Lecorbusier

13 minutes ago, DougN said:

 

 I am working through a Finney V2 (see photo on page 1570) I have yet to get to the valve gear as I am working slowly through the chassis. Since the photo the leading truck has been put together.... there seems to be a lot of parts compared to a comet kit but it does look brilliant. The first thing that got me was there is a bar across the front at the bottom of the truck which is lying flat. I had not even noticed it until comparing photos. I am also doing a early version of the truck! 

Page 1569 --- Looking forward to further posts on this

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening LeCB,

inspired by your diligent work, I got the old family Singer out last night. I had intended to do a bit of modelling but Instead I chased down the machines life history. Funny how you can have had something around for a lifetime and never looked into its past.

 

 It's very similar to yours and is in full working order. Back in the day, when teen fashions came from the streets rather than the shops, I even used it myself. It's a model 66, made in 1915, the same lotus pattern as your machine but with a box lid that fits and locks over the top and extension piece to the main bed as well as a sewing table that the whole lot sits on, it weighs a ton. At some stage, it was retrofitted with a Singer electric motor that provides power to a lamp mounted on the far side and drives the wheel via a belt and is operated by a connected foot peddle. The manual for the original machine and that for the add on electric motor, peddle and lamp are all present, as well as other assorted bits and bobs. Forget about this model railway lark, I may knock up a bit of sewing tonight!

Hi Andrew,

I am afraid I have now bought another one ... the same type but this time a treadle including cast iron base and table ... all for the princely sum of £18.00 - another resto job this time with my daughter who will take ownership.

BBC Scotland did this documentary on the factory ... complete with dedicated railway!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00051z7/the-singer-story-made-in-clydebank

This is a great archive showing how we used to make things in the old days .... raw materials in one end, completed product out the other. It reminded me of some of the LMS archives about the making of a Steam Loco.

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Though these situations don't personally affect me (however, I'm concerned with them as a loco-doctor), it does make me wonder how much the RTR market has 'progressed', particularly in terms of mechanical robustness. Ancient Tri-ang locos are frequently brought to me as 'non-runners'. A quick clean, adjustment of pick-ups, replacement brushes (occasionally a replacement motor) and an oil, and away they go for another 60+ years of running! I wonder if a successor of mine, in 50-60 years' time will be able to do those things with the RTR locos of today?

 

That could be the epitaph for today's world .... high on appearance but with a heavy dose of inbuilt obsolescence.

I was watching a documentary on the singer sowing machine ... and the early 20th century treadle and hand crank models are still being refurbished and shipped out for regular use in Africa and other developing countries. I know a fair few people in the UK who still swear by them.

Progress eh!

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

But why would I, or why would anyone ask me to.................... scratch-build an N2 in OO today?

 

 

 

And who'd contemplate scratch-building a B1 as well today as well? Modified/detailed/renumbered/weathered Hornby B1 alongside.

 

I couldn't speak for you ... or indeed anyone else....

But I fully intend to scratch build a loco in the not too distant future, and I care not one jot whether it is available either in RTR or in a good quality kit. On the one hand I want to try my hand and see if I can do it .... and on the other, if successful I am pretty certain that the self satisfaction will likely be beyond anything I've experienced to date. 

I already know that from a simple pleasure standpoint I prefer scratch building my wagons to constructing a kit .... though I admit I use a whole gamut of etched/cast/turned bits and pieces so there is nothing hair shirt about all of this.

Furthermore I want to have a go at designing my own etches and seeing what I can build from them - the excuse being the need for a tender currently not available for my Johnson 0-6-0 goods locos running circa 1902 on the peak line.

The downside of course is that I may not complete my layout in this lifetime .... but if this proves to be the case I will certainly have thoroughly enjoyed not getting there. 

9 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Gordon Gravett cuts a fret from self-adhesive labels for window frames (rather like Teddy Francis used to do for Plastikard coach panelling).

I have seen a silhouette cutter used to good effect on this front. There is an excellent thread hereabouts 

40 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

But I'll put money on Shap having the bigger crowd around it. The sort of person that hangs on the barrier at Grantham is someone who appreciates the more detailed aspects of railway operation and from those types of person we have had many complimentary comments. But they are in the minority. The layout probably only holds its own because there is the potential for movement all along the layout and it's not unusual to have three or four locos / trains moving at any one time. Plus we now have the working roadway system to add additional 'entertainment'.

 

So yes - the roundy-roundy with a good selection of trains is always like to win out; but hopefully there can always be a place at a show for one or two operationally based layouts nonetheless?

