Older Inspirational Layouts

[dunwurken]

5 hours ago, Donw said:

Martin Brent told me that he had gone down to see what was salvageable of Ken Northwoods layout when he died. He said some of it had rather dodgey supports and it would have been a major task to dismantle and reassemble elsewhere.

Don

Ah, he and P D Hancock obviously had the same carpentry teacher.

 

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I understand that the original North Devonshire, built in Edinburgh, worked very well but the rebuild following Ken Northwood's retirement to Devon was not so good.

I have been informed by a number of people over the years that when in Edinburgh it certainly worked very well.  I cannot comment on how it ran when in Devon.

Malcolm

[ianathompson]

3 hours ago, DLT said:

I also wonder, looking at some of these older big home-based layouts, just how well they worked.

 

That is an interesting question.

I suppose that it comes down to how one defines "well".

 

It is pretty obvious if something does not work well because trains don't run, derail or stall I suppose.

The devil comes in the detail:: the difference between the train runs like a startled jack rabbit/ runs smoothly and starts slowly for instance or never derails/derails occasionally/derails every move.

 

Secondly, I suppose that the "well" part could reflect the complexity.

On the one extreme Peter Denny's "Automatic Crispin" comes to mind (i.e. effectively a home made electro-mechanical computer) whereas at the other extreme automation could be extremely limited.

Between the two extremes are probably power operated points and signalling which might or might not be interlocked.

 

Thirdly I suppose it depends upon who defines "well".

One person might opt for a small layout. This could receive lavish maintenance and operate perfectly, but perhaps with limited scope.

Their definition of "well" might be that it stalls or derails once a blue moon.

The large layout builder might accept lower reliability as a cost of considerably expanded operational scope.

Their definition might be most of it works for most of the time.

 

I am sure that there are other aspects that could also be considered.

 

The question interests me, at any rate, because I have built a large home based layout which coukld hardly be considered a paragon of electro-mechanical virtue!

An operating session, which lasts months and involves thousands of moves, usualy throws up problems.

 

These are outlined on the website as they occur because I don't see any mileage in denying or disguising the problems.

As I often point out in ironic frustration "Model Railways are Fun!" to slightly paraphrase the old Model Railroader tag line.

 

My own early experiences with power operated accessories quickly pesuaded me to use the KISS principle. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

My layout exists solely for my benefit and will never be exhibited.

It is quite possible, therefore, that some-one else's opinion about its running might not tally with mine.

I could have a more reliable layout if I avoided scratchbuilding and concentrated on a simple subject.

On the other side of the coin as far as I am concerned it operates "reasonably well" given it's complexity and my ham fistedness.

 

Ian T

 

 

[RJS1977]

6 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

 

Indeed, what happens to most old home-based layouts?

 

One old home-based layout which I believe still exists is "Let us now praise famous men" by Cecil J Blay, which appeared in RM back in around 1967. Certainly the (then) pastor of my church mentioned having seen it about 15 years ago and said it was working but most of the underlay was perishing.

 

I've spoken to Cecil's daughter a few times since then (she attends my Zoom church meet-up) and I'm sure she mentioned within the last few months that it was still in existence.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I well remember that one too. I recall a phrase he wrote that whilst Warships and Westerns would be seen at the bottom of his garden (I think he lived near Sonning), he could go to his layout and see Castles and Kings. 

 

How things move on...

[t-b-g]

One of the reasons why I was more than happy to take on the task of looking after Buckingham was because I had visited the layout several times, including a visit only a few weeks before Peter Denny passed away.

 

So I had seen, with my own eyes, that although it was clear that maintenance and cleaning had perhaps not been kept on top of in his later years, the layout was generally sound and working quite well.

 

Although Covid has put a temporary stop to the once or twice a week visits by friends to run the layout, I run it "solo" a couple of times a week and it is still hugely reliable and great fun to operate. It still astonishes me to think that in December, the earliest loco will celebrate its 75th birthday.

