Wright writes.....

[MJI]

I don't really miss it, having had 11 years of fun out of it. 

 

I came to the conclusion that it was time to part company after I was waiting at some traffic lights in the TVR in Bourne and caught my reflection in a shop window. I was wearing my flat 'at, and just looked a total tw*t. OK if I'd have been in my 30s, but not in my 70s!

 

It was a Chimaera 500 - 340 BHP from a Rover 5 litre V8 in a plastic-bodied (and light) car. No traction control, no airbags, no ABS, no power-assistance, no roll bars - nothing; expect a huge engine guzzling fuel at an alarming rate!

 

Someone (on a dead straight road to be fair) 'took it on' in a VW Golf GT summat or 't'other. No contest! Through bends, a different story perhaps.

 

It must come as no surprise for folk to discover that I never grew up. Nor ever will. 

 

Growing old compulsary.

Growing up optional.

 

I have an issue in that I just cannot buy a boring car.

[MJI]

I have no experience of either of these cars, mine was a Porsche Boxster. Oh what a wonderful drive. My great bugbear is those who think it’s a Porsch. The ‘e’ is not silent. They’re in the same mould as those who think it’s prostrate cancer. Here the ‘r’ is silent.

Sorry for the rant.

 

Stephen

 

My boss has one, not a bad car at all.

 

It is a little bit low, and he did get some snide remarks once from a twerp with a new car about showing off money. New car was a lot more.

[richard i]

Richard,

 

As I told you when we made the chassis, I've built about five locos (all GWR) with outside cranks. In every case, the parents of them never married! 

 

Though unscientific, I set them out so that the inside of the cranks just cleared the frames and the coupling rod pins just missed any platforms. Clearances were tight.

 

A friend (as part of battering) asked me to make a Buffalo chassis for him. He didn't have anything valuable enough to barter with!

 

Thank you for the advice, though it realistically does not fill me with optimism.

Do the cranks then solder to the extended axels? Or is glue used to allow removal later if necessary.

I have one advantage in that I am deciding how far in the side frames need go. I can fudge that by a smudge if I need to in order to ensure that it runs.

Richard

[MarkC]

Thank you for the advice, though it realistically does not fill me with optimism.

Do the cranks then solder to the extended axels? Or is glue used to allow removal later if necessary.

I have one advantage in that I am deciding how far in the side frames need go. I can fudge that by a smudge if I need to in order to ensure that it runs.

Richard

If they're Romford wheels/axles/cranks, I put a 10BA nut on the extended axle before I screw on the cranks, then use the nut to lock the crank in place. (Obviously you also need to cut the excess extended axle off). This locking arrangement allows for fine adjustment of the quartering if required too.

 

Mark

[nerron]

I have no experience of either of these cars, mine was a Porsche Boxster. Oh what a wonderful drive. My great bugbear is those who think it’s a Porsch. The ‘e’ is not silent. They’re in the same mould as those who think it’s prostrate cancer. Here the ‘r’ is silent.

Sorry for the rant.

 

Stephen

There is no "r" to be silent.

[Anglian]

I don't really miss it, having had 11 years of fun out of it. 

 

I came to the conclusion that it was time to part company after I was waiting at some traffic lights in the TVR in Bourne and caught my reflection in a shop window. I was wearing my flat 'at, and just looked a total tw*t. OK if I'd have been in my 30s, but not in my 70s!

 

It was a Chimaera 500 - 340 BHP from a Rover 5 litre V8 in a plastic-bodied (and light) car. No traction control, no airbags, no ABS, no power-assistance, no roll bars - nothing; expect a huge engine guzzling fuel at an alarming rate!

 

Someone (on a dead straight road to be fair) 'took it on' in a VW Golf GT summat or 't'other. No contest! Through bends, a different story perhaps.

 

It must come as no surprise for folk to discover that I never grew up. Nor ever will. 

 

 

Tony,

 

I have a vision of you in your BRM photography days tearing around the country visiting and photographing wonderful layouts and using the TVR – if so what a wonderful life! Close to my idea of a perfect existence. A work friend of mine had the same model TVR and sold it. Within a few years he had to have another one and was lucky enough to be able to buy a very similar car to his original.

 

Today my father was making a new panel for the floor of my 28 year old Ford. It's quite remarkable watching him work – he uses sheet steel like I might use card or plasticard for modelling. The resulting part, that was the result of a couple of hours, cutting, folding, tweaking and drilling was a beautiful fit. MOT on Wednesday, fingers crossed.

[APOLLO]

I don't really miss it, having had 11 years of fun out of it. 

 

I came to the conclusion that it was time to part company after I was waiting at some traffic lights in the TVR in Bourne and caught my reflection in a shop window. I was wearing my flat 'at, and just looked a total tw*t. OK if I'd have been in my 30s, but not in my 70s!

