Wright writes.....

[jwealleans]

 

LMS 44%; LNER 33%; SR 6%; other company 17%.

 

But there's got to be an element of geographical bias in there too, surely?   The LNER and SR exchanged wagons over the widened lines, so there might be proportionately more SR wagons at the bottom end of the ECML than say, GW ones which might be more likely to travel via Banbury and the GC if destined for the north of Scotland. 

 

ISTR looking at some genuine consists from Pendon and the percentage of GW wagons (in what were 'internal' GW workings) was far in excess of 17%.

[Bucoops]

But there's got to be an element of geographical bias in there too, surely?   The LNER and SR exchanged wagons over the widened lines, so there might be proportionately more SR wagons at the bottom end of the ECML than say, GW ones which might be more likely to travel via Banbury and the GC if destined for the north of Scotland. 

 

ISTR looking at some genuine consists from Pendon and the percentage of GW wagons (in what were 'internal' GW workings) was far in excess of 17%.

 

I read the last bit as being the total national wagon stock as opposed to the percentage to be seen on LNER lines?

[Tony Wright]

I wonder whether it's worth starting the New Year off with a few controversial observations? 

 

Firstly, however, I'd like to wish that this thread continues to be one of the most interesting, stimulating, thought-provoking, argumentative, helpful and widely-read of any on RMweb. Remember, it's you who contribute to it the most. 

 

In a sort of tangential way, I've been described as a 'heretic'. Thus, I'll take on that mantle and, as intimated, become even more controversial than usual. 

 

Mention has been made recently of some of the older, highly-influential layouts from the past. They have, with huge justification, been central to the development of the hobby down the decades. Tony Gee has ensured that Buckingham continues to be operated and is preserved for future generations. However (controversial observation number one), it is very much a product of its time. It's been my privilege to have been able to photograph it (not long after Peter Denny's death, when it was still in Truro), but I rejected several of the images because the modelling, in places, was rather 'crude'. In defence, I'd better qualify that observation, because 60+ year old cardboard and balsa wood structures, and brickpapers are going to look just what they are. Some of the locos/items of stock were rather 'blobby' in their painting as well. Yes, of course, the great man did everything himself and anything which has seen constant use for over six decades is going to show signs of wear and tear; but, I wonder, if such models were built today, to the same standard, what would be the general reaction? 

 

I say the above in the light of mulling over some etches for a B3 which Graham Nicholas has produced. I know a B3 is way later than Buckingham's time period, but what would Peter Denny have made of them? A wonderful model, no doubt, because the etches are superb (though I won't be using the suggested resin boiler when I build it). The point is, once the finished B3 model appears (not built by me), if painted well, it'll represent current state-of-the-art standards in mainstream 4mm modelling. It will be (dare I say it?) superior to all of the locos running on Buckingham. 

 

 

Speaking of a B3, this wonderful example ran on LB during the '38 weekend in August. Scratch-built by Mike Edge (using his own etches) and painted by (we think, though it's not signed) Larry Goddard, isn't this as good as it currently gets? This is not to belittle Peter Denny's work in any way, but surely standards have moved on and isn't there a danger of becoming a bit sentimental? 

 

Mention has also been made about Borchester. Speaking personally, Frank Dyer's work (obviously) was more influential to me than that of Peter Denny and I'd rate Frank as an equal to him in his model-making (though Peter worked in a more accurate gauge). 

 

 

I never took pictures of Borchester when Frank was alive, but I did get a few when it was under new-ownership. I must say, the majority of the locos running on it were superior to any Frank built. Yes, he had to build most of his from scratch, but standards move on, and this PDK A2/1 built by Ian Forsyth represented quite an improvement in my view. For a start, it wasn't encumbered with Frank Dyer's couplings - surely some of the ugliest ever devised, with a huge semi-circle between the buffers to prevent locking. Yes, they worked, as tension-locks work. But, dare I say it, I prefer the latter? 

 

Again, nothing I've said should be seen as denigrating to a great man's work but I'm not sure Borchester would stand up to well against some current standards seen in OO Gauge modelling. In a way, the whole concept was a bit absurd; through trains to Kings Cross from a modest Notts town, off the ECML, with a terminus only capable of taking short expresses? As I've said many times, in my opinion, for any layout to have real merit (in whatever scale/gauge) it must be based on an actual prototype. Many, I'm sure, will disagree.

 

I did have the opportunity of photographing part of Ken Northwood's North Devon, after he'd died and the layout had been dismantled. I declined, because Torryford Station buildings were in a rather parlous state and I didn't think it would be fair. I remember being very impressed with it when I first saw it in the magazines many, many years ago, but would I be so impressed now? Who'd use a Farish 4mm 'King' nowadays as a starting point, with its too-angular firebox and nameplate attached with brass pins? Or, run LMS Exleys just repainted in chocolate and cream, today? 

 

Again, I have no wish to appear entirely iconoclastic, but shouldn't we just accept these 'seminal' layouts for what they were? Highly-influential, very important in the hobby's development and wonderful examples of 'personal' modelling, but, in many ways, not up to the 'best' of today's standards? 

