Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Tony, modeller's licence (or Rule 1) is what keeps us all going I suspect.

 

The Flying Scotsman would look very nice with the "winged thistle" headboard. Precision Labels make one: http://www.precisionlabels.com/l40d.html (usual disclaimer).

Good morning John,

 

I've got the winged thistle, but it really is too late. I took a picture of the Flying Scotsman at Retford in 1965 (when was it first carried?), hauled by D9004 QUEEN'S OWN HIGHLANDER, but, by then the MR/M&GNR overbridge at Little Bytham had been demolished (March 1965). Not only that, the Thompson car with the ladies' retiring room was out of the formation by then. It's in mine.

 

Modeller's licence (or modellers' if we take the situation collectively) is a wonderful 'excuse' for running what we like. Taken to extremes, it's just plain daft; I saw a very nice layout of Lincoln Central last year and running on it was a blue Class 20 hauling a rake of shiny, new Private Owner coal wagons. One of the operators overheard my comment to a friend and said the guy who owns them likes to run them. Democracy in action, I suppose. I thought it destroyed any suspension of disbelief entirely.

 

What, I hope, I've always tried to do with regard to what's run on the railways I've been involved with is to keep a sense of credibility. I'm not fundamentalist enough to insist that only the trains and the locomotives which hauled them on a single, particular date should be run, in exactly the right order and so on. For instance, and as is probably well known, my modelling is entirely self-indulgent. When I started trainspotting on the ECML, the W1 was still in existence. When I finished, the production Deltics had appeared. Yet, the former was withdrawn in April 1959 and the first EE Type 5s began revenue-earning service early in 1961. Despite this, both could be seen running on Stoke Summit, as they can be seen running on Little Bytham. That said, and as Andrew Teale quite rightly states 'the right locomotive on the right train', I think that's acceptable. For instance, if a Deltic were put on a Pullman train, it would always be the Tees-Tyne Pullman, because that had Mk.1 Pullmans in its consist. It would not be put on the Queen of Scots because that was made up entirely of traditional cars.

 

Layouts like Tebay used to provide a sort of 'history' of what one might have seen during the BR steam period, starting in 1948 and finishing with the diesels in squadron service. The important thing there is that the infrastructure remained the same. On Stoke Summit, we used to run a diesel period representing the decade between 1966 and 1975; the infrastructure remained the same as well, so nothing was anomalous - green Deltics on all-maroon rakes and maroon/blue grey rakes (the latter locos with full yellow ends) and blue Deltics on mixed rakes and blue/grey stock, including Mk.2 Ds (the latter locos numbered under TOPS).

 

David Jenkinson used to run 'funny trains', way out of period and location for his Kendal Branch. Why? Why not? Especially as he'd built them.

 

Roy Jackson on Retford has a couple of P2s in BR green which escaped Thompson's rebuilding of them into A2/2s (one even escaped rebuilding into a streamlined P2). So, why not, again? Again, they've been built/modified by members of the group.

 

Above all, whatever one runs, it's important (at least to me) that whatever it is, be it modified RTR, kit-built or scratch-built, it has to have some personal modelling in it. Like you do.  

[St Enodoc]

Good morning John,

 

I've got the winged thistle, but it really is too late. I took a picture of the Flying Scotsman at Retford in 1965 (when was it first carried?), hauled by D9004 QUEEN'S OWN HIGHLANDER, but, by then the MR/M&GNR overbridge at Little Bytham had been demolished (March 1965). Not only that, the Thompson car with the ladies' retiring room was out of the formation by then. It's in mine.

 

Modeller's licence (or modellers' if we take the situation collectively) is a wonderful 'excuse' for running what we like. Taken to extremes, it's just plain daft; I saw a very nice layout of Lincoln Central last year and running on it was a blue Class 20 hauling a rake of shiny, new Private Owner coal wagons. One of the operators overheard my comment to a friend and said the guy who owns them likes to run them. Democracy in action, I suppose. I thought it destroyed any suspension of disbelief entirely.

