Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Tony Wright

Wright writes.....

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

On some of the layouts at exhibition threads the priority other members of the RMweb world believe, is to build a layout that would entertain little Johnny  and his mum.  Not exhibit one's modelling skills and understanding of how the railway works which is the criteria that you and I consider is most important. 

As I've suggested on one of those threads, if we follow Lord Reith's maxim to "inform, educate and entertain" then we won't go far wrong.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
53 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Paul Rolley built a very nice model of Ranelagh Bridge in 00:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_06_2014/post-9901-0-59079600-1402861257.jpg

 

Other pics here:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/86956-ranelagh-bridge-in-black-and-white/

 

The lack of ballast is correct for the prototype.

 

Al

 

You can see the layout on permanent display in Lord and Butler in Cardiff.

 

Hi Al

 

I had a good chinwag with Paul when he was exhibiting it at Cheltenham a few years ago. It is a very nice layout.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

On some of the layouts at exhibition threads the priority other members of the RMweb world believe, is to build a layout that would entertain little Johnny  and his mum.  Not exhibit one's modelling skills and understanding of how the railway works which is the criteria that you and I consider is most important. 

 

Surely most exhibitions should have a cross-section of both so that the paying attendees see a progression from starter to expert? 

 

The last one I was at was my local show, the best bit of modelling was undoubtedly in the P4 layout and I voted for it on that basis, but it was not that interesting. The skill that went into it was very good but to be honest it was somewhat bland and boring. The one that won the public vote was pretty good too but, although to my taste a bit too twee, it appealed the most to those who voted. The show had a good cross-section, from something to suggest to a beginner the hobby is doable, through to the P4 and O gauge for the purist.

 

There are some highly acclaimed layouts that are nothing but big train set ovals albeit with good/excellent scenery - not quite the ultimate yawn factor for me, however well done the rolling stock is, but getting close.

 

Edited by john new
misplaced comma
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

On some of the layouts at exhibition threads the priority other members of the RMweb world believe, is to build a layout that would entertain little Johnny  and his mum.  Not exhibit one's modelling skills and understanding of how the railway works which is the criteria that you and I consider is most important. 

 

I see no reason why an exhibition layout could not and should not do both simultaneously.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

I see no reason why an exhibition layout could not and should not do both simultaneously.

 

Maybe, but unfortunately, those I see at exhibitions rarely do both.

 

I get the impression that for many an entertaining layout is one where trains are racing around unrealistically in non-prototypical formations and the 'modelling' features flashing lights, amusing clichéd cameos and absurd animations.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

A most-interesting thought, Andy,

 

One which I haven't given much thought to, other than to compare the 'standards' of the one chap who was most-unhappy with what I made for him (and thus didn't pay me, though he kept the loco, ex-wheels and motor; despite my offering to supply him with an identical, unmade kit) and the 'standards' I set for my own railway modelling. 

 

Regarding exhibition layouts (or any layouts which folk visit?), my criteria (questions) would be (irrespective of scale)...............

 

Does it look like the prototype it's supposed to represent (even if it might not be an actual location)? 

 

Is the trackplan workable? And, are the visible curves of 'reasonable' radius (I hate seeing main lines going through tight 90 degree curves to go on-/off-stage)? 

 

Is it correctly signalled, and do the signals work?

 

Does it all work well, with no derailments or stuttering locos/stock?

 

Do the locos carry the appropriate lamps/discs, and are they all crewed?

 

Is the overall modelling standard consistent?

 

Does it show individual or group work, and not just be the product of opening boxes?  

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Hi Tony

 

As an ex Signalman (never a signaller- they are in the armed forces) I can't agree with you more about your above standards. I'm afraid nothing more irritates me more (ok most things irritate me...) more than a lack of trap points or incorrect or no signalling.

 

I am organising the Signalling Record Society stand for the NEC show next weekend and one of the things that we do is award the Norman Cadge Trophy for best signalled layout at the show. 

If I could be so previous I would like to 'nick' your comments above to use as part of our assessment of the layouts. I would also like to add one of my own in that in addition to the layout being correctly signalled with working signals it is vital that they are used correctly and adhered to.

