Wright writes.....

[LNER4479]

Talking of valve gear and locos for Carlisle - looked what just popped by for an improbable spin on Grantham's turntable (fortunately illuminated by the sun being in just the right place).

 

 

 

Exquisite, especially in motion. I gather you might know something about this, Mike?(!)

[Tony Wright]

I have to agree about the word presence, a RTR Loco looks superb, but put that against a Brass or GOOD whitemetal one that's painted to a high standard and you can see the difference through the paint.

 

Probably unbeknown to you Tony I was studying some of your Locos at fairly close quarters, not just the two Brass ones that were exquisite, but also the painted ones, and you can quite easily see the difference in a well built Kit from a RTR at about 3ft.

 

RTR is a lot better than it was, but it will NEVER match a well built Kit Loco.

 

Just going back to my point a couple of days ago about Passenger Coach wheels, why is it that almost all the RTR Locos people bring to run on LB run really quite well with very little jumping over points, but the same Manufacturer cant make coach wheels to run as good on the same track?

 

Andy.

Thanks, Andy.

 

What must be also repeated is that the majority of the big green locos you saw on Monday were painted by Ian Rathbone to perfection.

[Tony Wright]

In reply to Tony above, it's very nice when the customer knows all about the loco he wants and can supply all relevant material but I've been doing this for a living for nearly 38 years now and I can tell you it doesn't happen very often. Over that time I've had to build a lot of models of subjects I was familiar with but an awful lot more that I knew nothing about, I've never tried to specialise in any way, just take on anything that comes my way, the more variety the better. I've had to do a lot of research along the way but even models of contemporary equipment can be difficult, a couple of examples of this come to mind. Working on a model for Hunslet, a 150hp mines rack loco, they hadn't even built the full size one, I was getting drawings direct from the chief draughtsman and occasionally taking them back to him to tell him that something didn't fit. A series of model 325 sets for Royal Mail - ABB (now Bombardier) said  "there are no GA drawings, we don't do it like that now". A look round their drawing office revealed all the draughtsmen working on their own computers, drawing individual parts and assemblies but no drawing linking them all together. The best they could do for me was a painting diagram.

With regard to operation it's often very difficult to know what is required, much of my work has probably never been run by the original owners, I often see them back when they are acquired by someone else. I do always ask about minimum radius - and then knock about 6" off whatever figure I'm given. Haulage power is even more difficult, I can only test properly if they are 00 or EM and I normally send out locos unweighted. The massive EM Carlisle layout has shown this up very well, I started by building locos for the layout's owner without any knowledge of what they were intended for, the layout hadn't been started then, and I'm now working on making these powerful enough to do the job they were intended to do. This is also a good example of the minimum radius curve question, I was told 48" minimum but when I eventually saw the track plan it was clearly 42". Since at this point I finished up doing most of the tracklaying I can test them at 42" minimum radius. A bigger problem has turned out to be gradients which are much steeper than intended and some of the trains are very heavy.

Thanks Mike,

 

I concede you've built far more locos than I have, and of much greater variety, and your craftsmanship speaks for itself. 

 

Perhaps my client-base was different (and, no doubt, smaller) but, almost without exception, my customers stipulated exactly what they wanted. I wouldn't have operated in any other way, and certainly would not have provided a brass-built model without any ballast. In one particular case, for a serving merchant seaman, I was requested to build the LNER Garratt in early-BR condition because that's how he remembered seeing it at Silkstone. Part of the brief was to fix it securely to a length of track, attached to a substantial base so that it could be screwed to his cabin wall! It need not run I was told, but I insisted that it be a working model in case he ever had to sell it on. He agreed. Whether it's still on the ocean wave, or sunk, or sold-on, I don't know. 

Edited August 28, 2014 by Tony Wright

[69843]

Sorry for hijacking the thread everyone, but I just came across an interesting snippet of film from British Pathé on Youtube which I feel is best placed here:

 

The details from Youtube are:

"Name of the item as found in the original paperwork "L.N.E.Rly's four latest engines."

