Chamby

Had a play with their new website this morning. It is not very intuitive at all, easy to get lost up the wrong path. I would expect to see sections related to trackwork, building kits, rolling stock etc., searchable by scale and range. But it’s all a jumble unless you already know the product code to search. There appears to be a lot of good stuff on there, but it’s all heaped like a haystack. It appears to be heavily geared towards supporting their magazines at the moment. Hopefully it will become better structured as it develops.

It is that same gap in front of the cylinders that is the problem, for me. I always visualise the extra driving wheel that was meant to be there! Phil

I think these photo's illustrate how, for most of the RM fraternity, the creative aspect of the hobby has become focused on layout building rather than what runs on them. Providing a realistic environment for the high quality models available to run in, is what it has mostly become these days, and what fills the pages of all the magazines. A lot of pleasure can still be had when this is done well, watching the trains go by in a well modelled setting. Especially if the RTR stuff is detailed with lamps, real coal, weathering and crew etc. As Tony has said, you have to have a real love of self-build to do otherwise, being prepared to spend more time and money to get something that may or may not look as good as what you can simply buy and unbox. And unless more articles appear showing the way, that won't change.

I too had a very pleasant afternoon with a 3-cylinder pacific and other equally interesting stuff yesterday, courtesy of the local gauge 1 chaps.

Graffiti is surely an integral part of weathering modern image stuff, unless you have an idealised view of the world. Rule 1... etc.

"Due to intensive handcraftmanship, supply may be limited and strong demand is expected..." One for the collectors, then.

I like to see the work of others, especially those who are ahead of me with their own modelling projects. I don't see it as showing off, and even if there is a bit of pride involved, does it really matter? It only becomes an issue with social media if you start chasing 'likes'. If this shapes your decisions re: what to post, then that is a problem. Much better to post from the heart.

Very nice pictures. I take some comfort in the fact that a layout is one year younger than Tony, but still requires some ballasting. Gives me hope regarding my own molluscan progress, I only hope my finished article will capture the atmosphere as well as the Metropolitan Junction layout. Or is it simply that all layouts suffer from a smidgeon of ballast-loss in their more senior years?

Nice edition chaps, well done. Only one little problem... literally... The layout operators portrayed on pages 62 and 73 seem to be either 8-year-olds, or hobbits... with a width across the shoulders of about 12 inches! OK so its not a big deal (groan) but does give a false perception of the layout size.

Absolutely right, Andrew. I don’t think Thompson could have envisaged so many B1’s being produced, as the last batch overran the available numbering for them. You are also right that, for a short while at least, there were other locomotives carrying BR numbering on their buffer beams, this practice was the norm until cast smokebox plates were introduced in that June. It is however less common to see this specific timeframe modelled, owing to its transience. There is an interesting photo of B1 61251 on Page 74 of Yeadon’s volume 6, with British Railways on the tender and still carrying a buffer beam number, yet on the opposite page is 61024 with a cast smokebox number but the tender displays LNER. Various transitional permutations obviously ran for a while. I also read somewhere that Gorton continued to use shaded LNER lettering rather than Gill Sans right up to nationalisation for some classes, apparently to use up old stock of transfers... certainly 1948 is a fascinating time to model, but full of anachronisms to catch out the fastidious modeller!

Very nice! And an unusual example, with BR number but still carrying the buffer beam number rather than cast smokebox plate. Not many of those about...

I’m sure all this stuff about proving weaponry will come in very useful when Tony acquires his Gladiator ‘Bosch buster’ railguns for LB, when Oxford Rail release them later this year. They will, of course, be modified as ‘layout guns’ and appropriately weathered... Better stop now before this gets really silly! Phil.

Thanks Tony, that makes a lot of sense. I would suggest that these differences are all deliberate and for sensible and specific reasons. Does this make the workmanship of an inferior quality? Absolutely not... you are making each model fit for its intended purpose, surely a ‘layout locomotive’ can be as fine a piece of work as a showcase model in its cabinet. Each built fit for its own purpose. On the subject of sand pipes, I do agree with your decision to omit them... and wish RTR manufacturers would do likewise. Whilst more prototypically accurate, they always seem to be more trouble than they’re worth, if you’re seeking reliability in a locomotive that is regularly handled. A detail too far, in my book.

