Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

Although the proportion was presumably rather lower on the ECML out in the country, where the majority of passenger trains were long-distance expresses. Were there any ex-GNR or ex-ECJS carriages still marshalled in such trains in the immediate post-war years? 

 

It depends on your definition of East Coast mainline. Taken literally the East coast mainline was a huge geographical entity that encompassed a number of different operating areas and divisions. Each area and division had its own carriage fleets and policies. Taken as a whole, I would say that the sixty percent was probably accurate for the East coast mainline. Top of the pile would be the East coast fleet, they got all the new trains and would have a high proportion of LNER built carriages. However, the East coast fleet shared the same lines with the GN mainline fleet and southern operating areas carriages to the south. To the north they shared with the NE area and southern Scottish division etc.

 

If you were to look at one hundred East coast mainline expresses, it is the top ten or twenty that get all the attention in books, photographs and from modeler's. The ten 'must model' trains tend to come from the East coast fleet with a couple from the GN fleet chucked in for good measure. Given that perhaps five percent of modeler's portraying the East coast mainline model accurate formations, and that they tend to concentrate on the small percentage of top ten trains, it is perhaps not suspiring that a figure of sixty percent of pre grouping stock (even on the East coast mainline) at Nationalization goes unnoticed by the majority of folk interested in LNER/ER affairs. With the exception of the western division. I would expect the proportion of pre grouping stock to be even higher the further you got away from the East coast mainline.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Headstock

[ecgtheow]

 

There have been references to 3D printing recently as the way forward so maybe this model serves as an example of what can be achieved currently? Created by Jason Liveridge, sold via Shapeways, built by Frank Bulkan & painted by Geoff Haynes on test it easily pulls a long train of white metal wagons. There is really no other way of me, an average modeller, getting a model of this GNR loco except by paying an expert to scratch build it in metal.

 

Unfortunately I didn't locate the model carefully enough before photographing it so the sprung bogie appears to be lifting the rear off the ground. It doesn't do that normally though the bogie does take some of the weight off the driving wheels.

 

William

[drmditch]

Not doing much modelling today, since I'm lying flat in a hospital bed.(It's very difficult to stay flat all day!) However perhaps I could contribute to the thoughts above.

 

My fictional fourth Durham station, Durham St Margarets, will be served not by the Flying Scotsman, but rather the Perambulating Prebendary.

 

This will have started from KX with an ex-GN composite diner (first for Bishops/Archdeacons/Canons(Prebendaries) etc, and third for Vicars/Curates and suchlike. On the south end will some variety of BK. On the north end will be an SR BK or equivalent, brought through the Hotel Curve (if possible). The train will run via Ely,Peterborough (if I have got those in the correct sequence) to York where a through portion from the GWR will be added to the south end. From thence via Ripon and the Leeds Northern to Northallerton and Durham.

 

The assembled clergy will no doubt welcome an interesting selection of motive power.

 

Comments and (polite) suggestions please.

 

Sorry I don't have access to my reference library at the moment.

This will of course be a pre-1948 train.

[Chamby]

Not doing much modelling today, since I'm lying flat in a hospital bed.(It's very difficult to stay flat all day!) However perhaps I could contribute to the thoughts above.

 

My fictional fourth Durham station, Durham St Margarets, will be served not by the Flying Scotsman, but rather the Perambulating Prebendary.

 

This will have started from KX with an ex-GN composite diner (first for Bishops/Archdeacons/Canons(Prebendaries) etc, and third for Vicars/Curates and suchlike. On the south end will some variety of BK. On the north end will be an SR BK or equivalent, brought through the Hotel Curve (if possible). The train will run via Ely,Peterborough (if I have got those in the correct sequence) to York where a through portion from the GWR will be added to the south end. From thence via Ripon and the Leeds Northern to Northallerton and Durham.

 

The assembled clergy will no doubt welcome an interesting selection of motive power.

 

Comments and (polite) suggestions please.

 

Sorry I don't have access to my reference library at the moment.

This will of course be a pre-1948 train.

 

No doubt this train runs with a 'Cathedral's Express' headboard... and only on Easter Sundays.  I'm guessing hauled by a GWR 'Saint' or maybe Welbeck Abbey? 

[chris p bacon]

fullsizeoutput_2d8.jpegfullsizeoutput_2da.jpeg

 

There have been references to 3D printing recently as the way forward so maybe this model serves as an example of what can be achieved currently? Created by Jason Liveridge, sold via Shapeways, built by Frank Bulkan & painted by Geoff Haynes on test it easily pulls a long train of white metal wagons. There is really no other way of me, an average modeller, getting a model of this GNR loco except by paying an expert to scratch build it in metal.

