Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

St Enodoc, I have close coupled the tenders of all my B1s, V2s and J39s using the same process Tony has described although I am lazy.  I use a bolt, drill an undersize hole and screw the bolt in.  I have in front of me a B1 tender.  The gap to the back of my pin to the front of the "bulge" representing the proper connection is 5.2mm, or approx 6.85mm to the front of the tender chassis, or 11.4mm from the centre line of the bolt to the centreline of the tender hook mounting attachment.   My minimum mainline curve is 30" and I use Peco minimum radius points with no problems.

Perfect - many thanks Theaker. A 10 BA brass screw cutting its own thread in the plastic is what I had in mind too.

[bluebottle]

Crikey, I haven't heard Bob Dawson's name for years. Memories of Dawarton in the Assembly Rooms. Does he still use computer chads for brickwork?

 

My snap of Bob at the Pontefract show back in January this year. I think those are computer chads he's applying!

 

[geoff west]

Another enjoyable day has been spent 'fiddling' with a friend's models, then running them. 

 

This time it's Geoff West, who's just getting going with his project of modelling a bit of the ECML in steam days. He's not sure which bit but I'm to blame, apparently. 

 

He's started by acquiring some stuff off eBay (a complete mystery to me!), including some older, split-chassis Bachmann locos. My first reaction was 'you dope!', but all of his run beautifully. Everyone I've ever had (several B1s and V2s) have been hopeless, so he must have the knack of 'buying right'. He accepts their visual limitations right now, but we completed a few improvements.

 

DSC_8927.JPG

 

Why Bachmann's drawbar is so long is a question which has puzzled many for years. So, lop off the original peg, drill a hole for a replacement brass one, superglue it in place and the job is done. I also lopped-off the dumb-buffers, since they serve no purpose.

 

DSC_8929.JPG

 

What a difference, and the nearer one will easily negotiate 2' 6" radius curves.

 

DSC_8932.JPG

 

Here's one of his close-coupled V2s in action. I changed the original 'British Railways' on the tender to the cycling lion and in removing the former exposed a green body underneath. Oh dear! No matter, just weather it. Geoff weathered the loco and I the tender. Real coal helps as well.

 

DSC_8935.JPG

 

The drawbar was also shortened on this B1, and a replacement electric lamp/lamp bracket fitted. 

 

DSC_8938.JPG

 

I also ran my Dave Shakespeare 'Austerity', and here it is on a 40-wagon coal train. Dave's front numberplate had started to come off and separate, so I replaced with one of Ian Wilson's Pacific Models' items. I don't think Dave would have objected. Why folk muck around, piecing together transfers for such things is beyond me. Ian's come as one, and include the whole class. 

 

Another enjoyable day has been spent 'fiddling' with a friend's models, then running them. 

 

This time it's Geoff West, who's just getting going with his project of modelling a bit of the ECML in steam days. He's not sure which bit but I'm to blame, apparently. 

 

He's started by acquiring some stuff off eBay (a complete mystery to me!), including some older, split-chassis Bachmann locos. My first reaction was 'you dope!', but all of his run beautifully. Everyone I've ever had (several B1s and V2s) have been hopeless, so he must have the knack of 'buying right'. He accepts their visual limitations right now, but we completed a few improvements.

 

DSC_8927.JPG

 

Why Bachmann's drawbar is so long is a question which has puzzled many for years. So, lop off the original peg, drill a hole for a replacement brass one, superglue it in place and the job is done. I also lopped-off the dumb-buffers, since they serve no purpose.

 

DSC_8929.JPG

 

What a difference, and the nearer one will easily negotiate 2' 6" radius curves.

 

DSC_8932.JPG

 

Here's one of his close-coupled V2s in action. I changed the original 'British Railways' on the tender to the cycling lion and in removing the former exposed a green body underneath. Oh dear! No matter, just weather it. Geoff weathered the loco and I the tender. Real coal helps as well.

 

DSC_8935.JPG

 

The drawbar was also shortened on this B1, and a replacement electric lamp/lamp bracket fitted. 

 

DSC_8938.JPG

 

I also ran my Dave Shakespeare 'Austerity', and here it is on a 40-wagon coal train. Dave's front numberplate had started to come off and separate, so I replaced with one of Ian Wilson's Pacific Models' items. I don't think Dave would have objected. Why folk muck around, piecing together transfers for such things is beyond me. Ian's come as one, and include the whole class. 

