Wright writes.....

[Chamby]

When exhibiting a layout, I believe the priority should always be to put on a good show for the paying public.  Any operator self-indulgence should always be consistent with this.

 

There are some excellent layouts where prototypical operations are being ‘exhibited’ and these can be captivating for the observer when done diligently, and most satisfying for the operators.  

 

It always comes down to the mindset of the operating team.  Are they ‘putting on a good show’, or ‘having a jolly day out with the layout’?  It makes all the difference.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

11 minutes ago, Chamby said:

When exhibiting a layout, I believe the priority should always be to put on a good show for the paying public.  Any operator self-indulgence should always be consistent with this.

 

There are some excellent layouts where prototypical operations are being ‘exhibited’ and these can be captivating for the observer when done diligently, and most satisfying for the operators.  

 

It always comes down to the mindset of the operating team.  Are they ‘putting on a good show’, or ‘having a jolly day out with the layout’?  It makes all the difference.

 

 

Good morning Phil,

 

I don't think 'putting on a good show' or 'having a jolly day out with the layout' are mutually exclusive. In my experience, both can be combined (though, on one occasion, a bloke opined to me that the operators seemed to be laughing. The fact that a 'good show' was still being put on didn't seem to occur to him). 

 

That said, the situation where all that the operators seem to be doing is talking among themselves, with nothing happening to show to the paying public, is totally unacceptable.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Watching the trains go by......

 

Did Mo give you a bottle of pop and jam sandwiches?

Unfortunately not, but she did call me in for tea.

 

65 years ago, the bottle of pop and (banana) sandwiches would have been provided for us by my gran; given to us before a day's 'spotting at Retford. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

19 minutes ago, Chamby said:

When exhibiting a layout, I believe the priority should always be to put on a good show for the paying public.  Any operator self-indulgence should always be consistent with this.

 

There are some excellent layouts where prototypical operations are being ‘exhibited’ and these can be captivating for the observer when done diligently, and most satisfying for the operators.  

 

It always comes down to the mindset of the operating team.  Are they ‘putting on a good show’, or ‘having a jolly day out with the layout’?  It makes all the difference.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Phil,

 

I don't think 'putting on a good show' or 'having a jolly day out with the layout' are mutually exclusive. In my experience, both can be combined (though, on one occasion, a bloke opined to me that the operators seemed to be laughing. The fact that a 'good show' was still being put on didn't seem to occur to him). 

 

That said, the situation where all that the operators seem to be doing is talking among themselves, with nothing happening to show to the paying public, is totally unacceptable.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Both comments spot on.

 

If operators are not going to enjoy themselves and if a show isn't fun to do, then why bother.

 

I used to be really shy and would hardly talk to strangers but many years exhibiting layouts has taught me to be a bit of a "showman" and I now really enjoy interacting with the people watching, explaining what I am doing and why, or involving them in making decisions as to which wagons should be detached from a goods, or which of a choice of locos they would like to see come off shed for the next train.

 

So having fun and putting on a show are not an either/or. they are very much both important parts of exhibiting.

 

 

[Dragonboy]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

There is certainly a big difference between operating to please a viewer and operating to keep the operator interested.

 

I have always believed that the best layouts satisfy both requirements.

 

It is possible, even with a tiny branch terminus, if you put some thought into it.

 

Train arrives, loco runs round, train leaves is easy but a bit dull.

 

Train arrives, loco runs round, detaches van from rear and puts it in the yard, then picks up horse box from dock and puts it on the front. Then the goods arrives in the loop, clearing the single track section for the passenger to depart.

 

It is those sorts of moves that make even little Leighton Buzzard a joy to watch or to operate. When we took it to shows, when I wasn't operating I would often just watch it to see how the person on the controls did the shunting. When I was operating, I didn't feel that I needed a break but came off so somebody else could have a turn. I never got bored for one moment and I enjoyed exhibiting it probably more than any other layout. Some people would watch it for an hour or more and then come back for a second look.

 

When I went out a few times with Gresley Beat, we had huge crowds round and it was a real show stopper but I found it boring to operate. Send one round. Send another one round. Repeat.

 

It is up to each of us to decide what gives us pleasure in the hobby and the variety is what makes it so fascinating to me. What people have chosen to build and why can be just as interesting as what techniques they have used.