 

It was a Chimaera 500 - 340 BHP from a Rover 5 litre V8 in a plastic-bodied (and light) car. No traction control, no airbags, no ABS, no power-assistance, no roll bars - nothing; expect a huge engine guzzling fuel at an alarming rate!

 

Someone (on a dead straight road to be fair) 'took it on' in a VW Golf GT summat or 't'other. No contest! Through bends, a different story perhaps.

 

It must come as no surprise for folk to discover that I never grew up. Nor ever will. 

 

The story is the other way round for me. I bought my 1973 Rover P5B 3,5 Litre V8 back in 1982 for £800 when I was "just" 30 years old. A young man in an old farts car !!!!. It's a lovely, civilised and comfortable car to drive, that's why I bought her as a classic second car when my daily driver back then was a new Ford Capri (cue Bodie & Doyle !!). I still have the Rover, and now aged 65 I reckon I "look the part" when viewing reflections in shop windows !!! (no flat 'at though !!). Not been a bad investment as she is now worth around £6 - 7000.

 

TVR Chimera, whohh - wish I had one of those !!! - I bet secretly Tony, you do miss her !!!

 

Brit15

[cctransuk]

There is no "r" to be silent.

 

I think that he knows that - (humour)?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for all the comments about the cars. I hope my Chimaera went to a good home, and wasn't slain, as in the myth, by Bellerophon (riding Pegasus). 

 

Realistically, it wouldn't have been 'realistic' for me to keep it. It used to cost me around £1,000 per year to keep it on the road (over the 11 years). That doesn't include petrol, road fund licence and insurance. Since any work was done professionally - new brakes, chassis stripped and re-coated, complete high tension cables replaced, new pulleys and a yearly service and so on, in retirement it was a too-expensive fad. 

 

Speaking of realism, I've been mulling over the discussions in recent weeks regarding what each person wants (and gets) from their own modelling/model railway. 

 

May I pose a few further questions, please? The 'yous' are generic. 

 

If a location for a layout is made-up, how do you know whether or not it looks real? 

 

If a real location is modelling, but the selective compression is too much, how does that affect the realism? 

 

If (realistic) operation is what interests you the most, is that more important than the visual realism of your layout? Perhaps the Sherwood Section is an example of this.

 

Is the appearance of the layout in pictures more important than its running? I ask this, because at one show this autumn I saw a layout which looked quite pretty in its published pictures, yet in the flesh it was pretty dire. Overall, it didn't look like a 'real' railway, and the running was dreadful. 

 

Is making things yourself, so that they look realistic, more important to you than getting professionals to make things for you which, as they should be, are more realistic? 

 

Speaking personally, because I (as part of a group) have chosen to model an actual prototype, I can compare it with 'the real thing' to see if it's realistic. I'm also zealous over the running, so have chosen 'finescale' OO because of its more forgiving nature than 'dead scale', though I wish I'd have adopted EM all those years ago. Running realism then, to me, takes precedence over the correct gauge.  

 

With the above questions in mind, I've taken some more pictures of Little Bytham this evening. Whether they're 'realistic' or not, is a matter of opinion.

 

 

As mentioned in a previous post, not all the trains on LB are enormous, are hauled by big locos and go fast. This J6 has a humble Peterborough-Grantham 'parly'. It's certainly not RTR (realistic or not). Ian Wilson started the bodywork decades ago (when the Nu-Cast kit first appeared). Glued together, I dumped it in Nitromors, rebuilt it using solder, made the chassis, painted, numbered it and weathered it. 

 

 

Though the 'real thing' is frequently seen from below, not many model railways allow this sort of picture. Many are unrealistically-flat in my view, with everything built above track level. 

 

 

Since the making and making up of realistic trains is essential on Little Bytham, I hope this view of 'The Queen of Scots' is realistic. Certainly, according to my research, the train is the right consist, and it was usually A1-hauled, then is it? I built the loco and the whole rake and Ian Rathbone painted the lot.

 

 

When I was a trainspotter, A1s were the most common locos on the ECML expresses south of Doncaster. ALCAZAR was the one I saw more than any other, so I had to build her. PEREGRINE was also common. 60136 is built from a DJH kit and 60146 from a Crownline kit. Ian Rathbone painted the former, Geoff Haynes the latter. 

 

 

What's certainly not realistic is Hornby's and Bachmann's differences in the respective colours for their Pullman cars. Which do you think is the more realistic, please?

 

What's even less realistic is my running of the Mk.1 Pullman cars, which weren't introduced until at least a year after the station closed. Modeller's licence? 

 

Where I am pleased with the realism in this view is the uncluttered nature of the scene. Though only a modest station, it does 'sprawl' a bit. Make a location up, and wouldn't there be a temptation to try and cram too much in? 

 

 

Though 'boasting' four platforms, passenger numbers were only ever low and the stopping services were infrequent. But, that's not what LB is all about. Here's the non-stop, bang on time and (in my imagination) bowling through at over 90 mph. 

