Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

How did I know someone would say that 🙄 

 

No, it doesn't any more than the photos Tony posted earlier prove that express locos and trains run on Carlisle or Retford.  The photos of the layout in MRJ are accompanied by and article, the author of which clearly saw the layout running.

 

 

Good morning John,

 

There are plenty of videos showing the superb running on Retford. 

 

I haven't shot any moving footage of Carlisle, but I can state that the running is excellent. Next time?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[sandra]

25 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

How did I know someone would say that 🙄 

 

No, it doesn't, any more than the photos Tony posted earlier prove that express locos and trains run on Carlisle or Retford.  The photos of the layout in MRJ are accompanied by an article, the author of which clearly saw the layout running.

 

 

I can’t speak for Carlisle but as the owner of Retford I can assure you that main line trains hauled by pacific locomotives regularly haul 15 coach trains at scale speed (and sometimes over scale speed) on Retford. I can’t claim responsibility for this as it was built by the late great Roy Jackson.

 

I would post a video on here if I knew how to do it but there are videos of Retford on You Tube.

[APOLLO]

14 hours ago, MJI said:

Ok a weird one, i will be losing my vision super power soon, took effort to retain some short sightedness.

 

Due to cataracts i will be getting new lenses,  will be going from -5.5 to -2.5.

 

So no more ultra close up, to be honest been struggling due to them recently .

 

Magnifiers, what is good out there?

 

I have found the cheap (around £3 / pair) reading glasses from such as B&M (etc) very useful for close focus.

 

Try a few and choose one or two (distance dependant). I have a set in the loft for my OO and one in the garage for my O layout (used a lot less !!). For info I normally wear glasses and have two sets, one for driving / distance and one for reading / computer. The ones above I use for very close, 3" - 6" eye to object.

 

Brit15

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Bernard,

 

Even the late Bob Essery admitted to me that the layout in question (Tring) didn't run as well as he'd expected.

 

In fact, in some of the pictures I've seen, there are cobwebs between locos/stock and signals/telegraph poles!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Good morning Tony,

I had heard that story, but decided not to stir things up too much.

I suspected that somebody would grasp the big wooden spoon.

 

I wonder just how much larger LB would have to be, to have a fiddle yard that could handle the trains that you run, if it was built to P4 standards.

Bernard

 

[t-b-g]

I am aware of a P4 layout that is of the ECML, has pacifics that belt along at high speeds on long trains and runs superbly.

 

It is pretty much a private layout, being built "off the grid", although at least one loco that runs on it (maybe more), appeared in MRJ a while ago.

 

I have also seen photos of some LMS steam locos with outside cylinders and valve gear pulling scale length trains on Preston.

 

There are probably others like that. Not all modellers feel the need to put what they do in the magazines or on the internet and are happy modelling for their own enjoyment. Large P4 layouts tend to be home based and not for exhibiting and they tend to be the sort of projects that develop slowly with a great deal of care and precision.

 

I think that many P4 modellers accept that their layout will take them longer than the equivalent in OO or EM and so don't try to be quite so ambitious in terms of size and complexity.

 

It doesn't make P4 better or worse than EM or OO. It is just that people set out to achieve different objectives. It is the difference between building something the closest to the real thing that you can or building something that has greater compromises to make it more easily achievable.

 

All this "My version of modelling is better than yours because........." is just pathetic to me. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, JamesSpooner said:

Good evening Tony,

 

Obviously, being set in 1912, Semley doesn’t have Bulleid Pacific’s, but it does have six coupled outside Walschaerts valve gear (with fully working rocking levers) express locos (in the form of the Drummond paddle box) hauling ten or a dozen coaches at speed.  I do totally sympathise with your comments on the layout sitting in a totally different universe from that which most of us inhabit.  Awe inspiring to watch though.

 

regards

 

Nigel

Thanks Nigel,

 

My point (perhaps inadequately made, as usual) is that for a really 'convincing' depiction of a Class 1 steam-outline main line, one needs scores of really big locomotives. My crumbling notes, scribbled in August 1960, of a day's spotting at Retford reveal MERRY HAMPTON on the Down morning 'Talisman', DOMINION OF NEW ZEALAND on the Up 'Tees-Tyne Pullman' and MALLARD on the Down 'Flying Scotsman'. The 'Elizabethans' were in the safe hands of MERLIN and GANNET respectively, GREAT NORTHERN arrived with an Up stopper, EDWARD THOMPSON was on empty stock, SCOTTISH UNION had an Down stopper, KENILWORTH was on a fitted freight, WALTER K WIGHAM was on the Scotch Goods, AMADIS bowled through light engine, plus lots of other A1s, A2s, A3s and A4s, not to mention the 'second division' of V2s/B1s/K3s/etc. 

