Lecorbusier

I don't have any particular connection to Slaters, I just had a little correspondence with Dave last year reminiscing about the O gauge model of Monsal and Millers Dales that used to be at the front of the old shop. The wagon kits came up in conversation and he gave me some of the background and the fact that they were hoping to take them back in house. My recent correspondence has just been by way of a follow up. I have no idea how well or not such a suggestion might go down.

A copy of the relevant parts of the e-mail I received from Dave White at Slaters:- I am not sure that any tooling alterations are in the offing!

There is quite a tradition I think of changing the name because the layout is not an actual copy ... I believe this is what Barry Luck did with Plumpton Green recently featured in the MRJ. The inclusion of the Keymer Brick and Tile works meant that it wasn't a carbon copy of Plumpton. Cressbrook was the originally intended name for the station and my layout is a what if layout with the different lie-by configuration .... otherwise I may have the truth police after me On Pendon ... I am not sure I agree about the GWR marketing comment .... I know what you mean but as far as Pendon is concerned I suspect we are in danger of looking at the model through contemporary eyes. The staff are at pains to advise that although to our eyes it may look very chocolate box, that is to misread what we are looking at. Thatch for instance was seen as the cheapest of roofing materials ... subject to regular degradation and suffering from infestation ... the occupants couldn't change it quickly enough if the opportunity arose - it was this change as I understand it that prompted Roye England to embark on the model in the first place, as he wanted to capture a disappearing lifestyle. So in marketing terms this suggests it wouldn't have been particularly alluring. Same for the un-mettled roads, the standpipes for water, the oil lamp lighting, the outside privy's etc etc. Now of course we think of such places as the residences of the rich complete with central heating, hot and cold water, sanitised and compartmentalised thatch and the Chelsea tractor parked outside! Bravo for Poirot and the romanticisation of what was once poverty.

Exhibit A for the defence. https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4339 P4 ... but it is not the track which this is all about. The absolute antithesis of Little Bytham but to me fascinating none the less and achievable within very tight constraints.

This is interesting to discuss ... not only because of the variety of views it raises but also the way I find it changes my thoughts on the subject. I suspect that 'based on' layouts break down into two not easily demarcated types .... the first is a serious attempt to represent the actual place but with the compromises inevitably imposed by the modelling environment .... the second is taking a place as a starting point and a reference to ensure realistic representation both in terms of form and operation. At Monsaldale I am still very much at the research stage .... this includes the track layout, shed allocations for my period, station building and wharf operation, signalling, train make ups etc etc. As such I like to think I am modelling an actual place. However, the specific configuration of the prototype means that the lie by loop is set beyond the station and has a stretch of track beyond such that the full length of a slow goods can reverse back in over the trailing points before the tunnel entrance (my scene break). There is no way I can model all of this as space available prohibits it. Now at Hassop Station 5 miles away on the same line, the lie by is before the station and as such the station itself provides the track length to allow reversing back into the lie by. The topography would allow such a lie by at Monsaldale with a portion of the lie by exiting off scene under a bridge (forming the scenic break) and into the fiddle yard. It is a way of running the timetable prototypically whilst being able to model the location and the lie by configuration is a real location. I certainly feel I am modelling a real place ... but in strict terms it is a 'based on' layout .... - I suggest it will fulfil the criteria you set out above. Where does the 'Vale Scene' at Pendon fall as far as these definitions are concerned?

Would the 'based on' layout fall in to the category of ' modelling an actual place' or is it a 'made up layout' ? I would tend to place it into the former. Most actual place modelling I have seen has been altered in one way or another to make it work within either a given space or compressed so as to remove areas which in model form would make the layout boring .... compression is often the watch word! My intended version of Monsal Dale will certainly fall into this category as of necessity and will be named Cressbrook Station as aresult (it was originally called Cressbrook Sidings before the decision to put in the station was taken).

Thanks. I'd be interested in other opinions. I can't make my mind up on this one. Is it a case of the more knowledge you have the less easy it is to satisfy until anything hypothetical is troublesome? Aren't some invented layouts incredibly rigorous and based upon a very believable or perhaps at one time intended might have been? .... normally located in a real place. For instance I thought that Penpoul was one of the finest layouts I have ever seen .... but it falls into the category of made up layout. I wouldn't want to have dismissed it on principle. Maybe it is the exception that proves the rule?

For your own layouts? .... or everyones? We all have preferences.

