Wright writes.....

[Chas Levin]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Chas,

 

it's the LMS Royal train, in LMS Crimson lake not BR maroon.

 

Ohhhh - thanks Andrew! I did think it odd that so many cars of such obvious age were so beautifully maintained at such a late date, not to mention the interesting looking more modern pair with recessed doorways...

 

And always interested in discussions about shades of paint, though not sure when I'll next be at any museums to have another look at the real thing .

[Tony Wright]

35 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

You're getting some mixed answers on this question about minimum radius for EM but it is complicated. Minimum radius on Carlisle is 3'6" (although I was originally told it was 4') and I can get anything round that without much compromise but the most difficult locos are 4-6-2s with frames outside the trailing pony truck - i.e. all the ones you wanted. It's possible to get round this to some extent by using the DJH method of shoving the frames out a foot or so but we were prevented from doing this by having to make Carlisle's platforms the scale distance from the track (forced on us by a cock up in the design of the track at the south end of the station). Locos without this trailing truck arrangement mostly present no problems, in fact the vast majority of my production in EM (and most in P4) will happily go round my vicious 28" reverse curve test track - this includes Britannias and 9Fs incidentally, they have no trouble on curves.

Like you I wish I had changed to EM many years ago but large layouts and lots of stock make this an unlikely prospect now. Changing the pointwork to 16.2mm (EM -2mm) has made  a big difference in running and appearance though.

This is 00 gauge (new Peco bullhead plain track) on Wentworth Junction with 16.2mm gauge through the crossings, the narrower flangeways make it look much better and the running is just about perfect. Photos looking directly along the track will still look narrow gauge but at this angle it's not easy to tell the difference. 

Thanks Mike,

 

Roy Jackson got over the problem of getting big locos with Cartazzi rear trucks round tighter curves by making them effectively 2-6-0s or 4-6-0s. He didn't bother with any trailing wheels!

 

 

Clearly GAY CRUSADER (no tittering at the name, please) is running as a 4-6-0 in this shot. 

 

Actually, the main reason for no trailing trucks was to accommodate the wires for the tender pick-ups. As can be seen, one has become detached here and is flapping about OUTSIDE the Cartazzi frame. Since its detachment didn't affect its good running one bit, it made me wonder about the necessity of tender pick-ups. I've never found them to be necessary.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Not according to a chap David Jenkinson overheard in the National Railway Museum. The chap stated the Compound in LMS Crimson Lake looked better than the Western painted in BR Maroon.  According to David Jenkinson both were painted at the same time using paint from the same batch.  The colour was supposed to be the same from the days of Johnson on the MR until the last coach was painted by BR.

 

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

The compound does look better than the Western in the same paint (if it is so), there is nothing controversial about that. I think that it is a myth that they were both painted at the same time.

 

 

I have no idea, but it is not  just about the main colour of a livery, LMS crimson lake had beautifully elegant lining and lettering. BR maroon is definitely el chepo, bargain basement, fifties Britain in comparison.

David Jenkinson did a few articles on railway colours as editor of Backtrack and he was recalling a conversation he overheard from his time as curator of the NRM. I doubt he made up the story.

[Compound2632]

Lining, even the simplified lining style used from 1907 on the Midland right up to the BR red Duchesses, has a major impact on perceived colour.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, TrainMan2001 said:

Tony,

If I may, I'd like to add my thoughts about the "it can be done," though from a much younger point of view (meaning I grew up with Thomas & Friends and one (maybe two) railway series book, Thomas the Tank Engine, fittingly enough). For the longest time, I wanted to recreate what I had seen in the show, which meant I felt I would need dozens of locomotives to achieve what I wanted, however, being a kid, I had never actually been able to afford all of them.

Over the last year, I figured out all of the different errors on my Bachmann Thomas, and upon discovering RMweb, I felt encouraged to set about correcting them. Now I'm pretty much at the point where I've decided I'll scratchbuild him to a length to suit the Comet Terrier chassis (which, once I'm paid, I should be able to afford that and the other pieces necessary to make a well running (hopefully) chassis. I intend to make it as realistic as possible (though following Reginald Payne's illustrations for length, rather than the E2's real length, hence the Terrier chassis).

