Wright writes.....

[Jol Wilkinson]

22 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I hope in all our correspondence, Jol, on here and face-to-face, I've never come across as suggesting your modelling is less worthwhile. In fact, I think it's of the highest standard.

 

My comments came about because of the mention of Heckmondwike - a 'large' layout by 'normal' P4 standards, but 'small' as a depiction of a main line. 

 

Contrary to what many might believe, I care not a hoot whether there are any 'large', main line P4 layouts out there (though I've mentioned two already in Mostyn and Preston). I've never claimed my approach is more relevant, more important, more worthwhile and certainly not more proper than any other. I've photographed too many splendid P4 layouts not be impressed by the modelling standards. I'd be even more impressed if they ran (in the main) like LB, Retford and Carlisle, but that is another story.

 

I'm not too sure whether I buy into the 'broad church' philosophy too much, either. There are many ways to enjoy the hobby, but I can't see a lot in the way of a shared interest between what you do and those who just open boxes - or in some cases, don't open them because by removing some tissue paper it devalues what's inside!

 

As for N Gauge being the best solution to building a large prototype railway scene, it's been done. Well, in 2mm Finescale, anyway, with Copenhagen Fields. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony,

 

thanks for the compliment although, compared to some of the model makers I have met over the years, I regard my work as fairly average.

 

I don’t like the idea of the Broad Church philosophy either (as a number of my posts elsewhere on RMweb would show) and used it only as a reflection of how it seems to be a fairly widely held belief. However, it seems non-PC to express a view that buying RTR models is somehow less interesting or satisfying than making them. I also don’t really buy into the idea that people are unable to acquire the skills to make models from kits, as some claim. Making models is a number of simple processes, most of which can be learned, especially give the wealth of written material, videos and online help available. There are some things that aren’t easy, such as lining out carriages to Ian Rathbone or Geoff Haynes standards, or building etched locos to the level of perfection of the late John Hayes.  There are some who lack hand/eye coordination, in the same way that I am not naturally musical (unlike two of my wife’s cousins) nor have the physique to be an ordinary, never mind exceptional athlete (I gave up trying when I left school).

Yet it is possible for most people to build models from simple kits, getting enjoyment from creating something unique to them and benefiting from a relaxing, creative, activity. I met a lady recently who, following a very stressful period in her life, started making 1/12 dioramas for relaxation. She uses only materials readily available such as cardboard and models readily available subjects such as husband’s workshop. She had no experience but simply got on with it and has created some excellent pieces. It has done a great deal for her “mindfulness”, a topic explored in the latest MRJ. It is a shame that such a positive attitude to creativity seems to be less appreciated by many in our hobby today.

 

There are few example of large P4 layouts in the anti social media, possibly because those that model in that gauge (and EM to some extent) tend not to frequent these platforms much (no pun intended). The 00 and EM layouts you have listed, Retford, etc. tend to be the vision of one person aided by a group of like minded modellers, as is your own excellent model of Little Bytham.

 

Those modelling in P4 tend to work alone, possibly because there are fewer of us and we are more geographically separated. There are some large P4 layouts out there, such as Tony Montgomery’s Ambergate. Unless you follow his thread on the S4Forum or read MRJ 202, you will probably know nothing of this layout which Tony rescued from being scrapped, erected a building measuring 33ft by 24ft to house it, converted it from EM to P4 and is extending it to include Buxton. By Retford standards it is not that big and represents an ex MR line in early LMS days, so doesn’t meet the mainline with pacifics hauling express trains level but is still a big project in 4mm. Other include Mostyn and Preston as you mentioned, South Pelaw Junction, Brimsdown (32ft x 13ft), Aylesbury Town (32ft x 11ft), Bristol Barrow Road, Calcutta Sidings and Balcombe as already mentioned by Tim Lee.

 

As for my reference to N gauge, CF is the only “large” layout  I know of (other than Chiltern Green) in the smaller scale (2mm FS rather than N) although there may be others. However, it seems that it would be an ideal scale/gauge in which to build a model of a railway in the landscape, especially for those who want to buy in their locos and stock while concentrating on the scenic setting. It’s not for me however.

