t-b-g

At the North section of the line are a number of GCR carriages either restored (I think one is finished now) or work in progress or awaiting restoration. Along with a new build GCR pattern (or more accurately an MS&LR pattern 4-4-0 the day will come when a highly suitable train will be available. Until then, we have to put up with all these foreigners! There have been a number of LNER and constituent types on the line over the years but they all seem to have moved away now, which is a shame. If the line was worked by a B1, V2, A3, D11, O4, K1, and the K4, it would be my idea of preservation heaven, especially if all the carriages were teak and a turntable at each end did away with tender first running. That will remain a dream! I do agree that there is something especially nice about a preserved loco or some rolling stock being on its proper home line. I also (as a confirmed GCR fan) would have preferred to see the O4 parked outside where it could be seen. But I have seen it plenty of times, in steam and static, so I didn't consider it a major problem.

I have said previously that as long as the type of operation is appropriate to the modelled scene, then I can enjoy almost any type of layout. A couple of examples that have cropped up before are Stoke Summit and Charwelton. I found Stoke Summit enjoyable to watch as it represented the sort of place on the ECML that my dad took me to on a weekend or during school holidays. All you saw was a succession of trains and if one got a check for a signal that was an event.So the scene, the operation and the trains, almost all run at sensible speeds for the prototypes, all matched and the scene worked as a whole for me. Charwelton had a goods yard and a branch but every time I saw it, the operation was the same as Stoke Summit. I never once saw the sidings shunted and they might as well not have been there. That was less satisfying to me but I know lots of other people were huge fans of the layout, so that is probably more my problem than one down to the layout.. I would never want to model a main line layout of the type under discussion myself as I would be bored stiff within a few minutes just driving one train round after another. I have operated a layout like that and didn't get half the pleasure I get from running a proper railway with a timetable, shunting, swapping vehicle and locos and all that sort of thing. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy watching a layout like that as long as the trains were properly modelled, run well and are hopefully not straight out of a box RTR.

Many apologies if my remarks caused offence. That was not my intention. I have exhibited many layouts over the last 35 years, often doing 10 or more shows a year, so I am fully aware of the difficulties and work involved. I have exhibited only once in similar temperatures and the layout sulked greatly. The thing is that I fully accept that my idea of wanting to see more models that people have built rather than bought, more finescale layouts and more interesting operation are purely a personal opinion. I can certainly understand if exhibitors were struggling to get the best from their layouts under those conditions. The other things are down to what layouts were invited and don't reflect badly on individual layouts at all, rather the overall balance of the show. Many people will have been quite happy with what they saw at the show so I hope that nobody gives up exhibiting on my account. As I said, I enjoyed the day out. My comments were meant constructively in the hope that next year, perhaps the show gives a more balanced view of the hobby and doesn't concentrate so heavily on the RTR side of things, as that would make it an even better day out for me.

Taking those examples, a tractor in a half ploughed field is one of those "frozen motion" scenes. As is a bunch of workmen installing a fence if they are in "mid hammer". A tractor parked up at the side of the field and a farmer sitting on a tree trunk having a break uses the same items but creates a scene where the brain doesn't expect movement. As does a bunch of workmen standing in a group discussing the fence rather than actually doing anything. There is a balancing argument that says that if you accurately model a large section of a railway where not much goes on, you can end up with a model where not much goes on. So you have to increase the frequency of trains or otherwise invent ways of making it more interesting. A layout with just tracks going round would bore me in no time at all as an operator. Even as a viewer, a parade of RTR trains going round soon bores me. If they are well made models and worth viewing because they are unusual it would entertain me a bit more but not for too long. I went to the show at the weekend and was struck by the lack of any interesting operation on most layouts. It was either running trains round or for a terminus, a dead simple reversal and the train leaving. Admittedly I had to dash round a bit as spending a long time in that tent wasn't something I wanted to do so I may have missed things but for such a big show I would have expected at least a few layouts with a bit of interesting working. I would have also hoped to see a bit more in the finer scales (no P4, no scale7, no 2mm finescale, only one tiny EM gauge, precious little 00 that had anything other than Peco track). There seemed to be a heavy bias in favour of RTR and as Tony W said, much of it was straight out of the box. As for the trade, I couldn't find anybody selling Tamiya Acrylic paint and very few selling specialist bits at all. It was still a good day out and the idea of a show combining model and real railways is a good one but I enjoyed riding about on the big trains and mooching about in Loughborough shed more than the model part.

