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.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, mullie said:

That building is stunning, why Leigh on Sea? This is an area I used to know quite well and spent quite a lot of time there.

 

Martyn

 

Thanks Martyn. It is Ken's childhood stamping ground although not in the 1920s!

 

He is a Londoner and a trip to Leigh or Southend was a good day out for him as a child.

 

One of the through stations is modelled loosely on the original one at Leigh on Sea (later used as a yacht/boat club building).

Edited by t-b-g
To remove photos that appeared all by themselves!
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hello again Tony,

 

In all my excitement of talking about the Talisman I forgot to respond to the rest of your post!

 

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

You're also right in asking the question 'Who reads coach numbers?'. However, say, in the case of the 'Lizzie', for a year or two (indeed, right up to the train's end), a Gresley RF was substituted for the more-usual Thompson equivalent. I actually remember this, so, to replicate it, you'd have to swap the catering cars in the fiddle yard if you were using just one rake to represent both trains. Or, build both trains. To my mind, 'fiddling' with trains (even in the fiddle yard) is not something to be encouraged. There's the ever-present risk of accidental damage (especially with cassettes) and, unless every coupling is entirely consistent with its peers, the risk of subsequent train separation and derailment is far too prevalent. As you know, neither is tolerated on LB. 

You're right in that using the same rake for both directions I am presenting an idealised version of the train with no substitutions. These did, of course, happen from time to time, although less on the prestige trains I think. I accept that compromise in order to be able to utilise my stock rather more than I would otherwise. For the made up trains, I often put in a ex LNER substitute for a Mark 1 to ring the changes (based on photos where I can).

 

I agree that fiddling is not to be encouraged for reliable running. In practice when I form a train up I tend to run it round three times - once to check that it doesn't derail, once for a video and once for the still photos. I often have to tweak a coupling after the first run to prevent problems. This would be embarrassing if guests were here but is fine if it's just me. I stick to ready formed trains when guests come.

 

Quote

I'm delighted that the study of actual train make-ups is more prevalent than in the past, resulting in models of actual trains being made/modified. That said, I couldn't tolerate those trains being shortened (by even one coach), not if an 'accurate' representation is to be made, especially on the ECML, where some rakes were huge. In fact, I've even gone as far as adding a strengthener to some of my trains (very common on busy summer days); easily accommodated in the fiddle yard because of the roads' lengths. I even have a summer Saturday 'extra' rake (anomalous, given that the 'Lizzie' and the 'Tees-Tyne Pullman' also run), which is made-up (as on the prototype) with anything which could turn a wheel. A good excuse for running spare stock. 

Agreed about the strengtheners but I'm struggling for space so rarely add them. I haven't had to knock a coach out of any train yet.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

Edited by thegreenhowards
Pressed reply half way through!
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Morning Tony,

 

Whilst I would agree that physical handling of stock should be minimised, I would offer the view that proper shunting of stock, even in a fiddle yard environment, is an extra dimension in terms of the operation of a layout that I (and I suspect others) enjoy immensely.

 

On the traditional railway this happened routinely in coaching stock depots / sidings the length and breadth of the country, not something that's often depicted in model form. A long distance train, upon arrival at its terminating station would most likely be worked ECS out of the station a short distance (eg Euston to Willesden) where it would be serviced and subject to any remarshalling as required. Then ECS back to the terminus station to pick up its next working, sometimes - but not always - the equivalent train to the one it worked earlier. Completely different from today, when the set is serviced in the station and then works away again 90 minutes later.

 

Any remarshalling would be according to the planned carriage working diagrams and it could be the case that even the core formation could be changed to suit the expected traffic (ie passenger) requirements for its planned train, including the catering arrangements and balance of first versus third (second) accommodation. I think this was quite common in the pre-grouping era; still going on in the pre-war era; but less likely in the BR era. I say that on the basis of our studying of the 1930s GNR mainline and ECML carriage working notices for Grantham. Formations were complex because of the number of portions, through coaches, additional vans, etc and it was quite unusual for the reverse working to be the exact same formation. The notices give all the details of the balancing working for every part of the train, even quoting individual vehicle numbers in some cases - absolutely fascinating and a work of art to put together in the pre-computer age!

