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

  • RMweb Premium
  • RMweb Premium

Cheap set of instructions, with a very expensive box.... I doubt that they are that collectable, although if that is the price for kit number 145, I wonder what the price is of my kit number 001?

(I think mine might be the original limited run, as it is in the earlier red box that they originally used... I've also got another red box one with a higher number too... I'm sitting on a gold mine!)

 

Andy g

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tom F said:


Thank you for your kind words Robert!

I've attached a couple of photos for Tony and others, but more can be found in my thread. It has done my mental health the world of good over the past few months. On the back of the recent photos, Railway Modeller have asked to do an article.

 

239882509_10158666797772984_2766756054581889894_n.jpeg.27aa9abad1265987e725f38903d1bffd.jpeg

 

239914418_10158666805662984_1834580806817815078_n.jpeg.4fdbc7c5319a0800781ee97f685ab103.jpeg

 

If anyone would like more information, please do not hesitate to ask! :)
 

 I am troubled with a certain coloured dog at times and was feeling it last night and through lack of enthusiasm I came across your thread. It has given me inspiration to try and do a bit of modelling myself so thank you.

Robert

  • Round of applause 4
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

My approach summed up perfectly (although I do have models from more than one company, which ran together in the same places in real life).

 

 

I would agree that doing those sorts of calculations is probably not a good idea. I have certainly never attempted to add up the numbers when it comes to costs or to time remaining. I once had a conversation with a friend who was nearing his mid 70s and who had nearly finished a layout which had taken him around 15 years to construct.

 

He was telling me about his next two layout plans, each of which was as big, or bigger, than the one nearly completed.

 

I suggested that he would need at least another 30 years of modelling time left to build them but I felt bad about it afterwards. It was as if I had poured cold water on his project.

 

It comes down to whether you really want to complete your "layout of a lifetime" project or do you model because you enjoy the journey to get there?

 

If you do have a "layout of a lifetime" project and you finish it, what do you do next?

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

'If you do have a "layout of a lifetime" project and you finish it, what do you do next?'

 

Build more locos!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to report that several locos from the current collection sold today (thanks Geoff, George and David). 

 

That only leaves a few which I'll highlight next week. 

 

On a totally unrelated subject, I wonder how many folk are owned by cats which bring mice in (unharmed) and let them then run free behind cupboards/bookshelves?

 

Thanks Geoff and David for your removal men skills and ability to nab the little blighters. The cat? She just slept through it all!

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day Folks

 

I have a 'Layout of a Lifetime' which I tried to build but 13ft wasn't enough, 'Holme' just south of Peterborough, and I included the Ramsey branch as well, I'm sure 30ft would be enough, maybe 'one day'.

 

Terry (aka manna)

  • Friendly/supportive 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Erichill16 said:

 I am troubled with a certain coloured dog at times and was feeling it last night and through lack of enthusiasm I came across your thread. It has given me inspiration to try and do a bit of modelling myself so thank you.

Robert

 

Well, I'm glad in a small way my layout and thread have helped  Robert! :)

 

'Dry Rails and Good Running'

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

  • RMweb Premium

I owned a boat, a few years ago.  Within the boating community, it was a recognised phenomenon that people often wanted a bigger and bigger boat, until they got one that was too big for them to easily handle, or too expensive to keep/maintain.

 

I think model railways may be similar?  My railway room is 16 feet by 11, I would like something bigger but I must admit that for a single builder/modeller/operator, it is a nice size to work within... albeit with one exception: 

 

The main problem I have found is regarding the fiddle yard, they just take up so much of the available space, especially if modelling a main line.  But if you don’t have one big enough, it really limits your layout’s operating potential!  For my own layout, to run anything like the prototype, I need at least 14 different trains in each direction... requiring the same size again as the model itself, which is impossible within my available space unless I introduce different levels and undesired gradients.  It is this that keeps bringing my mind back to a desire for something bigger.

 

Is there anyone out here who who thinks they have gone ‘over the top’ and taken on something too big?

  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom F said:

 

Well, I'm glad in a small way my layout and thread have helped  Robert! :)

 

'Dry Rails and Good Running'

Your layout is a beautiful creation, Tom,

 

It's an inspiration (and a great help) to everyone.

 

Thanks for showing us all. May we see more, please?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
26 minutes ago, Chamby said:

I owned a boat, a few years ago.  Within the boating community, it was a recognised phenomenon that people often wanted a bigger and bigger boat, until they got one that was too big for them to easily handle, or too expensive to keep/maintain.

 

I think model railways may be similar?  My railway room is 16 feet by 11, I would like something bigger but I must admit that for a single builder/modeller/operator, it is a nice size to work within... albeit with one exception: 

 

The main problem I have found is regarding the fiddle yard, they just take up so much of the available space, especially if modelling a main line.  But if you don’t have one big enough, it really limits your layout’s operating potential!  For my own layout, to run anything like the prototype, I need at least 14 different trains in each direction... requiring the same size again as the model itself, which is impossible within my available space unless I introduce different levels and undesired gradients.  It is this that keeps bringing my mind back to a desire for something bigger.

