Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Just an update on the list of kits I posted on here recently...............

 

I've checked them and, as far as I can see, they're complete. The etched parts are wrapped and the polythene bags containing other bits would appear to be unopened. None contains wheels (even the DJH ones), apart from the Gibson ones, and there are no motor/gearboxes. All have instructions with them.

 

Unfortunately (for one of the two chaps who expressed an interest in a Comet Caprotti Five), one of the Caprottis had been sold before I took possession of them. I'll have to see who expressed an interest first. Sorry. 

 

The MAJ plastic LMS carriage kit proved to be not that at all. Though the box clearly stated LMS Corridor Third (in carmine/cream), what's inside are some random roof sections, bits of glazing, strips of plastic and some half-used transfer sheets. I'll not be trying to sell those! A pity about the non-kit. I'd have bagged it if it were complete. 

 

There also appear to be some bits for K's kits; what they are (could be the tanks for an Ivatt 2-6-2T) is a mystery, so I'll probably just give those away to any visitors here (perhaps with a modest coin donation to CRUK).

 

Anyone else interested in the kits' post (a few pages back now), please PM me.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[t-b-g]

36 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

However, Sandra did approve, otherwise I would not have posted it.

 

What about those of us who spent many hundreds, in some cases thousands of hours working on the layout and who are still here? Presumably our views and opinions count for nothing now.

 

When you have put as much into a layout project as I and quite a few others have done, we very much feel that we have somewhat of a stake in things. Maybe you don't see it that way.

 

I don't know who was responsible for the loco, carriages and wagons visible in your photo but I can identify the work of quite a few very good modellers who are still around and who would not want their work shown in that way.

 

2 minutes ago, sandra said:

This is not a staged photo. This did actually happen. I was testing the A4 after working on the tender which had a terrible wobble. I was feeling very pleased because the wobble had been cured and neither me nor Robert had seen that the signal had fallen over the track. Several expletives were uttered but fortunately both signal and loco escaped without damage.
 

The photo does emphasise that the loco needs to be weathered. At the moment she (he?) is as made by Hornby apart from being converted to EM gauge.

 

I sometimes get derailments on Buckingham but I don't feel the need to photograph them and put them on the internet out of respect for the reputation of the person who built them.

 

How many other people put photos of derailments on layouts that they haven't built and are the work of others on here? Nobody!

 

In my view it shows a huge lack of respect for the layout and the builder.

 

My yardstick is whether people do something once somebody has died that they would never have done when that person was alive. That is how I decide if something shows a lack of respect.

 

I just find the whole idea of "Look we have a derailment on a layout that somebody else built. I will photograph it and post it on RMWeb" something that wouldn't occur to me in a hundred years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jrg1]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

I've never commented on a model in the way I'm tempted to at the moment....... I'll just say that it's even worse than my WSM J6 which is still in OO and rarely sees light of day. I can't help but adding that the proportions of cab and tender are just so yuck and the cab roof looks like a bomb shelter roof!

Where do you start with something like this?  It is as though everything has conspired to be wrong-eye wateringly wrong.  The cab is ridiculous, and the tender has been shrunk.  No way could an accurate model be produced from this.

[cctransuk]

31 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

What about those of us who spent many hundreds, in some cases thousands of hours working on the layout and who are still here? Presumably our views and opinions count for nothing now.

 

When you have put as much into a layout project as I and quite a few others have done, we very much feel that we have somewhat of a stake in things. Maybe you don't see it that way.

 

I don't know who was responsible for the loco, carriages and wagons visible in your photo but I can identify the work of quite a few very good modellers who are still around and who would not want their work shown in that way.

 

 

I sometimes get derailments on Buckingham but I don't feel the need to photograph them and put them on the internet out of respect for the reputation of the person who built them.

 

How many other people put photos of derailments on layouts that they haven't built and are the work of others on here? Nobody!

 

In my view it shows a huge lack of respect for the layout and the builder.

 

My yardstick is whether people do something once somebody has died that they would never have done when that person was alive. That is how I decide if something shows a lack of respect.

 

I just find the whole idea of "Look we have a derailment on a layout that somebody else built. I will photograph it and post it on RMWeb" something that wouldn't occur to me in a hundred years.

 

 

This strikes me as a storm in a teacup!

 

The owner of a layout, no matter the size or prestige, has the right to adopt their own standards and policy.