 

Without boasting (I hope), I've made all these (and countless more) to run on Little Bytham (I've also made some in EM to run on Retford). In fact, there are over 200 locos on Bytham's roster (over 90% of which I've made); all to keep alive those fantastic lifetime's memories.  

 

As for the over 600 carriages/wagons/vans...................

 

It would be impossible for me to have done that in P4 (or for anyone?). Leaving aside my lack of the necessary skills to model in the most-accurate 4mm gauge, how long might it take (someone with those requisite skills - Chris Pendlenton?) to put together, say, the A1/1 in P4? 

 

I accept, my approach is not for all, but it's practicable in OO, and certainly in EM - but not, in my view, in P4. That said, I'll be delighted to be proved wrong. All I need is the 'evidence'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I am aware of a P4 layout that is of the ECML, has pacifics that belt along at high speeds on long trains and runs superbly.

 

It is pretty much a private layout, being built "off the grid", although at least one loco that runs on it (maybe more), appeared in MRJ a while ago.

 

I have also seen photos of some LMS steam locos with outside cylinders and valve gear pulling scale length trains on Preston.

 

There are probably others like that. Not all modellers feel the need to put what they do in the magazines or on the internet and are happy modelling for their own enjoyment. Large P4 layouts tend to be home based and not for exhibiting and they tend to be the sort of projects that develop slowly with a great deal of care and precision.

 

I think that many P4 modellers accept that their layout will take them longer than the equivalent in OO or EM and so don't try to be quite so ambitious in terms of size and complexity.

 

It doesn't make P4 better or worse than EM or OO. It is just that people set out to achieve different objectives. It is the difference between building something the closest to the real thing that you can or building something that has greater compromises to make it more easily achievable.

 

All this "My version of modelling is better than yours because........." is just pathetic to me. 

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

All this "My version of modelling is better than yours because........." is just pathetic to me. 

 

Who on this thread has actually clamed that, please? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[johndon]

27 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning John,

 

There are plenty of videos showing the superb running on Retford. 

 

I haven't shot any moving footage of Carlisle, but I can state that the running is excellent. Next time?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony, I know that there are videos and, having visited Retford when Roy was still here I am aware of how well it runs, what I was trying to point out, as it had been brought up by polybear, was that in and of itself, a photo does not prove that trains run...

 

John

 

[johndon]

10 minutes ago, sandra said:

I can’t speak for Carlisle but as the owner of Retford I can assure you that main line trains hauled by pacific locomotives regularly haul 15 coach trains at scale speed (and sometimes over scale speed) on Retford. I can’t claim responsibility for this as it was built by the late great Roy Jackson.

 

I would post a video on here if I knew how to do it but there are videos of Retford on You Tube.

 

Sandra, as I've just replied to Tony, I'm aware of how well Retford runs having visited when Roy was still here.  My point, in reply to polybear, as he brought it up was that a still photo, of ANY layout, does not prove that trains run.

[billbedford]

18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

One visitor who models in P4, complimented me on Bytham's running, but said he couldn't live with the 'narrow gauge and crude wheels', as he witnessed a P2 I'd just built, bowl round at 80+ on the said 15 bogies. I responded a couple of months later, on observing his P4 layout in operation at a show, that I couldn't live with a 2-6-2T on two bogies which was unable to travel more that four feet (on straight track!) without derailing. 

 

 

Doesn't this show up the difference between large built-in layouts with stable environments and small lightweight portable layouts which suffer from variable heat and humidity over the course of a show weekend?

 

I can't see that there is anything intrinsic about the choice of gauge that would make a P4 layout less reliable. 

[Tony Wright]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Good morning Tony,

I had heard that story, but decided not to stir things up too much.

I suspected that somebody would grasp the big wooden spoon.

 

I wonder just how much larger LB would have to be, to have a fiddle yard that could handle the trains that you run, if it was built to P4 standards.

Bernard

 

Good morning again Bernard,

 

Bytham's minimum radii on the main line is 36", so it's easily accommodated in a footprint of 32' x 12'. I wanted the scenic section to run along the offset 'spine' of the footprint, so it could be photographed from both sides. I suppose in P4, if that necessity were abandoned, then 5' 6" minimum radius could be accommodated, so maybe not much larger.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[john new]

16 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I've used IA with no ill effects but I've found both DCC Supplies Track Cleaner and DeLux Materials Track Magic to produce resukts faster, ie less effort required. Bear in mind that with any fixed track cleaner it very soon becomes dirty/dry/clogged along the fixed surface that is running across the railhead. Loathe to mention it on WW but with DCC I very very rarely need to clean the track or the wheels.....

