Older Inspirational Layouts

[Nearholmer]

Fascinating thread.

 

As a side question: was Sept 1970 the high point of RM circulation? I think my first " bought new" copy was then too!

 

I personally find two sorts of layouts inspiring: those that have a very believable "backstory", so that they seem to serve real communities; and, those that can be, and are, operated like a real railway, with at least a bit of complexity to the traffic pattern.

 

The seriously brilliant ones fit both descriptions, The Buckingham Branches, The Madder Valley etc.

 

The Buckingham Branches is so good a concept that I'm forever looking out for remains of the routes when I drive across the area ....... Leighton Buzzard (Linslade) seems more real than certain real stations!

 

Lately, I've got into "prehistoric" model railways, working my way through model railway magazines and books from 1909-1911, 1925, and 1938 as sample years. There is a lot to learn from our ancestors, especially when it comes to designing for operation, rather than appearance, so I've found even the most ancient things quite inspirational.

 

It's quite interesting to read things that were written when "modern image" meant the LNWR's latest express engine, so I will add the leading name from that era: Henry Greenly. He and WJB-L effectively invented our hobby!

 

Kevin

[DLT]

Those large layouts often featured as Railway of the Month in the RM of yore were often inspirational to us due to their sheer size and complexity. We all wanted one like it. The pictures were often superb too. However, I did manage to see some of these masterpieces and was often disappointed that the reality did not match the image projected in the magazine. I can recall one where everything fell off the track and very little worked as it should. I guess the maintenance  was just too much for the owner. I think this is where we owe a debt to Peco in that when it first arrived, if it was laid well it did the job and still continues to do it today even though to my jaundiced eyes it now looks awful!

 

Please keep the memories coming!

 

Martin Long

I remember hearing something similar from a magazine photographer many years ago.  On several occasions he went to modeller's homes to photograph their layout, and when he asked for a demonstration was told that it didn't work.

[RJS1977]

I remember hearing something similar from a magazine photographer many years ago.  On several occasions he went to modeller's homes to photograph their layout, and when he asked for a demonstration was told that it didn't work.

 

Better than that, I've just been looking back through some old RMs and came across a letter from CJF (I think for RM's 50th anniversary), where he mentions a high-profile modeller from the early days who'd made a beautiful Dean Single and had written an article in the Constructor about how he'd made one of the driving wheels.What the Constructor article didn't say was that he'd then decided it was too much work to make a second one,so - as over half the wheel was hidden by the splashers - he'd cut his one wheel in half and stuck one half on each end of the axle!

[bluebottle]

... Lately, I've got into "prehistoric" model railways, working my way through model railway magazines and books from 1909-1911, 1925, and 1938 as sample years. There is a lot to learn from our ancestors, especially when it comes to designing for operation, rather than appearance, so I've found even the most ancient things quite inspirational ...

 

 

 

I think this one may have been on Ebay...

... or perhaps not.

 

[Loconuts]

Better than that, I've just been looking back through some old RMs and came across a letter from CJF (I think for RM's 50th anniversary), where he mentions a high-profile modeller from the early days who'd made a beautiful Dean Single and had written an article in the Constructor about how he'd made one of the driving wheels.What the Constructor article didn't say was that he'd then decided it was too much work to make a second one,so - as over half the wheel was hidden by the splashers - he'd cut his one wheel in half and stuck one half on each end of the axle!

 

Better than that, I've just been looking back through some old RMs and came across a letter from CJF (I think for RM's 50th anniversary), where he mentions a high-profile modeller from the early days who'd made a beautiful Dean Single and had written an article in the Constructor about how he'd made one of the driving wheels.What the Constructor article didn't say was that he'd then decided it was too much work to make a second one,so - as over half the wheel was hidden by the splashers - he'd cut his one wheel in half and stuck one half on each end of the axle!

 

Better than that, I've just been looking back through some old RMs and came across a letter from CJF (I think for RM's 50th anniversary), where he mentions a high-profile modeller from the early days who'd made a beautiful Dean Single and had written an article in the Constructor about how he'd made one of the driving wheels.What the Constructor article didn't say was that he'd then decided it was too much work to make a second one,so - as over half the wheel was hidden by the splashers - he'd cut his one wheel in half and stuck one half on each end of the axle!

