Wright writes.....

[Barry Ten]

The knuckle of the coupling rod is completely obscured by the 'deluxe' crankpin thing. I'm not certain why something called 'deluxe' gives an inferior finish to the standard and cheaper product.

 

 

Probably good marketing (er, Markiting?). Perhaps they should call it "alternative more expensive crankpin for special non-soldery circumstances"...

[grob1234]

My wheels had already had the parent hole reamed out to accept the original Triang--Hornby coupling rods (in an earlier chassis) so I didn't run into that problem. I did have to seat the crank pins into epoxy resin and keep a careful eye on them as it set, to make sure they stayed parallel. I was a bit concerned that they'd work loose in service, but so far they've been fine.

I’ve taken to using liquid thread lock on my crank pins, in paranoia of them working loose, but also for the slight possibility I’d want to remove them in the future.

 

My personal preference is for the old soldered variety, they look neater to my eye, but of course it’s all personal preference, as long as the loco works ok!

[Headstock]

Probably good marketing (er, Markiting?). Perhaps they should call it "alternative more expensive crankpin for special non-soldery circumstances"...

 

There was a time when when I would have associated deluxe with a higher level of prototypical fidelity, It would seem the opposite is the case. Perhaps if Ikea was to enter the kit market all would be well for the non-soldery, providing they can master an electric screwdriver and a degree in pictorial linguistics.

[rowanj]

I was surprised to read of problems with standard crankpins on Scalelink driving wheels. It's true than the early wheels had a tendency for the rims to shift on the plastic centres, and that they were occasionally an awkward fit on the Romford axles. Both these factors probably account for "wobble"., However, I've bought several sets in the last 18 months, and all seem fine, so possibly any manufacturing issues have been resolved.

 

I accept that Markits are superior, but Scalelink have a couple of advantages. In the first place, they are £4 an axle cheaper, and, secondly, you can always get them either on-line or by phone with virtually next-day delivery. I started with the recommended "de-luxe" crankpins, but now always use standard Romfords. You need to get in and out quickly with the iron but this is true of many other aspects of kit building.

 

When I can get Markits, I use them, but when I can't, Scalelink works for me.

 

Usual disclaimer - just a satisfied customer.

[Barry Ten]

I glossed over what went wrong with my attempt at using the Scale-Link wheels, but I managed to solder the crank pin washers on without any hassle, using a quick touch

with the iron. However, I wanted to get the washers off again (because of a slight tight spot, which hadn't been there when the rods were on "loose"), and the only way I

know do that is to touch the iron to the washer, then lever the coupling rod away from the wheel so that the washer pops off. That's where it all went wrong for me, but it's

no criticism of the product, just the dopey sod using the iron.

 

Alastair

[rowanj]

I glossed over what went wrong with my attempt at using the Scale-Link wheels, but I managed to solder the crank pin washers on without any hassle, using a quick touch

with the iron. However, I wanted to get the washers off again (because of a slight tight spot, which hadn't been there when the rods were on "loose"), and the only way I

know do that is to touch the iron to the washer, then lever the coupling rod away from the wheel so that the washer pops off. That's where it all went wrong for me, but it's

no criticism of the product, just the dopey sod using the iron.

 

Alastair

 

Hi Alistair - yes, the odd time I've had to remove a rod, I cut my losses and cut the old crankpin and replaced it.

 

John

Edited December 8, 2017 by rowanj

[Tony Wright]

I wasn't writing about the kits in general, just the shape and size of the valve gear parts. If the DJH bits were designed to be assembled in exactly the same way as they are now but were the same size and shape as those in a Finney kit, it would be no more complicated to build but would look much better.

Thanks again, Tony.

 

I'm not sure that the DJH valve gear parts (in the main) are that far off, at least in side view. 

 

Where I think Finney kits seem to add to the time involved in making them is in the almost exclusive use of etchings. One guy some years ago at Missenden had a Finney kit. The crossheads had to made up from a series of etched laminates, to be soldered together, then fettled and filed to shape. I think a single casting is much better for this sort of thing (assuming it's well-cast, which is not always the case). 

