Wright writes.....

[mswjr]

A little of topic, But Tony Can you please tell me the size of your shed, Railway room please, 

Thankyou .  Garry

[Paul Cram]

I decided to model in P4 in 1976 and have never had second thoughts.  Ready to run isn't something I worry about. I have a couple of models which I will alter using an easichas. The rest I build from kits (or in the case of some buildings scratch build).

Edited July 8, 2020 by Paul Cram
Corrected year

[Atso]

3 minutes ago, Paul Cram said:

I decided to model in P4 in 1876 and have never had second thoughts.

 

Wow, that's amazing! What did you do about small motors back then???? 

[JamieR4489]

30 minutes ago, Atso said:

 

Wow, that's amazing! What did you do about small motors back then???? 

Don’t be silly! He obviously regauged clockwork models!

 

(clockwork P4 - how’s that for juxtaposition?!)

[t-b-g]

40 minutes ago, Paul Cram said:

I decided to model in P4 in 1876 and have never had second thoughts.  Ready to run isn't something I worry about. I have a couple of models which I will alter using an easichas. The rest I build from kits (or in the case of some buildings scratch build).

 

Isn't 1876 a bit under gauge? I though most people model P4 in 1883. Or have I missed the (decimal) point somewhere?

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

' 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. 

 

That is very kind but when you can read the numbers on the dials in the cab of some modern RTR locos, I cannot compete! I know I have a decent skill set but that would be beyond me. The best RTR models nowadays are so good, appearance wise if not in the mechanism, that only a handful of modellers can match or beat them. In a way, I don't care how good they are. I would still rather admire a hand made one any day of the week.

 

If I had the same memories as you, I would probably do the same as you to recreate them in miniature but I don't, so I have a bit more of a blank canvas.

 

If I have a choice of spending time making something that might, with a decent paint job, look as good as the latest Hornby/Bachmann etc. or to spend my time making something that Hornby/Bachmann etc. do not make at all, that is an easy one for me. That is not to say that others shouldn't build whatever they like to, just that it isn't what I would choose to do.  

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

[4901]

18 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Isn't 1876 a bit under gauge? I though most people model P4 in 1883. Or have I missed the (decimal) point somewhere?

 

 

Or is 1876 the year he started modelling?

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, mswjr said:

A little of topic, But Tony Can you please tell me the size of your shed, Railway room please, 

Thankyou .  Garry

32' x 12', Gary,

 

That's the maximum floor footprint, so by the time insulation and interior panels were added, an inch or two can be lost off that. 

 

As I've said before, I wouldn't contemplate the building of a 4mm main line depiction in under 30'. As it is, the actual length of LB's scenic section is a twitch under 14" short of scale (the width is spot-on). Since anyone who knows this has had to be told, I don't think it's too unrealistic. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

As I've said before, I wouldn't contemplate the building of a 4mm main line depiction in under 30'.

 

That statement ought to kill off the market for models of LNER/ER pacifics...

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

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.

Tony, as you will have realised I was being slightly flippant (what, me?) but only slightly.

 

I've just about finished sorting out three ready-built coaches that I bought from eBay. It was worthwhile for two of them as they were scratchbuilt (not to showcase standard though) and models for which there are no kits.

 

The third is a different story. It's an ancient BSL kit that was falling to pieces and every time I fixed one bit another came apart. I've nearly finished it now, through sheer stubbornness, but to be frank I should have written off the cost and just started afresh with an unbuilt kit, which would probably have been finished a couple of weeks ago. Yes, there is some grim satisfaction in having beaten it into submission but it would be have been nicer not to have had to.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Imagine having to make all this!

Well, you would only have had to make the points, not the plain track. That's something I enjoy doing (except for filing blades) so by doing so (in 00) I've maximised the length of storage in my two yards, which as you have seen consist of fourteen through loops each plus a couple of dead ends. 57 copperclad points altogether. It wasn't a quick job but it was worth doing.

Edited July 9, 2020 by St Enodoc

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

That statement ought to kill off the market for models of LNER/ER pacifics...

I hope it doesn't, Stephen,

 

Folk have built layouts far shorter than 30', and run ex-LNER RA9 locos on them - quite convincingly. 

 

The main reason for my statement is not so much because of the potential length of the trains (up to 14/15 carriages and 50-wagon freights on LB) but because of the inevitable (visible) too-tight curves at the ends if the length were too short. By having 32' to play with, we were able to accommodate Little Bytham's length in model form (admittedly a twitch short) and still go on-/off-scene on the straight; absolutely vital for realism. In less than 32', this would have been impossible. 