 

What, I hope, I've always tried to do with regard to what's run on the railways I've been involved with is to keep a sense of credibility. I'm not fundamentalist enough to insist that only the trains and the locomotives which hauled them on a single, particular date should be run, in exactly the right order and so on. For instance, and as is probably well known, my modelling is entirely self-indulgent. When I started trainspotting on the ECML, the W1 was still in existence. When I finished, the production Deltics had appeared. Yet, the former was withdrawn in April 1959 and the first EE Type 5s began revenue-earning service early in 1961. Despite this, both could be seen running on Stoke Summit, as they can be seen running on Little Bytham. That said, and as Andrew Teale quite rightly states 'the right locomotive on the right train', I think that's acceptable. For instance, if a Deltic were put on a Pullman train, it would always be the Tees-Tyne Pullman, because that had Mk.1 Pullmans in its consist. It would not be put on the Queen of Scots because that was made up entirely of traditional cars.

 

Layouts like Tebay used to provide a sort of 'history' of what one might have seen during the BR steam period, starting in 1948 and finishing with the diesels in squadron service. The important thing there is that the infrastructure remained the same. On Stoke Summit, we used to run a diesel period representing the decade between 1966 and 1975; the infrastructure remained the same as well, so nothing was anomalous - green Deltics on all-maroon rakes and maroon/blue grey rakes (the latter locos with full yellow ends) and blue Deltics on mixed rakes and blue/grey stock, including Mk.2 Ds (the latter locos numbered under TOPS).

 

David Jenkinson used to run 'funny trains', way out of period and location for his Kendal Branch. Why? Why not? Especially as he'd built them.

 

Roy Jackson on Retford has a couple of P2s in BR green which escaped Thompson's rebuilding of them into A2/2s (one even escaped rebuilding into a streamlined P2). So, why not, again? Again, they've been built/modified by members of the group.

 

Above all, whatever one runs, it's important (at least to me) that whatever it is, be it modified RTR, kit-built or scratch-built, it has to have some personal modelling in it. Like you do.  

Thanks Tony. You're right, we all set our own rules (or guidelines if you prefer) and they are all different. Gilbert, for example, sticks firmly to 1958 on Peterborough North as we know. My rule on the Mid-Cornwall Lines is that the time frame spans the 1950s - 1/1/50 to 31/12/59 I suppose - so I have locos ranging from a Britannia (which left the South West in the very early 1950s), through a Star (withdrawn 1952) right up to the B-B Warships (introduced in 1958) and the NBL Type 2s (introduced 1959). I try to avoid major anachronisms such as running the Star on the BR TPOs, but generally it all fits together nicely within my rule.

 

I do also have some "funny trains" which are connected with my work on the Big Railway, such as an Edinburgh-Glasgow push-pull set, an HST and a 2-BIL (not to mention a NSW Class 620/720 railmotor...) but they won't (normally) be seen when we are running the sequence.

 

Speaking of funny trains and Roy Jackson, whatever happened to the Rat?

[Tony Wright]

Thanks Tony. You're right, we all set our own rules (or guidelines if you prefer) and they are all different. Gilbert, for example, sticks firmly to 1958 on Peterborough North as we know. My rule on the Mid-Cornwall Lines is that the time frame spans the 1950s - 1/1/50 to 31/12/59 I suppose - so I have locos ranging from a Britannia (which left the South West in the very early 1950s), through a Star (withdrawn 1952) right up to the B-B Warships (introduced in 1958) and the NBL Type 2s (introduced 1959). I try to avoid major anachronisms such as running the Star on the BR TPOs, but generally it all fits together nicely within my rule.

 

I do also have some "funny trains" which are connected with my work on the Big Railway, such as an Edinburgh-Glasgow push-pull set, an HST and a 2-BIL (not to mention a NSW Class 620/720 railmotor...) but they won't (normally) be seen when we are running the sequence.

 

Speaking of funny trains and Roy Jackson, whatever happened to the Rat?

The Rat, or Rastus as he's known, still runs on Retford from time to time.

[t-b-g]

Regarding building locos from plastic I have tried it myself quite a few years ago and although it worked and looked reasonable, it didn't quite have the finesse of a metal loco as the materials used had to be thicker than scale to have any strength at all. On some parts, this doesn't matter but when it comes to cab side sheets and footsteps, it was enough to bother me.

 

There is one plastic loco running on Buckingham as Peter Denny built a 4-4-2T to try the new material out. The loco has to be 50 plus years old and is as structurally sound as the day it was built but I really don't want to find out the hard way that the material has gone brittle, like other old plasticard models I have seen. Some of the older plastic carriages only need a touch and thinner parts like window pillars snap.