You are right about this Dean Single and the modeller was Frank Roche.  I never knew him myself but a late friend of mine served with him in the RAF and saw the loco in question.

 

Loconuts

[RJS1977]

The name rings a bell now you mention it, but I couldn't be bothered hunting through all my old RMs to try to find the letter again!

 

I believe the model passed into Sydney Prichard's ownership, who took great delight in showing its defect to people!

[St Enodoc]

I think this one may have been on Ebay...

... or perhaps not.

 

BWM November 1785.jpg

Amazing that they foresaw the introduction of decimal currency 185-and-a-bit years later...

[bluebottle]

Amazing that they foresaw the introduction of decimal currency 185-and-a-bit years later...

 

Well done, that man; I was wondering who'd be the first to spot that the typesetter had inadvertently inverted the letter d! 

[jamie92208]

I have only just found this thread and have managed to read about a third of it.  I did see much mention of the late David Jenkinson's layouts.

I had the privilege of helping to operate Kendal one day and thoroughly enjoyed that.   Sadly circumstances dictated that Kendal had to be dismantled after his passing and the stock and a few buildings were indeed sold at Christies.  I managed to buy one lot of wagons and then did a swap with another buyer and ended up with the ones that I needed for my layouts.   I knew some of the people who helped dismantle the layout and was fortunate enough t acquire some of the scenic items that then got used on Long Preston.    One of the station seats that faced the operators carried the name Marthwaite and the running in boards were altered from Kendal Castle to Long Preston.

 

I still had some of the other nameboards and have recently started installing them on Lancaster Green Ayre.  I decided to continue as I had left off and this is the result.

That will face the operators along with another Marthwaite station seat.  One of the other Marthwaite signs has now been modified to read Lancaster.  I also bought a selection of unbuilt kits from David and these are slowly getting built and will appear in the course of time.

 

Jamie

 

[glo41f]

David Jenkinson was indeed a master of the craft and I regret that I never had the chance to meet him. His skill was his ability to communicate often quite complex subjects in a manner that was understandable to us idiots. I suppose being trained as a teacher helped in this. I treasure his books and I have managed to make one plasticard vehicle following his words and music. One area that I still cannot get is the cutting out of the panelling "doilies" that were then overlaid on a coach side. Never been able to do that!

 

His layouts were well concieved and executed. I think that Garsdale Road was one of the best and I was sorry that the Little Long Drag never reached completion before David went to 7mm. Geoff Holt told me that he put a saw through it all after David Had gone out for the day as he could not face the destruction himself. When David returned the shed was clear!

 

One small issue though was his layouts were very clean as was the rolling stock. The lack of weathering to my mind detracted from the overall effect. That is only my predujice showing.

 

I would love to know how well the Kendal line ran and whether David stuck to the rules that he proponded in "Modelling Historic Railways" when running it.

 

Sad that such a talent was taken from us so early.

 

Regards

 

Martin Long

[Nearholmer]

Bluebottle

 

An astonishing find; I envy you immensely that you managed to acquire that.

 

Without having read it it, I would be prepared to wager money that it has something in the "readers' letters" page arguing about the respective merits of setting the the distance over tram-plate-flanges to 16.5mm, 18.2mm or18.83mm, despite the fact that millimetres probably weren't invented yet.

 

Kevin

 

PS: would the author be the current AD's great-great-great (etc) grandfather, or is it simply that the gentleman in question wears his years exceptionally well?

[martin_wynne]

There is a lot to learn from our ancestors, especially when it comes to designing for operation, rather than appearance, so I've found even the most ancient things quite inspirational.

 

Hi Kevin,

 

For a long time railway modelling was about replicating the function of a railway rather than its appearance. It's strange that the modern trend has moved so far the other way, and maybe a bit sad. Have you seen "Paddington to Seagood"? Here's an excerpt: http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/seagood.htm

 

Martin.

[Nearholmer]

Martin

 

It is a truly wonderful book. I have been dimly aware of it for decades, but only got the chance to read the whole thing, and look at the photos, quite recently. What really cheered me up was how many times I found myself "reading my own thoughts", if you understand what I mean.

