Wright writes.....

[micklner]

Personally I hate the term "Layout Loco" modellers whatever their skill level, should try and aim for the best model they can achieve. I would only consider the DJH gearbox on a 4mm large pacific or Tank Loco. HL boxes every time for me. Take minutes to make up and get running.

[Lecorbusier]

 

If a locomotive (or coach or wagon) which belongs to you is ok to you ..fine. For LB the J6 is fine as unless you tell people the gearbox is visible very few would notice it.

.........

 

It's your layout and if it is ok for you, it's OK by me.

 

I think a tentative suggestion for the possible improvement to a model that has been offered up for comment is in the spirit of this thread?

 

There may be reasons why such suggestions are not taken up and rule one always applies, but we would all be poorer if there was not space for such comments. The only difference I see between modellers of Tony's stature and the rest of us is that the subject under discussion is likely to be an active choice rather than through lack of ability or observation.

 

In my own areas of expertise and mastery I still invite comments and critiques (so long as they are constructive) as it keeps me up to the mark and sometimes leads to real improvement. One can occasionally get too close to a specific problem or endeavour and expediency can then trump rigour.

 

In the end I have no problem with Tony being happy with his visible gear box, it is probably only noticeable on the detail photos (and maybe on video) - but given this I shall for myself prefer to enjoy his other 'layout' locos for which I have nothing but admiration.

[Tony Wright]

Personally I hate the term "Layout Loco" modellers whatever their skill level, should try and aim for the best model they can achieve. I would only consider the DJH gearbox on a 4mm large pacific or Tank Loco. HL boxes every time for me. Take minutes to make up and get running.

The term 'layout loco' was not 'invented' by me - I think it was first used by Iain Rice. I'm quite happy to plagiarise many of Iain's phrases and labels (though I follow nothing of his practice in the making of chassis).

 

Whether you hate it or not, Mick, I think it has validity. I think it's axiomatic that any modeller should try to aim for the best model they can make, but a loco designed primarily for layout operation must (surely?) have more compromises than one designed for static display in a glass case. 

 

Other differences between the two types (even if both are built to the same standard) would include, at least to me, more sideways movement for the axles in the chassis (though nowhere near the inherent slop in today's RTR locos), the omission of springs (usually invisible, anyway) below the frames where they interfere with pick-ups and the substitution (if necessary) of slightly smaller bogie/pony wheels to give a bit more clearance on curves. 

 

What would one sooner have? A 'layout loco', which, because of the compromises mentioned, runs sweetly, without shorting, interference or derailments, or a 'dead-scale' model (built to the highest standard a modeller might achieve) which runs equally perfectly - but only over a yard of dead straight track? 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

 

What would one sooner have? A 'layout loco', which, because of the compromises mentioned, runs sweetly, without shorting, interference or derailments, or a 'dead-scale' model (built to the highest standard a modeller might achieve) which runs equally perfectly - but only over a yard of dead straight track? 

I understood that the loco's built for Pete Waterman were to run on his Leamington Spa ?

 

If a loco is purely for display and not for running, then it is a totally different beast and one could argue that the compromise of limited running capability is greater than those involved in achieving running capability. Under this definition 'Layout Loco' as a moniker should perhaps be seen as a positive rather than a negative?

Edited September 5, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[jamie92208]

I can only comment from the 7mm world but the same differences exist.  A good friend lent me quite  a bit of stock in the early days of Long Preston.  After the first day at a show he had to spend the evening lengthening the drawbars as they had all been built for his layout which was a nearly straight end to end and could not cope with 6' radius curves.   On a Midland Compound I have had to resort to putting a thin coat of araldite on the outer face of the bogie wheels so that they don't short on the slidebars.   Also several other 4-4-0's have had to have their bogie pivot systems completely rebuilt to allow for a reasonable amount of sideplay on curves.   I've never weathered any of my locos yet and will probably attempt it soon.  I really do need to get some lamps bought though.

