Wright writes.....

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, Kier Hardy said:

I don't think I should have used the word creativity, as most modellers create something. Even some of the fun crazy ideas which appear on telly are creative.

 

Going back to the question, I've never been able to find a prototype location that fits my criteria, layout after layout, but I do hope what I have cobbled together over the years represents something that could quite have been reality if the course of history took a slightly different direction. That's probably more down to imagination rather than creation.

 

I wouldn't like to comment on what's easier to build, it's just those messages coming from my head are slightly different to yours which has resulted in me making it all up. Most of all, it takes me back to the days I remember and enjoy in my youth, both on the railway and in the surrounding areas. I couldn't fit all those sights and memories into a prototype location unless I had access to an aircraft hanger.

 

My hats off to those of you who do pull it off creating a prototypical scene, it just goes to show not only how different we all are, but space plays a big part in it all too.   

And if you had the aircraft hanger to recreate all those memories, you’d never be able to operate it all on your own!

[The Johnster]

5 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

That's why I prefer a sequence rather than a timetable!

I run to a timetable in real time while any operation is taking place, but condense time between trains when nothing is happening.  I find about a minute of inaction sufficient to convince myself that 40 minutes or so have passed. 

[uax6]

A friends layout (the AFK) that does have a thread on here:

This runs with a 3 minute clock, where after every movement the clock moves on three minutes. It works really well and is something that I will be using when I finally get a layout built. The timetable is pretty extensive, and generally everything runs late (just like the real thing!)

 

Andy G

Edited October 29, 2019 by uax6

[Lecorbusier]

On 28/10/2019 at 12:26, Tony Wright said:

Indeed John,

 

Wasn't Heckmondwike described as the layout where the bells rung, but nothing ran?

 

I only saw it once, and I needed another shave before I saw a train in action!

 

I'm a good friend of Bob Essery, and I admire his approach to 'realism', but an exhibition layout where so few trains run is not good in my view. 

 

How far does one take 'realism', particularly in the operation of a layout? Particularly an exhibition layout? I think most would agree that Little Bytham is on a trunk main line. Using the PTT and WTT from 1958, I've arrived at a reasonable representation of the trains one might have seen in the summer of that year. Yet, there's a period in the mid-afternoon where there was nearly a quarter of an hour between trains - the 'dead hour' as we used to call it at Retford. Operating LB 'prototypically' would thus be a disaster for visitors. Why aren't any trains running?' they would ask. 'Because I'm a zealot and everything on this trainset is prototypical, including the timetable'. No chance! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Not wanting to rake over old coals etc etc ... but sadly Heckmondwike was before my returning interest in railway modelling.....

 

For me Heckmondwike conjures up images of cheap carpets   https://heckmondwike-fb.co.uk/

 

Was the issue that the schedule was run 'overly proto-typically' and so was boring/tedious as an exhibition layout ? The implication being that a more viewer friendly approach to the scheduling would have produced a better overall experience .... or were there problems beyond the 'hair shirt' operating approach ! If it was displayed at the NRM it must have been a halfway decent diorama at least. 

[Clive Mortimore]

I have a simple operating procedure. I send two trains from the fiddle yards on to the mainline, they are supposed to do six laps before going into the station but that can vary from 3 laps to 15 plus trips around the room. While the trains are circulating I do any loco moves, parcel stock shunts in the station or loco changes in the fiddle yards. The trains then enter the station. I then do the opposite and send a couple of trains to the fiddle yards taking six laps to reach them. I do have an order the trains leave the fiddle yards, so that the same two trains that left together do not return together I reverse the order the sidings on one of the fiddle yards.  I have no organised system which the trains leave the station, just "Oh! that one looks nice". Basically playing trains. It keeps me amused for hours.

 

One day I will work out a time table/sequence/ schedule but that is in the future. 

[Tony Wright]

56 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Not wanting to rake over old coals etc etc ... but sadly Heckmondwike was before my returning interest in railway modelling.....

 

For me Heckmondwike conjures up images of cheap carpets   https://heckmondwike-fb.co.uk/

 

Was the issue that the schedule was run 'overly proto-typically' and so was boring/tedious as an exhibition layout ? The implication being that a more viewer friendly approach to the scheduling would have produced a better overall experience .... or were there problems beyond the 'hair shirt' operating approach ! If it was displayed at the NRM it must have been a halfway decent diorama at least. 

