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

Image copyright is fine I think, if you are the originator of the image.  What frustrates me immensely is when people claim copyright of old images that they had no part in producing and in most cases have come into someone's possession somewhere down the line, and now appear to be being monetised for personal profit.

 

Much of what is 'copyrighted' in the railway world is stuff of genuine historical interest that properly belongs in a national archive and should be made open for public, non-commercial use.  It's a shame that copyright doesn't have an expiry date on it, rather like patents do.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chamby said:

Much of what is 'copyrighted' in the railway world is stuff of genuine historical interest that properly belongs in a national archive and should be made open for public, non-commercial use. 

I agree with that sentiment, even if the 'law of the land' doesn't fully align with it. Anyone who takes the time to catalogue and make available their photographs on the internet is doing the wider enthusiast and model railway community a great service in my view - how much money is it really possible to 'cream' by taking a more commercial stance? Compared say to the music business where millions are at stake and young artists' likelihoods are possibly threatened by illegal copying?

 

All being well, I'm looking forward to having my first - probably only - book published, based on my late stepfather's collection of colour steam images. What I do know is that it's taken me something like 18 months to put together, countless hours checking and researching details to make sure it's as accurate and enjoyable as possible - in other words, far far more time and effort that I can possibly hope to recover through any proceeds from the sale (any profits are going to a deserving cause in any case). So I really don't see how there's small fortunes to be made in the world of railway photographs - although I do 'get' the bit about feeling aggrieved.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Chamby said:

Image copyright is fine I think, if you are the originator of the image.  What frustrates me immensely is when people claim copyright of old images that they had no part in producing and in most cases have come into someone's possession somewhere down the line, and now appear to be being monetised for personal profit.

 

Much of what is 'copyrighted' in the railway world is stuff of genuine historical interest that properly belongs in a national archive and should be made open for public, non-commercial use.  It's a shame that copyright doesn't have an expiry date on it, rather like patents do.

This would (generally) be my view too.  I grew up in an area where there is relatively little in the way of published railway images (Pembrokeshire) and I have a pretty good photographic record of the area from the 1980s/early 90s.  If they were published I would hope to be the one to benefit financially because I put in the time to record something few others were.  People holding copyright of images of steam specials on the sea wall at Dawlish, I struggle to understand, but there are images and there are images; some photographers took shots of a particular train which 100 other people recorded from the platform end, but the individual was 200 yards away and got a unique image.  Who wouldn't want Colin Gifford to have benefitted from his work?

There are people on this forum who have placed superb record images on sites like Fotopic and Flickr and later found their photos used in others' publications, without their previous knowledge or permission.  That is straightforward theft and I have every sympathy with the "victims" desire to claim their share of the value of the images from the publishers.

  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If i post to Facebook or here the images tend to be low res so they could not be printed, but can be enjoyed as you cannot control them once they are out there. 

 

I put higher res ones on Flickr which whilst it cannot be downloaded directly as others have said there are ways of saving images, which if for personal use is fine. The only things that nark me is where some take one off Flickr and then repost without a credit. The reason behind the credit is just that odd time someone might want to put something in a book. 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 minutes ago, Blandford1969 said:

If i post to Facebook or here the images tend to be low res so they could not be printed, but can be enjoyed as you cannot control them once they are out there. 

 

I put higher res ones on Flickr which whilst it cannot be downloaded directly as others have said there are ways of saving images, which if for personal use is fine. The only things that nark me is where some take one off Flickr and then repost without a credit. The reason behind the credit is just that odd time someone might want to put something in a book. 

 

 

I put low res images on Flickr for the simple reason that I have already had someone copy an image and upload it again as being their own; quite why you would do this is beyond me and my personal view is that the internet is about as bad as the wild west when it comes to copyright control, so if you use, do so carefully, or expect your 'rights' to be abused.

  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

I must say your new 60501 Cock O The North looks right at home on Little Bytham.

 

At least you still had most of your smokebox top lamp bracket in place, mine was completely broken off and to make matters worse my pin vice does not grip my very fine drill bit so I am awaiting a replacement one before I can drill a hole and insert a cut down staple to represent a new lamp bracket.

 

I do think this is a superb model full of wonderful details.

