t-b-g

I think that the correct line to use for the top of the carriage end is probably decided by the thickness of the material you are going to use for the roof. It may be an idea to make a decision (unless you already have) on that before going too far with the carriage end profile. The roof is one component that is probably going to require something other than the cutter to make, unless you have some incredibly clever ideas! Tony

My goodness, you are old! Has a certain Mr Phillips seen the Donny shots? If not I will point him at them. See you soon, Tony

Thanks for that. It is a lovely track layout. I remember the Bastille station coming up in a discussion about Minories related stations. Of course, you could always nick the plan, call it something else and run a much more varied service. It is a cracker of a plan and could have been designed especially for modelling. I may even put it away safely for future consideration, as it looks as though it would as work for a British layout as well as it would a French one. The only downside of using two opposite handed points to take a crossover round a curve is that you end up with a curve-straight-curve run, which probably accounts for some of the "lurching" mentioned but it certainly an option if the choice of points is limited. Going back to Buckingham, some of the curves are considerably tighter than 3'. There are one or two places, even on Leighton Buzzard, which are nearer 2'6" and possibly less. The design of he layout, avoiding reverse curves, coupled with clever design of locos and stock means that even the 0-4-4T loco can shunt bunker first around them without buffer locking. He was very clever! Tony

Peter Denny designed some of his layouts with the station approach on a curve. That allowed him to have cross overs on fairly tight bends with no sign of a reverse curve. It allows the propelling of stock around quite tight curves with no buffer locking. You don't see that many L shaped layouts around but I have done several (nicking his ideas!) and it is an arrangement that works really well. You would need at least two different radii of points for a normal crossover plus a curved diamond for a scissors crossover and I am not sure that any RTL system has ever provided such variety, so it may have to stay in the "nice ideas" pile. For the Bastille plan, is there any mileage in cutting the Peco points about a bit to slightly shorten the curved road, to lessen the divergence? It looks (from Martin's excellent Templot plan) as though the curved road carries on curving after the crossing but if you cut it back by two or three sleepers, you may just alter the angle slightly in your favour. Tony

Thanks bud. Well, somebody had to go for it, didn't they? Tony

Of course (tongue in cheek alert) the old MS&LR crews, who wore white overalls and would be sacked on the spot if there was a dark smudge on them anywhere, would describe a loco as dirty and unkept if there was a grain of coal dust on the footplate. They had standards you know! Tony

Apologies! I didn't know the code 75 has flat bottom rail. Just goes to show how much it matters to me at normal viewing distance, which is all I have seen it at. Can't do a thanks/agree/like all at once so I will write it instead! That certainly sets out some of the difficulties better than I could. Tony

Sadly, most of those who chose to build everything (and were well known for doing so) have now departed this world. The hobby is poorer for their passing but there are still one or to about, usually working in scales and gauges other than OO. You can take any discussion about modelling to extreme conclusions. OK, so I don't go and mine the stone to make my ballast! I use RTL flexible track myself as I prefer to spend the time saved on other things. I am not against any RTR or RTL products. I have no problem with anybody who decides to buy points or anything else for that matter rather than make them. All these things are down to personal choice. I just feel that creating a RTL range of points, substantially better than what is available now, is going to be very tricky for anybody to do. Tony

Thanks for that Martin, I had heard of the standards but have never seen them and don't know what they include. Do they specify sleeper widths and spacings too? One of the biggest variations, as I am sure you know about more than I do, is in the arrangement of sleepering, particularly where there are two points together, such as a double junction or a cross over. That is an area where RTL pointwork really gets into difficulties. Tony