 

The kit, overall, was beautiful. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Tony Wright

[petrovich]

A 2 2 17.jpg

 

Like this? Though this was stationary for the picture, I actually wound it up to over 100 mph!

 

I agree that Finney kits are the 'top of the tree', but they'd be 'useless' on a layout like Little Bytham. Why? Because I'd have to live at least three times longer than the oldest recorded human being to be able to build enough locos from the kits. 

 

Martin once told me that his kits were 'by the far the best value on the market, even though they cost the most' (in 4mm scale). How come? 'Because they take at least five times as long to build, so your pound per hour rate is exceptionally good'. 

 

I was once asked to quote for building a Finney A3. Since, at the time, a DJH A3 built by me, painted by Ian Rathbone, would have cost the customer around £800.00, once I quoted (assuming I could build it), all I saw was dust! 

 

Compromised though the gear on my big (and small) engines might be, I cannot ever recall taking close note of the minutiae of detail in the (whirling) motion of a Gresley, Thompson or Peppercorn big engine as it belted past my viewpoint at Markham Moor, Eaton Wood, Retford, Botany Bay, Scrooby, Riccall, Thirsk or Darlington, or place in between where they went fast. 

 

Horses for courses, as has so often been said. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Wow, what a fantastic kit and built beautifully, can i ask how long it took to build? Apologies in advance if I have missed this fact in the topic elsewhere.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[Tony Wright]

Wow, what a fantastic kit and built beautifully, can i ask how long it took to build? Apologies in advance if I have missed this fact in the topic elsewhere.

 

Regards

 

Peter

No need to apologise, Peter.

 

Just over 30 hours, spread over just a week. 

 

Many thanks for your kind comments. 

[petrovich]

No need to apologise, Peter.

 

Just over 30 hours, spread over just a week. 

 

Many thanks for your kind comments. 

Hi Tony

 

Would you be kind enough to post a picture of this unit when it is fully complete I have a feeling it will make a lot of us who visit this thread very content.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[gr.king]

"Unit"????

 

If we're referring to a steam locomotive, surely there's already a correct, widely understood term for it, not in need of replacement by anything wholly vague and/or American? It's a steam locomotive.

[petrovich]

"Unit"????

 

If we're referring to a steam locomotive, surely there's already a correct, widely understood term for it, not in need of replacement by anything wholly vague and/or American? It's a steam locomotive.

Apologies!

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

Would you be kind enough to post a picture of this unit when it is fully complete I have a feeling it will make a lot of us who visit this thread very content.

 

Regards

 

Peter

Of course, Peter,

 

Geoff Haynes will be painting her in the New Year. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Just to pick up on few themes from the last few days..................

 

Firstly, my thanks to all who post on this thread for making it so lively, interesting and informative. There's not always agreement, but that's what makes it even more interesting. 

 

Today, I had a visit from four splendid friends - a first time visit. I was complimented on Little Bytham's appearance and, particularly, the running. The latter said, there was one derailment! A 14-car express was driven flat out through the fiddle yard pointwork (Peco large radius), and one of the carriages jumped off. The curve it was negotiating is about 3' 6" radius, coming off the curved part of a point and then on to a further reverse curve of the same diameter. What would the prototype have done? Run over the track at a dead slow pace. Still, it was my fault; had I not encouraged fast driving, all would have been well. 

 

What was particularly interesting to me was that everyone in the group either currently modelled in P4 or had done. The two who had done had changed to EM because they couldn't get the standard of running they required. Both are skilled modellers. One was thinking of changing, but he was prepared to persevere. The one who remained with P4 was happy enough, but his layout is quite small, with small locos and stock. All agreed that they'd never witnessed anything in P4 running at the (prototypical on the scenic section) speeds possible on LB. What was most enlightening was the comment that my trains were running far too fast for the curves they were expected to negotiate. Not on the scenic section (which is all but dead straight), but over the 180 degree bends at both ends and the roads through the fiddle yard. Do we (I) demand running which is 'unfair' then, over our (my) colliery/dockyard/shed radius curves? Could those who model in the finest gauge have it right then? 'We' don't have the space to model main line curves to 'scale', so 'we'll' settle for small layouts, where any running is (of necessity) dead slow. 

