Wright writes.....

[The Stationmaster]

Hi Mike

 

The Midland mainline was split up between 4 regions (LMR, WR, ER, and NER) and lost a lot of its services on "home territory", those to Manchester so why wasn't that completely closed not the GCR? I think because south of Leicester it served towns that no other railway provided a direct link to London. The Great Central being the new comer, the major towns it served already had links with London.

 

Andy mentioned the GCR provided the best North East to South West link. I would argue, not going through Birmingham might be seen as a negative to the GCR being the best route. 

 

Earlier on Phil said that the GCR in Nottinghamshire was devastated. Many of the collieries and mining towns were also served by the MR and GNR, did every mine need three railway connections on lines that ran parallel with each other along the same valley?  

 

As for the WR taking over the SR lines west of Salisbury, what if the SR had taken over the ex GWR lines in Dorset, Devon and Cornwall. I am sure they would have looked at the expense of repairing that sea wall and said "Even in winter Oakhampton looks nice" on their adverts.

 

Morning Clive,

 

Having travelled to Manchester on the Midland mainline (and on the GC mainline as well as it happens) your opening sentence was a bit puzzling to me.  The reason the Midland route lost its Manchester trains was because the ex LNWR routes were electrified, a decision made at BRB/LMR Regional level and nothing to do with anyone else.  Similarly the reason the Midland route lost it Anglo-Scottish trains (I travelled on more than one of those as well as it happens, albeit not across the border) was because of a central decision to concentrate such passenger traffic onto the ECML and WCML routes - not because bits of it were managed by different Regions.  In fact management by different Regions made no difference at all to any former Midland routes, including cross-country (to use the modern term) services.  The Midland route had certain advantages over the GC route including heavier originating traffic at its southern end and more frequent longer distance services (in later years) than the GC but that really was about all.   What the GC gave, but the Midland route didn't was that link between the north east and the Western and Southern.

 

I was at one time an irregular user of part of the GCR to travel between the Thames Valley and York and even back then not going via Birmingham (or London) was a positive advantage.  Today, to an end-to-end traveller (which I still occasionally am) avoiding Birmingham and the associated West Midlands local travellers taking up seats would still strike me as a positive advantage but BR decided a long time ago (as BR and not as a Region) to concentrate cross-country trains onto routes which took them via New Street even if trains required to be reversed there (easy with units of course).

 

The SR did incidentally take over some ex GWR lines in Dorset and Somerset - the net result in most cases that I know of was that staffing costs rose considerably compared with WR managed stations on the same route with no increase in passenger numbers.  And virtually all of the lines involved reverted to WR control before Dr Beeching decided numerous stations on them should be closed.

 

The Okehampton debate has been rehearsed multiple times elsewhere but all I would say is that it does not take trains anywhere near one of the largest rail served population centres in Devon, which the coastal route does and which an inland south Devon route would continue to serve.

[Forester]

I don't know whether I entirely get this. May I explain, please? 

 

An 'obsession' with accuracy can lead to the greatest model railways ever created in my view.

 

And, what's the point of adding those 'little extra flourishes' to a model railway which is just plain nonsense? By that I mean, a made-up system which just would not 'work' - incorrectly-placed signals, a daft track layout (impossible to work satisfactorily), safety features ignored (no trap points for instance) and a jumble of incompatible structures (no sense of 'geography'). Not to mention all those awful cliches which modellers will insist on putting on to their layouts - blazing buildings, flashing lights, weddings, funerals, accidents, brawls, and so on and so on.............. All, no doubt, added with a 'flourish'. 

 

I don't disagree with your comment about some of the greatest paintings ever produced being impressionist in their style (Monet is one of my favourite painters). However, apply those 'impressionistic' features to a model railway and the result will mean it just won't work (surely an essential feature of any model railway). Take Monet's paintings of the Paris stations for instance. There is no consistent track gauge - it goes wide, then narrows for instance - and the locos are just inventions of his (vivid) imagination. One of the forebears of Impressionism, J.M.W. Turner (another of my favourite artists) painted the firebox on the front of the engine in Rain, Steam And Speed.

 

I don't believe that those 'little extra touches' are the sole preserve of those who model freelance locations. May I please present a selection of models of actual locations where very little has been forgotten, and they all give a wonderful impression of reality? Surely, that's the acid test. Some are still in the process of being built, but that realism (impossible in a made-up location?) is there. 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I only offer a point of view that a great model railway (I should perhaps emphasise that I'm referring to a model for public display) should start with a Vision not a Place.

 

What am I trying to convey with what I am building?

It could be the excitement I first felt about a place I now know well, in which case an accurate model is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient.

The excitement still needs to be conveyed to others who don't know the place and to whom it may seem like just another station/ scene. It could be done by a representation of weather, lighting, general activity, decay, some special feature ....