 

One year it was down to three layouts and to eliminate any we had to start being what some may describe as pedantic in order to separate them so as to find a 'winner.'

 

One of the layouts was beautifully modelled based on a real location with a number of boxes and accurate signalling and track layouts. What let it down was at the time only the double track main line was used with the running signals being left off as though the boxes were switched out. In addition when it was viewed it tended to be the same 2 or 3 trains that kept passing. As the layout was not being operated to its full ability it was duly eliminated. If it had it would likely have won the trophy.

 

Of course it depends on when our small team- 4 or 5 of us- gets to view the layout and if we can see it through the crowds but we can only judge what we can see at the time. It did seem a shame to be so harsh with such a beautiful and well modelled layout but as the purpose of the Trophy is to highlight and encourage accurate signalling and operation then it was felt unfair to award the trophy when the other two layouts in the final three fulfilled the criteria.

 

Keep up the good work with the thread, I really do enjoy reading it even though I am not much of a Modeller myself currently. I find it all a great inspiration.

 

Any of you at the NEC please do come and say hello- I shall be on SRS stand C11 and will be recognised by having my name on a badge..

 

Trust Hesse has a safe journey from Australia and enjoys Tony's (and Mo of course) hospitality. We truly are a multinational community.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Most are unworkable because the modeller has not looked at a prototype track plan. Ranelagh Bridge just outside Paddington is a tad over 6ft long in 1/76th scale. It has all the elements that are found at larger depots for servicing a loco for its next duty which is the most important role of any depot.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/56150673_shed1.gif.a5ef6ab6ab132586fb53016b8a7539a1.gif

Locos enter the yard and are parked on the fuel point, where servicing takes place, and often an A exam. Once that has been completed they move on to headshunt A and reverse to headshunt B where they then advance on to the loco sidings.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/006a.jpg.37f2ddcdd75640cbae2a5d17762e656e.jpg

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/009a.jpg.b8c5ce6af846a09b5ddf0b10a183b1bb.jpg

I did make a start on building Ranelagh Bridge looking from the flats towards the main lines as opposed to the normal view which modellers adopt of looking towards the flats. Our move to Lincolnshire and the prospect of building my present layout put pay to any further work on Ranelagh Bridge. My present little train set (Pig Lane, Western Region) has elements of Ranelagh Bridge despite the scenic length being 4 ft 8 1/2 ins.

 

If you look at many bigger depots the servicing area has the same flow pattern, they have a big building not just a couple of sidings where longer exams and repairs can take place. Size is not important for a depot but getting the track plan right is.

Would Ranelagh Bridge qualify as 'just' a diesel servicing point, Clive? As far as I know it was never coded as a depot. Just as Bottom Loco was never a depot in its own right, at Kings Cross.

 

I agree, these can be fitted into a 'relatively' small area, but many of the layouts I mentioned were classed as actual depots. 

 

Chester's diesel depot (1957), built on the site of the old GWR shed was only 'small', and its main duty was servicing DMUs, but modelled to scale it would be quite large. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Natalie said:

Hi Tony

 

As an ex Signalman (never a signaller- they are in the armed forces) I can't agree with you more about your above standards. I'm afraid nothing more irritates me more (ok most things irritate me...) more than a lack of trap points or incorrect or no signalling.

 

I am organising the Signalling Record Society stand for the NEC show next weekend and one of the things that we do is award the Norman Cadge Trophy for best signalled layout at the show. 

If I could be so previous I would like to 'nick' your comments above to use as part of our assessment of the layouts. I would also like to add one of my own in that in addition to the layout being correctly signalled with working signals it is vital that they are used correctly and adhered to.

 

One year it was down to three layouts and to eliminate any we had to start being what some may describe as pedantic in order to separate them so as to find a 'winner.'

 

One of the layouts was beautifully modelled based on a real location with a number of boxes and accurate signalling and track layouts. What let it down was at the time only the double track main line was used with the running signals being left off as though the boxes were switched out. In addition when it was viewed it tended to be the same 2 or 3 trains that kept passing. As the layout was not being operated to its full ability it was duly eliminated. If it had it would likely have won the trophy.

