Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

30 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Tony - While I agree with your general sentiment, there is rather more to the growth in micro-layouts than just commitment.  

 

I see LB as like a club exhibition layout that's permanently located on one club member's property.  However your (and your friends') achievement is based to a degree on the availability of the SPACE which can be devoted to one purpose only, which many of us in many parts of the country simply do not and are unlikely to ever have available, at least until retirement.  My 2.5 bedroom semi-detached house has a loft 16ft long, more than enough for a layout (the framework was all built but the arrival of a family has filled the loft with "stuff") but this will never be as convenient as a proper room.  Like so many of us, I would dearly love a separate railway room - just as my children would also like bigger rooms - but the price increment around here between my house and one big enough to make the upheaval of a house move worthwhile, i.e. an extra room and a garden the size of two postage stamps, as opposed to the current one - is more than I paid for my existing property in the first place.

 

I have absolutely no doubt that you worked hard to earn the property you are now in.  There are many of working age for whom no amount of hard work, at what they are good at, will enable them buy a property large enough for a "large" layout.  Sadly (over-priced) new properties are getting smaller and old ones, as they have more space, can be just as out of reach for many of working age.  The days of pay rising (significantly) faster than house price inflation are long gone.  

 

Ending on a lighter note - a prosperous and preposterous New Year to all on RMWeb.

 

Rob

I agree, Rob,

 

And perhaps I should have elaborated more on the use of the word 'commitment'. 

 

I suppose I've been very lucky. For most of our working lives, we've been a 'two salary family' (other than when the boys were babies/pre-school). It's meant that we've been able to acquire 'space' as it were. But, other than one layout (a poor affair years ago) in a small bedroom and a layout in a loft, all the layouts I've been involved with were not in the house as it were. Wooden outbuildings (though if well-built are not cheap) are considerably less expensive than equivalent spaces in the house - £10,000.00 complete for Bytham's home (32' x 12'), as against £60,00.00 and more for a loft conversion giving the same 'footprint' (2006 prices). With barred/barrel-locked windows and a metal door shutter, plus burglar alarms, security is 'adequate' (all in the £10,000.00), though nothing is ever 'impregnable'. Now, I agree that's still a fair bit of cash, but after years of saving? A commitment to saving. And also a commitment to see a project long-term - decades ahead in fact. This certainly doesn't make me wise, nor far-sighted but at least single-minded. 

 

It does, of course require enough 'land', and you're quite right about the tiny plots which come with more modern housing. And tiny new homes!

 

I don't have a 'problem' with small/cameo layouts, but why are they far more prevalent than in my formative years? Can it be entirely down to what you've mentioned? What inspired me when I entered this hobby were the likes of Ken Northwood's  North Devon Railway, or Gavin Wilson's Highland system, not to mention Peter Denny's Buckingham branch. In my own particular area of interest there were the Borchesters of Frank Dyer and Bert Collins' Hitchin. Not all were 'massive', but they represented a long-term commitment to making an interesting, fully-operational and complex system. Not something to be assembled in a weekend.

 

Is this now the 'modern way'? Instant gratification, I wonder? 

 

If folk have no space, or very little spare time or have limited fiscal resources, then who am I to say 'Don't build something small?' There is often great merit in honing skills on 'achievable' projects before beginning that 'layout of a lifetime' (BRM springs to mind here) and much can be imparted in that manner.

 

It makes me wonder if my team and I are 'unusual'. By that, I mean to achieve what I (we) set out to do had to be long-term. In my personal case, 45 years and counting!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[john new]

2 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Yes, it's a mostly single line with double track through the stations. I find it frustrating that it's not mentioned in the book captions, as I'd like to know how it was worked. I wonder if the topography prevented the more usual arrangement of trailing access to the sidings. Presumably however it was justified, the Board of Trade were persuaded.

 

Looking at prototype track plans more generally, I've often been stumped by how a particular siding was worked. i forget the station, for instance, but it's somewhere on the former Southern Railway: there's a bay which is accessed by a trailing point back into a headshunt, then a facing point into the bay. A train could detach a van and shunt it back into the headshunt, but how was it moved forward into the bay, other than by horse, winch, bar, or another locomotive? It seems bizarre when the obvious solution is a bay accessed from a trailing point in the conventional manner.

 

For shunting oddities an add in has to be Maiden Newton (ex-GWR) - gravity shunt for the Bridport/West Bay coach back into the bay.