 

The more recent postings about presenting and operating layouts is most interesting. The suggestion (I forget who made it) that layouts should “Inform, Educate and Entertain” is valid only if the viewer wants to be informed and educated as well as entertained. Layouts with little education value but plenty of entertainment, i.e. not much infrastructure or architecture but lots of trains running tend to attract the larger crowds. That is more so at the less "specialist" shows rather than at ExpoEM or Scaleforum. At the more local events I find that a frequent train service is more important than giving the viewer the opportunity to take in the modelling of the background. To use Tim's analogy, the actors are more important than the scenery and don’t have any pauses in the dialogue, or as a visitor put it during a short conversation with a visitor at a show “I’m not interested in the modelling I just want to see more trains running”. As London Road has now had its last exhibition outing, I shan't be faced with that again, although I'll miss the many appreciative modellers I have met exhibiting the layout.

 

Jol

Edited October 30, 2019 by Jol Wilkinson
Correcting wrong attribution!

[Lecorbusier]

21 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Tim Lee’s suggestion that layouts should “Inform, Educate and Entertain” is valid only if the viewer wants to be informed and educated as well as entertained.

Wasn't me  ... I actually suggested  pretty much what you have said 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Lecorbusier

[Jol Wilkinson]

8 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Wasn't me  ... I actually suggested  pretty much what you have said 

Tim,

 

apologies, I must be getting old. This is such a fast moving, in depth, thread I am having difficulty keeping up.

 

Jol

[t-b-g]

52 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I was at an exhibition recently, won't name it.

 

There was a lovely 2mm layout - single line branch, end to end with the station in the middle.

 

It was about 12 feet long so it was a trains in the landscape model but they only had three trains - each move involved sending one of the three trains to the other end.  It had a single operator and the trains were running very slowly (as they should, no argument there).  For me the viewer it was ok, I got to watch a train trundle along, for the operator the tedium was etched onto his very soul, I did engage in conversation but it wasn't raising his day.  Each move also basically required the solitary operator to walk the length of the model to the other fiddleyard to turn the train on it's cassette before dispatching it or one of the other trains back the other way. 

 

How they managed two days of this I really do not know and it wasn't helped that they were off in a corner away from most of the activity I think compounding the isolation.

 

I don't know how people who do a show on their own manage. I have never done it and never will. You need a break and a chance to sit down, have a cuppa and perhaps a look round the show. So even with my simplest layouts it is always  crew of two. If you do an hour on and an hour off you can stay fresh and maintain interest even with a relatively simple layout.

 

What is especially rewarding is when you take a simple layout to a show, as I did recently with Church Warsop at Wells. I had an operator with me who hadn't seen the layout before. It has 5 points with a run round loop and three sidings. My fellow operator came away saying that he had no idea that a layout so simple could be so engaging to operate and several people spent an hour or more watching and a couple even said that we were the most interesting layout to watch operating. We worked one on, one off most of the time with a few spells working it together with the second operator working the fiddle yard.

 

So my operator and the viewers both appreciated the thought that went into the design and the operating methods. The two days flew by and I enjoyed every minute. We had 5 trains in total. Full and empty coal, a pick up goods and two passenger sets, which had vans and horseboxes etc. added and removed.

 

It can be done with a bit of thought.

[johndon]

I'm building, rather slowly, what most would consider a large (eventually 42' * 16') P4 layout based on South Pelaw Junction (I'm also a late addition to the group that have built it in EM):

although, as it is not a 'main line' might fall outside of Tony's criteria.  Whilst it will, for the most part, be diesels, there will be at least one 9F although I am almost certain that Rule 1 will be invoked as I would love to be able to run Sir Nigel Gresley on a 'railtour'...

 

John

[Barry Ten]

31 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I don't know how people who do a show on their own manage. I have never done it and never will. You need a break and a chance to sit down, have a cuppa and perhaps a look round the show.

 

 

 

The only time I have ever had a minor accident with my car was after a two-day show where I was the sole operator. Never again!

 

Al

[Lecorbusier]

Due to 'the day job' and family commitments I only rarely get to shows and have yet to act as an operator at any level. My viewpoint is therefore very much that of a semi educated punter.