From my recollection, Tim....................... 

 

I think it was operated as near as possible to 'real time'. Despite Heckmondwike 'proving' to Cyril Freezer that it was possible to build a 'large' P4 layout which ran as well as the 'best' contemporary 'large' OO or EM layouts, it really wasn't that big. It only represented a secondary Midland line as well, with nothing bigger (if my memory serves - and it serves me less well as time goes on!) than a 'Crab' 2-6-0. Most locos were small (0-6-0s or 4-4-0s) and the trains were short (accurately so). 

 

Now I know this has been aired before, but I still remain to be convinced that it's possible to build a really large, main line layout in P4. By large I mean something of the size of Little Bytham (relatively small in the main line stakes at 32' x 12'), or Biggleswade (over 40') or Retford (over 80') or Carlisle (over 90'). By main line I mean a steam-age depiction of a trunk main line, with oodles of Pacifics or big 4-6-0s hauling huge trains - at speed! The four just mentioned (in OO and EM) have done it. And, have been seen to do it. 

 

Where are the P4 equivalents to these, or others? I know there was Tring in New Zealand, but even Bob Essery told me quietly that it didn't run all that well, and if one examines the pictures of it in the MRJ closely, there is the odd cobweb between the trains and the signals. 

 

I accept (and understand) that such layouts are not generally of interest to P4 modellers, and that is probably the reason why the P4 Class 1 main lines don't exist. Yes, there's Mostyn, and that runs superbly, though it's all diesel and a branch off the WCML. There's also Preston, but until I see that in full steam-outline mode, I remain unconvinced. Even I can P4 a diesel- or electric-outline loco in 4mm! 

 

Returning to Heckmondwike, it did set a very high standard in modelling. However, and this is my opinion, as an exhibition layout I thought it boring. I'd never have bothered trainspotting at the place. Not enough happening!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

From my recollection, Tim....................... 

 

I think it was operated as near as possible to 'real time'. Despite Heckmondwike 'proving' to Cyril Freezer that it was possible to build a 'large' P4 layout which ran as well as the 'best' contemporary 'large' OO or EM layouts, it really wasn't that big. It only represented a secondary Midland line as well, with nothing bigger (if my memory serves - and it serves me less well as time goes on!) than a 'Crab' 2-6-0. Most locos were small (0-6-0s or 4-4-0s) and the trains were short (accurately so). 

 

Now I know this has been aired before, but I still remain to be convinced that it's possible to build a really large, main line layout in P4. By large I mean something of the size of Little Bytham (relatively small in the main line stakes at 32' x 12'), or Biggleswade (over 40') or Retford (over 80') or Carlisle (over 90'). By main line I mean a steam-age depiction of a trunk main line, with oodles of Pacifics or big 4-6-0s hauling huge trains - at speed! The four just mentioned (in OO and EM) have done it. And, have been seen to do it. 

 

Where are the P4 equivalents to these, or others? I know there was Tring in New Zealand, but even Bob Essery told me quietly that it didn't run all that well, and if one examines the pictures of it in the MRJ closely, there is the odd cobweb between the trains and the signals. 

 

I accept (and understand) that such layouts are not generally of interest to P4 modellers, and that is probably the reason why the P4 Class 1 main lines don't exist. Yes, there's Mostyn, and that runs superbly, though it's all diesel and a branch off the WCML. There's also Preston, but until I see that in full steam-outline mode, I remain unconvinced. Even I can P4 a diesel- or electric-outline loco in 4mm! 

 

Returning to Heckmondwike, it did set a very high standard in modelling. However, and this is my opinion, as an exhibition layout I thought it boring. I'd never have bothered trainspotting at the place. Not enough happening!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

If the West Riding Line had been built, not all the trains would have been short. The Thames-Clyde, in particular, was 10 coaches in standard formation.

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Lecorbusier said:

Not wanting to rake over old coals etc etc ... but sadly Heckmondwike was before my returning interest in railway modelling.....