Hi Tony

 

Yes it was a very enjoyable day once again. Thank you again for the work you did on my locos and tenders i am so pleased with how they now look. I must say the photos of my V2 and B1 are excellent and i shall be completing the work on them to show you on my next visit. I am also over the moon with my A2 which i consider my first proper loco (first of many i hope). I measured the distance of the pin from the front of the tender on the one you modified its 4mm and lop 5mm off the drawbar. Once again many thanks looking forward to another session of "Dont get me started" with you next time

 

Regards Geoff

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

I must admit to a bit of trepidation in writing in this topic, as a) while being a lurker for a long while on RMWeb, I haven't posted much, and B) my modelling is nowhere near the standard of yours or many others on this forum. I do want to raise a point with regards to how you suggest modeling the ECML should be done. I am working on modelling Wakefield Westgate, and have done a fair bit of research on the station itself and the layout of the station, but more importantly (for me) is how it operated. I think that all of the effort to have something look right can be compromised if one can't then model how it operated. It may look good on a magazine cover, as many layouts do, but I prefer to build a model of the railway, rather than just the model of a location. For me, I only have 17'x10' to build my layout, and I want to feature an active loco depot, small yard and Westgate. That meant only one section of long straight double track mainline, a slightly revised track layout and horror of horrors, only a few of the 99 arches that made Westgate iconic.

 

Those are the compromises that I needed to make if I wanted to include the elements of the working railway that allowed me to model the operation of Westgate effectively, with the numerous light engine movements, shunting of coaching stock and NPCCS movements. The station itself wasn't anywhere near as wide as Little Bytham, with only 4 tracks for the main part of station until one gets to the docks and NPCCS siding, but using "selective compression" that I had previously adopted in other US prototype layouts, I am able to model a part of the Leeds extension of the ECML to what I think is a reasonable operating model "railway". I can't meet the rule of thirds, but I can run 8 coach expresses that divide at Wakefield to detach Bradford portions, I can also run these to two different fiddle yard directions to represent the different ways to Bradford. I know the rule about it's my railway and all that, but I am trying to be faithful in how a part of the railway operated, not just how it looked, plus service those portions with an adequate number of . Perhaps I have been influenced too much by US modelling, and the use of layout design elements to recreate an operable railway, but for me to have an interesting layout that will keep me coming back to the layout room, and also allow me to model something that really holds my attention has resulted in a layout that doesn't align very well at all with your rules, but will hopefully allow me to model a bit of the ECML to a standard that faithfully reproduces a busy operating mainline station.

 

I wonder then does that make it wrong for me to model it, or should I have modelled something smaller? Are we putting other modellers off because of an insistence on modelling scale length trains and stations, or should we be encouraging reasonable compromises to have interesting, operable railways. I'm not trying to push one barrow or another, just want to raise these discussion points.

 

Cheers

Tony

Tony,

 

Interesting discussion points indeed, and may I respond, please?

 

Firstly, I don't believe I set out any 'rules' (other than to repeat the long-established rule of thirds). If I did have any rules, such is my perversity that I'd probably be breaking them all the time. 

 

To follow, I don't think anyone has a right to dictate what is right and wrong in what a modeller does, with one qualification. That is to do with model railways at exhibitions. Unless these work reliably and (if possible) prototypically, then they have no right to be on display to a paying audience (this could generate a fair bit of correspondence!). I parenthesise 'if possible' for one good reason; if fully-prototypical operation were undertaken on a prototype-based model railway (unless it were, perhaps, Clapham Junction) then the effect would be tedium, as a result of the large time gaps between trains. For example, on Stoke Summit a northbound unfitted minerals at the end of the four-track section would be let out from the Down goods onto the now-single Down line after a fast service had passed. In reality, that 25 mph maximum-speed rake would take about five minutes to clear Stoke Tunnel, then it's a four and a half mile run to Grantham. There was a relief road at Saltersford, but that was not a through loop, trains occupying it by reversing. So, even with a following wind, at least 20 minutes and more would be needed for that slow freight to reach the loops at Grantham. That would mean at least 15 minutes for the next Down train to be allowed to pass Stoke Summit. What would spectators think about having to wait that long for another Down train to appear? Up trains would be less-restricted, but at least a five-minute gap would be needed between trains. As 'entertainment' it would be dreadful. 

 

My approach to modelling is entirely personal and should not be taken as an implied criticism of the work of others. If you can fit Wakefield Westgate into your 'restricted' space, and you can operate it prototypically, then that's marvellous. If it satisfies you then that's the principal requirement, and it will have 'worked'. Who am I to say that that's wrong? I have no right to do so.

