Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

I don't think anyone will claim Retford will be run as a 'fixed year'. I don't think Roy ever really did, and there were always a few anomalies. 

 

Obviously, because it's never going to be an 'exhibition' layout (will any ever be again, I wonder?), then the imperative to be as accurate in period as possible is not there. But, it could be run very-realistically.

 

I have no wish to be disparaging to anyone, but on most (if not all) of the Retford 'open days' I attended, the running was 'shambolic'. The valiant Steve Hall had produced a running sequence (all on computers, so I ran away!), but half the time (if not more) the operators didn't really know what was going on (some appeared to be press-ganged) and some (who were the most-reluctant to let go of a controller) didn't concentrate. There didn't appear to have ever been any training, and the 'master' hadn't the slightest interest in operating his masterpiece. The result was that most spectators just watched for a little time, then chatted in groups or observed Black Lion Crossing or Blakeney, which, despite being respectively tiny in comparison, always had something running. 

 

Thus, in my observation, Retford's enormous running potential was never realised. 

 

I would love to see (in time) a running sequence worked out where operators are 'trained'. Not when there are loads of folk to start with, but the 'gang' brought back together with an aim; to finish it (which is a different imperative) but also to actually run it like a 'real' railway. Perhaps Tony Gee might offer a great hand in this? 

 

Though I probably attended the same school of 'non-operators' as Roy Jackson, I'd give it a go! 

 

I state again that it'll be Sandra's decision, but the groundswell of support for Retford is enormous. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

If there is a wider timeline represented on Retford, my opinion is that it should be seen as an advantage and presented as such. I'm sure that many people would actually find that interesting. I think that a lot of model railways often say they are of a particular time frame but are nothing of the sort. For example, Pre war LNER layouts love to run their mid to late thirties A4's alongside the more visually interesting freight liveries of the 1920's.

 

The running on LSGC was initially equally shambolic, the operating sequence was deeply flawed. Nobody seemed to be aware that we had built a thirty foot long goods yard, with all the operation off scene in the fiddle yard! In addition, there were a couple of bottlenecks that would halt the entire layout in its tracks, if strict operation protocols were not followed. I had to first prove that the original sequence would not work. Then I was in a position where I could rewrite it, so that it still followed the prototype but actually entertained anybody who cared to watch from the front. Fortunately, the fiddleyard was designed with a great deal of flexibility, that allowed a reorganization of its operation towards those ends.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Headstock
add,

[Headstock]

18 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I'm sympathetic to what both Clive and Tony say.

 

I think Clive's 'visually compatible' is an important element although, depending on the timeframe, mixing of two livery periods (e.g. maroon and C/C) is fine. I'm certainly happy running my Deltic alongside a B17 - both hauling maroon coaches - but I wouldn't let the B17 haul, for example, Mark 1s with commonwealth bogies even though the Deltic it's passing on the other track might be - schizo or what?!

 

Tony's Churminster and Stoke Magna definitely carries a period SR feel and reminds me that I need to do a lot more to give Gresley Jn. GN features. Again Tony has a fairly flexible time period (last c.10 years of SR - correct me if I'm wrong) but the trains all feel like they belong together.

 

Andy

 

Good morning Greenie,

 

I like a bit of chaos, a lack visual compatibility, say no to the tyranny of uniformity. My favourite time period suits me just fine, where potentially, no two locomotive in the same class carried the same livery. You should see the awesome passenger trains operating over the GC lines in to Retford in such times. 

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

If there is a wider timeline represented on Retford, my opinion is that it should be seen as an advantage and presented as such. I'm sure that many people would actually find that interesting. I think that a lot of model railways often say they are of a particular time frame but are nothing of the sort. For example, Pre war LNER layouts love to run their mid to late thirties A4's alongside the more visually interesting freight liveries of the 1920's.

 

The running on LSGC was initially equally shambolic, the operating sequence was deeply flawed. Nobody seemed to be aware that we had built a thirty foot long goods yard, with all the operation off scene in the fiddle yard! In addition, there were a couple of bottlenecks that would halt the entire layout in its tracks, if strict operation protocols were not followed. I had to first prove that the original sequence would not work. Then I was in a position where I could rewrite it, so that it still followed the prototype but actually entertained anybody who cared to watch from the front. Fortunately, the fiddleyard was designed with a great deal of flexibility, that allowed a reorganization of its operation towards those ends.

You certainly carry it off however you got there.

