Wright writes.....

[Jack P]

Tom, do tell whats going on there?

[2ManySpams]

I shall be taking my first modelling field-trip shortly. I know Sir's argument has always been "why not model a real location? All the hard work's been done for you" but I don't subscribe to this view myself (unless, of course, we're discussing RTR, when that's exactly the argument that convinces me!).

I suspect that the reason most folk don't build layouts that copy prototype locations is that they are big (even the small bucolic country BLT is generally longer and wider than you'd imagine). Many layout threads on here start with a statement along the lines that space has been found in the domestic environment for scenic board or boards between 4' and 8' long and around 18" to 2' wide.

 

Whilst in an exhibition hall an 8'long layout looks tiny, at home the same set up is longer than a bed and therefore substantially more difficult to accommodate. Those in the great position to have a dedicated railway room in the house, often a spare bedroom, will still be limited to less than around 12'x 9' (even less in modern houses).

 

Judging from the layout threads on here, there are very few indeed who have dedicated rooms exceeding 20' long and these seem to be converted garages, outbuildings, extensions and attic conversions. Fewer still have the absolute luxury of large industrial scale buildings.

 

I'm in the very lucky position to have a room which is essentially converted roof space over a garage. The maximum length is a smidge over 17'. Before embarking on my 7mm layout, I did look at a number of prototype locations for a 4mm layout: Padstow, Wadebridge, Bodmin North, a typical North Cornwall through station, Boscarne Junction, Wenford Bridge and Wenford Clay Dries for example. None could be accommodated without severe compression and tighter curves than I wanted at the end(s).

 

I therefore started designing a variety of based-on and essence-of type layouts and suspect that this is where a lot of folk end up. It's a compromise and, because you aren't copying something exactly where 'all the hard work has been done for you', there are quite a lot of decisions to make. Most of these will require an understanding of what and why the real railway did things, where as copying what you see exactly does not. I don't however consider gaining this knowledge a bad thing, part of the enjoyment for me.

 

So whilst modelling a big mainline station to scale may be a dream for many, it's one I fear will have to remain a dream for purely practical reasons. There are of course bits of the real railway that would fit in most available locations but do you want to model them and are they interesting enough to operate?

 

A lack of room to model what I wanted in 4mm doesn't explain though why the layout I've ended up building is 7mm. Massive compromises have been required as the alternative of knocking through into both children's bedrooms and the main bathroom was for some reason not acceptable.

 

I think I've now reached the stage where I don't actually want a bigger space. That would only mean the project would be bigger, more costly and more time consuming (less likely to be completed). I'm also a heretic in that, to me, scale models of real places often look too big, too empty and not quite right somehow (probably because we are accustomed to seeing compression). So even if I had the space I suspect I'd still use some selected compression.

[Hollar]

Thanks Andrew, I'll keep that in mind.

 

Likewise, see you then.

 

Jesse 

Van roofs:  Another useful anti-sag trick, invented as far as I know by Geoff Kent, is to laminate together two pre-curved pieces of thinner plasticard.  Geoff also uses a natty way of producing an even and accurate curve by propping the plasticard at a shallow angle against the edge of something like a fat piece of cardboard, and then rubbing away with a rounded object - I use the rounded end of an old knife handle. It works for me, doesn't take long at all and with a bit of care you can achieve nicely complex curves such as you need for SR box vans. This doesn't preclude the belt and braces of having the longitudinal beam as well, of course.

 

Tone

Edited April 18, 2018 by Hollar

[Tony Wright]

The question of modelling an actual location (rather than one made up) keeps on cropping up on here and elsewhere, and, I think, my views are well-known on the matter. 

 

I have the 'luxury' of a 32' x 12' space in which to build (with a large amount of help) Little Bytham. It's actually not quite enough (some 14" short), but I apply 'selective compression'. That it's taken me over 30 years to finally have that space, should be indicative of how much long-term 'planning' has taken place. The building of locos and stock to run on LB has taken me over 40 years, though much of it has run on exhibition layouts such as Fordley Park, Leighford, Stoke Summit and Charwelton down those years. 

 

From a personal point of view, I don't think I'd consider building an ECML prototype location in under 30'. I did with my original loft-based Stoke Summit, with was some 25' x 10' if memory serves, but it was hopelessly compromised and proved to be no more than a learning curve (though it was mentioned in dispatches in the RM in 1984). In under 30', scale length trains (up to 14/15 bogies or 50+ wagons look too long) and too tight curves at the ends (in order to accommodate enough 'proper' trains in a fiddle yard) result in having to used curved points or shorter radius points, which (in my experience) compromise running, which is something I'm not prepared to accept. 