 

For me Heckmondwike conjures up images of cheap carpets   https://heckmondwike-fb.co.uk/

 

Was the issue that the schedule was run 'overly proto-typically' and so was boring/tedious as an exhibition layout ? The implication being that a more viewer friendly approach to the scheduling would have produced a better overall experience .... or were there problems beyond the 'hair shirt' operating approach ! If it was displayed at the NRM it must have been a halfway decent diorama at least. 

Tim,

 

I think the NRM stopped having Heckmondwike on display as they wanted, or thought the visiting public wanted, a 4mm operating layout. Heckmondwike was to difficult for them to maintain, much more so than the 7mm layout they also had on display. There will undoubtedly be those who will say that is because it was P4, but even a 00 or EM layout would need some regular "sympathetic" maintenance by someone who knows what they are doing.

 

Heckmondwike was built, as has already been pointed out, to answer the challenge set by Cyril Freezer. It proved a point and gave an impetus for others to build layouts to P4 standards. I was a member of the NLG in the 1980s until I moved away and found that the members were every helpful and supportive to a relative novice to modelling in P4. What I learned that is the techniques and processes needed to create your own models aren't too difficult to learn, something that seems beyond the understanding of too many people. 

 

In my experience with exhibiting London Road what the viewer wants is very variable. There are those who just want to see trains run continually, while others are also content to look at the layout as a whole, taking in the overall modelling. The former are increasingly in the majority.

 

Jol

[Jol Wilkinson]

32 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

From my recollection, Tim....................... 

 

I think it was operated as near as possible to 'real time'. Despite Heckmondwike 'proving' to Cyril Freezer that it was possible to build a 'large' P4 layout which ran as well as the 'best' contemporary 'large' OO or EM layouts, it really wasn't that big. It only represented a secondary Midland line as well, with nothing bigger (if my memory serves - and it serves me less well as time goes on!) than a 'Crab' 2-6-0. Most locos were small (0-6-0s or 4-4-0s) and the trains were short (accurately so). 

 

Now I know this has been aired before, but I still remain to be convinced that it's possible to build a really large, main line layout in P4. By large I mean something of the size of Little Bytham (relatively small in the main line stakes at 32' x 12'), or Biggleswade (over 40') or Retford (over 80') or Carlisle (over 90'). By main line I mean a steam-age depiction of a trunk main line, with oodles of Pacifics or big 4-6-0s hauling huge trains - at speed! The four just mentioned (in OO and EM) have done it. And, have been seen to do it. 

 

Where are the P4 equivalents to these, or others? I know there was Tring in New Zealand, but even Bob Essery told me quietly that it didn't run all that well, and if one examines the pictures of it in the MRJ closely, there is the odd cobweb between the trains and the signals. 

 

I accept (and understand) that such layouts are not generally of interest to P4 modellers, and that is probably the reason why the P4 Class 1 main lines don't exist. Yes, there's Mostyn, and that runs superbly, though it's all diesel and a branch off the WCML. There's also Preston, but until I see that in full steam-outline mode, I remain unconvinced. Even I can P4 a diesel- or electric-outline loco in 4mm! 

 

Returning to Heckmondwike, it did set a very high standard in modelling. However, and this is my opinion, as an exhibition layout I thought it boring. I'd never have bothered trainspotting at the place. Not enough happening!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

does it actually matter that there are no big P4 layouts that fulfil your parameters? If building a model of a large prototype railway scene was the ultimate achievement within a reasonable life span, then shouldn't a N gauge layout be the best solution?

 

In a hobby that is suppose to encompass all aspects of modelling, the "Broad Church" philosophy, is one approach more  relevant, important, worthwhile or proper than another. I choose to model to one set of defined 4mm track standards, to build my own locos, carriages, wagons, buildings, etc. That I am not building a model of Rugby station in 00 (which is where I lived as a yoof, Rugby, not actually in the station) mean that my modelling less worthwhile?

 

Jol

 

 

[Hitchin Junction]

Since I'm relatively new to RM web, I'm not familiar with Little Bytham.  So I have a question. Do  trains "stop" at LB, or just run through at speed?

 

Tim

[Lecorbusier]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

From my recollection, Tim....................... 