 

I long ago worked out that the ideal "one person" (with visiting friends) layout would have two termini branching from a continuous run circuit, ideally at an interesting junction station, and, blow me .......

 

My own layout tries to follow this principle, but because of space, time and money constraints (redundant billiard rooms are pretty rare around my house!) the continuous run is single-track, and the trains are short; it is designed around a tank engine or 4-4-0 hauling three coaches plus a four wheeled van, although it can accommodate a pacific with five on the continuous part). Last week I actually demoted the smaller terminus to become a fiddle-yard, and it is now very similar to a CJF plan called "Zeals". If you put "Birlstone" into the search thingy on the forum, you will see how (not very) far it has progressed since I started it in October 2013.

 

Kevin

[Mrhoppity]

I haven't read all of the posts on this topic but for me the inspirational layouts over the years have been  PD Hancock's Craig and Mertonford, Ken Northwood's North Devonshire, Castle Combe by Ken Payne, Gorre and Daphetid by John Allen, Garsdale Road by David Jenkinson, Clarendon by the Leamington and Warwick Model Railway Society, Bath Green Park by the Taunton Model Railway Group, Gordon and Maggie Gravett's Pempoul, Eastbourne by Vivien Thompson, John Ahern's Madder Valley and last but by no means least, Pendon. I also remember seeing Doreen Andrews Torander Valley layout at an exhibition in Welwyn Garden City in the 1970's. It was at one of the Welwyn exhibitions that I saw JP Rowe's beautiful model's of Gresley teak coaches.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Mrhoppity

[phixer64]

Ian Futers Lochside, back in 1979, really simple, stuck with me for ages.

 

Regards to all Jeff

[Pacific231G]

Hi Kevin,

 

For a long time railway modelling was about replicating the function of a railway rather than its appearance. It's strange that the modern trend has moved so far the other way, and maybe a bit sad. Have you seen "Paddington to Seagood"? Here's an excerpt: http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/seagood.htm

 

Martin.

I have a copy of that and it's fascinating. Though it wouldn't be what many people would build now,  the underlying principle of "representing" a working railway rather than trying to copy it in every detail seems just as valid now as then. If it's well modelled we have no problem accepting an apparently important mainline terminus (like Buckingham G.C. or Borchester Market) whose platforms will take six rather than twelve coach trains.

 

I always find it quite sobering to look at aerial photos of stations serving medium sized towns in the steam and wagonload goods era and see just how much track there was and the real length of even a small yard.

 

To build a scale model of Shipston on Stour, a small GWR branch terminus so insignificant that it lost its passenger service in 1929, in 4mm scale you'd still need a space of ten feet by two feet. Its fairly simple junction at Moreton in Marsh would require around eighteen feet even leaving out a set of sidings beyond the road bridge at the Oxford end and its fairly short platforms would need to be long enough for the normal eight coach Paddington-Worcester trains with a Castle on the front that stopped there. I have a feeling that the nine coach Cathedrals Express (which wasn't that fast!!) with a dining car may have been a tad too long for the platforms but I could be wrong.   

Edited September 4, 2015 by Pacific231G

[clecklewyke]

https://clecklewyke.wordpress.com/exhibition-layouts/clecklewyke-2/

I have a copy of that and it's fascinating. Though it wouldn't be what many people would build now,  the underlying principle of "representing" a working railway rather than trying to copy it in every detail seems just as valid now as then. If it's well modelled we have no problem accepting an apparently important mainline terminus (like Buckingham G.C. or Borchester Market) whose platforms will take six rather than twelve coach trains.

 

I always find it quite sobering to look at aerial photos of stations serving medium sized towns in the steam and wagonload goods era and see just how much track there was and the real length of even a small yard.

 

To build a scale model of Shipston on Stour, a small GWR branch terminus so insignificant that it lost its passenger service in 1929, in 4mm scale you'd still need a space of ten feet by two feet. Its fairly simple junction at Moreton in Marsh would require around eighteen feet even leaving out a set of sidings at the Oxford end and its fairly short platforms would need to be long enough for the normal eight coach Paddington-Worcester trains with a Castle on the front that stopped there. I have a feeling that the nine coach Cathedrals Express (which wasn't that fast!!) with a dining car may have been a tad too long for the platforms but I could be wrong.   