I would never dream of telling others what they should or shouldn't have on their layouts but on balance, a loco crew could easily appear on the footplate of a loco on shed, preparing for a trip or disposing of the loco after one. Yet I have never, ever, heard of a real steam loco pulling a train with nobody in the cab (apart from an odd "run away"). A fireman doesn't have to be frozen with a shovel of coal in hand. He can be looking out of the cab or even taking a breather by sitting down where seats are provided. The late Malcolm Crawley didn't consider any of his locos to be finished until they had coal, lamps, crew and fire irons. Even Buckingham used headlamps that could be added and removed as required. I usually limit figures to suitable "inactive" poses. A bloke sitting on a seat waiting for a train is fine by me. One permanently running but frozen to the spot, who doesn't even stop when no trains are around, is not for me. Likewise a road worker sitting on a pile of muck smoking his "non pc" cigarette or with an enamel mug set down beside him will always win over one holding his pick axe in mid air. I would rather have a road vehicle parked in a yard than one moving unrealistically at a constant speed, as most model ones do. I find that if the whole "scene" is still, then it holds together and becomes almost a frame for the working trains. If some items within the scenery move or do things like flash their lights, it only emphasises the fact that the rest of the scene is not "live". I am not against "gimmicks" to add interest and create attention but they have to be thought through and done with a subtlety that is sadly lacking on a lot of exhibition layouts for them to work for me.

What a superb bit of film that is. All those carts, lurries, drays (or whatever they are) and their loads crying out to be modelled! Many thanks for posting.

Firstly, I applaud the NRM and Rapido for having a go at what has always been considered a very difficult prototype. There have been several attempts at kits over the years and the same problems that crop up in a RTR model gave kit designers nightmares too. I don't think it is a bad idea to compare model and prototype photos. How else are we supposed to know how good the model is? Sure it is possible to go OTT but if there is something that just isn't right, then we either don't talk about it in an "Emperor's New Clothes" kind of way or we do mention it, hopefully in a constructive way. Looking at the cylinders/slidebar assembly, I don't think there can be any doubt that it is not quite right. Perhaps it has been a necessary compromise but my natural instinct is to suggest that if the cylinders were higher up, then you actually get more clearance for bogies etc. The give away for me is the top slidebar, which is tucked away behind the valance on the prototype but is clearly visible on the model with a gap between the top of the slidebar and the bottom of the valance. If you look at the motion bracket on the model, it has a slot as if it is designed to fit against something but is almost hanging in mid air. It may be an assembly issue, an error or a necessary compromise but those who are suggesting that there is nothing wrong in that area are deluding themselves. I think it has also led to the piston rod/crosshead being forced into a funny position as the piston rod doesn't look parallel to the slidebars. That sort of thing makes me wonder if this particular test model has not been assembled quite correctly. The top of the cylinder should be approximately in line with the top of the rear footplate but in the test model, it is almost level with the bottom of the valance. It is down to each individual to decide how important these sorts of things are to them and if the models are sold out before they are produced then the manufacturers have to take a decision on whether to spend more time and money sorting out such things or to go to production knowing that more research and testing will add significantly to costs and time whereas a fault may only result in a handful of people deciding not to make the purchase. It is a difficult choice and no answer will please everybody. I saw the loco at York and in the flesh, with no close up comparison, I was impressed. One in full GNR livery will be a real winner, faults or no faults!

That is a cracking looking plan. I have been plotting a double track terminus layout for a while myself and seeing that has set me off re-thinking yet again. The centre release road is very "Chesterfield Market Place" which is why it appeals to me. I was going for a "Minories" with all the pointwork at the station throat and plain track in the platforms but I will be doodling some alternatives now.. I wouldn't worry about the scissors crossing being wide. You need to get the release road between the running lines so a bit of extra width there wouldn't be a problem. I am not very good at doing drawings on computers but if you keep the points nearest the exit as two standard LH/RH points and replace the LH point at bottom left with a RH one, that gives you the necessary separation and may look a bit more elegant.

Some very interesting points and tips there and thanks for posting them. I am quite lucky in that I have a couple of good friends who are a very handy with machine tools. One did a tool making apprenticeship and the other was involved with such things all his working life. I always ring one up for "advice" on such matters, as I have a lathe but very little experience. The conversation usually goes "How should I set about doing this?" and the answer is usually "You send it to me and I do it". I would like to learn myself but I would use the knowledge so infrequently that I would probably forget what I had learned between sessions. With the demise of Mashima, these alternatives are worth investigating although things like power, torque and speed are always going to be a bit of an unknown variable to those of us who don't know what "good numbers" for these things are.