 

Unfortunately I didn't locate the model carefully enough before photographing it so the sprung bogie appears to be lifting the rear off the ground. It doesn't do that normally though the bogie does take some of the weight off the driving wheels.

 

William

 

William We're really glad you're pleased with the loco, I mentioned to Jason last night you were hoping to post a picture soon and he was looking forward to seeing it. I have the longer tank version and although it runs well have yet to paint and line it (this is a recurring theme!)

[Tony Wright]

Geoff Haynes' excellent painting has just been featured. 

 

 

Here's yet another DJH A2/2 which I've built which he'll get for painting next week. It'll be yet another 60506 WOLF OF BADENOCH. I'm always horrified how dirty my builds appear through the lens, but Geoff paints them beautifully. 

 

Mention has been made of the 'time periods' on layouts, and on the M&GNR bit of LB I spread this out to the last decade of the line's through existence. 

 

 

Andy Sparkes was surprised that I'd use an RTR D16/3 (I have one to make), but this one, which started out as CLAUD HAMILTON itself, was such a bargain at Peterborough last year that I couldn't resist it. I renumbered it to post-War 2618, removing the nameplate at the same time (the most difficult bit). Yeadon tells us that 2618 kept its LNER lined green until 1951, but by then it was probably renumbered to (6)2618. It's stretching credibility to have a Cambridge-based D16 on the M&GNR, but they were regulars at Lynn, so who knows? Geoff Haynes weathered it slightly. I've yet to change the buffer beam number.

 

As always, Rule 1 applies! 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Northmoor]

The other area I am agonising over is the station name. At least with LB you have been able to accurately model a specific location, that is undoubtedly LB. I have rather tighter space constraints that forces rather greater compromise on my chosen location of Leicester Central, impacting on some of the track layout and platform length. It won’t fit into the space I have available, but I intend to model as much as I can, as accurately as I can. I have seen many models carrying the name of a particular location, that bear no resemblance to the real location whatsoever... they are unrecognisable. So In my mind I have the question, how divorced from reality can a model be, before it no longer deserves to carry the prototype’s name and falls into the realm of fiction? I would be interested in people’s views on this...

 

Is this one of those not-always-definable "X-factors", that mean some layouts replicate somewhere real but don't grab your attention, while others capture an area and time perfectly?  Anyone frequenting Sir's thread and travelling along the ECML past the real Little Bytham, would recognise the location straight away (even though the layout represents almost 60 years ago); there aren't too many layouts that do that.  Even Tony admits though that it has been selectively compressed, but if it wasn't four tracks, it would look very wrong.  As to what the "threshold" for using a name is, modelling a station with shorter platforms is OK, too few platforms is probably not.  For me using completely the wrong buildings wouldn't work, unless you pretended that a (closed) station had remained open and been modernised?  Personally it also comes down to track layout; LB keeps the sharp curves off-scene, too many layout don't; a model of any of the main lines out of London, with anything less than 48" radius curves on view, just don't look right to me.  Backscenes can be a "deal-breaker" if they represent a landscape other than the intended location; the Cumbrian Fells turn up in a lot of other parts of Britain in model form.

 

It is surprising what some modellers leave out of their layouts.  I remember a model some years ago of a real German location; I knew it well because I'd been there on holiday. I won't potentially embarrass the builder by identifying the location but missing from the model was the narrow gauge branch terminus immediately adjacent, probably the single most distinctive feature of the prototype!

 

Unfortunately progress on my own model of "St.Davids" seems to have been delayed a lot this year but for me to be satisfied it absolutely must look like the real location.  Although the real railway was never built, the actual planned site of the station is in the public record.  There have been a few layouts built and exhibited with the same place name over the years but I don't remember any of them looking much like North Pembrokeshire.

[Tony Wright]

Is this one of those not-always-definable "X-factors", that mean some layouts replicate somewhere real but don't grab your attention, while others capture an area and time perfectly?  Anyone frequenting Sir's thread and travelling along the ECML past the real Little Bytham, would recognise the location straight away (even though the layout represents almost 60 years ago); there aren't too many layouts that do that.  Even Tony admits though that it has been selectively compressed, but if it wasn't four tracks, it would look very wrong.  As to what the "threshold" for using a name is, modelling a station with shorter platforms is OK, too few platforms is probably not.  For me using completely the wrong buildings wouldn't work, unless you pretended that a (closed) station had remained open and been modernised?  Personally it also comes down to track layout; LB keeps the sharp curves off-scene, too many layout don't; a model of any of the main lines out of London, with anything less than 48" radius curves on view, just don't look right to me.  Backscenes can be a "deal-breaker" if they represent a landscape other than the intended location; the Cumbrian Fells turn up in a lot of other parts of Britain in model form.