 

At a glance, the locomotives (from L to R) appear to be a Silver A4, a Green A4 (not certain, but appears to match the A3), a Silver A4 and a Green A3 with Banjo Dome.

 

 

Hope it is of interest

[The Stationmaster]

Re. the professional builder building a kit to match a particular locomotive at a particular time, that should surely be a discussion which takes place when the commission and costs are agreed. Be that paying the builder for research time and costs or the customer agreeing to furnish the required information and specifications. It shouldn't just be expected as part of the basic kit build costs. As ever, good communications are the key.

I can remember a few (sorry, good few) years back a colleague at work ordered a 'Castle' handbuilt in 0 gauge from a professional builder.  With his order went his specification for what he wanted, engine number, year built, year the model was to portray, list of all detail differences  on that engine between those two dates fully illustrated with photos and sketches - the latter showing not only what to do but also what not to copy on various similarly numbered 'Castles'.  All in all it came to about a dozen double-sided pages of A4 and that, in my view, is how one should order a bespoke loco.

Edited August 28, 2014 by The Stationmaster

[coachmann]

I can remember a few (sorry, good few) years back a colleague at work ordered a 'Castle' handbuilt in 0 gauge from a professional builder.  With his order went his specification for what he wanted, engine number, year built, year the model was to portray, list of all detail differences  on that engine between those two dates fully illustrated with photos and sketches - the latter showing not only what to do but also what not to copy on various similarly numbered 'Castles'.  All in all it came to about a dozen double-sided pages of A4 and that, in my view, is how one should order a bespoke loco.

Geoff Holt and I were well used to something very similar from David Jenkinson. We followed his handwritten notes to the letter but just occasionally Geoff would notice something about the real engine and I would notice something about the lining. David would incorporate the revised info in his next magazine or book article. But most of my output was for the trade and they just wanted something that was saleable. I still did the research though seeing as my name was underneath the model! Not sure if I ever mentioned this but a 7mm loco came in for painting where there were only ever two loco in the whole class. The model was a mixture of both and left me stumped!!!

Edited August 28, 2014 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

Sorry for hijacking the thread everyone, but I just came across an interesting snippet of film from British Pathé on Youtube which I feel is best placed here:

 

The details from Youtube are:

"Name of the item as found in the original paperwork "L.N.E.Rly's four latest engines."

 

At a glance, the locomotives (from L to R) appear to be a Silver A4, a Green A4 (not certain, but appears to match the A3), a Silver A4 and a Green A3 with Banjo Dome.

 

 

Hope it is of interest

Many thanks, and it is of real interest.

 

I agree with your assessment about what colours the locos are - it looks to have been taken alongside the reservoirs between Hornsey and Wood Green, a multi-track section of the main line frequently used for publicity purposes.

[Barry O]

I have a wide spread of locos .. RTR ones, Kit built and some scratchbuilt by my late father... While the kit built ones are no match in paint finish (due to my own painting limitations) I have to admit that I still prefer some of these to the RTR equivalent. I also know that if the chassis gets sloppy I can re-fit new bearings .. unlike the RTR stuff which I know will wear out (as shown by some of the stock on an exhibition layout owned by someone in the Leeds MRS.

 

I still prefer kit/scratchbuilt built locos as they do feel like a loco and have a certain presence.  After all anyone can buy an RTR model...

 

Baz

[ROY@34F]

Tony, in answer to your post 2246 ....such is the popularity of this thread of yours !...on the previous page already... I can't remember which comet chassis it was; I did'nt even know there were different ones. I may well have had to modify things a bit, as often happens as you know. My rad. rod moves though, driven by a pin locating in the rad. link, and I think is guided by a pin in the reversing rod locating in the slot of the rad. rod .  Does Tony Geary's actually move. It looks like the rad. rod on Tony's is fixed to the reversing rod by a soldered rivet.

I know on some engines I have spent quite a while very delicately cutting the slot in the rear end of the rad. rod . I'm barmy, I know. But you can therefore get the thing to work as per prototype.

