Older Inspirational Layouts

[Greengiant]

I might be wrong as I don't have the magazine to hand but I recall that a layout with that name is one of the ones mentioned in a write up that Cliff Parson may have lined up for his "AIMREC" model railway centre in Ashford. It was certainly a very similar layout name if it wasn't that.

 

Tony

 

Tony,

You are correct, this is currently being transferred for custodianship with AIMREC, I am one of the team charged with the dismantling and reassembly of this layout.

The intention is to display the GHR in a mock up of its current location, I was privileged to be at one of the last operating sessions of this railway.

 

Martin

[skipepsi]

Do any of these layouts still use PO or BRT relays because I have a rack of them about 12 which I am loath to scrap if someone has a use for them.

[uax6]

I'm sure they do.. I also use them in my Strowger exchanges! GPO 3000 type relays have to be the most useful relays for our kinda stuff, operating signals and points and providing the electrical contacts as well....

 

 

Andy G

[luckymucklebackit]

Do any of these layouts still use PO or BRT relays because I have a rack of them about 12 which I am loath to scrap if someone has a use for them.

 

Hi - I have just completed this...

 

layout january 2014 001 by Lowland Locomotives, on Flickr

 

layout january 2014 002 by Lowland Locomotives, on Flickr

 

And I could do with more if they are similar.

 

Jim

[skipepsi]

I will get a photo tonight but I think these are older as they are not enclosed.

[RJS1977]

"all these fine layouts have more than a touch of their creators about them.  I think it's one of the things we've lost with the rise and rise of rtr.  It is very good to have, but it makes my railway look your railway look like his railway, and that's rather a shame."

 

You are so right which is perhaps why the likes of the more specialised scales such as 2mm, 3mm, S4 and S scale are attracting more modellers. (I am not including 7mm as the RTR situation is starting to impact there too!)

 

Martin Long

 

And the narrow gauge scale/gauge combinations like 009 of course.

 

All John Thorne's four layouts have a recognisable style to them - the first I saw of his most recent one was when it appeared in RM, and I knew it was his from the photos before I'd read the article header!

[rue_d_etropal]

the growth of r2r, is possibly a detriment to the hobby. Sure to see lots of very similar OO9 layouts over next few years, although it might draw more into the hobby because of its small size. Slowness in getting new locos out is not helping though. Not everyone can scratchbuilt, let alone build a kit, which is why 3D printing is plugging that gap nicely.

The two narrow gauge scales that not only interest me, but are getting more people interested are 1/35(1/32) and 5.5mm/ft . Both can use widely available ready made track and working mechanisms. Both also have connections to military modelling and wargaming, so already have a good sized manufacturer and trade base. This should result in layouts which don't look like clones of what is seen in magazines, and will  hopefully inspire people to try something.

 

Many of the older classic inspirational layouts from the past, have been long term projects evolving over time. The one exception for me has been Ian Futers and his many minimum space layouts. I remember reading his original article in RM about a small OO gauge branch line terminus is a space of less than 5ft long. That inspired me at the time, but he went on to build many more small sized layouts . He did stray a bit when he built the large 4mm scale layout which those who operated threatened to claim shoe wear because of the distance from one end to the other. Luckily he did return to building minimum space layouts, which show that you don't need a lot of space to build something interesting.

[St Enodoc]

the growth of r2r, is possibly a detriment to the hobby. Sure to see lots of very similar OO9 layouts over next few years, although it might draw more into the hobby because of its small size. Slowness in getting new locos out is not helping though. Not everyone can scratchbuilt, let alone build a kit, which is why 3D printing is plugging that gap nicely.

The two narrow gauge scales that not only interest me, but are getting more people interested are 1/35(1/32) and 5.5mm/ft . Both can use widely available ready made track and working mechanisms. Both also have connections to military modelling and wargaming, so already have a good sized manufacturer and trade base. This should result in layouts which don't look like clones of what is seen in magazines, and will  hopefully inspire people to try something.

 

Many of the older classic inspirational layouts from the past, have been long term projects evolving over time. The one exception for me has been Ian Futers and his many minimum space layouts. I remember reading his original article in RM about a small OO gauge branch line terminus is a space of less than 5ft long. That inspired me at the time, but he went on to build many more small sized layouts . He did stray a bit when he built the large 4mm scale layout which those who operated threatened to claim shoe wear because of the distance from one end to the other. Luckily he did return to building minimum space layouts, which show that you don't need a lot of space to build something interesting.

