Wright writes.....

[Chuffer Davies]

18 minutes ago, Curlew said:

Trust me, I do have a lot of experience of building pointwork in a variety of scales and gauges. I do remember however how challenging it was at first - even more so if you need to learn Templot too.

 

I still see people starting for the first time with scratchbuilt track. The challeges should not be underestimated. Not just understanding track, but potentially soldering skills and other things that track purchasers can just take for granted.

I think it depends how far you want to go on the accuracy front.  All RTP track is generic by definition, and the initial ambition  for modellers new to EM will be building to 18.2mm track gauge.

 

40 years ago the choice was rivet and ply or copper clad sleepers; 9” for plain track and 12” for point work.  Knowledge of, and more accurate reproduction of, the track of a particular company at a particular date was, except for a very few,  unheard of.  Those that want to go to that level of accuracy need to build their own track irrespective of gauge: OO, EM or P4 so this is not in itself a reason not to attempt EM.  Templot is a tool in its own right but many modellers building their own track don’t use it.

Another ability you suggest required to build your own track is soldering.  Unless you are using set track you will still need a basic understanding of soldering in order to connect your electrical feed wires to RTP track, and it is not a significant leap from there to soldering jumper wires across a hand made point.  If you don’t want to solder track to sleepers you now have the option with C&L to glue your point work together, just like building a plastic wagon or coach kit. 

 

Okay I may have overstated how simple track building is, but all modelling is difficult until you have spent a bit of time doing it.  Track building is definitely one of the easier things to do compared to building  etched kits, or a locomotive chassis.  You know when you’ve got it wrong because your stock will fall off. And when you’ve got it right, it won’t!  And the good thing with track is that it is relatively easy to tweak it after the initial build whatever the construction method adopted.

 

I very much feel that if modellers are interested in building their own track they should definitely give it a go rather than be intimidated by just the thought of doing it.

 

Frank

[Barry Ten]

30 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

 Flanges on the real thing don't keep the vehicles on the track it's the angle of the track and the cone of the wheels that keep it on the track.

 

What's that squealy noise that Pacers make on curves caused by? 😀

[lezz01]

Glued track is great but one, it isn't as tweakable as riveted track and two, you have to make bends in rail in two planes to keep the 1 in 20 inclination from vertical. But that isn't that hard to do you just need to be aware of it and bend the rails correctly using the chairs as a guide. Like a lot of things we do in the hobby it's easier to do than write down for others to follow. It's one of the reasons I did a blow by blow account of turnout building on my Tewkesbury thread. Once I clear the old 00 layout I'll be doing the trackwork for Dudbridge Junction and either Nailsworth or Stroud. I really want to do Nailsworth but I have a feeling Stroud fits my space better. The only real problem with Stroud is the scissors at the far end of the goods yard. Other than that it's 2 tandems and 3 plain turnouts.

Regards Lez.  

[Chuffer Davies]

6 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

Glued track is great but one, it isn't as tweakable as riveted track and two, you have to make bends in rail in two planes to keep the 1 in 20 inclination from vertical. But that isn't that hard to do you just need to be aware of it and bend the rails correctly using the chairs as a guide. Like a lot of things we do in the hobby it's easier to do than write down for others to follow. It's one of the reasons I did a blow by blow account of turnout building on my Tewkesbury thread. Once I clear the old 00 layout I'll be doing the trackwork for Dudbridge Junction and either Nailsworth or Stroud. I really want to do Nailsworth but I have a feeling Stroud fits my space better. The only real problem with Stroud is the scissors at the far end of the goods yard. Other than that it's 2 tandems and 3 plain turnouts.

Regards Lez.  

I think glued track is reasonably easy to adjust if you use a sharp scalpel blade to lift any rogue chair that needs shifting.  Easier if you use plywood sleepers and plastic chairs as we have on Clayton.

