 

 

May I please thank all those with whom I spoke? And, thank all the organisers of the show? 

 

Part of my role was to act as a judge with some friends for the Denis Moore Cup, in memory of a great scenic modeller.

 

72043885_Brinklow11.jpg.dbd8f55f2e9e7b6dccb3da16ea98c3c0.jpg

 

My fellow judges and I awarded it to Brinklow, from the Milton Keynes Club. It's what N Gauge could (and should?) be, but frequently isn't. Here we don't have too much crammed in. It worked impeccably, which was also a consideration we took into account, which rather precluded a layout or two from winning! 

 

1263605283_Brinklow08.jpg.e609bf5dd6b46b4c31b884d3209909cf.jpg

 

Not everything was dead right - 90732 running in BR days, still with a Westinghouse pump? - but the overall standard of modelling was very good.

 

Picking up on a few recent comments about inaccuracies in published material, what about inaccuracies on layouts? At the show, on one layout, I witnessed the prototype DELTIC hauling a rake of pre-War Pullman cars, on the GNR/GER Joint! This was closely followed by a pristine Ivatt Atlantic hauling a rake of post-War Thompson carriages, which was then passed by a BR-liveried loco hauling a rake of the newest PO coal wagons you've ever seen! 

 

I know the builders well, and when I was asked to comment I was told 'Well that belongs to so and so, and he likes to run them, and most viewers don't know, anyway.' To be fair, the layout was popular with spectators, but what an opportunity lost, especially as much in the way of spare locos/stock (all unmodified RTR in the main) was more 'accurate'. 

 

Finally, I had to chuckle when a friend came round who was in a most-apologetic (and even embarrassed) state. He's part of the organising committee of a show Mo and I attend, and he was afraid to say that we were no longer invited. He wanted me to attend, because he thought I was 'good value' at the show, but some others thought otherwise. 

 

It comes about because I'm frequently asked to present prizes and give after-dinner speeches and so forth - which I did (and have done on many occasions - and have been asked to do more this year). Now, my belief is that any 'ceremonies' should be slick, entertaining and (where appropriate) humorous. Oh dear!  'Where appropriate' is open to interpretation! Perhaps I'm not 'sensitive' enough, though having mentioned this to friends who were in attendance, they couldn't believe it. 'We just roared with laughter', seemed to be the response.

 

Have I finally achieved 'notoriety'? Does anyone remember the after-dinners at Doncaster, and Harrogate, and.............?  

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RLBH said:

Looking at it from a slightly different point of view - a steam locomotive is a means of turning coal into power at the wheels. Provided that the designer did his job right (and I suspect it always was a man), and therefore all the gubbins between the fire and the wheels can cope with the energy produced, a bigger fire will result in more power and therefore a locomotive that can pull a bigger, or faster, train.

 

The 9F has a 40 square foot grate, a Thompson Pacific has a 50 square foot grate. Since we can assume that both Thompson and Riddles were basically competent engineers producing the best locomotives they could, whatever one's quibbles with particular decisions, it stands to reason that an A2/3 should be able to produce about 25% more power than a 9F. Provided all other things are equal, of course. LMS power classification worked more-or-less on that basis, and the BR passenger power classification also did so to a lesser extent - the BR formula tried to ensure proper proportions of boiler, cylinder, and grate, but basically two-thirds of it comes from being able to burn enough coal.

 

It's also possible to come up with a figure based on cylinder dimensions, which gives the A2/3 about 35% more power. Even the V2 has about 13% more than a 9F, despite its' lower starting tractive effort. I've not figured out the formula for boiler power yet, but good design practice was for the boiler to be capable of generating more steam than the cylinders could use.

 

Interestingly, and surprising nobody, there's very little in it between a Coronation, a Peppercorn A2, and a Merchant Navy - a King or Princess is about 100hp less, and an A4 about 200hp less. The P2s knock them all for six, of course . Seriously impressive machines, and I look forward to seeing a 12":1 foot model of one running on the main line in a few years.

As I understand it ,it was a long long journey with only a single unionized fireman at a time.

That is less than 3000lbs coal per hour.

The A2/2 advantage was maybe that the  grate did not go haywire so soon.

In the calculation of starting/dead slow effort it is also nessecary  to include  wheel diameter and pressure.

The  important thing for haulage is adhessive mass; 66 tons for the A2/2 and V2 and 77 for 9F

The downside to a big grate is that it wastes  more coal all the time with fire.

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

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Now, my belief is that any 'ceremonies' should be slick, entertaining and (where appropriate) humorous. Oh dear!  'Where appropriate' is open to interpretation! Perhaps I'm not 'sensitive' enough, though having mentioned this to friends who were in attendance, they couldn't believe it. 'We just roared with laughter', seemed to be the response.

 

Have I finally achieved 'notoriety'? Does anyone remember the after-dinners at Doncaster, and Harrogate, and.............?  

I reckon you'd give Ricky Gervais a run for his money.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 5
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

That's beautifully-smooth, Martyn,

 

Well done, and thanks for showing us.

 

It's a pity that a large layout (in the same scale, but a different gauge) didn't run so well at Stevenage over the weekend. Far too many derailments for me! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I would be interested in thoughts/comments by those who are able to attend shows regularly (unfortunately at the moment I can't). Is there variation in the quality of running of the same layouts at different shows, or are the good ones generally always good and the bad ones bad? More to the point .... having seen a layout run faultlessly on one occasion, does it tend to run faultlessly from there on in, or do things ever go wrong?