Edited August 2, 2020 by thegreenhowards

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

IMHO there is nothing wrong with having a timescale ranging over a decade or so. I spent a long time wrestling with which year to choose for Gresley Jn as I wanted to include the interesting formations from earlier if the '50s as well as my beloved Deltics, 40s and other early diesels. When I saw LSGC for the first time it was a light bulb moment. Each train (with loco) correct for a particular year and described to the viewing public but with quite a range of years. This is educational and the overall scene still looks homogeneous. Hills of the North also does this exceptionally well - perhaps even better as the time period includes three distinct periods. Even LB has its anomalies like Deltics and Commonwealth bogies...not to mention the M&GN section! This only adds to the variety and therefore attraction for me.

 

Much more than a decade becomes a stretch and I certainly wouldn't want to see a blue/ grey ' Deltic+8' alongside The Silver Jublilee on the same layout!

 

I really don't think it matters whether it's an exhibition layout or not. All model railways (as opposed to train sets) should try to represent something prototypically accurate to the best of the owner's ability. Proper research is the essential ingredient and, ideally, the means to communicate what is going on.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Thanks Andy,

 

LB is full of anomalies, especially the M&GN. However, the trains are always hauled by appropriate motive power.

 

The Deltics are entirely self-indulgent, though they're not usually used in the sequence; only if requested, which can be quite frequent! 

 

Your points about prototypical accuracy and research are well-made. My mention of exhibition layouts in that regard was because usually folk will have paid to see them. Thus, those who've paid should expect as much (with justification).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

4 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Greenie,

 

I like a bit of chaos, a lack visual compatibility, say no to the tyranny of uniformity. My favourite time period suits me just fine, where potentially, no two locomotive in the same class carried the same livery. You should see the awesome passenger trains operating over the GC lines in to Retford in such times. 

Yes to compatibility. No to uniformity. 

 

[t-b-g]

In his later years, Roy was getting more flexible about timescales.

 

I may have had something to do with that as I had taught him that the locomotives designed by Robinson were worthy of attention!

 

So B2 City of Lincoln had appeared in LNER livery with a rake of teak carriages which had very early BR numbering and he was working on a GCR Atlantic and a B7 right at the end.

 

These two remained unfinished but are both now in safe hands and hopefully will be completed one day.

 

Then of course there was the legendary Deltic and an HST set, which appeared from time to time and only really came off when some maintenance was required but more stock appeared and their roads in the fiddle yard became unavailable. The Deltic hitting those curves at 160mph was, in equal measures, hugely exciting and totally unrealistic!  

 

When we ran the sequence, there was always a break half way through for refreshments and one or two people (usually "Rocky" if he was there)  would get on the controls and "wang a few round". The speed would be scale speed or maybe slightly faster and trains would go round both ways a few times and then be swapped to the next one. More often than not, two would pass in the station or on the scenic section.

 

More people watched that than watched the proper sequence.

 

It is very much up to Sandra how she would like the layout to be operated. My own personal preference is for something in between. I like to see a train or a loco doing interesting moves but if that can happen while something goes by on another line, that is even better! 

Edited August 2, 2020 by t-b-g
To add content

[APOLLO]

Just my thoughts re modelling exact locations and dates -

 

With such a superb and large layout like Retford being very time and resource consuming, a difficult task but not impossible. Tony's Little Bytham I think is a great layout, set in a wonderful time, and Tony has described at great length many times the resource and help he has utilised to get to where his layout is. Not easy, quick or cheap - a labour of love (for the ECML). Tony' photos are always interesting.

 

I remember reading in an American model mag quite some years ago about one layout where the owner decided the layout date was (more or less) 50 years ago, so that as his layout aged the period modeled also advanced one year. His layout went from all steam to all diesel over ten or so actual years. Not just locos but stock, signalling etc was modernised, track layout rationalised etc over the years. This layout featured regularly and it was always interesting to compare photos etc to see what he had changed over the year. This layout also caused a bit of controversy in the readers letters section !!

 

How about it Tony, 1957 ? - Re-crest your locos, scrap the old ones, get rid of blood & custard, out with the old Gresley stock, close the M&GN, tear down that magnificent bridge. You need 22 Deltics to replace all your Pacifics all with sound howling away as well as Brush 4's, Peaks and Big D's (40's). In a few years you can have last runs with your old steamers in cavalcades off to Doncaster & Sheffield for scrap - be sure to remove name and number plates and heavily weather them. In 7 years time introduce Blue & Grey XP64 stock, start to paint your locos banger Blue, and perhaps one day we will see catenary going up !!!

(Sorry Tony - even I know the above is absolute sacrilege !!)

 

Not for me are exact dates / locations, though my small OO Wigan LNWR New Springs Branch / GC Lower Ince  layout is set early 50's, and the locations are just about recognizable but nowhere near exact - My OO loft layout is pure generic circa 1965/6, as is my N American O gauge (similar year), though I do try to keep most stock "about right" era/time wise.  Some locos / road names are just not  correct (Rio Grande & Delaware & Hudson locos together etc)  - Anyway you can get away with murder modelling American Railroads as  many such strange things happened  for many strange reasons over the pond on the prototype -  I like it that way, and I'm the boss  / fat controller / brass hat) !!

