Wright writes.....

[Daniel W]

I've managed to get back to work on my North British Shunter. Firstly, i used the dodgiest dodge and soldered some brass strip behind the gap in the cab, which manages to trick the eye a little. I certainly feel as though i did a better job on the engine casing though. I still need to add a couple of sand boxes usimg epoxy yet.

 

 

I still have quite a bit of work to do on the chassis. Thanks to the Poppy's woodtech jig, the chassis is nice and square. I managed to build the High-Level box without problems (sorry Tony, the DJH one wouldn't fit!), which says something to their ease of use if a ham-fisted novice like myself can put it one together. Together with one of High-Level's new motors it runs 'sweetly' as Sir might say.

The pick-ups are definitely the weak point. They needed quite a bit of tweaking, but i've managed to get running to an acceptable standard. This is definitely an area that i need to work on. I used the pick-up kit from Eileens, but i might need to find some springier wire. I've left the adding of the coupling rods and  jack-shaft until last, mostly because I am mildly terrified at what sort of effect adding the rods will have to the running qualities! Still, for a first attempt at a loco things could be a lot worse.

 

Daniel.

[drmditch]

Re: Grantham and Viewpoints

 

What must be several years ago now, I was privileged to have a good afternoon looking at the splendid Grantham layout, while it was being rehearsed for a public appearance.

It was like having a show all to myself, with the afternoon light bringing out the detail and colour and especially the splendid teak coaching stock with immaculate glazing.

It looked especially good when viewed from near track level - with no-one to tell me off for kneeling on the floor!

 

No pictures taken then I'm afraid. The only picture I have that might bear posting is from an earlier occasion when the North End Pilot was having a run-in on the main line (with no crew visible!)

 

 

I've been deeply fortunate to have seen Grantham several times, and there is always more to see and admire.

The only problem is running out of superlatives!

 

[Michael Edge]

Your pickups look too short and too thick. I use .35mm phosphor bronze wire (one piece each side - there's no point in splitting it)  soldered to a pcb pad in the same position but taken to the far side of each wheel, not the nearest point. All looks OK otherwise so far.

[Daniel W]

11 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

Your pickups look too short and too thick. I use .35mm phosphor bronze wire (one piece each side - there's no point in splitting it)  soldered to a pcb pad in the same position but taken to the far side of each wheel, not the nearest point. All looks OK otherwise so far.

Thanks, Mike. I'm loathe to interfer with the pick-ups now that i have them working decently,but i'll bear it in mind for future builds.

[Bucoops]

A while back I was pondering how to do GNR style buffers for my 52'6" full brake - I ordered some Markits SECR ones from Roxey and as usual from Dave they arrived very promptly.

 

The buffer head is pretty close and even the base is quite close to the gangwayed coach version - 

 

 

Foolishly I didn't get better photos of the GNR coach at Mangapps but you can just make out the shape of the base -

 

I then thought about the collar that's used when the buffers are extended. I found some Slaters 7mm crankpin bushes as a starting point, turned down the flange diameter and opened up the bore to suit.

 

 

I then used a piercing saw to split it in half. Then tried an awful lot of times to solder it to the back of the buffer head - the idea being it had enough clearance to slide over the body of the housing. Nope, nope and more nope. Both halves have also now pinged into who knows where.

 

I think this is going to get filed under life's too short and skip the collars.

[Barry Ten]

A bit of 1/350th modelling, anyone?

 

 

Going back to what was said about N, it's actually no fiddlier building a plane in this scale than in one of the larger sizes, it's just that the tiniest bits represent different things. One advantage was that I could hold the whole plane with a cocktail stick (inserted through the base) while painting it.

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, Bucoops said:

A while back I was pondering how to do GNR style buffers for my 52'6" full brake - I ordered some Markits SECR ones from Roxey and as usual from Dave they arrived very promptly.

 

The buffer head is pretty close and even the base is quite close to the gangwayed coach version - 

 

 

Foolishly I didn't get better photos of the GNR coach at Mangapps but you can just make out the shape of the base -

 

I then thought about the collar that's used when the buffers are extended. I found some Slaters 7mm crankpin bushes as a starting point, turned down the flange diameter and opened up the bore to suit.

 

 

I then used a piercing saw to split it in half. Then tried an awful lot of times to solder it to the back of the buffer head - the idea being it had enough clearance to slide over the body of the housing. Nope, nope and more nope. Both halves have also now pinged into who knows where.

 

I think this is going to get filed under life's too short and skip the collars.