 

That's not to say it would 'work' for me. I admit to not having a huge amount of interest in the actual operation of my railway, other than everything must work properly - no stalling, stuttering or derailing, etc. No, I often just let an express go by several times, watching it from several angles, recreating my boyhood/teenage mind's eye images of what I remember. Not at Little Bytham - I never got here until the early-'70s, long after the station had been demolished and the MR/M&GNR had gone, but semaphores still controlled the trains and those trains were hauled by locos - the hoped-for, brilliant 'Deltics'. But, it still had most of the fairly-complex trackwork and that openness, that wide-nothingness that could not be captured properly in anything under the space I have. That said, and I admit to hypocrisy here, the MR/M&GNR bit is a hopeless compromise - far too short, ridiculous curves to get it off-stage, wrong bridge and so forth. But, my 'greed' insisted I incorporate it, and it does work.

 

My memory is of long, steam-hauled expresses on the ECML at places like Retford (with the Pacific on an Up express at Platform 1 way out onto the fast line and its train's rear not far off 'Queen's Boards'), Doncaster, Bawtry, York, Thirsk and Darlington, not to mention the sight of an A1 on a 13-coach rake blasting up Gamston Bank through Eaton Wood. A long train, yes, but not filling all the view. Without the capacity to fit a representation of that train, accurately to length on LB, and for it not to fill the scenic section, I wouldn't have embarked on the project. My opinion and view, anyway. For me to achieve (with great help) what I wanted in less than 30' was a complete non-starter. It just wouldn't look 'real'.

 

Tony.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Tony Wright

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry I could only tick 'Like' on that post - because it meant so much more than that to me.  It says an awful lot about the way I tend to value models of railways.

 

They don't all need to be 'big mainlines' as in my view 'the essence of railway' can be captured in other ways too but the important point is credibility and Tony's post has shown exactly what that can mean and one way of doing it.

[St Enodoc]

My snap of Bob at the Pontefract show back in January this year. I think those are computer chads he's applying!

 

bob dawson.jpg

Gordon -

 

They certainly look like it. Bob hasn't changed much in 30 years apart from his hair colour.

 

Thanks.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... more importantly (for me) is how it operated. I think that all of the effort to have something look right can be compromised if one can't then model how it operated. It may look good on a magazine cover, as many layouts do, but I prefer to build a model of the railway, rather than just the model of a location. For me, I only have 17'x10' to build my layout, and I want to feature an active loco depot, small yard and Westgate. That meant only one section of long straight double track mainline, a slightly revised track layout and horror of horrors, only a few of the 99 arches that made Westgate iconic.

 

Those are the compromises that I needed to make if I wanted to include the elements of the working railway that allowed me to model the operation of Westgate effectively, with the numerous light engine movements, shunting of coaching stock and NPCCS movements...

Operations representation is my primary interest too. None of my layouts have ever been fully scenically treated, and I conclude that none ever will. Once the track layout is down, I want to operate it. The ballasting will eventually get done if the layout survives long enough, and a few railway buildings will be placed. It's good if the locos and stock can be the real types that were in use at the chosen location, ideally running full size formations: but I would accept compromises there for the sake of getting operational, exploiting RTR as much as possible to avoid too much need of kit building. For example a V3 is close enough to represent the L1, and would have done so had Hornby not stepped up to the plate with a RTR model, and an A2 is an A2, so the BR(ER) big engine requirement is completed. If the space is sufficient for 60% of full size trains, that would give enough of an impression. This would drive some folks nuts, but not me.

 

I once 'went over the railway fence' and made a model tree, but it didn't do anything, so won't be bothering with that again. I have every admiration for those who make fully scenic representations with wholly accurate loco and stock, and would joyfully watch or operate such a layout's working timetable, but build one such myself to that standard? - no.

[unclebobkt]

I've just sent a cheque to one of my regular model shops to cover the purchase of a Bachmann 1F.

It seemed more civilised than a brick through his window...   

 

 -- Why not a lump of coal with your cheque/message attached?  ;-)

 - Wasn't that how loco. crews, in the days of steam,   used to communicate with signalmen, stations' staff etc. without stopping their trains?

  -- :-)

[Andrew P]

Good afternoon Tony,

I have had my BRM delivered today, and have just spent an enjoyable Hour reading and then re reading your Little Bytham article. First and foremost it brought streaming back wonderful memories of a lovely day John Edge and I spent with you and Mo last Month. Then it was lovely to see the pictures of the Trains running in the correct environment thought that lovely Station and with scale length goods stock in tow.