That would have been Scotsgap Junction.

 

I wonder how many of these are still around in mint condition? Perhaps I should put it on eBay, or offer it to the AIRMEC project...

 

[johnarcher]

 

Many of the older classic inspirational layouts from the past, have been long term projects evolving over time. 

I suspect that the term 'long term projects' is part of why some of these layouts are inspirational. They are individual, unlike the layout using the same rtr as many others, and could be so because the creator made most of it, to suit a personal vision (there was little choice then, of course but to make). To do that takes time, hence the long term aspect.

There seems to be the expectation quite often now that one will build a series of different layouts, rather than spend a good many years on one, hence the time for each is limited, so unless it is something very small and simple it needs a different approach?

I would disagree with your comment that not every one can build kits, or scratchbuild: practically everyone could, if they want to spend the time developing the skills (if they don't already have them), as those pioneers did. Again a question of time - I'm not saying either way is right or wrong, it is just maybe a little ironic that so many people still find inspirational layouts that were created in a way that seems to have largely gone out of favour.

[Pacific231G]

 

I haven't been able to find out what happened to the Mk 1 Leighton Buzzard, which was a very small, easily transportable layout. I can't see any buildings from it on the present Buckingham and most buildings were re-used when a layout was dismantled. So perhaps it was disposed of complete or maybe it was totally demolished.

 

I like to think that it is still around somewhere as I found it highly inspiring as a concept.

 

Tony

When you took L.Buzzard to the ExpoEM for the first time, I'm pretty sure that one of Peter Denny's sons told me that L.B. mk one had been dismantled and the timber reused.

I've got his series of RM articles about building it and they're still really inspiring. The track plan was a little odd with the goods shed at the end of the main line though there's bound to be a prototype for that somewhere and the double crossover does give a lot of shunting for such a simple layout. . 

Edited February 5, 2015 by Pacific231G

[t-b-g]

When you took L.Buzzard to the ExpoEM for the first time, I'm pretty sure that one of Peter Denny's sons told me that L.B. mk one had been dismantled and the timber reused.

I've got his series of RM articles about building it and they're still really inspiring. The track plan was a little odd with the goods shed at the end of the main line though there's bound to be a prototype for that somewhere and the double crossover does give a lot of shunting for such a simple layout. . 

 

I thought I had asked Crispin and Stephen at the time we were dismantling the layout but knowing me I probably asked one of them and chose the one who knew what had happened!

 

I will have to have another  (and closer) look to check if the loco shed and goods shed on the current Leighton Buzzard might be off the old layout.

 

I wasn't sure about the goods shed position on LB Mk. 1 but the track plan was one that Cyril Freezer presented as a "quicky" layout plan and on that version, the loco shed and goods shed were on the two sidings formed by the cross over and that looked much more likely.

 

It has crossed my mind once or twice to recreate LB Mk.1 as an exhibition layout, using "Denny style" materials and techniques and running it with his locos and stock at exhibitions. It would be an interesting little exercise and would allow some of the Denny stock to carry on appearing at exhibitions if and when a decision is made to retire Leighton Buzzard Mk 2 from the exhibition circuit.

 

I could even make the buildings out of wood and original Merco brick paper, using Peter Denny's 1930s fretsaw machine!

 

Tony 

[t-b-g]

I suspect that the term 'long term projects' is part of why some of these layouts are inspirational. They are individual, unlike the layout using the same rtr as many others, and could be so because the creator made most of it, to suit a personal vision (there was little choice then, of course but to make). To do that takes time, hence the long term aspect.

There seems to be the expectation quite often now that one will build a series of different layouts, rather than spend a good many years on one, hence the time for each is limited, so unless it is something very small and simple it needs a different approach?

I would disagree with your comment that not every one can build kits, or scratchbuild: practically everyone could, if they want to spend the time developing the skills (if they don't already have them), as those pioneers did. Again a question of time - I'm not saying either way is right or wrong, it is just maybe a little ironic that so many people still find inspirational layouts that were created in a way that seems to have largely gone out of favour.

 

A very interesting point and I agree that using Buckingham as an example, not only was it a lifetimes project but it was always being developed and altered. This kept it in the public eye as articles on new additions and changes appeared.

 

What is sometimes surprising is that although Peter Denny was always making something, the main parts of the layout and individual items were actually produced very quickly. The present Buckingham initially took around 12 months for the baseboards, track, buildings and scenic work, not forgetting some very complex wiring. It has changed much since but when you bear in mind that all the track (not just the points) was handmade, along with every building being scratchbuilt, it is an object lesson that a complex layout, with much scratchbuilding, need not take for ever.