 

Is there anyone out here who who thinks they have gone ‘over the top’ and taken on something too big?

 

The link between having a large fiddle yard and good operating potential is totally mythical. I have never seen a layout that is better to operate than Buckingham, which has a 6 road fiddle yard. Leighton Buzzard has kept me engrossed and entertained at lots of shows and has the grand total of 5 trains on it.

 

Interesting operating is nothing to do with how many trains you have. It is much more about what you do with them. 

 

  • Like 8
  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting 'layout of a lifetime' thoughts.

 

Thanks for sharing them.

 

I suppose I've achieved my 'goal' in Little Bytham, though it's taken (so far) a 'lifetime's' modelling (near 50 years, and counting) for me to build the locos and stock required for it (not that I've built it all, but most - though not the freight stock). It could not have been achieved at all without the input of 'the team'; all highly-skilled modellers, in the main trading skills. 

 

Though its 'footprint' is 32' x 12', that isn't quite enough for a true-scale depiction - the main line scene is 14" short. Since every visitor only knows that fact by being told, I'll live with this compromise. As for the MR/M&GNR bit, well 'selective compression' holds sway. 

 

Has it 'worked'? I'll let visitors answer that question. It's certainly worked for me, and I derive enormous pleasure from operating it for and with guests. Without such friends, it would be rather meaningless. 

 

I think it's satisfied the original criteria..........

 

1. An ECML prototype in BR steam days made (almost) to scale - in less than 30', in 4mm, a real struggle for realism in my opinion - I loath visibly-tight,  right-angle curves.

 

2. To be built by an 'exclusive', highly-skilled team, mainly through the expedient of barter.

 

3. 'Built' being the operative word, especially with regard to the locos/rolling stock ('building' of the layout itself was axiomatic). 

 

4. To work 'perfectly', with no derailments, stuttering, jerking and be rid of all the maladies associated with dodgy baseboards, poor track-laying, weak electrics and badly-built locomotives/stock; an impossible 'ideal', I admit, but (apart from my own dodgy operational ability), not far off (again, visitors must decide whether we've achieved success or not).

 

5. To have a least 50 separate trains to operate a sequence (even that total is nowhere near enough for a prototype ECML depiction in the summer of 1958). 

 

6. To maintain interest, even when completed - as mentioned earlier, I still keep building locos for it. 

 

Any other criteria? I'm not sure, though I'll not be involved in the building of any more layouts. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiddle yards aside, I think the question of "operating potential" is in itself an interesting one. I imagine that there are, among users of that term, those who mean totally different and probably incompatible things. Some are only satisfied if complete, complex, unfathomable interlocking ensures that every point and signal has to be set according to the real rule book or nothing on the layout will work. Some are not satisfied unless every move of a previously written sequence, derived from a real timetable, is executed precisely. Some expect the trains to appear thick and fast on a large, complex layout. Some expect all three of these goals to be realized. Having attempted to work in a team striving to do just that, with only just enough team members to cover "duties", I can only say that I find the experience of trying to entertain the public in that way to be tiring and oppressive - except on occasions when a prolonged failure or delay in another operator's section allows me a breather. 

I crave the opportunity to drive the sort of trains that interest me, with the minimum of complication, on the scenically realistic parts of a large layout, in a sufficiently relaxed way to have the chance to watch them properly myself too, not just to put on a show for the public with no opportunity to watch and enjoy it myself.

Edited by gr.king
Clarification
  • Like 8
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 minute ago, gr.king said:

Fiddle yards aside, I think the question of "operating potential" is in itself an interesting one. I imagine that there are, among users of that term, those who mean totally different and probably incompatible things. Some are only satisfied if unfathomable interlocking ensures that every point and signal has to be set according to the real rule book or nothing on the layout will work. Some are not satisfied unless every move of a previously written sequence, derived from a real timetable, is executed precisely. Some expect the trains to appear thick and fast on a large, complex layout. Some expect all three of these goals to be realized. Having attempted to work in a team striving to do just that, with only just enough team members to cover "duties", I can only say that I find the experience of trying to entertain the public in that way to be tiring and oppressive - except on occasions when a prolonged failure or delay in another operator's section allows me a breather. 

I crave the opportunity to drive the sort of trains that interest me, with the minimum of complication, on the scenically realistic parts of a large layout, in a sufficiently relaxed way to have the chance to watch them properly myself too, not just to put on a show for the public with no opportunity to watch and enjoy it myself.

 

I have also operated layouts where it was more hard work and frustration than pleasure. 

 

It would certainly be a dull hobby if we all wanted to build the same layouts and run them the same way. I was looking at the lovely little layout that Tom Foster has been posting photos of and thinking that his layout and Little Bytham are getting pretty near the two extremes of the hobby in terms of layouts yet each gives satisfaction to their builders and to others.

