Wright writes.....

[robertcwp]

Mention of GC expresses prompts me to seek input from the experts who contribute to this thread, please. I recently bought this original image with rights to use:

 

60111_Chalfont_1955 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The location is between Chalfont & Latimer and Amersham where the Chesham branch diverges and the train is heading away from London. 

 

Something looks unusual about the formation. A closer view of the stock is attached. The first carriage looks like a BR standard BTK, followed by a side-door Gresley. Three and four appear to be an ex-Coronation articulated twin first. One of these twins was a regular in the South Yorkshireman then the Master Cutler in the 1950s, but towards the London end of the formation. 60111 is not carrying a headboard and in any event the northbound Cutler ran via the GW&GC joint line. 

 

Can anyone shed any further light please?

 

 

[Tony Wright]

6 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Mention of GC expresses prompts me to seek input from the experts who contribute to this thread, please. I recently bought this original image with rights to use:

 

60111_Chalfont_1955 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The location is between Chalfont & Latimer and Amersham where the Chesham branch diverges and the train is heading away from London. 

 

Something looks unusual about the formation. A closer view of the stock is attached. The first carriage looks like a BR standard BTK, followed by a side-door Gresley. Three and four appear to be an ex-Coronation articulated twin first. One of these twins was a regular in the South Yorkshireman then the Master Cutler in the 1950s, but towards the London end of the formation. 60111 is not carrying a headboard and in any event the northbound Cutler ran via the GW&GC joint line. 

 

Can anyone shed any further light please?

 

 

Good evening Robert,

 

It definitely looks like the twin FOs, after the extra door(s) had been added (note the footboard in the middle of the pair).

 

Are you sure it's a Down train? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robertcwp]

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Robert,

 

It definitely looks like the twin FOs, after the extra door(s) had been added (note the footboard in the middle of the pair).

 

Are you sure it's a Down train? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

The full image is slightly cropped but there is no doubt in my mind as to the location and the direction of travel. In the left background, you can see the LT cable run brackets which were a feature of the Chesham branch long before it was electrified. You can just about see the track of the branch as it starts to curve away and lose height compared to the main line.

[Jesse Sim]

On 09/07/2020 at 23:29, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

 

Anything else? Don't spend too much spare time in pubs.

 

 

 

 

You wash your mouth out, as an Australian that hurts more then anything. 

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

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.

You could arrange it so it rolls back, like an old-fashioned writing bureau (or a Citroen 2CV).

[jrg1]

18 hours ago, MJI said:

 

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.

Working on 16CSVTs is an experience I will never forget.

[polybear]

4 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

You wash your mouth out, as an Australian that hurts more then anything. 

 

I was just thinking yesterday that it's been a few days since we've heard from Jesse.  One mention of the word "Pub" and Jesse breaks cover.  Should've realised......

[DougN]

I have always thought that a train on any layout can not be more than 1/3rd of the length of the layout as a rough rule of thumb. Little complies with this rule. Ie loco plus 10 on works out at 11ft or close too. If you can go bigger the trains appear to run through the landscape. 

 

Hence my little layout at 14 ft long has a loco and 5 which makes the scene look full. But it balances better with loco and 4 coaches looks right. The same lengths on the freights also look right. About 12 wagons or so matches a 4 coach train.. again looks right on my layout. This is unless we generally SRman of this parish turns up and we need to do haulage testing which currently is at maximum with his S15 and 24 wagons! 

[great central]

21 hours 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 Victoria but half a mile or so further north was Carrington. Depending on your time period, small two platform station between two tunnels in a cutting or derelict disused station with little more than a couple of signals and a signal box. 

Plenty of scope for train formations and length without needing to see both ends at the same time.

Not much in the way of backscene required if my memory of the early 60s is accurate. One or two older buildings including the station at the top of the ramp from the platforms and the recently built college on on side.

[65179]

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/carrington/

 

 

Simon

Edited July 11, 2020 by 65179

[t-b-g]

14 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

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

 

Stations with a big overall roof usually look impressive but any layout where the roof takes up too much of the scene tends to lose out in terms of what can be seen of the trains. Liverpool Lime Street is a good example. Fantastic modelling and I can spend good time admiring the work but I am admiring the magnificent structures rather than the trains, which are somewhat overpowered visually. I did get the opportunity to visit the layout in its home, where being able to get up close really allowed me to see the detail close up, which is much better than seeing it at a show. We were there for a few hours, had a fantastic time and as we left, it crossed my mind that we hadn't seen a single train run and it didn't detract from the experience at all.

 

My own preference is for a scenic setting that is a nice background to the trains rather than one which dominates. There have been other layouts, like Chee Tor, which do the same thing but it has never been my ambition to create anything like that. Layouts like Buckingham and Borchester, where the scenic work frames the railway rather than dominates it are more my thing.

