Wright writes.....

[billbedford]

Neither P4 nor 00 (nor for that matter any other small-scale model railways) NEED transition curves as the lateral forces generated by our models re infinitesimal - which is just as well when we expect them to go round model curves.

 

 

But they do tend to prevent a sudden sideways lurch when a loco enters a curve.

[johnarcher]

 

If you are a layout "repeat offender" and that takes precedence of building your own locos, stock, buildings, signals, etc. then RTR clearly provides what you want. Some of us however (and I suspect TW is one) are happy to build and develop one layout over a long period of time, taking enjoyment from building as much as we can and creating something that is special to us.

 

 

 

 

As for your last comment, I buy what I can so that I can use my time making the things I can't buy.

Maybe the first sentence above answers the second. Unless you are for some reason building a layout against a deadline why the necessity to save time on one thing in order to do another?

If you don't want to make certain things that's your choice, fine, but otherwise why not make all you reasonably can and let it take as long as it needs? (It is supposed to be a 'pastime')

To be clear I am not attacking anyone for buying things (we all buy some), or even for buying as much as possible, that just seems an odd reason for it.

Edited May 22, 2016 by johnarcher

[St Enodoc]

Maybe the first sentence above answers the second. Unless you are for some reason building a layout against a deadline why the necessity to save time on one thing in order to do another?

If you don't want to make certain things that's your choice, fine, but otherwise why not make all you reasonably can and let it take as long as it needs? (It is supposed to be a 'pastime')

To be clear I am not attacking anyone for buying things (we all buy some), or even for buying as much as possible, that just seems an odd reason for it.

John, next month I will be 60. I am still in full-time employment. I have other spare-time activities as well as model railways. I am building a large main line layout in my garage, with a focus on operation. Putting all of those things together, I don't see the value of spending time making something if I can afford to buy it. Instead I will use that time to build more baseboards, lay more track, make more points, build and motorise more signals and yes, run the trains as well.

 

I know that isn't everybody's cup of tea, but that's how I do things.

[t-b-g]

John, next month I will be 60. I am still in full-time employment. I have other spare-time activities as well as model railways. I am building a large main line layout in my garage, with a focus on operation. Putting all of those things together, I don't see the value of spending time making something if I can afford to buy it. Instead I will use that time to build more baseboards, lay more track, make more points, build and motorise more signals and yes, run the trains as well.

 

I know that isn't everybody's cup of tea, but that's how I do things.

 

There is always a trade off between available time, complexity and size of the project and how quickly somebody wants to make progress.

 

That is an entirely sensible approach and if I wanted to build a big main line layout I would probably do the same, perhaps with a view to building some locos and stock to replace or provide more variety than the RTR ones once the layout is up and running.

 

I tend to go for less ambitious layouts so that I can build more myself but that is my personal choice and if were were all alike the hobby would be much less varied and interesting.

 

If I gave the impression that I am anti RTR in any way, then I haven't expressed myself very well.

 

The thing I am against is when words like snobbery and elitism are used in connection with people who do prefer to to build items rather than purchase them. I do it because I enjoy it and find it more satisfying to me as an individual. I have no other motivation.

[Brian Kirby]

There is a fascinating parallel thread on here discussing the evolution of the hobby and how it affects what folk model. 

 

I've commented on it, and it set me thinking on why I've chosen to build (with loads of help) a model of Little Bytham as it was getting on for 60 years ago. 

 

60067 on Up express.jpg

 

By 1962, the station had been demolished for three years, but it still had plenty of interest for model-making.

 

 

Did anyone notice in the bottom right of this 1962 LB pic, the length of brand-new flat-bottomed track with concrete sleepers, maybe even with pandrol clips? This is a very early example of this kind, obviously freshly laid, witness the stack of spare sleepers on the trackside. Apart from that, where is the interest in this scene, where's the beautifully re-aligned four track formation, where's the technically interesting catenary, where are the far more frequent trains, where's Tornado?  :-))

                                                                                 Cheers, Brian (just being a bit devilish!)

