Wright writes.....

[jwealleans]

I'm very happy to be associated, however peripherally, with something of the quality of 60012, although I'd quite forgotten about it. He's not known as 'ace modeller' for nothing.

 

What is the alternative source for cab sightscreens? My last Hornby ones didn't survive being removed and for exhibition stock I'd have reservations about how long they'd last unless they were quite robust.

[gr.king]

There's a pair of sight screen frames on the etched sheet of LNER Pacific detailing parts of Morgan's very own design.

[45609]

I'm very happy to be associated, however peripherally, with something of the quality of 60012, although I'd quite forgotten about it. He's not known as 'ace modeller' for nothing.

 

What is the alternative source for cab sightscreens? My last Hornby ones didn't survive being removed and for exhibition stock I'd have reservations about how long they'd last unless they were quite robust.

 

There's a pair of sight screen frames on the etched sheet of LNER Pacific detailing parts of Morgan's very own design.

 

I've also recently prepared an artwork for a small fret of just sight screens.  I'll be having them etched soon so let me know if you'd like some.  They are nothing too sophisticated just a single thickness frame shape with spigots that go into the existing holes in the Hornby A3/A4 cabside. You can stick a bit of thin acetate to one side if you're as mad as I am.  This is what it looks like when fitted.

 

 

Surveying the Hornby B1, B17, O1 and L1 with Graeme's help last night we discovered that the mounting hole spacing/position for the plastic screen is different to the Pacifics.  I might do a fret for these too if there is demand.

 

Cheers....Morgan

Edited September 16, 2014 by mlgilbert30

[cctransuk]

I've also recently prepared an artwork for a small fret of just sight screens.  I'll be having them etched soon so let me know if you'd like some.  They are nothing too sophisticated just a single thickness frame shape with spigots that go into the existing holes in the Hornby A3/A4 cabside. You can stick a bit of thin acetate to one side if you're as mad as I am.  This is what it looks like when fitted.

 

Cabside Screen.JPG

 

Surveying the Hornby B1, B17, O1 and L1 with Graeme's help last night we discovered that the mounting hole spacing/position for the plastic screen is different to the Pacifics.  I might do a fret for these too if there is demand.

 

Cheers....Morgan

 

Count me in for an etch.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Metr0Land]

 

Surveying the Hornby B1, B17, O1 and L1 with Graeme's help last night we discovered that the mounting hole spacing/position for the plastic screen is different to the Pacifics.  I might do a fret for these too if there is demand.

 

Cheers....Morgan

 

Three B1's and two L1's here looking for etches!

[Theakerr]

When you know the numbers per etch would appreciate it if you would post the data so that I can place an order.  Diito on Metroland re B1, B17, and 01

[AdamOrmorod]

Count me in for one too, they really look fantastic on that A1/1. 

 

Seeing as I haven't posted on this thread before (but have followed it for a good while) I just thought I'd add that Little Bytham has to be my favourite model railway on rmweb, its openness, attention to detail and the prototype's significance make for a wonderful model railway in my opinion, the trains just add to it further. Truly awesome modelling.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Ade the Pianist 4468

[Market65]

Hi, mlgilbert30, please count me in for an A3/A4 etch as well please, and will also be interested in an etch for the O1's, L1's, etc.

 

All the best,

 

Market65.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Market65

[Tony Wright]

Firstly, many thanks for the kind comments about Little Bytham's appearance in the current issue of BRM. I was pleased with the presentation, even if a few details were cropped out of an image or two. Still, if that's all I can 'moan' about, then things aren't too bad. Though I obviously must express an interest, I think this issue is one of the best, and a huge improvement on some when I was there. Bacup is one of the most impressive layouts I've ever seen, shown to grimy perfection in Andy's peerless photography. It's even more impressive when you think it's all one man's work - truly outstanding, and what the craft of railway modelling is all about to me. Just one thing, Jason......loco lamps!

