Wright writes.....

[Jock67B]

Morning Tony,

WOW is all I can say about the above photos, and thank you for posting them. 2mm Eh? It looks so realistic, what an inspiration to any prospective modeller.

Kind regards,

Jock.

[coachmann]

PIctures on post #4088...What a beautiful layout. I was looking all over Youtube last night for images of small GWR country branchlines and here it was all the time on our own RMweb! 'Small country branchline' are perhaps the wrong words and yet, despite 'Castles' and the like, GWR lines somehow ooze an 'always-summer' country ambience. Maybe I haven't been around enough and someone will cite a GWR mainline that looks distinctly Lancashire-satanic-mill, but there you are. More shots please!

[Tony Wright]

Yesterday, I had a lady visitor, Sandra Orpen. 

 

She brought with her several models she's made, many of them built in EM. She's making a model of Andover Junction, all by herself. 

 

There were one or two items in OO which we were able to run on LB.

 

 

 

These included this 'birdcage' gangwayed Brake Composite, made from a Roxey kit. 

 

 

There was also this M&L curiosity, some GWR loco which ran over LT (or whatever it was then) metals, hence the condensing gear. 

 

It was a delight of a day, so my most grateful thanks to her. We discussed things which have appeared on this thread in recent days, and both agreed that the personal making of things, whatever they were with regard to model railways, was the most important factor - things like the splendid models she brought with her. 

 

Because she's making everything herself - baseboards, track, stock, scenery, structures, etc, etc, for Andover, progress has been relatively slow, though the images I saw showed wonderful craftsmanship so far, and beautifully-smooth running. When I looked around at all the work others have done on my railway, it was quite a humbling experience.  

[Mallard60022]

Lovely stuff. Roxey Birdcage stock ........... not for the feint hearted those, so huge respect to Sandra. It is really great to see such work.

Sandra must be one of only a few women that choose to do a full project something like this. I know that many SWMBOs work with their spouses/partners on layouts or in the trade but I have to admit that, apart from one good lady I know in Portsmouth, Sandra must be almost unique? Can someone be almost unique?

Quite made my day.....

Phil

Edited February 26, 2015 by Mallard60022

[sp1]

Lovely stuff. Roxey Birdcage stock ........... not for the feint hearted those, so huge respect to Sandra. It is really great to see such work.

Sandra must be one of only a few women that choose to do a full project something like this. I know that many SWMBOs work with their spouses/partners on layouts or in the trade but I have to admit that, apart from one good lady I know in Portsmouth, Sandra must be almost unique?

Quite made my day.....

Phil

The owner of 'Modellers Mecca' (my local shop) - featured in this months BRM - familiar to a lot of modellers as the producers of corridor connectors - is building Walsall in P4: see www.p4walsall.com

[Corbs]

That Birdcage is a delight to behold

[edcayton]

Don't forget that Vivian Thompson built Eastbourne by herself. She also did some buildings for my late colleague Jim Armstrong.

 

Ed

[salmonpastures]

Having been once called 'Marmite Man' by the late, great Shaky, I take that as a compliment. 

 

In all honesty, I'm considering ceasing posting on this thread. It's definitely not my property, so others can keep it going if they wish. I have so many projects on the go - making models, writing books and so on, I wonder sometimes is it worth it? Please don't think I'm hoping for a mass of 'Oh please keep it going' posts, but if by advocating the actual making of things (not just locos), I'm considered part of some mythical elite, then I'd better disappear. Unless readers want me to explain how to commission things, how to write cheques, how to open boxes, how to put stuff on the track/put in place RTP buildings and turn a knob. Cynical, me?

 

As I've said, I've been deeply fortunate to have worked with some extremely talented modellers down the years and to have learned much mutually. But, anything we've achieved has been through our own efforts in the main. If that's elitist, so be it!

Personally I love the stuff but am aware it is not to everyone's taste.

 

Tony, you are aware if you stop posting on here those of us who look forward to learning more will just find another way of pestering you for advice and that will take up more of your time than posting on here,, I know that because you love to help people and it has to be said have a lot to offer.

Obviously your choice but a great shame you are even thinking along those lines in my opinion.

Looking at the volume you attract must surely tell us all something.

