Wright writes.....

[Mallard60022]

I'm not so pessimistic about the future.

 

The hobby has always appeared to be populated by mainly elderly gentlemen. For as long as I've been regularly going to exhibitions (since the 70s) they've always seemed packed full of old duffers. In the 80s they were there, same in the 90s, still there in the 00s and now over 30/40 years later it's still the case that they're packed full of OAPs. But those oldies there now aren't the same ones that were attending all those years ago - it's just not possible. So there must be some turnover and a refreshing of them, even if there is an age requirement to qualify. And no doubt that will continue to a large extent. 

 

And for those small/one man band kit companies/producers and manufacturers who are retiring there are new ones taking their place; Revolution Trains, DJM, ERG, Laser Arch, British Finescale, (just some that I'm aware of in N gauge who weren't around last millennium) with many now offering new technology products like 3D printed parts and laser cut kits as well as RTR.

 

G. 

Oi, stop calling me an old duffer. I might be a duffer but I'm not old.

Methuselah Gluestick 

[Mallard60022]

Er...wrong musical. Think Hawaiian Island, not the land formerly known as Siam (neither of which were ever names of LMS Jubilees, sez he, desperately trying to come up with a railway connection)

Happy Talk was in South Pacific and that's a 4.6.2.There ya go Graham.

Apologies as bald Bloke was in The King and I of course (could/should have been the The King and Me really, depending on the context, but hey, who cares). Doh!

Phil

Edited August 18, 2016 by Mallard60022

[Tony Wright]

I'm not so pessimistic about the future.

 

The hobby has always appeared to be populated by mainly elderly gentlemen. For as long as I've been regularly going to exhibitions (since the 70s) they've always seemed packed full of old duffers. In the 80s they were there, same in the 90s, still there in the 00s and now over 30/40 years later it's still the case that they're packed full of OAPs. But those oldies there now aren't the same ones that were attending all those years ago - it's just not possible. So there must be some turnover and a refreshing of them, even if there is an age requirement to qualify. And no doubt that will continue to a large extent. 

 

And for those small/one man band kit companies/producers and manufacturers who are retiring there are new ones taking their place; Revolution Trains, DJM, ERG, Laser Arch, British Finescale, (just some that I'm aware of in N gauge who weren't around last millennium) with many now offering new technology products like 3D printed parts and laser cut kits as well as RTR.

 

G. 

Grahame,

 

What you say is true, particularly with regard to new manufacturers embracing new technologies.

 

However, the age profile of those attending exhibitions is going up and up. How do I know this? For many years I've been part of teams organising exhibitions, both small and large. Up to a year or two ago, almost every one had an OAP concession ticket. Not now, at least at those shows I'm involved with. When I was on the door at the York Show last year, Tom Foster and I concluded that had we been selling OAP concession tickets over 70% would have been those. There might well have been old duffers at shows down the years (though one doesn't have to be old to be a duffer) but I doubt if they were in such a large majority as they are today. 

 

I don't know if I'm pessimistic about the hobby's future, though I do see a large contraction in the actual making of things. New technologies might make things easier but for over a century and more people have soldered metal models together. Will traditional artisan skills such as metal forming, shaping, joining and finishing be as necessary? I doubt it. Not long ago I built a brilliant resin kit for a carriage. It had resin bogies, which I made. I've run it a fair bit but I've noticed a (slight) tendency for it to derail, particularly being propelled. Accepting that my track might not be perfect (though it is the only vehicle I've made which seems to derail), I've just substituted (as an experiment) very old-fashioned cast-metal, non-compensated bogies. In themselves they weigh more than the whole carriage (which is quite light). I've fitted pin-point bearings in the old bogies and they ride beautifully - being pushed, being pulled, fast and slow, over complex trackwork. The wheelsets are exactly the same. The technology producing those old (BSL/PC) bogies is very old these days. Yet, in this case, as runners, they are superior to the new. Not all progress is automatically for the better. I insist on 'perfect' running, but what happens when the old-style manufacturing practices have been replaced or they've just disappeared with their makers?  

[t-b-g]

Looking at it from a rather selfish point of view, I have built enough locos and stock to run any layout that I am likely to have in the future and I still have the obligatory several drawfulls (or draws full?) of unbuilt kits. That plus my increasing enjoyment in scratchbuilding things and a big supply of wheels, gearboxes and many of the other bits needed for such activity mean that I am quite alright Jack!

