t-b-g

Should this information just relate to wheel sizes or should they list all the compromises, such as cab side sheets or brake pull rods being over thick as plastic has been used? Will we ever see the day when any manufacturer, in any field, will market their products with a list of compromises and faults that they have included. Probably not! I have seen it from time to time in kit instructions "such a part has been made undersized to allow adequate clearance round curves" etc. but to expect it from the likes of Hornby and Bachmann is asking a lot.

Once you accept the OO gauge is not P4 and you need larger than scale flanges, and that the thickness of the material used for the splashers is over scale thickness, then the RTR manufacturers have two options. They make the wheels too small or the splashers too big. My personal choice would be for the wheels to be too small as real wheels were turned down by around a couple of inches before scrapping replacing the tyres but either option will always upset somebody and if smaller wheels had been fitted I am sure somebody would have been moaning about that too. Let's face it........ They just can't win! Tony

In the late 70s/early 80s my brother was a member of ASLEF and was out on strike at a time when we had a layout at a show. He turned up on the Saturday morning, announced that he couldn't drive any trains without breaking the strike, pulled out the plug for the power supply and placed a 4mm figure with an ASLEF banner in front of the model station entrance. After some short sharp negotiations, he was persuaded that he wouldn't be blacklisted and normal service was resumed but the bloke with the placard stayed for the weekend.

The LNER painting specification doesn't quote the actual width of the black part of the boiler band lining as it was whatever width the band was. The quoted widths for other lining is 2" for the black with 3/16th" white either side in most places. So the white lines should be tiny in comparison to the black. As Coachmann rightly says, the white shows up far more than the actual line widths would suggest and it isn't easy to get it right on a model. Looking at prototype photos, to my eye the white and black look quite balanced (despite the greater amount of black) with neither really overpowering the other. On many models, the white is far too prominent. Tony

That is looking very nice. The only thing that perhaps could do with a slight tweak are the boiler bands. Rather too much white and not enough black methinks.

Going from modelling the GWR to American is but a small shift to the dark side. Please nobody take that remark seriously. It is pure tongue in cheek mischief! Best of luck with you American project and I hope your book finds a suitably appreciative new home. Tony

This cropped up recently and a number of very handy drawings came to light, including the ones already offered above. I haven't worked out how to do a proper link to another thread but if you put LNWR Oerlikon Dimensions into the search box you will go straight there. Tony

That actually makes me feel quite sad! A modeller with no further use for the Buckingham book. For many folk, myself included, that book was the biggest single literary influence on my modelling for 40 plus years and it would be the last one from my collection that would go. So I have a very well thumbed copy but I can thoroughly recommend that somebody without one in their collection makes the most of this opportunity as you don't see many around.

I didn't say what others should do, just what I would have done to avoid confusion. If I was building a layout, either of a real or a fictional location which had been used before as a layout name (especially a really well known one) I would call mine something different. I wouldn't want anybody to ever think that they couldn't build a model of a place just because somebody had done it before. It would be a sad day when people start registering layout names like trade marks. Following the example, if I was going to build a model of Ashburton I would give it a name like "Edwardian Days at Ashburton" or suchlike. It just needs a little imagination and thought. Tony

Before my involvement with the layout, I would have travelled a long way to see it at a show so I can appreciate your feelings. I have put a clarification on the relevant exhibition thread. Tony

Very little work is actually taking place on Buckingham at the moment other than "fettling". Now that most of the layout is operational, we are just having fun operating it and fixing things as we go along. Some jobs are progressing and the block bells and instruments between Buckingham and Grandborough Junction were put back into action a couple of weeks ago (no more shouting "ding" across the shed!) I was planning to reduce exhibition outings for Leighton Buzzard down to perhaps one a year as the fiddle yard (which was cobbled together from offcuts and scrap bits of wood for a "one off" appearance at the MRJ show) is rapidly deteriorating as the timber twists and sags! However, in view of the big EM gauge anniversary this year, I have been persuaded to do both EXPO EM at Bracknell in May and EXPO EM North at Manchester in September. As for the "other" Buckingham layout, I would have thought that exhibiting a layout and giving it that name would be bound to lead to confusion. If I have built it, I would have called it "Buckingham North Western" or "Buckingham LNWR" but I can imagine a little smile on the faces of those who have built the layout as they discussed such matters.......

