Wright writes.....

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Interesting and fascinating comments fellas!

 

One learns a great deal on this Thread and I am learning lots, so good too that the hobby has such a breadth of ideas and knowledge, skill too!

 

My layout was to be just a 'U' shaped layout with the same ruse that the late great Rev Peter Denny used on one incarnation of his NG garden railway (Trepolpen Valley Light Railway) in that the trains left the FY headed out through the garden (the link route-but with the scenery created by nature) and returned into the other side of the garage (scenic section) and all the operator had to do was turnaround. I was to have a lower level 'twig' off of the trunk-line, but as the garden slopes three ways this would have meant that even small trains would require banking etc AND this station wouldn't be easy to get at due to the small size of the garden and bridges across paths etc, etc. So facing the wrath of my helpmates I binned the idea - even after the boards were laid for this station (the steel frames will be used as a base for the FY).

 

BTW the Garage is very bunker like in that it is lower than ground level - with the falling garden datum points are a 'mare and require real civils to work with. Having said the this the layout is on raised boards so as to avoid 'shift' as the whole site is on clay!

 

So I was left with the 'U' shaped layout - which I could live with - although the outside 'scenery' was coming on nicely with help from mother nature. Folk kept saying to me; 'but you wont be able to sit and watch trains go by'. My reply would be along the philosophical lines of; 'well you see, a railway line, in reality, is not seen in it's entirety and a railway is also linear, end-to-end etc etc' (and other such wisdoms). As the planting grew and the line became part of the garden - almost hidden except when a train makes an appearance and with the exception of the viaduct/bridge area - I ran a couple of test trains over the 40'-50' of track that I had laid and was inspired to keep on keeping on (the layout build, family health challenges etc etc really had made the layout more of a challenge than it needed to be - including being sold duff ply and having a major rebuild). Running a couple of trains was surprisingly therapeutic and very satisfying (even though only end to end), some RTR (SOTB) and some built bits and bobs. My partner came and sat with me on the bench that over looks the viaduct section one day and she said' '.....cant you include a full circuit?'. My reply, using conventional wisdom; '........well I think that although the diesels would scrape around I could never run a train around the garden as effectively that part of the layout is the same area as the width of our all too standard garage...buffer-lock, check-rails, blah, blah, blah.....'. She replied (eyes not quite glazing over); '......that's a shame as watching trains go by would be lovely for you and for me, visitors too...'.

 

A day or two later I got the track templates out and to my surprise the curve (link section) would be between and acceptable 5' 6" and 6' (nearer to 6') and almost out of site, with the bulk of any carriages viewed from the inside (to my eye on tighter radii coaches look better when viewed from the inside). I dont know why I hadnt measured it before, I assumed that it was an area less than the width of the garage (an optical illusion that I had bought into), as it was adjacent to such - even though at exhibitions I had seen 'roundy, roundy' layouts in 7mm smaller than our - small suburban - garden, but thought that it was an optical illusion too (it's hard to judge size and scale in the garden/compare to indoor layouts). I was also concerned about overcrowding our small garden with track, but cunning planting of small hedges has all but hidden the trackbed. As luck might have it the boards were designed for the junction for the now defunct station which allowed room for a similar junction for a continuous run. I wish that we had made the garage into more of a room, its close to such and more insulation is being added - but we need to get wheelie bins and the like back and forth so beggars cant be choosers.

 

So I gingerly approached the Pt Way team (a few groans about 'not more changes' - but overall agreement re having a continuous run - as that is what you liked as a kid and that's what we like) and we now have the posts in place for some 'plastic' baseboards so as to extend the line - which will be a roundy, roundy and a 'U' the best of both worlds. These latter works keep us out of the garage for now, but it will be worth it in the long run.....of course a lottery win and a house move may put a fly in the ointment!  

 

The points that I am meandering to make are;- the 'U' shape is prototypical operation - the roundy roundy is therapeutic - thus fulfilling multifaceted needs and wants, even if the same train is seen circuiting again and again, if it was good enough for late and great, David Jenkinson et al then it's good enough for me, after all it's what I loved as a kid and it does me good, from, time to time, to 'play trains' and watch them trundling around and around, with wheel-beats and 'rods a twinkle' (Fowler diesel, 08s and the few ex GW & ex LMS kettles I will have). A mainline would be superb, but a trunk-line will do very nicely too.

 

ATVB

 

CME

 

An overall photo of the garden - still WIP - with the line virtually invisible, unless a train is running, as well as photos of plotting out course of the line extension using track-setters and Peco RTL switches/crossings.....

 

Final photo of the now defunct lower level station boards.

 

 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•  
• 

 

• 
• 

•  
• 

Edited November 11, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[MJI]

I have two options.

 

1 run as terminus still but all stations in the area I am modelling and open in 80s were through, I would have an extra board to put in the length of the gap between layout and door.

 

This would operated like NESW and NWSW services  through Gloucester

 

2 run as roundy roundy with board across the front.

 

Ran like Cheltenham or Worcester

 

Car is too high for garage!

[t-b-g]

 

Interesting and fascinating comments fellas!

 

One learns a great deal on this Thread and I am learning lots, so good too that the hobby has such a breadth of ideas and knowledge, skill too!

