Lecorbusier

I have one question regarding the compensators in your layout. If the actuation of crank 6A is via a lug and bar affixed to the main rodding run which is continuous, how does the compensation work to ensure that there are no expansion issues effecting the crank at the lug?

That's a lovely piece of modelling Jol. Completely off at a tangent ... what are the rodding stools you have used which I see peeping out round the front end? Tim

I too am dyslexic ... though not severely so and I also suffer from 'laziness' dyslexia! Thank the lord for spell checker. Grammar as a game of banter amongst friends can be fun. Grammar when educational both given and received with consent is great. Critique of grammar in the official printed word I would say is important. Grammar within the spoken word less so and particularly when pejorative or used as a means to undermine or look down upon (I would include informal e-mails, and forums within the gamut of the spoken word). However, clear communication and dialogue of whatever kind will in my view always trump grammar.

Reminds me of the American comedian Reginald D Hunter's grammar joke - it went something like this .... I said to this english lady 'my best friend ... he dead!' she said ... 'pardon me and I hope you don't think I am being rude but it should be ... he died' I replied ... 'ma'am, he died, now he dead!'

Thanks very much for this ... it is very kind of you and much appreciated. Regards Tim

The best I have at the moment is this

Thanks Echo, The problem is the photo just doesn't give enough detail. I have gone round the same thoughts. In the end I started with what I would expect to see ... namely a crank which would be logical given the position of the slip switch rod and what appears to be the extension of the sleeper nearest to us in the enlargement. I have therefore assumed that the conglomeration of bolts and plates represents the baseplate from which the crank is pivoted. I have assumed that the crank itself is hidden by the signal wire post. If this reading is correct then the rod would need to connect to the crank. Now in most of the pictures of cranks I have studied the pin joint into the crank is above the level of the switch rod which is running below rail level. Looking at the picture I thought on balance that what I have called the connection of the transverse rod was the jointing section of the rod which had been swan necked up. What you describe as the 'loop' I have read as the squared off portion of the connecting section.. Now, conversely the connection from the main rodding would need to have some method of transferring the linear movement through the offset to the crank and would also need to bridge the change in level from the rodding down to the crank. I therefore reasoned that such a transference would require a rigid section such as a rectangular bar and the photo seemed to suggest such a bar. The white section just below and at the end of the bar in your enhancement I was reading as the end of the crank such that the bar sits on top of the crank. All conjecture, but I thought the observation that what I am calling the compensator is in about the right position for a compensator on the 7/7 switches on the signal diagram which would imply that a further compensator for 6/6 would be found further on on the up line aprox. where the second transverse rodding occurs (hidden by the platform) backed up my reading. I think in the 1911 photo looking the other way these two compensators can just be made out (might be wrong though). Of course the alternative interpretation would be that they are not compensators but rather some mechanism for switching the points ... but I am not aware of any such mechanism on the Midland for this period and would question why at Monsaldale they chose to vary there typical practice. However I am still learning all the time!

That's a great story

I have some of the same concerns ... but as you say unless I can turn something up via the Midland Railway Study Centre I will probably go with this ... what is certain is that its not the simple compensator seen so ubiquitously along the line at this period.

I wonder if it might be one of these (suggested by Martin Wynne) it certainly looks as if it might be a near match?

Purely commenting on my interpretation of the forum discussions not the web site ... and its just my opinion. It was what I took away from the discussions.

I followed the previous thread though did not contribute, and missed the weekend meltdown! I would observe though, I felt it had been made very clear that the work involved in updating the artwork for the range was simply too great to allow the range to be re-released anytime soon as a set of complete kits. People then expressed the wish that perhaps the original etches could be made available (with all there faults) as they provided a valuable resource for some. Samantha was happy to look into this and make the etches available ... but made it very clear that if etches were not in stock there could be a reasonably lengthy wait time for delivery ... and that it must be understood that they were purchased with a full understanding of the inherent shortcomings within the product ... not ones for which the current vendor was responsible. As far as pricing is concerned - this is simply a matter for the supplier .... the punter then makes his or her own choice. The LRM cost centre is irrelevant ... the etches will either sell or not at the price advertised. If you don't think they are worth it don't buy them.