 

 

'Another photographer' was standing at the south end of the station to get a further shot. I made this train over a quarter of a century ago, building the prototype Southern Pride etches, fixing them to mutilated original Bachmann Thompsons and painted the lot. The A4 is from a Pro-Scale kit, built by me and painted (perfectly) by Ian Rathbone. 

 

All in all, some food for thought?  

 

Edited to clarify a point. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

 

 

Speaking of realism, I've been mulling over the discussions in recent weeks regarding what each person wants (and gets) from their own modelling/model railway. 

 

May I pose a few further questions, please? The 'yous' are generic. 

 

If a location for a layout is made-up, how do you know whether or not it looks real? 

 

If a real location is modelling, but the selective compression is too much, how does that affect the realism? 

 

If (realistic) operation is what interests you the most, is that more important than the visual realism of your layout? Perhaps the Sherwood Section is an example of this.

 

Is the appearance of the layout in pictures more important than its running? I ask this, because at one show this autumn I saw a layout which looked quite pretty in its published pictures, yet in the flesh it was pretty dire. Overall, it didn't look like a 'real' railway, and the running was dreadful. 

 

Is making things yourself, so that they look realistic, more important to you than getting professionals to make things for you which, as they should be, are more realistic? 

 

Speaking personally, because I (as part of a group) have chosen to model an actual prototype, I can compare it with 'the real thing' to see if it's realistic. I'm also zealous over the running, so have chosen 'finescale' OO because of its more forgiving nature than 'dead scale', though I wish I'd have adopted EM all those years ago. Running realism then, to me, takes precedence over the correct gauge.  

 

 

Is this a question about what we choose to model .... in which case should ones response be limited by such things as space, time or money? .... or perhaps even skill level in certain areas. Is it about the compromises one adopts for a myriad of reasons? Sometimes compromises reflect personal taste and emphasis, but sometimes they reflect ability or opportunity. Or is it a question about what one might choose to model in an ideal scenario ... as the ultimate expression of personal taste and emphasis. What about if you were allowed to model more than one layout? ... and if so how many? Would things repeat themselves or would the range increase?

 

Or is it a question about what layouts we like and appreciate? Interestingly I can find myself admiring and really appreciating some layouts which I don't exactly like! 

 

I have just spent an enjoyable hour re-reading articles about two layouts in the MRJ .... Little Bytham and Semley for Shaftsbury. Neither would be possible for me to model at the moment - or in the foreseeable future. Would I like to model either ... frankly I have not given it much thought. Do I like them .... yes - though with the caveat that I have not seen Semley running. They are contrasting layouts with contrasting goals and I am not convinced that it would be right to compare one with the other - I think they are both fantastic in there own ways, on there own terms and I am pleased they exist ..... one could of course go on adding layout after layout. It would be interesting to see what trends emerge - beyond the key one of quality modelling coupled to integrity. I have a suspicion that any hard and fast rules you try and set will immediately be broken by one layout or another for one reason or another.

 

In Architecture I learnt early not to be too dogmatic or prescriptive. It is easy to deconstruct a poor example and state that it doesn't work for certain reasons .... right up until you come across a brilliant building which apparently makes all the same 'mistakes'. As I get older and more experienced, I find I say less and less .... though at the same time fewer works manage to impress me. In the end I just settle with enjoying those that do and trying to understand and learn from them.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[petrovich]

Is this a question about what we choose to model .... in which case should ones response be limited by such things as space, time or money? .... or perhaps even skill level in certain areas. Is it about the compromises one adopts for a myriad of reasons? Sometimes compromises reflect personal taste and emphasis, but sometimes they reflect ability or opportunity. Or is it a question about what one might choose to model in an ideal scenario ... as the ultimate expression of personal taste and emphasis. What about if you were aloud to model more than one layout? ... and if so how many? Would things repeat themselves or would the range increase?

 

Or is it a question about what layouts we like and appreciate? Interestingly I can find myself admiring and really appreciating some layouts which I don't exactly like! 

 

I have just spent an enjoyable hour re-reading articles about two layouts in the MRJ .... Little Bytham and Semley for Shaftsbury. Neither would be possible for me to model at the moment - or in the foreseeable future. Would I like to model either ... frankly I have not given it much thought. Do I like them .... yes - though with the caveat that I have not seen Semley running. They are contrasting layouts with contrasting goals and I am not convinced that it would be right to compare one with the other - I think they are both fantastic in there own ways, on there own terms and I am pleased they exist ..... one could of course go on adding layout after layout. It would be interesting to see what trends emerge - beyond the key one of quality modelling coupled to integrity. I have a suspicion that any hard and fast rules you try and set will immediately be broken by one layout or another for one reason or another.

 

In Architecture I learnt early not to be too dogmatic or prescriptive. It is easy to deconstruct a poor example and state that it doesn't work for certain reasons .... right up until you come across a brilliant building which apparently makes all the same 'mistakes'. As I get older and more experienced, I find I say less and less .... though at the same time fewer works manage to impress me. In the end I just settle with enjoying those that do and trying to understand and learn from them.