 

Of your images I feel engaged by Pics 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18. but not by 6, 7, 11 and rather neutral about the remainder. All this depite the obvious accuracy and enormous effort taken to create the scenes (and of course respecting the fact that single images cannot convey a whole scene, which if I saw complete I might feel very differently about).

 

Not criticising any model (I could never even start to build to these standards). Just offering the view that accuracy is not necessarily enough to engage the viewer.

[Clive Mortimore]

Morning Clive,

 

Having travelled to Manchester on the Midland mainline (and on the GC mainline as well as it happens) your opening sentence was a bit puzzling to me.  The reason the Midland route lost its Manchester trains was because the ex LNWR routes were electrified, a decision made at BRB/LMR Regional level and nothing to do with anyone else.  Similarly the reason the Midland route lost it Anglo-Scottish trains (I travelled on more than one of those as well as it happens, albeit not across the border) was because of a central decision to concentrate such passenger traffic onto the ECML and WCML routes - not because bits of it were managed by different Regions.  In fact management by different Regions made no difference at all to any former Midland routes, including cross-country (to use the modern term) services.  The Midland route had certain advantages over the GC route including heavier originating traffic at its southern end and more frequent longer distance services (in later years) than the GC but that really was about all.   What the GC gave, but the Midland route didn't was that link between the north east and the Western and Southern.

 

I was at one time an irregular user of part of the GCR to travel between the Thames Valley and York and even back then not going via Birmingham (or London) was a positive advantage.  Today, to an end-to-end traveller (which I still occasionally am) avoiding Birmingham and the associated West Midlands local travellers taking up seats would still strike me as a positive advantage but BR decided a long time ago (as BR and not as a Region) to concentrate cross-country trains onto routes which took them via New Street even if trains required to be reversed there (easy with units of course).

 

The SR did incidentally take over some ex GWR lines in Dorset and Somerset - the net result in most cases that I know of was that staffing costs rose considerably compared with WR managed stations on the same route with no increase in passenger numbers.  And virtually all of the lines involved reverted to WR control before Dr Beeching decided numerous stations on them should be closed.

 

The Okehampton debate has been rehearsed multiple times elsewhere but all I would say is that it does not take trains anywhere near one of the largest rail served population centres in Devon, which the coastal route does and which an inland south Devon route would continue to serve.

Hi Mike

 

I get fed up with how badly the GCR was treated by the LMR, all railways were trimmed back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s not just the GCR, and I was trying to show that.

 

You say the MR lost it Manchester services because of the LNWR being electrified, and I agree that was BR's augment but the East Midlands lost is connection to Manchester unless you went via Sheffield. The MR also lost its West Yorkshire services when they were concentrated on the Kings Cross route, leaving the NE-SW trains to cater for journeys between the East Midlands and Yorkshire.

 

As for the coast line in Devon, the same argument as to why the MR south of Nottingham was not chosen, it served a large population which had it closed would have had no direct link with London. Something the GCR London extension didn't do as the major towns already had London connections before it arrived. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[thegreenhowards]

Hello Tony

 

I am sure there are many of us who would love to be able to model one of our favorite locations. Space and time are normally the enemies of such ambitions.

 

I had dreams of building Kings Cross. I hand drew the track in 4mm scale, rescaling from a large scale OS map. I was prepared to shorten the station but to fit a workable fiddle yard where the slow lines crossed from one side to the other was a nightmare and would have ended up with a fiddle yard bigger than the viewable layout. As many of the points were non standard the track would have to be hand built. I kept the project ticking along for nearly 30 years but last year when I retired I realised that I would never have the space or the time left to build it.

 

I have how ever incorporated the later track plan (the 1977 remodelling) of the throat in my make believe terminus station in Sheffield using Peco track. I am only modelling within the railway boundary and will try my best to model features of the two railways it is supposed to have been built by, the L&YR and GNR (and there successors). Modelling on the layout is quite slow as running it has taken priority, and good running if I can achieve it before the scenery. I am enjoying my layout and feel lucky to have the space to build a big layout.

 

I have looked at other real locations, the small two road servicing shed at Tinsley was quite compact within the large yard, it works out at 23 feet long by 3 feet wide. That is a small diesel depot. Another place was my home town of Bedford, I looked at the ex MR station. The road bridge at the southern end of the station, Ford End Road is in 4mm over 15 feet long. A layout 15 feet wide?

 

For most of us to model we have to make a representation of a location real or fictitious so we can enjoy our hobby.

Clive,

 

I also have dreams of building Kings Cross. It will take a large space, but I think it’s do-able for me. I reckon that it needs about 17 feet to scale model from the arches on the station building to the portal of gasworks tunnel, which is quite manageable as I’m lucky enough to have a loft 30 feet long. There are four problems that I am still struggle with:

1. the fiddle yard (as you mention). This could be a simple cassettes based affair, but it would need to be reliable and I’ve never built cassettes before, so I’m not sure. The alternative would be looping the layout round and having the fiddle yard on the other side of the loft, but that would exacerbate problem 2.