 

I have been fortunate to visit LB in person and found the day truly inspirational,, and I hate to mention it but playing trains can be really good fun,, especially with the right people.

 

Again, in my opinion, you & LB are definitely deserving an "OOscar",,, but please keep the acceptance speech short.

 

SAD  

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

The owner of 'Modellers Mecca' (my local shop) - featured in this months BRM - familiar to a lot of modellers as the producers of corridor connectors - is building Walsall in P4: see www.p4walsall.com

 

I like a woman that hires the Village Hall just to lay out the plan!  Now that's ambition!

Edited February 26, 2015 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Mallard60022]

I like a woman that hires the Village Hall, but that's my secret.

 

P

[t-b-g]

I thoroughly dislike seeing the word "elitist" being bandied around.

 

For one thing, it means different things to different people, whatever the dictionary says.

 

In this particular instance, it seems as though people are using it to have a go at Tony Wright for preferring models that people (including himself) have built over ones that have been bought.

 

What a total nonsense!

 

If some folk don't want to look at this thread because they regard it as "elitist" then it is their loss as they have totally missed the point of it.

 

I always enjoy a model that somebody has built far more than one that has been bought. In that, I can enjoy a model that somebody has paid to have built for them, whether the payment be in hard cash or in an exchange of work and skills.

 

I have had the pleasure of knowing Tony W for many years now and he is just about the least "elitist" modeller I know! If there is anybody who will go to great lengths to tell you where he went wrong or made errors, it is TW.

 

So I hope we can put this "elitist" rubbish to one side and that we can continue to enjoy the thread for what it is, a feast of good modelling (built ones rather than bought). Also, a place for sensible and well reasoned discussion with every once in a while, a typical TW forthright view thrown in!

 

Tony G

[Judge Dread]

I thoroughly dislike seeing the word "elitist" being bandied around.

 

For one thing, it means different things to different people, whatever the dictionary says.

 

In this particular instance, it seems as though people are using it to have a go at Tony Wright for preferring models that people (including himself) have built over ones that have been bought.

 

What a total nonsense!

 

If some folk don't want to look at this thread because they regard it as "elitist" then it is their loss as they have totally missed the point of it.

 

I always enjoy a model that somebody has built far more than one that has been bought. In that, I can enjoy a model that somebody has paid to have built for them, whether the payment be in hard cash or in an exchange of work and skills.

 

I have had the pleasure of knowing Tony W for many years now and he is just about the least "elitist" modeller I know! If there is anybody who will go to great lengths to tell you where he went wrong or made errors, it is TW.

 

So I hope we can put this "elitist" rubbish to one side and that we can continue to enjoy the thread for what it is, a feast of good modelling (built ones rather than bought). Also, a place for sensible and well reasoned discussion with every once in a while, a typical TW forthright view thrown in!

 

Tony G

I think "jealous" would be a better term for such as these. 

[coachmann]

I'm elite fella.......just 11½ stone in me stocking feet....  The term elitist is often bandied for some odd reasons although I cannot say I have noticed it on RMweb for a good few years now. Of course it is not unknown for a fella to build a loco or item of rolling stock and be mildly critical because, before you know it, everyone and his unskilled dog can just tip one out of a red or blue box...But we gotta laugh 'cos thats life. It wasn't so funny for my old friend Fozzy when Hornby raided his catalogue and killed off sales of his Gresley and Thompson suburban coaches, and yet he took it all philosophically and produced "some Hull & Barnsley coaches the beggers will never produce RTR!"   I think a period of cooling off will work wonders. 

Edited February 26, 2015 by coachmann

[Corbs]

I think "jealous" would be a better term for such as these. 

*Envious

[Tony Wright]

I thoroughly dislike seeing the word "elitist" being bandied around.

 

For one thing, it means different things to different people, whatever the dictionary says.

 

In this particular instance, it seems as though people are using it to have a go at Tony Wright for preferring models that people (including himself) have built over ones that have been bought.

 

What a total nonsense!

 

If some folk don't want to look at this thread because they regard it as "elitist" then it is their loss as they have totally missed the point of it.

 

I always enjoy a model that somebody has built far more than one that has been bought. In that, I can enjoy a model that somebody has paid to have built for them, whether the payment be in hard cash or in an exchange of work and skills.