 

Does it matter how big the hobby is? Not really. If I was the only modeller left on the planet I would still enjoy the hobby as I do it for my own pleasure, rather than to please or impress others.

 

I spent an hour or two this evening rivetting bits of brass to make up a firebox to put in a kit that should probably have had one in as it is quite visible. The sheer pleasure of taking a few strips of brass, measuring and cutting them, putting rivets in the right place and then fixing them together in the frames is hard to explain. It was a good reminder of how using my toolkit and raw materials to recreate a bit of a real railway in model form makes the hobby so rewarding on a personal level.

[Willie Whizz]

... and know how awkward it can be for evidence about details to appear after I've made the decision to go down another route.

 

 

 

Now that is most definitely true.  I think - based on hard personal experience - it is another one of Nature's Laws of Railway Modelling that you can research your subject and appeal for information as much and as widely and as long as you like, but the very minute you publish your article, or exhibit your model (in the flesh or in pictures on a site such as this), some smart ... bleeper ... will come out of the woodwork to tell you, loudly and publicly, how wrong you (and your intelligent deductions to fill in the gaps) are.  Where such folk have been hiding their Fount of Knowledge while you've been struggling and why the're now offering is never, alas made clear ...

 

Fortunately (as the response to my almost 'accidental' query on steel trains through Mansfield a few days ago demonstrates) most who post on 'Wright Writes' aren't like that.

[burgundy]

There were several areas which concerned us, including the age-profile in the main of folk who are buying the kits, the age-profile of those who are actually supplying them, the future availability of wheels, gears, motors, etc, and the declining number of those who are making kits. One can rejoice in all the wonderment of the latest RTR stuff that's becoming available but in the not-too-distant future that's probably all that'll be available. With that comes the ever-more sameness of layouts one sees at shows and in the model press, particularly mainstream OO.

 

Someone mentioned how dependent diesel and electric modellers are on RTR. I don't think that's exclusive by any means. However, that's progress and it can't be stopped. May I make a suggestion, though? I think I've said this before but all of you out there who still prefer to make your own locos and rolling stock (not out of elitism, snobbery, one-upmanship or any of those derisory terms sometimes bandied about, but because you can, and like to) whenever you see kits, wheels, motors, gearboxes, bogies, detailing bits and what have you, buy them while you can. I'm going to. 

Tony 

Knowing the premium that you set on making things yourself, you might be encouraged to know that, for certain prototypes,  making things yourself is still the only way to go. You may feel that the RTR suppliers are encroaching on your "modern image" Eastern Region stuff, but, if you were to model the pre-grouping period, you would find it a relatively "RTR free zone". 

For modellers of the LB&SCR, there is a small group of cottage industries, drawing on the research of the Brighton CIrcle and supported by a number of modellers. Their efforts are celebrated in the LB&SCR Modellers' Digest, which is available for anyone to download free. It is evident, after the first couple of editions, that much of the content is about general modelling techniques, which are applicable to any prototype - although being demonstrated on models of the Brighton. And the need to develop our own solutions has resulted in articles that explore modern techniques, such as cameo cutters and 3D printing, just as much as soldering irons and singed fingers......

I hope that there is enough there to reassure you that building models is not a dying art!          

Best wishes

Eric  

[Headstock]

surely if you are going to model any prototype of the real railway, it can't be done without some recourse to kit building. Shipley Model Railway Society is still a rather effective model railway club. At present in the big room, two large layouts are under construction. At one end of the room is a typical generic RTR layout of nowhere in particular land and at the other a state of the art prototypical EM gauge layout of a real location. It's the ever broadening wasteland between these two extremes where the Hobby is in decline. Sometimes I wonder if the number of people actually doing things for themselves is fairly static. Was it the case that the small manufacturers sold a lot of product to people who never actually built or completed anything? Those people may now have transferred their money to the RTR boys. It would certainly explain the comparative wealth of second-hand kits that are still available to the rich, cunning or needy.

[grahame]

Grahame,

 

What you say is true, particularly with regard to new manufacturers embracing new technologies.

 

However, the age profile of those attending exhibitions is going up and up. How do I know this? For many years I've been part of teams organising exhibitions, both small and large. Up to a year or two ago, almost every one had an OAP concession ticket. Not now, at least at those shows I'm involved with. When I was on the door at the York Show last year, Tom Foster and I concluded that had we been selling OAP concession tickets over 70% would have been those. There might well have been old duffers at shows down the years (though one doesn't have to be old to be a duffer) but I doubt if they were in such a large majority as they are today. 