 

I ask because I would assume that different show conditions could effect layouts in different ways and also thoroughness of setting up/trouble shooting might suffer over a busy period? ... not that this should be an excuse.

 

My own smallish test track, once I got it properly up and running appears pretty consistent as does the stock once the same process has been gone through - but these are always run under the same conditions.

Edited by Lecorbusier
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lecorbusier said:

Is there variation in the quality of running of the same layouts at different shows, or are the good ones generally always good and the bad ones bad? More to the point .... having seen a layout run faultlessly on one occasion, does it tend to run faultlessly from there on in, or do things ever go wrong?

 

 

My own experience as an operator of a large, 36'*20' EM Gauge, layout at three shows now is that total consistency is somewhat difficult to guarantee.  We are very lucky in that we have a space where the layout can be set up permanently between shows as well so a lot of testing can be done but we still get occasions where the same train can run the same route 9 times but on the 10th run will derail.  Of course, every time this happens, the cause is examined to see if it is a particular wagon or the track and efforts made to fix the issue.  

 

One thing we have found that helps is that, once you do have a train that works consistently is to try and ensure that particular train is made up of exactly the same wagons the next time it is set up (easier said than done when you have, for example, almost 100 21T wagons).

 

Edited by johndon
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lecorbusier said:

I would be interested in thoughts/comments by those who are able to attend shows regularly (unfortunately at the moment I can't). Is there variation in the quality of running of the same layouts at different shows, or are the good ones generally always good and the bad ones bad? More to the point .... having seen a layout run faultlessly on one occasion, does it tend to run faultlessly from there on in, or do things ever go wrong?

 

I ask because I would assume that different show conditions could effect layouts in different ways and also thoroughness of setting up/trouble shooting might suffer over a busy period? ... not that this should be an excuse.

 

My own smallish test track, once I got it properly up and running appears pretty consistent as does the stock once the same process has been gone through - but these are always run under the same conditions.

An interesting thought, Tim,

 

Different environments can affect any layout, of course. 

 

In the case of the poor running I've cited today, every time I've seen the layout in question, the running has been poor. It is not alone! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
57 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

I would be interested in thoughts/comments by those who are able to attend shows regularly (unfortunately at the moment I can't). Is there variation in the quality of running of the same layouts at different shows, or are the good ones generally always good and the bad ones bad? More to the point .... having seen a layout run faultlessly on one occasion, does it tend to run faultlessly from there on in, or do things ever go wrong?

 

I ask because I would assume that different show conditions could effect layouts in different ways and also thoroughness of setting up/trouble shooting might suffer over a busy period? ... not that this should be an excuse.

 

My own smallish test track, once I got it properly up and running appears pretty consistent as does the stock once the same process has been gone through - but these are always run under the same conditions.

 

Having operated club layouts at exhibitions over a number of years, it is my perception that the performance of a particular layout is pretty consistent over time, although there are always exceptions.  I recall one exhibition where a normally reliable layout kept derailing unpredictably.  After investigations we realised that the gymnasium floor was unusually ‘springy’ and caused the baseboards to physically move as visitors walked by.

 

Intensive working at exhibitions can give rise to problems if track is not cleaned regularly.  On one occasion, located next to a live steam layout, frequent track cleaning became a major requirement.

 

The biggest factor though is undoubtedly the operating team.  Every layout and certain items of rolling stock can have their quirks, so a good crew who know what they are doing, who know the layout well, and are familiar with the rolling stock are essential.  A focus on ‘delivering the show’, rather than maximising the social opportunities of an exhibition, makes a big difference.  Even when problems do arise, good operators who know the layout intimately are usually able to creatively work around these and keep the public entertained, whilst repairs are discretely undertaken by other team members.  

 

It’s not so much what goes wrong, rather it is how ‘situations’ are handled that makes the difference between a good layout and something exceptional.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

An interesting thought, Tim,

 

Different environments can affect any layout, of course. 

 

In the case of the poor running I've cited today, every time I've seen the layout in question, the running has been poor. It is not alone! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

As someone who hopes in due course to build a layout which will be exhibited if it attracts any interest, This question interests me quite a lot. With your long experience Tony, do you have any comments or thoughts on those layouts which you have been actively involved with?

 

I also wonder if a large layout is not at a disadvantage here unless it is the beneficiary of either large club rooms or a large railway room. I would have thought it imperative to be able to actively work on a layout fully assembled between shows to iron out gremlins if they manifest.

 

Primarily I wondered if transporting a layout (with all the knocks and juddering this involves) and then erecting it in what might be very different environmental conditions to that at home, meant that there is an element of a lottery about shows?

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

An interesting thought, Tim,

 

Different environments can affect any layout, of course. 

 

In the case of the poor running I've cited today, every time I've seen the layout in question, the running has been poor. It is not alone! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

One has to wonder why consistently unreliable layouts continue to be invited to shows? Why do the owners of these layouts continue to exhibit bad workmanship?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an element of lottery when it comes to exhibiting a layout at shows. However, if the layout has been built well then you'll have very few issues and any that you do have will be fixable.

 

I'm often surprised that my own layouts can spend ages in storage only to work perfectly once put up in an exhibition hall.

 

My best advice, clean wheels and clean track!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...