Chamby

A few observations from the OP:

Re: catering, making a cash profit from it is not essential, if it adds value to the exhibition in other ways.  Better to have a burger and bacon butty van onsite, than have no catering at all... especially if you can negotiate exhibitor lunch vouchers with the proprietor as part of the deal.  

Re: fundraising, we have been able to tap into some interesting alternative sources of additional funds recently.  Our local county councillor has a fund to support local activities and events, as does our Parish Council.  There is also additional support for communities in ‘clay country’ here in Cornwall, following the local decline in the extraction of white stuff.  We have successfully tapped into these sources to fund materials and equipment for a new layout, and are also assessing the possibility of financial support for an exhibition.  So although things are getting tougher re: the traditional way of running things, there are other options out there.

I agree with earlier posts that holding an exhibition isn’t just about raising funds.  Ask the question, if your exhibition was just break-even in financial terms, would you still do it?  Is it a highlight of the club year, or a tedious chore of necessity?  If the latter, you should perhaps explore other funding options.

Getting back to the original question, before Covid we had maybe 6-8 outings a year, taking our club layout all over the country.  If we want to maintain that level of activity, the discussion so far seems to point us towards having something smaller, more manageable and with lower associated costs, so we can offer exhibitions either the ‘big’ layout or a smaller one.  We are also discussing among membership whether we would be prepared to accept additional personal costs for the privilege of exhibiting the big layout elsewhere.  We have mixed views on that, as you might expect - our members personal financial circumstances vary hugely.

But as others have said, time will tell!  Thanks for all your helpful and varied comments so far...

On 25/09/2022 at 01:59, St Enodoc said:

I haven't thought of a simpler way yet - anyone?

If the wire is long enough, you could insert an omega loop that can be eased open or closed, as required.  I haven’t tried it with signals, but it works with ‘wire in tube’ point control.

I attend a model railway club in Cornwall, where there is a debate currently in progress about the changing face of model railway exhibitions, and what it means for us as a club.  Before Covid, we held an annual exhibition that was well attended and brought in extra funds for the club, we also have a large club layout (30x12 feet) that has been regularly exhibited both locally and has been shown at most major national events.  We decided over the last couple of years that we should start on a new build layout, of similar size - to offer something new to 'the circuit' - but are now unsure if we are doing the right thing.  A number of new factors have come into play recently:

#  Our nearest model shop with a national presence is no longer attending local exhibitions.  This seems to be part of a wider trend.

#  Our large club layout's future bookings have dropped dramatically since Covid.   Clubs seem to be holding back on larger layouts, with their associated costs for several operators and van hire, in favour of smaller layouts with lower overheads.  

#  Other clubs have commented on a reduced appetite from ageing members for taking their own larger club layouts out to exhibit.  A number of authors on this forum also have indicated that their days of lugging large layouts to exhibit, are drawing to a close.

#  The cost of living crisis seems to be putting a dampener on the usual fees for exhibition entry, and impacts upon attending trader revenues.

For myself, I have attended Warley for over a decade now, but am having second thoughts this year... the £20 entrance fee, £17 car parking, as well as increased travel costs... we are all feeling it, I suspect.

So, a question to exhibition managers and club committees: Is the time of large club exhibition layouts now over?  And as a club that has thrived on exhibiting elsewhere, what type of layouts will you be seeking for your own events in future?

Curved turnouts would be my preference for the next product in this range.

22 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

...Why not start an equivalent thread, with a GWR bias? 

 

I would be comfortable with seeing more Western stuff being posted on WW, as long as it is comparable to the current top quality content.  Same goes for Crimson Lake or Malachite Green stuff too... as long as it doesn’t take over!  

One can only follow so many threads.

An opportunistic purchase of Bachmann Scenic's Great Central Signal Box last weekend has prompted the next stage of the layout build.  