 

I have had the pleasure of knowing Tony W for many years now and he is just about the least "elitist" modeller I know! If there is anybody who will go to great lengths to tell you where he went wrong or made errors, it is TW.

 

So I hope we can put this "elitist" rubbish to one side and that we can continue to enjoy the thread for what it is, a feast of good modelling (built ones rather than bought). Also, a place for sensible and well reasoned discussion with every once in a while, a typical TW forthright view thrown in!

 

Tony G

Thank you very much for your support, Tony. 

 

I think Larry (later), as well, has some wise words to say. 

 

Without considering semantics, what's been posted/said to me over the last few days has set the crumbling grey matter working. Today, Ben Jones, Ian Wilson and I mapped out a plan for producing the BRM Bookazine based around Little Bytham. I was astonished how much information has been accumulated, all ready to be knocked into something (we hope) which will be a coherent and interesting piece of work. 'My' layout will form the framework, but other prototype-based layouts will be included (obviously, not all ECML). After they'd gone, I started to piece together my photographs and was astonished how many highly-skilled modellers have been involved (and are to be involved). What I hope will eventually come across is how a bunch of like-minded souls can pool their collective talents to produce something 'worthy', even if it includes me. Teamwork, I think will be part of the emphasis, so I hope the Bookazine will be inspirational. Aspirational as well, because I wish to stress that, although costs are involved, it won't be just a case of throwing money at a project. In working with such talent, I've been very fortunate.

 

After admiring Sandra's single-handed approach yesterday to what she's doing, I then thought of others in the past who've approached their subject in the same 'solitary' way. 

 

 

 

Tony, knowing you're now the custodian of Buckingham, I couldn't think of a better example to use of a single individual's dedication to a project over decades. Even judged against today's ever-rising standards, this is still brilliant modelling. Imagine the 'moaners' bewailing that a Sacre or Pollitt loco were not on any RTR producer's schedule, let alone from a kit. The legacy is in good hands and the sensitivity shown in its preservation is commendable. 

 

It seems that GWR subjects are popular, so how about the following? 

 

 

 

 

 

Kingstorre is a very different approach to producing a superlative model railway, but there is still a large degree of single-handed, personal input in it. Robert Dudley Cooke is an exceptionally busy man, and and also an exceptional modeller. However, in conversation with him, he acknowledges he can't do everything on such a large model (it's also in EM). So, for some of the jobs he's brought in professionals. This in no way makes him 'less of a modeller' (because he doesn't really build many locos). But, scenic and architectural modelling are his great skills, and I think it's right to say that much of his work is almost 'Pendonesque'. It was a joy to talk to him and ask him about how he built things. 

 

Yesterday Sandra and I discussed our two different approaches to achieving our respective railways, but we both agreed that a large personal input of actual modelling was desirable by the owner (our personal points of view). She then named some garden designers (of whom, I admit I'd never heard), suggesting that they 'created' superb gardens but never personally dug a sod, planted a bush or laid a path, or any of the other things I'm told are needed to make a garden. But, she maintained (quite rightly I think) that they were still great garden designers. Can the same be applied to some model railway owners/creators? Are they great 'designers', when everything on the layout is done by others? I'm not so sure, and I go back to the vast O gauge line I mentioned some months ago. In terms of size and the peerless stock it had on it, some might well call it great, but the owner appeared to be incapable of doing any actual modelling himself. A great layout owner, I think I'd call a person in that situation. 

 

Going back to great individual modellers, the guy who originally created Buckingham fits into that category. 

 

Edited to apologise for the jumbling up of the pictures.............

Edited February 27, 2015 by Tony Wright

[StephenB]

My first post is to say how much I am looking forward to hearing more from one of our most accomplished modellers. All the recent layouts that Tony has been associated with have been miniature representations of the real thing - what more could you ask for.

Stephen

[t-b-g]

Many thanks for sharing those unusual photos of Buckingham (or more precisely Grandborough Junction).

 

Trust you to come up with some previously unphotographed views! The cattle pen on the right of the first photo cannot be seen from normal viewing angles and it lifts off to provide access to the wiring at Grandborough. The visible wood, lacking any scenic finish, cannot normally be seen but you have encouraged me to add a covering of some sort to the list of jobs to be done.  

