Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Andrew is too modest to mention that the signals work perfectly, just like the rest of the layout (as one would expect from him and Gavin).

Good morning John,

 

The signal does look superb, and is correctly-sited.

 

I've just written to the Railway Modeller, commenting on the signalling installations on a couple or so featured layouts of late; which are complete nonsense!

 

As is well known, I always advocate modelling an actual prototype (that way, you know exactly where things should go), but even if one doesn't, at least observe prototype practice.

 

Why is the mechanical signalling on so many layouts so poorly observed and installed, I wonder?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Compound2632]

50 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Why is the mechanical signalling on so many layouts so poorly observed and installed, I wonder?

 

Because it is an afterthought 

 

And being an afterthought, it is being added to an unprototypical layout.

 

If the signalling was thought of first, the track plan would not be unprototypical. 

 

Well, less likely to be: as you say, observation (to which I would add understanding) of the prototype is essential.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Because it is an afterthought 

 

And being an afterthought, it is being added to an unprototypical layout.

 

If the signalling was thought of first, the track plan would not be unprototypical. 

 

Well, less likely to be: as you say, observation (to which I would add understanding) of the prototype is essential.

We all have things that bother us and things that don't.  Tony's insistence on correct lamps isn't something I notice at all, whereas nonsense landscape features jump out at me, but when some things are rarely modelled accurately, it's quite hard to get away from the observation that the vast majority of railway enthusiasts are locomotive enthusiasts.  There are probably vanishingly few people who are interested in track or signalling but not in locos and rolling stock, therefore everything else is an afterthought to some extent. 

 

If you are a locomotive enthusiast, standing at the end of the station platform, you are unlikely to be really taking in where point rodding is routed, where signals are sited etc. As for signal boxes, I remember Tony once mention photographing a model where the signal box was placed at 45deg to the line, because it looked better.......   There are surprisingly few enthusiasts pay much attention to train formations; the current scene has an advantage that there is a much higher proportion of block trains with uniform formations (and it's well documented), but we've all seen layouts exhibited where passenger trains have no brake van.

 

I've mentioned my own pet-peeve on here before - probably more than once - of nonsense geography on model railways, e.g. tunnels where you wouldn't expect them, pubs built directly over tunnel mouths etc.  The average enthusiast just wants to build a model railway to run his/her favourite locos and with a limited space/skills/time available, builds something like a design in the magazines.  It doesn't help realism, though, when designs like RM's Plan of the Month are often completely unrealistic - even ignoring the less than first-radius curves often required - and look nothing like a real railway anywhere in the UK.  That's what a beginner would class as "Expert Advice". 

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Why is the mechanical signalling on so many layouts so poorly observed and installed, I wonder?

 

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Because it is an afterthought 

 

And being an afterthought, it is being added to an unprototypical layout.

 

If the signalling was thought of first, the track plan would not be unprototypical. 

 

Well, less likely to be: as you say, observation (to which I would add understanding) of the prototype is essential.

In my opinion, much of the time it's because signalling is seen as part of the scenery and not part of the railway itself.

[Compound2632]

26 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

part of the scenery and not part of the railway itself.

 

The same could be said of the trains!

 

The best layouts, it has been said, are those where one can identify period and place without a single item of rolling stock in view.

[Dunsignalling]

TBH, where compact layouts are concerned, once one allows for overlaps, the home signals will generally be "off-stage" anyway, so platform starters and the odd shunting disc should be all that need be provided. 

 

John 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

TBH, where compact layouts are concerned, once one allows for overlaps, the home signals will generally be "off-stage" anyway, so platform starters and the odd shunting disc should be all that need be provided. 

 

Absolutely. If you look at a typical wayside station layout on a double track line, with goods loop accessed by trailing connections to both lines and a refuge siding on the opposite side:

 

 

If we say, up is right to left (goods yard on the up side) then the up home is somewhere to the right of the station platforms and the up starter is a train's length* to the left of the connection from the yard to the up; the down starter is a train's length* to the right of the connection from the yard to the up; so the down home is the only semaphore on stage, just to the left of the signal-box.

 

*The length of the longest train - certainly a good deal longer than the passenger platforms.

[Bernard Lamb]

Signals? What's them?

My local station managed without any.😃

Bernard

 

[grahame]

A lot of people don't bother with signals when driving a car these days. So why would they bother with signals on a model railway?

 

;-)

 

 

[Tony Wright]

One thing I haven't done for a while is to take some panning shots.

 

The following show some recent additions to Little Bytham...........

 

 

Originally the work of the late Geoff Brewin, built from a South Eastern Finecast kit, renumbered/renamed/detailed by me and weathered by Geoff West. 