[john new]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I agree, Rob,

 

And perhaps I should have elaborated more on the use of the word 'commitment'. 

 

I suppose I've been very lucky. For most of our working lives, we've been a 'two salary family' (other than when the boys were babies/pre-school). It's meant that we've been able to acquire 'space' as it were. But, other than one layout (a poor affair years ago) in a small bedroom and a layout in a loft, all the layouts I've been involved with were not in the house as it were. Wooden outbuildings (though if well-built are not cheap) are considerably less expensive than equivalent spaces in the house - £10,000.00 complete for Bytham's home (32' x 12'), as against £60,00.00 and more for a loft conversion giving the same 'footprint' (2006 prices). With barred/barrel-locked windows and a metal door shutter, plus burglar alarms, security is 'adequate' (all in the £10,000.00), though nothing is ever 'impregnable'. Now, I agree that's still a fair bit of cash, but after years of saving? A commitment to saving. And also a commitment to see a project long-term - decades ahead in fact. This certainly doesn't make me wise, nor far-sighted but at least single-minded. 

 

It does, of course require enough 'land', and you're quite right about the tiny plots which come with more modern housing. And tiny new homes!

 

I don't have a 'problem' with small/cameo layouts, but why are they far more prevalent than in my formative years? Can it be entirely down to what you've mentioned? What inspired me when I entered this hobby were the likes of Ken Northwood's  North Devon Railway, or Gavin Wilson's Highland system, not to mention Peter Denny's Buckingham branch. In my own particular area of interest there were the Borchesters of Frank Dyer and Bert Collins' Hitchin. Not all were 'massive', but they represented a long-term commitment to making an interesting, fully-operational and complex system. Not something to be assembled in a weekend.

 

Is this now the 'modern way'? Instant gratification, I wonder? 

 

If folk have no space, or very little spare time or have limited fiscal resources, then who am I to say 'Don't build something small?' There is often great merit in honing skills on 'achievable' projects before beginning that 'layout of a lifetime' (BRM springs to mind here) and much can be imparted in that manner.

 

It makes me wonder if my team and I are 'unusual'. By that, I mean to achieve what I (we) set out to do had to be long-term. In my personal case, 45 years and counting!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Even allowing for the fact that some of this may just be a popularity trend I think the key, underlying, issue does relate to size/space. This is true both with layout building for home use and also as a related issue regarding the need to transport primarily exhibition layouts. As we age the weight we can carry diminishes, the desire to hire and load a van diminishes. I can't remember who it was by, or where I read it, but somewhere recently was either an article or a forum comment that too many layout descriptions these days include something like "... made to fit into an XYZ car...." [The car always being a small one]. 

 

My own most recent layouts (one active, one mothballed and one scrapped but with all the stock retained) now have to fit in the spare bedroom between family visitors and be stored at other times. The current two are sized to fit in the car purely because if they are ever finished and requested for an exhibition they have to fit into our car. I want to model something, a layout I can operate either as just a shunting puzzle with a random selection from my available stock, or more seriously with a sequence or still as the inglenook puzzle but stock matched by period and locomotive seems a good compromise.

 

I would love to build a new largish replacement for my former H-Dublo layout and also show it, the problem is it would need a van etc.; however, with weight and bulk being the reason the last set of boards got scrapped showing is unlikely. Another issue with van hire is the forced unload time constraint post show to get the vans back. Assuming your parking area is safe with an own car size layout this can be done during the post-show day, not under pressure on the same night the show closed so as to get the van back to the hirer's depot before Monday breakfast. That then knocks on into local exhibitions where costs are critical, fewer larger layouts are affordable because of the van and operator accommodation costs, therefore smaller one's get booked from the pool available where  the operators can commute and use a car.

 

I still hope that in the long-term I may get space for a room or garage sized layout. However, it is unlikely that if I ever do manage to have that space in a future house move the resultant layout would be offered to exhibition managers as one to  go "on the road" for the reasons mentioned above. 

 

Hoping this makes sense.

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by john new
Typos corrected

[ROY@34F]

Hi Tony.

Being of a certain vintage , I too remember the north devon railway , Peter Denny's Buckingham and all his ingenious meccano and wood jigs , even casting his own engine frames out of lead , and all in EM , which like you , I often wish I had pursued . And of course Frank Dyer . Yes they and many more all inspired us in our younger days . 