 

I did have a discussion once about modelling part of a station and whether that could be done in a sensible scenic fashion. Imagine standing on a platform roughly in the middle of Kings Cross and only looking one way. You would be inside the roof, which then becomes a frame rather than blocking the view. I saw a superb 7mm scale diorama done like that viewed from under a roof and it did make me wonder if it would be effective on a working layout.

[Dunsignalling]

It's a perfectly convincing subterfuge to portray a small urban through station located in a brick-lined cutting between two tunnels and run main line expresses or long goods trains that exceed the length of the scenic area. There are/were plenty of prototype stations with one such tunnel where adding a second (or at least an overbridge) would not look silly. The logical approach would be to omit or reduce the height of the retaining wall on the viewing side, or perhaps make it removable.

 

However it might be done, such a layout's role will be limited to purely "watching the trains go by" which will be fine for many but not those with a penchant for operation.

 

Unfortunately, if one requires operational interest and big trains, then a requirement for square yardage is pretty much inescapable. However, if one's true desire runs to big locos rather than big trains, there may be an alternative.

 

My interests lie substantially south and west of Tony's, an area with prototype locations where Pacifics could regularly be observed hauling short trains forming the beginning or end of multi-portioned express services. OK the 86 (or 90) tons of a Bulleid West Country might not count as "big" to LNER/ER devotees of RA9 hundred-tonners, but they worked through down here to minimise light engine workings. Was there nowhere "up north" where similar requirements existed?

 

John

Edited July 11, 2020 by Dunsignalling

[thegreenhowards]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

You could arrange it so it rolls back, like an old-fashioned writing bureau (or a Citroen 2CV).

Rolling back sound a little too technical for me. But lifting out is certainly something I’m considering. It would double up as a very elaborate dust cover!

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Stations with a big overall roof usually look impressive but any layout where the roof takes up too much of the scene tends to lose out in terms of what can be seen of the trains. Liverpool Lime Street is a good example. Fantastic modelling and I can spend good time admiring the work but I am admiring the magnificent structures rather than the trains, which are somewhat overpowered visually. I did get the opportunity to visit the layout in its home, where being able to get up close really allowed me to see the detail close up, which is much better than seeing it at a show. We were there for a few hours, had a fantastic time and as we left, it crossed my mind that we hadn't seen a single train run and it didn't detract from the experience at all.

 

My own preference is for a scenic setting that is a nice background to the trains rather than one which dominates. There have been other layouts, like Chee Tor, which do the same thing but it has never been my ambition to create anything like that. Layouts like Buckingham and Borchester, where the scenic work frames the railway rather than dominates it are more my thing.

 

I did have a discussion once about modelling part of a station and whether that could be done in a sensible scenic fashion. Imagine standing on a platform roughly in the middle of Kings Cross and only looking one way. You would be inside the roof, which then becomes a frame rather than blocking the view. I saw a superb 7mm scale diorama done like that viewed from under a roof and it did make me wonder if it would be effective on a working layout.

I like the idea of looking in but in 4mm that would leave a very small range of optimum viewing heights. I can see it would work better in 7mm.

 

Liverpool Lime St is an inspiration to me. I agree that the scenery dominates to some extent but I don’t think that’s such a bad thing especially as being a terminus the train action is quite well spaced. It’s not like a roundy roundy where trains can be kept running all the time. I’ve only seen it once at Warley 2018 and I spent a good hour watching it completely hooked on the setting, the trains and the prototypical timetable - fantastic!

 

Andy

Edited July 11, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Adding Lime St para

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

I did have a discussion once about modelling part of a station and whether that could be done in a sensible scenic fashion. Imagine standing on a platform roughly in the middle of Kings Cross and only looking one way. You would be inside the roof, which then becomes a frame rather than blocking the view. I saw a superb 7mm scale diorama done like that viewed from under a roof and it did make me wonder if it would be effective on a working layout.

This is exactly what Kier Hardy did superbly with Wibdenshaw, one of my favourite exhibition layouts of all time.  The overall roof forms the end of the scenic section and hides the sharp curves.

[Jesse Sim]

3 hours ago, polybear said:

 

I was just thinking yesterday that it's been a few days since we've heard from Jesse.  One mention of the word "Pub" and Jesse breaks cover.  Should've realised......

I am always lurking 

 

Ive actually been crook all week, not COVID-19 I got the all clear from that yesterday. So no modelling has taken place, tomorrow perhaps as I’m feeling much better. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Jesse Sim

[t-b-g]

26 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

This is exactly what Kier Hardy did superbly with Wibdenshaw, one of my favourite exhibition layouts of all time.  The overall roof forms the end of the scenic section and hides the sharp curves.

