Wright writes.....

[Jol Wilkinson]

28 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. 

 Tony,

 

I consider that rather unfair. That assortment of stock was probably put together to test the layout. The work of building a home for the layout, converting it to P4, designing and adding the infrastructure for the Buxton extension has been a major project to carry out virtually single handed while running his own business. Using some easily converted RTR stock to prove that it works seems rather irrelevant. The LMS 3F was borrowed from John Sherratt of the MMRS.

 

Jol

[Willie Whizz]

5 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

...

 

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.

 

...

 

I think you have also touched on another reason why there are few "large P4 layouts" around, in or out of the model media.  The sheer financial cost of having sufficient premises space (not semi-permanently required for family, business or other use) to build, keep erected, and operate such a big layout (an order of magnitude larger because of the track geometry than an OO or even an EM equivalent) must be very substantial indeed, unless one has been very lucky in life and not had to pay market prices to acquire it.  Add to that then the higher cost of obtaining sufficient of the necessary specialised locomotives and rolling stock which cannot simply be bought off-the-shelf, and it is clear that having such a layout as the property of an individual will require in most cases a much higher financial commitment than many of us can afford or justify.  Even for a club or quasi-club it must represent a significant challenge in non-modelling terms.

 

Of course, this is one of the greatest unspoken taboos in our hobby; it is simply not the 'done thing' even to speculate or ask about, let alone discuss, such issues.  The financial arrangements and considerations that lie behind virtually every model railway layout are a personal matter for the owner(s) - and so indeed they should be - but we should not pretend that they do not exist, nor that they have no impact on what we are able to achieve.

[bbishop]

Mr Whizz,  I thought you were commenting on St. Mellion, I which case I would have disagreed with you.  However, I do agree with you regarding Sidmouth.  If you regard LLS as a working diorama, then it is a superb layout: I spent an hour in front of it at Warley, absolutely worth the time.  I walked straight past Sidmouth.

 

How about Southwark Bridge is you are considering a reasonable sized P4 layout.  Fifty odd foot, terminus to fiddle yard, with some very complex trackwork and an intensive operating sequence.  Not an exhibition layout, but visits to an operating day can always be arranged.

 

Bill

 

 

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

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!

 

Thanks.

 

I prefer layouts that include scenic and architectural modelling of the 'other side of the fence'. It puts the railway in context, provides a setting so that the railway is seen in the landscape and it provides the raisin d'etre. And it gives somewhere to rest ones eyes when trains aren't running.

 

[Hitchin Junction]

19 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

 

 

Thanks for posting the LB video. It's a heck of a fine model. Topical pun intended  

 

My only minor impression is the stopping /starting speed of trains for that era. It seems that you get from 0 to 6 mph and vice versa in just one second, even with a long passenger train. My youth memories of catching and entering already moving slam door stock suggest it could be a lot longer.

 

I'm not sure what type of DC controllers you are using. I would assume using bemf feedback types would considerably slow that down.

 

Tim

 

 

[t-b-g]

32 minutes ago, bbishop said:

Mr Whizz,  I thought you were commenting on St. Mellion, I which case I would have disagreed with you.  However, I do agree with you regarding Sidmouth.  If you regard LLS as a working diorama, then it is a superb layout: I spent an hour in front of it at Warley, absolutely worth the time.  I walked straight past Sidmouth.

 

How about Southwark Bridge is you are considering a reasonable sized P4 layout.  Fifty odd foot, terminus to fiddle yard, with some very complex trackwork and an intensive operating sequence.  Not an exhibition layout, but visits to an operating day can always be arranged.

 

Bill

 

 

 

No A4s pulling 14 carriages at 90mph so it doesn't count!

 

All it has is a collection of the most superb kit and scratchbuilt locos and stock, a fantastic lever frame, it is great fun operationally and some super (although unfinished) scenic modelling.

 

Having said that, it did suffer a bit from derailments when we visited.

 

I have not seen the full extent of Bath Queensquare but I will happily include it as a large layout. Doubled up to 40ft in 4mm scale, it would be bigger than the vast majority of layouts in the bigger scale.

[Armchair Modeller]

Shame about the bus, Tony.

 

Straight out of the box I guess? Fleet number 2211 was LFU 713, unique in having the emergency exit at the rear and therefore a 3-window configuration rather than the 2 window configuration exhibited by the model. Photos here

 

https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=89936 and

 

 

[zr2498]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

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!

Hi Tony

Yes, the missing 'bridge' does look strange after seeing it there so often.

Some progress made with the extra parts (following the preliminary installation as previously shown.

