Channel 4 model railway challenge

[Huw Griffiths]

Being of a curious nature, I looked up "Hadrian Spooner" on the web and found a link to HMS Engineering.

http://www.hmsengineering.co.uk/

So there's some competent engineering backup to the programme.

 

When the production company were phoning people who'd contacted them in response to their initial "feelers", I know the issue of ensuring suitable engineering / technical backup was "on tap" was raised - and it quickly became clear that they were "sorting" this. To be honest, I wasn't surprised - as I'd imagine they'd need some sort of insurance etc., to be able to go ahead - and I'd expect insurance companies to insist on all reasonable steps being taken to reduce any foreseeable risks.

 

Certainly, the people I spoke to - both on the phone and at least year's Ally Pally show didn't strike me as stupid or reckless - and they seemed to be "doing their homework" - so no surprises there.

 

Meanwhile, there seemed to be a number of other people - in front of the cameras - with significant engineering or practical know-how.

 

  

In no way, shape or form is it a "model railway".

 

A model in the definition that we normally use is something that is to scale or close to it. A representative of a larger thing.

 

Next time someone says you are just playing with "toy trains" and you reply "No actually they are models" then consider what a model actually is. A Hornby Flying Scotsman is a model, a Peppa Pig train is not.

 

This is just putting a toy train set in the garden, just that they are using a bigger garden. It might be fun, but it's not a model.

  

A model is a representative of a larger thing as you rightly say. The loco used on this programme is exactly that. Whether it be freelance or prototype - it is still a model. It's actually more representative than other models, as it uses steam for propulsion, unlike our more commonly electrically powered versions of steam locos.

 

It ran on rails. Albeit a plastic extruded section, but nonetheless, two parallel lines that are generally regarded as a railway.

 

Therefore it is a model railway.

 

As far as I'm concerned any train set - even if it's in the garden, is also a model railway.

.

 

Meanwhile, if anyone were to visit a structures lab - in the Civil Engineering department of a university - models of another form might be encountered - engineering models.

 

By the time they've been placed into a test rig - covered with strain gauges and other instrumentation - and loaded up using (typically) test weights, bags of scrap steel punchings or, more usually, hydraulic jacks - they often end up looking nothing like the bridges etc. they are standing in for. However, this doesn't matter very much, because they are designed to behave in the same way as the full size structures they mimic.

 

Judging by how many of these "models" have been built and used over the years, I suspect they are probably reasonably successful in this aim.

 

Similar comments could probably be made about the automotive industry making use of crash test dummies (with many of their characteristics apparently being ultimately based on cadavers).

 

 

Incidentally, it's not exactly unknown for some people to adopt a related approach to railway modelling - building "part models" as "proof of concept" exercises, to develop ideas for planned models, or to check if ways of doing things are likely to have any real chance of working.

 

Of course, this doesn't mean that any of my "proof of concept" stuff looks anything like the projected final models - or even that said final models actually get built. You didn't seriously expect that bit to happen - did you?

 

 

Huw.

[Stentor]

Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure there was at least one episode where one of the teams was having difficulty sourcing the correct components and Robert Llewellyn frog-marched them to the correct pile of scrap and showed them what to use!

 

Scrapheap Challenge was also the programme where Dick Strawbridge first appeared ("Proper job!"), which brings us neatly back to.....

 

That was Andy “Proper Job” Barnes of the Barley Pickers of Devon not Dick Strawbridge.

[Prometheus]

I was just going on the photos.

 

I'm waiting until the whole lot is on the Channel Four iPlayer thing. 

 

Jason

 

Ah, you mean Four Play ?

 

Alright, I'm going....

 

Tony

[RJS1977]

That was Andy “Proper Job” Barnes of the Barley Pickers of Devon not Dick Strawbridge.

 

 

I think they were both on the same team, and occasionally all the team members used the phrase in unison.