 

In light of the many and varied conversations we had on the day I have managed to find and extra 2ft in length for my new Shed and 1ft in width, so now Bitton can be built almost to scale in 18ft x 9ft and so I too am looking forward to running at least 30 wagon freights at scale speeds.

 

I just need to sort out the front Lamps for that more than authentic look.

 

Thanks again Tony for such inspirational modelling

Andy.

[Tony Wright]

Good afternoon Tony,

I have had my BRM delivered today, and have just spent an enjoyable Hour reading and then re reading your Little Bytham article. First and foremost it brought streaming back wonderful memories of a lovely day John Edge and I spent with you and Mo last Month. Then it was lovely to see the pictures of the Trains running in the correct environment thought that lovely Station and with scale length goods stock in tow.

 

In light of the many and varied conversations we had on the day I have managed to find and extra 2ft in length for my new Shed and 1ft in width, so now Bitton can be built almost to scale in 18ft x 9ft and so I too am looking forward to running at least 30 wagon freights at scale speeds.

 

I just need to sort out the front Lamps for that more than authentic look.

 

Thanks again Tony for such inspirational modelling

Andy.

Thank you ever so much, Andy.

 

I'm delighted to know that 'my' modelling is inspirational to you, and I hope, to others.

 

Lovely station? At the moment, as you can see, it's really only the platforms (part-surfaced) and mock-ups in the main. Ian Wilson is currently working on the actual footbridge (or had the pictures out yesterday) and Graham Nicholas (of Grantham fame) has just sent me pictures of the final signal for Little Bytham (the Down slow to Down fast splitter) which he's just started making. This, and the other non-working signals should all be operational by next spring. 

 

All the products of horse-trading, as I've been doing today (though not much, I admit), in seeking to complete, before the end of the month, Tom Foster's B16/1. 

 

In fairness, much of my time has been spent recently in photographing Dave Shakespeare's model railway collection; that and struggling along with Andy York yesterday to 'undo' Dave's nuclear bunker constructions for the two dioramas he completed on the new Tetley's Mills. My word, if ever the bomb did go off, I'd be under one of those! But, the real work has been undertaken by Gilbert Barnatt. His diligent processing, cataloguing and informing prospective purchasers of the myriad parts of the collection deserves the greatest praise. I've acted as executor for a couple of late friends' estates in recent years, and it's a task one accepts, but never wants to do for obvious reasons. It has to be done, done properly and comprehensively. Dave chose the right man.

[unclebobkt]

 

  ... .

To follow, I don't think anyone has a right to dictate what is right and wrong in what a modeller does, with one qualification. That is to do with model railways at exhibitions. Unless these work reliably and (if possible) prototypically, then they have no right to be on display to a paying audience (this could generate a fair bit of correspondence!). I parenthesise 'if possible' for one good reason; if fully-prototypical operation were undertaken on a prototype-based model railway (unless it were, perhaps, Clapham Junction) then the effect would be tedium, as a result of the large time gaps between trains. For example, on Stoke Summit a northbound unfitted minerals at the end of the four-track section would be let out from the Down goods onto the now-single Down line after a fast service had passed. In reality, that 25 mph maximum-speed rake would take about five minutes to clear Stoke Tunnel, then it's a four and a half mile run to Grantham. There was a relief road at Saltersford, but that was not a through loop, trains occupying it by reversing. So, even with a following wind, at least 20 minutes and more would be needed for that slow freight to reach the loops at Grantham. That would mean at least 15 minutes for the next Down train to be allowed to pass Stoke Summit. What would spectators think about having to wait that long for another Down train to appear? Up trains would be less-restricted, but at least a five-minute gap would be needed between trains. As 'entertainment' it would be dreadful. 

... .

 

 

.

 

    -- What is the relationship between time in our 12ins.:1ft. world to time in the 4mm.:1ft. world?

 - We all know how long 15 minutes is in our 12ins.:1ft. world,  but how long is 15 mins. in the 4mm.:1ft. world expressed in our units of time?  Possibly not as long?

 -- Occasionally reading 'American Railroader.' magazine I have been given to u'stand. that some American modellers employ speeded-up clocks for their mainly HO. layouts.

 

  --  :-)

 

[westerner]

I don't think you can scale time for if you did, as we scale distance then a train would still have to travel at a real 60mph ie 88ft per sec rather than 88ftper sec divided by 76 ie about 1.6ft a sec.