   But this thread of yours continues in such a vein encouraging young and old , all of us to carry on , don't give up , keep trying new tricks . I for one have a job to keep up each day , but there is always a lively debate or three going on all the time .

   Long may it continue ,  and a very happy and healthy new year to you Tony and Mo , and indeed everyone on Wright writes .

 

 

Regards , Roy .

[petrovich]

Hi Tony, hope you and Mo have a fulfilling 2020 and catch up soon.

 

Regards Peter

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I agree, Rob,

 

And perhaps I should have elaborated more on the use of the word 'commitment'. 

 

I suppose I've been very lucky. For most of our working lives, we've been a 'two salary family' (other than when the boys were babies/pre-school). It's meant that we've been able to acquire 'space' as it were. But, other than one layout (a poor affair years ago) in a small bedroom and a layout in a loft, all the layouts I've been involved with were not in the house as it were. Wooden outbuildings (though if well-built are not cheap) are considerably less expensive than equivalent spaces in the house - £10,000.00 complete for Bytham's home (32' x 12'), as against £60,00.00 and more for a loft conversion giving the same 'footprint' (2006 prices). With barred/barrel-locked windows and a metal door shutter, plus burglar alarms, security is 'adequate' (all in the £10,000.00), though nothing is ever 'impregnable'. Now, I agree that's still a fair bit of cash, but after years of saving? A commitment to saving. And also a commitment to see a project long-term - decades ahead in fact. This certainly doesn't make me wise, nor far-sighted but at least single-minded. 

 

It does, of course require enough 'land', and you're quite right about the tiny plots which come with more modern housing. And tiny new homes!

 

I don't have a 'problem' with small/cameo layouts, but why are they far more prevalent than in my formative years? Can it be entirely down to what you've mentioned? What inspired me when I entered this hobby were the likes of Ken Northwood's  North Devon Railway, or Gavin Wilson's Highland system, not to mention Peter Denny's Buckingham branch. In my own particular area of interest there were the Borchesters of Frank Dyer and Bert Collins' Hitchin. Not all were 'massive', but they represented a long-term commitment to making an interesting, fully-operational and complex system. Not something to be assembled in a weekend.

 

Is this now the 'modern way'? Instant gratification, I wonder? 

 

If folk have no space, or very little spare time or have limited fiscal resources, then who am I to say 'Don't build something small?' There is often great merit in honing skills on 'achievable' projects before beginning that 'layout of a lifetime' (BRM springs to mind here) and much can be imparted in that manner.

 

It makes me wonder if my team and I are 'unusual'. By that, I mean to achieve what I (we) set out to do had to be long-term. In my personal case, 45 years and counting!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Of course you do have a secret weapon in your modelling activities. Mo!

 

How many of us are blessed with somebody who is so tolerant of the amount of time we spend on being "grown men playing trains"?

 

What we don't really know is how many larger layouts have been built but never shown at exhibitions or appeared in the press. I have been lucky to visit a few, so they are out there. The builders of such layouts sometimes like to keep themselves and their layouts out of the public eye for various reasons.

 

The late George Morris built a layout with a run from one end to the other, at a scale 60mph of 13 minutes! It had 10 or so stations, many hundreds of locos and carriages.

 

I attach a snap or two to show the idea.

 

 

 

Then there is Tony Stoker's lovely GWR and Southern EM gauge layout with, from memory, five stations plus a big loco shed. Burnden park, which I helped build and which appeared in BRM a while ago was over 40ft long. There are others too. 

 

Hopefully Ken Hill and I are doing something to carry on the tradition of big layouts with the extended Narrow Road. A few others have had a small input but the vast majority of the work is by the two of us. It has 5 stations and a 120ft run from one end to the other. If it ever gets advanced enough from a scenic point of view I will post some photos but it is very much a modelling project with virtually no RTR and certainly nothing straight out of the box as it is EM.

 

My present situation, spending a fair amount of time helping care for an elderly relative, gives me two options. Do something modest or do nothing. It isn't about money or commitment levels or even space, as it will be purely for exhibitions and not set up at home. I also, being single, have things like shopping, gardening and house stuff to do (not that I do much of that, just enough but no more!). The limiting factor is how many hours I have to spend on my hobby.

 

We are not all lucky enough to have our own "Mo"!

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

39 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Of course you do have a secret weapon in your modelling activities. Mo!

