Wright writes.....

[jrg1]

Thanks Roy,

 

You are, of course, one of the chaps I mentioned. 

 

Ian saw 67800 in the summer of 1958, when, I believe, it was still a Grantham engine. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

The L1 class were used on the Grantham-Lincoln service in the fifties, so I would not hav ebeen surprised if they were also used to Peterborough.

[jwealleans]

Morning Tony,

 

I'm afraid I have fallen way behind on the thread, but you did ask around here about the springs on D.120 luggage brakes and whether they went behind the axleguards. I have a feeling this was a Stratford feature, but I cant' find any hard evidence for that just at the moment. However I found my own D & S one yesterday and I managed to get the springs in there. Not the best photo but I hope it shows what you need.

 

.

 

I'm afraid it's far too long ago to recall whether I had any problems with them.

 

Noooo! Not another C1!?

I don't believe it's possible to have too many C1s. I've found another unbuilt one as well.

Edited July 11, 2018 by jwealleans

[Enterprisingwestern]

Tony to see Wibble's work search for Hornsey Broadway. By the way it's EM.

 

http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/7989-hornsey-broadway/page-Many thanks,

 

Many thanks,

 

It looks excellent work. 

 

However, I wonder which is more distracting; a 'dodgy' sky or a bed covering?!

 

That's always the problem where very sharp pictures with enormous depth of field are concerned. I'm not boasting about this (that's what professional photographers are supposed to be able to do), but it's much less easy to be critically-observant of a subject when the pictures are a bit 'muddy'. I'm being constructively-critical here............

 

See you at Stevenage?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/

 

Mike.

Thanks Mike,

 

As mentioned above, it does look very good work.

 

Perhaps a bit too much RTR-based for my tastes with regard to the stock (and it looks mainly RTP vehicles), though KESTREL is interesting, but good nevertheless.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[gr.king]

Noooo! Not another C1!?

 

Seven on the roster already, including a 6-wheel drive one(!) We'll have more than the real Grantham did at this rate (16 allocated in 1931)

Somebody keeps talking about coming up with another version of 3279 too......

[Atso]

Somebody keeps talking about coming up with another version of 3279 too......

 

Talking about it, but never actually appearing...

 

Somebody needs to get cracking with that one, Mr King... 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Atso

[Tony Wright]

In response to a request from yesterday, here is the result...............

 

 

As I mentioned, I don't use real skies too much now, and I think this 'works' by just cloning the blue I used on the backscene. 

 

Obviously, loads of work has been done on the layout since the first picture was taken (including the loco having been weathered by Tom Foster). I couldn't quite match the exact angle (and the trains aren't exactly the same) because I'm now using a much more powerful (and much larger) camera, but it's not far off. 

 

 

Here's the original shot again for comparison. I'm inclined to agree with Wibble in that this real sky is less-effective, though no more Toytown than using some out-of-the-box cars, lorries and buses - most of Bytham's road vehicles are built from kits, by the way.. 

 

 

For those who prefer to see images totally-unaltered, here's the 'negative' of the top shot. Obviously, I'm going to express a preference, but after just glancing at the trains my eye is immediately drawn to the windows and curtain rails, the clock, that Deltic picture, the M&GNR control panel and spare stock and the electricity supply unit. Items which visitors take no notice of when running trains (other than those controlling the M&GNR). 

 

 

I quite liked this general view, so took another shot from a slightly different angle. I think it 'works' in the main, again with the sky just cloned upwards. The loco is a modified Bachmann 9F. 

 

Speaking more of modified RTR stuff, in case folk think I'm entirely against its use, if anyone is in the Bachmann Collectors' Club might they care to look at the latest issue of Bachmann Times? In that I show how to 'improve' several Bachmann locos, the results of which are shown below. This sort of work should be within the capabilities of anyone in railway modelling. It's designed to be tackled by both the young and/or inexperienced modeller, using a high-quality product as a starting point. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should I do the same sort of thing using a Bachmann C1? I rather doubt it!

 

Edited because I have no idea how a picture has been attached as a thumbnail...........................

Edited January 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

In response to a request from yesterday, here is the result...............

 

ECJM L1 on Up local.jpg

 

As I mentioned, I don't use real skies too much now, and I think this 'works' by just cloning the blue I used on the backscene. 

 

Obviously, loads of work has been done on the layout since the first picture was taken (including the loco having been weathered by Tom Foster). I couldn't quite match the exact angle (and the trains aren't exactly the same) because I'm now using a much more powerful (and much larger) camera, but it's not far off. 