 

It's also been my privilege to photograph many current layouts, and I think it's fair to say that the standards have never been higher. I'm not talking of layouts awash with RTR stuff (just think what the pioneers would have thought of what's on offer in that department now?), but there are some outstanding 'personal' layouts being built, every bit in their own way (potentially) as influential as those earlier ones mentioned. 

 

Of course, materials today are superior in every way to what was available decades ago. Those greats of years ago made a fantastic job, often using the most humble of resources, and that should never be forgotten. But great craftsmanship still exists out there, and shouldn't we be celebrating it more, even though the current materials make modelling 'easier'? 

 

One of the most influential modellers of all time was David Jenkinson. It was my privilege to work with and for him, and to photograph his 'last great project', Kendal, not long after he died. His EM Marthwaite was considered a seminal layout of its time, but the track wasn't even ballasted! 

 

No doubt, I'll have to go into hiding having written the above. However, I believe in what I've written and, at least my thoughts should be thought-provoking. Above all else, whatever our beliefs, we should be encouraging folk to have a go at modelling for themselves, helping them if we can and encouraging them to improve. Just as those greats of yesteryear just mentioned did.

 

Regards to all,

 

Tony.  

Edited January 1, 2019 by Tony Wright

[gwrrob]

That company that shall not be named 

 

Why not it was the GWR.

[bbishop]

The three "Greats" started a pooling agreement before WW!.  At grouping, the four companies put their unfitted open wagons and vans into a pooling arrangement which lasted through to 1947.  Percentages barely changed over time.  There were quirks, the LBSC stock had a different axle length so were either shipped over to the Isle of Wight or became service stock, and only three companies pooled their cattle wagons.  The result would be that an SR van would as likely to be spotted at Inverness as at Southampton.

 

Special stock (insulated vans, carriage trucks, etc.) were non pooled, and could be identified by an "N" on the solebar.

 

Bill

[Tony Wright]

And a happy new year to all from mid-Cornwall too.

 

That guard is very nicely modelled, Tony. Hopefully he will remember to use the safety rail before moving off! .

 

 

I cannot claim any credit for the guard, Phil. That should go to Paul Marshall Potter.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

The three "Greats" started a pooling agreement before WW!.  At grouping, the four companies put their unfitted open wagons and vans into a pooling arrangement which lasted through to 1947.  Percentages barely changed over time.  There were quirks, the LBSC stock had a different axle length so were either shipped over to the Isle of Wight or became service stock, and only three companies pooled their cattle wagons.  The result would be that an SR van would as likely to be spotted at Inverness as at Southampton.

 

Special stock (insulated vans, carriage trucks, etc.) were non pooled, and could be identified by an "N" on the solebar.

 

Bill

Having nearly finished typing the same information as Bill has provided I would just like to add, that on pre-antionalisation model railways I hate seeing wagons belonging to only that company which the layout is based on. Even non-common users were seen on other lines, how were the goods going to be delivered, transshipment sheds went out with broad gauge.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[Northmoor]

Again, I have no wish to appear entirely iconoclastic, but shouldn't we just accept these 'seminal' layouts for what they were? Highly-influential, very important in the hobby's development and wonderful examples of 'personal' modelling, but, in many ways, not up to the 'best' of today's standards? 

 

100% agree from me.

 

There is an analogy with the great express passenger locos of the same era - Castles, Merchant Navies, Duchesses and "Streaks" - they were the pinnacle of our railways' engineering of the time.  In today's operating environment they would be considered pretty dangerous to operate, underpowered and slow, dirty, noisy and environmentally noxious.

 

And glorious.

[bbishop]

Tony,

 

You are absolutely correct.  At Central Hall, I used to arrive at Borchester 10 minutes before the hour as the previous session ended to get a front row position before the next session.  Then 50 minutes watching a model railway being operated.  But when it re-appeared on the circuit, it was just another exhibition layout with rather too sharp curves.

 

My seminal layout at the time was Bushampton, which got me into modelling the LSWR in O gauge.  But 3 rail, course scale, stupidly tight curves; and other than a drop dead gorgeous Jubilee, I have no idea what the stock looked like.

 

Most of the layout that you referred to were possibly magazine rather than exhibition layouts.  There weren't that many shows (as a kid I might go to four a year) so one was more reliant upon Brian Moynihan's photography in Railway Modeller.  And those were the black and white days, and Brian could make a silk purse out of a sows ear.  I could spend hours in front of Borchester or Bushampton, but I recollect being very disappointed by David Jenkinson's Garsdale Road - nothing like the articles.

 

Bill

[Hollar]

I can recommend the Red Hot Chili Pipers for those who prefer to eat their tattie scone while skirling.  The live album in particular.  This gives a flavour, but they also offer airs with more traditional sources

 

 

Tone

 

 

Proper Jock Rock.

 

 

Happy new year and lang may yer lum reeko

Edited January 1, 2019 by Hollar

[Hollar]

I read the last bit as being the total national wagon stock as opposed to the percentage to be seen on LNER lines?

As I understand it, the basic wagon stock was pooled between the big four, in order to minimise empty workings, so the proportion of revenue-earning wagons on any company's metals would more or less the national figures. Specialist stock (? eg fish vans) wasn't Common User but almost everything was. 

