Wright writes.....

[Andrew P]

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.

I fought tooth and Nail to no avail with our Clubs Layout, but the old Guard, Triang / Hornby Dublo RTR Boys said they couldn't run fast enough on track with a bend in it???????? I was out numbered by about 11 to 1 and this is the result, AWFUL. I did try to improve it with the Cutting though.

[Chamby]

I fought tooth and Nail to no avail with our Clubs Layout, but the old Guard, Triang / Hornby Dublo RTR Boys said they couldn't run fast enough on track with a bend in it???????? I was out numbered by about 11 to 1 and this is the result, AWFUL. I did try to improve it with the Cutting though.

Club fields etc 007.JPG

Long straight sections of track are prototypical, of course. It depends on the location being modelled. I assume from the state of the decor behind the cottage that this is still under construction?

 

The appearance would, IMHO, benefit from more cosmetic attention. Getting the cess right, rather than just having the ballast butt up to flock. The presence of other railway furnishings would help a lot... maybe signals, a signal cabin, plate layers hut, and if modern image, line side cabinets and cable trunking... even a gang of workmen leaning on their pick axes whilst the trains go past.

 

The other thing about straight track is that to look good it must be dead straight and very carefully laid. No kinks or wobbles, these look awful - especially if you can see along the length of it.

 

Phil

[Andrew P]

Long straight sections of track are prototypical, of course. It depends on the location being modelled. I assume from the state of the decor behind the cottage that this is still under construction?

 

The appearance would, IMHO, benefit from more cosmetic attention. Getting the cess right, rather than just having the ballast butt up to flock. The presence of other railway furnishings would help a lot... maybe signals, a signal cabin, plate layers hut, and if modern image, line side cabinets and cable trunking... even a gang of workmen leaning on their pick axes whilst the trains go past.

 

The other thing about straight track is that to look good it must be dead straight and very carefully laid. No kinks or wobbles, these look awful - especially if you can see along the length of it.

 

Phil

Yes, here's a later shot, but it's still very much work in progress. And the telegraph poles REALLY DO LOOK THAT BAD.  

 

And looking over Steve Flints shoulder.

 

The other side of the Layouts not quite so bad, I got my own way. It's actually 2 separate Layouts, built on a island so you can walk right around and see different stock and settings. Still all work in progress though, the Viaduct needs finishing etc.

 

[Lecorbusier]

Talking of modelling a real location .... this perhaps takes it to whole new level   

 

[Tony Wright]

I fought tooth and Nail to no avail with our Clubs Layout, but the old Guard, Triang / Hornby Dublo RTR Boys said they couldn't run fast enough on track with a bend in it???????? I was out numbered by about 11 to 1 and this is the result, AWFUL. I did try to improve it with the Cutting though.

Club fields etc 007.JPG

Do any of your club members read this thread, Andy? 

 

I think the general scenic work on the layout in your picture has potential, but there doesn't seem to have been any real observation of how prototype track is laid. As Phil, above, has said, there should be a cess alongside the ballast (though some current railway lines have Mother Nature all over them). Was the 6' not measured properly? The separation between the tracks looks more like ex-broad gauge to me. Is it based on a prototype? 

 

It makes me wonder what the spread of 'standards' is now in the hobby. As wide as it ever was? To me it's a bit of a paradox where we now have out-of-the-box items (in all scales) which were undreamed of less than a generation ago, yet (some) layouts are being built where no observation of the prototype seems to have taken place at all. The picture you show of a model is by no means the worse example I've seen of late, both in the press and at shows. 

 

However, who am I (we) to judge? In answer to my question, I'll be a judge next weekend, and at Glasgow (and others in the year). If a layout is seen at a show (where the punters, as a percentage of their entrance fee) have paid to see it, then should it not be of a high-standard (though who sets the standard?)? Does your club layout run well? if it does, then that's a mitigating factor. Some beautiful-looking layouts I've observed, built to a very high visual standard, run really badly. Which is better (or worse?) - a 'dodgy-looking' layout which runs well, or a beautiful-looking layout which doesn't? Ideally, the better of both examples. 

 

For the person making his/her own layout at home, which never gets published and is never seen at shows, then nobody has the right to judge what they do or dictate to them what standards they should aspire to. I'll venture to state, that's probably the majority of layouts built. However, if their work is published (via whatever media) or seen at shows, then I think there is a much greater responsibility to 'get things right'.