 

I have seen several examples like that and they can work really well. It becomes a problem with a terminus, where you need the same length for the trains whether it is modelled or not. Taking 8 tracks round a curve on a non scenic section to save a couple of feet of length may not be the best use of the space. I was thinking of a split along the platforms, so you are looking across but can only see half the station. This is to get around the problem of width rather than length. You could still get a full length train coming into the buffer stops but you could watch it all the way in and you could see other trains moving in and out either in front or behind it.

 

If there has been a layout built like that, I don't recall it. I have seen it, as I said, in a non working diorama and it looked fantastic. I just pictured something like that with the trains actually running as a possibility to build a model of a substantial real location without using the whole width.

 

It may also work with a model of something like Nottingham Victoria. The front edge of the layout would be a half platform, with the rest of the station imagined behind the viewer.

 

Maybe it would work as a concept, maybe it wouldn't.

 

I am just putting it out there as a rare bit of creative thinking that may be worth further development!

 

 

[St Enodoc]

16 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have seen several examples like that and they can work really well. It becomes a problem with a terminus, where you need the same length for the trains whether it is modelled or not. Taking 8 tracks round a curve on a non scenic section to save a couple of feet of length may not be the best use of the space. I was thinking of a split along the platforms, so you are looking across but can only see half the station. This is to get around the problem of width rather than length. You could still get a full length train coming into the buffer stops but you could watch it all the way in and you could see other trains moving in and out either in front or behind it.

 

If there has been a layout built like that, I don't recall it. I have seen it, as I said, in a non working diorama and it looked fantastic. I just pictured something like that with the trains actually running as a possibility to build a model of a substantial real location without using the whole width.

 

It may also work with a model of something like Nottingham Victoria. The front edge of the layout would be a half platform, with the rest of the station imagined behind the viewer.

 

Maybe it would work as a concept, maybe it wouldn't.

 

I am just putting it out there as a rare bit of creative thinking that may be worth further development!

 

 

Many years ago the Renfrew MRC did that with their model of Glasgow St Enoch, which featured only one train shed instead of the prototype's two. Consequently, it was always referred to, irreverently but affectionately, as St Eunuch.

[t-b-g]

8 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Many years ago the Renfrew MRC did that with their model of Glasgow St Enoch, which featured only one train shed instead of the prototype's two. Consequently, it was always referred to, irreverently but affectionately, as St Eunuch.

 

We did something similar with Narrow Road being half of Broad Street but we altered enough for it to be not an actual model of one half of Broad Street so I don't really count it. I haven't seen the model mentioned so will have a look for it.

[Chamby]

Like many others I suspect, I don't currently have access to a 30 feet plus run for my current mainline (twin track) home layout project.  A  length of 16 feet with (mostly) 3 foot minimum radius gives me a little under ten feet of visible open run between the end curves.   Although I would like longer, I have been able to work with this.  

 

If you think about a model railway, the normal viewing angle is unprototypically high for most locations.  There is no doubt that from this elevated angle a longer run makes for much more satisfying viewing.  However, most of my train watching in real life has been from a line side viewpoint, and from here the field of view is much more limited.  I recall standing on Twyford station a few years ago to see 61306 on a steam special, she pulled into the station and stopped about two coach lengths beyond my location on the platform end... I was disappointed to see so little of the engine, at an acute angle even at such a close range.    When observing a full length train, your whole field of view can be taken in by just a part of the train itself.

 

 

I am building my own layout a little higher than usual, about 47 inches (120cm) above ground level.  I find this low enough to work on easily whilst standing, but it also gives me an eye-level viewpoint when seated.  And from this viewpoint, you certainly don't need the full 30 feet to achieve a realistic impact with a 10-coach plus train.  

 

I haven't posted much in the way of photo's on this forum yet as I am still at an early stage with an incomplete layout and a great deal still to do re: modifying stock, weathering, lamping up etc, so my apologies for the as yet lightweight "personalisation' of the RTR stuff evident in this photo, and the use of an i-phone camera to get the low-down viewpoint.  But I include it simply as an illustration that you don't always need 30 feet to model something mainline that is still impactful to the eye.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Chamby
Added picture of 61306

[Northmoor]

44 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have seen several examples like that and they can work really well. It becomes a problem with a terminus, where you need the same length for the trains whether it is modelled or not. Taking 8 tracks round a curve on a non scenic section to save a couple of feet of length may not be the best use of the space. I was thinking of a split along the platforms, so you are looking across but can only see half the station. This is to get around the problem of width rather than length. You could still get a full length train coming into the buffer stops but you could watch it all the way in and you could see other trains moving in and out either in front or behind it.

 

If there has been a layout built like that, I don't recall it. I have seen it, as I said, in a non working diorama and it looked fantastic. I just pictured something like that with the trains actually running as a possibility to build a model of a substantial real location without using the whole width.