Tony, you repeatedly assert that your own models are ‘layout loco’s’. Apart from the fact that they are indeed intended to be run on a layout, rather than being stuck in a display cabinet, is there anything in their construction or finishing that you believe is of lesser quality compared to other people’s builds that you might define as ‘masterpieces’? I’m just wondering exactly what it is that draws a distinction between the two definitions, in your view... Phil

Nope. But as you mention it, page 1000 was reached on 25 May so that’s averaging about a page per day over the last three months.... 2,500 posts. And a wide range of topics covered too...

I used to subscribe to three monthly magazines about railway modelling, and got a lot out of each one. Nowadays I subscribe to one, and after reading it swop with fellow club members who buy the others. What strikes me more than anything is how similar they are becoming, heavily focused on the new RTR releases and related articles, such that reading more than one monthly starts to become repetitive. Quite why the Kernow Bulleid Diesel qualifies for another full page review simply because it is now available in green livery, when it had such extensive coverage for the black versions so recently, suggests that the balance of content needs looking at again. It must be quite a challenge to keep finding inspirational new layouts and articles for a monthly publication. I don’t envy the editors job!

I'm probably preaching to the converted here, so my apologies if this post is a bit basic for some. On the subject of 'flowing curves' I am now a firm believer in the use of transition curves wherever possible. Even quite tight radii can be made to look more 'flowing' if there is a transition into the curve. For my current layout build, I have laid a 180o curve at the end of my railway room with a radius a little over 2 feet, far tighter than I would ideally like. When laid, even when ballasted and with trains running smoothly round it, it just didn't look right. So I have spent the last week or so lifting the track and relaying it with a transition approach. Even though this pushes the track out just another couple of inches, the visual effect is quite dramatic. I used tracksetta's to re-shape the curve into a transition using radii easing from 24 inches to 48 inches before straightening up: Outer track relaid to the new profile, inner track as before: The finished article - new transition curve in the background, you can just make out the original alignment to the inside of the new curve: I am now much happier with how trains look on this curve despite the fact that it is still just as tight at the apex. I think it must be something to do with the fact that the overhang of bogie stock on the curve happens less dramatically, it now eases gently off the straight section, rather than just lurching suddenly into the tight curve. Phil.

The ESU manual for their Loksound chips states quite clearly that they can be used with an analogue controller. However Tony’s experience is not unique and most experienced DCC users are wary of running their fitted stock on unfamiliar analogue layouts. Whilst it is generally regarded as OK, many DCC users believe that a low level of risk exists that they want to avoid, especially if an expensive sound chip is fitted. Feedback controllers or high-frequency track cleaners such as Relco’s are to be avoided, as they can interfere with the chips own electronic wizardry. Feedback controllers generally seem to be falling out of favour these days, Gaugemaster for example now have very few in their range. The do not work well with coreless motors such as Portescap and those fitted in some more recently produced RTR loco’s. For example, my Hattons RTR 14xx will not behave at all with a feedback controller, but runs sweetly with a ‘normal’ one. Phil. Edit: I generally prefer to disconnect the chip and replace it with a blanking plug when running my DCC fitted loco’s on an analogue system. It avoids any risk, however small!

PECO Code 100 streamline - and with their foam underlay as well? Who would have thought it.... The curves are nicely laid though. And the weathering on that A3 looks stunning. Phil.