 

On Buckingham, the date is set at 1907 and as far as I know, everything that runs on the layout is in a condition that it could have been in at that date. For my own modelling, I have a bit of a less restrictive view. I like the early GCR carriage livery of brown & cream but I also like some of the later locos, such as "Valour", which were built long after the livery changed to teak/brown.

 

I am quite happy to use Tony Ws notion that as long as the railway infrastructure hasn't altered drastically (although things like road vehicles and civilian fashions may give things away) then as long as a loco is hauling appropriate carriages and doesn't appear on the layout at the same time as another train that could not have existed alongside it, then I will live with it!

 

I just need to build them all now.

 

Tony G 

[coachmann]

I blame Bachmann for my lapses! If the GWR 43xx and 'Manor' had been updated with with modern DCC friendly chassis, then my take on Oswestry would be a correct blue route. But once the decision was taken to make it a red route to run Grange, Hall, Star and ROD classes, it was but a small step for mankind to sneak in a double-red King. I didn't even wait for the funny hour! 

Edited July 13, 2016 by coachmann

[polybear]

I blame Bachmann for my lapses!

Does the purchase of a RTR Loco rate as a sin?

I can see it now...a new "Confessions" thread.   "Forgive me Tony, for I have sinned...."

"Build two loco kits my son, and thou shalt be forgiven......"

[Brian Kirby]

I've just complete the Deltic Bookazine for Irwell Press (to be published just prior to Christmas). Right at the end, I've included some model pictures; which, I hope, will prove of interest. 

 

162 D9021 on Down FS.jpg

 

Pictures like this of D9021 taking the Down 'Flying Scotsman' underneath Marsh Bridge on LB. 

 

163 D9003 on Up FS.jpg

 

Or D9003 on the Up train. 

 

164 D9010 and D9015.jpg

 

D9010 and D9015 pass at Little Bytham's south end.

 

165 D9011 0n Up QoS.jpg

 

And D9011 takes the southbound 'Queen of Scots' underneath the MR/M&GNR overbridge.

 

All the locos are modified/renumbered/renamed/weathered Bachmann items; the work of my elder son, Tom. It's a pity he spends his spare time now restoring classic cars, for he's a most-accomplished railway modeller. Strictly speaking, no production Deltics should run through LB, because the station was demolished two years before they appeared. Modeller's licence? 

Very nice, but there's a bit of a yawning gap between the Bachmann Deltic bodies and their bogies, have you not lowered the bodies yet? It's a straightforward job, that just requires removal of a mazak rib, within the bogie pivots, which lowers the body about 1mm or so, and thus also corrects the buffer height. Time required? - About five minutes each end.

                                                                                                                                 Cheers, Brian.  ( I can feel a tetchy response coming on!   :-))  ) 

[Headstock]

My own take on this is an interest in railways and their operation as a historical entity, something to be learned about. Something that should not be lost in the mists of time. The approach of the right locomotive on the right train and I would add the right location reflects this.

As a result, I am far more interested in layouts of real locations as everything else is built on that foundation. As far as time span my own interest would be to keep to a particular year or two. However, compromise is required when working with a team of people, LSGC spans a time period of 1948-1963. This has allowed me to build trains in the earlier time period but also ensure that the layout reflects the whole of this period. Tebay also followed the same plan but was less successful then LSGC. Left to their own devices people were likely to  gravitate to a period in that time span governed by nostalgia rather than a historical representation. As a result, most of the trains were of the late 1950s early 1960s time period.

 

As I am not old enough to remember the real steam railway, nostalgia is not as strong a driving force in my modeling, nor for that matter is playing trains. As time passes and fewer people remember the real steam railway, I feel that a more historical and research orientated approach should be encouraged. I feel this is the right way forward in ensuring a healthy future for actual modeling rather than plonking in the hobby. My own trains are as far as possible copies of the actual trains that ran on the real railway, there are some compromises, it is almost impossible to find photographs of trains that ran at one o clock in the morning. In this case, a certain amount of extrapolation has to be made from historical documentation. Real trains have to be built, they can not be bought off the shelf. The more interest that can be generated in modeling the real railway should ensure a brighter future for kit and scratch building. The two things are intrinsically linked in my opinion if modeling is in decline then so is an interest in the historical aspects of the real railway. What we are left with is playing trains, that's ok but it doesn't need the kind of modeling that is perceived as under threat.

