Wright writes.....

[great central]

Certainly 67800 was certainly a regular on the Grantham-Nottingham-Derby trains in the early 60s, as indeed were many other L1s which I 'spotted' as a young lad in the region of Trent Lane Junction signalbox.  For no particular reason except sheer familiarity 67767 was our favourite.  The "Cement Mixer" nickname was unknown to us (so was calling B1s "Bongos" as is often suggested; they were - if anything - "Springboks" or just "B1s" round our way), and I certainly have no recollection of them being exceptionally noisy, though at the comparatively low speed on this stretch a degree of 'clonking' was common to most ex-LNER types.  Colwick shed accumulated quite a collection, but most of them were culled en masse at the end of 1962 ahead of the radical reduction of GN/GC local services through Nottingham Victoria.

 

A handsome engine with a not entirely deserved reputation that I never expected to see produced R-T-R, so I was delighted when Hornby produced their model and bought two, which I intend to renumber in due course, and these two mentioned above are the likely candidates.

 

Hi Willie, I hope Tony doesn't mind a minor hi-jack of his thread but talking Trent Lane Junction, I presume you're aware of our club layout of the area? I think I may have mentioned it to you before, memory not what it was (according to my wife it was never any good just getting worse ).

Some pictures here;

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/74756-nottingham-model-railway-society/

 

Progress isn't anywhere near as fast as we would like but you'd be welcome to come and have a look and chat over a cuppa on any clubnight.

[TrevorP1]

 

 

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. 

 

Little Bytham is very much a railway in the landscape. More than that you have also convincingly conveyed the linear aspect of most railway locations.

[Lecorbusier]

Little Bytham is very much a railway in the landscape. More than that you have also convincingly conveyed the linear aspect of most railway locations.

Perhaps it is a railway 'running through' a landscape rather than one 'set in' a landscape. The vale scene or perhaps Clutton might be set within? At little Bytham we are for the most part close to the tracks with the landscape in the background? and the tracks certainly dominate ... Semantics I know - sorry!

Edited January 5, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[queensquare]

I'm a fan of high backscenes, particularly in 2mm where any 'visual noise' simply detracts from what are very small models - preferably I don't want to see the top of the sky. In addition, on Tucking Mill, I opted for a fairly high horizon line. The prototype is set in a deep, wooded valley and I wanted to depict this. The picture below shows the station as I envisaged it, typical Colonel Stephens with not a lot going on!

 

 

 

Just to add to another of the topics, Tucking Mill is firmly and faithfully based on a prototype location even though not only was there never a station there but the railway, the North Somerset Light, never existed.

 

Jerry

[CF MRC]

Little Bytham is very much a railway in the landscape. More than that you have also convincingly conveyed the linear aspect of most railway locations.

The railway portrayed in Copenhagen Fields is “in an area of outstanding unnatural beauty”.

 

Tim

[Tony Wright]

Perhaps it is a railway 'running through' a landscape rather than one 'set in' a landscape. The vale scene or perhaps Clutton might be set within? At little Bytham we are for the most part close to the tracks with the landscape in the background? and the tracks certainly dominate ... Semantics I know - sorry!

Tim,

 

I love semantics. 

 

In Pevner's great work on the architecture of Lincolnshire, he mentions two things about Little Bytham. One, the church and, two, the GNR railway viaduct which just strides across the village. In respect of the latter, the main line literally runs through the little valley of the Glen Rivers, bisecting the village with the precision of a surgeon.  

 

I think one thing which ultimately appealed with regard to the group building LB (other than the fast - very fast - trains) was the fact that the landscape rises and falls on both sides of the section of railway modelled, necessitating the 'building' of an embankment at the north end and a cutting at the south end, the station site itself being level with the topography. This dictated the style of the baseboard construction (more challenging) and also (ultimately) made my choices for photography much greater. 

 

One joy (shared by many, I'm pleased to say) is just to watch from either side as a big engine surges past on its Brobdignagian train, at one point above an eye line, but further south, below. A big engine running 'through' a landscape, at some speed; through, level with and above............ 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

Tim,

 

I love semantics. 