Frank

[LNER4479]

45 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

What's that squealy noise that Pacers make on curves caused by? 😀

Lack of bogies.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

This talk of building a layout for a future exhibition date; hats off to any group who accept an invite for a layout that doesn't exist then deliver that layout (even part built) for the event, but the thought of building to someone else's deadline would pretty much eliminate any enjoyment from modelling for me.  That sounds not much like a hobby and much more like going to work.

In the case of Stoke Summit, WMRC members started it with the intention (within nine months) of showing it at the Wolverhampton exhibition in the next year (something the club did with all its new layouts - exhibit it at your own show first). 

 

As it was, although the layout was substantially complete scenically, not all the point motors were wired up in the fiddle yard. Thus, my two young sons (at the time) were employed as 'point-monkeys', changing such points as required. 

 

I can't believe I gave the impression that a group of six of us built a 30' x 10' layout, built 50+ locomotives and nearly 40 prototype trains in less than a year, even in OO! If I did say that (and if I did, I can't find it), I'd have been rightly ridiculed for preaching such patent nonsense. Quite a few of the locos and a few of the trains were ex-Fordley Park and ex-Leighford, so all in OO. 

 

I don't see the comments about OO and EM (P4 is way, way beyond my skill-set) as being one v the other. Choosing EM will naturally mean more 'modelling' (as yet, apart from a few high-end diesel-outline types, there are no EM RTR locos). Though I don't find it inherently more difficult to build in EM than in OO (apart from a few alterations to kits), the fact remains that one must build chassis (or get someone else to do it for you) in EM, whereas RTR would suit many. Thus, EM is a modellers' scale in the main; oddly (or is it?), when I've tried to sell EM locos and rolling stock on behalf of bereaved/distressed families, I can never get as much for them if they were in OO. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

This talk of building a layout for a future exhibition date; hats off to any group who accept an invite for a layout that doesn't exist then deliver that layout (even part built) for the event, but the thought of building to someone else's deadline would pretty much eliminate any enjoyment from modelling for me.  That sounds not much like a hobby and much more like going to work.

 

I have done it several times and found it a great motivator to get off my backside and get on with things. Each time I promise myself "never again". We (Either Ken and I or Malcolm and I) used to build a layout a year and we would leave a show and the manager would say "Are you building a new one?" to which the answer was always "We are just about to start it", to which the reply was always "Bring it next year then".

 

I found it challenging but rewarding. I am trying it again now but this time working solo and the motivation gained from "teamwork" is sadly lacking!

[Tony Wright]

I was going to build my latest O4/8 in EM for use on Retford............

 

 

But I'm building it in OO. Retford definitely needs another O4/8, so I've sold an OO one built from a Little Engines' kit to Sandra Orpen (which she'll convert). I didn't build it, which means it saw very little use on LB, and it'll be much more use on Retford. 

 

I should have the B1 bodies by next week. My grateful thanks to all those who've been of great help.  

 

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Tony Wright
clumsy grammar

[t-b-g]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Stoke Summit was built in less than a year, by six of us (twice as many, but mere mortal modellers). Yes, it's far less complex than High Dyke, but we built over 40 (accurate) trains for it (at least twice as many as on High Dyke) and scores of locos (with correct domes!).

 

Was the bit that gave me the impression that you did the layout and the stock in that time.

 

Knowing how much work the High Dyke team of 3 did in a short space of time, it didn't seem an outrageous claim for 6 people. 

[robertcwp]

13 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

There are plenty of converted LNER pacifics on Retford and there have been articles in MRJ about how to go about it. Several use the Brassmaster kits sold for such things.

 

 

Retford is an interesting case study of different ways of doing motive power, ranging from kits old and new (some must date back 40 or more years to Gainsborough Central days and others have been or are in the process of being built by Sandra and Tony so are new to the layout since Sandra acquired it) RTR bodies modified with new frames, mechanism, wheels, etc, including several A4s and B1s, conversions such as 60113 and 60700 and re-gauged RTR still with their original mechanisms, motion and driving wheels, such as two (or more) of the A4s, a WD and a Britannia amongst others. Both the Hornby A4s have been tested on the Elizabethan set, which is 11 carriages of which 10 are metal kits, and they shifted it without difficulty. 