 

It's all about enjoyment (or in my mind should be) - and if you stop enjoying yourself by rigid adherence to rules etc - time to have a deep think about what / where you are heading.

 

Brit15

[Headstock]

36 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Yes to compatibility. No to uniformity. 

 

 

No to compatibility, yes to uniformity, it's the model railway way.

[jamie92208]

I've deliberately set Lancaster in 1923 ish. The main excuse is so that I can run coaching stock from other companies, eg L&Y, LNWR and Furness. I can usually invent an excuse, eg it's a boat train to Heysham or a Lanky excursion from Burnley via Hellifield.  However rule 1 applies and the Baldwin Mogul, scrapped in 1915, is still running as I've got a photo of it at LGA.  As to a sequence, I have part written one but haven't finished building the stock to operate it.  However I also just enjoy playing trains. If anyone does want to nitpick the vast majority of the stock is in period and from the appropriate sheds.  One thing that no one has ever commented on is that the turntable is actually a 60 footer that wasn't installed till the mid 30's but it will turn the S& C Claughton if I ever get it finished plus the Patriot, Giggleswick that is on the to be built list. 

 

Jamie

Edited August 2, 2020 by jamie92208

[t-b-g]

18 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

Just my thoughts re modelling exact locations and dates -

 

With such a superb and large layout like Retford being very time and resource consuming, a difficult task but not impossible. Tony's Little Bytham I think is a great layout, set in a wonderful time, and Tony has described at great length many times the resource and help he has utilised to get to where his layout is. Not easy, quick or cheap - a labour of love (for the ECML). Tony' photos are always interesting.

 

I remember reading in an American model mag quite some years ago about one layout where the owner decided the layout date was (more or less) 50 years ago, so that as his layout aged the period modeled also advanced one year. His layout went from all steam to all diesel over ten or so actual years. Not just locos but stock, signalling etc was modernised, track layout rationalised etc over the years. This layout featured regularly and it was always interesting to compare photos etc to see what he had changed over the year. This layout also caused a bit of controversy in the readers letters section !!

 

How about it Tony, 1957 ? - Re-crest your locos, scrap the old ones, get rid of blood & custard, out with the old Gresley stock, close the M&GN, tear down that magnificent bridge. You need 22 Deltics to replace all your Pacifics all with sound howling away as well as Brush 4's, Peaks and Big D's (40's). In a few years you can have last runs with your old steamers in cavalcades off to Doncaster & Sheffield for scrap - be sure to remove name and number plates and heavily weather them. In 7 years time introduce Blue & Grey XP64 stock, start to paint your locos banger Blue, and perhaps one day we will see catenary going up !!!

(Sorry Tony - even I know the above is absolute sacrilege !!)

 

Not for me are exact dates / locations, though my small OO Wigan LNWR New Springs Branch / GC Lower Ince  layout is set early 50's, and the locations are just about recognizable but nowhere near exact - My OO loft layout is pure generic circa 1965/6, as is my N American O gauge (similar year), though I do try to keep most stock "about right" era/time wise.  Some locos / road names are just not  correct (Rio Grande & Delaware & Hudson locos together etc)  - Anyway you can get away with murder modelling American Railroads as  many such strange things happened  for many strange reasons over the pond on the prototype -  I like it that way, and I'm the boss  / fat controller / brass hat) !!

 

It's all about enjoyment (or in my mind should be) - and if you stop enjoying yourself by rigid adherence to rules etc - time to have a deep think about what / where you are heading.

 

Brit15

 

An interesting concept but if I followed it, I would have to start scrapping all the locos and lifting the track on Buckingham. That part of the GCR, although fictitious, would surely have closed with the London Extension in the 1960s.

 

I prefer the "Real time marches on but in the shed, it will always be 1907" approach! 

[Northmoor]

On another thread recently someone proposed this idea of a layout evolving through four decades to reflect the era.  For a private layout it's unlikely to appeal, because the owner is generally interested in a specific era (and is unlikely to want to dispose or at least never use the earlier era stock that they've acquired).

For a club/exhibition layout though, so long as some of the members are interested in each of the different eras, it could have great appeal.  Imagine going to see a layout exhibited four times in a decade and each time it was different, with new stock, new track formation, new cars and buses on the road, new buildings, new fashions on the people..... 

