Wright writes.....

[Anglian]

Tony,

 

I'm staggered by your layout, the scope of what you achieved is magnificent. Since this is your thread, and without wishing to open a can of worms, may I ask your own personal thoughts as to why you chose 00 over say EM gauge? Your work and this layout is so meticulous to the finest detail and the gauge debate is something that I personally struggle with so the views of those who have overcome what to me is a very difficult decision is of great interest.

 

I wondered have you ever considered screening your fiddle yard, with dark blue curtains so when operating you could easily have a peek at what's happening behind the scenes, if need be, but equally the viewers' vision is wholly on the scenic section of the layout and not distracted. I'd find your selection of stock when seen in the storage roads so fascinating that I know my eyes would be distracted. Perhaps it's different with familiarity!

 

As others have written, I very much look forward to reading of your developments to LB over the coming year.

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

I'm staggered by your layout, the scope of what you achieved is magnificent. Since this is your thread, and without wishing to open a can of worms, may I ask your own personal thoughts as to why you chose 00 over say EM gauge? Your work and this layout is so meticulous to the finest detail and the gauge debate is something that I personally struggle with so the views of those who have overcome what to me is a very difficult decision is of great interest.

 

I wondered have you ever considered screening your fiddle yard, with dark blue curtains so when operating you could easily have a peek at what's happening behind the scenes, if need be, but equally the viewers' vision is wholly on the scenic section of the layout and not distracted. I'd find your selection of stock when seen in the storage roads so fascinating that I know my eyes would be distracted. Perhaps it's different with familiarity!

 

As others have written, I very much look forward to reading of your developments to LB over the coming year.

You are very kind, Anglian.

 

But, and I have no wish to labour this point for I have stated it many times already, the 'praise' almost always comes over as singular. My layout, if it has any merit, only has so because of the work of many others whose skills I can only admire, but never equal. Planning, baseboards, trackwork, architecture, signalling - the list goes on. 

 

OO or EM? 40 years ago I had the opportunity to go EM but didn't take it, a decision of some little regret now? Why? Because, philosophically and, apart from the actual gauge between the rails, practically, I consider myself to be an EM modeller. That might sound a bit daft at first but think about it, please? EM blokes/blokettes make things, don't rely on RTR, expect a high-standard of running and are all very practical. Why? Because they have to be, though I would divorce myself from the last part of that statement. There is no mass-produced ready-to-lay pointwork, nor mass-produced loco/stock chassis in EM. I'm not saying that modellers in OO don't make track/locos/stock (that would be even more daft) but it is not an absolute necessity, especially now with regard to RTR stuff in the last few years. And anyway, good running should be an aim for every railway modeller, whatever their chosen gauge/scale. 

 

But, I'm too committed now to OO to turn back. It's taken me 40 years to make over 150 locos (for myself) and at least twice that many carriages. I own nearly 250 wagons, but didn't build those. Can you imagine how long I'd have to live to re-chassis/re-gauge all those? Not to mention re-laying the whole layout. And, since there are over 40 Peco points in the fiddle yard, making that many EM gauge replacements is never going to be an option. So, I live with narrow gauge, but I still prefer to make locos and stock.

 

Screening the fiddle yard? This has been discussed and might well be implemented.

 

Finally, once more, all the very best for the New Year to everyone who has contributed to this thread. It certainly isn't just about my layout, nor should it be. It should also carry on being constructively 'critical', because that's how standards are improved and knowledge expanded. Some might not like that. 

Edited January 1, 2015 by Tony Wright

[60526]

OO or EM? 40 years ago I had the opportunity to go EM but didn't take it, a decision of some little regret now? Why? Because, philosophically and, apart from the actual gauge between the rails, practically, I consider myself to be an EM modeller. That might sound a bit daft at first but think about it, please? EM blokes/blokettes make things, don't rely on RTR, expect a high-standard of running and are all very practical. Why? Because they have to be, though I would divorce myself from the last part of that statement. There is no mass-produced ready-to-lay pointwork, nor mass-produced loco/stock chassis in EM. I'm not saying that modellers in OO don't make track/locos/stock (that would be even more daft) but it is not an absolute necessity, especially now with regard to RTR stuff in the last few years. And anyway, good running should be an aim for every railway modeller, whatever their chosen gauge/scale. 

Tony, happy new year to you, Mo and all the appreciative viewers and posters to your thread.

