Wright writes.....

[LNER4479]

On 03/07/2020 at 11:57, Hawin Dooiey said:

Speaking of V2s, this BFI footage maybe of interest that I'm currently watching. Some lovely footage of V2s in Scotland, in particular this shot of one on coal empties at 2 minutes 48 seconds (plus at 3 minutes 44, a Peppercorn A2 in rather nice condition on a fitted).

There is also some lovely variety of colour wagon stock @jwealleans

 

https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-great-north-of-scotland-railway-films-1963-online?fbclid=IwAR3OY3fAw1w8VXsVj5EIo-R7DkkLIo3GfmuLp0ynVg8dGgUVmhJ5tmdnZww

 

On 03/07/2020 at 12:33, jwealleans said:

For anyone who hasn't seen the film Tom has linked above, right at the end there's a Thompson pacific in LNER postwar green with a Coronation twin still in the two tome blue livery immediately behind it.   Priceless.

 

That is a simply FANTASTIC collection of footage - thanks Tom for finding and Jonathan for highlighting. The priceless piece of footage at the end is of the Up 'Aberdonian' setting off on its journey south from the Granite City - the ex-Coronation twin was attached at the front to provide evening eats and drinks as far as Edinburgh. It was still in use thus in the mid-1950s, repainted into Blood n custard livery.

 

The whole film is worth watching, especially all the different freight train formations and shades of bauxite-brown to be seen. Fish traffic is prominent and the formation of those is especially interested, with several examples of a raft of vans attached behind the guards van, presumably for dropping off en route.

 

Great stuff!

Edited July 7, 2020 by LNER4479

[stewartingram]

I have in my possession a K's J70 tram loco which I built c1965. I got it to work at 1st attempt too - an achievement for a 1st kit and 16 years old! It has always run extremely well, with no problems, though a tad noisy if you wind the throttle up. But at low speeds it seems ok. It has survived 2 or 3 falls to the floor, and is at present stored, awaiting replacement of the cowcatchers with some etched ones. In fact, for many years, I regarded it as my "go to" loco for reliable testing of track etc.

I also have  a Wills (not long before the sale to SEF) J69 with a whitemetal chassis. I can't remember which motor I put in it, probably a Romford?. I do know however that a high ratio set of gears (Romford) were used - 50 or 60:1? I remember when I first ran it through some points, the gear wheel rubbed on the rail! I turned it over, powered it with wander leads, and held a file on to the gear to reduce its diameter - and that worked! An incredibly slow performer, it took a few seconds under 30 minutes to traverse a circle of Hornby track, powered by my home built/Wireless World pwm controller (I still use them today).

 

Stewart

[Theakerr]

21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't mind a discussion on cameras (I assume you mean still?) on here. 

 

It's been mentioned before, but the various models are always changing. 

 

I certainly don't mind explaining how I get the results I manage to. 

 

Two examples, both in B&W because I think it's more redolent of the time. 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Sorry, the dyslexia part of me forgot to mention that I was specifically referring to video cameras.  The thought came about as a result of the discussion on the virtual show.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Theakerr said:

Sorry, the dyslexia part of me forgot to mention that I was specifically referring to video cameras.  The thought came about as a result of the discussion on the virtual show.

I don't have much experience of video cameras.

 

However, two years ago I bought one to record the 1938 Weekend on Little Bytham. It's a Panasonic V180, and I've been delighted with the results obtained, which were put on to a BRM DVD. It was around £200.00, which is 'entry-level', and it's probably been superseded by now.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Clem said:

Hi Tony. It's hard not to agree, particularly at the moment. To be honest, I often wish ultra scale (which I've found to be very reliable) were more readily available, but they have a lead time of 6-12 months. I have a set of Romford 20mm drivers which I use when doing a chassis as a general set up test to test for height and clearance at an early stage. I have found that you seem to need a little more room between these type of wheels (including Markits) and when trying them in this case, with these frames being wider than I would like, I could get them on but they wouldn't tighten up, otherwise I'd be looking to replace them now. The other point is that you get less clearance for outside valve gear with Markits due to the slightly wider wheel and the crankpins base a little proud too. But I agree about the reliability, and they also have the added advantage that you can dismantle and reassemble much easier. It sometimes feels like I've been grizzling about wheels for the last 40 years! :-)

Good evening Clem,

 

I must admit to never having used Ultra Scale's wheels, though others have reported to me their excellence.