I’ve been doing the same research for my Isinglass D.310 milk brake. I think I’ve decided on these early LNER buffers from LMS - they’re what Dave recommended from his range and I can’t see any other contenders. Obviously they will need to be filed off top and bottom.

 

http://www.lanarkshiremodels.com/lanarkshiremodelsandsupplieswebsite_115.htm
 

Andy

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

the rule of thirds is a ridiculous when applied to train lengths, unless all trains on a layout are exactly the same length. That would be as prototypical as blancmange hauling a lettuce, on 99% of layouts.

It is conveniently forgotten by the rule of thirds acolytes, that the rule of thirds doesn't work on the principal of anything that conforms to the rule is ok, oh, and anything shorter than the rule is also ok. What a nonsense, that's like saying a bullseye includes the lower half of a dartboard but not the top. If you except that the rule of thirds applies to anything shorter than the  one train that conforms to the rule, you might as well include anything longer! 

Don't use it modelers, it doesn't exist in the real world. Free yourselves from tyranny of phony rule of thirds cliches.
 

I think it does work.

 

A Bubble Car or Skateboard are short trains, no matter how long the train set is.

 

A pair of Tractors with a 25 wagon, boxes train is a long train if your train set can fit it.

 

So you use your average size train, say a Tram as your 1/3rd length.

 

This will give the desired effect as Graham mentioned. Shorter or longer trains will look correct as well.

[Headstock]

53 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I think it does work.

 

A Bubble Car or Skateboard are short trains, no matter how long the train set is.

 

A pair of Tractors with a 25 wagon, boxes train is a long train if your train set can fit it.

 

So you use your average size train, say a Tram as your 1/3rd length.

 

This will give the desired effect as Graham mentioned. Shorter or longer trains will look correct as well.

 

Good evening Clive,

 

whether something looks correct or not is down to the individual and hasn't got anything to do with the rule of thirds. There is no average with the rule of thirds, the latter is a quite specific sweet spot. One that by definition, can't be extended to something that doesn't conform to the rule of thirds. ie it's ratio is shorter or longer, thus it is a nonsense when applied to multiple train lengths. Wouldn't selective compression be a more honest term?

 

What would the rule of thirds be on LB for example, is it based on the full length of the layout, or on the scenic section only? What trains conform to it, and what don't? Is the ratio based on the longest train, the shortest train, or something in the middle. If it is the longest train, is it a scale length? On a curved layout, is this taken into consideration?

Edited September 23, 2020 by Headstock
remove extra word

[t-b-g]

16 hours ago, Headstock said:

the rule of thirds is a ridiculous when applied to train lengths, unless all trains on a layout are exactly the same length. That would be as prototypical as blancmange hauling a lettuce, on 99% of layouts.

It is conveniently forgotten by the rule of thirds acolytes, that the rule of thirds doesn't work on the principal of anything that conforms to the rule is ok, oh, and anything shorter than the rule is also ok. What a nonsense, that's like saying a bullseye includes the lower half of a dartboard but not the top. If you except that the rule of thirds applies to anything shorter than the  one train that conforms to the rule, you might as well include anything longer! 

Don't use it modelers, it doesn't exist in the real world. Free yourselves from tyranny of phony rule of thirds cliches.
 

 

The real rule of thirds is more about the artistic composition of a photo or a painting.

 

Dividing the canvas into 9 parts, placing the focus at an intersection of the lines rather than in the centre making it more appealing to the eye.

 

In that context, it does seem to work although many super photos and paintings have ignored it.

 

I see it as a good trick for a relative novice to adopt. 

 

It seems to have been applied to train lengths at some time but I have had layouts and seen layouts where it has been applied but look wrong and where it hasn't been applied that look right.

 

Many terminus layouts are lucky to be double the train length and don't suffer for it.

 

In model railways, I feel that applying the rule of thirds to create a visually appealing scene is more useful than applying it to train lengths.

 

A layout with a scenic over bridge half way along isn't as visually appealing as one with a bridge one third of the way along, that sort of thing.

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by t-b-g
Spelling

[grahame]

11 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

A bit of 1/350th modelling, anyone?

 

 

Going back to what was said about N, it's actually no fiddlier building a plane in this scale than in one of the larger sizes, it's just that the tiniest bits represent different things. One advantage was that I could hold the whole plane with a cocktail stick (inserted through the base) while painting it.

 

Nice. Now you need to make a squadron of them and an aircraft carrier for them to go on. Or perhaps you already have. 