 

This week (partly for inspiration) I looked through the Christmas 1959 edition of the Model Railway News (which featured Frank Dyer's Borchester Town). In the letters' pages there was a note from Ernest F. Carter, bemoaning the fact that the majority of modellers (1959) were losing the 'Modelling' touch, and becoming almost totally reliant on RTR or getting others to do things for them. I quote - 'By far the average so-called model railway hobby-ist is quite contented to purchase as much as he can afford ready-made; or at least to buy those items of super-detail which he has not the interest or the time to make for himself'. Note the gender-specific terminology of the time. 'Then, when he has a model railway in operation, he talks himself into believing that he has made it'. This is at a time when the new releases included a 94XX kit by Wills (to fit on a Tri-ang chassis), a K's J50 kit (to fit on a Hornby-Dublo chassis), a hand-built GWR 4-4-2 in 4mm from Fourmillaid, a Hornby-Dublo loco shed, a Tri-ang TT Brush Type 2, Hornby-Dublo tinplate carriages and a fibreglass O Gauge V2 from Douglas Models. He goes on.....' A correlative case is to be found in the modern motor industry, where a firm of car "manufacturers" purchase a gearbox from "X", lighting equipment from "Y" and a body from "Z", and then say they have produced a motor car. Nothing is further from the truth - they are merely motor car assemblers' (sounds like the TVR I had). He concludes....... 'The spoon-fed model railwaying (sic), more often than not, done today is the antithesis of the 99 per cent. building we we used to do 20 or 30 years ago. Our loyalty to handcraftsmanship and dexterity stands a fifty-fifty chance of being bogged down in the modern "easy-way-out" trend and it is up to those of us who try to keep "P.M.'s" (I assume personal modelling?) banner flying to strain every effort to ensure that true model railway-craft doesn't die'. 

 

Strong stuff indeed. He also mentions burnt fingernails because of soldering, almost as a 'rite of passage'. 

 

What's also interesting is that everything featured in the magazine had been made, with no reliance on RTR at all. What might also be added is that the standard of the modelling (though fascinating and interesting) is nowhere near the standard seen on some layouts today. 

 

Any comments, please?

 

Edited to make sure I got the Wright rite right!

Edited December 8, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Jon4470]

Tony

Interesting quote from that magazine!

 

Does this mean that in 20 years time, someone will be writing about how people in 2017 were proper modellers? Maybe we all look back sometimes and think it was better then?

 

Jon

[Lecorbusier]

 

 

What was particularly interesting to me was that everyone in the group either currently modelled in P4 or had done. The two who had done had changed to EM because they couldn't get the standard of running they required. Both are skilled modellers. One was thinking of changing, but he was prepared to persevere. The one who remained with P4 was happy enough, but his layout is quite small, with small locos and stock. All agreed that they'd never witnessed anything in P4 running at the (prototypical on the scenic section) speeds possible on LB. What was most enlightening was the comment that my trains were running far too fast for the curves they were expected to negotiate. Not on the scenic section (which is all but dead straight), but over the 180 degree bends at both ends and the roads through the fiddle yard. Do we (I) demand running which is 'unfair' then, over our (my) colliery/dockyard/shed radius curves? Could those who model in the finest gauge have it right then? 'We' don't have the space to model main line curves to 'scale', so 'we'll' settle for small layouts, where any running is (of necessity) dead slow. 

Surely it is not one or the other Tony?

 

As I understood things, even in the heyday of 100mph steam there were only a few areas where high speeds were attainable and then on pretty much straight track. If you want to run trains as prototypically as possible, then more often than not speeds are going to be generally slower and most certainly slower when curves set in. There are many main line stretches where the express trains would have been pushing it to rise much above 45mph ... but many of these areas are well worth modelling. ..... so a layout doesn't have to be small per se for P4 to manage tighter than prototype curves (granted not as tight as in 00 but tight enough to make a layout feasible) and still be achievable because the trains will not be rattling along at Little Bytham speeds.