 

The last couple of weeks have seen Gilbert Barnatt's 'heroic' work in sorting out Dave Shakespeare's model railway collection. Ben Jones, Andy York, Phil Ramsay and I have assisted, but he deserves the greatest thanks for undertaking the task at this sad time.

 

With my assistance just about finished, I've turned my attention to completing the PDK B16/1. 

 

 

Tom Foster acquired the original Paul Hill test build for the kit for use on his early-BR NE Region shed depiction. He then decided to change period, going back to the LNER at Thirsk in the '30s. So, the beautifully-finished/painted/weathered loco would have needed backdating, so to speak. This wasn't as easy as might first appear - not just the stripping of the attractive BR livery, but replacing the smokebox door, altering the dome position, changing the safety valve base, position of some oil boxes and the changing of the oval washout plugs to the round type. I thought the decision to change it would be an act of folly, so I offered to take it off him and build a replacement, excluding painting. Once some minor shortcomings in the running had been sorted out and the bogie wheels changed to the correct 12-spoke pattern, then 61477 has settled down to some sweet running on Little Bytham. Normally, I wouldn't purchase locos built by others for several reasons. Cost is one, and almost every 'professionally-built' loco I've had running recently (Morgan Gilbert's excepted) has needed a 'tweak' or two for really sweet running. Why should I buy something, then need to fix it before I can use it? I don't do that with cameras, cars or any other consumer goods. However, I think you'll agree that the Paul Hill-built B16/1 is very nice indeed and I was happy with the deal.

 

 

The PDK-built B16/1 drives off the rear axle and is compensated. Since driving off the centre is better balanced and compensation (in my experience) adds nothing but time to a build, 'my' B16/1 is configured thus......

The High-Level gearbox/Mashima combination is beautifully sweet, quiet, smooth and powerful. You can see inside the front frames on this model, even with the body on and 61477 presented a blank space. Since the B16s were all three-cylinder, and all drove off the leading axle, I thought I'd better fit something. I don't have the faintest idea whether these bits of scrap etch are accurate representations of NE inside valve gear, but the eye is aware of something being there, especially with the dummy crank on the axle whirling round when in motion. 

 

 

 

Ready for Ian Rathbone to paint her in red-lined LNER black (which Tom is paying for - hence my being happy with the deal). I see no point in soldering on (way over-thick) boiler bands when transfer thickness will represent them far more accurately.

In many ways this is an excellent kit - the general fit of parts is top-drawer and as a 'basic' model it's very easy to build. I say 'basic', because, though it represents outstanding value for money, some little more thought in the design and the provision of 'extra' bits would have made it a superb kit. 

 

'Thought in design'? Though lubricators and sandbox fillers are supplied, there are no holes or witness marks in the footplate to aid their positioning. Similarly, no positions for the grab rails above the central footplate steps are given, nor positioning marks for the prominent front steps on the smokebox front (these steps aren't provided, either). How difficult would it have been to draw these on the master? Much easier than my having to mark out and drill holes for such items, I'd imagine. The bolts for inside cylinder, prominent on the smokebox saddle, are not even thought of. Though the test-build had them fitted (on Tom's insistence), it's up to the builder to interpret them (or not bother). I plotted them, and punched them out from the rear. Drilling nine holes each side (I think I only punched eight) and fitting 16BA bolts would have been better

 

'Extra bits'? The front steps already mentioned (unless I can't find them), guard-irons, cylinder drain cock operating rods, piston tail rods and injectors below the cab. All of these are prominent in prototype pictures and should have been included. I made them from scrap etch and bits from my spares box (one piston tail rod isn't quite in the right place, visible in the picture!). 