2. The width of the station modelled in full would be over 10 feet. That is impractical from an access point of view, so I will have to simplify the layout on the suburban side and particularly the milk dock area. Again that is do-able, but I’m wrestling with where to cut it off and still retain the character of the station. I’d cerrptanly want to model the hotel curve tunnel emerging onto its platform.

3. The point work (for the 1950s). As you says it’s complicated. I think most of it could be done with Graham Nicholas style butchery of Peco points, with maybe one or two handbuilt. Did you consider that?

4. The lack of a real run for the layout described above. This is not a modelling issue so much as a ‘is it worth building’ issue. I noticed on Liverpool Lime Street at Warley that the viewing of the throat was quite restricted, and they needed the section running through the cutting to give enough space for the public to view the trains. This would lead me to model Belle Isle as well, but then that would really be a monster layout! I also think I may need to leave off a section of the overall roof to allow viewing of the trains inside the station.

 

I’d be interested to know whether you came to solutions for any of these issues.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Headstock]

From https://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/loadinggauges.php

 

"The frequently made statement that this line was constructed to the Berne gauge is a modern myth, since these drawings all clearly show the same gauge as other GCR lines, as, indeed, do the surviving structures. At 9ft 3in wide and 13ft 4in high the GCR gauge was one of the larger british gauges, but still very small compared to the Berne gauge, which was 14ft high and 10ft 2in wide. One should also note that the construction of the London extension commenced in 1894, but the Berne gauge wasn't agreed until 1912."

 

Afternoon Clive,

 

sound the trumpets, we agree on something. The Berne loading gauge thing, a total myth. The Berne loading gauge wasn't even invented when the London extension was under construction. Not to worry, now I know you are a Midland apologist, I'm sure I can invent some cunning new insults revolving around with axelbox journals.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Andy

 

I think you have highlighted many of the obstacles I tripped over. 

Clive,

I also have dreams of building Kings Cross. It will take a large space, but I think it’s do-able for me. I reckon that it needs about 17 feet to scale model from the arches on the station building to the portal of gasworks tunnel, which is quite manageable as I’m lucky enough to have a loft 30 feet long. There are four problems that I am still struggle with:
1. the fiddle yard (as you mention). This could be a simple cassettes based affair, but it would need to be reliable and I’ve never built cassettes before, so I’m not sure. The alternative would be looping the layout round and having the fiddle yard on the other side of the loft, but that would exacerbate problem 2.

I had loads of ideas for the fiddle yards. The mainline with its long trains would be best as a traverser. It was being able to get the suburban trains from one side to the other , which in real life caused problems at Kings Cross. My final idea was to have a set of sidings that looped either over the top of the main line traverser or under it. I did think about cassettes but a six car inner suburban with a Brush 2 on the end is quite a long thing to be trying to manoeuvre and that would be a short one.

 

Then at the other end you have Moorgate.....another loop from York Road to Platform 16, complete with Hotel Curve. 

 

2. The width of the station modelled in full would be over 10 feet. That is impractical from an access point of view, so I will have to simplify the layout on the suburban side and particularly the milk dock area. Again that is do-able, but I’m wrestling with where to cut it off and still retain the character of the station. I’d cerrptanly want to model the hotel curve tunnel emerging onto its platform.

 

I made the widest part to be from the siding along Battlesbridge Building to York Road tunnel to be about 8ft 6 ins, you could be right. With careful baseboard design and nothing outside the railway fence it could be possible to reach the important parts like reaching that stuck loco on the end of platform 6,7,8 or 10 from a point just in front of where Battlesbridge Building would stand.....did you know that on the ground floor of Battlesbridge Building was the Railwaymen's Mission? It might be needed as somewhere to say a few Hail Mary's whilst building it.

 

The station area would need to be accessible from both sides.

3. The point work (for the 1950s). As you says it’s complicated. I think most of it could be done with Graham Nicholas style butchery of Peco points, with maybe one or two handbuilt. Did you consider that?
 

 

I did look at using ready to plonk points but I soon discarded that as an idea. I even threw out 00. To maintain the full scale length the point work would have to be the correct geometry. And there is some strange points, one that comes to mind is the double slip as the trains leave Bottom Shed, it is a curved double slip with switched diamond.

 

4. The lack of a real run for the layout described above. This is not a modelling issue so much as a ‘is it worth building’ issue. I noticed on Liverpool Lime Street at Warley that the viewing of the throat was quite restricted, and they needed the section running through the cutting to give enough space for the public to view the trains. This would lead me to model Belle Isle as well, but then that would really be a monster layout! I also think I may need to leave off a section of the overall roof to allow viewing of the trains inside the station.

I’d be interested to know whether you came to solutions for any of these issues.

Regards

Andy

 I hadn't considered the run of the trains. I was thinking more on the lines of a trainspotting visit and standing on platform 10.