 

Slower train speeds like this can be very enjoyable to watch. Last time I visited Pendon, I spent a very enjoyable time watching the Dartmoor scene and talking with the operators. None of the trains I would say went faster than 45mph and at least half were nearer to 25 mph .... but to me no less enjoyable for that. Now I would argue that a layout designed on the principles of the dartmoor scene could certainly be modelled reliably in P4 and with careful design could be made to fit a workable if large room size. The test track at this years Scaleforum demonstrated that curves can be laid where P4 locos can comfortably run reliably at speeds of 40 - 50 mph ( my Barney managed quite comfortably, though due to the gearing I have chosen it was going flat out).

 

Little Bytham is a wonderful achievement, and to my mind because of the specifics could not really be modelled in P4 (particularly the un-prototypical curves which of necessity have to be used to get the trains up to speed when entering the scenic sections) .... nor do I think there would be much merit in so doing as from the observers viewpoint the gauge would be all but unnoticeable. But I don't think it is fair to say that P4 is solely limited to the small shunting plank layout. I have enjoyed watching layouts such as Mostyn and Clutton, both of which are very much lines in the landscape and certainly during the extended periods I spent watching them, both layouts ran reliably without derailments.

 

So I would say ... I wouldn't use 00 to model a Cameo layout if I thought I could achieve the same in P4. I wouldn't use P4 to model little Bytham. In between these two extremes I think it is very much down to personal choice and relative ability. A very personal opinion is that where I am being encouraged to observe and even revel in the minutiae of the track detailing by the layout in question, then P4 would be my preference ... but only if everything else matches up and the running is reliable. As layouts get less focussed in, or indeed the focus is on other aspects, then I become pretty relaxed between P4 and EM (I have a number of great favourites in EM gauge) With 00 I tend to prefer the larger layouts (though not exclusively) and the ones with finescale track. However, my overriding criteria is never the track gauge, but rather the quality of the modelling, the believability of the scene and the enjoyment of the presentation. So P4, EM and 00 all feature prominently within my roll call of enjoyed layouts, and each one is taken for what it is, and stands or falls on its own merits - not some arbitrarily applied set of rules or standards.

 

I am currently trying to model in P4 myself because I have almost no historical stock, I like the process of trying to make everything as closely as I can to the real thing and the period and location I want to model means that trains will never run faster that scale 45mph and will not need to run round tight curves. This is a personal decision - it may or may not be successful - and has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the work or layouts of others. I would not hold myself up to be in any way better than others and certainly not yet in the league of the P4/EM/00 layouts I refer to above. I tend to believe it is for others to do that anyway.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[St Enodoc]

Just to pick up on few themes from the last few days..................

 

Firstly, my thanks to all who post on this thread for making it so lively, interesting and informative. There's not always agreement, but that's what makes it even more interesting. 

 

Today, I had a visit from four splendid friends - a first time visit. I was complimented on Little Bytham's appearance and, particularly, the running. The latter said, there was one derailment! A 14-car express was driven flat out through the fiddle yard pointwork (Peco large radius), and one of the carriages jumped off. The curve it was negotiating is about 3' 6" radius, coming off the curved part of a point and then on to a further reverse curve of the same diameter. What would the prototype have done? Run over the track at a dead slow pace. Still, it was my fault; had I not encouraged fast driving, all would have been well. 

 

What was particularly interesting to me was that everyone in the group either currently modelled in P4 or had done. The two who had done had changed to EM because they couldn't get the standard of running they required. Both are skilled modellers. One was thinking of changing, but he was prepared to persevere. The one who remained with P4 was happy enough, but his layout is quite small, with small locos and stock. All agreed that they'd never witnessed anything in P4 running at the (prototypical on the scenic section) speeds possible on LB. What was most enlightening was the comment that my trains were running far too fast for the curves they were expected to negotiate. Not on the scenic section (which is all but dead straight), but over the 180 degree bends at both ends and the roads through the fiddle yard. Do we (I) demand running which is 'unfair' then, over our (my) colliery/dockyard/shed radius curves? Could those who model in the finest gauge have it right then? 'We' don't have the space to model main line curves to 'scale', so 'we'll' settle for small layouts, where any running is (of necessity) dead slow. 