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, Northmoor said:

On another thread recently someone proposed this idea of a layout evolving through four decades to reflect the era.  For a private layout it's unlikely to appeal, because the owner is generally interested in a specific era (and is unlikely to want to dispose or at least never use the earlier era stock that they've acquired).

For a club/exhibition layout though, so long as some of the members are interested in each of the different eras, it could have great appeal.  Imagine going to see a layout exhibited four times in a decade and each time it was different, with new stock, new track formation, new cars and buses on the road, new buildings, new fashions on the people..... 

Not quite the same thing, but there is a large 00 layout in Adelaide, with which Andrew @Woodcock29 is very familiar, whose owner has four complete sets of stock, one for each the grouped companies (I can't remember whether it is pre- or post-nationalisation but that isn't the point). He runs one set for three months then changes to another, so over a year all four sets get an outing.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Just my thoughts re modelling exact locations and dates -

 

With such a superb and large layout like Retford being very time and resource consuming, a difficult task but not impossible. Tony's Little Bytham I think is a great layout, set in a wonderful time, and Tony has described at great length many times the resource and help he has utilised to get to where his layout is. Not easy, quick or cheap - a labour of love (for the ECML). Tony' photos are always interesting.

 

I remember reading in an American model mag quite some years ago about one layout where the owner decided the layout date was (more or less) 50 years ago, so that as his layout aged the period modeled also advanced one year. His layout went from all steam to all diesel over ten or so actual years. Not just locos but stock, signalling etc was modernised, track layout rationalised etc over the years. This layout featured regularly and it was always interesting to compare photos etc to see what he had changed over the year. This layout also caused a bit of controversy in the readers letters section !!

 

How about it Tony, 1957 ? - Re-crest your locos, scrap the old ones, get rid of blood & custard, out with the old Gresley stock, close the M&GN, tear down that magnificent bridge. You need 22 Deltics to replace all your Pacifics all with sound howling away as well as Brush 4's, Peaks and Big D's (40's). In a few years you can have last runs with your old steamers in cavalcades off to Doncaster & Sheffield for scrap - be sure to remove name and number plates and heavily weather them. In 7 years time introduce Blue & Grey XP64 stock, start to paint your locos banger Blue, and perhaps one day we will see catenary going up !!!

(Sorry Tony - even I know the above is absolute sacrilege !!)

 

Not for me are exact dates / locations, though my small OO Wigan LNWR New Springs Branch / GC Lower Ince  layout is set early 50's, and the locations are just about recognizable but nowhere near exact - My OO loft layout is pure generic circa 1965/6, as is my N American O gauge (similar year), though I do try to keep most stock "about right" era/time wise.  Some locos / road names are just not  correct (Rio Grande & Delaware & Hudson locos together etc)  - Anyway you can get away with murder modelling American Railroads as  many such strange things happened  for many strange reasons over the pond on the prototype -  I like it that way, and I'm the boss  / fat controller / brass hat) !!

 

It's all about enjoyment (or in my mind should be) - and if you stop enjoying yourself by rigid adherence to rules etc - time to have a deep think about what / where you are heading.

 

Brit15

Thanks Apollo,

 

Time was when many folk used to follow contemporary practice and add new (up-to-date) items as they became available. I remember reading about such layouts in RM years ago, but the pace of modernisation became too great. 

 

Which brings me along to the fact that today (in the main) most model railways are 'historic'. When I were a lad (along with countless hundreds of thousands of others), my train set reflected what I saw for real. In no way was it historic (or realistic), and as the first diesel-outline models became available, they appeared alongside traditional steam. It seems to me there are far fewer youngsters putting together train sets reflecting what is currently the scene on our railways. If anything, they're following the dross they saw of late on the telly - the total opposite of realism. Even though I admit my boyhood train set was unrealistic, it never had knights of old, rocket ships, aliens or dinosaurs all over it!

 

As more information has become available, are our more-recent creations more-authentic than those of old? They should be, shouldn't they? 

 

It was quite rare for 'top' modellers to follow contemporary practice on their layouts, years ago. Most seemed to depict what they remembered from their youth (as is the case today?). Frank Dyer's various Borchesters were very different in that respect, in that Frank went out and looked at 1950s BR ER steam and modelled it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[APOLLO]

Yes Frank Dyers Borchester layouts were a huge inspiration for me also.  I started around 1960 with Tri-ang TT. I had every loco they made (still have them). A Britannia , Castle, Merchant Navy, French Pacific, Brush 2, Jinty, Continental tank loco, Diesel Shunter, Prarie and a DMU (have I forgot any ?) supplemented by a few BEC & GEM kit built locos on Tri-ang chassis - all good fun back then but I'm glad I changed to OO (and later American O)  as stock choice over the years has grown exponentially - and my TT stuff was mostly worn out. One chap on rmweb is doing wonderful work in TT    

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/124744-when-tt3-was-the-next-big-thing/page/45/

 

I remember the last years of steam here in the NW, last of the old and first of the "blue" new - like it or not this era (1965 -75) was one of significant change, and I was a teenager back then - for me a fantastic decade to model. There is a whole thread about this era here on rmweb - 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/52572-why-is-this-so-rarely-modelled/

 

One thing that makes this hobby one of the best on this planet is choice, Continent, country, railway, area, town, era etc etc. No right or wrong, every layout is different, every layout has good and bad points as perceived (often differently) both builder and viewer. This is good and keeps the hobby vibrant.