 

Tone

 

(Apologies - already been said, and better.  Must try getting up before midday )

 

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Hollar

[mullie]

Happy new year everyone. After just five hours sleep having ferried a drum kit around for our daughter's gig last night (show's how things have changed, not currently doing our own gigs) that also meant no booze so some modelling progress this morning. 

 

J72, Comet chassis in EM, Bachmann body resprayed and numbered, still a few jobs to do such as coal in the bunker and re touching some paint. This chassis was originally built in 00, then dismantled and rebuilt in EM, in future things will be easier! As it is my first chassis build I did make things difficult for myself.

 

 

Reverting to wagons, this photo sums up my small stock of EM wagons, a Bachmann open and a kit built van, the van is my one and only Lochgorm starter kit though I do have another to build, (this has been seen before).

 

 

69013 was briefly at Ipswich so is appropriate for an East Anglian layout though very few photos seem to exist of it working at this time, I used references found online from a few years later.

 

Martyn

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

I wonder whether it's worth starting the New Year off with a few controversial observations? 

 

Firstly, however, I'd like to wish that this thread continues to be one of the most interesting, stimulating, thought-provoking, argumentative, helpful and widely-read of any on RMweb. Remember, it's you who contribute to it the most. 

 

In a sort of tangential way, I've been described as a 'heretic'. Thus, I'll take on that mantle and, as intimated, become even more controversial than usual. 

 

Mention has been made recently of some of the older, highly-influential layouts from the past. They have, with huge justification, been central to the development of the hobby down the decades. Tony Gee has ensured that Buckingham continues to be operated and is preserved for future generations. However (controversial observation number one), it is very much a product of its time. It's been my privilege to have been able to photograph it (not long after Peter Denny's death, when it was still in Truro), but I rejected several of the images because the modelling, in places, was rather 'crude'. In defence, I'd better qualify that observation, because 60+ year old cardboard and balsa wood structures, and brickpapers are going to look just what they are. Some of the locos/items of stock were rather 'blobby' in their painting as well. Yes, of course, the great man did everything himself and anything which has seen constant use for over six decades is going to show signs of wear and tear; but, I wonder, if such models were built today, to the same standard, what would be the general reaction? 

 

I say the above in the light of mulling over some etches for a B3 which Graham Nicholas has produced. I know a B3 is way later than Buckingham's time period, but what would Peter Denny have made of them? A wonderful model, no doubt, because the etches are superb (though I won't be using the suggested resin boiler when I build it). The point is, once the finished B3 model appears (not built by me), if painted well, it'll represent current state-of-the-art standards in mainstream 4mm modelling. It will be (dare I say it?) superior to all of the locos running on Buckingham. 

 

Trains running 35 B3 on Pullman.jpg

 

Speaking of a B3, this wonderful example ran on LB during the '38 weekend in August. Scratch-built by Mike Edge (using his own etches) and painted by (we think, though it's not signed) Larry Goddard, isn't this as good as it currently gets? This is not to belittle Peter Denny's work in any way, but surely standards have moved on and isn't there a danger of becoming a bit sentimental? 

 

Mention has also been made about Borchester. Speaking personally, Frank Dyer's work (obviously) was more influential to me than that of Peter Denny and I'd rate Frank as an equal to him in his model-making (though Peter worked in a more accurate gauge). 

 

Introduction 03.jpg

 

I never took pictures of Borchester when Frank was alive, but I did get a few when it was under new-ownership. I must say, the majority of the locos running on it were superior to any Frank built. Yes, he had to build most of his from scratch, but standards move on, and this PDK A2/1 built by Ian Forsyth represented quite an improvement in my view. For a start, it wasn't encumbered with Frank Dyer's couplings - surely some of the ugliest ever devised, with a huge semi-circle between the buffers to prevent locking. Yes, they worked, as tension-locks work. But, dare I say it, I prefer the latter? 

 

Again, nothing I've said should be seen as denigrating to a great man's work but I'm not sure Borchester would stand up to well against some current standards seen in OO Gauge modelling. In a way, the whole concept was a bit absurd; through trains to Kings Cross from a modest Notts town, off the ECML, with a terminus only capable of taking short expresses? As I've said many times, in my opinion, for any layout to have real merit (in whatever scale/gauge) it must be based on an actual prototype. Many, I'm sure, will disagree.

 

I did have the opportunity of photographing part of Ken Northwood's North Devon, after he'd died and the layout had been dismantled. I declined, because Torryford Station buildings were in a rather parlous state and I didn't think it would be fair. I remember being very impressed with it when I first saw it in the magazines many, many years ago, but would I be so impressed now? Who'd use a Farish 4mm 'King' nowadays as a starting point, with its too-angular firebox and nameplate attached with brass pins? Or, run LMS Exleys just repainted in chocolate and cream, today? 

 

Again, I have no wish to appear entirely iconoclastic, but shouldn't we just accept these 'seminal' layouts for what they were? Highly-influential, very important in the hobby's development and wonderful examples of 'personal' modelling, but, in many ways, not up to the 'best' of today's standards? 

