Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

35 minutes ago, bbishop said:

Nothing is worse than a 4mm diesel depot with a couple of dozen locos all going "thrum - thrum - thrum" all day long.  The bliss when the fuses tripped .....  Bill

I was about to post exactly the same comment, Bill.

 

Then I remembered being next to a 7mm diesel depot at one show (I have no idea which one; the layout, I mean). A polite request meant the throbbing was turned down a bit.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

My reasons for putting Retford up there are well-known, but might be worth repeating?

 

It is clearly impossible to agree on what the best / greatest model railway ever was / is, as it is based on personal preference. I'm actually intrigued by Tony's list provided earlier and wondered whether it would even be possible to agree on what the criteria might be for the best / greatest model railway ever was / is! Some comments of mine, based on the list:

 

1. It's a model of an actual prototype (unless any layout, however well made, satisfies that requirement, it'll never be on my list).  

I find the statement in brackets quite incredulous. At a stroke, Tony, you have eliminated the likes of Borchester, Pendon, Kendal Castle (D Jenkinson), the Norris layout (etc) from even being considered - all landmark layouts. Did you intend to do that? My suggested equivalent criteria would be:

A layout based on actual prototype / prototype practice

 

2. Not only (1) but it's a model of a Class 1, trunk main line prototype. In other words, it's huge, and a good big-un always beats a good little-un in my book.

Even though I agree with you in terms of personal appeal, for an unbiased view, I would disagree. An accurately modelled branchline terminus can be equally meritorious. There's what looks to be an excellent model of Sidmouth (I think it is?) been featured in the mags recently (apologies - Southern not really my area!). But my point is that is is well-observed and a lot more that just a run round loop.

 

3. It's as near dead-scale as makes no distance (the only 'compromises' I can detect are where the main lines goes on-/off-stage at the south end, and both ends of the GC).

Again, I couldn't go along with that as a universal criteria. If you've eliminated 90% of layouts by your criteria (1), you've now eliminated 99% of layouts with this criteria! Even modest branchline termini or wayside stations can occupy a surprising amount of space and very VERY few people have the means to satisfy this criteria.

 

4.  It's full of actual 'modelling'. It's not reliant on RTR or the power of the chequebook. 

Agreed in principle. But you've now eliminated Carlisle-in-France by dint of your 'chequebook' criteria, a layout you have previously used the word 'finest' to describe on this thread.

 

5. The pedigree behind it is impeccable.

Hmm? So someone we've never heard of who produces a stunning layout is automatically eliminated? (edit to say others have already picked up on this one)

 

6. It works; stuttering, derailments and poor running were not (and are still not) tolerated. 

Now I do agree with that one. No issues here (even if I struggle to meet it myself!)

 

7. It's heroic in every department, even though, I concede, it's not finished. It needed the vision of one of the greatest modellers in history to actually get the creation started. 

Another 'hmm?' from me, although I get the 'vision' thing.

 

8. And, the most personal reason; I was an inhabitant of 'the wall' during the period the layout depicts. 

I think I'm OK with that one in principle but would broaden it:

A personal / emotional connection or something that naturally draws you in (the 'X' factor, if you like)

 

 

So, out of your 8 criteria, I can sort of go along with four of them but as a basis for any sort of objective analysis? What about the whole issue of appearance - scenic treatment, colour / tone, weathering, backscene treatment, presentation / lighting (etc)?

 

I appreciate that it's a list of your reasons why you like a particular layout - but as a basis to judge all layouts?

 

I also appreciate that you like being provocative and I've probably just risen to the bait in compiling this response!

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by LNER4479

[grahame]

39 minutes ago, bbishop said:

Nothing is worse than a 4mm diesel depot with a couple of dozen locos all going "thrum - thrum - thrum" all day long.  The bliss when the fuses tripped .....  Bill

 

Worse was being next to an American layout with a crossing, the sort that goes clang, clang, clang, clang, clang, clang, clang, clang, clang when operating. And that was constantly working and never had the barriers raised and the sound off.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

21 minutes ago, 4630 said:

Good afternoon Tony.