 

I did consider a much reduced model, this time trying to place the viewer on platform 10 looking over at Bottom Shed (or Passenger Loco). From there all you could really see was the ends of the suburban platforms and a glimpse of milk yard so they would need too much modelling and as you looked round you saw the loco yard and the west tunnel portal. It was that sweep I was considering modelling. Loads of loco movements and some tooing and throwing of DMUs and non gangway stock.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[Headstock]

Real locations vs unreal, real for me. There are a number of really good unreal locations, however the majority are not. The opposite is the case with real locations, I would say the majority of them are good. What about the stock? If the location is fake, so must be the stock? I don't like that because when you ask the layout owner/builder about the stock, mostly the answer is boring, ie I don't know, I'm not bothered or I just liked the look of it. I still find that real locations tend to employ built stock and fake ones are more RTR dependent. I find built stock far more interesting to talk about and look at.

The only problem with real location is that the builders tend to go for massive constructions for which they don't really have the space. I would be happy with two parallel lines and a tree.

I don't have any iconic layouts, there are individuals and groups within the hobby whose work I admire but that's about it.

[t-b-g]

I don't know whether I entirely get this. May I explain, please? 

 

An 'obsession' with accuracy can lead to the greatest model railways ever created in my view.

 

And, what's the point of adding those 'little extra flourishes' to a model railway which is just plain nonsense? By that I mean, a made-up system which just would not 'work' - incorrectly-placed signals, a daft track layout (impossible to work satisfactorily), safety features ignored (no trap points for instance) and a jumble of incompatible structures (no sense of 'geography'). Not to mention all those awful cliches which modellers will insist on putting on to their layouts - blazing buildings, flashing lights, weddings, funerals, accidents, brawls, and so on and so on.............. All, no doubt, added with a 'flourish'. 

 

I don't disagree with your comment about some of the greatest paintings ever produced being impressionist in their style (Monet is one of my favourite painters). However, apply those 'impressionistic' features to a model railway and the result will mean it just won't work (surely an essential feature of any model railway). Take Monet's paintings of the Paris stations for instance. There is no consistent track gauge - it goes wide, then narrows for instance - and the locos are just inventions of his (vivid) imagination. One of the forebears of Impressionism, J.M.W. Turner (another of my favourite artists) painted the firebox on the front of the engine in Rain, Steam And Speed.

 

I don't believe that those 'little extra touches' are the sole preserve of those who model freelance locations. May I please present a selection of models of actual locations where very little has been forgotten, and they all give a wonderful impression of reality? Surely, that's the acid test. Some are still in the process of being built, but that realism (impossible in a made-up location?) is there. 

 

Alloa 01.jpg

 

Ambergate 018.jpg

 

Burntisland 02.jpg

 

Carlisle.jpg

 

Caroline Concrete Works 17.jpg

 

Clifton and Lowther 21.jpg

 

Dsc_5770.jpg

 

Euxton Junction 12.jpg

 

Gamston 53.jpg

 

Grantham Ally Pally 04.jpg

 

Guildford 05.jpg

 

Midhurst 21.jpg

 

Planning 03.jpg

 

Planning 05.jpg

 

Planning 07.jpg

 

Planning 08.jpg

 

Shap 13.jpg

 

Signals 18.jpg

 

South Pelaw 16.jpg

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Fine layouts all. Most are very large projects that would never have been built without the input of a good number of volunteers, or in some cases, bought in help. Most if not all of them could not have been built without a big financial investment. I can look at the ones I know and tell just how much was done by the layout owner and how much has been contributed by others. Most of us cannot rely on that level of input from others or can't afford to purchase it.

 

That doesn't diminish their effectiveness as models but it does suggest that they are unattainable by the vast majority of modellers, working at home trying to build something in a garage, a spare bedroom or a shed.

 

So I can enjoy them but they do not represent anything that I would like to try to build for myself.

 

That is why I like "Tucking Mill" so much. Pretty much all built by one person in a sensible timescale.

[Tony Wright]

 

Way too literal an interpretation of Forester's comments for me I'm afraid.

 

And, what's the point of adding those 'little extra flourishes' to a model railway which is just plain nonsense? By that I mean, a made-up system which just would not 'work' - incorrectly-placed signals, a daft track layout (impossible to work satisfactorily), safety features ignored (no trap points for instance) and a jumble of incompatible structures (no sense of 'geography'). Not to mention all those awful cliches which modellers will insist on putting on to their layouts - blazing buildings, flashing lights, weddings, funerals, accidents, brawls, and so on and so on.............. All, no doubt, added with a 'flourish'. 

 

I didn't read in to 'extra flourishes'  what I think of as a Children's entertainment layouts (a perfectly valid type of modelling I might add within its own framing ... though not at all to my taste)

 

I don't disagree with your comment about some of the greatest paintings ever produced being impressionist in their style (Monet is one of my favourite painters). However, apply those 'impressionistic' features to a model railway and the result will mean it just won't work (surely an essential feature of any model railway). Take Monet's paintings of the Paris stations for instance. There is no consistent track gauge - it goes wide, then narrows for instance - and the locos are just inventions of his (vivid) imagination. One of the forebears of Impressionism, J.M.W. Turner (another of my favourite artists) painted the firebox on the front of the engine in Rain, Steam And Speed.