 

In Pevner's great work on the architecture of Lincolnshire, he mentions two things about Little Bytham. One, the church and, two, the GNR railway viaduct which just strides across the village. In respect of the latter, the main line literally runs through the little valley of the Glen Rivers, bisecting the village with the precision of a surgeon.  

 

I think one thing which ultimately appealed with regard to the group building LB (other than the fast - very fast - trains) was the fact that the landscape rises and falls on both sides of the section of railway modelled, necessitating the 'building' of an embankment at the north end and a cutting at the south end, the station site itself being level with the topography. This dictated the style of the baseboard construction (more challenging) and also (ultimately) made my choices for photography much greater. 

 

One joy (shared by many, I'm pleased to say) is just to watch from either side as a big engine surges past on its Brobdignagian train, at one point above an eye line, but further south, below. A big engine running 'through' a landscape, at some speed; through, level with and above............ 

Brobdignagian  ....... What a splendid word!

 

For what its worth, I think that given your interests and proclivities the location with its embankments has been inspired. It is certainly a layout for the viewer to concentrate on and revel in mainline speed and/or size as it cuts 'through' the landscape  ... I suspect I would rather like the never ending goods trains, whiling away the time counting the wagons whilst waiting upon the next Flyer!

 

As I have said before .... you lot were lucky devils to have seen them in real life!

 

I do still like exquisite shunting planks as well though ... even some make believe ones 

 

Arun Quay at Warminster - Photo Phil Parker

Edited January 6, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Manxcat]

You may have seen the banner on the Rmweb home page that shows the voting for the British Model Railway Awards is now open. I for one have now voted for LB as the Layout of the Year and for Tony as the RM Web Modeller of the Year.

 

If you vote for them as well maybe we could all bring both awards Tony's way. Go on. You know it makes sense!

[St Enodoc]

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!

Tony -

 

Anonymity is an interesting one. I use a pseudonym mainly for security reasons - there are not many people in the whole of Australia with my surname and as this is a publicly-accessible site I wouldn't like to make it too easy for any ne'er-do-wells to work out exactly where I (and my layout) live. However, I don't have an obsession with secrecy and I don't mind if those who know me (like your goodself) use my given name on RMweb. However, those who don't know me don't need to know, if you get my drift, and conversely I try hard not to betray the confidence of others. There's probably a group in between who have worked out from various clues along the way who I am, which again I don't mind as if they are involved enough in railways and/or railway modelling to do that then so be it.

 

On real or imaginary locations, as I have said before I like the "based on" or "inspired by " approach, but taking up your point how much variation is too much to stick with a prototype name? I don't want you or other readers/layout builders to take this the wrong way, as I like to exaggerate to make a point, but is it a couple of feet compression on length (Little Bytham)? Curves where they shouldn't be or which bend the wrong way (Stoke Summit, Grantham)? Whole areas of track omitted (Peterborough North)? Actually, I don't have a problem with any of these as for me they capture totally the essentials of the places concerned.

Edited January 6, 2018 by St Enodoc

[The Fatadder]

The issue of compression on a real location is an interesting one.   In my mind I think the key thing when you look at the layout (with no trains present) you are able to instantly recognise the location, while the track plan should be as close as possible to the real thing.  

 

For my layout I have flipped a couple of times between calling it Brent or a fictional location which is remarkably similar to Brent. 

I have had to compress the distance between the two bridges ​ie the core area of the layout​, by about 18inches. I also had to tighten the radius of the track and to curve the points on the approach from Plymouth, which has caused a knock on effect curving the ends of the sidings and pushing the Vicarage Road bridge slightly further away from the station.  At the other end of the layout the Station Approach bridge is in the right place, while the approach from Exeter is a complete work of fiction (with a left hand curve mirrored to get it round to the right (and the fiddleyard) and also had to have a goods loop removed due to a lack of space.  The below photo of an earlier iteration of my track plan (overlaid over 1890s OS map) quite clearly shows where the compromises were made. 

 

My logic was that these areas are basically the return curves to the fiddleyard so their accuracy is not quite so important as the main thing.  All of the structures are intended to be accurate representations of the prototype, while a lot of time has been spent researching working timetables / coach working diagrams etc in order to get the operation right.