 

Because it's something that interests me (not least because I witnessed the fag end of it on BR in the late 1980s, working at two such locations), it is something I very much intend to undertake on my Carlisle project. There'll be a certain amount of station shunting goes on at Carlisle itself but most of the fundamental remarshalling will be undertaken at Central station and its associated carriage sidings - and we'll have carriage working notices to go with it. Not only will this add an extra dimension but it'll also allow better use to be made of the stock to depict more trains.

 

Woe betide the operator who sends out a formation in contravention of the notices as it'll cause carnage to the rest of the layout!

Good (late) afternoon, Graham,

 

I think the fundamental difference in our approaches to the hobby is that you actually enjoy running trains, often requiring complex shunting/operation (I can barely manage the shed on Grantham, so stay well clear of the main lines and the fiddle yard!). 

 

I'm not saying I don't enjoy driving trains (the biggest buzz, and it always will be for me, is to drive a loco I've made, hauling a heavy train at high-speed), but 'operation' is really very much secondary to me. Actually making things is well ahead.

 

You see, I've never operated a real railway. I've always been observer. An observer who, often in the blinks of an eye, watched, say, an A4 belt through Botany Bay, or Retford, or Gamston, or Thirsk, or by-passing Darlington Bank Top or anywhere 'out on the road'. The rest of BR was the 'fiddle yard' and what went on there was way beyond my sight, and comprehension. 

 

Obviously, in watching trains at Chester there was huge complexity in what went on, but once, say, the number of a 'Castle' had been noted after its arrival from Salop, I cared not which 2-6-4T took the rake out to the Wirral (none was a cop after the first weeks' trainspotting) or what 8729 or 8730 did with the empty stock. I was a trainspotter, through and through. Copping was the principal aim. 

 

You could say that Little Bytham's fiddle yards are not really for 'fiddling' at all. Apart from/to the cassettes and the kick-back sidings, each train just leaves its appointed road, makes a single circuit and returns to the road it left. There is no handling/rearranging of stock (unless I choose to add a strengthener). In fact, and in all honesty, I couldn't guarantee that every rake would run faultlessly through every road; they just don't need to. Similarly, when a passenger set is set-up (to the correct formation), it's not broken up nor altered - it just goes round clockwise or anti-clockwise, and that's that. Only the respective pick-ups change rakes, and every Sprat & Winkle-fitted wagon is thoroughly checked with regard to its consistent weight (no featherweights) and that its couplings are all set exactly the same. That way, I can almost guarantee 'perfect' running, though I'm the weak link. 

 

Obviously, for 'full' operating potential, it's very limited compared to, say, the respective complex/major stations north and south of it, Grantham and Peterborough North. However, unless I could guarantee 'faultless' operation on those two representations, I'd be frustrated and quickly lose interest. So far, with respect, I've yet to see it. But, 'operation' is never what LB has been about. As I've recently mentioned, it's the nearest thing to a time machine I have. I'm back over 60 years ago, as a schoolboy/teenager, watching the trains of my memory dash past in miniature. I had nothing to do with their operation.

 

As always, each to their own, but running compromises I'll not accept. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

The more interesting one of course - Why run boring Mark 1s when you can run something more exciting?! The Talisman changed significantly over the years. It was introduced in 1956 as an afternoon only train formed:

BSO (Mk 1)

SK (Mk 1)

SK (Mk 1)

SO (Thompson)

RF (Thompson)

FO-FO (Gresley ex Coronation)

BSO (Mk 1)

 

From June 1957 a morning train was introduced departing from each end at 0800 and the stock of the morning train arrived in time to form the return at 1600 from each end so just two sets of stock, both the above formation. This is the period I model so that I can justify using the same set for three services (my sequence starts after the down morning train has gone through).

 

In Autumn 1957, the morning train was renamed 'The Fair Maid' and extended to/ from Perth. It was therefore unable to work the afternoon train as well. This is when the separate (nearly) all Mark 1 train was introduced. I think it still had a Thompson RF at least initially.