 

I have created a bit of a video presentation on the control systems of Buckingham, which will form part of the forthcoming Scalefour and EMGS online events (the first one being this weeked) and although it was almost impossible to drive trains, film and talk at the same time, there is a shot of a train running round the layout. All the locos run like that. Inching a shunter up to a wagon or carriage until the buffers gently touch, or gradually accelerating smoothly away are normal parts of the running.

[D-A-T]

Looking forward to seeing the video Tony. From the very first, the idea of a model railway having a “purpose”, as opposed to just running trains, has fascinated me. 

[DLT]

41 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

On the other side of the coin as far as I am concerned it operates "reasonably well" given it's complexity and my ham fistedness.

 

Having see what you have created Ian, I could never call you hamfisted!

 

My original question was prompted by remembering remarks by a magazine photographer many years ago.   He went to peoples homes to photograph layouts for publication, and when he asked if he could see it running, on several occasions was told that it didn't work

[Donw]

49 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

One of the reasons why I was more than happy to take on the task of looking after Buckingham was because I had visited the layout several times, including a visit only a few weeks before Peter Denny passed away.

 

So I had seen, with my own eyes, that although it was clear that maintenance and cleaning had perhaps not been kept on top of in his later years, the layout was generally sound and working quite well.

 

Although Covid has put a temporary stop to the once or twice a week visits by friends to run the layout, I run it "solo" a couple of times a week and it is still hugely reliable and great fun to operate. It still astonishes me to think that in December, the earliest loco will celebrate its 75th birthday.

 

I have created a bit of a video presentation on the control systems of Buckingham, which will form part of the forthcoming Scalefour and EMGS online events (the first one being this weeked) and although it was almost impossible to drive trains, film and talk at the same time, there is a shot of a train running round the layout. All the locos run like that. Inching a shunter up to a wagon or carriage until the buffers gently touch, or gradually accelerating smoothly away are normal parts of the running.

 

When Peter retired he hade made some preparations for a potential move I believe and he also had help from his sons to get the new line set up and working which I am sure meant it was in good health at that time. Sometimes People move when things start getting a bit much for them which means they are not in the best state to rebuild a layout.

I think Buckingham is probably the best model railway layout around  really good scenic work (assuming it has fared well)  with an operating potential full of interest. So many railways favour one side more than the others. Peter had the balance right to my mind. I wish you much joy of the layout.

 

Don

[Donw]

3 minutes ago, DLT said:

 

Having see what you have created Ian, I could never call you hamfisted!

 

My original question was prompted by remembering remarks by a magazine photographer many years ago.   He went to peoples homes to photograph layouts for publication, and when he asked if he could see it running, on several occasions was told that it didn't work

 

Having been aware of people having issues like just finding the prospect of crawling under the layout with reduced mobility due to old age. I have decided that for  the new layout all the wiring should be brought out to the front where simple fascia covers can allow access to all the connections. The wisdom of this was show to be wise by a recent 'flare up' of arthritis. Similarly access for track cleaning need to be considered so any hidden tracks will have a lift off section of scenery. 

 

Don

[t-b-g]

6 minutes ago, Donw said:

 

When Peter retired he hade made some preparations for a potential move I believe and he also had help from his sons to get the new line set up and working which I am sure meant it was in good health at that time. Sometimes People move when things start getting a bit much for them which means they are not in the best state to rebuild a layout.

I think Buckingham is probably the best model railway layout around  really good scenic work (assuming it has fared well)  with an operating potential full of interest. So many railways favour one side more than the others. Peter had the balance right to my mind. I wish you much joy of the layout.

 

Don

 

Thanks Don. I have had the layout for 10 years now and it has given me more satisfaction than any of the layouts I have built for myself. I agree with you. I think it is the best layout that I know of. The balance of everything pretty much scratchbuilt combined with a layout that is just an absolute joy to operate, either alone or with friends, has meant that I have never doubted the decision to take it on for one moment.

