Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

 

 

 I do think track work makes a big difference though .... not specifically the gauge (though I prefer P4) but getting the sleeper spacing right and the track flowing correctly - perhaps that is just me.

A most important observation, Tim.............

 

After I'd written about Little Bytham in the MRJ getting on for three years ago now, Iain Rice thought I'd been almost apologetic about its being OO, though he did think I'd also had a pop at P4 (he did, however, fail to mention my qualification for that pop, of which, more later). 

 

Though LB is 'only' OO, I'm very lucky to have had Norman Solomon make and lay the scenic-side track. I don't think it's just you at all who considers getting the sleeper spacing right and the track flowing correctly as being (very) important. 

 

In the following views, I've positioned my camera as if the photographer were standing on Marsh Bridge, just south of the station, looking north. Without doubt, these 'looking-along-the-track' views, especially being slightly elevated, do show the 'narrow gauge' inherent in OO. 

 

 

 

 

 

Even with the camera placed on the track, the narrow gauge is still very apparent. 

 

 

This view is looking south.

 

Because of space restrictions, time restrictions and skill restrictions, I've adopted FS OO, though I wish I'd gone EM when I had the opportunity, over 40 years ago. 

 

Now for the 'pop'. A group of P4 modellers (excellent chaps, by the way) had visited LB at about the time the article was published, and they were very complimentary about the layout and the article. There was, however, one caveat. They said they couldn't live with the narrow gauge track and grossly over-scale treads and flanges of the wheels, which, they acknowledged, were more visible in photographs (such as the ones posted above). Yet, on every occasion I've seen the (prize-winning) layout they're involved with (and this has been mentioned before) hardly anything moves, and when it does it falls off! 

 

We all live with different compromises I suppose, and I'm not prepared to compromise on the running. 

[robertcwp]

 

 

I have my Magnum Opus, still loads to do and if I never finish it what I have achieved in a year and the enjoyment that is bringing is to continue then I am more than happy.

I think pretty much the same about my layout, which is not far off 20 years old now. Scenery does not interest me and buildings don't do a great deal for me either. I'm interested in the operational side so that is what my layout reflects. 

[robertcwp]

 

Now for the 'pop'. A group of P4 modellers (excellent chaps, by the way) had visited LB at about the time the article was published, and they were very complimentary about the layout and the article. There was, however, one caveat. They said they couldn't live with the narrow gauge track and grossly over-scale treads and flanges of the wheels, which, they acknowledged, were more visible in photographs (such as the ones posted above). Yet, on every occasion I've seen the (prize-winning) layout they're involved with (and this has been mentioned before) hardly anything moves, and when it does it falls off! 

 

We all live with different compromises I suppose, and I'm not prepared to compromise on the running. 

A 00 layout that works is, for me, infinitely better than a P4 one that does not. Some P4 layouts do work pretty well though. The one I'm occasionally to be found operating at exhibitions, Harton Gill, works well most of the time because its creator, Graham Broad, knows how to make things run. He's also very good at scenery and buildings.

Edited August 26, 2018 by robertcwp

[Barry Ten]

It's going back 40-odd years to the time when I first started reading the railway modelling magazines and taking inspiration from them. Back then the majority of the publications were in black and white and I think was disproportionately impressed with anything shown in colour. I particularly remember (mainly from Railway Modeller, because that was the main one my dad would pick up for me) being P D Hanock's Craig & Mertonford, Allan Downes' Candleford, and that enormous 7mm layout that featured in RM in one of the Christmas issues. I could tell at the time that it wasn't particularly realistic with regards to the track formations, but the trains looked gorgeous, and at that point every other 7mm layout seemed to have very spartan scenery and minimal ballasting. I couldn't achieve the modelling behind any of these layouts but I could be inspired by bits of it and encouraged to see what I could emulate given my teenage abilities.

 

In terms of practical, hands-on modelling, they don't seem to be much remembered now, but the decisive articles for me were those by Richard Gardiner (if I have the spelling correct) that appeared in Model Trains, and dealt with relatively simple, achievable upgrades to RTR steam locos. I remember him showing how the Hornby 9F could be improved by sawing off the front steps from the bogie casting, and reattaching them to the body - a total revelation to this young modeller, that such a simple alteration could suddenly make a model look convicinng - or at least to my eyes. He also covered such things as adding pick-ups, repainting and relining, weathering, all good stuff for the budding modeller. Because of these articles I never had any qualms about taking a knife or brush to an RTR model as soon as it was out of the box. Even with the better models of the day, like the Mainline 4MT, the model looked better with the wheels and motion toned down, the front coupling removed, some crew and weathering etc.