 

It's because a model of a (large) real location looks (too?) big and empty which appeals to me. I've mentioned this before, but at the places I used to trainspot the environments were (very) big, at times they were (relatively) empty and they sprawled. A 'Streak' travelling fast could be seen in the distance from Retford's Up platform under Babworth Bridge and it was many seconds before its identity was known (accompanied by either whoops of joy or boos, dependent on whether it was a 'cop' or not). I don't have the space to model Retford, but I know a man who has, and has done - to scale. Without that space, a model of Retford would be severely lacking. 

 

Of course, the majority of modellers don't have anywhere near the space required to model even a modest prototype location. I'm certainly not denying them the right to model whatever they want, but too much selective compression (surely?) must destroy the 'suspension of disbelief'. If any prototype location is too big to model because of space restrictions, by all means model a 'might have been' or made-up scenario. And, pick a time period when locos and carriages were smaller and shorter. Whatever one does, at least study prototype practice. By that I mean things like track arrangements (no facing points on MR main lines for instance, and trap points protecting running lines), sizes of signal boxes to suit locations (dependent on the number of levers needed), correct types of signals, sited properly (and working), appropriate lengths of platforms, architectural and civil engineering styles, topography and lots and lots of other things.

 

I think several correspondents on here have the right idea. By that I mean, they're not modelling an actual location (for whatever reasons) but they are modelling actual buildings/structures, which will fit in with an overall scene, and be entirely convincing because they've used first-hand observation or applied stringent consultation of documents/photographs.  

 

One (obvious) downside of building a 'large' layout, whether it be prototype based or following prototype practice (or anything) is the on-going maintenance regime needed. Today, part of that regime will be employed because a switch needs replacing, a point motor needs changing and a point needs adjusting. If one only has a few of these things (not to mention servicing over 160 locos and countless items of rolling stock), then keeping things running is (or should be) easier. 

 

Could Little Bytham be 'captured' in less space?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think so. That said, and I don't care how many times I repeat this, it's been over 40 years in the making (over 40 years of 'learning'), it's the product of a highly-skilled team (abstracting myself), all working together and pooling resources, with a common objective and it's in a space given to not many modellers. Not everyone has the 'luxury' of those years of experience, teamwork and space, which I do appreciate. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Tony Wright

[jwealleans]

Tom, do tell whats going on there?

I can step in here. The Hornby corridor connectors are overwidth, and Tom asked me how I make the ones on my kitbuilt coaches.

 

For a retracted/closed gangway such as you'd see on the end vehicle of a train I use Kirk corridor connectors with the outer part of an MJT etched end door glued on. As mine are in the prewar period I also add the 'LNER' lettering using the HMRS wagon lettering sheet. I'm afraid I can't attach a photo as I'm at work, but you may be able to spot some of them on the Grantham thread.

 

Tom's removed the connector and made good the holes, then when I remember I'm going to supply him some Kirk bits to replace them with.

Edited April 18, 2018 by jwealleans

[Grovenor]

For a retracted gangway such as you'd see on the end vehicle of a train

Maybe, "closed gangway" would be better, LNER (Pullman) gangways are not retractable, unlike the British Standard gangways used by the LMS for example.

Regards

[Atso]

Having been privileged enough to be able to see and operate Little Bytham, I've been convinced of the merits of modelling a prototypical location. However, the space available for my own layout is only 11' long (having rearranged the furniture to fit this length in) which does restrict things a bit.

 

 

Therefore, my chosen location is Hadley Wood which is located between New Barnet and Potters Bar on the ECML. The actual station is located between two tunnels which scale out at around 9'8 apart in N gauge. As I'm not looking to use any radiuses below 12 inches on the layout, the visible area will have to be compressed to fit an area of 8'8. As the station layout consisted of a crossover, and three sidings, I feel that this presents a good opportunity to use the FiNetrax code 40 kit system which looks so much better than Peco - I would've gone down the 2mm FS route but the cost of re-wheeling my existing stock put me off so I'll accept the compromise. The tunnels forced the ECML to reduce to two lines through this area (until after Potters Bar) which, due to the war, didn't get quadrupled until the late 1950s. The goods sidings weren't intensively used but, from my experience operating Little Bytham, I don't think this will be too much of a problem as the aim will be to mainly run trains.

 

 

As the location didn't change much during the LNER reign, I'm going to be modelling a broad period of roughly 1925 to 1940. This will allow me to model some cameos including 'Pendennis Castle' during the 1925 exchange trials, 'Sir Brian' (a King Arthur) and a River Class tank engine (1928 trials following the Sevenoaks disaster) and Stirlings 'No. 1' following its return to steam in 1938 (it also allows me to model some locomotives in apple green before the 'economy measures' of 1928). Obviously these will be have to be incorporated within a sequence when no other locomotives or stock from other periods are visible (as per Tony's comments about the LNER layout in this month's RM) and I'm thinking about drawing up a sequence that starts in 1925 and ends in 1940 to keep things appropriately paired up as much as possible.