 

This week (partly for inspiration) I looked through the Christmas 1959 edition of the Model Railway News (which featured Frank Dyer's Borchester Town). In the letters' pages there was a note from Ernest F. Carter, bemoaning the fact that the majority of modellers (1959) were losing the 'Modelling' touch, and becoming almost totally reliant on RTR or getting others to do things for them. I quote - 'By far the average so-called model railway hobby-ist is quite contented to purchase as much as he can afford ready-made; or at least to buy those items of super-detail which he has not the interest or the time to make for himself'. Note the gender-specific terminology of the time. 'Then, when he has a model railway in operation, he talks himself into believing that he has made it'. This is at a time when the new releases included a 94XX kit by Wills (to fit on a Tri-ang chassis), a K's J50 kit (to fit on a Hornby-Dublo chassis), a hand-built GWR 4-4-2 in 4mm from Fourmillaid, a Hornby-Dublo loco shed, a Tri-ang TT Brush Type 2, Hornby-Dublo tinplate carriages and a fibreglass O Gauge V2 from Douglas Models. He goes on.....' A correlative case is to be found in the modern motor industry, where a firm of car "manufacturers" purchase a gearbox from "X", lighting equipment from "Y" and a body from "Z", and then say they have produced a motor car. Nothing is further from the truth - they are merely motor car assemblers' (sounds like the TVR I had). He concludes....... 'The spoon-fed model railwaying (sic), more often than not, done today is the antithesis of the 99 per cent. building we we used to do 20 or 30 years ago. Our loyalty to handcraftsmanship and dexterity stands a fifty-fifty chance of being bogged down in the modern "easy-way-out" trend and it is up to those of us who try to keep "P.M.'s" (I assume personal modelling?) banner flying to strain every effort to ensure that true model railway-craft doesn't die'. 

 

Strong stuff indeed. He also mentions burnt fingernails because of soldering, almost as a 'rite of passage'. 

 

What's also interesting is that everything featured in the magazine had been made, with no reliance on RTR at all. What might also be added is that the standard of the modelling (though fascinating and interesting) is nowhere near the standard seen on some layouts today. 

 

Any comments, please?

 

Edited to make sure I got the Wright rite right!

Percival Marshall?

[grob1234]

So I was thinking about getting a Finney V2, it looks amazing, and I really like V2’s.

 

Given that it takes me months just to complete a simple J3, can I assume that at the age of 35, I am liable to die before I complete the V2?

 

I also note with interest the comments in the old magazine. I have a MRJ from 1994, recommended to me by JW for my A1 build, and the comments in the editorial section are almost identical to the ones quoted above.

 

Can we assume then, given the precedence set in 1959, 1994 and today on this thread, that as modellers we will bemoan the decline of real modelling, but also, as modellers we will model whatever the situation with regards to kits or RTR? I hope so, indeed I have been making acquisitions that will enable me to model and build locomotives for at least years. Excellent.

[45568]

Good morning Tony.

 Did you finish the Little Engines A7, and do you have any photographs of the finished article to share?

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

[Tony Wright]

Surely it is not one or the other Tony?

 

As I understood things, even in the heyday of 100mph steam there were only a few areas where high speeds were attainable and then on pretty much straight track. If you want to run trains as prototypically as possible, then more often than not speeds are going to be generally slower and most certainly slower when curves set in. There are many main line stretches where the express trains would have been pushing it to rise much above 45mph ... but many of these areas are well worth modelling. ..... so a layout doesn't have to be small per se for P4 to manage tighter than prototype curves (granted not as tight as in 00 but tight enough to make a layout feasible) and still be achievable because the trains will not be rattling along at Little Bytham speeds.

 

Slower train speeds like this can be very enjoyable to watch. Last time I visited Pendon, I spent a very enjoyable time watching the Dartmoor scene and talking with the operators. None of the trains I would say went faster than 45mph and at least half were nearer to 25 mph .... but to me no less enjoyable for that. Now I would argue that a layout designed on the principles of the dartmoor scene could certainly be modelled reliably in P4 and with careful design could be made to fit a workable if large room size. The test track at this years Scaleforum demonstrated that curves can be laid where P4 locos can comfortably run reliably at speeds of 40 - 50 mph ( my Barney managed quite comfortably, though due to the gearing I have chosen it was going flat out).

