Lecorbusier

For me Gibson wheels look better. I also prefer the look of the crankpin set up. There's no denying though that Markits are easier to set up and more robust. I decided to try Gibson before moving to P4 primarily on the strength of Tony's Right track video where I preferred the look on the 4f over the other two locos. I understand there can be issues using the P4 axles with Markits wheels. I think you might have to use slightly different track standards than the normal P4 gauges to allow them to work ... or adjust the wheels slightly using a lathe .... but don't quote me, I could be wrong.

Horses for courses? Perhaps at a specialist show there is scope for a more academic approach to modelling and realism ... including stock and timetabling (though compressed). At a general show, variety is perhaps what it is all about. Then people will gravitate according to taste and inclination. Hopefully a wide range of paying punters will be attracted and all will find something palatable, ....and some layouts will even manage to bridge multiple tastes and expectations.

True, But it would appear on the face of things that it is the RMWeb traffic which has ilicited the recent response

Looking forward to my copy arriving now

.... A layout ... "for the many not the few" ...... and with all that heavy engineering one suspects that the trains will have a fair amount of "momentum" into the bargain .... lets hope in this case the guard doesn't have to keep "the red flag flying here " for too long. The subconscious zeitgeist of language perhaps ?

Tony, I am far from an authority and would certainly defer to the venerable Mr Essery. I will see if I can get anything definitive from Dave Harris on the matter. edit consulting 'Midland Style' .... In 1902 a change took place ..... Passenger locomotive headlamps were painted Crimson Lake lined black and yellow .... goods engine headlamps were black unlined.

Does anyone have a suggestion of an intro book into PO wagons which would be helpful for understanding my period interest - the Peak District Midland 1902. This request has been prompted by the discussions above around the Ince Wagon works book. I am looking for something which might give an overview to the subject and would thus give me an entry into the much more detailed surveys that are available. Ie what companies were out there ... how did the whole business work and evolve ...Is there a company(s) which might have been more prevalent than others during my period and in my area .... what changes should one be aware of etc etc. I am aware of the Turton and Hudson series - these are good visual sources but there is an element of looking for a needle in a haystack about them when starting from a position of ignorance and from a beginners perspective. As an example, apart from discussions here and elsewhere I have no detailed knowledge relating to dumb buffers etc ... or how legislation changed over time. Any thoughts, guidance, suggestions much appreciated.

My instinct is that they were black in the Midland Era .... all the images of Midland Loco's I have and have seen all have black lamps. I was sent this image by Dave Harris at the Midland Railway Study Centre Informing me that it is a Midland lamp but in early LMS livery.

No idea ... but assume it is the range which Coopercraft were supplying.

I have recently been advised by David White that they are And that in the near future the 4mm kits should be available again directly from Slaters. Fingers crossed.

Thanks for such a comprehensive response Tony ... much appreciated. On the eye to eye comment I should have perhaps been more specific, it was solely related to the subject of running .... it is my view that with P4, unless you are an experienced and old hand on the show circuit and really know what you are about, there are going to be more teething problems as far as running is concerned than with 00 for example. I also think that these will only manifest once the rigours of travel and differing environments come in to play. I therefore would expect an element of poor running on Cadhay given the provenance and myself will be tolerant for the first few showings. Where this puts the paying public I am unsure, but as I say if it leads to refinement and a good show layout then I am all for it. I would hope that the other merits might help with this. As an observation P4 does seem to have done itself a disservice in the past which is a shame as from my perspective the vast majority I have met who model in P4 (as well as in other gauges) have been very inclusive. Tim

Tony, I know we don't see eye to eye on this, but might I make a couple of comments on Cadhay (the Southern branch). I fully concur that the poor running you observed is disappointing (as much I suspect for the operators as the punters) and must be sorted. However, I do know a little background to the layout. The layout was shown as a layout in progress at Scaleforum a while ago and is the work of a first time modeller in P4. It is also the work of one person. It is I believe the first time that it has been shown as a completed model. I also understand that the expertise of the modeller in question has in the past lain with scenic modelling and that the track laying component is a first foray - the same with conversion/building of stock to P4. As such I think there is an ongoing process of refinement and trouble shooting to go through. I know that you feel this should all be resolved before any public attendance, but I still hold to the view that such gremlins in P4 often only manifest once a layout joins the circuit (due to changes in environment and impact of travel) and only considerable experience in the exhibiting of P4 layouts can short cut this process .... from my observations trouble free reliable running is rarely achieved by newcomers to P4 on the first or second showing of the work, .... but after this things tend to get ironed out. (unforgivable of course if they don't) Frustrating perhaps, but for me if it leads in the end to a reliable P4 layout where the modelling and prototypical authenticity is of a high standard, then in the end it is worth it - particularly if it also results in another P4 skilled and experienced modeller. I hope to build my own P4 layout and am determined that it will be reliable and gremlin free .... however whether I have the courage to exhibit it only time will tell, as I would be petrified that gremlins I don't know exist (primarily through inexperience) will manifest as soon as I get things set up at a venue. Sometimes I think people regard P4 modellers as if they should be supermen ... many I have met are just normal modellers who simply want to have a bash at P4 because they like the look and the discipline ... no better or worse than many other modellers. After all this is a hobby for enjoyment and only in rare instances a profession.