 

Brit15

 

 

[Woodcock29]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Not quite the same thing, but there is a large 00 layout in Adelaide, with which Andrew @Woodcock29 is very familiar, whose owner has four complete sets of stock, one for each the grouped companies (I can't remember whether it is pre- or post-nationalisation but that isn't the point). He runs one set for three months then changes to another, so over a year all four sets get an outing.

That's correct or it was. A few years ago he disposed of the BR(SR) region stock and now has only WR, MR and ER/NER. Mind you that didn't stop him buying a Brighton Atlantic when that came out! ( Rule 1). Tony (W) you've met Alan as he was the addition to the three of us that visited in 2017 but he stayed at the Willoughby Arms. He showed you the article we had published on his layout in Hornby mag.

 

Personally my layout is a fictional location set on a route somewhere between the ECML and the ex GC London Extension so it can be used for diversions from both those lines. My period is generally 1935-1939 but it's extending out in each direction slightly. I'm building up a collection of a lot of the stock that would likely have been seen. There is also a secondary route on which local passenger and goods services are run as well as horse traffic to service a racecourse. Plus a smaller branch for branch passenger and goods. Then there is a separate high level independent railway where I run predominantly LMS. Once fully sceniced I hope it will have the atmosphere of what could have been (I can hear St Enodoc laughing at me having just written 'fully sceniced' - well we'll just have to see, at least I can dream about what it might look like one day.)

 

I also have a range of BR ER locos and stock but rarely run those as it is too difficult to remove the 1930s stock to actually change the period. So they only get an occasional run. I do like it though when Deltic gets a run!

 

I've been following all these developments regarding Retford and am delighted its been saved. We'll done Sandra and all those who are going to help complete it. I visited Roy three times and hope to visit Retford again at some stage in the future.

 

Andrew

[robertcwp]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

On another thread recently someone proposed this idea of a layout evolving through four decades to reflect the era.  For a private layout it's unlikely to appeal, because the owner is generally interested in a specific era (and is unlikely to want to dispose or at least never use the earlier era stock that they've acquired).

For a club/exhibition layout though, so long as some of the members are interested in each of the different eras, it could have great appeal.  Imagine going to see a layout exhibited four times in a decade and each time it was different, with new stock, new track formation, new cars and buses on the road, new buildings, new fashions on the people..... 

My layout evolves from around 1958 to 1980, but with some leaps along the way, the biggest being c1971 to c1979-80. It takes two or three years to complete the cycle. I have far too much stock and really should narrow the timeframe, but I like the livery contrasts and motive power and stock changes. 

[robertcwp]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Then of course there was the legendary Deltic and an HST set, which appeared from time to time and only really came off when some maintenance was required but more stock appeared and their roads in the fiddle yard became unavailable. The Deltic hitting those curves at 160mph was, in equal measures, hugely exciting and totally unrealistic!  

 

When we ran the sequence, there was always a break half way through for refreshments and one or two people (usually "Rocky" if he was there)  would get on the controls and "wang a few round". The speed would be scale speed or maybe slightly faster and trains would go round both ways a few times and then be swapped to the next one. More often than not, two would pass in the station or on the scenic section.

 

More people watched that than watched the proper sequence.

 

It is very much up to Sandra how she would like the layout to be operated. My own personal preference is for something in between. I like to see a train or a loco doing interesting moves but if that can happen while something goes by on another line, that is even better! 

I recall seeing the Deltic and its train of Mark 2d stock (with the RKB the wrong way round incidentally) racing through at some ridiculous speed. It remained on the track too. I wonder what became of that set.

 

I'm not a fan of overly complex sequences and think that when there are paying public or invited guests watching, they will want to see trains running, so run them. There can still be some sense to it all, such as the trains coming round in timetable order. If there are sufficient operators, there can still be some shunting. The sequence Tony has for Little Bytham seems to work well.

[The Johnster]

We each, I think, have our own relationship with time frames on our layouts.  This is part of the larger question of suspension of disbelief.  In the case of very accurate models of real places such as Little Bytham, there is little to interfere with one’s S of D; no steam, smell of sleeper creosote, or birds, and human operators 76 times bigger than they should be. 
 