Any actual station with any real potential is far too is for the mythical "average nodeller" so if you want to build a representation of a real junction or terminus you have three options:

 

to buy a space big enough (not an option for most of us);

 

to build a representative compressed version of the station. This was Cyril Freezer's approach in "Plan of the month". Remember his Bristol Temple Meads on an 8' X 4' baseboard" admittedly an extreme example?  or

 

to build just a small part of the station, with the rest imagined behind buildings or backscene. This is Iain Rice's "bitsa" approach and is what I have adopted on the Bradford North Western branch, which is being modelled in P4 in a 15' X 13' room.

 

I have modelled only the platform end of Clecklewyke, the rest being hidden behind an over-track station building, Bradford NW itself will be a slightly compressed passenger terminal with most of the goods facilities off-stage, just a few visible storage/sorting sidings being modelled, the rest being represented by a sneak-off line to the fiddle yard. Goods unloading facilities - mileage sidings, goods sheds, coal staithes etc. -  just take up too much space to be modelled properly. But we will still be able to run a complex timetable with15 different types of train, not to mention empty coaching stock and light engine movements (to a largely off-stage MPD). The probem then is fiddle yard space - solved by having a four-track cassette-based yard with extra cassettes and trains on wall shelves.

 

If you want to see how it was done, come to Scaleforum in a fortnight's time.

 

Sorry for that diversion - back on topic. For me Buckingham, Borchester and Garsdale Road were the Big Daddies!

 

Ian

Edited September 4, 2015 by clecklewyke

[t-b-g]

If you enjoy operation, the difference between what you can do with a 5 coach set and a medium sized loco and a 12 coach set with a Pacific is not worth worrying about.

 

On Buckingham, the longest train is 5 bogie carriages. This is the corridor set that runs to Marylebone and is the only set that never stops at Grandborough in the timetable. Then there are two 4 coach main line sets (one of which has a slip coach so runs as either a 3 or a 4 depending on if the slip has happened).

 

After that, we have two sets of 6 wheelers, one of 4 carriages and  one of 5, plus the Railmotor, a single carriage push-pull and a set of carriages (one 6 wheeler, one short bogie saloon and a 4W brake) which forms the Leighton Buzzard branch set. So there is a variety of lengths and types of train.

 

Even if a bigger space had been available, I am not sure that it would have improved the layout to have had longer platforms, fiddle yards and trains. There is something that just feels right about the proportions of everything that may well have been lost if it was any bigger.

 

The fact that it is set in 1907 really helps here. In that period, trains tended to be shorter anyway, so a 5 coach express is not dramatically shorter than a good number of real expresses that ran then.

 

I did hear tell that David Jenkinson didn't like to weather is locos and stock because he saw the prices obtained for selling weathered items at auctions being lower than those of clean locos. That is a bit second hand so maybe somebody who knows more can confirm the story.

 

Tony

[RJS1977]

I have a copy of that and it's fascinating. Though it wouldn't be what many people would build now,  the underlying principle of "representing" a working railway rather than trying to copy it in every detail seems just as valid now as then. If it's well modelled we have no problem accepting an apparently important mainline terminus (like Buckingham G.C. or Borchester Market) whose platforms will take six rather than twelve coach trains.

 

I always find it quite sobering to look at aerial photos of stations serving medium sized towns in the steam and wagonload goods era and see just how much track there was and the real length of even a small yard.

 

To build a scale model of Shipston on Stour, a small GWR branch terminus so insignificant that it lost its passenger service in 1929, in 4mm scale you'd still need a space of ten feet by two feet. Its fairly simple junction at Moreton in Marsh would require around eighteen feet even leaving out a set of sidings at the Oxford end and its fairly short platforms would need to be long enough for the normal eight coach Paddington-Worcester trains with a Castle on the front that stopped there. I have a feeling that the nine coach Cathedrals Express (which wasn't that fast!!) with a dining car may have been a tad too long for the platforms but I could be wrong.   

 

Absolutely- I've occasionally contemplated building a model of Cholsey station (as it is today), either to ring the changes for my Wallingford layout or to be run in conjunction with it.

