"Keeping the Balance"

[Fleetfoot Mike]

Does anyone other than me remember this set of articles in Model Railways in (and man, am I now scared that I remember it) 1974? I was (scary realisation) 11, and I remember finding it fascinating.

 

The basic topic was 'If you have (like many modellers) 10 locos, how many coaches and wagons of what types should you REALLY have? "

 

More to the point, does anyone know where I can source copies of the magazines containing the articles anywhere? would love to reread.

[DVLR Dave]

 

 

Hello Mike,

 

I think that you may have broken one of the forum rules relating in requesting that another forum member to distributes copyright materials illegally-it may be better to ask if anybody knows what issue of the magazine the articles appeared in. You can then source the magazines through the secod hand market.

 

The forum rules on copyright are here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/33-copyright-rules/

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

David.

 

 

[Anglian]

I do recall a similar article in RM (I think) way back when. Still its a good question for discussion here, of course it will always 'depend'??¦

[djparkins]

Does anyone other than me remember this set of articles in Model Railways in (and man, am I now scared that I remember it) 1974? I was (scary realisation) 11, and I remember finding it fascinating.

 

The basic topic was 'If you have (like many modellers) 10 locos, how many coaches and wagons of what types should you REALLY have? "

 

More to the point, does anyone have a scan of the set of articles anywhere? would love to reread.

 

It was a series of articles by Don Rowlands as I recall and one example he gave was for the LMS during the 1930s, saying [iIRC] that for every loco there were 23 coaches and something like 700 wagons! Oviously an extreme rule to follow for any modeller - but it does go to show just how loco-centered most of us are as far as our balance of stock is concerned.

 

I don't have those Model Railway copies any more but in my view it was a great period for that magazine. I wish model mags today would take a few tips from those editions. You had pull-out scale drawings in both 4mm and 7mm - not just reprints of previously published plans but especially drawn for the publication. Now the equivalent magazine will spend 4 pages telling you how you can build a kit and AVOID soldering!

 

That really was an exciting time to be a railway modeller in my view - I'm getting nostalgic! Mind you, Even nostalgia is not what it used to be!

 

David Parkins,

Modern Motive Power

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Is this the set of articles that also described how your ten loco LMS collection should really be confined to 0-6-0T, 2-6-4T, 0-6-0, 4-4-0, 4-6-0, 0-8-0 types; and no pacific until you had at least 100 smaller types? (It certainly influenced me, I decided to major on LNER and BR/ER, where as any fule kno half the loco stock had a wide firebox, and these could all do 120mph. )

 

The notion of a properly balanced stock dominated by common types of vehicles, with a seasoning of the less usual, seems to me very helpful in making a model credible. But it is naive to set the vehicle numbers by straightforward 'divide the stock running on the railway's lines by the locomotive stock of said railway; which is what I think these articles basically proposed. Rather, it is necessary to look at the location(s) that the model represents, and apportion the stock that way (and apologies in advance of my memory if these articles traduces their content).

 

If modelling a piece of running line, or a small station on such a line, it is fairly obvious that for every moving train there will inevitably be a locomotive (or 2 if we are dealing with the Midland) and thus it is more sensible to use the typical prototype train lengths to begin determining the stock to locomotive ratio, with a stock allowance for whatever standing space exists on the layout, on view and concealed, to enable variation of formations and traffic types. Now let us propose that we are modelling a line with significant coal traffic. Maybe eighty percent of the trains on the line are goods, and forty percent of all the trains are coal going from the pit, or empties returning: should we then have half the wagon stock comprising coal wagons? This is unnecessary, one train of loaded, one of empty, operated twice as much as the other freight trains of different classes, with a pool of perhaps a dozen wagons to interchange on each train so that neither train appears twice in exactly the same form, is the sensible arrangement. Other trains for the fast fitted, part fitted, pick up goods, (and maybe some specific traffics peculiar to the location) would leave the stock unbalanced compared to the total stock, but is capable of delivering a good representation of the passing traffic at that particular location.

