Regularity

...and then, of course, there is the little matter of my user name...

Despite living in the middle of nowhere, Salcey Forest would have been the nearest station to where my parents live, by a few yards, just pipping Piddington to the post.It’s the kind of place where if a sheep farts, locals talk about it for weeks. Usually until the next time...

Well worth a visit: https://dominionandnewengland.wordpress.com

Sorry: just my (warped) sense of humour.

The layout is typical of Trevor. He originally built a B class 4-4-0T to run on East Lynn, with a couple of Midland 6 wheelers which he had picked up as partially assembled (I.e. soldered together) Trevor Charlton etched zinc bodies, to which he added a 4 wheel M&GN full brake. As East Lynn expanded, the original branch which was GER with Joint line running powers became M&GN, and he built the 2-4-0, plus a few wagons and the brake van, plus some genuine coaches. Due to tempus fugit, taking out the layout was getting to be hard work, so he decided to build a small layout, promoted in large part by the availability of a large sheet of plywood which had been used for packaging. (Of a radiator for his son’s business, if I recall.) He decided it would be M&GN exclusively, and has researched the joint a bit more, built more wagons and lately a Hudswell, Clarke 0-6-0ST. As with his Thames barge, he started out with little or no knowledge of the prototype, and has produced better models in shorter time most of the people “dedicated” to the subject. (Gordon Gravett, who knows a thing or two about model boats, was absolutely stunned by the barge.) Nearly everything is scratchbuilt, of course, but there is nothing particularly complicated about any of it. The buildings generally have a foam board carcass, windows are thin ply and/or paper. Brickwork is scribed cartridge paper of a reasonable weight, with the bricks individually painted. Carr stone is a very thin layer of DAS stuck to the shell with a smear of PVA - the depth of the clay matches the scribed paper quoins. The knapped flint is nothing more than a mix of PVA, plaster and paint applied with the end of a few different pieces of rod, ground off at various angles to create oval shapes. Wagon bodies are thin ply, with 5 thou copper shim (embossed from behind) for ironwork and coach bodies are again thin ply, with panelling built up in layers of 1/64” (about 15 thou) ply, sanded thinner where necessary or paper, using thinned PVA as an adhesive. Trevor doesn’t like styrene! As with using limonene with styrene, you have to put weight on things whilst the glue dries, between a couple of shaped formers for the tumble home. Wagon and coach underframes use wood or metal sections as appropriate, with etched axlguards and various castings for the more solid bits. This all takes time, of course, but it is possible to make quite rapid progress by being methodical. For example, you only need one positive and one negative for the tumblehome “clamp”. You cut out the basic window openings, allowing for glazing in the inner layers, on three pieces of ply per side, then glue them together in correct alignment and place them between the formers under a little weight - a decent hardback book is enough - and leave it to dry and harden overnight. You do the next side the rolling day, etc, and within a week you have sides for 3 coaches, and if the ends are flat, you can assemble the basic bodies and the start to add details. The formers need only be a couple of bits of ¼” balsa sanded to shape: all of a few minutes’ work, plus a coat or two of polyurethane varnish to seal them. It is possible to use card instead of the plywood. Nothing fancy, nothing expensive. Nothing rushed, but rapid progress. Incidentally I did once build a Slater’s P.O. wagon kit, but I was surprised by the lack of interior detail, so added that, and one or two other items didn’t fit well, and needed attention. I reckon it saved me maybe 2-3 hours over doing it by hand, which is maybe an evening of modelling. Not worth it, in my book, although had it been pre-painted an pre-lettered, it might have been a different bathtub of babies.

Tsch, tsch. M. Barnier, fewer not less, and metre not meter (unless you are American.)

Yes, it is: Trowland.

You named one horse “PVA” and the other “Pins”?

Having seen photos of Ropley, but not having paid much attention to the captions (shame on me!) I was astonished to see that is N gauge. The finesse of the detail is incredible.

Ah. So best to simply ignore anything he says, other than factually verifiable, then?One wonders why such behaviour is tolerated. I never understood the fuss about that: makes perfect sense to me.A wise person is aware of limitations on their knowledge, including the fact that not only do they not know everything, but that there are still opportunities to be taken completely by surprise.

