orford

Sniping? Certainly not in my case. Perhaps a touch of jealousy, coming from a GER fan and LNER modeller such as myself. Are we not permitted to poke a little harmless fun on here from time to time? For the record, I might perhaps mention that as at the time of nationalisation, my grandfather was Chief Timber Inspector for the GWR and just about every sleeper laid on that line from 1930 to 1947 was almost certainly personally inspected by him, and stamped with his little GWR 'roundel'-embossed hammer. Indeed, he was terrified every time there was even the slightest hint of a derailment during that period, lest he had inadvertently 'passed' a sleeper which was less than perfect. Here is the engraved plate on his clock - now in my possession - presented to him upon his eventual retirement from what by then was British Railways in 1954. - Don

Have to agree with Allan ........... "Little Muddle" is a superb example of how it should be done - apart possibly from the fact that it has green engines with tapered boilers and brass kettles on the top - but nothing is perfect. (Wink). Seriously good example of the model makers art, which should be studied by all. - Don

Since we now appear to be moving towards the dilapidated..............here is a little derelict farmhouse between Orford and Wickham Market. It still needs a few lingering tiles on the roof and others around it on the ground - but you get the idea. The smaller building behind is just a cast resin example to complete the scene.

Excellent, Kevin. Really excellent.

Thank you, Stubby. That makes sense. Appreciate that information. Cheers - Don

To be honest Steve, I've absolutely no idea. I just found the picture on the net and thought it would be a nice little challenge to reproduce it in model form. Someone suggested Cuba but I don't buy that. If it was Cuba that thing would probably still be running (and in much the same condition)!

Scoobyra - There's bridges and then there's bridges........... Maybe slightly 'off-topic' here, but this is the prototype for my own next 'bridge' project, which I will be recreating in 3.5mm/1 foot scale, not for the layout but just as a little stand-alone diorama. I'll post a picture when it's done - but it will probably not be for a few months yet.

Indeed, Allan. If indeed this is his first layout then I can't wait to see more as it develops. Cant on the track curves for one thing. That is not usually the way of the novice - I still haven't got around to that in over 40 years of modelling, even with the scratch built track on the two layouts previous to Orford. Mike - I do hope you are going to keep us posted on progress. Oh - and do ask if you want to. I think you will find that not many of us on here actually bite!

Thanks for that. Yes - it was of course limited by the starting point and was never going to be an accurate model of the Aldeburgh shed but I think it captures the overall 'flavour' of the likes of Aldburgh, Saxmundham, Framlingham, Wickham, etc. sheds, all of which although quite different to each other, had a distinct family resemblance. It's certainly better than the temporary Hornby resin one which it replaced anyway (see September 'RM'), which frankly looked anything but ex-GER. And whilst I am at it Edwardian - from what I have seen so far of Castle Aching, that is looking rather good too and the buildings could not possibly be in any other part of the country. Just absolutely screams 'Norfolk'. Excellent stuff. Well done.

Well, Scoobyra - I took the liberty of copying your picture onto my PC and really blowing it up way beyond full size in order to really look at the detail. And I have to say I don't see much - correction, I don't see anything - wrong with that at all. OK the underside of the arch is not 'stone' detailed BUT on the prototype natural blackening/sooting over the years would have pretty much covered all of that anyway and in 4mm scale that's certainly not going to notice at all. I would personally go with the brown-ish colour on the underside of the arch towards to two sides, and gradually go to almost black in the centre of the arch. Just experiment. If you are modelling the steam era, maybe a bit of blackening (don't overdo it) up the sides on top of the arch and directly above the tracks where the smoke from countless locos would have caught it. Another thing - any model structure only really starts to look the part when it is finally 'planted' into its surroundings and once that bridge is bedded into your scenery each side with a bit of vegetation/weeds, etc around the base I reckon it is going to look really good. I would be perfectly happy with that if it was on my layout. Well done. Let's see another picture once you finally have it in place with the scenery around it. I reckon it will look great.

Scoobyra - Please post it. We all have to start somewhere and this forum is for all, not just for us old hacks who have been at it for decades. I for one would love to see it and I am sure the otheers would too.