In 4mm scale the track gauge has never worried me, I came from OO but was EM modelling back in the 1980's and then back to OO over the last 15 years mainly because I have followed whatever my club was up to. I'm now into challenge mode and looking to go back to EM, but I'm only looking at 18.2mm because I don't think that I could make a model with Walschaerts valve gear in 18.83mm. I acknowledge that you have countered your own argument, but I don't agree that EM modellers make things and don't rely on RTR more than some OO modellers, the EMGS and even the Scalefour Society blurb tell you how easy it is to convert RTR, what do modern image modellers do in EM or P4, in this case why model EM over P4? Why not 18.83mm gauge with 1mm clearances and EM wheels if you are worried about the track? You mention the improvement in recent RTR offerings, but I would counter the argument by saying that when you were doing Fordley Park and beyond, just think of the loco kits that were available then and what is available now. I've concluded over time that OO gives you a chance for a relatively large layout within a reasonable space (such as Little Bytham) by the use of medium radius curves, EM would need a larger radius and P4 would need an even greater radius. If however you don't have locos with outside cylinders then this probably would not apply.

Charlie

[Nimbus]

      The Heljan parts hopefully all fit each other and therefore it "will be" a fairly easy build for a fairly competent modeller?? If the price did come out at £100 below a built example, they may  sell in droves ? and at the same time get new and/or old modellers modelling again ? perhaps a way forward re kit building for the future?.

 

     A lot of  questions, time will tell for the answers. As Tony has said many times, modelling is decline especially with the young. A new approach is long overdue IMHO.

I wonder what a tie-up with an associated 'part-work' might yield? I'd suppose the print run would compare more than favourably to the sort of volumes a RTR model generates. Existing part-work models end up eye-wateringly expensive, but would shared tooling costs perhaps change this for the better?

 

The Nim.

[Nimbus]

I am out of my depth in the technicalities, but I hope the following will help. Over on MREmag, we have had some discussion of late concerning:

return cranks;

quartering; and 

leads.

 

I gather from others with 'loco backgrounds' that these areas could benefit from greater fidelity to the prototype in many cases. Please don't ask me, as I don't know; I simply offer the subjects in case they get overlooked. 

 

Regards and thanks to you all.

 

Brian

The question of return cranks, for those not reading MREmag, is that they are always wrong on one side of any RTR loco fresh from the box.

 

For an inside admission loco with Walschaert's gear, seen side-on, with the loco positioned so the coupling rods are at their lowest height from the ground, the bearing end of the return crank should lie forward of the driving wheel's axle, i.e. towards the cylinder it controls.

 

To make sure that the model crank pin which is to receive a return crank does not twiddle around in the wheel, model manufacturers key it into the driving wheel, and they also provide some sort of key, or flatted sides, at the end of this crank pin to stop the return crank twiddling round on the pin, which is pretty similar to prototype practice. Now, imagine the manufacturers have set this up correctly for the left hand side of the engine, so that the photos look good in their catalogue. They then use (an exact copy of) the same driving wheel and return crank, but turn it over in effect, so they can take it round the other side of the loco and use it there. Can you see that the return crank, correctly pointing to the left on the left hand side, is now still pointing to the left when you get round the right hand side of the engine, which is a direction away from the cylinder it controls on that side of the engine? 

 

I have not been able to come up with a design which can be assembled correctly for each side without the use of some 'handed' component, and I don't doubt the RTR manufacturers did try. So I guess they have merely made a pragmatic call to avoid the complication of keeping track of small-to-minute handed components, and the nightmare of getting them assembled under production pressure, correctly paired and on the correct side of the locos. Instead of the current single variation, there would be four variations to choose from (collect the set, like Beatles 45 pressings!)

 

The Nim.

 

[Edit: 'inside' was 'outside'. Slip realised as soon as I tucked myself into bed last night!]

Edited January 2, 2015 by Nimbus

[New Haven Neil]

Um, isn't that for inside admission?

 

edit - I suppose that depends on how the drive to the valve spindle is arranged though! Not a hard and fast rule anyway.

Edited January 1, 2015 by New Haven Neil

[coachmann]

RTR manufacturers settling for incorrect on one side does not fit in with the desire to improve models. They could have centred the return crank on the wheel boss. The old 3-rail Hornby Dublo locos could be done this way because they used a splintered spline pushed into a hole in the wheel crank. It doesn't look as unsightly as a backward facing return crank.