 

I think it was operated as near as possible to 'real time'. Despite Heckmondwike 'proving' to Cyril Freezer that it was possible to build a 'large' P4 layout which ran as well as the 'best' contemporary 'large' OO or EM layouts, it really wasn't that big. It only represented a secondary Midland line as well, with nothing bigger (if my memory serves - and it serves me less well as time goes on!) than a 'Crab' 2-6-0. Most locos were small (0-6-0s or 4-4-0s) and the trains were short (accurately so). 

 

Now I know this has been aired before, but I still remain to be convinced that it's possible to build a really large, main line layout in P4. By large I mean something of the size of Little Bytham (relatively small in the main line stakes at 32' x 12'), or Biggleswade (over 40') or Retford (over 80') or Carlisle (over 90'). By main line I mean a steam-age depiction of a trunk main line, with oodles of Pacifics or big 4-6-0s hauling huge trains - at speed! The four just mentioned (in OO and EM) have done it. And, have been seen to do it. 

 

Where are the P4 equivalents to these, or others? I know there was Tring in New Zealand, but even Bob Essery told me quietly that it didn't run all that well, and if one examines the pictures of it in the MRJ closely, there is the odd cobweb between the trains and the signals. 

 

I accept (and understand) that such layouts are not generally of interest to P4 modellers, and that is probably the reason why the P4 Class 1 main lines don't exist. Yes, there's Mostyn, and that runs superbly, though it's all diesel and a branch off the WCML. There's also Preston, but until I see that in full steam-outline mode, I remain unconvinced. Even I can P4 a diesel- or electric-outline loco in 4mm! 

 

Returning to Heckmondwike, it did set a very high standard in modelling. However, and this is my opinion, as an exhibition layout I thought it boring. I'd never have bothered trainspotting at the place. Not enough happening!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony. 

 

I wasn't really trying to start up discussions on whether P4 can work on large mainline layouts with trains running at speed .... I suppose if and until one does the jury will remain out (though I am watching the progress of Ouse Valley Viaduct & Balcombe Station with interest though whether this qualifies I don't know)

 

I just wondered if the Heckmonwike would have been more entertaining had the schedules been compressed to give a reasonable amount of train movements. ie was it beautifully modelled but the reliability was suspect or was it simply a questionable timetable for popular public consumption. The layout does seem to have had a mixed reception.

 

As far as choice of layout and subject matter are concerned I suppose it is each to their own. Thankfully I enjoy a fairly wide spectrum of layouts, though I do like a degree of detailed workings and shunting alongside a procession of through trains. I suspect that is because I am interested in more than just the kinetics of movement.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Lecorbusier
video bumped up from earlier in the thread

[Steamport Southport]

I never saw Heckmondwike running. But it was one of the first model railways I saw that looked like a real railway.

 

One that passed the criteria of "Does it look like a railway even if it doesn't have any trains present?". Which according to the views above was common.

 

For those that don't remember it here are a few pictures. Most definitely an iconic model.

 

http://www.thenlg.org.uk/heckmondwike.html

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Tony,

 

does it actually matter that there are no big P4 layouts that fulfil your parameters? If building a model of a large prototype railway scene was the ultimate achievement within a reasonable life span, then shouldn't a N gauge layout be the best solution?

 

In a hobby that is suppose to encompass all aspects of modelling, the "Broad Church" philosophy, is one approach more  relevant, important, worthwhile or proper than another. I choose to model to one set of defined 4mm track standards, to build my own locos, carriages, wagons, buildings, etc. That I am not building a model of Rugby station in 00 (which is where I lived as a yoof, Rugby, not actually in the station) mean that my modelling less worthwhile?

 

Jol

 

 

I hope in all our correspondence, Jol, on here and face-to-face, I've never come across as suggesting your modelling is less worthwhile. In fact, I think it's of the highest standard.

 

My comments came about because of the mention of Heckmondwike - a 'large' layout by 'normal' P4 standards, but 'small' as a depiction of a main line. 

 

Contrary to what many might believe, I care not a hoot whether there are any 'large', main line P4 layouts out there (though I've mentioned two already in Mostyn and Preston). I've never claimed my approach is more relevant, more important, more worthwhile and certainly not more proper than any other. I've photographed too many splendid P4 layouts not be impressed by the modelling standards. I'd be even more impressed if they ran (in the main) like LB, Retford and Carlisle, but that is another story.