 

I think you can have flourishes of interest on a layout which are impressionistic of the tableau trying to be recreated -  despite not being actually present on the particular prototype -  redolent of the scene without demonstrable contradiction or inaccuracy.

 

A direct comparison between a painting and a model layout is I submit a tad disingenuous ... the original comparison (as far as impressionist painting was concerned) was between differing types (genres) of painting.

 

I don't believe that those 'little extra touches' are the sole preserve of those who model freelance locations. May I please present a selection of models of actual locations where very little has been forgotten, and they all give a wonderful impression of reality? Surely, that's the acid test. Some are still in the process of being built, but that realism (impossible in a made-up location?) is there. 

 

True .. but far more freedom and therefore arguably impact can be derived within a fictitious layout. Also, a literal representation can be more false than an impression in some cases because it does not capture the 'impression' of the real time observer. The eye at the best of times is a highly selective organ - think 'dead pot plant syndrome' - we filter what we are not interested in.

 

Each to there own I say and lets critique the results rather than the chosen genre.  I have had so many of these debates within architectural theory and it all has an element of 'angels on pin heads' about it .... the real proof is in the end product and if it is good it can break every pre conceived rule in the book for my part.

 

Thanks Tim,

 

I think, on balance, it's far better to take a person's comments 'literally' than not read what has actually been written, and then correspond. It's been my experience, on far too many occasions, to have my comments completely misinterpreted, because the respondent has 'literally' not read what I've actually written.

 

My aim (if I have an aim) in all of this is to encourage folk to have a go at modelling for themselves. My reasons for modelling an actual prototype have been explained before (without being disingenuous), the main one being that if you look at the 'real thing', it is far easier to copy that in model form than it is to 'make something up'. All the principal elements are there to behold - just copy them. 

 

It's all well and good to 'count the angels sitting on the head of a pin' - that might suit an abstract philosophy, I don't know - but it's far more useful in my view to (metaphorically) put 'ones money where ones mouth is'. To this end, I.......

 

Conduct one-to-one tutorials in model-making; usually in loco-construction, but also in rolling stock-construction (all prototype-based). 

Have regular guests (friends) come over to operate Little Bytham in (I hope) as near a prototypical-manner as possible.

Give lectures/talks/demonstrations/tutorials at numerous events/shows throughout the year.

Act as a loco-doctor at numerous shows throughout the year.

Act as a judge at model railway events.

Write numerous books/articles on the subject of model railways/real railways.

 

I'm not listing the above to elicit praise (that would be disingenuous), but to show that I'm prepared to put my opinions into practice.

 

It's good that not everyone feels the same way about their model railway making. However, I think (or at least, I hope) we can all agree that if we strive to make our model railways as accurate as possible and work as well as possible (within our own skill-limits), then we'll be much more-satisfied. We'll also satisfy observers as well.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Edited, because I didn't read through properly what I'd written!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited December 4, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Fine layouts all. Most are very large projects that would never have been built without the input of a good number of volunteers, or in some cases, bought in help. Most if not all of them could not have been built without a big financial investment. I can look at the ones I know and tell just how much was done by the layout owner and how much has been contributed by others. Most of us cannot rely on that level of input from others or can't afford to purchase it.

 

That doesn't diminish their effectiveness as models but it does suggest that they are unattainable by the vast majority of modellers, working at home trying to build something in a garage, a spare bedroom or a shed.

 

So I can enjoy them but they do not represent anything that I would like to try to build for myself.

 

That is why I like "Tucking Mill" so much. Pretty much all built by one person in a sensible timescale.

Thanks Tony,

 

I think only two of these layouts have little (or no) work on them by the owners. The majority show the work of the layout owner, working individually or as part of a team. 

 

Where are 'large' financial outlay has taken place, it's often over many, many years. It comes down to how one wishes to spend money, over time. In my own case, I look at Little Bytham and ponder how much I've spent on it. It's qualified by the fact that it's been spread (loco/stock-wise) well over 40 years now. 

 

As for 'unattainable by the vast majority of modellers ', surely Buckingham itself fits into that category. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

This is my latest project: a total rebuild/repaint of the Rails' Dynamometer Car from the ground up. A lot of errors and omissions had to be fixed along the way and I will be covering these in a separate topic when I can drum up the enthusiasm.

 

There are three photographs of the Dynamometer Car in colour that I know of, two being better than the third, however all show the vehicle with a very dirty roof and underframe so this is how I have modelled it.

