Wright writes.....

[Lecorbusier]

 

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. 

 

 

Couldn't agree more if that is the case. However I do know a number of layouts which ran well in there own home where they were built ... but all sorts of gremlins emerged when on the exhibition trail. Things have to manifest first before they can be corrected. ... something to do with changes in environment and I suspect the rigours involved in transportation. If you are an old hand on the circuit, I am sure that such things can be designed out, but not everyone is an old hand (or if perceived as so then with previous efforts were often part of a team with split responsibilities). Here I think P4 is at a disadvantage because of its increased sensitivity. The disappointment for me would be if such issues were not sorted over time and yet the layout continued to be exhibited.

[Tony Wright]

Couldn't agree more if that is the case. However I do know a number of layouts which ran well in there own home where they were built ... but all sorts of gremlins emerged when on the exhibition trail. Things have to manifest first before they can be corrected. ... something to do with changes in environment and I suspect the rigours involved in transportation. If you are an old hand on the circuit, I am sure that such things can be designed out, but not everyone is an old hand (or if perceived as so then with previous efforts were often part of a team with split responsibilities). Here I think P4 is at a disadvantage because of its increased sensitivity. The disappointment for me would be if such issues were not sorted over time and yet the layout continued to be exhibited.

Tim,

 

Thanks for your response. 

 

I suppose I'm looking at this issue of reliable (exhibition) running, having been a member of a group at WMRC which built several, very-reliable and very-popular exhibition layouts. There were certain things we insisted upon to ensure reliable running. These included....

 

1. All the boards built of the same material - high grade 9mm birch ply, using mortice and tenon joints. There was thus no distortion as different materials reacted to different conditions in different ways.

 

2. All boards joined by substantial steel end plates, fixed together using 10mm bolts into welded-on-to-the-plates 10mm nuts, passing through 11mm holes (for final adjustment). When we first erected Stoke Summit's boards (in my garden between Christmas and New Year in 1996), such was the strength of this system that one board could support its immediate partner without any leg being attached to the latter.

 

3. All track ends at baseboard joints were very securely soldered to substantial brass 'plugs' let into the ply and Araldited in place. For transportation, every board had a neighbour of exactly the same size, bolted together as a box with ply end boards protecting track ends. We could stand on all of these boxes. 

 

4. All the trackwork was very carefully-made and laid, wired up with just two guys doing the soldering (me and and another member of the team) and thoroughly tested before any scenic work was applied. Every piece of rail had its own feed - fishplates were only mechanical joiners, not electrical. 

 

5. When happy with the running, scenic work commenced, taking the greatest care not to contaminate the trackwork/electrics. 

 

6. Prior to every show, a thorough run-through in the clubroom was conducted, even if shows were only a few weeks apart. Any new item of locos or stock had to 'pass an examination' at this stage. The last place to run something new is at a show with loads of spectators, unless it's passed with flying colours.

 

7. If anything failed, it was taken off immediately, irrespective of who made it. Unless it could be fixed immediately (out of the public's sight), then it was repaired at home and not allowed back unless it had passed its test again. 

 

8. Apart from at the end of the days at shows, no untrained operators were allowed to participate in running the layout. 

 

All these essentials applied to Charwelton and were also applied (as appropriate) to Little Bytham. 

 

I think the most difficult shows are those which take place in the winter (though Quorn this summer was Saharan!). Few clubrooms are centrally-heated, yet the venues the layouts were attending usually were (and even air-conditioned). Thus, we would make sure layouts were working fine on the Friday evening and then recheck again on the Saturday morning. Remember, these were big layouts with loads of stock, so discipline was (still is) essential. Granted, I'm speaking of OO systems, which are more forgiving. 

 

As I say, good running is paramount to me. Today, good friend Tom Foster popped over (at the drop of a hat) and he's taken some more footage of Little Bytham as a prelude for making a longer DVD next year. This includes starting and stopping and reversing whole trains. He'll post the footage in the next few days on here. I hope the shots show what I insist upon. 

[APOLLO]

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. 

 

Thanks and yes Tony, it is a Trix signal, I have a few of them. The original light in the base gave a weak (but probably realistic) light via the clear plastic insert in the metal signal posts. This was easily removed, the signal back being a thin metal plate, and very small clear bulbs fitted easily behind the spectacle. Run at 6 volts they are quite nice.

