islandbridgejct

If I might throw in my tuppence worth on cheque book modelling, I have about 15 half built wagons, which I'm working on a chassis for (Bill Bedford w-irons to 21mm gauge, thanks to Bill for the special order) and trying to figure out how to spring the buffers without running into the ends of the w-irons. I have a number of part built Ratio carriages (for practice), some Worsley Works etches for GSWR 6-wheelers, a Midland J26 (unstarted) and a number of etched wagon kits (also unstarted). I have a 4ft demonstration board with hand built track - still need to settle on a tie bar operation mechanism, and I'm working on mastering Templot and Turbo-CAD. I think that puts me firmly in the build-it-yourself camp. I'm neither very good nor very productive, but I do enjoy it. But I have no problem at all with cheque book modelling. It seems to me that building a model railway can be compared to making a film. The person who has the idea and pays for the layout is the producer. The person who visualises that idea and turns it into reality is the director. Then you have all the other roles. The layout and buildings are the stage sets. The locos and stock are mini-engineering projects, like the robots in a Star Wars film. There is the lighting and sound engineering. Then there is the actual operation, the action sequences, set in motion by the director and carried out by the actors (or drivers.) As railway modellers (using the term loosely) we take on whichever of these roles appeals to us. Some people have more interest in some areas than others. But when someone visualises and designs a model that captivates us in some way, that model is as succsessful as a good film, and I have no objection to how much of it came out of a box, and how much of it was done on commission, and how much was done by friends by way of horse trading. I love to be taken to Peterborough North on a day in August 1958, or to Little Bytham, or Grantham, or the Settle and Carlisle line in the early 60s, or Kingsbridge, Bath Green Park or wherever a modeller's layout is set; and I love what I can learn from them on the way. If a model has set track curves, or wide flange gaps in pointwork, or oversize track, or the wrong gauge, that lessens the experience somewhat. But having said that, a layout like Waverley West transcends all those limitations through phenomenal attention to detail, weathering and lighting, and through an amazing photographic sensibility. I love the narrative of railway modelling on rmweb too, following the trials and tribulations of the growth of a layout, as it stutters to a halt only to emerge again a few weeks later, reimagined and renewed, and the tension of wondering how long will it last this time before the director scraps the whole thing and begins again. Would the Francis Ford Coppola's of railway modelling please stand and take a bow? I love the models that triumphantly and majestically sweep on towards conclusion, depicting a day in the life, or a long gone era. I think, Tony, that you fall into the gifted producer / director category, but that your real love is loco engineering at which you clearly excel. But Bachmann Mk I coaches and wagons are every bit as much cheque book modelling as Hornby A3s. I do, though, take your point about the pleasure derived from making something yourself: there really is nothing like it. I fully support your argument that people should have a go and see what they can manage, but I would never denigrate the directors who envisage and produce a thing of brilliance, just because they did not carry it all out themselves. As with any film, there should of course be a full list of credits at the end. Now, if only I could actually finish some of my own work. Best wishes to all who provide so much education, encouragement and entertainment through these pages. Alan

Hi John, You got me interested in the Walker railcars and where else they turned up. Walkers had an early design for the CDRJC in railcar 14, but their final bodywork was on numbers 19 and 20 built, I think, in 1948: http://www.island-images.co.uk/Rail/Railstock/SteamLoco/No20-1.html This was the one that reminded me of the Victorian Railways design. Shortly afterwards, they built an almost identical pair for the West Clare Railway: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tramwayjohn/5566027280 And for the Mirboo Railway (which I had never heard of until I went looking.) https://www.flickr.com/photos/tramwayjohn/5483505665/in/photostream/ I also see a picture on John Coyle's flickr site of a Tasmanian Walker unit that closely resembles the one they built for the SLNCR: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tramwayjohn/5565322336/in/photostream/ A drawing of the SLNCR unit is here: http://irishrailwaymodeller.com/content.php/320-SLNCR-Railcar-B-Drawings And there's an incomplete build here: http://irishrailwaymodeller.com/showthread.php/2788-SLNCR-Railcar-B Note the way the cab and motor in the County Donegal units are separate from the body and are articulated to it. I see that in the Victorian units they used a separate motor unit between the two cars, rather than a power unit in the cab or a power bogie. That design was used by the GNR(I) in its pioneering railcars from the 1930s, units D, E, F and G, which I think Walkers might also have been involved in building. When I went looking for a photo of the Great Northern units, the best picture I could find was here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/108625-pre-br-first-generation-dmu-railcar-development-not-steam/ As usual, if I want to find someone who knows more about a topic than I do, rmweb is the site that pops up. John Mayne who now lives in New Zealand knows more about Irish railways than I ever will. The GNR(I) owned [have] half of the County Donegal under the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee. The other half was owned by the NCC, which in turn was owned by the Midland, later LMS. Anyway, this little diversion has nothing to do with the GWR in Cornwall, so I'll let your thread get back on topic. Thanks for broadening my horizon. Alan [Edited to change 'have' to 'half']

Interesting. With no knowledge of Australian railways at all, I thought it looked like a County Donegal railcar- they were all Walkers.