 

It is surprising what some modellers leave out of their layouts.  I remember a model some years ago of a real German location; I knew it well because I'd been there on holiday. I won't potentially embarrass the builder by identifying the location but missing from the model was the narrow gauge branch terminus immediately adjacent, probably the single most distinctive feature of the prototype!

 

Unfortunately progress on my own model of "St.Davids" seems to have been delayed a lot this year but for me to be satisfied it absolutely must look like the real location.  Although the real railway was never built, the actual planned site of the station is in the public record.  There have been a few layouts built and exhibited with the same place name over the years but I don't remember any of them looking much like North Pembrokeshire.

I think any prototype-based model will have 'selective compression' somewhere. In LB's case, it's about 14" in 32', which isn't too noticeable. It's the degree of compression which works, or not, in my view. There is no compression on the width. In fact, limited width is just as 'damaging' to realism as limited length. 

 

I'm glad you mentioned too-tight scenic curves. If any compromise 'kills' realism in my opinion, it's too-tight curves on a prototype-based model. The problem of trying to squeeze too much in. That's why I always maintain I wouldn't try to model an actual main line in less than 30'. Visible too-tight curves are the result. Even where I've had 30', there was still a too-tight curve at one end of Stoke Summit.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Willie Whizz]

...

 

The other area I am agonising over is the station name. At least with LB you have been able to accurately model a specific location, that is undoubtedly LB. I have rather tighter space constraints that forces rather greater compromise on my chosen location of Leicester Central, impacting on some of the track layout and platform length. It won’t fit into the space I have available, but I intend to model as much as I can, as accurately as I can. I have seen many models carrying the name of a particular location, that bear no resemblance to the real location whatsoever... they are unrecognisable. So In my mind I have the question, how divorced from reality can a model be, before it no longer deserves to carry the prototype’s name and falls into the realm of fiction? I would be interested in people’s views on this...

 

 

You asked for views on this issue.  I really don't think there's a simple cut-off point.  To me, a very large part of it is how far you are willing, or needing, to be 'bending' other issues besides the actual location and track-plan, such as timescale, operation and and history.

 

As an example, some while back I was considering options for my hoped-for 'Great Central London Extension in ER days' project.  Building Nottingham Victoria was clearly going to be utterly impracticable as as solo project at almost any level - not just the sheer size, cost and complexity but the near-invisibilty of trains in a deep canyon with a huge overall roof covering most of the running lines.  If I still wanted that localised theme what could I do?  Channelling my 'inner Iain Rice' to a degree, I conjectured: maybe, then, the GC did not form its 1890s alliance with the GN, who stayed out on London Road; but they might have still proceeded to build a line of their own (I had a plausible scenario for that), running through a city centre station in a nearby but slightly different (and more viewable!) location.  Only one big island platform with end bays, not two, and it would, of course, have been called "Nottingham Central" instead.

 

I didn't pursue that concept in the end.  However, therefore, the suggestion someone made to you on here for a somewhat reduced Leicester Central called "Leicester Victoria" makes perfectly good sense to me provided your underlying historical scenario is at least plausible and the scenery, structures etc. realistically reflect what the ''real" GC would have done in those circumstances..  After all, real railway history is full of alternative realities that easily might have been, if things had turned out only slightly differently.

 

I entirely appreciate, though, that such an approach is anathema to some, for reasons they consider entirely valid.  The bottom line always has to be "Rule One" - in the end, it's your railway!

[CF MRC]

Selective compression of a real scene is important to get right in a model. Similarly, visible sharp curves at the end of a layout certainly wreck the concept of a high speed mainline: often seen on N gauge exhibition layouts, where a few inches less visible track would perhaps enhance their appearance.