Regarding that last point - is it a similar effect to the old trick I’ve read about (but never tried) of putting low voltage AC into the DC feed?  The layout is long gone but the owner of the Weymouth tourist model railway when I first moved to Dorset in the late 80s swore by it as a way of keeping his tracks clean.

[NZRedBaron]

Hello Tony; just been wanting to bounce a thought around for something- I've had a notion come to me about what might have happened if the Transport Act of 1947, rather than coming into force on January 1st 1948, had had a delayed commencement similar to the Railways Act of 1921, and thus commenced at the start of 1949, or even 1950.

 

I bring it up, as I managed to nab a couple of second hand Bachmann models of the first pair of Peppercorn A2's in LNER livery, which dovetailed into remembering an old debate on another forum about possible post-war coach liveries for the LNER.

[MikeParkin65]

19 minutes ago, john new said:

Regarding that last point - is it a similar effect to the old trick I’ve read about (but never tried) of putting low voltage AC into the DC feed?  The layout is long gone but the owner of the Weymouth tourist model railway when I first moved to Dorset in the late 80s swore by it as a way of keeping his tracks clean.

Don't know enough about the science to offer an explanation but I've never cleaned the plain track and only very ocassionally have to clean a point blade or frog (all of which are live) usually because a short wheelbase loco has stuttered. I know the constant track voltage is 17.5v which is is I guess more than most straight DC systems and then they are only at peak power momentarily as a train is running.

[MJI]

53 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

I have found the cheap (around £3 / pair) reading glasses from such as B&M (etc) very useful for close focus.

 

Try a few and choose one or two (distance dependant). I have a set in the loft for my OO and one in the garage for my O layout (used a lot less !!). For info I normally wear glasses and have two sets, one for driving / distance and one for reading / computer. The ones above I use for very close, 3" - 6" eye to object.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

Never thought of that as EVERY pair of glasses I have ever had have been myopia prescription.

 

In my head only old people had reading glasses. Like certain cars are old people cars.

 

Yes I am 60 and claiming some stuff is for old people.

 

Originally they were going to do to distance vision, then I said I would have to wear sunglasses permanently as a long term glasses wearer I find wind on my eyes annoying, also with other future eye issues to deal with I want the protection. (May need corneas in future)

 

So splitting difference, I reckon I can get away with my computer glassses for distance, none for computer, and arm length reading.

 

But I will lose my intense close up in focus of 130mm to 200mm.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

Doesn't this show up the difference between large built-in layouts with stable environments and small lightweight portable layouts which suffer from variable heat and humidity over the course of a show weekend?

 

I can't see that there is anything intrinsic about the choice of gauge that would make a P4 layout less reliable. 

Good morning Bill,

 

I think P4 is 'less-forgiving' than the much-cruder OO standards I work to, especially given the rigours of exhibition running (of which I have a fair bit of experience). 

 

Granted, Bytham is not an exhibition layout and lives in a very stable environment. Still, the P2 I alluded to in my earlier post.........

 

 

Ran just as reliably on Grantham, which is a (very large) exhibition layout. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, NZRedBaron said:

Hello Tony; just been wanting to bounce a thought around for something- I've had a notion come to me about what might have happened if the Transport Act of 1947, rather than coming into force on January 1st 1948, had had a delayed commencement similar to the Railways Act of 1921, and thus commenced at the start of 1949, or even 1950.

 

I bring it up, as I managed to nab a couple of second hand Bachmann models of the first pair of Peppercorn A2's in LNER livery, which dovetailed into remembering an old debate on another forum about possible post-war coach liveries for the LNER.

Good morning,

 

I imagine most LNER passenger stock post-War would be still in teak or painted brown. The latest Thompson coaches would be in ersatz teak, and the surviving streamlined stock (though no longer running in dedicated sets) would still be in two-tone blue. An interesting mixture.........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

All this "My version of modelling is better than yours because........." is just pathetic to me. 

 

Who on this thread has actually clamed that, please? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I see it often in the hobby. I have had some good friends who were some of the worst offenders. Malcolm Crawley would often look at a decent OO layout and say that it was a pity it wasn't done to finer standards and you must remember some of Roy's comments on P4!

 

Your own comments suggest that as P4 modellers don't build "proper" layouts with "proper" locos that pull long trains really fast (as happens on your layout) that they still haven't really proved themselves. You also keep going on about P4 layouts not running well, when I have seen plenty that do. Perhaps you are looking at the wrong ones. I could find plenty of OO and EM layouts that don't run well too if I try.  