 

Which is why Ian Wilson and I decided to finally build Little Bytham and inform the building group (of which we were part, of course) of our intentions. It was going to be a station on Stoke Bank, but which one? Originally, Essendine was considered. It had two branches off it, and quite an extensive goods yard. However, no matter how hard Ian tried, he couldn't fit the plan into the footprint of 32' x 12'; not without having too-tight visible curves at both main line ends. The Bourne branch and the Stamford branch were easily-accommodated in separate corners by the use of turntables (the trains were very short), but the all-important really fast depiction of the four track ECML was impossible. We concluded that 45' would be necessary, and even then one of the two overbridges between Essendine and Greatford would have had to be moved much further north to provide the southern scenic break. The elegant three-arch occupation overbridge north of the station site would have provided the northern scenic break (or the Bourne-Stamford main road bridge just north of the station site). Both beautiful bridges, because of their height, still survive. Most of the other graceful three-arch GNR bridges on the ECML have not been so lucky.  

 

Ponton was considered, but no suitable overbridges were near enough to provide the necessary scenic breaks, as was the situation at Corby Glen and Tallington as well. 

 

So, it was Little Bytham. It even gave us the extra railway provided by the MR/M&GNR. But, only because we had over 30' to provide the 'footprint'. Less than this and it wouldn't be anywhere near 'accurate'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[dibateg]

I'm catching you up Clem! I've also incorporated a long crossover to increase flexibility. I'll soon fill it up, then like Tony will probably start to add all sorts of kick back sidings!

Edited July 9, 2020 by dibateg
spelling

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I hope it doesn't, Stephen,

 

Folk have built layouts far shorter than 30', and run ex-LNER RA9 locos on them - quite convincingly. 

 

So, it was Little Bytham. It even gave us the extra railway provided by the MR/M&GNR. But, only because we had over 30' to provide the 'footprint'. Less than this and it wouldn't be anywhere near 'accurate'. 

 

Well, my point was that compared to most you are in a very luxurious position, as I'm sure you would be the first to acknowledge. For most of us, railway modelling is the art of compression and omission. I consider myself fortunate to have the use of a standard 16 ft x 8 ft garage, which in 00 gives me at most a 12 ft straight run, which is too short for any real double-track wayside station with goods facilities. It's roughly 900 scale feet or just enough for a pacific with 13 Mk1s on, or, my preferred measure, a 0-6-0 with 42-44 wagons and a brake. (I have to confess that I have yet to make best use of this space; what it currently holds could not really be described as more than a test track.)

[Iain.d]

21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

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

 

I have three ‘ancient’ Millholme 2Ps.  They haven’t been out of their boxes for years; and two of them have never run other than on a metre of test track!

 

 

In the discussion on chassis’ though these all have brass components for the locos and Romford wheels and have DS10s in fold-up motor mounts; it’s the tenders that differ. I’m pretty sure I built all these straight from the box. On the oldest (40563) the tender wheel axles rest in the whitemetal axle boxes – well they should but the chassis is cracked and they’re loose. The move to Australia was rough on my models and many were damaged and need some sort of remedial repair. Not sure why I put later BR emblems on this loco as I don’t think it carried them.

 

 

 

40527 and 40634 were bought and built in 1998 and the tender of 40634 has a brass sub chassis (just stamped and pretty crude) and 40527 has a more complete brass sub chassis with brake gear. There’s enough whitemetal in these kits to make another loco!  I fitted all with 12mm bogie wheels as (in 1993) I had a 6ftx10ft layout in a back bedroom of our then house and that was all I could envision for the future too. The layout curves were about 2ft radius and the points were all set track, code 100. 40563 worked well - happy days!  I have bought Gibson 14mm replacements to correct them one day….

 

40527 should have been numbered 40537 but I recall listening to a world cup match in 1998 when I was applying the transfers - I think England scored and I was distracted!

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[Iain.d]

20 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

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

Thanks for the tip on Humbrol 101, my local model shop stocks some Humbrol so I'll drop in. The colour doesn't need to be spot on, close enough will be good enough. I did read / hear that early BR DMU green was close too.

 

I thought I’d show a few pictures of where I’m at with my Roxey LSWR coaches:

 

The bogies and underframes are done

 

 

As are the battery boxes (still to be folded) and corridor connectors / gangways. I think these are very similar to Blacksmiths Models ones – mine follow the idea in Stephen Williams’ The 4mm Coach Part 2. The cover is made from some camera lenses cleaning tissues I bought in Boots years and years ago (coloured with a Sharpie); they’re tougher than more recently purchased tissues. The one in the coach end is just a test fit and all the 'inside bits' were painted before glueing in the bellows and attaching the tissue. I like to build things in bits and then put it all together. I have also bent up my coupling bar. 