 

On CF, we shortened Copenhagen Tunnel to 5/8ths it’s original length - tunnels don’t make exciting models - but the visible mainline tracks are scale length, copied from an original 1932 LNER track plan. This shortened Tunnel produces some anomalies on the spot heights, so that the Cally goes over the NLR rather than under it. However that allows us to have the NLR running almost directly towards or away from the viewing public, which was one of our original design briefs. At the north end we loose the main lines under the Cally road bridge, but the road junction is in fact on the wrong side of the railway and the bridge is a mirror image of the correct angle. At the KX end the lines take a curve into the fiddle yard, once they enter Gasworks Tunnel, but the scenery continues some distance along York Way. Our biggest compromise is on width which arises from using diminishing scale in the scenery on the layout.

 

 

That means that there are significant changes to the goods yard track plan and the ramp to the Caledonian Goods & Coal Yard, brought about by moving the York Way viaduct closer to the public. This is part of our scale compression with diminishing scale, although of course at the KX Goods Yard end of the layout that can only be achieved behind York Way. However, there is a sufficient mass of complicated trackwork in the throat of the goods yard to be reasonably convincing (unless you know it well).

 

 

John Birkett-Smith, Mike Randall & I spent over a year planning the layout and the original design has not been greatly altered from December 1983, when this model of the model was made. Our biggest concern was to ensure that there would always be something moving on the layout: a prerequisite for an exhibition layout.

 

 

The reason for choosing this area to model was that it is quite compact in railway terms, but you couldn’t invent it’s complexity and it’s ideal to portray it in 2mm scale. In 4mm scale, Gresley Beat does a fine job of showing some of the features of the area and it does have ‘all the right notes, but not in the right order’.

 

Tim

Edited December 2, 2018 by CF MRC

[St Enodoc]

As to what the "threshold" for using a name is, modelling a station with shorter platforms is OK, too few platforms is probably not.

Many years ago, the Renfrewshire Model Railway Club had a 00 gauge model of Glasgow St Enoch - except that it represented only half the real station, with only one train shed instead of two. With the curve out of the platforms it was still recognisable for what it purported to be (incidentally, it was usually referred to, somewhat irreverently, as St Eunuch). When combined with the club's models of Elderslie and Greenock Prince's Pier it was a magnificent system to operate.

[Mallard60022]

Whenever anyone mentions the Master Cutler in the context of the ECML it always serves to remind of the sad situation of the GCLE in 1958, when the LMR started to run down the former GC. Some of my reference sources narrate that the Cutler was resurrected on the ECML in October 1958 and was introduced as a class 40 hauled Pullman service... six cars, two return trips per day to Sheffield Victoria. So I am intrigued to hear of it running through LB - presumably steam hauled - on a ‘Summer’s day in 1958’.... a trial run, perhaps?

 

Phil.

 

The LMR degrading the GC is on a par with the WR decimating the SR west of Salisbury.

I have learned quite a bit about the former since moving to Nottinghamshire 15 years ago and the whole situation was contrived with some 'streamlining' and centralisation that sort of brought about better productivity, but was done with little foresight to the future of the railway system as a whole.

As for the latter, that was just an historic rivalry that took revenge in a thug like and tragic way, butchering what could have been strategic and alternative routing simply because the WR could! Yes, the little Devon and Dorset branch lines were probably redundant, however the main route(s) should never have been castrated as they were (in both  the GC and the SR's case). Pure bloo#y mindedness that has proved to be so short sighted. OK hindsight is a clever thing, but...................

Rant over,

Phil

Edited December 2, 2018 by Mallard60022

[Tony Wright]

Selective compression of a real scene is important to get right in a model. Similarly, visible sharp curves at the end of a layout certainly wreck the concept of a high speed mainline: often seen on N gauge exhibition layouts, where a few inches less visible track would perhaps enhance their appearance.

 

On CF, we shortened Copenhagen Tunnel to 5/8ths it’s original length - tunnels don’t make exciting models - but the visible mainline tracks are scale length, copied from an original 1932 LNER track plan. This shortened Tunnel produces some anomalies on the spot heights, so that the Cally goes over the NLR rather than under it. However that allows us to have the NLR running almost directly towards or away from the viewing public, which was one of our original design briefs. At the north end we loose the main lines under the Cally road bridge, but the road junction is in fact on the wrong side of the railway and the bridge is a mirror image of the correct angle. At the KX end the lines take a curve into the fiddle yard, once they enter Gasworks Tunnel, but the scenery continues some distance along York Way. Our biggest compromise is on width which arises from using diminishing scale in the scenery on the layout.