 

Whilst acknowledging that any list and the order of it will always be a personal preference, I mostly agreed with the majority on your list.

 

I feel that 1. and 2. on your list will, by default unfortunately, exclude some otherwise excellent examples of modelling, but if that’s your opinion, so be it.

 

What I am struggling with though is your category of 5.

 

What in a railway modelling context do you mean by ‘pedigree’?
 

I assume it’s the layout rather than the owner(!) but I’m not entirely sure.  So what were you driving at with that one?

As always, thanks to you and others who post in ‘Wright writes...’ for thought provoking  content. 
 

Russ

 

 

 

Sorry Russ,

 

My comment was ambiguous. 

 

The 'pedigree' refers to the building team, of which Roy Jackson was the leader. 

 

Now, I'm bound to miss some out, but the Retford builders included Geoff Kent (one of the greatest 'all-round' modellers ever), John Phillips (Roy, Geoff and John were the builders of Gainsborough Central, High Dyke and Dunwich, and also Blakeney and Black Lion Crossing), 'Buccaneer' John, Mick Moore, Tony Gee, Martin Lloyd, Rick Hunt, Pete Hill, Andrew Hartsthorne (Mr. Comet), plus several other notable modellers. 

 

I'd have liked to have included myself in the list, but it would seem my work was not up to standard. I built the loco and tender chassis for an A2/2 and built most of the bodywork (which Roy had started). When I next visited, he'd dismantled the body and rebuilt it (I'm still puzzled why), and built a new set of tender frames. He'd also started on a replacement loco chassis. Sadly, that was never finished, and 60501 continues to bowl round on the mechanism I built. 

 

Thankfully, Sandra is quite happy with it (and the new A2/2 frames lie abandoned; in fact, I've got them here, along with my original tender frames - the pair will go underneath one of my A2/3s for eventual use on Retford; I'll keep the OO frames here). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[bbishop]

30 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Nothing except the same in O gauge with bigger speakers and louder sound

 

I visited a show once that had 8 O gauge diesel depots, all with loud sound echoing throughout the venue. I didn't stay long. I fully appreciate that some people actually like that sort of thing. but it is just not for me!

 

My only defence, m'lud, is that bigger speakers mean a better bass sound.  Otherwise totally agree.

 

I have sound in my 7mm loks, but it is turned down and operators are allowed just one "thrrrrrup" when starting.  Mind you, the bell should be rung when transversing road 1, in front of the station building.  However, children do like the announcements such as "Bitte, einsteigen".  Too quiet for adults!  Bill

[Tony Wright]

23 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

It is clearly impossible to agree on what the best / greatest model railway ever was / is, as it is based on personal preference. I'm actually intrigued by Tony's list provided earlier and wondered whether it would even be possible to agree on what the criteria might be for the best / greatest model railway ever was / is! Some comments of mine, based on the list:

 

1. It's a model of an actual prototype (unless any layout, however well made, satisfies that requirement, it'll never be on my list).  

I find the statement in brackets quite incredulous. At a stroke, Tony, you have eliminated the likes of Borchester, Pendon, Kendal Castle (D Jenkinson), the Norris layout (etc) from even being considered - all landmark layouts. Did you intend to do that? My suggested equivalent criteria would be:

A layout based on actual prototype / prototype practice

 

2. Not only (1) but it's a model of a Class 1, trunk main line prototype. In other words, it's huge, and a good big-un always beats a good little-un in my book.

Even though I agree with you in terms of personal appeal, for an unbiased view, I would disagree. An accurately modelled branchline terminus can be equally meritorious. There's what looks to be an excellent model of Sidmouth (I think it is?) been featured in the mags recently (apologies - Southern not really my area!). But my point is that is is well-observed and a lot more that just a run round loop.