 

Food for thought? 

[glo41f]

What is it with Clubs?

 

"I fought tooth and Nail to no avail with our Clubs Layout, but the old Guard, Triang / Hornby Dublo RTR Boys said they couldn't run fast enough on track with a bend in it???????? I was out numbered by about 11 to 1 and this is the result, AWFUL." .

 

I too have found this in my limited time with local  model railway clubs. On considering a new project or layout we always had to be mindful of members who had models dating back to the Ark with huge flanges and suspect back to back wheels. We thus had to use awful track rather than something more modern and state of the art. I used to suggest that we had a test track for these chaps which was often done but they still persisted in running their outdated stuff on the "new" set up. I now only belong to one club mostly for the social aspects and the old guard are still a major presence there.

 

At one time a club I was involved with bit the bullet and hand built track and points which for the time looked very good. It all was ruined when a member insisted on running his old stuff with steamroller wheels which effectively wrecked the flangeways. This is why I have very little to do with clubs subsequently as they generally lack the vision amongst the members to "push the envelope" or try to improve. I would have loved to belong to a group striving to do just that but alas it never happened and is unlikely to now.

 

Had an interesting look around one of the better model shops yesterday on a visit  and was rather taken aback by the prices of the RTR items. 

 

Martin Long

[Tony Wright]

Yes, here's a later shot, but it's still very much work in progress. And the telegraph poles REALLY DO LOOK THAT BAD.  

RM Photo Shoot 053.JPG

 

And looking over Steve Flints shoulder.

RM Photo Shoot 057.JPG

 

The other side of the Layouts not quite so bad, I got my own way. It's actually 2 separate Layouts, built on a island so you can walk right around and see different stock and settings. Still all work in progress though, the Viaduct needs finishing etc.

RM Photo Shoot 069.JPG

 

RM Photo Shoot 075.JPG

Thanks again, Andy.

 

Regarding telegraph poles................ Though I've never physically measured the 'average' distance between them, when I laid out and made the ones for Stoke Summit, working from prototype pictures the distance between each one was over three BR Mk.1s in length. Because there was (highly) selective compression overall, I fixed them at two and a half Mk.1 carriage lengths. The ones on your layout look much closer together. 

[gr.king]

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?

 

 

This is splendid work, Andy.

 

Thanks for posting - it looks entirely convincing. 

 

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

......

 

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.  

 

In the ideal world I wouldn't want the semi-ellipse at all, I would want a longer scenic section altogether, with the main line straight at one end and following only a gentle curve at the other. For that matter, in the ideal world I would model a more important location too, but I'm hemmed in by various considerations: I want it to be portable - capable of going into the most modest vehicle I can get away with and easy to erect, operate and knock down single handed if I absolutely must, yet I want freedom to run larger locomotives and reasonable (albeit compressed) train lengths without those looking ridiculous for the small size of the layout. I want a continuous run available, almost certainly double track, with adequate number of loops in the fiddle yard. I probably want the central elements of the scenic section to also serve as a plug-in branch line station on my loft layout.

I seem to be stuck with a "what if" scheme based on a single track branch that might have been developed somewhat more in the 1890s to fend off proposals for a competing line, and given the restricted total size of the scheme I'm obliged to incorporate the necessary approach curves to the rear fiddle yard into the scenic section so as to get enough length of scenic run to make long trains look acceptably "in proportion".

[Clive Mortimore]

In the flesh Andy's club layout doesn't look too bad.

[Tony Wright]

Talking of modelling a real location .... this perhaps takes it to whole new level   

 

Biggest Little Railway.jpg

I spoke to someone at Glasgow about this and it was followed up with a phone call from (I assume) someone from the production team (a most pleasant young lady) who asked me some questions. Though I made her giggle, I don't think I was even considered to be part of a team when I told her my age (in answer to her question) and said (in the highly-unlikely event I'd be 'selected') that I would only participate if I were put up in a decent hotel with porcelain lavatories! 

 

Was it ever made? Did they succeed? 

[Chamby]

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.

 

OK Barry, I have to come clean.  This is my home layout, currently in its very early stages of development.  Definitely breaking your baseboard edge and straight line rules!