 

This lasted a year before the Perth extension was abandoned as uneconomic, so from Autumn 1958 we were back to a morning and afternoon Talisman. However a slightly later timing than before meant that the morning set could not return on the evening service, so the 'boring' Mark 1 set was retained for the morning services. I think these are the versions you model?

 

Happily this rake is short enough for me to be able to fit the whole train into a photo relatively easily, so here it is.

 

FullSizeRender-compressed.JPG.cda0d63f43acba203480af923f67da17.JPG

 

This wouldn't be one I'd choose to write up for a magazine because of the difficulty of modelling the twin FO now that Mailcoach (which is how I built mine) has disappeared into the Coopercraft morass and D&S/ Marc models are dormant at best.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

Your 'Talisman' looks very good, Andy,

 

Did you modify the twin FOs by adding extra doors? I didn't; I built the pair long before such things seemed to be known. Retrospective work would be ruinous. Do Mailcoach coaches appear from time to time on eBay? I've not seen any for years. 

 

As you know, I have both 'Talismans'..................

 

1244680510_AfternoonTalisman01.jpg.b3f89940720a180e04135e5ed24e190d.jpg

 

The 'more interesting' set. This is wrong because I've yet to replace the leading BSK with a BSO (a Hornby one, eventually). It's made up from Comet, Mailcoach and Southern Pride kits/adaptations and modified Bachmann and Hornby RTR items. Despite the disparate sources, it looks reasonably homogenous. 

 

The motive power (DJH/Wright/Rathbone) is typical of the period. 

 

839099043_AfternoonTalisman02.jpg.4aa601015e012cbe67504293bd473ca7.jpg

 

This end has the correct BSO (modified Hornby). One advantage of only running trains one way is that the tail ends can be correctly represented, without a dreadful coupling (tension-lock) sticking out from underneath the headstock. 

 

364321313_MorningTalisman.jpg.e7cfad8ca329b925d90cd3017fd24e19.jpg

 

And, the whole Mk.1 set (modified Bachmann). I made-up this train when the Bachmann Mk.1s first appeared, writing it up in BRM. 

 

The motive power is equally-typical (South Eastern Finecast/Wright/Rathbone). 

 

This set represents the morning train, and the other the afternoon service. The best of both worlds I suppose.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Am afraid not. All the joint projects I have been involved with are on a "my layout with your help" basis and Narrow Road is Ken's layout which I have helped with and Ken doesn't really do internet or social media. His son set up a website http://www.narrowroadlayout.co.uk/  some time ago, which has details of the station of that name but it hasn't been updated for some time and doesn't show the rest of the layout.

 

It is still very much a work in progress and only two stations are substantially complete in terms of scenics but only have a few dummy signals.

 

 I am seriously thinking of starting my own workbench/layout thread to post details of all the various things I get up to and if I do, when I can get to Ken's again I will ask if I can take some photos and post them. Ken struggles a bit now and is conscious that his hands and eyes are not as good as they used to be and he has doubts about whether the layout is good enough for a wider audience and if the Wright writes critics got their teeth into it, his confidence would quickly vanish, so I won't be posting anything on this thread.

 

It is a substantial layout and in order to quicken progress, we have decided to use card kits to get one station presentable quickly. Can you just imagine the comments that would generate!

 

I will add a poor quality snap or two of one of the buildings I have been working on, a row of shops from Leigh on Sea as it may have looked in the 1920s.

 

DSCN2200.JPG.e7c652761fdfc2df1f33f96fdb7c4ee5.JPGDSCN2197.JPG.ca31c2d0a18e5d5c3c132950ce79d431.JPG

Narrow Road is worthy of being seen on any thread, Tony.

 

I'd like to put some of the pictures I took of it on here (taken well over a decade ago now; do you remember Malcolm's reaction when I stuck that Thompson A2/2 on shed at Ally Pally?). Unfortunately, they're all in Warners' archive (well, not really 'unfortunate'; it's just that I don't have access to them now). 