Hopefully when it is finished it will be instantly recognisable as Brent. 

[Tony Wright]

You may have seen the banner on the Rmweb home page that shows the voting for the British Model Railway Awards is now open. I for one have now voted for LB as the Layout of the Year and for Tony as the RM Web Modeller of the Year.

 

If you vote for them as well maybe we could all bring both awards Tony's way. Go on. You know it makes sense!

That's very kind of you,

 

However, if (and I know nothing about it) the award(s) appear(s) to be singular, then that wouldn't be right. Most of my modelling (as you know) has been conducted as part of a team,

 

Little Bytham as a layout would just not exist without the work of a highly-skilled team and most of the (big) locomotives I've built have been painted by Ian Rathbone or Geoff Haynes. 

 

I heartily dislike the notion of taking credit, and certainly the (potential) winning of awards and gaining votes by 'climbing on the backs of others'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited January 6, 2018 by Tony Wright

[chris p bacon]

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. 

 

 

Modelling 'Sandy' as I do, I had to think long and hard about this.   The route is on a gentle curve at this point, but to get the operational interest that I wanted South Box and the entrance to the yard has to be on the curved end boards. The radius is approx 9' for the GN down to 6' for the inner Ox-Cam lines. At the North end there is 'Station rd bridge' which acts as a scenic break, but I decided to continue the scenic area around onto the curved boards to 'Cambridge Rd Bridge. This has turned out as a scenic area on its own which I'm quite happy with.

 

Maybe not to everyones taste, but I figured out that if I wasn't building this, then I probably wouldn't have built anything.

[Tony Wright]

Tony -

 

Anonymity is an interesting one. I use a pseudonym mainly for security reasons - there are not many people in the whole of Australia with my surname and as this is a publicly-accessible site I wouldn't like to make it too easy for any ne'er-do-wells to work out exactly where I (and my layout) live. However, I don't have an obsession with secrecy and I don't mind if those who know me (like your goodself) use my given name on RMweb. However, those who don't know me don't need to know, if you get my drift, and conversely I try hard not to betray the confidence of others. There's probably a group in between who have worked out from various clues along the way who I am, which again I don't mind as if they are involved enough in railways and/or railway modelling to do that then so be it.

 

On real or imaginary locations, as I have said before I like the "based on" or "inspired by " approach, but taking up your point how much variation is too much to stick with a prototype name? I don't want you or other readers/layout builders to take this the wrong way, as I like to exaggerate to make a point, but is it a couple of feet compression on length (Little Bytham)? Curves where they shouldn't be or which bend the wrong way (Stoke Summit, Grantham)? Whole areas of track omitted (Peterborough North)? Actually, I don't have a problem with any of these as for me they capture totally the essentials of the places concerned.

As always, many thanks, John.

 

I respect a person's anonymity, for obvious security reasons. On many occasions I've photographed layouts where I'm sworn to secrecy as to where they are and also to whom they belong. 

 

I suppose, in my own case, since for over 25 years I earned my living from model railways - building, photographing, writing - it was in my interests to become 'known'. 

 

I don't have a problem with selective compression either, provided it's not too much. I live (easily) with LB being 14 and a half inches short, but if that got into several feet, I'm not sure. You mention Stoke, which was ridiculously short overall - it would have needed over 90' to do it to scale. I never did like the bend at the south end, either. In fact, I heartily dislike 90 degree bends going on/off scene (caused by too much selective compression - that's why Essendine was abandoned as a project). I like it even less when those bends are so tight that they compromise running or result in front steps, cylinder drain cocks and so on having to be omitted from locos. Stoke's right angle bend (though still ridiculously tight) was generous enough for things not needing to be omitted. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Modelling 'Sandy' as I do, I had to think long and hard about this.   The route is on a gentle curve at this point, but to get the operational interest that I wanted South Box and the entrance to the yard has to be on the curved end boards. The radius is approx 9' for the GN down to 6' for the inner Ox-Cam lines. At the North end there is 'Station rd bridge' which acts as a scenic break, but I decided to continue the scenic area around onto the curved boards to 'Cambridge Rd Bridge. This has turned out as a scenic area on its own which I'm quite happy with.

