Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

I'm glad to see that. ER locos and teaks would be better still, but...

I'm afraid I caught the Leicester layout (again) in a quiet phase on Saturday and in the heat and humidity could neither hang around to wait for more action nor persuade myself to return.

 

We've been struggling for some time with providing operators, as a result there is definitely an A team and a B team at certain points, however, it looks as if the group is starting to settle down a bit. With a bit of luck, we should be able to keep the layout going a bit longer. Hopefully, the newbies have not been put off by the heat and will come back.

 

With regard to teak stock, we actually have plenty of proper ones, not the BR repaints. It's just sods law that Youtubers never get them in the shot.

[t-b-g]

As a member of the "Horfield" group I would say that we have attracted a little criticism during the past few years for the open and simple 4 track main line extending most of

the 35ft on view, just the suburban station occupying one end and associated signals.We are currently contemplating a successor utilising the 16 track fiddle yard and the

prevailing view amongst the crew leans  toward another stretch of 4 track main line. Lazy thinking?  Perhaps we are duplicating ourselves but we do love to see a  "Castle" with

12 on belting through!  

We considered Badminton at some length as well as Cholsey and Moulford but the consensus now seems to favour another crack at Sonning Cutting. With much assistance

from son Steve and Mike Evans I tried (not very successfully) to model this many years ago with an end to end set up.Not my most wonderful idea. We did take it to a few

shows, but to say it kept you on you toes as an operator would be the understatement of the year.I believe one of the team still suffers nightmares.

Anyway bearing in mind the posts from "Waverley" and "t-b-g"  we would be interested to hear others opinions as the operating potential would be less than "Horfield" as

there is no station to provide extra stopping train interest.

 

I have said previously that as long as the type of operation is appropriate to the modelled scene, then I can enjoy almost any type of layout. A couple of examples that have cropped up before are Stoke Summit and Charwelton. I found Stoke Summit enjoyable to watch as it represented the sort of place on the ECML that my dad took me to on a weekend or during school holidays. All you saw was a succession of trains and if one got a check for a signal that was an event.So the scene, the operation and the trains, almost all run at sensible speeds for the prototypes, all matched and the scene worked as a whole for me. Charwelton had a goods yard and a branch but every time I saw it, the operation was the same as Stoke Summit. I never once saw the sidings shunted and they might as well not have been there. That was less satisfying to me but I know lots of other people were huge fans of the layout, so that is probably more my problem than one down to the layout..

 

I would never want to model a main line layout of the type under discussion myself as I would be bored stiff within a few minutes just driving one train round after another. I have operated a layout like that and didn't get half the pleasure I get from running a proper railway with a timetable, shunting, swapping vehicle and locos and all that sort of thing. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy watching a layout like that as long as the trains were properly modelled, run well and are hopefully not straight out of a box RTR.

[newbryford]

.  If you are modelling modern image (which to me means anything without a steam engine unless it's preserved),

 

So what does that make Tornado? Newer than a significant proportion of today's railway fleet.

 

Great fun to run it with sound at the DEMU Showcase exhibition. Much tutting and gnashing of teeth as she whistled away amongst the diesels..

 

Cheers,

Mick

[jacko]

A few posts back I mentioned that one of my pet peeves was the lack of corridor connectors on exhibition layouts.   Also I have had a recent conversation with a fellow member of the BRMNA about how the top (helicopter) view of the latest of-the-shelf connectors does not look right.  As a consequence, I was reminded of an article in Model Rail constructor circa 1958 when I was still in short trousers.   Specifically making corridor connectors using graph paper and Indian ink for the then new Kitmaster coaches.  So, the bugs outside being rather bad and I being a bit bored decided to have a go.  All went well except for the colouring.  I did not have Indian Ink and the ink I used resulted in swelling of the paper.  Don't know if it was the ink or the quality of the paper used 50+ years ago.  I also tried matt black Tamiya paint put it dried hard and I suspect it would fatigue fairly quickly.  Anyway, on the basis of have a go (yes the gap is too big in 6 but it is for demo only).  Corridor, attached are some pictures.  

