Porcy Mane Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said: Difficult though it may be to discipline oneself but, given a situation of limited space, arguably it is the space that should dictate the design/subject. That sounds like something some of the late 1930's residents of Lawn Road Flats would have said. P Edited August 21, 2019 by Porcy Mane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted August 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 21, 2019 I think it is good that people are championing those who set the pace but do we need to keep reminiscing when there is modelling to do. Some recent cut and shuts A First Open diagram 72, with the center door that lead into a seating bay, from Tri-ang CKs Both sides of a Tourist Second Open diagram 92, without the center door, one side is made up from bits of a CK and the other from a BSK. There are more on Tri-ang coaches are wonderful to make those types that are not RTR. Now some would say why not slap on a etched side on to a donor coach. Where is the fun in working out what can be made from the pile of bits in front of me. Plus I only have to pay for the basic coach. Next on the hit list are some LMS coaches for cutting up. Then I will commence on filling and sanding of the LNER coaches from last week, these and the ones in the to do heap. Painting, may happen in a few years time. 8 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lecorbusier Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 15 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said: That sounds like something some of the late 1930's residents of Lawn Road Flats would have said. P Too True 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 7 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said: Too True Ah! 1930's B.S. (Before Slippers) But I see no Pocket Bottleship. Base board manufacturers take note. P 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted August 21, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 21, 2019 One of the main magazines (was it Hornby mag?) used to carry a regular series of layout design articles by a contributor whose name I've forgotten. They were hopelessly implausible for the space defined, with complex track formations squeezed into ludicrously small areas. I knew they were daft because I was going through some design convulsions of my own and I had a good intuitive feel for what you could and couldn't achieve with Peco streamline points. The final straw was a layout he proposed based (I think) on Kyle of Lochalsh, with an impossible number of parallel tracks for the space defined, which also included platforms. It would have been a cramped formation even as a fiddle yard. I wrote to the magazine and pointed out that the plans were nonsense (in the politest way I could frame it) and was told that they were meant as suggestions to get people thinking about prototype formations, not to be strictly adhered to. But that was a daft response as well. I wonder how many well-intended modellers ordered their Peco track, and set about building one of those layouts, only to find they'd have needed about twice the room size to get anywhere near? The respected layout design bods aren't immune to mistakes, but they generally make a better fist of something you can actually have a stab at building. There's a Barry Norman plan for Charwelton in one his books which (in my view) just can't be built into a workable layout as shown, unless you want a ridiculously short fiddle yard that would only allow the shortest possible passenger trains, but that's the exception rather than the rule. As PMP says old design habits are still the norm with many layouts. I still see plenty of big club layouts where all the track's dead straight and parallel to the board edges. Al 1 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Lecorbusier said: Difficult though it may be to discipline oneself but, given a situation of limited space, arguably it is the space that should dictate the design/subject. And to use the same quote again, it encompasses one of the main reasons why we see so many layouts based on imaginary but prototypical locations and why the concept shouldn't be criticised. P 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Neil Posted August 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 21, 2019 4 hours ago, PMP said: That’s the reason I mentioned effectively Tony, you and the team have accepted and ‘managed’ the compromises to get the best from the space you have, and keeping the essence of the location. Some of the worst designs I’ve seen around shows and published are micro layouts, rule 1 not withstanding. If you’re short on space, or simply like micro’s nothing wrong with that at all, but many seem cramped to excess to get everything desired or as much track in. Often, less is more, as Rod Hall’s Llanaster, Iain Rice’s Butley Mills and many others have shown over the years, whilst still retaining plausibility. I built Shelfie as a micro layout, the design changed massively, as I realised the original concept was flawed, the final result was an improvement, but still doesn’t really ‘work’. The use of space is possibly my equivalent to your ‘train headcode lamps’, it’s one of the first things to get my attention looking at a layout! I'm a firm believer that less is indeed more when it comes to layout design but I recognise that it's difficult to discipline oneself to pare away track from an original concept. I know the results will be better, it's something that I do with every layout that I build but rather than it be an instinctive process I have to remind myself that it's the way to a better model. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted August 21, 2019 Author Share Posted August 21, 2019 With regard to 'less is more', this certainly wasn't the case on LB this morning. Would you believe that this monster ran on the ECML, hauling 105 wagons? Except, it could only run on the scenic section of LB because it was too tall to go underneath the scenic break 'disguising' pieces of ply, even though it's HO. It brushed against the platform edges as well! It's Hornby/Rivarossi's latest Big Boy model, of course. 105 wagons (several white metal) was not an absolute maximum, but the head of the train became unstable on the end curves when more were added. I was gratified that a DJH A1 was just as powerful! Finally, does anyone know where Brisco is, please? 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 4630 Posted August 21, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 21, 2019 In the UK? There's a village south of Carlisle. http://www.visitoruk.com/Carlisle/brisco-C592-V25667.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted August 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 21, 2019 On 20/08/2019 at 09:27, PMP said: I hope whoever bids on Maindee realises it’s 18.83 and not OO! At that price though it’s worth buying to salvage buildings and re-use them on another layout. The Auction listing for Maindee East states "Passed", which I guess is auction speak for failed to achieve reserve. Bearing in mind the estimate was £300-£400 I'd say someone missed a bargain.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted August 21, 2019 Author Share Posted August 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, 4630 said: In the UK? There's a village south of Carlisle. http://www.visitoruk.com/Carlisle/brisco-C592-V25667.html That's it, Many thanks, Tony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 36 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: With regard to 'less is more', this certainly wasn't the case on LB this morning. Would you believe that this monster ran on the ECML, hauling 105 wagons? Except, it could only run on the scenic section of LB because it was too tall to go underneath the scenic break 'disguising' pieces of ply, even though it's HO. It brushed against the platform edges as well! It's Hornby/Rivarossi's latest Big Boy model, of course. Here we see it in action....plus Tony squeezing into tight spaces! 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Flintoft Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Can I just say thankyou to t-b-g , Jon4470 , Tony & DaveF , for responding to my query about No. 62000 . Thanks to you all I am now confident that the wheels were indeed green as I suspected . When I finally get round to building it I'll put a photo of it up for you all to see . Cheers , Ray . 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 (edited) Who needs all those Drivers? Counting the five bogie vehicles as two wagons, here's a 105 up hauled by three pairs of driving wheels to the British loading gauge of "EM". It could have taken more but this was it's fifteenth lap and we thought the V2 deserved a rest. Apologies as we may have been here before. P Edited August 21, 2019 by Porcy Mane 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 C Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 1 hour ago, polybear said: The Auction listing for Maindee East states "Passed", which I guess is auction speak for failed to achieve reserve. Bearing in mind the estimate was £300-£400 I'd say someone missed a bargain.... £190 was the highest bid. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted August 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 21, 2019 I once ran a train of 115 wagons hauled by an 0-6-0 shunter round 2'10" radius curves in EM on Tickhill & Wadworth. It looked a bit silly with the driver staring straight ahead at the brake van. It all stayed on the tracks. Double headed with a pair of BR 9Fs (as opposed to GCR 9Fs!) we ran the same train at around a scale 60mph. That looked a bit silly but stayed on the tracks too. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lecorbusier Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 what would have been the number of wagons on a typical long goods or mineral train .... for mineral would it have differed between full and empties? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chamby Posted August 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said: what would have been the number of wagons on a typical long goods or mineral train .... for mineral would it have differed between full and empties? I recall that the LNER’s P1’s could pull about 100 wagons but rarely did so because of the disruption caused by stopping and starting such a long train, it made them difficult to schedule amongst other traffic. K3’s on shorter trains were generally preferred on busy lines. I also recall that they could only be used on certain routes because the trains could be longer than some signalling sections! I think the LMS garratts had a similar problem. It is difficult to define a ‘typical’ train, they varied hugely across the country. Trains of empty wagons were often longer than the full ones travelling in the opposite direction, especially on mineral lines. Even in the modern era, the Polybulk clay trains from Cornwall to Switzerland in the 1990’s were split into two 11 wagon trains when travelling full to Dover, but ran the return trip as a train of 22 empties. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 A nice vid of the Real Big Boy that Union Pacific restored only a few months ago. I sat in the drivers seat of a Southern Pacific "Cab Forward" 4-8-8-2 at the Sacramento railroad museum a few years ago - what a monster (and just a bit smaller than a Big Boy). Nothing like cabbing a live Brit on Springs Branch though back in 1967 !! Brit15 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted August 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 21, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Lecorbusier said: what would have been the number of wagons on a typical long goods or mineral train .... for mineral would it have differed between full and empties? Hi Tim Train loads can get very complicated, there were freight train load books to help the railway staff. I said it was complicated, I have made a mathematical error. Each type of wagon, and if it was carrying a heavy, medium, or light load or if empty was classed in what were basic wagon units. A basic wagon unit was a 13 ton open wagon carrying a light load (under 6 tons). A loaded 16 ton mineral wagon with a full load counted as 2 basic wagon units. An empty 16 ton mineral wagon counted as 5/6 of a basic wagon unit. Each section of line had the maximum number of basic wagon units locos within each power class could haul and the type of train. Between London and Doncaster a Brush type 2 could haul 83 basic wagon units if a class 8 train (unfitted not stopping in section). So a train of mineral wagons all fully loaded would be a maximum of 41 wagons. A train of empties would be a maximum 69 wagons. A train of empty wagons could be 99 wagons long. Thrown into the mix was the maximum length of train for each section. This was expressed in standard wagon lengths which again was calculated around our 13 ton open wagon, standard wagon length was 21 feet over buffers. The line between London and Doncaster was limited to 75 standard wagon lengths. Which looks OK for our empty train as a 16 ton mineral wagon was counted as one standard wagon length , unless it was going to arrive in Belmont yard then the maximum was 65 standard wagon lengths. Our empty train exceeds the maximum train length so would be limited to 75 wagons, or 65 if arriving at Belmont yard or 70 if the destination was Down Decoy yard. To answer your question, a loaded mineral train would be shorter than an empty train if both were pulled by the same class of loco over the same section of line (and in the same direction) and if both trains were loaded to the maximum the loco was supposed to be capable of hauling. Edited August 21, 2019 by Clive Mortimore 2 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete55 Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 hours ago, t-b-g said: I once ran a train of 115 wagons hauled by an 0-6-0 shunter round 2'10" radius curves in EM on Tickhill & Wadworth. It looked a bit silly with the driver staring straight ahead at the brake van. It all stayed on the tracks. Double headed with a pair of BR 9Fs (as opposed to GCR 9Fs!) we ran the same train at around a scale 60mph. That looked a bit silly but stayed on the tracks too. I remember that, think it was at a Slaithwaite Expo and they were my EM converted 9F's! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, pete55 said: I remember that, think it was at a Slaithwaite Expo and they were my EM converted 9F's! Are we running them on Saturday? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete55 Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 23 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said: Are we running them on Saturday? Hopefully, yes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted August 21, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 21, 2019 38 minutes ago, pete55 said: I remember that, think it was at a Slaithwaite Expo and they were my EM converted 9F's! Indeed it was there and they were yours. We kept hanging more on the back until we ran out of wagons and track. It was my little 0-6-0 LMS Diesel shunter that managed to match the two big locos! I never have found its top haulage limit. I think I had 135 behind it round Retford one time. Happy days! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 On my American O gauge layout the longest train I run is 24 freight cars - which is over 24 feet long and snakes round the level low level track. The other line has gradients up to the higher level, two Atlas twin motored diesels will pull the load, but I have had a couple of Weaver plastic couplings pull their knuckles. Metal Kadees are OK. Lights dim in the shed when this train runs !! - 18 cars is therefore the limit for this line. 18 car train on the low level line, caboose on left, locos on right. Some cars screech and groan on the sharp curves, just like the real thing. Brit15 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now