Leicester Central had two signal boxes, one at each end of the station, Leicester Passenger South, and North respectively.  The Bachmann model is based on the Loughborough box, which is fortunately the same size and general style of those at Leicester, but with a few significant differences.  Most notably, the Leicester boxes were built all in timber, unlike the brick-based Loughborough version.  Timber boxes were a lighter weight, so used where a box was located on an embankment or similar location where a brick construction would be too heavy and require a more substantial foundation.  Leicester was one such location, with the station being raised above the surrounding ground level on a brick-arched viaduct.

Other minor variations were in the style of chimney, the covered porch at the top of the stairs, and the staircase itself was aligned differently.  It was normal GC practice to have a landing and right-angled turn part-way down the stairs, this had the benefit of ensuring that entry and exit was parallel to, rather than directly facing the tracks (ie: safer) and it also allowed for a less steep staircase.  At Leicester, however, space constraints dictated a straight staircase.  So then, some modifications required to the standard Bachmann model.

This is the original Leicester Passenger South box:

And this is the standard Bachmann product:

I decided to cover the brickwork over with thin styrene strip to represent the timber construction.  Strip of the right dimensions is currently on order from Eileen's Emporium but in the meantime I have been adding the timber framework using some coarser strip I already had in my spares box.  The staircase will be a fairly straightforward replacement, as will the chimney pot.  The porch, I am tempted to just live with this small difference for now.

The 'Ready to plonk' Bachmann Scenecraft buildings give a very good representation of the original, but the model itself does benefit from some minor improvement.  The woodwork on the  staircase is rather heavy, this will be corrected in its rebuild.  The openings along the bottom of the box, to accommodate the point rodding, are unpainted and benefit from darkening.  I will also touch up some of the paintwork once the cladding is installed.  

Progress to date:

I quite enjoy this kind of 'RTP-bashing'.  It saves a lot of time compared to scratch-building (why re-invent the wheel?) but it still allows me to achieve a decent end product that also has a modicum of individuality.

Hi Neal,

Have you considered the Redutex rubberised blue brick sheets as an alternative product for your signal box?  I've used it to good effect on my own layout and found it easy to work with.  It's not cheap but a single sheet should be sufficient for your Henley box.  There are different bonds available.

A bit more progress over the last couple of weeks, detailing the layout.

The drains and manhole covers from Wizard Models have been painted and installed on the high level road, it was a relatively simple matter of cutting the right shaped hole in the Redutex surface and securing them with a dab of glue:

The growing collection of figures that has been slowly accumulated and painted over the last couple of years (Modelu) have now been added to the station.  I decided to leave one side of the platform almost empty (London bound) but more heavily populate the northbound platform, as if there is an imminent arrival of a well patronised Sheffield/Manchester-bound service.   Benches (York Modelmaking) were assembled, painted and installed, and a slightly simplified ticket inspector's cabin was scratch built (plasticard framework on an acrylic shell) and placed at the top of the staircase.  I'm unsure about the colour scheme, it might have been varnished wood, but the reference photo's are all black-and-white and it fits in well enough.  Wooden gates have also been scratch built, as per the prototype, to funnel passengers past the ticket inspector sat on his stool!

Etched brass safety railings have been measured/bent/painted to suit and installed around the staircase and the ends of the bay platforms, again as per the prototype:

I have also been working on the hydraulic buffer stops for the bay platforms.  The buffers were again designed and resin 3D printed by my son as a birthday gift, so it was another straightforward task to mount them on a plasticard box at the right height for the rolling stock.   Interestingly, they sit a bit higher compared to the platform than the original, perhaps suggesting that my own platforms sit a bit too low...  oh well its too late to change them now!

I have decided to keep the through tracks in situ under the buffers/platforms and station building, so these all now sit on top of the rails.  This will make life a lot easier if I get the opportunity to extend the layout sometime in the future and reconfigure the station to achieve a more prototypical platform length.

Next up: finish off the water towers at the ends of the platforms, install platform signage, lighting and a newspaper stand; and then on with signalling and installing that turntable.  It all will be done dreckly, as they say locally.  