 

The LH return crank is almost always correctly done.....

 

A correctly facing RH return crank.........

 

An unsightly wrong facing return crank as on most models...

 

A central or neutral return crank to suit both sides....

 

A B1 with neutral return crank....

Edited January 1, 2015 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

Tony, happy new year to you, Mo and all the appreciative viewers and posters to your thread.

In 4mm scale the track gauge has never worried me, I came from OO but was EM modelling back in the 1980's and then back to OO over the last 15 years mainly because I have followed whatever my club was up to. I'm now into challenge mode and looking to go back to EM, but I'm only looking at 18.2mm because I don't think that I could make a model with Walschaerts valve gear in 18.83mm. I acknowledge that you have countered your own argument, but I don't agree that EM modellers make things and don't rely on RTR more than some OO modellers, the EMGS and even the Scalefour Society blurb tell you how easy it is to convert RTR, what do modern image modellers do in EM or P4, in this case why model EM over P4? Why not 18.83mm gauge with 1mm clearances and EM wheels if you are worried about the track? You mention the improvement in recent RTR offerings, but I would counter the argument by saying that when you were doing Fordley Park and beyond, just think of the loco kits that were available then and what is available now. I've concluded over time that OO gives you a chance for a relatively large layout within a reasonable space (such as Little Bytham) by the use of medium radius curves, EM would need a larger radius and P4 would need an even greater radius. If however you don't have locos with outside cylinders then this probably would not apply.

Charlie

And a Happy New Year to you and yours, Charlie.

 

I accept your points, and perhaps I should have qualified my earlier assertion with the extra word 'historically' with reference to EM Gauge modellers making things. Taking the incomparable Roy Jackson as an example, though he might have used an RTR steam-outline body in some cases (an original Hornby B17, say), there's no way that he would have converted the running gear to EM. He, like just about all of of his contemporaries, made the frames, either from kits or scratch. Indeed, though several RTR conversions now run on Retford, in many cases 'extra' outside frames have been incorporated to reduce the inherent waddle in some of the locos. With regard to Bachmann K3s, I think the idea of converting their chassis was abandoned. That said, Pete Hill has produced some remarkable conversions. When I photographed the layout of his mentor, the late Colin Scoffin, there were very few conversions; the majority was kit-built/scratch-built. Certainly, on the number of EM Gauge layouts I've photographed down the years, most have locos and stock which have been made. As for diesels/electrics, these are obviously easier to convert. 

 

You're right about the need for increasing the radii of the curves the nearer one gets to scale gauge - the erstwhile Dunwich (correct spelling?) converted to P4 proved that - but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'medium radius' curves. For the running lines, the tightest radii on Little Bytham are 2' 10" (the Up goods, out of sight), then increasing according to the track-spacing - Up lay-bye, Up fast, Down fast, Down slow, etc. Would they be described as 'medium'? I'd describe them as 'minimum' in OO to ensure consistently good running in my experience. Any less than that (other than in one or two sidings where stock is just stored) and you run into problems with larger locos involving cylinder drain pipes and front steps. There were a few of the inner roads on Stoke where we had to be very careful which locos ran because they demanded a greater radius. Indeed, some locos (not mine) would only run successfully round clockwise. The owner of the most popular layout on this site learned that when he bought a brace of ex-Stoke V2s, one of which I had to substantially rebuild in order to get it to go round, and to DCC-it as well.

 

We could have built Little Bytham in EM (by not insisting on the MR/M&GNR being a circuit and thus increasing the main line radii at both ends) in 32' x 12', but definitely not in P4. 

 

As for Fordley Park, that's an interesting piece of pre-history now. I built many Jamieson loco kits for that because they were available and were suitable. My only RTR mods were Hornby-Dublo A4 bodies on scratch-built chassis towing Wills or K's tenders - ghastly things! 

[Tony Wright]

RTR manufacturers settling for incorrect on one side does not fit in with the desire to improve models. They could have centred the return crank on the wheel boss. The old 3-rail Hornby Dublo locos could be done this way because they used a splintered spline pushed into a hole in the wheel crank. It doesn't look as unsightly as a backward facing return crank.

 

The LH return crank is almost always correctly done.....

WEB Return crank D.jpg

 

A correctly facing RH return crank.........

WEB Return crank E.jpg

 

An unsightly wrong facing return crank as on most models...

WEB Return crank A.jpg

 

A central or neutral return crank to suit both sides....