 

 

This was from an earlier layout based on Chesterfield in the spare room before birth of our twin girls booted me up into the loft back in 2001 !!

 

Brit15

[gr.king]

The disappointment for me would be if such issues were not sorted over time and yet the layout continued to be exhibited.

Particularly disappointing if, as an invited operator, one is trying to remain friends with the layout owner who has himself been a "known" good modeller over the years, and yet instead of sorting out recurrent trouble with the layout he puts his efforts into extending it using the same dubious techniques and materials that have bred the original faults then into further compounding trouble by grafting an attempt at DCC control onto remaining parts of the original wiring.

Edited December 19, 2017 by gr.king

[Northmoor]

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. 

 

I have always had an interest in classic cars, having been brought up with a Morris Minor convertible, but find the whole movement (magazines particularly) disheartening at the moment when so much focus is "buy an XYZ and watch prices rise" and how much money people have already made on paper from owning one.  I suspect the costs you've described are rarely factored into the calculation.

 

In any case, surely you should buy a classic car because you love it and maybe apart from the purchase price, should expect to lose every penny you spend on it.  If you make anything it's a bonus.  The next economic downturn will see a repeat of the 1980s boom when any amount of scrap got re-built and sold at a profit to "investors", many of whom got their fingers burned and then went off to inflate the price of another class of assets. 

[Clive Mortimore]

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.  

Hello Tony

 

Sometimes sorting out the running and any problems before the scenery is applied can have its downfall. Well it wasn't my fault I enjoyed running the layout with half finished trains and no scenery, it seemed real enough for me.

I would pop out to the manshed with good intentions of doing some scenic work. One little run won't do any harm, next thing I knew it was well past bed time. With a layout running nicely who needs scenery to have fun. 

[Lecorbusier]

  The next economic downturn will see a repeat of the 1980s boom 

Yikes    when was the upturn ?

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Thanks and yes Tony, it is a Trix signal, I have a few of them. The original light in the base gave a weak (but probably realistic) light via the clear plastic insert in the metal signal posts. This was easily removed, the signal back being a thin metal plate, and very small clear bulbs fitted easily behind the spectacle. Run at 6 volts they are quite nice.

 

DSCF0022.JPG

 

This was from an earlier layout based on Chesterfield in the spare room before birth of our twin girls booted me up into the loft back in 2001 !!

 

Brit15

 

One of the most atmospheric model railway shots I've seen for awhile.

 

Good stuff Apollo!

[Andy Hayter]

Lecorbusier

Last upturn?

 

June14th  2016 between 09:00 and 14:00

Edited December 19, 2017 by Andy Hayter

[St Enodoc]

8. Apart from at the end of the days at shows, no untrained operators were allowed to participate in running the layout.  

I'll take that as a compliment Tony (Stoke Summit, Brighton Centre, 1998 I think)!

[Lecorbusier]

Lecorbusier

Last upturn?

 

June14th  2016 between 09:00 and 14:00

I have run my own business for the last twenty years ... and from my perspective there hasn't been a noticeable upturn for the last 10.

[Mallard60022]

I'll take that as a compliment Tony (Stoke Summit, Brighton Centre, 1998 I think)!

I think that was where I saw SS (and TW) for the first time; small world St.

Phil

[Northmoor]

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. 

 

This repeats the best advice I ever read: decide WHAT you want to build first, then decide how you can represent it second.  If you've got space for nothing bigger than a branch terminus, but are not very interested in branch lines, you will be disappointed with your creation. Let space, money etc. dictate HOW you build what you want, not WHAT you want.

[Tony Teague]

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? 

 

Gosh Tony, the questions you pose really make one think - and perhaps that is what I didn't do enough of when I started out on the road to building what has become my own "project of a lifetime"!

 

If I look back, then the journey to what I have now is really quite complex and not at all thought out in the way that you have developed LB over a long period. This means that things have evolved and not all of the decisions I have made were good - some based on ignorance and others on simple lack of experience, for example, I went with 30" radius curves (probably the decision I most regret) which has caused me no end of problems later. I chose OO ( the decision that worries me least) because I really didn't know what either P4 or EM was, and I had neither the time nor the inclination to build my own track; I re-laid my main fiddle yard three times because I had not planned it properly and then saw how much better LB looked than what I had created, and so on.