 

Little Bytham is a wonderful achievement, and to my mind because of the specifics could not really be modelled in P4 (particularly the un-prototypical curves which of necessity have to be used to get the trains up to speed when entering the scenic sections) .... nor do I think there would be much merit in so doing as from the observers viewpoint the gauge would be all but unnoticeable. But I don't think it is fair to say that P4 is solely limited to the small shunting plank layout. I have enjoyed watching layouts such as Mostyn and Clutton, both of which are very much lines in the landscape and certainly during the extended periods I spent watching them, both layouts ran reliably without derailments.

 

So I would say ... I wouldn't use 00 to model a Cameo layout if I thought I could achieve the same in P4. I wouldn't use P4 to model little Bytham. In between these two extremes I think it is very much down to personal choice and relative ability. A very personal opinion is that where I am being encouraged to observe and even revel in the minutiae of the track detailing by the layout in question, then P4 would be my preference ... but only if everything else matches up and the running is reliable. As layouts get less focussed in, or indeed the focus is on other aspects, then I become pretty relaxed between P4 and EM (I have a number of great favourites in EM gauge) With 00 I tend to prefer the larger layouts (though not exclusively) and the ones with finescale track. However, my overriding criteria is never the track gauge, but rather the quality of the modelling, the believability of the scene and the enjoyment of the presentation. So P4, EM and 00 all feature prominently within my roll call of enjoyed layouts, and each one is taken for what it is, and stands or falls on its own merits - not some arbitrarily applied set of rules or standards.

 

I am currently trying to model in P4 myself because I have almost no historical stock, I like the process of trying to make everything as closely as I can to the real thing and the period and location I want to model means that trains will never run faster that scale 45mph and will not need to run round tight curves. This is a personal decision - it may or may not be successful - and has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the work or layouts of others. I would not hold myself up to be in any way better than others and certainly not yet in the league of the P4/EM/00 layouts I refer to above. I tend to believe it is for others to do that anyway.

Thanks Tim,

 

I didn't mean my observations to come out as one thing or the other. Indeed, my comment about smaller layouts in the finest gauge was partly in response to a post made here some time ago that many (most?) P4 modellers aren't interesting in building Class One (fast) main lines. 

 

You mention Mostyn and Clutton. I've seen (and taken photographs of) both, but, although they ran (run) well, neither is what I would call a Class One main line. Granted (and I speak as a Cestrian - a native of Chester), the former had no weight restriction, but you'd be lucky to see more than one Semi or Prinny a day. Mostyn, of course, is set in diesel times. Travel north eastwards from Chester to Hartford (as I did many times on my bike), and the LMS 8Ps were in abundance, and travelling very fast indeed. 

 

You're right in saying that many steam-age trains ran no faster than 45 mph, but in my trainspotting days many of the main lines had schedules requiring a mile a minute average, with stops. Both the LMR and the WR ran steam-hauled expresses between London and Birmingham in two hours, with stops; they must have been going a lot faster than 45 mph for most of the journey. 

 

The 'Elizabethan' in 1958 took near six and a half hours to travel near 400 miles, non-stop. Since the ECML had many PSRs (permanent speed restrictions) at the time (many now removed), then much (most) of the running must have been at over a mile a minute. 

 

This thread often refers to P4, and am I perceived as being 'hostile' to those who model in the finest gauge? I'm not, and I admire those who 'push the boundaries' - way beyond what I'm capable of. It's just that, with very few exceptions, most P4 layouts are quite small, often end-to-end and run really slowly. I must say these were the same observations as my friends made yesterday. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited December 9, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Compound2632]

I model in 00 and make no bones about it - I enjoy building rolling stock and my best opportunity for seeing it in action is on our club's 00 layouts.

 

At exhibitions, I find the visual appeal of larger P4 and EM layouts much more satisfying than 00 layouts of similar size. I've analysed the reason for this and believe it has less to do with the gauge per se than the ratio of the four-foot to the six-foot on double-track line. For the standard minimum track centre-to-centre dimension of 11'2" (44.67 mm), i.e. a six-foot of exactly 6'0", 00 gauge yields a six-foot of 26.33 mm. The prototypical ratio of six-foot to four-foot is 1.27, in 00 this becomes 1.60, i.e. 25% greater. I find this detracts from the visual effect, at least when looking along the line - sideways on, I agree it's less of a problem.