As a builder and operator of both DC and DCC layouts, it is my view that the basic running properties of any locomotive is inherent in the quality of its build, rather than the method of control.  I have found the general advice to get a loco to run smoothly on DC before chipping it to be very sound.

DC’s advantage is in its simplicity, when things go wrong with a locomotive it is generally much easier to diagnose and fix.  Wiring the layout however is usually more complex (check out @Clive Mortimore’s layout thread!) requiring more wiring, but simpler components... mostly switches and relays.

DCC’s advantage is in its flexibility, when used to its full potential.  Being able to programme each individual locomotive’s inertia, for example.  I also like the ‘whistle’ function on sound decoders, which can add an extra dimension of operating realism...  when used according to the rule book, of course!  Wiring up a dcc layout is simpler, but it requires more sophisticated (and therefore more expensive) components.

As others have said regarding sound, the chuffing or Diesel engine noises work best at slow speeds, a good sound programme can produce very satisfying effects when pulling a heavy train away from a standing start, for example.  But once up to constant speed, or if simply left idling, the noise quickly starts to irritate and the F1 button is usually best turned off.

My personal preference is for DCC, but my advice would be to stick with DC, unless you are really interested in using the additional capabilities that DCC can offer.  If you’re just looking for basic control functionality, why pay more for the extra features that you’re not going to use, and then have to work with extra complexity that you don’t need?

6 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I have a Retford-related question, which those who follow this thread may be able to assist with, please.

 

What, if any, iron ore traffic and empties used the GC route through Retford in 1957?

 

I have the Doncaster District freight WTT for 1957 but there is nothing obvious. Iron ore for Frodingham seems to have come from Highdyke but those workings did not go via Retford. The WTT does not identify what the traffic was but the class of working and origin/destination give clues. Most workings to/from Frodingham through Retford were coke and empties from and to Orgreaves. There were also some workings from Brookhouse colliery to Frodingham.

 

There was an 11.02 am Frodingham-Annesley Class J freight which was overtaken at Retford by the New Clee-Banbury fish, and I wondered if this might have been iron ore empties. In addition, there was a 3.00 pm Frodingham-Annesley Class J, which changed to Class H at Retford, which was also overtaken at Retford by another working.

 

Thanks

To the best of my knowledge, the GC traffic to/from Frodingham was mostly Nottinghamshire coal travelling north to the steelworks from Annesley, and in the other direction it was semi-finished steel going through to South Wales.  With the associated empties in the other direction, of course.

Most of the ironstone used in the steelworks was allegedly sourced more locally, however there’s a possibly relevant photo on page 56 of ‘Rabbits and Runners’ by Mike Kinder of the HMRS (ISBN 978-0-902835-28 3) taken in 1964 showing 92092 hauling a rake of loaded iron ore tippers heading north at Braunston, south of Leicester.  The caption describes it as originating from Byfield, and a passing comment also states Charwelton as another source of this traffic up until 18/11/61.

Edit:  The 1953 WTT shows an ironstone train (3138) timetabled from Byfield to Woodford Halse daily in the late afternoon.  Presumably this would then be worked North from there as one of the scheduled ‘runners’?  Whether this ended up either at Frodingham or Retford is unclear, as online references cite GC traffic from Byfield as being very diverse, including to South Wales and Shotton.

Most excellent attention to detail, Trevor!

7 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

Scalelink might have something?

Thanks @Fat Controller ... I have recently sourced some suitable period ones from Wizard models.  Waiting for a rainy day to paint them up, it looks like this weekend might oblige!

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

...

 

What your pictures show are the ripples and 'dents' along the sides of the Mk.4s; reminiscent of Bulleid's original Pacifics? I doubt if anyone would dare attempt to recreate them in model form.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

The RTR manufacturers won’t do this... the limitations of their tooling means that every item would have identical dents, which just wouldn’t look right.

You get the same issue with any mass-production paint job where non-standard embellishment has been added by the manufacturer.  It might look good on the individual model, but is just wrong when a rake is assembled... 

Adding individuality to a model is definitively something best left to the modeller.