 

 

 

 

I have to say that I was at the Warley show a few years ago purely to see Leighton Buzzard, and was unashamedly parked for a long time first thing in the morning, and I was back for second helpings before I left for home.

 

I was most certainly entertained, and mesmerised trying to predict in my head what the next move would be. I was a miserable failure there but importantly everything seemed to flow seamlessly.

 

I saw LB again the next year and I think it was possibly at Stoke Mandeville Stadium, and was again transfixed at the seemingly effortless way the layout performed, which given its great age is a fitting tribute to Reverend Denny, and more recently to t-b-g in keeping LB going which I’d guess can be “challenging” at times.

 

Brian

 

 

[robertcwp]

16 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I must admit on none of the many occasions when I visited Roy's Retford did I ever operate it (I still don't; as you know, model railway operation holds little appeal to me). At times when just a few were visiting, the operation was sporadic, often running visiting locos (mine included). Roy rarely seemed to participate much. Even when there were 'open days', he didn't seem to bother, leaving its operation to others. Now, you'll probably think I'm having another 'pop' at Retford, but during all the 'open days' when I visited, Retford's operation was nothing I'd have tolerated, were I involved. There seemed to by fewer things happening than at the real place (and Retford had at least one 'dead hour' in its day). Observers would look, wait, turn away, then chat to each other or watch Blakeney or Black Lion (where things were happening). Even when things did run, there were often major clangers (sorry Andrew). On one occasion, an Up express was going full bore when it came to a dead stand on the crossing. The last movement had been a train on the GC and someone (everyone?) had forgotten to throw the appropriate switch. The express almost had enough momentum to just skid across. Roy's comments were unrepeatable! 

 

I was often disappointed by the quality of the running when I visited. I have video, which I have not made public, of the down West Riding being diverted along the goods avoiding line, for example.

 

The first time I operated Retford was after Sandra had acquired it and it certainly takes concentration and practice to do it anywhere near properly. As I commented previously and in common with many other layouts, the biggest failing is not restoring levers and panel switches to normal after a move. 

 

The layout is so big that one move can take several minutes. An express travelling at a scale 65 mph takes around two minutes to go round the GN, possibly slightly more. Slower freight takes a lot longer. The way it's all configured means that, for the most part, only one train can be in circuit in each direction at at time and has to be back in its fiddleyard loop before the levers can be pulled for the next one. If there is a GC move going on, and the next GN one is a freight, it is possible to bring the train up to just before the scenic section in advance of the road being set or, in the up direction, run slowly through and be prepared to stop at the up home. As through passenger trains will generally be travelling faster, they can generally go round in one go.

 

The flat crossing is worked by South Box. Levers 38 and 98 normal means it is set for the GN. Reversing both levers sets it for the GC. The two levers operate the catch points immediately to the west of the crossing and also change the polarity. 

[Roger Sunderland]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Roger,

 

Like most classes with multiple members, K3s would have swopped tenders. 

 

Do you not have access to Yeadon's Volume Eight or the RCTS Part 6A in the green series? Though individual tenders are listed in neither, there are plenty of pictures. 

 

A brief glance through both shows numbers 61808, 61832, 61820, 61845 (RCTS), 61817, 61802, 61804, 61867, 61846, 61800, 61840, 61850 and 61823, all running with 4,200 GS flared tenders. Look at pictorial volumes and I'm sure you'll find others.

 

As yet there is no Book of the K3s from Irwell, but it's sure to be on the radar.

 

 

Here's one of my K3s (Anchorage), with a flared tender, built/painted/weathered by Tony Geary. It was shedded at Gorton in 1959.

 

 

And a real 61835, at March, its home depot, in 1958. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Many thanks for your help Tony. I don’t have access to Yeadons ( probably should though). I do have a number of pictorial books on West Yorkshire but as K3’s were occasional visitors I was struggling to find a flared tender version. I’m sure I can find an example from the list you’ve given.

[Roger Sunderland]

11 hours ago, 65179 said:

 

If I read it correctly the RCTS Book suggests all or most of 61800-869 were built with flared tenders or received them as replacements for GN ones. There were swaps subsequently though, including with later numbered locos. In addition to the book approach suggested by Tony, websites such as Rail Online, Railphotoprints, Colour Rail, Transport Library etc are a good way of double-checking which tender the locos you know worked in W Yorks have the right combination of features at the right time.