[t-b-g]

I know that a number of people have the recreation of a real location as a cornerstone of their hobby but I have never felt that way. Most of my layouts have had to be built in a restricted space and the number of real places that could be properly represented in that space, without severe compromise and with enough operational interest to make it seem a worthwhile project and which cover prototypes that would interest me is nil.

 

The only one that has been reasonably close to a real place was "Tickhill & Wadworth" but I found the restrictions on what ran there in real life meant that it could never keep me interested as a layout for operation at home. A couple of days at a show two or three times a year was enough. Even that had visible tight curves and restrictions on train lengths that many would not be happy with.

 

So I take real buildings and scenes and create a "might have been" or suchlike to fit the available space, giving thought to possible train moves and operation in the design of the track plan, which should be done with regard for prototype practice.

 

I have had the pleasure of operating a great many layouts over the years and all the ones that I have found interesting to operate, with enough variety in locos, stock and types of movements taking place, have all been based on fictitious locations.

 

To me, good and interesting operation is not about whether a particular carriage was in that actual train formation with that actual loco on a particular day. It is more a case of what platform does it come in on? Does it terminate or go through? Is the pilot loco in position to remove the van from the rear? Is the track to the turntable free and is there another loco available ready to take the train out again?

 

Having said that, I would never suggest for one moment that everybody should feel the same way as me or that other types of layout and operation are not satisfying to others.

[Headstock]

 

Having said that, I would never suggest for one moment that everybody should feel the same way as me or that other types of layout and operation are not satisfying to others.

 

Agreed.

[Mallard60022]

I know that a number of people have the recreation of a real location as a cornerstone of their hobby but I have never felt that way. Most of my layouts have had to be built in a restricted space and the number of real places that could be properly represented in that space, without severe compromise and with enough operational interest to make it seem a worthwhile project and which cover prototypes that would interest me is nil.

 

The only one that has been reasonably close to a real place was "Tickhill & Wadworth" but I found the restrictions on what ran there in real life meant that it could never keep me interested as a layout for operation at home. A couple of days at a show two or three times a year was enough. Even that had visible tight curves and restrictions on train lengths that many would not be happy with.

 

So I take real buildings and scenes and create a "might have been" or suchlike to fit the available space, giving thought to possible train moves and operation in the design of the track plan, which should be done with regard for prototype practice.

 

I have had the pleasure of operating a great many layouts over the years and all the ones that I have found interesting to operate, with enough variety in locos, stock and types of movements taking place, have all been based on fictitious locations.

 

To me, good and interesting operation is not about whether a particular carriage was in that actual train formation with that actual loco on a particular day. It is more a case of what platform does it come in on? Does it terminate or go through? Is the pilot loco in position to remove the van from the rear? Is the track to the turntable free and is there another loco available ready to take the train out again?

 

Having said that, I would never suggest for one moment that everybody should feel the same way as me or that other types of layout and operation are not satisfying to others.

Tickhill and Wadworth was (is) a very tidy little layout. However, it was probably a very quiet layout variety wise.

Phil

[Headstock]

To me, good and interesting operation is not about whether a particular carriage was in that actual train formation with that actual loco on a particular day. It is more a case of what platform does it come in on? Does it terminate or go through? Is the pilot loco in position to remove the van from the rear? Is the track to the turntable free and is there another loco available ready to take the train out again?

 

 

 

I don't see our views as being mutually exclusive, putting the correct stock or locomotives in place just enhances all the operational interest you mention. The stores van I have recently completed was added to the front of the 5.22 pm ordinary passenger train off Leicester Central bound for Woodford. The pilot locomotive was almost exclusively a B1 for the simple reason that it could take over any train in case of failure. The actual train locomotive was an ex GWR Hall class locomotive that had worked into Leicester on the northbound Newcastle York Bournemouth. I can't fault anything you say but perhaps add an extra layer of interest to operation.

[Tony Wright]

Some really interesting comments - many thanks to all. 