One size definitely doesn't fit all ... just like on the real thing. Wouldn't it be boring if it did! I would love it if we had more video offerings like this:- It would be really interesting hearing builders talking about what it was that attracted them to their subject and what the aim of the layouts were. I love the videos which show the modelling, but sadly many never give the background and the reasons for the model ... nor what it is you are watching and why it is operated as it is. This was what I found so enjoyable during my last Pendon visit.

My latest information is that if all goes to plan Slaters are hoping to recommence 4mm wagon kit production early in the new year .... so fingers crossed.

At some point ... as a hobby we are going to have to consider a heritage scene for kit built locos. A museum of modelling will be required and the best examples of the top kit builders should be represented with volumes written about the various approaches and the services to which the models were put. Then the question will arise as to whether it is right for the models to sit moribund in display cases or should be loaned out to run on various 'Heritage layouts' scattered around the country to do what they were built to do. Its bound to develop a tourist industry in its own right and knock on effects to the local economies could well be significant. Anyone suggest a list for representation

My point I think was that 00 is perhaps the only realistic option if you wish to run high speed main line (EM might be workable on occasion - I don't know - but if so you don't see many). It was the (I think tongue in cheek) contention that one perhaps shouldn't try to model such places because some of the modelling curves are un-prototypical (especially if these are off scene) that was to my mind quite ridiculous. I was not arguing that the faster speeds were rare .... just that they were limited to specific sections of the flagship mainline routes ... and even on these many portions would have been below 60mph. Perhaps only 20% of the entire system ran at such speeds? ergo 80% of the system does not present such insoluble problems to the other gauges? I would observe that end to end layouts are perhaps less to do with chosen gauge and more about available space coupled to type of running required. In an end to end layout with fiddle yard you maximise the space available for the scenic section also allowing use of just one side of a room and so long as you can get up to required speeds when entering the layout there is no great need for large lead ins. I am hoping to model Monsaldale station over the next few years. The station lies in the middle of the proposed scenic section with twin main lines. The gradient is 1:90. In 1903 the through non stopping expresses would not have travelled at much above 45mph and less going up the gradient. It will be end to end with the fiddle yard cassettes sized to ensure that the trains where required can enter on scene at the correct speed - ditto leaving. As far as the preponderance of slow speed running on many P4 layouts, I think this is related to the prototype and preferred choice of subject - it is not the capabilities of the gauge dictating choice of subject (high speed mainline excepted). Many P4 discussions I read relate to the complexities of detailed train movements and the enjoyment of the intricacies these ... the statement that a given layout will have a 'lot of interest' within its running is often expressed. Each to there own ... I like variety myself .... hence the wish to model a location where I can do some shunting and also some tucking in of slow trains on a lie by allowing the express to come through. At the same time I will have an element of procession running of through trains (goods and passenger expresses). To some the 'interest' may be too slight .... to others the procession may be rather 'samey' and lacking in drama ..... but its my layout and I am rather taken by the idea - hope the reality gets somewhere near! Finally, I have never thought of you as hostile to P4 ... or any modelling of quality for that matter. The assertions or comments of certain individuals might be another matter.