 

The Romford/Markits wheels are a little wider, and I understand the tight clearances you have on the J39. However, that Brassmasters 0-8-4T's frames were probably just as wide; before I skimmed them down. 

 

Regarding outside valve gear in EM using Markits, when I built an A2/2 chassis (which is very tight on valve gear clearances) for the late Roy Jackson to run on Retford, all I did was to plug the cylinders with solder and re-drill new holes for the piston rods about three quarters of a mil' further out. The subterfuge is invisible. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Theakerr said:

Sorry, the dyslexia part of me forgot to mention that I was specifically referring to video cameras.  The thought came about as a result of the discussion on the virtual show.

I’m not an expert on video cameras, but I took a lot of video when I was running through my sequence on Gresley Jn. I tried a purpose built camcorder but quickly found that the video camera on my iPhone 7 took better pictures and was much easier to use.  I’ve since upgraded to an iPhone SE and the camera seems even better.
 

in my experience with video cameras the lighting and camera support is even more important than for still photography. So a decent tripod, plus a small one which can reach inaccessible cornered of the layout are important. And so is a floodlight - I use a led rechargeable one which you can buy for  £20-£30 from Amazon. E.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Neewer-Dimmable-Panasonic-Batteies-Included/dp/B06XDFGDCX/ref=asc_df_B06XDFGDCX/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=310171959482&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=11480495872908290528&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9045869&hvtargid=pla-347938700150&psc=1

 

I hope that’s helpful.

 

Andy

[Clem]

39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding outside valve gear in EM using Markits, when I built an A2/2 chassis (which is very tight on valve gear clearances) for the late Roy Jackson to run on Retford, all I did was to plug the cylinders with solder and re-drill new holes for the piston rods about three quarters of a mil' further out. The subterfuge is invisible. 

Yes that is a good dodge and it's pretty well invisible to the unknowing eye. It's one of the many things I have learned reading this thread. 

 

And yes, clearances can be a problem. I usually measure carefully the outer width of the front axle when fitted, over the crank pins and bushes, then measure the coupling rod widths, add a little extra for crankpin nuts and leeway and compare with the piston centre distance between the 2 cylinders. I have so far mostly not needed to use it but I did engineer an extra 0.5mm each side using your method on the recent WD. But then I did bring the cylinders in by probably the same amount after you tipped me off that they are slightly wide for that model. All in all that was a good result as the clearances remained the same but the cylinders looked much better. I couldn't have done it with Markits wheels but the Alan Gibson wheels I used for the WD were fortunately all very good. In defence of Alan Gibson wheels, they are much cheaper than either Markits or Ultrascale and they are mainly OK. I've not had the tyre problems with them and I haven't had one slip on the axle for many years. (tempting fate there!). It's the concentricity issue I find more worrying.

 

You have said several times that you sometimes rue the fact that you didn't change to EM many years ago but the extra problems with such things as clearances can make fairly simple projects much more complicated, with time spent not only sorting out clearances, but also on trying to find the best solutions. Very (very!) occasionally, I admit that I do wonder whether it would have been a lot simpler to stick with OO, but it soon passes... And in any case, I'd never be able to build trackwork as good as Little Bytham, which to my mind, is so good that it could be taken for EM by anyone not in the know.