 

 

Built by me from a DJH kit (with a K's P2 tender), painted by Geoff Haynes.

 

 

Built by me from a DJH kit.

 

 

Built by me from a DJH kit, painted by Geoff Haynes.

 

 

Built by me from a DJH kit.

 

 

Built from a Pro-Scale kit by Alan Hammet, detailed/weathered by Tony Geary. This is an ex-Stoke/ex-Charwelton V2, which Gilbert Barnatt bought off Tony when Tony sold all his 4mm stuff. Gilbert's now gone all-RTR with his V2s, so I bought this (and another Pro-Scale V2 from the same source) off him, 'bringing them home', so to speak. I have to say the whole thing is much to my advantage, because it's my belief that a loco like this has much more 'presence' than any RTR equivalent. 

 

 

My recent hybrid O4/8 (still with no brakes!).

 

 

Built by me from a DJH kit and painted by Geoff Haynes. 

 

Taking shots like the above brings a 'new dimension' to model railway photography for me. Were the pictures taken on film it would be an economic disaster, because at least seven-ten exposures are needed to get any one sharp. I just set the trusty Nikon D3 on 'burst mode' (which sounds like a machine gun!), panning as the trains go be at high speed, firing the shutter at about 40th of a second. 

 

Obviously, one needs a reasonable straight, un-impeded stretch on which to take panning shots like these, which Little Bytham gives. It also needs to be representative of a very fast section, which, again, Little Bytham gives. 

 

I must try the technique on Retford.

 

Has anyone else attempted model railway panning? 

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

"Has anyone else attempted model railway panning?"

 

As in "to criticise severely"?

 

[dibateg]

On 04/07/2023 at 14:43, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon,

 

The following might help...........

 

 

A Gresley Pantry Second.

 

This is Tony Geary's work, and since he reads this column regularly he might like to comment on how he made it. 

 

 

And a Thompson equivalent.

 

Again, Tony's work (I think this has Southern Pride sides).

 

 

And one built by Alan Buckenham for the late Geoff Brewin. I think this uses SP sides and Comet components.

 

The branding is incorrect here. The BR roundel should be below 'Restaurant Car', not between. 

 

 

And, finally, a Thompson Pantry Second built/painted by me. 

 

This uses SP sides on top of an old Bachmann donor (with the roof re-profiled), running on cast metal HD bogies. 

 

In all cases, these are branded 'Restaurant Car', and since the three on LB all run in partnership with either an RK, RU or RF, I think that's appropriate. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Apologies for the delayed response, I've been away on holiday. If I can remember that far back, I think the pantry 3rd was made up from a set of Comet open third sides. The extra panelling and windows were made up from brass strip and some scrap etch sheet. I used an Isinglass drawing. The window spacing on the open 3rd was just about right for the job, and although I cannot guarantee 100% accuracy, it looks right!

 

It is very gratifying to see models I made quite some time ago in service and giving enjoyment.

 

Regards

Tony

 

[ecgtheow]

On 06/07/2023 at 18:11, Compound2632 said:

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of Midland Railway Study Centre item 64299.]

 

 

 

[Embedded link to catalogue thumbnail of Midland Railway Study Centre item 64294.]

 

These dining carriage pairs were built in 1904; the interesting thing from the livery point of view is that the photos were taken in 1909 but they still wear pre-1905 livery, with FIRST and THIRD in the door waist panels rather than the digits 1 and 3 on the doors. Just goes to show that even on prestige stock, livery changes didn't happen overnight!

 

 

Now these three 54 ft clerestories are the round-cornered panelled variety, introduced in 1905, but they are lined out as if they are the earlier square-cornered panelled versions of 1903/4, which apart from the panelling style were identical. So I can see what the builder was aiming for - a representation of a London-Manchester express, made up of the very first generation of Bain corridor carriages.

 

Just thought that some viewers might like to see some rather different MR coaches from my quite large collection -

 

A late MR 12-W dining car definitely built by Larry Goddard from his own kit if I recall correctly

 

An earlier 8-W dining car built by Barry Stevenson from a Branchlines kit

 

The other coach will appear below with photos of 2 MR locos

 

William

[ecgtheow]

3 hours ago, ecgtheow said:

 

Just thought that some viewers might like to see some rather different MR coaches from my quite large collection -

 

A late MR 12-W dining car definitely built by Larry Goddard from his own kit if I recall correctly

 

An earlier 8-W dining car built by Barry Stevenson from a Branchlines kit

 

The other coach will appear below with photos of 2 MR locos

 

William

Now the 2 locos, one of which may well have been used to haul the earlier coaches & may be of interest especially as I have a question to ask & Compound 2632 may know the answer?