 

Conversely, I made a conscious decision not to model a prototype, because once I reached the point where I had the time and space to start building my layout I had amassed such a collection of Southern Railway locomotives that there was no real location at which they might all have appeared! Nevertheless, I want the viewer to see immediately that it is Southern, for the train formations to be prototypical and for signalling & operations to be both realistic & reliable - but as has been observed before, this is actually more difficult in an imaginary scenario than for a real place.

 

I also chose to include the possibility of "watching the trains go by", as well as shunting the yard, and equally being loco shedmaster - so yes, I may have tried to get a bit too much into the available space - and yes, it is complex! I like running the trains and reliability is paramount, but I also enjoy photographing the layout, which I find is cruel, but drives improvement.

 

During the 15 or so years that the layout has been in development my knowledge has increased vastly, my skills developed a bit - with help from people like yourself - and the availability of my time has grown immensely, such that the standard of modelling has gone up, whilst the pace has also quickened; I now make much more and buy-in much less, but since I don't want to rip things up and start again, I do have to live with the consequences of some of my early / questionable decisions.

 

So, returning to your questions - I feel that I have answered all of them and yet answered none of them!  My experience has been one of chaotic development, yet I suspect that many modellers follow a similar path, and probably fewer have thought things out so well as to have such a clear goal as to produce an LB.

 

Tony

(Sorry if I have rambled!)

[Tony Wright]

I'll take that as a compliment Tony (Stoke Summit, Brighton Centre, 1998 I think)!

Ah John,

 

I'd seen how you'd driven Whitchurch. 

[Tony Wright]

 

 

Gosh Tony, the questions you pose really make one think - and perhaps that is what I didn't do enough of when I started out on the road to building what has become my own "project of a lifetime"!

 

If I look back, then the journey to what I have now is really quite complex and not at all thought out in the way that you have developed LB over a long period. This means that things have evolved and not all of the decisions I have made were good - some based on ignorance and others on simple lack of experience, for example, I went with 30" radius curves (probably the decision I most regret) which has caused me no end of problems later. I chose OO ( the decision that worries me least) because I really didn't know what either P4 or EM was, and I had neither the time nor the inclination to build my own track; I re-laid my main fiddle yard three times because I had not planned it properly and then saw how much better LB looked than what I had created, and so on.

 

Conversely, I made a conscious decision not to model a prototype, because once I reached the point where I had the time and space to start building my layout I had amassed such a collection of Southern Railway locomotives that there was no real location at which they might all have appeared! Nevertheless, I want the viewer to see immediately that it is Southern, for the train formations to be prototypical and for signalling & operations to be both realistic & reliable - but as has been observed before, this is actually more difficult in an imaginary scenario than for a real place.

 

I also chose to include the possibility of "watching the trains go by", as well as shunting the yard, and equally being loco shedmaster - so yes, I may have tried to get a bit too much into the available space - and yes, it is complex! I like running the trains and reliability is paramount, but I also enjoy photographing the layout, which I find is cruel, but drives improvement.

 

During the 15 or so years that the layout has been in development my knowledge has increased vastly, my skills developed a bit - with help from people like yourself - and the availability of my time has grown immensely, such that the standard of modelling has gone up, whilst the pace has also quickened; I now make much more and buy-in much less, but since I don't want to rip things up and start again, I do have to live with the consequences of some of my early / questionable decisions.

 

So, returning to your questions - I feel that I have answered all of them and yet answered none of them!  My experience has been one of chaotic development, yet I suspect that many modellers follow a similar path, and probably fewer have thought things out so well as to have such a clear goal as to produce an LB.

 

Tony

(Sorry if I have rambled!)

Thanks Tony,

 

You haven't rambled at all, and you have answered my questions. 

 

I'm not entirely sure that my goal was as clear as you suggest. Though LB is clearly an ECML depiction, the original idea was to build a model of Essendine, with its two junctions and more-complex layout. However, the selective compression would have been far too great (in 32' x 12'), resulting in far too tight visible curves at both ends. Though it would clearly have been recognisable as Essendine (the two tall bridges north of the station -which still exist - were measured up and plans drawn), the curves would have ruined any chance of realism. As it is, Bytham is just short of scale-length in model form (nearly 15"). 