 

ECJM L1.jpg

 

Here's the original shot again for comparison. I'm inclined to agree with Wibble in that this real sky is less-effective, though no more Toytown than using some out-of-the-box cars, lorries and buses - most of Bytham's road vehicles are built from kits, by the way.. 

 

DSC_6011.JPG

 

For those who prefer to see images totally-unaltered, here's the 'negative' of the top shot. Obviously, I'm going to express a preference, but after just glancing at the trains my eye is immediately drawn to the windows and curtain rails, the clock, that Deltic picture, the M&GNR control panel and spare stock and the electricity supply unit. Items which visitors take no notice of when running trains (other than those controlling the M&GNR). 

 

9F on Up freight.jpg

 

I quite liked this general view, so took another shot from a slightly different angle. I think it 'works' in the main, again with the sky just cloned upwards. The loco is a modified Bachmann 9F. 

 

Speaking more of modified RTR stuff, in case folk think I'm entirely against its use, if anyone is in the Bachmann Collectors' Club might they care to look at the latest issue of Bachmann Times? In that I show how to 'improve' several Bachmann locos, the results of which are shown below. This sort of work should be within the capabilities of anyone in railway modelling. It's designed to be tackled by both the young and/or inexperienced modeller, using a high-quality product as a starting point. 

 

 B Times 18.jpg

 

B Times 23.jpg

 

B Times 29.jpg

 

B Times 30.jpg

 

Should I do the same sort of thing using a Bachmann C1? I rather doubt it!

Tony,

 

Thanks for the comparisons .... for what its worth I much prefer your extension of the back scene to the unaltered negative for the reasons I originally posted - namely that I think it not only looks better but also will be much nearer to the actual experience of running the trains in the flesh so to speak.

 

The main reason I asked for the comparison is because to some extent for me the sky was a total red herring. I think that the extended back scene works better, but I suspect were you to place the original sky on the recent shot it would still look pretty good. I know that the original shot was put up to illustrate the stock that was under discussion, but for me it just emphasised how unfinished the layout was at that point in time ... and I would venture to suggest that most unfinished layouts will not look wholly 'finished' and and so have a certain 'Toy' quality about them. 

 

Like Wibble, I found the original photo a little jarring when compared to what you normally post, but just dismissed it and concentrated on what you were discussing at the time.

 

Tim 

[Enterprisingwestern]

Thanks Mike,

 

As mentioned above, it does look very good work.

 

Perhaps a bit too much RTR-based for my tastes with regard to the stock (and it looks mainly RTP vehicles), though KESTREL is interesting, but good nevertheless.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

You certainly know how to take lids off cans Tony!

 

Mike.

[Clive Mortimore]

Thanks Mike,

 

As mentioned above, it does look very good work.

 

Perhaps a bit too much RTR-based for my tastes with regard to the stock (and it looks mainly RTP vehicles), though KESTREL is interesting, but good nevertheless.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

Kier's modelling is wonderful and quite inspirational. All of the 70s EM modelling gang are very good modellers and nice blokes to know. 

[Wibble]

I keep getting drawn back into this thread, not only is it because it's diverse, but the pictures that Tony has posted are in my opinion second to none, and nothing less than you would expect from a professional photographer. The subject matter has raised a lot of valid points, although personally I can't comment too much on British Railways and its operation pre-1968.

 

Backscenes - I'm not a great lover of them for a couple of reasons. Beer bellies and cans of coke don't bother me, and at an exhibition I'd rather have a conversation with an operator out front, or at least be able to interact across the depth of a layout. My latest trainset is set as a cityscape, with the buildings providing a background.

 

 

Previous layouts have also used buildings to keep the eye within the scene, rather than questionable sky scenes, and the gaps between them are kept to a minimum. This doesn't work as well if you're modelling the countryside, but lots of trees can help if they're executed properly.

 

 

Rolling Stock - An interesting discussion occurred at the weekend with regard to one of my RTR* diesel locomotives hauling a 13 coach train up a 1:80 gradient, and we agreed that you would be lucky to get a RTR Pacific to haul not much more than 4 coaches under the same conditions. If I was modelling pre-1968, then I would also probably go down the route of kit built (whitemetal?) locomotives, purely to increase the pulling power.

 

Just having looked at my storage yard, I would estimate that over 80% of the content is RTR*, mainly because it's available to suit my requirements, and there's not so much of a need to buy kits. Maybe I'm fortunate that because of the era I model, those requirments are well catered for, and to be honest, there's not much in the way of loco kits that look anywhere near as good as ready to run.