 

61808 looks like a decent option for example:

 

https://railphotoprints.uk/p83237652/hC08E648

 

Simon

Many thanks Simon. 61808 was indeed recorded working over the Calder Valley line on more than one occasion 

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Possibly 15 years or so ago, Roy very kindly let me visit Retford during a group meeting, so I can appreciate the overall complexity that you all face. As noted earlier, I run to 'my own system', so I know what is involved.

 

Can I make a suggestion for you all, now that you are 'under new management' so to speak?

 

1. When Covid permits, gather round the layout with a large flip chart;

2. Come up with an agreement: What would a perfect running session for us all look like? 

3. Assign responsibilities accordingly - signals, track,  electrics, couplings etc (Robert is already on coaches);

4. Work to an agreed timescale (which needs to be 'firm but flexible' under Covid);

5. Book a date for a 'dummy run' - start 'simple';

6. Review and improve - build in greater operating complexities over time, such as attaching/detaching, shunting etc.

 

This may sound like 'management speak' and - to some extent -  I agree that it is.

 

However, I'll leave you with a quote from Winston Churchill in a memo he sent concerning the building of the completely novel and untried ships that my father served in during WWII:

 

Don't argue the matter...the difficulties will argue for themselves.

 

Brian

 

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by BMacdermott

[Major Clanger]

28 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

The flat crossing is worked by South Box. Levers 38 and 98 normal means it is set for the GN. Reversing both levers sets it for the GC. The two levers operate the catch points immediately to the west of the crossing and also change the polarity. 

Robert,

 

It doesn't have to be both levers - either one will do for the appropriate direction of travel. I would like to interlock these with the signals - at present you can go past a clear signal in the up direction and end up in the ballast because 38 hasn't been pulled. The down direction is not as critical - if 98 is not pulled, you will run out of volts when you get to the crossing before you derail on the catch point. BTW, 38 is a trap point, not a catch point - traps stop movement in the right direction; catch points work for the wrong direction - the classic use being runaway unfitted wagons going backwards on a rising gradient due to a broken coupling. As modelled, 98 is not a true catch point as you can't trail through it in the right direction, it being worked by an H&M point motor.

[jwealleans]

43 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

The way it's all configured means that, for the most part, only one train can be in circuit in each direction at at time and has to be back in its fiddleyard loop before the levers can be pulled for the next one.

 

We hit this issue with Grantham, which is only a quarter of the size of Retford and developed handover sections such that trains can move up to just off the scenic area while the preceding move is still going on.     Front of house operators only need to drive trains so far into the fiddle yard sections before the rear operators can pick them up and complete the move, freeing the front to start the next one.   It's what my big red knob, which we often giggle about, is used for.    It certainly speeded things up and reduced waiting time for trains.

[t-b-g]

51 minutes ago, Dragonboy said:

I have to say that I was at the Warley show a few years ago purely to see Leighton Buzzard, and was unashamedly parked for a long time first thing in the morning, and I was back for second helpings before I left for home.

 

I was most certainly entertained, and mesmerised trying to predict in my head what the next move would be. I was a miserable failure there but importantly everything seemed to flow seamlessly.

 

I saw LB again the next year and I think it was possibly at Stoke Mandeville Stadium, and was again transfixed at the seemingly effortless way the layout performed, which given its great age is a fitting tribute to Reverend Denny, and more recently to t-b-g in keeping LB going which I’d guess can be “challenging” at times.

 

Brian

 

 

 

Comments like that make all the hard work well worthwhile.

 

A simple "thanks" button didn't seem adequate.

 

Much appreciated.

 

Tony Gee 

[robertcwp]

30 minutes ago, Major Clanger said:

Robert,

 

It doesn't have to be both levers - either one will do for the appropriate direction of travel. I would like to interlock these with the signals - at present you can go past a clear signal in the up direction and end up in the ballast because 38 hasn't been pulled. The down direction is not as critical - if 98 is not pulled, you will run out of volts when you get to the crossing before you derail on the catch point. BTW, 38 is a trap point, not a catch point - traps stop movement in the right direction; catch points work for the wrong direction - the classic use being runaway unfitted wagons going backwards on a rising gradient due to a broken coupling. As modelled, 98 is not a true catch point as you can't trail through it in the right direction, it being worked by an H&M point motor.

