Wright writes.....

[Lecorbusier]

I thought there was an interesting and long letter dealing with the MRJ article on Little Bytham in this months MRJ, the views being those of Iain Rice.

[richard i]

You wanted a progress report . Here are the main flat parts of the body cut out.

Tube to pick up Saturday for the boiler, then back to the states to stick it all together.

Safer to travel in the flat rather than the half built.

Richard.

[davefrk]

That would be the logical conclusion and I can understand why it is put forward but the lining still bothers me. It is clearly a dark line with a pale line either side. Every crimson/cream carriage I have ever taken notice of just had two lines there, with black next to the cream. On the photo there is a pale line between the black line and the top part of the carriage. If the pale line is straw, yellow, gold or cream then the top half of the carriage has to be darker than that otherwise the line would be invisible on a b & w photo.

 

What I don't know is if some crimson and cream carriages did indeed have three lines between the colours with a line pale enough to show up paler than the cream. If they did, I would be happy to agree that they are indeed in that livery. Until then, I will maintain my doubts.

Hi Tony, sorry to say but I think the two Gresleys on the right are blood and custard. I've blown the photo up and played about with the contrast and brightness and the conclusion is as above B&C.

I had noticed quite a few Gresleys in maroon with the lining below the beading on Scottish lines and maybe a few into England, At the time I was lining some Kirk Gresleys years ago I thought ya beauty that's a lot easier than putting the lining over the beading.

 

Dave Franks.

[glo41f]

"I thought there was an interesting and long letter dealing with the MRJ article on Little Bytham in this months MRJ, the views being those of Iain Rice."

 

I thought Mr Rice totally vindicated our leader's views and indeed made some potentially controversial points. Perhaps the most contentious is that to create a system the size of LB or Retford, then one needs to use 00 or EM standards in order to make it work. The finer standards advocated by some are better employed on small layouts which are basically very simple in concept. Has this not been the theme here from the outset?  The point made about the track gauge it is averred is only relevant when a "head on" view is taken which, although common these days, was rarely seen in days of yore as the technology did not easily allow for this.  It seems that if you want a big reliable system then use the tried and tested route!

 

Martin Long

Edited November 24, 2017 by glo41f

[Enterprisingwestern]

"I thought there was an interesting and long letter dealing with the MRJ article on Little Bytham in this months MRJ, the views being those of Iain Rice."

 

I thought Mr Rice totally vindicated our leader's views and indeed made some potentially controversial points. Perhaps the most contentious is that to create a system the size of LB or Retford then one needs to use 00 or EM standards in order to make it work. The finer standards advocated by some are better employed on small layouts which are basically very simple in concept. Has this not been the theme here from the outset?  The point made about the track gauge it is averred is only relevant when a "head on" view is taken which, although common these days, was rarely seen in days of yore as the technology did no easily allow for this.  It seems that if you want a big reliable system then use the tried and tested route!

 

Martin Long

 

I see what you're getting at, but it's not that simplistic.

The problem being that a good P4 layout builder will achieve better running than a poor OO layout builder.

Just because the gauge is finer doesn't necessarily mean the running will be, nor that a coarser scale layout will be easier to achieve smooth running on.

 

Mike.

[Lecorbusier]

"I thought there was an interesting and long letter dealing with the MRJ article on Little Bytham in this months MRJ, the views being those of Iain Rice."

 

I thought Mr Rice totally vindicated our leader's views and indeed made some potentially controversial points. Perhaps the most contentious is that to create a system the size of LB or Retford then one needs to use 00 or EM standards in order to make it work. The finer standards advocated by some are better employed on small layouts which are basically very simple in concept. Has this not been the theme here from the outset?  The point made about the track gauge it is averred is only relevant when a "head on" view is taken which, although common these days, was rarely seen in days of yore as the technology did no easily allow for this.  It seems that if you want a big reliable system then use the tried and tested route!

 

Martin Long

Hi Martin,

 

I thought his point (Iain being a committed P4 modeller and a great advocate of the Cameo Layout) was perhaps slightly more nuanced. He cites Mike Wakefield's main line layout inspired by Grantham as testament that you can build a reliable P4 layout that will run at 125mph . 

