t-b-g

OK, here goes. Get ready for some brain ache as you try to follow the various routes,,,,,, This was George's layout. He was a genius, no other word to describe him. I once asked him how long he took designing this. The answer was "A few hours one Sunday afternoon". He drew it out and built it to the plan and never had to alter a thing from the design. A clever bloke and a good friend, very much missed by those of us who got to know him and his layout. Tony G

Although on a smaller scale compared to some of the layouts mentioned, Buckingham is a model of part of a railway system rather than a station or a stretch of line. There are some trains that spend their lives working to and from destinations without ever going off scene to a fiddle yard. It is many times more fun to operate than any layout I have ever been involved with that had only one station. One day I must scan and post the plan of the layout of the late George Morris. Never published and not really photographed properly, it was, to me, the ultimate in layouts for operation but remains totally unknown to the modelling public. I wonder how many more layouts there are like that around? Tony G.

That is similar to the arrangement that Danny Pinnock used in his 4mm scale GNR and other 6 wheeled carriage kits (and probably still does in the 7mm ones). The D & S carriages had one fixed and one pivotted end and the centre W irons floated between guides and were held in place and alignment by a wire along the length of the carriage. I have built a number of these as well as using the Comet etchings and they do work quite well but not quite as well as the Brassmasters ones, which allow the outer wheels to turn to follow the rail and can have (if you choose to build them that way) pinpoint bearings on all three axles. I did find a few problems with my middle axle on the Comet ones. As the outer wheels have no sideways movement, you need more on the centre axle and it wasn't easy to get enough sideplay to allow it to go round my sometimes small radius curves. With the Brassmaster arrangement, the outer wheels move inwards on a curved and the centre wheels move outwards but they don't need to move as far as they would if the outer wheels were fixed so clearances between the solebars are not such a problem. The big plus point of the Comet arrangement is the cost. If you are building several carriages, it can add up to quite a saving compared with Brassmaster's prices.

I have used several of the kits from Brassmasters for 6 wheelers and found them to be very nice indeed. They give you a choice of inside or pin point bearings and a very adaptable wheelbase. I have run my carriages round 2' 10" radius curves in EM with no problems at all and they just glide along. The only difficult part is that the pivoting trucks take up a lot of the floor area, so if you want to fit vacuum brake cylinders or gas tanks, you have to use your initiative. I fixed mine to the Brassmasters parts and that worked fine. No connection other than as a highly satisfied customer! Tony G

I have built layouts where the vast majority of locos and stock were RTR running on Peco track. I have also buillt layouts where all the locos and stock were kit built or scratchbuilt. I enjoyed building them both and the mainly RTR layouts have given me a great deal of pleasure operationally and during their construction. But there is no doubt in my mind that the ones where I (or my friends) have built everything are the ones that A) Give us the most pleasure and satisfaction (which is what I look for from the hobby) and b ) Create the most interest when we exhibit them (because they are not the same as all the other layouts at a show). So to me, a nicely crafted and designed, interesting to operate layout run with RTR stuff is always going to come second to the same layout run with kit and scratchbuilt locos and stock. That doesn't mean that anybody else should feel the same way. there are many layouts that would never have been built unless RTR stock was available and used. Plus there are many people who see the layout as the end result and have little interest in whether the trains are out of boxes or hand crafted as long as they look good in the landscape they have created. There is room in the hobby for these approaches as well as others. What does concern me is when I travel to a show and pay to get in and all I see running on the layouts are things I could have gone into a model shop to see without paying anything. I would far prefer to see things that people have built, even if they are not as technically advanced or detailed as modern RTR items. I can appreciate and admire a unique hand built model far more than yet another RTR product any day of the week. The number of unprototypical train formations and loco workings that you see just because people have chosen to use a "near enough" RTR model or even worse, because they want to show off their latest purchase, is quite staggering. At least most of the exhibitions I go to have enough non RTR things around for me to enjoy but it does seem to me that the number of non RTR items that you see in OO is falling away very quickly and people making things for themselves are now either modelling more obscure prototypes or in other scales/gauges. Tony G edited because if you type b followed by a ) it becomes B)

Aesthetics, ideas and emotion. Three words that could easily describe what I enjoy about model railways. A well thought out layout that looks good and creates an emotional response in me. I said earlier that I don't want to be in an art hobby, I just want to build and play with trains. People have argued for centuries about what is or isn't art. Is there anybody who really believes we will find the answer to that question on RMWeb? If we can, shall we have a go at the meaning of life next? Please don't say 42 or 43......

I should have included that in my post for those who didn't know. Thanks for adding it. His layout, Bramblewick, was one I could just look at and drink in for ages. His colouring and texture was as good as any I have ever seen. If any single model and modeller illustrates the idea of a model railway being a 3D picture with movement, it was Tom with Bramblewick. If Bramblewick was built by a "proper" artist, does that make it more "art" than other layouts built by "non artists"?