[Huw Griffiths]

That was Andy “Proper Job” Barnes of the Barley Pickers of Devon not Dick Strawbridge.

 

I think they were both on the same team, and occasionally all the team members used the phrase in unison.

 

I think they were only on the same team in the revamped version - in which there was a "house team", called "Dick's Diamonds".

[PatB]

 

Ahh but the atmospheric railway wasn't the complete failure that everyone thinks it was. When locomotives were less powerful than they later became it was a rational alternative to cable haulage on steeply graded lines and a couple of atmospheric railways did run succesfully for over ten years.

 

Dalkey_Atmospheric_Railway.jpg

 

The 1 ³/₄ mile railway between Kingstown à Dalkey in Ireland operated for eleven years between 1844 and 1854 and probably carried over three million passengers but an even longer lived line was just outside Paris. This worked on the same principle developed and patented by Samuel Clegg & Jacob and Joseph Samuda that was used both for the Irish line and by Brunel in South Devon. It allowed the Paris-St. Germain-en Laye line  to be extended from its original terminus at le Pecq well below St. Germain  to a new terminus in the town. This involved a mile long (1,5 km) gradient of 3.5% or about 1 in 29 which was too steep for the locos then available and in that form it operated succesfully from 1847 to 1860 with trains ascending at 35 kph or about 20MPH and returning by gravity.

 

wagon directeur Paris- St Germain.jpg

 

I think the French engineers came up with improvements in sealing the pipe and the atmospheric system was only scrapped when new 0-6-0 Tank locos became available that could bank trains arriving from the Gare St. Lazare up the steep final mile to St. Germain.

 

Brunel's attempt to use the system for a much longer main-line was not a success and Robert Stephenson had already concluded that the atmospheric system was probably only useful for shortish steeply graded railways with a fairly intensive service.

 

In the end of course, the atmospheric railway turned out to be a technological dead-end.................., or did it ? 

 

Aeromovel Porto Alegro Brazil.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

.  

 

I actually agree with you, and am on record somewhere on RMWeb expressing much the same reasoning as to why, at the time, the atmospheric system made sense, at least on paper. It was just the first example that sprang to mind when I posted.

[RJS1977]

The Guinness Book Of Records is rubbish now.

 

It used to be a book full of interesting facts, now it's very much dumbed down with far too many things about celebrities.

 

 

 

Jason

 

Guinness have also tightened up the requirements for monitoring of record attempts. For example, with regard to the Tube Challenge (visiting all 270 Underground stations in the shortest time), it used to be that you needed to get one independent witness to monitor the start and finish (hanging on to the official stopwatch for the intervening period), provide photographic evidence and a log book of visiting the stations, maintain a log of times and provide video clips and witness statements as supporting evidence.

 

Now they require TWO witnesses of the start and finish (who must be completely unknown to the participant - try finding two strangers who are willing to meet you at Amersham station in the small hours and again at Heathrow 16 hours later! - or an official Guinness judge, who has to be paid for) , complete video of the full journey and if you fail to photograph a station, it they can make life difficult -the current record holder failed to take a photo at Newbury Park, and despite having time stamped photos of the stations either side, it took him several months to convince them that he could not have got between the two stations any other way in the time. Guinness also refused to ratify his subsequent attempt on the Berlin record on the grounds his witnesses weren't independent enough.

 

(There was even some suggestion Guinness might eventually require an official judge to monitor the whole attempt. Quite apart from the cost of doing so, the official would have to be as ft as the participant in order not to slow them down, and, if he managed to be at all the stations at the same time as the participant, he would have set the record himself, meaning he was no longer impartial!)

[Guest]

The Guinness Book Of Records is rubbish now.

 

Guinness have also tightened up the requirements for monitoring of record attempts. For example, with regard to the Tube Challenge (visiting all 270 Underground stations in the shortest time)

 

Without wishing to sully this fine morning with complete grumpiness, I'm of the opinion that Jason is totally correct.

