Wright writes.....

[Clive Mortimore]

A good point, Larry, and many thanks.

 

I'd noticed the difference in the steps, but not the much deeper inboard look of the valance. The Millholme model's valance is recessed but nowhere near as much as it should be for a Midland-built loco. I'll have to puzzle what to do. I might add a strip of thin brass to the outside edge of the footplate, just to give a shadow. I know that would increase the footplate width (by half a mil'?), but the eye would read the shadow. Did I say research was entertaining? 

 

What I've also noticed is the relative heights of the loco footplate and the tender soleplate. The former is much higher (I've sorted this). However, might it depend to some extent how the tender is sprung, or whether it's full or not? Looking at prototype pictures, some have a large difference in relative heights, some less so. Some of the earlier tenders matched exactly.

 

Oh, those joys of engine picking! 

Hi Tony

 

Do you have (or access to) the Essery and Jenkinson "Midland Locomotives" (Wild Swan) series of books, the Summerson series "Midland Railway Locomotives" (Irwell Press) and Hunt Essery and James Midland Engines No.3 The Class 2 Superheated 4-4-0s? If you have then they will help with your 483 Class project. As for tender soleplates lining up with the footplate, this only happened if the loco had a ex Class 3 Belpaire tender.

[peach james]

The answer is, I think, it depends.

 

It all depends on what one is setting out to model.  For example, our club layout has no signals, and it should.  It has curves which start on the scenic part (but are scenic'd all the way around to the fiddle yard, which is a black plywood expanse).  The 8 operational switches are all individually operated, even where in real life they would be paired (two crossovers), but it does have trap points at least.  Signaling is something I'd like to do, but it is quite likely to be non operational, as other club members couldn't figure out how to make the sidings run as it is, so we are stuck with the Lowest Common Denominator for the club.  It's a 4 track roundy round, with each loop independent of one another, designed to be as simple as possible from an electrical and mechanical prospective, which it achieves.   Consider that we are the only game in town for non North American railways, it's not bad.  Yes, we do have HST's running alongside G&SW locos, but that again, is a LCD problem within the club. 

 

At home, I'm not faced with those restrictions- the turnouts are run as pairs in the crossover (trailing), the signals work (well, when the laws of mechanical cussidness don't affect them), and I'm not a great fan of derailing trains.  (that takes good skills at trackwork to eliminate, and that I have struggled with, up to though, removing 12 ft of track and relaying it to make it right, which is the approach to take, if it isn't right, fix it)

 

I can't tolerate finger poking to make trains run at home, because otherwise the whole lot grinds to a halt.  Cleaning track is important prior to operating.  (or at least, cleaning track when operating in a circle mode, then cleaning wheels, then cleaning track again...)

 

I _know_ I am missing large chunks of the "how" to operate properly.  But I also know that asking closed questions on here will get good answers- not "how do I operate a train", but "how would the goods train have dropped wagons for the goods yard" type questions.  I find that the internet has raised my expectations of what is acceptable, even though I knew from a long time ago that a class 47 wasn't the right loco for a train of PO coal wagons when I was 12 !. 

 

It's not a question to me where you should lower your expectations of what people put on show, but that those of us in the know need to act as the guidance for those who just don't know, and then not waste time on those that just don't want to know.  If you are in a position to get rid of layouts by the later from a show, I'd recommend it, unless they do fall in the toy train category rather than the model train category. 

 

I make NO claims of any sort of accuracy with the Lego, which is unashamedly a toy train layout.  (the same for the absolutely amazing Brio layout that was at the last Victoria (BC) train show).  It's not supposed to be accurate, it's supposed to be a bit of light entertainment, and the amount of work I put into it is related to that.  If I was trying to model the S&C in lego, then I would expect to get a pasting for it from you over the problems you have outlined, not for ones of "scale" related reasons, but if it didn't have working signals now, and if it required excessive finger poking, then you would be right in frying it.  If it's problems are fundamental to the choice of modeling medium, then I don't expect complaints about them.  If the problems are related to the operator making a mistake, well, it happens in real life too.  If the problem is one where the owner should have applied themselves, they deserve the pasting for presenting something that is less than what it should be.

 

VicLUG at West Shore Train Show 2014 by ZipbIock, on Flickr

 

James Powell 

[t-b-g]

As in all things, I think that the best examples of exhibitions are the ones where a balance is achieved. By all means, have an all action tailchaser with out of the box, mixed period and region trains belting round, no signals and an unrealistic trackplan. It may well entertain "general public" type visitors more than the most realistic dead scale layout operated with superb realism.

 

Even the Lego trainset (such as usually appears at Pontefract show) has a great entertainment value for a good number of visitors and I would never suggest excluding such things.

 

The problem for me comes when the whole show is full of layouts with similar aspirations and standards. All Peco track, all RTR locos and stock, all BR 1950s period, all card kit or resin buildings. You get the idea!