 

IMG_7656.JPG

 

Yes, my model has the lining:

IMG_7657.JPG

 

Full roof detail as carried by the prototype has been added. You can also just see the correct pattern lino on the interior floor:

IMG_7660.JPG

 

The interior, specifically the recording desk has been superdetailed:

IMG_7662.JPG

 

The end duckets have been correctly rebated into the panelling and the top panel remodelled:

IMG_7666.JPG

 

Bespoke "DYNAMOMETER CAR" lettering fabricated matching the 1938 original. Employees wishing to spend a penny can now do so in privacy:

IMG_7671.JPG

 

There were many moments that I thought "I must be mad?" and on a couple of occassions the model was nearly thrown across the room, but I must admit I am really pleased with the result.

That's superb modelling, Mike,

 

Thanks for posting. 

 

I wonder if the following, from Golden Age Models, are as accurate?

 

 

 

[queensquare]

 

That is why I like "Tucking Mill" so much. Pretty much all built by one person in a sensible timescale.

 

That's very kind, thanks Tony though just to put 'sensible timescale' into context, my Bath layout is 20+ years and counting!

 

Tucking Mill, Highbury/Foxcote and other small layouts I've built are designed specifically to go to shows as I enjoy exhibiting on the basis the layout will fit in the car with Kim and I, a weekends luggage and usually a couple of guitars! The small exhibition layouts also have the added advantage of allowing me to indulge some of my many other interests without having to invest too much time and money.

 

I tend to go for the 'inspired by' rather than 'based on' approach. A good example is the colliery which is heavily influenced by Camerton which is actually on the GWR although it is only a few miles as the crow flies from the SDJR at Foxcote and is intended to represent a typical Somerset pit, if such a thing existed.

 

 

 

Jerry

[MikeTrice]

That's superb modelling, Mike,

 

Thanks for posting. 

 

I wonder if the following, from Golden Age Models, are as accurate?

 

Golden Age Dynamometer Car 23591.jpg

 

Golden Age Dynamometer Car 902502.jpg

 

Mallard.jpg

No. Of the two the Rails version is marginally better. Both are based on the preserved vehicle hence see through toilet window etc. The Golden Age underframe is lacking much detail, for example there is no dynamo that I can see. The Golden Age DC also lacks the roof detail that was removed by BR which is missing from the preserved vehicle.

[Tony Wright]

With the festive season approaching (or overwhelming us already, if a visit to Stamford, this morning, is anything to go by), what does anyone think of this as a Christmas present?

 

 

Because Ian Wilson doesn't read RMweb, I can post this - his present from me, this year. In the spirit of making/modifying things for oneself (or, in this case, for a dear friend), here's what I've done for him. It's a modified Hornby 4F, to which I've fitted a Stanier chimney, renumbered it, detailed it and weathered it. 

 

I think this is one aspect of railway modelling which particularly appeals to me - the fact that one can produce a really 'personal' present. 

 

It is, of course, what it is, and the visible drive does compromise the realism. However, as a working layout loco............? 

[t-b-g]

Thanks Tony,

 

I think only two of these layouts have little (or no) work on them by the owners. The majority show the work of the layout owner, working individually or as part of a team.

 

Where are 'large' financial outlay has taken place, it's often over many, many years. It comes down to how one wishes to spend money, over time. In my own case, I look at Little Bytham and ponder how much I've spent on it. It's qualified by the fact that it's been spread (loco/stock-wise) well over 40 years now.

 

As for 'unattainable by the vast majority of modellers ', surely Buckingham itself fits into that category.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

We don't all have the luxury of a team of skilled modellers willing to contribute to a project that is not their own. Most of the layouts illustrated wouldn't have got to their stage of completion without that team effort.

 

As for Buckingham, it was built by one self taught man using basic hand tools. There is nothing on there that many modellers, including a good number of people on RMWeb, couldn't do.

 

Although a lifetime project, each individual bit was done very quickly. The present version of Buckingham station was built in around 18 months. It has been added to and tinkered with since but the baseboards, track, signals, wiring and scenery were done very quickly.

 

That is why the layout and the articles about it always inspired me. It was never "Look how clever I am" but more "This was how I made such and such. It is quite easy if you want to have a go".

Edited December 4, 2018 by t-b-g

[Willie Whizz]

...

 

As for the coast line in Devon, the same argument as to why the MR south of Nottingham was not chosen, it served a large population which had it closed would have had no direct link with London. Something the GCR London extension didn't do as the major towns already had London connections before it arrived. 

Yes, Clive, but the MR connections they "already" had were - and remain - worse than those on the GC.

 

I seriously doubt you will find many folk, if indeed anyone, living in the East Midlands of an age to remember the GC line before it was emasculated who would regard what we now call the 'Midland Main Line' as a better route - for passengers or freight. In either direction, too.  As a small boy I traveled on a number of occasions to Sheffield to visit relatives there, and my parents wouldn't have dreamed of going via Nottingham Midland Station in preference to Nottingham Victoria.