 

Maybe not to everyones taste, but I figured out that if I wasn't building this, then I probably wouldn't have built anything.

Dave,

 

I'd love to see Sandy when it's finished. It sounds most exciting. 

 

I don't think 9' radius comes into my 'heartily dislike' category (or even 6') when it comes to going on/off scene. They might still be 'ridiculously-sharp' in comparison with the prototype's radius, but they can still be visually-satisfying (Grantham's curve at the north end is too tight for the prototype, but it still 'works' because it's generous by many model railway standards). What was Sandy's through the station? Several miles in reality I'd think. When I photographed Deltics there, there was no speed restriction it seemed. 

 

Where I'm more 'critical' is where the visible curve going off scene is three feet or less. Perhaps I'm looking at this with a photographer's eye, but such tight curves never look realistic. 

 

The above said, if it's the only way that the builder can create his/her layout of choice, then sharp end curves it has to be. However, as I've mentioned already, if they compromise the running then that's more serious. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

Surely a good layout is one that has that magic railway atmosphere. I have seen some layouts at shows, which have only been average in their modelling standards, but the operation and enthusiasm of those manning it have made my experience of viewing  enjoyable. Other layouts even with high standards of modelling even down to the rivets on the over bridge being induvidul10 x10 x10 thou cubes of plastic card cemented on have been booooorrrrrring.

 

There is one layout that everyone tells me is absolutely fantastic, real location and well modelled. Every time I have seen it I was disappointed by the total lack of operation, mind you last time it was quite funny, a train came round with the loco pushing the brake van. The joke wore off after the fourth or fifth time as no operator had noticed it.  

 

I too have some pet hates. Well modelled branch line terminus, especially real locations, that would see five passenger trains and one freight train a day ending up with so many locos on them, why not model a depot. Keeping with the branch line theme, modern image branch stations with full goods yard, including cattle dock, loco hauled two coach trains and not a DMU in sight.

[gr.king]

Dave,

 

 

I don't think 9' radius comes into my 'heartily dislike' category (or even 6') when it comes to going on/off scene. They might still be 'ridiculously-sharp' in comparison with the prototype's radius, but they can still be visually-satisfying (Grantham's curve at the north end is too tight for the prototype, but it still 'works' because it's generous by many model railway standards). What was Sandy's through the station? Several miles in reality I'd think. When I photographed Deltics there, there was no speed restriction it seemed. 

 

Where I'm more 'critical' is where the visible curve going off scene is three feet or less. Perhaps I'm looking at this with a photographer's eye, but such tight curves never look realistic. 

 

Tony. 

 

I'm playing around with ideas at present for a layout whose scenic side main line would probably have something approaching the shape of a half ellipse, with maybe 9 foot radius "stage centre" and possibly as tight as 3 foot radius at the very ends, but with gradual transition. A mixture of shallow cuttings, embankments, station yard, short village-station platforms and a road bridge over the line by the station should all help to break up the geometric regularity. How do we think that might turn out in terms of visual acceptability?

[Porcy Mane]

Brobdignagian  ....... What a splendid word!

 

 

Ah!, but would Gulliver have agreed with the spelling?  

 

P

[gr.king]

Would he have dared to disagree?

[Andrew P]

I would have dearly loved to have modelled a Prototype location this time. I have tried in the past as Clive M will testify, with Bitton, it had Hand Built Points and a Prototype Plan, but I felt the restrictions of the Prototype to restrictive,  PLUS l was constantly being told that this was wrong, or that was wrong and I felt it just wasn't for me.

 

I really admire anyone who can model a prototype, even a compressed one like LB, Grantham, or Stoke Summit, etc.

 

My current Layout, Kings Moreton now gives me what I love to see, Long Goods Trains, on a gentle curve, I have almost no strait track, I do however have 3 x 90 degree corners, which I don't like, but have to live with in my 17.5ft x 8.5ft Shed. The main Scenic side has a nice flowing curve and comes out from the Station that helps to disguise one corner, (or will do once finished). 

 

Here's a couple of pics from Bitton. 

 

 

And Now Kings Moreton.