 

Beautiful buildings, by the way...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I have been reading the recent post about scale length trains and viewing the photographs of peoples' railway rooms. Those who have enough room for a model railway where full length long express trains are a feature are lucky. Many of us in model railway land do not have the room to do so. We all have our means of compromising, some it is to make a 10 coach train into a 6 coach train trying to keep the balance of the train right. Others it is to build a model where shorter full length trains operated. One must not forget the person who just makes things up. 

 

With my 20 ft by 15 ft room I might have been able to run 12 coach expresses regularly. I do from time to time on the running lines but they are far to long to fit in my terminus station which is located in the middle of the room. Tony remarked when he visited that the platforms looked short for an eight road station. He is right, my compromise is a combination of the three excuses I have given in the above paragraph. My layout is a make believe station in Sheffield serving lines to west, north and east so mainly cross country shortish trains. My basic hauled corridor train is six coaches and sets are made up BSK/SK/SK/CK/CK/BSK or  BSK/FK/SK/SK/SK/BSK, two sets are BFK/CK/SK/SK/SK/BSK, some trains have open coaches and few are all open coaches.  Some times I will remove a SK and replace with a buffet car. To represent a train that drops coaches off on route a CK, or SK is removed and a BCK is added, BSK/CK/SK/SK/BSK for say Leeds and SK/BCK on the back for Bradford. Two platforms are able to take seven coach hauled trains and this allows for more combinations. All platforms and fiddle yard roads can take a 8 coach DMU, much easier to sort out their prototypical formations. 

 

Not being able to run long prototype trains does not take the fun out of operating my layout, or the enjoyment of watching trains whizzing around. Nothing beats two eight car DMU formations traveling in opposite directions.

 

Seeing both Andy's and Tony's Talisman trains, both appear very wrong. Surely one set was the XP64 train and the other was part Pullman, each with a Deltic on the front.

  • Like 9
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

In Autumn 1957, the morning train was renamed 'The Fair Maid' and extended to/ from Perth. It was therefore unable to work the afternoon train as well. This is when the separate (nearly) all Mark 1 train was introduced. I think it still had a Thompson RF at least initially.

 

This lasted a year before the Perth extension was abandoned as uneconomic, so from Autumn 1958 we were back to a morning and afternoon Talisman. However a slightly later timing than before meant that the morning set could not return on the evening service, so the 'boring' Mark 1 set was retained for the morning services.

In amongst my endless piles of parts that I may never find use for, I may have some 4mm scale headboards for "The Fair Maid" (think there might be four).  If anyone wants all or some of them, please PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Narrow Road is worthy of being seen on any thread, Tony.

 

I'd like to put some of the pictures I took of it on here (taken well over a decade ago now; do you remember Malcolm's reaction when I stuck that Thompson A2/2 on shed at Ally Pally?). Unfortunately, they're all in Warners' archive (well, not really 'unfortunate'; it's just that I don't have access to them now). 

 

Beautiful buildings, by the way...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I remember the A2/2 well. I am not sure whether Malcolm was more upset by the Thompson origin or the fact that it wouldn't fit his turntable!

 

You might have given me a copy of the photos  on a disc but it is a long time since I saw them. If I find it, am I OK to put one or two on here or do we need permission from BRM?

 

There were a few odd locos that were sneaked onto the layout and the unsuspecting operator at the other end ended up with a rake of Midland clerestories with a prototype Deltic or 10000 and 10001 on the front. All part of the fun of exhibiting.

 

I always say that we may take some of the modelling seriously but never ourselves. The trains never got chance to get up to speed on the original terminus fiddle yard format but they get to go a bit now. Not quite Little Bytham speeds but we can wind the controllers up and rattle them along.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I remember the A2/2 well. I am not sure whether Malcolm was more upset by the Thompson origin or the fact that it wouldn't fit his turntable!

 

You might have given me a copy of the photos  on a disc but it is a long time since I saw them. If I find it, am I OK to put one or two on here or do we need permission from BRM?

 

There were a few odd locos that were sneaked onto the layout and the unsuspecting operator at the other end ended up with a rake of Midland clerestories with a prototype Deltic or 10000 and 10001 on the front. All part of the fun of exhibiting.