 

May I just echo what others have said, that we follow this thread of yours with great interest. Even when going over things from years ago, and stock that we've all seen umpteen times, it's still captivating. I sometimes pick up little tips that I did'nt know or had forgotten. So keep it up Tony and co.

 

Roy.

[Barry Ten]

 

Not only is it essential to know exactly the condition in which the loco is to be presented but I always insisted on the customer giving me the most comprehensive brief as to what minimum radii his loco would have to negotiate, what control system he used and what loads it might have to haul. The last point was, to some extent irrelevant, because I made sure all my locos would pull a prototype load. I'm not saying I got it all right all the time; for instance, the front steps had to go on a 'King Arthur' - a pity really, because they're so distinctive. In my opinion, if such 'essential' items have to be removed, then the railway has too-tight curves, resulting in too much compromise.

 

 

 

That compromise, though, may be the one thing that allows us to have a railway - or at least a continuous run. My 4mm layout occupies a 12' x 11' room, so in theory there's room for generous curves - 60" radius would seem to be practical. But in reality, all sorts of other design considerations come into play. My baseboards can't be too deep, as they're bracketed off the walls, and I want a decent length for my storage sidings, forcing the use of curved turnouts. The end result is that my ruling radius is 30", as dictated by both the geometry of the room and the tighter route on Peco curved turnouts. The tight bits are all off-stage or concealed - the visible curves are much gentler - but of course all trains must still get through the tight bits, and do so reliably, time and time again. I managed to fit front steps to my Arthurs but it was really on the limit, and I had to use those metal setting curves to make sure my radii really didn't drop below 30" at any point. Presumably somewhere out there there's a class of locomotive where I wouldn't be able to fit the front steps at all, but given the choice between that and no layout at all - or at best a short, terminus to fiddle yard set-up - I'll gladly live with the inevitable compromise of tight-ish curves.

[dibateg]

I ( foolishly ) assumed the Comet chassis was correct! Years on - now I see the radius rod looks far too long...

 

Regards

Tony

[Tony Wright]

Tony, in answer to your post 2246 ....such is the popularity of this thread of yours !...on the previous page already... I can't remember which comet chassis it was; I did'nt even know there were different ones. I may well have had to modify things a bit, as often happens as you know. My rad. rod moves though, driven by a pin locating in the rad. link, and I think is guided by a pin in the reversing rod locating in the slot of the rad. rod .  Does Tony Geary's actually move. It looks like the rad. rod on Tony's is fixed to the reversing rod by a soldered rivet.

I know on some engines I have spent quite a while very delicately cutting the slot in the rear end of the rad. rod . I'm barmy, I know. But you can therefore get the thing to work as per prototype.

 

May I just echo what others have said, that we follow this thread of yours with great interest. Even when going over things from years ago, and stock that we've all seen umpteen times, it's still captivating. I sometimes pick up little tips that I did'nt know or had forgotten. So keep it up Tony and co.

 

Roy.

Thanks Roy,

 

No it doesn't move; the gear is permanently fixed on Tony's B1, as it is on mine. I once got Walschaert's gear to actually move like the prototype (like yours). It wasn't adjustable, just the radius rod moving backwards and forwards in tune with the combination lever so that the valve rods actually worked. My problem is I can't remember to which Pacific I fitted it. Since the subtle movement (well linked-up) was only really visible at close quarters, I abandoned the idea for future production as being not the best use of my time. But, though I agree with your being barmy, I acknowledge the great skill needed to do what you do in making your gear work like the prototype.

 

As for compromise, of course, that's always going to be necessary in any model railway. It's really a matter of degree and opinion. I'm delighted Barry Ten can get his Arthurs round tightish curves (are they RTR or kit?) but with the one I made there was no chance, and the loco looked wrong because of it. I'm lucky to have a 32' x 12' room (but the linear dimension is still too short). However, without at least 30', I don't think I'd bother to model a section of the ECML. Why? because with less than 30' you break the 'rule of thirds'. That's to say no train should be longer than a third of the layout length. The 'average' ECML express is 10' long with loco, so it doesn't look too long on a 30' stretch. That 30' has to accommodate the bends at the ends, remember, so it's nearer only 26' of 'straight'. Less than that and the trains look too long, in extreme cases filling the visible space. I suppose one can compromise by making trains shorter, but 'The Flying Scotsman', 'Queen of Scots', 'Heart of Midlothian', 'Northumbrian' and all the crack ECML sets don't look right shortened or on too-small layouts. My opinion, anyway. 