There have been various musings on the subject of model railways as art. Is a loco any more or any less a sculpture than a bit of rock carved into a figure? Is a backscene, either hand painted or a photo, any less "art" than items that you see in galleries. If some well known artist created a model railway and entered it into a major art competition, then that would be considered "art". What we do is no less artistic in my view. the skill that some of our loco builders put into their work is right up there with the best jewellery makers. But unless the rather odd world of "art" accepts you, then you will never be considered an art form by the rest of the world. Not long before that lovely man and superb modeller Tom Harland passed away, he painted a section of backscene for a layout. The layout owner jokingly asked him to sign it as it would be worth more when Tom had gone. It turned out to be not very funny when we found out how ill Tom was but the point was that Tom's painting was indeed art. There are some layouts that are as lovely as many a painting but just in 3D with movement. Was Tetley Mills any lesser an invocation of the industrial north than the paintings of Lowery? I am not sure that I want model railways to be accepted into the "art" world. Much of that world is based on pretentious nonsense about what a bit of canvas with some paint on it is worth because a particular person painted it. Do we really want the work of the best modellers changing hands at auctions for hundreds of thousands of pounds because "It's a Beeson". I would rather us stay as our gentle hobby of big boys (and girls) having fun building models and playing trains. Tony G

Now that train would raise some eyebrows!

I do care quite a lot! Perhaps it is a fault but it is one I am happy to live with. My own modelling is pre-grouping GCR. Whatever Bachmann/Hornby etc. have produced by way of RTR rolling stock hasn't been a big help to me at all yet! Generic catering vehicle are available RTR and if you are not too fussy, you can use these to turn a passenger train into a "long distance express". That is fine and I do have an involvement with a layout that does exactly that, with 6 coach trains. All I am saying is that I can understand why manufacturers are perhaps reluctant to produce more, just to satisfy the needs of people who want a specific vehicle. The most popular modelling period is BR and BR catering vehicles are available. Anything else is likely to have a fraction of the sales of a BR Mk 1 vehicle.

The fact is that nearly all layouts (apart from the tiniest branch or freight only ones) can happily run a brake 3rd, an all 3rd or a 1st/3rd composite carriage (substitute 2nd as appropriate), whereas a layout has to be able to run a reasonable length of train to allow them to look right with catering vehicles. Yes there were prototypes where short trains ran with catering vehicles but they are in the minority. It isn't just a case of what sort of station you have either. The restriction is often the length of train that the fiddle yard will take rather than the number of carriages that will fit in the platform, although good layout design will take both of these into account. How well do sleeping cars sell too? Mostly running at night (when most of us operate with the lights on) and restricted to certain long distance services. I would think that their sales will be minimal compared to the more common types. Many real catering vehicles were built in relatively small batches, with differences from one batch to another and changes over time. This again makes it tricky for a manufacturer to decide which particular one to do. So I can understand why so few have been produced. The problems with the Hornby LNER one not having the necessary modifications to represent the type in later years are perhaps an indication that potential sales were not considered to be great enough to warrant new tooling. There are some very nice layouts around where full length trains can be run using prototype formations. Sadly, for those who admire such layouts, they are (and will remain) in the minority.

Many thanks Morgan. So far, all my own GCR locos have been painted black apart from 9F (LNER N5) No 921 which was painted in a hybrid passenger livery for hauling saloons for the Directors of the GCR. That didn't, as far as I know, have the red on the frames and had the freight lining (white/black/white/red) on the green body. The passenger locos I have were done by Malcolm Crawley and he sprayed the 9F green too, so my experience of such matters is limited. The time will soon come when I need to do some myself as there are a B3 and D9 in the pipeline, so your notes and photos are much appreciated. I did do the artwork for the Styeam and Things transfers although my crests were simplified slightly at the production stage as my artwork was too detailed for the printing processes to cope with. So I think that the Fox ones are better detailed. The HMRS are supposedly getting on with their GCR transfers now but I am not holding my breath. They have probably had the information for more than 10 years now. Thanks Tony G

I have very mixed feelings over this business of accuracy of drawings. There are proper railway GA drawings which are known to be not how the real thing ended up looking when it was built. I modellers sketch type drawing may contain some errors but it is infinitely better than the one that you haven't got. If Peter Denny had decided that he wouldn't build a loco unless he had a GA and photos then he would have built precisely nothing. He often had dimensions such as wheel diameter and wheelbase, plus a photo and from those he would do his own drawing, which was good enough for him to build a model that was instantly recognisable for what it was supposed to be. They may be the odd millimetre or two out here or there but there are 20 scratchbuilt locos working on the layout and they all look pretty good to me. Now I, on the other hand, like to try to make things as accurately as I can. So it seems a bit odd to me to start cutting metal out for a set of frames or a footplate unless I know how long the real ones were. I did acquire some modellers drawings of the LD&ECR 0-6-0T and 0-6-2T tank locos and I built my models from them, with some slight adjustment for one or two parts that didn't look quite right, like the radius of the curve of the cab roof. The results are two locos that I wouldn't have had otherwise. Are they 100% accurate? I don't know. Do they look like a J60 and an N6 (LNER classification)? Yes they do. Perhaps most important of all. Did I enjoy building them and do I enjoy having two quite unusual locos to run? Very much and yes! So while I like to think that I build my models to be as accurate as I can, I don't let the pursuit of 100% accuracy stop me getting on with my modelling. There was a half decent 0-6-4T drawing by Charles Reddy (who was one of the better model railway drawing draughtsmen) in the RM possibly in the 70s. I can't lay my hands on my copy at the moment (OK _ I have forgotten where I keep it!) but I am sure somebody in RMWeb land can help.