 

Now for the important bit, and the reason for the asterisk next to RTR - Nothing on the layout - RTR or kitbuilt is straight out of the box. Everything is customised or modified to represent something different to what the average punter can buy off the shelf.

 

Photography - I take pictures of my trainset, to see things the naked eye doesn't. It's also a good way of recording what I've been up to over the years. I'm in envy of some of the pictures you can find on here, and although my aged camera does tend to muddy the view, I feel the efforts I produce are better than nothing.

 

Real locations - There's nowhere on the railway network that would inspire me to copy it in model form, either because I haven't got the space to do it justice, or because it's been done before. One thing I dislike about real locations is that most of them are not built to scale, or they incorporate features / curves which are not supposed to be there, or at the very least involve compression of the scene. When is a real location not a real location?.... for those reasons stated above methinks.

 

Pretend locations - Now that's what floats my boat, because it involves imagination, and if done properly can be quite convincing. I'm very fortunate to have a few professional railwaymen behind me and my projects, and if it were not for them, I know for sure it would turn a lot more people away from what I'm trying to do. This guy (Mike Lynch) is an inspiration, and well worth some time looking at what he's achieved.

 

 

  - posted this week on 'how realistic.....'

 

 

All the best, Kier

 

 

Edited because I missed off some of the URL

Edited January 5, 2018 by Wibble

[New Haven Neil]

404 error on the link?

[Wibble]

404 error on the link?

Now sorted

[Tony Wright]

I keep getting drawn back into this thread, not only is it because it's diverse, but the pictures that Tony has posted are in my opinion second to none, and nothing less than you would expect from a professional photographer. The subject matter has raised a lot of valid points, although personally I can't comment too much on British Railways and its operation pre-1968.

 

Backscenes - I'm not a great lover of them for a couple of reasons. Beer bellies and cans of coke don't bother me, and at an exhibition I'd rather have a conversation with an operator out front, or at least be able to interact across the depth of a layout. My latest trainset is set as a cityscape, with the buildings providing a background.

 

hornsey_carsales02.jpg

 

Previous layouts have also used buildings to keep the eye within the scene, rather than questionable sky scenes, and the gaps between them are kept to a minimum. This doesn't work as well if you're modelling the countryside, but lots of trees can help if they're executed properly.

 

ex_melksham03.jpg

 

Rolling Stock - An interesting discussion occurred at the weekend with regard to one of my RTR* diesel locomotives hauling a 13 coach train up a 1:80 gradient, and we agreed that you would be lucky to get a RTR Pacific to haul not much more than 4 coaches under the same conditions. If I was modelling pre-1968, then I would also probably go down the route of kit built (whitemetal?) locomotives, purely to increase the pulling power.

 

Just having looked at my storage yard, I would estimate that over 80% of the content is RTR*, mainly because it's available to suit my requirements, and there's not so much of a need to buy kits. Maybe I'm fortunate that because of the era I model, those requirments are well catered for, and to be honest, there's not much in the way of loco kits that look anywhere near as good as kitbuilt.

 

Now for the important bit, and the reason for the asterisk next to RTR - Nothing on the layout - RTR or kitbuilt is straight out of the box. Everything is customised or modified to represent something different to what the average punter can buy off the shelf.

 

Photography - I take pictures of my trainset, to see things the naked eye doesn't. It's also a good way of recording what I've been up to over the years. I'm in envy of some of the pictures you can find on here, and although my aged camera does tend to muddy the view, I feel the efforts I produce are better than nothing.

 

Real locations - There's nowhere on the railway network that would inspire me to copy it in model form, either because I haven't got the space to do it justice, or because it's been done before. One think I dislike about real locations is that most of them are not built to scale, or they incorporate features / curves which are not supposed to be there, or at the very least involve compression of the scene. When is a real location not a real location?.... for those reasons stated above methinks.

 

Pretend locations - Now that's what floats my boat, because it involves imagination, and if done properly can be quite convincing. I'm very fortunate to have a few professional railwaymen behind me and my projects, and if it were not for them, I know for sure it would turn a lot more people away from what I'm trying to do. This guy (Mike Lynch) is an inspiration, and well worth some time looking at what he's achieved.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_12_2017/post-9175-0-52238100-1514644584_thumb.jpeg- posted this week on 'how realistic.....'