 

My layout was to be just a 'U' shaped layout with the same ruse that the late great Rev Peter Denny used on one incarnation of his NG garden railway (Trepolpen Valley Light Railway) in that the trains left the FY headed out through the garden (the link route-but with the scenery created by nature) and returned into the other side of the garage (scenic section) and all the operator had to do was turnaround. I was to have a lower level 'twig' off of the trunk-line, but as the garden slopes three ways this would have meant that even small trains would require banking etc AND this station wouldn't be easy to get at due to the small size of the garden and bridges across paths etc, etc. So facing the wrath of my helpmates I binned the idea - even after the boards were laid for this station (the steel frames will be used as a base for the FY).

 

BTW the Garage is very bunker like in that it is lower than ground level - with the falling garden datum points are a 'mare and require real civils to work with. Having said the this the layout is on raised boards so as to avoid 'shift' as the whole site is on clay!

 

So I was left with the 'U' shaped layout - which I could live with - although the outside 'scenery' was coming on nicely with help from mother nature. Folk kept saying to me; 'but you wont be able to sit and watch trains go by'. My reply would be along the philosophical lines of; 'well you see, a railway line, in reality, is not seen in it's entirety and a railway is also linear, end-to-end etc etc' (and other such wisdoms). As the planting grew and the line became part of the garden - almost hidden except when a train makes an appearance and with the exception of the viaduct/bridge area - I ran a couple of test trains over the 40'-50' of track that I had laid and was inspired to keep on keeping on (the layout build, family health challenges etc etc really had made the layout more of a challenge than it needed to be - including being sold duff ply and having a major rebuild). Running a couple of trains was surprisingly therapeutic and very satisfying (even though only end to end), some RTR (SOTB) and some built bits and bobs. My partner came and sat with me on the bench that over looks the viaduct section one day and she said' '.....cant you include a full circuit?'. My reply, using conventional wisdom; '........well I think that although the diesels would scrap around I could nver run a train around the garden as effectively that part of the layout is the same area as the width of our all too standard garage.....'. She replied; '......that's a shame as watching trains go by would be lovely for you and for me,...'. A day or two later I got the track templates out and to my surprise the curve (link section) would be between and acceptable 5' 6" and 6' (nearer to 6') and almost out of site, with the bulk of any carriages viewed from the inside (to my eye on tighter radii coaches look better when viewed from the inside). I dont know why I hadnt measured it before, I assumed that it was an area less than the width of the garage, as it was adjacent to such - even though at exhibition I had seen 'roundy, roundy' layouts in 7mm smaller than our - small suburban - garden, but thought that it was an optical illusion. I was also concerned about overcrowding our small garden with track, but cunning planting of small hedges has all but hidden the trackbed. As luck might have it the boards were designed for the junction for the now defunct station which allowed room for a similar junction for a continuous run. I wish that we had made the garage into more of a room, its close and more insutaltion is being added - but we need to get wheelie bins and the like back and forth so beggars cant be choosers.

 

The 'U' shape is prototypical operation - the roundy roundy is therapeutic - thus fulfilling multifaceted needs and wants, even if the same train is seen circuiting again and again, if it was good enough for late and great, David Jenkinson et al then it's good enough for me, after all it's what I loved as a kid.

 

So I gingerly approached the Pt Way team (a few groans about 'not more changes' - but overall agreement re having a continuous run - as that is what you liked as a kid and that's what we like) and we now have the posts in place for some 'plastic' baseboards so as to extend the line - which will be a roundy, roundy and a 'U' the best of both worlds. These latter works keep us out of the garage for now, but it will be worth it in the long run.....of course a lottery win and a house move may put a fly in the ointment!  

 

ATVB

 

CME

 

An overall photo of the garden - still WIP - with the line virtually invisible, unless a train is running, as well as plotting out course of the line extension using track-setters and Peco RTL switches/crossings.....

 

Final photo of the now defunct lower level station boards.

 

 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• •  

 

 

As you rightly say, the very best of both worlds. there is something quite nice about setting something going, even better two trains in opposite directions on a double track and just let them trundle round, crossing in different places. The layout I mentioned with 5 stations has an optional continuous run with some hidden loops. rather like David Jenkinson with his "funny" trains, the plan is to have a number of trains there that are not in the main operating sequence, or are out of period or too long for the stations to handle. they can be run when we are doing some scenic work on the layout itself or when visitors come.

 

I think the point I was trying to make is not so much that one or the other approach is the right one, making others wrong. It is more that whatever we approach, it involves some compromise and it is up to the individual to decide what compromises they are willing to accept.

[t-b-g]

Please, Tony, stir the pot. Your comments are always valued and looked forward to. 

 

May I have a go, please, though my culinary skills are not up to much? 

 

You mention operation. I've never operated a real railway, never understood what the bell codes in 'boxes meant and get absolutely board stiff watching intricate shunting movements on little model railways, no matter how prototypical they might be. 