 

 

As others have stated, all the work deciding what will go where has been done for me. The problem is finding enough information to determine exactly what goes where! While the station is still open, not much remains of the layout as it was c. 80 years ago (although the stairs down to the platforms are original!). Luckily, Hadley Wood seems to have been a popular place for photographers (and I've sourced a map dated 1935) but there are many features that still need to be seen and several questions raised from photographs I've found that need to be answered.

 

 

The next issue is rolling stock as, following the demise of Bill Bedford's etches, there isn't a huge amount of choice for pre-grouping carriages (of which over 50% of my stock will need to be to represent the era properly) - more work with CAD will be required I think.

 

 

Finally, I thought I'd share my favourite photograph of Hadley Wood I've found to date; unfortunately, I don't own the copyright so I've added the link to it below. The photograph looks to have been taken just off of the up platform and is looking north providing a nice view of the entrance to the goods sidings. The picture is also useful as it gives an idea of how the point rods were laid out and it looks as though (by 1934) that the somersault signal by the tunnel entrance had been replaced by a colour light one. I do have a question regarding a feature in the photograph; there is a box like object mounted on a post on the far right (just above the watermark). What is this? Many thanks to whoever answers this question.

 

Link to the photograph: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/train-hauled-by-the-london-and-north-eastern-railway-class-news-photo/153927887#/train-hauled-by-the-london-and-north-eastern-railway-class-p2-no-picture-id153927887

Edited April 18, 2018 by Atso

[chris p bacon]

From a personal point of view, I don't think I'd consider building an ECML prototype location in under 30'. I did with my original loft-based Stoke Summit, with was some 25' x 10' if memory serves, but it was hopelessly compromised and proved to be no more than a learning curve (though it was mentioned in dispatches in the RM in 1984). In under 30', scale length trains (up to 14/15 bogies or 50+ wagons look too long) and too tight curves at the ends (in order to accommodate enough 'proper' trains in a fiddle yard) result in having to used curved points or shorter radius points, which (in my experience) compromise running, which is something I'm not prepared to accept. 

 

 

I agree that to replicate a prototype location you need not only the space and length for the track work but also to place it in it's landscape, I've had to compromise on length and so I call it a 'flavour' of Sandy.  

Picking up the bold, if a different timescale is chosen and you move to earlier days then train length isn't such as issue. There are many superb pictures which show Atlantics with 6 (long 12 wheelers admittedly) on expresses and goods of only 30 wagons which still look good in the compressed area.

[Tony Wright]

 

Having been privileged enough to be able to see and operate Little Bytham, I've been convinced of the merits of modelling a prototypical location. However, the space available for my own layout is only 11' long (having rearranged the furniture to fit this length in) which does restrict things a bit.

 

 

Therefore, my chosen location is Hadley Wood which is located between New Barnet and Potters Bar on the ECML. The actual station is located between two tunnels which scale out at around 9'8 apart in N gauge. As I'm not looking to use any radiuses below 12 inches on the layout, the visible area will have to be compressed to fit an area of 8'8. As the station layout consisted of a crossover, and three sidings, I feel that this presents a good opportunity to use the FiNetrax code 40 kit system which looks so much better than Peco - I would've gone down the 2mm FS route but the cost of re-wheeling my existing stock put me off so I'll accept the compromise. The tunnels forced the ECML to reduce to two lines through this area (until after Potters Bar) which, due to the war, didn't get quadrupled until the late 1950s. The goods sidings weren't intensively used but, from my experience operating Little Bytham, I don't think this will be too much of a problem as the aim will be to mainly run trains.

 

 

As the location didn't change much during the LNER reign, I'm going to be modelling a broad period of roughly 1925 to 1940. This will allow me to model some cameos including 'Pendennis Castle' during the 1925 exchange trials, 'Sir Brian' (a King Arthur) and a River Class tank engine (1928 trials following the Sevenoaks disaster) and Stirlings 'No. 1' following its return to steam in 1938 (it also allows me to model some locomotives in apple green before the 'economy measures' of 1928). Obviously these will be have to be incorporated within a sequence when no other locomotives or stock from other periods are visible (as per Tony's comments about the LNER layout in this month's RM) and I'm thinking about drawing up a sequence that starts in 1925 and ends in 1940 to keep things appropriately paired up as much as possible.

 

 

As others have stated, all the work deciding what will go where has been done for me. The problem is finding enough information to determine exactly what goes where! While the station is still open, not much remains of the layout as it was c. 80 years ago (although the stairs down to the platforms are original!). Luckily, Hadley Wood seems to have been a popular place for photographers (and I've sourced a map dated 1935) but there are many features that still need to be seen and several questions raised from photographs I've found that need to be answered.