 

If you don’t mind I would like to hear your view on the rear pony track flangeless wheel, unlike most other Hornby models no replacement flanged wheel was supplied with the model.

 

I took the wheel off my model and tried to replace it with a spare flanged wheel from a Hornby A3 I have and when testing the model the wheel would not turn at all and the model just slipped, possibly true to the prototype.

 

I believe that the axel of the flangeless wheel is thinner than normal so I am trying to file down the flanged wheel axel to see if that works better.

 

Are you aware of this or is it just a problem with the model I have?

 

Regards

 

David

I replaced the flangless wheel on a Hornby A3 with one from an A4 detail pack and like you could not get it to rotate.  The main problem was the thickness of the plastic wheel centre which I ground off.  I did not have to remove any metal from the casting.  I did run into a problem with derailments on my 36" radius curves.  There was not enough sidewards motion for the flanged wheels and I had to take a fair bit of each side of the frame casting.

  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Tony Teague said:

 

I put low res images on Flickr for the simple reason that I have already had someone copy an image and upload it again as being their own; quite why you would do this is beyond me and my personal view is that the internet is about as bad as the wild west when it comes to copyright control, so if you use, do so carefully, or expect your 'rights' to be abused.

Good evening Tony,

 

I'm very fortunate in that I'm able to post prototype images on here from several collections; to help others and, on several occasions, to ask questions. 

 

I reduce the size so that, if someone tries to print them, the reproduction is poor in comparison with the full-sized images. 

 

Why folk would 'pinch' images and claim them as their own, I cannot understand (but then I cannot understand any theft). 

 

A similar situation occurs with models from time to time; not theft in the sense of anyone nicking them, but 'theft' of the provenance of the model. I've seen locos/models in competitions where the owner claims that the work is his (it's always a bloke), only to be rumbled (one hopes) when the truth comes out. It really is cheating. 

 

I complimented one guy at Wolverhampton on how his modelling had improved when he brought a model to display at one show (not to put in the competition). He put his name on it, and the assumption was that he'd made it. Not so; the builder turned up!

 

That's one of the reasons I always credit the work of others when I post images on here. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 8
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday, this arrived from my good mate Jesse, all the way from Australia..............

 

752330112_JesseSimV201.jpg.026f0d84f642851a169a59d67addb0fb.jpg

 

He's giving it to me in return for my rebuilding a D2 for him.

 

It's a Nu-Cast V2 which Jesse acquired off Ebay. It's rather well made. However, it's got the original white metal lump for a chassis!

 

He'd forgotten to remove the decoder, so that was the first thing to go. Then, on test, it sounded like a chain saw. The motor was a five pole XO4 clone, but coggy as heck and far too vocal. I replaced it with my last Jepson equivalent, and it's now really sweet. Sweet for an open-framed motor, but not the hush of a modern can. 

 

That said, it fairly bombs along. Do I have the one cast metal chassis that works all right (like the one Winchester which shoots straight?)? 

 

I'm still tempted to fit a Comet replacement chassis, maybe in EM for Retford.

 

The bright green won't last. I'll paint it BR lined black. 

 

Thanks Jesse.  

  • Like 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chamby said:

A request for prototype information, if I may.  

 

I am currently building my station platform canopy.  Based on Leicester (LNER), I am struggling to find any colour photographs of the canopy structure during the early nationalisation period... most images available on the web are either in black-and-white or depict the station after it was transferred over to the London Midland region in the late fifties.

 

Reference sources suggest that it was one of the first stations to be repainted in the revised LNER scheme introduced in 1936/7, and it probably retained this scheme through early nationalisation and right up to the point of 'midland-isation'.   To the best of my knowledge, I don't think Leicester (along with many other ex-LNER stations) ever saw the intended BR(E) scheme in blue.  The revised LNER scheme is described as being Deep Cream BS381C 353 for the canopies and valences, Buckingham Green (aka Deep Brunswick Green BS381C 227) for the columns, and a paler Sea Green BS381C 217 (not dissimilar to Wedgwood Green) for the support brackets and girder frame.  I have no reason to doubt the reference sources, but have no recollection of ever seeing this scheme painted on a canopy supported by columns.  I am wondering if anyone has any personal recollection, or independent photographic record of this colour scheme generally (or otherwise for Leicester) before I progress too far down this route?