 

Al

[Hollar]

After a long layoff for personal reasons, I finally finished a model. It's a modified and repainted Bachman model, and will probably end up pushing one of John Brighton's locos around his Millhouses layout although it's currently on OO wheels..

 

Tone

[Lecorbusier]

 

 

Now for the 'pop'. A group of P4 modellers (excellent chaps, by the way) had visited LB at about the time the article was published, and they were very complimentary about the layout and the article. There was, however, one caveat. They said they couldn't live with the narrow gauge track and grossly over-scale treads and flanges of the wheels, which, they acknowledged, were more visible in photographs (such as the ones posted above). Yet, on every occasion I've seen the (prize-winning) layout they're involved with (and this has been mentioned before) hardly anything moves, and when it does it falls off! 

 

We all live with different compromises I suppose, and I'm not prepared to compromise on the running. 

I sometime wonder why people feel the need .... particularly when visiting as guests. Don't know the specifics but appears rude to me.

 

For what its worth I find the flowing track work captivating on LB and I find little effort in ignoring the 'compromise' on gauge. I would certainly find it very disappointing and annoying when watching the videos you post if the trains were constantly derailing.

 

We will have to see if I can achieve reliable running on Monsal Dale ..... if and when it is finally happens .... luckily, whilst it is a mainline the trackwork is not overly complicated and in my chosen period of 1902-3 the trains were more sedate than the east coast during the glory days.

[Atso]

I think that the overall look of a layout and the standard of the modelling and running is more important than the gauge. In this respect, Little Bytham exceeds all expectations I had of it when I got to see and operate it for the first time. I think that the team who have created this layout have set a very high standard and I will be very happy if my own ends up looking 50% as good once I've built it. Something to aspire to in my own modest way.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Atso

[Headstock]

A most important observation, Tim.............

 

After I'd written about Little Bytham in the MRJ getting on for three years ago now, Iain Rice thought I'd been almost apologetic about its being OO, though he did think I'd also had a pop at P4 (he did, however, fail to mention my qualification for that pop, of which, more later). 

 

Though LB is 'only' OO, I'm very lucky to have had Norman Solomon make and lay the scenic-side track. I don't think it's just you at all who considers getting the sleeper spacing right and the track flowing correctly as being (very) important. 

 

In the following views, I've positioned my camera as if the photographer were standing on Marsh Bridge, just south of the station, looking north. Without doubt, these 'looking-along-the-track' views, especially being slightly elevated, do show the 'narrow gauge' inherent in OO. 

 

60113 on Up express.jpg

 

60120 on Up West Riding.jpg

 

A2 3 & 9F.jpg

 

Bytham 02 Model.jpg

 

Even with the camera placed on the track, the narrow gauge is still very apparent. 

 

A4 on Northumbrian.jpg

 

This view is looking south.

 

Because of space restrictions, time restrictions and skill restrictions, I've adopted FS OO, though I wish I'd gone EM when I had the opportunity, over 40 years ago. 

 

Now for the 'pop'. A group of P4 modellers (excellent chaps, by the way) had visited LB at about the time the article was published, and they were very complimentary about the layout and the article. There was, however, one caveat. They said they couldn't live with the narrow gauge track and grossly over-scale treads and flanges of the wheels, which, they acknowledged, were more visible in photographs (such as the ones posted above). Yet, on every occasion I've seen the (prize-winning) layout they're involved with (and this has been mentioned before) hardly anything moves, and when it does it falls off! 

 

We all live with different compromises I suppose, and I'm not prepared to compromise on the running. 

 

The gauge thing is a minor quibble I feel. LB is a fantastic achievement when you think for a moment about the size of it, combined with the consistency and the quality of the modeling from all concerned. The years have been well spent to produce a layout superior to most that you would pay to see on the exhibition circuit. In addition, the thread attracts plenty of work from others that is always worth checking out from an inspirational point of view.

[thegreenhowards]

The caveat being that maybe a particular passion might be building locos and rolling stock?