 

 

Theakerr..  not having access to the 1958 magazine, can you tell me what depth each fold is please? I'd quite like to have a go at that ( and I DO have a bottle of indian ink in the drawer  )

 

graeme

[Focalplane]

Passenger car connectors for the Southern Pacific Daylight trains were designed to give a "one long train" look.  Broadway Limited (no connection, etc.) solved various problems in making realistic models run on 22" curved track.  This includes articulated sets of two and three cars.  There is a video on BLI's website which may be of interest.

 

http://www.broadway-limited.com/spdaylighttrainsho.aspx

 

I have the observation car (it came free with my GS-4 Daylight 4-8-4) and it really is a beauty.  At around $80 a car, with lighting and detailed interiors, excellent value.

[unclebobkt]

       ... ..

 

Incidentally, during the interchange trials of 1948, having watched A4 Seagull demolish Hemerdon, the GWR inspector turned to the driver and informed him 'One of our engines couldn't have done that'.

 

  ... .

 

  During the 1948. Loco. Exchanges I watched A4. 'Seagull.',  on an up  train,  leaving RUGBY Midland  that slipped noticeably that the driver had to reverse to get his cylinders in their correct positions and to allow some extra help from the buffers' compression.  But, to be fair,  it was v. much of an o'cast. day with more than a hint of moisture in the air.

 

  I never managed to see how the SR's. MN. performed on a similar train.

 

  The LMS. competitor behaved competently.

 

  I suppose that the GWR. Kings were too broad in the beam  for the Midland's loading gauge?

 

         

 

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by unclebobkt

[Tony Wright]

I have said previously that as long as the type of operation is appropriate to the modelled scene, then I can enjoy almost any type of layout. A couple of examples that have cropped up before are Stoke Summit and Charwelton. I found Stoke Summit enjoyable to watch as it represented the sort of place on the ECML that my dad took me to on a weekend or during school holidays. All you saw was a succession of trains and if one got a check for a signal that was an event.So the scene, the operation and the trains, almost all run at sensible speeds for the prototypes, all matched and the scene worked as a whole for me. Charwelton had a goods yard and a branch but every time I saw it, the operation was the same as Stoke Summit. I never once saw the sidings shunted and they might as well not have been there. That was less satisfying to me but I know lots of other people were huge fans of the layout, so that is probably more my problem than one down to the layout..

 

I would never want to model a main line layout of the type under discussion myself as I would be bored stiff within a few minutes just driving one train round after another. I have operated a layout like that and didn't get half the pleasure I get from running a proper railway with a timetable, shunting, swapping vehicle and locos and all that sort of thing. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy watching a layout like that as long as the trains were properly modelled, run well and are hopefully not straight out of a box RTR.

Thanks Tony,

 

With regard to Charwelton's operation, I've mentioned this before. We did actually have iron ore empties and full sets made up to come off the main line and go on to it, all requiring the prototypical to-ing and fro-ing across the main running roads. We abandoned them (though did shunt the yard) because of the time taken to achieve all this. Time, if you were standing by Catesby Tunnel, when nothing was running. We found that spectators (in the main) just didn't appreciate this 'prototypical' operation (the locos had to be switched because the ironstone locos were only allowed into the interchange sidings and not on the main lines, the BR ones being barred from the ironstone branch as well). Thus, to please the most, we just ran train after train round.  

[Tony Wright]

A little Youtube clip of LSGC (2 Mins 38 Secs in) featuring some of the Late period LM trains. Approximately 85% of the locomotives and stock are kit built, including amongst others, a littlel engines J11/3 being driven far to fast down south loop and a DJH Black 5 about to climb the 1/75 bank with the Marylebone Glasgow Car sleeper. The latter being formed from the big Comet kit LM twelve wheelers and the Parkside LM and LNER CCT's.