 

As you say, each to their own. My 'own' are the memories of watching HOME GUARD, right at the end of its life, absolutely blasting through Hartford (in Cheshire) on a summer Saturday extra, the sound, smell (and pollution) exciting my teenage senses forever. Or seeing THE BOY SCOUT come under the walls at Chester faster than I've ever seen any type of train before or since. The Emerald Isle Express was late and was usually double-headed. Not so this day, and the 7P (without the 5MT or 6P5F in front) had to do it all itself. Our group of 'spotters scattered because the live coals coming out of the double chimney would have set our hair on fire! Or, and you know this place, watching an A1 raising the echoes on Gamston Bank, regulator in the roof through Eaton Wood towards Askham as it accelerated its heavy ex-Leeds express away from the Retford stop. Or watching SILVER LINK race through Riccall on an Up express, going as fast as she could between the York and Selby restrictions. Though not at Harford, no doubt a Jinty or a Pannier were fussing around Chester's yards preparing wagons for this or that freight, or the Denbigh local was ready to depart from Platform 1 as 46169 set off. Do you think those would have excited me? No doubt one of Retford's pilots was preparing a trip freight in the Up yard as the A1 left Retford's Platform 1, and there'd certainly be the muckings about at York and Selby by small motive as 60014 went by. And, what about topping Stoke behind BALLYMOSS at over the hundred nearly 40 years ago, when the great colt was late because of electrification work at the southern end of the GN? 

 

So, how do I personally recreate those indelible memories I saw, in miniature? By building a system where any stations are so close together that even the elderly could get between them on foot as fast as a train? By devising a timetable that is so hard to operate that one comes away from a session exhausted, having enjoyed it not a jot (not on Buckingham, I hasten to add)? I know, I've operated layouts like that where the bells ring and younger spectators go through puberty before a train appears. 

 

I agree, no roundy-roundy railway is prototypical (though what if one modelled Newcastle and Gateshead?). If one were to model a section of multi-track main, the only 'true' way to configure it would be to have long, dead-end fiddle yards at each end, in which each road were bi-directional. That way, something like the Yorkshire Pullman could go Up and the same formation go Down hours later. Of course, if it's the ECML, then two Elizabethans, two Flying Scotsmans (or should that be Scotsmen?), four Talismans (dependent on the period), two Queens of Scots and two Hearts of Midlothian (the correct plural?) would be required (I find it absurd to have one rake represent both north and southbound trains when there should be two). Is that practicable? Not for me it isn't.

 

What is practicable is what a group of us have set out to achieve (and achieved it?). An 'accurate' model of an actual prototype (not made up), within a twitch of being dead scale (how many notice the missing 15") where, on the 27' of scenic section (and even through the daft bends out of sight at the ends) a model A4, hauling over a dozen bogies can reach 'the ton'. Yes, you need space, resources and it's not everybody's cup of tea. That said, when I was at the Woking Show with Grantham, even right at the end of the exhibition day there were still spectators wanting to see the streamliners dash through. Further down the aisle was a very pretty branch line terminus with not a soul to see it.

 

When WMRC exhibited Stoke Summit we knew the operation could never be prototypical. Why? If an unfitted goods train left the Down refuge to go through the tunnel, in reality it would take at least 15-20 minutes to reach Saltersford (the next lay-bye) or maybe half an hour to get to Grantham. On our Stoke, as soon as that goods had parked in the fiddle yard, off went the fast boards and The Talisman would be in pursuit (smashing the goods to bits at High Dyke!) Our aim was entertainment and correct operation would have seen spectators leave in droves. I admit, Stoke was a trainset (as is Little Bytham) but it always drew the crowds.

 

With regard to the operation of LB, when visitors come I invite them to operate a sequence - some 47 train movements performed by over 40 trains, in around an hour and a half (with a break for lunch). May I invite friends who've visited and operated the sequence to pass comment, please? Is it interesting? Is it boring? Is it 'realistic'? For myself, though I don't go through the sequence on my own, I operate LB at least three times a week, mainly just letting trains run and observing them from lots of angles.

 

Buckingham 20.jpg

 

Trains 01 The QoS.jpg

 

As you say quite rightly 'each to their own'. What I would say in closing is that there is far greater merit in Buckingham than in Little Bytham. Peter made everything himself. Whatever the opinions, mine will always return to that - the personal making/modifying of things.  

 

Those photos certainly show up the difference in model making quality between Buckingham and Little Bytham. Even if he was working today, I am not sure that Peter Denny would have ever achieved those levels of realism, to allow his railway to look so much like the real thing.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

I have two options.

 

1 run as terminus still but all stations in the area I am modelling and open in 80s were through, I would have an extra board to put in the length of the gap between layout and door.

 

This would operated like NESW and NWSW services  through Gloucester

 

2 run as roundy roundy with board across the front.

 

Ran like Cheltenham or Worcester

 

Car is too high for garage!

 

To quote David Jenkinson, 'cars are made to live outside' (in précis and not verbatim) - mine does since the 7mm bug bit, the poor thing Ha Ha!

 

As you rightly say, the very best of both worlds. there is something quite nice about setting something going, even better two trains in opposite directions on a double track and just let them trundle round, crossing in different places. The layout I mentioned with 5 stations has an optional continuous run with some hidden loops. rather like David Jenkinson with his "funny" trains, the plan is to have a number of trains there that are not in the main operating sequence, or are out of period or too long for the stations to handle. they can be run when we are doing some scenic work on the layout itself or when visitors come.

 

I think the point I was trying to make is not so much that one or the other approach is the right one, making others wrong. It is more that whatever we approach, it involves some compromise and it is up to the individual to decide what compromises they are willing to accept.