 

At least I've sorted that wobbly tender out now. It is from a J39 proscale kit that I started probably 25 years ago. I got so far with it but I found the dimensions around the front end so far out that I gave up and ended up just finishing the tender. Shortly after, the Bachmann J39 came out and that was dimensionally so much closer to the prototype. 

 

Clem.

[Iain.d]

On ‎07‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 04:37, Barry Ten said:

A bit more work on the LSWR coaches:

 

 

The composite seemed to be easier to build than the brake, so I wondered why. It was only when I compared the boxes that I realised the wrong instructions had been packed in the

brake! Everything makes a lot more sense with the right instructions.

 

I had a go at building the working gangway from the Roxey parts but after deciding that I could never get it work reliably, I'll be fitting MJT ones to these coaches. One of my three

kits came with cast gangways in addition to the etched parts.

 

I can''t vouch for the accuracy of the kits as they stand, but they are very good products in terms of the fit of parts and ease of assembly. The only slight mod I had

to do was to elongate the fixing holes in the chassis a bit. Everything else was an excellent fit straight from the etch.

 

Al

They're looking good Al.

 

I doing a 3 car set at the moment, the construction is not at as an advanced stage as yours, so no photos as yet. One of my brake coaches also had the wrong instructions - it had the ones for a 59ft Maunsell, although it had a line drawing of a LSWR brake; it took me a read or two to realise. Happy to provide a copy if you need.

 

I have made my gangways work but used my own method, if you followed the Roxey instructions they won't work as the tabs, holding the end plates in line, and the scissors don't leave enough room for the bellows paper. Across my three kits there were only two sets of end castings. I too had issues with the trussing. There was no appropriate queen post wire in the kit and (I think) the dimensions it tells you to cut them make the proportions all wrong - the trussing is a real characteristic of these coaches and if it doesn't look quite right, it looks totally wrong.

 

I agree though, the fit of parts is really good and I'm really enjoying putting them together. Mine will be SR malachite too (I think you mentioned that in a previous post) with BR numbering, but I have to find the closest match in the Vallejo green range to do that. Not much chance of a trip back to the UK in the near future to stock up....

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Edited July 8, 2020 by Iain.d
typo

[dibateg]

Somehow I managed to fit brakes to my Nucast V2. I managed to drill the whitemetal frames ( that would have been by hand ) and I scratch built the brakes and hangers by soldering six blanks together and filing them to shape! It did run ok, but I sold it on when I acquired my Proscale V2s. I think 60890 is still around, running in West Wales...

 

I've not been able to find a photo of it unfortunately.

 

Regards

Tony

 

 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Clem said:

Yes that is a good dodge and it's pretty well invisible to the unknowing eye. It's one of the many things I have learned reading this thread. 

 

And yes, clearances can be a problem. I usually measure carefully the outer width of the front axle when fitted, over the crank pins and bushes, then measure the coupling rod widths, add a little extra for crankpin nuts and leeway and compare with the piston centre distance between the 2 cylinders. I have so far mostly not needed to use it but I did engineer an extra 0.5mm each side using your method on the recent WD. But then I did bring the cylinders in by probably the same amount after you tipped me off that they are slightly wide for that model. All in all that was a good result as the clearances remained the same but the cylinders looked much better. I couldn't have done it with Markits wheels but the Alan Gibson wheels I used for the WD were fortunately all very good. In defence of Alan Gibson wheels, they are much cheaper than either Markits or Ultrascale and they are mainly OK. I've not had the tyre problems with them and I haven't had one slip on the axle for many years. (tempting fate there!). It's the concentricity issue I find more worrying.

 

You have said several times that you sometimes rue the fact that you didn't change to EM many years ago but the extra problems with such things as clearances can make fairly simple projects much more complicated, with time spent not only sorting out clearances, but also on trying to find the best solutions. Very (very!) occasionally, I admit that I do wonder whether it would have been a lot simpler to stick with OO, but it soon passes... And in any case, I'd never be able to build trackwork as good as Little Bytham, which to my mind, is so good that it could be taken for EM by anyone not in the know.