Tony, my general advice would be to run each locomotive on its intended controller, but having said that I have purchased a Bachmann blue pullman set from someone who ran it on their DC layout for several years... upon opening it up I found that it had DCC chips inside that still worked. If you use Relco’s though, these are a definite no-no for DCC. As others have indicated, Relco’s aside, you should be able to use a DCC controller on LB without having to make alterations to the wiring other than swopping over the controller, but you would need to isolate everything DC beforehand, including all your existing DC trains in the fiddle yard and sidings. You soon know if you have missed anything because you hear an electrical ‘buzz’ sound! The photo below shows how I manage dual supply, using DPDT switches, as others have indicated above. The three sockets are where I connect the controllers. For all DCC operation I simply use the centre socket for the accessories bus (point motors and suchlike) and with the dpdt switches pointed inwards, the two outer track buses are also supplied from the same power source. This is the mode shown below. Flick either switch outwards however, and the neighbouring socket becomes live and at the same time the central DCC is disconnected, allowing a second controller - either DCC or analogue - to be plugged in. The outside sockets supply the up and down bus wires respectively, so by switching out just one of them, I can run DCC on one line and analogue simultaneously on the other... I just have to remember not to use the crossover points between them! . Phil Edited for clarity.

Personally, I am very comfortable with ‘timeshifting’ as long as what is being run at any given time is contemporaneously accurate. My own project under construction is very much focused on 1948-9, on the former GC, using DCC control, with the intent of building and running something pleasingly faithful to that time and place. However I also have a collection of late 1950’s western region loco’s and stock appropriate for the club layout, and a small collection of BR blue diesels and coaches, both these collections use analogue control. So my own layout is wired up for DCC but with the ability to alternatively run trains under DC power on either main running line (albeit with more limited operational flexibility than a dedicated DC layout would offer). This allows me to occasionally run and test my own non-DCC stuff, and also allows visitors the pleasure of running their own trains, whether they use DCC or not. It makes for rather more than the usual ‘two wires’, there are three separate pairs of bus wires running under the layout (for the up lines, down lines and for accessory control respectively) but so far it all works as intended. The intent is that I can be as fastidious as I like when running my own stuff, but also allows maximum flexibility for others, when prudent. Whether that will extend as far as allowing ‘Thomas’ an occasional outing, I’m not so sure. My grandson has just had his first birthday so that particular challenge has not arisen yet!

Agreed. But if your penchant is for building locomotives and stock, then as a retiree I suggest that you would more likely go for a more modest prototypical layout than a ‘Magnum Opus’ project, if you want to have anything nearing completion in the time available to you. In this cas, bigger is not necessarily better - Unless, of course, you join forces with other modellers in a group/club project rather than a purely personal layout.

Tony, I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Many (though not all) of the cash/time/space-rich returnees to the hobby will aspire to something on the scale of LB, but will have just a fraction of 40 years to realise it in. Taking advantage of much of the RTR stuff now available, or buying in expertise, is the only way this can be done. From a purists perspective, yes this is taking shortcuts. But unless your vision upon retirement is limited to a modest branch line layout, then you have no alternative but to take advantage of the short cuts available, to achieve something closer to your idealised vision. Of necessity, it will be the locomotives and rolling stock that are most impacted, if you are aiming to build something prototypical. Building the layout itself, with trackwork, electrics, buildings and scenics is in itself very time intensive and not very easy to cut back on, if you want to produce something to a high standard. With high standard RTR stuff so readily available, modelling the trains themselves of necessity will take the brunt of the hit. By default then, layout building becomes the predominant focus for the average modeller.

I think another factor in the trend towards assembling RTR stuff rather than building your own, is the changing nature of our economy and it’s implications for the national workforce. The first model railway club that I joined back in the early 80’s, had a significant number of the club members working in local manufacturing industries, including aerospace. I recall one particular retired member at that time, Joe Rowe, handbuilt a beautiful OO model of 10000, including wheels that he had cast himself and working reversing gear! Roll forward to the present day and most of my fellow club members work in service industries rather than manufacturing. Making stuff is now outside of many peoples comfort zones, having to be learned from scratch to support ones hobby interest, rather than being second nature. How many schools now teach metalwork? I don’t believe that it has been part of the national curriculum for many years, but I remember having two periods a week back in the 1970’s.

FFS is to normally to be found on the side of Swiss railway locomotives and rolling stock, usually preceded by the additional acronyms SBB and CFF. They mean the same thing, but in different languages...