 

It seemed to me that the main points he was making were two fold .... Firstly (unless it happened to be a very particular passion) why would you ? .... as the main merits of P4 would be hard to notice on such a layout - and Secondly the impracticalities of doing so in terms of required space ...  given the larger radiuses involved etc etc and in terms of sheer hard work and managing tolerances would perhaps place it beyond the capabilities of most.

 

He even appeared to suggest that the difference between 00 and EM gauge (I am assuming so long as the track was laid to fine scale standards) would not be immediately noticeable. 

 

For me it is another vote for 'horses for courses' and and a pretty strong vote in favour of Little Bytham from one who by many is regarded as one of the 'great and the good'.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Headstock]

Having collected the 1938 'Scotsman triplet catering set from Geoff Haynes yesterday (after he'd painted/lined the bodies), it was my job to glaze it all today and add the concertina gangways. 

 

38 triplet 01.jpg

 

The superiority of the bow-pen lining is clear to see (it gives 'space' for the brandings to 'breath'). The 'Kitchen' signage on the RK doors was missing (something I didn't notice on collection and - of course - until after I'd taken this picture). That's not a problem because either Geoff would immediately put them on, or, as in my case, I've now done it. 

 

38 triplet 02.jpg

 

As is evident here.

 

Great care was taken in getting the car brandings in the right place. The open cars had a vertical beading band just about midships on their lower sides (unlike on the earlier catering triplets). Though absolute photographic evidence is lacking, it would seem that 'Restaurant' and 'Car' could be separated by this bead, but not the letters in either of the words themselves (which would be the case if they'd be placed dead centre). BR Roundels were applied to these cars in 1957. 

 

I've yet to add the curtains to the RFO, and make both interiors (including the standing bar in the RFO). 

 

This model is tripartite in its origins/finishings. The bodywork and some of the underframe detail was built by John Houlden, using Rupert Brown's etchings, MJT parts and Comet parts. I completed the underframes, made the bogies and painted the running gear, Geoff then painted the bodies, leaving the finishing off to me. It's shown in use as part of 'The Northumbrian', for which I've also got to build the Southern Pride Cravens SO Prototype Mk.1. 

 

The subject of 'prototype colour' has been brought up, and how it could/can differ (though beware older trannies being used as absolute guides). Model paint manufacturers have many different opinions as to which tint or shade of colour is correct, given the variations in their interpretations in their products. 

 

May I also mention 'finish'? The cars above were painted by Geoff using Ford Burgundy Red, but decanted into an airbrush for a better finish than the 'spluttery' can at source. I asked him to leave them in gloss (though it's not mirror finish). Comparing prototype pictures of ER wooden-bodied and steel-bodied stock, when freshly-painted (and freshly-cleaned), they had a beautiful gloss finish. 

 

E1446.jpg

 

The triplet in this 1958/'59 Down Newcastle express is an earlier, turnbuckle underframe type. It's very clean, and note the roundels. Obviously, the carriage to the left is just ex-works, and would anything as vibrant as this be 'right' on a model (it is a near 60-year old image, remember). 

 

Tony,

 

it will probably not surprise you that I like my teak carriages in teak. However, I must comment on what a elegant  job team Tony has made of that triplet dinning set, it uses East coast charm. One tiny, tiny little point on which you may have more information, roofboard brackets?

[Clive Mortimore]

"I thought there was an interesting and long letter dealing with the MRJ article on Little Bytham in this months MRJ, the views being those of Iain Rice."

 

I thought Mr Rice totally vindicated our leader's views and indeed made some potentially controversial points. Perhaps the most contentious is that to create a system the size of LB or Retford, then one needs to use 00 or EM standards in order to make it work. The finer standards advocated by some are better employed on small layouts which are basically very simple in concept. Has this not been the theme here from the outset?  The point made about the track gauge it is averred is only relevant when a "head on" view is taken which, although common these days, was rarely seen in days of yore as the technology did not easily allow for this.  It seems that if you want a big reliable system then use the tried and tested route!