 

Andrew,

 

The locos and trains shown on LS are absolutely superb and a real credit to you and all the other builders. 

 

However (there's always an however), in the same way you dislike Bachmann Mk.1s (even after they've been modified?) I cannot reconcile really tight right angle bends on main line depictions. My memory of the GC in Leicester is that it's mainly dead straight or with very wide-radius curves. The second 'however' is just what is that splitting signal supposed to be indicating? 

 

Generally superlative-modelling, however; there, a positive 'however'!

[Theakerr]

Graeme,

Cannot confirm what graph paper was used circa 1958 (grey matter a little light nowadays), but this time I used 1" square divided into tenths.  Thus, each fold is 1/10".  A quick check suggests that 1/10" is probably about right since it converts to 2.54 mm or about 2mm after the fold is taken into account.  At 2mm it would equate to 6" on the 1:1 model.  Also, upon resting my eyes after lunch, I remembered that on the original a corridor connectors were glued to each coach and when the coaches were assembled as a train unit, the connectors were fastened together with a paper clip.  

 

​Edited to add comment about joining connectors

Edited June 21, 2017 by Theakerr

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

   I think you have answered your own question when quoting the superb stud of loco's and rolling stock built by yourself and members of WMRC to be admired on

Stoke S. and Charwelton in particular. Sadly we run modified RTR mostly on Horfield with a small (but growing) selection of kit built stock and you make the point well

that you probably (certainly?) wouldn't have been as successful or welcomed on the exhibition circuit with a similar loco stud  and rolling stock roster.

 

As I mentioned previously, our concern now is that an even more straightforward layout with the viewers focus more on the stock may not be the way to go?

 

ps    The B1 is performing well,thanks

Chris,

 

I don't have a 'problem' with using RTR, as long as it's been personalised. By that I mean improved by way of extra detailing, etched plates, loco-to-tender-gap shortened, real coal in the tender, lamps fitted, a crew on board, weathering applied and what have you. Similarly, RTR rolling stock can be improved, if only by chucking away any ghastly couplings, fitting concertina gangways (where appropriate) and, especially, weathering. Though heartily disliked by one correspondent, most of my Mk.1s are Bachmann in origin, but all have had the roof ribs removed, gangways fitted, new couplings added and underframes weathered. Without RTR Mk.1s, I'd be building coaches forever! 

 

What you've done as a group on Horfield with regard to locos and stock is laudable, whatever its origins. I photographed many excellent modified RTR locos on Kensal Green. What's most important is that you've done the work yourselves. Chaps such as Westerner (Alan) have brought similarly-altered locos to run on Little Bytham, and they're a joy to behold, to run and to photograph.

 

Regarding Stoke Summit, a decision was taken to build the locos and rolling stock ourselves for two principal reasons. One, at the time (the mid-'90s) RTR in the main was so poor for our requirements in terms of appearance and performance and, two, there was so little which was appropriate, even if it had been any good. The caveat, of course, is that one has to be part of a highly-skilled group of modellers to be a participant. You are part of such a group from what I've seen of Horfield overall. One correspondent thought I was very lucky to be part of such a group. I think I was/am.

 

I think as long as RTR has been 'improved' in the way I've described, then there is great merit in exploiting it. That I choose not to (apart from the Mk.1s mentioned, and several wagons) is up (or down) to me, and I've already explained why I prefer to make my own locos. Where I do get a bit disappointed is watching totally-unaltered RTR locos hauling totally-unaltered RTR trains on exhibition layouts (where much of the scenic work and architectural modelling is hand-built). Why should I (and the likes of others) pay to see a layout where what's running on it I can see for nothing in a model shop's window? 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Enterprisingwestern]

Thanks Tony,

 

With regard to Charwelton's operation, I've mentioned this before. We did actually have iron ore empties and full sets made up to come off the main line and go on to it, all requiring the prototypical to-ing and fro-ing across the main running roads. We abandoned them (though did shunt the yard) because of the time taken to achieve all this. Time, if you were standing by Catesby Tunnel, when nothing was running. We found that spectators (in the main) just didn't appreciate this 'prototypical' operation (the locos had to be switched because the ironstone locos were only allowed into the interchange sidings and not on the main lines, the BR ones being barred from the ironstone branch as well). Thus, to please the most, we just ran train after train round.  