 

Peter was upgrading some of the scenic work when he died, as he was still modelling right up to the end. The buildings are mostly fine but the trees are a bit "tired" and some of the cardboard fences have been damaged over the years and could do with replacing. I have mixed feelings about finishing the task as I prefer to keep as much original Denny work as possible. I do have supplies of his materials, so I could finish the work in the "Denny Style".  

 

Apart from anything else, I have learned a huge amount about the hobby and about what good layout design and control systems should look like, that I can incorporate into my own modelling.

 

Peter did indeed do a lot of work to allow the layout to be moved when he retired but once it was installed in its new home, he clearly had no intention of it moving again. At that time, he was still fit and very capable. He even made his own multipin plugs and sockets for the wiring, some of which still exist.

 

New boards were added as the new room was bigger for the scenic run up to Leighton Buzzard and the gasworks there plus one was inserted to increase the length of the board between Grandborough and Buckingham and nothing in the design was done to make taking it apart again easy. New timbers were fixed over bolt heads, tracks, wires and point operating rodding were laid over, through and buried between timbers and baseboard end members. The baseboard alignment was with brass pins, hammered into holes that didn't go all the way through and then cut off flush.  

 

The last time I saw him, he told me that he was not going to be able to live there much longer and he hoped that somebody, perhaps one of his regular operators, would buy the house with the layout and carry on with it but that wasn't to be. I like to think that it coming here was a good second best.

 

Tony

 

 

[ianathompson]

1 hour ago, DLT said:

when he asked if he could see it running, on several occasions was told that it didn't work

 

I am speechless at that!

 

Ian T

[Pacific231G]

On 15/04/2021 at 09:57, Pacific231G said:

  23 hours ago, Piston said:

If John Ahern wrote an article on Chinnor station does anyone know which mag/date please ?

He did Watlington in MRN Aug 1950 & Aston Rowant in Sept 1950.

Thanks.

 

Unfortunately, I'm pretty certain that he didn't. It's certainly not in any of the lists of his articles and,  In the intro, to "More about the Watlington Branch" in Sept. 1950 he says that following the Watlington article the previous month he promised "to return to the subject with some details of one of the through stations on the same line. The one selected is Aston Rowant. It is quite typical". At the end of the article he also says "That may complete our survery of Aston Rowant, but for good measure I have added photograph 6, to show you the style of two or three simple halts situated on this line. This one is known as Bledlow Bridge" From this, I think it's clear that he had no intention of doing a third article about the branch, either because he hadn't visited Chinnor or simply didn't think it added anything. He would have passed Bledlow Bridge if he went to the Red Lion (now the Lions of Bledlow) Inn for a pint.

 

I've just looked at the OS 25 inch maps that are available from the National Library of Scotland and , before the lime and cement works was added (unfortunately the  1946 25 inch map that shows the works doesn't, for some unaccountable reason, security perhaps, include any track) Chinnor's original track plan appears to have been an exact mirror image of Aston Rowant even to the relative position of the road bridge (at both stations girder bridges on brick parapets) The station building and goods shed also appear to have been  identical to those at Aston Rowant and Watlington though at Chinnor the goods shed was later removed and the track layout somewhat changed so would not have still been there when John Ahern visited the branch. Even if he did visit Chinnor, he wouldn't have found anything, apart from the private siding to the lime and cement works,  that added anything to his notes and photos on Aston Rowant. Both stations are covered in volume one of An Historical Survey of Selected Great Western Stations by R.H. Clark (OPC) 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Pacific231G
Updated information from other sources

[Barry O]

One layout which worked really well when "built in" to a room after use as an Exhibition Layout was John Pomroys' "Winton" and it still featured the "Fastest Train in the West" - John was a very good modeller and he asked me to operate the layout at his home. It was a great pleasure.

 

On eth other hand, Iain Rices' layouts may have looked nice but his ideas on baseboard construction were not of the best (anyone else use skirting boards as baseboard tops?).

 

Yes, nostalgia is a two edged sword.. I can remember a number of very good layouts but I have seen major strides forwards in terms of operation , scenery and build quality of layouts over the years. Lets hope we can continue to see improvements.