 

Martin Long

HI Martin

 

Two huge layouts in P4 that run very well are Mostyn and Calcutta Sidings................but they don't count cos they got diesels on 'em.

 

Mostyn is at Warley this year, see how well it runs.

[Headstock]

Unless it's a Scottish Region one, in which case the lining was more often below the beading:

 

SC16657E_Tulloch_1-6-63 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Evening Robert,

 

no one has commented on the brick wall like patch panelling.

[Bob Reid]

Why waste acres of good teak replacing the whole panel when a small patch and a piece of moulding will do (I got hauled over the coals for doing that once on a Mk1 sleeper interior - still it was a steep learning curve)...

[Headstock]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was just lumps of plywood.

[stewartingram]

Evening Robert,

 

no one has commented on the brick wall like patch panelling.

<sigh> To think my commute into KGX (from either HDN or ELY) is now a 387 or 700, and we used to have coaches like that....progress.

 

Stewart

[Bernard Lamb]

"I thought there was an interesting and long letter dealing with the MRJ article on Little Bytham in this months MRJ, the views being those of Iain Rice."

 

I thought Mr Rice totally vindicated our leader's views and indeed made some potentially controversial points. Perhaps the most contentious is that to create a system the size of LB or Retford, then one needs to use 00 or EM standards in order to make it work. The finer standards advocated by some are better employed on small layouts which are basically very simple in concept. Has this not been the theme here from the outset?  The point made about the track gauge it is averred is only relevant when a "head on" view is taken which, although common these days, was rarely seen in days of yore as the technology did not easily allow for this.  It seems that if you want a big reliable system then use the tried and tested route!

 

Martin Long

 

It is not the track gauge that causes the problems. It is the closer adherence to scale adopted in the individual dimensions. I don't think Ian was saying it could not be made to work as well in P4 as in 00 but that the area required and the time needed are so much greater. A factor in the order of 2-3 in respect of area and who can guess at the amount of time needed to build it. Not to mention the extra time needed to keep things running almost perfectly. P4 has been demonstrated to work but it does impose certain disciplines that most individuals will find very difficult to adhere to.

Bernard

[Clive Mortimore]

As promised yesterday here are some photos of late bodied BR Type 2 Bo-Bos, as spotters they were either Type 2s or Bo-Bos.

 

From left to right, Hornby/Mortimore conversion, Bachmann, and DJH.

 

The DJH loco has been waiting for a repaint for ages, well since I brought it. The Hornby one still needs its front hand rail and somewhere to hang the lamps which are still in their packet. The Bachmann one looks sort of done, I quickly added the details for one end and side for these photos.

 

I am going to be a bit boastful, I think I have the roof detail, especially the cant rail grilles better on my conversion than Bachmann. I cannot see the grille etchings on the DJH model. I think before repainting some model strip might not go a miss.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[robertcwp]

Puts it in better alignment with the BR Mk1 Stock bottom lining...  Somebody used the BR lining diagram for the standard stock in error perhaps? or perhaps not - though not clear, this set at Mallaig, shows another with the same lining;

Coachingstock_Mallaig_1950s by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Having looked at the master scan, the Gresley stock on the right is in crimson and cream and the Thompson FK on the left is in mock teak. I believe some Thompson stock was still in that livery when maroon was introduced.

[APOLLO]

As promised yesterday here are some photos of late bodied BR Type 2 Bo-Bos, as spotters they were either Type 2s or Bo-Bos.

 

100_4659a.jpg

From left to right, Hornby/Mortimore conversion, Bachmann, and DJH.

 

100_4661a.jpg

The DJH loco has been waiting for a repaint for ages, well since I brought it. The Hornby one still needs its front hand rail and somewhere to hang the lamps which are still in their packet. The Bachmann one looks sort of done, I quickly added the details for one end and side for these photos.

 

100_4663a.jpg

I am going to be a bit boastful, I think I have the roof detail, especially the cant rail grilles better on my conversion than Bachmann. I cannot see the grille etchings on the DJH model. I think before repainting some model strip might not go a miss.