 

As an aside, this canopy project is a first venture for me into 3D printing, as the distinctive shape of the canopy is not available commercially.  I struck a deal with my son, whereby I bought him a 3D printer and in return he's designing and producing bespoke components for my railway, to my brief.  He's done a cracking job of it so far... I'll post more about it in due course, but here's a photo of the basic structure:

 

IMG_4299.jpg.3e3df1ec3319f255684f16038f97c468.jpg

 

1231992371_IMG_4337small.jpg.1292c2b679f92aad5a28994a19cdc36e.jpg

 

Columns, girder frames and valences are still to add at this stage, the canopies are just placed on the platform for a first impression.  Oh, and I've discovered a model railway task that's even more tedious than ballasting... glazing platform canopies!

 

Phil

 

Good evening Phil,

 

Nice modelling. Except, were are the bay platforms? Leicester was like a letter H with the two 'island' platforms joined in the middle creating bays at the northern and southern ends. You have through lines running right through the location of the bay platforms. The mainlines were on the outside, not in the middle!

 

 I have black and white pictures taken under the canopy during your time period, the livery appears to be slightly different from that quoted but it is rather complicated. Unfortunately, I think that the glazing was long gone, replaced by a solid roof.

Edited by Headstock
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Teague said:

 

I put low res images on Flickr for the simple reason that I have already had someone copy an image and upload it again as being their own; quite why you would do this is beyond me and my personal view is that the internet is about as bad as the wild west when it comes to copyright control, so if you use, do so carefully, or expect your 'rights' to be abused.

Yes, that has happened to me too. 

  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tony,

 

I'm very fortunate in that I'm able to post prototype images on here from several collections; to help others and, on several occasions, to ask questions. 

 

I reduce the size so that, if someone tries to print them, the reproduction is poor in comparison with the full-sized images. 

 

Why folk would 'pinch' images and claim them as their own, I cannot understand (but then I cannot understand any theft). 

 

A similar situation occurs with models from time to time; not theft in the sense of anyone nicking them, but 'theft' of the provenance of the model. I've seen locos/models in competitions where the owner claims that the work is his (it's always a bloke), only to be rumbled (one hopes) when the truth comes out. It really is cheating. 

 

I complimented one guy at Wolverhampton on how his modelling had improved when he brought a model to display at one show (not to put in the competition). He put his name on it, and the assumption was that he'd made it. Not so; the builder turned up!

 

That's one of the reasons I always credit the work of others when I post images on here. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

A photographic image results from someone placing a light-sensitive surface in the path of photons reflected from objects. Any skill is expended in deciding when, where and how to place that surface in the path of those photons.

 

The claim to copyright presumably arises from a belief that such skill has a monetary value. How many of the railway images that are now available to view were created with a primary motive as to their potential monetary value? How many people have inherited / acquired these images from their originator, and convinced themselves that they have a potential goldmine worth protecting by asserting 'copyright'?

 

I'm not sure why it matters if someone copies 'someone else's image', and claims it as their own; they know it's not true, and why would anyone else care? Even if they sell the image - which I understand they are not in law entitled to do - who is the loser?

 

The rightful owner could have sold the image if they'd chosen to do so - so no loss there; and does the buyer enjoy the image any the less because he / she believes it to be the property of one person or another?

 

I know that copyright is a fact in law; but when images are advertised for sale 'With copyright', it all gets very silly. How does the buyer know who took the original image, and how the 'copyright' has passed to the person now making the sale? Buyer beware!

 

It strikes me that the only ones who profit in these matters are the lawyers!

 

John Isherwood.

 

 

Edited by cctransuk
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

A photographic image results from someone placing a light-sensitive surface in the path of electrons reflected from objects. Any skill is expended in deciding when, where and how to place that surface in the path of those electrons.

 

What you describe is an electrograph, or more usually an electron micrograph, since the technique is rather hard to implement for making images of everyday sized objects. You meant photons, the clue being in the name, photograph.

 

I have no expertise in intellectual property law.

Edited by Compound2632
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What you describe is an electrograph, or more usually an electron micrograph, since the technique is rather hard to implement for making images of everyday size. You meant photons, the clue being in the name, photograph.