 

3. It's as near dead-scale as makes no distance (the only 'compromises' I can detect are where the main lines goes on-/off-stage at the south end, and both ends of the GC).

Again, I couldn't go along with that as a universal criteria. If you've eliminated 90% of layouts by your criteria (1), you've now eliminated 99% of layouts with this criteria! Even modest branchline termini or wayside stations can occupy a surprising amount of space and very VERY few people have the means to satisfy this criteria.

 

4.  It's full of actual 'modelling'. It's not reliant on RTR or the power of the chequebook. 

Agreed in principle. But you've now eliminated Carlisle-in-France by dint of your 'chequebook' criteria, a layout you have previously used the word 'finest' to describe on this thread.

 

5. The pedigree behind it is impeccable.

Hmm? So someone we've never heard of who produces a stunning layout is automatically eliminated? (edit to say others have already picked up on this one)

 

6. It works; stuttering, derailments and poor running were not (and are still not) tolerated. 

Now I do agree with that one. No issues here (even if I struggle to meet it myself!)

 

7. It's heroic in every department, even though, I concede, it's not finished. It needed the vision of one of the greatest modellers in history to actually get the creation started. 

Another 'hmm?' from me, although I get the 'vision' thing.

 

8. And, the most personal reason; I was an inhabitant of 'the wall' during the period the layout depicts. 

I think I'm OK with that one in principle but would broaden it:

A personal / emotional connection or something that naturally draws you in (the 'X' factor, if you like)

 

 

So, out of your 8 criteria, I can sort of go along with four of them but as a basis for any sort of objective analysis? What about the whole issue of appearance - scenic treatment, colour / tone, weathering, backscene treatment, presentation / lighting (etc)?

 

I appreciate that it's a list of your reasons why you like a particular layout - but as a basis to judge all layouts?

 

I also appreciate that you like being provocative and I've probably just risen to the bait in compiling this response!

 

You have indeed!

 

My list was entirely personal. And, what I wrote is what I meant. 

 

By the way, I think your response to my first statement was 'incredulous' The statement itself was 'incredible'. 

 

Anyway, one layout you mention would fall down completely when it comes to 'good running'.

 

Indeed, Carlisle is superb, but it wouldn't be my personal 'finest' because of the restrictions I imposed. 

 

I seem to recall in the past causing a 'perfect storm' by suggesting Pendon would not be in my 'top ten' of all time.

 

Each to their own.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

Perhaps I should qualify part of my 'provocative' list of criteria for 'judging' layouts by stating that I'd much rather see a very good 'made-up' layout than a very poor 'prototypical' one.

 

All other factors being 'equal', however..............................  

[Tony Wright]

A note to Mike Trice, please.............

 

My account of building the two V2s with the resin bodies is going into the spring issue of BRM. 

 

How is it best to obtain the bodies, please? 

 

If anyone else has acquired one (mine were very kindly sent by Mike for my comments), how did you, please?

 

Many thanks.

[James Fitzjames]

On 12/01/2021 at 10:35, bbishop said:

 

Ladies and gentlemen, could we please operate this thread at the correct prototypical speed.

 

And of course, there was once a layout at Scalefourum, which on the Sunday displayed the notice "There wasn't a Sunday service on the prototype, so we are not running one either."

 

Bill

First exhibition I ever attended (millennia ago) had a beautifully realised GWR branch line taking centre stage. Since I was accompanied by an equally beautifully realised blonde, who 'liked trains' and was 'open to persuasion' re. the hobby (yes, really), I was eager for her to witness the very best it had to offer. When we first perused said layout, a Dean Goods was sitting in the station with a coach or two on. I was sure it would move in due course, so we drifted along taking in every detail. Minutes passed, details exhausted, everything static, operator deep in impenetrable conversation, we decided to take a turn round the hall. I recall nothing of note other than a particular trader's stand where my companion was treated like a helpless bimbo and referred to as 'the little lady'. Hoping to snatch some variety of victory from the jaws of defeat, we arrived back at the GWR BLT where nothing had changed one iota. Desperate now, I butted into the, still ongoing, conversation and asked when the train would be leaving. The operator looked at me bemusedly and declared 'not for a while yet, it's Sunday!'