 

There have been a couple of times when I have come away from more specialised shows and thought that they were dull as dishwater because all the layouts were alike. Shunting planks with 3 or 4 points and the longest train was 2 carriages. At those,I would have loved to have seen a crowd pleasing tail chaser (at least one with a decent design and standard of operation)!

 

I suppose my ideal show would be one where the balance and range of scales, types of layout and operation was just right. Something to please the more seasoned model railway enthusiast through to something to please the families and kids.

 

It doesn't happen very often though.

 

Which is why I treat most shows nowadays as a social event and a chance to browse trade stands and I spend more time talking than watching layouts.

 

I used to often get the "wow" factor from seeing a superb new layout at a show. That just doesn't seem to happen any more.

 

Perhaps it is me getting older and more cynical. Perhaps over the years I have made efforts to raise my personal modelling "bar" but too many other people haven't progressed beyond what they were doing 40 years ago.

 

Tony G

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

Do you have (or access to) the Essery and Jenkinson "Midland Locomotives" (Wild Swan) series of books, the Summerson series "Midland Railway Locomotives" (Irwell Press) and Hunt Essery and James Midland Engines No.3 The Class 2 Superheated 4-4-0s? If you have then they will help with your 483 Class project. As for tender soleplates lining up with the footplate, this only happened if the loco had a ex Class 3 Belpaire tender.

Thanks Clive,

 

I do have all the books you mentioned, but hadn't taken note of the more-inset valance on the Midland-built 2Ps. Were the ex-Class 3 Belpaire tenders not the earlier ones? If not, then I apologise for my ignorance. 

 

To take things a bit further (and not in response to anything you've personally said), I suppose this illustrates to some extent the problems of research and not actually 'seeing'. Or, just making assumptions. It also illustrates how much research is necessary for even a 'simple' project. I attempt to do my research, though, as has been illustrated, I haven't been quite diligent enough. But, what of those who for whatever reason, cannot be bothered in doing any research. The 2P build is to be published, so all the elements discussed will be noted. Not to would be misleading and disingenuous. For an individual or group just happy to muck around and enjoy themselves in the privacy of their own home/clubroom, then who am I (or anyone else) to criticise? Where, however, work (in the form of a layout) is put on display and a spectator is asked to pay (a percentage of the entrance fee) to see it, then is there not some responsibility on the part of the owners/builders to at least get a fair bit right, through having done some appropriate research?  

 

I'm pleased with the comments regarding my introduction of a debate; all great stuff indeed and my thanks to all correspondents

 

To comment further, and I'm with Tony Gee in this regard, too many shows might seem to have too much of the same thing - a plethora of similar layouts (almost all stocked with RTR stuff - BR steam/diesel transition; my period!), surrounded by umpteen box-shifters. Synergy? Symbiosis? But, I admit, my cynicism grows greater with age.  

Edited March 3, 2015 by Tony Wright

[LNER4479]

Since I'll keep on posting for the time being, I'd like to start a little debate if I may.

 

Because I'm viewed (I'm sure) by many as a zealot, I have very fixed (intractable?) views on what constitutes a good model railway, so might I explain, please? 

 

Yesterday, a friend and I spent a most enjoyable day at a local model railway show. I won't mention it by name, but I must congratulate the organisers in putting together an interesting mix of layouts, traders and demonstrators. Obviously, all the layouts had been made (though, as usual, the one with the fewest derailments was the Hornby vintage tinplate one!) and most were very presentable. But, though there was a fair bit of craftsmanship on display, quite a bit of what I saw suggested that the builders cannot have studied prototype railways much, if at all. 

 

I know everyone must have worked really hard to produce the layouts, but just a little bit of observation of the real thing and attention to some small details would have made a big difference.

 

But, they are opinions and observations. Debate, anyone? 

Ooh - where does one start? (as I recognise many of the anomalies you cite).

 

I maintain the belief that two factors are at play (and they are to some extent related).

 

1) Up until the end of steam (sweeping generalisation!) it was generally 'OK' to be a trainspotter / railway enthusiast - so did folks simply observe the real railway and incorporate operational realism into their model railways without even thinking about it? Also, pre-mass car ownership train travel was more common - even if it was only once a year for the annual holiday.

 

2) The swing from crude looking model railway equipment in an era where scenery hardly existed (or mattered) to today's desire to create a picture of a model which is indiscernible from the real thing. The former's focus was operation; the latter's is appearance.

 

In terms of the second of these, you yourself Tony contributed to a most enlightening BRM publication called 'A Century of Progress' [1999], a well-thumbed item in my modest library and always an entertaining and thought-provoking read. You only have to look at some of the layouts from the 1920s and 1930s to see just how crude they were and how much ingenuity their builders had to use. Yet it appears they were generally signalled and operated correctly (even if the 'great hand from the sky' was a necessity for the clockwork operated ones).

 

If I can also offer a provoking comment in return. Is it possibly the case that the work of yourself and others in taking ever more realistic photographs of layouts - and especially the increasing desire to get down to eye level - is inadvertently fuelling the desire to create scenically marvellous layouts (to the detriment of operation), sending out the message 'this is where it's at' in terms of today's railway modelling? More than once I've read 'got the track-laying out of the way; now on to the scenery!' or 'I'll get round to putting the signals in ... one day'(!)