 

I find myself being interested in different layouts for different reasons. At this years Scaleforum for example I spent a fair amount of time watching Burntisland, Pulborough and London Road. This is not a judgement on the other layouts, it just reflected my mood and interests that day. What is more interesting perhaps is that I was drawn to each for different reasons.

 

I was drawn to Burntisland for the scale and overall modelling. The period was attractive for me and the various cameos all along the layout of interest. The movement of trains was nice, but I enjoyed the stationary rakes of wagons and locos equally. The movement gave added interest, but strangely was not central to my enjoyment. (I remember being fascinated by Operation Overlord & the WW1 Trench Railway in a similar way)

 

Pulborough on the other hand was for me all about the movement of the trains through the landscape coupled to movements around the station. The landscape was very well done as were the buildings, but it was getting down to train eye-level and seeing the various trains coming through and pottering about which captivated.

 

London Road was all about the station ... and interestingly the lack of context beyond the battered retaining walls mattered to me not a jot.

 

None of these reactions or my enjoyment had anything to do with them being P4 (notwithstanding a preference for the look of the track) .... but it was very much to do with the quality of both the subjects and the 'finescale modelling' . 

 

My conclusion ... I may have my own preferences, but normally if something is well done and thought has been given to the entertainment value from the viewers point of view, I find myself enjoying a fair old range of layout types. I hasten to add that I also like cameo layouts .... Arun Key amongst others immediately springs to mind .... and on occasion have thoroughly enjoyed post steam layouts.

 

What one chooses to model and what one appreciates as a punter can be very different things.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Hello Tony,

 

thanks for the compliment although, compared to some of the model makers I have met over the years, I regard my work as fairly average.

 

I don’t like the idea of the Broad Church philosophy either (as a number of my posts elsewhere on RMweb would show) and used it only as a reflection of how it seems to be a fairly widely held belief. However, it seems non-PC to express a view that buying RTR models is somehow less interesting or satisfying than making them. I also don’t really buy into the idea that people are unable to acquire the skills to make models from kits, as some claim. Making models is a number of simple processes, most of which can be learned, especially give the wealth of written material, videos and online help available. There are some things that aren’t easy, such as lining out carriages to Ian Rathbone or Geoff Haynes standards, or building etched locos to the level of perfection of the late John Hayes.  There are some who lack hand/eye coordination, in the same way that I am not naturally musical (unlike two of my wife’s cousins) nor have the physique to be an ordinary, never mind exceptional athlete (I gave up trying when I left school).

Yet it is possible for most people to build models from simple kits, getting enjoyment from creating something unique to them and benefiting from a relaxing, creative, activity. I met a lady recently who, following a very stressful period in her life, started making 1/12 dioramas for relaxation. She uses only materials readily available such as cardboard and models readily available subjects such as husband’s workshop. She had no experience but simply got on with it and has created some excellent pieces. It has done a great deal for her “mindfulness”, a topic explored in the latest MRJ. It is a shame that such a positive attitude to creativity seems to be less appreciated by many in our hobby today.

 

There are few example of large P4 layouts in the anti social media, possibly because those that model in that gauge (and EM to some extent) tend not to frequent these platforms much (no pun intended). The 00 and EM layouts you have listed, Retford, etc. tend to be the vision of one person aided by a group of like minded modellers, as is your own excellent model of Little Bytham.

 

Those modelling in P4 tend to work alone, possibly because there are fewer of us and we are more geographically separated. There are some large P4 layouts out there, such as Tony Montgomery’s Ambergate. Unless you follow his thread on the S4Forum or read MRJ 202, you will probably know nothing of this layout which Tony rescued from being scrapped, erected a building measuring 33ft by 24ft to house it, converted it from EM to P4 and is extending it to include Buxton. By Retford standards it is not that big and represents an ex MR line in early LMS days, so doesn’t meet the mainline with pacifics hauling express trains level but is still a big project in 4mm. Other include Mostyn and Preston as you mentioned, South Pelaw Junction, Brimsdown (32ft x 13ft), Aylesbury Town (32ft x 11ft), Bristol Barrow Road, Calcutta Sidings and Balcombe as already mentioned by Tim Lee.

 

As for my reference to N gauge, CF is the only “large” layout  I know of (other than Chiltern Green) in the smaller scale (2mm FS rather than N) although there may be others. However, it seems that it would be an ideal scale/gauge in which to build a model of a railway in the landscape, especially for those who want to buy in their locos and stock while concentrating on the scenic setting. It’s not for me however.