 

A little bigger but N/2mm scale is this Russian Zvezda 'snap/clip together' kit of a Hawker Hurricane. At just £3.50 (including P&P) it's a pocket money and simple kit and pictured below built as supplied (the decals were included):

 

 

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Clive,

 

whether something looks correct or not is down to the individual and hasn't got anything to do with the rule of thirds. There is no average with the rule of thirds, the latter is a quite specific sweet spot. One that by definition, can't be extended to something that doesn't conform to the rule of thirds. ie it's ratio is shorter or longer, thus it is a nonsense when applied to multiple train lengths. Wouldn't selective compression be a more honest term?

 

What would the rule of thirds be on LB for example, is it based on the full length of the layout, or on the scenic section only? What trains conform to it, and what don't? Is the ratio based on the longest train, the shortest train, or something in the middle. If it is the longest train, is it a scale length? On a curved layout, is this taken into consideration?

Good morning Andrew,

 

Ah yes, the 'rule of thirds'.

 

Who was it who said that 'rules are for the guidance of the wise and the adherence of fools'? I think as a principle it gives some guidance. 

 

As a 'rule of thumb' (risky territory, here), with reference to a layout, it applies to the longest trains. By that I mean, say, if a layout has 30' of visible length, then the longest trains should be no more than ten feet. That way, there's no risk of the train filling the layout, which can lead to the impression that either the train is too long or the layout too short. 

 

How does it apply to Little Bytham? It doesn't. LB's longest trains are about 12' long (including the loco), yet there's not 36' of visible track. Even if it were dead scale (instead of being 14" short) it would still make no difference. Anyway, there are enough 'sight breaks' for a long train not to appear too long. There's enough length for a long train to enter the scene, be in it and be able to leave it without the whole ensemble 'dominating' that scene. The platforms are scale-length, so one of the longer expresses is more than double their length, anyway. 

 

Thus, all trains 'conform' to the layout, whatever there length. Those trains are full-length, even if the layout is a twitch short. To cut out a quarter, third or half a carriage from an express would be plain daft.

 

If greater 'selective compression' takes place than 14" over 32', then I think it's a good idea to 'selectively-compress' the longest trains. That way they don't, say, stick out at both ends of a through station (though that did happen at the real Retford from time to time). Speaking of Retford (the layout), any rule of thirds there is not-applicable; neither is it on Carlisle. Both these 'scale' (dead scale) layouts just 'swallow' trains, however long they might be. 

 

I suppose it comes down to what looks 'right'. 'Right' in comparison with the real thing. Which, as always, brings me back to why I always model a real location.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dunsignalling]

I've always subscribed to a notional "Rule of Two Thirds" by which I mean that as soon as the train length gets anywhere close to occupying that portion of the visible scene, it starts to look downright silly.

 

At that point, knocking out a coach (or preferably two) will actually look more "realistic", even if it's not prototypically correct.  

 

John

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The real rule of thirds is more about the artistic composition of a photo or a painting.

 

Dividing the canvas into 9 parts, placing the focus at an intersection of the lines rather than in the centre making it more appealing to the eye.

 

In that context, it does seem to work although many super photos and paintings have ignored it.

 

I see it as a good trick for a relative novice to adopt. 

 

It seems to have been applied to train lengths at some time but I have had layouts and seen layouts where it has been applied but look wrong and where it hasn't been applied that look right.

 

Many terminus layouts are lucky to be double the train length and don't suffer for it.

 

In model railways, I feel that applying the rule of thirds to create a visually appealing scene is more useful than applying it to train lengths.

 

A layout with a scenic over bridge half way along isn't as visually appealing as one with a bridge one third of the way along, that sort of thing.

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

I hole heartedly agree with you as regards the contrast between 3d and 2d space

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

Ah yes, the 'rule of thirds'.

 

Who was it who said that 'rules are for the guidance of the wise and the adherence of fools'? I think as a principle it gives some guidance. 

 

As a 'rule of thumb' (risky territory, here), with reference to a layout, it applies to the longest trains. By that I mean, say, if a layout has 30' of visible length, then the longest trains should be no more than ten feet. That way, there's no risk of the train filling the layout, which can lead to the impression that either the train is too long or the layout too short. 