 

A knock-on effect is the excess length between crossings at crossovers.

 

Of course this isn't an issue for single-track lines! Conclusion: from the purely visual point of view, 00 is good for small, simple, single-track layouts but P4 is ideally suited to large multi-track main lines!

 

This preference of mine has nothing to do with the running quality of the locomotives and rolling stock. Looking at the real thing, one spends much more time with just track to look at than trains; the same is often true even of large exhibition layouts - so the track makes a strong impression.

 

I have enormous admiration for anyone or group who can build a successful, reliable, large layout.

[Tony Wright]

Good morning Tony.

 Did you finish the Little Engines A7, and do you have any photographs of the finished article to share?

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

 

I do Peter,

 

I've posted this image before, but such is the speed of this thread that it's pages back now.

[Tony Wright]

So I was thinking about getting a Finney V2, it looks amazing, and I really like V2’s.

 

Given that it takes me months just to complete a simple J3, can I assume that at the age of 35, I am liable to die before I complete the V2?

 

I also note with interest the comments in the old magazine. I have a MRJ from 1994, recommended to me by JW for my A1 build, and the comments in the editorial section are almost identical to the ones quoted above.

 

Can we assume then, given the precedence set in 1959, 1994 and today on this thread, that as modellers we will bemoan the decline of real modelling, but also, as modellers we will model whatever the situation with regards to kits or RTR? I hope so, indeed I have been making acquisitions that will enable me to model and build locomotives for at least years. Excellent.

Tom,

 

The way you're advancing with your modelling, a Finney V2 will be no problem; though you might be into your 40s by the time you complete it. 

 

By way of (personal) interest, I've made a list of the things I've made/completed since the end of the summer. Granted, this includes some things painted for me, but I've surprised myself how 'prolific' (in relative terms) I've been - the benefits of retirement! There are two locos still being painted (and four still to be painted), and they'll be done by Christmas. When they're done, I'll post a picture of the lot together. The list includes two A1s, an A2, an A2/2, two A4s, an A7, a D9, a 9F, two Gresley carriages and the completion of a triplet catering set. That's not to mention mods on several items of RTR rolling stock, plus buildings and scenic features and a couple of re-motoring excercises. 

 

I mention the above, not to boast, but to illustrate a 'sketch-book' approach to my own railway modelling. Were one of those A4s mentioned in the list from a Finney kit (assuming I could build it), there'd be no list. Just a mention of a (started) single loco build. That's not to decry such kits (Brassmasters and Mitchell fit into the same category) but to be 'realistic' in what one might achieve in terms of numbers and in terms of time. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Tony Wright

[grob1234]

Tom,

 

The way you're advancing with your modelling, a Finney V2 will be no problem; though you might be into your 40s by the time you complete it. 

 

By way of (personal) interest, I've made a list of the things I've made/completed since the end of the summer. Granted, this includes some things painted for me, but I've surprised myself how 'prolific' (in relative terms) I've been - the benefits of retirement! There are two locos still being painted (and four still to be painted), and they'll be done by Christmas. When they're done, I'll post a picture of the lot together. The list includes two A1s, an A2, an A2/2, two A4s, an A7, a D9, a 9F, two Gresley carriages and the completion of a triplet catering set. That's not to mention mods on several items of RTR rolling stock, plus buildings and scenic features and a couple of re-motoring excercises. 

 

I mention the above, not to boast, but to illustrate a 'sketch-book' approach to my own railway modelling. Were one of those A4s mentioned in the list from a Finney kit (assuming I could build it), there'd be no list. Just a mention of a (started) single loco build. That's not to decry such kits (Brassmasters and Mitchell fit into the same category) but to be 'realistic' in what one might achieve in terms of numbers and in terms of time. 

 

I think I should treat myself to a Finney V2, but treat it as a very long term project while I get on with other, easier builds. To me they look like the ultimate in detail and finesse - a good challenge, though not a particularly interesting video series!