 

If it is the scenic modelling and then operating which floats your boat I fully understand the attraction of adapting/weathering RTR. I do think track work makes a big difference though .... not specifically the gauge (though I prefer P4) but getting the sleeper spacing right and the track flowing correctly - perhaps that is just me.

I think you’re spot on. For me flowing track work is the most important thing, followed by sleeper spacing, with gauge a distant third. Grantham is a fine example that even ‘crude’ Peco code 100 can be made to look very good with sweeping curves, particularly through pointwork. I often struggle to tell whether a finescale layout is OO or EM at first glance.

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

I sometime wonder why people feel the need .... particularly when visiting as guests. Don't know the specifics but appears rude to me.

 

For what its worth I find the flowing track work captivating on LB and I find little effort in ignoring the 'compromise' on gauge. I would certainly find it very disappointing and annoying when watching the videos you post if the trains were constantly derailing.

 

We will have to see if I can achieve reliable running on Monsal Dale ..... if and when it is finally happens .... luckily, whilst it is a mainline the trackwork is not overly complicated and in my chosen period of 1902-3 the trains were more sedate than the east coast during the glory days.

I didn't think any of my P4 guests on that day of the visit were being rude, Tim,

 

In fact, I welcome honest opinion and comment - one learns from (constructive) critical observations, and I actively seek them out. 

 

Whether the same group welcomed my presence at two shows last year where I witnessed (not just on a single viewing) things stuttering and falling off their layout is open to question, though I'm sure the answer would be 'no'. It's well known that I'm the railway modelling hex-putter on a layout's operation whenever I see one, but I was not alone. 

 

Should we be surprised when (paying) visitors quickly walk away from viewing a layout when things rarely happen, and when they do, derailments and failures occur? How can the builders of such 'failures' tolerate it, when they have to shuffle constantly round to the front, murmuring apologies as they re-rail yet another loco or item of stock? I couldn't. 

 

To be fair, this running problem is not just confined to finer gauges than OO, and not just on exhibition layouts, either. I'm sure some owners/builders/operators of their layouts live in a fools' paradise of self-delusion (is that tautology?), where they turn a happy blind eye to everything going wrong. I admit (and have done on many occasions) to being a zealot when it comes to running. If I (and operating friends) cannot get through the two and a half hours of operating LB's sequence without failure (other than the operators' occasional errors), then I go 'ballistic'. If there's a (very) rare derailment (including propelling long rakes), it's investigated and the offending vehicle removed for attention if necessary. 

 

I would find it intolerable when guests visit (and there have been hundreds of them, and they keep wanting to come back) were it necessary for my having to apologise for poor running on LB, or, worse still, asking them to investigate why something had gone wrong.  

[thegreenhowards]

I've just completed the article describing the recent LNER weekend on Little Bytham for BRM, where the layout was backdated 20 years to represent the high-summer of 1938. It'll be accompanied by a cover-mounted DVD, part of which will show the running weekend in motion. 

 

I was asked the question, 'How could it be made applicable to the newcomer/inexperienced modeller?' I pondered this question. Thinking conservatively, the layout itself is the product of decades (even centuries!) of experience on the part of its builders, and the masses of LNER stock which was run is also the product of decades of experience and expertise on the part of those who built it. Clearly, a newcomer contemplating such a thing would have to look at least 40 years into the future to achieve the same result, and also be part of a large team as well. 

 

Then, I thought some more. Taking Britain's railways in general, apart from the ravages of a war, most locations would have changed very little between 1938 and 1958, and, apart from different liveries, neither would a lot of the locos and stock. One could argue that the LB weekend was done on the 'grand scale', but something done by the beginner/newcomer couldn't possibly be on the same scale, without the resources we were able to call upon. 

 

Thinking of the newcomer, I thought 'Why not build a simple layout, say, an ex-MR branch line or ex-GWR branch line (for examples) utilising what's now available from the RTR/RTP market?' There are plenty of typical RTP buildings available; there's the new (and very good) Peco bullhead track, Dapol signals and an absolute Cornucopia of out-of-the-box locos and rolling stock. The builder could set it in pre-War times to start with, then take it into BR times with, in the main, just substitutions of stock. Especially working with like-minded souls, it could be great fun. One might even introduce the earlier diesel types (or even later, because things like semaphore signalling still exists in pockets on the national network). 

