009 micro modeller

This is an interesting project, in terms of representing a very early form of railway: https://www.1722waggonway.co.uk There are some railways that do this (either with commentary or interpretation panels inside coaches in some cases), but admittedly the kind of interpretation seen in a typical museum is rarer on heritage railways. In some cases it might be that it is easier to do in the more controlled environment of a static museum. Those two examples are interesting because there are preserved canal boats and horse-drawn vehicles, but they are usually more of a private hobby (a bit like classic cars) - possibly a consequence of the canal and road network being publicly open in a way that railways aren’t?

In some cases, and admittedly I’m thinking more of archaeology here, new research actually does prove old perspectives to be invalid by showing that previous understandings of a topic were incomplete. Not sure this entirely applies to the National Trust examples though as the information was in some cases always available but has been ignored by people who are not interested in it, or (more insidiously) who would prefer that others do not dwell on certain aspects of history. What is it a threat to exactly? Particularly in the National Trust context I mentioned above. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that museum professionals and academic historians are not aware of the issues around this and the possible limitations of such an approach, when in a lot of cases they are. Look up the term ‘authorised heritage discourse’ for more on this (the point being perhaps that people seem to feel threatened because their partial view of history and the people and stories it centres on are no longer quite as ‘authorised’ or ‘official’ as they once were). As for ‘fundamentally misunderstanding historiography’ that’s what people are doing when they make outraged claims about the supposed ‘rewriting of history’ as if that’s not what’s been going on for years: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n23/richard-j.-evans/short-cuts It’s not particularly controversial (indeed, in the case of Rocket - the original one - for example, I think it would be hugely controversial if someone now suggested restoring it to working order). It’s perhaps a bit unfair to just describe it as ‘playing’ though. I wasn’t making any sweeping speculation about motives in general, merely observing that in the specific case of the Restore Trust it fits in well with the motivations that already seem to be there. I’ve explained above how it’s different from what heritage railways do (so not ‘implicating’ anyone) but there’s another important difference which is that the restored rooms in most National Trust houses are now not used (just looked at in a lot of cases), while the point of a heritage railway station is generally to recreate the experience of travelling by rail in the past (though sometimes only approximately given other constraints), which entails restoration to an appropriate condition (or complete reconstruction, if the original buildings were demolished). When I visited Chinnor station I thought it was superb, and it looks almost exactly like it does in old photos - but it’s not the original building, which was demolished during the line’s freight only period. The replica building is vastly better than the available alternatives of inauthentic or none at all. There’s even a parallel with experimental archaeology in the construction of replica buildings and operation of a railway, so it’s not necessarily something that ‘academics tend to take a dim view of’.

Were there any the other way round there (with a standard gauge loco hauling narrow gauge wagons)?

That all sounds very interesting. Potentially my layout plan works well if I have the standard gauge loco banned from the traverser (or unable to fit properly), and an overhead electric NG loco on the other side, only able to run on electrified lines (and I do have such a loco for my current, ongoing project). I’m wondering how plausible the traverser set up would be and why it would be like this (rather than just having one steam or diesel NG loco to shunt everything, as well as going on the traverser itself, for instance). It’s a very long way off actually getting built (if it ever gets built) but still a potentially interesting idea…

Was there a particular reason with that one that it was used in preference to a narrow gauge loco to shunt NG wagons? Would a non-electric standard gauge loco have been able to work them though?

The link doesn’t seem to be working although I know the locos you mean. I think they’d be hard to do as a model that could work on both gauges though and not quite what I’m looking for in this instance.

Yes, that’s the NI one I knew about. Didn’t realise it worked like that, as for some reason I assumed it was more often a narrow gauge loco shunting the broad gauge wagons, but obviously it would make sense if it worked both ways. I’m sure there was an example in Great Britain though, possibly East Anglia or East Midlands in a factory somewhere. The combination of transporters and dual gauge shunting sounds interesting, especially as my current project involves transporter wagons. The layout plan I’ve vaguely sketched out (but not actually tested yet to see how the moves would work) is a sort of inversion of a 3-2-2 Inglenook shunting puzzle, in which wagons (but not locos, unlike the normal Inglenook) move on an on-scene traverser between two positions, one of which has a siding at only one end of the traverser, while the other (in another departure from normal Inglenook practice) has a track leading off each end. I’m still working out the implications of this latter element as it potentially allows the loco on that side to run round the wagons, which may not be desirable. However, for it to plausibly work it seems important to have a reason why the two sides are separate and why each loco must keep to its own side, and part of that is the dual gauge element.

Either would work for me (it might end up with a converter wagon anyway). Though I’d probably use Tillig track which is common rail.

Hello everyone, Finally had some time off work today and yesterday, and although I already have a fairly complicated micro layout project on the go and an exhibition (with a couple of my other micro layouts) to prepare for in mid-April, I’ve also been idly sketching a possible dual gauge micro layout idea, to refer to again at some point in the future (it hopefully might be able to use some stock from the layout I’m currently building, or a previous one). It involves a standard gauge loco shunting narrow gauge wagons; this is something I’m sure I’ve seen a picture of somewhere (and it was a UK industrial prototype as well), but can’t remember where or what the reason for it was. I’ve definitely seen a photo somewhere of a loco with two sets of buffers at different heights, but have a feeling that the lower set may have been for specialist wagons with low buffers (possibly in a steelworks or similar) rather than of a different gauge. I could do it the other way round and have an SG loco shunting NG wagons, which was more common (a few Irish/Northern Irish examples and one or two in Great Britain as well I think) but still quite rare, but would prefer it to be NG wagons with an SG loco as the SG wagons take up more space (there would be an NG loco elsewhere on the layout as well). Ideally I’d prefer British industrial prototype examples but as it’s only a vague idea at the moment I’m open to anything really.