 

An attempt to model a series 2 Johnson Compound from a Gibson kit & a Caley Coaches 8-W tender again built by Barry Stevenson. I think that most of the loco in post 1907 livery is OK, but by that time the tender should probably be a high sided 6-W one but I don't know if there is a kit available for one. If the 8-W bogie tender is kept it needs new bogie sides or new bogies but again does anyone make them?

 

 

A Kirtley MR 0-6-0 WT. The prototype was  built in 1872 & amazingly survived until 1924, but this model built by an unknown builder from a Peter K kit is probably correct for 1907-1923 as well, as it's in post 1906 goods black & numbered 1601 which it got in 1907. I included it here because it was in the same storage box as the Compound & is such a characterful little loco.

 

Rather than start a whole new topic I can make some claim to prototypical track layout & signalling, a subject currently being discussed on WR, as the build in progress has the track plan of Thetford Bridge to scale but with the slight prototypical curve exaggerated to fit in my train room. However, not only will prototypical GER trains run on it, but also trains from several other pre-grouping companies, LNER & BR steam, but not at the same time of course.

 

William

Edited July 11, 2023 by ecgtheow
duplication of images

[Tony Wright]

33 minutes ago, ecgtheow said:

 

Just thought that some viewers might like to see some rather different MR coaches from my quite large collection -

 

A late MR 12-W dining car definitely built by Larry Goddard from his own kit if I recall correctly

 

An earlier 8-W dining car built by Barry Stevenson from a Branchlines kit

 

The other coach will appear below with photos of 2 MR locos

 

William

Splendid coaches William,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

I'm always struck by the elegant liveries (particularly the Midland) applied to rolling stock in the heady days of yore. Where lining is applied, it follows the form, emphasising the beauty of the things carrying it. To some, it might be too fussy, and it's easy to see how 'simplified' liveries (particularly with regard to full lining) became more prevalent at times of austerity (the LMS in the '30s, for instance). Nonetheless, any lining still followed the form. 

 

Contrast that to today's railway carriage liveries (or those from the last few years as well) - swishes, sparkles, blotches, call them what you will, almost none shows any sympathy with the form on to which it's applied. I'm reminded of the 'dazzle' paint schemes applied to warships during the War to break up their outlines, causing confusion among those seeking to attack them. 

 

I just find most of them thoroughly lacking in aesthetics. Thank goodness for historical railway modelling!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, ecgtheow said:

I think that most of the loco in post 1907 livery is OK, but by that time the tender should probably be a high sided 6-W one but I don't know if there is a kit available for one. If the 8-W bogie tender is kept it needs new bogie sides or new bogies but again does anyone make them?

 

The five Smith-Johnson Compounds were rebuilt to conform to the design of the Deeley Compounds - new cylinders and new G9S superheated boilers, as well as the more superficial features - in 1914-15, except 1002, which had to wait until 1919. No. 1003 received that number in October 1907 - so in the Deeley-style livery as modelled is good for late 1907 - early 1915. 

 

As to the tender, these engines (again with the exception of 1002) received Deeley 6-wheel tenders with water pick-up gear sometime after the end of June 1908, as far as I can work out, their bogie tenders being rebuilt as 6-wheel tenders (in the 483 Class sense of "rebuild" - i.e. new) but not in fact until 1911/12. There is a photo of 1003 at Nottingham with a 6-wheel tender, said to be c. 1908. If that is right, then your model is good for the condition of 1003 between late 1907 and mid-1908!

 

(And you thought East Coast Pacifics were a modeller's minefield!)

 

As far as I can work out, these 6-wheel tenders were the standard Deeley type with 7' 0" + 6' 9" wheelbase - there's even a RTR version if you are willing to take one off the Bachmann NRM Compound!

 

The above from reading S. Summerson, Midland Railway Locomotives Vol. 4 (Irwell Press, 2005), Ch. 9; the photo of 1003 with Deeley tender is in R.J. Essery & D. Jenkinson, Midland Locomotives Vol. 2 (Wild Swan, 1988), Plate 292.