 

As for the on-going kit/RTR discussion, I agree entirely with Barry O. One pleasant thing I've been asked to do today is to 'personalise' a couple of locos, to be presented to an old friend as a 'retirement' gift tomorrow as he relinquishes a voluntary role in supervising some alms houses; a job he's done for many years. I bought both locos (a Bachmann K3 and O4) and spent a couple of pleasant hours or so renumbering them, detailing them and fitting a few more bits and pieces. Nothing complicated - only a couple or so digits changed, add Ian Wilson's replacement front numberplates, fit scale shackles at the front, install a crew, load with real coal, add loco tools and lamps, and match the weathering. Easy, or so I thought. I tested both locos beforehand and they performed well. When finished, I thought I'd give both a good run on appropriate trains. The O4 was exquisite. Not so, the K3. After half a circuit on ten bogies it started to jerk and grind. Part of the gear appeared to have jammed. Could I get the body off to investigate? After much alarming 'cracking' noises and the loss of one of the footplate supports, it eventually came off. Of course, the rear sandpipes disappeared, the drawbar pinged into oblivion (I'm not too good on my knees these days!) and my carefully-matched weathering was spoilt by my having to grip the body so tightly. I fiddled with the gear until it was loose, then the weigh shaft on the offside came off and the crosshead fell out of its slidebar! Since I've altered the loco substantially, I've thus invalidated the guarantee, but why should RTR chassis be so feeble and so difficult to get out of a body? Yes, I know many K3 chassis are duds, but it is frustrating. Fortunately, I have a Bachmann K3 which runs quite well (or I had). I thus substituted the chassis from this and stuffed the wretched other chassis in a box. No doubt, I'll make a proper chassis to go beneath my now 'legless' K3 (as shown in BRM a couple of months back). Though I've seen many Bachmann chassis perform beautifully (particularly the more recent ones), don't let anyone be seduced by the claim that RTR mechanisms are in anything like the same league as a decent kit-built equivalent. I have a SE Finecast K3, an Anchorage K3 and a Bachmann K3 with a proper chassis. All will haul prodigious loads, quietly, smoothly and powerfully. A simple pair of screws, fore and aft, releases the bodies with ease when undone. They've also got the right-sized driving wheels.

 

Did I say it was a 'pleasant' thing I was doing today? I lie! 

 

 

Here's the K3 with it's 'new boots' (the weathering on the chassis isn't quite the same, but it'll do) In typical hypocrite Wright fashion, though the drive-side is right, the cab is the later, longer sort (not that that mattered to Bachmann, either). It was 61869, and I just altered the last digit. The front numberplate has the wrong font (it should have curly-tailed '6s' - Bachmann's original was probably wrong as well) and there are no front steps or AWS bang-plate. With regard to the steps, his curves are too tight to have them fitted (even if they were supplied). Will my friend know about the list of anomalies? I very much doubt it, and I'm sure he'll be delighted. At least it's got the right tender, and it does run sweetly. 

 

 

Here's the O4, again with just the last digit altered. A brilliant model in comparison (and by any standard), and it runs exquisitely. I wish now I'd bought the Bachmann V2 instead of the K3. We live and learn. 

Edited August 28, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Bernard Lamb]

I have to agree about the word presence, a RTR Loco looks superb, but put that against a Brass or GOOD whitemetal one that's painted to a high standard and you can see the difference through the paint.

 

Probably unbeknown to you Tony I was studying some of your Locos at fairly close quarters, not just the two Brass ones that were exquisite, but also the painted ones, and you can quite easily see the difference in a well built Kit from a RTR at about 3ft.

 

RTR is a lot better than it was, but it will NEVER match a well built Kit Loco.