I always do both levers although I know only one is necessary in some cases. Good point about trap v catch. Must try harder to get the jargon right!

[t-b-g]

26 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello everyone

 

Possibly 15 years or so ago, Roy very kindly let me visit Retford during a group meeting, so I can appreciate the overall complexity that you all face. As noted earlier, I run to 'my own system', so I know what is involved.

 

Can I make a suggestion for you all, now that you are 'under new management' so to speak?

 

1. When Covid permits, gather round the layout with a large flip chart;

2. Come up with an agreement: What would a perfect running session for us all look like? 

3. Assign responsibilities accordingly - signals, track,  electrics, couplings etc (Robert is already on coaches);

4. Work to an agreed timescale (which needs to be 'firm but flexible' under Covid);

5. Book a date for a 'dummy run' - start 'simple';

6. Review and improve - build in greater operating complexities over time, such as attaching/detaching, shunting etc.

 

This may sound like 'management speak' and - to some extent -  I agree that it is.

 

However, I'll leave you with a quote from Winston Churchill in a memo he sent concerning the building of the completely novel and untried ships that my father served in during WWII:

 

Don't argue the matter...the difficulties will argue for themselves.

 

Brian

 

 

 

Roy Jackson had many good points but leadership and driving the project forward were not amongst them. It really did drift and there was no real plan. He had no interest in running the layout and delegated the task of organising that to Steve Hall.

 

Steve must have put in huge amounts of time devising the various versions of the sequence and I think he ended up as frustrated as I was. The problems were all down to lack of familiarity of the operators, who would often run the layout once a year then come back again to the next running day a year later. There would be a revised sequence, perhaps some new trains and maybe some new switches on the panel, or some signals that were not there previously. There were usually no rehearsals and no practice sessions before people were invited to come to see the layout.

 

That, in my view, was the biggest factor in the poor operating, along with the sheer number of people involved and the long sessions. Having three people on a complex panel for several hours led to miscommunication and fatigue. We just got in the way of the others. I would have had one person on there for an hour at a time, then swap over. That needs a good number of operators who know how to work it properly.

 

It got to the stage where anything other than running trains through was regarded as "too difficult" and those moves were gradually dropped.

 

You are quite right. For a layout of that complexity, some leadership, a plan, rehearsals and clear ideas as to how to go about achieving it are a very good starting point.

[60027Merlin]

At last the DJH kits posted on here many months ago were finished off last week and now have had a spin round the layout. Running in will be for later as my wife contracted shingles a month ago and modelling time is limited for the time being.

 

Earl Marischal is modelled in its final year or so about 6 months after its general overhaul and beginning to look a bit shabby. I preferred to finish it off that way showing mainly green rather than later on when it was more or less grey.

 

 

[BMacdermott]

Hello t-b-g

 

I will quote from the 'Lessons Learned' section of the article by Steve Hall in MRJ No.171 of 2006...

 

"Other factors to take into account early on (in planning a layout) revolve around deciding how the layout will be operated, by how many and what their roles will be and how they will communicate with each other. I would also suggest making the control panels simple to understand in order to minimise the number of operator errors."

 

To use another piece of management speak (that derived from the film In Which We Serve)...

 

An efficient ship is a happy ship.

 

It sounds to me that matters have only become more complex and fractious. Retford is in need of some tender loving care!

 

Brian

 

 

[landscapes]

38 minutes ago, 60027Merlin said:

At last the DJH kits posted on here many months ago were finished off last week and now have had a spin round the layout. Running in will be for later as my wife contracted shingles a month ago and modelling time is limited for the time being.

 

Earl Marischal is modelled in its final year or so about 6 months after its general overhaul and beginning to look a bit shabby. I preferred to finish it off that way showing mainly green rather than later on when it was more or less grey.

 

 

Hi Eric 

 

Two lovely models beautifully weathered. , both look great on your layout.

 

Sorry to hear about your wife and I wish her a speedy recovery.

 

My railway modelling has come to a halt for the past six weeks as I have a very bad nasal condition which has caused severe problems and requires surgery next week, just cannot concentrate on anything at the moment.

 

Hopefully we will both be back railway modelling properly in the not to distant future.