41 minutes ago, AdamOrmorod said:

 

I've even found variation between RTR locos of the same class. Back in lockdown 1, out of sheer boredom I tested how many of my coaches (16 at the time I think, a mixture of RTR Gresleys and MK1s) each of my locos could manage around my roundy-roundy. I found one of my Hornby A4s was much more sure-footed than the others, easily managing all 16 while the others either couldn't or slipped a lot. I never got to the bottom of why...

A few years ago I attended one of those silly club nights where we held a 'what will haul the most' contest.  The 'steam' winner was an unmodified 1980's tender drive Flying Scotsman that managed 53 RTR coaches.  It would probably have managed a few more, but there wasn't enough room on the circuit:  the tail end of the train was just 3 inches in advance of 4472's front buffer...

We thought the winner would be a Bachmann 9F, but those traction tyres made all the difference.

Just a quick update to show the completed cobbled roadway and paving on the raised section, now much improved thanks to the Redutex sheets:  

The stuff doesn't come cheap, but I have found it easy to use and to my eye it looks much better than the paper alternatives.  If you take into account the price of new RTR rolling stock these days, it doesn't compare so badly!

Now to find some manhole covers, drains and tone it all down a bit...

4 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi John,

I’d be interested for your opinion on how robust these particular 3D printed items are? Will they survive a knock or are they very brittle as has been reported regarding some model railway items?

Thanks

Frank

I’m not an expert in printing, but have received some 3D printed items that have still been a bit bendy, and other prints of the same subject that have been more rigid and in some cases quite brittle.  It is my understanding that the resin 3D printing technique requires a final ‘cure’ under UV light and it is the duration of exposure that determines the rigidity (and brittleness) of the finished product.

There would seem to be a bit of a learning curve for each item to achieve the optimum duration of cure.

1 hour ago, PMP said:

To my knowledge Peco has never claimed the bullhead range to be universal. Please provide the source to that claim.

Note: I did say prior claim.  Interesting isn’t it, that this has now been dropped.

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Which inevitably leads to a very simple question - why are some having issues while others are not?   It  also seems to me that there can only be a very limited range of reasons why people are having problems - so a very short list of things to check.

 

1. Are Peco's manufacturing standards not being applied consistently?   I would find that odd but it is one of the questions which has to be asked   Or,

2. Is it due to variations in track laying skills and failure to first ensure that the base onto which the track is being laid is level/true and will not move, bend or buckle in subsequent use?   Or,

3. Is it down to the locos and rolling stock being run on track which track which has correctly manufactured and has been correctly laid?

 

It is I suppose also possible that the manner in which a layout has been wired and the way in which feeds etc area arranged might also be a possible problem but that seems unlikely especially if the pointwork is wired 'as supplied'

Like @martin_wynne, I would add variability between comparable items of rolling stock.  

For example, I have multiple Hornby Pacific locomotives, running with flangeless trailing wheels.  When taking the curved road on a unifrog turnout, some never trip out, some do occasionally, and two always do.  

Investigation narrowed this down to two factors:  the locomotive length... on longer ones the rear end hangs out more, making a short more likely.  And secondly there is a variability of the ride height of the flangeless wheels - some ride on the rails, some hang well above, and some marginally so.   Wheels in contact with the rail head, and hanging out further will cause a short.  

Similarly with ‘crabbing’ pony trucks on the L1, the extent of the ‘crabbing’ and prevalence of shorting is variable between examples.  It is also more likely on turnouts where the ‘crabbing’ is already set up, owing to a curve in advance of the turnout.

So the problem in my view does arise more from the stock, than the turnout per se... however it is PECO that has designed these unifrog turnouts and introduced new tolerances that weren’t there before and don’t now accommodate RTR manufacturers (albeit sloppy) current standards.  Which rather contradicts their prior claim to have a ‘universal’ trackage system.

In my case, the practical solution is to modify the turnouts rather than the rolling stock, fixing the problem permanently rather than retaining the potential for future issues with each new or visiting stock.  And once modified, the turnouts do work admirably, every time, and look good.