 

EDIT: I've now looked up @Dave Hunt's article on the Johnson Compounds in Midland Record No. 10. He states that the Deeley 6-wheel tenders attached to these engines, or at least that attached to 1003 in the above-mentioned photo, had some subtle differences compared to the standard Deeley tender. He also reproduces a slightly earlier photo of 1003, with its original Johnson smokebox door (in the Nottingham photo it has the Deeley door with seven dogs), attached to the bogie tender from Belpaire No. 821 - that's that engine's original number, it becoming 731 in 1907 - all in Deeley livery; since there is no smokebox numberplate, the number 1003 is no-where displayed, so I believe we're reliant on the written record (Engine Record Card?) to know that this is indeed 1003! 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Compound2632

[Chamby]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

As far as I can work out, these 6-wheel tenders were the standard Deeley type with 7' 0" + 6' 9" wheelbase - there's even a RTR version if you are willing to take one off the Bachmann NRM Compound!

Try the Bachmann spares website… LMS Crimson Lake version would seem to be available for £20 the tender top and £10 for the chassis/wheels.  

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Chamby said:

Try the Bachmann spares website… LMS Crimson Lake version would seem to be available for £20 the tender top and £10 for the chassis/wheels.  

 

Beware - I believe that's the LMS standard tender, lacking the footplate valence of the Deeley tender.

[ecgtheow]

Thanks Compound 2632.

 

I have all the Essery & Jenkinson  books on MR locomotives (as well as all the MR carriage books you referenced in a previous post).

 

Plate 292 on page 232 of Volume 2 shows 1003 partially rebuilt as in my model circa 1908. It has on the tender, but it's a 6-W one.

 

Plate 313 on page 248 shows 1004 in 1909 almost exactly as my model still with a bogie tender with 1004 on it. Plate 314 shows the same loco "a few years later" looking very similar but with a high sided 6-W tender apparently only used with these engines, but with a dished rather than a flat smoke box door & a different position for the top lamp iron. In both views it still has enclosed safety valves so perhaps I should change that on my model. It seems that changes to individual locos  were made at quite different times until they all ended up more or less similar, which I guess is understandable as they would be due for shopping at different times.

 

Sorry about the duplication of photos in my previous post. I attached 2 copies of each by mistake then deleted one of each so the post looked OK on preview, but obviously it didn't load that way. Having thought that I had just edited to delete duplicate images  that didn't work either so I give up!

 

Any idea were I can get replacement bogies or bogie sides for the tender?

 

William

 

 

[lezz01]

There's a built WM tender up on ebay right now.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/394714158738

If you don't like that one or have a philosophical objection to ebay have a look on the Brassmasters website they do tenders for the 4F etc and London Road Models do a couple of MR tenders but I think they will be too small for a compound.

Regards Lez.  

[ecgtheow]

26 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

There's a built WM tender up on ebay right now.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/394714158738

If you don't like that one or have a philosophical objection to ebay have a look on the Brassmasters website they do tenders for the 4F etc and London Road Models do a couple of MR tenders but I think they will be too small for a compound.

Regards Lez.  

Thanks Lezz01,

 

The eBay example is too small. The Compounds had larger high sided tenders in MR days, the era of my model.

 

William

[lezz01]

You could give Collin at Gibson's a ring he might have the etches if not the whole tender kit.

Regards Lez. 

[Pint of Adnams]

On 08/07/2023 at 22:06, Compound2632 said:

 

Interesting thought. In the sets of close-coupled 4-wheelers and 6-wheelers that the Midland built in the 1880s, each carriage had sprung buffers at one end only, with dead buffers at the other, except fpr the brake third carriage at one end of the set. This will have made some saving in weight (buffing spring and buffer rods) and also simplified construction - and hence cost. 

 

But this doesn't apply to the close coupled sets of bogie carriages built from 1899 onwards, which had sprung buffers at both ends of all the carriages.

Late to the party as usual; this thread moves too quickly...

 

The earlier GER suburban 4-wheel stock was fitted with short buffers and single link couplings to reduce the overall length, in a somewhat similar arrangement to that later used by Gresley to couple the two halves of the GN Quads to form the 8-car sets.

 

The LNER D86 General and D87 Milk Vans were designed and built at Stratford, and I wrote these up in a fairly recent issue of the GERS Journal. Dan did not produce the D87 in 7mm scale though.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Pint of Adnams said:

The earlier GER suburban 4-wheel stock was fitted with short buffers and single link couplings to reduce the overall length

 

Is that documented as the reason?

[Willie Whizz]

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Is that documented as the reason?

Indeed, because the resulting reduction of length for a whole train is - comparatively - minimal; surely no more than a few feet and not nearly the length of one late-Victorian or Edwardian carriage.  Unless there were numbers of stations on the Great Eastern, Midland and Great Northern (and any other lines using the practice) where train-length was so very mission-critical to the extent of a perhaps a dozen or so feet at most,  then I'm sorry to persist but I simply don't "get" this as a satisfying explanation.