WEB Return crank B.jpg

 

A B1 with neutral return crank....

WEB Return crank C.jpg

Brilliant, Larry.

 

Interestingly, from my observations, Bachmann's outside valve gear locos have the wrong 'lean' on the nearside and Hornby's on the offside (I think). 

[Andrew P]

RTR manufacturers settling for incorrect on one side does not fit in with the desire to improve models. They could have centred the return crank on the wheel boss. The old 3-rail Hornby Dublo locos could be done this way because they used a splintered spline pushed into a hole in the wheel crank. It doesn't look as unsightly as a backward facing return crank.

 

The LH return crank is almost always correctly done.....

WEB Return crank D.jpg

 

A correctly facing RH return crank.........

WEB Return crank E.jpg

 

An unsightly wrong facing return crank as on most models...

WEB Return crank A.jpg

 

A central or neutral return crank to suit both sides....

WEB Return crank B.jpg

 

A B1 with neutral return crank....

WEB Return crank C.jpg

Hi Larry thanks for the above, and sorry for hi jacking your thread Tony, but I'm a thickie when it come to some Locomotive terms. Now I could go out into my Shed and look in a book, but its howling a gale here and chucking it down with rain so I'm taking the lazy option to ask this question.

 

Can one of you point me in the right direction of the much talked about return crank please?

 

I have looked at the pics above and I'm struggling to determine which bit it is, and just how it should sit on either side when in a forward motion.

 

Please put this old dog out of his misery.

 

Thanks.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Andrew P

[coachmann]

Is EM gauge as essential today as it was in the 1960s when 00 track ranged from downright crude to not-bad soldered construction.  C+L 00 gauge bullhead track looks pretty damn good even when photographed by todays 'cruel' digital cameras. 

 

P4 is a different kettle of fish because of its finer wheel standards. Everything I have seen on P4 wheels looks good, but I ain't goin' there!

Edited January 1, 2015 by coachmann

[Andy Reichert]

I'm lucky in that my main modelling scale is US HO, converting steadily to P:87. In HO the track gauge is correct and the conversion to P:87 standards is therefore much simpler than say for switching from 00 to EM. Especially if you are not a steam era modeller. My main chore is adding working equalization etc. to a slew of older brass models, as  I don't want to be restricted to having perfectly flat track. That involves redesigning the innards of most passenger bogies. Rigid bogies are just not tolerant enough of bad baseboard joints.

 

For my smaller numbers of nostalgic UK outline models, I can run 00 RTR fitted with P4 wheels, (alsopa work in progress), but gauged to 16.5 mm and P:87 B-B. Sideways there should be no visual difference between that and regular P4.

 

Andy

Edited January 1, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[micklner]

For andy's info

 

Return Crank on the centre driver. No 1 as below

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walschaerts_valve_gear

Edited January 1, 2015 by micklner

[New Haven Neil]

Inside admission loco!

[Andrew P]

For andy's info

 

Return Crank on the centre driver. No 1 as below

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walschaerts_valve_gear

Thanks for that Mick, much appreciated.

[Theakerr]

I got to be missing something.  On the diagram I do not see a "return crank" although I see it referenced in the write-up.  I spent some time yesterday on the web "googling" return crank and did not find a definitive picture.  Based on this and other forums i think I know now which is the return crank, but I'm still not sure since until this (and other threads) I always thought it was the crank operated by the reverse leaver in the cab

[coachmann]

I got to be missing something.  On the diagram I do not see a "return crank" although I see it referenced in the write-up.  I spent some time yesterday on the web "googling" return crank and did not find a definitive picture.  Based on this and other forums i think I know now which is the return crank, but I'm still not sure since until this (and other threads) I always thought it was the crank operated by the reverse leaver in the cab

In the American illustration it is no.1 (fly crank). Same thing as return crank.

[sandra]

Happy New Year Tony. I was interested in your comments about EM gauge. I started building an EM gauge model of Andover Junction two years ago. I had never modeled anything in EM gauge before and therefore all the stock and the track had to be built and nothing was inherited from previous layouts. The stock is nearly all converted Bachmann and Hornby and the track is a mixture of Exactoscale and C & L. Converting the stock has not been a problem as it has not taken too long and in fact the amount of stock has exceeded the capacity of the layout.