['CHARD]

You make a good point, 34C. A model is effectively a snapshot. It sounds like the calcs were based on fleet totals, and these would include locos and stock in Works, and stuff which would never appear on every section of line. As you say, a better and more reasonable approach would be to take an approximate W/T/T and multi-up according to that.

 

My caveat to all this is - as per my own roundy's aspirations - that we are all more likely to notice the loco's i.d rather than the exact consist of each train. In fact it would be less realistic on balance to have the same loco work back along a model of a main line until a reasonable diagrammable time had elapsed. Hence we can indulge in proprtionally more locos. QED.

[Fleetfoot Mike]

Hello Mike,

 

I think that you may have broken one of the forum rules relating in requesting that another forum member to distributes copyright materials illegally-it may be better to ask if anybody knows what issue of the magazine the articles appeared in. You can then source the magazines through the secod hand market.

 

Indeed - *sheepish grin*

Just found one on eBay, in fact. Original question subtly reworded to remove any inducement to breach the laws of copyright It looks to be around Jul 74, if anyone can shed light on which side of that issue the remainder are I'd be most grateful!

[Fleetfoot Mike]

It was a series of articles by Don Rowlands as I recall and one example he gave was for the LMS during the 1930s, saying [iIRC] that for every loco there were 23 coaches and something like 700 wagons! Oviously an extreme rule to follow for any modeller - but it does go to show just how loco-centered most of us are as far as our balance of stock is concerned.

 

I don't have those Model Railway copies any more but in my view it was a great period for that magazine. I wish model mags today would take a few tips from those editions. You had pull-out scale drawings in both 4mm and 7mm - not just reprints of previously published plans but especially drawn for the publication. Now the equivalent magazine will spend 4 pages telling you how you can build a kit and AVOID soldering!

 

That really was an exciting time to be a railway modeller in my view - I'm getting nostalgic! Mind you, Even nostalgia is not what it used to be!

 

David Parkins,

Modern Motive Power

 

The thing I remember learning from it is the concept of common user pool wagons, which I really hadn't grokked before - my 11 year old mind went 'cool, you mean I CAN buy all four companies' wagons!!!).

[Flood]

You make a good point, 34C...

... As you say, a better and more reasonable approach would be to take an approximate W/T/T and multi-up according to that.

 

My caveat to all this is - as per my own roundy's aspirations - that we are all more likely to notice the loco's i.d rather than the exact consist of each train. In fact it would be less realistic on balance to have the same loco work back along a model of a main line until a reasonable diagrammable time had elapsed. Hence we can indulge in proprtionally more locos. QED.

 

Taking my layout as an example: to run a full daily schedule for just the workings on and off depot at Aberdeen you need 16 different locos of which only 5 are definitely used again the next day. There ya go, 27 locos for starters. Admittedly you also need 59 coaches and 2 HSTs which in reality would be 71 coaches and 4 HSTs for one day and a staggering 122 coaches and 6 HSTs for two days. Still prooves the point that if you're modelling a mainline station you need a large number of locos.

[Fleetfoot Mike]

You make a good point, 34C. A model is effectively a snapshot. It sounds like the calcs were based on fleet totals, and these would include locos and stock in Works, and stuff which would never appear on every section of line. As you say, a better and more reasonable approach would be to take an approximate W/T/T and multi-up according to that.

 

My caveat to all this is - as per my own roundy's aspirations - that we are all more likely to notice the loco's i.d rather than the exact consist of each train. In fact it would be less realistic on balance to have the same loco work back along a model of a main line until a reasonable diagrammable time had elapsed. Hence we can indulge in proprtionally more locos. QED.

 

I think that was the direction I was leaning, certainly. Without trying, I can justify rwo dozen or more locos on my planned layout (LMS/GWR joint and five routes into the station does help, admittedly!) - and that's really NOT pushing it, even if you're all laughing at me At which point you are pretty much looking at one rake per loco, possibly two in some cases, plus a scattering of extras to get dropped off and rerouted on pickup goods etc, and your limit's really on-the-board/fiddle yard train length.