 

The smokebox door provided is the later, more bulbous pattern, no provision being made for the original 'flat' NER type. Tom gave me a Dave Alexander substitute. Though a subtle difference, the dome provided appears to be the later, slightly more angular type, so Tom provided a turned-brass alternative. Those wanting the earlier-style, round-tapered buffers or wheel and handle smokebox door fastening will have to source these from elsewhere. Pages 52 and 53 in the appropriate Yeadon show the differences. A Westinghouse pump is provided, though, for those who wish to represent that manifestation.

 

Anything of the above should not deter anyone from buying this kit, for, with just a bit of extra work/substitutions where appropriate, the result can be an excellent model. Since an RTR example is way off any manufacturer's radar, then it's this, an old DJH kit or scratch-build.

It's for others to decide if I've achieved success with this one, but it looks like a pre-War LNER B16/1 to me. One thing I didn't/couldn't alter was the position of the large footstep below the smokebox front. It sits too high (because of the shape of the etched support). 61477 has this, as has this one.

 

Now ballasted, the soon-to-be No. 2372 romps round LB on a 30-wagon train with ease. Next weekend, it'll be put through its paces on Grantham. 

 

I hope readers can see the extra bits and pieces I've added. It does need cinder guards/sight screens, though - over to you Mr. Gilbert. 

Edited September 19, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Further to the kind comments made about little Bytham on this site, I enclose some further views which might be of interest......

 

 

In the quest for 'realism' in model railway pictures (of which I'm very much a follower), the viewer is not always sure of the full extent of a layout, even with reference to Ian Wilson's superb track plans.

 

Here, I've perched the camera above the MR/M&GNR bit of Little Bytham, looking south towards the station and beyond. If you imagine a further three feet or so, invisible below the camera, then this is the full length of the main scenic section. The approaching empty minerals is 44 wagons plus a brake van long (so much for my rule of thirds!). Trains of this length were not uncommon (sometimes up to 60 odd), so on the real thing the rule of thirds wouldn't work, anyway. However, my 18" short of dead scale means that this train does appear, perhaps, a trifle long. But, as I've said before, to have tried to fit even a modest station like Little Bytham into less than 32' or so would not have visually worked in my opinion. This is not a criticism of what others have done, but the wide-open aspect would not have been achieved at all. And, it's not just the length; a fair bit of width is needed, too - note the sprawl of 'emptiness' I hope has been achieved. Actually, that effect has been rather compromised by my having far too many locos/trains in view, including the brand new B16/1 (running-in) and a yet-to-be-painted A2 and V2. Daft juxtaposition I know, though the J6 on pick-up duties is in the right place. 

 

 

 

Now, looking north from Marsh Bridge, the 11-car 'Yorkshire Pullman' is easily accommodated (seen disappearing in the first view). From this angle, the lengthy minerals doesn't seem too long. Again, about three feet is missing from beneath the camera but Norman Solomon's sweeping trackwork really looks the part, receding into the distance. And, in that distance a MR/M&GNR train heads towards Melton Mowbray. Because none of the tighter radii to exit/enter the fiddle yard is visible (except on the MR/M&GNR), I hope the illusion is given of this very fast stretch of main line.

 

Part of the the Down kick-back sidings appear on the left. How these work will feature in a forthcoming DVD.

 

I'm very conscious of the large amount of work still to be done (and the grottiness of those foreground trees!) but the overall effect is coming together I think. For a 'trainset' mentality (which I have to fight against), given this 'amount' of space, wouldn't it be tempting to cram too much in? If I did, credibility, with regard to my layout, would be lost in my view. Even little stations on main line prototype locations gobble up space.

 

 

Finally on 'space', a glimpse of activities in the goods yard as a J6 fusses about on pick-up shunting. The aim is to 'capture' the 'spread' of the place, as if one were walking by on Station Road, and just glanced in through the yet-to-be-fitted gates. And, approaching along Station Road is a BRS box van, on its way from Tetley's Mills. Another memento now on LB of a great man!

 

edited to remove some tautological gobbledegook!