 

What I have found to be the biggest drawback of EM gauge is building all the pointwork for the fiddle yard. This is going to be a conventional layout with the station on one side and the storage sidings on the other. The number of points in the fiddle yard is over fifty and this almost equals the number in the visual part of the layout. If it had been built in OO a lot of time could have been saved using Peco track and points. I have constructed the fiddle yard points using copper-clad sleepering but it still takes quite a long time to build such a substantial number of points even though I have got quicker the more I have built.

 

I do actually enjoy converting stock to run on the railway as each new locomotive is a challenge as their construction varies considerably and different techniques are needed according to the way they were designed. I am presently converting a Hornby T9 4-4-0 which is frankly a bit of a nightmare but if I can make it run properly there will be much more satisfaction in seeing it run rather than simply buying it and placing it on the track as would happen if the railway were built in OO.

 

Do I regret starting this project in EM rather than OO? I have had moments when I have regretted it as undoubtedly the work involved in building such a railway is greater than building the equivalent railway in OO, but on balance I think it was probably the right decision as it has certainly been more challenging and I think it has improved my skills. Also whilst EM gauge is not as accurate as P4 to me the track looks better than OO and I like the fact that the head-on view of track and stock does not have the "narrow gauge" look of OO. I must say this is not as apparent when hand built OO finescale track is used as on Little Bytham but it is more apparent when Peco track is used, particularly code 100.

 

I do think that Little Bytham is a fabulous model and I think that you and everyone associated with it should be very proud of it.

 

Sandra

[edcayton]

RTR manufacturers settling for incorrect on one side does not fit in with the desire to improve models. They could have centred the return crank on the wheel boss. The old 3-rail Hornby Dublo locos could be done this way because they used a splintered spline pushed into a hole in the wheel crank. It doesn't look as unsightly as a backward facing return crank.

 

The LH return crank is almost always correctly done.....

WEB Return crank D.jpg

 

A correctly facing RH return crank.........

WEB Return crank E.jpg

 

An unsightly wrong facing return crank as on most models...

WEB Return crank A.jpg

 

A central or neutral return crank to suit both sides....

WEB Return crank B.jpg

 

A B1 with neutral return crank....

WEB Return crank C.jpg

 

I can see that this improves the look of the loco when stationary, but doesn't it mean that the attached link/rod is static when the loco is moving?  If so, then that would spoil the magic for me (who doesn't understand Walschaerts but loves to see all the bits working).

 

Ed

[St Enodoc]

And a Happy New Year to you and yours, Charlie.

 

I accept your points, and perhaps I should have qualified my earlier assertion with the extra word 'historically' with reference to EM Gauge modellers making things. Taking the incomparable Roy Jackson as an example, though he might have used an RTR steam-outline body in some cases (an original Hornby B17, say), there's no way that he would have converted the running gear to EM. He, like just about all of of his contemporaries, made the frames, either from kits or scratch. Indeed, though several RTR conversions now run on Retford, in many cases 'extra' outside frames have been incorporated to reduce the inherent waddle in some of the locos. With regard to Bachmann K3s, I think the idea of converting their chassis was abandoned. That said, Pete Hill has produced some remarkable conversions. When I photographed the layout of his mentor, the late Colin Scoffin, there were very few conversions; the majority was kit-built/scratch-built. Certainly, on the number of EM Gauge layouts I've photographed down the years, most have locos and stock which have been made. As for diesels/electrics, these are obviously easier to convert. 

 

You're right about the need for increasing the radii of the curves the nearer one gets to scale gauge - the erstwhile Dunwich (correct spelling?) converted to P4 proved that - but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'medium radius' curves. For the running lines, the tightest radii on Little Bytham are 2' 10" (the Up goods, out of sight), then increasing according to the track-spacing - Up lay-bye, Up fast, Down fast, Down slow, etc. Would they be described as 'medium'? I'd describe them as 'minimum' in OO to ensure consistently good running in my experience. Any less than that (other than in one or two sidings where stock is just stored) and you run into problems with larger locos involving cylinder drain pipes and front steps. There were a few of the inner roads on Stoke where we had to be very careful which locos ran because they demanded a greater radius. Indeed, some locos (not mine) would only run successfully round clockwise. The owner of the most popular layout on this site learned that when he bought a brace of ex-Stoke V2s, one of which I had to substantially rebuild in order to get it to go round, and to DCC-it as well.

 

We could have built Little Bytham in EM (by not insisting on the MR/M&GNR being a circuit and thus increasing the main line radii at both ends) in 32' x 12', but definitely not in P4. 