 

The great irony of course is that today's railway modeller has an unprecedented range of items available for purchase (that our railway modelling forefathers could only dream of), together with seemingly infinite ready access to research material (courtesy of t'internet), to help create a model railway that is both scenically superb and operationally correct.

 

I do agree with Tony (Gee) and others in that shows should have balance and there is clearly space for Thomas the Tank and Little Bytham to happily co-exist in this great hobby of ours.

Edited March 3, 2015 by LNER4479

[PGC]

Ooh - where does one start? (as I recognise many of the anomalies you cite).

 

I maintain the belief that two factors are at play (and they are to some extent related).

 

1) Up until the end of steam (sweeping generalisation!) it was generally 'OK' to be a trainspotter / railway enthusiast - so did folks simply observe the real railway and incorporate operational realism into their model railways without even thinking about it? Also, pre-mass car ownership train travel was more common - even if it was only once a year for the annual holiday.

 

2) The swing from crude looking model railway equipment in an era where scenery hardly existed (or mattered) to today's desire to create a picture of a model which is indiscernible from the real thing. The former's focus was operation; the latter's is appearance.

 

In terms of the second of these, you yourself Tony contributed to a most enlightening BRM publication called 'A Century of Progress' [1999], a well-thumbed item in my modest library and always an entertaining and thought-provoking read. You only have to look at some of the layouts from the 1920s and 1930s to see just how crude they were and how much ingenuity their builders had to use. Yet it appears they were generally signalled and operated correctly (even if the 'great hand from the sky' was a necessity for the clockwork operated ones).

 

If I can also offer a provoking comment in return. Is it possibly the case that the work of yourself and others in taking ever more realistic photographs of layouts - and especially the increasing desire to get down to eye level - is inadvertently fuelling the desire to create scenically marvellous layouts (to the detriment of operation), sending out the message 'that is where it's at' in terms of today's railway modelling? More than once I've read 'got the track-laying out of the way; now on to the scenery!' or 'I'll get round to putting the signals in ... one day'(!)

 

The great irony of course is that today's railway modeller has an unprecedented range of items available for purchase (that our railway modelling forefathers could only dream of), together with seemingly infinite ready access to research material (courtesy of t'internet), to help create a model railway that is both scenically superb and operationally correct.

 

I do agree with Tony (Gee) and others in that shows should have balance and there is clearly space for Thomas the Tank and Little Bytham to happily coincide in this great hobby of ours.

 

I would have liked to say something like this myself, but this post say's it so eloquently I won't say more.

 

Phil

[davidw]

I would have liked to say something like this myself, but this post say's it so eloquently I won't say more.

 

Phil

ditto

[gr.king]

Well there are certainly too many examples currently of "show" layouts that simply repeat the theme of "some time in the 50s/60s, somewhere imaginary on BR" with nothing but plonk and play track in nothing like a typical British style, plonk and play rolling stock, and even p&p buildings these days. Despite the lack of adherence to prototypical use of lamps, lack of prototypical operating practices, and lack of correct choices of stock for period/location, I was pleased top see that a certain local show last weekend at least featured several layouts that WEREN'T playing at being BR in the 50s/60s, or weren't relying on plonk and play models, or in one case was demonstrating a totally unconventional and highly effective means of building loco models. It would of course have been nice to see lots of layouts doing things "differently" and getting everything just right, but at a local show with modest origins I imagine that such perfection is rather unlikely to be seen. Fortunately, I don't think it's the case that alternatives to the "clone" layouts simply aren't out there for show managers to find. I was approached at the weekend by a chap who has had a go at modelling the 1910-1920 period and is looking for opportunities to get his layout out to shows. I suspect it may be the case that the clone model owners are more numerous and more bullish, so it takes good show managers to find the quiet minority who own something different.

That attempt at a K2 body that I previously showed on here has moved on a bit. It should suffice now as a master (or set of masters) for duplication in resin, allowing me to quickly build up a number of models so that my own home layout and Grantham (plus others perhaps) can feature the right locos for the job rather than simply relying on the nearest thing that the main manufacturers offer. My K3 with Darlington cab received attention from the black aerosol can at the same time as the K2. I'm now considering whether I can miraculously produce some J6 models too. These photographs won't win any awards, but they show what I've achieved so far:









PS I'm pleased to say that that the K2 body is such a snug fit over the DCC-hostile ex-Bachmann V3 chassis that there is no room to sneak in any trashy electronic gizmos without carving out major chunks. That reminds me - I must remember to have a word with my local UKIP candidate in order to double check that in addition to a pro-Gresley/Holcroft policy, the party will fervently pursue an anti-DCC policy too.....

Edited March 3, 2015 by gr.king

[lee74clarke]

Like the K2 Graeme, was that much of a fight to put together? I have a V3 chassis kicking around somewhere, so if you do knock anymore up, would you bear me in mind please?