Edited September 20, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Andrew P]

Good morning Tony, reading through your post referring to Bacup, and yes as its one mans work, it is a real piece of modelling that many of us can only dream of achiving, and it reminds me in many ways of the works of Frank Dyer, with Borchester Market, and The Rev Peter Denny's Buckingham. I think being a Terminus give it the quiet backwater feel of just the odd arrival and departure and a bit of shunting , but with the emphasis on the Town in which it lives.

 

Your article on LB and the pics above show just how diverse Railway Modelling can be for enjoyment of the individual, and with LB you enjoyment comes from both running realistic trains and building high quality locomotives, some in return for scenic work on LB, but at the end of the day, both are worthy of an excellent edition of BRM.

 

Andy   

[Allegheny1600]

Hello Tony,

Further to Andys words above, may I say the first picture in post 2439 simply screams "East Coast Main-line" to me!

Ooh! It send shivers through me, it's so evocative!

Cheers,

John.

[Mallard60022]

Today I had the pleasure of chatting with Mr 'Bacup' (and a mate of his) and my goodness he is one great modeller of buildings. (His mate is one damn fine loco builder too).

In five minutes I had picked up quite a few really useful ideas.

Phil

[Tony Wright]

Good morning Tony, reading through your post referring to Bacup, and yes as its one mans work, it is a real piece of modelling that many of us can only dream of achiving, and it reminds me in many ways of the works of Frank Dyer, with Borchester Market, and The Rev Peter Denny's Buckingham. I think being a Terminus give it the quiet backwater feel of just the odd arrival and departure and a bit of shunting , but with the emphasis on the Town in which it lives.

 

Your article on LB and the pics above show just how diverse Railway Modelling can be for enjoyment of the individual, and with LB you enjoyment comes from both running realistic trains and building high quality locomotives, some in return for scenic work on LB, but at the end of the day, both are worthy of an excellent edition of BRM.

 

Andy   

Thanks Andy (and John) for the kind comments.

 

I think your comments about Bacup being a current-day reminder of Borchester Market and Buckingham are apposite. All three respectively represent the work of one man and the mutual creativity on them all is outstanding. Obviously, in Buckingham's case and to a slightly lesser extent Borchester, the creators were working with far fewer 'ready-made' materials, particularly with regard to the stock. I believe all Buckingham's stock is scratch-built, as was a lot of Borchester's. That's not to lessen Jason's work - far from it - but just to illustrate how standards have moved on. Imagine Peter Denny's delight or Frank Dyer's if ex-GC RTR locos of such quality had been around in their day. 

 

But, it's this personal craftsmanship (or craftswomanship in the case of our brilliant feminine modellers) which I wish to emphasise. As more and more higher quality stuff becomes available, the necessity to 'make' everything oneself is diminishing. In many ways this is no bad thing (I've recently exploited what the RTR boys have provided, in quantity), but I'll always be drawn to the 'personal' level of modelling - the like of which is entirely apparent on Bacup.  

[45609]

I hope readers can see the extra bits and pieces I've added. It does need cinder guards/sight screens, though - over to you Mr. Gilbert. 

 

Well the artwork has gone to the etcher so "watch this space" as they say.

 

Most of my day at the bench today has been spent adding the finishing touches to 60012.  Lots of little things add up to quite a lot of time.  The recommendation to add the light blue Elizabethan headboard has been accepted but now I'm wondering whether I should put it on the upper or lower lamp bracket? Looking at a few photos in The Book of the A4s doesn't seem to suggest any logic to whether it was placed high or low.  I think I like it down low because it seems to be something fairly unique to the streaks.  It's also probably less likely to be knocked off in that position.

Edited September 21, 2014 by mlgilbert30

[great northern]

Nearly a fortnight ago, Tony made some remarks in post 2388 on page 96 of this thread, giving his views on what space is needed to model a large ECML station. I'm not going to restate the whole post here, but it is there if you wish to read it. Referring to the width needed to model Little Bytham, Tony said that if any of that width were reduced "realism is considerably diminished". A little later he said "Trying to stuff a larger station(any on the ECML really) into my available space, would have lost all credibility in my opinion.