 

Of course it depends on when our small team- 4 or 5 of us- gets to view the layout and if we can see it through the crowds but we can only judge what we can see at the time. It did seem a shame to be so harsh with such a beautiful and well modelled layout but as the purpose of the Trophy is to highlight and encourage accurate signalling and operation then it was felt unfair to award the trophy when the other two layouts in the final three fulfilled the criteria.

 

Keep up the good work with the thread, I really do enjoy reading it even though I am not much of a Modeller myself currently. I find it all a great inspiration.

 

Any of you at the NEC please do come and say hello- I shall be on SRS stand C11 and will be recognised by having my name on a badge..

 

Trust Hesse has a safe journey from Australia and enjoys Tony's (and Mo of course) hospitality. We truly are a multinational community.

Thanks Natalie,

 

Please use anything I've written - I'd be most-honoured.

 

One of the things which delights me the most when visitors come to see LB are the comments such as 'Not only does it look like a real railway, but works like a real railway'. It's especially gratifying when those comments are made by professional railwaymen (and women), retired or still-serving. In fact, Mike Romans (The Stationmaster) provided the quote. 

 

It comes back time and again to that oft-used phrase on here, 'observation'. Observation of the real thing. Why, in the case of LB were the two slow splitting starters situated a road away from the one they each respectively controlled? For sighting purposes and because of restricted space. Why were the two Up homes co-acting? To give drivers the best sighting of signals both below and above the MR/M&GNR overbridge. And why were the Down fast home and the Up fast starter so tall? To give a 'sky background', something insisted upon (where possible) from French's day on the GNR. 

 

I wonder, were the location 'made-up' would those features have been modelled? Certainly, I see so many model railways where signals are sited with no thought for prototype practice. One layout was described as 'stunning' in the press, yet the (non-working; of course) signals' siting didn't make sense to me. Neither did the trackplan.

 

We've had a beginners' layout featured in the press in the last few years with a signal box placed at a funny angle to the track (most 'boxes are parallel with the tracks they control, because cranks work best at 90 degrees; don't they?). Not only that, there was no trap point protecting a running line from a siding. No observation? I thought so. We've also had S&C-based layouts with facing crossovers! 

 

Yet, when I commented on such matters (among others) in the RM earlier this year, it stirred up a hornets' nest of criticism on social media. The price of 'zeal' I suppose! 

 

Why don't some modellers actually look? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, grahame said:

 

I no longer use a lake of water in a saucer to detach transfers and instead fold up a piece of paper kitchen roll, place that on a saucer and add water just sufficient to soak the kitchen roll. Then the decals are placed on that and they soak up the water and detach while sitting on the kitchen roll. That way they remain flat, don't float away and curl up, have all the glue washed off and need fishing out of a pond. They may take a little longer to detach from their backing paper but I've found it worthwhile especially for tiny N/2mm decals.

 

 

Hi

 

I've started using this which allows you to control the depth of the water.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trumpeter-TSM-9918-09918-DECAL/dp/B003M2QWU0

 

Cheers

 

Paul

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

A most-interesting thought, Andy,

 

One which I haven't given much thought to, other than to compare the 'standards' of the one chap who was most-unhappy with what I made for him (and thus didn't pay me, though he kept the loco, ex-wheels and motor; despite my offering to supply him with an identical, unmade kit) and the 'standards' I set for my own railway modelling. 

 

Regarding exhibition layouts (or any layouts which folk visit?), my criteria (questions) would be (irrespective of scale)...............

 

Does it look like the prototype it's supposed to represent (even if it might not be an actual location)? 

 

Is the trackplan workable? And, are the visible curves of 'reasonable' radius (I hate seeing main lines going through tight 90 degree curves to go on-/off-stage)? 

 

Is it correctly signalled, and do the signals work?

 

Does it all work well, with no derailments or stuttering locos/stock?

 

Do the locos carry the appropriate lamps/discs, and are they all crewed?

 

Is the overall modelling standard consistent?

 

Does it show individual or group work, and not just be the product of opening boxes?  

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

Thanks for those comments. I personally find them very appropriate.  And I think they overlap considerably with my feelings below as below.