 

Jamie

[gr.king]

What did I do now?

Certainly nothing bad. Putting a new twist on an old saying, you are the exception that disproves the rule.

 

Hidden or visible drives in GNR 0-6-0s? I have feet in both camps. I built three J6s for myself with carefully arranged gear-trains built up from individual gears in order to hide the motors completely in the fireboxes, and a later example for a friend using his specified High-Level gearbox which achieves the same thing for more money. I also used the same J6 parts, modified, to produce a J2 body, and put that on the core-parts of a Bachmann K3 chassis that I happened to have, simply to make "good" use of a chassis with the right sort of wheelbase and nearly the right wheel size - but in this case the part of the block housing the gears protrudes quite a way into the space that ought to be empty beneath the boiler. I don't really like the fact that it does so, but in two or three years of use at shows I've yet to hear anybody pointing out the eyesore of the visible gear-housing, in fact I hear very few people correctly calling it a J2 rather than mistaking it for a J6.

[Clive Mortimore]

I have always thought the object of the hobby was to have fun running trains on a layout. I agree with the term "layout loco" which as Tony says should "run sweetly, without shorting, interference or derailments". That can be a RTR, kit or scratchbuilt to the standard that the layout owner is happy with. The most important thing is it runs without problems, nothing is worse than a good looking but useless loco or the beautiful but inoperable layout under it. Where is the fun in a bad running loco and/or layout.

 

Now I can understand those who want a "perfect" model to put in a display case, despite it is something I couldn't do myself. Now if the builder (or buyer) of such model enjoys seeing it in a cabinet not doing anything, great.

 

Having both good looking and working layout and locomotives hopefully does increase the enjoyment of both the builder/owner and viewers.

[Black Marlin]

Certainly nothing bad. Putting a new twist on an old saying, you are the exception that disproves the rule.

 

Fun fact: the original meaning of 'to prove' is 'to test', rather than 'to confirm': this is why exceptions 'prove' rules - they test them to ascertain their truthfulness and general applicability. So Jesse does, indeed, prove the rule.

 

SWMBO informs me that I may be the male version of Susie Dent. Also, I am not allowed to meet Susie Dent.

[jamie92208]

Fun fact: the original meaning of 'to prove' is 'to test', rather than 'to confirm': this is why exceptions 'prove' rules - they test them to ascertain their truthfulness and general applicability. So Jesse does, indeed, prove the rule.

 

SWMBO informs me that I may be the male version of Susie Dent. Also, I am not allowed to meet Susie Dent.

 

Which is presumably why we have a main line junction in Birmingham called Proof House Junction that overlooks the Birmingham Proof House where guns are 'Proved'.

 

Jamie

[Black Marlin]

Which is presumably why we have a main line junction in Birmingham called Proof House Junction that overlooks the Birmingham Proof House where guns are 'Proved'.

 

Jamie

And also why the US Army has an enormous, 113-square-mile facility in Maryland called Aberdeen Proving Ground. Even bigger is the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, which encompasses 1,252 square miles and is used for testing chemical and biological weapons (nowadays in a defensive context only).

Edited September 5, 2018 by Black Marlin

[Clive Mortimore]

Which is presumably why we have a main line junction in Birmingham called Proof House Junction that overlooks the Birmingham Proof House where guns are 'Proved'.

 

Jamie

Hi Jamie

 

Most proof firing is done with a double full charge, so if the barrel isn't made properly it should go pop on the proof firing not when the gunners are using it. 

 

All new barrels are issued with 2 EFC (equivalent  full  charge) already on the documents. One of the jobs of the gunners is to keep a record of the number of EFCs and at certain points the gun fitter would check the barrel for wear, this would be noted because wear on a barrel effects the accuracy of the gun. In the past the calculations for the gun would be different as the barrel wore, today the computer does it all. The most damage to a gun barrel comes for the corrosive effect of the propelling charges.  There you all go you are now as knowledgeable as most gun fitters. 