 

Thanks, yes, even better with passing trains! I too plan to run some 'funnies'. I think that we are in full agreement.

 

Those photos certainly show up the difference in model making quality between Buckingham and Little Bytham. Even if he was working today, I am not sure that Peter Denny would have ever achieved those levels of realism, to allow his railway to look so much like the real thing.

 

I wonder if you are comparing apples with apples though? Both are superbly accurate in their own way and Tony's rolling stock, scenics etc, Norman Solomon's track etc etc, goes almost without saying, is superb the best of the craft. AND yet Buckingham was ground-breaking, all built from scratch by one man - who also had various garden railways - and operated prototypically, so it can be said that both layouts are highly realistic. IIRC the Buckingham was started over 60 years ago too and thus has a charm all of its own too, relative also to materials and tools available back then - that was real austerity (mind you we all pulled together back then too - ooh a little bit of politics for you <Ben Elton type voice>).

[Tony Wright]

Those photos certainly show up the difference in model making quality between Buckingham and Little Bytham. Even if he was working today, I am not sure that Peter Denny would have ever achieved those levels of realism, to allow his railway to look so much like the real thing.

Ah, but Tony; Peter Denny didn't have the 'luxury' of the peerless Norman Solomon to make his scenic-side track, the beautiful workmanship of Bob Dawson and his grandson, Scott, to make his buildings, the likes of Mick Nicholson and Graham Nicholas to make his signals, the late Dave Shakespeare to make his trees nor the great craftsmanship of Ian Rathbone to paint some of his locos and passenger rolling stock. Taker a look at his locos and rolling stock; certainly the equal of anything I might achieve, especially as they were made from scratch in the main. Most of mine I've built from kits, abandoning those scratch-built ones I made to history (or to those good enough to purchase them off me).

 

The point I'm making (again and again and again) is that quite a few well known layouts which folk seem to be very fond of praising are largely the work of professionals, or contain a fair bit of professional work. Even David Jenkinson's Kendal had baseboards, trackwork, signals, locomotives (and their painting) and a fair bit of the scenery done by professionals. That it was good should not be surprise, but then it should be. Having photographed both it and Buckingham, I know which I warm to the more.

 

Though I don't seek praise for Little Bytham, much of that has professional work on and in it. That little of it was actually paid for outright is to some extent irrelevant (I don't mean I stole things or wrote rubber cheques, just horse-traded in the main). Where Buckingham scores (and Borchester and Hitchin and the likes of North Shields, etc) is that the craftsmanship is down to one exceptional man. One can create wonderful model railway empires using professionals, and they can be outstanding. However, don't ever compare them with Buckingham, Borchester or any other one-man-band layouts from the past, even though they might be more 'realistic'. So what, it isn't right and it isn't fair. 

[coachmann]

I think if one were to compare the modelling activities of David Jenkinson and Tony Wright, Tony would be enlightened. I'll  say no more.

[number6]

For myself, though I don't go through the sequence on my own, I operate LB at least three times a week, mainly just letting trains run and observing them from lots of angles.

 

This is interesting!

 

Having recently got to the point where I can run trains on a long planned layout [which I admit breaks many TW rules] I surprised myself how often I let them circle so I can enjoy them more than the fleeting glimpse you get if you don't. I feel tremendous guilt doing this as it seems no different to playing with a train set: Head on the carpet as something by Triang or Hornby Dublo endlessly whizzes by. Why did I go to the trouble of all the true to prototype track and trains only to play?! I built the layout very much with the sense of it being part of a larger system at work: expecting to use timetabled sequences or at least not allowing a train to reappear from the storage yards immediately. 

 

So as part of my therapy to get over this I have come to the following conclusions:

I think letting trains circle around and around or back and forth has something to do with the different ways we experience the real thing:

 

In memory: Where the scene can be endlessly and selectively repeated in the mind. 

 

In spoken or written form: Anecdotes and recorded in writing, books magazine etc. which can be repeatedly read or listened to.

 

From photographs and film. Where a moving scene can be frozen and minutely analysed, enlarged, focussed on, returned to.

 

Compare these to how it is live and in person [when creating the above] in the seconds it sometimes takes a train to pass. Its often hard to take it all in. Take a photo of a passing train and you won't really see it until you view the image afterwards. Describe what you just saw and it might not be totally accurate. Write it down and you might miss something else.

 

So letting the same train run past more than once allows us to indulge and stretch out instants in time and is more like how we most likely experience the real thing [frozen in photos, books, stories]. Operating a layout to sequence [with or without friends] is a way of adding another layer of experience, anecdotes, photographs etc. as if one was observing the real thing and as such quite a different experience one where its less about snapshots and more about real time. In conclusion: A model railway is a time machine!

 

[ Now I might have confused myself... hope of some interest?! ]

[Tony Wright]

I think if one were to compare the modelling activities of David Jenkinson and Tony Wright, Tony would be enlightened. I'll  say no more.

With the greatest of respect, Larry I think I know my place in comparison to the 'great man'. 