Surely it is not one or the other Tony? As I understood things, even in the heyday of 100mph steam there were only a few areas where high speeds were attainable and then on pretty much straight track. If you want to run trains as prototypically as possible, then more often than not speeds are going to be generally slower and most certainly slower when curves set in. There are many main line stretches where the express trains would have been pushing it to rise much above 45mph ... but many of these areas are well worth modelling. ..... so a layout doesn't have to be small per se for P4 to manage tighter than prototype curves (granted not as tight as in 00 but tight enough to make a layout feasible) and still be achievable because the trains will not be rattling along at Little Bytham speeds. Slower train speeds like this can be very enjoyable to watch. Last time I visited Pendon, I spent a very enjoyable time watching the Dartmoor scene and talking with the operators. None of the trains I would say went faster than 45mph and at least half were nearer to 25 mph .... but to me no less enjoyable for that. Now I would argue that a layout designed on the principles of the dartmoor scene could certainly be modelled reliably in P4 and with careful design could be made to fit a workable if large room size. The test track at this years Scaleforum demonstrated that curves can be laid where P4 locos can comfortably run reliably at speeds of 40 - 50 mph ( my Barney managed quite comfortably, though due to the gearing I have chosen it was going flat out). Little Bytham is a wonderful achievement, and to my mind because of the specifics could not really be modelled in P4 (particularly the un-prototypical curves which of necessity have to be used to get the trains up to speed when entering the scenic sections) .... nor do I think there would be much merit in so doing as from the observers viewpoint the gauge would be all but unnoticeable. But I don't think it is fair to say that P4 is solely limited to the small shunting plank layout. I have enjoyed watching layouts such as Mostyn and Clutton, both of which are very much lines in the landscape and certainly during the extended periods I spent watching them, both layouts ran reliably without derailments. So I would say ... I wouldn't use 00 to model a Cameo layout if I thought I could achieve the same in P4. I wouldn't use P4 to model little Bytham. In between these two extremes I think it is very much down to personal choice and relative ability. A very personal opinion is that where I am being encouraged to observe and even revel in the minutiae of the track detailing by the layout in question, then P4 would be my preference ... but only if everything else matches up and the running is reliable. As layouts get less focussed in, or indeed the focus is on other aspects, then I become pretty relaxed between P4 and EM (I have a number of great favourites in EM gauge) With 00 I tend to prefer the larger layouts (though not exclusively) and the ones with finescale track. However, my overriding criteria is never the track gauge, but rather the quality of the modelling, the believability of the scene and the enjoyment of the presentation. So P4, EM and 00 all feature prominently within my roll call of enjoyed layouts, and each one is taken for what it is, and stands or falls on its own merits - not some arbitrarily applied set of rules or standards. I am currently trying to model in P4 myself because I have almost no historical stock, I like the process of trying to make everything as closely as I can to the real thing and the period and location I want to model means that trains will never run faster that scale 45mph and will not need to run round tight curves. This is a personal decision - it may or may not be successful - and has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the work or layouts of others. I would not hold myself up to be in any way better than others and certainly not yet in the league of the P4/EM/00 layouts I refer to above. I tend to believe it is for others to do that anyway.

Sound thinking .... however - when i started I couldn't help myself and went for the loco .... I wonder how often that is the case!

And if I can add to this ... watch Tony's excellent DVD on building kits

For me this is an important point. I recall Maggie Gravatt when interviewed on 'the Joy of Trainsets' saying that when modelling buildings it was not until you broke a pane of glass here, cracked a board there or splashed the odd stain around that the work began to live. .... which of course goes a bit beyond simple weathering. The Joy of train sets is well worth a watch if you haven't seen it ... a little relaxing entertainment for an idle moment.

In the last Correspondence I had with Dave White at Slaters about this, he said about the Slater's 4mm range .... Not sure if or when this might happen as I understand there are legal issues involved ... but it does seem hopeful in the mid term.

I think things are moving pretty fast in 3d printing and there is a lot of playing around with different media. Bill Bedford at Mousa is now doing most of his wagons/vans using 3d printing. I had a look at one at Scaleforum this year and whilst not perfect i thought it was pretty good and quite robust. He pairs the bodies with his etched undercarriage - worth watching but for me it takes too much of the making out of the process.

My grandfather whilst an apprentice in the pattern shop at Firth Brown's in Sheffield worked on the rudder of the Hood ... My father has an old picture somewhere of them all standing around the completed article ... absolutely massive!

I have one of these on order .... how do you find the kit? Tarrif Wagon ?

I particularly like the second two pictures ..... really evocative. edit ... on the strength of this I have just had a quick peak at the Right Track to Stoke Summit ... very enjoyable - don't know if its just me but the intonation of Tony's voice over sounds uncannily like Oliver Postgate narrating the Clangers ! .... most comforting. from about 2.20 in to the video he changes from Tony to Oliver.....

So .... does that mean that any displacement due to expansion at the lug position which will shift the crank position will be compensated for by an equal expansion in the opposite direction from the rods across the track?

Thought I would upload some further images I have unearthed relating to midland rodding in case they might be of use to others.

It was more the Physics I was trying to get my head around (not my strong point) .... I assumed that your workings and diagram were correct. I understood the principle of compensation to be that effectively the rod is fixed at the actuation crank end but expansion is free too take place at the compensator? Thus if the rodding lengths are equalised then the expansion is neutralised by the compensator without changing the effective rod length and so mucking up the crank geometry. What I couldn't get my head around was how this played when the fixed point is a distance along the crank with a compensator at each end ... I suspect I am being thick! Does the lug position remain static and the ends of the rodding expand away from the lug?