To be honest Edwardian, I agree with you about the station building - and in fact it is actually scheduled to be the next item for replacement. My original aim whwen building Orford was to get everything 'covered' as quickly as possible just to give it an appearance of overall 'completeness' (I don't like playing trains on 'bare boards') and the intention always was to go back over it later to replace many of the structures with something more prototypical/better. That process is now slowly but surely under way. You mentioned the Goods Shed (more pictures below) and were kind enough to say you liked it (thanks) but in fact that building probably doesn't qualify for this thread at all, since technically it is not 'scratch built'. I cheated and in fact it was just cobbled together over a weekend from two of these, together with a bit of Wills roofing, some Ratio downpipes and a bit of valance from York Model Making. It does at least go to show that Metcalfe kits can at least provide a starting point. I used ALL the bits from both kits (roofs excepted) but almost all of the bits were either re-cut, re-shaped, patched and/or re-positioned to fit, as appropriate, including the various interior parts. The model (within the constaints of the starting point) was loosely based on the shed at Aldeburgh in Suffolk (of which branch 'Orford' is supposed to be a ficticious extension).

For anyone interested, here's a few more pictures of the Orford Pub, showing the whole thing and some detail sections, which hopefully show the subtle differences between the windows and doors. The entire building is approximately 23 inches in length.

"You clearly have the skill and the eye". It's nice of you to say so Edwardian - but climbing all over the roof of the thing (with the Landlord's permission), camera and tape measure in hand is not something I would care to repeat too often at the age of 65! By the way - for those who saw Orford in RM, it has changed considerably since the magazine photos were taken...although the pub is still there. Here's the new Goods Shed, where the erstwhile fish dock stood in the magazine article:

Here's a little pub I built for my 'Orford' layout, the prototype being on Quay Street in the place of the same name. It was tricky because on the prototype hardly any two windows or doors are actually the same size (although they look as if they are). All differences however are faithfully reproduced in model form. The end window on the prototype is a much later addition so was omitted from the model to retain 'period'.

In this DCC/Sound age it is surprising that none of the various well known sound guru's have come up with an idea for something like this. Presumably such sounds could be relatively easily loaded to something like a standard Zimo/Loksound type sound chip, with the sounds controlled via 'F' keys, or linked in some way to turnout switches and signal switches. Levers being puolled over and bell codes are the most audible signal box sounds and as noted above, they were certainly quite audible if the box windows were open. Paul Chetter ??

The Stove-R models from Hornby Magazine, which are still readily available, have 6-wheeled chassis which work exceptionally well - although with my generous curves I did find it advantageous to 'lock-up' the outer axles to a solid configuration. but I would certainly recommend those as a chassis source. - Don

Nice job - although it's a pity the GWR never did get the hang of streamlining. Correction: VERY nice job!

Surely the idea is to solder (preferably) or glue the (presumably white metal) axleboxes to the W-Irons first and then fit the bearings into the holes in the axleboxes? That's the way I've always done it in O Gauge anyway. The axleboxes hold the wheelsets in place, not the W-Irons.

I find all of the proprietary weathering powders to be a little expensive, and often not as 'sticky' as they could be, so I also make my own, as described above by others. It's very simple - just buy artists oil pastels from your local art shop - which also has the distinct advantage that you can get well over 100 different colours/shades and mix an infinite number more. All you do is hold one end of the pastel stick between your fingers, place the other end down in a flat tin on the workbench - or on a piece of paper - so that it's held at an angle.....and then just scrap repeatedly and quite firmly (but not overly so) down the side of the pastel with the edge of a knife blade, again held at a (trailing) angle. The resulting 'powder' will then be caught in the tin or on the paper and is ready for use. Another advantage of doing it yourself is that you only need to grind up the precise amount which you need. I've been doing it this way for years and wouldn't even think of buying ready made weathering powders any more. After all, this is all that they are. Here's an example of one of my locos weathered ENTIRELY with home-made powders of the kind described, simply brushed directly onto the original pristine body and 'fixed' with a light spray of Dullcote. No paint whatsoever has been added to this model. Don Mason.

I do wish people would not state things on the internet which are simply untrue, since a lot of people take what they read on-line as fact. The thinner version of the Kadee magnets (which are designed for use with Code 83 rail - a popular rail size in the USA) will sit perfectly happily on the top of the sleepers when using Code 75 track. The difference is only 8 thousandths of an inch.....less than the thickness of the sheets of writing paper on my desk (which are 9 thou thick - I just measured one) and this is well within tolerance of the Kadee system. I have 16 of the thinner magnets in use on my Code 75 layout, all mounted in this way and they all work absolutely perfectly. The difference is so slight that it is not even necessary to adjust the trip pin height provided the couplers are correctly mounted. Visually, the difference is totally indetectable. However, the 'standard' (ie thicker) Kadee magnets are designed for use with Code 100 rail and those will certainly need the sleepers cutting out if you are using Code 75 rail. I appreciate that this has already been stated by several others - I'm just adding my own confirmation.