I have an interest in freight over the period 1970 to present day so I can get away with a four track rectangle ( 12ft x 7ft ) running as "Fast Up Down" and "Slow Up Down". It can represent anywhere in the UK as long as I can build and run the consist of say 6A18 from Robeston to Theale of fuel tanks behind what was in the eighties frequently a Class 47 or say the Speedlink service in the Erewash valley hauled by a Class 31.

Because of my outlook to this I am constantly obtaining reading material on the subject and also giving myself the task of finding the wagons, kit or RTR, of these consists so I can build, reassemble and run them.

I took this attitude to my railway modelling when having finally settled down after what could be described as a colourful and eventful first fifty five years on the planet my permanent home with my partner Patsy does not allow a layout to represent a specific spot probably on the Great Western region as if it did it would be at scale a few hundred yards worth at most.

 

Apologies for the ramble and punctuation.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[thegreenhowards]

My favourite activities in railway modelling are construction and research of locomotives and rolling stock (rather similar to you I suspect Tony, although obviously not to the same standard). I also enjoy planning the layout and laying the track, but scenery (and wiring point motors) are definitely on the necessary evil list. So what I want from layout is first and foremost a ‘canvas’ for my trains. I don’t think this requires modelling an actual location although it does need to feel right. I don’t operate very often but I also want some play value for when friends visit.

 

The advantage of a specific location, as you have said on many occasions, is that the design work is done for you and that it will automatically look right provided one can execute the modelling.

 

The advantages of a made up location is that one can include a number of features that may take one’s fancy. This might include for example, a number of interesting buildings (think Pennon), a striking viaduct together with a station or just a number of cameos. It might also include operational features to improve the play value. Of course, these could all be obtained in a prototypical location, but maybe not all together and in the space available.

 

Having said this, my intention is to model a prototype next time I build a layout. As I’ve mentioned to you before, this will be Kings Cross in the late 1950s in OO gauge. It is a surprisingly compact location, and can be fitted into 20’ by 5’ with no compression (or 4’ if one leaves out the the milk dock area). This covers the length from the station frontage to gasworks tunnel mouth but doesn’t include a fiddle yard. I think that is a pretty reasonable size for such a magnificent subject. I’m aware that is has been done before in N gauge and in O on the Gainsborough layout with much compression, but I’m not aware of a layout in 4mm which is surprising. Quite when my attempt will start is another matter. I need to finish the current layout first!

 

Andy

[stewartingram]

There is no "r" to be silent.

 

Postate ?

 

Stewart

[Tony Wright]

Is this a question about what we choose to model .... in which case should ones response be limited by such things as space, time or money? .... or perhaps even skill level in certain areas. Is it about the compromises one adopts for a myriad of reasons? Sometimes compromises reflect personal taste and emphasis, but sometimes they reflect ability or opportunity. Or is it a question about what one might choose to model in an ideal scenario ... as the ultimate expression of personal taste and emphasis. What about if you were aloud to model more than one layout? ... and if so how many? Would things repeat themselves or would the range increase?

 

Or is it a question about what layouts we like and appreciate? Interestingly I can find myself admiring and really appreciating some layouts which I don't exactly like! 

 

I have just spent an enjoyable hour re-reading articles about two layouts in the MRJ .... Little Bytham and Semley for Shaftsbury. Neither would be possible for me to model at the moment - or in the foreseeable future. Would I like to model either ... frankly I have not given it much thought. Do I like them .... yes - though with the caveat that I have not seen Semley running. They are contrasting layouts with contrasting goals and I am not convinced that it would be right to compare one with the other - I think they are both fantastic in there own ways, on there own terms and I am pleased they exist ..... one could of course go on adding layout after layout. It would be interesting to see what trends emerge - beyond the key one of quality modelling coupled to integrity. I have a suspicion that any hard and fast rules you try and set will immediately be broken by one layout or another for one reason or another.

 

In Architecture I learnt early not to be too dogmatic or prescriptive. It is easy to deconstruct a poor example and state that it doesn't work for certain reasons .... right up until you come across a brilliant building which apparently makes all the same 'mistakes'. As I get older and more experienced, I find I say less and less .... though at the same time fewer works manage to impress me. In the end I just settle with enjoying those that do and trying to understand and learn from them.

What an interesting response.

 

It could be said that Little Bytham has been over 40 years in the making. Not the layout itself, but it's some 44 years since I decided that's what I ultimately wanted to do - build an ECML prototype layout 'recreating' what I saw as a trainspotter. Though, as has been mentioned, I never got to Little Bytham until after steam had gone, the trains I've made I saw further north. 

 

On the likes of my own (home-based) Stoke Summit and the WMRC exhibition rendition of the same, I was able to run my creations (prior to that it had been on Fordley Park and Leighford), but I still had the 'dream', which has now been realised. 