 

I suspect that speeded up clocks are used to speed up time when nothing is happening. In this country we tend to use a sequence hence cutting out those times when nothing is happening.

[St Enodoc]

I don't think you can scale time for if you did, as we scale distance then a train would still have to travel at a real 60mph ie 88ft per sec rather than 88ftper sec divided by 76 ie about 1.6ft a sec.

 

I suspect that speeded up clocks are used to speed up time when nothing is happening. In this country we tend to use a sequence hence cutting out those times when nothing is happening.

Alan is right. You can scale distance, and you can scale time, but you can't scale both and still have something that looks "right". Think of it this way: a 6 ft diameter driving wheel on a full size loco travelling at 60 mph will rotate at about 280 rpm. To get the same visual effect on our 4 mm scale model the wheel still needs to rotate at 280 rpm but, because it is 76.2 times smaller, instead of travelling 5280 feet in a minute it will only travel 69 feet. So we have scaled distance but not time.

 

The other problem with scaling time on model railways is that shunting takes the same amount of real time whatever the scale.

 

A sequence is simpler, although some people use a real-time clock and just wind it forward when there is a gap between trains. Tony's and my mutual friend in Stafford who has a superb 00 scale model of Whitchurch (Salop) is one such.

[raymw]

You can 'scale' anything you like, to get to something you perceive is OK. If you are running, say a twenty wagon train, as a model of a fifty wagon train, do you run it at a true scale speed, or one that takes the same time for the whole 30 wagon model train to pass a given point, assuming it was a 50 wagon train?

 

Basically, you fake it so it appears to be 'right'. You can't scale nature, and time is no different than colour, for example - you need to apply a temporal illusion, as well as an optical one, to make it appear realistic at a smaller representation of reality.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[Tony Wright]

Alan is right. You can scale distance, and you can scale time, but you can't scale both and still have something that looks "right". Think of it this way: a 6 ft diameter driving wheel on a full size loco travelling at 60 mph will rotate at about 280 rpm. To get the same visual effect on our 4 mm scale model the wheel still needs to rotate at 280 rpm but, because it is 76.2 times smaller, instead of travelling 5280 feet in a minute it will only travel 69 feet. So we have scaled distance but not time.

 

The other problem with scaling time on model railways is that shunting takes the same amount of real time whatever the scale.

 

A sequence is simpler, although some people use a real-time clock and just wind it forward when there is a gap between trains. Tony's and my mutual friend in Stafford who has a superb 00 scale model of Whitchurch (Salop) is one such.

Thanks John,

 

Very well put.

 

When Bob, the creator of Whitchurch, visited my then home in Codsall (Wolverhampton) to operate my first, loft-based Stoke Summit, I had an old clockwork clock which sat on a shelf. I had a sequence (only about a dozen trains then, though) which tried to replicate (in the most hopelessly-inadequate way) the passage of the main line trains, using a BR/ER 1958, Summer Timetable, working out what 'time' they should be passing the point 100 miles north of King's Cross. When a sequence began, the clock was set to the time the last train had run (probably having to be rewound as well), no matter what the actual time was. The 'operating' time was noted in a book. If we wanted to watch a particular train go round and round for several minutes, the old clock was then turned back a little so to speak to make the next train 'right-time'. It then carried on ticking....If there were large time gaps between the trains (I didn't bother with overnight services), the clock time was advanced forward, or, if visitors wanted a chat or discuss some modelling aspect or other (my workbench was in front of the layout then), it was just left running. Freights' passing times were guesstimated. After visitors left, the old clock just ran itself down, to be wound up for the next session.

 

The system was a servant, not a master. This has always been vitally important to me because I've always been one to 'play trains'. Though the last statement is anathema to the purist, the whole point about my approach to running trains on my layout(s) is that it should be fun, not dictatorial or boring.

 

Many, many years ago I was invited to participate in a running evening on a famous O Gauge line. The owner/builder, long since deceased, informed me that 'visitors' were encouraged to be participants in the running, not just observers. I was also told that it 'operated like a real railway'. I ended up in one of the 'signal boxes', with just one other chap, another 'visitor'. There must be several out there who know signal bell codes; I don't. Irate phone calls were made as to why neither of us had acknowledged a bell or offered/accepted a train. When we managed to accept one, it was heralded by a couple of mice sprinting in front! That told me then why much of the scenery, buildings and figures were 'eroded'. Trains ran at madcap pace, their velocity often governed by how much electricity was being used up by the erratic carriage lighting. 'Fun' it wasn't, enjoyable it wasn't and it was also very cold! I never went back.