 

Likewise, a scratchbuilt loco is described in his books as having been built in a week.

 

I often quote these when people tell me that they would love to build things but they don't because it would take them forever to make anything!

 

Tony

[dunwurken]

I thought I had asked Crispin and Stephen at the time we were dismantling the layout but knowing me I probably asked one of them and chose the one who knew what had happened!

I will have to have another  (and closer) look to check if the loco shed and goods shed on the current Leighton Buzzard might be off the old layout.

I wasn't sure about the goods shed position on LB Mk. 1 but the track plan was one that Cyril Freezer presented as a "quicky" layout plan and on that version, the loco shed and goods shed were on the two sidings formed by the cross over and that looked much more likely.

It has crossed my mind once or twice to recreate LB Mk.1 as an exhibition layout, using "Denny style" materials and techniques and running it with his locos and stock at exhibitions. It would be an interesting little exercise and would allow some of the Denny stock to carry on appearing at exhibitions if and when a decision is made to retire Leighton Buzzard Mk 2 from the exhibition circuit.

I could even make the buildings out of wood and original Merco brick paper, using Peter Denny's 1930s fretsaw machine!

Tony 

I have found the historical research angle absolutely fascinating.  Comparing the old articles and photographs of Craigshire with what actually has survived has been a real eye opener.  For instance, some small parts of the very first layout 65 years ago survive on Dundreich.  I presume that partly because of the shortage of materials in the 1950's, and possibly financial constraints, both Denny and Hancock were almost forced down the road of re-cycling items. With Craigshire there are also many queries regarding the rolling stock and the research is ongoing with the narrow gauge coaches and wagons completed, ng locos and then the standard gauge to do. 

I too have been toying with the possibility of a new build section in order to allow Hancock to take to the exhibition circuit. There are a number of ideas but one could say, re-create the first Craigshire or alternatively build Mertonford for which one has a blank sheet of paper.  The Merco paper is to hand but I now regret passing up on some of Philip's tools!

 

A very interesting point and I agree that using Buckingham as an example, not only was it a lifetimes project but it was always being developed and altered. This kept it in the public eye as articles on new additions and changes appeared.

What is sometimes surprising is that although Peter Denny was always making something, the main parts of the layout and individual items were actually produced very quickly. The present Buckingham initially took around 12 months for the baseboards, track, buildings and scenic work, not forgetting some very complex wiring. It has changed much since but when you bear in mind that all the track (not just the points) was handmade, along with every building being scratchbuilt, it is an object lesson that a complex layout, with much scratchbuilding, need not take for ever.

Likewise, a scratchbuilt loco is described in his books as having been built in a week.

I often quote these when people tell me that they would love to build things but they don't because it would take them forever to make anything!

Tony

I must remember these words Tony, they struck a chord with me in that if I replace Buckingham with Craigshire I would be describing Hancock exactly.  He built layouts two and three very quickly and could also produce locos and rolling stock very quickly, indeed one of his model bashes was produced over a weekend at a time when Saturday mornings were still being worked!

Yep, next person who complains it would take too long will find me quoting you in full.

Malcolm

[298]

 

It has crossed my mind once or twice to recreate LB Mk.1 as an exhibition layout, using "Denny style" materials and techniques and running it with his locos and stock at exhibitions. It would be an interesting little exercise and would allow some of the Denny stock to carry on appearing at exhibitions if and when a decision is made to retire Leighton Buzzard Mk 2 from the exhibition circuit.

 

I could even make the buildings out of wood and original Merco brick paper, using Peter Denny's 1930s fretsaw machine!

 

Tony

 

Only if I can exhibit my 1970's version of Ashburton alongside it....

[RJS1977]

 

I too have been toying with the possibility of a new build section in order to allow Hancock to take to the exhibition circuit. There are a number of ideas but one could say, re-create the first Craigshire or alternatively build Mertonford for which one has a blank sheet of paper.  The Merco paper is to hand but I now regret passing up on some of Philip's tools!

 

 

ISTR PDH writing that Mertonford was the "ultimate destination to which it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" that he would never model and for that reason resisted calls for one of the stations on his garden layout to be called Mertonford, though he did concede to adding the line  "Change here for Mertonford and Craig".to the station nameboard.

[t-b-g]

Only if I can exhibit my 1970's version of Ashburton alongside it....