If it is, it is news to me! I have pondered long and hard about the possibility of exhibiting Buckingham. Like most things, it is technically possible but the sheer amount of work involved to move it and the very high chance of doing serious damage to it mean that I have pretty much ruled it out. Last time we moved it, dozens of old brittle soldered joints broke in the track and the wiring and it took many months to sort out what wire went where and where we needed to repair a dry but otherwise sound looking joint. So moving the layout and getting it up and running on a Friday before a show would be miraculous to pull off. I have seen references to another layout called Buckingham, so perhaps that is what is going to Leamington but it isn't the one in my shed! Thanks for mentioning it in case others think about going to Leamington expecting to see it. Tony

Got a new camera for Christmas and had a play with it this afternoon. Somehow the "sepia" colour option seemed entirely appropriate.......

My first experience of Buckingham was exactly the same, although it took place after the extension. The extra 2ft width (the pub/hunt scene area) must have made a huge difference to the operators as the space is just enough now but must have been a bit restricted before. Within a few minutes of sitting at the controls it all seemed so logical and well thought out that I couldn't understand why all layouts were not done like that! There has been talk of possible further articles. It is a bit strange writing about a layout that somebody else not only built but wrote extensively about, so the old brainbox is being exercised to think of new things to say about the old layout. Thanks for the "Buckingham" memories. It is good to hear from those with stories to tell about it. Is it time for a separate Buckingham thread? I do feel a bit guilty posting about Buckingham on what should be a Borchester thread. Or would folk prefer to keep postings about older layouts together in one place and perhaps create a more general "Historic Layouts" thread? Tony Tony

You are quite right about the earlier versions. They pretty much had a grass bank an inch or so wide either side of the railway and very little else. Like most things "Buckingham" the question about when they were made has several answers. The double track section over the river was on Grandborough from the start but only as far as a line behind the "Manor House" the section including the single track viaduct was added when Peter moved to Truro, as was the hunting scene by the pub. The market scene at Buckingham was also a much altered feature. Originally there was a small lifting section to clear the entrance door but in Truro the entrance was in a different wall and so the scene was fixed and extended. They were the last major changes to the layout and without digging out books and articles to confirm, I recall that they were probably all completed by around 30 years ago. Tony

Once again I risk hijacking the Borchester thread but I couldn't really let the comment about the lack of scenery on Buckingham pass me by! Both Borchester and Buckingham are primarily operational layouts and as such, the scenic work is there to frame the working railway. More scenic layouts, like Chee Tor or Pendon are really superb 3D pictures with added moving trains. However, once Buckingham had been moved to Truro, the larger railway room did allow some scenic development and I would venture to suggest that Buckingham has more scenery on it than many a layout, both of the town scene and landscape variety. Here are a few quick snaps taken to illustrate the point...... They also show how much needs to be done before I can say that the restoration is completed!

Many thanks for the kind words Gilbert. I congratulate you on the photos. There is a degree of realism about them that isn't seen too often in model photos and they really show the layout up for what it is, which is very nice indeed! Tony

People seem to be missing a trick with this model. OK, the real thing ran on the LNER from grouping to nationalisation in various versions and liveries. But 251 is "as preserved" and is therefore truly a "modern image" model. More than it is a "pre-grouping" one. Any modeller has only got to use a little of the old modellers license to say that 251 has been put back in steam for use on specials. So it is entirely suitable, accepting a few minor variations in appearance and tweaks of history (which we can be very good at coping with), for a modelling period of well over 100 years. That is considerably more than nearly all the current crop of RTR models. Plus it is beautiful and lovely and I want one! Tony

A friend of mine models the east End of London in olden times and was quite impressed with the first batch of "Stadden" figures, as I was too. I asked my friend if there were any suggestions that I should suggest for future figures and his response was "urchins and tarts". It has been passed on to Mr Stadden! Tony

