t-b-g

If they get a few more modellers interested in an earlier period of railway history, that would be another potential plus point for me. Some of the liveries do look very nice indeed, almost certainly better than I could achieve. I haven't bought any and don't intend to but I can certainly see why they have sold well. They are just very attractive, even if not 100% accurate. They are a lot closer to the real carriages of some railway companies compared to others. The GNR ones are much further away from the real ones than say, the Midland ones.

That is how I see things like these, along with the "generic" carriages that have appeared recently. They can fill a gap and get a project moving along quickly but with the intention of replacing them with "proper" vehicles later.

I think it is clear that there is no agreed definition of what " layout coach" actually means and that a few of us have our own ideas. I certainly didn't think that calling a model a "layout coach" was any sort of compliment but if that was how it was intended, I accept it with thanks.

As I said, when it comes to building vast quantities of models, then saving time and cutting corners comes into play. I would like to think that if the carriage I did was placed alongside those examples, the differences would be fairly clear. I don't think the ones you have shown would have fooled anybody into thinking they might be etched kits. I was just a bit surprised that after all the work I did on it, that you think it is still a "layout coach" just like the unaltered, undetailed examples you have illustrated. I tried my best to turn a basic kit into a decent model but I clearly failed!

Some of my early models were very similar, when I lacked experience and knowledge of how to do any better. As the years have gone by, I have learned how to improve and modify things and that is what I now choose to do. I did omit one important reason why people might build "layout vehicles", which is to save time. That doesn't apply to me either as I never do any modelling quickly nowadays. If what a modeller wants to achieve is a lot of modelling in a relatively short time, then cutting corners and accepting shortcomings comes into play. Both Roy Jackson and myself (as well as most of my modelling friends are) didn't choose to work like that. We would rather put more time and effort in to build a more accurate and realistic model. We could never quite understand how people who did have the skills and abilities to build better models chose to not do that and could enjoy building models to a lower standard than they were capable of. Other than the occasional need to produce models to an exhibition deadline, when building quantities of reasonable models quickly could be very satisfying, we preferred to take our time and do things as well as we could. So to me, a "layout coach" is more about somebody who could do a better job choosing to do an inferior one, rather than somebody doing the best that they can with the skill and experience that they have. Edit to add: I had another look at your LNER carriages and you certainly didn't build them straight from the kit box. You have added quite a lot of details that were not supplied. So even as a beginner, you were trying to improve what was supplied. That is what it is all about for me. Having a go and trying to build good models. I even used to try detailing and improving my old Hornby Dublo locos many years ago. They will never be accurate or good models but at least I tried!

Roy was happy enough with it to put in a train with his etched carriage kits, where it didn't stand out as being built from a basic and rather old kit, so that was good enough for me. He wasn't a fan of the "layout vehicle" idea (the LNER never built any coaches anyway, they had carriages) and neither am I. To us it meant that the builder has been too lazy or not bothered enough to correct things that are not right and has accepted shortcomings in the model they are producing. That just isn't my way of working and it wasn't Roy's either. I see so many models of LNER carriages that look wrong with windows set so far back in the recesses that the sides look ridiculously thick. It was that look that I wished to avoid and I was willing to spend some time working on the kit to achieve that. Whether it was worth the effort or not isn't for me to say but it was an interesting and enjoyable exercise and I like to think that it resulted in a finished model that is a bit better than most of the Kirk kit carriages that you see around.

A bit of a follow up after the recent discussion on Kirk LNER carriage kits, I visited Sandra and Retford today and had a lovely time, including running some real oldies by way of locos built by the late George Norton. A bit dated and with primitive mechanisms, they included possibly the noisiest 4mm loco I have ever heard. Conversations were being shouted while it ran. I took the opportunity to look out the Kirk kit mentioned previously and take a snap or two. It was the fairly basic camera on my tablet and without proper lighting but I hope these give an idea.

We attended the funeral of my father in law yesterday. He could remember watching the first LNER streamlined train run on its debut run in 1935. That is what I call old! I was born in 1960 and the only time I feel old is when I see myself in photos or in a mirror. I don't feel any difference between me now and me from 30 years ago until I see the visual evidence. My biggest concern is that when I started modelling, I became part of a gang that were all quite a bit older than me and they are now in their 70s and 80s, with a few who have fallen along the way. Seeing people I knew as fit healthy 40 year olds gradually turn into frail old men is quite sad sometimes.

Thanks for posting that Rich. I don't really know how you managed to work the camera/phone, drive the trains and work the block bells and instruments all at the same time but it gives a nice flavour of a running session on Buckingham. Some of the locos featured, the Pompom, 0-6-2T, 2-4-2T and the 4-4-0 on the express are all now over 75 years old. The 0-6-0T on the engineers train is much younger, having been built by Malcolm Cralwley to replace one that peter Denny had stolen, probably about 15 years ago.