 

Just going through your list again to see what I may purchase. Some really interesting items in there by the way

 

Lee

[salmonpastures]

As it's a debate I offer the following,,,

 

1, Some are going to take the hobby more seriously than others and understandably so,, but I think we need the starter outers who perhaps have no desire to improve on anything,,,without the volume people buying all these things from the major manufacturers those who take it more seriously will soon find they have nothing to improve on.

 

2, I am fortunate to have a layout which gets invited to exhibitions and therefore have nothing but admiration for people who put there heads above the parapet to be shot at,, and anybody who has done it knows,, you will get shot at,, the balance of course is you also receive some lovely comments as well, and usually you know during the show that you are surrounded by kindred spirits.

 

3, I have signals on my layout which DO NOT work,,, I don't even know if they are in the right place or of the right type.

I need to find out and it is an item which has been on my to do list for at least 10 years,,, to me signalling is a complete mystery so it very regularly falls down the priority list. 

 

4, I started train spotting as a kid in the late 50's but certainly would not call myself an operational expert,, and I am aware that at shows especially later on in the afternoons I tend to play trains rather than provide an accurate operational spectacle.

 

5, I can look at RTR models people have modified on forums and marvel at what they have achieved,, particularly Graeme King,, I enjoy kit and scratch building loco's and everything else come to that but mine are all done to a standard acceptable to me,,, if somebody recognises, or even likes what I've built then I am delighted,, if they like to offer constructive comment on a certain rivet being .03 nano millimetres to the left from original then they will be listened to but I'm not going to get home and move it and all that entails.

 

6, I have a mixture of RTR, kit, and scratch built stuff,, and have improved on things Triang, Bec, Millholme K's produced in the late 60's and 70's but these days I do not see the point in ruining the paint job on either Bachmann or Hornby product for the sake of an extra millimetre here and there which probably less than 2% of an audience at a show will notice.

But I really do admire those who do & have a desire to improve all manner of things but my layouts shortcomings are such that setting about current RTR stock is not high on my priority list, although I accept it would be nice to have the actual loco with the right number for my chosen period.

 

7, Crew and lamps,, as my model is an engine shed I have compromised on crew,, some loco's have them others don't,, I well remember dodging in and out of out of steam stock behind Crimpsall works and believe me very few had crew in them,,, thankfully.

But obviously the downside is some of the stock does leave the shed with a ghost crew,, exactly the same with lamps,,, some have them some don't,, was it Borchester that used to change the headlamp codes before each movement,,, lovely touch,, but for me and the operators completely impractical,,, there would be more hands of god than anything else.

 

SAD

[Clive Mortimore]

Thanks Clive,

 

I do have all the books you mentioned, but hadn't taken note of the more-inset valance on the Midland-built 2Ps. Were the ex-Class 3 Belpaire tenders not the earlier ones? If not, then I apologies for my ignorance. 

 

To take things a bit further (and not in response to anything you've personally said), I suppose this illustrates to some extent the problems of research and not actually 'seeing'. Or, just making assumptions. It also illustrates how much research is necessary for even a 'simple' project. I attempt to do my research, though, as has been illustrated, I haven't been quite diligent enough. But, what of those who for whatever reason, cannot be bothered in doing any research. The 2P build is to be published, so all the elements discussed will be noted. Not to would be misleading and disingenuous. For an individual or group just happy to muck around and enjoy themselves in the privacy of their own home/clubroom, then who am I (or anyone else) to criticise? Where, however, work (in the form of a layout) is put on display and a spectator is asked to pay (a percentage of the entrance fee) to see it, then is there not some responsibility on the part of the owners/builders to at least get a fair bit right, through having done some appropriate research?  

 

I'm pleased with the comments regarding my introduction of a debate; all great stuff indeed and my thanks to all correspondents

 

To comment further, and I'm with Tony Gee in this regard, too many shows might seem to have too much of the same thing - a plethora of similar layouts (almost all stocked with RTR stuff - BR steam/diesel transition; my period!), surrounded by umpteen box-shifters. Synergy? Symbiosis? But, I admit, my cynicism grows greater with age.  

Hi Tony

 

Regarding the Class 3 Belpaire tenders, they were built (or rebuilt form bogie tenders) to match the Belpaire's higher footplate. The 483s when first rebuilt were given their old tenders back, the tenders soleplates lining up with the old Johnson locomotive footplates. In the 20s and 30s as the Belpaires were withdrawn some of their tenders found their way to the rear end of the class 2 locos.

[gr.king]

Like the K2 Graeme, was that much of a fight to put together? I have a V3 chassis kicking around somewhere, so if you do knock anymore up, would you bear me in mind please?