 

At least I've sorted that wobbly tender out now. It is from a J39 proscale kit that I started probably 25 years ago. I got so far with it but I found the dimensions around the front end so far out that I gave up and ended up just finishing the tender. Shortly after, the Bachmann J39 came out and that was dimensionally so much closer to the prototype. 

 

Clem.

Good morning Clem,

 

I know several EM modellers who tell me that, had OO standards of today been available during their 'formative years', they'd have not bothered with EM. Roy Jackson used to tell me he adopted EM because of the much better running obtained, shown to him by the likes of Colin Scoffin. Of course, that was back in the time when RTR OO had steamroller wheels and much-compromised chassis running on, at best, Peco 'Universal' trackwork.

 

Indeed, when I examine my very old locos I've built which still have their original Romford drivers, their flanges/treads are cruder that the current RTR standards, which are almost RP25! 

 

The scenic-side trackwork on Little Bytham is so good because it was built/laid by the best in the business - Norman Solomon. 

 

I suppose, in the end, I've achieved running standards as good as anything I've ever seen in EM, which proves (as Frank Dyer did, years ago) that OO can be made to work exceptionally well, as long as all the standards are compatible. Even the Peco pointwork in the fiddle yards is to a much tighter tolerance than in the days of the 'Universal' standards. Yes, there is a bit of 'flange drop' with Gibson wheelsets on some wagons (which are being replaced because too many tyres have come off and/or they've gone out of gauge - they are a bit old), but the running is perfectly smooth, even at 'crazy' speeds; just over a week ago, some friends popped by (observing social distancing, of course) and while they watched from outside, I ran an A4 on the 'Lizzie, calculating that its top speed through the scenic section and fiddle yard was over 250 mph! Not around the end curves, of course, where it slowed down to around MALLARD's record. 

 

But, I wish I had adopted EM when I had the chance all those years ago. If seen from the side, Bytham's scenic-side trackwork could easily be mistaken for EM. However, when I photograph trains in tight perspective the 'narrow gauge' is evident. I think it's really more on a philosophical level in a way. I'm not RTR-dependent, so, having chosen to make most of what I run, why not make it more realistic at source?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, dibateg said:

Somehow I managed to fit brakes to my Nucast V2. I managed to drill the whitemetal frames ( that would have been by hand ) and I scratch built the brakes and hangers by soldering six blanks together and filing them to shape! It did run ok, but I sold it on when I acquired my Proscale V2s. I think 60890 is still around, running in West Wales...

 

I've not been able to find a photo of it unfortunately.

 

Regards

Tony

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

Ironically, it's probably more-accurate than your Pro-Scale duo.

 

Even with brakes (or because of them?), I'll bet it ran with a squeak............................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[St Enodoc]

19 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I suppose if the hobby were easy all the time, it wouldn't be half as satisfying in the long run.

Oh, I don't know...

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Oh, I don't know...

Good afternoon John,

 

I suppose it must be nice when everything is achieved with the minimal effort, and everything runs perfectly. Not having the greatest experience of such 'niceties', I try to get my 'satisfaction' from overcoming difficulties.

 

Does that give a greater sense of satisfaction? I think Al is right, in that it does. That's not to say that anyone deliberately chooses the most-difficult path in their modelling (even I'm not that perverse!), but one gets a sense of achievement (even smugness?) out of producing something which has required some 'effort' to overcome difficulties.

 

Take the ancient Millholme 2P I'm working on, for instance.......................

 

 

Readers might recall that this was given to me by a mate just over a month ago (builder unknown). I didn't really work, but I got its K's HP2M-powered chassis to go, but not entirely to my satisfaction.

 

I showed the cast metal chassis the other day, but I shall not be using that and (as mentioned) have ordered a Comet 2P chassis.

 

I won't be using the original drivers (the axle ends are covered), so I've looked in my box of older Romford wheels.....