 

Baz

 

 

[New Haven Neil]

IIRC I mentioned Winton back in the early days of the thread - seeing it at York (??) after reading about it in RM as a teenager was a real treat - including the clip from Peter Handford's recording of an A4 screaming past, the loco having being revved up in the fiddle yard!  I have the record.....  There was little LNER modelling to see in the press back then, Phil English's Southallerton that I helped with being the only one that jumps into the mind (that's broken nowadays though) from the era.

[D-A-T]

On 15/04/2021 at 18:43, t-b-g said:

One of the reasons why I was more than happy to take on the task of looking after Buckingham was because I had visited the layout several times, including a visit only a few weeks before Peter Denny passed away.

 

So I had seen, with my own eyes, that although it was clear that maintenance and cleaning had perhaps not been kept on top of in his later years, the layout was generally sound and working quite well.

 

Although Covid has put a temporary stop to the once or twice a week visits by friends to run the layout, I run it "solo" a couple of times a week and it is still hugely reliable and great fun to operate. It still astonishes me to think that in December, the earliest loco will celebrate its 75th birthday.

 

I have created a bit of a video presentation on the control systems of Buckingham, which will form part of the forthcoming Scalefour and EMGS online events (the first one being this weeked) and although it was almost impossible to drive trains, film and talk at the same time, there is a shot of a train running round the layout. All the locos run like that. Inching a shunter up to a wagon or carriage until the buffers gently touch, or gradually accelerating smoothly away are normal parts of the running.

Excellent video. It explains a lot regarding how the track power is supplied. The idea of no section switches appeals greatly as does the fact the model is being run on, or to, prototypical principles. Less appealing is the “complicated” spaghetti of wiring which appears necessary. Much cogitating ahead for me I think.

[Donw]

18 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

Excellent video. It explains a lot regarding how the track power is supplied. The idea of no section switches appeals greatly as does the fact the model is being run on, or to, prototypical principles. Less appealing is the “complicated” spaghetti of wiring which appears necessary. Much cogitating ahead for me I think.

 

While the method used to connect power to the sections has much to comend it. I now find with a change to DCC I am happier with the fact that I no longer need sections to be switched. This is not a prototypical thing steam engines are not physically restricted it requires the driver to control it. This of course becomes very true with DCC each loco is fully controlable but the driver has to do it. On a complex layout proper signlling becomes more of a necessity especially with multiple drivers. I would recommend you consider DCC.

 

Don

[t-b-g]

14 minutes ago, Donw said:

 

While the method used to connect power to the sections has much to comend it. I now find with a change to DCC I am happier with the fact that I no longer need sections to be switched. This is not a prototypical thing steam engines are not physically restricted it requires the driver to control it. This of course becomes very true with DCC each loco is fully controlable but the driver has to do it. On a complex layout proper signlling becomes more of a necessity especially with multiple drivers. I would recommend you consider DCC.

 

Don

 

I have used DCC and the system on Buckingham is much more satisfying and enjoyable to work. You don't need to know which loco has been put on a train and which direction it is heading in and the locos do swap around a lot. Asking the operator at the other station "What loco have you put on and is it chimney first?" is hardly prototypical. All we do is accept the train that is offered, set the points and signals and turn the controller. 

 

59 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

Excellent video. It explains a lot regarding how the track power is supplied. The idea of no section switches appeals greatly as does the fact the model is being run on, or to, prototypical principles. Less appealing is the “complicated” spaghetti of wiring which appears necessary. Much cogitating ahead for me I think.

 

Thanks. The wiring is not actually that complicated. It looks bad in the video because Peter Denny was constantly altering the track layout and the signalling, which needed the wiring modifying to cope with new moves without messing up old ones. After submitting the video, I did wonder if I should have added a wiring diagram showing how a platform at Buckingham is wired as it really isn't nearly as bad as the real wires make it seem.

 

If one would be of interest, I will put something together.