 

Tony and I are very good friends, have been for years, and have discussed his views in the past, but I confess to being somewhat miffed when I read the above. This resulted in what politicians tend to refer to as a "frank exchange of views". I fully accept that Tony qualified what he said with the words "in my opinion", and he explained to me that they should be taken as referring only to his layout and his shed, but for me they nevertheless carry a wider implication. He invited me there and then to post a reply on this thread, but I have been unable so to do until now, given my committment to the sale of Dave Shakespeare's collection.

 

 

So, why was I upset by what Tony said? Well, I'm modelling Peterborough North, also on the ECML, and a much bigger station  than Little Bytham, and I "only" have 25 ft by 9 in which to do it. And, although Tony is only referring to personal opinion and space available, surely if trying to stuff a larger station into 32ft length would have lost all credibility, the same must inexorably apply to any attempt to stuff it into anything smaller? 

 

 

 

Anyway, as invited, here are my observations, first in general terms. Tony and I are both very fortunate to have the kind of space that we do, though both of us have made sensible plans and provision to enable it to happen. Most people though will in all probability never have that amount of space, let alone more. So, if Tony's principle is applied, by definition there would be very few, if any, models of large ECML stations. Wait though, it isn't just ECML, is it? It must surely apply to any large main line layout, wherever situated. Roy Jackson's wonderful evocation of Retford needs 70ft by 30, and Retford isn't one of the bigger ECML stations. I know of other very large projects, contemplated or in progress, but they require the kind of funds very few could ever aspire to,and frankly I'm not sure they will be operable or maintainable even when, or if, completed. Long trains roaring through small stations in a country setting are, or sadly in most cases were, an essential part of any main line, but so were the larger stations. It would surely be a great shame if there were to be either no models at all of those, or that any that did exist were limited to a very wealthy few? I exclude Roy Jackson from that observation, in his case it was sheer determination and personal graft and ability that made Retford possible, but there aren't many like him around.

 

Model railways are all about compromise. They always have been, and always will be. I won't restate all the usual cliches, but to take just one or two, nothing moves but the trains, and no passengers ever join or leave them. Most of us work to scales which are compromised too. Why then, should not sensible and reasonable compromise be applied so as to allow the modelling of something bigger than a wayside station?

 

I'll now turn to the specific, rather than the general, namely Peterborough North. There are bridges at each end, the distance between them to 4mm scale being 30ft, surprisingly small for a very big station. I don't have 30ft though, so why did I even contemplate modelling it? Well, it is the antithesis of Little Bytham, which is a small station in a large environment. The essentials of Peterborough - the main running lines, the bays and loading dock, are in contrast extremely cramped. OK, I accept that there are loads of sidings on the Up side at the North end, and there should be the ex LMS lines to the West, but if one concentrates on the GN part only, and on the roads and sidings necessary to allow prototype operation, the width needed is considerably reduced. The compromise in length is not great at the South end, but is much greater to the North. Some radical alteration to the entry to North facing bays had to be accepted, and the main question was whether the distance between the platform ends and Spital Bridge to the North would look too compromised, and, as Tony says, lose all credibility. The platforms themselves are very nearly "right" - the only Up platform should hold 13 bogies, mine will hold twelve, and the others are also about one coach short.

 

Tony also refers to the rule of thirds. I'm not going to argue over that, as I applied it rigorously to my last layout, and I agree that in a countryside setting, a train that occupies more than one third of the viewing area looks wrong. But, what happens though if that viewing area is broken up? Peterborough North had, until the 1960s, a large overall roof, which occupies most of the centre of my layout. As a result, the whole of a correct length train can never be seen, as it passes through, except if it uses the avoiding roads. I took all off these things into account, and I concluded that a credible model was possible. I've taken a few photos, which I know Tony won't mind me attaching, to show what I mean.