 

Your production list would surely rival Doncaster in its heyday. Clearly using your retirement well, and why not, you earned it. I suppose having a full time job, and now a 5 week old baby, my modelling time is rather less that you have available. Having said that I will have one more completed model before the year is out, and for me, that is quite an achievement. I have two others in various states of completion, plus 8 Silver Jubilee coaches that are about 70% complete - all major soldering done, just interiors, roofs and wheels to fit. Simply a question of time...

[Lecorbusier]

Thanks Tim,

 

I didn't mean my observations to come out as one thing or the other. Indeed, my comment about smaller layouts in the finest gauge was partly in response to a post made here some time ago that many (most?) P4 modellers aren't interesting in building Class One (fast) main lines. 

 

You mention Mostyn and Clutton. I've seen (and taken photographs of) both, but, although they ran (run) well, neither is what I would call a Class One main line. Granted (and I speak as a Cestrian - a native of Chester), the former had no weight restriction, but you'd be lucky to see more than one Semi or Prinny a day. Mostyn, of course, is set in diesel times. Travel north eastwards from Chester to Hartford (as I did many times on my bike), and the LMS 8Ps were in abundance, and travelling very fast indeed. 

 

You're right in saying that many steam-age trains ran no faster than 45 mph, but in my trainspotting days many of the main lines had schedules requiring a mile a minute average, with stops. Both the LMR and the WR ran steam-hauled expresses between London and Birmingham in two hours, with stops; they must have been going a lot faster than 45 mph for most of the journey. 

 

The 'Elizabethan' in 1958 took near six and a half hours to travel near 400 miles, non-stop. Since the ECML had many PSRs (permanent speed restrictions) at the time (many now removed), then much (most) of the running must have been at over a mile a minute. 

 

This thread often refers to P4, and am I perceived as being 'hostile' to those who model in the finest gauge? I'm not, and I admire those who 'push the boundaries' - way beyond what I'm capable of. It's just that, with very few exceptions, most P4 layouts are quite small, often end-to-end and run really slowly. I must say these were the same observations as my friends made yesterday. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

My point I think was that 00 is perhaps the only realistic option if you wish to run high speed main line (EM might be workable on occasion - I don't know - but if so you don't see many). It was the (I think tongue in cheek) contention that one perhaps shouldn't try to model such places because some of the modelling curves are un-prototypical (especially if these are off scene) that was to my mind quite ridiculous. I was not arguing that the faster speeds were rare .... just that they were limited to specific sections of the flagship mainline routes ... and even on these many portions would have been below 60mph. Perhaps only 20% of the entire system ran at such speeds? ergo 80% of the system does not present such insoluble problems to the other gauges?

 

I would observe that end to end layouts are perhaps less to do with chosen gauge and more about available space coupled to type of running required. In an end to end layout with fiddle yard you maximise the space available for the scenic section also allowing use of just one side of a room and so long as you can get up to required speeds when entering the layout there is no great need for large lead ins. I am hoping to model Monsaldale station over the next few years. The station lies in the middle of the proposed scenic section with twin main lines. The gradient is 1:90. In 1903 the through non stopping expresses would not have travelled at much above 45mph and less going up the gradient. It will be end to end with the fiddle yard cassettes sized to ensure that the trains where required can enter on scene at the correct speed - ditto leaving.

 

As far as the preponderance of slow speed running on many P4 layouts, I think this is related to the prototype and preferred choice of subject - it is not the capabilities of the gauge dictating choice of subject (high speed mainline excepted). Many P4 discussions I read relate to the complexities of detailed train movements and the enjoyment of the intricacies these ... the statement that a given layout will have a 'lot of interest' within its running is often expressed. Each to there own ... I like variety myself .... hence the wish to model a location where I can do some shunting and also some tucking in of slow trains on a lie by allowing the express to come through. At the same time I will have an element of procession running of through trains (goods and passenger expresses). To some the 'interest' may be too slight .... to others the procession may be rather 'samey' and lacking in drama ..... but its my layout and I am rather taken by the idea - hope the reality gets somewhere near!

 

Finally, I have never thought of you as hostile to P4 ... or any modelling of quality for that matter. The assertions or comments of certain individuals might be another matter.