 

A quiz for any new visitors might be to identify the origin of each engine.

 

Some of the carriages will catch people out too - spot which Thompson stock is Bachmann and which ones are kits, for example. I didn't realise one of the Gresley carriages (an end-door composite) was a Kirk kit until I picked it up to service it. I thought it had brass sides, like most other Gresley stock on the layout.

 

The wagons are a diverse bunch too, with lots of RTR amongst the kits of various makes. Sometimes, it's not easy to tell which is which.

 

[t-b-g]

58 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Retford is an interesting case study of different ways of doing motive power, ranging from kits old and new (some must date back 40 or more years to Gainsborough Central days and others have been or are in the process of being built by Sandra and Tony so are new to the layout since Sandra acquired it) RTR bodies modified with new frames, mechanism, wheels, etc, including several A4s and B1s, conversions such as 60113 and 60700 and re-gauged RTR still with their original mechanisms, motion and driving wheels, such as two (or more) of the A4s, a WD and a Britannia amongst others. Both the Hornby A4s have been tested on the Elizabethan set, which is 11 carriages of which 10 are metal kits, and they shifted it without difficulty. 

 

A quiz for any new visitors might be to identify the origin of each engine.

 

Some of the carriages will catch people out too - spot which Thompson stock is Bachmann and which ones are kits, for example. I didn't realise one of the Gresley carriages (an end-door composite) was a Kirk kit until I picked it up to service it. I thought it had brass sides, like most other Gresley stock on the layout.

 

The wagons are a diverse bunch too, with lots of RTR amongst the kits of various makes. Sometimes, it's not easy to tell which is which.

 

 

It was interesting to see how things changed in the locos, from being almost exclusively kit built, especially with regard to mechanisms. As RTR locos got better and we had a member of the team who made a bit of a name for himself as an EM converter of RTR (Pete Hill) the proportion of RTR gradually increased. Carriage and wagon stock was the same.

 

I wonder if the Kirk you mention was the one I did. Malcolm Crawley developed techniques to really improve them, enough to disguise the origin and allow them to fit in with more modern kits. There were one or two types that were covered by Kirk kits but not easily available from other sources and I recall "doing a job" on one for Roy using Malcolm's methods. Making the upper panelling look less heavy by filling in the recesses with thin plasticard, level and straight flush glazing and sorting out the roof profile made quite a difference.

 

Roy was much happier building in brass, so anything plastic is not likely to be by him. If it is scratchbuilt it is almost certainly by Geoff. Plastic kits are likely to be by other members of the gang. 

[sandra]

The reason I model in EM is quite simply I prefer the appearance of the track. To me it looks better than the narrow gauge look of OO. I did experiment with P4 and I remain a member of the Scalefour society but I quickly realised that there was no way I could realise my ambition for full length express trains hauled by large Pacifics in P4. EM gauge made that aim attainable. Here is a photograph of some of the track on my very incomplete Andover Junction layout.The track on the visual part of the layout has been made with steel rail and Exactoscale parts. Building track is not difficult it just takes practice and the more pointwork you make the quicker you become. The track in the fiddle yard is made using copper clad sleepers and nickel silver rail. Copper clad pointwork is much quicker to make but you do sacrifice appearance as there are no chairs.A disadvantage of EM is that I had to make all the points on the layout and there are about 150. If it was OO it would be possible to use Peco track in the fiddle yard, of course now it is possible to buy RTR EM track but it is much more expensive than making your own. Also by making your own points you can design them to fit exactly where they are needed, you are not constrained by the geometry of standard RTR points.

 

Surprisingly I found converting the stock the easiest part of EM gauge, once you’ve established a method of converting locomotives you’re happy with it’s not too difficult and carriages and wagons are relatively easy. This King Arthur (it is actually 30453 King Arthur) is a Hornby loco with a South East Finecast tender. The loco was converted by pulling the OO wheels out on their axles but all the other wheels were replaced by Gibson wheels. I find this combination quite satisfactory. This was one of the first of my EM conversions and she has been in use for about 10 years with no problems. 