 

I always say that we may take some of the modelling seriously but never ourselves. The trains never got chance to get up to speed on the original terminus fiddle yard format but they get to go a bit now. Not quite Little Bytham speeds but we can wind the controllers up and rattle them along.

I sincerely hope you will share mors of your modelling, Narrow Rd and other projects, including of course Buckingham. Im certain you'll find an enthusiastic audience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

 

Seeing both Andy's and Tony's Talisman trains, both appear very wrong. Surely one set was the XP64 train and the other was part Pullman, each with a Deltic on the front.

That combination was used in the 1964 summer timetable only. The Talisman itself appeared as a titled train in 1956.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I remember the A2/2 well. I am not sure whether Malcolm was more upset by the Thompson origin or the fact that it wouldn't fit his turntable!

 

You might have given me a copy of the photos  on a disc but it is a long time since I saw them. If I find it, am I OK to put one or two on here or do we need permission from BRM?

 

There were a few odd locos that were sneaked onto the layout and the unsuspecting operator at the other end ended up with a rake of Midland clerestories with a prototype Deltic or 10000 and 10001 on the front. All part of the fun of exhibiting.

 

I always say that we may take some of the modelling seriously but never ourselves. The trains never got chance to get up to speed on the original terminus fiddle yard format but they get to go a bit now. Not quite Little Bytham speeds but we can wind the controllers up and rattle them along.

Good evening Tony,

 

If you do find the disc, please put some of the images of Narrow Road on here. There won't be a problem, and I'm sure they'll interest readers.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sandra said:

Tony,

Thanks for letting me have the V2 and the Ivatt 4MT. The V2 is fine but the 4MT has given problems but these have now been resolved and it works very well.
A0B36096-81F7-43A1-A8A9-ABC6802AE92B.jpeg.f41f7a8a56ab4f77590a55fb0c590321.jpeg

Here’s a photo of them passing on the GN main line just north of the station.  The V2 is on a down parcels train and the 4MT is on an up fitted goods. You can see I haven’t fitted lamps yet. The problems with the 4MT were due to the pickups. It has plunger pickups on the loco and these are useless. I’ve wired the loco and tender together so it picks up current from the tender. I will probably put it on a goods on the GC section as a number were allocated to various Lincolnshire sheds. The funny thing about this model is that it looks better in reality than it does in photographs.

8670A335-02C6-4B4F-ADA6-CF84890FFE01.jpeg.4826d858a48dc802fa276c1a38c81b3a.jpeg

The V2 runs beautifully and is a much needed locomotive on Retford, I haven’t decided what train it will run on permanently but I think possibly the  

Scotch goods.

880E1F1E-8FE5-4D67-BACA-99257B8D84DA.jpeg.65143ab75fc33afdc6a20192037f1264.jpeg

Here’s another recent addition to Retford, it’s an A2 60539 Bronzino which I have just built from a DJH kit. It needs a few details to be added and it’s far too clean so it needs weathering, particularly the valve gear. 
 

I will make a donation to CRUK for the Ivatt 4MT.
Sandra.

Thanks for posting these images, Sandra.

 

I'm glad the V2 and the Ivatt 4MT work fine (after you'd sorted the latter). 

 

As I said, I was only able to test the locos on a yard of EM track, but running them on Retford will find any glitches. 

 

You need not make a donation for the Ivatt. I've already done so, and Beechnut (Brendan) must be thanked again for giving it the first place (there you are, Brendan; what better a home for your creation than the famous Retford?). As I said, I gave it to you as a subsequent gift.

 

Some readers might not know the origin of the V2. It was built/painted, originally in OO by John Houlden for use on his Gamston Bank. He made it from Comet/DJH/scratch/DMR bits.

 

After Gamston was burned, he lent it to Roy, who built EM frames for the loco/tender, and it ran on Retford until Roy's death. It was then taken back and given to me for helping John with selling his Gamston stock. I then built OO frames for it and sold the EM ones to a friend. What's that about God and plans? 