Interested to know if you think this outcome might change/be different at a 'scale' show as Tony describes them? - without barriers etc etc.

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

We accepted that there is a fundamental difference between operating at a show and operating just for pleasure as it were. I firmly believe that, in most cases, 'accurate' operation doesn't 'work' at an exhibition. Not if you wish to 'entertain' the majority.

 

The big factor, of course, is the type of show. Because I'm really a Philistine, I usually attend the 'general' shows as a demonstrator/loco doctor (though I have demonstrated at EM events and even P4 ones - the latter demonstrating photography). At the 'scale' shows, I find things are much more relaxed. Without barriers, there's often an 'intimacy' between layout operators and spectators. There seems to be more time to talk, often at the 'abandonment' of running. It doesn't matter. I'm surprised more 'general' modellers don't attend.

Penny drop moment 

My attendance tends to be at scale shows and their ilk. Much of the operation (within understandable parameters) I would describe as 'accurate' and everything tends to be pretty relaxed without barriers and much discussion going on. Often listening to the conversations is pretty interesting as well. I suspect this gives me a different reaction to layouts than I might have at a general show. The experience tends to be interactive rather than a simple spectator sport.

48 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for posting this, Tim.

 

How wonderful to see this great layout back in action, with perfect P4 running.

 

However, though I accept it's still work in progress, the train running is 'nonsense'. Where, in a four-coach local, would one get two composite carriages? Not only that, the carriages just look to be unaltered (apart from re-gauging) Palitoy/Bachmann LMS carriages - hardly P4 material I'd have thought. And (tell it not in Gath!), did I see a tension-lock coupling? Add on to that, no loco crew, no lamps (front and rear) and we have a situation I'd never tolerate, even on my 'narrow gauge' trainset. 

 

Accepting that there's much stock to be built (though much of the carriages littered around just seemed to be RTR), we have (to me) a bit of a paradox. P4 modellers (in the main) cannot accept a gauge which is incorrect (OO and EM), yet, in this case, we have a set of carriages, running in an un-prototypical manner, which I'd never tolerate, whatever the gauge.

 

Different priorities? Different standards?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I can't comment either way ... I just thought the footage might be of interest. I suspect that the stock was cobbled together to test the track re-laying. Perhaps it was re-miss of me to post as I am sure it was never intended for purposes other than to advise friends and colleagues of progress (the comment on youtube under the video reads "A few of the moves that can now be made on my P4 layout of Ambergate and Buxton. Please excuse the clunky editing. Thanks to John S for the loan of the 3f."). My own paltry efforts on the Monsaldale project would crumble under such scrutiny. 

4 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 Hi Tony,

 

it is indeed jondon's P4 version of South Pelaw Junction that I referred to. I took my listing of P4 layouts from the S4 Society's excellent S4Forum, in the section on layouts and operation.

 

I have run some of my P4 locos and stock around Ambergate without problems, so consider that the "conversion"  has been a success. Tony Montgomery has put a lot of work into getting it right. Built with ply and rivet trackwork it was possible to widen the gauge fairly easily, or so he tells me. Driving locos around a track with changes in elevation is an interesting experience. Your photos show what an excellent model it is and it is very fortunate that it was rescued from being scrapped.

 

Jol

Due to 'the day job' and family commitments I only rarely get to shows and have yet to act as an operator at any level. My viewpoint is therefore very much that of a semi educated punter.

I find myself being interested in different layouts for different reasons. At this years Scaleforum for example I spent a fair amount of time watching Burntisland, Pulborough and London Road. This is not a judgement on the other layouts, it just reflected my mood and interests that day. What is more interesting perhaps is that I was drawn to each for different reasons.

I was drawn to Burntisland for the scale and overall modelling. The period was attractive for me and the various cameos all along the layout of interest. The movement of trains was nice, but I enjoyed the stationary rakes of wagons and locos equally. The movement gave added interest, but strangely was not central to my enjoyment. (I remember being fascinated by Operation Overlord & the WW1 Trench Railway in a similar way)

Pulborough on the other hand was for me all about the movement of the trains through the landscape coupled to movements around the station. The landscape was very well done as were the buildings, but it was getting down to train eye-level and seeing the various trains coming through and pottering about which captivated.

London Road was all about the station ... and interestingly the lack of context beyond the battered retaining walls mattered to me not a jot.

None of these reactions or my enjoyment had anything to do with them being P4 (notwithstanding a preference for the look of the track) .... but it was very much to do with the quality of both the subjects and the 'finescale modelling' . 