I always thought this looked promising but I have never built a GWR model and haven't used them. You get a frame and a selection of etched letters in the correct font. https://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Smiths_Components_for__OO__.html They sell the etched letters as a separate item too, if you want to add them to your existed cast sign.

It is highly likely that the structure alongside the weighbridge is the hut containing the scales and the office. It could be like this one: https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrdt1571.htm It would be very odd to have the weighbridge office away from the weighbridge itself as there was a mechanical link to the scales, located in the office.

There were three parts to what Malcolm did. The first was to inlay rectangles of plasticard into the upper solid panels, which reduced the rather too deep effect. The second was to flush glaze and the third was to alter the roof profile. This he did simply by filing, as the plastic was thick enough to allow material to be removed without going through. It removed the bit of a "hump" that the Kirk roof has and made it more of a curvy shape. None of it was very difficult or took very long but it made a decent difference. He also fitted nice corridor connections and added the alarm gear. I always thought his glazing could have been a bit tidier and when I did the one for Roy, I made a rebate by adding strips of thin plastic along the vertical edges. That allowed the glazing to have a surface to sit against and I could make them slightly undersized and fit them with varnish, which gave a better look than the one Malcolm got. I have some of his carriages here and this is an example. We LNER modellers and BR ones too, should be very grateful for these kits. They made modelling the LNER and ER so much more accessible when there was very little available for us. With a little bit of work they scrub up very nicely.

The layout High Dyke was built in a year. Roy Geoff and John did have a bit of help with the baseboards from a friend so it wasn't entirely their own work. Some of the locos and stock were from Gainsborough Central (as I said earlier) but the vast majority were built new for the layout. There were not too many pacifics and expresses at Gainsborough. I recall John telling me they built around 250 iron ore wagons for it. It was a great achievement and is still remembered with great affection. Stoke Summit was a great achievement too and is also remembered with great affection. High Dyke was my personal favourite as it was in EM and was built by people who I knew at the time and was more interesting to watch operating. Was one a greater achievement than the other? I neither know nor care!

It was interesting to see how things changed in the locos, from being almost exclusively kit built, especially with regard to mechanisms. As RTR locos got better and we had a member of the team who made a bit of a name for himself as an EM converter of RTR (Pete Hill) the proportion of RTR gradually increased. Carriage and wagon stock was the same. I wonder if the Kirk you mention was the one I did. Malcolm Crawley developed techniques to really improve them, enough to disguise the origin and allow them to fit in with more modern kits. There were one or two types that were covered by Kirk kits but not easily available from other sources and I recall "doing a job" on one for Roy using Malcolm's methods. Making the upper panelling look less heavy by filling in the recesses with thin plasticard, level and straight flush glazing and sorting out the roof profile made quite a difference. Roy was much happier building in brass, so anything plastic is not likely to be by him. If it is scratchbuilt it is almost certainly by Geoff. Plastic kits are likely to be by other members of the gang.

Was the bit that gave me the impression that you did the layout and the stock in that time. Knowing how much work the High Dyke team of 3 did in a short space of time, it didn't seem an outrageous claim for 6 people.

I have done it several times and found it a great motivator to get off my backside and get on with things. Each time I promise myself "never again". We (Either Ken and I or Malcolm and I) used to build a layout a year and we would leave a show and the manager would say "Are you building a new one?" to which the answer was always "We are just about to start it", to which the reply was always "Bring it next year then". I found it challenging but rewarding. I am trying it again now but this time working solo and the motivation gained from "teamwork" is sadly lacking!

In that case, if it took six of you 9 months to build the layout and only a couple of days to do the fiddle yard, by far the most complicated bit, what were you messing about at for the rest of the time? 😉

That changes things Tony. You gave me an impression that you built everything including the locos and stock in 9 months. If there were lots of locos and stock from earlier layouts, then that is a different matter altogether.

You are right. I don't expect that at all. I don't know exactly how much experience the Stoke Summit crew had of building points but it certainly wasn't their first layout and I am pretty sure, as Tony W has already said, that two of the crew had the skill and ability. So it wasn't as if they would have started from scratch with no skill or knowledge. It took me a few attempts to get the confidence and speed. I built my first one when I was about 11 years old, using balsa wood sleepers and Peco Code 100 rail recovered from a length of flexible track glued on with UHU glue. It works and I still have it but hopefully I have moved on. I then built a couple of SMP point kits when I was about 16 years old. There was a gap until I was about 19 or 20 and joined a club which was made up of mainly EM and P4 modellers. Then I really got going. Firstly with copperclad pcb and soldered construction, then ply and rivet and more recently with plastic chairs glued to wooden sleepers. I even (usually) make my own plain track now just because I enjoy it and I can accurately model prototypical individualities like sleeper sizes, number of holes in the chairs and sleeper spacing. It is one of the trade offs I am happy to accept by building smaller layouts. It allows me to consider such things. I must have built somewhere around 600 or 700 points now and although it is nothing like the amount that people like Norman Solomon have done, it is enough experience that they don't really present any difficulties to me now. To me, it has always been about having a go and trying to make things, rather than thinking of reasons to not do something.

