Jump to content
 

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

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

45 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.

 

742520035_Feb2015009.jpeg.508e5f12792a438b1d58276ebc7f8041.jpeg

 

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.

 

IMG_3853.jpg.6affbdb88fdcbd32a420a94e4571fb87.jpg

 

 

There are other ways round the problem of too little length (no pun intended but I am going to leave the wording as it is) quite literally going "round" so long as one has enough width. I am lucky in having a room 5.3m (nearly 17'5") by 4.4m (14'5") so instead of an oval with straights in the middle & too tight curves at both ends my layout is more or less D-shaped. The viewing side has a continuous curve from side to side with an average radius of 2.5m (8'2") so I can sit in the middle & watch trains at a more or less constant distance running around 7.85m (25'9"). My longest trains such as the WCJS/LNWR 2pm from Euston are not much over 2m (6'6) long so the layout fulfils the1/3 rule for "realism" quoted by others. Consecutive Peco Code 83 5'/3' curved points are used for entry the fiddle yard tracks.

Currently my layout is only baseboards & some track but a preliminary test showed it works. Now all the boards have been separated for wiring.

William

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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

 

1029639676_MillholmeLMS2P08.jpg.730d47b70f7f550add1c2984d74fad18.jpg

 

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.

 

159615988_MillholmeLMS2P09.jpg.c2bbd6c0d0aa98ea6bc595ed11744d13.jpg

 

The bogie has to take some of the weight of the front end of the body, otherwise the loco is too nose-heavy. 

 

628455333_MillholmeLMS2P07.jpg.dc0dc30cd2bb582b5fb95f0b42f26420.jpg

 

I have recently re-chassised a pair of ancient Airfix 2Ps.

 

The Comet chassis was obviously designed to take the Airfix body - the length is spot-on. I fitted scale driving wheels, but also found the problem of the loco body riding too high. Rather than change the wheels, I reduced the chassis locating points within the body, but this required some material removal within the body, to clear the flanges and coupling rod oil boxes.

 

I too cut off the front of the frames - scale bogie wheels came into contact with the frame wheel arches; (even after these were enlarged); and the guard irons.

 

I sprung and pivotted the bogie in the same way that Tony did, and there was plenty of room for lead sheet ballast within the boiler and firebox, around the Mitsumi / High Level drive system.

 

The tender is heavily ballasted with lead, and the front and centre tender wheelsets have the bearing slots extended upwards. The tender drawbar rests on the loco drawbar, thus transferring plenty weight onto the driving wheels.

 

The result is a pair of locos that can pull prototypical loads, and that will be invaluable as pilot locos for holiday expresses on the S&DJR.

 

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Chamby said:

 

 

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.  

 

 

 

My rails are even higher, about 165cm. This was forced on me by the nature of the room, but at least allows just a nod under to get into the middle of the layout. Working at altitude is not without its challenges, though, since any layout work needs to be done on a foot stool, and I prefer to operate from a slightly elevated position too. The ease of eye-level viewing is nice, though.

 

Al

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

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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. 

 

Hi Tony, the angle of view is hiding the second track so you are reassuringly close, the GCLE.  

 

The locomotive is a renumbered Hornby R3627, their BR Blue 60103.  The curve-in to the front of the tender as supplied has been removed but beading has still to be added, to represent tender 5569 of the 1930 high-sided non-corridor type that she towed at the time.   But otherwise at the moment she is out-of-the-box.   There's a photo of a sister tender in Yeadon's that I'm using as a guide.    Well spotted re: the ashpan lever, it is 'as supplied' and I totally missed that, but it's an easy fix, thank you.  I'm also vacillating on whether to swop the bogie wheels for the Markits type, as per your own preference.  The locomotive is DCC sound fitted and just needs a little fettling to get the wheel and chuff synchronisation spot on, and working lamps to be added.

 

The coaches are also all RTR at this stage of build, a mixture of Mk1's and a Gresley buffet (yes, I know) and a couple of Thompson 1st's to represent the 'Master Cutler' rake of the time.  I still need a Thompson open first to complete the rake.   So much still to do... 

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

2 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

Hi Tony, the angle of view is hiding the second track so you are reassuringly close, the GCLE.  