 

I resolved then never to inflict that sort of 'tyranny' on any guest I invited to see my layout(s). Whenever anyone visits now, I ask them what they'd like to do in terms of watch/drive trains/run their own models and so on. I have the rudiments of a sequence worked out for Little Bytham, and some like to watch that first. Others can't wait to have a go. Fun, in other words. Bob must have been so delighted with the running arrangements in my loft, that he left a loco - a GWR 43XX. How appropriate is that for Stoke Summit?!

 

I respect those whose main enjoyment is compiling a timetable/operating sequence which accurately replicates what happened on a given stretch of line. It suits them, and it often takes diligent research to arrive at it. If they derive pleasure from it, that's good, and I commend their scholarly approach. However, because I'm not a scholar it's never appealed to me. That's why you'd often have seen the Up 'Elizabethan' passing the Down Afternoon 'Talisman' at Stoke Summit. Impossible, of course (in 'real time'), and it must have caused the purists apoplexy; if there were any in the often six-deep crowds who watched it! 

[St Enodoc]

You can 'scale' anything you like, to get to something you perceive is OK. If you are running, say a twenty wagon train, as a model of a fifty wagon train, do you run it at a true scale speed, or one that takes the same time for the whole 30 wagon model train to pass a given point, assuming it was a 50 wagon train?

 

Basically, you fake it so it appears to be 'right'. You can't scale nature, and time is no different than colour, for example - you need to apply a temporal illusion, as well as an optical one, to make it appear realistic at a smaller representation of reality.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

Ray, that is absolutely correct. For most of us, I suspect that what looks 'right' are things like wheels rotating at a certain speed, or wagons/coaches passing a given point at a certain rate, as perceived by our brains in real time. So to fake it, as you rightly say, we adopt the illusion of scaling distance and leaving time alone (of course, everything we do in railway modelling is faking it - discuss).

 

Your specific example is interesting and one I hadn't thought about before. Elsewhere in this topic I have described how, to save space, my passenger trains are 60% of the prototype length. So should I be aiming to watch the rate at which, say, each individual coach emerges from a tunnel, or the time for the whole train to emerge? These would give two quite different, but equally valid, interpretations of 'scale' speed. For myself, I prefer the former but there are probably others who would take a different view.

[Tony Wright]

Yet another splendid day spent in the company of two good friends, operating and having a good time. This time it was David West and Morgan Gilbert, both frequent posters on this site.

 

They both brought goodies to be given decent runs on a main line trainset, and here is (a sort of) report. Chaps, if my memory is inaccurate, please put it right.

 

 

David has renumbered/renamed/weathered this Bachmann A1, but it still has no extra ballast added. Consequently, it struggled on an 11-car Pullman train, illustrating just how light-footed this particular RTR Pacific is.

 

 

He's also given the same treatment to this Hornby A3, but this one had no problems taking a ten-car Pullman. Whether such a grubby loco would be rostered for the QoS is a moot point, but it gave no trouble after the back-to-backs on the bogie wheels had been adjusted. No lamps! I'll return to that point later. The weathering is certainly convincing.

 

 

Another of David's own-work locos is this V2, made from a Graeme King resin body on a new Bachmann chassis. This is splendid work, and it ran beautifully after I'd loosened the screws holding the chassis keeper plate on. It's waiting at the (being-built) signal to be allowed access onto the Down fast line.

 

 

Seconds later, David's A1/1 swept by on an Up express. This is another Graeme King conversion, put together by Morgan and perfectly weathered by David. It's more convincing than my Crownline version. I substituted Hornby's too-chunky bogie wheels with Markits replacements - much better, and they then didn't catch on the front steps. 

 

 

Another example of David's work in the form of this renumbered/renamed/weathered Haymarket A4 was then put on the Up 'Elizabethan'. Still no lamps, and no headboard. 