 

You can't please all of the people all of the time, or, if they are railway modellers, any of the people any of the time!

 

MIke.

[Headstock]

Andrew,

 

The locos and trains shown on LS are absolutely superb and a real credit to you and all the other builders. 

 

However (there's always an however), in the same way you dislike Bachmann Mk.1s (even after they've been modified?) I cannot reconcile really tight right angle bends on main line depictions. My memory of the GC in Leicester is that it's mainly dead straight or with very wide-radius curves. The second 'however' is just what is that splitting signal supposed to be indicating? 

 

Generally superlative-modelling, however; there, a positive 'however'!

 

Good Afternoon Tony,

 

I was ever so slightly kidding with regard to the Bachmann MK1's. I have never stood at the end of a layout shouting scrap 'em, honest. Just to reaffirm, I'm much more interested in highlighting and being informed by good practice rather than making lists of dislikes. I would like to think that this thread provides ample evidence of the former rather than the latter.

 

Clearly, 'tight right angle bends' at the ends of layouts look rubbish. I have said many times before that it would not be my choice, my own personal version of LSGC would differ in a number of respects to that finally realised. No doubt I would introduce my own set of cockups. Finally, I can't comment too much on the signals for 'political reasons', let's just say that an unfortunate occurrence rendering them inoperable. I hope that is of help.

[Headstock]

 

       ... ..

 

Incidentally, during the interchange trials of 1948, having watched A4 Seagull demolish Hemerdon, the GWR inspector turned to the driver and informed him 'One of our engines couldn't have done that'.

 

  ... .

 

  During the 1948. Loco. Exchanges I watched A4. 'Seagull.',  on an up  train,  leaving RUGBY Midland  that slipped noticeably that the driver had to reverse to get his cylinders in their correct positions and to allow some extra help from the buffers' compression.  But, to be fair,  it was v. much of an o'cast. day with more than a hint of moisture in the air.

 

  I never managed to see how the SR's. MN. performed on a similar train.

 

  The LMS. competitor behaved competently.

 

  I suppose that the GWR. Kings were too broad in the beam  for the Midland's loading gauge?

 

         

 

 

 

 

Unclebobtk,

 

What a spectacle that must have been, oh for time travel and a high res camcorder.

 

With regard to the slopes of Hemerdon and the interchange trials. The ability of the locomotive to keep its feet on the climb was only part of the equation. What impressed the GWR inspector was the ability of the A4 to keep produceing steam and supply it to the cylinders under conditions that would have winded one of the big GWR 4-6-0's. Seagull went on to produced the fastest climb of the trials, despite the fact that it had only accelerated to 24 mph as it reached the bank. The other competing locomotives all passed the same spot at the stipulated 40 mph, yet all significantly lost speed on the climb and dropped far behind the A4's maximum at the summit.

[£1.38]

 

Tony Wright wrote..

 

I cannot reconcile really tight right angle bends on main line depictions. My memory of the GC in Leicester is that it's mainly dead straight or with very wide-radius curves.

 

 

 

 

Hmmm, I seem to remember another main line layout with a steepish curve at one end...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64244-stoke-summit-wolverhampton-mrc/?p=848035

 

Admittedly it was well disguised and probably not as sharp as the Leicester layout, but there is no curve there on the real thing. It is pretty well dead straight all the way to Peterborough and beyond

Edited June 21, 2017 by £1.38

[Tony Wright]

Good Afternoon Tony,

 

I was ever so slightly kidding with regard to the Bachmann MK1's. I have never stood at the end of a layout shouting scrap 'em, honest. Just to reaffirm, I'm much more interested in highlighting and being informed by good practice rather than making lists of dislikes. I would like to think that this thread provides ample evidence of the former rather than the latter.