 

 

That means that there are significant changes to the goods yard track plan and the ramp to the Caledonian Goods & Coal Yard, brought about by moving the York Way viaduct closer to the public. This is part of our scale compression with diminishing scale, although of course at the KX Goods Yard end of the layout that can only be achieved behind York Way. However, there is a sufficient mass of complicated trackwork in the throat of the goods yard to be reasonably convincing (unless you know it well).

 

 

John Birkett-Smith, Mike Randall & I spent over a year planning the layout and the original design has not been greatly altered from December 1983, when this model of the model was made. Our biggest concern was to ensure that there would always be something moving on the layout: a prerequisite for an exhibition layout.

 

 

The reason for choosing this area to model was that it is quite compact in railway terms, but you couldn’t invent it’s complexity and it’s ideal to portray it in 2mm scale. In 4mm scale, Gresley Beat does a fine job of showing some of the features of the area and it does have ‘all the right notes, but not in the right order’.

 

Tim

Thanks for that, Tim,

 

I think Copenhagen Fields is one of the finest model railways ever made. Despite the 'compromises, it couldn't be anywhere else.

 

 

I've shown this shot before, but it illustrates exactly what I mean.

 

You mention John Birkett-Smith.

 

 

 

Despite the obvious compression, John's model of Totnes is entirely convincing. He's not fallen into the trap (which you allude to) which many N-Gaugers do, which manifests itself in a dead straight frontage (which might be well-modelled), but the lines at both ends dive straight into a tunnel/bridge by means of a sharp, right-angle bend. It's not just in N Gauge either (though is it more common?), but several very-well-modelled, prototype locations are ruined (in my view) by visible, right-angle curves at the ends.

 

 

 

The southern end of the GN main line has been a popular subject for modelling. Here's the Gainsborough MRS' rendition of Kings Cross in O Gauge. A right-angle curve will be negotiated by this A4 very shortly, but inside Gasworks Tunnel. 

 

 

Paul Walker has built Kings Cross in N Gauge. Though it's near 50% shorter than it should be, it's very-believable. Paul takes his trains through a right-angle as well, but also inside Gasworks Tunnel. 

 

 

Another 'shortened' ECML prototype model is Grantham, in OO Gauge. Despite the foreshortening, it's still entirely believable. I'm involved with this layout in a very small way - my major contribution being to dissuade Graham Nicholas from trying to model the line south of the A1 road bridge - on a 90 degree curve! 

 

I built the D2 in this picture, which Ian Rathbone painted. The owner does not tolerate anything weathered. A pity, because it would have looked far more natural.

 

And, finally, two shots of LB. 

 

 

 

Both these were taken some little time ago, and a lot more has been done since. Both trains are scale-length (12/13 bogies), but don't 'fill' the scene; impossible in under 30'. Not only that, the necessary right-angle curves at both ends are out of sight. 

[Mallard60022]

What a superb group of layouts to create delight on a grey Sunday morning; thank you Tony. LB sits well up in the top ten of home layouts I have had the pleasure to see/play with (only occasionally as I prefer watching your trains go by......) over the years.

Phil

[Clive Mortimore]

The LMR degrading the GC is on a par with the WR decimating the SR west of Salisbury.

I have learned quite a bit about the former since moving to Nottinghamshire 15 years ago and the whole situation was contrived with some 'streamlining' and centralisation that sort of brought about better productivity, but was done with little foresight to the future of the railway system as a whole.

As for the latter, that was just an historic rivalry that took revenge in a thug like and tragic way, butchering what could have been strategic and alternative routing simply because the WR could! Yes, the little Devon and Dorset branch lines were probably redundant, however the main route(s) should never have been castrated as they were (in both  the GC and the SR's case). Pure bloo#y mindedness that has proved to be so short sighted. OK hindsight is a clever thing, but...................

Rant over,

Phil

Hi Phil

 

Think wider than the railways regarding our national transport system. You are the minister of transport, and have sunk most of your wife's savings in road construction companies. You have deregulated road haulage. Other family members have invested your money in companies with lots of lorries. The main competition is the railways, and there are three of them going the general direction of the new motorway you have agreed the route of construction. Close one line, the one that connects the most towns as the motorway does, and the other two cannot handle all the traffic to the customers requirements making them look elsewhere. 

 

As for railways in Cornwall, Devon and Dorset, that is just GWR bullying, which goes back to the construction of the line to Plymouth where the LSWR had to run into the GWR stations at Exeter and Plymouth and stop. That is why to get to London twice in your journey you head west when going east.  

[Chamby]

Yes, thanks for those pictures, Tony, a Sunday morning treat indeed.