On Cwmdimbath, a model of a railway serving a Mid-Glamorgan mining village between 1948 and 58 which never existed although the location does, there are anomalies and little rationality to separating those that bother me from those which don’t.  The backdrop is the precipitous slope of Mynydd Maendy on the eastern side of the little Dimbath stream, in reality heavily wooded but bare of trees cut down years ago for pitprops on the model.  The stream is diverted to accommodate the station, so my modelling of the landscape is pretty much freelance; some attempt to follow the actual geography is made, though. 
 

I am given a free hand with the track layout, which is inspired by, but only in the loosest sense based on, Abergwynfi, just over the mountain only about 4 miles away as the crow flies but more like 15 by rail or road.  
 

But the stock gives rise to anomalies.  I have chosen this specific timeframe to incorporate the variety of liveries that 

might have been seen, and in some cases might have is the operative phrase.  Should I include a large prairie for instance?  There was one at Tondu in the early part of 1948, then none until late in 1957, so no, if we accept that modelling the typical before the unusual is a desirable aim.  But I have a worked up Triang Hornby 2721, correctly numbered as 2761 in a correct black Caerphilly Works GWR austerity livery; the loco was never one I set out to model but I came by her cheaply and it was withdrawn 31/3//50, so was in service at Tondu longer than the combined appearances of large prairies during my timeframe.  
 

But in her last years at Tondu I very much doubt that she escaped Tondu’s station limits very often; the shed was receiving brand new 8750 and 6750 panniers at the time and this old bucket would have been kept on yard pilot work mostly, but she puts in an occasional Rule 1 appearance deputising for failures or on an ad hoc Control Orders job. 
 

Having acquired her almost by accident, and describing the various adventures of working her up on this forum, Philou of this parish gave me a nice little Wills 1854, which will have a Southeastern chassis when I get my long delayed Round Tuit.  This loco is going to be more of an indulgence than 2761; 1740 w/d Tondu 30/4/48, condition and livery unknown so I’ll have to take a best guess punt.  Now, this is the sort of thing that makes me uneasy and to question my S of D.  For allI know she had a 57xx type cab at this time, and I see no reason not to model her like this, at least until somebody corrects me, on the basis that I don’t know if she had a half cab at this time either and it’s different from 2761.  Or I could compromise snd model her with the canvas screen being used!
 

And it’s not the only anomaly.  I have 3 56xx, but two of them are in assumed liveries pending better, preferably photographic, information, and neither of the 2 4575s are in liveries I am 100% certain about either.  9649 was delivered new to Tondu in 1947, so I can reasonably assume G W R unlined green livery well into the 50s, but should it appear on the layout alongside an unlined maroon 1956 liveried auto trailer, or 4575s given auto gear in 1953?  S of D again; what about a Bristol Division E116 B set, or a correct Newport Divn. trailer that I’ve only seen photos of at Monmouth Troy?

 

My take on Rule 1 is that it only applies (at least at Cwmdimbath) to improbable stock, not impossible.  Tondu got 3 new 350hp diesel shunting locos in 1955, which were probably even less likely than 2761 to have escaped from the yards; I’ve resisted them so far...

 

So I object to some anomalies but gib at others.  Consistently inconsistent except when I’m being inconsistently consistent!!

[t-b-g]

26 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

I recall seeing the Deltic and its train of Mark 2d stock (with the RKB the wrong way round incidentally) racing through at some ridiculous speed. It remained on the track too. I wonder what became of that set.

 

I'm not a fan of overly complex sequences and think that when there are paying public or invited guests watching, they will want to see trains running, so run them. There can still be some sense to it all, such as the trains coming round in timetable order. If there are sufficient operators, there can still be some shunting. The sequence Tony has for Little Bytham seems to work well.

 

The Deltic and carriages are safe and sound with one of the "Retford mob". Was there an RKB in the train? It went past so quickly I couldn't tell you, let alone which way round it was.

 

We seem to be going back to the discussion about the difference between running trains and operating. Lots of correctly formed trains going round in the order that they went through in real life may be entertaining for some but it is not for me. Waxing lyrical that the set has the particular BCK that only went in the set for a few months in the summer of 1957 is not my thing at all.

 

The goods that sets back into the yard or the stopper that drops off a van and you have my interest.

 

There is enough track, pointwork and operational potential on Retford to show both types of operating at the same time. It is one of a tiny number of model railways that can do that. You can get the goods off the main, or a train into Platform 1 or 3 and you can immediately clear the main lines for running and "play" with the train that has stopped.

 

Having a model like that and operating it like Stoke Summit is a waste of that potential in my eyes.