[lezz01]

I have to say that your track looks excellent Sandra.

Regards Lez.

[St Enodoc]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Points taken, Tony.

👏👏👏

[St Enodoc]

15 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

I might suggest that making points does not need superhuman skills nor is there a steep learning curve.  Ideally you need someone (or these days perhaps a YouTube video) to show you how to build them, then the first one needs a bit of thought, but after that most modellers should be able to take it in their stride.  They are definitely one of those things that people are overly scared of trying but in reality are really easy to make.  Possibly easier than even making a wagon kit once you know how.

Go on give it a try.

Frank

When I demonstrate building copperclad points at exhibitions, I tell folk that their first one will be rubbish; their second will work but might not look too good; and after their third they will never look back.

Edited April 7, 2023 by St Enodoc
speling

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

What's that squealy noise that Pacers make on curves caused by? 😀

 

5 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Lack of bogies.

It's caused by the flanges trying to lift the wheels off the track...

[Iain.d]

I always find these discussions on track gauge somewhat interesting; some very good arguments for all of them come up.  I think that with all of the pros and cons for each, it makes it quite difficult to choose.  In the late 90s, early 00s, I frequented Challis Models and Hobbies in Shepton Mallet (sadly long gone) and Chris Challis really encouraged my model making and suggested EM as a suitable compromise; I do wish I’d taken his advice. 

 

Since that time I’ve built an enormous amount of stock in OO and the prospect of regauging does not inspire me. So my compromise is to use Peco bullhead points and their matching flexible tack. I’ve been able to purchase the dozen or so points and about 40m of flexible track I need for that faraway dream layout.  I also have a heap of DCC legacy flexible rail, purchased in the hope they’d produce matching point kits, or at least the right sort of bits to make them. Their Western Australia shop was just down the road from me and every time I popped in I was told it was going to happen, but it never did. I have enough of their flexible stainless steel track to start my own business in hamster wheel manufacturing…..

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[Iain.d]

Two of the carriages I’m working on have progressed a little over the last week or so.  The Comet Models LMS D1932 BCK now has its chassis constructed, the bogies assembled and the roof drilled for vents, toilet water filler pipes and brass roof fixing bolts. The additional nuts on the underframe are to articulate the coupling pipes I make up.

 

 

And all together.

 

 

Over Easter and next week I should be able to progress with the whitemetal bits and the interior.

 

I’ve also moved on with the Roxey Mouldings LBSCR 54ft Brake Third.  The roof is cut to fit; I always find this the worst part of Roxey kit construction as there’s not much margin for error.  A small slip of plastic card glued to the underside of the roof locates it in position between the ends. It will be fixed with a 10BA nut and bolt at each end, each nut being held captive in a filed to shape piece of plastic card and held in place by a piece of plastic on each side of it (a sort of plastic sandwich…). The brass plate with the hole will be soldered under the flange along the top of the coach side once the nut holders are glued to the roof and it’s all lined up.

 

 

Solebars and stepboards and brake V hangers are soldered on.

 

 

I’ve also fitted the finer end detail: steps, alarm gear, lighting conduit, lamp irons and brake pipes. I’m quite please how it all looks.

 

 

Next will be the queen posts and truss rods. The queen posts are quite poor whitemetal castings, I’ve tidied them up as much as I dare (they are quite fragile too) and will try and glue them in place – even with low melt solder, if I’m not quick enough they’ll just melt. If it all goes tragically wrong, I’ll look to substitute them with brass tube cut to length and soldered in, not quite prototypical but probably less noticeable than the deformed castings.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Edited April 7, 2023 by Iain.d
Spelling

[JamesSpooner]

7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

It was interesting to see how things changed in the locos, from being almost exclusively kit built, especially with regard to mechanisms. As RTR locos got better and we had a member of the team who made a bit of a name for himself as an EM converter of RTR (Pete Hill) the proportion of RTR gradually increased. Carriage and wagon stock was the same.

