Jol Wilkinson

I have only just found this delightful thread. Bringewood is similar to and predates Elan in Iain Rices "Layout Design - Finescale in Small Spaces" book. Elan was in turn inspired by Llanastra by Rodney Hall. The main difference being that a sector plate is used in the hidden run off area and also doubles as a point feeding the two station lines and a feed to the storage area (cassettes). My local S4 Society Areas Group has decided to build a layout based on Elan but in an urban rather than the rural setting of the book. What quickly became apparent that the layout drawing in the book didn't readily translate into a Templot design the points and double slip being far too short and sharp. The same would apply in any of the 4mm gauges but would be a bit easier in OO. Clearly the hand drawn plan was a concept rather than being based upon what could be readily built. However persistence has resulted in a track plan that is buildable in an eight foot length.

If you want to use only one supplier than Megapoints is probably the answer. They are however expensive compared to some other suppliers. MERG kits are very good although you have to be a member to buy. If you need a lot of gear, then the membership fee would soon be amortised. I have built a number of MERG Servo 4 and 77R kits (a single servo controller with built in relay) without any issues, as has a friend. The instructions are excellent. You do need to be able to solder, have a 12v supply and good multi meter to test the kit when building it. The MERG Servo4 setting box is also excellent as you just plug it in and can look at the point or signal servo you are setting to set position/ throw and speed.

Take a look at the S4 Society Forum. There is a lot of information in the Track and Turnouts section, in particular this could be of interest. https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5727 The process and techniques are the same. irrespective of 4mm gauge.

The Pentroller was developed by Stuart Hine to provide a suitable controller for Portescap motors. Portescap coreless motors apparently don't like certain types of feedback controllers and have very delicate brush gear as Mike alludes to. In particular the "frequency" of the feedback controller can cause problems with premature brush wear and failure. I have Pentroller and Modelex controllers and have had no problems but it may be that heavier usage than I have given my models may cause controller "mismatch" to have an impact. The Pictroller from Malcolm's Miniatures is a more recent version of the Pentroller.

Blunt, but I would expect nothing less of you, Clive. The gross exaggeration I didn't expect. Your last paragraph sums it up well. Within the two generations of my wife's family most have degrees but none have what my old physics teacher called "uncommon sense". Fix a dripping tap, sort out a simple electrical problem, etc. and guess who get a call for help? Would word work/metal work lessons at school have helped? Possibly not but some sort of practical based teaching - call them life skills - might have helped to provide some confidence in fixing simple issues around their home or hobby. As Tony W has pointed out, there are many within this hobby who can't/won't undertake a simple repair or alteration such as re-gauging a set of wagon wheels or re-fitting a tension lock coupling. Are they, as Clive suggest, incapable of such things because they didn't do a toolmakers apprenticeship or similar.

Possibly contentious but I believe that in addition to the apparent loss of any practical skill training in schools, successive governments have promoted the need to get a university degree to enter some "service industry/non productive career" rather than recognising that the economy needs people with manual skills. That has produced a society where the idea of doing something practical and constructive appears to be outside most peoples area of confidence. There seems to be a definite unwillingness to "have a go", Perhaps fear of failure has become too ingrained in peoples psyche. In addition, "status" has become more about what you can afford to buy/own than your ability to create/restore/repair something.

Lots of resource saved? Or do we just dump the safety features and keep the other modern conveniences? How else will those younger generations who have learned to drive with ABS, PAS, SatNav, 8 speaker sound systems, multiple cup holders, self levelling headlights, self dimming mirrors, etc. manage? They haven't learned about maintaining safe distances at speed, parking with heavy steering (e.g. Mk2 Cortina), reading the road ahead to maintain steady progress with low powered cars, fuel consumption in the low thirties or worse in a family car. When I drove my MGB (which I sadly had to give up a couple of years ago) I had no difficulty with any of that because that is how I learned to drive. I don't think a lot of drivers would cope safely now.

Largely because they have built in safety features required by law. Perhaps the size (width) of the average person has also increased. You could always go back to the day of the sliding window Mini where the only thing between you and a side collision was the door panel and its layer of vinyl trim

The LRM website is effectively a catalogue and doesn't have a live stock levels/ordering capability. It is best to place an order through the "contact" button. John Redrup will then let you know when it is available and request payment (usually by PayPal). http://www.londonroadmodels.com/how_to_buy_from_us.php

14 hours a day behind the wheel! Presumably no driver's daily hours limits?

It is also not from a London Road kit as claimed (they do the C Class 0-8-0) but probably from the Brassmasters kit. I have contacted the seller to that effect but didn't like to upset him about the other inaccuracies in his advert.

LRM will have a new wagon kit available at the expoEM Summer exhibition at Wakefield this weekend. I believe it is for a LNWR Ballast wagon but don't have other details.

Yes, that is LNWR D14, presumably from the LRM kit, for which I designed the etch artwork. It is interesting that there were no retaining stanchions, which were a feature of the D12 and D13 single bolster wagons. On those the stanchion also hade a chain/rope anchor hole. They seem to have been intended for timber in the round. Deal, in plank form, presumably only needed chaining down.

Softwood planks were known as Deal, which is what I suspect that timber would be referred to. The LNWR built the D14 24ft long flat wagons with chain hooks along the solebars for carrying the sort of wood shown. They also used open wagons loaded in the same way as shown. There is a photo in Talbot's LNWR Miscellany Vol. 2 showing overlong timber which had, probably following a rough shunt, come partly out of the wagon and tipped over on the the next wagon.