 

I'm not too sure whether I buy into the 'broad church' philosophy too much, either. There are many ways to enjoy the hobby, but I can't see a lot in the way of a shared interest between what you do and those who just open boxes - or in some cases, don't open them because by removing some tissue paper it devalues what's inside!

 

As for N Gauge being the best solution to building a large prototype railway scene, it's been done. Well, in 2mm Finescale, anyway, with Copenhagen Fields. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Hitchin Junction said:

Since I'm relatively new to RM web, I'm not familiar with Little Bytham.  So I have a question. Do  trains "stop" at LB, or just run through at speed?

 

Tim

They do, Tim,

 

And some shunt, too. 

 

The majority, however, as per the prototype, just go through at speed. 

 

There was a DVD I made, put on here by Andy York nearly a year ago, which shows the layout in action. Perhaps someone (with the knowledge of how to do so) will put it on again for you to see.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[CF MRC]

Heckmondwike was probably a Marmite layout.  Looking at the photos in the S4 NLG link above reminded me of the quality of some of the modelling.  However, it only represented a very small portion of a railway up to its boundary, with very little scenic context.  At one of the Bristol exhibitions I remember Bob Essery standing in front of it and telling me that it was all that a model railway needed to be.  I didn’t quite agree with him, which he found surprising.

Tim

[Tony Wright]

You might recall that I bought a couple of (work-to-be-done-on-them) locos recently from Roy Jackson's estate.

 

For those who missed them the first time, these are what they looked like after I'd got them working (in OO). 

 

 

 

And here they are now.......................

 

 

 

After stripping, repainting, lining, lettering, numbering and weathering......................... 

 

The L1 is very interesting. From the number, 67770, might it be the one from Dunwich, which appeared on page 44 of Iain Rice's book on building whitemetal locos? If so, how did it get into such a mess? As 67770, it's actually incorrect, because it represents an early-build loco with the curved front valences. As such, it should also have rail steps. I fitted the correct steps and a Westinghouse pump, and numbered it for an earlier-build loco (one which never received electric lighting). However, on smugly finishing it, I note I've not got the bunker lining right! And, what's a Lowestoft-allocated L1 doing on LB?  

 

I have to say, I prefer the A5............

 

 

 

Definitely more appropriate for LB, especially as it was at Grantham in 1958. 

 

Both are really no more than 'layout locos', both run beautifully and (I hope) look the part. How long the L1 will stay, I'm not sure, but I'm pleased I've 'resurrected' it.  

 

 

[t-b-g]

I see the idea of a "broad church" as being something entirely different.

 

I see it as the idea that some people like real locations as a basis for models, some like to create fictional locations. Some like to make everything for themselves and will go for a less extensive layout, some will be happy to get some help in so they can have something more ambitious. Some like the gentle shunting of a branch line goods, some like an express thundering through.

 

It is much more than the difference between the pure collector (which I see as a different hobby altogether) and the modeller who builds everything from scratch.

 

Some people enjoy building scenery and buildings but don't enjoy building locos and stock, or don't have the time, or the skill. So they use RTR. Geoff Taylor's Barmouth is a superb example. I think all the locos and stock are RTR but they are appropriate to the area and period and don't detract from the layout in any way. Some spend much time and effort on the locos and stock but are happy to run them round a test track with no pretence of scenery. I visited such a layout a while ago. Fantastic kit and scratchbuilt locos and stock running round an oval with a handful of signals and a wooden platform. It ran superbly, the models were top quality and it was great fun driving full length main line 7mm trains at good speeds.

 

We can all have our own personal preferences as to which approach we prefer but none of us has any validity if we want to suggest that one approach is more worthwhile than another.

 

As for P4, I have seen an A4 on a full length ECML train running at a scale 90mph and all staying on the track. The layout in question doesn't go to shows and hasn't been featured in the press. So it does happen. Just in private and done by people who do it for their own enjoyment and don't feel the need to prove themselves to a wider audience. 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

[PJT]

53 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

But it was one of the first model railways I saw that looked like a real railway.

 

One that passed the criteria of "Does it look like a railway even if it doesn't have any trains present?". Which according to the views above was common.