That looks like a superb drive arrangement. Can you tell us about the 5:1 motor drive please? Is it generally available to the rest of us or some sort of home made/special order creation? I can think of a few applications where I could use something like that myself.

Quite right and that wasn't really the sort of person I had in mind when I posted. I was thinking of the "Hornby have done the single chimney version from the first batch so I can't have the layout I want because I need the later double chimney one" type of posts which have been known to follow new announcements. We probably all started out with RTR things. I know I did. Some of my earliest modelling memories are of carving plastic handrails off a Triangle "jinty" and renumbering it. In a way that sort of modelling seems to happen less as the RTR things get better. One thing that has changed is that my generation started with RTR and realised that we could build better locos and stock for ourselves, so we did. There are not so many around now who could build better than RTR even if they wanted to.

If your idea of building a layout is to get it finished as quickly as possible, then RTR can play a big part in that but there is a danger that you end up with a set of locos and stock that tends to be the same as what everybody else has. With a hobby like ours, with the sort of average age that i see at shows, saving time can be a big factor in getting many projects to a conclusion. There is a fine line between taking advantage of mass produced models, (which are very good nowadays but lack individuality) and allowing the manufacturers to dictate what layouts we build. It seems that some folk plan their modelling projects around what is available from the manufacturers, which can be limiting. If you are willing and able to build things for yourself, you have no restrictions on period or place. Sure it takes longer but as others have said, the journey is a big chunk of the hobby for me and if things don't get finished, it doesn't really matter. In fact, finishing a project is my least favourite part of the hobby as I then need to think about what to do next!

As always this hobby has many different ways of tackling it and they are all as valid as the others. The RTR route can save a lot of time and help somebody get a layout up and running much quicker than kit or scratch building. If that is what you want from the hobby then that is fine. If, as I and a few others seem to agree, you think that the journey is the fun and if you reach the destination then you just want to start another journey, then the pleasure and satisfaction from producing your own models is what keeps us interested. I have friends working on layouts that, as one puts it, will need the rest of this lifetime and most of the next to complete. It matters little as long as you are enjoying what you do.

I was also very pleased to see the model running at Doncaster and to be able to say hello. It was strange that a built up and unpainted kit was instantly recognisable as the one featured on here as all the extra work done to improve the kit and the workmanship just made it stand out as being a bit special.

It always makes me smile when I see a post saying "Don't do it like that as it doesn't work" followed by one that says I did it like that and it worked". Perhaps it reinforces my views that there is rarely just one path that is "right" in this hobby. I have had layouts in MDF that have stayed flat. I have had layouts in MDF that have bowed badly. The same with ply. I think much of it comes down to the design and materials used for bracing the surface. Best results have come when similar materials have been used throughout.

Those block instruments look very nice indeed. Are they a private laser cut project or might they be available to others? I can think of at least one person (me!) who was about to look at making something similar and could be saved a few hours work. Tony Gee

It is quite right that different people want different things from a show, which is why the best ones have a variety, carefully selected by an exhibition manager who has a feel for such things. I don't have any problem with something like Stoke Summit. It has no operational potential other than running a succession of trains, so it looks and feels right. It is the ones which look as though they have been designed to allow some interesting moves but then don't do any that leave me a bit cold.

That is a very valid point. Been there, worn the t shirt etc. Exhibiting is hard work. The level of concentration needed on anything other than the simplest layout is not to be underestimated. Hopefully most layouts bring along enough operators to give people a break but that is not always possible and I have known some poor sods do two days or more solo. There are also some fine modellers who either struggle with, or just plain don't like running trains and can make it seem more difficult than it really is. I have had long running sessions at home, especially when we have visitors but even then our marathon sessions have tea and meal breaks. Imagine the outcry at a show. There were no trains running and the crew were sitting behind the layout drinking tea. So I cut most people a degree of slack in that department. There are also some who treat a show as a weekend "away with the gang" and who pay little or no attention to the paying audience. Or who have a layout that could provide some operational entertainment but just run trains round because that is what they think people want to see. Or who just crawl a loco or two up and down the layout dead slow because they are too lazy to do any more. They are the ones I have a problem with!