 

I must have mentioned this before, but my take on modelling an actual prototype is that I find it easier. For instance, how many points/crossings should be present on LB, or how many signals were there and how tall were they and where were they positioned, how long were the platforms, how big was the goods shed, how many sidings were there and how long were they, and so on and so on? The fact that it might be boring to operate, in comparison to fictitious locations, is really irrelevant to me (a personal view) because I'm not really a railway operator. I was a railway watcher, taking no part in how the real railways were run (apart from pulling off the boards in Kiveton Park 'box for the passage of 9F-hauled fish train). My layout allows me to wind up a Pacific with a full load on and watch it race by at high speed; just like I saw as a trainspotter.

 

It's probably the case that many multi-operational prototype-based layouts take up too much space, and to try and squeeze too much in with too much compression spoils the overall effect and/or compromises the running. I will tolerate neither of those.

 

Whatever the reasons are for personal choice, what is clear is that those posting are real modellers - the actual makers of things, whether it be whole layouts, trackwork, signals, locos, trains, etc. This to me is paramount, and always will be. I admit, by choosing a 'large' specific prototype, the only way I can recreate it with any degree of accuracy or standard is by having a considerable amount of help (a lot of of it achieved by horse-trading, admittedly). That said, if I were not able to do a considerable amount of the actual modelling myself, then I'd try another hobby. To me, there would be no point otherwise. That's why today I've been painting three carriages I've made and tidying up a pair of John Houlden's locos to be sold on (glazing them, fitting lamps and adding crews, etc). I've also started adding the point rodding stools and fashioning up the dozens of bell-cranks.   

Edited July 13, 2016 by Tony Wright

[t-b-g]

I don't see our views as being mutually exclusive, putting the correct stock or locomotives in place just enhances all the operational interest you mention. The stores van I have recently completed was added to the front of the 5.22 pm ordinary passenger train off Leicester Central bound for Woodford. The pilot locomotive was almost exclusively a B1 for the simple reason that it could take over any train in case of failure. The actual train locomotive was an ex GWR Hall class locomotive that had worked into Leicester on the northbound Newcastle York Bournemouth. I can't fault anything you say but perhaps add an extra layer of interest to operation.

 

To me, the interesting part of the operation would be bringing the train into the platform, detaching the loco and drawing it forward, having the van attached by the pilot and then either re-attaching the train loco or possibly replacing it with a different one.

 

Leicester Central was one of the few places that does tick most of the boxes for me as a prototype location but even then it would need to be as long as Little Bytham plus a bit more to get some curves round, 6ft wide and yet has virtually no goods facilities at the station.

 

I did start designing an EM layout a few years ago but it was too ambitious in terms of space and scope. It would only ever have been operated at exhibitions and now that I have a layout that is great fun to operate set up at home, I prefer to work on that rather than layouts that will only ever work maybe a dozen times.  

[Headstock]

There was a large parcels depot at the station. However as you mention large is not for everyone, nor should it be. Our original intention was to model the station partly because of the number of trains that changed locomotives there and the amount of traffic added to or removed from trains. The overall roof rather obscured operations so a decision was made to move a few hundred yards south to a location that included the goods yard with its loop lines, carriage cleaning sheds, loco shed and of course the mainline.

 

Operating the layout is not for the timid. Like Tony, being an operator is not a driving force for me even though I wrote the sequence used at exhibitions. My main concern with the sequence was to make it entertaining for the public without too much compromise in prototypical operation. A large part of the running relies on the operators using their noggin when presented with series on the fly but prototypical operations that would happen in a typical day. Pick up goods arrive and depart the yards but they are not just generic trains performing  operations they reflect the traffic that was worked through the area.

 

In researching the layout you get to hear some great stories from the real railway men and then incorporate them into the operation. Some of those people have now passed on but their stories have not died with them. We had an 84-year-old gent who was teary-eyed when he came to see the layout because we had made such an effort to capture what for him was an everyday life long since swept out of existence. He asked if we had 60836 (we have) he recalled a run up from Marylebone on the newspaper train to Nottingham Vic, only four minutes to detach a BG at Leicester, 'Best engine we had'.

[t-b-g]

There was a large parcels depot at the station. However as you mention large is not for everyone, nor should it be. Our original intention was to model the station partly because of the number of trains that changed locomotives there and the amount of traffic added to or removed from trains. The overall roof rather obscured operations so a decision was made to move a few hundred yards south to a location that included the goods yard with its loop lines, carriage cleaning sheds, loco shed and of course the mainline.