 

Roy had, during his tenure, his own, 'distinctive' ideas as to what should and should not be done and was 'acceptable'. Not all would agree with his ideas - I would not have found his frequent use of the f*ck word acceptable.

 

As time moves on, and we of advanced years gradually pass into history, standards and practices will change - often for the better.

 

A derailment occurred which was no-one's fault - so what; on which  layout has this not occurred?

 

Sandra seems to wish Retford to become more accessible and less 'exclusive'; this is bound to rankle with some who have yet to come to terms with Roy's passing.

 

Nonetheless, change is, in this case, a good thing.

 

CJI.

 

[Tony Wright]

31 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

What about those of us who spent many hundreds, in some cases thousands of hours working on the layout and who are still here? Presumably our views and opinions count for nothing now.

 

When you have put as much into a layout project as I and quite a few others have done, we very much feel that we have somewhat of a stake in things. Maybe you don't see it that way.

 

I don't know who was responsible for the loco, carriages and wagons visible in your photo but I can identify the work of quite a few very good modellers who are still around and who would not want their work shown in that way.

 

 

I sometimes get derailments on Buckingham but I don't feel the need to photograph them and put them on the internet out of respect for the reputation of the person who built them.

 

How many other people put photos of derailments on layouts that they haven't built and are the work of others on here? Nobody!

 

In my view it shows a huge lack of respect for the layout and the builder.

 

My yardstick is whether people do something once somebody has died that they would never have done when that person was alive. That is how I decide if something shows a lack of respect.

 

I just find the whole idea of "Look we have a derailment on a layout that somebody else built. I will photograph it and post it on RMWeb" something that wouldn't occur to me in a hundred years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure how to respond to your post Tony,

 

Anyway, I'll try to be objective.

 

For a start, Sandra Orpen has saved Retford for posterity (at no inconsiderable cost). I doubt if she had not done so, it might have succumbed to what Roy always told me should happen to it after his death - 'Burn the f****** lot!'. Lots of 'respect' there then.....................

 

I doubt if anything involved in the 'crash' was Roy's work. The leading car is a modified Bachmann Mk.1 (maybe even one of mine!) and the loco is a Hornby one which Sandra has EM-ed. 

 

The signal is one which Roy had no time for, and he had even less time for its builder ('Rubber', somebody or other, he used to say). It's not right for Babworth, anyway and was only plonked there temporarily - so temporarily that it fell over. Nothing of Roy's work, nor any of the others' work was harmed in any way. 

 

Robert Carroll has spent a huge amount of time and effort ( and again, at no inconsiderable cost) in making Retford's trains far more accurate than ever they were in Roy's day. Is that showing a lack of respect? 

 

I think it shows an incredible amount of respect that Retford is going to be completed (crashes and all!) and become a fitting tribute to one of the greatest modellers of all time.

 

As for 'lack of respect' being shown to the work of someone who had died; examples of things I'd never have done when a person was alive include..................

 

Completely rebuilding and repainting locos, built by someone who'd died. This was on behalf of bereaved families. Why? Because I was instructed to sell them, and, if attempted to be sold as they were they'd either; not sell at all, or sell for peanuts. You can work out the reasons why. Which, I wonder shows greater respect?

 

Complete (and part rebuild), get to run well and paint/get painted locomotives which were incomplete at the time of the builder's death. In fact, the builder was a friend................

 

 

This Pro-Scale A1 had been started by the late Geoff Brewin (ex-of Comet Models). Though it ran, it wasn't brilliant (it is now). The cab was all wonky (it's still not dead right) and the handrails weren't straight (they're better now). The base-painting was 'iffy'. I repainted it, lined/lettered/numbered/named it, and Tom Foster weathered it. These things would never have been done were Geoff still alive. But, they have been now and I'm delighted to have a really-'tangible' memory of a late friend. I bought the loco off his widow. If she'd have tried to sell it as it was, I wonder what price she'd have got for it? Considerably less than I paid (I assure you, this was not altruism, for it's worth a lot more now!). 

 

 

And here's another from the same source; a Nu-Cast V2. Again, it's running wasn't brilliant (it is now!), and the tender was a 'bit of a mess'. Thus, I got it to go, completed it and built a DMR replacement tender. Geoff Haynes painted this one. 