 

 

Two foot wide baseboards, eight lines (including loops) and two island platforms... with very little scenic space.  With the limited space I have available, after much deliberation I decided what the hell and went for it.  Much of my railway experience has been on platforms at mainline stations, and I wanted to recreate that feeling where the outside world is... the outside world.  So operation became the priority, but with modelling skills undertaken to a high standard within the station confines.  

 

The boundaries of the layout will be defined by brick arches on the facings of the baseboards and their parapet will provide edging to the baseboard tops.  The inspiration for this is Leicester Central, the track plan and station itself draw much from that location, within the constraints of the space I have.

 

I felt it better to compromise as little of the station area as possible at this stage.  In this case, running parallel to the board edges maximises this.  It is my hope that in time, I will have a larger, dedicated room to work with and then will be able to develop the street scenes at a lower level around the current boards.  In the meantime, building the station environment itself to the standards that I aspire to, will be modelling challenge enough for now!

 

Phil

[Tony Wright]

What is it with Clubs?

 

"I fought tooth and Nail to no avail with our Clubs Layout, but the old Guard, Triang / Hornby Dublo RTR Boys said they couldn't run fast enough on track with a bend in it???????? I was out numbered by about 11 to 1 and this is the result, AWFUL." .

 

I too have found this in my limited time with local  model railway clubs. On considering a new project or layout we always had to be mindful of members who had models dating back to the Ark with huge flanges and suspect back to back wheels. We thus had to use awful track rather than something more modern and state of the art. I used to suggest that we had a test track for these chaps which was often done but they still persisted in running their outdated stuff on the "new" set up. I now only belong to one club mostly for the social aspects and the old guard are still a major presence there.

 

At one time a club I was involved with bit the bullet and hand built track and points which for the time looked very good. It all was ruined when a member insisted on running his old stuff with steamroller wheels which effectively wrecked the flangeways. This is why I have very little to do with clubs subsequently as they generally lack the vision amongst the members to "push the envelope" or try to improve. I would have loved to belong to a group striving to do just that but alas it never happened and is unlikely to now.

 

Had an interesting look around one of the better model shops yesterday on a visit  and was rather taken aback by the prices of the RTR items. 

 

Martin Long

Martin,

 

I've always been very lucky in the model railway club I've been a member of the longest (Wolverhampton) has (almost always in 4mm/OO) built prototype-based layouts, with hand-made track on the scenic sections to 'finescale' standards. This automatically precluded Tri-ang, Trix, (some Hornby-Dublo two rail) and even some (much older) Romford wheels. Anyone wishing to run stock on the layouts (Moretonhamstead, Stoke Summit and Charwelton) had to have it 'shod' to 'finescale standards'. Later RTR from Bachmann and Hornby (after adjustment to the b-t-bs) could be run as well. There is a test track at the club (Code 100 with no points) which anything in OO can be run on, but that's it. 

 

All of this resulted in 'casualties'. I've never been involved in a fight at a model railway club, but came very close when some clot attempted to adjust the trackwork because his stock wouldn't run through it. He resigned in protest! 

 

Apart from Norman Solomon, Ian Wilson and Bob Dawson, all the rest of the (substantial amount of) work on Little Bytham has been done by WMRC members. I think they have a good 'track record'. 

[Lecorbusier]

I spoke to someone at Glasgow about this and it was followed up with a phone call from (I assume) someone from the production team (a most pleasant young lady) who asked me some questions. Though I made her giggle, I don't think I was even considered to be part of a team when I told her my age (in answer to her question) and said (in the highly-unlikely event I'd be 'selected') that I would only participate if I were put up in a decent hotel with porcelain lavatories! 

 

Was it ever made? Did they succeed? 

I presume so as the programme airs on channel 4 tomorrow. Might take a look.

 

Channel 4Sun 07 Jan, 8pmEpisode 1

[Andrew P]

Do any of your club members read this thread, Andy? 

 

I think the general scenic work on the layout in your picture has potential, but there doesn't seem to have been any real observation of how prototype track is laid. As Phil, above, has said, there should be a cess alongside the ballast (though some current railway lines have Mother Nature all over them). Was the 6' not measured properly? The separation between the tracks looks more like ex-broad gauge to me. Is it based on a prototype? 