 

The locomotive is a renumbered Hornby R3627, their BR Blue 60103.  The curve-in to the front of the tender as supplied has been removed but beading has still to be added, to represent tender 5569 of the 1930 high-sided non-corridor type that she towed at the time.   But otherwise at the moment she is out-of-the-box.   There's a photo of a sister tender in Yeadon's that I'm using as a guide.    Well spotted re: the ashpan lever, it is 'as supplied' and I totally missed that, but it's an easy fix, thank you.  I'm also vacillating on whether to swop the bogie wheels for the Markits type, as per your own preference.  The locomotive is DCC sound fitted and just needs a little fettling to get the wheel and chuff synchronisation spot on, and working lamps to be added.

 

The coaches are also all RTR at this stage of build, a mixture of Mk1's and a Gresley buffet (yes, I know) and a couple of Thompson 1st's to represent the 'Master Cutler' rake of the time.  I still need a Thompson open first to complete the rake.   So much still to do... 

 

Good afternoon Phil,

 

there was one Gresley designed LNER Buffet car, of the type produced by Hornby, allocated to the western area, the remainder were pre grouping conversions. I don't have any information on it post war, it seemed to disappear completely, I only have photographs of the ex GN conversions. Both pre and post war, they were used mainly on excursion work and other such services. When catering was reintroduced post war, a number of tourist stock Buffet cars were employed on principal expresses, until refurbished Restaurant cars could be returned to service.

 

The Buffet car (RKB) deployed in the Master Cutler was Bulleid Tavern Car, Dolphin and its accompanying nissen hut. The rest of the formation at the time was all Gresley end door stock. At what date are you modeling the Master Cutler? With the Thompson FO in the formation, the train was mostly MK1 carriages, with the exception of the catering and for the longest period, the leading Thompson brake compo.

Edited by Headstock
add info
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Phil,

 

there was one Gresley designed LNER Buffet car, of the type produced by Hornby, allocated to the western area, the remainder were pre grouping conversions. I don't have any information on it post war, it seemed to disappear completely, I only have photographs of the ex GN conversions. Both pre and post war, they were used mainly on excursion work and other such services. When catering was reintroduced post war, a number of tourist stock Buffet cars were employed on principal expresses, until refurbished Restaurant cars could be returned to service.

 

The Buffet car (RKB) deployed in the Master Cutler was Bulleid Tavern Car, Dolphin and its accompanying nissen hut. The rest of the formation at the time was all Gresley end door stock. At what date are you modeling the Master Cutler? With the Thompson FO in the formation, the train was mostly MK1 carriages, with the exception of the catering and for the longest period, the leading Thompson brake compo.

 

Good afternoon Headstock.  Yes the rake is a little later than the rest of my modelling, covering the late forties and early fifties.  At the moment it squeezes in the period after the Tavern Car had been replaced, after the Mk 1 stock came in 1951, but before 60111 was repainted green in early 1953.  I don't have definitive data on the exact formation and diagram numbers (the same goes for most of my rakes at the moment), but for now it fills a gap whilst my modelling focus is on the layout build for the time being.  Some time in the future I will probably adjust the formation back in time to be a more comfortable fit to my core timeline, as you rightly say that will probably have to include the much loved Tavern car and much detested Nissen hut!  Some indulgent days to be spent on that research to come, probably during a cold winters night with a glass of claret in hand...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Summer 1952 booked formation for the Master Cutler:

 

50101219201_facb7ab741_b.jpgMaster-Cutler_1952-Summer by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

* indicates BR Standard stock. Note that the BCK at the London end was, as Andrew notes, in reality a Thompson one. The only Gresley stock in the train at the time was the pantry third/restaurant first pair, plus the additional TK on certain days.

 

Here is a view of the train just at the end of the 1951-2 Winter timetable. Close examination of the original image confirms that the carriages after the Gresley pair are two BR standards and a Thompson:

45027668192_a37bcb5be9_b.jpg60052_MasterCutler_Akeman-Grendon_29-5-52 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

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

 

1029639676_MillholmeLMS2P08.jpg.730d47b70f7f550add1c2984d74fad18.jpg

 

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.

 

159615988_MillholmeLMS2P09.jpg.c2bbd6c0d0aa98ea6bc595ed11744d13.jpg

 

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. 

 

628455333_MillholmeLMS2P07.jpg.dc0dc30cd2bb582b5fb95f0b42f26420.jpg

 

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. 

 

321455391_8F03.jpg.41c562dc21a9fb61c3a7a231334814d7.jpg

I hope you're going to cut that footplate out now, up to the smokebox saddle. I've no idea why they cast this a plate all across the loco but it looks daft.