Edited January 13, 2021 by James Fitzjames
Clarity

[bbishop]

So if I may explain my layouts.  Höchstädt mark1 is a branch line terminus, 22' in length.  Bavarian branch line Endstations adapted a standard design and Höchstädt has perhaps the maximum track plan; useful in an exhibition context as the shunter can wander off shed and shunt a couple of wagons whilst the next train is being prepared.  The station building is a model of a prototype (built by Peter Smith) and with the exception of the brick built Abort, all the buildings are valid for my corner of Bavaria.  The issue is compression.  One drives straight off scene although the engine shed acts as a scenic block.  The bigger problem is shunting wagons in front of the station building, which would just not happen in practice.  Höchstädt should be at least 40' but would exhibition managers accept that length and the requirement for a Transit van?

 

Höchstädt mark 2 (I'm recycling the station building, just too good to waste) is based on a real station.  This is Falls in Upper Franconia, the junction for the branch line to Gefries.   The track plan follows the Preview principle, all the right points, but not necessarily in the right order: the demands of compression and keeping turnouts away from board joints.  Even so there will / would be a 32' scenic length, but a reduction from a scale 50' plus.

 

The Endstation is Blindheim, which was planned to block out one of the fiddle yards so is 12' scenic.  It is in lieu of Gefries but is a simple run round with two sidings, no way a prototypical track plan.  But at least I'm building a layout and will have something to exhibit.  So if any exhibition manager would like a German O Gauge layout, 18' long, 2 / 3 operators, travels in a Yeti, you know who to ask.  Bill

[bbishop]

9 minutes ago, James Fitzjames said:

First exhibition I ever attended (millennia ago) had a beautifully realised GWR branch line taking centre stage. Since I was accompanied by an equally beautifully realised blonde, who 'liked trains' and was 'open to persuasion' re. the hobby (yes, really), I was eager for her to witness the very best it had to offer. 

James, more clarification needed: what happened to the blonde?  Bill

[LNER4479]

18 minutes ago, bbishop said:

James, more clarification needed: what happened to the blonde?  Bill

I was going to ask exactly the same question - never mind the non-moving layout, this is far more interesting!

[James Fitzjames]

18 minutes ago, bbishop said:

James, more clarification needed: what happened to the blonde?  Bill

Bill, surprisingly, she wasn't too put off once the dust had settled. At least she thought the 'Sunday' response hilarious, though, I think, a little disturbed at that level of 'commitment' to prototype operation!  Sadly, her stilettos clicked out of my life a while later and she ended up with a (later famous) pop singer, but that's another story...

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The best layout ever?

 

The one I'm building at the moment...

No you are not, I am.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

1. It's a model of an actual prototype (unless any layout, however well made, satisfies that requirement, it'll never be on my list).  

 

Perhaps this criterion could be made more generally acceptable by saying that the model should have a sense of place: it should convince you that it's a real place, or at least, a possible place. That certainly brings Buckingham back into the frame!

 

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

3. It's as near dead-scale as makes no distance (the only 'compromises' I can detect are where the main lines goes on-/off-stage at the south end, and both ends of the GC).

 

I think you've inadvertently specified that it must be P4, S7, or similar, which I don't think you intended! One could argue that a scale-length 00 layout is too long for its width...

 

Anyway, surely selective compression and omission are key to the art of railway modelling. Which is not to say that if you are in the unusual situation of having the space to model a location to scale length, one shouldn't; just that one might not be making the most effective use of that space. Your Little Bytham, along with Retford, are perhaps exceptions, since you take advantage of the scale length with your scale length trains. But your trains (at least your passenger trains) are unusually long. If one modelled a station on a secondary line to scale, one would likely end up needing as much space as Little Bytham takes up, but your five or six coach stopping trains would look rather lost! (You have implicitly recognised this in the size of your "M&GN layout"!)