However, the point I really wanted to bring up was that I am only on my first locomotive, and after that, I haven't any idea what I'll do. I'm only 18, but I feel as though one locomotive is enough at this point. I am going to scratchbuild and build some kits of wagons and coaches, but other than that and a branchline style layout I think I'll be satisfied. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of people seem to need to collect hundreds of locos and other things to feel like the hobby is fulfilling, but I now feel like a few well-detailed and realistic (other than faces (on real engines too)) engines and a single track line (whether specifically a real place or not is to be determined) done as realistically as possible in the pre-grouping or early grouping period would be quite fulfilling to me. So I guess what I'm saying is that it's possible to fulfill a dream in the hobby at any point, of course allowing time to learn and to build everything.

Sorry that that ended up so rambly and with a ton of parenthesis, but I hope that makes some sense.

Good morning TrainMan (though I wish I could address you by your real name - unless your parents were really weird!),

 

It does make perfect sense. In fact your whole post makes perfect sense (were you educated at a grammar school?), apart from one set of brackets not being closed off properly; which I do, all the time. 

 

I certainly fall into the category of having hundreds of locos. However, though they add up to a 'collection', I've not 'collected' them; I've made them, which is the most-important thing to me. You're right, though, in that many only feel fulfilled when they possess hundreds of locos, whether they be bought RTR or are the result of commissions. They then become possessions, which is nowhere near the same things as personal creations. However, it's the owner's prerogative and his/her right to own them.  

 

Of course, the other factor is time, or should I say a 'lifetime'? When I was 18 (in 1964!), I was just mucking about motorising Kitmaster locos and making the likes of Jubilees out of Tri-ang Princesses (some real Jubs were still in existence, of course, so could be viewed - and photographed - first hand). It would be near a decade later before I made anything 'worthwhile'. What I'm saying here is it's taken me all my adult life (so far) to make all the locomotives I possess. 

 

My main motive, as has been explained before, was to recreate what I saw as a trainspotter. In your case, it's to recreate what inspired you as a kid. 

 

Which Thomas never did in my case (am I unique here?). I was given a Thomas book in the early-'50s when I was a nipper, but rejected it as being 'unrealistic'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 10, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Buhar]

Hi Tony,

I'm sure you've said before that a rule of thirds applied when planning Little Blytham. Full length ECML trains requiring a good length of scenic section to avoid overwhelming the scene. You probably could have selectively compressed the station and environs by quite a few feet and it would still have been a good representation seen between trains. However as soon as an express appeared or, worse, a long mineral, the compromises would have been exposed.

 

Alan 

[Chamby]

10 hours ago, TrainMan2001 said:

Tony,

If I may, I'd like to add my thoughts about the "it can be done," though from a much younger point of view (meaning I grew up with Thomas & Friends and one (maybe two) railway series book, Thomas the Tank Engine, fittingly enough). For the longest time, I wanted to recreate what I had seen in the show, which meant I felt I would need dozens of locomotives to achieve what I wanted, however, being a kid, I had never actually been able to afford all of them.

Over the last year, I figured out all of the different errors on my Bachmann Thomas, and upon discovering RMweb, I felt encouraged to set about correcting them. Now I'm pretty much at the point where I've decided I'll scratchbuild him to a length to suit the Comet Terrier chassis (which, once I'm paid, I should be able to afford that and the other pieces necessary to make a well running (hopefully) chassis. I intend to make it as realistic as possible (though following Reginald Payne's illustrations for length, rather than the E2's real length, hence the Terrier chassis).

However, the point I really wanted to bring up was that I am only on my first locomotive, and after that, I haven't any idea what I'll do. I'm only 18, but I feel as though one locomotive is enough at this point. I am going to scratchbuild and build some kits of wagons and coaches, but other than that and a branchline style layout I think I'll be satisfied. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of people seem to need to collect hundreds of locos and other things to feel like the hobby is fulfilling, but I now feel like a few well-detailed and realistic (other than faces (on real engines too)) engines and a single track line (whether specifically a real place or not is to be determined) done as realistically as possible in the pre-grouping or early grouping period would be quite fulfilling to me. So I guess what I'm saying is that it's possible to fulfill a dream in the hobby at any point, of course allowing time to learn and to build everything.

Sorry that that ended up so rambly and with a ton of parenthesis, but I hope that makes some sense.