Boiler bands I find an interesting debate ... and in some ways true scale might be a bit of a red herring. If the boiler bands are part of the lining of the loco then I admit i like making up transfers with a lining pen and relying on a mixture of the paint thickness and contrast to provide the effect. It is a bonus that they are all but scale into the bargain. However, when we are talking about body colour boiler bands I think you need to be slightly over scale to provide the right cues. It is important to my way of thinking that the bands can be read from a distance which at scale on the real thing the eye would be unlikely to discern. Otherwise something looks wrong. It must be something to do with the fact that we are not actually looking at the model from a reasonable distance but actually from quite close to. I have always favoured Tony's method using insulating tape for self coloured bands before priming - which to my eye looks about right. I hasten to add that I have not built many locos and this view comes more from observation than experience.

That is certainly my main worry with Protocab. However, there is an element here of a self fulfilling prophecy ... if no one takes the plunge it will definitely fail. So I have my toe in the water and fingers firmly crossed behind my back .... gulp!

For Protocab I think you need to be starting out, rather than established ... both in terms of stock and layout. Unless of course you are well off and want it! I buy my kit at shows where there tends to be a promotion. I buy them on a loco by loco basis as I build them and the last set cost £80. Its my second loco so far .. the first costing £75. The controller is comparable to any other system. I think the price will come down just as it did with the DCC chips ... but that is still in the future! However I was not advocating Protocab, or trying to persuade anybody ... just suggesting that we will all find justification for our own system and reasons not to change to another .... which I think you have just proved?

Interestingly, with Protocab radio control you have both more wires and perhaps less complication - of course assuming you can put up with the requirement to charge the battery! You have the two wires coming from the motor and linking to the logic board. You then have a small cable which has a plug which connects the battery to the logic board. You have another small cable and plug which links the charging point to the logic board. Finally you have a small cable with plug from logic board to proximity switch. All of these small cables with plugs come ready connected to the logic board and the only wiring required is soldering the two wires to the motor. However, you have no pick ups on the model ... so no arrangements and paths to find. You also have no issues with shorts as the loco is not connected electrically and nor is the track powered. You also have no issues with dead spots or dirt effecting pick up and therefore running. Wiring the layout is far simpler - particularly if you look at mechanical point actuation. It strikes me that all the systems have pluses and minuses and when push comes to shove its down to personal preference. One makes excuses for one's preferred system and the annoyances of the out of favour system grow into over large problems, whilst the benefits are ignored because not sought.

That is a good point Martin. I hope it didn't come across that I think locomotives shouldn't be named after the demise of steam ... more that the name I think is no longer particularly associated with a given locomotive by the public at large. I think as a way of honouring people or things it is a great tradition which should be supported .... as I mention above, I suspect it is far more genuine than some of the other honours dished out.

There is also a saying that suggests you have to retire at some point to do all the work that working prevents you from doing. Its amazing how much more productive many I know who are retired than those at work (including what they achieve at work!) .... now must get back to work.

I would prefer just plain old William Stanier ...but that's just me. If more official awards were offered for real achievement/service I suspect I would regard them with greater fondness.

What's in a name .... A rose by any other name would smell as sweet .... and vice-versa. For me the names on the 125s are/were all but meaningless .... yet appended to an A4 or a King or a jubilee ... well we all know how evocative they are. I like diesels and electrics much more than I used to and some of the layouts are stunning, but for me steam locomotives (love or hate them) have a soul and so a name becomes associated with a machine ... it is the machine that makes the name and not the other way around. Writing flying scotsman on a HST doesn't evoke anything. Thats not to say I don't like to see a HST or the Midland Pulman ... but rather that I don't really mind which one as I draw no real distinction. Edit - those who collect numbers may disagree, but then that is about numbers not names? Just a personal thing. However I would argue that Tornado goes a fair way to proving my point?

I have lurked on a number of discussions elsewhere regarding the thorny problem of lamps. If you have a parade layout .. particularly with fixed rakes and assigned locos running to a timetable, I would agree that there is no excuse. But things can be more tricky, and I wonder if at some point not having lamps rather than having them incorrect might be a defensible position. I paste one such discussion below. It is an interesting debate and as usual with this hobby, one man's compromise may differ from another's?

Some top draw weathering here me thinks

Tony, I know I've said this before but I love the locos you build ... its the sense of weight and mass they seem to acquire somehow ... and interestingly from the photos the Bachman B1s on the Comet chassis in the earlier posting, by some alchemy, to my eye have the same sense of mass. Alongside the fact that they represent individual engines, this is why a hand built or substantially worked upon model will at its best always be better than one straight from the box. Frankly, without this quality, all the fiddly detail is just that .... for me the impression is the first and most important aspect - then you can focus in and enjoy the detail etc. It is for this reason that I also much prefer a properly weathered loco over a display case pristine product ... after all they were intensely practical machines.

What a great little engine .... excellent.

This is all getting very Ruskinian. Not that I disapprove in any way. .... and of course it is raising many of the same issues. Rather ironic therefore that it is the railways (although admittedly modelling them) that is causing the debate.