Nice haiku Very erudite thread, this. The modelling is first class too. Alan

I can see the logic of that, but then I wonder if the old adage that, "I wouldn't start from here" applies. I suppose if you had new baseboards with the same track and track layout, it might still be the same layout. Maybe the clue is in the word "layout". I'm going to stop before I get philosophical. As to the mill, I think the colouring and the building material are out of keeping with its surrounding and with the style of the other buildings which are either rendered, brick, or wood. It is also too high for its location from an artistic point of view. The scenery around it is low, and going down on both sides towards the mill, as though it is intended to frame a view off into the distance, but instead there is a big building just at the point where the distant view should be. It's not intended as a focal point or a view blocker, but it blocks the view to the backscene at that location and sounds a discordant note with the rest of the layout. Alan

Hello Tom, I wonder could I ask a question prompted by your beautiful C12? Initially I was surprised to see the location of the balance weights on the drivers, so I checked photos on lner.info and elsewhere to see if there was any obvious principle governing the location of balance weights. I had always thought they had to be directly opposite the connecting rod, and that seems to be the case on modern outside cylinder locos. But on older, inside cylinder locos it seems the balance weights can be almost anywhere, and that they do not have to be in the same place on both wheels, as with your C12. Was there some disagreement in the late 19th century as to the optimum location? Or is it because there is no necessary correlation on an inside cylindered loco between the location of the connecting rods and the location of the piston and crank? Or has it something to do with an inside cylindered loco being better balanced because there is less of a turning moment from the action of the pistons on each stroke? I suppose I'm wondering if I need to check for each individual loco, or if I should expect it to be consistent among a class. Thank you; apologies for the off-topic; and congratulations on your lovely modelling. Alan

'S not a sneaky peak, 's a Brush type 4, and I bet it's honkin'... (A million apologies, effendi. That was rotten. Pictures are very nice.)

For what it's worth, I would regard the baseboards and trackwork as being an essential element of the original, and needing to be preserved if it is to be the same layout.* Everything else is fair game for upgrading, restoration or improvement, the extent of the change depending on whether you aim for a restoration, a reinterpretation or an improvement - but at a certain stage, you'd be better off starting again. I agree that the mill building seems out of place. Alan (* Being Irish, I do not propose to discuss my shovel or its antecedents on this forum at this time.)

That's the one. Now she is a little beauty. You've made a great job of the flare in the running plate above the drivers. How did you go about it? (It's one of the reasons my first loco will be a Midland tank, if and when I get around to it.) Alan

Thank you. The GSWR tended to re-use the numbers of old locos on their replacements. A new 33 and 34 were introduced in 1892 (also 35, 36, 41 and 42 between 1892 and 1894) so the Fairlies and 044Ts must have been gone by then. The replacement, designed by Ivatt was a 242T. He must have preferred a more balanced design, like many modellers. Class 47 soldiered on until 1928-1945. May I ask what book you're getting your information from? It clearly goes back further than mine. Alan

I imagine something more along the lines of 'Carry on up to Blaenau' with Sid James saying, "Corr, would you look at the boilers on that one... Little wonder? She's a little beauty." Matron!

Cracking engineering, by Jove. I'm actually very catholic in my tastes. Anyway, if I could go back to your 044T, I've been reading up this evening, and I gather from Murray that only the first two were built to the Fairlie principle, while a further 8 to 10 were built straight to similar dimensions. I also gather that Aspinall used similar dimensions 10 years later (in 1879) for his class 47. It looks from Clements and McMahon as if only Class 47 survived to make it into the GSR in 1925. What was your engine numbered, and when was it withdrawn? Sir Douglas, presumably when you say Fairlie was in charge, you mean he was works manager, with McDonnell as loco superintendent designing the locos? I can't find any reference to that in my books, and wikipedia says his first loco for the Ffestiniog was built in 1869, the same year as Northroader's 044T. It also doesn't put him nearer to Inchicore than the Londonderry and Coleraine. So could you put me out of my misery and tell me more, please? If Mr Northroader doesn't mind, that is. Alan