The additional photoetch delivered. A bit of a milestone for me as my first design using Draftsight software.

 

 

The top beam flange plates are added

 

Today punched the 4500 rivets of the bottom cross beams

So progress being made albeit taking some time. Thanks for your patience.

 

Dave

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, uax6 said:

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

'Do you happen to have any period photos of the street please?'

 

Sadly Andy,

 

Not from those angles.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Hitchin Junction said:

 

Thanks for posting the LB video. It's a heck of a fine model. Topical pun intended  

 

My only minor impression is the stopping /starting speed of trains for that era. It seems that you get from 0 to 6 mph and vice versa in just one second, even with a long passenger train. My youth memories of catching and entering already moving slam door stock suggest it could be a lot longer.

 

I'm not sure what type of DC controllers you are using. I would assume using bemf feedback types would considerably slow that down.

 

Tim

 

 

I use Helmsman controllers, Tim.

 

Beware reading too much into the video, though. 

 

No matter how hard I've tried, the trains always appear to move more quickly on video than in reality. That said, real trains did accelerate and decelerate (still do) far more quickly than many model railways would have us believe.

 

regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 Tony,

 

I consider that rather unfair. That assortment of stock was probably put together to test the layout. The work of building a home for the layout, converting it to P4, designing and adding the infrastructure for the Buxton extension has been a major project to carry out virtually single handed while running his own business. Using some easily converted RTR stock to prove that it works seems rather irrelevant. The LMS 3F was borrowed from John Sherratt of the MMRS.

 

Jol

If I've been unfair, then that's my observation. 

 

What I find hard to reconcile (not just with Ambergate, which is wonderful in P4), is how folk can 'tolerate' such crude RTR carriages, even for testing. I've never used anything RTR to test trackwork on the layouts I've been involved with. The appropriate stock must be tested, along with the trackwork. 

 

I assume the carriages in question have just been re-gauged? If so, it rather proves that compensated bogies aren't absolutely necessary in the finest 4mm gauge. Looking again at the other carriages lying about the layout, they too seemed to be RTR. For testing purposes? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

50 minutes ago, Armchair Modeller said:

Shame about the bus, Tony.

 

Straight out of the box I guess? Fleet number 2211 was LFU 713, unique in having the emergency exit at the rear and therefore a 3-window configuration rather than the 2 window configuration exhibited by the model. Photos here

 

https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=89936 and

 

 

It's in the bin!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

27 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

Hi Tony

Yes, the missing 'bridge' does look strange after seeing it there so often.

Some progress made with the extra parts (following the preliminary installation as previously shown.

The additional photoetch delivered. A bit of a milestone for me as my first design using Draftsight software.

 

 

The top beam flange plates are added

 

Today punched the 4500 rivets of the bottom cross beams

So progress being made albeit taking some time. Thanks for your patience.

 

Dave

 

 

 

Fantastic work Dave,

 

Many thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Armchair Modeller]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

It's in the bin!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

That's a shame. It would be nice to see you apply your undoubted skills to something a little different  By the way, if you want to learn more about bus services in the area, the Lincolnshire Road transsport Museum may be able to help. They have a special open day this coming Sunday http://lvvs.org.uk/

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, Armchair Modeller said:

That's a shame. It would be nice to see you apply your undoubted skills to something a little different  By the way, if you want to learn more about bus services in the area, the Lincolnshire Road transsport Museum may be able to help. They have a special open day this coming Sunday http://lvvs.org.uk/

If I retrieve it from the bin, give it a new numberplate and a more appropriate destination, will that be right? If so, do you know a suitable registration, please? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[grahame]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's in the bin!

 

 

Would it not be possible to renumber, add reg plates and change the destination blinds in to something more appropriate? (Assuming the bus type is okay).

[Armchair Modeller]

12 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Would it not be possible to renumber, add reg plates and change the destination blinds in to something more appropriate? (Assuming the bus type is okay).

This one might fit the bill

According to the caption, this bus was new in 1957 as number 2236, was re-numbered 2223 in 1958

[Hitchin Junction]

18 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I use Helmsman controllers, Tim.

 

Beware reading too much into the video, though. 

 

No matter how hard I've tried, the trains always appear to move more quickly on video than in reality. That said, real trains did accelerate and decelerate (still do) far more quickly than many model railways would have us believe.

 

regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Sorry, I was trying to avoid being subjective.

 

If you look at the video time indicator at 11.17, the train is just about to move. By 11.18 it has moved a whole 1st class compartment. By 11.19, another.  And if there are 7 x 1st  compartments in a typical 61 ft coach, that's around 9 ft a second.  I'd hate to be 4 mm scale in that coach standing putting my suitcase on the rack at 11,17.