 

I think each of us needs to just decide what we want from the hobby and then build our models accordingly. If we want a fully interlocked timetabled layout worked to the real life rules then that is fine. If we want to see long trains running through a realistic scene, that is fine too. If we want a shunting plank with two points on a 4ft board, that is fine too.

 

My only problem arises when people try to say that their version of the hobby is better than others.

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'pile' of locos for sale is rapidly diminishing (a B1 sold today).

 

Today, an interesting pair.............

 

284342101_modifiedHornby9Fs.jpg.14f12ca7ef8682a0ab122efab5e17a7d.jpg

 

Both these 9Fs are modified Hornby ones. They're from the tender-drive days, though both have replacement white metal bodies on their tenders, which should aid haulage. One's an ex-Crosti and the other a Tyne Dock 9F.

 

They are what they are, and I'm asking £60.00 each for them. Both run well.

 

As usual, please PM me if interested. 

 

Next week, the daughters of the deceased will be receiving a nice fat cheque! 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one.

 

A rather nice DJH Britannia, built/painted by Ray Lightfoot.

 

560142606_DJHBritannia.jpg.6f59f895d6d092110d861cda35ba9eb0.jpg

 

It runs well, and is very powerful. However, it doesn't have a Portescap or a can motor/gearbox. It has an MW005 (the motor of its day).

 

I'm asking £175.00 for this. If interested, please PM me.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chamby said:

I owned a boat, a few years ago.  Within the boating community, it was a recognised phenomenon that people often wanted a bigger and bigger boat, until they got one that was too big for them to easily handle, or too expensive to keep/maintain.

 

I think model railways may be similar?  My railway room is 16 feet by 11, I would like something bigger but I must admit that for a single builder/modeller/operator, it is a nice size to work within... albeit with one exception: 

 

The main problem I have found is regarding the fiddle yard, they just take up so much of the available space, especially if modelling a main line.  But if you don’t have one big enough, it really limits your layout’s operating potential!  For my own layout, to run anything like the prototype, I need at least 14 different trains in each direction... requiring the same size again as the model itself, which is impossible within my available space unless I introduce different levels and undesired gradients.  It is this that keeps bringing my mind back to a desire for something bigger.

 

Is there anyone out here who who thinks they have gone ‘over the top’ and taken on something too big?

 

Good afternoon Chamby,

 

As I model the same time period and a location a few hundred yards away from LC, I would be interested to know what your choice of the fourteen trains would be in each direction? I know what my sixteen would be, though it would require quite a bit of rethinking due to the large amount of extra movements required at LC.

Edited by Headstock
change No
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Some interesting 'layout of a lifetime' thoughts.

 

Thanks for sharing them.

 

I suppose I've achieved my 'goal' in Little Bytham, though it's taken (so far) a 'lifetime's' modelling (near 50 years, and counting) for me to build the locos and stock required for it (not that I've built it all, but most - though not the freight stock). It could not have been achieved at all without the input of 'the team'; all highly-skilled modellers, in the main trading skills. 

 

Though its 'footprint' is 32' x 12', that isn't quite enough for a true-scale depiction - the main line scene is 14" short. Since every visitor only knows that fact by being told, I'll live with this compromise. As for the MR/M&GNR bit, well 'selective compression' holds sway. 

 

Has it 'worked'? I'll let visitors answer that question. It's certainly worked for me, and I derive enormous pleasure from operating it for and with guests. Without such friends, it would be rather meaningless. 

 

I think it's satisfied the original criteria..........

 

1. An ECML prototype in BR steam days made (almost) to scale - in less than 30', in 4mm, a real struggle for realism in my opinion - I loath visibly-tight,  right-angle curves.

 

2. To be built by an 'exclusive', highly-skilled team, mainly through the expedient of barter.

 

3. 'Built' being the operative word, especially with regard to the locos/rolling stock ('building' of the layout itself was axiomatic). 

 

4. To work 'perfectly', with no derailments, stuttering, jerking and be rid of all the maladies associated with dodgy baseboards, poor track-laying, weak electrics and badly-built locomotives/stock; an impossible 'ideal', I admit, but (apart from my own dodgy operational ability), not far off (again, visitors must decide whether we've achieved success or not).

 

5. To have a least 50 separate trains to operate a sequence (even that total is nowhere near enough for a prototype ECML depiction in the summer of 1958). 

 

6. To maintain interest, even when completed - as mentioned earlier, I still keep building locos for it. 

 

Any other criteria? I'm not sure, though I'll not be involved in the building of any more layouts. 

Tony

Perhaps not on your original list of criteria, but an additional achievement has been to share your layout with others (visitors and U-tube), giving plenty of inspiration and enjoyment. 

Thanks

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

Has anyone built, or is building, any of the kits sold in Tony' s first sale? I got a Falcon Brass N15, and the build is "interesting", to say the least, but also enjoyable.

 

How I'm getting on starts here.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/105990-building-br-ex-lner-from-kits/page/52/

Edited by rowanj
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...