 

 

All the best, Kier

 

 

Edited because I missed off some of the URL

Thanks Kier,

 

Here we are again (at least as far as I'm concerned) in correspondence with someone I know well (and respect deeply) yet in ignorance of the fact that I know him. When I said I was in agreement with 'Wibble', it was almost like a phrase from a Bertie Wooster story, not in agreement with a modeller of the highest standards. Standards which I've photographed (not muddily, mind) and seen the most believable rendition of BR in the corporate blue era. 

 

Your right, of course, that very little in the way of kit-built diesel/electric models comes anywhere near the standards which modified/detailed/weathered RTR items do. A mate spent years building an etched brass EE Type 4 (it even looked like the real thing inside), yet, when Bachmann finally got their model of the same thing right, I doubt if there was much difference, if any. Certainly the latter was much faster and no less powerful.

 

Finally, and I understand the 'professional' reasons for anonymity, where it isn't a problem for me (and others) to know a real name, why not use it? I don't think I would have altered my responses (muddy pictures are muddy pictures, whoever takes them), but it would have been nice to know I was in 'conversation' with a 'mate', not someone I didn't know. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Wibble]

Just goes to show..... In my ignorance I thought everyone knew. I'd better update my profile

[Tony Wright]

You certainly know how to take lids off cans Tony!

 

Mike.

And release the worms inside, Mike? 

 

I firmly believe (as I've said many times) that robust discussion and expression of opinions can lead to an improvements in personal modelling. For one, opinions can be altered (as mine are always doing) and though there might still be a level of 'disagreement', a deep respect of others' beliefs and, particularly, work can be the result. 

 

The other day I listed some of my pet hates in modelling. I'd expand that by listing a few more, including............

 

Being in correspondence with someone I know, but I didn't know (if you see what I mean) because of this absurd (in my opinion) use of fake names on the interwebby thing. 

 

Critics, particularly at shows (and occasionally in the media) who blather on about what's wrong with what they're seeing, yet have nothing constructive to say in assistance and have rarely (if ever) done any modelling themselves. If they have, it's usually cr@p - a value judgement on my part there!

 

Those who think that their way is the only way, the chosen path as it were. They tend to look snootily down at 'lesser modellers' (often those who model 'narrow gauge'), yet much of what they produce is quite small and often unreliable. 

 

Those who think that by sharing their knowledge (resources) it'll somehow diminish their 'status' (the opposite is the real truth). 

 

Layouts which purport to be real locations (an extension of what I've said before) but because of 'daft' bends and too much compression just don't 'work', in both the visual and, often, the physical sense. 

 

There are many more..........

 

Regards,

 

Tony, an even-more-than-usual grumpy old git!

[Andrew P]

Just goes to show..... In my ignorance I thought everyone knew. I'd better update my profile

Hi Kier, I've just been watching your Video of Wibbenshaw at the Crawley Club in 2004, excellent Sir. I hoped to see it at Warley a few years ago, but couldn't get anywhere near it. Lucky you came to DEMU a little while later, and being just 5 miles down the road, I was able to spend a good few hours being inspired, so thanks for that. I'm just in the process of Forward dating my Kings Moreton from the 60's to the 80's as 1977 was when I first took an interest in Railways. 

 

Thanks again for the inspiration.

[Anglian]

Many thanks,

 

It looks excellent work. 

 

However, I wonder which is more distracting; a 'dodgy' sky or a bed covering?!

 

That's always the problem where very sharp pictures with enormous depth of field are concerned. I'm not boasting about this (that's what professional photographers are supposed to be able to do), but it's much less easy to be critically-observant of a subject when the pictures are a bit 'muddy'. I'm being constructively-critical here............

 

See you at Stevenage?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

The later images in the thread from post #71 are the best – perhaps coincidentally the ones without a sky or with very little sky.  Some great modelling. 

 

I think extending a plain blue grey sky upwards works very well and certainly in my part of England is typical. I've been thinking a lot about the balance of the railway in a layout and think Little Bytham is a supreme example of this. Too much track is often acknowledged as a problem but equally I think there can be too much landscape as well – perhaps not a commonly held view. For example, although Chiltern Green presented a landscape the railway still dominated, with a four track mainline in the foreground running over the magnificent viaduct. Chee Tor though equally enthralling for many was more about a landscape than a railway, to me at least, even though it depicts one of my favourite historical routes that I should have some sort of built in bias towards.