 

My attitude to railway modelling being displayed for others  for education and entertainment is that the prototype is fundamentally a very heavy duty working engineering system for transportation of people and goods. So a working model railway on display should be the same,  or at least appear to be the same, working engineering system, but in miniature.

 

Admittedly much prototype mechanical engineering doesn't scale down easily, or is some cases (time, weight, long distance, etc.) not at all. And of course,  we typically use hidden electric motors to operate models of steam locos, and deep flanges instead of suspension for smaller scales. But overall I'm happiest when the fundamental rules governing the engineering (and physics) of the prototype are closely and obviously consistently followed by the model.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Natalie,

 

Please use anything I've written - I'd be most-honoured.

 

One of the things which delights me the most when visitors come to see LB are the comments such as 'Not only does it look like a real railway, but works like a real railway'. It's especially gratifying when those comments are made by professional railwaymen (and women), retired or still-serving. In fact, Mike Romans (The Stationmaster) provided the quote. 

 

It comes back time and again to that oft-used phrase on here, 'observation'. Observation of the real thing. Why, in the case of LB were the two slow splitting starters situated a road away from the one they each respectively controlled? For sighting purposes and because of restricted space. Why were the two Up homes co-acting? To give drivers the best sighting of signals both below and above the MR/M&GNR overbridge. And why were the Down fast home and the Up fast starter so tall? To give a 'sky background', something insisted upon (where possible) from French's day on the GNR. 

 

I wonder, were the location 'made-up' would those features have been modelled? Certainly, I see so many model railways where signals are sited with no thought for prototype practice. One layout was described as 'stunning' in the press, yet the (non-working; of course) signals' siting didn't make sense to me. Neither did the trackplan.

 

We've had a beginners' layout featured in the press in the last few years with a signal box placed at a funny angle to the track (most 'boxes are parallel with the tracks they control, because cranks work best at 90 degrees; don't they?). Not only that, there was no trap point protecting a running line from a siding. No observation? I thought so. We've also had S&C-based layouts with facing crossovers! 

 

Yet, when I commented on such matters (among others) in the RM earlier this year, it stirred up a hornets' nest of criticism on social media. The price of 'zeal' I suppose! 

 

Why don't some modellers actually look? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Even with my now scrapped  "Classic Train Set" Hornby-Dublo layout I tried to incorporate some prototype features into the track plan. (Main viewing side was the bottom edge of the plan)  The goods area had no facing point access, the exit was a crossover so there was a form of trap protection and where I had working splitter signals they were wired to automatically show clear/off for the appropriate road through the junction. I add this because with a bit of thought it can be done, however, crucially you have to know it needs to be done. As to the how and why I knew that I don't know, but probably gleaned from various bits of text written into layout articles.  Modern layout articles don't explain in the same way the one's I grew up on did. 

 

I'm not sure that modern modellers get the grounding in basics we got from the range of books available in the 50s & 60s written by such as E F Carter and the like. There are a vast number of books available now compared with then but so many are just photo-albums.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Would Ranelagh Bridge qualify as 'just' a diesel servicing point, Clive? As far as I know it was never coded as a depot. Just as Bottom Loco was never a depot in its own right, at Kings Cross.

 

I agree, these can be fitted into a 'relatively' small area, but many of the layouts I mentioned were classed as actual depots. 

 

Chester's diesel depot (1957), built on the site of the old GWR shed was only 'small', and its main duty was servicing DMUs, but modelled to scale it would be quite large. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

I agree with you about many "depot" layouts being too small, and if a scale depot was built it would be much larger, my Hanging Hill layout was 16 ft long and that was a small 4 road shed.

910244368_HangingHilltrack2.gif.7ddb677f265e1ed12b824ea67076194e.gif

 

The first Pig Lane was six and a bit feet long, it had a two road shed on it which made it quite compact but it did have a correct flow through the servicing area.

982495124_IM(35).jpg.9104eef970f00ea6c52b4c814b53187c.jpg

 

I did plan to make a model of the smaller two road servicing shed at Tinsley, that would have been something like 22 to 23 feet long and 4 feet wide and that is a small depot.