 

Likewise, it's another memory of a friend. A memory, like the A1, which I run regularly. In no way do Geoff's widow, or his surviving friends think I've been disrespectful to Geoff by my doing these things. Things which I'd never have done during his lifetime. 

 

There are, no doubt, hundreds of things I'd do which you'd never do in a 100 years. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

25 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

 

This strikes me as a storm in a teacup!

 

The owner of a layout, no matter the size or prestige, has the right to adopt their own standards and policy.

 

Roy had, during his tenure, his own, 'distinctive' ideas as to what should and should not be done and was 'acceptable'. Not all would agree with his ideas - I would not have found his frequent use of the f*ck word acceptable.

 

As time moves on, and we of advanced years gradually pass into history, standards and practices will change - often for the better.

 

A derailment occurred which was no-one's fault - so what; on which  layout has this not occurred?

 

Sandra seems to wish Retford to become more accessible and less 'exclusive'; this is bound to rankle with some who have yet to come to terms with Roy's passing.

 

Nonetheless, change is, in this case, a good thing.

 

CJI.

 

Agree, agree, agree.....................................!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

30 minutes ago, jrg1 said:

Where do you start with something like this?  It is as though everything has conspired to be wrong-eye wateringly wrong.  The cab is ridiculous, and the tender has been shrunk.  No way could an accurate model be produced from this.

And again,

 

Another comment which is absolutely true. Good on you, and thanks

 

I'm sick of this current situation where even the slightest critical comment causes 'offence'. I'm certainly not offended by the criticisms of that Millholme A2/3 build of mine (though, had I built it as supplied, it would have been a lot worse, believe me). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Retro_man]

31 minutes ago, jrg1 said:

Where do you start with something like this?  It is as though everything has conspired to be wrong-eye wateringly wrong.  The cab is ridiculous, and the tender has been shrunk.  No way could an accurate model be produced from this.

 

Here's one I built from a Millhome kit a few years ago. It took quite a bit of work, especially around the cab/tender interface, but I think it looks quite acceptable.

 

Steve

Canada

[robertcwp]

22 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm not quite sure how to respond to your post Tony,

 

Anyway, I'll try to be objective.

 

For a start, Sandra Orpen has saved Retford for posterity (at no inconsiderable cost). I doubt if she had not done so, it might have succumbed to what Roy always told me should happen to it after his death - 'Burn the f****** lot!'. Lots of 'respect' there then.....................

 

I doubt if anything involved in the 'crash' was Roy's work. The leading car is a modified Bachmann Mk.1 (maybe even one of mine!) and the loco is a Hornby one which Sandra has EM-ed. 

 

 

The Talisman stock is I believe all Roy's work - albeit the rear carriage is off of Roy's West Riding set to replace the one that was not on the layout when Sandra acquired it. All kit-built and one of the few passenger trains with no RTR stock in it. I find it encouraging that it's becoming hard to tell improved RTR from kits. It shows some success in blending things in. 

 

As Sandra commented, there was nothing staged or deliberate about the derailment. I was working on something else in the fiddleyard area whilst Sandra was testing the engine after acting on my idea for sorting out the wobbly tender - rob an unconverted Hornby A3 for spares - when the signal fell over without either of us noticing and 60006 ran into it. I had my phone in my pocket so recorded the scene. I specifically checked with Sandra before posting the photo.  I shall not be quoting Sandra's remarks when the derailment occurred. 

 

As also noted previously, 60006 is a Hornby A4 which Sandra re-gauged using the original Hornby wheels. Although the Talisman is only 8 carriages, they are all heavy metal ones and 60006 has no difficulty shifting them.

Edited June 1, 2021 by robertcwp
Clarify a point.

[Clem]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Just to prove (I hope) that I can build an A2/3 which looks like an A2/3...................

Ha ha! Yes, I was never in any doubt, Tony! 

[sandra]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

What about those of us who spent many hundreds, in some cases thousands of hours working on the layout and who are still here? Presumably our views and opinions count for nothing now.

 

When you have put as much into a layout project as I and quite a few others have done, we very much feel that we have somewhat of a stake in things. Maybe you don't see it that way.

 

I don't know who was responsible for the loco, carriages and wagons visible in your photo but I can identify the work of quite a few very good modellers who are still around and who would not want their work shown in that way.