[Tim V]

The point of the article was to look outside the "specialist" wagons that the trade love to produce, that modellers love to own, that were proportionally small in number. 400 odd wagons per 4F from memory!

 

For magazines take a look at http://www.payhost.net/modelling/acatalog/Model_Railway.html

[sulzer27jd]

It was a series of articles by Don Rowlands as I recall and one example he gave was for the LMS during the 1930s, .......

 

I spoke to Don on a number of occasions about such things when he lived in Scotland and of course he always pointed out that the balance varied depending on where you were watching the trains.

 

For example areas with coal fields would have many more coal wagons than elsewhere. Branchlines on the other hand would often not see some of the more specialist vehicles. Even things like Fish or Fruit vans would be disproportionate in some areas of the country.

 

There is no alternative to thorough research of your area of interest.

 

"Flood" moves the discussion on in a different direction;

 

Taking my layout as an example: to run a full daily schedule for just the workings on and off depot at Aberdeen you need 16 different locos of which only 5 are definitely used again the next day. There ya go, 27 locos for starters. Admittedly you also need 59 coaches and 2 HSTs which in reality would be 71 coaches and 4 HSTs for one day and a staggering 122 coaches and 6 HSTs for two days. Still proofs the point that if you're modelling a mainline station you need a large number of locos.

 

What we have started to talk about now is rosters. Unfortunately they are not available in the WTT and unless records have been kept are possibly only done by working back from known engine workings over a series of weeks.

 

Depending on the era you are modelling you might also have to contend with the fact that the in some cases enginemen went with their own loco, rather than a pool, thereby adding even more to your stock requirements. Certainly in steam days you would often get a specific loco on a roster for some time, in Caledonian days "Cardean" was reputed to have worked the same train day after day consistently.

 

When I was planning the stock for my layout, Balbeggie Sidings, I knew I had repeat services. For example Edinburgh to Dundee was an hourly service in each direction, so I could work out which set of stock would return at which time. I worked out that there were 5 rosters on these services. What I have ended up doing is having 5 locos available for each day and use the same set of stock to represent the train (4 x Mk1). So where my "balance" should be 5 locos and 20 coaches, I use only 4 coaches. The same applies to other services.

 

Another cheat that I have employed is only two sets of coal hoppers, 24 loaded, 24 empty. They represent all of the coal services but again the "balance" would be off.

 

Given that we are trying to represent the workings of the railway, I would suggest that rather than worrying about how many of each type of vehicle we have, we instead concentrate on getting the look and feel of the area right.

 

J

[Kenton]

Still its a good question for discussion here, of course it will always 'depend'??¦

Surely, very much depends on what sort of prototype and layout you are trying to depict.

 

No (or virtually no coaches) in a MPD and relatively few wagons?

No coaches and few locos in a freight only yard?

Only one loco in a "one loco in steam" branch line, possibly only 2-4 coaches?

 

Sure this argument makes sense if you are modeling York or some other mainline station of some significant size, or a busy route - but how many of us are able to do that?

[Fleetfoot Mike]

The point of the article was to look outside the "specialist" wagons that the trade love to produce, that modellers love to own, that were proportionally small in number. 400 odd wagons per 4F from memory!

 

For magazines take a look at http://www.payhost.net/modelling/acatalog/Model_Railway.html

 

oo - ta for that

July to Dec 1974 it looks like.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The point of the article was to look outside the "specialist" wagons that the trade love to produce, that modellers love to own, that were proportionally small in number.

This is a very sound point. I was resigned to modelling somewhere outside the UK, for lack of good models of the common stuff, until Bachmann produced their 16T mineral. At last a RTR scale model of the BR steam era wagon.

 

The thing I remember learning from it is the concept of common user pool wagons, which I really hadn't grokked before - my 11 year old mind went 'cool, you mean I CAN buy all four companies' wagons!!!).