 

I don't know if I'm pessimistic about the hobby's future, though I do see a large contraction in the actual making of things. New technologies might make things easier but for over a century and more people have soldered metal models together. Will traditional artisan skills such as metal forming, shaping, joining and finishing be as necessary? I doubt it. Not long ago I built a brilliant resin kit for a carriage. It had resin bogies, which I made. I've run it a fair bit but I've noticed a (slight) tendency for it to derail, particularly being propelled. Accepting that my track might not be perfect (though it is the only vehicle I've made which seems to derail), I've just substituted (as an experiment) very old-fashioned cast-metal, non-compensated bogies. In themselves they weigh more than the whole carriage (which is quite light). I've fitted pin-point bearings in the old bogies and they ride beautifully - being pushed, being pulled, fast and slow, over complex trackwork. The wheelsets are exactly the same. The technology producing those old (BSL/PC) bogies is very old these days. Yet, in this case, as runners, they are superior to the new. Not all progress is automatically for the better. I insist on 'perfect' running, but what happens when the old-style manufacturing practices have been replaced or they've just disappeared with their makers

 

The age profile can't keep going up indefinitely and probably hasn't significantly increased for over 40 years as many of those people (old then) will have passed on or be incapable of attending. So some of the 'newer' old people must have come in to the hobby since then. And that is a good thing indicating a turnover with new entrants (even thought they may be old) replacing natural wastage. If there's more of them now then its a good thing. I certainly remember an exhibition that I organised in 1992 having a large percentage of older folk. And it's the same now although the age profile of the DEMU shows does tend to be lower than the average.

 

I do agree about new technology not always being cracked up to what it is marketed as. I've often been unhappy with 3D printed kits and parts, particularly the stratification effect which is more obvious in a small scale like N gauge. And it is extra hard work to deal with. 

 

 

However, skills are changing. I guess that is 'progress'. Metal working is being replaced with the ability/skill to write CAD programs to 'print' parts or for laser cutters. I find that it is now an increasing matter of dealing with plastics and resins and modern adhesives when model-making. I've also just learnt the 'skill' of casting resin parts - the panels on this partialy completed representation of the 1970s London Bridge footbridge were my first efforts:

 

 

But at least there are new model making skills to acquire and master, even if some of the older ones are fading away.

 

G.

[St Enodoc]

Nooooooo!!! Thanks for nothing, got that awful song going round in my head now! Remember being taken to see the film by my dad, hated it then hate it even more now!

Interesting that we all have different tastes. That musical (stage and/or film) is probably no 3 on my list of favourites, just ahead of West Side Story but behind My Fair Lady and Guys and Dolls.

[Manxman1831]

Willie Whizz,

My own experience comes from when I was building my Reid-MacLeod model. I could find very little on it in all of the usual books and internet search sites - I could find only four pictures at the time and no descriptions of the livery.  The British Pathe news reel of it at Hyde Park works came to light as I was finishing off the detailing, which was useful.  The livery, based on the B&W photo on the cover of 'Model Engineer' in 1961, was deemed to be close to LMS coach livery.  So on that basis, she was painted maroon in readiness to receive the appropriate lining.  About four months later, a business trip my father took to Glasgow chanced an encounter with a knowledgeable lady whose father also happened to be the works photographer at Hyde Park.  He had extensive notes for each picture he took, and the R-M stood out.  The end result of that conversation was that I learned that the locomotive was painted in Great Northern Railway livery, with an eye to sales from that railway, and this is how she also appeared in 1923/24 at Wembley.  Needless to say, after this event, pictures started appearing all over the place, both for the R-M and its predecessor the Reid-Ramsay - so much so that I built a model of that, which is the right colour - but I shan't be repainting the red one.  At some stage, I may build a replacement/companion.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Manxman1831

[jjnewitt]

Not long ago I built a brilliant resin kit for a carriage. It had resin bogies, which I made. I've run it a fair bit but I've noticed a (slight) tendency for it to derail, particularly being propelled. Accepting that my track might not be perfect (though it is the only vehicle I've made which seems to derail), I've just substituted (as an experiment) very old-fashioned cast-metal, non-compensated bogies. In themselves they weigh more than the whole carriage (which is quite light). I've fitted pin-point bearings in the old bogies and they ride beautifully - being pushed, being pulled, fast and slow, over complex trackwork. The wheelsets are exactly the same. The technology producing those old (BSL/PC) bogies is very old these days. Yet, in this case, as runners, they are superior to the new. Not all progress is automatically for the better. 