 

What impresses me on some of the images is the openness... wide open space and a big sky, through which trains can run and be the centre of interest, without being squashed in by other scenic indulgences (as so often happens in miniature realms).

 

Hmmm.....

[petrovich]

What a superb group of layouts to create delight on a grey Sunday morning; thank you Tony. LB sits well up in the top ten of home layouts I have had the pleasure to see/play with (only occasionally as I prefer watching your trains go by......) over the years.

Phil

Totally agree Phil, although I have to arrange with Sir a visit to Little Bytham in the New Year as I have only had it described to me by it's owner at exhibitions where we have met up. I have to admit though that Stoke Summit is the layout I would have liked to watch the most but sadly apart from a DVD will not get that chance I suppose.

 

Having said the above I do find the level of craftsmanship and information on this part of the forum outstanding and inspiring and a great help to a novice like myself so thank you all.

 

Long may it continue 

 

Peter

[Tony Wright]

Yes, thanks for those pictures, Tony, a Sunday morning treat indeed.

 

What impresses me on some of the images is the openness... wide open space and a big sky, through which trains can run and be the centre of interest, without being squashed in by other scenic indulgences (as so often happens in miniature realms).

 

Hmmm.....

Thanks Phil,

 

With regard to the 'skies', all have been Photoshopped in one form or another - extending the sky which is already there, superimposing a real sky or just cloning a colour from the layout's sky background. That way, any background clutter is removed, and, I hope, the actual modelling can be appreciated. 

 

It's a strange thing about perception - on viewing a layout 'in the flesh' at a show or at its home, the eye does not really register the background. Yet, take a picture, and walls, beams, shelves, gymnasium equipment, lighting rigs, fat bellies (thin bellies as well, but the former is more-obtrusive!), cups, packets of biscuits, signs and any other paraphernalia in the background immediately take 'centre stage'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[jamie92208]

Selective compression or the art of compromise.   We all have to use some compromises in our modelling in one way or another. These come from a variety of directions, eg, choice of prototype, space available, budget available and time available as well as the availability of stock to name but a few.

 

On Green Ayre my first was that it had to fit into my church for testing which limited the overall dimensions.  It also had to be able to reuse most of the stock from Long Preston.  Little did I know that 13 years after I started researching an planning I would move it into a rather large shed.  However I was able to get the station area almost exact in scale length. The main line circuit needed 6' radius curves at each end, however I had two great advantages.  The first was the use of Templot which allowed me to create graduated transition curves, the other was that the prototype had a tight radius curve off the platform end onto Greyhound bridge, this was a 10mph check railed curve. At the other end the line was straight but I had to make it curved which introduced some interesting perspective.  Beyond Greyhound bridge are the Locoshed, Goods yard and castle Branch.  The shed is correct for length and position but I had to lose the equivalent of two baseboards (10 feet) in the Goods Yard/shed headshunt, to make it fit. Also the castle Branch had to curve instead of being straight, this was actually the sharpest curve on the layout at about 70" radius.   Width wise I had decided to make it two baseboards deep but still had to lose two sidings in the goods yard and at the front had to compress the road frontage by about 3 feet.  This meant that the shed lost it's repair road which was a lean to fortunately.  The building at the rear of the shed had to be compressed.  The final layout was achieved when we appeared, alongside Grantham, in the basement at Nottingham as a layout under construction.  Sir helped us to set up and during the show Dave and I made various mock up buildings out of thin insulation foam.  These were tried on the layout, compared with the photos and then adjusted till the area looked about right.  One shed went altogether and another lost an inch of height.  At the East end Skerton Bridge had to be placed at 45 degrees and the area beyond it was sceniced for an extra 5' so that reversing moves are able to be made in full view by the EMU's.  One other adjustment was that the Goods shed was shortened from 3 bays to 2 as it just didn't look right in the already shortened Goods Yard.

 

The pay back for all this was when we took it to Lancaster and many people were pointing out where they had lived or worked.   Overall I'm happy with what we've achieved.  I just need to get the running more reliable which is happening now that the layout is semi permanently erected.

 

Jamie

Edited December 2, 2018 by jamie92208

[Tony Wright]

Returning to the theme of 'taking things out' in photographs, here are a few more examples...................

 

 

Last week, I photographed Paul Moss' beautiful N Gauge depiction of a bit of the S&C, Little Salkeld. It's going in the RM next year, so, please, look out for it. It really is exceptional modelling. 

 

It's in the 'hobby room', with the usual things one might find all around.