That's fascinating, thank you. I had no idea they were built on the Fairlie principle, though I had always thought the two sets of wheels were quite far apart. The drawing and statement of dimensions should come in handy in future too (if I ever get that far.) Just showing my ignorance now: were all 044Ts built like that or was it an unusual decision? Alan

I'll raise a cheer for another of Inchicore's finest - unless my loco recognition is letting me down. Alan

A quick query about those trees: whilst very picturesque, I wonder would they have grown so high since the railway opened, or do they (and the wall) predate the line? A thing that often strikes me about early railway photos is how new the line looks, and how little the station has bedded into its surroundings, compared to the same locations today - often vanishing under a mass of foliage. Just a thought.

That's alright. You have just been tempted by one of the worse angels of these parts and have survived. I'm afraid it was a case of work for idle hands. I hope the eye gets better soon, and that the statins / aspirin have the required effect. Alan

Ah yes, but that was line occupancy in reality. As you don't run your actual timetable in actual time, there is plenty of room to stretch the space-time continuum to allow Midland stock to transmogrify itself onto the GN lines to the south of Crescent Bridge, and to transmogrify itself back as soon as it has left the station. If anyone objects, all you have to do is set phasars to 'stun' and remove them from the premises before they come round. The matter is entirely logical, captain. As for the floodgates argument, it didn't bother Lord Atkinson. (And look where that ended up.) I'd just like to say that phrase again: "goodness knows how many more locos and stock..." Oh yes! :clapping: Alan [Edited to change 'themselves' to 'itself'. Bah, grammar.]

Which do you think is more of a compromise: leaving the Midland trains out altogeth because you don't have room for the lines they ran on; or simply running them 20ft further east than they should have been? (And having thus demonstrated that you SHOULD run the Midland trains through on the slow line, for my next trick I shall prove that you can fit all the extra stock into the - two level ? - fiddle yard. Hmmmm. I think I'd better think that one out again. Still, you KNOW it makes sense.) I particularly like that shot of the WD crossing back to the main against the light from the windows - functional beauty, nailed. Alan

Well, whatever about Stephenson and nature, I KNOW Brunel didn't abhor a vacuum. Couldn't get enough, if I recall.

Regarding the wagon backdrop on the Midland side, I was originally with Phil on the idea of having a half track and half wagons. Then, thinking about it, you'd end up looking down into a bunch of half wagons whenever you were above eye level and totally spoiling the realism. The two tracks of parked wagons would give a superb backdrop, but I think you'll need to make it easily removable, otherwise it will get in the way when you want to take pictures from that side, as well as making it more difficult to squeeze into the gap - none of us is getting any younger, so it's not going to get easier to get in there, and 38cm would seem to be a desirable minimum. A photo backdrop has its attractions, but again whenever you change eye level it will look wrong, so I think you should go with the real wagons. Alan

I prefer the one from the inside of the curve, with Ladas leaning into it. (Sorry.)

I'll add my best wishes. As ever, I feel for you with your knee complaints. The rest is outside my experience, but doubtless much more of a trial. Please keep on posting. I've been privileged to see some beautiful layouts on rmweb and in magazines, but Kirkby Malham is one of the most stunning. In fact, I think it might actually be the most stunning. And I'm not given to using superlatives lightly. It puts me in mind of Buckingham or Castle Rackrent, but is more restrained, more refined. It's like a window onto the Edwardian era. I love it. Alan

Just spent a very enjoyable few hours reading the background to this line, tracing its route on google maps, and generally marvelling at the beauty and wildness of the setting, particularly so close to an industrial heartland. It's a fantastic site to build a model of. I've been following for quite a while, but hadn't really appreciated the stunning location. By the way, I think you're being a bit unfair to Stubby: there are caravans all over Rosedale Abbey. Alan

HI Gordon, I know you like your pcb, but I found plywood and rivet, Brook Smith method, quite easy and effective. The trick was to poke a scriber through the hole in the sleeper, then stick the end of the scriber into one of a bunch of rivets sitting on the cutting mat, and slide the sleeper down onto the rivet. After that, take out the scriber and do the same with the other end. When I had ten or twenty done, I used a centrepunch to close the rivets. Fairly quick and painless, and no mucking about with pcb. You might find it cheaper than C&L, quicker than cutting individual sleepers, and fairly therapeutic. I don't know are the parts available in OO though. Alan

Dang! I thought you might just be mad enough, if approached the right way. Alan