 

 

I have an FIA trains 10001 and when the plastic RTR version was introduced there were comments about how I felt paying four times the price for mine than other people did for theirs.

My view is the same as yours.

You can see the difference.

Not quite to the degree shown here but it is pretty clear cut.

Bernard

[queensquare]

I have been following the Kit/RTR debate with interest. When we were at Tony's recently we spent some time admiring the Bachmann ROD 2-8-0, Tony commenting that it was a much better model than his old K's one. He got the Ks one out of the draw and put it on the same train which it effortlessly walked away with. After studying the two I said I preferred the old Ks one and I will attempt to explain why.

I do think sometimes there is a danger we get too wrapped up in fidelity at the expense of the craft side of the hobby. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive to build models as accurately as our abilities allow but that the models 'worth' should be more than simply the finished item but take into account the pleasure gained whilst building it, the stamp of the builder and the interest generated when running it with friends.

There is no doubt the Bachmann ROD was a better model in strict fidelity terms, particularly below the footplate although the old Ks one scored by having some daylight visible through the frames. Both ran beautifully. I suspect the kit build would have been the more powerful but the RTR one was quite happy pulling a realistic train. Where the old Ks one really scored was in the interest generated. We looked at the RTR one, admired it and commented on how marvellous RTR is these days and that was pretty much the end of the conversation. The Ks one generated all sorts of interest, nostalgia for old kits, grumbling about battles with lumpy white metal, the Trigger's broom nature of the chassis etc etc

In other words the Bachmann one might have been a better model but the Ks one was much more fun. Game set and match in my book.

 

Jerry

[Barry Ten]

 

As for compromise, of course, that's always going to be necessary in any model railway. It's really a matter of degree and opinion. I'm delighted Barry Ten can get his Arthurs round tightish curves (are they RTR or kit?) but with the one I made there was no chance, and the loco looked wrong because of it. I'm lucky to have a 32' x 12' room (but the linear dimension is still too short). However, without at least 30', I don't think I'd bother to model a section of the ECML. Why? because with less than 30' you break the 'rule of thirds'. That's to say no train should be longer than a third of the layout length. The 'average' ECML express is 10' long with loco, so it doesn't look too long on a 30' stretch. That 30' has to accommodate the bends at the ends, remember, so it's nearer only 26' of 'straight'. Less than that and the trains look too long, in extreme cases filling the visible space. I suppose one can compromise by making trains shorter, but 'The Flying Scotsman', 'Queen of Scots', 'Heart of Midlothian', 'Northumbrian' and all the crack ECML sets don't look right shortened or on too-small layouts. My opinion, anyway. 

 

 

 

 

 

The Arthurrs are RTR, Tony - and with plastic footsteps, so no chance of a short if the wheels happens to touch. But it is on the limit.

 

I agree about the space needing to suit the prototype. On my small-ish layout, anything longer than five or six coach trains look out of place, so I restrict myself to locals and cross-country formations.

[coachmann]

Space compromise is a damn! Branch Line services are too sparse and loco restrictive while mainlines have everything to offer but demand long trains. I have tried 5-coach Liverpool-Newcastle expresses and they don't work. Take one dining car, an open saloon and a composite, then all you've got then is a brake first and a brake third. Much longer and it's a tail-chaser. I can't see N gauge being the answer as I can't see it....

Edited August 30, 2014 by coachmann

[t-b-g]

I have been following the Kit/RTR debate with interest. When we were at Tony's recently we spent some time admiring the Bachmann ROD 2-8-0, Tony commenting that it was a much better model than his old K's one. He got the Ks one out of the draw and put it on the same train which it effortlessly walked away with. After studying the two I said I preferred the old Ks one and I will attempt to explain why.

I do think sometimes there is a danger we get too wrapped up in fidelity at the expense of the craft side of the hobby. That's not to say that we shouldn't strive to build models as accurately as our abilities allow but that the models 'worth' should be more than simply the finished item but take into account the pleasure gained whilst building it, the stamp of the builder and the interest generated when running it with friends.