 

You might recall on this thread some little time ago somebody mentioned my name in the same breath as DJ. I very quickly repudiated that, in no uncertain terms!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Tony Wright

[LNER4479]

Ah, but Tony; Peter Denny didn't have the 'luxury' of the peerless Norman Solomon to make his scenic-side track, the beautiful workmanship of Bob Dawson and his grandson, Scott, to make his buildings, the likes of Mick Nicholson and Graham Nicholas to make his signals, the late Dave Shakespeare to make his trees nor the great craftsmanship of Ian Rathbone to paint some of his locos and passenger rolling stock. Taker a look at his locos and rolling stock; certainly the equal of anything I might achieve, especially as they were made from scratch in the main. Most of mine I've built from kits, abandoning those scratch-built ones I made to history (or to those good enough to purchase them off me).

 

The point I'm making (again and again and again) is that quite a few well known layouts which folk seem to be very fond of praising are largely the work of professionals, or contain a fair bit of professional work. Even David Jenkinson's Kendal had baseboards, trackwork, signals, locomotives (and their painting) and a fair bit of the scenery done by professionals. That it was good should not be surprise, but then it should be. Having photographed both it and Buckingham, I know which I warm to the more.

 

Though I don't seek praise for Little Bytham, much of that has professional work on and in it. That little of it was actually paid for outright is to some extent irrelevant (I don't mean I stole things or wrote rubber cheques, just horse-traded in the main). Where Buckingham scores (and Borchester and Hitchin and the likes of North Shields, etc) is that the craftsmanship is down to one exceptional man. One can create wonderful model railway empires using professionals, and they can be outstanding. However, don't ever compare them with Buckingham, Borchester or any other one-man-band layouts from the past, even though they might be more 'realistic'. So what, it isn't right and it isn't fair. 

Ah, yes, but...

 

Can we not at the same time admire and be inspired by those professionals who have been given the opportunity to portray their art by the cheque book wielders? I mentioned the Norris layout a night or two back and you were quick to point out the work done by Miller and Beeson. Rightly so. In that case, what I get from pictures of the Norris layout is the artistry of Bernard Miller in setting out those beautiful sweeping curves and complex pointwork. Does the fact that someone paid him to do it make his work any less meritorious? I don't think so!

 

Fast forward 50 years or so and we have the equivalent situation with Norman Solomon's work on LB and - in an O gauge environment - John Ryan's Over Peover.

 

I'm sure neither Norman or Bernard Miller studied model railway tracklaying at school / university(!) They would have quietly honed their craft in their younger days then had the opportunity to turn professional. As amateurs they would have been 'doing it for themselves', just as you like to see.

Edited November 11, 2016 by LNER4479

[Focalplane]

I can think of one circular trip in real life, the circular run out of New Street (east) and back to New Street (west). Thus there were two ways to get to Perry Barr and Handsworth Wood. My father would have used this service back in LNWR days as he lived on Wellhead Lane near Perry Barr.

[wagonbasher]

I can think of one circular trip in real life, the circular run out of New Street (east) and back to New Street (west). Thus there were two ways to get to Perry Barr and Handsworth Wood. My father would have used this service back in LNWR days as he lived on Wellhead Lane near Perry Barr.

 

To get to where he started ?

 

Andy

[peach james]

Ah, yes, but...

 

Can we not at the same time admire and be inspired by those professionals who have been given the opportunity to portray their art by the cheque book wielders? I mentioned the Norris layout a night or too back and you were quick to point out the work done by Miller and Beeson. Rightly so. In that case, what I get from pictures of the Norris layout is the artistry of Bernard Miller in setting out those beautiful sweeping curves and complex pointwork. Does the fact that someone paid him to do it make his work any less meritorious? I don't think so!

 

Fast forward 50 years or so and we have the equivalent situation with Norman Solomon's work on LB and - in an O gauge environment - John Ryan's Over Peover.

 

I'm sure neither Norman or Bernard Miller studied model railway tracklaying at school / university(!) They would have quietly honed their craft in their younger days then had the opportunity to turn professional. As amateurs they would have been 'doing it for themselves', just as you like to see.

 

I would hope that most of the checkbook modelers who were honest about their approach, are well recognized as providing a canvas for the individuals who did the work.  I have no qualms about individuals who pool together by any means in order to make something.  I have huge problems if someone takes credit for other peoples work- Tony with LB has always been very forthright about who has built what bits for him, and that it mostly involves trading work for work, rather than money for work.  There are layouts out there where the "owner" takes credit for work that they didn't do, because they paid to have the work done...which I find disingenuous at best, and outright lying at worst.  I know of examples in the model engineering world, where the "builder" was little more than a fitter at best, and more likely just the check writer.  Then, on the other hand, you find individuals like Tony, who are very free with the praise of the individuals who have done various parts of the layout for him.  Over here, there is a wonderful layout in Sooke, that I know is just the work of the builder- (https://flic.kr/s/aHsko6rzEw ), and what he shakes the box for too (although there are a fair # of kit built locos on it too...), but true one man bands that produce a good looking, running & properly operated layout are few and far between.  (I certainly wouldn't count my own layout in 2/3 of those...).  There are other layouts that I am aware of in Canada that are the work really of a "club" of like minded individuals, which exist in one person's house & have drawn in talent to achieve the desired results.  ( http://www.calon.ca/Wordpress/ ,   http://themodelrailwayshow.com/cn1950s/ , Kingston Sub, & Lostock Junction ).  The reality is that when you exceed about 32'^2 (3m^2) of surface, then it takes singlehanded dedication to the task, or a outstanding individual, to achieve near perfect results.  The pool of skills required to make a layout bigger than that generally exceeds that which any individual can provide.