 

 

I’ve formed the turnunder on each coach side and started to add the extra bits  such as door stops, vents and hinges. I couldn’t drill the corridor side of these coaches for door stops as the beading/raised panelling was thinner than my drill bit.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

[Barry Ten]

17 minutes ago, Iain.d said:

Thanks for the tip on Humbrol 101, my local model shop stocks some Humbrol so I'll drop in. The colour doesn't need to be spot on, close enough will be good enough. I did read / hear that early BR DMU green was close too.

 

I thought I’d show a few pictures of where I’m at with my Roxey LSWR coaches:

 

The bogies and underframes are done

 

 

As are the battery boxes (still to be folded) and corridor connectors / gangways. I think these are very similar to Blacksmiths Models ones – mine follow the idea in Stephen Williams’ The 4mm Coach Part 2. The cover is made from some camera lenses cleaning tissues I bought in Boots years and years ago (coloured with a Sharpie); they’re tougher than more recently purchased tissues. The one in the coach end is just a test fit and all the 'inside bits' were painted before glueing in the bellows and attaching the tissue. I like to build things in bits and then put it all together. I have also bent up my coupling bar. 

 

 

I’ve formed the turnunder on each coach side and started to add the extra bits  such as door stops, vents and hinges. I couldn’t drill the corridor side of these coaches for door stops as the beading/raised panelling was thinner than my drill bit.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

 

I've got a long way to go before my soldering is as neat and unobtrusive as yours, Iain. Fantastic work, very inspiring and an incentive to improve.

[Tony Wright]

47 minutes ago, Iain.d said:

I have three ‘ancient’ Millholme 2Ps.  They haven’t been out of their boxes for years; and two of them have never run other than on a metre of test track!

 

 

In the discussion on chassis’ though these all have brass components for the locos and Romford wheels and have DS10s in fold-up motor mounts; it’s the tenders that differ. I’m pretty sure I built all these straight from the box. On the oldest (40563) the tender wheel axles rest in the whitemetal axle boxes – well they should but the chassis is cracked and they’re loose. The move to Australia was rough on my models and many were damaged and need some sort of remedial repair. Not sure why I put later BR emblems on this loco as I don’t think it carried them.

 

 

 

40527 and 40634 were bought and built in 1998 and the tender of 40634 has a brass sub chassis (just stamped and pretty crude) and 40527 has a more complete brass sub chassis with brake gear. There’s enough whitemetal in these kits to make another loco!  I fitted all with 12mm bogie wheels as (in 1993) I had a 6ftx10ft layout in a back bedroom of our then house and that was all I could envision for the future too. The layout curves were about 2ft radius and the points were all set track, code 100. 40563 worked well - happy days!  I have bought Gibson 14mm replacements to correct them one day….

 

40527 should have been numbered 40537 but I recall listening to a world cup match in 1998 when I was applying the transfers - I think England scored and I was distracted!

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

These are lovely, Iain,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Just one point, if I may?

 

Whip off the chimney capuchons; they weren't present in BR days.

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

[Iain.d]

21 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

I've got a long way to go before my soldering is as neat and unobtrusive as yours, Iain. Fantastic work, very inspiring and an incentive to improve.

Thank you very much for the compliment, it is kind of you.

 

I was a lurker here for many years and considered my modelling to be of not a high enough standard to be shown. And then one day thought that I couldn't care less if anyone thinks its good enough or not. There are, naturally, various levels of modelling shown on this thread, and across RMWeb, but I think they all have something to offer.

 

I sometimes think too, who on earth would be interested in seeing what I am making.

 

Re the soldering, I do make a mess, I have to be in the right frame of mind and some days things just work better than others - when it's a 'not so good day' I make sure I stop and walk away or do something different. One of my learnings was to use as small a tip as possible, that means the least amount of solder goes on; its easier to add more than try and take it off!

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Edited July 9, 2020 by Iain.d
Missing word, and another one...

[Iain.d]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

These are lovely, Iain,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Just one point, if I may?

 

Whip off the chimney capuchons; they weren't present in BR days.

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks very much!