 

 

I sometimes get derailments on Buckingham but I don't feel the need to photograph them and put them on the internet out of respect for the reputation of the person who built them.

 

How many other people put photos of derailments on layouts that they haven't built and are the work of others on here? Nobody!

 

In my view it shows a huge lack of respect for the layout and the builder.

 

My yardstick is whether people do something once somebody has died that they would never have done when that person was alive. That is how I decide if something shows a lack of respect.

 

I just find the whole idea of "Look we have a derailment on a layout that somebody else built. I will photograph it and post it on RMWeb" something that wouldn't occur to me in a hundred years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m sorry you feel like that Tony. This was only a light-hearted post about a trivial incident where a locomotive ran into a fallen signal. No damage was done to any of the locos or rolling stock or even the signal.

 

Of course I’m aware of the thousands of hour of work which many people contributed to Retford and I would suggest that the continuing existence of the layout and indeed my wish to finish is in itself a tribute to those many people, including yourself. 
 

It’s inevitable that I will do things differently to Roy but my aim is to respect Roy and everyone who contributed to the layout by continuing with the build of the layout in the same spirit as before. I will not change things unnecessarily but I do have my own way of doing things and I do want the railway to be seen by a wider range of people.

 

I realise that some people may not like the way I do things but whilst I may respect their opinions I will nevertheless do things in my way including posting trivial photos if I wish.

 

Incidentally I’ve now glued the signal in place so that this type of accident cannot occur again.

 

Sandra

[Erichill16]

To lighten things up a bit, the Millhome Q4, my second kit, remember it well. Took me ages to realise that the holes in the coupling rods didn’t  have the same spacing as the frames and then the white metal motion bracket, diabolical!

The next kit I tried was the DJH J10 that I mentioned on here last year when I was in the process refurbing it.

The Q4 is due in the shops next for a general. It was built straight from the box, except for the issues mentioned above. It didn’t look too bad as at that time all the Hornby steam locos had skirts under their boilers and moulded  on hand rails.

Robert

[MarkC]

2 hours ago, Retro_man said:

 

Here's one I built from a Millhome kit a few years ago. It took quite a bit of work, especially around the cab/tender interface, but I think it looks quite acceptable.

 

Steve

Canada

Very nice, Steve.

 

As I say, I have one in the roundtuit pile. However, if I didn't, would I buy a kit to build, with a pretty good RTR one available? If the price was right, probably, because, as Tony says, I can say "I built that". However, as ever it's a personal choice. I have to say, though, that with the variety and (usually) the good quality of modern RTR, it can be a difficult choice at times.

 

Mark

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, sandra said:

I’m sorry you feel like that Tony. This was only a light-hearted post about a trivial incident where a locomotive ran into a fallen signal. No damage was done to any of the locos or rolling stock or even the signal.

 

Of course I’m aware of the thousands of hour of work which many people contributed to Retford and I would suggest that the continuing existence of the layout and indeed my wish to finish is in itself a tribute to those many people, including yourself. 
 

It’s inevitable that I will do things differently to Roy but my aim is to respect Roy and everyone who contributed to the layout by continuing with the build of the layout in the same spirit as before. I will not change things unnecessarily but I do have my own way of doing things and I do want the railway to be seen by a wider range of people.

 

I realise that some people may not like the way I do things but whilst I may respect their opinions I will nevertheless do things in my way including posting trivial photos if I wish.

 

Incidentally I’ve now glued the signal in place so that this type of accident cannot occur again.

 

Sandra

Well said Sandra,

 

I think it shows remarkable restraint on your part that you 'respect' the opinions of some. I certainly don't! 

 

I think it's terrific what you've taken on. When complete, Retford will be the greatest possible tribute to Roy Jackson, and you, and your team will ensure that will be the case. 

 

As an observer, it looks like...............

 

1. You're committed to finishing it. I applaud you.

 

2. It's not to be preserved in aspic but to be an on-going project. I applaud you.

 

3. It's being shown to a wider audience than ever before; RMweb being a conduit, in part, for this. I applaud you.

 

4. If things go wrong (however accidentally) you're prepared to show us. I applaud you.

 

5. You're showing the greatest of respect for what has gone before. It is certainly not 'disrespectful' to 'improve' Retford by fitting lamps to locos and trains and by glazing cabs where it's never been done before. I applaud you.