 

I claim no foresight in this (that's a rare quality, and one I certainly don't possess, though I do have a degree in hindsight), but it shows what can be 'achieved' (obviously with help) with time, skill-acquisition, spending over a long period of time and (essential) teamwork. Whether such a point of view would be regarded with interest in today's rather 'instant' world, I don't know. I know that many of the locos and carriages I've built down the years are now available as high-quality RTR items, so, given that situation today, might things in that department have been acquired quicker? In my own case, probably not. In the main, any RTR locos I possessed have now been sold on, because I still (out of enjoyment and interest, not out of necessity) prefer to make my own locos and passenger stock. Otherwise, they're really acquisitions, though modifying/detailing/weathering such RTR items for oneself does give them a special 'ownership'. 

 

Though you're right to be suspicious of dogma (one should be), I think, after 40+ years of modelling the same thing I've become more and more dogmatic with age. The other day friends were running the railway and two V2s passed each other, both of which I'd built from Jamieson kits. One was 40 years old, the other two years old. Apart from the differences in the quality of the painting (Ian Rathbone painted the newer one), there was no difference (admittedly, the older one had received a new motor/gearbox a decade ago). Which proves, if nothing else, that I've never looked forward since I started building locos.

 

Thus, my dogmatic approach insists on simplicity of build, general accuracy in appearance, 'perfect running' and longevity. 

 

Many thanks again.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Lecorbusier]

What an interesting response.

 

It could be said that Little Bytham has been over 40 years in the making. Not the layout itself, but it's some 44 years since I decided that's what I ultimately wanted to do - build an ECML prototype layout 'recreating' what I saw as a trainspotter. Though, as has been mentioned, I never got to Little Bytham until after steam had gone, the trains I've made I saw further north. 

 

On the likes of my own (home-based) Stoke Summit and the WMRC exhibition rendition of the same, I was able to run my creations (prior to that it had been on Fordley Park and Leighford), but I still had the 'dream', which has now been realised. 

 

I claim no foresight in this (that's a rare quality, and one I certainly don't possess, though I do have a degree in hindsight), but it shows what can be 'achieved' (obviously with help) with time, skill-acquisition, spending over a long period of time and (essential) teamwork. Whether such a point of view would be regarded with interest in today's rather 'instant' world, I don't know. I know that many of the locos and carriages I've built down the years are now available as high-quality RTR items, so, given that situation today, might things in that department have been acquired quicker? In my own case, probably not. In the main, any RTR locos I possessed have now been sold on, because I still (out of enjoyment and interest, not out of necessity) prefer to make my own locos and passenger stock. Otherwise, they're really acquisitions, though modifying/detailing/weathering such RTR items for oneself does give them a special 'ownership'. 

 

Though you're right to be suspicious of dogma (one should be), I think, after 40+ years of modelling the same thing I've become more and more dogmatic with age. The other day friends were running the railway and two V2s passed each other, both of which I'd built from Jamieson kits. One was 40 years old, the other two years old. Apart from the differences in the quality of the painting (Ian Rathbone painted the newer one), there was no difference (admittedly, the older one had received a new motor/gearbox a decade ago). Which proves, if nothing else, that I've never looked forward since I started building locos.

 

Thus, my dogmatic approach insists on simplicity of build, general accuracy in appearance, 'perfect running' and longevity. 

 

Many thanks again.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

In some ways I am a little jealous of you Tony.

 

The older I get the broader and more catholic my tastes become .... music,  design,  art .... there is a trend here and this is mirrored the more I study of the model railway scene. I think given your 40+ year history I would have modelled widely different types and eras of layout - both actual and imaginary.

 

I also think that judgement of the work of others can be complex.

 

For example, I have been rather impressed with Sidmouth as a model. I believe it has been called out for poor running. I would make two observations in connection with this ... firstly that I find this does not ruin the model for me as other aspects are particularly fine .... but it does temper overall appreciation. Secondly, I know that the running was something the builder took very seriously with many hours spent perfecting it. I understand that it is now running well and the gremlins have been sorted. It recently ran as an exhibition piece in Sidmouth itself and I understand ran faultlessly. So I would argue that many if not all layouts tend to be ongoing endeavours, continually worked upon and improved over the years ... meaning judgements can and perhaps should change. Because of the appearance of completeness within track or stock, running is all too often called out (and its obvious why this is the case) where other shortcomings are often accepted .... incomplete scenic modelling, unfinished point rodding, unfinished back scene etc etc (I have heard little but praise for Shap). Perhaps the answer is to reserve final judgement until a picture of a layout can be built up over time. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[APOLLO]

May I pose a few further questions, please? The 'yous' are generic. 

 

If a location for a layout is made-up, how do you know whether or not it looks real? 

 

If a real location is modelling, but the selective compression is too much, how does that affect the realism? 

 

If (realistic) operation is what interests you the most, is that more important than the visual realism of your layout? Perhaps the Sherwood Section is an example of this.