 

Sounds like a plan! Leighton Buzzard Mk 2 was based on one of the versions of Buckingham (the last single track version) and that in turn was inspired by Ashburton as a track layout. So Leighton Buzzard and Ashburton are distant cousins!

 

Tony

[pete55]

 

 

It has crossed my mind once or twice to recreate LB Mk.1 as an exhibition layout, using "Denny style" materials and techniques ..........

 

I could even make the buildings out of wood and original Merco brick paper, using Peter Denny's 1930s fretsaw machine!

 

Tony 

 

Oh dear.....why have I got a headache developing?

Does Ken read this?

Another layout........????????!!!!!!!

Does this mean a shed extension?

Edited February 6, 2015 by pete55

[t-b-g]

Oh dear.....why have I got a headache developing?

Does Ken read this?

Another layout........????????!!!!!!!

Does this mean a shed extension?

 

Only a really tiny one. Honest!

 

Ken doesn't do internet so I am safe unless anybody opens their mouth........

Edited February 6, 2015 by t-b-g

[Loconuts]

Sounds like a plan! Leighton Buzzard Mk 2 was based on one of the versions of Buckingham (the last single track version) and that in turn was inspired by Ashburton as a track layout. So Leighton Buzzard and Ashburton are distant cousins!

 

Tony

This is correct as far as early Buckingham is concerned, however I believe that there is confusion as to what Leighton Buzzard Mk1 was like. It was a simple layout with a run round with spurs coming off from each cross over.  The goods shed was on one of the end spurs, the other spur was used for the running round and cattle dock.  The crossover towards the fiddle yard had a spur off as a carriage siding and the loco shed was on a spur that came off the main line towards the fiddle yard.

 

The layout was 10 feet long including the fiddle yard, on 4 x 2ft 6in x 1ft wide boards hinged in pairs to fold up for transportation.  The hinges were mounted on blocks to allow clearance for the scenery.  The building of this was done as a project in the RM over a period of monthly issues.  How do I know this, well I used this plan and construction for a exhibition layout and built it as a GWR branch terminus with the addition of a bay platform.

 

Loconuts

[Pacific231G]

I thought I had asked Crispin and Stephen at the time we were dismantling the layout but knowing me I probably asked one of them and chose the one who knew what had happened!

 

I will have to have another  (and closer) look to check if the loco shed and goods shed on the current Leighton Buzzard might be off the old layout.

 

I wasn't sure about the goods shed position on LB Mk. 1 but the track plan was one that Cyril Freezer presented as a "quicky" layout plan and on that version, the loco shed and goods shed were on the two sidings formed by the cross over and that looked much more likely.

 

It has crossed my mind once or twice to recreate LB Mk.1 as an exhibition layout, using "Denny style" materials and techniques and running it with his locos and stock at exhibitions. It would be an interesting little exercise and would allow some of the Denny stock to carry on appearing at exhibitions if and when a decision is made to retire Leighton Buzzard Mk 2 from the exhibition circuit.

 

I could even make the buildings out of wood and original Merco brick paper, using Peter Denny's 1930s fretsaw machine!

 

Tony 

 

Hi Tony

I think that Leighton Buzzard (Linslade) mk1 following Peter Denny's plans in the series of articles in RM in 1960 would be a wonderful tribute project.

 

The goods shed on LB mk 1 is definitely not the same as LB mk 2 as it's the type where the track runs inside the shed and the pitch of the roof is much less steep. The station building, which is rather reminiscent of Watlington, also doesn't seem to have reappeared anywhere

 

I'm fairly convinced that he never did build a loco shed for LB mk 1. The plan for the folding layout was essentially the same as Stony Stratford on the original portable Buckingham Branch though larger and on that station the goods shed was on the siding and there was no loco shed.  There are a couple of photos of LB mk 1 in the August 1958 RM describing it as "The latest addition to the Buckingham Branch" and referring to its appearance at the MRC Easter show that year but in "Buckingham Great Central" Peter Denny does say that it was "exhibited in a partly unfinished state in order to show how a small station complete in itself...could be designed to occupy quite a small space". According to the track plan of the Buckingham Branch from that period there was also no loco shed at LB  when it was a part of the main layout.