1829590651_BRDrawing50.png.3ca475f4ed40c6757c16ade1bd0bc19d.png

 

Most model diesel depots are unworkable. Then many steam ones are as well. I saw a large 0 gauge layout last year at Spalding where there was no coaling facility. There is a thread on here where the depot is packed with big engines and the coal stage is tucked at the back with locos having to reverse in and out of it. Unless a steam loco was due a boiler washout or some other major attention, it would drop its fire, and replenish coal, water, sand etc. as it came on shed. A diesel would also replenish but with fuel, water (train heating boiler), sand, oil etc. While this is going on the loco is checked to make sure noting is falling off. How many model depots irrespective of the type of motive power follow this procedure?

 

 

Edited by Clive Mortimore
  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

But are all those formulaic diesel depots you mention really 'realistic', Tony? 

 

If my observations are anything to go by, most are not. Why? Because they're far too small. 

 

During my travels with a camera over the last 50 years, I've visited many diesel depots and taken pictures (many of which have now been published). Even small ones, like Buxton, would need a substantial amount of space to accommodate them 'realistically'. Yet, I see so many 'throbbing' (and very annoying) depictions of diesel depots which are not realistic and, if they were real, would be unworkable because of the tight restrictions of their model footprint. 

 

So, no, at least to me, they would not answer (some of) my questions posed with a 'yes'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I used to knock about many small depots in the 70s and 80s. I would say that the layouts I saw all had a degree of realism in the layout and the scenic setting. Even if they reproduced a small section of a larger depot rather than the whole thing.

 

We used to go on a weekend, usually on a Sunday. We would go to Rotherwood, Worksop or Shirebrook and Sunday was best for pure spotting as that was when the locos were all at home and not out on the road.

 

Even on a normal working day the real places were like that operationally. Loco leaves, loco arrives. That was about it. You didn't see locos aimlessly swapping from one siding to another for no apparent reason, then swapping back again, unlike some of the models.

 

So the operation of the models was entirely realistic but still deadly dull. If you build an accurate model of a dull place and operate it realistically, you get a dull layout!

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I used to knock about many small depots in the 70s and 80s. I would say that the layouts I saw all had a degree of realism in the layout and the scenic setting. Even if they reproduced a small section of a larger depot rather than the whole thing.

 

We used to go on a weekend, usually on a Sunday. We would go to Rotherwood, Worksop or Shirebrook and Sunday was best for pure spotting as that was when the locos were all at home and not out on the road.

 

Even on a normal working day the real places were like that operationally. Loco leaves, loco arrives. That was about it. You didn't see locos aimlessly swapping from one siding to another for no apparent reason, then swapping back again, unlike some of the models.

 

So the operation of the models was entirely realistic but still deadly dull. If you build an accurate model of a dull place and operate it realistically, you get a dull layout!

 

 

'If you build an accurate model of a dull place and operate it realistically, you get a dull layout!'

 

But who defines 'dull'? 

 

Going back a few years before diesel depots (real ones) were that common, I used to stand at the end of the cinder path leading down from Hoole Lane to 6A (Chester's principal steam shed). What used to happen is exactly what you describe - 'Loco leaves, loco arrives'. On one day, one loco which left was 46223 PRINCES ALICE, from far-away Glasgow, gleaming, just ex-works from Crewe. Dull? 

 

And would you really describe Shirebrook as small? On one visit near 40 years ago, I noted over 45 locos - some standing on the surrounding roads. It was anything but 'dull'. 

 

I would agree with you entirely that what you mentioned before are 'dull' layouts. But, I'd still say they were unrealistic. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

If you like old aeroplanes and are within reach (it's about six or seven hours' drive from Sydney) then Temora is a must.

We actually went to the museum at Temora on our way to the recent BRMA convention in Canberra, its certainly worth a visit and is extremely well set up. Little did I know I would see so many of the aircraft flying less than 2 months later!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

'If you build an accurate model of a dull place and operate it realistically, you get a dull layout!'

 

But who defines 'dull'? 