 

Spot on, in all respects.  As an admittedly naiive and impressionable youngster, when I first saw Heckmondwike in the flesh it looked like it had come from another planet compared to most of the other exhibition layouts I'd seen up until then (however, I certainly agree that waiting for a train to come demanded patience).  Actually though, the biggest effect it had on me was to create a desire to build my own rolling stock following a couple of articles in Model Railway on 'Wagons for Heckmondwike'.  I soon found that Slaters kits in particular went together so satisfyingly.  I can still feel the excitement of inspiration from Heckmondwike now, while I'm typing this and remembering it.

 

Pete T.

 

[Lecorbusier]

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

There was a DVD I made, put on here by Andy York nearly a year ago, which shows the layout in action. Perhaps someone (with the knowledge of how to do so) will put it on again for you to see.

 

[ianathompson]

53 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

Heckmondwike was probably a Marmite layout.  Looking at the photos in the S4 NLG link above reminded me of the quality of some of the modelling.  However, it only represented a very small portion of a railway up to its boundary, with very little scenic context.  At one of the Bristol exhibitions I remember Bob Essery standing in front of it and telling me that it was all that a model railway needed to be.  I didn’t quite agree with him, which he found surprising.

 

 

Heckmondwile was a seminal layout but it caused controversy, which is what I assume you mean by marmite layout (i.e. you loved it or hated it).

 

Having lived just over the hill in Batley during my formative years, and played cricket many times on Cemetery Road, I found it difficult to reconcile the scenery of the town with that presented on the model.

The LNWR New Line only managed to penetrate the place at the cost of massive earthworks in an intensely urban setting. 

The proposed Midland line was supposed to be parallel with this line but the scenery on the model was, as I recall, almost bucolic. 

 

I have a similar problem with Mr Essery's rendition of Dewsbury.

The modelling inside the railway fence is fantastic but the surrounds do not immediately shout "Heavy Woolen" area.

Manchester MRC;s Dewsbury Midland however....

 

Light blue touch paper and retreat, with tin helmet on!

 

Ian T

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by ianathompson
additional info

[4630]

41 minutes ago, ianathompson said:

 

Heckmondwile was a seminal layout but it caused controversy, which is what I assume you mean by marmite layout (i.e. you loved it or hated it).

 

Having lived just over the hill in Batley during my formative years, and played cricket many times on Cemetery Road, I found it difficult to reconcile the scenery of the town with that presented on the model.

The LNWR New Line only managed to penetrate the place at the cost of massive earthworks in an intensely urban setting. 

The proposed Midland line was supposed to be parallel with this line but the scenery on the model was, as I recall, almost bucolic. 

 

I have a similar problem with Mr Essery's rendition of Dewsbury.

The modelling inside the railway fence is fantastic but the surrounds do not immediately shout "Heavy Woolen" area.

Manchester MRC;s Dewsbury Midland however....

 

Light blue touch paper and retreat, with tin helmet on!

 

Ian T

 

 

No need to light blue touch paper...as far as I'm concerned.  I agree with you 100%.

 

In my view of the world, if the scenery and the type and construction of buildings on a layout don't match with the part of the country where it's supposed to be set, then that really grates with me.  No matter how well it's operated; the fidelity of the track work to the prototype; or the quality of the hand/kit built or RTR stock.  

 

Manchester MRC's Dewsbury Midland is, in my book, one of the best.  As was Wibdenshaw.

Edited October 29, 2019 by 4630
.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I have a simple operating procedure. I send two trains from the fiddle yards on to the mainline, they are supposed to do six laps before going into the station but that can vary from 3 laps to 15 plus trips around the room. While the trains are circulating I do any loco moves, parcel stock shunts in the station or loco changes in the fiddle yards. The trains then enter the station. I then do the opposite and send a couple of trains to the fiddle yards taking six laps to reach them. I do have an order the trains leave the fiddle yards, so that the same two trains that left together do not return together I reverse the order the sidings on one of the fiddle yards.  I have no organised system which the trains leave the station, just "Oh! that one looks nice". Basically playing trains. It keeps me amused for hours.

 

One day I will work out a time table/sequence/ schedule but that is in the future. 