 

As for Fordley Park, that's an interesting piece of pre-history now. I built many Jamieson loco kits for that because they were available and were suitable. My only RTR mods were Hornby-Dublo A4 bodies on scratch-built chassis towing Wills or K's tenders - ghastly things! 

Tony, I remember reading about Colin Scoffin's hand-built track in the April 1963 Raliway Modeller, but it was described there as 00. Was that a mistake, or was it an earlier layout?

[Tony Wright]

Tony, I remember reading about Colin Scoffin's hand-built track in the April 1963 Raliway Modeller, but it was described there as 00. Was that a mistake, or was it an earlier layout?

I don't know John.

 

It might have been an earlier layout. The loft layout of his I photographed was a few years old, though; and definitely EM. 

[Tony Wright]

Happy New Year Tony. I was interested in your comments about EM gauge. I started building an EM gauge model of Andover Junction two years ago. I had never modeled anything in EM gauge before and therefore all the stock and the track had to be built and nothing was inherited from previous layouts. The stock is nearly all converted Bachmann and Hornby and the track is a mixture of Exactoscale and C & L. Converting the stock has not been a problem as it has not taken too long and in fact the amount of stock has exceeded the capacity of the layout.

 

What I have found to be the biggest drawback of EM gauge is building all the pointwork for the fiddle yard. This is going to be a conventional layout with the station on one side and the storage sidings on the other. The number of points in the fiddle yard is over fifty and this almost equals the number in the visual part of the layout. If it had been built in OO a lot of time could have been saved using Peco track and points. I have constructed the fiddle yard points using copper-clad sleepering but it still takes quite a long time to build such a substantial number of points even though I have got quicker the more I have built.

 

I do actually enjoy converting stock to run on the railway as each new locomotive is a challenge as their construction varies considerably and different techniques are needed according to the way they were designed. I am presently converting a Hornby T9 4-4-0 which is frankly a bit of a nightmare but if I can make it run properly there will be much more satisfaction in seeing it run rather than simply buying it and placing it on the track as would happen if the railway were built in OO.

 

Do I regret starting this project in EM rather than OO? I have had moments when I have regretted it as undoubtedly the work involved in building such a railway is greater than building the equivalent railway in OO, but on balance I think it was probably the right decision as it has certainly been more challenging and I think it has improved my skills. Also whilst EM gauge is not as accurate as P4 to me the track looks better than OO and I like the fact that the head-on view of track and stock does not have the "narrow gauge" look of OO. I must say this is not as apparent when hand built OO finescale track is used as on Little Bytham but it is more apparent when Peco track is used, particularly code 100.

 

I do think that Little Bytham is a fabulous model and I think that you and everyone associated with it should be very proud of it.

 

Sandra

A Happy New Year to you, too, Sandra.

 

Many thanks for your kind comments. 

 

I think your observations convey the EM Gauge 'attitude of mind' more succinctly, clearly and unambiguously than I ever could. Even though most of your locos and stock are 'conversions', those conversions still have to be accomplished. Accomplished by a practical modeller, and the personal sense of achievement cannot possibly be bought. I congratulate you. Your point about putting a locomotive you've actually converted/made yourself onto the track, and it giving you much more satisfaction, conveys the message I've been trying to get across far more emphatically than my inane scribblings. 

 

 

Returning to the theme of 4mm track and how it might appear in various views, here's shot of an Up express travelling very fast through Little Bytham (actually it's stationary, of course, for the picture). The plain track is SMP, bullhead, and, also of course, it's OO. The slightly 'fat' treads on the loco's bogie wheels also highlight that fact. 

 

Firstly, for 1958, the fast lines should be flat-bottom. However, nobody makes appropriate flat-bottom RTP track, so I live with this 'fault'. It's mitigated in most respects by the fact that it's been laid by the finest track-layer in the land, Norman Solomon. As part of the in-filling processes between the tracks, I've been experimenting with different effects. I have several colour pictures (unfortunately all under copyright) and they show the ballasting/infilling as anything but uniform. Though the fast tracks' ballasting is substantial, there are numerous different colours and tones in it, much of it is over the sleepers and it presents a most patchy appearance. The slow lines are even more patchy, and the areas between are a mass of different textures, tones, tints and colours. One of the pictures shows a shoulder of ballast, discoloured alongside the edge of the sleepers. Is this caused, on the real thing, by injectors dribbling, or oil dropping off the motion from locos just starting off? I'm not going to attempt to replicate all the numerous mixtures - that'll make a mess - but just hint at a few, here and there. 