 

I think as well, I've benefited from always being part of a team when it comes to having built model railways (apart from some youthful duds). When that team consisted of (now all retired) a civil engineer, two electric/electronics experts, a manager at an engineering company, a carpentry lecturer, a model railway manufacturer and an art/craft teacher (me), then there's a fair bit of practical know-how to call upon. Add on to that team (for LB) a professional signalman, two professional painters, a designer (ex of Prototype Models) two professional railwaymen and two most-accomplished builders, plus a host of gifts for the layout from talented friends, it would take a bit of a dunce (me) to get it all wrong.  

 

I know you've had help with what you've created (far less than I've had, though), but it is your idea, very, very much of what you've created is your own work and it's beginning to run really well. As I've said many times, those who work alone are far more noble in this hobby than those who are lucky enough to work in skilled groups. 

 

The one thing I would say (in my defence?) is that I couldn't be involved in any model railway project unless I could provide a substantial amount of practical input. Just as you're involved with yours. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Wibble]

Gosh Tony, the questions you pose really make one think - and perhaps that is what I didn't do enough of when I started out on the road to building what has become my own "project of a lifetime"!

 

If I look back, then the journey to what I have now is really quite complex and not at all thought out in the way that you have developed LB over a long period. This means that things have evolved and not all of the decisions I have made were good - some based on ignorance and others on simple lack of experience, for example, I went with 30" radius curves (probably the decision I most regret) which has caused me no end of problems later. I chose OO ( the decision that worries me least) because I really didn't know what either P4 or EM was, and I had neither the time nor the inclination to build my own track; I re-laid my main fiddle yard three times because I had not planned it properly and then saw how much better LB looked than what I had created, and so on.

 

Conversely, I made a conscious decision not to model a prototype, because once I reached the point where I had the time and space to start building my layout I had amassed such a collection of Southern Railway locomotives that there was no real location at which they might all have appeared! Nevertheless, I want the viewer to see immediately that it is Southern, for the train formations to be prototypical and for signalling & operations to be both realistic & reliable - but as has been observed before, this is actually more difficult in an imaginary scenario than for a real place.

 

I also chose to include the possibility of "watching the trains go by", as well as shunting the yard, and equally being loco shedmaster - so yes, I may have tried to get a bit too much into the available space - and yes, it is complex! I like running the trains and reliability is paramount, but I also enjoy photographing the layout, which I find is cruel, but drives improvement.

 

During the 15 or so years that the layout has been in development my knowledge has increased vastly, my skills developed a bit - with help from people like yourself - and the availability of my time has grown immensely, such that the standard of modelling has gone up, whilst the pace has also quickened; I now make much more and buy-in much less, but since I don't want to rip things up and start again, I do have to live with the consequences of some of my early / questionable decisions.

 

So, returning to your questions - I feel that I have answered all of them and yet answered none of them!  My experience has been one of chaotic development, yet I suspect that many modellers follow a similar path, and probably fewer have thought things out so well as to have such a clear goal as to produce an LB.

 

Tony

(Sorry if I have rambled!)

Truly realistic rambling  - big thumbs up there! 

[thegreenhowards]

 

 

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.

 

 

Hi Apollo,

 

An impressive set up you've got there. Any chance of a close up picture of the gasworks/ Belle Isle tunnel section?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[EHertsGER]

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

Posted from the jokes section - how could I resist?

 

“Paint Job

 

A beautiful blonde teenager, wanting to earn some extra money for the summer, decided to hire herself out as a 'handy-woman' and started canvassing a nearby well-to-do neighbourhood.

 

She went to the front door of the first house, and asked the owner if he had any odd jobs for her to do.

 

'Well, I guess I could use somebody to paint my porch,' he said, 'How much will you charge me?'

 

Delighted, the girl quickly responded, 'How about £50?'

 

The man agreed and told her that the paint brushes and everything she would need was in the garage.

 

The man's wife, hearing the conversation, said to her husband, 'Does she realise that our porch goes ALL the way around the house? That's a bit cynical, isn't it?'