 

How many of us are blessed with somebody who is so tolerant of the amount of time we spend on being "grown men playing trains"?

 

What we don't really know is how many larger layouts have been built but never shown at exhibitions or appeared in the press. I have been lucky to visit a few, so they are out there. The builders of such layouts sometimes like to keep themselves and their layouts out of the public eye for various reasons.

 

The late George Morris built a layout with a run from one end to the other, at a scale 60mph of 13 minutes! It had 10 or so stations, many hundreds of locos and carriages.

 

I attach a snap or two to show the idea.

 

 

 

Then there is Tony Stoker's lovely GWR and Southern EM gauge layout with, from memory, five stations plus a big loco shed. Burnden park, which I helped build and which appeared in BRM a while ago was over 40ft long. There are others too. 

 

Hopefully Ken Hill and I are doing something to carry on the tradition of big layouts with the extended Narrow Road. A few others have had a small input but the vast majority of the work is by the two of us. It has 5 stations and a 120ft run from one end to the other. If it ever gets advanced enough from a scenic point of view I will post some photos but it is very much a modelling project with virtually no RTR and certainly nothing straight out of the box as it is EM.

 

My present situation, spending a fair amount of time helping care for an elderly relative, gives me two options. Do something modest or do nothing. It isn't about money or commitment levels or even space, as it will be purely for exhibitions and not set up at home. I also, being single, have things like shopping, gardening and house stuff to do (not that I do much of that, just enough but no more!). The limiting factor is how many hours I have to spend on my hobby.

 

We are not all lucky enough to have our own "Mo"!

 

 

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

Of all the members of the LB team I keep mentioning with thanks, I should thank Mo most of all. 

 

I know of several men whose wives/partners/girlfriends are not only completely uninterested in what their men are doing model railway-wise but, in some cases, they are openly hostile!

 

I am fortunate to have the complete opposite of that situation in Mo. Her house is 'invaded' almost every week by railway enthusiasts of all shapes and sizes. She often provides lunch (wonderful home-made soup, for instance) and just gets on with things. Nobody has ever not been invited back, though, obviously, as with all personalities, some are greeted with greater affection than others. Some are regular visitors and many provide her with flowers and chocolates. They know who they are. It is a great privilege to state I have so many friends who visit.

 

I do have lots of time to indulge in my hobby; time not given to all. Since I'm the world's least-emancipated man, the mysteries of the kitchen and all its various hot, cold or whirring devices are beyond me! I help with the shopping. 

 

But that time, however generous, must not be wasted. I've never considered myself altruistic, but there are many to assist. Assist them in actually making things for themselves. 

 

I think this thread is of assistance as well, especially to me. I know computers are 'the thief of time', but I've asked so many questions on here and the response has been overwhelming and very helpful. I'm also delighted it's lively, even controversial at times and very thought-provoking. It's the posters (such as yourself) who make it what it is, so my thanks are due there. 

 

With the thread in mind, I think I'll just post a few final 2019 images, illustrating the long time it's taken to 'complete' Little Bytham, especially with regard to its stock.

 

When British Railway Modelling first appeared over a quarter of a century ago (and what a breath of fresh air it was!) the then Editor, David Brown, asked me to provide as many constructional articles as I possibly could.............

 

 

One of them described how I built 'The Elizabethan'. Here's that same set (and an A4 built for it), getting on for 27 years old and still going strong. It's overtaking an even older creation of mine, a K's ROD which dates from 1974. After the original K's motor gave up, it has had a more modern replacement but that's all. It's Bytham's oldest loco!

 

 

Another train's description from BRM's early days was 'The Queen of Scots'. In the article, Tony Geary's A1 was the featured motive power, but I was building DJH ones as well; such as this model of KESTREL, like the whole rake, painted by Ian Rathbone. Do current model railway magazines feature as many of these sort of articles as they used to? Most seem to concentrate on the 'small' nowadays. 

 

 

I built the approaching A2/1, 60508 DUKE OF ROTHESAY, from a Jamieson hand-cut kit in 1976, making her 44 years old next year. Everything on it is my work, and it's still going strong. It's passing a V2 I built this year, which begs the question 'How much  have I developed in my modelling in the last 40+ years?'. Very little? 

 

 

Here's another view of that V2 I built, 60982, using a Nu-Cast kit on a Comet set of frames. Geoff Haynes painted it. For comparison, it's passed by a Jamieson V2 I built in 1980, which I painted. I wish I could match a professional's standard. The professional uses an airbrush, I use a sable. 