 

It's also been my privilege to photograph many current layouts, and I think it's fair to say that the standards have never been higher. I'm not talking of layouts awash with RTR stuff (just think what the pioneers would have thought of what's on offer in that department now?), but there are some outstanding 'personal' layouts being built, every bit in their own way (potentially) as influential as those earlier ones mentioned. 

 

Of course, materials today are superior in every way to what was available decades ago. Those greats of years ago made a fantastic job, often using the most humble of resources, and that should never be forgotten. But great craftsmanship still exists out there, and shouldn't we be celebrating it more, even though the current materials make modelling 'easier'? 

 

One of the most influential modellers of all time was David Jenkinson. It was my privilege to work with and for him, and to photograph his 'last great project', Kendal, not long after he died. His EM Marthwaite was considered a seminal layout of its time, but the track wasn't even ballasted! 

 

No doubt, I'll have to go into hiding having written the above. However, I believe in what I've written and, at least my thoughts should be thought-provoking. Above all else, whatever our beliefs, we should be encouraging folk to have a go at modelling for themselves, helping them if we can and encouraging them to improve. Just as those greats of yesteryear just mentioned did.

 

Regards to all,

 

Tony.  

 

I would hope that things have moved on in the last 70 years.

 

It would be a poor do if they haven't.

 

But as I said previously, if I had the choice of having any layout ever built here, I wouldn't change anything.

 

I have been lucky to operate some very well known layouts over the years and have watched many others. I have seen nothing better than Buckingham as a layout to operate. If it was OO and all RTR it would still be a superb layout to operate. The fact that it was almost all scratchbuilt by one person is just a huge bonus. 

 

The locos are running superbly, the operating sessions are the highlight of any week and when you are working out how to get a platform clear before the next arrival, or making sure that the loco has been turned ready to take the next train out, you really don't notice the less than perfect paint jobs. These did vary in quality. Some of the lining on the very early models is superb but by the time Peter was in his eighties, his eyesight and hands weren't as good. No transfers available then either, so all the lettering and lining was done by hand.

 

Could you have done full GCR livery, hand lined and lettered? Even you admit that anything that needs simple BR green lined livery goes away for painting?

 

Of course modern transfers can give better results but it is the difference between something hand crafted and unique but less than perfect and something mass produced. I know each of the Denny locos like old friends now. They are not 100% perfect but neither am I or my friends! 

 

Your example of the B3 as being "as good as it gets" is an interesting one. Built, probably to commission, by a very good professional builder and painted by another. I would much rather have a less that perfect model that I had built myself than a perfect one that I had paid others to build.

 

I hadn't mentioned it previously but the tender on the B3 is quite wrong. The top of the tender side sheets should be almost up to the top of the cab sides so the model is quite a bit too low. It is the right height for a 3250 gallon tender, which the B3 class never had but it has the Iracier axleboxes, which the 3250 tenders didn't. It is still a lovely model but an example of modern perfection? I think not.

 

Very few layouts ever reach anything like the level of perfection that some modellers strive for. You mentioned the brick paper and wood buildings on Buckingham. Many people find the they look far better than they expected when they see them. Again, all scratchbuilt by one person, so they have a "style" and a "character" that means that they blend in together. If I was to turn the tables and say what I found lacking in Little Bytham, it is that when I look at it, I can see that some of the buildings have clearly been built by different people. Slightly different techniques, colours and textures mean that buildings that would have been built at the same time, from the same materials, are all slightly different. Each model may be superb quality but is that really any less of an imperfection than the brick paper (which was scribed to give some texture and relief) on Buckingham?

 

No need to hide though Tony. We know each other well enough to differ in our views without falling out!

 

Is a scene like this, taken before the layout had even had a dust, really so far behind modern standards?

 

 

Maybe more artistry than precision engineering but none the worse for it in my view.

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by t-b-g

[31A]

I'm a bit late coming to the "Control Panel Party" (having been at another party yesterday evening and last night!) but here is a picture showing part of the Finsbury Square control pane,l and the lever frame:

 

 

As you can see, the section switches are arranged geographically and are DPDT centre off slide switches (although only one pole is used); moved to the left connects to the left hand controller and moved to the right connects to the right hand controller (with the centre position being off).  Wiring is by common return with the inner rail being sectioned and the outer rail being the return.

 

The double and single slips in the station throat area don't have section switches as you would never need to isolate a loco in that area, but are 'daisy chained' to the section to their right; this reduces the number of switches needed and would hopefully make it easier for visitors to learn.  So for example to go from the Up Siding / Headshunt (in the bottom right corner) to Platform 3 the switch to the right of Points 26 is selected, and that takes you all the way to the section break between Points 23 and 24, from where the Platform 3 section switch take over (with Points 23, 24, 25 & 26 reversed).

 

The picture of the lever frame with the cover opened shows how this selection is achieved through micro switches operated by the levers; in some cases one lever operates two micro switches - in this case, one of the switches changes the polarity of the the relevant point frog.  At the time I built this, live frog slips weren't available in the Peco Code 75 range so I have to put up with them being dead, but this does simplify the wiring!  The points themselves are changed mechanically from the levers through steel wire and cranks intended for radio controlled models, under the baseboard.