 

It may also work with a model of something like Nottingham Victoria. The front edge of the layout would be a half platform, with the rest of the station imagined behind the viewer.

 

Maybe it would work as a concept, maybe it wouldn't.

 

I am just putting it out there as a rare bit of creative thinking that may be worth further development!

 

 

Sorry I misunderstood your concept but can see how this would work now.  I had a similar idea for my unbuilt loft layout, where "missing" part of the station is effectively blocked off by permanent way work being undertaken.

[St Enodoc]

43 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

We did something similar with Narrow Road being half of Broad Street but we altered enough for it to be not an actual model of one half of Broad Street so I don't really count it. I haven't seen the model mentioned so will have a look for it.

I'm not sure that it was ever written up, Tony. It formed part of a large complex layout that included Elderslie Junction on a large oval with branches to St Enoch and Greenock Princes Pier. Each section could be operated, and exhibited, individually or as part of the complete layout. The whole system was great fun to operate (I was a member, briefly, in 1979/80). I suspect that it is long gone now.

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, Chamby said:

Like many others I suspect, I don't currently have access to a 30 feet plus run for my current mainline (twin track) home layout project.  A  length of 16 feet with (mostly) 3 foot minimum radius gives me a little under ten feet of visible open run between the end curves.   Although I would like longer, I have been able to work with this.  

 

If you think about a model railway, the normal viewing angle is unprototypically high for most locations.  There is no doubt that from this elevated angle a longer run makes for much more satisfying viewing.  However, most of my train watching in real life has been from a line side viewpoint, and from here the field of view is much more limited.  I recall standing on Twyford station a few years ago to see 61306 on a steam special, she pulled into the station and stopped about two coach lengths beyond my location on the platform end... I was disappointed to see so little of the engine, at an acute angle even at such a close range.    When observing a full length train, your whole field of view can be taken in by just a part of the train itself.

 

I am building my own layout a little higher than usual, about 47 inches (120cm) above ground level.  I find this low enough to work on easily whilst standing, but it also gives me an eye-level viewpoint when seated.  And from this viewpoint, you certainly don't need the full 30 feet to achieve a realistic impact with a 10-coach plus train.  

 

I haven't posted much in the way of photo's on this forum yet as I am still at an early stage with an incomplete layout and a great deal still to do re: modifying stock, weathering, lamping up etc, so my apologies for the as yet lightweight "personalisation' of the RTR stuff evident in this photo, and the use of an i-phone camera to get the low-down viewpoint.  But I include it simply as an illustration that you don't always need 30 feet to model something mainline that is still impactful to the eye.

 

 

Good afternoon Phil,

 

It's certainly an impressive view and suggests 'main line', though the incidence of RA9 single track is very rare - somewhere on the GC/GWR Joint? 

 

As always, when I see the likes of an A3, my eye is drawn to the detail . What's its origin, please? Hornby? 

 

It's correctly RH drive in BR blue, but the ashpan lever (worked by the fireman) is on the driver's side; it should be on the other side. Not only that, it's at the opposite angle to what it should be. 

 

From the lack of beading and no curve-in to the side sheets at the front, it looks like a streamlined non-corridor tender, which ENTERPRISE never towed. in BR days she hauled a new-type non-corridor sort, with beading. 

 

From my observations above, I take it the loco is not as-supplied RTR? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Well, the new chassis has been completed for the ancient Millholme 2P, replacing the previous K's-powered white metal lump. 

 

 

I tried the 27mm drivers first, but they made the loco ride too high. These are older Romford 26mm; the over-scale flanges give the impression of a larger diameter. 

 

I cut off the front bits of the Comet frames because they were too long overall for the body. I rather think this is because the body is too short. 

 

I retained the original white metal bogie but replaced the wheels. Two Plastikard rubbing surfaces can be seen. The guard irons were originally on this bogie, which is incorrect - they should be on the frames. I just lopped them off.

 

 

The body/chassis length discrepancy can be seen here. I just soldered the cut-off bits to the body. 

 

How the bogie pivots and how it's sprung is evident. The bogie has to take some of the weight of the front end of the body, otherwise the loco is too nose-heavy. 

 

 

Speaking of weight - you certainly get your money's worth of white metal in a Millholme kit. 

 

A couple of fibre washers were necessary at the back end, just to make the whole thing sit level. 

 

After thorough (successful) testing, the chassis' painting/weathering will now be completed.

 

And, in between times, I've done some more on the DJH 8F. 

 

[Headstock]

My own rendition of the big E. The locomotive is heading home on the 'Tea time fast' and about to pass under the now defunct Upperton road bridge.

 

Photo courtesy of Derek Shore.