t-b-g

Ian Futers did a few circular layouts way back when. The ones I recall had a fiddle yard so were not strictly 360 degree viewing. I always though it was a really nice design and gave the opportunity for running trains continuously that a fiddle yard/terminus or end to end layout doesn't give. Does Alan Whitehouse's Mini MSW count? Again, the scenic section is one half of the circle but that one truly is a circle rather than a "donut", which is how the Ian Futers layouts were referred to. There was an American layout at Nottingham show a few years ago where changes in level and a bit of a spiral enabled really long trains (longer than the circumference of the boards) to snake their way around and back into a hidden fiddle yard on the inside of the curve. Tony

The joys of looking after old layouts built by other people! I have been asked about exhibiting parts of Buckingham other than Leighton Buzzard (which was designed to be portable). The baseboards for the rest of the layout are so flimsy (including a good dose of now treated woodworm) and when we moved the layout to its new home, every time the boards were lifted, they twisted and many brittle soldered joints in the track broke. Whole lengths of rail just fell off, or just remained attached by the electrical wiring. So I can really understand just how much work goes into such a project and also how much the rest of us should applaud the current Borchester crew for not just saving the layout but for bringing it out to shows so that we get the chance to see and enjoy it. Tony

Not at all. Likewise I apologise if my posting led you to think so! I really do think that it is an interesting question, why some layouts are known for being inspirational and others don't. In one of the articles in MRJ Frank Dyer describes his approach to designing a layout. He talks a great deal about compromises and how to adjust track layouts to get more into a given space and also about using transition curves. He also talks about how making your own track frees you from the constraints of RTL track and can allow a great deal of space saving because you don't need to have the same distance between, for example, the crossing nose of one point and the blades of the next. It is very pragmatic and more about building a complex and interesting layout in a small space than it is about prototype accuracy but it is an approach, which can lead to a highly individual layout that stands out from the crowd, as both Borchester layouts have done. Tony

There is a story in a book written by a former railwayman at Bawtry, that Cock 'o' The North once derailed shunting a horse box on less than perfect track in Bawtry goods yard. It was brand new and on a running in turn on a local train. So we can all use one as a yard shunter as long as we have a layout set withing a few miles of Doncaster. Seriously, such a loco is always going to be one of those "specials" that we want to have because it is such a magnificent loco rather than need to work the prototype services on our layouts. Tony

Interesting question. Does a layout need to be copied for it to be inspirational? Has anybody copied Buckingham, or the "Little long drag" or an other of the layouts that have cropped up in the "What layouts have inspired you" thread? The original Borchester layout probably had a greater impact on the hobby than the later one. It was very realistic for its time and gave a convincing portrayal of the normal and every day aspects of railways in the period. The operational aspects of the layout, recreating what was, then, almost modern image modelling, were way ahead of their time and people still recall the large crowds that gathered round the layout at exhibitions. Borchester Market is probably slightly less influential on the hobby as a whole as it was a follow up and pretty much "more of the same". Frank Dyer's ideas behind the layouts are, to me, still as valid as ever and his "special" issue of a magazine and his series on operating layouts in MRJ should be read by anybody who wants to make a success of recreating realistic operation on their layouts. Borchester Market is a superb example of how to build a realistic and very interesting operational layout in quite a small space. Perhaps it is a layout that we should be copying, or at least nicking ideas from. The design and the set up of the layout for operation are something we could all learn something from. How inspirational a layout is or isn't is really down to the individual. There are some layouts that others have found inspirational that do little to float my boat. I certainly find Borchester Market inspirational and there seem to be a number of others who do too, so perhaps that qualifies it to earn the title. Tony

I need glasses. I misread that as slag ladies and wondered what on earth we were going to be looking at! Tony

My days of last minute panics have long gone. Anyway, I thought Enterprisingwestern junior was the fiddle yard man! He was saying something cryptic about stepper motor drives on Wednesday. Tony

Can you explain why you are sitting at a scanner when there is a layout to be built? Naughty boy! Seriously, how come I never got to see these before. Very nice. And yes, he is a lot older than he looks.......... Tony

Perhaps I am confusing it with the McGowan or Millholme tenders. I did a lot of hacking about to make GCR tenders from bad kits and they did get a bit of "mix & match", not all ending up behind what they were intended for. My recollection is that the BEC one was roughly the right size and shape but that things like the water filler behind the coal space, axleboxes and tender front detail were a bit generic rather than GCR. But it is a long time since I saw one close up and perhaps it is better than I remember. Tony

I recall seeing a BEC J11 once, that had been quite dramatically improved by the builder cutting out sections of footplate incorporating the splashers and swapping them from left to right sides to correct the wheelbase. It would take some careful measuring and cutting, plus the provision of new frames. I am pretty sure John Quick has a BEC J11 modified and improved and it may have been his that I recall being altered in that way. His ended up looking really nice. He models GCR period so the kit parts were quite appropriate to him, as covered by Tony W. One of the worst aspects of the BEC kit was the tender. There was very little about the tender that even vaguely resembled anything the GCR had in terms of detail. Tony

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