1910 Mini-Layout

[BG John]

I'm glad that the definition of relaxed, informal and casual has moved on a bit since then, to actually being relaxed, informal and casual! I hope a beard and ponytail are also acceptable now. And no headgear!

[BG John]

Look at this for a bit of very subtle messaging. It's from the cover of a 1937 Bassett Lowke catalogue, implying that pinstripe business suit was the normal wear of their customer.

 

No jeans at 112 High Holborn!

 

K

That's very upper middle class though. I'm probably building a lot more of my layouts myself, so am more of an artisan .

[Edwardian]

I'm glad that the definition of relaxed, informal and casual has moved on a bit since then, to actually being relaxed, informal and casual! I hope a beard and ponytail are also acceptable now. And no headgear!

 

I say, look here, the fellow's not even wearing a collar and tie; I don't see how one could expect a chap to dress any more casually than that!?!  There are Limits!

 

Pwshaw!

 

So what you're saying is that you dog looks smarter than you?

 

[winking face]

[Edwardian]

That's very upper middle class though. I'm probably building a lot more of my layouts myself, so am more of an artisan .

 

BG John and friends fabricating the baulk road for Small, Broad and Totally Pointless:

[BG John]

So what you're saying is that you dog looks smarter than you?

 

[winking face]

Why do you think she appears in my photos, but I don't .

[BG John]

BG John and friends fabricating the baulk road for Small, Broad and Totally Pointless:

That must be me in the background supervising!

[Nearholmer]

Simon

 

The chap at Folkestone wasn't called Brice was he?

 

The question of whether or not Greenly went about things in the right way can be debated endlessly, but I will nail my colours to the mast: I think that he was a huge force for good.

 

People grumble about the track and wheel standards that he set for 0 gauge, but before he set them, there were no standards at all, and he managed to set them so that trains could run with equal facility on tin-plate and "scale" track, and as a set of standards, they work very well indeed, a lot better than many that came later - trains run acceptably smoothly, don't de-rail, don't suffer "frog drop" etc. But, they aren't exactly high-fidelity standards; they are "commercial" standards.

 

Greenly also had a very large hand in the design of the earliest commercially made electric trains on 16.5mm gauge (Bing for Bassett Lowke 1924), which were made for The British market. These were of somewhat indeterminate scale [Edit for accuracy: The DOGA history of 00 contains convincing detail which shows that Greenly did envisage ''tis system as 5/8" gauge, 4mm/ft scale, even if it is hard to tell which bits of it are to any particular scale!] as were the French (JdeP) copies. These Bing trains provoked the 3.5mm/4mm argument, which was raging in Britain well before continental makers started making things of any defined scale for their home markets, and when Trix did start in the early 1930s, they rounded-off 1/87 to 1/90, and made things to that scale. British Trix, from 1935 onwards was about the same (but, to be honest, the proportions of a lot of it are rather warped); Maerklin 00 (not called H0 at that stage) from 1935 was about 1/85 (but their small locos were very freelance anyway).

 

It could, I think, be argued very convincingly that it isn't Greenly who should bear the cross for settling on 16.5mm gauge combined with 4mm scale, but Frank Hornby's design team on the Dublo project, because when their product came to market it was roughly to those proportions, and carried the day because, unlike British Trix, it used permanent magnet motors, and was therefore much more practical, as well as better looking.

 

I haven't mentioned the USA, but things were a muddle there too, until at least the late 1930s - their version of 00 was very close to P4, at 19mm, but they settled on true H0.

 

All that having been said, and whoever is to blame, I agree that it is a mighty pity that 4mm came to rule in Britain. seldom can 0.5mm have caused so much extra effort to be expended!

 

Kevin

Edited October 24, 2016 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

Sartorially, this takes the biscuit!

 

For all the fancy sales-talk, it seems to be a cardigan, put on back-to-front.

 

Damned fine tache though!

[BG John]

Presumably that was a normal length tie, until he caught it in his bike chain!

[Mike]

It was still ties even in the late 70's:

 

[Nearholmer]

Simon

 

The absence, then extreme feebleness and impermanence, of permanent magnets did have a very direct bearing on how small a model electric loco could be in the early years, which is why the Met-esque loco in the Captain photo was rather beefy. The Met locos were actually quite petite.

 

Scale doesn't get many mentions in early articles about 0 gauge, but where it does, it is often cited as 1/48, with gauge 1 given as 1/32.