 

In more recent times the debate about the need to electrify the awful MML has been going on for over 30 years and still keeps getting kicked into the long grass.  There was a serious movement in the local business and political communities here a few years ago proposing that if the full electrification couldn't be afforded then we should go back to the route pattern of the 1850s, and give Nottingham a direct route to London by just electrifying the stretch of the old GN line to Grantham, joining the ECML there and on down to King's Cross.  Apparently it had been worked out that there was ECML line capacity to do that, and despite being longer than via an 'electrified' MML it would be faster too.  The notion failed because it was pointed out that removing the Nottingham inter-city passenger traffic from the MML would make the latter completely financially unviable.  So our travellers struggle on with a route that was pretty poor for most of the 20th Century and remains so today!

[Lecorbusier]

Thanks Tim,

 

I think, on balance, it's far better to take a person's comments 'literally' than not read what has actually been written, and then correspond. It's been my experience, on far too many occasions, to have my comments completely misinterpreted, because the respondent has 'literally' not read was I've actually written.

 

My aim (if I have an aim) in all of this is to encourage folk to have a go at modelling for themselves. My reasons for modelling an actual prototype have been explained before (without being disingenuous), the main one being that if you look at the 'real thing', it is far easier to copy that in model form than it is to 'make something up'. All the principal elements are there to behold - just copy them. 

 

It's all well and good to 'count the angels sitting on the head of a pin' - that might suit an abstract philosophy, I don't know - but it's far more useful in my view to (metaphorically) put 'ones money where ones mouth is'. To this end, I.......

 

Conduct one-to-one tutorials in model-making; usually in loco-construction, but also in rolling stock-construction (all prototype-based). 

Have regular guests (friends) come over to operate Little Bytham in (I hope) as near a prototypical-manner as possible.

Give lectures/talks/demonstrations/tutorials at numerous events/shows throughout the year.

Act as a loco-doctor at numerous shows throughout the year.

Act as a judge at model railway events.

Write numerous books/articles on the subject of model railways/real railways.

 

I'm not listing the above to elicit praise (that would be disingenuous), but to show that I'm prepared to put my opinions into practice.

 

It's good that not everyone feels the same way about their model railway making. However, I think (or at least, I hope) we can all agree that if we strive to make our model railways as accurate as possible and work as well as possible (within our own skill-limits), then we'll be much more-satisfied. We'll also satisfy observers as well.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

As you know Tony I am a huge fan of both your approach and generosity of spirit in proffering help and guidance to others.

 

I just felt that there was a kernel of truth in the comments made about tunnel vision. There are models which are beautifully researched and painstakingly made - of actual places - which to many appear simply dull and not at all redolent of the real experience of steam (whatever that might be). I find myself drawn to some of these because I know how hard it is to achieve what has been achieved and how good the level of modelling is. However, on standing back I find myself having to admit that the layout in question is actually quite dull and could have benefited from a little imagination and the odd flourish here and there.

 

I might be wrong, but I always thought that you chose to model such scenes as LB because they were exciting, with magnificent trains to model ... arguably the flourish at LB is provided by the clever choice of location itself. With less space and with other locations it might well be necessary to sprinkle a little stardust around to prevent the occasional well disguised yawn from certain quarters - or accept that your offering is for a very niche market.

 

Moving from the general to the specific .. I myself am all about modelling the real thing, so here you are definitely speaking to the like minded.

[teaky]

This is my latest project: a total rebuild/repaint of the Rails' Dynamometer Car from the ground up. A lot of errors and omissions had to be fixed along the way and I will be covering these in a separate topic when I can drum up the enthusiasm.

 

There are three photographs of the Dynamometer Car in colour that I know of, two being better than the third, however all show the vehicle with a very dirty roof and underframe so this is how I have modelled it.

 

IMG_7656.JPG

 

Yes, my model has the lining:

IMG_7657.JPG

 

Full roof detail as carried by the prototype has been added. You can also just see the correct pattern lino on the interior floor:

IMG_7660.JPG

 

The interior, specifically the recording desk has been superdetailed:

IMG_7662.JPG

 

The end duckets have been correctly rebated into the panelling and the top panel remodelled:

IMG_7666.JPG

 

Bespoke "DYNAMOMETER CAR" lettering fabricated matching the 1938 original. Employees wishing to spend a penny can now do so in privacy:

IMG_7671.JPG

 

There were many moments that I thought "I must be mad?" and on a couple of occassions the model was nearly thrown across the room, but I must admit I am really pleased with the result.

That looks brilliant Mike.  I'm glad you resisted throwing it across the room.  I'm looking forward to the thread.

[Tony Teague]

Most if not all of them could not have been built without a big financial investment.

 

So, to play devils advocate, is it your view that if one has the means to invest heavily in a model railway, or to buy in help because we lack skills in all areas, and/or a large circle of skilled volunteers, then it is unlikely that the layout will attain "inspirational" or "iconic" status?

Tony

[Tony Teague]

Please let me know if those locos I 'doctored' work now on your railway. 