 

6. You're doing things your own way, and though the sense of humour might be different (Roy's was unique!) it's there. The hoots of laughter on Sunday were as loud as any I've ever heard at the place. I applaud you.

 

7. You're not going to be dissuaded from doing what you think best by some (weird, in my opinion) opinions. I applaud you.

 

8. When Retford is finished, I don't think it's 'disrespectful' to suggest that it'll be to a higher overall standard than might have been the case before (especially with continuing work from those who've already contributed). I applaud you. 

 

9. Though Retford will never have the 'hundreds present at an open day' again, as was the case in the past (when stuff got nicked!), you're inviting visitors to see it, both as clubs and as individuals. I applaud you.

 

10. I'm privileged to be invited to help out with Retford.

 

I think that's enough for now.......................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

5. You're showing the greatest of respect for what has gone before. It is certainly not 'disrespectful' to 'improve' Retford by fitting lamps to locos and trains and by glazing cabs where it's never been done before. I applaud you.

 

 

Don't forget the carriage roofboards and end boards/pipes and dropped-head buck-eyes on the ends of trains, etc.

[Tony Wright]

Is anyone interested in this?

 

 

Donated by Sandra Orpen, all proceeds will go to CRUK. 

 

It's a Peter Kay 4mm GWR 3521 4-4-0. It's complete (ex-wheels/motor) and untouched building-wise.

 

The telephone number on the box gives you an indication of its age (the original price was around £50.00). 

 

Anyone interested, please PM me with an offer. 

 

Thanks in anticipation. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Some more (rather splendid) new books in for review.................

 

 

Fascinating.

 

 

A new 'standard work' on the subject.

 

 

Rather good. 

 

 

I proof read this and suggested captions.

 

 

And, I did the same for this. 

 

 

[t-b-g]

8 hours ago, sandra said:

I’m sorry you feel like that Tony. This was only a light-hearted post about a trivial incident where a locomotive ran into a fallen signal. No damage was done to any of the locos or rolling stock or even the signal.

 

Of course I’m aware of the thousands of hour of work which many people contributed to Retford and I would suggest that the continuing existence of the layout and indeed my wish to finish is in itself a tribute to those many people, including yourself. 
 

It’s inevitable that I will do things differently to Roy but my aim is to respect Roy and everyone who contributed to the layout by continuing with the build of the layout in the same spirit as before. I will not change things unnecessarily but I do have my own way of doing things and I do want the railway to be seen by a wider range of people.

 

I realise that some people may not like the way I do things but whilst I may respect their opinions I will nevertheless do things in my way including posting trivial photos if I wish.

 

Incidentally I’ve now glued the signal in place so that this type of accident cannot occur again.

 

Sandra

 

I have no problem at all with what you are doing with Retford Sandra. I have said before that I am delighted that you have taken it on and you have my very best wishes for completing the layout.

 

It is hard letting go of the "old ways" of how we did things with Roy. 15 years working on the layout and thousands of hours of blood, sweat and tears working on the layout all just for the friendship, the banter and the tea and "twinkies" is not quickly forgotten. Until somebody has worked on such a layout with such a bunch of people, it is difficult for anybody to grasp just what it meant to us all.

 

Roy's way of going about things became our way too. It suited us and we were able to work away just for the friendship, never for the kudos or glory of being involved with Retford. I don't think anybody who ever worked on the layout went out of their way to seek public recognition for doing so.

 

So yes, I have a great sentimental attachment to the layout and to those glorious and unpredictable years spent with Roy doing things his way.

 

I showed Robert's photo to a couple of the Retford Mob today. Not together but one at a time. Both people said the same thing, entirely independently. "Roy would have been reaching for his shotgun".

 

They knew him well.

 

All my best wishes for your adventure with the layout.

 

Tony

[Tony Wright]

Delighted to report that the Peter Kay 4-4-0 has sold - for £140.00. It's going to Australia.............................. No, not to Jesse! 

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have no problem at all with what you are doing with Retford Sandra. I have said before that I am delighted that you have taken it on and you have my very best wishes for completing the layout.

 

It is hard letting go of the "old ways" of how we did things with Roy. 15 years working on the layout and thousands of hours of blood, sweat and tears working on the layout all just for the friendship, the banter and the tea and "twinkies" is not quickly forgotten. Until somebody has worked on such a layout with such a bunch of people, it is difficult for anybody to grasp just what it meant to us all.