 

The more recent postings about presenting and operating layouts is most interesting. The suggestion (I forget who made it) that layouts should “Inform, Educate and Entertain” is valid only if the viewer wants to be informed and educated as well as entertained. Layouts with little education value but plenty of entertainment, i.e. not much infrastructure or architecture but lots of trains running tend to attract the larger crowds. That is more so at the less "specialist" shows such as ExpoEM or Scaleforum. At the more local events I find that a frequent train service is more important than giving the viewer the opportunity to take in the modelling of the background. To use Tim's analogy, the actors are more important than the scenery and don’t have any pauses in the dialogue, or as a visitor put it during a short conversation with a visitor at a show “I’m not interested in the modelling I just want to see more trains running”. As London Road has now had its last exhibition outing, I shan't be faced with that again, although I'll miss the many appreciative modellers I have met exhibiting the layout.

 

Jol

Thanks Jol,

 

I think you'll find that South Pelaw is EM. 

 

 

 

Those flangeways look a bit wide for P4!

 

I remember Ambergate well, from its EM days. 

 

 

 

 

I managed to photograph it just before a heavy storm broke!

 

Changing a layout from EM to P4 doesn't always 'work' Remember Dunwich?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[johndon]

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Jol,

 

I think you'll find that South Pelaw is EM. 

 

 

It is possible that Jol may have been referring to my version of South Pelaw as per my post a couple up the thread.

 

John

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by johndon

[Barry O]

I remember Heckmondwyke. It didn't matter to me that it was S4 or OO.. it looked nothing like Heckmondwyke and it ran occasionally. It was far, far too clean (remember even in clean locos and stock days the chimneys around that area gave out copious amounts of soot and dirt. It was boring to watch and probably mind blowingly boring to operate.

 

BUT my major concern is that few people seem to know how to operate a railway. Looking at a few well known layouts to try to make them more "tailchasers" operationally they have become very dull and sometimes have little connection with the "real" railway.

 

On the other hand you have other layouts which look right, are operated well and, while not being an exact location..just feel like they should be in the real landscape.Prime examples.. Wibdenshaw, Hornsey Broadway, Eastwell Ironstone Company (all EM) and the likes of Cwmafon (00).

 

Never operated the first three but Cwmafon used to keep you on your toes!

 

Not for me a alyout with one point and three or four trains....

 

baz

[westerner]

As usual, because this thread moves so quickly I have come to the recent discussion rather late, but I still feel the need to add my " two'peneth". I have built several layouts since I retired 20 odd years ago, both roundy-roundy and terminus to fiddleyard, all imaginary might have beens. The one thing I  aimed for was to put the railway in a  setting which corresponded with the place I was supposed to be modelling, which I think I did reasonably successfully and which I am trying to do on my new small O gauge layout set in the Forest of Dean I have also operated a couple of layouts of friends at many exhibitions as well as attending lots of exhibitions as a punter. To me the first priority is that the layout must run, with trains doing their thing in a reasonable time scale, secondly no silly curves and that the layout has a sense of place both inside and outside the railway fence, rather like LB and Retford which both have a fair bit modelled outside the "fence". Thirdly stock both locos and wagons must look as if they have worked for a living ie weathered. And lastly modelling which is of a good standard.If a layout has these criteria then I can watch it for some time. I must admit if things start falling off, I'm off. I don't mind what gauge the layout is and I'm happy to say that both the layouts I have helped out with at exhibitions we have been asked is it EM, no both are OO.

[Michael Edge]

With Barry's mention of Cwmafon above, this has a rather different operating philosophy. It's not a model of any one place but it has its own geography linked to actual routes. It doesn't operate to a timetable but the traffic has to be worked, preferably in a realistic manner. The coal has to be moved from the pit to the steelworks tippler or to be emptied in a fiddle yard - and the empties have to be returned. In between this the steel traffic is worked empties in to the works and fulls out, traffic being sorted in either the gravity yard or Cwmafon station exchange. Through all this the operators have to run three regular passenger workings, the basic valley traffic through Cwmafon (fiddle yard to fiddle yard), MT&A trains likewise and a connecting push-pull from Cwmafon to the MT&A. Any number of other goods trains plus iron ore and coke to the steelworks are likely to run. This isn't so much an exhibition display as running a railway with a very intensive service. Older readers who remember Leeds Victoria will recall that that was aso a complete railway with terminus to terminus operation and no fiddle yards at all.