 

 

As an aside, I was watching Madness on BBC1 last night at midnight but we didn't see the beginning.  I asked where it was being broadcast from and was told "Central Hall, Westminster, London".  Oh I said, I thought it looked familiar ....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

I'm a bit late coming to the "Control Panel Party" (having been at another party yesterday evening and last night!) but here is a picture showing part of the Finsbury Square control pane,l and the lever frame:

 

P1020320.jpg

 

As you can see, the section switches are arranged geographically and are DPDT centre off slide switches (although only one pole is used); moved to the left connects to the left hand controller and moved to the right connects to the right hand controller (with the centre position being off).  Wiring is by common return with the inner rail being sectioned and the outer rail being the return.

 

The double and single slips in the station throat area don't have section switches as you would never need to isolate a loco in that area, but are 'daisy chained' to the section to their right; this reduces the number of switches needed and would hopefully make it easier for visitors to learn.  So for example to go from the Up Siding / Headshunt (in the bottom right corner) to Platform 3 the switch to the right of Points 26 is selected, and that takes you all the way to the section break between Points 23 and 24, from where the Platform 3 section switch take over (with Points 23, 24, 25 & 26 reversed).

 

The picture of the lever frame with the cover opened shows how this selection is achieved through micro switches operated by the levers; in some cases one lever operates two micro switches - in this case, one of the switches changes the polarity of the the relevant point frog.  At the time I built this, live frog slips weren't available in the Peco Code 75 range so I have to put up with them being dead, but this does simplify the wiring!  The points themselves are changed mechanically from the levers through steel wire and cranks intended for radio controlled models, under the baseboard.

 

IMG_2135.jpg

 

As an aside, I was watching Madness on BBC1 last night at midnight but we didn't see the beginning.  I asked where it was being broadcast from and was told "Central Hall, Westminster, London".  Oh I said, I thought it looked familiar ....

 

I just love a nice lever frame. There is just something totally satisfying about pulling a lever to change a point or a signal. Perhaps it is because that is how they did it on the big railway, most of the time.

[Lecorbusier]

I wonder whether it's worth starting the New Year off with a few controversial observations? 

 

Firstly, however, I'd like to wish that this thread continues to be one of the most interesting, stimulating, thought-provoking, argumentative, helpful and widely-read of any on RMweb. Remember, it's you who contribute to it the most. 

 

In a sort of tangential way, I've been described as a 'heretic'. Thus, I'll take on that mantle and, as intimated, become even more controversial than usual. 

 

Mention has been made recently of some of the older, highly-influential layouts from the past. They have, with huge justification, been central to the development of the hobby down the decades. Tony Gee has ensured that Buckingham continues to be operated and is preserved for future generations. However (controversial observation number one), it is very much a product of its time. It's been my privilege to have been able to photograph it (not long after Peter Denny's death, when it was still in Truro), but I rejected several of the images because the modelling, in places, was rather 'crude'. In defence, I'd better qualify that observation, because 60+ year old cardboard and balsa wood structures, and brickpapers are going to look just what they are. Some of the locos/items of stock were rather 'blobby' in their painting as well. Yes, of course, the great man did everything himself and anything which has seen constant use for over six decades is going to show signs of wear and tear; but, I wonder, if such models were built today, to the same standard, what would be the general reaction? 

 

I say the above in the light of mulling over some etches for a B3 which Graham Nicholas has produced. I know a B3 is way later than Buckingham's time period, but what would Peter Denny have made of them? A wonderful model, no doubt, because the etches are superb (though I won't be using the suggested resin boiler when I build it). The point is, once the finished B3 model appears (not built by me), if painted well, it'll represent current state-of-the-art standards in mainstream 4mm modelling. It will be (dare I say it?) superior to all of the locos running on Buckingham. 

 

Trains running 35 B3 on Pullman.jpg

 

Speaking of a B3, this wonderful example ran on LB during the '38 weekend in August. Scratch-built by Mike Edge (using his own etches) and painted by (we think, though it's not signed) Larry Goddard, isn't this as good as it currently gets? This is not to belittle Peter Denny's work in any way, but surely standards have moved on and isn't there a danger of becoming a bit sentimental? 

 

Mention has also been made about Borchester. Speaking personally, Frank Dyer's work (obviously) was more influential to me than that of Peter Denny and I'd rate Frank as an equal to him in his model-making (though Peter worked in a more accurate gauge). 

 

Introduction 03.jpg

 

I never took pictures of Borchester when Frank was alive, but I did get a few when it was under new-ownership. I must say, the majority of the locos running on it were superior to any Frank built. Yes, he had to build most of his from scratch, but standards move on, and this PDK A2/1 built by Ian Forsyth represented quite an improvement in my view. For a start, it wasn't encumbered with Frank Dyer's couplings - surely some of the ugliest ever devised, with a huge semi-circle between the buffers to prevent locking. Yes, they worked, as tension-locks work. But, dare I say it, I prefer the latter? 