There is no doubt the Bachmann ROD was a better model in strict fidelity terms, particularly below the footplate although the old Ks one scored by having some daylight visible through the frames. Both ran beautifully. I suspect the kit build would have been the more powerful but the RTR one was quite happy pulling a realistic train. Where the old Ks one really scored was in the interest generated. We looked at the RTR one, admired it and commented on how marvellous RTR is these days and that was pretty much the end of the conversation. The Ks one generated all sorts of interest, nostalgia for old kits, grumbling about battles with lumpy white metal, the Trigger's broom nature of the chassis etc etc

In other words the Bachmann one might have been a better model but the Ks one was much more fun. Game set and match in my book.

 

Jerry

 

Couldn't agree more Jerry.

 

A less than perfect model that somebody has built is massively more interesting than a perfect mass produced RTR model to me. Each built loco is pretty much unique and even if they are less detailed or not quite as accurate as a RTR model, they have a certain character about them that no RTR model can ever have.

 

Tony

[t-b-g]

Space compromise is a damn! Branch Line services are too sparse and loco restrictive while mainlines have everything to offer but demand long trains. I have tried 5-coach Liverpool-Newcastle expresses and they don't work. Take one dining car, an open saloon and a composite, then all you've got then is a brake first and a brake third. Much longer and it's a tail-chaser. I can't see N gauge being the answer as I can't see it....

 

Sometimes it is hard to accept that great enemy of space but there are some possible answers.

 

The longest train on Buckingham is 5 corridor carriages long. That is a dining car set and looks just right in relation to the size and proportions of the layout.

 

There were plenty of shorter trains on the real railways. I was looking at a photo of a Duchess on a 5 carriage train the other day and have a view to putting that train on a layout.

 

Perhaps recreating a real shorter train rather than trying to compress a longer one might work better.

 

Tony

[Boatman]

Surely something is missing here.  It appears to be a contest 'twixt RTR and kit, but why is scratchbuilding never mentioned?

There must be a FEW left?

Failing that, following a visit to an old chum this morning, I was reminded of what is possibly called these days "scratch assist" kits, chief amongst whom, in 7mm anyway,

are Leinster Models. I was unaware that they still existed, but there in front of me were some lovely models made from these kits.  Kits which leave a fair bit to actually make and which are consequently amazingly inexpensive.

Of course we all know that the big costs with 7mm are the wheels, but add around £35 for the basic shell and a rolled boiler and you still have a very cheap model.

I find it difficult to believe that most serious modellers can't wield a file and a piercing saw, so why not try one of these?

Jamieson used to do the same in 4mm, but I think they ARE defunct, however, Worsley Works do a few "scratch assist" kits these days.

 

I suppose it's down to money in the end. If you can afford a Finney, etc., you'll shell out, but if you have trouble justifying even the RTR costs, especially in 7mm scale, then full scratchbuilding (which really is so little harder to do than a kit) or the Leinster style kit would seem to be the answer and of course is so very much more satisfying.

 

"Jutta thought, Eccles".

 

Regards,

Boatman

[The Stationmaster]

Selective compression can be a wonderful thing as some US modellers have shown over the years but in the end you can't necessarily squeeze a selectively compressed quart into a pint pot.  One answer is to select a suitable prototype where you can 'lose' a short train within the space you've got but most branchline layouts go to the opposite extreme where they fit 'oversize' trains into small areas and it simply doesn't look believable unless - sometimes - when it is in an urban setting.  Generally branch termini spraklled because they were built at a time when land was cheap and there was plenty of it available at the edge of towns.

 

Sometimes space for the railway would be constricted by topography, the Welsh Valleys is a good example and it's one reason why Al's (Barry Ten) looks so believable - although olenty of other things add to that credibility.  So there is a lot in choosing a suitable prototype to match the s.  Or go the other way and carefully adjust your model to the space you have available but don't put in so much that you overwhelm that space.

 

There are other tricks such as single line looking longer and more 'open' than double line although that 'rule' is totally confounded by the 'openness' achieved with quadruple track on Little Bytham (but then look at the 'open' nature of the scene around the railway - again it isn't visually crowded).