 

Another comparison. DONCASTER also dates from 1980, and I built it from a Wills kit on a scratch-built chassis. Again, the painting is all my work. The transfer lining is apparent! Coming the other way is a SE Finecast A3 I built this year, which Geoff Haynes painted for me (he doesn't use transfer lining). 

 

The reason for showing the images above is to illustrate (I hope) a consistency in my model-making spanning over four and a half decades. That consistency does not imply excellence, rather 'uniformity'. Granted, my painting will never be in the top bracket, but even though some of the locos are getting on in years, they'll still stand reasonable muster with what I'm currently building. 

 

Which rather nicely brings us back to 'commitment' - a commitment in time taken, with a 'realistic' end goal.

 

And, since it's that time of year for reflection, may I wish everyone out there a great New Year and that their modelling be as satisfying as they desire? Their modelling, personal modelling, which is what Wright Writes is all about! 

 

All the very best to all.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, Philou said:

@thegreenhowards Hello Tony,

 

Sorry for intruding into your thread a little late but I thought this arrangement of a double trap within a single point might avoid thegreenhowards having to lift any trackwork to cover the exit of his goods siding. The photo is a little grainy but shows the arrangement very clearly in the bottom right hand corner. The sidings no longer exist today.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Lydney, if I'm not mistaken?

 

I've often thought that it would serve well as an apprentice model railway track builder's test piece.

[Northmoor]

52 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Lydney, if I'm not mistaken?

 

I've often thought that it would serve well as an apprentice model railway track builder's test piece.

It looks rather more like Ledbury to me....

[richbrummitt]

This evening I've painted and re-lettered the A3 from several (probably now) pages back. The workbench replaced with the kitchen table since there is no running water or kettle in the workshop. 

 

 

My last modelling project this decade now just needs a varnish. It started as a Farish A3, spare corridor tender plus plasticard, a second tender coupling filed from scrap brass, and the face off a Henry mini. Face repainted with 'determined' eyebrows.

 

Happy new year all

[St Enodoc]

32 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

It looks rather more like Ledbury to me....

That's what I meant!

 

Thanks.

[jrg1]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

Of all the members of the LB team I keep mentioning with thanks, I should thank Mo most of all. 

 

I know of several men whose wives/partners/girlfriends are not only completely uninterested in what their men are doing model railway-wise but, in some cases, they are openly hostile!

 

I am fortunate to have the complete opposite of that situation in Mo. Her house is 'invaded' almost every week by railway enthusiasts of all shapes and sizes. She often provides lunch (wonderful home-made soup, for instance) and just gets on with things. Nobody has ever not been invited back, though, obviously, as with all personalities, some are greeted with greater affection than others. Some are regular visitors and many provide her with flowers and chocolates. They know who they are. It is a great privilege to state I have so many friends who visit.

 

I do have lots of time to indulge in my hobby; time not given to all. Since I'm the world's least-emancipated man, the mysteries of the kitchen and all its various hot, cold or whirring devices are beyond me! I help with the shopping. 

 

But that time, however generous, must not be wasted. I've never considered myself altruistic, but there are many to assist. Assist them in actually making things for themselves. 

 

I think this thread is of assistance as well, especially to me. I know computers are 'the thief of time', but I've asked so many questions on here and the response has been overwhelming and very helpful. I'm also delighted it's lively, even controversial at times and very thought-provoking. It's the posters (such as yourself) who make it what it is, so my thanks are due there. 

 

With the thread in mind, I think I'll just post a few final 2019 images, illustrating the long time it's taken to 'complete' Little Bytham, especially with regard to its stock.

 

When British Railway Modelling first appeared over a quarter of a century ago (and what a breath of fresh air it was!) the then Editor, David Brown, asked me to provide as many constructional articles as I possibly could.............

 

 

One of them described how I built 'The Elizabethan'. Here's that same set (and an A4 built for it), getting on for 27 years old and still going strong. It's overtaking an even older creation of mine, a K's ROD which dates from 1974. After the original K's motor gave up, it has had a more modern replacement but that's all. It's Bytham's oldest loco!