 

Lee

 

I hope that 95% of the fighting has already taken place in the production of the first one Lee. The plan is to ensure that the duplicates go together with minimal effort. For the motion to look correct I don't have anything to offer as an alternative to my approach with this first model, which involved substitution of Comet double-slidebar type crossheads for the Bachmann items, along with use of strips of nickel silver formed to shape by hand then connected together using pins and solder in order to represent the slidebars themselves, the extra parts of the motion bracket, and the short drop link from the crosshead. As far as a V3 donor chassis is concerned there are a couple of points to watch out for as the chassis design has evidently evolved over the years so as to feature much wider fore and aft mountings for the motor and chunkier mountings for the motion brackets. The earlier and more slender versions of the chassis are more directly suitable for use under the K2 body. 

[Tony Wright]

Well there are certainly too many examples currently of "show" layouts that simply repeat the theme of "some time in the 50s/60s, somewhere imaginary on BR" with nothing but plonk and play track in nothing like a typical British style, plonk and play rolling stock, and even p&p buildings these days. Despite the lack of adherence to prototypical use of lamps, lack of prototypical operating practices, and lack of correct choices of stock for period/location, I was pleased top see that a certain local show last weekend at least featured several layouts that WEREN'T playing at being BR in the 50s/60s, or weren't relying on plonk and play models, or in one case was demonstrating a totally unconventional and highly effective means of building loco models. It would of course have been nice to see lots of layouts doing things "differently" and getting everything just right, but at a local show with modest origins I imagine that such perfection is rather unlikely to be seen. Fortunately, I don't think it's the case that alternatives to the "clone" layouts simply aren't out there for show managers to find. I was approached at the weekend by a chap who has had a go at modelling the 1910-1920 period and is looking for opportunities to get his layout out to shows. I suspect it may be the case that the clone model owners are more numerous and more bullish, so it takes good show managers to find the quiet minority who own something different.

 

That attempt at a K2 body that I previously showed on here has moved on a bit. It should suffice now as a master (or set of masters) for duplication in resin, allowing me to quickly build up a number of models so that my own home layout and Grantham (plus others perhaps) can featured the right locos for the job rather than simply relying on the nearest thing that the main manufacturers offer. My K3 with Darlington cab received attention from the black aerosol can at the same time as the K2. I'm now considering whether I can miraculously produce some J6 models too. These photographs won't win any awards, but they show what I've achieved so far:

 

STA79966.JPG

 

STA79968.JPG

 

STA79975.JPG

 

STA79970.JPG

 

PS I'm pleased to say that that the K2 body is such a snug fit over the DCC-hostile ex-Bachmann V3 chassis that there is no room to sneak in any trashy electronic gizmos without carving out major chunks. That reminds me - I must remember to have a word with my local UKIP candidate in order to double check that in addition to a pro-Gresley/Holcroft policy, the party will fervently pursue an anti-DCC policy too.....

This is tremendous stuff, Graeme. It was a delight to see it in the flesh on Sunday.

 

I think I know the layouts you were referring to at last weekend's show - seeing those made the day entirely worthwhile. 

 

I also agree that at a local show the organisers have more strictures placed on them than those faced by larger events (though some large shows sometime leave a bit to be desired with regard to the 'quality' of layouts). 

 

I believe it's also fair to say that if one is a 'critic', that (constructive) criticism should be offered by someone who's 'been there, seen it, done it'. That's why when, say, the likes of Larry Goddard points out a detail anomaly, I always take notice. I don't know how many shows I've attended over the past 40-odd years as a demonstrator/layout operator, but it's several hundred. I know at some, when acting as a demonstrator, I occasionally got comments such as 'I don't think I'd have done it like that'. When I questioned the source as to how he (it's always a bloke) might have done the job quicker, better, more easily, more economically or what you will, almost without exception it was a case of 'Oh, I haven't done it yet - but I will!' I think the best was from one dead-scale hair-shirter, who, on viewing part of my 'Queen of Scots' set (described in BRM over 20 years ago) congratulated me on its appearance (he should have really congratulated Ian Rathbone), but opined 'What a great pity that you've got the whole lot running on narrow gauge track'. When I pointed out that I'd never seen a ten-car Pullman set (of any type) running on a P4 layout, anywhere, he didn't pursue the conversation. EM, yes, but P4? Please don't think I'm being anti-P4, but I think the chap, pleasant as he was, needed a touch of pragmatism. 

 

It's the same with 'criticisms' over layouts. One friend was astonished how I spoke to a couple of the Stoke team one day when trains ceased to run as frequently as they should. In my view, it was vital to keep things moving. It was the same with recalcitrant locos/stock. No matter who'd made it, if it malfunctioned it was off - and fast. It only returned after being fixed; not in full view of visitors.

 

Down the years, I've observed layouts where the operators stand in earnest conversation, blindly unaware that a loco is revving like mad against a set of bufferstops or a train has derailed. Last Sunday I (politely I hope) pointed out a 'fault' to an operator and was told, twice, that 'it's Bachmann'. I made my excuses and walked off.

 

How many times have you seen a loco/item of stock derail or stutter, at the same place on a layout, every time? Why isn't it replaced? That said, if it has been, often the builder sneaks it back on and the scenario continues.