 

Good friend, Charlie Bloomfield, mentioned Fordley Park in a previous post. Well, here's an ex-Fordley Park loco (one of the few I still possess). It's built from a Wills kit on a scratch-built chassis, towing a Jamieson GNR tender, and I painted it. Is it up to the standard of a current Hornby A3? Probably not, but it's 35 years old!

 

 

Pointwork is C&L, and is, correctly, bullhead. Once more, the master's work is evident. More of my in-filling effects are apparent here, and I'm trying to give an overall convincing effect, without it appearing too patchy. I do a bit, leave it, do a bit more, and so on. Dust (though not too much) is a great 'uniforming' device, making things look more natural over time. I'll wait and see. 

 

The loco this time is a SE Finecast A3, which I built and Ian Rathbone painted. 

 

 

Finally, and I haven't bothered Photoshopping-out the background of this shot, where you have a large expanse of track (and spaces between), the differences between OO and EM (and even P4?) become blurred as the eye tries to take everything in. Recently, there was some discussion on this thread about 'selective compression' and how realism might be achieved (or compromised/). This view illustrates to me how trying to fit too much in in a restricted space will never succeed in my opinion. The baseboards here are over 6' wide, just to accommodate the railway property. It's not just the length that's important, it's the width. As I say, even small prototype main line stations occupy vast sites. Big stations, even cramped ones, and their associated trackwork, occupy even more. 

 

The Down platform's surface has now been completed in its basic form. 

 

I'm just starting on the point rodding. There are miles of it!

Edited January 2, 2015 by Tony Wright

[The Stationmaster]

Very interesting comments about ballast colouring Tony.  It is of course something where it is now near impossible to 'go out & look' if you are modelling the steam age as most of the preserved railways run diesels and, more importantly don't have the quantity and mix of traffic found on the 'old' railway.  Add to that the fact that various different materials are now used in many non-track areas for ground cover because ash and smokebox char is no longer available in huge quantities and it can be very difficult to ascertain what the steam age scene should look like leaving only memory (possibly not always reliable) and photos as suitable guidance - the latter often with dodgy colour due to their ageing.

 

My memory is that their was far less oil about back then and, as you have already noted, sleeper end areas can have their own distinctive hue - caused, I think, as you suggest by injector overflow but also rail dripping off vehicles and washing down mixed surface dirt as well as occasional oil drips.  And it seemed to vary from one end of a station platform to teh other especially where trains frequently stopped with far more 'dirt' in the ballast at the departure end than at the end where trains arrived.  Also - as is the case on your railway - cess paths were looked after and generally kept tidy as were 10 foot intervals thus giving the steam age a far, far tidier lineside than is the case today in most places.

[Barry O]

Interestingly enough the late George Norton tried to fit one of his EM locos (a Beames 0-8-2T)  onto Cwmafon.... which is OO... if the track is laid right and ballasted well its only head on you notice the difference.

I am in the process of changing a large number of wagons for use on an EM layout. Brake gear etc is a problem and some of the steam loco kits I have built (particularly white metal ones) would struggle being altered to EM - the wheel treads are still quite wide so clearance in certain areas (especially splashers) would be a pain... so I will stick with OO - and stick with bodging kits and RTR to my satisfaction..

[Paul Cram]

As someone who builds his own stock I don't find modelling in P4 any more difficult than OO except perhaps in the area of loco chassis. It would undoubtedly be quicker and easier to build rigid chassis than compensated/sprung. For me it is the overall look that persuaded me to model in P4 way back in 1976. I agree that SMP/hanbuilt points in OO do look much better and apart from the flangeways it is difficult to tell whether it is P4/EM or OO. It is only the wheels and the end  on look of locos and rolling stock that give it away.

 

Fortunately the NER period and area that I model only has one RTR model and therefore I do not have the anything to modify. As a consequence my locos for this period are kit built with the exception of the E1 which has a high level chassis under a cheaply acquired body. I do get more satisfaction from building things and seeing them run to just opening a box and putting it on the layout.

 

I don't have the number of locos that you have or indeed the amount of rolling stock but what I do have is almost all my own work. I do have a loco bought off ebay that I didn't build but just finished.