  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

I hope you're going to cut that footplate out now, up to the smokebox saddle. I've no idea why they cast this a plate all across the loco but it looks daft.

Perhaps Mike, perhaps......................

 

I assume you mean the 8F?

 

Now the 2P finished, it's working on the MR/M&GNR bit of LB. .

 

1339870351_MillholmeLMS2P11.jpg.964feebdbee72be146368c776f7bf972.jpg

 

Some might question the wisdom of spending time and money on a ropy old thing like this, but I think it now makes an adequate layout loco. 

 

At least in now runs really sweetly on it new chassis.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 19
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

Good afternoon Headstock.  Yes the rake is a little later than the rest of my modelling, covering the late forties and early fifties.  At the moment it squeezes in the period after the Tavern Car had been replaced, after the Mk 1 stock came in 1951, but before 60111 was repainted green in early 1953.  I don't have definitive data on the exact formation and diagram numbers (the same goes for most of my rakes at the moment), but for now it fills a gap whilst my modelling focus is on the layout build for the time being.  Some time in the future I will probably adjust the formation back in time to be a more comfortable fit to my core timeline, as you rightly say that will probably have to include the much loved Tavern car and much detested Nissen hut!  Some indulgent days to be spent on that research to come, probably during a cold winters night with a glass of claret in hand...

 

Evening Phil,

 

the classic Gresley formation, that ran with a few tweaks between 1947 and and 1951, is by far the hardest to model. In the grand scheme of things, the Tavern car and friend, were only in the train for a few months in 1949. The typical catering make up for the classic period was FO-RF-TO.

 

The 51 formation is quite simple in comparison, all you require to build yourself is a Gresley RF/RPT combo. The MK1 FK was a end door type, I'm not sure if this is available RTR, the MK1 FO, also an end door type, didn't last too long and was replaced by the Thompson FO. The trains patrons, the great and the good, managed to rid themselves of the nissen hut, did they also object to their dinner bouncing around on the poor ride of the MK1 carriage?

 

P.S. being a Neasden loco, 60111 was not a regular on the Master Cutler. I's time would come, when allocated to Leicester later in the fifties. For a time in 1955, it was regular locomotive on the southbound South Yorkshireman. It was also the train engine on the first Starlight special to depart Marylebone in 1953. 60102 and 60052 were allocated as train engines on the Cutler as part of it's repaint into crimson and cream, both locomotive being turned out in blue for the working. 60102 in particular was regarded as a superb loco, though 60052 seems to have been photographed more often, there is a story behind that. 60054 was also well regarded and did a long spell on the Cutler, often photographed in filthy LNER/BR grass green.

Edited by Headstock
add P.S.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 10/07/2020 at 17:44, 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

HI Andy

 

I planned to make Kings Cross, I hand drew the point work to 4mm scale (I am not sure that any points were standard). I discounted doing the overall roof as it would mean too much of the layout would be hidden. I was planning the layout and stock around the 1969 working timetable.

 

I came to the conclusion that most of the layout would become fiddle yard, with all the up trains entering the station from the 3 eastern tracks of gas works tunnel and the down trains the other 3 the fiddle yard tracks so trains could cross from one side to the other would nearly be as complicated as the station throat. Plus a second smaller fiddle yard for the Moorgate trains.

 

With limited space my mind changed to building Passenger Loco and the front of the suburban station. The plan was the trainspotters view from platform 10 to Passenger Loco watching the loco moves on, locos reversing out of the tunnel as if they had just come off the platforms and off shed going back into the tunnel before joining their train going northwards. Along with suburban trains going in and out, using a traverser for the fiddle yard . For the Moorgate trains it was planned a line would run behind the embankment behind Passenger Loco to a sector plate which would line up with Platform 16.

1088891547_Bottomshed2.png.5f876f39481daeeab1409cd0fe0dad09.png

 

Both ideas were halted, and the paper station throat disposed of when we moved here to the middle of nowhere. If you look at my Sheffield Exchange there are elements of the 1977 track plan so I didn't fully abandon my dream of having a model of Kings Cross.

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the mention of main lines in cramped sites, I've been digging through some of my images, and found these two.....................

 

1932756487_terminus01.jpg.c7a24e2d3507564bdc853f0975d3e84c.jpg

 

1531008155_terminus02.jpg.0cb60002c3ca82748a5b298c60c5fc15.jpg

 

I can't even remember when or where I took these. I can't even remember the layout's name (I can't make out the station nameboard), but it gives the air of a cramped, city centre terminus.