 

The series of articles "Building Leighton Buzzard" that appeared in RM from May 1960 begin with a drawing and plan for a complete portable layout. This includes a second folding section for a scenic section with a loco shed, an extension to one of the sidings and ending in a tunnel mouth which leads to a traverser fiddle yard. However, in the final article which gives construction details for the fiddle section he does say "I have not actually constructed what I am about to describe, although I have made something very similar" so it does seem that only the initial folding baseboard for LB mk 1  was ever built. It's appearance in 1958 may have been its only outing and possibly to show the techniques rather than as a working layout  (though adding a simple board with a fiddle siding to the end would have been a trivial task)

 

In the photos of the layout accompanying the three 1960 "Building Leighton Buzzard"  articles it does look very attractive though not quite finished . Peter Denny's drawing of the complete 11ft by 15inch portable layout including its own fiddle yard looks well worth building. He does say of the station when describing LB Mk 2 that it really could only be operated on the one engine in steam principle - which was why mk 2 had more trackage- but I think it could still be quite inspiring. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

This is correct as far as early Buckingham is concerned, however I believe that there is confusion as to what Leighton Buzzard Mk1 was like. It was a simple layout with a run round with spurs coming off from each cross over.  The goods shed was on one of the end spurs, the other spur was used for the running round and cattle dock.  The crossover towards the fiddle yard had a spur off as a carriage siding and the loco shed was on a spur that came off the main line towards the fiddle yard.

 

The layout was 10 feet long including the fiddle yard, on 4 x 2ft 6in x 1ft wide boards hinged in pairs to fold up for transportation.  The hinges were mounted on blocks to allow clearance for the scenery.  The building of this was done as a project in the RM over a period of monthly issues.  How do I know this, well I used this plan and construction for a exhibition layout and built it as a GWR branch terminus with the addition of a bay platform.

 

Loconuts

Hi Loconuts

Interesting and do you still have any photos of your GWR layout? The bay would add quite a lot to the plan's potential.

 

I've got the 1960 RM in front of me and the actual layout described in the three "Building Leighton Buzzard" articles was a single pair of boards each 2ft 9ins by 15ins folding as you describe. There was a plan for a more complete portable layout with a second pair of folding boards for the fiddle yard, loco shed and a bit of main line but though Peter Denny presumably intended to build and exhibit that it seems he never did. The goods shed WAS on the end of the loco release at the end of the run round with the spur siding at that end for coal and presumably mileage but it  would have been simple to change that over.  Possibly having the goods shed where it was made LB more challenging to shunt.

Peter Denny's description of the use of fairly tall hinged blocks to create a folding layout inspired an H0e layout that I built many years ago,  though it was A.R. Walkley who first used it for his "Portable Goods Yard" in the 1920s and I know of several other layouts that have used it.   When you built your GWR layout did you build a traverser fiddle yard from his plans?

Edited February 6, 2015 by Pacific231G

[t-b-g]

This is correct as far as early Buckingham is concerned, however I believe that there is confusion as to what Leighton Buzzard Mk1 was like. It was a simple layout with a run round with spurs coming off from each cross over.  The goods shed was on one of the end spurs, the other spur was used for the running round and cattle dock.  The crossover towards the fiddle yard had a spur off as a carriage siding and the loco shed was on a spur that came off the main line towards the fiddle yard.

 

The layout was 10 feet long including the fiddle yard, on 4 x 2ft 6in x 1ft wide boards hinged in pairs to fold up for transportation.  The hinges were mounted on blocks to allow clearance for the scenery.  The building of this was done as a project in the RM over a period of monthly issues.  How do I know this, well I used this plan and construction for a exhibition layout and built it as a GWR branch terminus with the addition of a bay platform.

 

Loconuts

 

There have been several secondary terminus stations on Buckingham over the years. In addition to Leighton Buzzard and Stony Stratford, there was another one called Tingewick on one version. Some of these appeared as different versions, so there were at least two Stony Stratfords and Tingewick was used more than once as a name although the other one was a through station.

 

I won't bore people to death with the full history but it is all in the various articles.

 

Leighton Buzzard Mk 1 was on two baseboards, each 2' 9" long. the traverser/fiddle yard tray was 2' 6".

 

I have to say that I am not aware of any version of a station on Buckingham that was on four 2' 6" boards so I would be very interested if you could tell me where the details are as it may be one that I have missed.

 

It is the current Leighton Buzzard (Mk 2) that is related to Ashburton, not Mk 1. Peter Denny missed the single track version of Buckinghm, that had been inspired by Ashburton. So when he wanted to upgrade Leighton Buzzard, he based the new one on the old Buckingham, even down to using the old station building.

 

I can confirm, categorically, that one of the earlier versions of Leighton Buzzard did have a loco shed. It is pictured in RM for June 1965 in an article called "Operating Buckingham".