 

Best Regards 

 

David

[t-b-g]

54 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello t-b-g

 

I will quote from the 'Lessons Learned' section of the article by Steve Hall in MRJ No.171 of 2006...

 

"Other factors to take into account early on (in planning a layout) revolve around deciding how the layout will be operated, by how many and what their roles will be and how they will communicate with each other. I would also suggest making the control panels simple to understand in order to minimise the number of operator errors."

 

To use another piece of management speak (that derived from the film In Which We Serve)...

 

An efficient ship is a happy ship.

 

It sounds to me that matters have only become more complex and fractious. Retford is in need of some tender loving care!

 

Brian

 

 

 

I had forgotten that Steve Hall had written an article about it. When Roy started the layout, he had no idea if he would ever have anywhere to put it, how many people would operate it and how they would do it. He never was interested in operating and always left that to others. So such things were not really considered and we were presented with the layout up and wired Roy's way and had to try to run it with what was already done. A few changes and alterations were made following suggestions from the people trying to run it but on the whole it is still Roy's basic design.

 

Where did those 15 years go?

 

I am trying to reconcile dates in my mind as that was probably after I got involved but there is no sign of any of my work on the scenery around the flat crossing, which was the bit I started first. Perhaps the photos were older ones that were not taken specifically for the article. Or maybe the article was written a while before it was published.

 

[BMacdermott]

Hello t-b-g

 

In the accompanying article to that of Steve Hall by MRJ Editor, Tim Shackleton, you are mentioned as working the GN Control Panel.

 

Having looked back through a number of postings, it does seem to me - admittedly as an outside observer - that the wiring and interlocking is a root cause of at least some of the frustrations.

 

I have to admit I made wiring mistakes on my own layout initially but - fortunately - they were easily corrected. I initially had cab control for two controllers so that, for example, I could run trains on my Down Slow and Down Fast at the same time 'for the sake of excitement'. That soon became tedious and of little value to the overall effect.

 

Achieving 'simple but effective' is a hard task!

 

Brian

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, 60027Merlin said:

At last the DJH kits posted on here many months ago were finished off last week and now have had a spin round the layout. Running in will be for later as my wife contracted shingles a month ago and modelling time is limited for the time being.

 

Earl Marischal is modelled in its final year or so about 6 months after its general overhaul and beginning to look a bit shabby. I preferred to finish it off that way showing mainly green rather than later on when it was more or less grey.

 

 

Nice models.

 

Sort of 'snap' Eric.....................

 

 

This is the modified Hornby A2/2 featured in the current issue of BRM, altered by me and weathered by Geoff Haynes. 

 

The tender front is more accurate on yours. However, you've fixed the nameplate in the earlier position. In the condition represent by your 60502 (later in its life, with lipped chimney and the second BR device), the nameplates were much further forward on the smokebox sides. Yet another 'quirk' regarding this small class. 

 

 

Here's another DJH A2/3, again 60517 OCEAN SWELL. This was built/painted by John Houlden, and it's seen running on his now-cremated Gamston Bank. I sold this loco on for him.

 

I hope Janet soon recovers. I had a (mild) bout of shingles last year, but it was still uncomfortable.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Dunsignalling]

Whilst no more than half the size of Retford, and somewhat less complex, there aren't enough "members" in our little group to operate Bournemouth Central on our own. We too therefore rely on visiting operators to make up the absolute minimum of six required. Fortunately, a number of TMRG members are keen to run it as often as they get the chance. Ideally, that would be every couple of months, but that's gone out of the window thanks to Covid!

 

The layout is operated on a walkaround basis, with up and down drivers, using wireless DC controllers, Signalman/supervisor on the "Mighty Wurlitzer" and separate operators for loco shed, goods yards and the two main sets of storage roads. Theoretically, we "need" seven operators, but Tom prefers to work both the "WaterlooWeymouth" and "Bournemouth West" fiddle yards solo, so we usually "run" with six plus one or two learners if enough of the experienced crew are in attendance. The presence of a seventh allows one of us to act as supervisor, trainer and "control", thereby freeing the main panel operator to concentrate exclusively on the "day job".

 

The real key to success can be summed up in one word, familiarity; it doesn't breed contempt, quite the reverse, it breeds competence. Once you have enough who really know their stuff, they can take newcomers under their wings.