 

Though I'm nor sure why, it reminds a little of the long-closed Liverpool Central. The trackwork is well-made, though those horrid couplings do obtrude. I don't think the signals worked, and as for safety rails!

 

Does anyone know which layout this is? 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours 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.


I was thinking along the lone @t-b-g had suggested but with the variation that for a home layout you put platforms 1-6 or whatever) on one side of the room and 7-12 on the opposite side.  Track sloping down to a fiddleyard underneath each scenic section.  As the viewer/operator, if this was a model of Birmingham New Street for example, you’d imagine yourself as standing on the end of platform 6/7 (the a end) and swivelling to view trains as they left towards the tunnels.

 

David

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

I seem to have built a fair number of locos in lockdown.

 

In fact, I felt quite smug about my output.

 

Then, in digging through the files, I came across this picture of my stand at a York Show some years ago.......

 

117475539_mystandYork.jpg.475ab28b6680d4d8b4f3391d4dd0ef50.jpg

 

It seems I've always been making lots of things! 

 

Poignantly, in looking at this I was reminded of the friend and colleague I was sitting next to at the time; Bob Alderman, who's sadly just died. 

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Phil,

 

the classic Gresley formation, that ran with a few tweaks between 1947 and and 1951, is by far the hardest to model. In the grand scheme of things, the Tavern car and friend, were only in the train for a few months in 1949. The typical catering make up for the classic period was FO-RF-TO.

 

The 51 formation is quite simple in comparison, all you require to build yourself is a Gresley RF/RPT combo. The MK1 FK was a end door type, I'm not sure if this is available RTR, the MK1 FO, also an end door type, didn't last too long and was replaced by the Thompson FO. The trains patrons, the great and the good, managed to rid themselves of the nissen hut, did they also object to their dinner bouncing around on the poor ride of the MK1 carriage?

 

 

The Mark 1 FO in the train c1952 was in fact an RFO, end doors only. These had loose chairs intended for short-term occupancy for meals whereas in the Cutler, as shown by the Summer 1952 carriage workings, 30 out of 42 seats were reservable and intended for the whole journey. I wonder if this was a factor in substituting a Thompson FO with proper first class seating, as well as having a better ride? All the Mark 1 types in the train have been produced in 00 by Bachmann.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Does anyone know which layout this is? 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

It looked like 'Lowfield' to me on the name board, so I Googled Lowfield and up came the advertisment on RMweb for the Wolverhampton Model Railway Show, 2016, where Lowfield was exhibited.  Other attractions for the show included modelling demonstrations by a chap called Tony Wright...

 

The description for Lowfield was '00 Gauge – A small city centre terminus station exhibited by Cliff Homer'.

 

Pete T.

 

Edited by PJT
Added description of Lowfield
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One example of main line trains on a short exhibition layout, although not ECML, is (was?) Sydney Gardens, a prototype location on the approaches to Bath. The baseboards were set quite high for eye level viewing of the trains passing by.

 

Another short layout that comes to mind Tony is Scotland Street. I think this was a Wolverhampton club layout (?) where the goods yard was at the front and the running lines at the back. How long ago was that?

 

Keith

Edited by Keith Turbutt
Not Stanley Gardens - should have checked the map
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

The Mark 1 FO in the train c1952 was in fact an RFO, end doors only. These had loose chairs intended for short-term occupancy for meals whereas in the Cutler, as shown by the Summer 1952 carriage workings, 30 out of 42 seats were reservable and intended for the whole journey. I wonder if this was a factor in substituting a Thompson FO with proper first class seating, as well as having a better ride? All the Mark 1 types in the train have been produced in 00 by Bachmann.

 

Good evening Robert,

 

The RFO was E10, formally SC10. The lose chairs argument sounds logical. If the Thompson FO provided better first class accommodation than E10, that may have been a factor in the later replacement of the MK1 FK with a MK1 CK.

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

19 minutes ago, Keith Turbutt said:

One example of main line trains on a short exhibition layout, although not ECML, is (was?) Stanley Gardens, a prototype location on the approaches to Bath. The baseboards were set quite high for eye level viewing of the trains passing by.

 

Another short layout that comes to mind Tony is Scotland Street. I think this was a Wolverhampton club layout (?) where the goods yard was at the front and the running lines at the back. How long ago was that?

 

Keith


 

Sydney Gardens - a lovely layout!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/07/2020 at 15:54, Clem said:

Hi Andrew, 

Very interesting information on the workings.