 

Very nice locos Clive. To us Wiganers they were called simply "Sulzers" when the "rat" infestation (along with lots of EE type 4's) ousted our Black 5's & *8s back in 1967.

 

I bought a few "MTK" diesel kits back in the mid 70's when I changed scales from TT to OO. A class 25, 40, 45 and Clayton class 17. I built the bodies by gluing them (sacrilege) but never powered them, a bit beyond me back then - then Joeff made a 40, Mainline a 45 and Hornby a 25 so that was that. I did however a few years earlier build a few "BEC" TT steam locos which turned out rather well on the old Tri-ang 0-6-0 Jinty chassis. I've still got those also - but no layout to run them on.

 

I think Gresley's coaches were very beautiful creations. I can't remember seeing very many, but I do remember a Blue / Grey Gresley Buffet car in the Manchester to Harwich boat train back in the late 60's / early 70's. 

 

We really are spoiled these days for RTR, I've just bought the December Hornby Mag (for the calendar !!), and I just have to shake my head at all the new stuff described in there. As I've probably mentioned before, I am not a perfectionist or a very competent "model creator" - I simply love to build and operate my layouts. I often hark back to the 60's etc and lo and behold I have just bought quite cheaply on Ebay some bound volumes of Model Railway News and Railway Modeler mags 1959 - 65. They are my Christmas present from my Mrs, and I look forward to some very good reads over Christmas !!.

 

Brit15

[Lecorbusier]

If ever a statement deserves to be the first thing any railway modeller considers before starting a model, be it anything from the smallest item to a complete layout, then yours is it, Andrew. 

 

Why do so many not do so? Recently, in one of the mags there was a prominent layout which, though it had some rather nice architectural modelling, as a 'railway' it just didn't 'work' at all (it didn't work well as a model, either, if my watching of it recently was anything to go by). The trackplan would surely not have been designed by a railway engineer, nor the routing through a settlement, not to mention the signals placed in positions which didn't make sense (non-working, of course), and as for the locos not displaying any lamps - well! 

 

I wrote to the editor in question (on another matter) and mentioned these 'anomalies', and he considered it rather more the 'norm' than 'my layout'; I'd sent of the pictures and article on LB. This is in no way to praise what I and a group has done, other than to state that we have all looked at the prototype, and 'copied' it. 

 

As the memories of the railway which the majority right now 'model' (BR steam-diesel transition) diminish or disappear, then, at least to me, it's important that depictions seen in print or at shows are as 'accurate' as possible (the layout I've mentioned wasn't from that period). The same goes for every model as well in my view, whichever period is depicted. Hence, look at the prototype pictures. Those who model the railway of today only need to go out and look, take measurements and photographs, and go and build a model. Yet, some current depictions I've seen don't make sense, either. Because the builders didn't look?

 

Given the (obvious) restrictions modelling an actual prototype imposes, I still maintain it's by far the best way to go. After all, most of the difficult decisions have been made for you. 

I would add .... the research to fill in knowledge gaps (which in my case were pretty gaping) can be extremely enjoyable as well - especially if  you are also going back in time.

[Headstock]

If ever a statement deserves to be the first thing any railway modeller considers before starting a model, be it anything from the smallest item to a complete layout, then yours is it, Andrew. 

 

Why do so many not do so? Recently, in one of the mags there was a prominent layout which, though it had some rather nice architectural modelling, as a 'railway' it just didn't 'work' at all (it didn't work well as a model, either, if my watching of it recently was anything to go by). The trackplan would surely not have been designed by a railway engineer, nor the routing through a settlement, not to mention the signals placed in positions which didn't make sense (non-working, of course), and as for the locos not displaying any lamps - well! 

 

I wrote to the editor in question (on another matter) and mentioned these 'anomalies', and he considered it rather more the 'norm' than 'my layout'; I'd sent of the pictures and article on LB. This is in no way to praise what I and a group has done, other than to state that we have all looked at the prototype, and 'copied' it. 