 

 

Another train's description from BRM's early days was 'The Queen of Scots'. In the article, Tony Geary's A1 was the featured motive power, but I was building DJH ones as well; such as this model of KESTREL, like the whole rake, painted by Ian Rathbone. Do current model railway magazines feature as many of these sort of articles as they used to? Most seem to concentrate on the 'small' nowadays. 

 

 

I built the approaching A2/1, 60508 DUKE OF ROTHESAY, from a Jamieson hand-cut kit in 1976, making her 44 years old next year. Everything on it is my work, and it's still going strong. It's passing a V2 I built this year, which begs the question 'How much  have I developed in my modelling in the last 40+ years?'. Very little? 

 

 

Here's another view of that V2 I built, 60982, using a Nu-Cast kit on a Comet set of frames. Geoff Haynes painted it. For comparison, it's passed by a Jamieson V2 I built in 1980, which I painted. I wish I could match a professional's standard. The professional uses an airbrush, I use a sable. 

 

Another comparison. DONCASTER also dates from 1980, and I built it from a Wills kit on a scratch-built chassis. Again, the painting is all my work. The transfer lining is apparent! Coming the other way is a SE Finecast A3 I built this year, which Geoff Haynes painted for me (he doesn't use transfer lining). 

 

The reason for showing the images above is to illustrate (I hope) a consistency in my model-making spanning over four and a half decades. That consistency does not imply excellence, rather 'uniformity'. Granted, my painting will never be in the top bracket, but even though some of the locos are getting on in years, they'll still stand reasonable muster with what I'm currently building. 

 

Which rather nicely brings us back to 'commitment' - a commitment in time taken, with a 'realistic' end goal.

 

And, since it's that time of year for reflection, may I wish everyone out there a great New Year and that their modelling be as satisfying as they desire? Their modelling, personal modelling, which is what Wright Writes is all about! 

 

All the very best to all.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Could we see the coach building and formation articles on here?

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, jrg1 said:

Could we see the coach building and formation articles on here?

Unfortunately not,

 

Not by me, anyway.

 

Everything was shot on medium-format transparency, and all that film is in Warners' archive somewhere. I lent all my early BRMs to a chap who has since 'disappeared', so I no longer have copies!

 

Can someone who has access to them scan them, and put them on here please? I doubt if copyright will be an issue. I built the trains, wrote about them and photographed them.

 

Perhaps Andy York might advise.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Lecorbusier]

Some thoughts on layout types and sizes ....

 

It seems to me that large layouts and team efforts are the preserve more often than not of the club ... and I wonder how healthy this once ubiquitous institution remains from the stand point of exhibiting or visiting?

 

I also observe that there appear to be a raft of largish layouts under construction by those entering early(ish) (i.e. hale and hearty) retirement by means of the large garden shed as railway/craft room down the bottom of the garden/yard - the majority of these appear to be permanent and therefore private endeavours. There are a fair few largish endeavours occupying dedicated threads both here and the Scalefourum web site - though how many of these magnum opera will reach fruition will be interesting to watch.

 

If you still have a family then space tends to be limited and the small layout comes into its own.

 

Equally, there are an increasing number of people under 50 who rent (being unable to buy) and when buying can afford very limited space .... so the smaller layout is very much here to stay ... perhaps this will lead to a re-flowering of the club - though I fear the cost and availability of rooms may also be a dwindling resource.

 

I can't help feeling that there is going to be a glut of property at some time in the not too distant future as the glass ceiling continues to rise with age - though this may benefit the professional private landlord rather than the new home owner dependent on inheritance tax rules .... we shall see!

[Clive Mortimore]

There are many factors that can be an influence on what type of layout a modeller builds. Hopefully the modeller builds one that she or he can enjoy making, and operating.

 

All the best layouts bring the owners and operators satisfaction.

[grahame]

Some early new year modelling - old style London bus stop shelters in N/2mm. I started them last night and finished (well not actually completed as there is glazing to be added, weathering, etc.) them this morning. Here they are with the customary pound coin to give a sense of scale. They're made from plasticard and each has over a dozen separate parts. The long lower legs are so they can be planted in to holes drilled in the pavements as in the second photo of a quick test trial run  :

 

 

 

Next is to sort out making the bus stop pole/flags. I want the older deco style concrete ones with integral timetable window rather than the current aluminium pole type now seen everywhere.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

There are many factors that can be an influence on what type of layout a modeller builds. Hopefully the modeller builds one that she or he can enjoy making, and operating.

 

All the best layouts bring the owners and operators satisfaction.