A couple of points/questions. Attaching the fish vans to the 10-30pm Manchester-Marylebone - presumably that would restist the maximum speed of the express from then on? I can't remember max speed of fitted vans off hand.

Second, I've seen several pictures of the fish south of Leicester with a GW 4-6-0 on it, so that didn't come as a surprise. In your period of modelling (1948-50? ), do you know if the fish trains were timed similar to later? First the Hull, then about 40mims later the Grimsby?

 

On 05/07/2020 at 15:12, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Clem,

 

sorry I missed your post. I know that a batch of five Fish vans were dropped of at Leicester. They were sent forwards to Marylebone on the tail end of the 10.35 pm express from Manchester, along with a BZ with bakery items.

 

There was quite a complicated engine diagram, the locomotive off the first Fish train of the evening, would come off at Leicester, with the Marylebone bound vans. The loco would then work south with the second fish trains of the evening. The fist Fish train, now lacking a locomotive, proceeded south with the Locomotive off the Northbound Bournemouth York Newcastle express, this was usually an ex GWR Hall. The ex GWR locomotive would alternatively work six weeks on the Fish and then six weeks on the 5.22pm Leicester Woodford ord. The Doncaster based locomotive, usually a B1, that came off the second Fish train, would work trains back to Doncaster via Sheffield. In the later period, when the Fish trains were combined, I've been told that a batch of Fish vans were dropped off from the tail at Woodford, these vans being bound for Marylebone. This may be the train as modeled, I am unsure. Being off the late period and not a train that I have personally modeled, I have not investigated it too deeply.

 

Good evening Clem,

 

some more information on the Fish trains. The Doncaster B1 that came off the second fish train, would pilot the locomotive on the Northbound South Yorkshireman as far as Sheffield. Four or more fish vans would be marshalled outside the brake van on the fish train passing Rugby at approximately 6.40 PM, they were usually bound for Oxford and Banbury (RO July 52).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PJT said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

It looked like 'Lowfield' to me on the name board, so I Googled Lowfield and up came the advertisment on RMweb for the Wolverhampton Model Railway Show, 2016, where Lowfield was exhibited.  Other attractions for the show included modelling demonstrations by a chap called Tony Wright...

 

The description for Lowfield was '00 Gauge – A small city centre terminus station exhibited by Cliff Homer'.

 

Pete T.

 

Thanks Pete,

 

So I photographed it at a Wolverhampton Show? How the memory crumbles!

 

WMRC hasn't held a show now for four years, the main reason being not enough members young enough to clear rooms and lug tables around any more. We've all grown older (old!) together. A pity, because it used to be a very good show.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Keith Turbutt said:

One example of main line trains on a short exhibition layout, although not ECML, is (was?) Stanley Gardens, a prototype location on the approaches to Bath. The baseboards were set quite high for eye level viewing of the trains passing by.

 

Another short layout that comes to mind Tony is Scotland Street. I think this was a Wolverhampton club layout (?) where the goods yard was at the front and the running lines at the back. How long ago was that?

 

Keith

Good morning Keith,

 

I don't remember Scotland Street being a WMRC layout; in fact, I can't place the layout at all, though it might have been a member's individual layout. Or, a visiting layout to the club's erstwhile shows. 

 

How long ago? What staggers me now is that I've not been a dweller in Wolverhampton for 16 years! In fact, where we live now is the longest we've ever stayed in one house. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 hours ago, Keith Turbutt said:

One example of main line trains on a short exhibition layout, although not ECML, is (was?) Stanley Gardens, a prototype location on the approaches to Bath. The baseboards were set quite high for eye level viewing of the trains passing by.

 

Another short layout that comes to mind Tony is Scotland Street. I think this was a Wolverhampton club layout (?) where the goods yard was at the front and the running lines at the back. How long ago was that?

 

Keith

Another that worked well, and I say that because unlike many higher quality layouts I can still remember seeing it, was the Virgin trains promo’ layout. Oval, probably 8ft x 6ft or thereabouts if my memory is correct but segmented with angled scenic dividers, again from memory, making four different scenic sections. Yes it was far more entry level than those mentioned earlier but interesting.

 

Edited by john new
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, StephenB said:

I agree with Clearwater, Sydney Gardens is a delightful layout, one of those where you can just stand and watch trains go by.

 

Stephen

I agree. I particularly like the way they move through time as the sequence progresses. Starting with steam and ending with Westerns etc.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...