[johnarcher]

John, next month I will be 60. I am still in full-time employment. I have other spare-time activities as well as model railways. I am building a large main line layout in my garage, with a focus on operation. Putting all of those things together, I don't see the value of spending time making something if I can afford to buy it. Instead I will use that time to build more baseboards, lay more track, make more points, build and motorise more signals and yes, run the trains as well.

 

I know that isn't everybody's cup of tea, but that's how I do things.

If my quoting you seemed to imply some personal criticism I apologise, but, as I said, it's a matter of choice. Maybe I shouldn't have quoted you particularly as I have seen others put this more strongly than you - suggesting that it's obviously always sensible to save time, and foolish to make what you can buy.

Saving time is not a simple necessity like that, but the consequence of choices people make - wanting to do something large in a certain time being more important to them than making as much as possible.

I'm not criticising anyone's choice - maybe it was too strong to say that someone doesn't want to make certain things, more accurate to say that the question of saving time only arises because making is not their highest priority. That is your cup of tea, that's fine, may you enjoy drinking it for many years.

Edited May 22, 2016 by johnarcher

[t-b-g]

Did anyone notice in the bottom right of this 1962 LB pic, the length of brand-new flat-bottomed track with concrete sleepers, maybe even with pandrol clips? This is a very early example of this kind, obviously freshly laid, witness the stack of spare sleepers on the trackside. Apart from that, where is the interest in this scene, where's the beautifully re-aligned four track formation, where's the technically interesting catenary, where are the far more frequent trains, where's Tornado?  :-))

                                                                                 Cheers, Brian (just being a bit devilish!)

 

Being devilish once in a while is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Big chunks of the ECML were relaid with flat bottom rail quite early and indeed, in the first photo, there is flat bottom on view bottom right.

 

I can think of one or two well known ECML layouts that should really have FB but haven't on grounds of availability or the work involved in making many yards of the stuff!

 

Mostly, nobody ever notices.......

[Clive Mortimore]

Being devilish once in a while is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Big chunks of the ECML were relaid with flat bottom rail quite early and indeed, in the first photo, there is flat bottom on view bottom right.

 

I can think of one or two well known ECML layouts that should really have FB but haven't on grounds of availability or the work involved in making many yards of the stuff!

 

Mostly, nobody ever notices.......

Hi Tony

 

I have but never brave enough to say so. The fast lines appear to have been relaid with flat bottom form about 1955 on wards. The slow lines remained bullhead well into the sixties, even the seventies in places.

 

Do you think we don't notice the track being different between the prototype and a model because we are busy worrying if the "6" on the smoke box number is the right shape.................tongue firmly in cheek. 

 

Oh to have some ready to lay wooden sleeper code 83 flat bottom track with BR1 base plates, or a Mills clip.....................one can only dream.

[Brian Kirby]

Well I really meant the early combination of flat-bottom rail with the new concrete sleepers, and quite possibly some of the first pandrol clips, which became standard from the mid-60s, perhaps a test length on the Up Slow me thinks? As many will know, 95lb. or heavier, flat-bottom rail on wooden sleepers was not uncommon on main lines in the 1950s, it all seems to have started after WW2, perhaps it was an American Transport Corps influence? The remote Talyllyn Junction in Mid-Wales had a running line f/b point laid in the early 50s. Of course lighter section f/b rail had been used for many years on industrial and light railways, plus concrete had been experimented with on bullhead track. Before the circular Pandrol clips became standard, there were all sorts of rail fastenings, other than chairs, like screw-down plate/brackets, or a three prong curved clip was quite common, as was a flat plate and spring-clip on concrete sleepers. I'm not an expert on such matters, it's just from general observation.

                                                                                 Cheers, Brian.