You could have done your first show with two or three fewer trains. Nobody would have noticed. Whether it be one person building all 50 points or 5 people building 10 each, the total modelling time for the project would have gone up by the same amount of time, around 75 hours over 9 months shared between 6 people. If 4 or 5 people were not working on points, their extra hours could have been put into what the point builders would have been doing otherwise. The point I am trying to make is that if you had chosen to build Stoke Summit in EM, you would have still got there, a little bit slower but not by a huge margin. I would think an extra month would have covered it and the worst case scenario would have been that you wouldn't have had every train on the layout first time out. So the decision to build it in 00 was a decision made out of choice, not a necessity. I have been in the situation of committing a layout to a show then building it to a deadline, so I understand the self imposed pressures that come with that and that does to the "Do we do things the hard way or the quick and easy way?" questions but with hindsight, knowing the skills of some of the people involved, I am sure you could have done it in EM.

As Mike Edge says, building in EM isn't such a problem. I have done a Royal Scot and a Duchess in EM using Comet parts and Romford/Markits wheels and I had no clearance problems once I had a technique for a recessed leading crankpin. A Romford crankpin stands out much further than is needed or is desirable, especially if you use their thick washers as retainers. If it took two modellers a couple of weeks to make all the points and added an extra hour per loco, that is a tiny proportion of the total time spent on the layout as a whole. Of course it all depends on your priorities and your ambitions. There was a time when EM was seen as very much a "niche" interest for a handful of modellers and that 00 was "for the vast majority". That may well still be the case. It is difficult comparing the motivation from 40 plus years ago with the motivation now. We all have 40 years less time to build what we want to build and we all have access to much improved RTR models as well.

Malcolm Crawley once explained that such arrangements existed where there was a possible problem with the forces being applied to the crankpin. Having the drive nearer the wheel where the force was greatest was for engineering reasons and less likely to bend or shear the crankpin than having the greatest force on the outside. Many locos managed without it but perhaps the forces involved weren't as great, or the crankpins were stronger.

Even modellers of the quality of John, Geoff and Roy don't have a magic wand to expand time. I think you probably work quicker than any of the three of them, so that shouldn't be a factor. I don't think Roy ever built a DJH Pacific in an afternoon like you seem to do. The vast majority of the locos and stock on Stoke Summit were either homemade (and just as easy to build in EM) or ones that would be easy to convert to EM by drop in replacement wheels and if you allow an hour and a half to make a copperclad point (my record is 5 in 7 hours so that is quite achievable), 6 people would build 50 points in a couple of days. So to go EM for Stoke Summit back in the day would have added a tiny amount of extra time to the construction. Nowadays, the Peco/EMGS points would be available to do away with even that extra few days. Maybe back in the day, the ready to lay EM points from Marcway/SMP might have done for the fiddle yard for anybody who didn't want to spend time building their own.

There are plenty of converted LNER pacifics on Retford and there have been articles in MRJ about how to go about it. Several use the Brassmaster kits sold for such things. 00 has certainly improved over the years and the best examples do look very good indeed. For somebody starting out, using lots of RTR stuff, the case for EM isn't as strong as it used to be. However good 00 is made to look, it is still around 10% under gauge and locos, especially steam locos, still gave a look of the wheels being not quite in their splashers where they should be. On large LNER locos, the give away to me is the amount of wider rear framing you can see behind the rear driving wheel. In 00, there is just too much frame visible. So EM and P4 are not just about track, it is about the proportions of the front view of locos and stock in relation to the track. My hobby (and the question that was asked that started the discussion) isn't about RTR. It is about building locos, stock and track. If you are going to be making most if not all the items of stock and track that you are going to use anyway, why make them to a wrong gauge when you can make them to a better one? We have a tiny number of converted RTR items on Narrow Road and I run nothing RTR on my exhibition layouts so there is absolutely no advantage or point in me modelling in 00.

A big, mainline EM gauge layout need not take a long time to build. Roy, John and Geoff built High Dyke and stocked it in less than a year. Some of it was bodged, rushed and compromised, with a view to doing a "proper job" later, as you found out with the converted Triang A3s with the wrong domes and the iron ore wagons only lettered on one side but it was still done in a very short timeframe. That was (almost) all the work of 3 people, with all 3 having full time jobs to reduce their available modelling time. I have heard some EM modellers say that if "modern" good looking 00 had been around they may not have gone down the EM route. At the risk of offending anybody in that category, in my experience they are people who really haven't really got stuck in and produced very much and have reached an age where they realise that they possibly don't have enough years left to do what their "dream layout" in EM but might achieve it if they use 00 and rely on ready to lay track, points, locos and stock.