 

Roy's way of going about things became our way too. It suited us and we were able to work away just for the friendship, never for the kudos or glory of being involved with Retford. I don't think anybody who ever worked on the layout went out of their way to seek public recognition for doing so.

 

So yes, I have a great sentimental attachment to the layout and to those glorious and unpredictable years spent with Roy doing things his way.

 

I showed Robert's photo to a couple of the Retford Mob today. Not together but one at a time. Both people said the same thing, entirely independently. "Roy would have been reaching for his shotgun".

 

They knew him well.

 

All my best wishes for your adventure with the layout.

 

Tony

Good morning Tony,

 

I'm sure Roy would have blasted away with both barrels! 

 

What's to stop work continuing on Retford henceforth, if members of the original 'mob' wish to? Yes, there won't be any risk of being peppered, but there's so much wonderful work which has been done and is ongoing. Work which is unique to Retford. 

 

It's not my call, but I'm sure Sandra will be delighted. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[St Enodoc]

19 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Delighted to report that the Peter Kay 4-4-0 has sold - for £140.00. It's going to Australia.............................. No, not to Jesse! 

For the avoidance of doubt, not to me either!

[robertcwp]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I showed Robert's photo to a couple of the Retford Mob today. Not together but one at a time. Both people said the same thing, entirely independently. "Roy would have been reaching for his shotgun".

 

I don't doubt that! I checked that Sandra did not have Roy's shotgun loaded even if there had been a momentary impression of Roy when the derailment occurred. 

 

The area around Babworth has seen a few derailments whilst I have been visiting. There were problems with the front bogie on one or two engines, which caused derailment coming out of the GN fiddleyard in the up direction. This was not obvious from the control panel but manifested itself in an overturned engine on the crossovers by Babworth box. Sandra has managed to cure those issues. A point not throwing fully on the GC also sent the New Clee-Banbury Fish all over the place but following some recent engineering work the train ran successfully last weekend, albeit with one of the K3s having momentary shorts. Persistent derailment problems on a couple of the GN freights have also now been dealt with by Sandra. What it all shows is that the layout and stock need lots of maintenance to keep everything running well, and there is a lot to maintain. 

 

Hopefully, someone with the necessary signalling expertise will be able to sort out the signal on the GC gantry that now declines to move even though the counterweight does.

[Woodcock29]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

For the avoidance of doubt, not to me either!

And certainly not to me!

 

Maybe somewhere in the west?

[LNER4479]

3 hours ago, robertcwp said:

Hopefully, someone with the necessary signalling expertise will be able to sort out the signal on the GC gantry that now declines to move even though the counterweight does.

Very reasonable rates ...

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I don't doubt that! I checked that Sandra did not have Roy's shotgun loaded even if there had been a momentary impression of Roy when the derailment occurred. 

 

The area around Babworth has seen a few derailments whilst I have been visiting. There were problems with the front bogie on one or two engines, which caused derailment coming out of the GN fiddleyard in the up direction. This was not obvious from the control panel but manifested itself in an overturned engine on the crossovers by Babworth box. Sandra has managed to cure those issues. A point not throwing fully on the GC also sent the New Clee-Banbury Fish all over the place but following some recent engineering work the train ran successfully last weekend, albeit with one of the K3s having momentary shorts. Persistent derailment problems on a couple of the GN freights have also now been dealt with by Sandra. What it all shows is that the layout and stock need lots of maintenance to keep everything running well, and there is a lot to maintain. 

 

Hopefully, someone with the necessary signalling expertise will be able to sort out the signal on the GC gantry that now declines to move even though the counterweight does.

 

I genuinely wish Sandra, Tony W and yourself (and anybody else who helps out) all the very best for Retford.

 

Sadly, that won't include me. I have thought long and hard about it. I have too many things on the go already and I wouldn't wish to work under the glare of the RMWeb/Retford publicity machine that is now up and running.

 

It just isn't a way of working that I would be comfortable with.

 

I am sure a willing volunteer will come forward to either finish what I started or even start again. The station building is an ideal candidate for CAD and laser cutting, which would get it done far quicker than my rather slow, old school methods.

 

Hopefully I won't find myself barred from coming to see the layout as a visitor from time to time.