I think it is clear by now, that some of us have encountered issues with these turnouts, and others haven’t. 

 Fair enough...

10 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Lots of models do seem to be designed to be difficult to get apart. Hornby is usually worse than Bachmann in that respect and it may be because Hornby still has something of a throw-away-toy mentality whereby they think that purchasers will get fed up with things after a while and discard them. 

Models seem to have become more difficult to open up as they have become more detailed and intricate.  The bogie chains on the new Accurascale Deltic are a case in point.  

The number of ‘meddlers’ surely outnumber those among us who actually know what they are doing when lifting the bodyshell off a locomotive.  A difficult-to-remove body probably makes sense when looking at the market as a whole, to discourage the sausage-fingered from poking around where they can do more harm than good.

But there is a downside to all this super-fine detailing: there is a sweet spot for RTR models between intricacy and robustness.  We seem to have passed that sweet spot now: the number of fine detail parts look great in the display cabinet but are very prone to coming adrift and getting lost when the model is actually run on a layout (let alone ‘played with’).  Perhaps this indicates where the manufacturers see their market focus now, collectors who will appreciate the little details that add perceived value to justify the increasing prices.  RTR models are definitely moving beyond practical and robust ‘layout loco’s’ these days.

Regarding split gears, I was very impressed today by one of my local club members who brought in an older Bachmann model where he had 3D printed replacements for split plastic gears.  It ran surprisingly smoothly, if a bit growly:  there is clearly an opportunity there for repairing older loco’s.

On 03/08/2022 at 11:44, Trevor Hammond said:

The other thing that has me intrigued is this locomotive  is carrying Royal Train headlamps.  I  am not aware that it ever worked the Royal Train.

And they are firmly glued on!  It took quite a lot of wiggling with small pliers to get the extra two lamps off, and they left a white residue that needed painting over.  

Not a major issue, but an odd choice by Hornby.

57 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

 

Oh absolutely; but if we put, for instance, a layout in front of readers that did some aspects better than seen on virtually every 'British' layout?

Then yes, of course.  The ‘trick’ will be maintaining that discipline...

Yes but…. Perhaps a very occasional article of something exceptional but please keep the current emphasis of the magazine the same!

As a modeller of both continental and British prototypes, and a former subscriber to Continental Modeller I am surprised to find myself not wanting to change BRM content much.  The problem with Overseas modelling is that it is just so diverse, so anyone with an interest in overseas modelling (eg: in my case, Swiss narrow gauge) will find that 95% of any content will be about other stuff, of only passing interest.  Therefore, anything you publish will have to have generic and broad appeal, and demonstrate an aspect of modelling excellence that is perhaps not seen in the UK but is transferable to UK prototypes.

You will also be aware of the bias against overseas modelling that is inherent among a majority of UK modellers?  When exhibiting a Swiss layout at a UK exhibition, I find that many of the attending modellers move on quickly to the next UK exhibit.  It is more the general public who stop and appreciate a little bit of Switzerland, as something different to everything else on display!

Most excellent, nice to see the layout in action.   And your commitment to the ‘bus on a bridge’ school of modelling is exemplary!

Marketing communications from model shops directly to my e-mail inbox has become the norm these days.  

Whilst a timely notification about new stock arrivals or a weekly update is most welcome, one model shop in particular is now sending me several communications a day and most of these are totally irrelevant to my modelling interests.  This produces so much unwanted 'spam' that I am on the brink of unsubscribing, despite the occasional very useful communication.  

The main problem is that almost every new item taken into stock seems to prompt an announcement that hits my inbox.  And some of them have been simply an announcement... about a forthcoming announcement!   But as a 4mm scale modeller, I have absolutely no interest in announcements relating to other scales, yet they continue to clutter up my inbox daily, and the model shop provides no way of screening them out.

So a plea to all model shops: if you are hitting the e-mail marketing big-time, please can you provide your customers with an option to filter out those irrelevant ones, at least by scale, or you may find that your marketing effort becomes counter-productive!