 

 

Taking out the 'clutter', by cloning a piece of the background's sky and extending it, immediately draws the attention to the model. The lines go on/off scene via means of a 'hole in the sky' (on the straight!), and I've just removed this. In fairness, from ordinary (exhibition) viewing angle, it's invisible.

 

 

 

Another, equally-impressive N Gauge layout is Eric Farragher's Clifton and Lowther. Eric, too, takes his lines on/off scene via straights, under bridges. Again, from exhibition angles the subsequent sharp curves beyond cannot be seen, but the camera found them. I don't think filling in with dark grey is a 'cheat'. I also extended upwards Eric's sky background.

 

In next Month's RM, there'll be an update on Carlisle in EM.

 

 

The walls of the (vast) room in which Carlisle is housed are draped in black. I used this to my advantage in this nocturne, merely copying the overall tone.

 

A black sky would not have worked in the picture below, so I've substituted a neutral, warm grey.

 

In none of the pictures above has the modelling been altered. I think that's very important. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Mallard60022]

Returning to the theme of 'taking things out' in photographs, here a a few more examples...................

 

Little Salkeld 14.jpg

 

Last week, I photographed Paul Moss' beautiful N Gauge depiction of a bit of the S&C, Little Salkeld. It's going in the RM next year, so, please, look out for it. It really is exceptional modelling. 

 

It's in the 'hobby room', with the usual things one might find all around.

 

Little Salkeld 14 complete.jpg

 

Taking out the 'clutter', by cloning a piece of the background's sky and extending it, immediately draws the attention to the model. The lines go on/off scene via means of a 'hole in the sky' (on the straight!), and I've just removed this. In fairness, from ordinary (exhibition) viewing angle, it's invisible.

 

Clifton and Lowther 15.jpg

 

Clifton and Lowther 16.jpg

 

Another, equally-impressive N Gauge layout is Eric Farragher's Clifton and Lowther. Eric, too, takes his lines on/off scene via straights, under bridges. Again, from exhibition angles the subsequent sharp curves beyond cannot be seen, but the camera found them. I don't think filling in with dark grey is a 'cheat'. I also extended upwards Eric's sky background.

 

In next Month's RM, there'll be an update on Carlisle in EM.

 

Carlisle 40B.jpg

 

The walls of the (vast) room in which Carlisle is housed are draped in black. I used this to my advantage in this nocturne, merely copying the overall tone.

 

A black sky would not have worked in the picture below, so I've substituted a neutral, warm grey.

 

In none of the pictures above has the modelling been altered. I think that's very important. 

 

One of the noticeable features in those layouts is the track work, particularly the N gauge work. It just does not look 'too small' as in some of that scale/gauge.Maybe ity is the better angle of the compositions in that they are not helicopter shots?

Phil (the other one.......)

[grahame]

Selective compression of a real scene is important to get right in a model. Similarly, visible sharp curves at the end of a layout certainly wreck the concept of a high speed mainline: often seen on N gauge exhibition layouts, where a few inches less visible track would perhaps enhance their appearance.

 

On CF, we shortened Copenhagen Tunnel to 5/8ths it’s original length - tunnels don’t make exciting models - but the visible mainline tracks are scale length, copied from an original 1932 LNER track plan. This shortened Tunnel produces some anomalies on the spot heights, so that the Cally goes over the NLR rather than under it. However that allows us to have the NLR running almost directly towards or away from the viewing public, which was one of our original design briefs. At the north end we loose the main lines under the Cally road bridge, but the road junction is in fact on the wrong side of the railway and the bridge is a mirror image of the correct angle. At the KX end the lines take a curve into the fiddle yard, once they enter Gasworks Tunnel, but the scenery continues some distance along York Way. Our biggest compromise is on width which arises from using diminishing scale in the scenery on the layout.

 

 

I didn't realise there was quite so much compression on CF, but then that's the skill of the builders in achieving that without it being obvious and still retaining the atmosphere, realism and overall look.

 

The point about spot heights is quite relevant and something I'm finding out on my own attempts at compression and compromise. It's easy enough to shorten things and accommodate in a plan (horizontal) plane but heights can't be so readily be hacked. Doorways, bridge clearances and building heights have a limit to the amount of reduction otherwise they look ridiculous and become unworkable. And when reducing the horizonal by more then the vertical, slopes become rather much steeper and more difficult to accommodate.