 

Operating the layout is not for the timid. Like Tony, being an operator is not a driving force for me even though I wrote the sequence used at exhibitions. My main concern with the sequence was to make it entertaining for the public without too much compromise in prototypical operation. A large part of the running relies on the operators using their noggin when presented with series on the fly but prototypical operations that would happen in a typical day. Pick up goods arrive and depart the yards but they are not just generic trains performing  operations they reflect the traffic that was worked through the area.

 

In researching the layout you get to hear some great stories from the real railway men and then incorporate them into the operation. Some of those people have now passed on but their stories have not died with them. We had an 84-year-old gent who was teary-eyed when he came to see the layout because we had made such an effort to capture what for him was an everyday life long since swept out of existence. He asked if we had 60836 (we have) he recalled a run up from Marylebone on the newspaper train to Nottingham Vic, only four minutes to detach a BG at Leicester, 'Best engine we had'.

 

Out of interest, would you say that Leicester South ever gets operated between exhibitions apart from for testing and operator training? Or is it more of an exhibition layout, designed to have a good amount of "action" for viewers? 

Edited July 13, 2016 by t-b-g

[johnarcher]

Reading the above interesting ideas I do feel grateful that, having so little space, I am quite happy with a deeply rustic branch that would be a bit over-equipped with two locomotives. (Not that concerned with complex operation I suppose)

Even in that case it is difficult to think of modelling a real place (look at the size of Chris Lamacraft's nearly to scale Hemyock), especially as, for me, place must include a lot more than just station - landscape, some town or village too. I think Culmstock is about the only real possibility I've considered, (small station, attractive buildings very nearby which could also be included in a reasonable space).

 

However I think one can be just as historical/authentic to an area as to a single location, taking features from similar lines/locations in one area so all is consistent but one has a bit more freedom to adapt to limited space. I am looking at the 'lighter' GW branches up the Welsh border (from Golden Valley to Tanat Valley), I hope a believable fictional location could emerge with track layout (and signalling, for some of them did indulge in such luxuries) from one place, buildings from others, landscape of the area, stock is pretty consistent across those lines and so on.

Edited July 13, 2016 by johnarcher

[Headstock]

The layout was operated by anybody who wanted to run on it because it was always up in the club rooms. However, it was dismantled before Christmas to make way for a new layout. Unfortunately, the Club rooms were then subject to the boxing day floods that wrecked the ground floor of the building. It was only last week that the club was granted official access to the building for the first time. It has been out on exhibition in that time, a difficult extraction from a building in complete darkness. Condensation damage to track and cork of the fiddle yard exit base boards was quite bad but was successfully patched for that the exhibition. A rebuild is currently underway before the layouts next exhibition in August. fortunately, the scenic area was stacked away and not damaged. The plan is to reassemble the whole layout in the club for the first time in a week or too for a full test run. After the exhibition, the layout will go back into storage as space is a premium in what was and should be again a thriving club. With hindsight, the fact that it was packed away probably saved it from critical damage as the building was running with condensation after the floods.

[Tony Wright]

Returning to how odd that Millholme A2/3 looked (my responsibility, I built it), I thought I'd better try and see what non-Millholme A2/3s might look like in the same location.

 

 

A Graeme King/Bachmann conversion looks the part I hope.

 

 

As does a DJH one.

 

Graeme did the conversion himself, which I patch-painted and weathered and I built the DJH example, which Ian Rathbone painted. Collective modelling, where different folk contribute. It works for me. 

 

Finally, to close on why I choose to always model a prototype - the positioning of all the elements in these shots was already done for me. It's so much easier. Honestly. 

[Headstock]

Am I allowed to say that the A2/3 was quite a good looking locomotive, and I ain't getting my coat. I always ponder the best way to deal with the front frames in 00, whether to stick them out or leave them in.

[westerner]

I do like big odd/ugly locos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited July 13, 2016 by westerner

[jrg1]

Interesting to read of what is desirable for operation.  T-b-g mentioned Leicester Central, but the space required makes it difficult.   For interesting operation, a location such as Firsby could be a consideration.  East Lincolnshire Main line, passenger, fish, steel, ore and local traffic, plus the Spilsby and Skegness branches with local goods, passenger and summer excursions.  The timetabled passenger trains ran into the station and then reversed for Skegness; Spilsby appeared to be a shuttle service plus goods as required.

Another location is Bourne.  A four way junction, engine shed, and numerous cross-country workings.