"My solution would be to take a range of existing HO track, retain all the rail parts and just give it a new base with sleepering to accepted 4mm dimensions." From the OP. I may not have read every post on every page but I have read enough to know what the thread is about. It is about obtaining the unobtainable! It is asking for a manufacturer to produce a universal, generic, scale track system that will allow a builder to create realistic looking layouts. No "set track" type system has ever done that or will ever do that straight out of a box. There are calls for robust construction coupled with calls for a finescale appearance. Finescale and robust don't sit easily together. There are calls for a small range of standard points that just clip together alongside calls for being able to create realistic formations, which requires a large range of adaptable points. Any existing manufacturer would be spending development costs to replace their own sales. Any new manufacturer will have to break into a market place which has been almost a monopoly, at least in the country, which isn't going to be easy. Peco probably have the biggest share of the track market. They do code 100 and code 75 track, so people can have bullhead or flat bottom track. The difference between well laid, painted and ballasted Peco track and some hand made track is not actually that great. The example of Widnes Vine Yard has been quoted before and I think it is a good example of what can be achieved by using current RTL track and applying some modelling skills to it. To me, it is only the appearance of the typical Peco tie bar that gives away the origin of the points on that layout. The ongoing Grantham project is another excellent example of taking a RTL product and by being willing to alter it to suit locations, getting that "flowing" trackwork look but it needed some careful thought and the application of some modelling skills. The common factor is the application of modelling skills, which can make current RTL track look very acceptable indeed. Equally, I have seen many layouts where the track has been less than perfectly laid, ballasted and painted. Those layouts undoubtably give people pleasure, so it probably matters not a great deal but the best RTL points in the world wouldn't improve the overall look of the track on them. So if I was to build a layout in OO with RTL points, I would fancy my chances of getting a decent appearance because I know it can be done, I have seen it with my own eyes. Tony

Lovely collection of locos you have there Mike. I think my favourite is Barry Railway No 203. I had to do a double take as my first thought was that The GWR had got hold of an N5 and done nasty things to it. Tony

I have only just seen this thread. I can't be bothered to read it all but I have skimmed through and I am astonished at some of what has been said. So we want "scale" points but we want generic ones that are not based on a particular prototype. Would you say the same about a carriage or a loco? Railway modelling is lots of things to lots of people. I appreciate that to some people, track is a necessary evil to allow their trains somewhere to run. For such people, trackwork is currently available to cover that requirement. To me, the track is as important a part of the picture as a signal, a building or a wagon. Calling for a "scale" but "generic" point is just a contradiction in terms. Such a thing cannot exist. A point can be a "scale" model (or nearer scale in OO) or "generic" but cannot be both. Would any of us use a "generic" carriage, which resembled no known prototype but was available in many different liveries? We did in the 1950s/1960s but please not now. We want sleepering to "accepted" OO standards. Do such "accepted" standards exist? As far as I know there are no accepted standards for such things. I actually prefer the appearance of OO track with the sleepering spacing and lengths adjusted to mitigate the underscale gauge, preserving the proportions of the track. I believe that C & L flexible track has 8' length sleepers and looks all the better for it. OO track with scale 8' 6" or even worse 9' sleepers really looks "narrow gauge" to me, with an unrealistic length of sleeper either side of the rails. Whatever any manufacturer does will only ever please a small minority. For everybody else, whatever is produced will be as just wrong as what is available now. It is very rare for a layout made up from the few set formations available to look right. As "trisonic" says, trackwork should flow and making up any layout from a small number of points makes that virtually impossible without major work. In fact, his post is probably the best argument I have seen for those advocating building pointwork. I have built all my own for 30 plus years. It is easy (especially now that crossings/blades can be bought), fairly quick (2 hours for a copperclad or 4 hours for a chaired point) and you can have any formation you like. You can also, from the ranges available, select appropriate chairs and create sleepering arrangements to suit the period/are you are modelling. I remain 100% convinced that there are people who say that they cannot do it when they really mean that they don't want to do it! And yes, building pointwork is model making. You are making a model of a point. What you do with the point after you have bought it may be modelling but going to a shop and buying a ready made product is not modelling! It is a consumer purchasing a product! So anybody who has made points, then laid and ballasted them has achieved much more in modelling than somebody who has bought a point then laid and ballasted it. Is it really so arrogant to enjoy the satisfaction of making things and to encourage others to try to do the same? Sometimes it really seems that some of us really do want everything served up on a plate for us. Frank Dyer, Peter Denny and many others are perhaps looking down on us and wondering just what we are becoming. I'll stop now and start putting a tin hat on and digging a trench. Tony