 

James

[richard i]

i was always taught, (had it drumed into me) that the worst thing a leader can do is take credit for what the people in their team have done. I always make sure my boss knows who has actually done the leg work on something. Actually you get more out of people that way. However, it makes you look less impresive so promotions do not necesarily come as quickly. I have to live with myself at night though so it is a "price" i will pay.

Richard

[t-b-g]

Ah, but Tony; Peter Denny didn't have the 'luxury' of the peerless Norman Solomon to make his scenic-side track, the beautiful workmanship of Bob Dawson and his grandson, Scott, to make his buildings, the likes of Mick Nicholson and Graham Nicholas to make his signals, the late Dave Shakespeare to make his trees nor the great craftsmanship of Ian Rathbone to paint some of his locos and passenger rolling stock. Taker a look at his locos and rolling stock; certainly the equal of anything I might achieve, especially as they were made from scratch in the main. Most of mine I've built from kits, abandoning those scratch-built ones I made to history (or to those good enough to purchase them off me).

 

The point I'm making (again and again and again) is that quite a few well known layouts which folk seem to be very fond of praising are largely the work of professionals, or contain a fair bit of professional work. Even David Jenkinson's Kendal had baseboards, trackwork, signals, locomotives (and their painting) and a fair bit of the scenery done by professionals. That it was good should not be surprise, but then it should be. Having photographed both it and Buckingham, I know which I warm to the more.

 

Though I don't seek praise for Little Bytham, much of that has professional work on and in it. That little of it was actually paid for outright is to some extent irrelevant (I don't mean I stole things or wrote rubber cheques, just horse-traded in the main). Where Buckingham scores (and Borchester and Hitchin and the likes of North Shields, etc) is that the craftsmanship is down to one exceptional man. One can create wonderful model railway empires using professionals, and they can be outstanding. However, don't ever compare them with Buckingham, Borchester or any other one-man-band layouts from the past, even though they might be more 'realistic'. So what, it isn't right and it isn't fair. 

 

I have always been a modeller who has done my best to get things looking as realistic as possible and in that respect, the photo of LB is far closer to looking at the real thing than the photo of Buckingham. There are a tiny number of layouts where you can take a photo of the real location and a photo of the model and you have to stare long and hard to find a tiny difference.

 

Where Buckingham makes up for any lack in that department is in the sheer genius of the man who built it. It has a charm and a personality unlike any layout I have ever seen or operated. Somehow it works a bit of magic and your eye doesn't see the shortcomings. It is the nearest thing I have experienced to being transported into a miniature world, away from the troubles and toils of the real one.

 

So both layouts are quite spectacular creations, in different ways and achieved by different methods but both special.

[Bernard Lamb]

i was always taught, (had it drumed into me) that the worst thing a leader can do is take credit for what the people in their team have done. I always make sure my boss knows who has actually done the leg work on something. Actually you get more out of people that way. However, it makes you look less impresive so promotions do not necesarily come as quickly. I have to live with myself at night though so it is a "price" i will pay.

Richard

I presume that you have never worked in engineering.

I am sure it is available on the internet.

Seven stages of a project.

The final one being " Praise and honour to the non participants".

You soon learn.

Bernard

[New Haven Neil]

It's a funny thing, how we make our layouts.  My trouble is, I want it all.  I like shunting, and having spent some time in my teens at the shovel, regulator or controller of industrial loco at work,  wish to re-create those memories.  Austerities, electrics, lots of coal wagons.  I also did a lot of my train spotting at Newcastle Central - Deltics, Brush 4's, 204 pilots....long trains. Another favourite spot was down the line at East Boldon - signal box bells, DMU's, parcel trains/  And (oops, English police) Boldon Colliery - Tyne Dock iron ore trains double headed by 24's.

 

Also, a spot on the ECML, speed, Deltics again, Tyne Yard......

 

The problem is I live in our 'last house', a 2 bed bungalow.  The double garage also has to share space with the other (shared) hobby, old motorbikes.  I also have a garden railway for running live steam, playing trains in G 'scale'....excuse the use of that word in this context.  So my small-ish railway is end to end, and frustrates me!  I want Little Bytham, Buckingham, High Dyke and that superb colliery layout who's name I can't remember, all in one.....#sigh#

[Mallard60022]

I am enjoying this discussion. I will get something of a layout to play with eventually. However in the meantime I have been fortunate to have had several people that have helped me in different ways as I have not been in the best of health now for two years. Those people volunteered their time and advice and how grateful I am for that. I do hope they have had a mention on my thread; I must check.

As for cheque books (and I have just received a new one in readiness), I have actually paid, or I plan to pay, a small number of 'special' people to construct or provide some things for me because I actually want something of their work on my layout and it will be better for that. I would say it is a bit like buying something special for the house; for example, a painting by David Shepherd  or an artist friend, or a book on the ECML by TW.

I am sure I am going to find that there are some other things I just will not be able to do well, but I shall cross those bridges when they appear. Ummmm, signals (that work) come to mind.