 

I wonder if the Kirk you mention was the one I did. Malcolm Crawley developed techniques to really improve them, enough to disguise the origin and allow them to fit in with more modern kits. There were one or two types that were covered by Kirk kits but not easily available from other sources and I recall "doing a job" on one for Roy using Malcolm's methods. Making the upper panelling look less heavy by filling in the recesses with thin plasticard, level and straight flush glazing and sorting out the roof profile made quite a difference.

 

Roy was much happier building in brass, so anything plastic is not likely to be by him. If it is scratchbuilt it is almost certainly by Geoff. Plastic kits are likely to be by other members of the gang. 

Tony, I would be really interested to hear more about Malcolm’s techniques for improving Kirk Gresley kits, given the range has just been taken over by Precision and may be restarted.

 

Nigel

[polybear]

12 hours ago, lezz01 said:

With regard to using RTR bodies they are available from the manufactures. Bachmann have a spares site. I sure Hornby have something similar but I don't have many Hornby locos so I'll need to go looking. 

One example Midland 3F bodies are from £26 to £40 depending on livery. 

Example two GWR 64XX PT £32 to £40 again depending on livery.

So it doesn't need to cost the earth.

Regards Lez.      

 

Thanks for pointing this out Lez - that seems to be a new development (to me at least); the Bachmann site stocks a wide range of Bodyshells but the equivalent Hornby site seems to be completely devoid of them, sadly.

Incidentally, the Bachmann site even lists such things as Chimneys (and in different styles) as well as Buffers etc. etc.  B1 Bodies are also available, though to pay for a new shell only to cannibalise it would take some doing.....

 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Was the bit that gave me the impression that you did the layout and the stock in that time.

 

Knowing how much work the High Dyke team of 3 did in a short space of time, it didn't seem an outrageous claim for 6 people. 

Agreed, ambiguous, and I reiterate my apology.

 

It still seems an outrageous claim to me, even for six. A whole layout, 40 trains plus scores of locos in less than a year? I'd have questioned such a claim.

 

What it does show to me is how my 'clarity of English' seems to be slipping. One of the things I abhor is 'muddled' writing, where it's impossible to tell exactly what the author is trying to communicate; yet, it seems, I'm getting more-guilty of that these days.

Edited April 7, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[DenysW]

15 hours ago, micklner said:

Or the LNER which was always cash poor, perhaps they simply couldnt afford to buy anymore

Or couldn't afford it on that year's budgets because they were all either spent or allocated. Sadly, that is how companies often work. Think of Duke of Gloucester's chimney.

[thegreenhowards]

14 hours ago, Northmoor said:

This talk of building a layout for a future exhibition date; hats off to any group who accept an invite for a layout that doesn't exist then deliver that layout (even part built) for the event, but the thought of building to someone else's deadline would pretty much eliminate any enjoyment from modelling for me.  That sounds not much like a hobby and much more like going to work.

I rather enjoy a deadline. It gets the adrenalin going and avoids faffing - one of my pet hates! Perhaps that’s why I spent the last 15 years of my career doing railway franchise bids!

[Bucoops]

9 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Or couldn't afford it on that year's budgets because they were all either spent or allocated. Sadly, that is how companies often work. Think of Duke of Gloucester's chimney.

 

No doubt the reasons are buried in the company archives somewhere (no I'm not volunteering!) - but I wonder how long it would have taken for the cost of fitting to be recovered in the efficiency savings gained?

[thegreenhowards]

On the subject of building points, I’ve just built my first - from a Greenwood kit. I’m rather pleased with how it’s come out… and it seems to work as well!

 

This is the point just laid - still with wet PVA holding the ballast down.

and this is the point I was trying to replicate.

 

 

Andy

Edited April 7, 2023 by thegreenhowards