 

I have no expertise in intellectual property law.

 

I was conscious, as I typed my layman's interpretation of the photographic process, that I was rushing in where angels fear to tread!

 

Nonetheless, expressing an opinion is well worth treading with size 10s on a few sensitive bunions.

 

I too have no legal expertise, other than a firm opinion that the law is quite often an ass!

 

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
  • Like 4
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

T-Cut on a cocktail stick works better for removing numbers. Something I only discovered recently.

Hi

 

I used a fibre glass brush, carefully removing the early tender totems then rubbed the area with a minute amount of T-Cut on a cotton bud.

 

worked well.

 

David

Edited by landscapes
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Phil,

 

Nice modelling. Except, were are the bay platforms? Leicester was like a letter H with the two 'island' platforms joined in the middle creating bays at the northern and southern ends. You have through lines running right through the location of the bay platforms. The mainlines were on the outside, not in the middle!

 

 I have black and white pictures taken under the canopy during your time period, the livery appears to be slightly different from that quoted but it is rather complicated. Unfortunately, I think that the glazing was long gone, replaced by a solid roof.

 

Hi Andrew.

 

Yes the bay platforms are currently modelled as through platforms and that is deliberate... for now.  Leicester Central was a long platform at 1245 feet and the long bays at each end are a distinctive feature.  

 

I currently have 16 feet available for my layout and severe compromises are required.   Platforms are currently 8 feet long.  If I modelled the full ‘H’ then the bays would be way too short and the island buildings in the middle also severely compromised.  I considered modelling one end of the station accurately, but in the end decided to remove the centre section completely and run the bays into each other as through lines.  

 

There is a baseboard join deliberately located in the middle of the platforms, the plan being to insert an additional section with all the island platform structures and bay-ends at a later date, restoring the H shape.  A future project for either when I can relocate to a larger room, or for a possible extended format for exhibiting.   I have some Bachmann RTP Great Central buildings that fit on the platforms temporarily at the north end.  The south end will be more to prototype , with the twin water towers and their connecting pipe, and the lattice girders spanning the centre roads between the canopies making its heritage obvious to those in the know.  The signalling and operation will still keep the outside platforms as the main running lines.

 

You are correct in that many of the canopies had their original glazing replaced with corrugated sheets by the early fifties, particularly either side of the bays.  I’m glazing them all for now, as the architect originally intended, but they will be easy enough to cover over later as the whole model becomes closer to the prototype and I can proclaim it as a genuine model rather than a constrained derivation.

 

The approach trackwork also has been simplified using modified proprietary items for now, the outside slips, asymmetric scissor crossings and a 3-way left hand turnout are all in the future plan.  I have never built my own trackwork before now, but will do, to achieve this.  This is a one-man retirement project that needed to have something up and running quickly, but will progressively develop over the long-term as a learning journey that sees the layout evolve ever closer to the prototype as I progress.  I plan to do it all myself, but learning from others along the way.  I appreciate that this is perhaps an unusual approach, but for me right now, it’s all about the modelling journey and I don’t mind at all that the final destination is some time and probably several iterations ahead.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Chamby
To clarify a point.
  • Like 8
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

There's a coincidence - this evening I've been fitting Fox nameplates to Thane of Fife.

 

I did take the original plates off; I thought they stuck out far enough as it was, without the extra thickness of sticking the replacements on top.  I managed to get the old plates off by carefully levering from behind with a small screwdriver.  I thought if I broke them it wouldn't matter as I had new ones to fit, anyway!  The A2/2s seem to have had some kind of mounting which placed the 'plates "stood off" the smokebox sides and held the plates vertical.   I had visions of sticking a strip of thin plasticard along the bottom edge of the 'plates to make them sit vertically, but needn't have worried as once I got the plastic plates off, two mounting lugs were revealed on the side of the smokebox which did exactly that!  So I just glued the new 'plates onto the lugs.

 

I also fitted the Fox works plates to the cab sides, but left the printed smokebox number plate alone.

 

Here is a picture of 60505 with its new plates; the lettering isn't very clear in this picture and one is reminded of Peter Townend's story of being 'told off' for painting the nameplates red after a photographer complained that the lettering wasn't very visible in black and white photos!