 

Again, nothing I've said should be seen as denigrating to a great man's work but I'm not sure Borchester would stand up to well against some current standards seen in OO Gauge modelling. In a way, the whole concept was a bit absurd; through trains to Kings Cross from a modest Notts town, off the ECML, with a terminus only capable of taking short expresses? As I've said many times, in my opinion, for any layout to have real merit (in whatever scale/gauge) it must be based on an actual prototype. Many, I'm sure, will disagree.

 

I did have the opportunity of photographing part of Ken Northwood's North Devon, after he'd died and the layout had been dismantled. I declined, because Torryford Station buildings were in a rather parlous state and I didn't think it would be fair. I remember being very impressed with it when I first saw it in the magazines many, many years ago, but would I be so impressed now? Who'd use a Farish 4mm 'King' nowadays as a starting point, with its too-angular firebox and nameplate attached with brass pins? Or, run LMS Exleys just repainted in chocolate and cream, today? 

 

Again, I have no wish to appear entirely iconoclastic, but shouldn't we just accept these 'seminal' layouts for what they were? Highly-influential, very important in the hobby's development and wonderful examples of 'personal' modelling, but, in many ways, not up to the 'best' of today's standards? 

 

It's also been my privilege to photograph many current layouts, and I think it's fair to say that the standards have never been higher. I'm not talking of layouts awash with RTR stuff (just think what the pioneers would have thought of what's on offer in that department now?), but there are some outstanding 'personal' layouts being built, every bit in their own way (potentially) as influential as those earlier ones mentioned. 

 

Of course, materials today are superior in every way to what was available decades ago. Those greats of years ago made a fantastic job, often using the most humble of resources, and that should never be forgotten. But great craftsmanship still exists out there, and shouldn't we be celebrating it more, even though the current materials make modelling 'easier'? 

 

One of the most influential modellers of all time was David Jenkinson. It was my privilege to work with and for him, and to photograph his 'last great project', Kendal, not long after he died. His EM Marthwaite was considered a seminal layout of its time, but the track wasn't even ballasted! 

 

No doubt, I'll have to go into hiding having written the above. However, I believe in what I've written and, at least my thoughts should be thought-provoking. Above all else, whatever our beliefs, we should be encouraging folk to have a go at modelling for themselves, helping them if we can and encouraging them to improve. Just as those greats of yesteryear just mentioned did.

 

Regards to all,

 

Tony.  

I am far too new to all of this to have any opinion or to be able to make any meaningful observations about the detail of what you say Tony.

 

However, what a lovely positive gee up for today's modelling scene ..... a good start for the new year given how often discussions turn to what has been lost or what might have fallen away. Its nice to know that - warts and all -, todays scene still has reasons to be excited and positive.

[bbishop]

Tony (G), so how would the 120 lever frame on Southwark Bridge float your boat?

 

Actually, I disagree with your views about the homogeneity of LB. Buildings, or groups of buildings, would have been built by different people, so there should be a variation of style and colour. There should be a basic vernacular style but even in an area of brick buildings, someone with money or influence would have imported stone for an important structure. If I have one criticism from photos of LB, it is that the cottages are exactly half relief, which is difficult to bleed into the background. Personally, I use quarter or three-quarter relief, build up the backscene or block with trees or other buildings. Modelling Franconia, most of my buildings have a plaster screed and are mostly painted in a shade of cream or ochre. I have one brick building - the khazi!

 

Bill

[31A]

I just love a nice lever frame. There is just something totally satisfying about pulling a lever to change a point or a signal. Perhaps it is because that is how they did it on the big railway, most of the time.

 

 

Thank you, I quite agree!  I need to make some more of it now as I've run out of levers for signals.

[Tony Wright]

I would hope that things have moved on in the last 70 years.

 

It would be a poor do if they haven't.

 

But as I said previously, if I had the choice of having any layout ever built here, I wouldn't change anything.

 

I have been lucky to operate some very well known layouts over the years and have watched many others. I have seen nothing better than Buckingham as a layout to operate. If it was OO and all RTR it would still be a superb layout to operate. The fact that it was almost all scratchbuilt by one person is just a huge bonus. 

 

The locos are running superbly, the operating sessions are the highlight of any week and when you are working out how to get a platform clear before the next arrival, or making sure that the loco has been turned ready to take the next train out, you really don't notice the less than perfect paint jobs. These did vary in quality. Some of the lining on the very early models is superb but by the time Peter was in his eighties, his eyesight and hands weren't as good. No transfers available then either, so all the lettering and lining was done by hand.

 

Could you have done full GCR livery, hand lined and lettered? Even you admit that anything that needs simple BR green lined livery goes away for painting?

 

Of course modern transfers can give better results but it is the difference between something hand crafted and unique but less than perfect and something mass produced. I know each of the Denny locos like old friends now. They are not 100% perfect but neither am I or my friends! 

 

Your example of the B3 as being "as good as it gets" is an interesting one. Built, probably to commission, by a very good professional builder and painted by another. I would much rather have a less that perfect model that I had built myself than a perfect one that I had paid others to build.

 

I hadn't mentioned it previously but the tender on the B3 is quite wrong. The top of the tender side sheets should be almost up to the top of the cab sides so the model is quite a bit too low. It is the right height for a 3250 gallon tender, which the B3 class never had but it has the Iracier axleboxes, which the 3250 tenders didn't. It is still a lovely model but an example of modern perfection? I think not.