We seem to be going round in circles now. All this talk about varying NEM pocket heights is precisely why I recommend cutting the NEM pockets/mounts off completely and substituting 'standard' Kadee shank-knuckle type 146's and/or 141's in preference. The Kadee NEM couplers are in my own personal opinion not worth the effort, except where there is absolutely no alternative - AND they are much bulkier and therefore look much uglier than the standard knuckle/shank types. FInally, because there is no shank 'swing' with the NEM types (only knuckle swing), I find them much less reliable in operation. I do occasionally use NEM types - but only where there is absolutely no alternative...and there usually is with the large range of 'standard' coupler types which are available. With that in mind, Kadee certainly used to do a trial pack containing one of every different type of coupler available - which makes selection very much easier. Whether or not this is still available, I am not sure. I will hae to check their web site.

Hi John, I base all my weights on the NMRA table reproduced below, which (for HO - and therefore 'OO') states: 1 ounce initial weight plus half an ounce for each inch of body length. The formula works equally well for short 4-wheeled UK outline wagons and I work out each individual wagon precisely. So the standard Bachmann van shown, which is 2 3/4 inches in length over buffer beams, using this formula, is weighted to a total of 2.375 ounces (including the car itself). Note that it is sitting immediately next to a magnet with NO tendency to be pulled over it via its axles.

But have you just added 'some' ad-hoc weight - or weighted them to strict NMRA standards? I can only repeat that when weighted to NMRA standards and with standard Kadee between the rails magnets I do NOT get any problems with steel axles - and every single piece of my rolling stock has them. I cannot explain WHY it works - but it does. Probably because the NMRA weight standards are actually surprisingly heavy (in the eyes of most UK modellers) and I'm guessing that it is simply the sheer heft of a correctly weighted wagon which is sufficient to outweigh the attraction of the magnet to the axles. In other words - it settles for the path of least resistance. Also, as mentioned earlier, I do NOT get accidental uncoupling either. Ever. Those are simple facts as established over many years on my OWN layouts but I cannot vouch for anyone else's experience because there are a dozen and one things you need to take into account with Kadees and all of them have to be spot-on for absolutely flawless operation. Such as: Coupler height, Coupler alignment (to centre), freedom of knuckle movement, trip-pin setting, type of mount, weight of vehicle, position of magnets, correct centering of magnets, magnets at correct height in relation to the tops of the rails, minimum radii....and so on. Sure - they wil probably still work if one or more of these things are a bit out....but you will likely get problems of one sort or another sooner or later if they are. These are all things which I learned the hard way during 30+ years of modelling the railways of the USA, in at least five different scales from 'N' to 'G', including narrow gauge, but mostly in 'HO' - all with Kadees - and I just applied the same logic to my OO gauge stock when I returned to modelling the railways of Britain. And it works. Perfectly. If anyone really wants me to I would be quite happy to make a video clip for You Tube to demonstrate that exactly what I claim, is indeed the case. I'm not for one moment suggesting that anyone else has to do the same as I do - merely stating what works for me personally.....and suggesting that it might at least be worth considering/experimenting. In my opinion, American modellers are extremely lucky to have the NMRA Standards to work to, which are nationwide, written down, generally considered sacrosanct and cover just about EVERY aspect of railroad modelling in the USA - and which have been continuously developed and upgraded since the 1950's. The vast majority of serious USA modellers work to those standards and the vast majority of model train manufacturers in the USA supply their models produced to those standards (the cheap 'toy' end of the market excepted of course). It is actually a great shame that here in the UK we have never developed anything similar over the years. If we had done, we wouldn't be forever talking on forums about changing 'RTR' wheels, varying lengths of axles, wheel profile differences between Hornby, Bachmann, et-al - or indeed couplings. But that's another story.

Richard - I cannot vouch for anything but the Kadee magnets. The Kadee system was designed for USA stock, which is generally weighted to NMRA standards, either as it comes, or by the modellers - and for use with Kadee magnets. In that combination, it works but I can't comment on other magnets. I am a little mystified why anyone would want to use other kinds of magnets anyway rather than those specifically designed for the job. Presumably they will not operate the 'delayed' function, which is an integral part of Kadee use - or will they? However I fully accept that everyone has the right to use whatever works for them..