 

IMG_3929.jpg.004e39b8e84b067db28fe13203eceeba.jpg

 

Tony, you are very brave soldering those handrail extensions in place like that - I don't think I'd have dared attempt it!

 

I must say, whenever I've tried to remove printed numbers by scraping, either with a scalpel or a fibreglass brush, I've always ended up with visible scratches on the surface of the plastic - perhaps I am too impatient.  I normally use T Cut on the end of a cocktail stick and / or cotton buds, and as much patience as I can muster.

 

 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

The replacement '2' isn't exactly the same colour, but weathering will disguise this.

At least it's the same size. I tried renumbering a Kernow O2 just by changing the last two digits but the Pressfix replacements were bigger, so I ended up having to change the lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Personally, I'm against image copyrighting. In our internet dominated society images are everywhere, easily downloaded, stored, transmitted etc. If a person is so "up tight" about image being "theirs" then the answer is simple - keep it in a box under your bed !!!

I also dislike intensely watermarked images - again why ?. 

 

I worry a bit (just a bit as I border on sod it) as to where society, social media and the net is going, re the Facebook / Australia case currently in the news (which I don't fully understand). yes, it's all about money.

 

Remember the phrase "Publish and be damned" !!!! If it is in the public domain it belongs to the public in my mind..

 

I've probably, nay most certainly touched nerves there, and will be slated, but that's just how I feel about the subject. I will follow "the rules" as much as possible (law) - just that I think the rules are wrong, soo out of date.

 

Tin hat on - incoming flack !!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15 (my images anyone can use, just as a courtesy please mention the source.) 

Outraged and if I wrote what I wanted to write I would be justifiably slung off RMWeb. So the polite reply-

 

if it is in the public domain yes.

 

if it isn’t declared as being PD then theft is theft. How hard is it to just copy a link.

  • Agree 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Yesterday, this arrived from my good mate Jesse, all the way from Australia..............

 

752330112_JesseSimV201.jpg.026f0d84f642851a169a59d67addb0fb.jpg

 

He's giving it to me in return for my rebuilding a D2 for him.

 

It's a Nu-Cast V2 which Jesse acquired off Ebay. It's rather well made. However, it's got the original white metal lump for a chassis!

 

He'd forgotten to remove the decoder, so that was the first thing to go. Then, on test, it sounded like a chain saw. The motor was a five pole XO4 clone, but coggy as heck and far too vocal. I replaced it with my last Jepson equivalent, and it's now really sweet. Sweet for an open-framed motor, but not the hush of a modern can. 

 

That said, it fairly bombs along. Do I have the one cast metal chassis that works all right (like the one Winchester which shoots straight?)? 

 

I'm still tempted to fit a Comet replacement chassis, maybe in EM for Retford.

 

The bright green won't last. I'll paint it BR lined black. 

 

Thanks Jesse.  

That’s alright Tony, as you said on the phone last night she’s been built beautifully and wasn’t doing anything here. 
 

Rather it go somewhere where it could be tidied up and put through its paces, I may build one later on when I have a few more years under my belt. 
 

Now get cracking on that D2, or I will be talking to your boss!  :rtfm:

  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

Hi Andrew.

 

Yes the bay platforms are currently modelled as through platforms and that is deliberate... for now.  Leicester Central was a long platform at 1245 feet and the long bays at each end are a distinctive feature.  

 

I currently have 16 feet available for my layout and severe compromises are required.   Platforms are currently 8 feet long.  If I modelled the full ‘H’ then the bays would be way too short and the island buildings in the middle also severely compromised.  I considered modelling one end of the station accurately, but in the end decided to remove the centre section completely and run the bays into each other as through lines.  

 

There is a baseboard join deliberately located in the middle of the platforms, the plan being to insert an additional section with all the island platform structures and bay-ends at a later date, restoring the H shape.  A future project for either when I can relocate to a larger room, or for a possible extended format for exhibiting.   I have some Bachmann RTP Great Central buildings that fit on the platforms temporarily at the north end.  The south end will be more to prototype , with the twin water towers and their connecting pipe, and the lattice girders spanning the centre roads between the canopies making its heritage obvious to those in the know.  The signalling and operation will still keep the outside platforms as the main running lines.