 

 

 

But, in all fairness, the best was left to last. This is a commission for a customer by Morgan and consists of a modified Hornby A4 body on a Comet chassis. It awaits final detailing. This is exquisite modelling of the highest order and I've rarely seen a better 4mm A4. There's a very good 60012 on Peterborough North which you might have seen, but it's in the mechanics where this one excels. Here it's on the ten-car non-stop (just right for a 64B A4), which it just toyed with. We then loaded it up to 23 carriages (mainly kit-built/modified RTR - heavy but quite free-running), which it managed with some slipping. Adding more just caused too much slipping. One of my DJH A1s was then tried, and it took 25 with ease, and could have taken more. A smug expression was apparent! In a final act of showing-off, a twin motor 'Deltic' then flew round with 38 carriages (demolishing my pomposity in insisting on the rule of thirds). I say flew round, because at a scale 80 or more, the train became unstable and started to 'implode' on the end curves. I imagine more than 50 cars could be taken, but the stability of the vehicles wouldn't allow it. 

 

No lamps? These locos are guests and are free to do as they please.

 

I'm very encouraged by days such as this, where friends bring models they themselves have made/modified/weathered/improved/etc, because it proves that the practical skills are all there and that personal craftsmanship is still to be seen and enjoyed. It also shows how the excellence of today's RTR locos can be exploited by 'doers' to produce a most-convincing prime-mover. Yes, the chaps ran my locos as well but those shown above were far more interesting to me. I can look at mine at any time.

 

What's very interesting to me as well, is this. With one exception, all the visiting locos were DCC-fitted. Though  'total' fine control might not have been there (particularly on starting off), they all ran very sweetly indeed. Is this possible the other way round, though? I'm chuffed to bits that guys can bring there 'spawn-of-Satan-fitted' chippy things, and I can give all them a good run, and they do run. Can you DCC-ites do the same for analogue? Just a question, not an argument. 

 

Gentlemen, thank you for a most stimulating day.

[69843]

This is why I enjoy reading this thread. Great stock, great descriptions and excellent photography. Hard to sum it up better than that.

Edited September 14, 2014 by 69843

[Tony Wright]

Looking again at what I scribbled last night, my description of Morgan Gilbert's A4 was a trifle lightweight. 

 

The cylinders have been altered and it's certainly a complete repaint from the ground up. Perhaps Morgan will post a more comprehensive description, as will David with regard to the other models. I listen, then forget!

 

Many thanks in anticipation.

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for a great description of an obviously highly enjoyable day above! For once, I actually 'clicked' on your 6th photo above and was very impressed indeed, 60012 really does look amazing enlarged.

If I may answer your question regarding analogue visitors to digital layouts? Sadly no, it is not really possible!

Some systems will allow one DC loco but the higher current and signals overlayed causes the DC motor to 'sing' quite loudly so it is not really worth it. The remainder of digital systems will cause a DC loco to 'buzz' loudly, it won't move and will eventually burn out, if one were to place a DC loco on the digitally powered track. It does provide a very quick answer as to whether a decoder is actually fitted, of course!

So, have no fear, LB has the best control system for the layout that it is! AND you can enjoy DCC fitted locos into the bargain!

Cheers,

John E.

[Oldddudders]

As John says, one loco only may be run on analogue with a DCC system, using address OO. There is ongoing debate in the DCC community about the wisdom of doing so, some claiming the motor will be damaged in short order - with their own expensive experience quoted - while others poo-poo this and say it does no harm. I use this address to quickly check a new loco runs forwards and backwards, no more, before getting a decoder installed.

 

I am the first to say not every layout needs DCC, and the emphasis on decent loco running qualities that are so much a Little Bytham theme mean this is DC at its best, I'm sure. Also the nature of operations as described by Tony imply that DCC would add v little value.

 

My (US) Digitrax DCC system has a variable fast clock built in to the display. I have yet to make use of it. I bow to those in this thread who have the mental tenacity to consider the time/space continuum and other imponderables!

[45609]

Looking again at what I scribbled last night, my description of Morgan Gilbert's A4 was a trifle lightweight. 

 

The cylinders have been altered and it's certainly a complete repaint from the ground up. Perhaps Morgan will post a more comprehensive description, as will David with regard to the other models. I listen, then forget!

 

Many thanks in anticipation.

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Firstly allow me to return the thanks once again for the invite to see your railway.  An excellent and entertaining day.

 

The compliments regarding my A4 build are most kind and very much appreciated.  I brought it along with some trepidation as I don't have such large and well organised set up on which to test the loco's full performance range; a rolling road and simple reverse curve being all I have room for in the workshop.  I'm very reliant on the goodwill of others, now including yourself, to exercise "running powers".  I'm glad it did what I hoped it would.