 

I can look at those views and suggest that the bottom one shows a scene that could easily be at a particular time in the Buckingham day as that loco on that stock is part of the normal timetable.

 

The top photo, of the Sacre 4-4-0 working tender first is more of a mystery! That carriage set (Now known to me as Set 5) works either from Buckingham to Grandborough and back or sometimes works through to the fiddle yard, where the full set is turned with the loco attached. The ones that terminate at Grandborough are diagrammed to be worked by one of three tank locos and the 4-4-0 only puts in a turn on the through working. As that would be put on the train at Buckingham, which has a turntable, why is it working tender first?

 

It must be either specially set up for photography purposes or perhaps it is covering for a failed tank loco (which does happen from time to time).

 

I am pleased to say that the covering of fine dust has gone now, revealing some rather nice colours and textures.

 

You are quite right Tony. Buckingham is probably the ultimate example of a layout where pretty much everything was built, mostly from scratch, by one person. That doesn't make it the best quality layout that has ever been seen but to me, it is what I would regard as just about as inspirational as a model railway can be.

 

I like to use the term "project manager" for the people who want to have their dream layout but perhaps not the skills or time to do much (or any) of the building themselves. I have had an involvement in a couple of such projects on a professional basis and have really enjoyed working on them. It is a whole new thing to turn what somebody else has in their mind into a layout! The people involved would be very hesitant to call themselves modellers although they do join in with some fairly low skill level tasks.

 

One of them, a lovely chap, says that he is happy to acknowledge that he doesn't have the skills to create the layout he wants but he is lucky enough to be able to afford to pay others to create his dream for him.

 

So he gets the layout he wants, I (and others) earn a crust and enjoy building some models that I would never do for myself and everybody is a winner!

 

Tony G

Edited February 27, 2015 by t-b-g

[Tony Wright]

My first post is to say how much I am looking forward to hearing more from one of our most accomplished modellers. All the recent layouts that Tony has been associated with have been miniature representations of the real thing - what more could you ask for.

Stephen

Thank you Stephen (I assume it's Stephen?).

 

All I do is look through the tens of thousands (yes, literally) of model railway pictures I've taken over the last 30-odd years and pick one or two out to show a particular aspect or illustrate a point of view. 

[corneliuslundie]

Thanks for those photos of Buckingham, Tony, and for the commentary by T-B-G. (It is not possible to click six icons!) It is still the layout that has influenced me most because, I think, it is a real railway with trains going somewhere, not just a station where trains appear - but also because of the overall consistency of the modelling. How many layouts would prompt the kind of discussion of the train make-up offered by T-B-G? Yet that is all part of an operating model railway. I just wish I had room for something of the kind.

 

And that view of the tunnel in the red sandstone cliff! I am sure I have stood there, though it would have been a diseasel, not a beautiful green steam locomotive on the train. It really is exquisite. How have I missed knowing about it for so long?

 

There is an interesting thread near this one on inspirational layouts. I haven't looked at it all, but it is interesting how high a proportion of the layouts have operation, usually to a properly thought out timetable, as a priority. I think the distinction I would make is that they are model railways rather than just layouts, though I am.not at all sure "layouts" is the right word. Not all of them were big - Charford comes to mind in the smaller category. But they all have that something which makes them a convincing representation of the real thing, even though in retrospect many of them had their weak points.

 

And that is the word that comes to mind when I look at layouts such as High Dyke and Little Bytham: convincing.

 

So more photos to inspire us please, Tony, both of Little Bytham (especially now the scenery is getting on well) and other layouts that have inspired you. So we can be inspired too.

 

Jonathan

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks for sharing those unusual photos of Buckingham (or more precisely Grandborough Junction).

 

Trust you to come up with some previously unphotographed views! The cattle pen on the right of the first photo cannot be seen from normal viewing angles and it lifts off to provide access to the wiring at Grandborough. The visible wood, lacking any scenic finish, cannot normally be seen but you have encouraged me to add a covering of some sort to the list of jobs to be done.  

 

I can look at those views and suggest that the bottom one shows a scene that could easily be at a particular time in the Buckingham day as that loco on that stock is part of the normal timetable.