 

Clearly, 'tight right angle bends' at the ends of layouts look rubbish. I have said many times before that it would not be my choice, my own personal version of LSGC would differ in a number of respects to that finally realised. No doubt I would introduce my own set of cockups. Finally, I can't comment too much on the signals for 'political reasons', let's just say that an unfortunate occurrence rendering them inoperable. I hope that is of help.

Thanks Andrew,

 

I'm delighted that this thread encourages information about good practice and highlighting it; largely thanks to the contributions of the likes of your good-self. 

 

I have to say I was probably a bit critical of the signal. Having been involved with operating working semaphores on several WMRC layouts, they're tricky things to make work properly all the time, especially exhibition layouts. 

 

Are you coming over on Saturday, by the way? 

[Tony Wright]

 

Tony Wright wrote..

 

I cannot reconcile really tight right angle bends on main line depictions. My memory of the GC in Leicester is that it's mainly dead straight or with very wide-radius curves.

 

 

 

 

Hmmm, I seem to remember another main line layout with a steepish curve at one end...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64244-stoke-summit-wolverhampton-mrc/?p=848035

 

Admittedly it was well disguised and probably not as sharp as the Leicester layout, but there is no curve there on the real thing. It is pretty well dead straight all the way to Peterborough and beyond

 

I, too, remember it well (very well). I also remember commenting about its not-being-right on many occasions.

 

It was, as on so many exhibition layouts, a necessary compromise. If nothing else, it taught me that too much compromising 'ruins' the effect of a main line - a very fast main line at that. It also taught me that, though 32' might be seem a fair bit of length, in no way, in that 'restricted' space, could Essendine be modelled - not without ridiculous curves. Essendine was our first choice because of the interesting junctions, but even six foot radius curves going off-scene on the scenic section just looked daft. We settled on Little Bytham because that enabled us to go on/off scene on the straight, though it is 15" short of reality. 

 

Am I the model railway equivalent of he who has given up smoking, and now cannot see its attraction? I wonder. Or, is that a poor analogy?

 

It's interesting you mention Peterborough. I regularly pick-up family/friends from the station and I can't believe what used to be there, especially that wretched dog-leg. Standing on the station now, the lines are almost dead straight through Spital Bridge and beyond and there's the hugest of curves underneath Crescent bridge and on to the Nene bridges. What's the restriction now? 100 mph - maybe more. To all (modelling) intents and purposes, Peterborough is (and should have been historically) dead straight. A friend is modelling Peterborough North in steam days - at least he's just starting erecting the baseboards. He's got something over 40', and he tells me that's not enough! 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Anglian]

What book are you reading there Tony, looks quite voluminous ?

 

Brit15

 

 

It's the 1958 ABC Railway Guide. 

 

Tony,

It's great to hear that the figure hasn't AWOL after all. I'm very much looking forward to painting it. I've had two things go missing in the post this year that were on their way to me but that never made it so I feared the worst. I suspect this infernal heat has made me crotchety, as has the approach of a significant birthday. This marks the end of another decade of life and heralds the next stage, in which I will qualify as an older git.

[jrg1]

I, too, remember it well (very well). I also remember commenting about its not-being-right on many occasions.

It was, as on so many exhibition layouts, a necessary compromise. If nothing else, it taught me that too much compromising 'ruins' the effect of a main line - a very fast main line at that. It also taught me that, though 32' might be seem a fair bit of length, in no way, in that 'restricted' space, could Essendine be modelled - not without ridiculous curves. Essendine was our first choice because of the interesting junctions, but even six foot radius curves going off-scene on the scenic section just looked daft. We settled on Little Bytham because that enabled us to go on/off scene on the straight, though it is 15" short of reality.