 

Very few layouts ever reach anything like the level of perfection that some modellers strive for. You mentioned the brick paper and wood buildings on Buckingham. Many people find the they look far better than they expected when they see them. Again, all scratchbuilt by one person, so they have a "style" and a "character" that means that they blend in together. If I was to turn the tables and say what I found lacking in Little Bytham, it is that when I look at it, I can see that some of the buildings have clearly been built by different people. Slightly different techniques, colours and textures mean that buildings that would have been built at the same time, from the same materials, are all slightly different. Each model may be superb quality but is that really any less of an imperfection than the brick paper (which was scribed to give some texture and relief) on Buckingham?

 

No need to hide though Tony. We know each other well enough to differ in our views without falling out!

 

Is a scene like this, taken before the layout had even had a dust, really so far behind modern standards?

 

DSCN1030.JPG

 

Maybe more artistry than precision engineering but none the worse for it in my view.

Thanks Tony,

 

I hope everyone realises that I was not using Little Bytham as an example of today's 'perfect' modelling; far from it!

 

Actually, because the station itself was rebuilt at the time of the quadrupling of this section of the ECML in 1911, the new buildings did differ in style from those which survived from 1852. And, quite a bit of the modelling consists of cardboard, balsa wood and brick papers. It's just that they're not 70 years old. If they still look presentable in 50+ years' time, then I'll be very happy. 

 

Of course I cannot claim to be able to paint anything in full GCR livery, but, then, I don't think I ever have. 

 

Below are two examples of my painting of my own-built locos........

 

 

From 43 years ago, we have this Jamieson A2/1.

 

 

And, from 20 odd years ago, this SE Finecast K3.

 

Granted, neither is as complex in its livery (by any distance) as full GCR livery, but they prove that I can paint for myself. Are they markedly 'inferior' to any loco's painting on Buckingham? It's just that I can't paint well enough for what I personally demand. 

 

I think you're right to consider Buckingham to be more about artistry than precision engineering, but it's strictly 'non-figurative' inasmuch as, although some of the buildings might be modelled on actual structures, it's not a model of a real place. It is an example of a great man's imagination and talent, but, as I've said many times, for a layout to be really 'great' in my book, it has to be a model of a real location. That's why, influential and important in the hobby's history the likes of Buckingham, Borchester and The North Devon definitely are, they will never command my 'respect' as much as the likes of Ashburton, Totnes, Copenhagen Fields, Retford, Yatton Junction, Biggleswade and many other prototype-based layouts I've admired down the years.  

 

The acid test(s) to me of 'accurate' modelling will always be to me to examine a picture of an actual location, make a model of it, and then compare the two. Just as we do if modelling locos, carriages, wagons, signals, buildings or anything prototype-based. That way you can then tell whether something like a B3 has the right tender and the right axleboxes. Or, in the case you've cited, not! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[New Haven Neil]

Late to the control panel discussion also, but I have a differing view to offer, after offering the compliments to the season for all who contribute to this excellent thread.

 

I don't much like them.  Wurlitzer jobs.  They have their place on larger layouts I have to admit, but for smaller (OK, my!) layout which is a shelves around the garage walls job with about a 40 foot run, such a panel would be an inconvenience as the walking about would be annoying and I like to see the train I am driving.  So (!) I have walkaround (DCC) control, with points operated from the front panel of the layout mechanically.  Bicycle spokes and micro switches guided through terminal blocks - simple.  I certainly couldn't be bothered with operating points from DCC so I'm with Tony there.

 

For a larger (Little Bytham type) layout for me I would have to separate totally driving from signalling and point control, so DCC power and a panel of some kind, with a lever frame mimicking what would be in each signal box that appears on such a layout. 

 

On another subject, I'm too young (59.9 currently) to have seen Borchester and the likes originally, but slightly more recently a layout that totally captured my attention was High Dyke.  But it needed a backscene IIRC.

[t-b-g]

Tony (G), so how would the 120 lever frame on Southwark Bridge float your boat?

 

Actually, I disagree with your views about the homogeneity of LB. Buildings, or groups of buildings, would have been built by different people, so there should be a variation of style and colour. There should be a basic vernacular style but even in an area of brick buildings, someone with money or influence would have imported stone for an important structure. If I have one criticism from photos of LB, it is that the cottages are exactly half relief, which is difficult to bleed into the background. Personally, I use quarter or three-quarter relief, build up the backscene or block with trees or other buildings. Modelling Franconia, most of my buildings have a plaster screed and are mostly painted in a shade of cream or ochre. I have one brick building - the khazi!

 

Bill

 

I remember seeing the photo of the trackwork for Southwark Bridge on the cover of MRJ many years ago and thinking "WOW".

 

I was quite disappointed when I heard that it would not be exhibited as I thought it would have been a real show stopper.

 

We only have 69 levers at Buckingham but we have another 32 at Grandborough and around a dozen at Leighton Buzzard so the total number is similar.

 

I can say with some certainly that a 120 lever frame certainly would float my boat. Do you have any photos of the frame or the layout? I haven't seen any of the layout since that early MRJ appearance.