 

How does it apply to Little Bytham? It doesn't. LB's longest trains are about 12' long (including the loco), yet there's not 36' of visible track. Even if it were dead scale (instead of being 14" short) it would still make no difference. Anyway, there are enough 'sight breaks' for a long train not to appear too long. There's enough length for a long train to enter the scene, be in it and be able to leave it without the whole ensemble 'dominating' that scene. The platforms are scale-length, so one of the longer expresses is more than double their length, anyway. 

 

Thus, all trains 'conform' to the layout, whatever there length. Those trains are full-length, even if the layout is a twitch short. To cut out a quarter, third or half a carriage from an express would be plain daft.

 

If greater 'selective compression' takes place than 14" over 32', then I think it's a good idea to 'selectively-compress' the longest trains. That way they don't, say, stick out at both ends of a through station (though that did happen at the real Retford from time to time). Speaking of Retford (the layout), any rule of thirds there is not-applicable; neither is it on Carlisle. Both these 'scale' (dead scale) layouts just 'swallow' trains, however long they might be. 

 

I suppose it comes down to what looks 'right'. 'Right' in comparison with the real thing. Which, as always, brings me back to why I always model a real location.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

I can tell that LB doesn't use the rule of thirds, it looks right! The rule of thirds when applied to the longest trains, not only looks too artificially convenient in the space, it mostly results in wee willy winky trains. Superb layout though Grantham is, the trains look a bit short. Did they not require extending for the LB LNER weekend?

 

51 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I've always subscribed to a notional "Rule of Two Thirds" by which I mean that as soon as the train length gets anywhere close to occupying that portion of the visible scene, it starts to look downright silly.

 

At that point, knocking out a coach (or preferably two) will actually look more "realistic", even if it's not prototypically correct.  

 

John

 

I don't agree with that, As TBG has pointed out, there are plenty of prototypical examples were that notion would work fine.

[TrevorP1]

Train lengths. I may be missing something here, not unusual, however...

 

Obviously a train stretching from one end of a layout to the other will look daft but surely it depends on your viewpoint with respect to the model. A helicopter view of a long train on a small layout would not look right. However, put the viewer at eye level leaning over the fence and the ‘anomaly’ makes no difference because that is how we sometimes see it in real life.

[Headstock]

24 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

Train lengths. I may be missing something here, not unusual, however...

 

Obviously a train stretching from one end of a layout to the other will look daft but surely it depends on your viewpoint with respect to the model. A helicopter view of a long train on a small layout would not look right. However, put the viewer at eye level leaning over the fence and the ‘anomaly’ makes no difference because that is how we sometimes see it in real life.

 

Good morning TrevourP1,

 

I quite agree, finding a real location were the rule of thirds applied to the longest train would be near on impossible. There are many locations that would appear to the viewer as you describe.

 

[MJI]

I find over 8, losing 1 second is fine, but the rake I am working on now is 12 and I reckon I could lose one at most.

 

Problem is a full length train would fill most of one side, but any shorter looks too trainsetty.

[Clive Mortimore]

14 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning TrevourP1,

 

I quite agree, finding a real location were the rule of thirds applied to the longest train would be near on impossible. There are many locations that would appear to the viewer as you describe.

 

 

Yeah

 

Photo by Geoffrey Tribe from Flickr.

[Northmoor]

I can see the point of the rule of thirds but surely it depends on the prototype location or more often, the typical location on which the model is based.  If you model a rural section of the ECML, you need a long gap between scenic breaks (as done so well on LB) but model the station throat at Kings Cross and you won't get a full length train between Gasworks Tunnel and the overall roof.  In urban environments, there are countless locations where the normal length train is longer then the "gap", so I think you can get away with it in an urban model.  Urban land is expensive, so the infrastructure is squeezed in; at city stations trains often almost fill the whole platform length. 

 

Perhaps the problem is more with the frequently modelled branch line terminus and Ashburton is perhaps the worst offender (or offended?).  Branch line termini weren't small; land was cheap.  Platforms were normally much longer than the regular train service as they were built based on the ambition of the developer and not a real business requirement.  Like Clive's photo above shows, local trains are normally lost in the platform length, not fitting it exactly.  People who don't have much space only expect to be able to run short trains, so model a BLT (sorry, I still think of Bacon, Lettuce & Tomato.....) but then foreshorten it to fit their trains, so we see lots of models of cramped rural termini.  Guilty as charged, I've tried to fit one into about five feet.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Yeah

 

Photo by Geoffrey Tribe from Flickr.

 

Afternoon Clive,

 

are you referring to the little green bus with the yellow stripe, or the pushchair?