My conclusion ... I may have my own preferences, but normally if something is well done and thought has been given to the entertainment value from the viewers point of view, I find myself enjoying a fair old range of layout types. I hasten to add that I also like cameo layouts .... Arun Key amongst others immediately springs to mind .... and on occasion have thoroughly enjoyed post steam layouts.

What one chooses to model and what one appreciates as a punter can be very different things.

21 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Tim Lee’s suggestion that layouts should “Inform, Educate and Entertain” is valid only if the viewer wants to be informed and educated as well as entertained.

Wasn't me  ... I actually suggested  pretty much what you have said 

21 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

You are Iain Rice and I claim

my £5-00...

Unfortunately I have some way to go to claim that honour!!!! ... but  now you mention it I do seem to be guilty plagiarism 

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Tim, that's a good analogy. For me, though, it's only part of what we should be trying to do at exhibitions. Surely we should aspire to Lord Reith's philosophy for the BBC - "Inform, educate and entertain"? Any exhibition layout that does all three deserves to be, and will be, a success.

The only caveat being ... that this would be the best or finest of layouts ? A layout which is nicely made and thoroughly entertaining (like a pot boiler film or book) but falls down perhaps elsewhere, I would suggest is still a success and well worth an exhibition slot?

The problem with 'inform and educate' for me comes when this makes the work inaccessible at the base level. There are many fine and award winning works in theatre and film which are only successful on the highbrow/art circuit .... but that doesn't make them poor, but rather makes them specialist. I suggest it might be likewise with model railways in some instances.

Interestingly, given some of the thoughts shared on Heckmondwike above, there is also an arrogance and holier than thou aspect to high brow theatre and film and (though I can't comment specifically regarding gauge wars and the such like) it is healthy for people to cry 'Emperor's Clothes' as and when necessary and stand up for their taste and outlook. My own discipline of architecture is similar, and from my standpoint it does no harm for the lay person to comment 'but it's ugly and doesn't work' to bring us crashing back to earth every once in a while.  You can have all the complex and intellectual arguments and theories in the world but they tend to remain just that if the end product is simply dull or worse! (not that I am saying Heckmondwike is any of these things - I haven't seen it and from the pictures I suspect I would like it very much).

5 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

If nothing much moves on a layout, and you can barely get a decent look at what does, then however prototypical the timetable and authentic the stock, the novelty of staring admiringly at a fabulous diorama of a large station hotel or an exquisite field of grass being grazed by prototypical dairy cattle begins to pall after a while.  Save the timetable for home, where you and your friends can savour it.  At an exhibition, do make each move look realistic yes, but keep things moving!

..... so really what I take from this is that - in exhibition circumstances - we really are talking more in terms of the theatre than anything else. A stage set maybe with a proscenium, definitely with lighting and a back drop, definitely with wings .... and the actors are the trains. In this analogy, the timetable becomes the script and as we all know a play script condenses real life and dramatises it for the benefit of the illusion being created.

It seems to me a good approach, whatever ones taste in layout, scale or track gauge 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

To run LB's sequence, I need over 50 locos at any one time, and yet I only reproduce a fraction of what would have been seen over 60 years ago at Little Bytham. 50 P4+ locos, plus over 150% back-up.

 Cripes 

It will be interesting to see how I get on working out my schedule for 1902 Monsaldale. Nothing like Little Bytham, but even so there is a fairly significant daily through put. I think initially there will have to be a fair amount of doubling up as far as locos and stock are concerned to get anywhere near. Luckily train lengths and speeds were much more sedate in my period 

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

There was a DVD I made, put on here by Andy York nearly a year ago, which shows the layout in action. Perhaps someone (with the knowledge of how to do so) will put it on again for you to see.

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

From my recollection, Tim....................... 

 

I think it was operated as near as possible to 'real time'. Despite Heckmondwike 'proving' to Cyril Freezer that it was possible to build a 'large' P4 layout which ran as well as the 'best' contemporary 'large' OO or EM layouts, it really wasn't that big. It only represented a secondary Midland line as well, with nothing bigger (if my memory serves - and it serves me less well as time goes on!) than a 'Crab' 2-6-0. Most locos were small (0-6-0s or 4-4-0s) and the trains were short (accurately so). 

 

Now I know this has been aired before, but I still remain to be convinced that it's possible to build a really large, main line layout in P4. By large I mean something of the size of Little Bytham (relatively small in the main line stakes at 32' x 12'), or Biggleswade (over 40') or Retford (over 80') or Carlisle (over 90'). By main line I mean a steam-age depiction of a trunk main line, with oodles of Pacifics or big 4-6-0s hauling huge trains - at speed! The four just mentioned (in OO and EM) have done it. And, have been seen to do it. 