 

Seeing the need for V2s on Retford (and my having over a dozen), my friend gave me the EM frames back (asking nothing back in return - thanks Ray). I then rebuilt it using Comet motion, Markits wheels and a lovely big DJH motor/gearbox, retaining the OO chassis for when (or if)) it ever returns to LB. So, you can say it's a triple hybrid; bodywork by John Houlden and running gear by the great man and me. I'm delighted it works so well, but with its 'Jackson' pedigree, I'm not surprised. Quite what happened to John's original OO V2 chassis, nobody seems to know..................

 

BRONZINO looks good.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Talking of the physically handling of stock,

 

I came across this picture from twenty odd years ago, of 6226 crossing the river Lune on the Royal Scot. The photograph and digital sky is courtesy of Derek Shore. Apparently, the bare bottoms of the layouts builders were visible above the far horizon. If it had been my photo, I would have removed the standards in the North Eastern yard before pressing the shutter. I could have zapped them digitally,  but imagine the pages of hullabaloo.

 

The loco was a real Joint effort for another member, Ron Hodge did the loco, it weighed about a pound. My Father built the tender (Comet), John Marsh etched the ex streamliner tender valance and I painted the whole thing. Unfortunately, the loco got dropped and badly damaged and that was the end of it. ironically, layout the survives to this day in a private museum somewhere.

 


 

 

6226  Tebay.jpg

A wonderful picture.

 

Many thanks Andrew (and Derek). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

A wonderful picture.

 

Many thanks Andrew (and Derek). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I've just remembered what he two Standards were for. There were two trains that arrived at Tebay station from the South. They were remarshalled into one formation on the mainline, with a great deal of shunting and huffing and puffing. The two standards had come down the line from Kirby Stephen I think (maybe further) and were waiting in the yard. When the train engines had gone on to Tebay shed, the two standards backdown from the NE yard and coupled on to the newly assembled formation. The whole train then set of from the Northbound platform, across onto the NE and continued on on up the Stainmore route to somewhere like Barnard Castle. There was a couple of trains that ran along that route in the sequence, but I think that was the only one to interact directly with the WCML. It may have been a miners gala special, I don't recall now, as there was also a daily miners works train that used the platform on the NE side  of Tebay station, or it may have been that train also came from the south via the WCML.

Edited by Headstock
clarify a point
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 08/01/2021 at 09:42, Jol Wilkinson said:

However MRJ remains my favorite magazine, I have the complete set in binders and find that picking out one and looking through it, no matter when published, invariably provides something to enlighten or inspire me.

 

The S4 Society Newletter is mighty fine IMHO too - very similar in many ways to MRJ and well worth the S4Soc subscription.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Your 'Talisman' looks very good, Andy,

 

Did you modify the twin FOs by adding extra doors? I didn't; I built the pair long before such things seemed to be known. Retrospective work would be ruinous. Do Mailcoach coaches appear from time to time on eBay? I've not seen any for years. 

 

As you know, I have both 'Talismans'..................

 

1244680510_AfternoonTalisman01.jpg.b3f89940720a180e04135e5ed24e190d.jpg

 

The 'more interesting' set. This is wrong because I've yet to replace the leading BSK with a BSO (a Hornby one, eventually). It's made up from Comet, Mailcoach and Southern Pride kits/adaptations and modified Bachmann and Hornby RTR items. Despite the disparate sources, it looks reasonably homogenous. 

 

The motive power (DJH/Wright/Rathbone) is typical of the period. 

 

839099043_AfternoonTalisman02.jpg.4aa601015e012cbe67504293bd473ca7.jpg

 

This end has the correct BSO (modified Hornby). One advantage of only running trains one way is that the tail ends can be correctly represented, without a dreadful coupling (tension-lock) sticking out from underneath the headstock. 

 

364321313_MorningTalisman.jpg.e7cfad8ca329b925d90cd3017fd24e19.jpg

 

And, the whole Mk.1 set (modified Bachmann). I made-up this train when the Bachmann Mk.1s first appeared, writing it up in BRM. 

 

The motive power is equally-typical (South Eastern Finecast/Wright/Rathbone). 

 

This set represents the morning train, and the other the afternoon service. The best of both worlds I suppose.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

No I didn’t add the extra doors to the twin FO. This was the first prototypical rake that I put together - chosen because it was relatively short and my layout at that stage couldn’t take more than 8 coaches. I didn’t know about the extra doors at that stage (6 or 7 years ago). 
 