 

 

These are donkey's years old and had 'blind' holes for crankpins. Thus, this morning, I've drilled and tapped them and inserted the crankpins. Why two sets? The further set are 27mm (about right for 6' 9" drivers), but their flanges have been turned down to finer standards. This would not be a problem on the main line, but the MR/M&GNR bit of LB has some medium radius points to contend with (a potential problem with finer flanges?). The nearer set is 26mm (3" under scale), but the over-scale flanges make the wheels appear greater in diameter. I'll try the nearer-scale wheels first, once I've erected the frames. 

 

It would have been much easier to have ordered brand new, ready-tapped, drivers from Markits, but I'm saving money (giving a greater sense of satisfaction?) at the expense of my time. 

 

 

I have a choice of motors/drives. I've had to assemble these little gear mounts (one from Branchlines, the other from Comet), but it would have been so much easier to just drop in a ready-made DJH motor/gearbox combo. However, since the cost of this would be more than the whole loco is worth, then either of these will do. 

 

 

A further 'refinement' has been to dry-brush weather the loco body and tender - just to make it more natural (apologies for the untidiness of my workshop, but I can work in it). 

 

What's the point of these ramblings? 

 

I could have just sold-on the loco as it was (getting a little - very little - for CRUK). I could have left the original drive and tolerated its poor performance, even when 'fixed'. I could have left the finish as it was. 

 

Or, I could have commissioned someone to do it all for me, but how much 'satisfaction' would there be in that? The satisfaction of knowing that I'd earned enough money to be able to do it? Perhaps, but it would then only be a possession. 

 

No, by the time I've finished I'll have 'breathed a little life' back into a very old model. Surely there's a satisfaction in that?

 

I'll report accordingly if it's been a success. There is no guarantee!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Barry Ten]

11 hours ago, Iain.d said:

They're looking good Al.

 

I doing a 3 car set at the moment, the construction is not at as an advanced stage as yours, so no photos as yet. One of my brake coaches also had the wrong instructions - it had the ones for a 59ft Maunsell, although it had a line drawing of a LSWR brake; it took me a read or two to realise. Happy to provide a copy if you need.

 

I have made my gangways work but used my own method, if you followed the Roxey instructions they won't work as the tabs, holding the end plates in line, and the scissors don't leave enough room for the bellows paper. Across my three kits there were only two sets of end castings. I too had issues with the trussing. There was no appropriate queen post wire in the kit and (I think) the dimensions it tells you to cut them make the proportions all wrong - the trussing is a real characteristic of these coaches and if it doesn't look quite right, it looks totally wrong.

 

I agree though, the fit of parts is really good and I'm really enjoying putting them together. Mine will be SR malachite too (I think you mentioned that in a previous post) with BR numbering, but I have to find the closest match in the Vallejo green range to do that. Not much chance of a trip back to the UK in the near future to stock up....

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

Thanks, Iain. After seeing your fine Maunsell set the other day, I wondered if these were the ones you were also going to tackle.

 

Thank you for the kind offer re the instructions - I think I'm all right for now, though, as there aren't many bits left in the box! The drawing was correct, so I had that to go on (and measured the truss bars accordingly) but the text and assembly diagrams were for non-corridor stock. I was slightly annoyed to have to source my own material for the queen posts as I only had a short length of suitable wire left in the tin and with lockdown, it's no small matter to go out for basic modelling supplies.

 

I agree with you regarding the non-functionality of the gangways as supplied. In the one I made up, the tabs you mention just weren't long enough to work properly, such that even if I'd got it to function the range of extension would have been only a few mm. I didn't get as far as trying to get the paper to fit! I did build the Slaters version of working gangways but for me it's a case of insufficient reward for a lot of pain, when the MJT ones work perfectly and look fine in the context of a train with the gangways compressed.