 

Well there you go...so they weren't! How I missed that I don't know - probably a case of looking but not seeing. I will add that to the upgrades as I go.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Well, my point was that compared to most you are in a very luxurious position, as I'm sure you would be the first to acknowledge. For most of us, railway modelling is the art of compression and omission. I consider myself fortunate to have the use of a standard 16 ft x 8 ft garage, which in 00 gives me at most a 12 ft straight run, which is too short for any real double-track wayside station with goods facilities. It's roughly 900 scale feet or just enough for a pacific with 13 Mk1s on, or, my preferred measure, a 0-6-0 with 42-44 wagons and a brake. (I have to confess that I have yet to make best use of this space; what it currently holds could not really be described as more than a test track.)

Good afternoon Stephen,

 

I suppose it depends on what one describes as 'luxurious'.

 

I hope I didn't come across as being boastful, but I've never thought of myself as having anything luxurious (which my dictionary defines as 'self-indulgent, voluptuous, very comfortable'). I suppose I have been self-indulgent, however. 

 

If I may explain my approach, please?

 

Little Bytham is the accumulation of over 45 years of my modelling (though this does not mean I was foresighted enough to plan it that far ahead). I've been able to achieve it by my having worked all my life (I still am working at 73, though not full-time). As such, I've been able to spend money on my hobby, without depriving my children of food/clothing/shelter. I admit, I've had well-paid jobs, but not well-paid enough to enjoy luxury. 

 

I recall Roy Jackson being told once how 'lucky' he was to have a layout like Retford. 'Luck had nothing to do with it!' was his (correct) response. 'It's the result of hard work, not just earning money (he always pleaded poverty), but hours and hours at the workbench creating it and what runs on it'.

 

Though I'd never compare what I've achieved with what Roy did, I can see some parallels. 

 

Thus, I made sure I'd built all I needed (I still am building) and that I had sufficient space to finally have a building big enough to house as 'accurate' an ECML depiction as ever I was likely to have. And, I had the money to buy it. 

 

Previous layouts I've been involved with have been club projects where space and fiscal necessities were not problems, and I've always had the 'luxury' of working with highly-skilled modellers. Indeed, Little Bytham has been created by a highly-skilled team, all pooling resources and bartering skills. I'd call a layout 'luxurious' if it's been achieved by the power of the chequebook. 

 

So, what else might I 'advise'? In my case marry a totally-supportive wife. Some wives I know are not just disinterested in their husband's hobbies, but are openly hostile, begrudging every penny spent. My advice there is to get another wife! However, from my experience (looking at some friends), divorce will mean one will only have space for an ironing board-sized layout! 

 

What else? If one wants a 'large' model railway and is not rich, then don't indulge in expensive pursuits - golf, boats, far-away holidays and fast cars  come to mind. Granted, I did indulge in the last-mentioned for a time, but that was only after an inheritance (and I'd much sooner my step-mother had lived longer). 

 

Anything else? Don't spend too much spare time in pubs. Not only does it take time away from modelling, it's also expensive. 

 

Try to not have too many children, either.

 

I suggest the above not in a way of offering 'guidance'; I'd never presume to do that. Just to show that 'it can be done'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited July 9, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Clem]

41 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Whip off the chimney capuchons; they weren't present in BR days.

Didn't the Scottish ones have them in BR days, or was it that they had kept the earlier Fowler chimneys instead of having Stanier replacements? (i'm no expert when it comes to 2Ps although I must have cabbed many of them as they joined the scrap lines in Nottingham Midland shed.) Talking of 16A, it was the first shed I bunked and that was when I was 7. To be repeated many times over the following 6 years.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Didn't the Scottish ones have them in BR days, or was it that they had kept the earlier Fowler chimneys instead of having Stanier replacements? (i'm no expert when it comes to 2Ps although I must have cabbed many of them as they joined the scrap lines in Nottingham Midland shed.) Talking of 16A, it was the first shed I bunked and that was when I was 7. To be repeated many times over the following 6 years.

'Didn't the Scottish ones have them in BR days'

 

Could be Clem, though the latest 2P I can find with one is at Stranraer in April 1948 (still in LMS livery).  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[cctransuk]

20 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'Didn't the Scottish ones have them in BR days'

 

Could be Clem, though the latest 2P I can find with one is at Stranraer in April 1948 (still in LMS livery).  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Plenty of Scottish 2Ps kept capuchons well into the BR period - here's one with the second BR crest.

 

 

(Not my copyright - will remove if requested).

 

John Isherwood.

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Anything else? Don't spend too much spare time in pubs. Not only does it take time away from modelling, it's also expensive. 

 

Good advice.  I've met so many people through my life who were always complaining that they couldn't afford this or that, not had a pay rise for years, taxes in this country are ridiculous etc., but were never apparently short of cash when paying for beer or ciggies.  The cost of both through a lifetime can be eye-watering.