As has always been the case, Clive.

 

All the 'best' layouts I've been involved with have resulted in (mutual) enjoyment in the building, in exhibiting or (as in the case of LB) inviting friends to see/operate. To me, all have been interesting. 

 

It comes down to personal choice, of course. Many of the splendid layouts you've built wouldn't (and don't) interest me a bit. This is my personal prejudice, but small diesel depot layouts (and large ones, if they exist) just bore me. Your Sheffield Exchange is much more interesting, though the City of Steel never had a terminus as such.

 

Larger layouts are often built by clubs, but in that is the potential Achilles' heel. By that I mean, in my experience, many fall into the 'lowest common denominator' trap, where, because of democracy, everyone has a right to contribute, whatever their skill-level. I've seen huge ones which don't impress me at all - they have no real sense of time nor place, and usually are awash with RTR/RTP, often unaltered. They're also usually in OO. 

 

As has also been mentioned, the time factor for building an 'accurate' large layout can be off-putting - in my own case, decades, all-in. And, that's with a highly-skilled team.  

 

Some, like Ian Futers, used to build a (simple) layout-a-year, often roundy-roundys. Popular at shows, they showed what can be done single-handed. They were very well-made. 

 

To some (like me, I suppose) it's the building of things which is most important. LB is only ever operated when friends visit (apart from my testing of new locos/stock). I never operate it on my own. Operating a layout (even big ones I've been involved with at shows) has never interested me, and how individuals manage to stay awake when operating their micro/cameo/shunting puzzle layouts for two/three days at exhibitions I don't know. 'Respect' I think is the term! 

 

To others, it's operating which is most-important, and here's where RTR really can come into its own. Some are not actual builders of things, but still derive satisfaction from just assembling a train set (which is how most of us started) or, with enough fiscal clout, get others to do their 'modelling' for them, basking (as is their right) in their acquisitions.

 

I suppose the 'ultimate' is/are the Peter Dennys of this world, or the Frank Dyers. Those who both make things (just about everything themselves) and have a fully-operational model railway. 

 

Whatever the situation, enjoyment in what one does in the hobby is paramount.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chamby]

15 minutes ago, grahame said:

Some early new year modelling - old style London bus stop shelters in N/2mm. I started them last night and finished (well not actually completed as there is glazing to be added, weathering, etc.) them this morning. Here they are with the customary pound coin to give a sense of scale. They're made from plasticard and each has over a dozen separate parts. The long lower legs are so they can be planted in to holes drilled in the pavements as in the second photo of a quick test trial run  :

 

 

 

Next is to sort out making the bus stop pole/flags. I want the older deco style concrete ones with integral timetable window rather than the current aluminium pole type now seen everywhere.

 

 

 

Blimey, I’ve only just finished my breakfast, having seen in the new year last night!

[Chamby]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

...LB is only ever operated when friends visit (apart from my testing of new locos/stock). I never operate it on my own. Operating a layout (even big ones I've been involved with at shows) has never interested me, and how individuals manage to stay awake when operating their micro/cameo/shunting puzzle layouts for two/three days at exhibitions I don't know. 'Respect' I think is the term! ....

 

Wow....  how people differ.  

 

Taking a little time out in my railway room, and just running a few trains for a while is very therapeutic for me.  Especially when my mother-in-law is in residence!  It need only be for 30 minutes or so, but I find it very relaxing, just enjoying the trains running by.

 

I think I would do that rather a lot, if I had something like LB set up and ready to go!

[2750Papyrus]

Tony, do you not get pleasure yourself from just "watching the trains go by"?

[t-b-g]

37 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

Some thoughts on layout types and sizes ....

 

It seems to me that large layouts and team efforts are the preserve more often than not of the club ... and I wonder how healthy this once ubiquitous institution remains from the stand point of exhibiting or visiting?

 

I also observe that there appear to be a raft of largish layouts under construction by those entering early(ish) (i.e. hale and hearty) retirement by means of the large garden shed as railway/craft room down the bottom of the garden/yard - the majority of these appear to be permanent and therefore private endeavours. There are a fair few largish endeavours occupying dedicated threads both here and the Scalefourum web site - though how many of these magnum opera will reach fruition will be interesting to watch.

 

If you still have a family then space tends to be limited and the small layout comes into its own.