 

The top photo, of the Sacre 4-4-0 working tender first is more of a mystery! That carriage set (Now known to me as Set 5) works either from Buckingham to Grandborough and back or sometimes works through to the fiddle yard, where the full set is turned with the loco attached. The ones that terminate at Grandborough are diagrammed to be worked by one of three tank locos and the 4-4-0 only puts in a turn on the through working. As that would be put on the train at Buckingham, which has a turntable, why is it working tender first?

 

It must be either specially set up for photography purposes or perhaps it is covering for a failed tank loco (which does happen from time to time).

 

I am pleased to say that the covering of fine dust has gone now, revealing some rather nice colours and textures.

 

You are quite right Tony. Buckingham is probably the ultimate example of a layout where pretty much everything was built, mostly from scratch, by one person. That doesn't make it the best quality layout that has ever been seen but to me, it is what I would regard as just about as inspirational as a model railway can be.

 

I like to use the term "project manager" for the people who want to have their dream layout but perhaps not the skills or time to do much (or any) of the building themselves. I have had an involvement in a couple of such projects on a professional basis and have really enjoyed working on them. It is a whole new thing to turn what somebody else has in their mind into a layout! The people involved would be very hesitant to call themselves modellers although they do join in with some fairly low skill level tasks.

 

One of them, a lovely chap, says that he is happy to acknowledge that he doesn't have the skills to create the layout he wants but he is lucky enough to be able to afford to pay others to create his dream for him.

 

So he gets the layout he wants, I (and others) earn a crust and enjoy building some models that I would never do for myself and everybody is a winner!

 

Tony G

I agree with your sentiments entirely, Tony.

 

I, too, have worked on projects commissioned by others because they cannot do the work themselves (for whatever reason). I used to build a loco a year for a chap who lived on the South Coast. He didn't have a vast supply of disposable income, but put enough aside each year so that on receipt of the current loco he'd order the next one, for delivery in 12 months. His tastes were eclectic to say the least and, from memory, I made him a GWR ROD, SR King Arthur, LNER Q7, BR A2/1, GWR King and one or two others. Part of the deal was that I delivered the loco and we ran it on his layout to check that all was well (have I mentioned this before?). I don't know which of us had the greater joy. Joint winners, I think you'd call it. He was, though, quite an accomplished modeller in his own fields - rolling stock, architecture, scenery, etc, but he couldn't make locos to work to his satisfaction. 

 

Where I'm less comfortable with 'project managers' is where they start pontificating on what others might be doing. Those who can build almost nothing for themselves have little right, in my opinion, to pass judgement on what others are doing for themselves, and I've known this to happen. The project manager is, to some extent, a hostage to fortune as well. By that I mean that they're stumped if something isn't right with what they've commissioned (though if the brief is correct, it should be) or if things subsequently go wrong electrically or mechanically with their layout/control system/locos, etc. Rather like I am if my daft car goes wrong!

 

But, if folk derive pleasure from railway modelling by what ever means, then that is the main thing - unless it's by nefarious means!  

[jrg1]

Delighted to see photographs of Buckingham-it is exceptional in my eyes because the whole layout diorama works perfectly in my opinion.  Rev. Peter Denny had an eye for how the finished project would actually LOOK-and it looks simply superb to me, and is the greatest inspiration to my modelling, and that is before even considering the operating potential.  Everything fits, Everything looks great-nothing jars the eye, and it really is a slice of pure GCR.  As a model railway it has never been surpassed in my opinion.  

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for those photos of Buckingham, Tony, and for the commentary by T-B-G. (It is not possible to click six icons!) It is still the layout that has influenced me most because, I think, it is a real railway with trains going somewhere, not just a station where trains appear - but also because of the overall consistency of the modelling. How many layouts would prompt the kind of discussion of the train make-up offered by T-B-G? Yet that is all part of an operating model railway. I just wish I had room for something of the kind.

 

And that view of the tunnel in the red sandstone cliff! I am sure I have stood there, though it would have been a diseasel, not a beautiful green steam locomotive on the train. It really is exquisite. How have I missed knowing about it for so long?

 

There is an interesting thread near this one on inspirational layouts. I haven't looked at it all, but it is interesting how high a proportion of the layouts have operation, usually to a properly thought out timetable, as a priority. I think the distinction I would make is that they are model railways rather than just layouts, though I am.not at all sure "layouts" is the right word. Not all of them were big - Charford comes to mind in the smaller category. But they all have that something which makes them a convincing representation of the real thing, even though in retrospect many of them had their weak points.