And your point is...?

According to Larry, anything other than building models is “collecting”. I can only assume that he collects track. But then again, he appears to have deleted the post I was responding to but hadn’t quoted. Rather a poor show, that.

Well, you can always build your own, Larry: that’s what modellers do.

It isn’t a Barry slip. It is two opposing turnouts very close together, but the points of the turnouts are not “inside” each other, i.e. if you take the turnout route, you do not traverse the crossing vee of the other turnout. Really enjoyable weekend, though, and it was good to catch up with many friends, too. Edit: here is a photo of the Barry slip on Surrey Arms: I don’t have a photo to hand of the arrangement on Trowland, but you can see the one I designed and built on the S gauge layout which became Llanfair on this page: http://www.s-scale.org.uk/gallery11.htm Edit: looking at the other photos on that page, it was taken after John had rebuilt the track. Trowland’s trackplan is a mirror image of the original part of Llanfair, although there was no conscious copying. There are simply only so many ways to arrange five turnouts in a restricted space!

Any of it used in building your baseboards?

Given the power source, this seems to be a clear-cut case of assault and battery.

It’s not a rival thread. It was a response to a request in a closed thread. But otherwise, thanks for underlining my point. Now please take your unhelpful agenda somewhere else.

Stop messing about...

As I have said, I have no interest, vested or otherwise, in any of Peco’s products and am unlikely to use them: this is nothing to do with quality, just that they produce very little (other than maybe static grass) that I can use. The facts were buried in the locked thread, but before that happened, some stated that they had not seen the review in RM. I spent my own time pulling out the facts from the review, which as Paul said were in the other thread, for no reason other than to clarify the facts and put them into one place, at the start of the thread. Whilst not in the same league as well-made, tailored to fit hand built track made by an experienced expert, these turnouts represent a significant step forward for 4mm scale railway modelling, and Peco deserve praise, encouragement and above all praise for this development. When I made the OP, I dropped Andy a PM, saying that if he wanted to lock it before any arguments started, I didn’t mind. I can’t speak for him, but I am already wishing that he had. To repeat: I didn’t say anything that hadn’t be said before, just brought it all clearly together and summarised what was a review of the product. I personally understand the decisions Peco made (e.g. crossing angle and unifrog) and wish to congratulate them on moving the hobby forward. If people want their track to be “more accurate” then there is nothing to stop them either building it themselves, or paying someone else to do it for them (which is just a posher form of buying RTR), other than simply giving it a try, or maybe buying fewer items of RTR rolling stock. If people could stop waving their Rodgers about, and bringing their own agendas to the thread, I would much appreciate it. I probably won’t bother to be helpful again.

To return to quoting Carry On films...“What a strange way to punch my ticket!”

With reference to your earlier comments about platform widths, when I look at those photos I reckon you’ve got the proportions just right. Any wider and the platforms would look a touch short, and any narrower would reduce the impression of an important station which has to deal with peak loadings and lots of luggage. Nice one.

In the spirit of Carry On Up The Khyber*:Then you’re a braver man than I, Bungi Tin. * I suspect that with respect to the subject in hand, Corporal Jones might have a suitable phrase here...

As I said, I have not posted a review. I also refrained from repeating anything which might be speculative (about the models or the prototype) or remarking on such comments: I have some reservations about the factual basis for some - no sources are quoted, for example - but what I have reported is factually correct as there is no way that the production run will be different from those features, as these are effectively the design parameters. What we await is an independent review of the finished items purchased at random from a model shop, with proper testing under the conditions for which it is designed. Other than seeing this as yet another step towards greater authenticity in the hobby, which I welcome, I have absolutely zero interest in the product, but have used that plus accumulated knowledge of permanent way as a way of providing some dispassionate independence.

It was, it was just a bit too complicated for you.Oi, you two! Take! It! Outside!

It is what it is: a significant development for British outline 00 modellers who do not wish to build their own track, coming from a world-class British company. I posted the précis because in the locked thread, there had been requests for factual information and not everyone reads the Railway Modeller. Hopefully, no fights will break out this time.