 

 

Yes thank you; 3 of the 4 that you attended to run perfectly, and although the 4th also runs well in a straight line, it still has difficulty with the over-tight curves on my layout - as we perhaps expected. So it looks like the solution might be as you suggested, to change the motor and gearbox - do you have a particular suggestion or would you need to look again to propose one?

 

On the basis of your diagnosis for the 5th, completely dead loco, I have managed to order some replacement gears from Peter's Spares and so I also expect to be able to resolve this one and bring it back into service.

 

Thanks again for your expertise!

 

Tony

[Tony Wright]

Yes thank you; 3 of the 4 that you attended to run perfectly, and although the 4th also runs well in a straight line, it still has difficulty with the over-tight curves on my layout - as we perhaps expected. So it looks like the solution might be as you suggested, to change the motor and gearbox - do you have a particular suggestion or would you need to look again to propose one?

 

On the basis of your diagnosis for the 5th, completely dead loco, I have managed to order some replacement gears from Peter's Spares and so I also expect to be able to resolve this one and bring it back into service.

 

Thanks again for your expertise!

 

Tony

Thanks Tony,

 

Get the Comet/Canon combination from Andrew Hartsthorne at Peterborough at the weekend. When you next come over, we'll fit it in. It'll do perfectly.

[Tony Wright]

As you know Tony I am a huge fan of both your approach and generosity of spirit in proffering help and guidance to others.

 

I just felt that there was a kernel of truth in the comments made about tunnel vision. There are models which are beautifully researched and painstakingly made - of actual places - which to many appear simply dull and not at all redolent of the real experience of steam (whatever that might be). I find myself drawn to some of these because I know how hard it is to achieve what has been achieved and how good the level of modelling is. However, on standing back I find myself having to admit that the layout in question is actually quite dull and could have benefited from a little imagination and the odd flourish here and there.

 

I might be wrong, but I always thought that you chose to model such scenes as LB because they were exciting, with magnificent trains to model ... arguably the flourish at LB is provided by the clever choice of location itself. With less space and with other locations it might well be necessary to sprinkle a little stardust around to prevent the occasional well disguised yawn from certain quarters - or accept that your offering is for a very niche market.

 

Moving from the general to the specific .. I myself am all about modelling the real thing, so here you are definitely speaking to the like minded.

Thanks Tim,

 

Most-valid comments, as always.......................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

We don't all have the luxury of a team of skilled modellers willing to contribute to a project that is not their own. Most of the layouts illustrated wouldn't have got to their stage of completion without that team effort.

 

As for Buckingham, it was built by one self taught man using basic hand tools. There is nothing on there that many modellers, including a good number of people on RMWeb, couldn't do.

 

Although a lifetime project, each individual bit was done very quickly. The present version of Buckingham station was built in around 18 months. It has been added to and tinkered with since but the baseboards, track, signals, wiring and scenery were done very quickly.

 

That is why the layout and the articles about it always inspired me. It was never "Look how clever I am" but more "This was how I made such and such. It is quite easy if you want to have a go".

I agree in many ways, Tony,

 

My point about Buckingham was that, because it's unique, only you (at the moment?) can 'own' it, and it's thus unattainable to anyone else. 

 

And, I think you're being slightly unkind to it (if without intention). Inspirational it without doubt is, and influential (it's affected me down the years in both ways), but if it were as 'easy' as Peter made out, why are their not dozens of clones of it? There never will be (nor ever could be). It's one of the greatest model railways of all time, and if 'great' were simple and easy, it would have no value at all. 

 

At least you're keeping it going. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[t-b-g]

So, to play devils advocate, is it your view that if one has the means to invest heavily in a model railway, or to buy in help because we lack skills in all areas, and/or a large circle of skilled volunteers, then it is unlikely that the layout will attain "inspirational" or "iconic" status?

Tony

Not at all. Just that the layouts illustrated as examples of excellence are pretty much all the work of groups, teams or professional modellers and that makes it unattainable for many.

 

As somebody who earns a crust from building models and working on layouts for people, I would not dare suggest such activities are any less of an achievement. Just that few can get their dream layout that way.

[Tony Wright]

More views from the 'far side' of Little Bytham................

 

 

This is a shot I've rarely (if ever) taken, showing the limestone loading dock on the west side of LB. With so many limestone quarries in the area, the GNR recognised (at an early stage) that for every massive block quarried locally, there'd be tons of limestone rubble. This has a most-useful quality as a flux in the iron and steel industry, and was loaded into open wagons to be collected and eventually dispatched to Scunthorpe or Rotherham. 

 

 

Standing on top of a lorry(?), the photographer has captured an A2 on a Down express. I think this view works quite well, showing, as it does, the arrangement of the various buildings at LB. Not all are parallel with each other, something often missed on freelance models. 

 

 

Now just standing on the dock itself, the picture-taker has exposed a shot of a particularly disreputable K1 (Nu-Cast, by John Houlden) on a Down mineral empties. The reason for making the main line run down a two-thirds 'spine' of the room, meant I could photograph the layout from both sides.