 

But, people were more excited by the fact that they could make/obtain a loco in "the smallest size", which is what they call 0, than about precise scale - clockwork, steam, and electric were head-to-head pre-WW1, and it was a real struggle to get acceptable duration of run, and controllability, from any of them.

 

Greenly took the de-facto German tinplate standard gauges, measured between rail centres, of 35mm and 48mm (and upwards), then deducted the diameter of the head of the tinplate rail (3mm), to get 32mm and 45mm, which he then converted to good round imperial equivalents, 1.25" and 1.75". His standard set is expressed in both metric and imperial, but the one is not an exact match to the other, it is a set of convenient equivalents, not equals, close enough to permit them to be used interchangeably. He explains all this in detail in two articles in 1910, but, IIRC, he doesn't actually mention scale! And, of course, it doesn't conceive of 00.

 

There were indeed other 00 gauges pre-WW1 - 26mm, 28mm, and other I think - but they were "flash in the pan" jobs, too close to 0 to offer any USP. It wasn't until the Greenly/BL/Bing collaboration of 1923, at 5/8" or 16.5mm, that anyone really cracked the "tabletop railway" quest.

 

George Winteringham was making "scale" (solid rail) track, sold through BL, before the Greenly Standard, and in 1909 he wrote an article about how he had developed it. But, I don't think it was available in gauges as small as 1 or 0 until after the Greenly Standard. From about 1910 onwards, BL then sold two "good quality" track-types, "scale" (winteringham design, solid rail), and Lowko, which was available with either tin or brass rail (both formed from thin sheet), on wooden sleepers.

 

Kevin

Edited October 20, 2016 by Nearholmer

[BG John]

It was still ties even in the late 70's:

 

knotts2.jpg

Speak for yourself! I was exhibiting layouts then, and never wore a tie!

[F-UnitMad]

Myth-buster No.1 :-

 

Standard HO is NOT "dead scale". The track gauge is correct for the scale, but when combined with RTR standards of wheels, the chassis of models themselves simply cannot be dead scale. They would have to be made to Proto87 standards for that to be tbe case.

 

Meanwhile, I vote that future photos posted of Paltry Circus should be in black & white, like the fiddleyard picture. Much more atmospheric & in keeping with it's intended Era.!!

[Edwardian]

Myth-buster No.1 :-

 

Standard HO is NOT "dead scale". The track gauge is correct for the scale, but when combined with RTR standards of wheels, the chassis of models themselves simply cannot be dead scale. They would have to be made to Proto87 standards for that to be tbe case.

 

Meanwhile, I vote that future photos posted of Paltry Circus should be in black & white, like the fiddleyard picture. Much more atmospheric & in keeping with it's intended Era.!!

 

And in sepia, and blotted and stained, and with blurring figures of people who did not stand still for long enough. 

[Simond]

FUnit, I agree, but the scale-gauge relationship was precisely my point, I know there's a difference between H0 and P87. Wouldn't life have been easier if they'd done the same in 0? And whilst they were at it, chosen a more sensible (1:48, 1:50?) scale?

 

Kevin, sorry, didn't get the chap's name, nor did I get a show guide.

 

Ties... nah, not unless I'm in a monkey / penguin suit. (Or under US track)

 

Best

Simon

[sparks]

One more track installed in the FY; planning retaining walls.

Found another nice 1910 photo, of another micro-layout designed by Greenly. This one is for The Captain magazine, which ran a series of constructional articles by Greenly, showing boys how to build the Met Electric that features on the layout, with Bassett Lowke able to supply the difficult-to-make bits by mail order.

Note Edwardian photo-bombing on the left!

K

Hmm, that rather reminds me of the classic photo of Vine St good station:-

http://www.ltmcollection.org/photos/photo/link.html?IXinv=1998/87812

(more here, down the bottom)

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/london-terminals-fighting-over-farringdon-part-2/

[Nearholmer]

You are right, Sparks, very reminiscent.

 

Another occasional attendee here is busily building a coarse-scale layout based on the inner Met right now, and I think that Vine Street may materials in one corner of that.

 

K

 

PS: Film of a chap wearing Regulation Model Railway Operating Attire (Summer) has now come to light

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbq00PuQ92c

 

RMROA (Winter; Outdoors) is similar, but with a stout cap, rather than Boater, and the jacket fastened.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Nearholmer

[F-UnitMad]

Film of a chap wearing Regulation Model Railway Operating Attire (Summer) has now come to light

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbq00PuQ92c

RMROA (Winter; Outdoors) is similar, but with a stout cap, rather than Boater, and the jacket fastened.