 

I appreciate that your list was primarily a list of "why I like Retford" rather than a universal check-list, so taking it apart and analysing it is a little unfair. 

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Perhaps this criterion could be made more generally acceptable by saying that the model should have a sense of place: it should convince you that it's a real place, or at least, a possible place. That certainly brings Buckingham back into the frame!

 

 

I think you've inadvertently specified that it must be P4, S7, or similar, which I don't think you intended! One could argue that a scale-length 00 layout is too long for its width...

 

Anyway, surely selective compression and omission are key to the art of railway modelling. Which is not to say that if you are in the unusual situation of having the space to model a location to scale length, one shouldn't; just that one might not be making the most effective use of that space. Your Little Bytham, along with Retford, are perhaps exceptions, since you take advantage of the scale length with your scale length trains. But your trains (at least your passenger trains) are unusually long. If one modelled a station on a secondary line to scale, one would likely end up needing as much space as Little Bytham takes up, but your five or six coach stopping trains would look rather lost! (You have implicitly recognised this in the size of your "M&GN layout"!)

 

I appreciate that your list was primarily a list of "why I like Retford" rather than a universal check-list, so taking it apart and analysing it is a little unfair. 

Points taken, Stephen,

 

I wasn't sure about mentioning gauges (though EM, at Retford's viewing distances, is as near 'scale gauge' as makes little difference). Anyway, pound for pound, where layouts have been of equal 'visual' quality, I've not been impressed with some of running on P4/S7 systems. 

 

As for 'unusually' long passenger trains, they're the 'usual' length for the ECML in 1958. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Compound2632]

Just now, Tony Wright said:

As for 'unusually' long passenger trains, they're the 'usual' length for the ECML in 1958. 

 

That was my point. Their usual length was rather more than the usual length found on other lines except the WCML and a handful of Western and Southern summer Saturday trains.

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, bbishop said:

Nothing is worse than a 4mm diesel depot with a couple of dozen locos all going "thrum - thrum - thrum" all day long.  The bliss when the fuses tripped .....  Bill

I fully agree, most of them look like a depot master's nightmare. As for the sound there is no point to it except trying to impress others that you spent twice as much on the same model. And worst when they site that Piggy thing as an inspiration. All my depot layouts have been inspired by British Railways.

 

Steam depot layouts also can be very wrong, there was one a few years ago I had to walk away from as I started to giggle too loudly. My mate who was with me asked why was I laughing, as the stock  (locos) and buildings were well made and weathered. It was when I asked him where are the coaling facilities he ushered me away so we both could have a good laugh.

[Tony Wright]

I posted this moving footage earlier, but it disappeared. 

 

 

 

Anyway, here it is again. It shows some of LB's most recent locos (including the 'Hall' seen of late).

 

My thank to Howard Smith for editing it.

Edited January 13, 2021 by Tony Wright

[Northmoor]

10 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

2. Not only (1) but it's a model of a Class 1, trunk main line prototype. In other words, it's huge, and a good big-un always beats a good little-un in my book.

Even though I agree with you in terms of personal appeal, for an unbiased view, I would disagree. An accurately modelled branchline terminus can be equally meritorious. There's what looks to be an excellent model of Sidmouth (I think it is?) been featured in the mags recently (apologies - Southern not really my area!). But my point is that is is well-observed and a lot more that just a run round loop.

 

4.  It's full of actual 'modelling'. It's not reliant on RTR or the power of the chequebook. 

Agreed in principle. But you've now eliminated Carlisle-in-France by dint of your 'chequebook' criteria, a layout you have previously used the word 'finest' to describe on this thread.