 

Trying to run the thing with a crew that hasn't touched it for a year and more creates some foreboding, and we haven't yet arranged our first post-lockdown session. When we do, it will be with our "A-team" and no learners; even we will inevitably be rusty. It will take a while to get back up to speed in every sense of the expression. 

 

It sounds like Retford is rather like that every time it gets run, so you have my sympathy!

 

John

Edited June 6, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

I'd never dream to question Roy Jackson's wiring, other than I found it (on the one occasion when I drove a train around Retford, unassisted) completely baffling. I drove the loco I'd made using the position by North Box. There seemed to be odd switches which were needed, but they were in even odder places. I gave up!

 

One thing I've found out is that the layout doesn't seem to be divided into 'zones' (this has nothing to do with DCC, by the way). Thus, each main circuit  (on both routes) is just one section it would seem. Might it be better divided into separate sections? 

 

Another thing I'm unambiguous about is this; though I'm prepared to help out with Retford's future in any way I can - building EM frames, making things, etc, I shall certainly not participate in any of its running. 

[BMacdermott]

25 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Having looked back through a number of postings, it does seem to me - admittedly as an outside observer - that the wiring and interlocking is a root cause of at least some of the frustrations.

 

Hello again everyone

 

I have just had a look at Roy's article, Retford in 4mm, which appeared in MRJ No.118, 2000. His purpose of building the layout was clear - to enjoy watching the trains he remembered. He went on to say (quote):

 

"We haven't discussed electrics yet, and we won't! The last thing we want to do is ruin a good dream by complicating it! It is envisaged that full cab control would be employed with eight controllers, and although I expect the electrification to be taxing, I feel it is all too easy to be frightened due to the sheer scale of the work. After all, it's only a bit of wire and some electricity, isn't it".

 

Brian

 

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by BMacdermott

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello t-b-g

 

In the accompanying article to that of Steve Hall by MRJ Editor, Tim Shackleton, you are mentioned as working the GN Control Panel.

 

Having looked back through a number of postings, it does seem to me - admittedly as an outside observer - that the wiring and interlocking is a root cause of at least some of the frustrations.

 

I have to admit I made wiring mistakes on my own layout initially but - fortunately - they were easily corrected. I initially had cab control for two controllers so that, for example, I could run trains on my Down Slow and Down Fast at the same time 'for the sake of excitement'. That soon became tedious and of little value to the overall effect.

 

Achieving 'simple but effective' is a hard task!

 

Brian

 

Thanks Brian, I had missed the name check.

 

I think the photos must have been older ones then.

 

The only interlocking is electrical for the distant signals, which you cannot clear unless the relevant signals have been pulled.

 

The rest is down to the cab control wiring and knowing which controller is attached to which bit of the track when certain combinations of points are pulled. It was all quite logical to Roy but his idea of logic was not the same as the one most people have. There have been many times when I have visited layouts and been able to operate them just after looking at the panel/levers/controllers and watching somebody for a few minutes. With Retford, you really need to get to know the layout, which takes time. Once you have done that, you can make it work and work well.

 

So to me, the biggest problem was that it was not a layout to operate occasionally, yet occasional operators were trying to work a complex sequence with people watching and with Roy making rather unhelpful suggestions as to what might happen to people who made a mess of it. When people were watching, he changed from not having any interest in the operation of the layout to wanting perfection.

 

They were interesting times but things have moved on and I am delighted that Sandra is far more interested in running the layout than Roy ever was. More frequent running will solve most of the problems as people get to know all the little tricks that you need to know.

 

Regards

 

Tony

 

 

[t-b-g]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'd never dream to question Roy Jackson's wiring, other than I found it (on the one occasion when I drove a train around Retford, unassisted) completely baffling. I drove the loco I'd made using the position by North Box. There seemed to be odd switches which were needed, but they were in even odder places. I gave up!

 

One thing I've found out is that the layout doesn't seem to be divided into 'zones' (this has nothing to do with DCC, by the way). Thus, each main circuit  (on both routes) is just one section it would seem. Might it be better divided into separate sections? 

 

Another thing I'm unambiguous about is this; though I'm prepared to help out with Retford's future in any way I can - building EM frames, making things, etc, I shall certainly not participate in any of its running. 

 

That is a pretty accurate assessment! My natural reaction is to put a point back once a train has passed safely over it but on Retford that could stop the train a scale mile away.