[Steven B]

It's interesting that the comments regarding a rule of thirds appear to be being made in the context of a larger layout such as Retford or Little Bytham. Both are seamingly capable of swallowing prototypical length trains without problems.

 

When you look at something more modest - say a 10' long layout then over-filling with a long train becomes more of an issue unless carefully designed view-blocks are used. Run a >8 coach train on flat-earth, train set type layout and it'll look a bit daft (in my opinion). However, model something like Sydney Gardens in Bath, or Princess Street Gardens in Edinburgh and you could achieve realistic running of trains much longer than the visible area.

 

Steven B.

 

 

[jollysmart]

28 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I can see the point of the rule of thirds but surely it depends on the prototype location or more often, the typical location on which the model is based.  If you model a rural section of the ECML, you need a long gap between scenic breaks (as done so well on LB) but model the station throat at Kings Cross and you won't get a full length train between Gasworks Tunnel and the overall roof.  In urban environments, there are countless locations where the normal length train is longer then the "gap", so I think you can get away with it in an urban model.  Urban land is expensive, so the infrastructure is squeezed in; at city stations trains often almost fill the whole platform length. 

 

Perhaps the problem is more with the frequently modelled branch line terminus and Ashburton is perhaps the worst offender (or offended?).  Branch line termini weren't small; land was cheap.  Platforms were normally much longer than the regular train service as they were built based on the ambition of the developer and not a real business requirement.  Like Clive's photo above shows, local trains are normally lost in the platform length, not fitting it exactly.  People who don't have much space only expect to be able to run short trains, so model a BLT (sorry, I still think of Bacon, Lettuce & Tomato.....) but then foreshorten it to fit their trains, so we see lots of models of cramped rural termini.  Guilty as charged, I've tried to fit one into about five feet.

 

 

Surely that is the cause of the problem, trying to fit a quart into a pint pot but being unwilling to accept the reduction in the quart (train) to fit the reduced size pint station/layout?

[t-b-g]

31 minutes ago, Steven B said:

It's interesting that the comments regarding a rule of thirds appear to be being made in the context of a larger layout such as Retford or Little Bytham. Both are seamingly capable of swallowing prototypical length trains without problems.

 

When you look at something more modest - say a 10' long layout then over-filling with a long train becomes more of an issue unless carefully designed view-blocks are used. Run a >8 coach train on flat-earth, train set type layout and it'll look a bit daft (in my opinion). However, model something like Sydney Gardens in Bath, or Princess Street Gardens in Edinburgh and you could achieve realistic running of trains much longer than the visible area.

 

Steven B.

 

 

 

I would agree that it can be totally realistic but there is also an element of balance that comes into play.

 

I have two different layout projects based on a similar width board. Both are terminus stations.

 

One has a 4ft throat with 8ft of platforms and station building and we can run 8 coach trains quite happily.

 

The other has a 4ft throat and a 4ft platform, which will just take 5 short pre-group bogie carriages and a loco.

 

Out of the two, the shorter one just looks better balanced to my eyes.

 

It was this that really made me think about this idea of a 4ft field of view. On the shorter one, I can clearly see the whole train at a glance. On the longer one, I have to move my head/eyes up and down the length to see the train.

 

I had this in mind when I designed Narrow Road. It has a total of 6 boards, each 4ft long on the scenic section. I designed each 4ft board to be unlike the next. So we have a 4ft overall roof, 4ft of open platforms with retaining wall behind. 4ft of station throat with warehouse behind, another 4ft of station throat with cobbled goods yard in front, the next board is mostly a big goods warehouse and the last one is the loco shed.

 

So wherever you stand to watch, you get a distinct and different view.

 

Out of all the layouts I have designed, it is the one that satisfies me most from a visual aspect.

 

   

Edited September 24, 2020 by t-b-g
Spelling

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Clive,

 

are you referring to the little green bus with the yellow stripe, or the pushchair?

Building a good layout is divided up into 3rds. Time, money and space.

 

When your own solo layout is finished I hope you will agree.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Building a good layout is divided up into 3rds. Time, money and space.

 

When your own solo layout is finished I hope you will agree.

 

Afternoon Clive,

 

thirds, fourths, fifths. Surely you forgotten, time, money, space and unlimited rice pudding? As for solo efforts, they were finished decades ago. I have had no desire for pressing the repeat button. I'm quite happy to say that I have achieved exactly what I set out to do in the hobby. As I approach the Autumn, I am jolly well content that things are winding their way down to a natural conclusion.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Headstock
replace word