 

Is the appearance of the layout in pictures more important than its running? I ask this, because at one show this autumn I saw a layout which looked quite pretty in its published pictures, yet in the flesh it was pretty dire. Overall, it didn't look like a 'real' railway, and the running was dreadful. 

 

Is making things yourself, so that they look realistic, more important to you than getting professionals to make things for you which, as they should be, are more realistic? 

 

Speaking personally, because I (as part of a group) have chosen to model an actual prototype, I can compare it with 'the real thing' to see if it's realistic. I'm also zealous over the running, so have chosen 'finescale' OO because of its more forgiving nature than 'dead scale', though I wish I'd have adopted EM all those years ago. Running realism then, to me, takes precedence over the correct gauge.  

 

If a location for a layout is made-up, how do you know whether or not it looks real? 

 

My main loft layout is very generic, based loosely on the North Notts area, GC, GN, MR (LNER & LMS), as I am a bit of a GC / GN fan. I have included "scenes" from far and wide, through terminal with 6 tracks into three tunnels (Kings Cross), Belle isle with high skew over bridge, Fir Tree House Junction (Springs Branch Wigan), a high level double track junction, water tower, standing mineral trains with Dub D's, 9F's & Black 8's. A representation of Laisterdyke (Bradford) station, etc. Only the gas works tunnel & Belle Isle are "somewhat" recognisable, but being a "behind the roof frames) loft layout it all works for me. 1960's urban grot is urban grot, anywhere in the UK !! Set period is 1966-8.

 

 

 

 

My small Wigan GC layout I have tried to make more recognisable. Here is the long, low bridge over the Leeds & Liverpool canal at Darlington Street Goods. Ex Tony's J10 doing the honours.

 

 

And the real thing back in 1967. The prototype bridge length was three and a half vans and half a black 5 long (only thing I had to go on) !!!.

 

 

 

The goods yard had to be selectively compressed width wise, the canal bridge being the focal point.

 

If (realistic) operation is what interests you the most, is that more important than the visual realism of your layout?

 

Operation is my main interest now my layouts are "complete". Slow running of long goods trains especially. I try to make train formations as realistic as I can, given its mostly RTR. I have no fiddle yards, all trains are "parked" when not in use in 2 goods sorting yards, 7 road carriage sidings or the terminal roads of the main stations etc. So everything is on full view and surrounded by urban grot scenery.

 

On the GC layout just small goods trains and two 4 coach local passenger trains - BR, Gresley & Thompson suburban stock. (set period is mid 50's)

 

The running of trains (especially slow running) is of more importance to me than fine detail etc. My O gauge stuff runs superbly as it should.

 

Is making things yourself, so that they look realistic, more important to you than getting professionals to make things for you which, as they should be, are more realistic? 

 

I last made loco kits in my TT days years ago, though I have reworked a few locos etc. I enjoyed making the bridge above, and have built most of the "civil engineering" bits of all my layouts, though I (being a lazy sod) have used quite a few "ready to plonk" buildings. 

 

One of my favourite tasks is constructing scenery, especially using large lumps of red sandstone, chicken wire, sackcloth and plaster - see my O gauge American Layout in my thread (below). However both my loft layouts have not one ounce of plaster / scenery as it would be difficult to "get to" behind the rafters and messy - so I simply build the (very) few green bits using hanging basket liner etc.

 

I must say that my main loft layout is just an advanced train set when compared to the likes of Tony's wonderful layout, I run all my old & new stuff together, along with many old bits of model railwayana (Crescent signals, Hornby Dubblo & Tri-ang buildings etc) - and that's quite simply it for me - running trains, six at once on the main layout. The Wigan GC is just nostalgia from when I was a snotty trainspotter and saw a plume of steam behind the L&Y line out of Wigan, wondered what it was, walked up the canal a bit and "Discovered" the Great Central - albeit in its last days of life.

 

Brit15

[Barry O]

Lecorbusier said "Because of the appearance of completeness within track or stock, running is all too often called out (and its obvious why this is the case) where other shortcomings are often accepted .... incomplete scenic modelling, unfinished point rodding, unfinished back scene etc etc (I have heard little but praise for Shap).

Perhaps the answer is to reserve final judgement until a picture of a layout can be built up over time. "

 

Which bit of Shap do you see as being incomplete?

 

Baz

[Lecorbusier]

Lecorbusier said "Because of the appearance of completeness within track or stock, running is all too often called out (and its obvious why this is the case) where other shortcomings are often accepted .... incomplete scenic modelling, unfinished point rodding, unfinished back scene etc etc (I have heard little but praise for Shap).

Perhaps the answer is to reserve final judgement until a picture of a layout can be built up over time. "

 

Which bit of Shap do you see as being incomplete?

 

Baz

Baz,

 

My comment was made purely on what I have read (I have not seen the layout just the pictures) and was not intended as a criticism. I had understood from what I had read that it was quite a sprint to get the layout ready for Warley. 