 

I have great respect for all who put their work on display at shows, especially if it is 'their' work. If one does, then criticism (of the right sort) is to be expected. But, greater attention to prototype practice and, particularly, running should be an ideal for all in my opinion, whatever their experience/skill-base.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Tony Wright

[PGC]

This is tremendous stuff, Graeme. It was a delight to see it in the flesh on Sunday.

 

I think I know the layouts you were referring to at last weekend's show - seeing those made the day entirely worthwhile. 

 

I also agree that at a local show the organisers have more strictures placed on them than those faced by larger events (though some large shows sometime leave a bit to be desired with regard to the 'quality' of layouts). 

 

I believe it's also fair to say that if one is a 'critic', that (constructive) criticism should be offered by someone who's 'been there, seen it, done it'. That's why when, say, the likes of Larry Goddard points out a detail anomaly, I always take notice. I don't know how many shows I've attended over the past 40-odd years as a demonstrator/layout operator, but it's several hundred. I know at some, when acting as a demonstrator, I occasionally got comments such as 'I don't think I'd have done it like that'. When I questioned the source as to how he (it's always a bloke) might have done the job quicker, better, more easily, more economically or what you will, almost without exception it was a case of 'Oh, I haven't done it yet - but I will!' I think the best was from one dead-scale hair-shirter, who, on viewing part of my 'Queen of Scots' set (described in BRM over 20 years ago) congratulated me on its appearance (he should have really congratulated Ian Rathbone), but opined 'What a great pity that you've got the whole lot running on narrow gauge track'. When I pointed out that I'd never seen a ten-car Pullman set (of any type) running on a P4 layout, anywhere, he didn't pursue the conversation. EM, yes, but P4? Please don't think I'm being anti-P4, but I think the chap, pleasant as he was, needed a touch of pragmatism. 

 

It's the same with 'criticisms' over layout. One friend was astonished how I spoke to a couple of the Stoke team one day when trains ceased to run as frequently as they should. In my view, it was vital to keep things moving. It was the same with recalcitrant locos/stock. No matter who'd made it, if it malfunctioned it was off - and fast. It only returned after being fixed; not in full view of visitors.

 

Down the years, I've observed layouts where the operators stand in earnest conversation, blindly unaware that a loco is revving like mad against a set of bufferstops or a train has derailed. Last Sunday I (politely I hope) pointed out a 'fault' to an operator and was told, twice, that 'it's Bachmann'. I made my excuses and walked off.

 

How many times have you seen a loco/item of stock derail or stutter, at the same place on a layout, every time? Why isn't it replaced? That said, if it has been, often the builder sneaks it back on and the scenario continues.

 

I have great respect for all who put their work on display at shows, especially if it is 'their' work. If one does, then criticism (of the right sort) is to be expected. But, greater attention to prototype practice and, particularly, running should be an ideal for all in my opinion, whatever their experience/skill-base.

 

To my mind, if it's always the same place, I would look at track, wiring etc. rather than stock and I would be most annoyed if it was my layout!

 

As I've mentioned elsewhere on RMWeb, I have recently purchased Saxlingham from Dave Tailby, and the first change I have made is to replace the chocolate box connectors with soldered tag strips so that I know teh joints won't fail. There will be other changes that I will make to get what I want from the layout in terms of reliability - this is not to say that Dave got it wrong, he didn't, he did it a different way from how I do it.

 

Phil

[Andy Reichert]

 

SNIP

 

When I pointed out that I'd never seen a ten-car Pullman set (of any type) running on a P4 layout, anywhere, he didn't pursue the conversation. EM, yes, but P4? Please don't think I'm being anti-P4, but I think the chap, pleasant as he was, needed a touch of pragmatism. 

 

SNIP

. . . . . . 

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Not a criticism, but just a quick "FYI" from my side of the pond. (about almost 10 car long proto-scale trains)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwjux85M-q8

 

This was quick try out of modifying some RTR US coaches with P:87 Wheels and crude but engineering wise thought out, 3 point body suspension, behind a similarly modified loco. Not also the  track has not been laid to any particular high standard and is quite uneven in places.

 

Just to show that this is not a one trick pony fluke of track holding, I had left the camera on for several circuits earlier when I had only modified half the number of cars and had not put the body back on the loco.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqvEW_euFwc so this longer clip is not publicized.

 

I'm on a personal mission trying to apply enough thoughtful engineering to make Proto:87 at least, as easy and reliable as regular HO, and just a simple conversion for much of the HO  (non steam) RTR range. We of course have the advantage that our track gauge is the same for either standard. But it bodes well for an even more realistic modelling future.

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

To my mind, if it's always the same place, I would look at track, wiring etc. rather than stock and I would be most annoyed if it was my layout!

 

As I've mentioned elsewhere on RMWeb, I have recently purchased Saxlingham from Dave Tailby, and the first change I have made is to replace the chocolate box connectors with soldered tag strips so that I know teh joints won't fail. There will be other changes that I will make to get what I want from the layout in terms of reliability - this is not to say that Dave got it wrong, he didn't, he did it a different way from how I do it.