Just replace that 'CAN' with 'should'.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

Hello Mike,

 

I think that you may have broken one of the forum rules relating in requesting that another forum member to distributes copyright materials illegally-it may be better to ask if anybody knows what issue of the magazine the articles appeared in. You can then source the magazines through the secod hand market.

 

The forum rules on copyright are here:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/33-copyright-rules/

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

David.

Not necessarily, you could just be asking for a friendly lend of the article with a view to reading it then passing it back? (whether it passed through a photocopier or scanner would then be down to the borrower's conscience?)

Though preserved railways are a very good source of cheap second-hand magazines and you'd be helping them too.

[The Stationmaster]

Surely, very much depends on what sort of prototype and layout you are trying to depict.

 

No (or virtually no coaches) in a MPD and relatively few wagons?

No coaches and few locos in a freight only yard?

Only one loco in a "one loco in steam" branch line, possibly only 2-4 coaches?

 

Sure this argument makes sense if you are modeling York or some other mainline station of some significant size, or a busy route - but how many of us are able to do that?

 

Exactly so - but even then it might not make sense because so much depends (or depended) on geography and the nature of industry and the way it worked. So what you would see at a station with goods avoiding lines - such as York - could be very different from a place where there were no goods avoiding lines.

 

And, for example in the York area it was common to see trains of steel carrying wagons (various) because product from steel works was routed that way - but it was a particular kind of steel and totally different from, say, the rolled steel and tinplate which predominated in South Wales.

 

So the mix you might realistically expect to see depended on geography, the nature of local agriculture and industry, and the season - as well as the era and the point you have made above about the nature of the railway in that locality.

 

Averages will always be averages and are generally of little more than a passing interest unless you can begin to tie them down to a particular area instead of just looking at a generality of things.

[sigtech]

I remember this series of articles.

- I used to have the magazines, though I thought they were in 'Model Railway News'?? and also earlier 1968/9..The cover illustration shot was of a group of models about 6/7 LMS (EX L&Y locos). 2x Aspinall 3f 0-6-0s,2x Aspinall 2-4-2 radial tanks ( 1 roundtop short boiler, the other belpaire and extended firebox ) an Aspinall 3f 0-6-0st and a finally a Hughes? 7f 0-8-0 heavy goods loco. The premise was that the average modeller would then have had just 10 locos, of which, if he had a small loco depot on the layout then he should have 5 locos 'shedded' there, consisting of just two or three classes, i.e for the ex L&Y area this would be 2x 2-4-2 passenger tanks and 2 or 3 x 0-6-0 goods locos.-(one of which could be a tank engine). The remaining locos working through the layout would be 1x 'Black Five', 1x 2-6-4 tank, 1x '8f' 2-8-0 and 1x 2-6-0 (Hughes Crab). The idea being that this would represent a 'balanced locomotive stud' and be far more representative of the real railway than a stud of 8 pacifics and a couple of 0-6-0 shunting tanks. The nickname 'Smokey Bourne' comes to mind for some reason. I cannot remember much more about the article except the common theme was to have two or three of the same class of loco each for working the passenger and goods traffic rather than just 1 example of each class.

Regards

(SIGTECH)

Steve.

[The Johnster]

Isn't this a repeat of the 'Correct Ratios' topic on Questions Hints and Tips; it is covering very similar ground though perhaps from a slightly different perspective.  

 

As a very generalised comment I'd say that it is always better to model 'typical' rather than 'unusual' stock, typical for your chosen period and geographical area.  This presupposes a degree of background knowledge of the traffic and the way it flowed.  Mike makes a good point about stations with goods avoiding lines, and it can be extended to termini with the goods facilities further out as well; you wouldn't see much goods traffic at Swansea High Street, for example, but plenty at Penzance.

[roythebus]

Smokey Bourne, there's a name I remember from the 1960s at the MRC in London. His initials were T.W. don't ask what they stand for, we all knew him as smokey!