 

An important point is being made here, I think.  The ‘dream layout’ for me too, has differed greatly at different times in my life.  It is only after many years of building up knowledge and experience, and then having both the financial means, time and space that now enables me to build a ‘proper layout’.  The mortgage is paid, the kids have left home, I have retired... I don’t think I could have taken on what I am now building any earlier in life.

 

I did get a huge amount of pleasure out of smaller and less ambitious layouts in my younger years.  Dream layouts at the time, they were ability and means appropriate, stepping stones that helped me to get where I am now.  I still don’t have anyway near as big a space (and the team of experts) as Tony has had for LB, but the 16x8 dedicated space that I now have is actually just right for me as a stand-alone modeller.  I learned the hard way that you can take on too much and end up with a monster that demands more than you care to give it.   (Those who have owned a boat of any size will know what I mean).  

 

But the old adage is very true in our hobby: from little acorns, mighty oaks do grow... with time, space, patience and the right conditions.

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Buhar said:

However as soon as an express appeared or, worse, a long mineral, the compromises would have been exposed.

 

Quite. My notional pacific with 13 on in 12 ft would look a bit ridiculous on an open line. I'm not sure how different it would be in an urban setting between two overbridges.

[Clearwater]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Quite. My notional pacific with 13 on in 12 ft would look a bit ridiculous on an open line. I'm not sure how different it would be in an urban setting between two overbridges.

There’s a set of videos on YouTube called “Best of British Steam.”  In the 2012 verision, there’s a few clips of Bittern and Britannia in the brick lined cuttings near Plymouth.  That’s the sort of effect you could get. An initial blur of a loco followed by the dozen or so Tricketty trocks of the rolling stock framed by the bridges.

 

David

[MJI]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

As I've mentioned before, when I went to University I couldn't afford to smoke, drink, drive a car and go out with women, so I gave up smoking...

 

 

People smoked or had a bike.. Few had both

[MJI]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Mike,

 

Roy Jackson got over the problem of getting big locos with Cartazzi rear trucks round tighter curves by making them effectively 2-6-0s or 4-6-0s. He didn't bother with any trailing wheels!

 

 

Clearly GAY CRUSADER (no tittering at the name, please) is running as a 4-6-0 in this shot. 

 

Actually, the main reason for no trailing trucks was to accommodate the wires for the tender pick-ups. As can be seen, one has become detached here and is flapping about OUTSIDE the Cartazzi frame. Since its detachment didn't affect its good running one bit, it made me wonder about the necessity of tender pick-ups. I've never found them to be necessary.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I cannot unsee the missing wheels now.

[MJI]

12 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

There’s a set of videos on YouTube called “Best of British Steam.”  In the 2012 verision, there’s a few clips of Bittern and Britannia in the brick lined cuttings near Plymouth.  That’s the sort of effect you could get. An initial blur of a loco followed by the dozen or so Tricketty trocks of the rolling stock framed by the bridges.

 

David

 

Cuttings through Plymouth

 

Really need a 50 on the sleepers. The 16CSVT echoing off the cutting with 14 Mark 1s behind is a sound I will never forget.

[ScRSG]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Roy Jackson got over the problem of getting big locos with Cartazzi rear trucks round tighter curves by making them effectively 2-6-0s or 4-6-0s. He didn't bother with any trailing wheels!

 

On all the visits I made to the home of Retford, I never noticed this!

[Buhar]

Nottingham Victoria has been noted as a suitable confined location for expresses. It sounds similar to Plymouth. But urban areas need a lot of buildings and we're not all Allan Downes or Dave Shakespeare. 

Alan 

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

David Jenkinson did a few articles on railway colours as editor of Backtrack and he was recalling a conversation he overheard from his time as curator of the NRM. I doubt he made up the story.

 

Good morning Clive,

 

I refer you to Joseph_Pestells reply to my post. Apparently you have misquoted Jenkinson on the matter.

[t-b-g]

43 minutes ago, Buhar said:

Nottingham Victoria has been noted as a suitable confined location for expresses. It sounds similar to Plymouth. But urban areas need a lot of buildings and we're not all Allan Downes or Dave Shakespeare. 