Is it significant that the second division, old, DX loco, that didn't even get lining, still seems to have the attention of at least two cleaners and will probably be nice and shiny again before it goes out? The boiler is much shinier than the rest of the loco, so it looks as though that is the bit they are doing first. Tony

Were the complaints specifically about the locos being dirty or did they relate to the mechanical condition and the ability of older smaller locos to haul the rapidly growing amount of coal being moved just before WW1. It is maybe no coincidence that what became the O4 was introduced to move large amounts of coal in 1911. I have read lots of accounts of loco crews complaining about the mechanical condition of locos but very few concerning the outward appearance, which, particularly on coal trains, matters little. Tony

Except that the wing rail doesn't end there. It is angled away from the crossing nose but supports an over scale width EM wheel for much of the way across the gap. So although the gap from one running rail to the next may be 6mm measured in a straight line along the rail, the wheel is supported for about half of that distance by the angled part of the wing rail. I agree about curved turnouts. I did one once that ended up with something like a 1 in 12 crossing angle and that did cause problems with anything other than rigid locos. Tony

You can count me in with Leighton Buzzard for that one! Tony

First time I have heard of wheels being unsupported for 6mm in EM! If I had known about that I would have gone P4! I have used springing, beam compensation with a fixed axle and beam compensation with all axles moving and after trying them all, I only ever use them for something like a free tender to increase adhesion, as I find that rigid frames work perfectly well for me and I find that fitting pick ups and brake gear is easier if the wheels are not moving about. Although I appreciate that others will have their own views and will tell me that I am wrong. I can live with that while ever my locos run as well as they do! I have never experienced any significant degree of wheel drop through a crossing in EM, whatever method of construction I have used. So I wouldn't worry about your tender arrangement. I have done that sort of thing in EM and it works just fine! Tony

It is one of those layouts that really does deserve its place in the history of our hobby. What happens to the layout between shows nowadays? Is it set up and operated regularly, as Frank Dyer used to do? I have just been reading his series of articles about layout operation in the early MRJs for the umpteenth time. They should be compulsory reading for anybody who wants to get the most satisfaction and pleasure out of designing, building and operating a layout. Tony

You have a bit of a choice when it comes to weathering. A friend of mine had a relative who worked for the MS&LR in the 1890s. He was told that the loco crews way back when wore white overalls and if management spotted them with dirt on the overalls they were disciplined, up to and including sacking. Labour was relatively easy to come by at low wage rates and most of the pre-grouping companies employed large numbers of cleaners. So you can either go on the available evidence, which is that most photographs show clean locos, or you can make an assumption that there were many dirty locos about and only a very small number got a camera pointed at them. Whatever the truth is, the modelling perception is that locos and carriages, certainly prior to 1914, were generally clean and well looked after. Even if it is the case that the real railways were as dirty as they were in the 1950s (and the rot really didn't set in until the 1960s - the 1950 passenger train was usually half decent) it may well look wrong because it is not what most people are expecting to see. The big change didn't come in 1923, it was in 1914. The vast majority of photos of less than perfect pre-grouping locos are photos taken between 1914 and 1923. Still, it is a very interesting and novel take on the modelling of the pre-grouping scene and I wish you well with it. If you do want to make your locos so dirty that you can't see the lining, I would perhaps suggest a 1914-1918 wartime layout. For me, I will continue to lightly weather my freight locos and to even more lightly weather my passenger locos! Freight stock, I am happy that it could vary from clean to filthy and passenger stock will have clean sides with a tiny bit of dirt in crevices but various degrees of weathering on the roof and underframe. I have just plucked up courage to paint a GCR signal overall muck coloured to match a period photo. Although it is accurate, it just doesn't seem right somehow so it may get "de-weathered" before it goes on the layout. Tony