 

As the memories of the railway which the majority right now 'model' (BR steam-diesel transition) diminish or disappear, then, at least to me, it's important that depictions seen in print or at shows are as 'accurate' as possible (the layout I've mentioned wasn't from that period). The same goes for every model as well in my view, whichever period is depicted. Hence, look at the prototype pictures. Those who model the railway of today only need to go out and look, take measurements and photographs, and go and build a model. Yet, some current depictions I've seen don't make sense, either. Because the builders didn't look?

 

Given the (obvious) restrictions modelling an actual prototype imposes, I still maintain it's by far the best way to go. After all, most of the difficult decisions have been made for you. 

 

I think that if I was to attempt to answer that question, I would be run out of town, pursued by an angry mob brandishing flaming wishlists and freshly sharpened copies of 'rule one'.

[The Johnster]

If ever a statement deserves to be the first thing any railway modeller considers before starting a model, be it anything from the smallest item to a complete layout, then yours is it, Andrew. 

 

Why do so many not do so? Recently, in one of the mags there was a prominent layout which, though it had some rather nice architectural modelling, as a 'railway' it just didn't 'work' at all (it didn't work well as a model, either, if my watching of it recently was anything to go by). The trackplan would surely not have been designed by a railway engineer, nor the routing through a settlement, not to mention the signals placed in positions which didn't make sense (non-working, of course), and as for the locos not displaying any lamps - well! 

 

I wrote to the editor in question (on another matter) and mentioned these 'anomalies', and he considered it rather more the 'norm' than 'my layout'; I'd sent of the pictures and article on LB. This is in no way to praise what I and a group has done, other than to state that we have all looked at the prototype, and 'copied' it. 

 

As the memories of the railway which the majority right now 'model' (BR steam-diesel transition) diminish or disappear, then, at least to me, it's important that depictions seen in print or at shows are as 'accurate' as possible (the layout I've mentioned wasn't from that period). The same goes for every model as well in my view, whichever period is depicted. Hence, look at the prototype pictures. Those who model the railway of today only need to go out and look, take measurements and photographs, and go and build a model. Yet, some current depictions I've seen don't make sense, either. Because the builders didn't look?

 

Given the (obvious) restrictions modelling an actual prototype imposes, I still maintain it's by far the best way to go. After all, most of the difficult decisions have been made for you. 

 

 

Preaching to the choir here, Tony.  Even if you are not modelling a real location, or as in my case a real location with a railway that never existed in reality, observation and replication of real practice will always benefit your modelling.  I have found that the copying of a real location, a remote South Wales valley that is steep and narrow, has given my model a better presence and realism, before I even put any track on it!

 

The right train, which the right loco hauling the right stock, in the right geography, correctly liveried for the depicted period, with a sense of actual location, has made up for a lot of very coarse practice and lack of fine scale modelling (including the use of tension lock couplers because my eyesight can't handle scale any more) on my part.  The ultimate success of the model depends on my level of belief in it, and I regard my model as successful in this sense, at least as far as i am concerned.

 

Many years ago I was involved in club projects to build models of Cardiff's Bute Road and Clarence Road termini, both of which introduced my to the undoubted pleasure of research, but I accept than many 'modellers' are simply not interested in finding out where their railway was/is, what it should look like, how it is signalled and operated, and how it is run; I believe their models will always lack an element of realism and prove ultimately unsatisfying to them.  There is much talk of a modern generation that is not prepared to put any effort into anything because the computer age hands it all to them on a plate, but I do not believe this is true to any greater extent now than it was half a century ago when I was progressing out of the RTR world and starting to make or paint things for myself, albeit to a somewhat basic standard that I have not progressed very much from.  Visits to shows over this period suggest to me that, although the standard of RTR has very considerably improved and one can construct a plausible railway using just this and putting the correct lamps on it, the overall standard of exhibits is around the same, especially when it comes to modelling railway operation and signalling, and to be polite I will comment that much of what is exhibited shows that the hobby is a very broad church when it comes to basic standards.