That is gorgeous Morgan! The finished model looks like O gauge or even larger to my eyes, which isn't something that happens too often. What paints/varnish/transfers/lining have you used? They look just right. Tony G

To me it matters not one jot how much of Flying Scotsman is still there from when it was first built. The fact remains that what is around today has a direct lineage back to the very dawn of the LNER. Any suggestion that people might fund a build of a totally new design loco are, I feel barking up the wrong tree. Running steam locos in the modern era is a lot about nostalgia and very little about developing the design of steam locos further. I find it very difficult to get nostalgic about something that never existed. I never saw a P2 but wish that I had. Before too long I hopefully will. I know that the NRM has had its critics and I haven't agreed with everything that has gone on there but my hat is fully off to them for their dogged and persistent work in getting Flying Scotsman back to running condition. Their refusal to cut corners and bodge is something that previous overhauls would have benefited from! It is one of the most well known locos in the world. Whether that is justified or not is irrelevant. It simply is. To have it back in working order is really lovely and I look forward to seeing her before too long. I will even forgive the "Cowpat green" livery as a good friend of mine referred to the BR colour!

I will just have to imagine them then........ Lovely!

Very happy bunny here! It was seeing photos of your model that started my off with my B3 build and although real life has got in the way a bit recently seeing yours again is a huge encouragement to dig it out and do some more. A lovely trio of models but I can't help but think that the looks of the B5 were rather spoiled when they raised the boilers up. I have an old Millholme kit stashed away and when it eventually gets built, it will have to be in original condition! Many thanks for posting. Tony G

Keep trying Barry! The B9 Class had much smaller driving wheels and LNER No 6103 (Former GCR 1103) is most certainly a B4. Who says it is just GWR 4-6-0s that all look alike! Cheers, Tony

Too busy looking at the photos to read the captions properly but a B8 it ain't. The Glenalmond is the B8. Well spotted that man!

Give over, you are making me go all giddy! I started scratchbuilding/kitbashing a 4mm B3 using a Ks B2 smokebox, boiler and firebox but it never got very far. I am so up to my neck in other stuff it may never get finished now. However, a Gladator Models O Gauge B7 has just appeared as my Christmas present to myself so maybe, one day.

Now this thread is getting really tasty! Lovely stuff. How about a B7 and a B3 to go with the "Glenalmond"? Pretty please. Cheers, Tony G

Precisely my reason for not liking compensated or sprung mechanisms in my locos! If one axle can go up and down relative to the next, the rod length changes, so you need extra big holes in your crankpins. I didn't realise it had a posh name. That must make me almost an engineer as I was clearly doing it for sound technical reasons all along. The length D is not the length of the rod (which is fixed) . It is the horizontal distance between the two pivot points, which changes as the angle of the rod compared to horizontal changes. In effect, it becomes the long side of a triangle rather than the straight edge along the bottom. In the diagram drawn, the rod length has to be greater than "D" with the connecting rod in that position. "D" is only the same length as the rod when the crank is dead forward or dead backward of centre. Oops! 3 of us replied at the same time and mine appeared twice!

There have been many instances of names on locos being used more than once. How can it be wrong to say that the second or third loco to use a name is named after the original source of the name? Was the Brush Type 4/Class 47 named after Brunel named in honour of the great engineer, or was it named in honour of a scrapped Castle class loco?

It seems as if, when some folk start using long words of the sort that are only known to engineers and suchlike, then everybody else backs off because the people using those words must be really clever and cannot possibly be writing nonsense which we non engineering folk should challenge. This thread has touched on many topics, some more relevant to Tony Wright's layout and modelling than others. I have to say that an in depth analysis of the forces involved in different cylinder arrangements does pass me by just a little. Make that just a lot! Whether a "Crab" had its cylinders in a good position or not has to be a fairly pointless discussion now. They were where in a certain position on the real thing and as long as that is where we put them on a model, we can't go too far wrong. Where will it all end? Next thing we know some expert will be telling us that "GWR" doesn't stand for "Gresley Was Right" after all.

Excellent news and best wishes for the venture. The O gauge world would be a much poorer place without this range.