 

 

 

And before someone else comments, the telegraph poles are an example of many aspects of the layout that were rather last minute and will be subject to further refinement.

 

As we know Little Bytham has been subject to ongoing improvements in the scenic modelling these last number of years .... with the cottages being i think the most recent addition. 

 

I am simply making the point that many favourite layouts are works in progress, and it would be a shame not to enjoy them at exhibition or elsewhere because of this. 

 

Tim

[Lecorbusier]

As an example of an imaginary layout which I think encapsulates the merits of one kind of approach .... and I am very glad it exists  .... is Glendower

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[glo41f]

l loved the pictures of the A1's at LB. Surely these are one of the most handsome types on the ECML? Purposeful and powerful and modern looking. I love them (and the A2's) and wish I could find and excuse for one in my little bit of East Anglia.LB is looking really great now that the buildings are in place and is a great credit to the foresight and planning of our leader. (I do feel that the "grass" on the embankments could do with a bit of attention though!)

 

One of my favourite layouts was one described in the MRC 1979 Annual (remember those?) under the title "South for Moonshine". It is a southern layout but the concept is applicable anywhere. The scenery etc is not realistic but the operation could not be faulted in that trains departed for a place and arrived back from another place,, It must have been magical to operate as I imagine you would soon lose yourself in the concept of operations. I would love to rebuild this perhaps even in 4mm but that is unlikely to happen. These days such a layout would be unlikely to be built as its operation demands a level of discipline which seems sadly lacking in today's modellers. 

 

Finally may I wish everyone who lurks herein a very happy Christmas and a brilliant 2018. I hope you get everything you wish for. Thank you for the learned and oft amusing posts made on here which makes these dark days more bearable.

 

Regards

 

Martin Long

[sulzer27jd]

Perhaps part of the challenge with what we model, why we model it and how we model it, comes because we approach the question from the wrong direction. I definitely don't want to re-ignite the exchanges over any choice of gauge, but if at the start of a project we are tied to a single perspective, then the choice of subject matter will be limited by that perspective. By that, I mean that a modeller, lets for argument sake make him a P4 modeller, will approach the selection of a project with certain parameters already fixed in their mind. Along with space, time and money, will come a range of experiences that will limit (to some extent) the project selection. Exploring this particular modeller a little further, they have an affinity with the eastern racehorses we are familiar with in this thread. The space for a layout will be a significant factor, but they may well have a suitable location in mind. Time and money, however, are not so easily answered. As a rule of thumb, if you need one pacific on your layout, you are likely to need more than one. This will be more than just a re-wheeling exercise, with chassis building being a necessity and that will eat into the available time for, let's face it, everything else. 

 

If however the subject (to be modelled) is selected before the method, we might see some of our choices a little more easily. If the same modeller wishes to utilise the available space to build a layout for pacific's to race along, then the choice of a scale and gauge that allows this to happen within a realistic time frame, becomes of more pressing importance that hanging onto a nominal badge or title. The choice is whether or not it is more important to be able to stand up and declare "I am a P4 modeller" or to be able to stand up and declare "I model the ECML in 1956." The more experienced I get with my own modelling, the more convinced I am that the subject matter should determine the modelling approach taken.

 

My own view is that we get so hung up on titles and badges, that we miss the opportunity to enjoy ourselves. I am particularly fond of the railways of the north east of Scotland and wanted to build a small Great North of Scotland station. Given the lack of available trade support and the limited amount of stock required, I build that in P4. I enjoyed building it, so being a P4 modeller I started to work on a bigger station. Housed in an attic there is plenty space, but still no trade support to speak of and of limited operational interest. I decided that if the limited operation was to be an issue, I would be better to work in a scale that made the most impact in the space available. I, therefore, started and have substantially completed a project in 0 Gauge. The other side of the attic is likely in the future to be home to a layout on which I can run a selection of LNER Pacifics. The common thing that all of these layouts have had as a deciding factor, was that achievability was high up on my agenda. My personal journey over the last few years (including considerable periods that have been wasted before I realised why I was wasting the time) has led me to the conclusion that all of the badges, titles, snobbery and 'looking down your nosery' have done is hold me back. It will be more important for me, on this next project, to have multiple Pacifics running than to worry about the track gauge, whilst on other layouts, it has been more important to have the track gauge correct than to have intricate operations. Other peoples priorities will, of course, be different, but I am now very much of the opinion that the most productive method (at least for me) is to decide what I am wanting to build and let that dictate the methodology. 