 

Phil

Phil,

 

Though badly expressed, the point about 'dodgy' stock was that if everything else runs fine through a section of trackwork but one loco/item of stock continuously fails, it can't be the track. 

 

I'm interested in your point about chocolate box connectors. For ease and expediency, I used some of these on Little Bytham's fiddle yard for the point motor connectors. One or two have 'worked loose'. I couldn't believe this, because the layout isn't an exhibition layout. So, I'm 100% with you on tag strips and solder, and I'll be working through replacing the chocolate box system with something more permanent. Soldered electrical joints, if done properly (and if not, why not?), are by far the best for model railways in my experience - chocolate box, crimped joints or any of the alternatives eventually fail - sooner or later it might seem.  

[Tony Wright]

And now for something completely different!

 

 

On Sunday, I collected a box of bits and pieces from my erstwhile colleague (though definitely not erstwhile friend), Richard Wilson. In it, amongst lots of other curiosities was an incomplete, scratch-built Ivatt 'Flying Pig'. Richard had bought it off a friend thinking it was kit-built, but it was definitely scratch-built, even down to the double chimney. The body was almost complete, if slightly wobbly in places, as was most of the tender and there were a set of part-assembled frames. There were also some Comet bits and pieces in the box. It proved irresistible. 

 

So, yesterday and this morning (being retired has its benefits!), out with the big iron, dismantle the wobbly frames, bush them, re-erect them using a jig, remake one coupling rod (one was too long), fit a SE Finecast motor mount/little Mashima, Romford wheels and pick-ups and away she sailed. Add the Comet cylinders (modified), take off the horrid chimney and replace it with a Markits turned-brass alternative, remove and refit the odd wobbly bit and make a pony truck. Then make a sub-frame for the tender, couple it up and try her on the M&GNR bit. A perfect runner, and, because it's packed with lead, very powerful. Just the motion/valve gear to make now - shouldn't take long.

 

There are a few issues with it. The footplates either side of the boiler are too narrow and there's a lot more in the way of pipework to add, as well as lubricators and a host of gubbins under the cab. There's no backhead, nor cab footplate, but these can be made. For a M&GNR loco it should have the Whitaker apparatus inset on the tender; did any Ivatt 4s run on the M&GNR without this? 

 

But, what a joy to work on, and a delight to resurrect a (no doubt) long-forgotten piece of workmanship. A return to 'true' modelling in my view  (it was metaphorically the same as wearing a pair of comfy old slippers), just like old times. I have the use of three Bachmann Ivatt 4s for working the M&GNR, but they're (apart from renumbering/weathering) just the same as those belonging to everyone else. This one's unique, though it's probably not as accurate as the RTR ones, but it doesn't half go. 

 

I'll post further pictures when it's painted. 

 

 

[raymw]

Nothing wrong with screwed or crimped connectors, if you do it properly. If you want to do it properly, then this may help http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/doctree/87394.pdf . You should not use a clamped or screwed connector with tinned wire.

[Anglian]

No matter which show I'm at from specialist fine scale shows to more local events and no matter how many layouts are presented invariably I find myself drawn to perhaps two or three which I'll spend 80% of my time watching. On reflection I'm sometimes surprised at the those that capture my imagination. At a recent show a much lauded mainline layout was on display and one that I had longed to see. Given this particular layout's high status within the hobby I witnessed a quite surprising turn of events that proved to be rather realistic. The layout is large and operators can't converse when at opposite ends, equally the drivers are unable to see the complete circuit. Add the fact that they were chatting away to each other and you have the makings of a disaster – slowly an unfortunate set of circumstances, that essentially began with a SPAD, unfolded before me. Essentially three long mainline trains were involved in a major accident. The modelling was first class but the operating was far from being of the same standard. What surprised me most was the way the delicate fine scale stock involved in the crash was pulled apart and re-railed. I felt that I was more careful with my Hornby R-T-R as a 12 year old. In those few minutes every illusion about this layout was totally shattered. I moved on – the two layouts that held my attention that day were two very modest branch line stations.

 

I think I'm enough of a realist to accept that I pay my money and although 20, 30 or more layouts will be on show that at best only a handful will really capture my attention. Often it's not those that I'd expect to be my favourites.

 

As side issue: almost any pre-grouping scene will capture my interest because I find such layouts tend to be visually refreshing at so many levels.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Anglian

[Focalplane]

Living in the States for so many years I got used to model railroad shows where the majority of layouts involved either Lionel or American Flyer going ever so fast around 30" radius curves .  I have to admit to being not very impressed.  So far I have visited two shows in the UK - Leamington this time last year and Warley last November.  Leamington was most interesting in that I couldn't get enough of anything - except the layouts.  I can only remember one layout, a rather nice N gauge prototype loosely based on Moreton-in-Marsh and Chipping Campden.  I remember it more for the fact that I know the area quite well.  I found Warley a bit of a nightmare, to be honest.  The atmosphere was terrific but I decided to focus on the retailers as this was my first opportunity to meet many of them, some of whom I had already done some mail order business with.  The only layout I remember was the large French N Gauge one based on Chalon sur Saone.  As a part time French resident I was interested in this one but hardly saw any trains actually moving.