 

I use to like doing examination of ordnance.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Tony Wright]

I understood that the loco's built for Pete Waterman were to run on his Leamington Spa ?

 

If a loco is purely for display and not for running, then it is a totally different beast and one could argue that the compromise of limited running capability is greater than those involved in achieving running capability. Under this definition 'Layout Loco' as a moniker should perhaps be seen as a positive rather than a negative?

I'm sure the O Gauge locos built for Pete were/are the 'best of both worlds' - good enough to stand close scrutiny, but also also made to run.

 

I think in the case of the likes of Leamington, fewer compromises would need to be built into the locos for it. By that, I mean the layout is extensive and has generous curves; a 'luxury' denied to most modellers who are space-strapped, whatever their chosen scale/gauge. 

 

The larger scale ones ran well as well, but their lives tended to be in glass cases, in static-mode. All those I photographed had motors fitted, so they were designed to run. 

 

The chassis I've built to run on Roy Jackson's EM Retford are not as compromised as the ones I build in OO for LB. My minimum radius is 3' - Retford's are at least double that. 

 

I think you're right - 'layout loco' should be seen as a positive term. After all, they're much more useful than those which can only go in a straight line.  

[Fat Controller]

And also why the US Army has an enormous, 113-square-mile facility in Maryland called Aberdeen Proving Ground. Even bigger is the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, which encompasses 1,252 square miles and is used for testing chemical and biological weapons (nowadays in a defensive context only).

On this side of the pond, the site at Shoeburyness used to rejoice in the title 'Proof and Experimental Establishment' which always struck me as a bit odd, as Experiments produce the Proof, or so I was taught. 

[Black Marlin]

On this side of the pond, the site at Shoeburyness used to rejoice in the title 'Proof and Experimental Establishment' which always struck me as a bit odd, as Experiments produce the Proof, or so I was taught. 

 

Brilliant! I didn't know about that one, but yes, it exactly demonstrates the original meaning of the word 'proof': 'test'. Thanks, Brian :-)

[Killybegs]

The term 'layout loco' was not 'invented' by me - I think it was first used by Iain Rice. I'm quite happy to plagiarise many of Iain's phrases and labels (though I follow nothing of his practice in the making of chassis).

 

Whether you hate it or not, Mick, I think it has validity. I think it's axiomatic that any modeller should try to aim for the best model they can make, but a loco designed primarily for layout operation must (surely?) have more compromises than one designed for static display in a glass case. 

 

Other differences between the two types (even if both are built to the same standard) would include, at least to me, more sideways movement for the axles in the chassis (though nowhere near the inherent slop in today's RTR locos), the omission of springs (usually invisible, anyway) below the frames where they interfere with pick-ups and the substitution (if necessary) of slightly smaller bogie/pony wheels to give a bit more clearance on curves. 

 

What would one sooner have? A 'layout loco', which, because of the compromises mentioned, runs sweetly, without shorting, interference or derailments, or a 'dead-scale' model (built to the highest standard a modeller might achieve) which runs equally perfectly - but only over a yard of dead straight track? 

 

This can also apply to rolling stock. The vans and wagons that run in formations on Worseter are very basic, using as much as possible from the kits. They do have P4 wheels, sprung buffers and three link couplings but no expensive brake gear or suspension. On the other hand, the few wagons that sit around on the front of the layout have etched underpinnings from Rumney models and some additional detailing, see the Grampus below.

 

[Barry Ten]

Fun fact: the original meaning of 'to prove' is 'to test', rather than 'to confirm': this is why exceptions 'prove' rules - they test them to ascertain their truthfulness and general applicability. So Jesse does, indeed, prove the rule.

 

 

I've heard that before, but it still doesn't make any sense to me!

 

A. Thicko of South Wales

[cctransuk]

Purely as a matter of interest, the attached diagram shows how I am currently re-chassising three old Airfix ex-LMS 4Fs,

 

 

and I have used exactly the same mechanism to re-chassis three ex-LMS 3Fs from various sources.