I'd suggest that the problem was not really with Bill's resin cast bogies themselves but with the fact that the coach was too light; especailly if it was mixed in with other, heavier coaches. Some more ballast in the coach would probably have worked equally as well as changing the bogies.

 

I've been coming to the conclusion for a while that the most important factor in reliable running (after decent track and round wheels) is weight, consistantly applied. I know of an American gentleman who, in quest for perfect running, weighs all of his bogie freight stock to 11/12ozs (!!) per bogie wagon and by all acounts his stuff doesn't derail, ever. It's why RTR steam locos generally don't pull as much as metal locos or RTR diesels and why light vehicles behave badly when mixed in with heaviier stock. You can have all the fancy suspension systems in the world but if your vehicles are either light and/or of wildly varying weights then you're going to have issues... 

 

Justin

[gr.king]

By contrast the builder of the impressive former "Bourne" OO finescale layout, which very regrettably had eventually to be scrapped because nobody would offer the layout a new home even if came for free, routinely removed factory fitted weights from all of his RTR freight stock so that it would more closely match lighter vehicles kit or scratch-built in plastic or sheet metal. I think he did the same with coaches. I visited several times, and as we know the presence of a visitor is usually the kiss of death for running qualities on a layout, no matter how well behaved it might normally be. Not once did I see any of the very smooth-running stock derail or twitch. The low weight of course ensured that locos never slipped or laboured when pulling scale length trains.

[Mike 84C]

Thank you Manxman1831 for the reference to the Reid-MacLeod its good to know that weird and wonderful prototypes are having models made of them. I had to Google its history   !

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I don't know about being pessimistic about the future of railway modelling, but I'm pessimistic about mine.  I'm pretty sure I won;t be around in 50 years time to report back to RMHoloWeb on all the old geezers at virtual model railway exhibitions and the demise of the 3d printing market.

[billbedford]

Accepting that my track might not be perfect (though it is the only vehicle I've made which seems to derail),

 

 

You can see where there are problems with the track just by watching your videos.

[Tony Wright]

I'd suggest that the problem was not really with Bill's resin cast bogies themselves but with the fact that the coach was too light; especailly if it was mixed in with other, heavier coaches. Some more ballast in the coach would probably have worked equally as well as changing the bogies.

 

I've been coming to the conclusion for a while that the most important factor in reliable running (after decent track and round wheels) is weight, consistantly applied. I know of an American gentleman who, in quest for perfect running, weighs all of his bogie freight stock to 11/12ozs (!!) per bogie wagon and by all acounts his stuff doesn't derail, ever. It's why RTR steam locos generally don't pull as much as metal locos or RTR diesels and why light vehicles behave badly when mixed in with heaviier stock. You can have all the fancy suspension systems in the world but if your vehicles are either light and/or of wildly varying weights then you're going to have issues... 

 

Justin

Justin,

 

You're probably right with regard to weight being consistently-applied being a principal factor in good running, whether it being everything heavy or everything light. Another principal factor, at least in my experience, is where that weight is carried. In the case of white metal bogies, exactly where it should be; as low as possible, giving the optimum centre of gravity. 

 

With regard to the resin carriage, by its nature of being a brake it's always at the rear of the train I place it in. Thus, it has no weight behind it when it's pulled, and, when it's pushed, no weight for it to shove; thus any (very few, to be fair) derailments were entirely due to the vehicle itself (or how well, or poorly, I've built it). The fact that no other vehicles (out of a total of in excess of 600) derail suggests to me that it can't be the track. And, it's still a brilliant kit. 

 

Anything in the above statements is not meant to be nit-picking about any product, whatever it's made from. It's just that, with regard to my making of carriages/bogie vans (I don't make four-wheeled freight stock) experience has shown me (having made in excess of 300 of the things - nowhere near as many as Larry Goddard, I know) that good running/reliability/robustness is achieved (in my case) by using non-compensated white metal bogies, pin-point axles carrying Jackson/Romford/Markits wheels, everything pulled via the headstocks (never, never off bogies), where possible all-soldered/bolted construction, all trussing, 'V'-hangers, brake rigging, etc, to be made of brass or nickel silver and by using non-sprung turned-brass buffers instead of cast ones. Any white metal items such as battery boxes, brake cylinders and dynamos also lower the centre of gravity (cast ventilators aren't heavy enough to be detrimental in raising the centre of gravity). 