 

And that is the word that comes to mind when I look at layouts such as High Dyke and Little Bytham: convincing.

 

So more photos to inspire us please, Tony, both of Little Bytham (especially now the scenery is getting on well) and other layouts that have inspired you. So we can be inspired too.

 

Jonathan

I'm interested in your comments about operation, Jonathan.

 

The interpretation of, say, a BR timetable (public and working) and using it to compile a working sequence for a layout like Little Bytham will form a part of the forthcoming Bookazine. Right now, the sequence is still being tweaked so that it is interesting to operate, yet doesn't result in states of panic; it should be a servant, not a master. I only have siding space for 34 trains on the main line. For the Up and Down light engine movements (an N2/C12/N5 on the Up, and a Baby Deltic/Birmingham RC&W Co. Type 2 on the Down), I just lift these on/off by the yard control panel once they've run round, so that gives me 36. The very first movement is the Glasgow-Colchester, which is made up in the fiddle yard before the sequence begins (mainly vans with just a few carriages), runs round once and is immediately taken off again. This gives me 37. The number of train movements needed as a 'representation' of a typical weekday (6.00 am - 8.00 pm) on the main line in the summer of 1958 is over 80. So, over twice as many trains as I have space for. The problem is exacerbated by several trains only running once - 'The Elizabethan', the four Pullmans and the cements. Thus, many trains have to double/treble/quadruple-up, meaning there are generic Leeds sets (two each way), Newcastle sets and Edinburgh sets, plus those to Hull or York, not to mention the shorter-distance rakes. Not only that, there should be two 'Elizabethans', two 'Queens of Scots' and two 'Hearts of Midlothian' and three 'Talismans', etc. Because the Up and Down fiddle yards are not linked, I can't run the rakes both ways (though having just the one rake represent both Up and Down trains is just as much of a 'cheat' in my view). So, we have about 90 train movements but many of the sets run several times, but with different locos every time. Some of the earlier-seen Up locos, do return towards the end the sequence heading Down. One train of full minerals represents all the Up trains of this type (running three times) and there's one train of empties to do the same for the Down.

 

How it will all work out will be explained in the Bookazine, with moving pictures on the DVD.  

Edited February 27, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Anglian]

Yesterday Sandra and I discussed our two different approaches to achieving our respective railways, but we both agreed that a large personal input of actual modelling was desirable by the owner (our personal points of view). She then named some garden designers (of whom, I admit I'd never heard), suggesting that they 'created' superb gardens but never personally dug a sod, planted a bush or laid a path, or any of the other things I'm told are needed to make a garden. But, she maintained (quite rightly I think) that they were still great garden designers. Can the same be applied to some model railway owners/creators? Are they great 'designers', when everything on the layout is done by others? I'm not so sure, and I go back to the vast O gauge line I mentioned some months ago. In terms of size and the peerless stock it had on it, some might well call it great, but the owner appeared to be incapable of doing any actual modelling himself. A great layout owner, I think I'd call a person in that situation. 

 

 

It's certainly interesting to consider the notion of the designer and the builder. I work as a designer and yet I don't actually print or build the things I design. I do however create digital artwork or oversee its production and I art direct photography. I feel that I rightly deserve to be called a designer because I create the concept that specialists (eg. printers and photographers) then realise for me and ultimately our client.

 

What's interesting in the context of model railways is that usually, but not always, the designer is also the client. I'd suggest that David Jenkinson was a great layout designer – for example, he designed the superlative O gauge Lonsdale as well as many layouts of his own creation. I also align your own approach, that readily acknowledges the skills others have brought to Little Bytham, to Jenks' own methodology – he was a great advocate of team work.

 

So, perhaps because design and designing is my passion and my livelihood I'd suggest that one can be a great layout designer without being a great modeller or layout builder. Perhaps what we don't acknowledge enough within our ranks is the concept of 'the layout designer' and by that I don't just mean drawing, or copying, track plans in isolation. I consider great layout design, as an activity in its own right, to be epitomised by Jenks with his gradient profiles, traffic and locomotive allocations and other railway like considerations that all embed the railway within the geography of the locale and that ultimately make it come to life.