 

 

The next issue is rolling stock as, following the demise of Bill Bedford's etches, there isn't a huge amount of choice for pre-grouping carriages (of which over 50% of my stock will need to be to represent the era properly) - more work with CAD will be required I think.

 

 

Finally, I thought I'd share my favourite photograph of Hadley Wood I've found to date; unfortunately, I don't own the copyright so I've added the link to it below. The photograph looks to have been taken just off of the up platform and is looking north providing a nice view of the entrance to the goods sidings. The picture is also useful as it gives an idea of how the point rods were laid out and it looks as though (by 1934) that the somersault signal by the tunnel entrance had been replaced by a colour light one. I do have a question regarding a feature in the photograph; there is a box like object mounted on a post on the far right (just above the watermark). What is this? Many thanks to whoever answers this question.

 

Link to the photograph: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/train-hauled-by-the-london-and-north-eastern-railway-class-news-photo/153927887#/train-hauled-by-the-london-and-north-eastern-railway-class-p2-no-picture-id153927887

 

Steve,

 

I think it'll work just fine, and, as you say, if you keep any trains in sight to the same time period, it'll be something really worth seeing.

 

A friend had considered building Hadley Wood in 4mm (maybe even in P4?) after the widenings in the late-'50s, when there was no pointwork and he could (almost) model it to scale length between the tunnels in the space he had available. I don't know what became of the project, but it is a prototype ECML location which can be modelled accurately in a restricted space. In your period, operation will be more interesting (you can shunt, for one thing). Post the widenings, every train will have just gone through, stopping or not as the case might be. As a 'watch the trains go by' type of layout, it would be ideal, and I'm puzzled why more folk haven't considered Hadley Wood. You can go off/on scene dead straight (diving around right-angle curves in the tunnels) and a fair-sized fiddle yard could be accommodated in the length. Were space restrictions so tight, that the lines had to curve on-scene, all sense of 'reality' would be lost in my view. 

 

I wish you well with the project and look forward to seeing it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I can step in here. The Hornby corridor connectors are overwidth, and Tom asked me how I make the ones on my kitbuilt coaches.

 

For a retracted/closed gangway such as you'd see on the end vehicle of a train I use Kirk corridor connectors with the outer part of an MJT etched end door glued on. As mine are in the prewar period I also add the 'LNER' lettering using the HMRS wagon lettering sheet. I'm afraid I can't attach a photo as I'm at work, but you may be able to spot some of them on the Grantham thread.

 

Tom's removed the connector and made good the holes, then when I remember I'm going to supply him some Kirk bits to replace them with.

Jonathan,

 

It's a pity that the over-width ends are not the only problem with Hornby's gangwayed Gresleys.

 

You mention the HMRS wagon lettering sheet. Is yours an older sheet? 

 

I've now given up wasting any more money on HMRS (Pressfix) transfers (I say this with some dismay, as an ex-President of that august society). The latest BR loco/carriage lettering sheets I've bought have been awful (a year ago). The '4's have been filled-in (well, almost), as have the '6's and '8's. That's if the damn things will come off the sheet - some never let go! I've had two sheets replaced, and they're exactly the same. I'd bought another from one trader and he just shrugged his shoulders, suggesting I send it back to HMRS headquarters.

 

I bought a sheet of the BR wagon lettering numbers/symbols late last year and I've chucked it away. I tried lettering a 'Tube' wagon (yes, I know, Clive, in the wrong colour!) and got (at best, after three attempts 'U' 'E' - the 'T' and the 'B' refused to budge, even after several soakings). To add insult to injury, those numbers which did release, then just floated about. I thought these things were supposed to stick on contact. 

 

I've used scores of the HMRS Pressfix transfer sheets down the years (and, before that, PC), but I'm running out of the numbers/symbols I need from those older sheets. 

 

What am I currently doing wrong? Have others encountered such problems? What has changed about them in recent years? Help!

[Atso]

Steve,

 

I think it'll work just fine, and, as you say, if you keep any trains in sight to the same time period, it'll be something really worth seeing.

 

A friend had considered building Hadley Wood in 4mm (maybe even in P4?) after the widenings in the late-'50s, when there was no pointwork and he could (almost) model it to scale length between the tunnels in the space he had available. I don't know what became of the project, but it is a prototype ECML location which can be modelled accurately in a restricted space. In your period, operation will be more interesting (you can shunt, for one thing). Post the widenings, every train will have just gone through, stopping or not as the case might be. As a 'watch the trains go by' type of layout, it would be ideal, and I'm puzzled why more folk haven't considered Hadley Wood. You can go off/on scene dead straight (diving around right-angle curves in the tunnels) and a fair-sized fiddle yard could be accommodated in the length. Were space restrictions so tight, that the lines had to curve on-scene, all sense of 'reality' would be lost in my view. 