[t-b-g]

I may have missed it being mentioned but I would include "Fencehouses" as a big 2mm scale layout. It probably has a scenic run in scale miles longer than Retford.

 

It is, from memory, a bit longer than Copenhagen Fields but may not have as many square feet of scenic work as the boards are narrower.

 

Laurie Adam's Yeovil Town will be roughly a scale mile long too, when he gets the far end built.

Edited October 30, 2019 by t-b-g
Failure to spell Fencehouses correctly first time

[Lecorbusier]

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Jol,

 

I think you'll find that South Pelaw is EM. 

 

 

 

Those flangeways look a bit wide for P4!

 

I remember Ambergate well, from its EM days. 

 

 

 

 

I managed to photograph it just before a heavy storm broke!

 

Changing a layout from EM to P4 doesn't always 'work' Remember Dunwich?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 Hi Tony,

 

it is indeed jondon's P4 version of South Pelaw Junction that I referred to. I took my listing of P4 layouts from the S4 Society's excellent S4Forum, in the section on layouts and operation.

 

I have run some of my P4 locos and stock around Ambergate without problems, so consider that the "conversion"  has been a success. Tony Montgomery has put a lot of work into getting it right. Built with ply and rivet trackwork it was possible to widen the gauge fairly easily, or so he tells me. Driving locos around a track with changes in elevation is an interesting experience. Your photos show what an excellent model it is and it is very fortunate that it was rescued from being scrapped.

 

Jol

[Lecorbusier]

4 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 Hi Tony,

 

it is indeed jondon's P4 version of South Pelaw Junction that I referred to. I took my listing of P4 layouts from the S4 Society's excellent S4Forum, in the section on layouts and operation.

 

I have run some of my P4 locos and stock around Ambergate without problems, so consider that the "conversion"  has been a success. Tony Montgomery has put a lot of work into getting it right. Built with ply and rivet trackwork it was possible to widen the gauge fairly easily, or so he tells me. Driving locos around a track with changes in elevation is an interesting experience. Your photos show what an excellent model it is and it is very fortunate that it was rescued from being scrapped.

 

Jol

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, johndon said:

 

It is possible that Jol may have been referring to my version of South Pelaw as per my post a couple up the thread.

 

John

 

Thanks John.

 

Every day's a school day!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[APOLLO]

I remember reading somewhere that an Ambergate layout was sold for a smallish sum, the new owner re-gauged it by lifting one rail and re laying it. Is the above the same layout ?

 

I've never thought about the poor old operator at exhibitions, being too engrossed inspecting the layouts, watching trains and buying the odd book or two. Most operators seem busy and enjoying themselves, and friendly also when the odd question is asked. A big thanks to all you who operate at exhibitions countrywide (especially my local - Wigan).

 

For me though you can't beat a huge O scale exhibition layout such as "Gifford Street". I'm a big layout fan whatever the scale. The layout that hooked me was at the Manchester exhibition many years ago at the Corn Exchange - GMT or something - It was a gauge one layout featuring electrically heated live steam locos on a long end to end run. I watched it for hours !!!

 

Brit15

 

 

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

 

Thanks for posting this, Tim.

 

How wonderful to see this great layout back in action, with perfect P4 running.

 

However, though I accept it's still work in progress, the train running is 'nonsense'. Where, in a four-coach local, would one get two composite carriages? Not only that, the carriages just look to be unaltered (apart from re-gauging) Palitoy/Bachmann LMS carriages - hardly P4 material I'd have thought. And (tell it not in Gath!), did I see a tension-lock coupling? Add on to that, no loco crew, no lamps (front and rear) and we have a situation I'd never tolerate, even on my 'narrow gauge' trainset. 

 

Accepting that there's much stock to be built (though much of the carriages littered around just seemed to be RTR), we have (to me) a bit of a paradox. P4 modellers (in the main) cannot accept a gauge which is incorrect (OO and EM), yet, in this case, we have a set of carriages, running in an un-prototypical manner, which I'd never tolerate, whatever the gauge.