I do have two BSOs though - both SPM as Hornby hadn’t produced theirs at that stage. The RF and RSO were Comet and SPM respectively.

 

Regards

 

Andy

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

It is a substantial layout and in order to quicken progress, we have decided to use card kits to get one station presentable quickly.

I'd love to see a modern layout making proper use of SuperQuick kits. There are a few around, including one where the low-relief cinema is built into a corner with the main facade at 45 degrees, but more would always be welcome!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good (late) afternoon, Graham,

 

I think the fundamental difference in our approaches to the hobby is that you actually enjoy running trains, often requiring complex shunting/operation (I can barely manage the shed on Grantham, so stay well clear of the main lines and the fiddle yard!). 

 

I'm not saying I don't enjoy driving trains (the biggest buzz, and it always will be for me, is to drive a loco I've made, hauling a heavy train at high-speed), but 'operation' is really very much secondary to me. Actually making things is well ahead.

 

You see, I've never operated a real railway. I've always been observer. An observer who, often in the blinks of an eye, watched, say, an A4 belt through Botany Bay, or Retford, or Gamston, or Thirsk, or by-passing Darlington Bank Top or anywhere 'out on the road'. The rest of BR was the 'fiddle yard' and what went on there was way beyond my sight, and comprehension. 

 

Obviously, in watching trains at Chester there was huge complexity in what went on, but once, say, the number of a 'Castle' had been noted after its arrival from Salop, I cared not which 2-6-4T took the rake out to the Wirral (none was a cop after the first weeks' trainspotting) or what 8729 or 8730 did with the empty stock. I was a trainspotter, through and through. Copping was the principal aim. 

 

You could say that Little Bytham's fiddle yards are not really for 'fiddling' at all. Apart from/to the cassettes and the kick-back sidings, each train just leaves its appointed road, makes a single circuit and returns to the road it left. There is no handling/rearranging of stock (unless I choose to add a strengthener). In fact, and in all honesty, I couldn't guarantee that every rake would run faultlessly through every road; they just don't need to. Similarly, when a passenger set is set-up (to the correct formation), it's not broken up nor altered - it just goes round clockwise or anti-clockwise, and that's that. Only the respective pick-ups change rakes, and every Sprat & Winkle-fitted wagon is thoroughly checked with regard to its consistent weight (no featherweights) and that its couplings are all set exactly the same. That way, I can almost guarantee 'perfect' running, though I'm the weak link. 

 

Obviously, for 'full' operating potential, it's very limited compared to, say, the respective complex/major stations north and south of it, Grantham and Peterborough North. However, unless I could guarantee 'faultless' operation on those two representations, I'd be frustrated and quickly lose interest. So far, with respect, I've yet to see it. But, 'operation' is never what LB has been about. As I've recently mentioned, it's the nearest thing to a time machine I have. I'm back over 60 years ago, as a schoolboy/teenager, watching the trains of my memory dash past in miniature. I had nothing to do with their operation.

 

As always, each to their own, but running compromises I'll not accept. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I understand your philosophy perfectly, Tony, but it's not for me as you know. I'm in the Graham Nicholas/Tony Gee school.

 

I remember you inviting me to operate Stoke Summit at Brighton many moons ago and, while I felt privileged to do so, I know that you won't mind me saying (because I've said it to you before) that it was one of the least interesting (I nearly said boring* but that wouldn't quite be true) layouts I've ever worked on as an operator.

 

It's the difference, as has been mentioned before, between running trains and operating them.

 

*If you wanted boring, you should have tried the Brighton MRC's model of Volk's Railway, built for its centenary in 1983.

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Perhaps operations-centric layouts are better suited to a home environment?

 

I think that, in general, that is the case, Graham. For many years I've held the view that a good operators' layout does not make a good exhibition layout and vice versa. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the rule (Borchester Market, Leeds Victoria, Grantham?) but in my experience it's true in the great majority of cases.

  • Like 3
  • Friendly/supportive 2
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...