Alan 

 

Not so I am afraid! The length isn't too bad at around 25ft from tunnel to tunnel in scale length at 4mm to the foot. By the time you have curves round at the ends plus the required width of around 8ft (to include the iconic clock tower), you are looking at a space somewhat larger than Little Bytham requires to do it justice. Then you have the fact that it is in a huge cutting and a huge chunk of it is covered by a massive overall roof and that canopies go along most of the rest of the platforms and you end up with a rather tricky location to model effectively.

 

I did consider it once, when a 40ft long shed became available but I just couldn't see a way to make it an attractive layout to view from outside the station. All the wonderful photos of the station are from platform level.

 

The big plus point is that most trains there were much shorter than the ECML and even after the Midland Region took over, a Royal Scot with 5 or 6 carriages would be an accurate train length for most services.

 

Leicester Central would need the same sort of length but "only" be around 4ft wide to include the station building and the road along the front. Still more than I would fancy reaching across. It was also built high up on retaining walls, giving a much better view but again, canopies cover so much you would only see trains in front of the canopy and almost nothing in the bays or on the far side.

 

I was a little surprised to see Tony W write that RA9 locos running on believable layouts can be done in smaller spaces than 30ft. Maybe on a loco shed layout but I have not seen anything involving scale length ECML expresses in anything smaller.

 

It all comes down to what compromises the individual modeller is willing to accept. Frank Dyer ran a V2 on a 6 coach train on Borchester Market and it looked effective enough to me. The longest train on Buckingham is 5 short bogie coaches and a 4-6-0 on the front. The whole train is 4ft 3" long. I am happy with that as many GCR expresses were that short.

 

In my view, any 12 coach or similar train needs at least a 30ft layout to do it justice in 4mm scale as a continuous run and not much less as a terminus. I believe that Kings Cross is around 25ft from the tunnel mouth to the buffers in scale length but I haven't ever checked it! 

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Not so I am afraid! The length isn't too bad at around 25ft from tunnel to tunnel in scale length at 4mm to the foot. By the time you have curves round at the ends plus the required width of around 8ft (to include the iconic clock tower), you are looking at a space somewhat larger than Little Bytham requires to do it justice. Then you have the fact that it is in a huge cutting and a huge chunk of it is covered by a massive overall roof and that canopies go along most of the rest of the platforms and you end up with a rather tricky location to model effectively.

 

I did consider it once, when a 40ft long shed became available but I just couldn't see a way to make it an attractive layout to view from outside the station. All the wonderful photos of the station are from platform level.

 

The big plus point is that most trains there were much shorter than the ECML and even after the Midland Region took over, a Royal Scot with 5 or 6 carriages would be an accurate train length for most services.

 

Leicester Central would need the same sort of length but "only" be around 4ft wide to include the station building and the road along the front. Still more than I would fancy reaching across. It was also built high up on retaining walls, giving a much better view but again, canopies cover so much you would only see trains in front of the canopy and almost nothing in the bays or on the far side.

 

I was a little surprised to see Tony W write that RA9 locos running on believable layouts can be done in smaller spaces than 30ft. Maybe on a loco shed layout but I have not seen anything involving scale length ECML expresses in anything smaller.

 

It all comes down to what compromises the individual modeller is willing to accept. Frank Dyer ran a V2 on a 6 coach train on Borchester Market and it looked effective enough to me. The longest train on Buckingham is 5 short bogie coaches and a 4-6-0 on the front. The whole train is 4ft 3" long. I am happy with that as many GCR expresses were that short.

 

In my view, any 12 coach or similar train needs at least a 30ft layout to do it justice in 4mm scale as a continuous run and not much less as a terminus. I believe that Kings Cross is around 25ft from the tunnel mouth to the buffers in scale length but I haven't ever checked it! 

Good morning Tony,

 

You've answered your being surprised! 

 

Frank Dyer's Borchester was one layout I had in mind when I mentioned 'believable'. I didn't mention scale-length expresses in that context. 

 

Your point about curves at ends of layouts is very important. Folk have said to me that they can just about model a location between scenic break overbridges with the space they've got, but don't take into consideration the extra length needed to accommodate the end curves, even sharp ones. The result is often hopelessly tight visible curves, made even more daft if they represent a fast main line. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, ScRSG said:

 

On all the visits I made to the home of Retford, I never noticed this!