First, it was out with the tripod, to try to show the whole length of the scenic side of PN. It wasn't easy! This is about the best I could do. From here, I shall show first an eleven coach train, correct to prototype. First we see it entering from the North.

Where the goods train is standing marks the Western boundary of the GN lines, but on the East side there should be many more sidings. Six or seven coaches can be seen - it should really be more, but does it matter? Well, not to me! It compares well with prototype photos taken from the same spot, and most important,it couldn't be anywhere else. So, has the necessary compression caused the loss of all credibility? That is not for me to say.

Here is the train at rest at the South end. The loco could have come further down if it had needed to take water, but even when stopped here, all eleven coaches are on the platform. You have to take my word for all of this though, as you just can't see all of the train.

From behind now.  You should be able to see at least one more coach in this view, but again, does the lack of it cause loss of credibility?

Or, for that matter, viewed from this angle?

This one shows what is to the right of the train at the South end, and all that should be there in the way of sidings, is there.

I've included these two shots to show what just can't be avoided. The real main lines did not curve round in this ridiculously tight way - the train would not have negotiated such a sharp curve. But wait though,Crescent Bridge should extend much further to the left, and the bridge you see here is a temporary structure. When the new one arrives, it can be made to extend left, as it should, and that will prevent so much of an incoming train being visible, as it is at present. Just about all models of through stations have this problem. We have to get trains off stage somehow, and so over sharp curves are inevitable, and very hard to disguise. Some things just have to be accepted, and worked around as best is possible.

 

By the way, for those who didn't know the old Peterborough, those dogs leg curves both into and out of the platforms may look implausible, but they existed- causing a 20mph PSR to be applied. And that is something else I took into account when deciding to model this station. So, of course it is compromised, of course not everything that should be there is, and what is there isn't all in the right place, but does that mean that realism is considerably diminished, or that all credibility is lost? I do hope not. And my final defence - as I said earlier, it is instantly recognisable to anyone who knew the old station, it couldn't be anywhere else. Doesn't that make it a fitting subject for a model of a large ECML station?

[nerron]

 

 

But, it's this personal craftsmanship (or craftswomanship in the case of our brilliant feminine modellers) which I wish to emphasise. As more and more higher quality stuff becomes available, the necessity to 'make' everything oneself is diminishing. In many ways this is no bad thing (I've recently exploited what the RTR boys have provided, in quantity), but I'll always be drawn to the 'personal' level of modelling - the like of which is entirely apparent on Bacup.  

Tony,as a student of language I hope you will not be offended if I point out that craftsmanship can refer to the work of both males and females.The "man " comes from the latin root manu meaning by hand.So your alternative in brackets is not needed.I enjoy reading this thread and have gained much from it in the way of modelling inspiration.

[Donington Road]

Nearly a fortnight ago, Tony made some remarks in post 2388 on page 96 of this thread, giving his views on what space is needed to model a large ECML station. I'm not going to restate the whole post here, but it is there if you wish to read it. Referring to the width needed to model Little Bytham, Tony said that if any of that width were reduced "realism is considerably diminished". A little later he said "Trying to stuff a larger station(any on the ECML really) into my available space, would have lost all credibility in my opinion.

 

Tony and I are very good friends, have been for years, and have discussed his views in the past, but I confess to being somewhat miffed when I read the above. This resulted in what politicians tend to refer to as a "frank exchange of views". I fully accept that Tony qualified what he said with the words "in my opinion", and he explained to me that they should be taken as referring only to his layout and his shed, but for me they nevertheless carry a wider implication. He invited me there and then to post a reply on this thread, but I have been unable so to do until now, given my committment to the sale of Dave Shakespeare's collection.