 

I believe it would be a very good idea - ideal for the inexperienced/newcomer, so I've suggested it in my article (though the article is much more than this). What do others think about this, please?

 

I think that the idea of one layout with different time periods is a great one. As people have said it’s been done before, either as a continuum as with Horbury, or by changing the period on different outings as with Stoke Summit, Shap and now LB. it depends on what is one’s main interest in railway modelling. If it’s building (or, shock horror, collecting) rolling stock then the multiple era idea is a great way of indulging locoholic tendencies, and for operating fans, then it could introduce different scenarios. If one is more interested in the scenic side, then this is probably less compelling as the rolling stock may be regarded as a necessary evil to complete the scene.

 

Speaking for myself, I started off trying to limit myself to 1958/9, but have quickly been tempted into buying and building rolling stock from a wider range, because the trains are more interesting/varied. And that’s before I’ve got a scenically finished layout!

 

In terms of your original question, I would say that not everything in the magazine has to be aspirational. I want to be inspired as well...and LB certainly achieves that.

 

Andy

[Tony Wright]

I think you’re spot on. For me flowing track work is the most important thing, followed by sleeper spacing, with gauge a distant third. Grantham is a fine example that even ‘crude’ Peco code 100 can be made to look very good with sweeping curves, particularly through pointwork. I often struggle to tell whether a finescale layout is OO or EM at first glance.

 

Andy

I think you're spot on as well, Andy,

 

The following pictures of Grantham were taken at the Stafford Show, getting on for three years ago. Full ballasting has now been completed, but the sweeping trackwork still looks very-convincing. 

 

 

 

 

[Lecorbusier]

I didn't think any of my P4 guests on that day of the visit were being rude, Tim,

 

In fact, I welcome honest opinion and comment - one learns from (constructive) critical observations, and I actively seek them out. 

 

 

I tend to go by the old adage though I make a small adjustment ... if you haven't anything nice (or helpful) to say, then most often best not to say anything at all. As I observed, I don't know the circumstances .... but unless you solicited a comment relating to the track gauge and wheel profile I see no reason for the comment. The very fact that they model to P4 shows a preference which can be taken as read. As an 'honest comment' it is self evidently one that nothing can be done about to address (should you even wish to), so what is the point .... and it has obviously caused irritation.

 

We have done reliable running to death and you know my views. Particularly on a show layout good running should be a baseline. I simply believe that with P4, there should be a little more leeway given for the first couple (or even three outings) as it is my observation that in P4 gremlins which only appear once a layout goes on the road will inevitably need to be ironed out. If they are not ironed out, then the layout only has merit as a diorama for me (I should say I do like dioramas though).

Edited August 27, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Chamby]

I've just completed the article describing the recent LNER weekend on Little Bytham for BRM, where the layout was backdated 20 years to represent the high-summer of 1938. It'll be accompanied by a cover-mounted DVD, part of which will show the running weekend in motion. 

 

I was asked the question, 'How could it be made applicable to the newcomer/inexperienced modeller?' I pondered this question. Thinking conservatively, the layout itself is the product of decades (even centuries!) of experience on the part of its builders, and the masses of LNER stock which was run is also the product of decades of experience and expertise on the part of those who built it. Clearly, a newcomer contemplating such a thing would have to look at least 40 years into the future to achieve the same result, and also be part of a large team as well. 

 

Then, I thought some more. Taking Britain's railways in general, apart from the ravages of a war, most locations would have changed very little between 1938 and 1958, and, apart from different liveries, neither would a lot of the locos and stock. One could argue that the LB weekend was done on the 'grand scale', but something done by the beginner/newcomer couldn't possibly be on the same scale, without the resources we were able to call upon. 

 

Thinking of the newcomer, I thought 'Why not build a simple layout, say, an ex-MR branch line or ex-GWR branch line (for examples) utilising what's now available from the RTR/RTP market?' There are plenty of typical RTP buildings available; there's the new (and very good) Peco bullhead track, Dapol signals and an absolute Cornucopia of out-of-the-box locos and rolling stock. The builder could set it in pre-War times to start with, then take it into BR times with, in the main, just substitutions of stock. Especially working with like-minded souls, it could be great fun. One might even introduce the earlier diesel types (or even later, because things like semaphore signalling still exists in pockets on the national network). 