RMWeb is my virtual MR Club and my planned layout will be a bit of 'club' layout and I have no problems with that and in fact I have overall control of what the outcomes will be and that would not happen in an actual Club setting. I also hope some of these virtual friends will actually be able to come and have a play once the trickery is sorted.

I truly respect the person that admits to not being able to 'achieve' in some aspects of the hobby. For example, some people just can not build a loco or coach for whatever reason, one being that they may not have a lot of time, and get someone to do those things for them. However, they may be very talented at creating scenery. Such is this brilliant hobby.

What I am going to enjoy, God willing, is the finishing the thing off, as that will keep me busy for years. What I need to overcome is the weakness I have when I see 'things' that would look really good and enhance the Seaton Junction experience. I'm working hard at that, but ................ 

Phil

[New Haven Neil]

Wanting something of their work.....yes Phil!  I have some of Dave Shakey's coaches.  They aren't that brilliant TBH - but what a pleasure to own, from someone who provided such inspiration and good advice.  Also an original painting of a BMW TT winning sidecar outfit by the celebrated motorsport artist Rod Organ (really...).  That was bought from him in person, just before he passed away far too early.  Pleasure of ownership can also be enjoyable, as well as having created something one's self.

 

Buckingham.  Best example for me, I would absolutely love to have a layout like that.  Maybe when the bones get too creaky for motorbikes, more of the garage can be given over to railways!

[Theakerr]

When I started New Waltham I had a number of pre-defined requirements and a number of set requirements.  It would sort of represent Lincolnshire where I grew up.  It would be a ROUNDY ROUND  since where I live I would not be able to run "a railway" with other operators.  I would have to do everything.  I wanted to be able to watch more or less full length trains (9/10 coaches 30/40 wagons) go by.  This was really important.  i did not want to watch the same train go round and round.  At the time I had children at home so I wanted to be able to do some shunting to keep them involved.  I wanted to try as much as possible to get a "prototypical feel".    I DID NOT WANT A 1/2 finished layout.  The result is that I used Grimsby as a basis (the layout is sort of reversed) because this gave me a junction which allowed shunting and sending trains off onto a branch line hidden section as well as main line passenger trains running through the station.  And, if I used a bit of "legitimate" modellers licence because a proposal was actually made to upgrade the Grimsby to Boston line thus providing an alternate to the ECML, run long coal trains with WDs, iron ore trains and express passenger trains with big green engines.  I can also run it more prototypically with lots of B!s, K3s etc.  Grimsby has a fairly unique set of station buildings and layout so I could get my sort of prototypical fix.  My scenic section is in a stand alone room and is one end of a compressed dogbone.  It is about 40' long out of a total run of about 160' and was was done as modules that were essentially completed before I moved on to the next one.  Therefore  avoiding the done bit here and there syndrome.   The most important part was the development of an automated fiddle yard that lets me run a variety of trains (9 up and 9 down) at realistic speeds so that a cycle operating cycle (before I see the 1st train again) is about 25 mins.  Just time for a beer or a nice cup of tea and after 30 years I still enjoy watching the trains go by.  FYI, it is DC.  

[MarkC]

It's a funny thing, how we make our layouts.  My trouble is, I want it all.  I like shunting, and having spent some time in my teens at the shovel, regulator or controller of industrial loco at work,  wish to re-create those memories.  Austerities, electrics, lots of coal wagons.  I also did a lot of my train spotting at Newcastle Central - Deltics, Brush 4's, 204 pilots....long trains. Another favourite spot was down the line at East Boldon - signal box bells, DMU's, parcel trains/  And (oops, English police) Boldon Colliery - Tyne Dock iron ore trains double headed by 24's.

 

Also, a spot on the ECML, speed, Deltics again, Tyne Yard......

 

The problem is I live in our 'last house', a 2 bed bungalow.  The double garage also has to share space with the other (shared) hobby, old motorbikes.  I also have a garden railway for running live steam, playing trains in G 'scale'....excuse the use of that word in this context.  So my small-ish railway is end to end, and frustrates me!  I want Little Bytham, Buckingham, High Dyke and that superb colliery layout who's name I can't remember, all in one.....#sigh#

We were lucky, no doubt about it. So many memories.

 

The colliery layout. Kepier Colliery?

[New Haven Neil]

No, that's not it, Mark - but thank you, that's good too!

 

Given the lottery win - Newcastle Central and Gateshead, that'll do it!

[robertcwp]

 

When WMRC exhibited Stoke Summit we knew the operation could never be prototypical. Why? If an unfitted goods train left the Down refuge to go through the tunnel, in reality it would take at least 15-20 minutes to reach Saltersford (the next lay-bye) or maybe half an hour to get to Grantham. On our Stoke, as soon as that goods had parked in the fiddle yard, off went the fast boards and The Talisman would be in pursuit (smashing the goods to bits at High Dyke!) Our aim was entertainment and correct operation would have seen spectators leave in droves. I admit, Stoke was a trainset (as is Little Bytham) but it always drew the crowds.

 

With regard to the operation of LB, when visitors come I invite them to operate a sequence - some 47 train movements performed by over 40 trains, in around an hour and a half (with a break for lunch). May I invite friends who've visited and operated the sequence to pass comment, please? Is it interesting? Is it boring? Is it 'realistic'? For myself, though I don't go through the sequence on my own, I operate LB at least three times a week, mainly just letting trains run and observing them from lots of angles.