For simply watching the trains go by, Honington Junction or perhaps preferably Saxondale Junction would make an interesting diorama.  Situated on an embankment, with one signal box and two bridges all that is required although there is plenty of trackwork.  I remember travelling to Nottingham one year, and our car going under two railway bridges, and the following year going under one-the other route had been obliterated.

All in and around Lincolnshire-somewhat overlooked in my opinion, and just receiving the attention it deserves with LB.

[Flood]

Back in the mists of time, post 9668, I gave the prices I was willing to pay for a number of steam locos to be built for me.

 

Having already posted a photo of the H15, post 9925, I am now following up with a photo of the A2/2 made for me by Tim Easter. Tony, you did state at the time that people should have a go themselves rather than saying that they can't do something and you are absolutely correct. With a bit of thought I could have done the Bachmann/Graeme King conversion but I still don't think I would have made as good a job as Tim has.

 

Over the last two weeks of ownership the loco had a mild disaster when the return rod caught on the return crank and bent itself to about 30 degrees. I have managed to straighten the return rod and ensure it now doesn't catch (the Bachmann return crank is slightly faulty) but wore off some small sections of Tim's Mig powder weathering. Therefore I have had to learn about the subtleties of steam loco weathering as well. Although she started off as a "cheque book model" my A2/2 has turned out to be good modelling experience for my ever developing skills. Who knows, if I ever want an A2/3 I may well have a go myself.

 

Anyway, to the photos. Some may not like the work-worn condition of the loco. The cylinders, in particular, have had extra limescale (if that is what it is) added by myself. I don't think it is too over the top and I've attached a link to the original photo so others can compare.

 

I know that most LNER followers do not like the P2 rebuilds but I hope the model purveys the essence of the original.

 

 

 

 

Plus, the original photo.

 

By the way, the Gresley brake second is Comet sides on a Hornby shell with a Comet chassis and is all my own work.

 

Graham H

Edited April 5, 2022 by Flood

[Headstock]

Back in the mists of time, post 9668, I gave the prices I was willing to pay for a number of steam locos to be built for me.

 

Having already posted a photo of the H15, post 9925, I am now following up with a photo of the A2/2 made for me by Tim Easter. Tony, you did state at the time that people should have a go themselves rather than saying that they can't do something and you are absolutely correct. With a bit of thought I could have done the Bachmann/Graeme King conversion but I still don't think I would have made as good a job as Tim has.

 

Over the last two weeks of ownership the loco had a mild disaster when the return rod caught on the return crank and bent itself to about 30 degrees. I have managed to straighten the return rod and ensure it now doesn't catch (the Bachmann return crank is slightly faulty) but wore off some small sections of Tim's Mig powder weathering. Therefore I have had to learn about the subtleties of steam loco weathering as well. Although she started off as a "cheque book model" my A2/2 has turned out to be good modelling experience for my ever developing skills. Who knows, if I ever want an A2/3 I may well have a go myself.

 

Anyway, to the photos. Some may not like the work-worn condition of the loco. The cylinders, in particular, have had extra limescale (if that is what it is) added by myself. I don't think it is too over the top and I've attached a link to the original photo so others can compare.

 

I know that most LNER followers do not like the P2 rebuilds but I hope the model purveys the essence of the original.

 

60506 (1).JPG

 

60506 (2).JPG

 

60506 (3).JPG

 

Plus, the original photo.

 

By the way, the Gresley brake second is Comet sides on a Hornby shell with a Comet chassis and is all my own work.

 

Graham H

 

I rather like the weathering on your A2/2. A little bit of a light rusty coloured wash would set off the limescale on the cylinders quite nicely. Do you have any pictures of your brake carriage, it looks a rather interesting project?

[Flood]

I rather like the weathering on your A2/2. A little bit of a light rusty coloured wash would set off the limescale on the cylinders quite nicely. Do you have any pictures of your brake carriage, it looks a rather interesting project?

I've made a eight coach rake of Gresley BSK, 2 Bachmann Mk1 TSOs, re-sided Bachmann Thompson FK, Bachmann Mk1 TSO, Gresley BSK, Thompson suburban second, Gresley BG for the A2/2.

 

If the weather is reasonable tomorrow morning I'll take photos of the re-sided stock. The BSKs still need the foot boards adding so look a bit plain on the solebars.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Flood