I feel I've achieved what I wanted with Bitton, but without many restrictions, a Layout in the Landscape. Not the quality of LB and others, but I like the overall effect of long Trains in the Landscape.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Ah!, but would Gulliver have agreed with the spelling?  

 

P

I've seen it written in two ways............

 

At primary school, when I first read it, it was an old volume which had the land of giants written as Brobdingnag (with an extra 'n'). Years later, when I read it to my first year pupils (in a newer volume), the extra 'n' was missing. I assume the former is right; that being the case, I should have used it. 

 

My apologies............., though did Gulliver ever see how Swift had written it?

Edited January 6, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Barry Ten]

With a layout room measuring 11 x 12 feet, I'd struggle to model even the smallest prototype station beyond a simple halt.

 

My initial plan was to capture the essence of Shillingstone, but even that required a great deal of compression. This had nothing

to do with the Bachmann RTP buildings, which were announced later, but because my Dad was from Shillingstone and I think the

only photograph he ever took of a train on the S&D was from that station.

 

My plan for a layout required a nod-under entrance into the room, so I evolved the idea of building three linked scenic modules

which could represent distinct seasons:

 

 

Eventually my plans for the station shifted to an even looser interpretation of Shillingstone, throwing a bit of Sturminster Newton

into the mix:

 

 

Fatally, though, once I'd laid the platforms, I made the mistake of setting an old GWR station building onto the layout to see how

it looked in the scene:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_08_2012/blogentry-6720-0-78154300-1344182698.jpg

 

This then led to the idea of delaying the S&D-based layout for a year or two, and instead using my existing store of GWR

structures and fittings instead, modelling a fictitious cross country station somewhere in the West Country.

 

Five years or more later, and that's where it still is.

 

The station building was built from the Paul Karau plans of Abbotsbury when I was 16, although it's had a fair bit of

refurbishment over the ensuing 36 years,and is on its third (and still incorrect) attempt at the chimneys:

 

 

 

 

The old idea of modelling an S&D station still holds, though, as all the railway infrastructure on the layout is

designed to be easily removable and swapped, including the platforms. I just haven't got around to making the

second set of fixtures, being too easily satisfied with just modelling the GWR.

 

As for the compromises necessary to squeeze even a most layout like this into a bedroom, the curves are

uncomfortably tight at 30", and although that's mostly confined to off-stage trackwork, it does mean that kitbuilt

locos need a lot of tweaking to get them running satisfactorily, especially where things like front steps and cylinders

are concerned. Even that simple 61XX Prairie is pushing the limits of what will go around the track without 

complaint, and it's required hours of adjustment to get it running reliably.

 

Al

 

[Tony Wright]

I would have dearly loved to have modelled a Prototype location this time. I have tried in the past as Clive M will testify, with Bitton, it had Hand Built Points and a Prototype Plan, but I felt the restrictions of the Prototype to restrictive,  PLUS l was constantly being told that this was wrong, or that was wrong and I felt it just wasn't for me.

 

I really admire anyone who can model a prototype, even a compressed one like LB, Grantham, or Stoke Summit, etc.

 

My current Layout, Kings Moreton now gives me what I love to see, Long Goods Trains, on a gentle curve, I have almost no strait track, I do however have 3 x 90 degree corners, which I don't like, but have to live with in my 17.5ft x 8.5ft Shed. The main Scenic side has a nice flowing curve and comes out from the Station that helps to disguise one corner, (or will do once finished). 

 

Here's a couple of pics from Bitton. 

Big Bertha Laid 012.JPG

 

New Yard idea 007.JPG

 

And Now Kings Moreton.

I feel I've achieved what I wanted with Bitton, but without many restrictions, a Layout in the Landscape. Not the quality of LB and others, but I like the overall effect of long Trains in the Landscape.

Running Session with Jeff and John 002.JPG

 

Running Session with Jeff and John 006.JPG

 

Ballasting 2 004.JPG

This is splendid work, Andy.

 

Thanks for posting - it looks entirely convincing. 

 

Sweeping curves are always impressive (if done well, as you have). 