[Clive Mortimore]

Well I really meant the early combination of flat-bottom rail with the new concrete sleepers, and quite possibly some of the first pandrol clips, which became standard from the mid-60s, perhaps a test length on the Up Slow me thinks? As many will know, 95lb. or heavier, flat-bottom rail on wooden sleepers was not uncommon on main lines in the 1950s, it all seems to have started after WW2, perhaps it was an American Transport Corps influence? The remote Talyllyn Junction in Mid-Wales had a running line f/b point laid in the early 50s. Of course lighter section f/b rail had been used for many years on industrial and light railways, plus concrete had been experimented with on bullhead track. Before the circular Pandrol clips became standard, there were all sorts of rail fastenings, other than chairs, like screw-down plate/brackets, or a three prong curved clip was quite common, as was a flat plate and spring-clip on concrete sleepers. I'm not an expert on such matters, it's just from general observation.

                                                                                 Cheers, Brian.

Hi Brian

 

While the ECML was having flat bottom track on wooden sleepers laid on its fast lines the LMR was busy plonking down bullhead track on concrete sleepers on the branch lines it wished to close.

 

For more information on "Modern" PW matters have a read of Colin Craig's article for the Manchester Model Railway Club 

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks Clive, and thanks for the link. I hope you or the link, can explain to me which type was the BR1 and which was the "Mills" you mentioned? I was going to mention that most of the GC London Extension was re-laid with flat-bottom by the end of the 1950s.  

                                                                                                        Cheers, Brian. 

[Tony Wright]

Being devilish once in a while is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

Big chunks of the ECML were relaid with flat bottom rail quite early and indeed, in the first photo, there is flat bottom on view bottom right.

 

I can think of one or two well known ECML layouts that should really have FB but haven't on grounds of availability or the work involved in making many yards of the stuff!

 

Mostly, nobody ever notices.......

Tony,

 

I've posted before that LB should have FB rail on the fast lines, but, since there was no commercially-available, accurate FB flexible track, Norman stuck with his usual SMP for the plain track and C&L components for the pointwork. On Stoke Summit and Charwelton, we made the FB rail as appropriate, using EMGS components, just set to 16.5mm gauge. I live with the fact that the bullhead rail is wrong, as I live with the fact that the gauge is too narrow. What I cannot live with is poor running. Today, the running was (almost) perfect when two friends came to operate the railway. Irritatingly, a feed has failed (hence the 'almost'), but since this is in a siding it doesn't impact too much. It'll be fixed tomorrow. 

[Tony Wright]

Did anyone notice in the bottom right of this 1962 LB pic, the length of brand-new flat-bottomed track with concrete sleepers, maybe even with pandrol clips? This is a very early example of this kind, obviously freshly laid, witness the stack of spare sleepers on the trackside. Apart from that, where is the interest in this scene, where's the beautifully re-aligned four track formation, where's the technically interesting catenary, where are the far more frequent trains, where's Tornado?  :-))

                                                                                 Cheers, Brian (just being a bit devilish!)

Being equally Devilish, may I respectfully suggest a visit to the opticians? Then you'll be able to find the interest in the 1962 pic'; like the Gresley car as the first vehicle in the train, the A3 with German blinkers, the complex trackwork, the semaphore signalling, the lineside structures, the girder bridge in the distance and so on. Need I mention more? 

[Brian Kirby]

Hi Brian

 

While the ECML was having flat bottom track on wooden sleepers laid on its fast lines the LMR was busy plonking down bullhead track on concrete sleepers on the branch lines it wished to close.

 

For more information on "Modern" PW matters have a read of Colin Craig's article for the Manchester Model Railway Club 

Hey, I've just been reading everything on this linked website, it's brilliant. It's even got the F19/SHC clips that I saw so much on the 1970s WR, plus plenty more stuff that i've never even heard of. Thanks again Clive.

                                                                         Cheers, Brian.