In fairness Chas, not every Pacific or V2 had missing ponies, but there were quite a few. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

58 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Clive,

 

I refer you to Joseph_Pestells reply to my post. Apparently you have misquoted Jenkinson on the matter.

Hi Andrew

 

Yes I know you are always right.

[t-b-g]

44 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

In fairness Chas, not every Pacific or V2 had missing ponies, but there were quite a few. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I never quite understood Roy with that. He clearly had the skill and ability to put the trailing wheels in as some of the locos had them. I think the omission was sometimes a bit of a "nod and a wink" concept. He liked the idea that he could fool at least some of the people some of the time! When visitors came, he would sometimes say things like "You haven't noticed, have you? That Pacific is a 4-6-0" to draw attention to the dodge.

 

You have surprised me again! A fictitious layout being quoted as a good example? You must be mellowing as you get older!

 

The curves at the ends of layouts were foremost in my mind when I was looking at the space available for the ongoing model of Doncaster. John has plenty of length in his loft, at 55ft. The width is, from memory, 12ft. It sounds like plenty but the station is 5ft 6" wide and at the South end, the Sheffield lines have already started to diverge on scene and there are 4 main lines (up and down slow and fast) to get round, plus the 2 Sheffield lines. The main lines have to go off in the centre of the layout because that is where they are in real life. So to get 6 tracks round, starting with less than 8ft to play with, the inner track starts to get a bit tight!

 

 

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andrew

 

Yes I know you are always right.

 

Thanks Clive,

 

your always fun.

[Pacific231G]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

My main motive, as has been explained before, was to recreate what I saw as a trainspotter. In your case, it's to recreate what inspired you as a kid. 

 

Which Thomas never did in my case (am I unique here?). I was given a Thomas book in the early-'50s when I was a nipper, but rejected it as being 'unrealistic'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

You're not unique Tony. Despite being keen on railways I was also rather unimpressed by the Railway Series books when I was given some of them as a child. I think it was the faces that seemed unrealistic. My Grandad was a signalman and, before he retired when I was about five,  allowed me to experience railways up close and personal; Later on he often took me on walks to the railway yards. So, I knew that locomotives didn't have faces and that railways were run by human beings who drank tea with condensed milk from white enamel cans,  not by sentient rolling stock.

Much later I did (and still do) appreciate the stories more once I'd learnt that they were based on actual events on real railways (though the railways of Sodor did have incidents in the way that Midsomer has murders) . When I met him at one of the Central Hall MRC shows I also appreciated the Rev. Awdry's Ffarquahar layout, on which of course the locos did not have faces!    

Edited July 10, 2020 by Pacific231G

[StephenB]

Tony

 

I’ve seen your attempt at reproducing Essendine. As you say, some of the curves are a tad on the tight side but, overall, I thought it quite convincing.

 

Stephen

[Tom F]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

When I met him at one of the Central Hall MRC shows I also appreciated the Rev. Awdry's Ffarquahar layout, on which of course the locos did not have faces!    

 

Which is how I'm portraying mine.

 

[thegreenhowards]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

I believe that Kings Cross is around 25ft from the tunnel mouth to the buffers in scale length but I haven't ever checked it! 

Hello Tony,

 

Kings Cross is actually rather more compact than that. It’s 420M from the front of the station building (which would have to be included) to the Gasworks tunnel mouth which equates to 5.5M or 18 feet in 4mm scale - quite achievable in a large loft - either with a curve round to a fiddle yard on the other side of the loft or a very short run directly into a fiddle yard. From the buffer stops is about 17 feet, but that would mean missing out on Cubitts masterpiece. The problems with it are the other two that you mention. The width from York Road platform to the end of the Milk Dock is almost 10ft and a large chunk of the layout would be hidden under an overall roof.

 

It’s my intention to build a model of it one day and I’m still mulling over how to overcome these two obstacles. There will clearly need to be some width compression - I think a reduced suburban station with the layout finishing with the hotel curve line from Moorgate emerging at the far edge of the baseboard with some compression of platform widths should be possible in about 5 feet - It would need access both sides, but that sounds manageable. And as for the overall roof, I’m thinking that I would only model the two ends and leave the middle part uncovered, or at least unglazed, to allow viewing of the station.

 

Andy