 

John

[Lecorbusier]

 

My own view is that we get so hung up on titles and badges, that we miss the opportunity to enjoy ourselves. I am particularly fond of the railways of the north east of Scotland and wanted to build a small Great North of Scotland station. Given the lack of available trade support and the limited amount of stock required, I build that in P4. I enjoyed building it, so being a P4 modeller I started to work on a bigger station. Housed in an attic there is plenty space, but still no trade support to speak of and of limited operational interest. I decided that if the limited operation was to be an issue, I would be better to work in a scale that made the most impact in the space available. I, therefore, started and have substantially completed a project in 0 Gauge. The other side of the attic is likely in the future to be home to a layout on which I can run a selection of LNER Pacifics. The common thing that all of these layouts have had as a deciding factor, was that achievability was high up on my agenda. My personal journey over the last few years (including considerable periods that have been wasted before I realised why I was wasting the time) has led me to the conclusion that all of the badges, titles, snobbery and 'looking down your nosery' have done is hold me back. It will be more important for me, on this next project, to have multiple Pacifics running than to worry about the track gauge, whilst on other layouts, it has been more important to have the track gauge correct than to have intricate operations. Other peoples priorities will, of course, be different, but I am now very much of the opinion that the most productive method (at least for me) is to decide what I am wanting to build and let that dictate the methodology. 

 

John

I couldn't agree more.

 

As an aside, I find it interesting how many people turn out to have a number of different scale and gauges of layout they are involved with.  I do like it when people make a habit of jumping out of the boxes others try and put them in.

[Tony Wright]

 

 

I must say that my main loft layout is just an advanced train set when compared to the likes of Tony's wonderful layout, I run all my old & new stuff together, along with many old bits of model railwayana (Crescent signals, Hornby Dubblo & Tri-ang buildings etc) - and that's quite simply it for me - running trains, six at once on the main layout. The Wigan GC is just nostalgia from when I was a snotty trainspotter and saw a plume of steam behind the L&Y line out of Wigan, wondered what it was, walked up the canal a bit and "Discovered" the Great Central - albeit in its last days of life.

 

Brit15

But never forget that it's all your own work. That is priceless. 

 

Finally, is that a Trix bracket signal I see? I had one years ago. The centre of the post was (is) clear plastic and shining a light source from underneath the base (I used an old torch) illuminated the spectacles. 

[copleyhill007]

I have read and listened to Tony's argument regarding real life locations and historical accuracy (or near enough) - and I'm a subscriber to that.

I've been building an impression of Copley Hill shed in South Leeds for the past 4 years (with still a long way to go) and had much help from my friend and ex colleague Tony Jones. My friends ask why? It is because it is something I remember from my teeenage years and is indelible in my memory - so I just wanted to physically see it again!! And enjoy running trains (mainly locos of course)!

[Tony Wright]

In some ways I am a little jealous of you Tony.

 

The older I get the broader and more catholic my tastes become .... music,  design,  art .... there is a trend here and this is mirrored the more I study of the model railway scene. I think given your 40+ year history I would have modelled widely different types and eras of layout - both actual and imaginary.

 

I also think that judgement of the work of others can be complex.

 

For example, I have been rather impressed with Sidmouth as a model. I believe it has been called out for poor running. I would make two observations in connection with this ... firstly that I find this does not ruin the model for me as other aspects are particularly fine .... but it does temper overall appreciation. Secondly, I know that the running was something the builder took very seriously with many hours spent perfecting it. I understand that it is now running well and the gremlins have been sorted. It recently ran as an exhibition piece in Sidmouth itself and I understand ran faultlessly. So I would argue that many if not all layouts tend to be ongoing endeavours, continually worked upon and improved over the years ... meaning judgements can and perhaps should change. Because of the appearance of completeness within track or stock, running is all too often called out (and its obvious why this is the case) where other shortcomings are often accepted .... incomplete scenic modelling, unfinished point rodding, unfinished back scene etc etc (I have heard little but praise for Shap). Perhaps the answer is to reserve final judgement until a picture of a layout can be built up over time. 

I'm pleased (I really am) that Sidmouth's running has been sorted out. On the two occasions I saw it earlier this year (at Stevenage and Aylesbury) I would have considered the running intolerable. 

 

I take your point about reserving a final judgement on a layout until a full picture is built up over time, and I certainly don't have a problem with seeing 'work in progress' layouts at shows; with one caveat - they must run. 

 

It seems barmy to me not to sort out all the running bugs in a layout before things like scenery, structures, details, etc are added. I agree, if scenic stuff gets accidentally slopped over trackwork and so forth, then running can (and will) be compromised, and we've all experienced a point being gummed up after ballasting, but to suggest (if I've inferred properly) that sorting out the running is all part of the same gamut as making buildings, adding signals, applying scenery and so forth over a period of time, is 'putting the cart before the horse' in my opinion. 

 

We all look for different things when observing layouts, but for me running (and I mean really good running) is paramount. Obviously, that statement needs qualifying (the best runners at shows are often vintage O Gauge tinplate, Hornby-Dublo or Tri-ang systems), but I see little point in gazing at a beautifully-crafted (prototype) scene when the trains (which are what, to me, railway modelling is all about at source) stutter, fall over, derail or just don't go. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.