 

I believe it would be a very good idea - ideal for the inexperienced/newcomer, so I've suggested it in my article (though the article is much more than this). What do others think about this, please?

 

Personally, I am very comfortable with ‘timeshifting’ as long as what is being run at any given time is contemporaneously accurate. My own project under construction is very much focused on 1948-9, on the former GC, using DCC control, with the intent of building and running something pleasingly faithful to that time and place. However I also have a collection of late 1950’s western region loco’s and stock appropriate for the club layout, and a small collection of BR blue diesels and coaches, both these collections use analogue control.

 

So my own layout is wired up for DCC but with the ability to alternatively run trains under DC power on either main running line (albeit with more limited operational flexibility than a dedicated DC layout would offer). This allows me to occasionally run and test my own non-DCC stuff, and also allows visitors the pleasure of running their own trains, whether they use DCC or not. It makes for rather more than the usual ‘two wires’, there are three separate pairs of bus wires running under the layout (for the up lines, down lines and for accessory control respectively) but so far it all works as intended.

 

The intent is that I can be as fastidious as I like when running my own stuff, but also allows maximum flexibility for others, when prudent. Whether that will extend as far as allowing ‘Thomas’ an occasional outing, I’m not so sure. My grandson has just had his first birthday so that particular challenge has not arisen yet!

[Tony Wright]

Personally, I am very comfortable with ‘timeshifting’ as long as what is being run at any given time is contemporaneously accurate. My own project under construction is very much focused on 1948-9, on the former GC, using DCC control, with the intent of building and running something pleasingly faithful to that time and place. However I also have a collection of late 1950’s western region loco’s and stock appropriate for the club layout, and a small collection of BR blue diesels and coaches, both these collections use analogue control.

 

So my own layout is wired up for DCC but with the ability to alternatively run trains under DC power on either main running line (albeit with more limited operational flexibility than a dedicated DC layout would offer). This allows me to occasionally run and test my own non-DCC stuff, and also allows visitors the pleasure of running their own trains, whether they use DCC or not. It makes for rather more than the usual ‘two wires’, there are three separate pairs of bus wires running under the layout (for the up lines, down lines and for accessory control respectively) but so far it all works as intended.

 

The intent is that I can be as fastidious as I like when running my own stuff, but also allows maximum flexibility for others, when prudent. Whether that will extend as far as allowing ‘Thomas’ an occasional outing, I’m not so sure. My grandson has just had his first birthday so that particular challenge has not arisen yet!

One of the greatest delights I derive from Little Bytham is to see visitors' locos running (of every size, shape, period, and hue - the locos, not the visitors) whether they be DC or DCC.

 

Without some means of isolating the DCC, is it possible to run an analogue loco on DCC, without causing it harm? 

[CUTLER2579]

Tony,

your question was "Without some means of isolating the DCC, is it possible to run an analogue loco on DCC, without causing it harm?".

My answer is not helpful as I don't know.

However running a DCC loco on DC analogue  is a minefield. I have a BR Class 2 chipped loco that runs fine on the proper stuff, equally I had a DJH A2 Class chipped loco that ran like a pig for a few seconds prior to frying the chip. Now converted to DC analogue and runs like a dream on 12 volts DC. 

I suppose it depends on the chip used. I suspect we will get a DCC gent giving us a more detailed and  technically correct answer.

 

Back to silly self mode.

My wife always tells me you need the right potatoes to make good chips.    I blame it on being high on Co-codamol.

Derek.

[davefrk]

I tend to go by the old adage though I make a small adjustment ... if you haven't anything nice (or helpful) to say, then most often best not to say anything at all. As I observed, I don't know the circumstances .... but unless you solicited a comment relating to the track gauge and wheel profile I see no reason for the comment. The very fact that they model to P4 shows a preference which can be taken as read. As an 'honest comment' it is self evidently one that nothing can be done about to address (should you even wish to), so what is the point .... and it has obviously caused irritation.

 

We have done reliable running to death and you know my views. Particularly on a show layout good running should be a baseline. I simply believe that with P4, there should be a little more leeway given for the first couple (or even three outings) as it is my observation that in P4 gremlins which only appear once a layout goes on the road will inevitably need to be ironed out. If they are not ironed out, then the layout only has merit as a diorama for me (I should say I do like dioramas though).