 

I look forward to meeting at Stevenage.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Anglian

[Jamiel]

Colour tends to be very dependent on a number of factors, and seeing Tony refer to a 'real sky' was very interesting. Working in film and often replacing parts of an image digitally, I am very aware of the factors that can affect the colour, contrast and brightness/luminance of an image.

Even with the same camera and all settings unchanged a passing cloud can change the balance of all the above in an image.

This being the case, a 'real sky' is only part of the issue, and the camera, the settings, the stock, the angle of the sun and all of this relative to the foreground settings for the camera that is taken with affect greatly how a background image, whether physically printed, or digitally superimposed fit together.

With a backscene there are a whole other set of issues with the inks used, the paper it is printed on, how the colour mapping is done between the source image and the printer.

It is really is a can of worms, and the colour of that can is very hard to define.

To give an example of how colour can be altered by a number of factors I posted some images on blue and green diesels models a little while ago to demonstrate how relative colour is to these factors.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123189-what-is-green-or-blue-how-photography-affects-colours/

I feel this explains why Tony's image where he has extended the colour of the backscene/sky boards works better for many people as it takes away all the variables of matching two different images together, and works with a colour that is inerrant to the foreground.

In film, even when we have matched together all the elements for colour, we still often provide a 'grading matte' so that when the film is given its film colour balance (a whole job in itself done by extremely skilled operators) they can tune the parts we have added separately to compensate for any changes they have made.

Jamie

Apologies for my typing, I can only use my left hand at the moment due to an accident.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Jamiel

[APOLLO]

Tony, your modelling is an inspiration to me (and many others), and you certainly can "cut the mustard". Here is some especially for (us) grumpy old gits - I got a set for Christmas !!

 

 

I like Wibbles "Hornsey Broadway" layout due to both it's location and era. The last days of my trainspotting in the 70's, bunking Finsbury Park etc. I've said it before, the ECML was always of more interest to me than my local WCML that I've always lived near to, well, alongside these (boring) days. Perhaps it's the Deltics (which I did see and travel behind) and the Pacifics (which I saw only a couple, and never traveled behind). Probably also why I love Britannias, which I saw a plenty in their last days !!.

 

Though I haven't a cat in hell's chance of achieving the same standards as Tony & Wibble, that's not to say that I don't try to improve. These days I'm mostly a (lone) operator, and operate I do, almost every day for an hour or so. - Get away from the gogglebox etc, up into the loft to run a few 12 coach trains & 30 odd wagon goods trains, or in my garage to run 20 car O gauge freights through the Rocky mountains.

 

It's a wonderful hobby whatever your skill level / gauge / location etc etc is.

 

Brit15 (sorry Tony,  - Lindsey)

[rowanj]

I'm attaching my almost complete model, in OO, of the George Norton/LRM J25. Though not the simplest 0-6-0 I've built, it's still to be recommended to those looking to develop their koy-building/soldering skills. How I did it can be followed om my thread in the Kitbuilding Directory or via the link at my signature

 

I hope you like the realistic backscene....the back of my house. !!

 

John

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by rowanj

[CF MRC]

Colour tends to be very dependent on a number of factors, and seeing Tony refer to a 'real sky' was very interesting. Working in film and often replacing parts of an image digitally, I am very aware of the factors that can affect the colour, contrast and brightness/luminance of an image.

Even with the same camera and all settings unchanged a passing cloud can change the balance of all the above in an image.

This being the case, a 'real sky' is only part of the issue, and the camera, the settings, the stock, the angle of the sun and all of this relative to the foreground settings for the camera that is taken with affect greatly how a background image, whether physically printed, or digitally superimposed fit together.

With a backscene there are a whole other set of issues with the inks used, the paper it is printed on, how the colour mapping is done between the source image and the printer.

It is really is a can of worms, and the colour of that can is very hard to define.

To give an example of how colour can be altered by a number of factors I posted some images on blue and green diesels models a little while ago to demonstrate how relative colour is to these factors.http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123189-what-is-green-or-blue-how-photography-affects-colours/

I feel this explains why Tony's image where he has extended the colour of the backscene/sky boards works better for many people as it takes away all the variables of matching two different images together, and works with a colour that is inerrant to the foreground.

In film, even when we have matched together all the elements for colour, we still often provide a 'grading matte' so that when the film is given its film colour balance (a whole job in itself done by extremely skilled operators) they can tune the parts we have added separately to compensate for any changes they have made.

Jamie

Apologies for my typing, I can only use my left hand at the moment due to an accident.