Looking very nice, that 6 wheeler. Are the wheels the final ones are are they a test set for trial purposes? The reason I ask is that they look a little undersized and as far as I know, all such carriages had the wooden segmented centred wheels, rather than a 4 hole pattern. I have spotted that you are using the 6 wheeler as a test model but if the wheels you have used are 12mm dia, you may need to adjust one or two dimensions when you move on to the next one. As for the Barnum, I have built several from D & S and Jidenco kits and they are truly magnificent carriages. One or two even lasted long enough to get painted in BR Red/Cream livery! Without looking it up to check, I recall that the last ones were withdrawn around 1956/7 although one or two survived in engineers/departmental use and ended up being preserved as a result.. Good luck and I look forward to seeing what your rapidly developing skills can do with one of those! Regards Tony

My two sets arrived the other day and they look great. I have exchanged a couple of emails with Andrew Stadden and he has confirmed that he is going ahead with a further two sets, one for workmen and one for railway staff. He has been very pleased with the response to the figures and hopes to start on the new sets within the next week. Excellent news! Tony ps. Very nice painting! I hope I can get mine looking as good as them.

Some interesting comments from all sides there. Firstly, as the custodian of Buckingham I can see exactly where Tony is coming from with his comments. There is much on Buckingham that doesn't stand close inspection. I recall that Peter Denny always said that he was looking for an overall effect and that his models were not meant to be looked at from closer than 2ft. If there was one weakness in the Denny armoury it was in the painting and lining of locos. Having said that, he once described building a loco from scratch, including painting, in 7 days. So scratchbuilding doesn't have to be the massive user up of modelling time that some folks think it needs to be. Modern photography is superb in quality but very unforgiving and I have seen many photos of modern layouts that have made me cringe on behalf of the layout builder because they have been done no favours whatsover. Sometimes it seems to me that the urge for the photographer to show how good they are takes grip and they forget that they should be there to make the railway look good instead. Close up front views of locos with huge coupling pockets and wide wheels on OO track? Oblique angles that make transfer numbers seem like thick plates? There was one photo of a layout where the signals are lit by fibre optics. In normal viewing these are invisible, tucked away on the non viewing side but stick a camera in the middle of the layout and take a close up photo of the signal and they stick out like sore thumbs. I would happily exempt Tony from those comments. I have been with him when he photographed a couple of my layouts and he was always on the look out for a different angle or field of view that would leave a perhaps slightly dodgy bit of work out of the scene! I can see that models of Stoke Summit, Peterborough North, Little Bytham and Retford, all set in the late 1950s should have pretty much the same trains on them. If all 4 were at a show together (impossible - I know) , seeing the same trains 4 times might just become a little "samey". Now if all 4 were the same gauge and connected together.......... The older layouts mentioned by Tony Wright have one thing in common. They were designed and built for operation. I don't just mean running a train round a circuit. Operating Buckingham and operating Stoke Summit must be two entirely different experiences. I am not sure how long Stoke would hold interest as a "home" layout for operation or if it ever has been operated for pleasure back at base, although it was a real crowd pleaser at shows. Gresley Beat is similar in that respect. Buckingham was operated for several hours twice a week for many years and the operators never got bored. It was (and hopefully will be again) challenging, interesting and fun to run it to the timetable and the clock. That is an aspect of the layout that doesn't come across in still photos. Again, the broad church and the difference between the home layout and the exhibition layout comes into play and both have their place but a layout with interesting and realistic operating patterns, well run by people who know what they are doing, is a real joy to see and is, sadly, somewhat rare. I also agree that if there is a degree of sameness in a show, the only person responsible is the person booking the layouts. You can't really blame the layout builders. Tony