 

Where are the P4 equivalents to these, or others? I know there was Tring in New Zealand, but even Bob Essery told me quietly that it didn't run all that well, and if one examines the pictures of it in the MRJ closely, there is the odd cobweb between the trains and the signals. 

 

I accept (and understand) that such layouts are not generally of interest to P4 modellers, and that is probably the reason why the P4 Class 1 main lines don't exist. Yes, there's Mostyn, and that runs superbly, though it's all diesel and a branch off the WCML. There's also Preston, but until I see that in full steam-outline mode, I remain unconvinced. Even I can P4 a diesel- or electric-outline loco in 4mm! 

 

Returning to Heckmondwike, it did set a very high standard in modelling. However, and this is my opinion, as an exhibition layout I thought it boring. I'd never have bothered trainspotting at the place. Not enough happening!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony. 

I wasn't really trying to start up discussions on whether P4 can work on large mainline layouts with trains running at speed .... I suppose if and until one does the jury will remain out (though I am watching the progress of Ouse Valley Viaduct & Balcombe Station with interest though whether this qualifies I don't know)

I just wondered if the Heckmonwike would have been more entertaining had the schedules been compressed to give a reasonable amount of train movements. ie was it beautifully modelled but the reliability was suspect or was it simply a questionable timetable for popular public consumption. The layout does seem to have had a mixed reception.

As far as choice of layout and subject matter are concerned I suppose it is each to their own. Thankfully I enjoy a fairly wide spectrum of layouts, though I do like a degree of detailed workings and shunting alongside a procession of through trains. I suspect that is because I am interested in more than just the kinetics of movement.

On 28/10/2019 at 12:26, Tony Wright said:

Indeed John,

 

Wasn't Heckmondwike described as the layout where the bells rung, but nothing ran?

 

I only saw it once, and I needed another shave before I saw a train in action!

 

I'm a good friend of Bob Essery, and I admire his approach to 'realism', but an exhibition layout where so few trains run is not good in my view. 

 

How far does one take 'realism', particularly in the operation of a layout? Particularly an exhibition layout? I think most would agree that Little Bytham is on a trunk main line. Using the PTT and WTT from 1958, I've arrived at a reasonable representation of the trains one might have seen in the summer of that year. Yet, there's a period in the mid-afternoon where there was nearly a quarter of an hour between trains - the 'dead hour' as we used to call it at Retford. Operating LB 'prototypically' would thus be a disaster for visitors. Why aren't any trains running?' they would ask. 'Because I'm a zealot and everything on this trainset is prototypical, including the timetable'. No chance! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Not wanting to rake over old coals etc etc ... but sadly Heckmondwike was before my returning interest in railway modelling.....

For me Heckmondwike conjures up images of cheap carpets   https://heckmondwike-fb.co.uk/

Was the issue that the schedule was run 'overly proto-typically' and so was boring/tedious as an exhibition layout ? The implication being that a more viewer friendly approach to the scheduling would have produced a better overall experience .... or were there problems beyond the 'hair shirt' operating approach ! If it was displayed at the NRM it must have been a halfway decent diorama at least. 

3 hours ago, PMP said:

I too have seen it at shows, at DEMU this year in fact set up as you describe. It certainly didn’t attract many viewers, and there was plenty of hand of god sorting derailments.

Oh well perhaps I saw it on a good day ... we will have to agree to disagree .

Still hoping to see Albion yard in the flesh at some point .... loved it on the Right Track video. 

56 minutes ago, PMP said:

That layout doesn’t capture night at all. The foreground lighting is full daylight and the back is in darkness, other layouts previously have captured night time far better. Those pictures don’t represent what you see at a show at all. The 7mm great train robbery layout, and Dave and Shirley Rowe’s Spanish seafront diorama with sunrise and sunset really captured ‘night’ that an exhibition audience could believe in.

You may well be right ... but when I saw it in show conditions it certainly felt that way to me as a viewer. Chairs were placed in front to control the viewing angle and distance, it was enshrouded with black out cloths and the only source of light within the 'stage' area was from the building and street lighting. I was mesmerised and watched for a good 15 mins ... and for me it felt like a dark wet evening.

Oh dear .... every time I hear yellow submarine I am reminded of Pass the parcel and musical chairs 

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

A beautiful Furness 'box, for instance. 

 

 

 

 And of course Vintage VW camper rally notice .... must be a solid chap!!