 

 

[D-A-T]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have used DCC and the system on Buckingham is much more satisfying and enjoyable to work. You don't need to know which loco has been put on a train and which direction it is heading in and the locos do swap around a lot. Asking the operator at the other station "What loco have you put on and is it chimney first?" is hardly prototypical. All we do is accept the train that is offered, set the points and signals and turn the controller. 

 

 

Thanks. The wiring is not actually that complicated. It looks bad in the video because Peter Denny was constantly altering the track layout and the signalling, which needed the wiring modifying to cope with new moves without messing up old ones. After submitting the video, I did wonder if I should have added a wiring diagram showing how a platform at Buckingham is wired as it really isn't nearly as bad as the real wires make it seem.

 

If one would be of interest, I will put something together.

 

 

Yes, an example wiring diagram would be very much of interest.

Especially the signal and calling on signal, and how they interact regarding power to track, or part of the track. I think I’ve figured it out in my head. Or at the least how I might do it. But a worked example would be much appreciated. 

[ianathompson]

10 hours ago, Donw said:

While the method used to connect power to the sections has much to comend it. I now find with a change to DCC I am happier with the fact that I no longer need sections to be switched. This is not a prototypical thing steam engines are not physically restricted it requires the driver to control it. This of course becomes very true with DCC each loco is fully controlable but the driver has to do it. On a complex layout proper signlling becomes more of a necessity especially with multiple drivers. I would recommend you consider DCC.

 

My reservation about DCC is that I am putting a microprocessor into a locomomtive.

This is awkward to fit (even into O scale narrow gauge locos), fiddly and expensive, especially where a large roster is involved.

I also have no idea how to fix it if it goes wrong.

Model Railroader runs a monthly DCC column and "replacing defunct/old fashioned/blown up chips" is a staple topic.

A contributor to Narrow Lines,  the 7mm Narrow Gauge Association magazine, a few years ago, said that he worked with microprocessors but would not install then in his locos due to their complexity.

 

In contrast, and I suspect that Buckingham is similar, it is easy to trace faults using DC, and they can be easily remedied.

As i earlier observed, my layout is wired on the KISS principle.

I have just rebuilt my main station after twenty odd years of running.

I had more than one mysterious short appear from nowhere, (as per usual with rebuilds!)

These took some time to find  but, once located they were easily resolved.

 

Okay. I am a DCC Luddite.

 

Ian T

[kevinlms]

17 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

 

 

I had more than one mysterious short appear from nowhere, (as per usual with rebuilds!)

These took some time to find  but, once located they were easily resolved.

 

Ian T

If when you're wiring (DC or DCC), use either a multimeter with a continuity tester or a separate buzzer. Connect it across the rails and if you create a short, it will go off and you'll know it's related to the wire you just connected!

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, D-A-T said:

Yes, an example wiring diagram would be very much of interest.

Especially the signal and calling on signal, and how they interact regarding power to track, or part of the track. I think I’ve figured it out in my head. Or at the least how I might do it. But a worked example would be much appreciated. 

 

One sketched out diagram attached.

 

This is for Platform 2 at Buckingham as it has the whole set of signals for arriving and departing, as long as shuting to and from both the up and down main lines.

 

 

I have only drawn one rail as it is all common return.

 

The Platform has been divided into two sections, which I have called A and B for the diagram. A is the buffer stop end.

 

The key lever is 2, which is drawn pulled, for a departure to Grandborough and which switches section B only. When that is back in the frame, B is normally isolated but is fed by any of the other levers via a simple on/off switch. 43 is to shunt to the up line, 44 to the down line. 64 is calling on from the up line, 68 from the down line. So a different signal moves but the switching is the same for all these.

 

Section A is fed either by ground disc 40 or by a second switch attached to the main arrival signal No 19. The manual plunger is really just another on/off, which activates section B without pulling a lever.

 

As each signal or point needs a lever to operate it anyway, it is only a matter of adding either a single pole change over switch for No 2, a double pole on/off switch for No 19 and single pole on/off switches for the others. The plunger can be a simple push to make.