Not sure if it’s a true response to this post, but on CF we have a proscenium ‘arch’ which carries spot lights to pick out areas on the front half of the layout. What is less apparent is that it is filled with other spot lights that illuminate the sky backscene from in front. These then floodlight, by reflection, the middle and far distance. It gives the sky a luminosity that backscenes generally lack. I would like to say that we planned it that way but, in truth, it was a serendipitous (dumb luck) finding.

 

 

Tim

[westerner]

By the way Tony Kier Hardy's ( Wibble) previous layout was Wibdenshaw. Obviously many of the Locomotives will have started out as rtr as they are diesels but most if not all have been heavily worked on. It's well worth trawling back through the emgauge70s website to how much work is done on the stock.

 

Personally I !Joe your photos with the cloned sky from your backscene, it seems to go well with your muted colours in your photos which as you know I !Joe very much.

Hopefully see you at Stevenage.

 

Edited to get Kier's name right.

Edited January 5, 2018 by westerner

[Tony Wright]

The later images in the thread from post #71 are the best – perhaps coincidentally the ones without a sky or with very little sky.  Some great modelling. 

 

I think extending a plain blue grey sky upwards works very well and certainly in my part of England is typical. I've been thinking a lot about the balance of the railway in a layout and think Little Bytham is a supreme example of this. Too much track is often acknowledged as a problem but equally I think there can be too much landscape as well – perhaps not a commonly held view. For example, although Chiltern Green presented a landscape the railway still dominated, with a four track mainline in the foreground running over the magnificent viaduct. Chee Tor though equally enthralling for many was more about a landscape than a railway, to me at least, even though it depicts one of my favourite historical routes that I should have some sort of built in bias towards.

 

I look forward to meeting at Stevenage.

Many thanks for your comments.

 

I think your point about too much track or too much scenery is very interesting. 

 

Because I come at this from a trainspotter's point of view, I'm not sure which one I 'dislike' or like the more. Certainly, in my train set days of 6' x 4' systems, almost ever space had a siding in it. They were all very unrealistic, but I had great fun out of them. As a trainspotter, places with lots of tracks; Chester, Crewe, Shrewsbury, Liverpool, Manchester, Doncaster, Retford, York, Darlington, Waterloo, Southampton and so on and so on were magnets, as opposed to sitting by a railway in a rural landscape. For instance, I'd occasionally watch locos taking water at Christleton troughs near Chester, which, though it was exciting when it happened, meant lots of boring time between the trains (barges passing over the aqueduct on the Shropshire Union Canal held little interest). So, it was then the usual two-mile cycle ride to Chester itself where there was much more activity. However, if I ever contemplated making models of either site, it would be impossible to model Chester (without a lottery win, a lifetime's extension and a spare aircraft hangar), but Christleton would certainly be possible. 

 

Though I admire layouts where the scenery is more dominant, in reality, were I observing the scene (from afar in places, as with Chee Tor or Pendon), I'd be on my model bike in a flash, pedalling down to be near the railway itself - to be able to read the numbers. 

 

Little Bytham suits me now because there is a reasonable amount of trackwork, but it spreads realistically. I've said before, given 32' x 12' to 'play' with, the train set mentality might take over and several stations could appear, linked by complex junctions, with loco depots sprouting up. Because it's prototype-based, the self-discipline is automatically present to prevent too much track proliferating. Given the obvious anomalies of OO, the various four foots, six foots and ten foots (and more) aren't exactly right, but the prototype track layout has been followed as much as OO allows. Granted, beyond the northern-most point, there's a missing 14 and a half inches between it and the M&GNR girder bridge, but I can live with that compromise. What I couldn't live with is missing too much track off a prototype location because I didn't have the space to model it. That's why Essendine was abandoned as a potential project because, though the two junctions added much in the way of operational interest, all that prototypical trackwork (and the huge radius curves) could not be accommodated in 32' x 12'. In 50' x 20', perhaps, but not in anything less.  

 

I don't know whether I've posted these here in the past, but....................

 

 

This is the 1948 BR trackplan of LB. Ian Wilson added a fiddle yard arrangement, which was not followed in the end.

 

 

Ian then produced a model trackplan. More buildings have been added since this was drawn. 

 

 

 

These show the state of play to date with regard to the layout's construction (apologies for the diverging verticals). Is LB a model railway in a landscape (though not in the same class as Chee Tor, and not even in the same educational establishment as Pendon)? I hope so, but, to me, the railway infrastructure and the trains themselves are by far the most important elements. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Tony Wright