 

I wish you well with the project and look forward to seeing it.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thank you Tony,

 

Another part of the appeal of modelling the southern end of the ECML during the LNER's time operating it is the variety of locomotives that could be seen. GCR locomotives such as the A5s, B2s, B3s, C4s and D11s could be seen rubbing shoulders with GER D16s (and their earlier incarnations) and N7s not to mention the vast number of GNR and LNER built locomotives that would have been natives to the area. I've even found reference that the Raven A2s were still very occasional visitors to the area towards the end of their lives and a V1 was allocated to the 'Cross' briefly from 1929-30. Unfortunately most of these locomotives aren't available in any form in N gauge so, again, much more work with CAD will be required to recreate these scenes.

 

Even considering its very compact length, a scale model of Hadley Wood in 4mm scale would still require well over 20' of space to model. I would guess that this is why you don't see too many incarnations of this station in model form (and there are other, more glamorous places like Grantham, Little Bytham and the Kings Cross approaches to model! ). On the plus side, there aren't too many buildings to have to model and plans for the long demolished station building are apparently still in existence and held at Kew.

[Killybegs]

Jonathan,

 

It's a pity that the over-width ends are not the only problem with Hornby's gangwayed Gresleys.

 

You mention the HMRS wagon lettering sheet. Is yours an older sheet? 

 

I've now given up wasting any more money on HMRS (Pressfix) transfers (I say this with some dismay, as an ex-President of that august society). The latest BR loco/carriage lettering sheets I've bought have been awful (a year ago). The '4's have been filled-in (well, almost), as have the '6's and '8's. That's if the damn things will come off the sheet - some never let go! I've had two sheets replaced, and they're exactly the same. I'd bought another from one trader and he just shrugged his shoulders, suggesting I send it back to HMRS headquarters.

 

I bought a sheet of the BR wagon lettering numbers/symbols late last year and I've chucked it away. I tried lettering a 'Tube' wagon (yes, I know, Clive, in the wrong colour!) and got (at best, after three attempts 'U' 'E' - the 'T' and the 'B' refused to budge, even after several soakings). To add insult to injury, those numbers which did release, then just floated about. I thought these things were supposed to stick on contact. 

 

I've used scores of the HMRS Pressfix transfer sheets down the years (and, before that, PC), but I'm running out of the numbers/symbols I need from those older sheets. 

 

What am I currently doing wrong? Have others encountered such problems? What has changed about them in recent years? Help!

Thank goodness I have a lot of old stock of HMRS transfers. I have had a similar problem with some waterslide transfers recently with them not wanting to release from the backing without excessive soaking which then renders the adhesive useless.

[60027Merlin]

Tony,

 

I have had the same trouble with both Methfix and Pressfix in the last year or so with the added issue of the colour of the numbers not matching up with earlier sheets. It is amazing how many 6, 9 and 0 digits are used over the years! When weathering and “doing up” a Bachmann A1 for a friend I tried the Fox range which worked out fine. Since then I have used both the Fox and Modelmaster ranges lately, both of which were not problematic. No doubt it is down to a personal choice as to which of these is the better.

 

With regard to modelling prototype locations the problem is having an adequate straight length to hand no matter what type of line, main, secondary or branch is considered. I have a main line length of 34 feet excluding the Fiddle Yard but this runs along the three walls of the room which restricts suitable prototype locations. Even the smallest station and yard etc. still takes up a fair bit of space when measuring it out in 4mm and before you know it you are running out of prototype locations suitable for a model in your available space!

 

As you know I therefore took the Monet view a long time ago after long discussions and location investigations with Tommy and decided on the Impressionist style of model!   

 

After all a model without the glorious ECML 64B pacifics and the ex- N.B.R. stuff is unthinkable! 

 

Eric

Edited April 20, 2018 by 60027Merlin

[Chamby]

Thank goodness I have a lot of old stock of HMRS transfers. I have had a similar problem with some waterslide transfers recently with them not wanting to release from the backing without excessive soaking which then renders the adhesive useless.

interesting to note that Fox transfers now have a recommendation to add a drop of washing up liquid to their water-slide transfers. I assume that this is to aid penetration of the water into the backing paper?

 

I’ve only ever used pressfix HMRS transfers when I don’t have methfix available. I find the methfix more durable, and the edges sit neater when dried.

[Tom F]

I can step in here. The Hornby corridor connectors are overwidth, and Tom asked me how I make the ones on my kitbuilt coaches.