 

long post snipped -mick

 

Knowing the ECML since the late fifties from Grantham to Peterborough there are a great deal of different senarios within that length.

IMO both of you are right in your observations and comments.  Going south from Stoke Tunnel to Werrington Junction was the World's fastest racetrack, anything modelled which is along that stretch needs open space and length to appeciate the full length of expresses at speed.  Little Bytham achieves that goal to the extent that it sends shivers down my spine watching it in the posted videos, it is just as I remember from 1958.  Peterborough North is again just as impressive, and you score because although compromised very slightly in length, it is not at all noticeable because the trains are running in and out of the station due to the dog leg at a fifth of the speed at Little Bytham, and are probably "on stage" for far longer, so IMO that makes both layouts very compareable in what they have achieved in regards of realism.

Grantham is another layout that achieves its goal.  It is compromised at the north end but it does not detract from expresses running through at speed.

I would love to model Werrington Junction from Walton to Hurn Road including the water troughs but I haven't got a 100ft shed and compromising on length would not do it justice.  So I am greatful to come to this forum and just drool over the offerings that you, Tony and others have produced which takes me back in time so I can daydream once again like I used to on those long summer days spent at LB and Essendine.

[t-b-g]

If you want to model a real place and you have a space smaller than that required to build the model dead to scale you have a few options. These include selective compression, a change of scale or not building it at all.

 

No layout will ever please everybody all the time. My favourite layout is pure fiction and the longest train is 5 carriages long, which is about as far removed from Tony's ideal layout as it is possible to get! At least it is "Eastern" in as much as it is GCR.

 

I have known Tony Wright for many years now and he is not one to pull his punches sometimes. He has his own views on what makes a good layout and he expresses them in his own way. I am pretty sure that the last thing he would want to do is to cause any upset to those who decide to do their modelling in their own way.

 

If I had the space that Little Bytham occupies, the last thing that I would model would be what is really a wayside station on a main line. 95% of the trains would just pass through and while it is a spectacle, there is not a lot for somebody who likes more intricate operating. I would have a railway system, with several stations, capable of being operated in a railway like fashion with a number of operators sending trains to and from each other.

 

I don't think Little Bytham would hold my interest for very long as an operator. I can operate Buckingham for many hours on end. Even if I am by myself I can spend a few hours working through the intricate and interesting timetable and we have regular running sessions twice a week with two or three people, that are totally absorbing and about as much fun as I have had with model railways.

 

The real Peterborough was a centre of considerable railway activity and for somebody who really enjoys railway operation (as opposed to running trains on a roundy-roundy) a truncated Peterborough with a few compromises would be much more interesting to operate than a (nearly) scale Little Bytham.

 

Having said that, I have been fortunate to visit Little Bytham a couple of times and have really enjoyed both times very much indeed and I would defend to the hilt Tony's right to build whatever layout he wishes.

 

In a nutshell, both layouts are designed to do what the builders want from them and there is nobody who can say that one is somehow more right than the other. They represent different and equally valid approaches to the hobby. Having a personal opinion as to which approach somebody prefers is all well and good but that is all it can be, a personal opinion.

 

Tony

[Dominion]

As long as two of our favourite layout heros remain friends I am finding the debate very interesting and even constructive. It is very helpful to have others be willing to share their mental models behind the design choices they have made. It is making me think harder about what I want in my current plan. I am grateful for the generous airing of views.

[Oldddudders]

Slightly taken aback to find a full and frank discussion taking place between such accomplished modellers, each of whom has so much to be proud of! I cannot fault the logic of either, but do recognise the wholly different "take" each has on the same Big 4 railway in BR days.

 

We all enjoy the sweep of a main line in deep country, and Tony's racetrack of a layout models that most successfully, the station hardly hindering the rush of the main line expresses. OTOH, my years steeped in US HO have taught me that the local freight can be very rewarding to operate, as it calls at every wayside halt and lamp-post to shunt and fuss, and Gilbert's Peterborough shows main-line services actually serving a principal station, with pilots, vans and local trains in the very effective mix.

