Blandford St Mary - tell us what you think

[SteveCole]

Hi all,

 

We have the O Gauge Blandford St Mary layout appearing in the July edition (on-sale June 14) of BRM.

 

Have you seen this layout at exhibitions? If so, we'd love to hear your comments so we can print the best in the magazine.

 

Here are some images to jog your memory:

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

Brand Editor - BRM

[SteveCole]

Anyone?

[The Stationmaster]

I can't recall seeing the layout Steve but from the upper pic above I can see it has one of the basic errors one all too often sees in GWR signalling on model railways (apart from having another blooper, perhaps that was only when the pic was taken - rotten how such things show up after the event).

[Joseph_Pestell]

How is having two boards off at the same time a particularly GW error?

 

I can't see what the distant arm is about though (perhaps what you meant, Stationmaster?).

[PLD]

Horrible photos of what is actually a fairly decent layout...

 

First one in particular; time and effort has obviously been put into the badly photoshopped background, but the photoshopper has missed the yawning chasm of a board join just to the right of the loco.

[The Stationmaster]

How is having two boards off at the same time a particularly GW error?

 

I can't see what the distant arm is about though (perhaps what you meant, Stationmaster?).

No, having two off at once is perhaps something which only happened when the picture was taken and is hardly a particularly GW error of course; could happen to anyone and only get noticed when the pic is carefully examined - usually after publication alas. There might be a good reason for that fixed distant although on the other hand there might not so not really something I could comment on without knowing the layout.

So you've not found the error (and no - I'm not pinching Steve's thread for a find the error competition).

[sunshine coast]

All I can say is that the two photos look like two different layouts ...all a bit odd and not really a good or fair way of asking for comments on a layout that has been displayed very poorly like this .......

 

RegardsTrevor ...

[Andy Y]

I've dug out a couple of snaps from my archives having seen it down at the club's rooms in High Wycombe.

 

 

 

It's a very well thought through and operationally interesting layout.

[trisonic]

I'm interested in learning more about it. Looks nice and compact and I'm looking for a subject from Britain for a long term 7mm project festering in the recesses of my mind

 

 

Btw does it have a fiddleyard off to the left hidden by a scenic front? Is it based on a prototype location?

 

Best, Pete.

[Andy Y]

From memory Pete it has a fiddle yard at each end and is, I believe, a real location near Blandford Forum but not served by the railway but handily has access from the GWR and LSWR in model form.

[St. Simon]

Hi,

 

Ah, I recogonise that layout, I operate it at it's exhibitions!

 

The Layout is 32ft x around 2ft, it is based on a GWR branchline station, with a single road Engine shed, Diary and a brewery based on the one at Blandford St. Mary it's self.

 

I'm interested in learning more about it. Looks nice and compact and I'm looking for a subject from Britain for a long term 7mm project festering in the recesses of my mind

 

 

Btw does it have a fiddleyard off to the left hidden by a scenic front? Is it based on a prototype location?

 

Best, Pete.

 

Pete, it has a cassette fiddle yard at each end hidden by the diary and brewery.

 

If you want to see some more infomation, read the article or see the High Wycombe & District Model Railway society webpage!

 

Simon

[Andy Y]

Thanks Simon, you've reminded me of something that I'd overlooked in my pics.

 

The layout features one of Ron North's excellent hand-painted backscenes which looks just right from many angles as a result of his use of horizontal edges to building roofs rather than the isometric projection commonly found on photographic or proprietary backscenes. It's worth keeping an eye open for on Blandford St. Mary, Fisherton Sarum and Hinton Parva.

[trisonic]

Thanks, Simon and Andy. I'll certainly look into it further.

 

Best, Pete.

[beast66606]

Not going into specifics about the signalling (as per StationMasters comments), but several arms off at once spoils the illusion - in one photo there are 6 arms showing off !

 

The layout looks nice so it's a shame that sneaked past.

[St. Simon]

Not going into specifics about the signalling (as per StationMasters comments), but several arms off at once spoils the illusion - in one photo there are 6 arms showing off !

 

The layout looks nice so it's a shame that sneaked past.

 

Hi Dave,

 

I'll have a word with the team and get it fixed, the problem is that the arms have been made to be posible and removeable, so when they are put back on the layout, they get knocked into the 'off' position!

 

Simon

[The Stationmaster]

I'll have a word with the team and get it fixed, the problem is that the arms have been made to be posible and removeable, so when they are put back on the layout, they get knocked into the 'off' position!

Simon

Simon if the arms are removable are they also interchangeable I wonder - if so the error could easily be rectified (although it would involve swapping arms of two different lengths - wonder if that would work)? And yes - Andy's notes remind me that I have seen it and incorrect/droopy signals apart it's rather nicely done.

[PLD]

I've dug out a couple of snaps from my archives having seen it down at the club's rooms in High Wycombe.

 

It's a very well thought through and operationally interesting layout.