 

Buckingham is a great example of fantastic layout design – I've read of the operators becoming so engrossed that the room fell silent save for the bell codes ringing out and the rumble of wheels on steel (or nickel silver). Only great layout design could inspire such dedicated operation. Where Buckingham really delivers is the simple fact that the designer also built it himself from raw materials. Put those two creative activities together and perhaps the design and subsequent build could even be considered a 'fine art'.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Anglian

[coachmann]

.............to Jenks' own methodology – he was a great advocate of team work.

 

 

He was indeed and as a thank you he built & painted private owner wagons with his friends names on them. When David and Geoff Holt were here, the place alternated between somber serious discussion and a Laurel & Hardy film set! Then there were moments that we kept from David like the time Geoff built 7mm steam railmotor from etchings and he told me "It nearly went through bl**** window twice..........I'm not clever enough to build kits!". 

[JeremyC]

I'm interested in your comments about operation, Jonathan.

 

The interpretation of, say, a BR timetable (public and working) and using it to compile a working sequence for a layout like Little Bytham will form a part of the forthcoming Bookazine. Right now, the sequence is still being tweaked so that it is interesting to operate, yet doesn't result in states of panic; it should be a servant, not a master. I only have siding space for 34 trains on the main line. For the Up and Down light engine movements (an N2/C12/N5 on the Up, and a Baby Deltic/Birmingham RC&W Co. Type 2 on the Down), I just lift these on/off by the yard control panel once they've run round, so that gives me 36. The very first movement is the Glasgow-Colchester, which is made up in the fiddle yard before the sequence begins (mainly vans with just a few carriages), runs round once and is immediately taken off again. This gives me 37. The number of train movements needed as a 'representation' of a typical weekday (6.00 am - 8.00 pm) on the main line in the summer of 1958 is over 80. So, over twice as many trains as I have space for. The problem is exacerbated by several trains only running once - 'The Elizabethan', the four Pullmans and the cements. Thus, many trains have to double/treble/quadruple-up, meaning there are generic Leeds sets (two each way), Newcastle sets and Edinburgh sets, plus those to Hull or York, not to mention the shorter-distance rakes. Not only that, there should be two 'Elizabethans', two 'Queens of Scots' and two 'Hearts of Midlothian' and three 'Talismans', etc. Because the Up and Down fiddle yards are not linked, I can't run the rakes both ways (though having just the one rake represent both Up and Down trains is just as much of a 'cheat' in my view). So, we have about 90 train movements but many of the sets run several times, but with different locos every time. Some of the earlier-seen Up locos, do return towards the end the sequence heading Down. One train of full minerals represents all the Up trains of this type (running three times) and there's one train of empties to do the same for the Down.

 

How it will all work out will be explained in the Bookazine, with moving pictures on the DVD.  

The Edinburgh & Lothians MRC's Newcastleton layout has a fiddleyard which can take 24 trains. The operating sequence was made up by 'cherry picking' this number of trains from a Waverley Route WTT. The idea of re-using trains within the sequence didn't occur to me, but I was trying to keep things operationally simple; I'll need to think about this idea.

 

I belong to the North Devon 'O' Gauge group.  One of our members has a very large permanent layout, which he soon realised was too big a project for one person.  So for the last few years, the rest of the group have helped on a regular basis.  We have contributed with the buildings and the scenic side.  Some of the stock is built by the owner from kits, others have been commissioned as there are not enough years in a life time for a project of this magnitude.  As a group, we are all 'doers' and each contributes what he is good at.

 

What do the rest us get out of this?  Well there is the social side, plus the opportunity for our own stock to have a good run away from our own little BLTs.

 

 

On another thread there was a discussion about model railway clubs and if they served any purposes with forums such as this existing. Surely this is what clubs can do, enable a group of people to build a larger layout than of the individual members can. Most people don't have the amount of space that TW has been able to allocate to Little Bytham. Yes I'm jealous, though in my case even if I'd had the space 42 years in the merchant navy would have probably killed building such a large layout anyway.

 

On the subject of the future of this thread, I'd be most disappointed if TW [or many others] stopped posting here, the only threads I always read are this one, the Railways of Scotland and the Waverley Route.

 

Jeremy

Edited February 27, 2015 by JeremyC