Thanks for the thoughts Kieth, I attach an annotated copy of the detail to explain what I am seeing. I also attach a larger image to show the context and the signalling diagram to explain operation. Hopefully somebody will know what the casting is that the main rodding run attaches to. Tim

Presumably the show at which Peter Gentle's 3mm branch terminus was opposite Bodmin? .... or did this arrangement occur regularly?

If this is correct ... it is a classic example of how due to a situation beyond someones control completely the wrong impression is given - I suspect much to the stress of all those involved. How unfortunate. I read somewhere about someone being positioned next to the live steam exhibit at one show and it played merry hell with the track pick up due to deposits falling on it ... yikes!

The Panda eats shoots and leaves .... or the Panda eats, shoots, and leaves?

I remember that comment .... and thinking that it was either 'a bit of friendly joshing and banter' by a close friend, or just downright rude - particularly given the context. I do find myself getting bemused and somewhat tired of all the angst on the 00 vrs EM vrs P4 subject - track is only one part of a much greater whole. People are entitled to model what they want and should be judged by the criteria they set themselves. I don't mind high level criticism so long as its constructive if a model is being held up as an exemplar, but this more often is not the case. People put there work out there for the enjoyment of others (often with a great deal of trepidation), and normally they have put their heart and soul into it, so they are both vulnerable and sensitive. I see so much to admire and emulate not just across the spectrum of my chosen 4mm scale, but also within the other scales, and will continue to cherry pick and copy whatever impresses me - and continue to be thankful for the generosity of the majority of people I come in to contact with. As far as I am concerned life is too short to pay any attention to the few abrasive and insensitive types who set hares running unnecessarily.

Tony, Find attached ... I thought it was pretty complimentary which was why I posted about it. I had no intent to open up any old debates .... I suspect perhaps a little naive ! Iain Rice letter-Little Bytham.pdf

Could I ask if anyone knows what I am looking at here. I can see the pair of rods running parallel to the track and the rodding running across to the single slip. What I would like to understand is what I assume is the link between the two - I assume it is the mechanism which connects the rodding to the crank on the timber base. Does any one have a sketch or diagram which would explain what I am looking at here. The outer of the two rodding runs appears to swoop down and connect into something? There appears to be a bar coming from the rodding just prior to the mechanism ... which might be the connection to the crank - in which case might it be some sort of compensator?

I would add .... the research to fill in knowledge gaps (which in my case were pretty gaping) can be extremely enjoyable as well - especially if you are also going back in time.

Hi Martin, I thought his point (Iain being a committed P4 modeller and a great advocate of the Cameo Layout) was perhaps slightly more nuanced. He cites Mike Wakefield's main line layout inspired by Grantham as testament that you can build a reliable P4 layout that will run at 125mph . It seemed to me that the main points he was making were two fold .... Firstly (unless it happened to be a very particular passion) why would you ? .... as the main merits of P4 would be hard to notice on such a layout - and Secondly the impracticalities of doing so in terms of required space ... given the larger radiuses involved etc etc and in terms of sheer hard work and managing tolerances would perhaps place it beyond the capabilities of most. He even appeared to suggest that the difference between 00 and EM gauge (I am assuming so long as the track was laid to fine scale standards) would not be immediately noticeable. For me it is another vote for 'horses for courses' and and a pretty strong vote in favour of Little Bytham from one who by many is regarded as one of the 'great and the good'.

I thought there was an interesting and long letter dealing with the MRJ article on Little Bytham in this months MRJ, the views being those of Iain Rice.

Dave, Are the lamps removable?

Tony, You have a very nice work around not open to all ... and of course I am not suggesting that now would be a good time to start developing a further skill set ... however (and there is always a however!) 20 years ago had you not had the ability to horse trade I wonder if you might not have developed those skills further?

Aaah! The age old problem .... the perception of the eye works at a higher level than the hand! That is often why kids progress more quickly than adults - because their appreciation level will often be very little ahead of there skill level. Your eye Tony is a very refined model ... to many your attempts at painting and lining would be highly competent - but as you say you measure yourself against the best. I wonder how good you would be had you put say 1/10th of the dedicated time you have put in to kit building - perhaps not up to the hallowed standards of a Rathbone but I venture a lot better than you are?