 

You should try being in the group I'm in Tim, they don't hold back.... I don't mind really as the group was originally the four guys who built Alloa in OO so not armchair modellers and although they had never built pointwork before Alloa as a big exhibition layout works well and has been well recieved. A few bits have been improved like me filing some point blades to a better profile to cure the odd derailment but it's basically as they built it. Reliable running is also a bugbear of mine and I do walk away from an exhibition layout if things fall off at the same place time after time, one layout I remember (no names) I saw three times in quick succession and things were still falling off at the same place. Had someone lost the snagging book?....

My own layout Wharfeside in EM was started over thirty years ago but was in store for years at a time due to being involved with other layouts from OO to P4 or other projects like restoring a 1966 landrover. The track was originally SMP with copperclad points made on hand drawn templates, it worked but I didn't like the look of the points so a few years ago a restart was made. The track was relaid in C&L flexi, Bill Bedford etches with flat bottom rail on copperclad sleepers and C&L components on ply sleepers for the points. I'm much happier now. I like flowing track too and made large templates to draw the alignment then loose laid some yard lengths out and studied it from all angles, a bit of shifting here and there till I was satisfied. The track has recieved nice comments but the slagging was all about the time taken, so what might the alternative be? Bang it all down as fast as possible and hope for the best? I think this happens a lot with club layouts just to get something running quickly.

I believe modelling the track, scenery, buildings are every bit as important as the locos and should be done in such a way as to complete the whole picture, I think only a few layouts have achieved this and Tony and his friends have with LB.

I only hope I can get near to it with Wharfeside.

 

Dave Franks.

 

edit:- added 'Tony's friends ' at his suggestion

Edited August 28, 2018 by davefrk

[thegreenhowards]

One of the greatest delights I derive from Little Bytham is to see visitors' locos running (of every size, shape, period, and hue - the locos, not the visitors) whether they be DC or DCC.

 

Without some means of isolating the DCC, is it possible to run an analogue loco on DCC, without causing it harm?

 

Some systems claim to have this ability, but I’ve never tried it. The simplest approach is a DPDT switch. I have two of these which convert each mainline from DCC to DC very quickly. I use this for visiting locos and running in of my own. Not rocket science!

 

Andy

[Barry Ten]

Some systems claim to have this ability, but I’ve never tried it. The simplest approach is a DPDT switch. I have two of these which convert each mainline from DCC to DC very quickly. I use this for visiting locos and running in of my own. Not rocket science!

 

Andy

 

Me too, a pair of DPDTs. That's been the system for ten years and I've yet to have a loco burn out, blow up, melt, catch fire or any of the other horror stories that supposedly come from allowing DC and DCC within the same county.

 

Al

[Chamby]

One of the greatest delights I derive from Little Bytham is to see visitors' locos running (of every size, shape, period, and hue - the locos, not the visitors) whether they be DC or DCC.

 

Without some means of isolating the DCC, is it possible to run an analogue loco on DCC, without causing it harm?

Tony, my general advice would be to run each locomotive on its intended controller, but having said that I have purchased a Bachmann blue pullman set from someone who ran it on their DC layout for several years... upon opening it up I found that it had DCC chips inside that still worked. If you use Relco’s though, these are a definite no-no for DCC.

 

As others have indicated, Relco’s aside, you should be able to use a DCC controller on LB without having to make alterations to the wiring other than swopping over the controller, but you would need to isolate everything DC beforehand, including all your existing DC trains in the fiddle yard and sidings. You soon know if you have missed anything because you hear an electrical ‘buzz’ sound!

 

The photo below shows how I manage dual supply, using DPDT switches, as others have indicated above. The three sockets are where I connect the controllers. For all DCC operation I simply use the centre socket for the accessories bus (point motors and suchlike) and with the dpdt switches pointed inwards, the two outer track buses are also supplied from the same power source. This is the mode shown below. Flick either switch outwards however, and the neighbouring socket becomes live and at the same time the central DCC is disconnected, allowing a second controller - either DCC or analogue - to be plugged in. The outside sockets supply the up and down bus wires respectively, so by switching out just one of them, I can run DCC on one line and analogue simultaneously on the other... I just have to remember not to use the crossover points between them!