 

In order to achieve the #2 requirement, #4 will almost apply by default. 

 

You cannot model a major main line, taking up a lot of space, using a lot of track and with a representative fleet of locomotives and rolling stock, without spending what to most people is a serious amount of money.  I totally agree with Tony's wish that those doing the work should be credited, but paying a team of master craftsmen to build a large layout is little different to paying the Hornby/Bachmann Sales director's bonus, in my opinion.  They are both going to require some serious wedge. 

 

Perhaps this is where Tony's "vision" principle applies; Copenhagen Fields has probably cost a small fortune but it's been spread over what, 40 years?  It becomes affordable that way ("Just 480 easy monthly payments, Sir") and shows real dedication to still desire the same outcome after all that time.

 

Forgot to add that of course in both examples, the biggest cost isn't financial but in terms of time.

 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Northmoor

[LNER4479]

Re 'greatest layouts', I wonder if you recall this Tony (I suspect you do!):

 

 

And especially Appendix I (!)

 

 

This appears to be a joint list, drawn up by you and Bob (Essery). Although you are at pains to explain that:

'This list is not intended to be the best 100 layouts of all time or anything like that'

you do go on to say:

'It is our choice of about 100 interesting, significant, unusual, inspiring, thought-provoking and likeable layouts that we have either seen or read about'

Sounds like a definition well on its way to 'best' to me!

 

This was 2001, so predates Retford and Little Bytham (although there is an early 'under construction' photo of the former included). I'm sure most will be pleased / relieved to see both Borchester and Buckingham on there. Myself and Headstock (at least ) will however be disappointed NOT to see Tebay on there (which was in existence by this time).

 

I wonder if your criteria for selecting such layouts has shifted at all over the last 20 years, Tony?

 

(apologies - despite the pix being in the correct orientation this end, when posted they seem to have been rotated for reasons I know not)

Edited January 13, 2021 by LNER4479

[CF MRC]

31 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

In order to achieve the #2 requirement, #4 will almost apply by default. 

 

You cannot model a major main line, taking up a lot of space, using a lot of track and with a representative fleet of locomotives and rolling stock, without spending what to most people is a serious amount of money.  I totally agree with Tony's wish that those doing the work should be credited, but paying a team of master craftsmen to build a large layout is little different to paying the Hornby/Bachmann Sales director's bonus, in my opinion.  They are both going to require some serious wedge. 

 

Perhaps this is where Tony's "vision" principle applies; Copenhagen Fields has probably cost a small fortune but it's been spread over what, 40 years?  It becomes affordable that way ("Just 480 easy monthly payments, Sir") and shows real dedication to still desire the same outcome after all that time.

 

CF is only 37 years old from inception. It was initially funded from the sale of Chiltern Green & Luton Hoo and of course the initial costs are fairly significant on any layout. The MRC has of course covered much of the cost, but that can be offset against the income from the exhibition, to some extent.  Another source for covering costs has been the writing of articles for the magazines. All the locos and stock are privately owned so that does not factor into the cost.  The layout was built to high construction standards from the very beginning and has not required any major re-builds. All-in-all, probably a reasonable investment  for the Club. 
 

Tim

[grahame]

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

The best layout ever?

 

The one I'm building at the moment...

 

Ah, but that'll be eclipsed by the one I'm going to build after I've finished the one I'm currently building.

 

 

[MikeTrice]

They were printed to order, however with the weather being generally colder, printing is more difficult. Requests were made via

 

[30368]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I posted this moving footage earlier, but it disappeared. 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Thanks for posting this session. I really enjoyed it particularly the poor old J6 hauled pick up goods that "got in the way" for a bit. The prototype Deltic running through at high speed was very effective and was that a 4mm scale Tony Wright at the end of the platform taking a picture?

 

I assume from your comments that the session involved a fellow modeller that has departed? Please excuse my lack of knowledge.

 

Livened up a very dull wet day in Buxton!

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B