 

It makes me wonder what the spread of 'standards' is now in the hobby. As wide as it ever was? To me it's a bit of a paradox where we now have out-of-the-box items (in all scales) which were undreamed of less than a generation ago, yet (some) layouts are being built where no observation of the prototype seems to have taken place at all. The picture you show of a model is by no means the worse example I've seen of late, both in the press and at shows. 

 

However, who am I (we) to judge? In answer to my question, I'll be a judge next weekend, and at Glasgow (and others in the year). If a layout is seen at a show (where the punters, as a percentage of their entrance fee) have paid to see it, then should it not be of a high-standard (though who sets the standard?)? Does your club layout run well? if it does, then that's a mitigating factor. Some beautiful-looking layouts I've observed, built to a very high visual standard, run really badly. Which is better (or worse?) - a 'dodgy-looking' layout which runs well, or a beautiful-looking layout which doesn't? Ideally, the better of both examples. 

 

For the person making his/her own layout at home, which never gets published and is never seen at shows, then nobody has the right to judge what they do or dictate to them what standards they should aspire to. I'll venture to state, that's probably the majority of layouts built. However, if their work is published (via whatever media) or seen at shows, then I think there is a much greater responsibility to 'get things right'.

 

Food for thought? 

Only ONE is on R M Web, but doesn't come on here I don't think, but if he did, he knows how I feel about the Layout, and that's Peter BB, looking over the Viaduct.

 

There is only about 3 that visit Shows,   only a couple take any Modelling Mags, and the rest like to play Trains.      

 

Nuff said.

[Andrew P]

After my last visit to LB I was desperate to increase the capacity of the Fiddle Yard. I had 4 main lines each way and 2 By Directional Lines, I've now also added 7 Dead end Lines as well, NOT BRILLIANT, but it helps with capacity.

 

I wish I had more LENGTH and WIDTH, but don't we all.        

[Lecorbusier]

In my short time on this  thread, I have noticed that alongside modelling the topic of spelling and punctuation occasionally rears its head.

 

 .... in the spirit of open discussion I thought that this might interest/amuse ..... shown to me by my 14 year old daughter at dinner tonight. Perhaps people have seen it and it is old news, but it amused me and raised a wry smile.

 

[gr.king]

OK Barry, I have to come clean.  This is my home layout, currently in its very early stages of development.  Definitely breaking your baseboard edge and straight line rules!

 

IMG_1908.JPG

 

Phil

 

Looking at that, with the entire width of the baseboard covered by track (not in some situations a good recipe for realism but certainly okay I think if done the right way) and combining that idea with the "problem" of having to turn tracks round towards a rear fiddle yard at both ends of the scenic front of a layout, I'm tempted to suggest that the eye and the mind can perhaps be steered away from the unlikely and perhaps daft scenario of a railway that apparently "pops into view only to head back in the direction from which it came" if the baseboards are all kept to little more than the necessary width of the formation of the railway and any desirable lineside features, with board edges shaped in sympathy with the general flow of the track. The boards will possibly be a little trickier to build, but the railway will not so obviously appear to take an illogical course through a series of rectangular chunks of countryside. There will be no straight reference lines to emphasize the puzzling curvature of the line.  

 

Although they are not as I suggest above, the late Peter Denny's baseboards are rather well filled with track in places, and the railway turns corners to fit within a room, but it is not generally seen as an unrealistic layout.

[Headstock]

OK Barry, I have to come clean.  This is my home layout, currently in its very early stages of development.  Definitely breaking your baseboard edge and straight line rules!

 

IMG_1908.JPG

 

Two foot wide baseboards, eight lines (including loops) and two island platforms... with very little scenic space.  With the limited space I have available, after much deliberation I decided what the hell and went for it.  Much of my railway experience has been on platforms at mainline stations, and I wanted to recreate that feeling where the outside world is... the outside world.  So operation became the priority, but with modelling skills undertaken to a high standard within the station confines.  

 

The boundaries of the layout will be defined by brick arches on the facings of the baseboards and their parapet will provide edging to the baseboard tops.  The inspiration for this is Leicester Central, the track plan and station itself draw much from that location, within the constraints of the space I have.