[t-b-g]

Surely something is missing here.  It appears to be a contest 'twixt RTR and kit, but why is scratchbuilding never mentioned?

There must be a FEW left?

Failing that, following a visit to an old chum this morning, I was reminded of what is possibly called these days "scratch assist" kits, chief amongst whom, in 7mm anyway,

are Leinster Models. I was unaware that they still existed, but there in front of me were some lovely models made from these kits.  Kits which leave a fair bit to actually make and which are consequently amazingly inexpensive.

Of course we all know that the big costs with 7mm are the wheels, but add around £35 for the basic shell and a rolled boiler and you still have a very cheap model.

I find it difficult to believe that most serious modellers can't wield a file and a piercing saw, so why not try one of these?

Jamieson used to do the same in 4mm, but I think they ARE defunct, however, Worsley Works do a few "scratch assist" kits these days.

 

I suppose it's down to money in the end. If you can afford a Finney, etc., you'll shell out, but if you have trouble justifying even the RTR costs, especially in 7mm scale, then full scratchbuilding (which really is so little harder to do than a kit) or the Leinster style kit would seem to be the answer and of course is so very much more satisfying.

 

"Jutta thought, Eccles".

 

Regards,

Boatman

 

Well said!

 

In the range of model railway activity, there is little that matches the satisfaction of building a loco from scratch. I haven't built that many but each one has been an absolute joy to do and in many ways they can be easier than kits as you can design the parts to go together the way you want to build it.

 

It also cuts out much grumbling! If the parts don't fit, you just look in the mirror for the culprit rather than think about heaping abuse and blame on a poor kit designer.

 

Tony

 

Tony 

[Andrew P]

Sometimes it is hard to accept that great enemy of space but there are some possible answers.

 

The longest train on Buckingham is 5 corridor carriages long. That is a dining car set and looks just right in relation to the size and proportions of the layout.

 

There were plenty of shorter trains on the real railways. I was looking at a photo of a Duchess on a 5 carriage train the other day and have a view to putting that train on a layout.

 

Perhaps recreating a real shorter train rather than trying to compress a longer one might work better.

 

Tony

Borchester Market never needed long trains to look convincing IMHO, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. A 5 coach train with a A4 at the head would look totally wrong on LB but on a smaller layout with less straight line it could be acceptable.

 

Andy.

[Boatman]

Haha, thanks, Tony,

yes that mirror is a cruel master!

But frustration with making an early Airfix kit station steps look any other than a joke in my 8 year old mind is what made me a modelmaker. I made a set of railside signs from Weetabix box and crayons and never made another kit!  (And I still have one of those signs, 54 years later!).  10 years later I was a professional model maker, unemployable Awkward S*d and tight wad.

Perfect qualifications for self employment as a modelmaker!

 

And if you show the mirror master the model, you'll cringe with what you see, as if someone else had made it, warts and all....an old artist's trick.

 

Regards,

Boatman

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I would encourage people to model what fits best, rather than trying to over-compress an unsuitable subject.

 

Buckingham worked because the pre-grouping expresses were short.  Borchester Market worked because it was a secondary line, also with shortish trains. Larry is frustrated because he knows what a typical express would be, and it won't fit in his space.

 

I've been there, felt the pain.  My personal Grand Plan requires a shed around 60' x 30' and it would still only be a secondary SP line, with trains around 2/3rds the size they should be.  But on the positive side, there's no way I could afford the several hundred freight cars, several dozens of locomotives, , hundreds of feet of track, dozens of turnouts, kilometres of timber and electrics and the price of a 60 x 40 building.  

 

Yes, I'm struggling to look on the bright side, damned lottery.

[ScRSG]

For those of you wanting to run scale length, short trains, then consider a layout based on the Scottish Region. The Glasgow - Aberdeen expresses were generally six coaches and latterly hauled by A4's. Most internal Sc.R trains were of this length and freights were not giant lengths either.

 

Once you have all decided on this move, then perhaps the major manufacturers will supply us with a plethora of Scottish 0-6-0's, sadly lacking at the moment!