 

I have no figures to back me up on this, so I will put it out there for discussion. What percentage of modellers in OO model pacifics doing 100mph on 12 carriage trains? What percentage of EM modellers do?

 

When you look at how many larger P4 layouts there are, compared to the number of P4 modellers, I am not sure that there is any lack of larger layouts. By the time we have Kings Cross, Grantham, Preston, Tring/Euston (New Zealand) Mostyn, Southwark Bridge, Adavoyle and no doubt others, there are big layouts around. The extended London Road was not exactly a small layout although the period meant smaller locos and shorter trains.

 

As I said, I have seen a Gresley pacific with 12 on doing a scale 100mph on a P4 layout. So it has been proved that it can be done. Do lots of P4 modellers want to do that? No, they tend to have other, perhaps more interesting tastes.

 

I had the opportunity to visit Southwark Bridge a couple of years ago. It had a huge range of locos and stock, all in full pre-grouping glorious liveries. From memory, the trains were up to around 8 bogie carriages long, quite appropriate for full length trains of the period and it had a wonderful station approach with lots of complex trackwork.

 

P4 modellers tend to be the sort of people who like making things and many like to go their own way and not do what everybody else does. So perhaps that explains the small number of 1957/58 ECML P4 projects. Yet we have London Road, Southwark Bridge, Dewsbury and Semley

 

 

[Compound2632]

Dear me, I've stirred up a hornet's nest. My initial comment was intended to suggest that Tony's photographs tend to be from the least flattering angles to OO gauge, not that he was in anyway wrong to build his layout in OO gauge; his reasons for choosing to do so have been rehearsed often enough. But when I do see a good EM or P4 layout, I admire it.

[Tony Wright]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Dear me, I've stirred up a hornet's nest. My initial comment was intended to suggest that Tony's photographs tend to be from the least flattering angles to OO gauge, not that he was in anyway wrong to build his layout in OO gauge; his reasons for choosing to do so have been rehearsed often enough. But when I do see a good EM or P4 layout, I admire it.

Good afternoon Stephen,

 

A good poke with a stout stick into a hornets' nest is usually very-exciting.

 

I find all the resulting discussions very-stimulating. 

 

I have great admiration for the P4 layouts I see (and photograph) which 'work'; in the same way I have no admiration for the many OO layouts I've seen (and photographed) which don't.

 

Despite some observations, I'm always forthright in my praise of layouts which work well - smooth running/operators knowing what they're doing/no derailments/no stuttering, and especially if they're models of actual prototypes, whatever the chosen scale/gauge. In the same way, I'm always forthright in my lack of praise of any layouts which don't work well (irrespective of the chosen scale/gauge).

 

What I would say is that it's easier to get OO and EM layouts to work well (especially the former) than it is to get P4 equivalents to do the same; the main factors being the skill-set required (or lack of it!), the 'crudity' of OO in comparison (meaning it's far more-tolerant) and the greater susceptibility of P4 to suffer from being banged about in a van for 200+ miles, then set up in totally different environments than the ones they've often left.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[billbedford]

25 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Dear me, I've stirred up a hornet's nest. My initial comment was intended to suggest that Tony's photographs tend to be from the least flattering angles to OO gauge,

 

You've picked up on something that seems inherent in an interest in railways. If you've ever found yourself looking for a photo of a cab roof or tender top, you'll have to sort through hundreds of images of smokebox doors and front buffers to find anything vaguely relevant. 

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, billbedford said:

You've picked up on something that seems inherent in an interest in railways. If you've ever found yourself looking for a photo of a cab roof or tender top, you'll have to sort through hundreds of images of smokebox doors and front buffers to find anything vaguely relevant. 

 

Photographs of the rear end of goods trains are like hens' teeth! (Three cheers for the Lickey Banker!)

[MikeParkin65]

7 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Photographs of the rear end of goods trains are like hens' teeth! (Three cheers for the Lickey Banker!)

Photographs are but DVD's are fantastic for seeing the make up of a train and often the end of it if the film maker has followed the shot through. Won't help so much if you're modelling pre 1940's ish but for post war onwards there is a wealth of material available on railway DVDS 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Won't help so much if you're modelling pre 1940's ish 

 

Don't say that: https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-railway-traffic-on-the-lnwr-1897-online

 

1897!

[Jesse Sim]

19 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

My advice is to throw the Peco track rubber away - it's far too coarse for this job and leaves scratches in the railhead. I used to use very fine (1200 grade) emery which gradually polished the rails but since applying graphite to the track I hardly ever have to clean anything.

John Nuttall and The Baz have always mention this technique to me. Forgive me if it’s been mentioned before but how does one do it? What sort of graphite? Where does it go on the layout? 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Jesse Sim