 

A pity you could not model Essendine-a unique location with the junctions to Bourne and Stamford, and the operating potential.

[APOLLO]

Little Bytham, Essendine, Retford, Ranskill, Scrooby, Bawtry, Doncaster, Chaloners Whin, York, Thirsk, Danby Wiske, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle.

 

These names just evoke speed. The list (remembering old O.S Nock locomotive performance logs in the Railway Magazine) seems to roll off your tongue. Stirling singles,  A1,2,3,4's Deltics, HST's. 91's and (hopefully) faster things to come. A wonderful bit of railway.

 

I live alongside the "rival" WCML just north of Wigan. - just not quite as magical, even the mighty Duchesses slogged up Boars Head bank here !!

 

 

Brit15

[t-b-g]

Little Bytham, Essendine, Retford, Ranskill, Scrooby, Bawtry, Doncaster, Chaloners Whin, York, Thirsk, Danby Wiske, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle.

 

These names just evoke speed. The list (remembering old O.S Nock locomotive performance logs in the Railway Magazine) seems to roll off your tongue. Stirling singles,  A1,2,3,4's Deltics, HST's. 91's and (hopefully) faster things to come. A wonderful bit of railway.

 

I live alongside the "rival" WCML just north of Wigan. - just not quite as magical, even the mighty Duchesses slogged up Boars Head bank here !!

 

 

Brit15

 

Not sure about Bawtry! I am not 100% sure if it was always there but wasn't there a great speed restriction over the viaduct for most of its existence until a major reinforcement in concrete was made in the fairly recent past, around the time of electrification if my memory is any good. There certainly was a severe restriction in the mid 1970s when I first knew the area.

[grob1234]

Not sure about Bawtry! I am not 100% sure if it was always there but wasn't there a great speed restriction over the viaduct for most of its existence until a major reinforcement in concrete was made in the fairly recent past, around the time of electrification if my memory is any good. There certainly was a severe restriction in the mid 1970s when I first knew the area.

Hopefully no speed restriction in the 1930's!

[Headstock]

Thanks Andrew,

 

I'm delighted that this thread encourages information about good practice and highlighting it; largely thanks to the contributions of the likes of your good-self. 

 

I have to say I was probably a bit critical of the signal. Having been involved with operating working semaphores on several WMRC layouts, they're tricky things to make work properly all the time, especially exhibition layouts. 

 

Are you coming over on Saturday, by the way? 

 

Tony,

 

I was unaware that there was an invitation. What a bummer, unfortunately, I have other commitments over the weekend, perhaps some other time.

[Tony Wright]

I, too, remember it well (very well). I also remember commenting about its not-being-right on many occasions.

 

It was, as on so many exhibition layouts, a necessary compromise. If nothing else, it taught me that too much compromising 'ruins' the effect of a main line - a very fast main line at that. It also taught me that, though 32' might be seem a fair bit of length, in no way, in that 'restricted' space, could Essendine be modelled - not without ridiculous curves. Essendine was our first choice because of the interesting junctions, but even six foot radius curves going off-scene on the scenic section just looked daft. We settled on Little Bytham because that enabled us to go on/off scene on the straight, though it is 15" short of reality.

 

A pity you could not model Essendine-a unique location with the junctions to Bourne and Stamford, and the operating potential.

What a lovely picture. Many thanks for posting it. 

 

Regarding Essendine, when the dimensions of my layout building were established, Ia Wilson drew up a scale plan to accommodate the station and its two junctions. It would have made a fantastic model, but in 32' x 12' it just could not be accommodated successfully; not without those too tight scenic curves I keep on going on about. The scenic break at the north end would have been the occupation bridge north of the Bourne-Stamford road bridge. The curve between the two ended up too tight, even going off-scene at 6' radius. There wasn't (still isn't) a natural scenic break at the south end, other than two similar steel bridges between Essendine and Greatford, but the more northerly one is still too far away. With viewing from the inside looking westwards, the Stamford branch would have gone off into a corner with a 'turntable' fiddle yard. The Bourne branch would have run into the fiddle yard. The intention was to 'rewrite' a bit of history, and believe that the Bourne branch lasted until 1959, like the Stamford one. 