If that was the impression I gave, then maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully. I am not against people using RTR locos and stock, just against them using them straight out of the box and displaying them at exhibitions and trying to give the impression that they have accomplished something in the field of railway modelling by doing so! What I do like is when people get hold of a RTR model and say "What can I do to this to make it even better?". Even my old Hornby Dublo A4 got real coal and brass nameplates. In a way it is sad that modern RTR stuff gives little opportunity for this as it is already so good in most cases. I am presently plucking up the courage to take my NRM "Butler Henderson" and alter it back to proper GCR condition, rather than have it "as preserved". What you have achieved with your layout certainly qualifies as railway modelling in my book! It is about as far removed from the sort of things I was talking about as it is possible to get. Very nice! Tony

I don't think that anybody has actually said that about having a layout with RTR locos and stock. What you have described, weathering and renumbering RTR models to make them appropriate for the area and period you are modelling is very much putting your own personality and stamp onto a model. And nobody should have any problem with you ideas about wanting to operate you railway in a prototypical fashion. That sort of approach can lead to a realistic and totally absorbing layout. For a home based layout, the only person who has to get any satisfaction from the layout is the builder/operator. As long as they enjoy what they are doing, that is really what it is all about. My only concern is the number of exhibition layouts where the stock is literally straight out of the box and little or no thought, creativity or imagination has been put into the design, presentation or operation. The locos have the dreadful plastic coal, there has been no attempt at any weathering (or they are the usually horrible factory applied weathering) and totally inappropriate locos and stock are run on the layout because the owner wants to show off that he/she has the latest new products. That is absolutely fine in the privacy of your own home and a layout or two at a show to portray what can be done with RTR things is fine but (and we are down to personal choice and opinion here) it is not what I enjoy seeing at exhibitions. I can learn something from seeing how a modeller has built a nice model of a box van. I can appreciate what work has gone into it and I enjoy seeing it all the more for that. Similarly with a RTR model that has been altered/detailed/weathered. Best of all is when you can't tell the origin of the model. When it just looks the way it is supposed to look and it blends in with its surroundings in a realistic fashion, with a good overall scene and nice palette of colours. These things give a sense of the layout builder having achieved something. I get none of that from looking at a straight out of the box RTR model. It used to be the case that people decided what they wanted to build as a layout and then went about assembling a suitable stud of locos and appropriate rolling stock. Have things changed round now? Do people look at the range of locos and stock available and think "I can get everything I need to model such and such a place (usually in the mid - late 1950s)"? Could that be why many layouts have that "Same" look because lots have people have gone through the same thought process and come up with the same conclusions? I don't know because I still work the other way, decide what to build and then seek out locos and stock but I can't help but think that there are people who base their modelling on what is available to run rather than on a place and time they would really like to portray. Until I was around 17 or 18, my modelling was just like that. I had 95% straight out of the box RTR on a decent sized loft layout with a few Airfix wagon kits built up. I ran the layout to a sequence and I totally enjoyed every minute of it. I started building one or two loco "bodyline" kits to give me things that were not available RTR and I was immediately hooked on the satisfaction that running something I had built gave me over the satisfaction of something I had bought. I can understand that some folk don't wish to go down that route but to me, making things will always be more satisfying than buying them. But I would never try to tell anybody else that they should be doing the same. This hobby has never been about all of us doing the same things. Tony

Couldn't agree more. Diversity is what makes the hobby so good. Everybody from the Hornby Dublo 3 rail collector to the best scratchbuilder has an equally valid place. My concern is that the growing range and quality of modern RTR stuff is killing off the art of building models because people used to have to learn the skills to make what they needed and now they don't. Would that lovely K1 have been built if the Hornby one was out and of a decent quality? I think probably not. I tend to find that the approach that people adopt with their buying policy reflects in the overall standard of the layout they produce. People who care enough to modify/weather and detail a model to get it just right for the period and prototype they are modelling seem to also pay attention to the design, presentation and operation of the layout. Those who plonk stuff straight out of the box also seem to have the same approach to the layout. Whatever is quickest and easiest and takes as little hassle (and thought) to do as possible. Tony