 

I think what disappoints me about some layouts (in fact, quite a few) is where the scenic section will display a section of dead straight track, then there's a right-angle bend at the ends (with no transition), often diving straight into a tunnel (without appearing too prejudiced, it seems to me that this is something apparent on a few N Gauge layouts, though it's certainly not exclusive). This always brings me back to observation of the prototype. By that, I don't mean always be modelling an actual location (clearly, as has been cited on here, that's not for everyone), but just look how real railways laid out their track formations. One (OO) layout I saw recently, which is prototype-based, has the station section dead straight (which is just about how it should be), but any illusion of reality was ruined by very tight 90 degree, highly visible, bends at both ends, laid to get back to the fiddle yard. Personally, I would have cut off the sight of the curves with overbridges (even though they might not have been in the actual places on the prototype, but modelled on examples on the line), making the visible bend less tight, then decreasing the radius out of sight. We did that on Stoke Summit. 

 

Graeme King has suggested an excellent variation on this idea as well. 

 

I might also add, that not only was I disappointed by the tight end curves on the layout mentioned, but the operators were running locos above the RA rating for the line (most of it RTR). I know it's very easy (especially for the likes of me) to appear too judgemental, but I find it very frustrating to see some good (and accurate) modelling lost in a system which doesn't make sense.  

[Porcy Mane]

I've seen it written in two ways............

 

 though did Gulliver ever see how Swift had written it?

In the bigger scheme of things, one of life's brobdingnagian questions?

 

P

[Barry Ten]

Club layouts seem to be prone to the "lay everything dead straight and parallel to the baseboard edges" syndrome. I can understand why some prototypes require straight trackwork, but even then, why not lay it at a slight angle to the frontage? It immediately looks more spacious and naturalistic in my view.

[Tony Wright]

With a layout room measuring 11 x 12 feet, I'd struggle to model even the smallest prototype station beyond a simple halt.

 

My initial plan was to capture the essence of Shillingstone, but even that required a great deal of compression. This had nothing

to do with the Bachmann RTP buildings, which were announced later, but because my Dad was from Shillingstone and I think the

only photograph he ever took of a train on the S&D was from that station.

 

My plan for a layout required a nod-under entrance into the room, so I evolved the idea of building three linked scenic modules

which could represent distinct seasons:

 

shillingstone_plan.jpg

 

Eventually my plans for the station shifted to an even looser interpretation of Shillingstone, throwing a bit of Sturminster Newton

into the mix:

 

blogentry-6720-0-33799100-1342041072.jpg

 

Fatally, though, once I'd laid the platforms, I made the mistake of setting an old GWR station building onto the layout to see how

it looked in the scene:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_08_2012/blogentry-6720-0-78154300-1344182698.jpg

 

This then led to the idea of delaying the S&D-based layout for a year or two, and instead using my existing store of GWR

structures and fittings instead, modelling a fictitious cross country station somewhere in the West Country.

 

Five years or more later, and that's where it still is.

 

The station building was built from the Paul Karau plans of Abbotsbury when I was 16, although it's had a fair bit of

refurbishment over the ensuing 36 years,and is on its third (and still incorrect) attempt at the chimneys:

 

 

 

 

The old idea of modelling an S&D station still holds, though, as all the railway infrastructure on the layout is

designed to be easily removable and swapped, including the platforms. I just haven't got around to making the

second set of fixtures, being too easily satisfied with just modelling the GWR.

 

As for the compromises necessary to squeeze even a most layout like this into a bedroom, the curves are

uncomfortably tight at 30", and although that's mostly confined to off-stage trackwork, it does mean that kitbuilt

locos need a lot of tweaking to get them running satisfactorily, especially where things like front steps and cylinders

are concerned. Even that simple 61XX Prairie is pushing the limits of what will go around the track without 

complaint, and it's required hours of adjustment to get it running reliably.

 

Al

Al,

 

I think you've just shown all of us how to model a most-convincing railway scene in a 'tight' environment. This is splendid work. 

 

If it's any consolation, I've had to fiddle with some of the locos I've built (for hours) to get them around 3' radius curves. One thing I do employ (or have in the past) is to lay a deliberately dodgy piece of test track, with three-penny bit curves, 'iffy' pointwork and certainly not level. Any loco able to negotiate this, then had no trouble running on the layout(s).