 

What is lovely about a frame like that is when you have really learned it, just as a real signalman would do. The first time I visited Buckingham and operated the layout, Peter Denny got comfortable in his chair and just kept a watchful eye over us. He would ask "What is the next move?" and we would say the number of the next train in the sequence and he would say "That's the Marylebone Express" and he would reel off all the levers needed at the different stations. "I think you will find that you need numbers 13, 19 and 22 at Buckingham". Which for those of us that know, are the crossover, inner and outer homes for an arrival in Platform 2!

 

The sense of accomplishment and achievement when you go through an operating session without making a mess of it is really quite something. After nearly 7 years, we still get it wrong sometimes, which makes it all the better when we don't. At least I can now reel off all the levers at Buckingham and what they do and if something doesn't go, I can often say "Have you pulled No, 3" and when the operator pulls the lever, the train will go.

 

As for the buildings on LB I am quite happy to be disagreed with. As I say, they are all good models, just created in slightly different ways.

[t-b-g]

Thanks Tony,

 

I hope everyone realises that I was not using Little Bytham as an example of today's 'perfect' modelling; far from it!

 

Actually, because the station itself was rebuilt at the time of the quadrupling of this section of the ECML in 1911, the new buildings did differ in style from those which survived from 1852. And, quite a bit of the modelling consists of cardboard, balsa wood and brick papers. It's just that they're not 70 years old. If they still look presentable in 50+ years' time, then I'll be very happy. 

 

Of course I cannot claim to be able to paint anything in full GCR livery, but, then, I don't think I ever have. 

 

Below are two examples of my painting of my own-built locos........

 

A2 1 02 Jamieson 60508.jpg

 

From 43 years ago, we have this Jamieson A2/1.

 

K3 03 SE Finecast 61825.jpg

 

And, from 20 odd years ago, this SE Finecast K3.

 

Granted, neither is as complex in its livery (by any distance) as full GCR livery, but they prove that I can paint for myself. Are they markedly 'inferior' to any loco's painting on Buckingham? It's just that I can't paint well enough for what I personally demand. 

 

I think you're right to consider Buckingham to be more about artistry than precision engineering, but it's strictly 'non-figurative' inasmuch as, although some of the buildings might be modelled on actual structures, it's not a model of a real place. It is an example of a great man's imagination and talent, but, as I've said many times, for a layout to be really 'great' in my book, it has to be a model of a real location. That's why, influential and important in the hobby's history the likes of Buckingham, Borchester and The North Devon definitely are, they will never command my 'respect' as much as the likes of Ashburton, Totnes, Copenhagen Fields, Retford, Yatton Junction, Biggleswade and many other prototype-based layouts I've admired down the years.  

 

The acid test(s) to me of 'accurate' modelling will always be to me to examine a picture of an actual location, make a model of it, and then compare the two. Just as we do if modelling locos, carriages, wagons, signals, buildings or anything prototype-based. That way you can then tell whether something like a B3 has the right tender and the right axleboxes. Or, in the case you've cited, not! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

I feel that we have been here before with this discussion about real places versus fictitious locations. Some modellers prefer one type of layout and others prefer the other.

 

Both views carry equal weight and equal validity and there is no right and wrong.

 

If I ever find a real location hat has everything I want from a model and that I can build in the space I have available, I will give it another try. Until then, I will carry on making up my own.

 

If you can paint and line locos as well as those two, then I would think that most people would be happy with the quality. But would they be as good if you didn't have any transfers available?

 

 

Is a rather cruel close up of a 1947 built loco. But it was all lettered and lined by hand. Is the paint job really that bad?

[The Stationmaster]

Why not it was the GWR.

 

Fear - they're just afraid to acknowledge the Great and I think you'll find that apart from a tramway up a mountain in North Wales the GWR was indeed the only Great Railway left in Britain after the Grouping    All the others were subsumed although there was of course one rather near to Little Bytham which still had 'Great' tucked away in its full name.

 

Anyway that aside a Happy New Year to Tony and all readers and contributors  to this wonderful thread.  Whilst passing I might just add that a long time ago (a mere half century or thereabouts for those who are interested in numbers) I was a regular operator/explainer on the original Dartmoor scene at Pendon.  Failures of point motors were not unusual, other occasional electrical glitches also occurred, and there were, particularly in the non-public area, occasional derailments.  The latter of course were, as any railway operator will tell you, 'down to the Perway' (usually).  Normally you could tell from the sound if a train was off the road before it came into public view.

[Compound2632]

Fear - they're just afraid to acknowledge the Great and I think you'll find that apart from a tramway up a mountain in North Wales the GWR was indeed the only Great Railway left in Britain after the Grouping    All the others were subsumed although there was of course one rather near to Little Bytham which still had 'Great' tucked away in its full name.

 

Outlived by the Great Northern Railway!

 

(of Ireland.)

[Bucoops]

Outlived by the Great Northern Railway!

 

(of Ireland.)

 

Very outlived by the Mighty (if now public owned) LNER

 

I choose to ignore the current GWR

Edited January 1, 2019 by Bucoops