What IS the point of some of these records? Take the tube challenge as an example. Why?

I remember growing up with the Guinness Book of Records when the records actually were quite impressive. Longest spacewalk. Solo ascents of various mountain peaks. Trans-Pacific and transatlantic adventures. Things to actually make you go "Wow".

What next? Messiest celebrity breakup? Largest amount of knots in a 300mm piece of string?

[blueeighties]

I must admit to despairing at

Sadly it seems some people need to lighten up and stop taking things so seriously. Let's not let this thread degenerate into a slanging match like other threads have on RMWeb. Also,

Nail hit very squarely on head Andy. Sadly, 95% of RMWEB threads now fit your description. Too many self opinionated experts.

[Guest Model.Maker]

Without wishing to sully this fine morning with complete grumpiness, I'm of the opinion that Jason is totally correct.

What IS the point of some of these records? Take the tube challenge as an example. Why?

I remember growing up with the Guinness Book of Records when the records actually were quite impressive. Longest spacewalk. Solo ascents of various mountain peaks. Trans-Pacific and transatlantic adventures. Things to actually make you go "Wow".

What next? Messiest celebrity breakup? Largest amount of knots in a 300mm piece of string?

I wonder if Guinness will be interested in recording how quickly someone threw their toys out the pram when Bachmann or Hornby announced their respective 2018 ranges?

[Hobby]

A model is a representative of a larger thing as you rightly say. The loco used on this programme is exactly that. Whether it be freelance or prototype - it is still a model. It's actually more representative than other models, as it uses steam for propulsion, unlike our more commonly electrically powered versions of steam locos.

 

It ran on rails. Albeit a plastic extruded section, but nonetheless, two parallel lines that are generally regarded as a railway.

 

Therefore it is a model railway.

 

 

I suppose we could have a whole thread on "What is a Model Railway"... But put simply your definition is that a collection of "track" (I use the word loosely) and one loco is model railway...  

 

What they have is a Train Set, a model railway goes much further than what they have done, when it switches from being a Train Set is a debatable point, but I feel that even those Hornby Tinplate layouts we see at the exhibitions do a Model Railway better...

 

Quite frankly if we regard that as a Model Railway then we are seriously undermining what we do in my eyes... We are better than that, surely?

 

Let them play with their trains, by all means, after all that's what we do as well, but lets not undermine what we do my saying it's the same thing, it isn't.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Hobby

[Reorte]

On the "train set" front, I'd call a train set a box of bits containing everything needed to build a very basic functioning model railway.

[newbryford]

I suppose we could have a whole thread on "What is a Model Railway"... But put simply your definition is that a collection of "track" (I use the word loosely) and one loco is model railway...  

 

What they have is a Train Set, a model railway goes much further than what they have done, when it switches from being a Train Set is a debatable point, but I feel that even those Hornby Tinplate layouts we see at the exhibitions do a Model Railway better...

 

Quite frankly if we regard that as a Model Railway then we are seriously undermining what we do in my eyes... We are better than that, surely?

 

Let them play with their trains, by all means, after all that's what we do as well, but lets not undermine what we do my saying it's the same thing, it isn't.

 

The great thing about railway modelling is that it covers a broad spectrum from the train set to the finest detailed faithful representation of May 5th on a sleepy branch line in Herefordshire. It is all playing with trains.

 

"We are better than that" implies a degree of modelling elitism/snobbery/whatever you want to call it.

 

At the end of the day, it's a hobby, hobbies are supposed to be fun.

 

It's a model - on a railway. I find it difficult to call it something else.

This "what is a model railway" discussion has been done before many times on RMWeb.

 

All train sets are model railways, but not all model railways are train sets.

 

Looking forward to next weeks show.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited January 10, 2018 by newbryford

[Nearholmer]

You need to be careful you don't fall from your lofty height one day, Hobby, because it's an awful long drop down to where mere mortals dwell, and you might get hurt when you land.