[Brian Kirby]

Being equally Devilish, may I respectfully suggest a visit to the opticians? Then you'll be able to find the interest in the 1962 pic'; like the Gresley car as the first vehicle in the train, the A3 with German blinkers, the complex trackwork, the semaphore signalling, the lineside structures, the girder bridge in the distance and so on. Need I mention more? 

Only teasing Tony, of course the fully appointed station was the more interesting, or even after the platforms went. Yes, in those days virtually every train would be different from the last, plus the vegetation would be kept more in check. Incidentally, did you take a pic of my DJH Black 5s and 8F running part of your service, last Tuesday?

                                                                           Cheers, Brian.

[Clive Mortimore]

Tony,

 

I've posted before that LB should have FB rail on the fast lines, but, since there was no commercially-available, accurate FB flexible track, Norman stuck with his usual SMP for the plain track and C&L components for the pointwork. On Stoke Summit and Charwelton, we made the FB rail as appropriate, using EMGS components, just set to 16.5mm gauge. I live with the fact that the bullhead rail is wrong, as I live with the fact that the gauge is too narrow. What I cannot live with is poor running. Today, the running was (almost) perfect when two friends came to operate the railway. Irritatingly, a feed has failed (hence the 'almost'), but since this is in a siding it doesn't impact too much. It'll be fixed tomorrow. 

Hi Tony

 

How about Colin Craig's track components?

[t-b-g]

Tony,

 

I've posted before that LB should have FB rail on the fast lines, but, since there was no commercially-available, accurate FB flexible track, Norman stuck with his usual SMP for the plain track and C&L components for the pointwork. On Stoke Summit and Charwelton, we made the FB rail as appropriate, using EMGS components, just set to 16.5mm gauge. I live with the fact that the bullhead rail is wrong, as I live with the fact that the gauge is too narrow. What I cannot live with is poor running. Today, the running was (almost) perfect when two friends came to operate the railway. Irritatingly, a feed has failed (hence the 'almost'), but since this is in a siding it doesn't impact too much. It'll be fixed tomorrow. 

 

I recall that we have touched on the subject before and I fully understand and agree with the reasoning behind the choice. I only raised it because the FB track was mentioned in connection with the later photo but not the earlier one. 

 

You are not alone in your selection either. I have seen several layouts (including Gamston Bank and Retford) which should probably by FB on the main lines in the period modelled.

 

Again, a trade off in terms of time, work involved, cost and priorities.

 

Tony G

[St Enodoc]

If my quoting you seemed to imply some personal criticism I apologise, but, as I said, it's a matter of choice. Maybe I shouldn't have quoted you particularly as I have seen others put this more strongly than you - suggesting that it's obviously always sensible to save time, and foolish to make what you can buy.

Saving time is not a simple necessity like that, but the consequence of choices people make - wanting to do something large in a certain time being more important to them than making as much as possible.

I'm not criticising anyone's choice - maybe it was too strong to say that someone doesn't want to make certain things, more accurate to say that the question of saving time only arises because making is not their highest priority. That is your cup of tea, that's fine, may you enjoy drinking it for many years.

No offence taken, John, and I do realise that you were just using my comments to illustrate a general point. My own point was simply that we all have our reasons for doing things the way we do and in my view they are all equally valid.

 

As CJF often said, railway modelling is fun!

[billbedford]

If a 'younger' generation was presented with high-quality resin carriage kits of 'more modern' prototypes, perhaps they might be encouraged to carry on the hobby. What might be meant by 'more modern' is a moot point. 

 

 

Kits can be had for contemporary stock, though not necessarily the all the latest units, from the likes of Bratchell, DC kits and Britannia Pacific Models. However judging by the number of hits in searches they don't seem to have a great following on RMWeb. All three companies make some sort of provision for applying modern multi-coloured liveries, which may, or may not, say something about the level of skills required to produce well finished model of modern stock.