One can see from that video why Electrikery may have been seen as a backward step in the development of model railways. The 3rd rail on that layout is notable by it's absence. We sometimes joke these days about "what's wrong with clockwork?" (the answer is in the rather abrupt 'journey's end'!!) but I bet the thoroughly unrealistic 3rd rail needed for electric control back then was viewed in some quarters with as much jaundice as RTR O Scale is viewed by some now. Edited October 20, 2016 by F-UnitMad

[BG John]

PS: Film of a chap wearing Regulation Model Railway Operating Attire (Summer) has now come to light

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbq00PuQ92c

 

RMROA (Winter; Outdoors) is similar, but with a stout cap, rather than Boater, and the jacket fastened.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, and layout operators just wear normal clothing of their time and social position!

 

For anyone who has problems with SWMBO, the domestic authorities, or whatever term is used to describe the cohabiting person of the gender not normally associated with an interest in model railways, here's an example of domestic bliss. This could be an example to use when confronted with a refusal to allow trains in living rooms, and other comfortable parts of the house.

 

 

And if that fails, get her involved. Notice the gender of the person turning loco wheels on a lathe at the beginning.

 

[Edwardian]

You are right, Sparks, very reminiscent.

 

Another occasional attendee here is busily building a coarse-scale layout based on the inner Met right now, and I think that Vine Street may materials in one corner of that.

 

K

 

PS: Film of a chap wearing Regulation Model Railway Operating Attire (Summer) has now come to light

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbq00PuQ92c

 

RMROA (Winter; Outdoors) is similar, but with a stout cap, rather than Boater, and the jacket fastened.

 

Pure joy!

 

And, yes, that is exactly what one should wear!

[Metropolitan H]

You are right, Sparks, very reminiscent.

 

Another occasional attendee here is busily building a coarse-scale layout based on the inner Met right now, and I think that Vine Street may materials in one corner of that.

 

K

 

PS: Film of a chap wearing Regulation Model Railway Operating Attire (Summer) has now come to light

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbq00PuQ92c

 

RMROA (Winter; Outdoors) is similar, but with a stout cap, rather than Boater, and the jacket fastened.

 

If you look closely you will notice that the Gentleman with the Boater is wearing breeches and is a Revd. gentleman - he has a dog collar.

 

Regards

Chris H

[Nearholmer]

BGJ

 

I'm sure that Edwardian and I are both in complete earnest when talking about proper attire for railway operating.

 

FUMad

 

I've been dabbling a bit in clockwork recently, and it certainly has its own strange appeal. However, with the exception of some serious rarities, which use gramophone governors, the locos can be a bit too fast, and it is really necessary to design a layout with clockwork in mind from the start. Access to locos to wind them up, siting of stations so as not to exceed the duration of wind, departures uphill, arrivals down etc. And, the process is very physical, so I'm a bit wary of using old locos too much, for fear of damaging them.

 

Chris

 

Breeches are a required part of RMROA, but I have to confess that I'd not spotted the clerical collar.

 

Kevin

[Edwardian]

BGJ

 

I'm sure that Edwardian and I are both in complete earnest when talking about proper attire for railway operating.

 

 

 

Indubitably

 

It's important to be earnest.

 

Breeches are a required part of RMROA, but I have to confess that I'd not spotted the clerical collar.

 

 

 

Agree!

 

I once donned a clerical collar for a party - no, not that sort of party - it was a murder mystery dinner party and I was cast as the vicar.

 

On the way I got hopelessly lost and found myself in a questionable part of Liverpool and obliged to stop to ask some fairly intimidating youths for directions.  Well, it was "Father this ... " and "Father that ..", so I escaped with comprehensive directions and a full set of tyres.  I felt that it would have been somehow impolitic to explain that I wasn't exactly a priest. 

Edited October 21, 2016 by Edwardian

[F-UnitMad]

If you look closely you will notice that the Gentleman with the Boater is wearing breeches and is a Revd. gentleman - he has a dog collar.

 

Regards

Chris H

No wonder he had a large layout - he only had to work one day a week!!

 

(tongue very much in cheek; I have read the thread/post recently about all the work the Rev Denny used to do, & how he did his modelling at silly-o'clock in the morning!)

[Alex TM]

No wonder he had a large layout - he only had to work one day a week!!

 

(tongue very much in cheek; I have read the thread/post recently about all the work the Rev Denny used to do, & how he did his modelling at silly-o'clock in the morning!)

Only one day a week; he must have been a workaholic!  Most of us only work for the first half of that day …….