 

Going back a few years before diesel depots (real ones) were that common, I used to stand at the end of the cinder path leading down from Hoole Lane to 6A (Chester's principal steam shed). What used to happen is exactly what you describe - 'Loco leaves, loco arrives'. On one day, one loco which left was 46223 PRINCES ALICE, from far-away Glasgow, gleaming, just ex-works from Crewe. Dull? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

We all have our ideas as to what we find dull. The hobby would be very one dimensional if we all liked the same things. Others thought the show was wonderful so it is probably just me being out of step yet again.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lecorbusier said:

model railways on the BBC ....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50403561

Rod Stewart and Jules Holland discuss modelling on Jeremy Vine here....

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000b4vn

 

It starts at 35.05 mins in ... one of the more adult discussions of modelling on the media perhaps?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

We all have our ideas as to what we find dull. The hobby would be very one dimensional if we all liked the same things. Others thought the show was wonderful so it is probably just me being out of step yet again.

I hope I'm as 'out-of-step' as you are in all my modelling, Tony!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I hope I'm as 'out-of-step' as you are in all my modelling, Tony!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I think you and I both rejoice in being slightly out of the mainstream of the hobby, in our different ways.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Long John Silver said:

Where those "out of step" lead, the mainstream often follow. As ever, wise words from both of you.

Jon

Hi Jon

 

Back in time when I built the first Pig Lane I was out of step, a diesel depot with scratchbuilt locos. Five in the photo in the post above are products of my ham-fisted attempts. Many diesel depot modellers have said it was an inspiration to them. Sadly at times I wonder if the copies of the copies have gone down the wrong road when it comes to fidelity with the prototype. What I do hope those who have and are building diesel depots are enjoying their hobby, and learning new skills.

  • Like 6
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clive has got it right with his comment about flow around depot layouts and many being unworkable in real life. I find, I admire the loco's and pass on to other layouts. The constant moving from siding to siding is not an observed, loco arrives, serviced, parked and departs but a confection to give interest for the paying public.

   As modellers we should remember that real railwaymen do not like shunting, much better to stay in the cabin, keep warm, drink tea, play cards and rank up your locos as needed for departure. How do I know? got the tea shirt donkeys years ago.

  As an aside, I do remember  when I was driving on the  Festiniog, having to do a large carriage shunt  at the end of the day, maybe seven or eight separate moves. When the guard was asked why so many moves? He liked shunting! He was also a railway modeller.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

Clive has got it right with his comment about flow around depot layouts and many being unworkable in real life. I find, I admire the loco's and pass on to other layouts. The constant moving from siding to siding is not an observed, loco arrives, serviced, parked and departs but a confection to give interest for the paying public.

   As modellers we should remember that real railwaymen do not like shunting, much better to stay in the cabin, keep warm, drink tea, play cards and rank up your locos as needed for departure. How do I know? got the tea shirt donkeys years ago.

  As an aside, I do remember  when I was driving on the  Festiniog, having to do a large carriage shunt  at the end of the day, maybe seven or eight separate moves. When the guard was asked why so many moves? He liked shunting! He was also a railway modeller.

Thanks Mike,

 

I have one or two regular (if not frequent) visitors to LB who just enjoy shunting, and cheerfully block all four main running lines as, say, a J6 trundles across with a cut of wagons.

 

Personally, it bores me stiff!

 

As do 'shunting puzzle' layouts. They seemed to be designed to make the job more complex and difficult. Where, in recorded history, have real railway builders/engineers made their track layouts deliberately more difficult to operate? One can cite examples where, because of the topography/geography, some sites must have been notorious to operate with ease - Brunswick's CLC shed for instance, but only because of the proximity of a huge retaining wall and the docks, plus an adjacent tunnel mouth. The track there was arranged to make movements as easy as possible, given the tight site restrictions.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brunswick must have been an absolute pig to work and my model is just as difficult, no chance of achieving any sort of flow system here. I have photos of coal and ash wagons stored all over the place, often inside the shed - there were only two short sidings available for these. One photo I have shows an O4 doing the coal stage shunt with a dead loco in between it and the wagons, presumably it was easier to leave it there than park it somewhere. I have been told that it sometimes got even worse, if the electric coal hoist failed the only place to coal locos was over the other side of the running lines in the old Midland depot, normally only used for shunting locos. Brunswick was however unique, I wouldn't have designed a layout as awkward as this if it hadn't really existed. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.