 

Different priorities? Different standards?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

With recent talk of modelling the 'other side of the fence', I thought I'd take a few snapshots of the non-railway (east) side of Little Bytham this afternoon. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The architectural work is that of Bob Dawson, Ian Wilson and myself, and the scenic work is that of Rob Davey, Richard Wilson, Gilbert Barnatt, Ellen Sparkes and me. 

 

Though one is aware of a railway's presence, it's only in the background.

 

There are some anomalies of course. The bus is way off-route, though it is right for the period (I think). The scenes look odd without the girder bridge as well - making them post-1963. That, however, will be back in place before long. 

 

Funny, isn't it. One has no idea what the gauge is!

Edited October 30, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Jol Wilkinson]

Just now, APOLLO said:

I remember reading somewhere that an Ambergate layout was sold for a smallish sum, the new owner re-gauged it by lifting one rail and re laying it. Is the above the same layout ?

 

Brit15

 

 

Yes it is. The story of how Tony Montgomery, the current owner, came to buy Ambergate and convert it from EM to P4 is documented in MRJ 202. It was offered for sale on Ebay, although I believe it may have already have changed hands from the original owner/builder.  A large layout in a "minority" gauge, it was purchased very cheaply but that is only a reflection of the demand for such layouts when offered for sale. 

 

[queensquare]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

I may have missed it being mentioned but I would include "Fencehouses" as a big 2mm scale layout. It probably has a scenic run in scale miles longer than Retford.

 

It is, from memory, a bit longer than Copenhagen Fields but may not have as many square feet of scenic work as the boards are narrower.

 

Laurie Adam's Yeovil Town will be roughly a scale mile long too, when he gets the far end built.

 

Then ther is my own Bath Queensquare, 20 x10 and roughly one and a quarter scale  miles from buffers to fiddle yard. Set in the decade after the end of the first war in 2FS, the vast majority of the stock is either kit or scratchbuilt. Look in my signature below

 

Jerry

 

 

[Lecorbusier]

48 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for posting this, Tim.

 

How wonderful to see this great layout back in action, with perfect P4 running.

 

However, though I accept it's still work in progress, the train running is 'nonsense'. Where, in a four-coach local, would one get two composite carriages? Not only that, the carriages just look to be unaltered (apart from re-gauging) Palitoy/Bachmann LMS carriages - hardly P4 material I'd have thought. And (tell it not in Gath!), did I see a tension-lock coupling? Add on to that, no loco crew, no lamps (front and rear) and we have a situation I'd never tolerate, even on my 'narrow gauge' trainset. 

 

Accepting that there's much stock to be built (though much of the carriages littered around just seemed to be RTR), we have (to me) a bit of a paradox. P4 modellers (in the main) cannot accept a gauge which is incorrect (OO and EM), yet, in this case, we have a set of carriages, running in an un-prototypical manner, which I'd never tolerate, whatever the gauge.

 

Different priorities? Different standards?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I can't comment either way ... I just thought the footage might be of interest. I suspect that the stock was cobbled together to test the track re-laying. Perhaps it was re-miss of me to post as I am sure it was never intended for purposes other than to advise friends and colleagues of progress (the comment on youtube under the video reads "A few of the moves that can now be made on my P4 layout of Ambergate and Buxton. Please excuse the clunky editing. Thanks to John S for the loan of the 3f."). My own paltry efforts on the Monsaldale project would crumble under such scrutiny. 

Edited October 30, 2019 by Lecorbusier

[uax6]

And sadly Tony, those damn telephone poles still annoy the hell out of me......But at least you haven't got any wires on them that are strung like piano wires. ;-}

Do you happen to have any period photos of the street please? I'd like to see if I can put my money where my mouth is and try and do something better for you.... (And I'm not too sure about those streetlights either....)

 

Andy G

Edited October 30, 2019 by uax6

[lee74clarke]

Good Afternoon Tony

 

I trust you are well? I really like the first Bytham photo, for obvious reasons.

Thank you for dropping the DVD's off at the weekend, very kind.

I did drop you a PM, but not sure if you picked it up

 

Lee