I think Stoke Summit got it right with regard to operation. It was no tailchaser but there was a constant flow of trains. It still took quite a while to get through them all.

 

As someone who has been a guest operator of LB, I think the sequence is a good idea because it ensures you get through the whole range of trains.

 

I designed my layout 20 years ago with assistance from Brian Kirby. It reflects what I wanted at the time but it still stands up pretty well today. I would have done some things differently, most notably modifying the points to have separate frog polarity switching. Some things were not available when the layout was planned and track purchased, such as a live-frog diamond or live frog slips. They appeared after the first three boards had been done by Brian so I left the three dead frog slips and dead frog diamond there. I think I should have changed them. There was no Code 75 3-way point then but I put one to use when extending the fiddleyard to include two DMU lines last year - when the layout was designed, I had no idea there would be so many good DMUs.  Other than a Fleischmann turntable and a few minor tweaks, the layout is still as it was designed. It still suits my needs. It will probably never be a fully finished scenic layout because I'm not really into that side of things.  The next major work is likely to be to re-lay the fiddleyard throat next year and sort out the point frogs.

 

There is not a great deal that I have built but I haven't needed to do so. The accountant in me says that time is money and I can have something much better by having someone else (usually Brian) do it.

 

I don't have a documented sequence but have an approximate one in my head that I usually run, with variations depending on the time available.

 

To pick up on another point from earlier - roof ribs on Bachmann Mark I stock. They are a nuisance but I decided long ago that there were higher priorities for my time. I have over 150 with the ribs and a few have lost them, but if I had the time to attack the stock, there are other things I would do, such as alter the ends to remove the steps, change the roof ventilator layout on ones with Commonwealth bogies, renumber them so the number matches other features (eg bogies), make some representation of external window frames if I could work out a way and re-do the RU roof, which on the under-floor tanks version has all the kitchen/pantry end detail one panel too far along from the end. But life is too short for that.

Edited November 11, 2016 by robertcwp

[Willie Whizz]

My turn to stir the pot!

 

Most roundy roundy layouts, even some well known examples of real locations, are, operationally, no further forward than the basic Christmas present boxed train set.

 

The trains go round in a circle. It is a very much embellished compared with the boxed set but is just as operationally toy like. The same train goes, for example, North each time it runs but never goes South again. So exactly how many "Talismans" are we supposed to believe are actually at Kings Cross? Or do you build two sets and have one going each way? Unless you have a linear layout, with either a terminus to fiddle yard or a through station with a fiddle yard at each end, where trains are reversed and sent back (or even better, other stations), you are just playing trains, rather than operating a small railway. It is possible to have a fiddle yard where trains can be reversed but then you end up with 90% of the "operation" being in the "doesn't really exist" fiddle yard. Again, not realistic.

 

Having had layouts in many different formats, I find the "roundy roundy" the least satisfying to operate as it is by far the most unrealistic.

 

 

And there you summarise my own dilemma ... 

 

On the one hand, I feel the deep 'call' to build something ... "not entirely unlike" ... the Great Central London Extension in the 1950s.  Nothing else will really do.  On the other hand, I only have 11 1/2 feet of length to play with (or actually about 14-15 feet as I intend eventually to breach the wall of my (nominal 12 foot) shed to complete the loop, a la Coachmann).

 

If I want anything even approaching 'realistic' train lengths as recommended by Tony clearly I ought to build a terminus-to-fiddle-yard,  But unless I model Marylebone itself (which even 'reduced' would hardly be practicable in the space), there is - quite literally - nothing I can use as "prototype inspiration" - even for a might-have been - because the GC simply didn't have any other termini.

 

So a 'roundy-roundy' with shorter trains (though still with some attempt at representing actual formations) it has to be.  But even then modelling a real location that had also enough on-site operation to be satisfying is quite impossible; reality was the smaller the station, the greater they were able to spread-out to fill the available space, as any photo will show you.

 

Historical realism versus realistic operation versus enjoyment versus non-negotiable space, time and financial constraints ... what to do?  Go completely fictional?  Chuck the whole dream, sell all the stuff and build a Great Western (or more likely Isle of Wight) branch line instead?  Blow the modelling budget on Lottery Tickets?  Decisions, decisions ...

 

Fortunately, George Dow's history has a wonderful throwaway line that the GC originally considered Mansfield as their starting point for the London Extension.  He doesn't amplify that, but still, on such authority it's good enough for me; and instead of (or perhaps as well as) a 'Chesterfield Loop' there'll therefore be a 'Mansfield Loop', allegedly with steep gradients requiring shorter trains, and on a constrained site - and so off we go!

 

As you say, 'each to his own' ...

Edited November 11, 2016 by Willie Whizz

[The Fatadder]

Here's my go at modelling a pair of Centenary restaurant cars, using Comet sides on the Airfix models:

 

During the construction:

 

I'm currently doing a corridor composite, using the same approach of Comet sides on the Airfix model. Eventually I'll add proper corridor connections and less obtrusive couplers.

 

Alastair (Barry Ten)

Very nice,

My plan for my Christmas coach project is to convert a pair of these (and add sides to my Airfix compo and brake to match the windows). Nice to see what they should look like finidhed