[jrg1]

Kits can be had for contemporary stock, though not necessarily the all the latest units, from the likes of Bratchell, DC kits and Britannia Pacific Models. However judging by the number of hits in searches they don't seem to have a great following on RMWeb. All three companies make some sort of provision for applying modern multi-coloured liveries, which may, or may not, say something about the level of skills required to produce well finished model of modern stock.

Perhaps simple knocked down plastic kits or part built models might attract beginners?  I am thinking of Dapol's LMS carriage kits, and something on the lines of the Peco Wonderful Wagon kits.  Ready painted, assembled bogies or chassis, and like resin road vehicle kits, mix and match.  Any thoughts on this? 

[Tony Wright]

Only teasing Tony, of course the fully appointed station was the more interesting, or even after the platforms went. Yes, in those days virtually every train would be different from the last, plus the vegetation would be kept more in check. Incidentally, did you take a pic of my DJH Black 5s and 8F running part of your service, last Tuesday?

                                                                           Cheers, Brian.

Sorry Brian,

 

I neglected to take pictures of the other locos. Please bring them on your next visit. 

[billbedford]

Perhaps simple knocked down plastic kits or part built models might attract beginners?  I am thinking of Dapol's LMS carriage kits, and something on the lines of the Peco Wonderful Wagon kits.  Ready painted, assembled bogies or chassis, and like resin road vehicle kits, mix and match.  Any thoughts on this? 

 

All the quoted kits are injection moulded plastic. The reason Dapol and Peco can sell their kits cheaply is that the moulds are old and and have been paid for many times over. The problem is the volume of models that can be sold, so costing new moulds would bring the prices up to around those of present RTR models.

[jrg1]

All the quoted kits are injection moulded plastic. The reason Dapol and Peco can sell their kits cheaply is that the moulds are old and and have been paid for many times over. The problem is the volume of models that can be sold, so costing new moulds would bring the prices up to around those of present RTR models.

I was thinking along the lines of part-built kits, rather than entirely new products-difficult bits already done 

[Brian Kirby]

Perhaps simple knocked down plastic kits or part built models might attract beginners?  I am thinking of Dapol's LMS carriage kits, and something on the lines of the Peco Wonderful Wagon kits.  Ready painted, assembled bogies or chassis, and like resin road vehicle kits, mix and match.  Any thoughts on this? 

 

Well I got jumped on by a group of RMwebbers six months ago, on another thread, when I dared to suggest the re-introduction of CKD (Complete-Knock-Down) kit versions of locos and stock, from the main manufacturers (besides Dapol coaches). Some even went as far as saying, that "it ain't ever gonna happen",as if they dictated other companies policies? My idea was that a CKD loco could be a halfway-house or stepping stone for the novice, towards more advanced full kit construction. This could also assist the manufacturers, by giving a lease of life to a poor selling or retired part of their range.  They might even sell at a cheaper price, since there would be less manual assembly cost in the factory? I'm putting my tin hat on, ready for all the incoming flak, whilst I sit in my concrete bunker.

                                                                                 Cheers, Brian. 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Brian Kirby

[micklner]

Well I got jumped on by a group of RMwebbers six months ago, on another thread, when I dared to suggest the re-introduction of CKD (Complete-Knock-Down) kit versions of locos and stock, from the main manufacturers (besides Dapol coaches). Some even went as far as saying, that "it ain't ever gonna happen",as if they dictated other companies policies? My idea was that a CKD loco could be a halfway-house or stepping stone for the novice, towards more advanced full kit construction. This could also assist the manufacturers, by giving a lease of life to a poor selling or retired part of their range.  They might even sell at a cheaper price, since there would be less manual assembly cost in the factory? I'm putting my tin hat on, ready for all the incoming flak, whilst I sit in my concrete bunker.

                                                                                 Cheers, Brian. 

 

I have also suggested similar , Bachamann blame labour costs for the increases , this is a obvious way of reducing costs. They would probably say it costs just as much to put the bits into a box !!