 

Tim

[Tony Wright]

9 minutes ago, Hitchin Junction said:

 

Sorry, I was trying to avoid being subjective.

 

If you look at the video time indicator at 11.17, the train is just about to move. By 11.18 it has moved a whole 1st class compartment. By 11.19, another.  And if there are 7 x 1st  compartments in a typical 61 ft coach, that's around 9 ft a second.  I'd hate to be 4 mm scale in that coach standing putting my suitcase on the rack at 11,17.

 

Tim

I think you're being objective.

 

I must try harder to drive my trains properly. 

 

Actually, from personal experience, I remember putting my hold-all up on to the rack in a Mk.1 compartment departing from Retford in 1965, and being thrown backwards as the train started off. It was Deltic-hauled, though!

 

Regards,

 

Tony 

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Chamby said:

As a layout operator, our experience of a model railway is very different to that of an observer at an exhibition.

 

At the Bodmin exhibition a week ago, I was manning a straightforward fiddle-yard-to-through-station single track layout for the full two days and by the end of Sunday I was mentally desolate.  I enjoy my hobby very much but two days solid running (albeit with occasional breaks to keep the operators sane) became tedious at best.  You can have too much of a good thing...  However, as long as we kept stuff running, the fee-paying public were engaged and appreciative of both the layout and the related dialogue.  The layout did what it was supposed to do.

 

As an exhibition visitor, I find some of the most enjoyable layouts are uncomplicated through runs where you can simply watch the trains go by.  Yeovil Group’s The Summit is perhaps the ultimate example... I spent more gawping time there than anywhere else when it appeared at Warley a few years back.

 

So I wouldn’t knock a layout that can be operationally boring... it very much depends on the layout’s primary purpose.

I think that is very true Phil. As a rule of thumb, it seems that layouts that attract viewers at exhibitions are not very exciting to operate and vice versa.

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

I think that is very true Phil. As a rule of thumb, it seems that layouts that attract viewers at exhibitions are not very exciting to operate and vice versa.

Stoke Summit?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[CF MRC]

I don’t agree with Tim’s post above. Tony’s video looks pretty good to me. I was looking at the 1968 BBC Flying Scotsman film on iPlayer the other night and was surprised at how quickly the trains accelerated & decelerated, especially coming in to the stations.  
 

Tim

Edited October 30, 2019 by CF MRC

[Clive Mortimore]

I feel a tad out of step regarding the other side of the fence malarkey. With Sheffield Exchange there are several factors that come into play.

 

Number one is not having anything else than railway does distract from people saying that building won't be there, that is the wrong type of building etc, after all there never was a Sheffield Exchange. 

 

Number two is space. I can reach everything on the layout adding another six to twelve inches on the baseboard width would mean I couldn't without having to move around. As for a station building, with full concourse and forecourt would either mean knocking an 'ole in the front window or reducing the platform length to five car DMUs. At its present length of eight car DMUs Tony mentioned when visiting the platforms seemed a bit short...they are but they are as long as I can get them. Tony also commented on how much space there was in the railway room to move around, which great when I have visitors. Should I become ill while playing trains Mrs M can get someone in the room before I start to rot and make the house smell. Seeing other people's railway rooms should they have a heart attack I fear the ambulance crews would have great difficulty getting them out.

Number three, I estimate, no more I know, the number of modelling years ahead are getting fewer and I still need to finish loads of models, signal the layout, do the inside the fence scenery , fit loco crews, add real coal, headcode lamps, correct headcodes on my DMUs and loco, make my passengers etc. etc. so don't think I have the time to waste on building typical Sheffield terrace houses with the front door in the passage way.

Hamilton Rd Sheffield

 

Lloyd Street, Sheffield. they were posh as they had front doors.

 

I am not anti outside the fence modelling, most layouts benefit from having a setting. There are a few where it is more of a model village with a train running through than a model railway. I can appreciate the modelling but surely railway modelling is about the trains and what their surroundings are like.

 

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

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.

It was I, quoting Lord Reith. The point, I think, is that we should attempt to inform and educate at the same time as entertaining. The viewer will probably appreciate that even if they don't realise it at the time.

[St Enodoc]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Stoke Summit?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Well Tony, it was a privilege to operate SS, at your invitation, but to be honest it wasn't a huge intellectual challenge was it? The main job for the operator at the front was to work the signals properly and to control the speed, particularly in and out of the loops.