 

This version had just the four points forming two cross overs and didn't have a carriage siding. The loco shed was on the siding alongside the line coming in from Grandborough Junction.

 

If I did build a "tribute" layout, mine would have the loco shed where this version had it but swap the goods shed from the running line to the other siding.

 

It is very difficult saying that any station on Buckingham did or didn't have a particular feature. All the stations were being constantly changed and sometimes had a feature that came and went very quickly and maybe only appears in a corner of a photo.

 

Tony

Edited February 6, 2015 by t-b-g

[dunwurken]

ISTR PDH writing that Mertonford was the "ultimate destination to which it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" that he would never model and for that reason resisted calls for one of the stations on his garden layout to be called Mertonford, though he did concede to adding the line  "Change here for Mertonford and Craig".to the station nameboard.

I had forgotten that one probably because it is tucked away in one of his Torlum Hill LR articles.  So the tribute station would be called 'Mayfield' which was the name chosen for the THLR station instead of Mertonford.  Standard gauge arrives at Mayfield which would have to be a NBR / NER station, cross the platform and get on the CMR, travel through Dundreich [where latterly trains from Craig to Mertonford and vice-versa reversed] and then take the choice of routes to Craig or Mertonford........  Might work if I had the space!!

Malcolm

[Pacific231G]

There have been several secondary terminus stations on Buckingham over the years. In addition to Leighton Buzzard and Stony Stratford, there was another one called Tingewick on one version. Some of these appeared as different versions, so there were at least two Stony Stratfords and Tingewick was used more than once as a name although the other one was a through station.

 

I won't bore people to death with the full history but it is all in the various articles.

 

Leighton Buzzard Mk 1 was on two baseboards, each 2' 9" long. the traverser/fiddle yard tray was 2' 6".

 

I have to say that I am not aware of any version of a station on Buckingham that was on four 2' 6" boards so I would be very interested if you could tell me where the details are as it may be one that I have missed.

 

I can confirm, categorically, that one of the earlier versions of Leighton Buzzard did have a loco shed. It is pictured in RM for June 1965 in an article called "Operating Buckingham".

 

This version had just the four points forming two cross overs and didn't have a carriage siding. The loco shed was on the siding alongside the line coming in from Grandborough Junction.

 

If I did build a "tribute" layout, mine would have the loco shed where this version had it but swap the goods shed from the running line to the other siding.

 

 

 

Tony

Hi Tony

Yes. I've just found the plan for Buckingham Mk 3 in the book and though there's no picture the loco shed looks to have been installed on the existing siding, though I'm sure there was more fettling involved to create an ashpit etc. Would this have been the same single track loco shed that had been at Buckingham on mk 2? He does mentions that Leighton Buzzard's goods shed (LB Mk 1 of course) came from Tingewick.

 

With the traverser table and the original folding boards Leighton Buzzard would have made up an exhibitable layout without the extra scenic section shown in the drawings in the 1960 "Building Leighton Buzzard" articles. Would he have exhibited it locally?  

 

I've got some very early articles by Peter Denny so will see if there ever was a station on four folding boards but it doesn't ring any bells and in the book he refers to 3ft 6in folding baseboards for the extensions to the original semi permanent Buckingham station and 4ft baseboards for the portable Buckingham branch that followed it. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Izzy]

Hi All

 

There is a chapter on Leighton Buzzard mk1 in the first WS book I referred to in an earlier post. As originally built the station was on two boards of the size Tony states with the goods shed on the platform headshunt. There was no engine shed. It appeared at the 1958 MRC show where the folding nature of the design was demonstrated. Later on, when Buckingham was installed in it's railway room another board was added on the fiddle yard end to facilitate connection to the rest of the layout, and the engine shed was placed on this board at the end of the other siding off the run-round. A version of Tingewick looks very similar, but with the goods shed on the road off the run-round and not the headshunt and might be being confused with LB Mk1.

 

The folding design is one I copied for my minimum space P4 layout All Saints back in the 1980's, and which I find a very clever design concept which I continue to use today, currently with circular layouts in 2mm. Re-reading the LBmk1 chapter now has reminded me of the neat and simple method used to transfer point control movement between boards, a pushrods with return spring at the point tie-bar - using rubber bands. Apparently this was also used quite a bit on Buckingham itself. The wonderful KISS principle at which he excelled, and which neatly solves a design issue with my current 2mm circular layout build for point control.

 

Izzy