 

I felt it better to compromise as little of the station area as possible at this stage.  In this case, running parallel to the board edges maximises this.  It is my hope that in time, I will have a larger, dedicated room to work with and then will be able to develop the street scenes at a lower level around the current boards.  In the meantime, building the station environment itself to the standards that I aspire to, will be modelling challenge enough for now!

 

Phil

 

Leicester Central, interesting project and by the look of it time period as well, but wHere are the bay platforms?

Edited January 7, 2018 by Headstock

[St Enodoc]

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?

My edition, published by Guild Publishing in 1981, has the extra 'n'.

[St Enodoc]

Only ONE is on R M Web, but doesn't come on here I don't think, but if he did, he knows how I feel about the Layout, and that's Peter BB, looking over the Viaduct.

 

There is only about 3 that visit Shows,   only a couple take any Modelling Mags, and the rest like to play Trains.      

 

Nuff said.

That's a bit harsh regarding the 0 gauge team isn't it? I rather like Wychnor (in both its old and current incarnations).

[The Fatadder]

Hi Tony

 

Hopefully this will be the last question I will need to ask before I have my first 4-6-0 chassis running properly.

 

Today I added the pickups to the model and ran it under power on my new test track for the first time. It runs ok in one direction, but in the other direction the motor rotated on its gearbox before stalling (I believe because the gearbox hits an obstruction)

When the body is fitted this is even worse as it causes the rear drive shaft to foul against the back head casting (as well as the gearbox issue)

 

I assume I need to fix the motor into position, but what is the generally accepted method for achieving this?

 

 

Thanks

 

Rich

[Andrew P]

That's a bit harsh regarding the 0 gauge team isn't it? I rather like Wychnor (in both its old and current incarnations).

Still true regarding Shows and Mags, apart from the dedicated O Gauge Shows, or Layout invites for Burdale Colliery and the American O Gauge Layout, (over the last year) and GOG Mag.

 

Wychnor is a good O GAUGE layout, in fact very good.

 

And NO O Gauge members on R M Web! 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Andrew P

[Michael Edge]

I have a reputation in the Leeds club for building layouts with more track than baseboard but sometimes the answer is to find the right prototype.

In the foreground is the dock wall, the backscene is the cliff that runs all along the railway here, in between there is nothing but track. The same applies to the rest of the layout although a lot of the track has been left out with the compression to fit the space. Other than this, I've never built a layout with a backscene.

Thanks as well for the photo Tony (Southampton 2016).

[Chuffer Davies]

Hi Tony

 

Hopefully this will be the last question I will need to ask before I have my first 4-6-0 chassis running properly.

 

Today I added the pickups to the model and ran it under power on my new test track for the first time. It runs ok in one direction, but in the other direction the motor rotated on its gearbox before stalling (I believe because the gearbox hits an obstruction)

When the body is fitted this is even worse as it causes the rear drive shaft to foul against the back head casting (as well as the gearbox issue)

 

I assume I need to fix the motor into position, but what is the generally accepted method for achieving this?

 

 

Thanks

 

Rich

 

Hi Rich,

 

I imagine there are many ways to secure the motor but my approach is to put some kind of cradle under the motor and to attach the motor down on the cradle using Bluetac so that it can find its own position in relation to the gearbox so as not to introduce any new forces into the drive train.  This picture is a close up of an underframe built from a Perseverance kit which illustrates this method. 

 

I hope this will help you to sort it.

 

Frank

(Hungerford - EM)

[rowanj]

Hi Tony

 

Hopefully this will be the last question I will need to ask before I have my first 4-6-0 chassis running properly.

 

Today I added the pickups to the model and ran it under power on my new test track for the first time. It runs ok in one direction, but in the other direction the motor rotated on its gearbox before stalling (I believe because the gearbox hits an obstruction)

When the body is fitted this is even worse as it causes the rear drive shaft to foul against the back head casting (as well as the gearbox issue)

 

I assume I need to fix the motor into position, but what is the generally accepted method for achieving this?

 

 

Thanks

 

Rich

 

I can't quite see from the photo, but is that a High Level 3-stage gearbox? If so, you need to glue or solder the final part, where the driving axle goes, to the main body of the gearbox, once you have the motor in the correct position in the body. This will prevent the action you describe. 

 

If it's not High Level, forget I said anything.

 

John