 

I'm already having to deal with this on my rather (much poorer attempt) at an urban London scene. For example in this pic (which is far from finished):

 

 

Duke Street Hill (bottom right with the tanker lorry on) is far too steep, as it the way it swings around right to London Bridge (past the white top B20 DMS bus). Also so to is the slope down Borough High Street (past the front of Southwark Cathedral) to the left. I've tried to mitigate with various cheats (bending the pavement down, paint effects, flattening the walkway ramp, and so on) but I'm at the stage where I'll have to live with it - especially thinking about the other parts of the layout with different level and interconnecting roads that will need to be modelled.

 

G

[Mallard60022]

Hi Phil

 

Think wider than the railways regarding our national transport system. You are the minister of transport, and have sunk most of your wife's savings in road construction companies. You have deregulated road haulage. Other family members have invested your money in companies with lots of lorries. The main competition is the railways, and there are three of them going the general direction of the new motorway you have agreed the route of construction. Close one line, the one that connects the most towns as the motorway does, and the other two cannot handle all the traffic to the customers requirements making them look elsewhere. 

 

As for railways in Cornwall, Devon and Dorset, that is just GWR bullying, which goes back to the construction of the line to Plymouth where the LSWR had to run into the GWR stations at Exeter and Plymouth and stop. That is why to get to London twice in your journey you head west when going east.  

 

Agreed almost totally, however the Midland did just disable the GC in the east midlands (especially in Notts and Leicestershire), and south Yorkshire just because they wanted to. It was a slow death by not very well disguised stealth (that seems a strange description but you may get what I'm saying there?) Stuffing the LNER/?GC loco fleet and dropping in a lot of LMS loco's, the Scots for example were knackered, ensured the GC/ER staff decided to call it a day in many cases. The 'eight freights' were ok, the inherited 9Fs were tolerated and the few Black 5s proved their worth on the final London Branch passenger turns.

I know little about op's but can't quite understand why the almost flat and crossingless (apart from one) GC route was not the preferred freight route to the smoke and not the Midland where Sharnbrook was a PITA and created timing issues. They even lost the 'strategic route' to the west' from Woodford H. Bonkers decisions.

 

Hey ho as they say in the Boys' Brigade.

Phil (the other one)

Edited December 2, 2018 by Mallard60022

[Northmoor]

Agreed almost totally, however the Midland did just disable the GC in the east midlands (especially in Notts and Leicestershire), and south Yorkshire just because they wanted to. It was a slow death by not very well disguised stealth (that seems a strange description but you may get what I'm saying there?) Stuffing the LNER/?GC loco fleet and dropping in a lot of LMS loco's, the Scots for example were knackered, ensured the GC/ER staff decided to call it a day in many cases. The 'eight freights' were ok, the inherited 9Fs were tolerated and the few Black 5s proved their worth on the final London Branch passenger turns.

I know little about op's but can't quite understand why the almost flat and crossingless (apart from one) GC route was not the preferred freight route to the smoke and not the Midland where Sharnbrook was a PITA and created timing issues. They even lost the 'strategic route' to the west' from Woodford H. Bonkers decisions.

Agree, the GC was a very sad loss - imagine if less than a decade later, the Channel Tunnel had actually been built, it would have been the trunk route to the North.

 

One famous inter-regional conspiracy which I don't subscribe to however, is the run down of the Somerset and Dorset.  Yes, important services were diverted off it but the alternative via Southampton was faster, considerably easier to work and actually served some places worth stopping at.  Ivo Peters' wonderful photographs ensure we have a fabulous record of the S&D but I fear it's popularity with enthusiasts - popular because it looked like a model railway: single track, sharp curves and you could run anything up to 9Fs on it - greatly overstates it's usefulness as a through route. 

[Lecorbusier]

One famous inter-regional conspiracy which I don't subscribe to however, is the run down of the Somerset and Dorset.  Yes, important services were diverted off it but the alternative via Southampton was faster, considerably easier to work and actually served some places worth stopping at.  Ivo Peters' wonderful photographs ensure we have a fabulous record of the S&D but I fear it's popularity with enthusiasts - popular because it looked like a model railway: single track, sharp curves and you could run anything up to 9Fs on it - greatly overstates it's usefulness as a through route. 

Spent a week on Holiday in Somerset this year .... visited Shepton Mallet, Radstock and Glastonbury ... there may well be many contributing factors, but the loss of the railway certainly impacted very negatively on all three - Radstock is really odd without it ... no heart or centre. Frome by contrast in the same region still has its station and is a thriving town .... again could well be for other reasons but the coincidence is striking.