 

.

 

Phil

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Chamby

[rowanj]

 I know Tony likes to see others' efforts so here is my DJH D20 on test. Getting it balanced took a while and the photos expose some watermarks which I'll tackle when I weather it. The loco was painted at Hull when it came out of store for the summer season, finishing its' life in 1957 on Alnwick-Newcastle stoppers, so I doubt it got too scruffy. The late crest was fitted after re-painting. None of the D20's were lined under BR, according to Yeadon. There are lots of mods needed to get the kit looking reasonably accurate for LNER/BR days, which is either a pain or half the fun, depending on your point of view. I could have done without having to buy a new tender, however..

 

The outside brake linkage was fitted in LNER days and is very prominent on all photos, so had to be fitted.

 

In summary. - replacement Alexander tender, with Vacuum tank fitted behind buffer and short vacuum pipe going through plate behind the tender rear.

 

Extended smokebox and buffer beam.

 

Pipework, brakes and linkage and reversing lever, Pop valves and whistle re-sited to fit BR 1957 condition.

 

For all its' challenges, I've enjoyed getting the kit up to my version of "layout standard".  Now to look at the A8......

Edited August 27, 2018 by rowanj

[Black Marlin]

a fools' paradise of self-delusion (is that tautology?)

Good morning Tony

 

The answer to your question, briefly, is 'no' - it's not a tautology.

 

The slightly longer explanation is this: while self-delusion is always deliberate, existing in a fool's paradise may not be. The phrase almost certainly comes from Christian literary works that describe a 'Paradise of Fools'. Milton (it's always going to be either Milton or Dante...) provides the supreme example: in Book III of Paradise Lost, he describes it as a place where people whose actions have been insufficient to damn them but equally cannot be considered wholly virtuous will spend eternity (he also calls it 'the Limbo of Vanities'). Basically, if you're too intellectually incompetent to know that what you've done is wrong (and therefore you can be shown not to be malicious), it's where you end up (according to Milton). A secular version of a fool's paradise is called Cockaigne, which was a mediaeval peasant myth about an afterlife in a land of plenty where all pleasures of the flesh were freely to be had and traditional social orders were inverted - although the 'fool' element of this particular paradise is less about stupidity and more about lack of formal education.

 

Sorry for the wild digression...!

 

Gavin

[The Stationmaster]

Tony

 

One backdating question. To what extent had the timetable changed at LB between 1938 and 1958? I understand that timetables were slowed during the war and not speeded back up until a considerable number of years afterwards. Also, would post war trains have been longer than pre-war?

 

It's a question that has occurred to me in my own research as there's a handy download of a 1948 working timetable but I don't think that timetable applies for my preferred prewar years. I need the time for a trip to a research facility! I'd also assumed that what I might ultimately do is run the odd train from different periods albeit not necessarily to the extent of having complete sets of trains for different periods. A bit like the approach taken on a 4mm WR layout whose name eludes me where trains run from early crest through to late crest as part of the sequence.

 

David

 

On the GWR, and no doubt elsewhere, there were very considerable differences between Pre-War and Post-War timetables on some lines, especially some branches.  One noticeable difference was the effect on freight traffic/trains where often the Post-War (by which I mean c.1947) service had far more trains than Pre-War.  Equally in some cases increased passenger services also featured.

 

However, again judging by the GWR example, fast fitted/partially fitted freights were only reintroduced over a period of a year or two in the late 1940s and another major difference for freight was the number of new marshalling yards or nests of sidings for marshalling purposes which had appeared during the war and had an effect ion traffic patterns which in some cases lasted almost, or even into, the 1960s before rationalisation.  The other big impact on freight. although it took time to bite in terms of timetable alterations and yard closures, was the 1955 ASLE&F strike which lost the railway huge amounts of freight traffic other than stuff like coal and minerals although the latter was hit by industrial change in any case as many smaller quarries closed.

[Barry Ten]

 A secular version of a fool's paradise is called Cockaigne, which was a mediaeval peasant myth about an afterlife in a land of plenty where all pleasures of the flesh were freely to be had and traditional social orders were inverted

 

Where do I sign up?

[Black Marlin]

Where do I sign up?

Apply to the admissions office at Big Rock Candy Mountain...