 

The man replied, 'You're right. I guess I'm starting to believe all those dumb blonde jokes we've been getting by e-mail lately.'

 

Later that day, the blonde came to the door to collect her money.

 

'You're finished already?' the startled husband asked.

 

'Yes', the blonde replied, 'and I even had paint left over, so I gave it two coats.'

 

Impressed, the man reached into his pocket for the £50.00 and handed it to her along with a ten-pound tip.

 

'And by the way,' the blonde added, 'it's not a Porsche, it's a Lexus.’”

Edited December 20, 2017 by EHertsGER

[St Enodoc]

Ah John,

 

I'd seen how you'd driven Whitchurch. 

Thanks Tony. They were good days. Incidentally, David B (and Sue) visited us recently while they were on holiday in Australia. We had a very enjoyable play on my layout.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I have run my own business for the last twenty years ... and from my perspective there hasn't been a noticeable upturn for the last 10.

It depends on what you hear/see/read.

 

On the one hand homelessness now at all time high, critical level, etc. Food banks on the increase. Increasing obesity through eating cheap, high sugar and high fat, food and resultant poor diet.

 

On the other, forecast people will spend £900M on Christmas presents for their pets. At least, I think that's what the BBC news presenter said, I can't really believe it.

 

Clearly some people aren't suffering from an ongoing recession.

[Lecorbusier]

It depends on what you hear/see/read.

 

On the one hand homelessness now at all time high, critical level, etc. Food banks on the increase. Increasing obesity through eating cheap, high sugar and high fat, food and resultant poor diet.

 

On the other, forecast people will spend £900M on Christmas presents for their pets. At least, I think that's what the BBC news presenter said, I can't really believe it.

 

Clearly some people aren't suffering from an ongoing recession.

Not wishing to stray at all into politics, my view tends to be based upon personal experience and what I see. From that perspective I can see that there have been the occasional flurries caused by a blip in consumer spending as debt levels reduce slightly, and I can see that finance has recovered quite nicely, but manufacturing and construction has flatlined pretty continuously. Investment is dreadful, wages are depressed and being based in central London the rise in homelessness and food bank use is alarming. The number of seriously low paid no prospects no security jobs is eye watering. The cost of property is ridiculous, rents are ridiculous and as an observation from an architects standpoint, what is built in terms of accommodation is all about investment properties rather than places to live. I often take a walk along the south bank and its noticeable how many of the new developments have no lights on ... they are 75% sold but not occupied. The values of properties in my area are based upon interest rates not mortgages .... so if the maximum rent will give a 4% - 6% return on capital, it is a good bet as the capital is index linked (until the inevitable crash). This means the rent is between 1/3 and 1/2 what would be required to service a mortgage on the property .... yet the rent is as high as the market can stand. Thus you have lawyers and accountants renting because they can't afford to buy .... where that leaves the less well off is anyones guess! I suspect that the spike in christmas spending will be followed by a severe trough like last year, and I hazard a guess that the pet spending relates to groups that are not so materially affected by current conditions (home owners and the well off). In Oxford where I currently work a fair bit, you have a situation where the turn over in key staff (nurses/teachers - even doctors) has reached critical levels due to rental prices with people having to commute vast distances .... the University being Collegiate is lucky as the Colleges are major property owners and can provide housing for their staff (which is positively feudal).

 

No, in my world I have not observed any upturn .... indeed I have friends who are doctors and they often discuss the rise of TB and Rickets in London, and the increase in the numbers using breakfast clubs at my kids schools has been noticeable.

 

edit ... London Population 8.75Million (18% of England population) London Average salary - £34,000 per annum (includes all the super rich) = £2,200 net per month. London Average house/flat  price = £484,000 (monthly mortgage repayment with 10% deposit = £2048).  London average rental price = £1564 per month. Because of the size/density of population it should be remembered more poor people live in London per square mile than anywhere else in the country.

 

Not talking about politics .... not suggesting any solutions or placing any blame apart from on the financial crash. Just saying that in my world there has been no upturn. None of my staff .... who are all qualified professionals ... are even considering buying a house - they laugh if it is mentioned -  and there ages range from 26 to 40.

 

Thank the lord for railway modelling and other rewarding pastimes!