 

No matter how hard we tried, the main line always ended up going on/off scene via too-tight radii. This was always going to be unacceptable, so the idea was abandoned and Little Bytham chosen instead. Puzzling over what could have been, I figured out that at least 45' x 20' would have been necessary to build Essendine 'realistically'. I don't own that much land! The irony was, in preparation, I'd built the C12s and N5s necessary as motive power for the Stamford branch. The Bourne branch would have used a modified Bachmann 'Flying Pig', and I was contemplating building the unique twin-set for it. 

 

I suppose it all comes down to how much selective compression one is prepared to tolerate. A pity - perhaps I should have been less-intolerant. That said, at least I can still have (in model form) my favourite expresses romping along a bit of the fastest stretch of main line in the realm, even though they have to negotiate daft curves at the ends. However, those curves are out of sight, and that is the important thing.  

Edited June 22, 2017 by Tony Wright

[jrg1]

Br

 

What a lovely picture. Many thanks for posting it. 

 

Regarding Essendine, when the dimensions of my layout building were established, Ia Wilson drew up a scale plan to accommodate the station and its two junctions. It would have made a fantastic model, but in 32' x 12' it just could not be accommodated successfully; not without those too tight scenic curves I keep on going on about. The scenic break at the north end would have been the occupation bridge north of the Bourne-Stamford road bridge. The curve between the two ended up too tight, even going off-scene at 6' radius. There wasn't (still isn't) a natural scenic break at the south end, other than two similar steel bridges between Essendine and Greatford, but the more northerly one is still too far away. With viewing from the inside looking westwards, the Stamford branch would have gone off into a corner with a 'turntable' fiddle yard. The Bourne branch would have run into the fiddle yard. The intention was to 'rewrite' a bit of history, and believe that the Bourne branch lasted until 1959, like the Stamford one. 

 

No matter how hard we tried, the main line always ended up going on/off scene via too-tight radii. This was always going to be unacceptable, so the idea was abandoned and Little Bytham chosen instead. Puzzling over what could have been, I figured out that at least 45' x 20' would have been necessary to build Essendine 'realistically'. I don't own that much land! The irony was, in preparation, I'd built the C12s and N5s necessary as motive power for the Stamford branch. The Bourne branch would have used a modified Bachmann 'Flying Pig', and I was contemplating building the unique twin-set for it. 

 

I suppose it all comes down to how much selective compression one is prepared to tolerate. A pity - perhaps I should have been less-intolerant. That said, at least I can still have (in model form) my favourite expresses romping along a bit of the fastest stretch of main line in the realm, even though they have to negotiate daft curves at the ends. However, those curves are out of sight, and that is the important thing.  

Brian Mosby built the Horncastle and Essendine sets for me, from etches prepared by Nick Easton, for my planned layout, set in Lincolnshire-the Essendine B set was used on the Mablethorpe Loop. 

[jacko]

Little Bytham, Essendine, Retford, Ranskill, Scrooby, Bawtry, Doncaster, Chaloners Whin, York, Thirsk, Danby Wiske, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle.

 

These names just evoke speed.

I'd question the inclusion of Newcastle in this list as there's a pretty sharp bend into the station from the south. Once north of the toon you're into my home county and the line doesn't really open up to high speeds until well past Morpeth - another sharp bend into the station * - possibly the tightest on any mainline in the UK ? Once past morpeth the line doesn't get really fast until past Craster but you can really feel them cranking up a gear on the way up to Berwick.

 

Graeme

 

* - might be a good station to model as it genuinely has a sharp bend leading off scene :-) - certainly one I've considered and it might just about fit into 24 x 12