Bringing any layout from cold storage straight into a hot venue is a recipe for problems, no matter what scale or gauge you work in. I would suggest that a P4 layout is likely to suffer more than other 4mm scales due to the need for better rail alignment. I am at a bit of a loss as to how DCC would help derailments. Your rails either line up at rail joints or they don't. You can get perfect alignment with an electrical gap and even with DCC you need gaps at crossing noses and at baseboard joints. I have seen many reasons given for adopting DCC but to reduce derailments? Unless there is a cv that can be adjusted to hep wheels follow the track better. Any derailment in any scale has a cause. It may be the track, it may be the vehicle, it may be buffer locking, couplings, wheel, problems with levels/suspension or several other things. But it always has a cause, or maybe more than one. If a layout is stored between shows, then there is probably little opportunity to sort out problems until the ext exhibition. Again, out of all the 4mm scales, P4 is likely to be less forgiving of small discrepancies. If the problems on this particular layout were several things derailing in one place, then you look at the track. If one thing derails in several places but other things stay on, then I would have the offending thing off the layout until it had been checked over. What happens at shows is that the operators simply re-rail the vehicle and carry on as if it is supposed to do that every once in a while. I had a great battle of will power with the owner of a layout I operated on once. A vehicle would derail and I would take it off. Next time I looked, he had put it back on again to "give it another try and see if it does it again". which it did, without fail. This battle went on the whole weekend and I got so frustrated that I didn't go out with the layout again. Saying that a specific P4 layout had some problems isn't having a go at P4 in general. That would be like saying that the England batting collapsed today therefore cricket is a bad thing. If anybody is suggesting that if a layout doesn't run well, that we shouldn't mention it if it is P4, then I am sorry but that is going down the "Emperor's New Cloths" route!

It is not often that I see modelling that makes me think "I wish I could produce something like that" but watching the work progress on this layout has done it! I am shortly embarking on a 7mm layout for the first time and have been struck by how many layouts are let down by the scenic work in this scale. So I am playing particular attention to those few that get it "spot on" in that department and I am finding this thread highly inspirational. Many thanks for posting. Tony

I have been soldering all sorts of whitemetal with my iron set at 180 degrees with no problems. I have managed to melt small whitemetal items at 200degrees but any larger items, that act as heat sinks, have been quite successfully soldered using 145 degree solder with the iron set at 200 degrees with never any damage. Of course not all that temperature will transfer from the iron to the whitemetal, which may account for the difference. As often the case in soldering, there is a difference between heat and temperature. A tiny tip turned up high will not necessarily be as effective as a bigger tip at a lower temperature at heating up the metal and the solder at the joint. Likewise an oven. Set at, say, 180degrees, it will be hotter at the top than the bottom. So I stand by my suggestion that testing with a bit of scrap is the way forward! I have never had to resort to putting whitemetal models into an oven to dismantle them but I would want to make sure that the model wouldn't end up a blob if I was going to try it. I would keep turning the oven up until the scrap melted, then turn it down by around 30% before I put anything worth keeping in.

Having played around with my temperature controlled soldering iron to establish the same thing, I can confirm that the whitemetal used in the kits I tried it on melts with the iron set at around 200 degrees C. I would allow a decent safety margin as I am not sure how accurate the temperature on an oven is or how much variation there is in the metals used (there is certainly some variation in the composition). If it was me, I would experiment on some spare bits/sprues first, just in case!

Power and "tractive effort" are two quite different things and are measured in different ways. I once read a letter in a magazine as a response to the claim by the GWR that their King Class had the highest tractive effort of any express passenger loco and was therefore the most powerful. The letter writer pointed out that if you took the coupling rods off the loco and replaced the Swindon boiler with one for a Sentinel shunter (higher pressure than the Swindon boiler fitted), you would increase the theoretical tractive effort but the resulting loco probably wouldn't be able to move itself.

Stunning looking loco. I started one ages ago using an old Ks B2 as a base but it never got very far. I got distracted restoring an old layout! One day I will go back to it. My latest plans include one in 7mm and I have been looking out for a David Andrews kit for a while. It will have to be a second hand one as it has been out of production for a while.

I see what you mean. I can understand why the point rodding on your lovely layout draws favourable comment as it really looks very good indeed. I know for a fact that there were at least two patterns of compensators, one using straight cranks (though not right angles) and another using curved links. It is the sort of thing that you have to have developed a high degree of attention to detail to incorporate into a 4mm scale layout but it can be done if the builder has enough interest to want to do it. There was a very good couple of articles by Steve Hall in MRJ on point rodding for his layouts while ago in issues 113 and 115 which covered the subject well. A friend of mine is developing some etches for 2mm scale components. I have seen some and it looks superb but rather him than me! Tony