 

Thanks Andy,

 

Your photos illustrate my point rather well...

 

Horrible photos of a decent layout...

 

Just look at the difference in sharpness, brightness and colour tone of the photos Steve posted: compared to yours, they look fuzzy and washed out.. If a non-professional like yourself can achieve those standards you have to worry if those Steve posted are typical of what they intend to use in the Mag. It doesn't refect well on the layouts and show it in the best light...

 

Paul

[Blandford1969]

Firstly I think the layout is really good and I have enjoyed watching it as there was something going on all the time.

 

The signals have been well built and do look the part, certainly better than I could do by miles. Looking at the is the signals the one that sticks out in particluar is the three way bracket I always thought, maybe wrongly a ringed signal was for an exit from a goods yard and not entry, in addition I would have thought that same arm would also be a smaller arm as an entry into a yard and I would have thought it would have been lower than the doll controling the entry into the bay. However I am only going on the basis of signals that I go past (when off)

[sunshine coast]

Thanks Andy for your photos and St Simon for the link to Chris Nevards photos of the layout (for Hornby mag I believe),both go to show what the layout should and does look like when photographed well...and I echo the comments re- the unprofessional original post by Steve 1980.

 

Regards Trevor ..

[The Stationmaster]

 

The signals have been well built and do look the part, certainly better than I could do by miles. Looking at the is the signals the one that sticks out in particluar is the three way bracket I always thought, maybe wrongly a ringed signal was for an exit from a goods yard and not entry, in addition I would have thought that same arm would also be a smaller arm as an entry into a yard and I would have thought it would have been lower than the doll controling the entry into the bay. However I am only going on the basis of signals that I go past (when off)

Error correctly identified, your thoughts are spot on - alas no prize, sorry

[Kenton]

Anyone?

 

Once again we have this nagging and pestering of the membership for a response so quickly after the OP. Am I the only one who finds this rude and inconsiderate of the forum membership and really not necessary. That is in addition to the question being placed in the wrong forum.

 

There is no problem with the original request in itself, placed in the correct forum, I can see value in canvassing for comment on featured or showcase layouts soon to appear in BRM. But this needs to be done with some care to get the correct and best presentation and with sufficient time to generate a response. If the photos are of poor quality they do nothing other than to put off any interest in seeing more of the same in the magazine.

 

I vaguely recall seeing this layout, it seems likely as it is local to me and would be of interest due to its location of somewhere in Dorset. However, I can add little as it is only a vague recollection, if seen it evidently did not endear itself. Is this just one of those layouts that are not a model of a prototype and are just a fiction based on the general idea? These layouts tend to be more of an exercise in operation, a layout to keep interest of the viewer and the operators rather than an exact copy of the prototype. In that case I can forgive any small errors that the majority of people do not understand and relegate them to the "try to fix once informed about" box. The layout still looks very good and I for one would be happy and proud to own, so that justifies its showcasing AFAIC.

[beast66606]

Once again we have this nagging and pestering of the membership for a response so quickly after the OP. Am I the only one who finds this rude and inconsiderate of the forum membership and really not necessary. That is in addition to the question being placed in the wrong forum.

 

Yes, you are, anyone else who wasn't interested simply ignored it, or some of us more helpful souls answered the request.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this type of posting rude and inconsiderate though.

[Jason T]

Yep, I noticed that, one of mine too; both critical. We come across like a right pair of picky sods

 

Nice to see that not only the comments offering gushing praise were posted.

[Kenton]

Yes, you are, anyone else who wasn't interested simply ignored it, or some of us more helpful souls answered the request.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this type of posting rude and inconsiderate though.

 

I'll continue to ignore your increasingly personal attacks on me as being inappropriate.

 

But I will point out that the bumping of a topic by the OP so soon after asking a question has been generally frowned upon in the help forum and commented on by everyone including Mods. I see no difference to that practice here in the Layouts section which has, up to now, been where the owners of layouts present and declare layouts to the membership. BRM do have their own forum for promoting the magazine and interacting with the membership.

 

I was not the first to comment on the quality of the photography in the OP and that has been well covered and supplemented by others on this topic. However we have had threads before by others bemoaning the impression that poor photography has on the magazines who usually have professional photographers at their disposal or beck and call. It is something that evidently detracts from both the layout and the magazine.

 

I also answered the request, but had to borrow some of your invisible ink just so you couldn't see it.

[definate maybe]

I can see where Kenton is coming from. I assume the response are not need urgently so giving a 'chase' within 24 hours does seem a bit of a cheek. If they are required urgently then a bit of forward planning maybe required or even a 'rate me' thread like the how realistic is my model one.

It doesnt help, (for me anyway) that the two photos do not seem connected. I wouldnt automatically assume they were the same layout. Not everyone will have seen all the layouts in the flesh so if comments are required maybe giving us 4 or 5 pictures detailing the full model and a brief description would be helpful.