 

You are correct in that many of the canopies had their original glazing replaced with corrugated sheets by the early fifties, particularly either side of the bays.  I’m glazing them all for now, as the architect originally intended, but they will be easy enough to cover over later as the whole model becomes closer to the prototype and I can proclaim it as a genuine model rather than a constrained derivation.

 

The approach trackwork also has been simplified using modified proprietary items for now, the outside slips, asymmetric scissor crossings and a 3-way left hand turnout are all in the future plan.  I have never built my own trackwork before now, but will do, to achieve this.  This is a one-man retirement project that needed to have something up and running quickly, but will progressively develop over the long-term as a learning journey that sees the layout evolve ever closer to the prototype as I progress.  I plan to do it all myself, but learning from others along the way.  I appreciate that this is perhaps an unusual approach, but for me right now, it’s all about the modelling journey and I don’t mind at all that the final destination is some time and probably several iterations ahead.

 

 

 

 

.

 

Good evening Phil,

 

By your time, the bays were hardly being used for terminating or departing passenger traffic, so the length is not that important. However, without them the station can not be operated prototypically. The only trains that ran straight through Leicester Central station were the runners, they avoided the station via the outside lines. Every passenger train stopped at Leicester Central station on the outer platforms and did one of the following, changed engines, changed crews, dropped off or picked up extra carriages, dropped off or picked up vans, or were remarshalled to return in the direction they had come.

 

A change over locomotive would be waiting in one of the bay platforms to take over an express, once the train engine had come off the stock in the outside lines . Parcels vans would be marshalled in the bay platform to add on to a train, or a train engine would remove such traffic from a train and place them in the bay platform. Strengthening carriages were a major feature of operations at Leicester, they were added and removed from trains by use of the bay platforms. There was a constant flow of traffic being moved back and forth between the bay platforms, the parcels depot, Leicester shed, the goods depot, the carriage sidings and cleaning sheds and the mainlines that ran either side of the island platforms.

 

Looking at aero films images, that were gathered originally for what was going to be a model of Leicester Central station, ninety percent of the over all roof was covered over by the late thirties. By your time, you couldn't see a darn thing, except the tops of a few buildings pocking out of the top of the canopy. That was the main reason the model was abandoned and the location moved a couple of hundred yards south of the station. The traffic movements were fantastic and complex.  Just swapping and turning the locomotives from the south and northbound York Bristol, Bristol York trains, that met at Leicester and departed again, was pretty complex. Unfortunately, like most movements, you wouldn't be able to see most of what was going on.

 

I would at least consider not using the phantom through lines for that purpose. Rather you could keep them for marshalling locomotives and stock, just like the real bay platforms and keep the passenger and freight stock to the outside lines were they should be. As it is, you have  taken one of the London extensions iconic  Island platform complexes and ruthlessly cut it in two, creating two isolated up and down platforms, without a subway, bridge any other means of traveling from one amputated part to the other. Did you ancestors work for the MR?

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

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Headstock said:

Nice modelling. Except, were are the bay platforms? Leicester was like a letter H with the two 'island' platforms joined in the middle creating bays at the northern and southern ends. You have through lines running right through the location of the bay platforms. The mainlines were on the outside, not in the middle!

 

3 hours ago, Chamby said:

Yes the bay platforms are currently modelled as through platforms and that is deliberate... for now.  Leicester Central was a long platform at 1245 feet and the long bays at each end are a distinctive feature.  

 

I currently have 16 feet available for my layout and severe compromises are required.   Platforms are currently 8 feet long.  If I modelled the full ‘H’ then the bays would be way too short and the island buildings in the middle also severely compromised.  I considered modelling one end of the station accurately, but in the end decided to remove the centre section completely and run the bays into each other as through lines.  

 

34 minutes ago, Headstock said:

However, without them the station can not be operated prototypically.

Perhaps Phil already has this in mind but a way to achieve both aims would be to separate the two ends of the "through bays" operationally by a piece of card, block of wood or pairs of buffer stops back-to-back. These could be removed easily as and when the extra centre section is fitted.

  • Thanks 1
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...