[billbedford]

By contrast the builder of the impressive former "Bourne" OO finescale layout, which very regrettably had eventually to be scrapped because nobody would offer the layout a new home even if came for free, routinely removed factory fitted weights from all of his RTR freight stock so that it would more closely match lighter vehicles kit or scratch-built in plastic or sheet metal. I think he did the same with coaches. I visited several times, and as we know the presence of a visitor is usually the kiss of death for running qualities on a layout, no matter how well behaved it might normally be. Not once did I see any of the very smooth-running stock derail or twitch. The low weight of course ensured that locos never slipped or laboured when pulling scale length trains.

 

 

I would agree to this. In a series of experiments which had to do with the haulage capacity of loco it was found that the weight of stock had very little bearing on the rolling resistance. So it's more likely that ensuring the rolling resistance is matched on stock is more important than the particular weigh of individual items.

[Tony Wright]

You can see where there are problems with the track just by watching your videos.

Having made umpteen videos down the years of model railways, in all scales and gauges, I've come to the conclusion that (particularly at eye level) they are very cruel in showing the dynamics of trains running. Even some of the finest (and I'm definitely not including mine in this) show lurching, swaying, bouncing and waddling (not unlike the real thing at times?) 

 

Despite what you perceive in the problems with my track from watching my videos (I assume of Stoke Summit and Little Bytham), I can assure you that I do not tolerate derailments of any kind (other than those caused by my own operating incompetence, which I have to) and that a full running sequence lasting over two hours using over 40 different locos hauling hundreds of different vehicles can be undertaken without anything falling off or failing - with trains pushed or pulled. 

 

I know it's easy for me to claim that. However, may I crave the indulgence of those who've visited LB or seen Stoke Summit, please? Perhaps they'd like to pass personal-experience comment on any problems they've perceived in the running or the track. 

 

Though it did take the best part of six or seven hours for Tom Foster, Simon Roberts and me to 'film' the last DVD of Little Bytham (not to mention Tom's superb editing of it to make a 30 minute programme), we never had to do a retake because anything failed or fell off, despite all the 'problems with the track'. 

 

Finally, in the spirit of constructive criticism (which I readily accept, especially from one I greatly respect), what do I need to do to get rid of the problems with the track?  

 

Edited to remove a piece of tautology.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Tony Wright

[grahame]

 

I can assure you that I do not tolerate derailments of any kind (other than those caused by my own operating incompetence, which I have to) and that a full running sequence lasting over two hours using over 40 different locos hauling hundreds of different vehicles can be undertaken without anything falling off or failing - with trains pushed or pulled. 

 

 

 

You certainly need to be ruthless and brutal when dealing with a model railway layout to get to that nadir of derailment free operation (except that caused by the operators). I guess it is a combination of many factors; track, stock, wheels, and so on, each needing to be microscopically observed, managed, fettled and dealt with. Unfortunately I haven't got there, although most of the derailments that occurred on my layout were mostly caused by known factors - sleeves catching stock, running over incorrectly set points and driving too fast for the conditions.

 

Perhaps a virtual layout is the answer. But not for me. I'll plough on in creating, sorry modelling, the next opus.

 

G

[Tony Wright]

You certainly need to be ruthless and brutal when dealing with a model railway layout to get to that nadir of derailment free operation (except that caused by the operators). I guess it is a combination of many factors; track, stock, wheels, and so on, each needing to be microscopically observed, managed, fettled and dealt with. Unfortunately I haven't got there, although most of the derailments that occurred on my layout were mostly caused by known factors - sleeves catching stock, running over incorrectly set points and driving too fast for the conditions.

 

Perhaps a virtual layout is the answer. But not for me. I'll plough on in creating, sorry modelling, the next opus.

 

G

If the only derailments are caused by 'sleeves catching stock, running over incorrectly set points and driving too fast for the conditions', I'd say you're getting there, or are already there. What you describe are what I call 'brown marks' with regard to problems in running; those caused by external factors or operators' mistakes, not 'black marks' (my grading system). The latter are due to a poor-running loco or stock, or dodgy trackwork. 