A variation of the tidal system, where the trains just come in and then go out again - and none the worse for that.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Heckmondwike was probably a Marmite layout.  Looking at the photos in the S4 NLG link above reminded me of the quality of some of the modelling.  However, it only represented a very small portion of a railway up to its boundary, with very little scenic context.  At one of the Bristol exhibitions I remember Bob Essery standing in front of it and telling me that it was all that a model railway needed to be.  I didn’t quite agree with him, which he found surprising.

Tim

This is not a direct criticism of Heckmondwike, nor of Bob Essery (whom I have never met), but the problem for me and for many of my friends during the 1970s/80s "scale wars" was the ill-concealed and holier-than-thou undertone of "this is how you should be doing it and if you aren't you are not a proper railway modeller". Fortunately, that attitude is now virtually extinct.

Edited October 29, 2019 by St Enodoc

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I see the idea of a "broad church" as being something entirely different.

 

I see it as the idea that some people like real locations as a basis for models, some like to create fictional locations. Some like to make everything for themselves and will go for a less extensive layout, some will be happy to get some help in so they can have something more ambitious. Some like the gentle shunting of a branch line goods, some like an express thundering through.

 

It is much more than the difference between the pure collector (which I see as a different hobby altogether) and the modeller who builds everything from scratch.

 

Some people enjoy building scenery and buildings but don't enjoy building locos and stock, or don't have the time, or the skill. So they use RTR. Geoff Taylor's Barmouth is a superb example. I think all the locos and stock are RTR but they are appropriate to the area and period and don't detract from the layout in any way. Some spend much time and effort on the locos and stock but are happy to run them round a test track with no pretence of scenery. I visited such a layout a while ago. Fantastic kit and scratchbuilt locos and stock running round an oval with a handful of signals and a wooden platform. It ran superbly, the models were top quality and it was great fun driving full length main line 7mm trains at good speeds.

 

We can all have our own personal preferences as to which approach we prefer but none of us has any validity if we want to suggest that one approach is more worthwhile than another.

 

As for P4, I have seen an A4 on a full length ECML train running at a scale 90mph and all staying on the track. The layout in question doesn't go to shows and hasn't been featured in the press. So it does happen. Just in private and done by people who do it for their own enjoyment and don't feel the need to prove themselves to a wider audience. 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

As usual, a wise post, Tony.

 

Many thanks.

 

I'd love to see a P4 A4 doing 90 and staying on the track. If it were relatively easy (and thus, 'common') I don't think Roy Jackson would have compromised with EM, and I certainly wouldn't be mucking about with OO. But, as you say, it's not an exhibition layout and it's private. What a pity. 

 

May I take it a step further, please? Are there the A1s as well, and the A2s (of all varieties) and the A3s, and the V2s (the W1?), plus all the smaller classes associated with a true ECML steam depiction (as seen on Retford)? To run LB's sequence, I need over 50 locos at any one time, and yet I only reproduce a fraction of what would have been seen over 60 years ago at Little Bytham. 50 P4+ locos, plus over 150% back-up. Is it possible? 

 

As for needing to 'prove themselves to a wider audience', isn't that anyone who's ever written an article, given a talk, given a demonstration or shown a layout at an exhibition?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

This is not a direct criticism of Heckmondwike, nor of Bob Essery (whom I have never met), but the problem for me and for many of my friends during the 1970s/80s "scale wars" was the ill-concealed and holier-than-thou undertone of "this is how you should be doing it and if you aren't you are not a proper railway modeller". Fortunately, that attitude is now virtually extinct.

Hi John

 

Not as extinct as we like to think. I have had people infer that I am not a proper modeller because I don't make my own track but use Peco because it is quicker, reliable and works out the box. I have made my own track in the past and exhibited the layout it was used on, hence me using Peco track.

 

I have been told I am not a scratchbuilder because I do not wind my own motors or turn my own wheels. The photos in the above link were taken in the 1980s and there are 3 homemade locos and 7 conversions, of which only the class 11 is not yet (soon will be) available RTR.

 

My retort to people who say that I am not a model maker is please show me your hand crafted 4 mm scale figures. Something I enjoying doing and something I know many wouldn't even consider doing.

They do need tidying up and finishing.

 

As you all know I enjoy model making and do not consider anyone who doesn't or can't do what I do less of a railway modeller than me if they are having fun and at the same time I am in awe of those who can do what I won't do or think I cannot do.