 

The point of the programme is to entertain, and in the process draw a few more people closer to involvement in our hobby. If that involves adopting a broad definition of what constitutes a model railway, so be it.

 

And, as to "we are better than that", what are you driving at? Who are the "we", and by what authority do "we" deem what "we" do as "better" (which one dictionary defines as "more desirable, satisfactory or effective") than what "they" did? To me, having a bit of fun, while working as a team, in the fresh air sounds pretty desirable, satisfactory, and effective.

 

For my money, it's a very good thing that there is no formal definition of "model railway", because the only purpose of such a definition would be to delineate between what is "in" and what is "out", which would serve absolutely no practical purpose (this is a hobby, a trivial pursuit, after all), but would certainly cause endless arguments, and hurt a lot of feelings.

 

Kevin

[dynax]

When all said and done, it is a lighthearted entertainment program about taking a toy train from point A to point B and overcoming obstacles in between,

[PatB]

It might have been a nice touch (but not essential, of course) to have had the loco hauling a 16mm goods wagon or van containing some token object being carried as a revenue earning load. That would have made it, at least technically, a "real" railway, transporting goods between two geographical locations.

 

I would argue though, that it does constitute a model railway unless your definition of such is excessively narrow.

[gordon s]

I'm sure they hooked up a four wheel carriage at the beginning, but then it disappeared, not to be seen again.

[caradoc]

Whether people class this as a 'proper' model railway or not, one thing it does have is better/more realistic scenery than I've ever seen, anywhere (including Pendon); Real canals, swing bridges, locks, plus big mountains !

[chriswright03]

I read that as big moustaches to start with!  I know that doesn't look right but the spell checker is on holiday.

[PhilJ W]

It might have been a nice touch (but not essential, of course) to have had the loco hauling a 16mm goods wagon or van containing some token object being carried as a revenue earning load. That would have made it, at least technically, a "real" railway, transporting goods between two geographical locations.

 

I would argue though, that it does constitute a model railway unless your definition of such is excessively narrow.

 

 

I'm sure they hooked up a four wheel carriage at the beginning, but then it disappeared, not to be seen again.

There were two carriages, basically plywood boxes with wheels. The way they were being handled suggests that they are very light and if the locomotive keeps falling off of the track what chance have they of staying on for 71 miles?

[Jenny Emily]

It might have been a nice touch (but not essential, of course) to have had the loco hauling a 16mm goods wagon or van containing some token object being carried as a revenue earning load. That would have made it, at least technically, a "real" railway, transporting goods between two geographical locations.

 

I would argue though, that it does constitute a model railway unless your definition of such is excessively narrow.

 

 

It was on a mission to deliver a Roundhouse silver lady a distance of 70+ miles. One careful owner (and a number who weren't quite so careful)

 

There were two carriages, basically plywood boxes with wheels. The way they were being handled suggests that they are very light and if the locomotive keeps falling off of the track what chance have they of staying on for 71 miles?

 

Nothing that a little T-cut won't buff out

[Hobby]

When all said and done, it is a lighthearted entertainment program about taking a toy train from point A to point B and overcoming obstacles in between,

 

Exactly... Like any train set it's a start on the ladder...

 

As for being elitist or falling off my lofty height I shall treat those comments with the contempt they deserve, you should see the reputation RMW has on other forums for just those things! The point I was making was simply that it's a Toy Train, not a Model Railway... You may not agree with that, fair enough, but to start insulting someone for expressing a view is rather pathetic...

 

I'll leave it at that, we'll have to agree to differ and yes I will be watching the following episodes and looking at it in exactly the way Dynax described...

[chris p bacon]

As for being elitist or falling off my lofty height I shall treat those comments with the contempt they deserve, you should see the reputation RMW has on other forums for just those things! 

 

 

 

This always makes me smile, what those on other forums don't realise is that when they look down at RMWeb they are just the same. I note it's referred to as "The Dark Side" and other such names and yet is the forum where most other forums members link to for information.