 

I have written on this thread before about exhibition practices that I find irritating, but will add here that it is common to find railways on which the scenery and buildings are inspirationally superb, but the track and trains are out of the box, poorly driven, and poorly represented; an afterthought.  It was, I think, ever thus, and I wonder why some folks don't just model buildings or scenery and not bother with the railway which they neither understand or care much about, apparently!  Sorry if this comes across as a bit arrogant or elitist, as my own modelling is very far from perfect and is a terrible compromise, but it seems a shame that so much effort is wasted simply because of an unwillingness to access. available information, so much more easily obtained in the age of the internet and forums such as this!

[Barry Ten]

Here's a bit of non-soldering loco bashing, for those inclined:

 

 

These two 94XXs were "fashioned" about 10 years apart using Lima bodies and Bachmann chassis. In the case of the green one, it's a

split-frame chassis (still giving reliable service) and in the BR black one, one of the more modern variants. In both instances the work is

very similar, mainly involving cutting away some plastic from the Lima moulding to accommodate the chassis, then bodging a fixing

solution. Finally, the body details can be attended to where desired. Looking at pictures on the internet, there must be dozens of

these hybrid 94xxs knocking around.

 

For a long time I kept an eye on second hand stalls and was able to gather several of the newer pannier chassis for various projects,

sometimes paying as little as thirty pounds for a complete pannier, albeit in tatty condition. With a second-hand (albeit damaged) Lima

94xx costing twenty pounds when I bought it, the total project needn't cost much more than fifty pounds, assuming one has scrap plastic,

brass wire and so on in stock. In the case of the black one, I had to rebuild one of the cabside steps which was missing, but again, nothing

that can't be done with a few bits of plastic and some quiet modelling work. The total modelling time for the black one, so far, was three

evenings of about an hour each. If you can accept some detail discrepancies below the footplate, it's a quick and easy to get a purposeful

engine that isn't (yet) available to a modern standard in RTR.

 

 

Alastair

[The Johnster]

If I came across a second hand stall at a show which had a Lima 94xx and a running Mainline or Baccy 57xx chassis going cheap enough to tempt me, I have a go at this because I want a 94xx and am getting impatient with the new imaginary Baccy one.  But it is not a good solution; the frames of a 94xx are a different shape and more related to those on a 2251, which shows up in a sideways silhouette view.  But your photo shows how well the old Lima body moulding holds up!

[Barry Ten]

If I came across a second hand stall at a show which had a Lima 94xx and a running Mainline or Baccy 57xx chassis going cheap enough to tempt me, I have a go at this because I want a 94xx and am getting impatient with the new imaginary Baccy one.  But it is not a good solution; the frames of a 94xx are a different shape and more related to those on a 2251, which shows up in a sideways silhouette view.  But your photo shows how well the old Lima body moulding holds up!

 

What would you rather have, though, a 94xx with a slightly wrong frame profile (but correct wheelbase) or no 94xx? I know where my preference lies...

 

ps - why do people say "Baccy", by the way - what am I missing?

 

Alastair

[cctransuk]

ps - why do people say "Baccy", by the way - what am I missing?

 

Alastair

 

One can only assume that it is a slovenly nickname for Bachmann.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited November 26, 2017 by cctransuk

[46256]

I've had a great day at the Warley exhibition today meeting amongst other Messers Welleans and King. There were other high spots...a number of the smaller traders...branchlines...comet...Gibson...as well as the bigger concerns supporting this wonderful hobby. My best moment...when the kind gents of the Leeds MRS sent Mike Edges Fell creation out off the fiddle yard and through their lovely depiction of Chapel en le frith....wow...

 

It almost made up for some hurtful comments about my favoured Midland Railway by a GN gent...double heading indeed..at least we were keen to employ people...!All in good fun...great show..more importantly great people. The real highlight...the children marvelling at the Thomas and Triang layouts...and with respect to everyone else..Laramie...how to model real "presence" A sincere Thank you to all concerned.

[The Johnster]

One can only assume that it is a slovenly nickname for Bachmann.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

It is.  I am noted for my slovenliness (thank you for reviving a word I have not heard for many years, by the way), and have long ago decided not to fight it and develop a perverse pride in it...