 

For a retracted/closed gangway such as you'd see on the end vehicle of a train I use Kirk corridor connectors with the outer part of an MJT etched end door glued on. As mine are in the prewar period I also add the 'LNER' lettering using the HMRS wagon lettering sheet. I'm afraid I can't attach a photo as I'm at work, but you may be able to spot some of them on the Grantham thread.

 

Tom's removed the connector and made good the holes, then when I remember I'm going to supply him some Kirk bits to replace them with.

 

 

I'm glad I've done the changes, I'll brush paint in a downward motion to hide the plugged holes and match Hornby's teak with Humbrol Gloss Tan. 

 

Regarding Hornby's teaks..... this was one of the early post war teak models (from an Olympic 2012 train pack). Although the tumblehome issue is still there, the beading is in the correct place. As these models will be viewed side on, when running on the future layout, I can live with the tumblehome. 

 

This is going to be part of a Horse Special running to Leyburn, based on the photo below ( a high definition image can be obtained from the Wensleydale Railway Association on donation).

 

 

Incidentally, the J21 in the photo 65038, is what I'm going to make a start building under Tony's supervision on Saturday.

Edited April 18, 2018 by 9793

[jwealleans]

Jonathan,

 

It's a pity that the over-width ends are not the only problem with Hornby's gangwayed Gresleys.

 

You mention the HMRS wagon lettering sheet. Is yours an older sheet? 

 

I've now given up wasting any more money on HMRS (Pressfix) transfers (I say this with some dismay, as an ex-President of that august society). The latest BR loco/carriage lettering sheets I've bought have been awful (a year ago). The '4's have been filled-in (well, almost), as have the '6's and '8's. That's if the damn things will come off the sheet - some never let go! I've had two sheets replaced, and they're exactly the same. I'd bought another from one trader and he just shrugged his shoulders, suggesting I send it back to HMRS headquarters.

 

I bought a sheet of the BR wagon lettering numbers/symbols late last year and I've chucked it away. I tried lettering a 'Tube' wagon (yes, I know, Clive, in the wrong colour!) and got (at best, after three attempts 'U' 'E' - the 'T' and the 'B' refused to budge, even after several soakings). To add insult to injury, those numbers which did release, then just floated about. I thought these things were supposed to stick on contact. 

 

I've used scores of the HMRS Pressfix transfer sheets down the years (and, before that, PC), but I'm running out of the numbers/symbols I need from those older sheets. 

 

What am I currently doing wrong? Have others encountered such problems? What has changed about them in recent years? Help!

I do have quite a collection of old sheets, Tony as I tend to run through the large 'NE' letters much faster than anything else. I have a lot of carriage lettering sheets for a similar reason.

 

As you will know there have been a series of problems with sourcing the paper for these transfers and there is an ongoing debate within the HMRS about moving to waterslide. I have had some quality problems - BR Carriage lining sheets which just crinkled and left sticky deposits all over the vehicle and a sheet of LNER carriage lettering which stuck to the protective sheet and tore in half when I started to peel it off. I haven't especially noticed recent sheets being worse, but I have heard others commenting on it.

 

I have tried Fox in the past - when you get past their almost impenetrable website, I found some of the transfers very good, if fragile. The LNER carriage lettering sheet I bought, though, was so hopelessly out of register as to be unusable.

 

What we need is someone of the calibre of John Isherwood to discover a latent passion for the LNER and produce products of a similar quality.

[jamie92208]

I'm glad I've done the changes, I'll brush paint in a downward motion to hide the plugged holes and match Hornby's teak with Humbrol Gloss Tan. 

 

Regarding Hornby's teaks..... this was one of the early post war teak models (from an Olympic 2012 train pack). Although the tumblehome issue is still there, the beading is in the correct place. As these models will be viewed side on, when running on the future layout, I can live with the tumblehome. 

 

This is going to be part of a Horse Special running to Leyburn, based on the photo below ( a high definition image can be obtained from the Wensleydale Railway Association on donation).

 

JWH_2099-s.jpg

 

That's a fabulous photo.  It would be lovely to know which company each of those horseboxes belonged to.   In pre grouping days they would have been a train of many colours.  I'm gradually building a load of different boxes that I acquired, So far I've got a Furness and Caledonian complete and the Midland one part built. Next there's an LSWR and a Taff Vale so they should make a bit of variety.

 

Jamie

[micklner]

I do have quite a collection of old sheets, Tony as I tend to run through the large 'NE' letters much faster than anything else. I have a lot of carriage lettering sheets for a similar reason.