Edited December 20, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[westerner]

Re detail and layouts of a lifetime I thought this blog although American has some thought provoking ideas and is worth a read.

http://centralvermontrailway.blogspot.co.uk/

Edited December 20, 2017 by westerner

[sulzer27jd]

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.  

 

 

 

Regarding the choice of modelling a real location or otherwise, I wonder if the influence of age (of both modeller and viewer) is relevant. The reason I ask this is that when Tony posts images of his layout, I can tell instantly what he is trying to portray, but I do not know if it is a real location or otherwise. I have obviously been told that it is, but that is not what I mean! The reason being is that I do not recall this location. The earliest I would even have passed it would have been as a very young child, whilst being pulled by a blue Deltic. BR blue and not "that" one! The reason I know that it looks like the ECML is from books and primarily by the stock that is running on it. Now, this may be a reflection of my lack of knowledge on the exact location, but in my defence, it is very far from my own personal knowledge base. I, therefore, cannot tell if this model is, or is not, an accurate representation of this particular station. I can tell its good, I can tell it is well modelled, I can tell that I like it. It certainly appears to be a realistic representation, but if there was a siding removed or some selective compression, I certainly would be in no position to comment. For those outside the age criteria to remember a location, perhaps the question should be turned around to ask, If a location for a layout is real place, how do you know whether or not it is accurate?

 

When I exhibited my Claterinbrigg layout at the Aberdeen show, I had a very interesting conversation with a couple, who were recalling getting on the train at that very station. Now, of course, I was extremely pleased to receive this complement as to how accurately I had modelled the station, which was in fact, an entirely fictitious location. Granted, these were non-railway people, but simply a couple who were familiar with the geographical location. For this to happen, I had to select an obscure fictitious place, on an obscure fictitious branch in an obscure part of Scotland. It wouldn't work if you tried to pass off a more recognisable location.

 

A good example for us in Scotland (unfortunately there are not many to choose from) is Alloa. This is a model of an actual location, again long gone, so out with the memory of many. Is it realistic? Actually, I don't know, but it appears to be. Perhaps this is the key, the ability to appear to be realistic. Other than through reference to books, I have no real idea what Alloa looked like, but it seems to pass my 'could be' realistic test. It has been widely acknowledged as an accurate model of the station, so they must have stuck pretty close to the original. They run accurate stock on accurate services, I don't know if it's 100% accurate, but it does the job well.

 

In terms of selective compression, I feel this is the modellers Achilles heel. Railways took up far more space than we appreciate it, especially in what would be baseboard width. This, for me, is the main reason 7mm layouts (especially at exhibitions) don't have the same feel of realism as 4mm. When I have been searching for a location to base my layouts, I found that for the routes that would allow the motive power I wanted, the stations, even the smaller ones, were still prohibitively wide. My modelling space is long but narrow and this more than anything has influenced my choices. In order to compress a station into the available width, I would lose the sense of place that I was seeking. I have therefore had to search through maps for a suitable location and as none exists, I am left with the challenge of trying to make a fictitious location appear to be plausible. 

 

Looking back over Tony's questions my view is that a realistic layout doesn't have to be an actual location. I find the opposite is also true as there are a number of layouts that purport to be an actual location but miss the target for various reasons. That said, I believe that the closer we can mimic the prototype and the more disciplined we are in representing it, the easier it is to produce something that can be convincing. 

 

John

[Tony Wright]

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

As always, thanks Martin.

 

I'm not sure how much attention the 'grass' needs on the embankment, but I have perked it up a little since your last visit. It had faded over time. 

 

 

Obviously, the real thing in 2015, and in the autumn. 

 

 

Since my model represents August 1958 (high summer), I think this colouring is more appropriate. 

 

 

With this being limestone country, any moisture will very quickly drain away, so the embankments (particularly in hot weather) would be a lighter colour than the adjacent flat land. 

 

 

A similar shot to the one above, but this time with the train (which is more important to me) nearer. In this one, I've fiddled with the colours in the photo programme, which shows that the camera can 'lie' a little. 

 

Comments have been made that my painted backscene is too bright. However, the horizon on the real thing is only a quarter of a mile from the railway (it's in a shallow valley), so there's no aerial or atmospheric perspective. 

 

What else needs doing to the grass? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited December 20, 2017 by Tony Wright