 

Having seen (and photographed) your layouts, I'd state they run very well indeed. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[PMP]

 

 

I know it's easy for me to claim that. However, may I crave the indulgence of those who've visited LB or seen Stoke Summit, please? Perhaps they'd like to pass personal-experience comment on any problems they've perceived in the running or the track. 

 

 

You may.

 

One element that photography and zoom lenses accentuate is linear issues, track, lining, lettering etc can look fine to the Mk1 eyeball but looks far worse with magnification

The track here 'shouldn't work but it does and consistently well with fine profile wheels such as Alan Gibson. I visited Tony's earlier this year, and like Roy Jacksons Retford when you turn a controller a train moves, and moves well. There were no derailments of any of Tony's stock on my visit, and we ran a cross section of passenger and freight stock with RTR and kitbuilt motive power, I've no reason to think that was a fluke. I've seen weight and lack of weight being an issue particularly on long trains and tight curves, coupling types are also a significant element as is back to back.

Consistency from trackbed to chassis and powertrain/couplings etc etc all make the difference in my experience to a layout that runs, or runs well.

 

(Postal order payment to the usual address pls  ) 

[Mallard60022]

A loco I built and finished bar the identity, has circuited LB several times whilst hauling stock and not fallen off, slipped to a stand or fallen to pieces. That proves that the track work on LB is OK as far as I'm concerned and that the loco will be OK on a mate's planned layout, who's track will be just as good and who has helped me a lot, hence the Horse Trade.

I have visited LB many times since and still not seen anything derail, not even one of my coach builds! 

I have seen Tony trying not to laugh as he has observed me operating one of his lovely trains and being far too gentle on the throttle     

Phil

 

NB TW. Payment in Dollars please. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Mallard60022

[MJI]

Modern image having everything RTR?

 

A long way from the reality. Of everything it is only Diesel locos where there are VERY few holes

 

Actually if you count modern image as the BR Diesel era as opposed to now. Treating RTR as any reasonable model (include 29 but not the 06)

 

Locos

minimum 5 Shunters no RTR

Diesel 2 non RTR both on the cards

Electric 4 no RTR plus still no 74

 

Units

Many many gaps, loads requiring kitbashing, RTR conversion, making kits and scratchbuilding, both electic, diesel, and DEMU, ordinary DMU non RTR double that of RTR SR EMU non RTR about 3x RTR, 25kv EMU no RTR models.

 

Coaches

Mark 1 alone, need to make your own BSO, BFK, at least 4 types of buffets, plus all prototypes. There are others but too many to list.

Worst thing is no current RBR, the most common restaurant buffet coach.

 

Mark 2s

About 60% RTR, poor 2B, no 2C as all, 2D missing 2, 2E some modelling required, 2F old models, no BSO.

 

Mark 3, too much of a mish mash, some vehicles missing.

 

Out of all my proposed sets I am modelling only 2 can be 100% RTR, a HST and a Mark 1 set.

 

And do not start me on wagons, lets just say that kit building is your friend

[St Enodoc]

I know it's easy for me to claim that. However, may I crave the indulgence of those who've visited LB or seen Stoke Summit, please? Perhaps they'd like to pass personal-experience comment on any problems they've perceived in the running or the track. 

Well, I was fortunate enough to be invited by Tony and his colleagues to operate Stoke Summit at a Brighton Centre show many years ago. In about two hours of running I didn't see a derailment, a collision, a stalled loco, unintentional uncoupling, a point that didn't move or a signal that didn't work.

[t-b-g]

Anybody who thinks that they can build a large layout and keep absolutely everything perfect 100% of the time is probably deluding themselves. There will always be little movements of mood and metal and you will get the odd dip at a rail joint or suchlike. Looking at the videos of Little Bytham and having seen it running myself, I would agree that the videos seem to accentuate every tiny thing as in real life, you just don't see them and the running is as good as any I have seen. The biggest thing I noticed in the videos is the bobbing up and down of wagons on wheels that are either not truly round or don't have the axle in the middle. Yet I never noticed it at all watching them in the flesh. I think that the camera causes your vision to fix on one spot, while in reality your eyes follow the train along.

 

On a practical note, I tend to find that if several vehicles are all derailing in the same place, I look for a fault in the track. If all vehicles except for one, which comes off in several places, run on the track without problems, I look for faults on the vehicle. If that vehicle runs well everywhere else except for one place, I will look at the track and the vehicle as they may both be slightly out.

 

But if replacing the bogies has cured the problem, it is a bit harsh to start blaming the track.