 

What I mentioned yesterday is that the seed of the idea for the A4 build actually came indirectly from you.  My own appraisal and an enquiry with Jonathan Wealleans (which promptly appeared on RMweb) about the best starting point for a 00 gauge A4 came up with your own opinion on the Hornby body.  Ultimately the route I followed was a detailed Hornby body with a Comet chassis.  At the time I did also consider the South Eastern Finecast chassis and given a couple of issues I later found with the Comet chassis I do wonder if this might have been a better alternative?  The Comet chassis didn't need anything significant doing to it to fit the latest Hornby body but I found myself modifying the Cartazzi frame on the Comet etch to get the footstep height to match the tender steps along with a bit of reprofiling and addition of the ABS axlebox casting.  For appearances sake only I also added some Stelfox lost wax piston and piston valve gland castings to the cylinders.

 

As you mention above the major improvement that I decided to tackle on the body was to model the cylinder turn under correctly.  It involved a very careful horizontal cut of the body cylinder clothing at the height of the piston rod centreline.  The lower portion of the cylinders were then built up from plasticard as part of the chassis cylinder block and sanded back to the curved profile.  It does result in a visible join line on the side of the cylinder but, personally, I find this less visually jarring than the flat sides.  What I think may help a bit, and I still have to do, is restoring the sanded off rivet detail on the cylinder clothing with some of the Archer transfers.

 

The body has also had most of a Brassmasters detail kit applied, replacement lamp irons (Martin Finney), cab spectacle frames (Simon Martin), AWS conduit, and access hatch handles from 0.3mm brass wire.  The latter item is such a small thing but study of prototype photos shows that, mostly, they pointed slightly towards the loco front end rather than being truly vertical.

 

A complete repaint has followed with cellulose (Chris Wesson's) BR loco green with Fox lining decals and HMRS methfix numbering and totem.  Apart from a few finishing touches, glazing, crew, coal, cylinder drain cocks, lamps etc... that's it.  It would be nice to put a little weathering on it, especially after seeing what a great job David has done with my A1/1 build, but the customer doesn't want that.  Shame really.  However, I will try and persuade him to have the light blue Elizabethan headboard.

 

Kind regards.....Morgan

Edited September 14, 2014 by mlgilbert30

[davidw]

Hi  Tony, I'd just like to echo Morgan's thanks for you and Mo's hospitality . 

 

Especially seeing the loco's really fly. 

 

My A1 unforunately was light footed - it is the most light footed of the 8 I have. I'll make the mods Tony suggested to improve things - I believe that later Bachmann A1's are better.

 

A3 Firdassussi: This started life as a single chimney A3 Ladas with early crest. The crest was altered and single chimney replace with double from a scrap A3 body I had really cheap off ebay. There are many other sources SE finecast or even a Hornby margate double.

 

V2 60857: at source the Bachmann V2 's chassis is a huge improvement over the original split chassis version. It's a pity that Bachmann did't update the body. I substituted a Graeme King version  as soon as I could, the proportions are far better. I do hope Graeme does a further run... I added fall plate cab doors, and  a brass masters detailing pack. The existing tender coal space was cut out and real coal added 

 

A1/1 Great Northern is a superb model. Many thanks for the compliment on the weathering. Morgans conversion on the A3 to this with Graeme King' s resin parts, and Graeme and Morgan's etch parts  is really ingenious. 

 

The A4 was merely a renamed and renumbered A4

 

Lamps - are on the to do list

[gr.king]

I'd been led to believe that the "Tewkesbury Two" were due to visit Little Bytham quite some time ago. Did the parole board refuse their earlier applications?

 

 

Morgan: Returning to a remark I made on here long ago about knowing a modeller who DOES fit glazed sight screens, I see you are saving that little finishing touch for later application. With or without those, the A4 is exquisitely finished.

Edited September 15, 2014 by gr.king

[45609]

I'd been led to believe that the "Tewkesbury Two" were due to visit Little Bytham quite some time ago. Did the parole board refuse their earlier applications?

 

 

Morgan: Returning to a remark I made on here long ago about knowing a modeller who DOES fit glazed sight screens, I see you are saving that little finishing touch for later application. With or without those, the A4 is exquisitely finished.

Hello Graeme,

 

Thanks for the compliment. Yes the sight screens and a few other bits still need to be applied. In this case I managed to recover the Hornby ones without damage so I may just refit these after edging them with brass coloured paint. The main reason why I didn't get it all finished was down to the fact that the model was still being lined last Thursday and only got the varnish top coat on Friday evening. Thank heavens for quick drying acrylic varnish.

 

cheers.....Morgan

Edited September 15, 2014 by mlgilbert30