 

Once you have your head around the principle, it is really simple to work out and to wire up.

[pete_mcfarlane]

On 15/04/2021 at 20:10, t-b-g said:

 

Thanks Don. I have had the layout for 10 years now and it has given me more satisfaction than any of the layouts I have built for myself. I agree with you. I think it is the best layout that I know of. The balance of everything pretty much scratchbuilt combined with a layout that is just an absolute joy to operate, either alone or with friends, has meant that I have never doubted the decision to take it on for one moment.

I must have seen Leighton Buzzard three or four times at exhibitions in the years since you acquired it, and what always impresses me is how crude a lot of the individual parts are, and yet how convincing the overall result is. It also looks like a lot of fun to operate. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by pete_mcfarlane

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I must have seen Leighton Buzzard three or four times at exhibitions in the years since you acquired it, and what always impresses me is how crude a lot of the individual parts are, and yet how convincing the overall result is. It also looks like a lot of fun to operate. 

 

I agree entirely Pete. the individual models may have been "of their time" and may have been improved upon by many people since they were built all those years ago. In terms of the overall picture, the atmosphere and the creation of a believable but fictional railway, which is superb fun to operate, I have still never seen anything that surpasses it.

 

I have had the great pleasure of operating many layouts over the years, including some very well known ones. None has been as much fun to operate as Buckingham and I wouldn't swap it for any other layout ever built.

[Donw]

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have used DCC and the system on Buckingham is much more satisfying and enjoyable to work. You don't need to know which loco has been put on a train and which direction it is heading in and the locos do swap around a lot. Asking the operator at the other station "What loco have you put on and is it chimney first?" is hardly prototypical. All we do is accept the train that is offered, set the points and signals and turn the controller. 

 

 

Thanks. The wiring is not actually that complicated. It looks bad in the video because Peter Denny was constantly altering the track layout and the signalling, which needed the wiring modifying to cope with new moves without messing up old ones. After submitting the video, I did wonder if I should have added a wiring diagram showing how a platform at Buckingham is wired as it really isn't nearly as bad as the real wires make it seem.

 

If one would be of interest, I will put something together.

 

 

 

I think that works very well for how Buckingham works. It is rather a signalmans point of view with each operator working a station. There is an alternative where people act as drivers and work a train through a system for that kind of operating DCC works very well. In that way of working the driver knows the engine number and the direction it is facingso it is not an issue. There are ways of  resolving some of the issues about knowing the loco etc.  If you are working to a set timetable having the locos defined in the timetable is one option you can always advise any changes  such as 6024 will be replaced by 6033 today. Tender locos can be assumed to be facing forwards where turntables are available otherwise the direction may be assumed from which way it went before. On a really big sytem you can have timetable workings allocated to loco diagrams and using the consist option any loco can be put into a consist for that diagram number. Operator then just use the consist number.

Also using my MERG system a train can be started off by one operator and I can then take it over with the command station remembering all the settings. 

Of course if you operate alone as I often do, I make up a train in the fiddle yard move to the station an then operate the points and signals using a lever frame then change hats to a driver as it were and drive the loco into the station and on to another station doing both driver and signalman jobs.

 

 

As a former Telephone engineer who later became a software developer  I would have absolutly no problem wiring up any layout to achieve what I wanted whether DC or DCC. I also have no problems with DCC.

 I prefer to fit a 6 pin socket into my locos so the changeing of a decoder is not a problem. Not that I have much problem with them. I do take care to avoid unecessary contacts between the decoder and metal parts of a loco. Yes it does cost a bit more but I consider it worth it.

 

Don

[St Enodoc]

4 minutes ago, Donw said:

I think that works very well for how Buckingham works. It is rather a signalmans point of view with each operator working a station.

I use DCC so that I can separate the roles of signalman and driver. The "operator" at a station is just the signalman. The signalman doesn't need to know the number of the loco (or carriage working). The driver does, though, and it is his job (combining the roles of driver, guard and shunter) to drive the train according to the signals as set by the signalman.