 

Even omitting the fast lines (which means the fiddle yards don't have to hold an HST!), the branch run-round loop needs to hold three coaches, by the time you've allowed for pointwork and a headshunt you're already talking 5'. Add the station building as well and you're now up to 6', and you haven't even got to the far end of the platform yet! Add in two fiddle yards each long enough to take a Voyager and you're up to nearly 15'! And that's for the modern version of the station - start adding in the goods yard and the sidings at the west end and the layout's considerably longer!

[Pacific231G]

Absolutely- I've occasionally contemplated building a model of Cholsey station (as it is today), either to ring the changes for my Wallingford layout or to be run in conjunction with it.

 

Even omitting the fast lines (which means the fiddle yards don't have to hold an HST!), the branch run-round loop needs to hold three coaches, by the time you've allowed for pointwork and a headshunt you're already talking 5'. Add the station building as well and you're now up to 6', and you haven't even got to the far end of the platform yet! Add in two fiddle yards each long enough to take a Voyager and you're up to nearly 15'! And that's for the modern version of the station - start adding in the goods yard and the sidings at the west end and the layout's considerably longer!

It would be interesting to consider how far you could compress it before it stopped being a convincing representation of the real Cholsey. Obviously a matter of individual opinion. Unfortunately, Cholsey doesn't have any overbridges to act as scenic breaks and they can be very useful especially in urban settings.  

[RJS1977]

It would be interesting to consider how far you could compress it before it stopped being a convincing representation of the real Cholsey. Obviously a matter of individual opinion. Unfortunately, Cholsey doesn't have any overbridges to act as scenic breaks and they can be very useful especially in urban settings.  

 

Viewed from the village side, the station building itself could act as a scenic break at one end, and there are trees along the embankment which could act as a scenic break at the other.

[Pacific231G]

Viewed from the village side, the station building itself could act as a scenic break at one end, and there are trees along the embankment which could act as a scenic break at the other.

I thought about that though I've only visited Cholsey a few times. I'm also looking at the idea of a foreground station building to disguise the length, or lack of it, of trains for a possible layout but understood that for Cholsey you weren't modelling the fast lines.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Nearholmer]

Gents

 

Strangely, I think the trouble really set in when people got more hooked on attempts to build scale (even compressed/selective) models of real stations, rather than design their own, in a railway-like fashion, to suit the needs and constraints of railway modelling.

 

Buckingham, Borchester, Paddington-Seagood, and good few others, including plenty of CJF designs, are very much freelance in many senses, but can be operated like a significant section of a real railway.

 

The key paragraph in Paddington-Seagood talks about a "representative selection of operations" and the author talks being happier to run short trains operated properly, rather than longer trains not, if faced with tighter space constraints than he was faced with (not that a billiard-room really counts as a space constraint!).

 

Rediscovering the "three coaches, headed by a 4-4-0" formula has certainly cheered-up my train-playing, and I think it could cheer up a lot of other people's.

 

Kevin

[RJS1977]

I thought about that though I've only visited Cholsey a few times. I'm also looking at a foreground station building to disguise the length or lack of it of trains but understood you weren't modelling the fast lines. 

 

The main station building is alongside the Up Relief (Platform 4) - and includes my occasional weekend 'office'!

[johnarcher]

Gents

 

Strangely, I think the trouble really set in when people got more hooked on attempts to build scale (even compressed/selective) models of real stations, rather than design their own, in a railway-like fashion, to suit the needs and constraints of railway modelling.

 

Buckingham, Borchester, Paddington-Seagood, and good few others, including plenty of CJF designs, are very much freelance in many senses, but can be operated like a significant section of a real railway.

 

 

Kevin

Why 'trouble'?

If someone prefers railway modelling in the sense of modelling a bit of real railway, even if that limits the sort of operation many other people prefer, why is that a problem?

After all there's still plenty of the other sort about.

Why assume operation is more important than appearance - either can be more important to the individual.= - 'one man's meat', 'chacun a son gout' etc

I doubt if Mr Lamacraft suddenly regrets his beautiful model of Hemyock because it can't be operated like Paddington (or Buckingham) - no problem for him or anyone else.

Edited September 5, 2015 by johnarcher