 

Equally, there are an increasing number of people under 50 who rent (being unable to buy) and when buying can afford very limited space .... so the smaller layout is very much here to stay ... perhaps this will lead to a re-flowering of the club - though I fear the cost and availability of rooms may also be a dwindling resource.

 

I can't help feeling that there is going to be a glut of property at some time in the not too distant future as the glass ceiling continues to rise with age - though this may benefit the professional private landlord rather than the new home owner dependent on inheritance tax rules .... we shall see!

 

I agree with much of what you say but I don't see a glut of property any time soon. An ever growing population and more people being single, along with affordability problems, mean that there is a demand for smaller and therefore cheaper living accommodation. Round our way, former colliery sites are being developed with nearly 1000 tiny houses crammed in and blocks of flats and apartments are appearing at a great rate.

 

As the older population leave us, there may be a glut of bigger and mostly unaffordable houses. If these are worth more as a building plot, they either get pulled down and replaced with apartments or flats or they get converted.  Many people with big gardens see them as an opportunity to make a chunk of money by selling off a building plot. So you end up with two properties, each with no room for a big shed. It is all about profit for developers, getting as many properties to sell in as small a land area as possible. Room for any hobbies is not on their agenda. 

 

I am lucky in that my bungalow is tiny but my garden is big enough for a railway shed. At least two similar properties have had their gardens sold off for new properties to be built despite them being tiny and having no worthwhile garden themselves. 

[t-b-g]

10 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

Wow....  how people differ.  

 

Taking a little time out in my railway room, and just running a few trains for a while is very therapeutic for me.  Especially when my mother-in-law is in residence!  It need only be for 30 minutes or so, but I find it very relaxing, just enjoying the trains running by.

 

I think I would do that rather a lot, if I had something like LB set up and ready to go!

 

Tony W showed his operating credentials when he came to see Buckingham with Jesse a few weeks ago. Jesse was happy to get on the controls at Buckingham and have a go at running some trains but Tony refused to touch the controls and his sole contribution to the operating was one rather dodgy attempt with a three link coupling!

 

To me, the hobby is a double pleasure. I build things, then I enjoy operating them. At present, none of my own layouts are set up at home but an hour or two running Buckingham is a fantastic way to forget all the troubles of the day.

 

I can't help but think that those who enjoy building things but not operating, or operating layouts but not building things, are somehow missing out on something.

 

As Tony mentioned above, the Peter Denny and Frank Dyer types, the ones who saw both operation and construction as both giving great satisfaction, will always be the ones I look up to for my inspiration. 

[Barry Ten]

19 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

Wow....  how people differ.  

 

Taking a little time out in my railway room, and just running a few trains for a while is very therapeutic for me.  

 

 

 

I like to shunt a few wagons (not a euphemism) just before bedtime. As you say, very therapeutic.

[chris p bacon]

8 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

It is all about profit for developers, getting as many properties to sell in as small a land area as possible

 

Being one of those  'developers' these statements irk me somewhat. 

 

Planning policy as set by central government is what determines the density and what is built. Hence in this area the style of buildings changed overnight from 2 storey detached and semi detached, to 3 storey terraced as the density of housing increased per hectare.

I personally purchased a bungalow sitting in half an acre which had outline permission to demolish and replace with a large house, when I applied for detailed permission the local planning authority asked for the plans to be changed to multiple housing or the application would be refused.

 

The amount of amenity area associated with houses has decreased with recent planning policy, and shared areas such as green spaces are included in that calculation.

 

 

[Northmoor]

31 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

Being one of those  'developers' these statements irk me somewhat. 

 

Planning policy as set by central government is what determines the density and what is built. Hence in this area the style of buildings changed overnight from 2 storey detached and semi detached, to 3 storey terraced as the density of housing increased per hectare.

I personally purchased a bungalow sitting in half an acre which had outline permission to demolish and replace with a large house, when I applied for detailed permission the local planning authority asked for the plans to be changed to multiple housing or the application would be refused.

 

The amount of amenity area associated with houses has decreased with recent planning policy, and shared areas such as green spaces are included in that calculation.

 

 

I will support Chris P Bacon on this.  The changes to housing density regulations were introduced under John Prescott at the very end of the last century; it reflects very badly on elected politicians that they should introduce a requirement for housing to be built DOWN to a standard (which some other Western Nations would consider almost uninhabitable) rather than up to one.  Housing, that we can be certain, none of those elected politicians were ever likely to have to live in.