 

As you will know there have been a series of problems with sourcing the paper for these transfers and there is an ongoing debate within the HMRS about moving to waterslide. I have had some quality problems - BR Carriage lining sheets which just crinkled and left sticky deposits all over the vehicle and a sheet of LNER carriage lettering which stuck to the protective sheet and tore in half when I started to peel it off. I haven't especially noticed recent sheets being worse, but I have heard others commenting on it.

 

I have tried Fox in the past - when you get past their almost impenetrable website, I found some of the transfers very good, if fragile. The LNER carriage lettering sheet I bought, though, was so hopelessly out of register as to be unusable.

 

What we need is someone of the calibre of John Isherwood to discover a latent passion for the LNER and produce products of a similar quality.

 

I have tried Railtec without success so far, having suggested LNER lining as a starting preference.

I can't HMRS abide Methfix and always use their Pressfix version,  LNER Gold is normally out of register as is the lining and has been for quite a while. I managed to get one decent sheet of lining from two sheets, as the faults were in different parts of the sheet . Bizarre or what. The Yellow version and Goods sheets always seem to be ok , no idea why they can't print these ok as well.

 

Perhaps if other badger Railtec we might get some decent LNER transfers. I do not like Fox overpriced , lining oversized and poor colours.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for all the comments on the transfers.

 

I've recently used Modelmasters' waterslide ones for coach numbers, which are very good. I haven't tried the loco numbers, though. 

 

Changing the subject. As is well known, the number of visitors to see Little Bytham increases at a most-gratifying rate. I've had a chat with one or two more regular visitors and we've come up with the following idea. I'm going to put a container at the end of the layout, inviting coin donations to Cancer Research from visitors. I won't look, and I won't insist upon a donation, but it's surely a worthwhile cause and it's a small way of putting something back into a way of helping others in need in return for all the fun I've had out of model railways. 

 

A good idea? I hope so.

 

Today, old mates from WMRC arrived to operate the railway, and some basic maintenance was undertaken. A replacement point motor was wired-up and a feed re-connected to a switch. Thanks chaps. Then, two hours continuous running through the sequence (with half an hour for lunch). Faultless. I'm amazed, especially as I was operating as well! 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Tony Wright

[cctransuk]

What we need is someone of the calibre of John Isherwood to discover a latent passion for the LNER and produce products of a similar quality.

 

I am flattered - but then that was the intention, wasn't it?

 

I have nothing against the LNER - or any other railway company for that matter. The trouble is, I know b****r all about any railway liveries except those of the BR steam / early diesel era ones, with which I grew up.

 

Moreover, transfers take up more of my potential modelling time than I can reasonably afford as it is, so there's zero chance of me starting to research a new field at my age.

 

Now, if someone who could be trusted to know what they are talking about; who can draw digitally in CorelDRAW (not later than Version 7); came to me and said "Print this, and no-one will say it's wrong"; and needed colours that the Alps printing system can produce; I might well be amenable to persuasion - it's been done before!

 

Ball back in someone's court - not mine.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood,

Cambridge Custom Transfers.

Edited April 18, 2018 by cctransuk

[jwealleans]

Praise where it's due, John. I'm quite aware of your position on taking on additional transfer work. I don't know where the internal HMRS debate is - I'm afraid I rather tuned out when it was dominating the online forum - but my fundamental point was that the technology is available and you (among others) have shown how it should be used.

[Theakerr]

Whilst I have a good run it is not long enough (is it ever?), so I follow the 1:3 ratio, as a maximum and usually follow 1:4; i.e. one train should not exceed more than 1/3 or in my case 1/4 of the available track/scenic section.  This results in 9 Mk1 coach and 10 Gresley coach trains and about 35 wagon trains.   At one time I did try a 10 Mk1 coach train and it was (to me at least) amazing how much that extra coach denigrated the entire picture.   With respect I would suggest that this rule is a good one to follow when designing your layout.

[Tom F]

That's a fabulous photo.  It would be lovely to know which company each of those horseboxes belonged to.   In pre grouping days they would have been a train of many colours.  I'm gradually building a load of different boxes that I acquired, So far I've got a Furness and Caledonian complete and the Midland one part built. Next there's an LSWR and a Taff Vale so they should make a bit of variety.

 

Jamie

 

 

Thanks Jamie

It was apparently an 'Ayr-Leyburn special' photographed at Garsdale just coming onto the Wensleydale Branch.

Jonathan has pointed out to me, some LMS horseboxes in there. Mine wont be an identical train (the Hornby Brake Comp compartments are different) but I've a few Hornby LMS horse boxes and a parkside LNER box to build, to add to the formation.

[coronach]

The question of modelling an actual location (rather than one made up) keeps on cropping up on here and elsewhere, and, I think, my views are well-known on the matter. 