 

Back on track (plastic or otherwise)

[chriswright03]

Exactly... Like any train set it's a start on the ladder...

 

As for being elitist or falling off my lofty height I shall treat those comments with the contempt they deserve, you should see the reputation RMW has on other forums for just those things! The point I was making was simply that it's a Toy Train, not a Model Railway... You may not agree with that, fair enough, but to start insulting someone for expressing a view is rather pathetic...

 

I'll leave it at that, we'll have to agree to differ and yes I will be watching the following episodes and looking at it in exactly the way Dynax described...

So now in an effort to defend yourself from the criticism of your attitude you choose to have a go at RMWeb as a whole stating the opinions of others elsewhere.  Many of those who are on other forums criticising this place were on here and left because they chose to or were banned for being disruptive.  Many of the same also creep back here in different forms from time to time either to see what is going on so they can run back to their hidey holes and report back in order to gloat in some form or to cause grief while they are here before they are ejected 'again'.

 

Over the years this place has become far better without certain individuals and I wonder if their new homes are so good why they choose to come back here at all let alone sneaking in via a back door.

 

I believe the majority of people on here are reasonable and have the ability to express themselves without causing offence to others.  The fact that you have been called out for being elite is harldy surprising as the main unwritten rule here seems to be live and let live which you seem unable to accept.

 

I have often in my past been criticised and it explained by 'it is not what you say but the way you say it'.  I try very hard to avoid that these days but admit I don't always manage.  I think had you suggested that it would have been better/nicer had the railway had some more content in it like building or whatever your view may have been more acceptable but to state that it isn't a model railway end of discussion has not come across that well.

 

If you offer a point of view it is only right that others that do not agree should have the opportunity to say so.  Some have and yet you seem unable to accept that and choose to then pick on the forum as a whole.  Perhaps now you will sulk and skulk off to one of  these other places to jin those that do not like RMWeb.  I for one would rather you didn't but rather that you learn that others have opinions that may not ine up with yours and learn to accept that.

[Pacific231G]

I actually agree with you, and am on record somewhere on RMWeb expressing much the same reasoning as to why, at the time, the atmospheric system made sense, at least on paper. It was just the first example that sprang to mind when I posted.

I know you don't think it but, for most of my life, the atmospheric railway has been presented as Brunel's folly, the great engineer's one huge misjudgement. 

I think it made sense in reality as well as on paper and it's interesting that it was problems with the build quality of the fixed engines- a mature technology by then that shouldn't have given problems- that finished off the Croydon system. I'm not really sure if the St. Germain extension could have been worked as efficiently with cable haulage, apart from anything else it's a very curved line.

 

What I hadn't realised was the extent of the suspicion that locomotives were still held in.at that time They did still have a nasty habit of exploding and, while nobody cared very much when the victims were in the coalfields, they did care when it threatened "persons of quality", Att a time when the electric telegraph was being developed, the atmospheric railway was, at least in principle, self blocking as only one train could be propelled through a section at a time. 

 

I have now found a very thorough academic article on the whole thing.

part one here

http://www4.culture.fr/patrimoines/patrimoine_monumental_et_archeologique/insitu/article.xsp?numero=&id_article=smith1-531

and part two here

http://www4.culture.fr/patrimoines/patrimoine_monumental_et_archeologique/insitu/article.xsp?numero=&id_article=smith2-528

 

Unfortunately, it's in French, though I can follow it,  but the author is given as Paul Smith so I'll try to find out whether an English language version is available. What is interesting is not just the technology itself but how its development and demise, from Denis Papin's first ideas at the end of the seventeenth century, were transmitted back and forth across the Channel (and the Irish Sea) 

 

I also want to find out why the concept is now being revived and whether there are good reasons why it might still be useful Not having to deal with stray traction currents or live conductors for  example.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Pacific231G