 

I have several Airfix ex-LMS 2Ps to re-chassis, and these will follow the diagram below.

 

 

In a completely different sphere, a model of GT3 was powered as below;

 

 

and a tender-drive Hornby 9F will be rechassied thus :-

 

 

A couple of BR 3MT 2-6-2Ts and a trio of BR 3MT 2-6-0s will be fitted with chassis along these lines :-

 

 

An old Mainline BR 4MT 4-6-0 and a kit-bashed BR 5MT 4-6-0 are scheduled for rechassising :-

 

 

 

I could go on - these are just a few of my past, present and future projects; I just wished to demonstrate that it is possible nowadays to power most chassis without the mechanism being visible.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Lecorbusier]

From Tony's standpoint wouldn't the preference be to have the 0-6-0 powered off the middle axle?

[cctransuk]

From Tony's standpoint wouldn't the preference be to have the 0-6-0 powered off the middle axle?

 

No doubt - but I've never understood why.

 

I can demonstrate that driving the rear axle works fine and is, I would contend, more logical as the centre axle of a 'layout loco' requires a fair degree of sideplay.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Clive Mortimore]

On this side of the pond, the site at Shoeburyness used to rejoice in the title 'Proof and Experimental Establishment' which always struck me as a bit odd, as Experiments produce the Proof, or so I was taught. 

Hi Brian

 

Shoebury is used to fire the proof shots on new barrels, artillery and tank. Proof as to test the barrels.

 

They also undertake experiments with new equipment and ammunition. Two different roles.

[ScRSG]

Tony,

 

Regarding leaving off bits of kits which are either unseen or "get in the way", I have just started (another) DJH A1, kindly donated by my mate Dave, and I refreshed my memory a bit by re-watching your DVD on loco building. The A1 comes with etches for the spring detail behind the drivers but I noticed on the video that you omitted these from the A2 you built. I must confess that missing these off would certainly make the fixing of pickups etc much easier, so was this a deliberate omission?

 

Chas

[MarkC]

I use to like doing examination of ordnance.

 

Big boys' toys!

[gr.king]

Fun fact: the original meaning of 'to prove' is 'to test', rather than 'to confirm': this is why exceptions 'prove' rules - they test them to ascertain their truthfulness and general applicability. So Jesse does, indeed, prove the rule.

 

SWMBO informs me that I may be the male version of Susie Dent. Also, I am not allowed to meet Susie Dent.

 

I imagine that could make the Scottish legal verdict of "not proven" even less helpful to those who receive it, implying that not only has their alleged wrong-doing not been confirmed, but that the allegation hasn't even been tested.

[Black Marlin]

I've heard that before, but it still doesn't make any sense to me!

 

A. Thicko of South Wales

 

A thicko? Absolutely not. This one goes all the way back to Latin. The verb probare means 'to test' (and we still talk about 'probation' as being a period of assessment) but it comes from probus, which means 'good' or 'virtuous' (which is why we have the word 'probity' to describe someone's good character). So the ambiguity's been around for a couple of thousand years; I wouldn't beat myself up about it.

 

Regards,

Gavin

[Black Marlin]

I imagine that could make the Scottish legal verdict of "not proven" even less helpful to those who receive it, implying that not only has their alleged wrong-doing not been confirmed, but that the allegation hasn't even been tested.

 

I suppose that the usage derives from the idea that the defendant's guilt has not been sufficiently tested to confirm its presence: hence their responsibility is insufficiently confirmed for them to be convicted. As a practical matter, friends who have served on juries that have returned that verdict have always felt that there was an element of rebuke to it: not towards the defendant but towards the police and prosecution who failed to make a sufficiently good case. Basically it's interpreted as saying to the defendant: "You know you did it, we know you did it, but because of a certain legal cack-handedness we can't prove you did it, so off you go, you wrong'un."