 

Why bother building a model of a place with lots of complex points, junctions and signalling and then just run trains through it? Layouts like Gamston bank and Stoke Summit do (or did) that just as well without the bother of all that track and wiring!

 

I think that both Tony W and I agree that whatever happens in terms of operating the layout in the future is very much down to how Sandra wants it to be done. I know which I would prefer.

 

What it does need is a fully trained up bunch of operators who know how to work it without having to be instructed to pull each individual switch or lever.

 

Once you have that, the layout transforms into a fascinating one to watch and to operate. I have seen it done from the controls at North Box and it is really a great experience to run it like that.

 

It just never happened on the running days when relative novices would be given a new sequence, have to learn a few changes to the switching and would be expected to run the layout as if they were highly experienced. 

 

 

 

 

[robertcwp]

18 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Some cracking photos there Tony.

 

I am intrigued by the last one. The van apparently disappearing under the bridge doesn't seem to have a tail lamp so is probably not a departing train. So presumably it is being shunted, using the Whisker Hill curve.

 

It is moves like that that I find most interesting and if it was down to me, they would be the moves that I would include on the model.

 

Does anybody know what the move was? Is the van being removed or added to a train in Pl 2 or 3? Or is it being taken out of, or put in, the carriage sidings behind Pl. 3?

 

 

There must have been several moves such as this during the day. As noted previously, 1956 workings may not be a guide for other years but this is an example from the Summer 1956 workings (Mondays to Fridays):

 

The 9.43 am Cleethorpes-Manchester London Road attached a PMV at Retford (11.19 to 11.27 am). This PMV (working 601) had arrived at Retford from Grantham at 10.39 am on the rear of the 9.50 am Grantham to Doncaster. It had come from Peterborough attached to the 7.35 am to Doncaster, arriving at Grantham at 8.34 am. I'm not sure whether it was on the front or rear from Retford to Manchester LR but it was detached at the latter station before the stock went empty to Ardwick.

 

Another example is the 7.11 am Gainsborough Central to Sheffield Victoria. This called at Retford 7.29 to 7.35 am, during which time 2 S were attached. They were then detached at Sheffield.  I have not yet identified how the 2 S reached Retford.

[Tony Wright]

In view of the recent conversations about how 'accurate' our layouts might be, particularly with regard to timescales and appropriate stock, I'd like to pose a question, please.

 

It involves this loco.............

 

 

 

It was built by our elder son, Tom as a teenager. Made from a Judith Edge kit, it's in EM gauge and, apart from few test track trips hasn't really run.

 

Now, here's the question. These Hunslet 0-6-0 diesel mechanicals were shedded at various locations, including depots in the Eastern Region and the North Eastern Region. Thus, could one ever have appeared at Retford? Perhaps to or from Doncaster Plant? 

 

It works beautifully and it would be a shame not to use it (when painted of course). 

 

Some were shedded on the ex-Furness system, so did they ever appear at Carlisle? (Mike Edge might know). 

 

I should also point out that it's one of the finest kits I've ever seen.

 

At one show, where Tom was demonstrating as a 'student modeller', one punter was quite dismissive of the model. When Tom asked why he didn't think much of it, the guy just stated that 'Your dad must have made it to be this good'. What an ignorant clot (or is that tautology?). My only involvement was to buy the wheels and motor/gearbox for him. I did nothing on it. 

 

 

[robertcwp]

2 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The Deltic and carriages are safe and sound with one of the "Retford mob". Was there an RKB in the train? It went past so quickly I couldn't tell you, let alone which way round it was.

 

We seem to be going back to the discussion about the difference between running trains and operating. Lots of correctly formed trains going round in the order that they went through in real life may be entertaining for some but it is not for me. Waxing lyrical that the set has the particular BCK that only went in the set for a few months in the summer of 1957 is not my thing at all.

 

The goods that sets back into the yard or the stopper that drops off a van and you have my interest.

 

There is enough track, pointwork and operational potential on Retford to show both types of operating at the same time. It is one of a tiny number of model railways that can do that. You can get the goods off the main, or a train into Platform 1 or 3 and you can immediately clear the main lines for running and "play" with the train that has stopped.

 

Having a model like that and operating it like Stoke Summit is a waste of that potential in my eyes.

 

Why bother building a model of a place with lots of complex points, junctions and signalling and then just run trains through it? Layouts like Gamston bank and Stoke Summit do (or did) that just as well without the bother of all that track and wiring!

 

I think that both Tony W and I agree that whatever happens in terms of operating the layout in the future is very much down to how Sandra wants it to be done. I know which I would prefer.

 

What it does need is a fully trained up bunch of operators who know how to work it without having to be instructed to pull each individual switch or lever.