 

I'm hoping the courier will deliver me some nice malachite paint tomorrow. Let me know if a reference swatch would be helpful. I've a feeling Humbrol 101 might not be too far off the mark, in a pinch.

 

Al

Edited July 8, 2020 by Barry Ten

[polybear]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Clem,

 

I know several EM modellers who tell me that, had OO standards of today been available during their 'formative years', they'd have not bothered with EM.

 

I recall a similar incident, whereby an EM modeller made a similar comment to me during a conversation.  This modeller happened to be the Chairman (current or past - I forget which now) of the EM Gauge Society....

[Leander]

12 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

I recall a similar incident, whereby an EM modeller made a similar comment to me during a conversation.  This modeller happened to be the Chairman (current or past - I forget which now) of the EM Gauge Society....

 

It's gratifying that so many new members are joining the EMGS. Probably this is a result of the availability of the EMGS ready to lay track and turnouts which have been selling extremely well since they were first introduced.

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, Leander said:

 

It's gratifying that so many new members are joining the EMGS. Probably this is a result of the availability of the EMGS ready to lay track and turnouts which have been selling extremely well since they were first introduced.

I'm sure the introduction of ready-made pointwork has encouraged more folk to join the EM Gauge Society (is it only available to members?).

 

I have made trackwork in the past, but I'm not diligent enough in my work for it to be entirely successful. 

 

Of course, one huge advantage of sticking with OO when the group built Little Bytham was that I was able to lay all the fiddle yards' trackwork extremely quickly - by exploiting Peco RTL pointwork. 

 

Imagine having to make all this!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presumably the ready-made EM pointwork is a similar price to the latest Peco bullhead equivalents in OO?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

The new EMGS points and track have certainly caused a number of people to join the Society and take the plunge. I started getting involved in EM about 40 years ago and have never regretted my choice for one moment.

 

I can understand why some folk are reluctant to start messing about with ever more expensive and complicated RTR models, with varying axle sizes and methods of taking them apart that were clearly designed by people who never wanted that to happen. Most diesel period locos are relatively straightforward with many "drop in" wheel sets available. It is steam locos where the manufacturers seem to delight in finding new ways to make it difficult!

 

If you enjoy making things rather than buying them, EM is no more difficult than 00 apart from some reduced clearances and once I learned how to recess the leading crankpin on locos with outside cylinders, I have had no problems since. If I wanted to use a RTR body, I would probably make a new mechanism anyway but there is so little for my chosen area and period that it doesn't crop up very often. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by t-b-g
Spelling

[Clem]

14 minutes ago, polybear said:

I recall a similar incident, whereby an EM modeller made a similar comment to me during a conversation.  This modeller happened to be the Chairman (current or past - I forget which now) of the EM Gauge Society....

To put it in perspective, moments of reflection on decision to go EM are very rare and usually occur only at moments of diffuculty and/or self-doubt, usually when working on some project that is particularly awkward. I think most of us get that at some point.

[polybear]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm sure the introduction of ready-made pointwork has encouraged more folk to join the EM Gauge Society (is it only available to members?).

 

 

Non-members can also buy it at any of the EMGS Exhibitions (ExpoEM etc.) - I believe that non-members effectively become members for the day, as a consequence they are entitled to take advantage of the EM Stores.

However, under present circumstances there could well be a bit of a delay before normal service resumes

 

7 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I can understand why some folk are reluctant to start messing about with ever more expensive and complicated RTR models, with varying axle sizes and methods of taking them apart that were clearly designed by people who never wanted that to happen. Most diesel period locos are relatively straightforward with many "drop in" wheel sets available. It is steam locos where the manufacturers seem to delight in finding new ways to make it difficult!

 

 

With recent offerings it seems to be increasingly difficult just to discover how to remove a bodyshell, let alone do it without damaging anything.  Converting an expensive & large loco (4-6-2 for example, with outside valvegear) without junking the chassis must be a pretty fraught experience; the alternative would be to fight it out on ebay for a bodyshell.