Although I could have fixed the baseboards to the walls of the building shown in my post above, I built them free standing. I had done that for my exhibition layout with adjustable feet to the legs and so followed the same approach. Benefits are that the boards can be removed to work on, including on the underside for wiring, etc. and that there is no damage to the walls when we come to sell our house at some future time.

Automatic transmissions are a major benefit to some people. When we had six speed manual transmission diesels, my dearly beloved was invariably in the wrong gear. Slogging up hill or over revving on the level bits. With our current petrol eight speed auto, she can't get it wrong.

If he like LNWR carriages, I wonder what he would think of this?

I can't recall who these photos came from many years ago but they appear on the GWR Society website, http://www.gwr.org.uk/layoutsdrefach1.html I probably was sent them when helping out John Redrup of London Road Models. I don't know what year this would have been, but the smokebox door, lamp brackets and valve chest cover aren't original. Circular smokebox doors with a vertical front smokebox were introduced in 1884 and metal brake blocks from 1892 so the original loco would have been built (or rebuilt) after that date. The loco also has a GWR Dean tender AFAIK. I can't find any reference to this particular loco in Talbots Illustrate History of LNWR Engines. These two small photos show the model that had been built from the LRM kit, although the smokebox door has yet to be fitted.

Martyn, given that so many modellers can and do buy laser cut baseboard kits now, then the need for good carpentry skills are less of a deterrent. Decent baseboards with good track alignment are a must in any scale/gauge for good running. That is especially true for exhibition layouts. I built my baseboards from birch ply with only the use of hand tools, circular and mitre saws. And how do you know that the planet is littered with abandoned P4 layouts? I have been a member of the S4 Society (and the EMGS) for many years and haven't encountered any. if there is a myth it is largely put about by those who want to believe it. What you say about RTR is true nowadays but not many years ago that wasn't the case. I regard myself as an ordinary modeller but found I could build P4 models that run better than when I built OO ones. Wheel clearances aren't always better in OO/EM than P4 as the wheel/tyres are often wider, reducing the apparent advantage. Quartering can be a problem with press fit wheels, but it isn't too difficult to overcome. Track costs? I have just built about 18M of plain P4 track (EMGS laser cut sleepers and n/s rail plus Exactoscale chairs) at a cost of about £12.50 per metre. C&L flexitrack is £12.14 per metre, although Peco OO flexitrack is about half that. Is the cost of track significant in the overall cost of building and stocking a layout? I suggest that it isn't. As for reliability, my previous P4 layout was shown at a number of exhibitions over about ten years and I had very few problems, all of which were down to transport or setting up. What even the much wider range of RTR models now available doesn't give, is the freedom to model something different if that takes your fancy. I like to model the Edwardian LNWR, something I can't do realistically with RTR. Jol

Building models and trackwork in P4 is generally not much more difficult than in OO. EM provides a better compromise for those who lack confidence or have yet to hone their model making skills. The same "rules" apply, use the right tools and materials, especially for soldering. Handbuilt track in particular is essentially the same in all three 4mm gauges, the only difference being the gauges.

After a few days away in Kent, I have managed to finish the additional track in the engine shed area to accommodate the MMR laser kit for the LNWR Coal Hole. The track to the coaling stage rises at 1 in 30 and has brick walls to retain the earth. The level section at the rear is from the kit and is removeable for painting. I can't finish the two loco shed lines until I have got the parts/kit for the shed. Next job will be to finish the wiring on this board. I can then start on removing the other boards at the north end and the storage sidings to fit the point servos and wiring.

I had a workshop/layout room built by a local company who specialise in such things. Measuring 7M x 4M internally, more expensive than a garden shed or log cabin, it is fully insulated, has a a thermostat controlled heater and included LED lighting, wall sockets, etc. I also consider it as adding value to our property (a near neighbour has one as a music room/studio for teaching).

Although building P4 track is time consuming compared to using RTP OO track such as Peco, it isn't difficult. Having some good P4 gauges and few hand tools are all that is needed. There is an excellent topic on the S4 Forum by Tony Wilkins on track building https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5727, as well as plenty of other information. I mainly follow Tony's method but use ply and rivet in just a few locations such as under the nose of the crossing Vee, with Exactoscale chairs threaded onto the rail elsewhere. This photo shows the first P4 track I built. The new Finetrax P4 point kit has also been found to be a good starting point, although only available as B7s so far. https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8730

In my experience exhibiting a layout, the audience reaction to a layout depends on their knowledge, experience and modeling preferences. Mine was a P4, pre-group layout and was recieved differently at the 4mm gauge societies and the "finescale" shows compared to more "general" shows. I recall being at on of the latter exhibitions when I noticed we had virtually no viewers while they were three deep at the layout next door, which was not running at that moment owning to some electrical failure. This was a "modern image" layout (this was about twenty years ago) and had a very large amount of RTR stock, RTP "fixed" models, many of the usual layout cliches and was built with Peco track. I discussed this with one of the operating team who expressed the view that the majority of show visitors could more readily relate to that layout than ours and were therefore more able to appreciate it. So my answer would be that you have to know your potential audience and develop and run your layout to match their pretences.

Tony, I imagine you would bring an interesting and innovative approach to an "unboxing video". The few that I have seen (purely for research, you understand) strike me as extremely amateurish and mind numbing. That there is even a "market" for them is remarkable. Thanks for the D2 pictures. I'll forward to John immediately. Jol