 

I am going to spend a couple of hours on Saturday morning at Leamington and hope to be wowed by Clarendon, featured in a recent magazine.  But, to be honest, my time will be largely spent with the retailers again, including Severn (etched brass buildings in 4mm scale), C&L Finescale (OO-SF track materials) and Eileens Emporium (materials).  If I see some nice kits I may be tempted, but sadly Geoff Brewin won't be there, it was a real pleasure to meet him last time.

 

This year I will try to make some judgments about the operational capabilities of various layouts.  It will be interesting to see how my observations compare with those described above.

[APOLLO]

Non working signals ? - most prototypical - I know because I was on a train stuck behind one for over an hour recently !!

 

This is an interesting thread that I follow regularly. I didn't realise Tony was such an "old hand" until recently digging out some old modelling mags  I saw Tony's name as author in several interesting articles. So keep up the good work & posting Tony, Little Bytham is an inspiration to me.

 

Enjoyment - that is the key to this (or any hobby). I was "up in the loft" this afternoon doing some modifications to my small Lower Ince (Wigan) GC layout. A very unkempt and tatty place back in the early 60's. So it was a bit of track alteration & building weathering this afternoon, together with cobbling together three Bachmann "Underground Ernie" industrial units for the goods shed. The one I've made however is just too neat and tidy !!, out with the gunge tomorrow.

 

What is it about the LNER ?. , I'm a Wiganer, brought up with Stanier's finest, always lived near the West Coast main line, (it's 100 yards from where I type), but from an early age an ardent LNER fan !! 

 

Brit15

[bbishop]

Presenting a layout at an exhibition is a compromise between keeping something moving and replicating prototypical operation.  I've mentioned Ashbury before, and Nick and I spent today building the baseboards to convert it to a through station; double track to the east, single track to the west; working signals. 

 

The plan is for the OW&W push pull to arrive and shunt to the carriage siding.  Then the two Midland trains can arrive simultaneously ***WRONG***  Because this wouldn't happen on the prototype, in case the westbound train overshot the platform and collided with the eastbound train coming off the single line.  The westbound train must be held at the home signal until the eastbound train arrives at the station, the signal cleared and the crossover reversed.  An opportunity to operate correctly whilst keeping trains running.

 

Then the westbound train departs up the single line, and almost immediately after it disappears off-scene, a different train will appear.  Basically a suspension of the space-time continuum.

 

Paul, spend some time watching Clarendon and see how they operate.  They do it properly.

 

Bill

[PGC]

Phil,

 

Though badly expressed, the point about 'dodgy' stock was that if everything else runs fine through a section of trackwork but one loco/item of stock continuously fails, it can't be the track. 

 

I'm interested in your point about chocolate box connectors. For ease and expediency, I used some of these on Little Bytham's fiddle yard for the point motor connectors. One or two have 'worked loose'. I couldn't believe this, because the layout isn't an exhibition layout. So, I'm 100% with you on tag strips and solder, and I'll be working through replacing the chocolate box system with something more permanent. Soldered electrical joints, if done properly (and if not, why not?), are by far the best for model railways in my experience - chocolate box, crimped joints or any of the alternatives eventually fail - sooner or later it might seem.  

 

One of the things I never used to understand is why electrical good with 13 Amp plugs would suddenly stop working. My father, who was a member of the institute of electrical engineers, explained that AC currents, with their switch between positive and negative currents, can set up extremely small vibrations that work the screws loose. This, he added, was just one aspect of the problem, what about areas such as the expansion and contraction of different metals causing such small changes we would normally consider them insignificant. As he commented, metals don't think "Oh, I shouldn't be doing that", they just do it and it's our brains that say "they shouldn't be doing that!"

 

On a similar but different tack - did anyone see the item on the BBC One show tonight about shower gels, face creams et. al. with exfoliant beads in them? Apparently these cosmetics have very minute beads in them that are small enough to get through the filters in the water systems and then escape to the sea. They showed some magnified pictures of plankton with these beads inside them. Plankton are the lowest level of the food change, so in time these small beads will get back to our internals. What has this got to do with model railways? Well, it just proves small details matter!

 

Phil

[coachmann]

What is it about the LNER ?. , I'm a Wiganer, brought up with Stanier's finest, always lived near the West Coast main line, (it's 100 yards from where I type), but from an early age an ardent LNER fan !! 

It's an odd phenonn-non-ne..mum.. er.... thing. I was born in Cheshire on the LNER, grew up in Lancashire with the LMS, love the West Riding of Yorkshire, but have been a habitual user of dark rooms and drying out centres in the fight to prevent the spread of spots known as routerestriction Great Western-itis!  

Edited March 4, 2015 by coachmann

[Bob O]

 

 

And now for something completely different!

 

DSC_1965.JPG

 

Great back on topic!