 

I have the 'luxury' of a 32' x 12' space in which to build (with a large amount of help) Little Bytham. It's actually not quite enough (some 14" short), but I apply 'selective compression'. That it's taken me over 30 years to finally have that space, should be indicative of how much long-term 'planning' has taken place. The building of locos and stock to run on LB has taken me over 40 years, though much of it has run on exhibition layouts such as Fordley Park, Leighford, Stoke Summit and Charwelton down those years. 

 

From a personal point of view, I don't think I'd consider building an ECML prototype location in under 30'. I did with my original loft-based Stoke Summit, with was some 25' x 10' if memory serves, but it was hopelessly compromised and proved to be no more than a learning curve (though it was mentioned in dispatches in the RM in 1984). In under 30', scale length trains (up to 14/15 bogies or 50+ wagons look too long) and too tight curves at the ends (in order to accommodate enough 'proper' trains in a fiddle yard) result in having to used curved points or shorter radius points, which (in my experience) compromise running, which is something I'm not prepared to accept. 

 

It's because a model of a (large) real location looks (too?) big and empty which appeals to me. I've mentioned this before, but at the places I used to trainspot the environments were (very) big, at times they were (relatively) empty and they sprawled. A 'Streak' travelling fast could be seen in the distance from Retford's Up platform under Babworth Bridge and it was many seconds before its identity was known (accompanied by either whoops of joy or boos, dependent on whether it was a 'cop' or not). I don't have the space to model Retford, but I know a man who has, and has done - to scale. Without that space, a model of Retford would be severely lacking. 

 

Of course, the majority of modellers don't have anywhere near the space required to model even a modest prototype location. I'm certainly not denying them the right to model whatever they want, but too much selective compression (surely?) must destroy the 'suspension of disbelief'. If any prototype location is too big to model because of space restrictions, by all means model a 'might have been' or made-up scenario. And, pick a time period when locos and carriages were smaller and shorter. Whatever one does, at least study prototype practice. By that I mean things like track arrangements (no facing points on MR main lines for instance, and trap points protecting running lines), sizes of signal boxes to suit locations (dependent on the number of levers needed), correct types of signals, sited properly (and working), appropriate lengths of platforms, architectural and civil engineering styles, topography and lots and lots of other things.

 

I think several correspondents on here have the right idea. By that I mean, they're not modelling an actual location (for whatever reasons) but they are modelling actual buildings/structures, which will fit in with an overall scene, and be entirely convincing because they've used first-hand observation or applied stringent consultation of documents/photographs.  

 

One (obvious) downside of building a 'large' layout, whether it be prototype based or following prototype practice (or anything) is the on-going maintenance regime needed. Today, part of that regime will be employed because a switch needs replacing, a point motor needs changing and a point needs adjusting. If one only has a few of these things (not to mention servicing over 160 locos and countless items of rolling stock), then keeping things running is (or should be) easier. 

 

Could Little Bytham be 'captured' in less space?

 

overall view 20.jpg

 

overall view 21.jpg

 

RM Little Bytham 02.jpg

 

RM Little Bytham 03.jpg

 

9F passing O4 8.jpg

 

I don't think so. That said, and I don't care how many times I repeat this, it's been over 40 years in the making (over 40 years of 'learning'), it's the product of a highly-skilled team (abstracting myself), all working together and pooling resources, with a common objective and it's in a space given to not many modellers. Not everyone has the 'luxury' of those years of experience, teamwork and space, which I do appreciate.

 

I think you have captured Little Bytham in a way that is 'spot on'. Fr me, the important thing is to capture the atmosphere of the railway. This means starting with consideration of the available space and what will look right. I have a 17' square loft space, which has enabled me to model the essence of the Waverleyroute using a folded figure of eight, giving a circuit run of about 70ft. Compression has been necessary: Very few layouts have the space to model a distant signal (let alone two stations !), which is typically 900 yards from the signal box, often much further away. Notwithstanding the compromises, I feel that I have a layout that I can operate as a railway, where the trains have a purpose and travel through a landscape.

 

My previous layout was a representation of Alston, in a 14' x 8' garage space. Again, huge compromises but I wouldn't have attempted a main line.

[Compound2632]

As you will know there have been a series of problems with sourcing the paper for these transfers and there is an ongoing debate within the HMRS about moving to waterslide. I have had some quality problems - BR Carriage lining sheets which just crinkled and left sticky deposits all over the vehicle and a sheet of LNER carriage lettering which stuck to the protective sheet and tore in half when I started to peel it off. I haven't especially noticed recent sheets being worse, but I have heard others commenting on it.

 

I have found the recently produced batch of pressfix 4mm "LMS English pre-Grouping goods vehicle insignia (except LNWR)" sheets to be of particularly good quality. I just wish they'd thought of a snappier title, so often as I have had cause to mention it.