One of the big advantages of RTR must be the standard of finish now being achieved by the manufacturers, something that many mortals could only dream of achieving.

[Clem]

12 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Imagine having to make all this!

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean a little bit like this? (below).. Unfortunately my available space limited me to just this. But making my own track work in the fiddle yard, has allowed me a bit more flexibility. But, if only I had 2-3 feet more in width... By the way, the double slip on the right with no track coming off is not a trap. I laid it to be able to use cassettes to bring on/take off stock from extra storage sidings underneath the layout not yet built. The cassette will bridge the line coming diagonally right to left across it and will only be present to load/unload. The (diagonal) line is the down goods/ slow which is used rather a lot.

 

I did get a couple of the peco EM points (not used yet) out of curiosity. They are very good. I keep getting an itch to knock a hole for a tunnel in the wall on the left to make more sidings, but I wouldn't survive the fall out...

 

Going back to your pictures Tony, your sidings display a stunning collection of locos/trains. It's only when you see them all together like this that we can see the sheer amount of work involved. We are all very lucky to have a hobby (obsession as Chris calls it ) like this.

 

[Atso]

44 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Imagine having to make all this!

 

I can imagine!

 

 

 

Everything in view has either been scratch built or had code 40 rail hand threaded through the plastic sleepers. Not shown in this photo but the Up line (third from the left) was completed today and the pointwork on the curve in the second photo was done earlier this week. By the time the fiddle yard has been finished it will have consumed a scale 4.5 miles of copper clad track...

Edited July 8, 2020 by Atso

[Clem]

39 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I can understand why some folk are reluctant to start messing about with ever more expensive and complicated RTR models, with varying axle sizes and methods of taking them apart that were clearly designed by people who never wanted that to happen. Most diesel period locos are relatively straightforward with many "drop in" wheel sets available. It is steam locos where the manufacturers seem to delight in finding new ways to make it difficult!

So true!

[t-b-g]

17 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Non-members can also buy it at any of the EMGS Exhibitions (ExpoEM etc.) - I believe that non-members effectively become members for the day, as a consequence they are entitled to take advantage of the EM Stores.

However, under present circumstances there could well be a bit of a delay before normal service resumes

 

 

With recent offerings it seems to be increasingly difficult just to discover how to remove a bodyshell, let alone do it without damaging anything.  Converting an expensive & large loco (4-6-2 for example, with outside valvegear) without junking the chassis must be a pretty fraught experience; the alternative would be to fight it out on ebay for a bodyshell.

One of the big advantages of RTR must be the standard of finish now being achieved by the manufacturers, something that many mortals could only dream of achieving.

 

You are quite correct. EMGS "day membership" at shows does allow the purchase of the track and points and yes, it may be a while before you can get any by that route. Membership is not costly and is well worthwhile anyway.

 

I genuinely do not know what I would do if I was modelling a railway or a period that is well catered for by the RTR manufacturers. One of the main reasons why I started modelling the GCR (mainly), the GNR and Midland (secondary interests but I know others see the error of my ways) was to avoid the question arising. I didn't want models that looked the same as the ones that everybody else has and I didn't want to compete with what the RTR people were producing as in terms of accuracy, detail and finish, they are ahead of me.

 

It is a shame that work has stalled on the model of Doncaster as I think we could probably match the rather grand fiddle yards featured above. All the points are made and the 50ft plus of baseboards for the fiddle yard are built but much needs to happen to clear a space to put them up and work on them.  

[Tony Wright]

' I didn't want models that looked the same as the ones that everybody else has and I didn't want to compete with what the RTR people were producing as in terms of accuracy, detail and finish, they are ahead of me.'

 

I'd strongly disagree with the final part of that sentence. 

 

My motives for making what I do are not to be different from anyone else. They recall what I saw.

 

And, I don't really give a fig whether the RTR manufacturers are making models of the same prototypes as mine. I make them anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.