 

Once you have that, the layout transforms into a fascinating one to watch and to operate. I have seen it done from the controls at North Box and it is really a great experience to run it like that.

 

It just never happened on the running days when relative novices would be given a new sequence, have to learn a few changes to the switching and would be expected to run the layout as if they were highly experienced. 

 

 

 

 

Your final sentence sums up the key issue with running days, which is why they did not work as well as they might have done.

 

I didn't mean to suggest I was against operating properly and in favour of just running trains. I was thinking more of doing something that is achievable. The more operators you have and the more skilled they are in operating a layout, the more realistic the operation will be. It will still only be an impression of the real thing unless you have the resources and the time to run all trains authentically across a 24 hour sequence.

 

Different people like different things. At exhibitions, such as there are any, I'm usually to be found helping to operate a small shunting layout with virtually no coaching stock. The layouts I like to watch most are BR era main line ones, but these need not be procession of trains type layouts. Bournemouth West, for example, has lots of operation and plenty of interest in the trains too. 

 

I don't much care for layouts that have unrealistic train formations or motive power for the stock used. 

[t-b-g]

6 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

There must have been several moves such as this during the day. As noted previously, 1956 workings may not be a guide for other years but this is an example from the Summer 1956 workings (Mondays to Fridays):

 

The 9.43 am Cleethorpes-Manchester London Road attached a PMV at Retford (11.19 to 11.27 am). This PMV (working 601) had arrived at Retford from Grantham at 10.39 am on the rear of the 9.50 am Grantham to Doncaster. It had come from Peterborough attached to the 7.35 am to Doncaster, arriving at Grantham at 8.34 am. I'm not sure whether it was on the front or rear from Retford to Manchester LR but it was detached at the latter station before the stock went empty to Ardwick.

 

Another example is the 7.11 am Gainsborough Central to Sheffield Victoria. This called at Retford 7.29 to 7.35 am, during which time 2 S were attached. They were then detached at Sheffield.  I have not yet identified how the 2 S reached Retford.

 

In some versions of the operating sequence, such moves appeared.

 

The way the layout was operated, even dropping off a van required so much cooperation between operators that they got quietly dropped as too difficult.

 

My solution would have been to practice until the operators could work them out as a team but the practice sessions never happened.

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The Deltic and carriages are safe and sound with one of the "Retford mob". Was there an RKB in the train? It went past so quickly I couldn't tell you, let alone which way round it was.

 

We seem to be going back to the discussion about the difference between running trains and operating. Lots of correctly formed trains going round in the order that they went through in real life may be entertaining for some but it is not for me. Waxing lyrical that the set has the particular BCK that only went in the set for a few months in the summer of 1957 is not my thing at all.

 

The goods that sets back into the yard or the stopper that drops off a van and you have my interest.

 

There is enough track, pointwork and operational potential on Retford to show both types of operating at the same time. It is one of a tiny number of model railways that can do that. You can get the goods off the main, or a train into Platform 1 or 3 and you can immediately clear the main lines for running and "play" with the train that has stopped.

 

Having a model like that and operating it like Stoke Summit is a waste of that potential in my eyes.

 

Why bother building a model of a place with lots of complex points, junctions and signalling and then just run trains through it? Layouts like Gamston bank and Stoke Summit do (or did) that just as well without the bother of all that track and wiring!

 

I think that both Tony W and I agree that whatever happens in terms of operating the layout in the future is very much down to how Sandra wants it to be done. I know which I would prefer.

 

What it does need is a fully trained up bunch of operators who know how to work it without having to be instructed to pull each individual switch or lever.

 

Once you have that, the layout transforms into a fascinating one to watch and to operate. I have seen it done from the controls at North Box and it is really a great experience to run it like that.

 

It just never happened on the running days when relative novices would be given a new sequence, have to learn a few changes to the switching and would be expected to run the layout as if they were highly experienced. 

 

 

 

 

I think Sandra will consult you before anyone else as to how Retford should be run, Tony.

 

Taking advice from Robert as to the correct train formations, of course.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[robertcwp]

4 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

In some versions of the operating sequence, such moves appeared.

 

The way the layout was operated, even dropping off a van required so much cooperation between operators that they got quietly dropped as too difficult.

 

My solution would have been to practice until the operators could work them out as a team but the practice sessions never happened.

Couldn't agree more. If you want to operate a layout properly, it needs practice. Start with the easy moves and build up.

 

I think a lot of potentially good exhibition layouts fail to meet expectations because operators do not have enough practice away from shows. Sometimes, this is because the layouts cannot be set up in full. It may also be because there is a lack of interest and willingness to invest time in practice sessions.