I agree that some pre-historic fairly basic kits are still out there if you look hard enough. What has changed is that 40 plus years ago you could buy a basic whitemetal kit, stick it together in a short while, put a reasonable coat of paint on it and it could run wheel to wheel with the then current RTR offerings without being embarrassing. My "bodyline" J50 was at least as good a model as my Hornby Dublo A4 but it wouldn't look as though it belongs on the same layout as a newest Hornby version. I think that might just be enough to put me off building one if I was starting out now. Tony

Kit prices seem to be rising just as quickly as RTR ones. If you want cheap, scratchbuilding is not only the cheapest but also, to me at least, the most satisfying. There will come a time when 3D printing technology can deliver the right quality at a sensible price and I wonder how long it will be before the first 3D printed RTR model will be on the market and how much it will cost. But I see that as more of a RTR thing than a kit one. I can't see the point of 3D printing lots of bits for somebody to stuck together when you can print a complete loco body in one piece. Tony

Although the quality of kits has, in most cases, improved, so has their complexity and the level of skill needed to tackle them. When I started building kits, I began with the Ks "Bodyline" J50, which fitted on a RTR chassis and it seemed to have about 6 or 7 parts. Even the driver and fireman were part of the cast sides! As a 12 year old, I could make a job of it and get it to go. It wasn't perfect but it was a very good first step. There is nothing I am aware of that is equivalent to that nowadays and I am not aware that there is an easy progression into kitbuilding locos any more. I moved on to make whitemetal kits with chassis, then later on to etched kits and then tried scratchbuilding. At the time it was because I wanted particular locos and they just weren't available RTR. If the locos I wanted had been available RTR I wouldn't have spent my valuable time building them just for fun. I would have bought the RTR loco and built something else that wasn't available. If everything I wanted had available as good quality RTR, I would never have got into building locos for myself but I would still have built model railways, possibly concentrating on carriages/wagons/scenery etc. So my hobby would have been just as enjoyable but quite different. We have reached a stage where RTR productions are announced by the dozen and the number of new kits being released is tiny and I pretty much agree that in a few years, kit building will be a thing of the past because the market place will not support the manufacture, which will have to be of obscure stuff because the RTR people will have done all the common locos. It will be a sad day but I have enough old kits stashed away to keep me happy. I have said this before but in kit building, getting a poor quality, ancient kit and making it look good actually gives me more satisfaction than building a well designed, accurate kit. But I fully accept that is a very personal and slightly odd approach! Tony

I can't claim any credit as all I am doing is passing on photos of what Vincent has been up to. For the motor bogie, he got hold of some cheap Hornby Southern EMUs (2 BIL from memory) and modified them. The main alteration was to take off the pick up shoe support and turn it upside down. He was going to use the whole Hornby underframe and just fudge a few details but once the information became available via this thread he had a change of mind and decided to have a go at doing a more accurate and detailed job. Tony

To me, the "wrong" curves stand out more in photos than they do in real life. When you stand on the inside of a curve, which is the normal viewing angle, all you see is that you still have a side view of the train as it goes round. It is only when you are on the outside of a curve, or looking along it, that it is really noticable. So I think that the desire to recreate prototype views and photos is what shows the curves to be the modelling compromise that they are, rather than any flaw in the concept of the layout. Even then, those views of the A3 going under the bridge do not really seem too different to me. Once you have the focal points of the loco and the bridge, the surroundings and track arrangements are very much secondary factors in the way I look at such things. Having said that, if anything jumps out in those views it is the trap point and the ground disc on the real thing as they are right in the foreground. Add those and the concrete trunking and all of a sudden the model gets very close to the real thing indeed. I see those two new signals in the prototype photo! Won't be long before they can appear on the model photo too. Just one handrail and a lick of paint to go....... Tony

Vincent has been beavering away in his workshop and has sent me some photos of what he has been up to, to show that all the information has been put to some use already! These are the motor car underframes. He has done 4 and has 4 centre and 4 trailer cars to do. You can see why the drawings and details were needed as he does like to put a reasonable amount of twiddly bits on the underframes and getting all the bits the right shape and size and in the right places would have been very tricky without the information kindly provided! I have also put in a shot of where they will run. Tony