 

All layouts have a compromise somewhere. Each of the fine layouts in question has considerably more space than most modellers can ever aspire to occupy, but even then there are limits. But comparing and contrasting their fidelity to their respective prototypes is a bit akin to asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Andrew P]

With my new project, Bitton, it was chosen for the many and varied reasons stated in several post's to date, I wanted to see long coal and Van trains, I wanted local goods to shunt the yard, I wanted express passenger trains to simply pass, (the Pines Express being one) and a local loco hauled or DMU service to add to the mix.

 

With Bitton the Platform scales out at just 52 inches, ideal, the down goods loop in the yard should hold 15 to 16 wagons, I will have almost 6ft @ 3 wagons per ft I am to scale.

 

I have had to compromise on the radii at each end, but the whole of the prototype is on a gentle arc, I have just had to tighten the arc at either end to fit into the 17.5ft inside length of my shed.

 

Its all been about compromise but I have chosen a location where I can legitimately run my Midland stock along with Western and Southern and not be deemed wrong.

 

There are prototypes out there, and this is my first prototype layout and I have really enjoyed the research, its been really rewarding.

 

Andy

Edited September 23, 2014 by Andrew P

[queensquare]

With my new project, Bitton, it was chosen for the many and varied reasons stated in several post's to date, I wanted to see long coal and Van trains, I wanted local goods to shunt the yard, I wanted express passenger trains to simply pass, (the Pines Express being one) and a local loco hauled or DMU service to add to the mix.

 

With Bitton the Platform scales out at just 52 inches, ideal, the down goods loop in the yard should hold 15 to 16 wagons, I will have almost 6ft @ 3 wagons per ft I am to scale.

 

 

I have had to compromise on the radii at each end, but the whole of the prototype is on a gentle arc, I have just had to tighten the arc at either end to fit into the 17.5ft inside length of my shed.

 

Its all been about compromise but I have chosen a location where I can legitimately run my Midland stock along with Western and Southern and not be deemed wrong.

 

There are prototypes out there, and this is my first prototype layout and I have really enjoyed the research, its been really rewarding.

 

Andy

 

That's an interesting plan and Bitton is an excellent prototype, just a couple of stations up from Bath - I've recently done a lot of work on a customers version of Bitton in N.

Just a small point, and you are of course free to run what you like its your railway, but whilst certain  Western region classes used the line in its final years, particularly post 58 when the WR took control of the line, I don't recall any Southern stuff. . Bulleid Pacifics were common at Bath and an occasional T9 made it up from Bournemouth but I've never seen evidence of them on the Mangotsfield branch.

 

Jerry 

[Andrew P]

That's an interesting plan and Bitton is an excellent prototype, just a couple of stations up from Bath - I've recently done a lot of work on a customers version of Bitton in N.

Just a small point, and you are of course free to run what you like its your railway, but whilst certain  Western region classes used the line in its final years, particularly post 58 when the WR took control of the line, I don't recall any Southern stuff. . Bulleid Pacifics were common at Bath and an occasional T9 made it up from Bournemouth but I've never seen evidence of them on the Mangotsfield branch.

 

Jerry 

Thanks Jerry, I will be modelling around about 1968 ish and I would only use a Bulleid on a special, to and from Manchester etc. it will be predominantly Midland / Standard / Peaks /Rats etc for the locos and varied stock.

 

But thanks for the advice and help.

 

I wont clog up Tony wonderfully interesting thread with bits on Bitton here, so if there is any more info, please feel free to post it on my Bitton thread.

 

Thanks,

Andy.

[manna]

G'Day Gents

 

 

Kinda comes down to , if LB was 6' shorter or PN 6' longer, would it make any real difference, there still two of the finest ECML model railways in the country, although Grantham, is catching up rapidly.

 

manna