The GVT did have a canal interchange and it’s in the right area. To me that seems more likely than the Snailbeach (I can’t remember if that linked to any canals).

Agreed, there just doesn’t seem to be as much of a range. To get back on topic, in 1:120 Z equipment could be used to represent 2’ 6” gauge.

To be fair though, Z has always been expensive, still mainly Marklin and you pay for the miniaturisation. T gauge for instance is even smaller but seems generally to be cheaper than Z.

Apologies, I should never have mentioned Old Dalby (at least I think it was me that mentioned it)… If we’re now talking about an event where people can watch and photograph the train then that might be easier to arrange, but will it have the same appeal if they can’t actually ride it?

Actually it might be that. I didn’t check. But would it really add that much on? Edit: the interesting point is that I’d probably expect that from Hornby in 00, but I thought with TT they are generally going for a lower price point. It was an A3 if that makes any difference. I’m too committed to 009 projects at the moment but am still tempted to have a go in TT at some stage.

I saw a Hornby TT loco today at Ally Pally with a price label over £200. This seems a lot higher than what they were selling them for directly so is it just the dealer’s mark-up (or even a mislabelling)?

This seems a bit disingenuous - some objects (locos in this case) are a more valuable historical record in their conserved, static form than if they were restored to working order (but some are better off restored - it’s not one size fits all). As an extreme example, the original Rocket is considered, apparently completely uncontroversially, to be too fragile and too significant to restore to working order, but there are replicas so it doesn’t need to be. Meanwhile, at Statfold Barn I could see both original and new-build quarry Hunslets running, which is great, but also upstairs in the roundhouse building are some that are static and conserved, still pretty much in the condition they left the quarry; the latter are also fascinating as they’re effectively a time capsule. It is good that we are able to experience both. I’m not sure the comparison with zoos and stuffed animals really applies here. Of course we should have a variety of different backgrounds and skills in museums, and I lament the amount of credentialism in the sector, but why wouldn’t academia be relevant? It’s a way of doing research into museum subjects and is especially needed in museums that are often visited by researchers or higher education groups. Also it seems to be increasingly the case that people working in museums have to have a degree or two and work their way up (rather than just one or the other, as in some other sectors), which, while not always a good thing, does mean that people have plenty of practical experience as well. I’ve enjoyed exploring the remains of Dinorwic over the years - probably explains my interest in both narrow gauge railways, and heritage more generally. Isn’t this just your personal view of what you find interesting? Besides which, if it relates to studying history at school I’m not sure how relevant it is to museums. Again though, a bit of a narrow view of what ‘educational’ can mean. And museum education is different from school anyway - the whole point is exactly as you say, to bring it to life and actually see real artefacts and places rather than just reading a rather dry paragraph about them in a textbook (one of my favourite things I’ve done while working in museums is running object handling sessions). It reminds me of that piece of “research” (picked up as a newspaper article) from a few years ago showing that ‘museum visits do not improve GCSE results’, as if that was the main point (though it’s possible they may have been more focused on individual visits, rather than school trips). There was a response to it. And play-based learning is starting to become a thing in museums, which looks very different from what is typically thought of as ‘education’. The objects involved will probably have a conservation plan, will need to completely avoid being damaged, and won’t necessarily have been moved for ages. It’s a bit different from moving gravel. And I get the impression that it’s hyped up a little in those kinds of videos to try and make it entertaining for more people. But based on the training that I’ve done around moving, handling and repacking handling objects (which are separate from the ‘proper’ collection anyway, and where there is an acceptance that they might get damaged during the session), I can imagine that similar considerations would lead to a fairly complex process for moving large objects. They are ‘living museums’, a different way of making a museum with both advantages and disadvantages compared to more “conventional” museums. I think there’s room for both. Another one that I like is the Chiltern Open Air Museum. I don’t think museums are really in a position to particularly influence the National Curriculum (though there is obviously a need to link to it to provide something that works for visiting school groups). But in the primary curriculum at least, some parts are quite broadly defined and some schools have actually chosen the specific topics studied to allow them to use what is available in local museums. The STEM focus at the NRM comes partly from it being a Science Museum Group site; it might be good to retain a bit of social history as well.

That’s what I thought - surely it wouldn’t be allowed if the stock used is only normally approved for operation at much lower speeds? Regardless of the speed the locos were originally designed for I thought the more relevant aspect would be the current maintenance/inspection regime? To clarify, do you pay to use the overhead wires/conductor rails at Old Dalby, thus making electric traction more expensive, or are we just assuming that a steam or diesel operation would generate more interest from potential visitors and therefore more income?

On social media (it’s the Narrow Gauge Enthusiasts Group on Facebook but not sure I can post screenshots here as they’re not my photos) some photos have appeared showing a new display area/demonstration line being constructed a short distance away from the old stables, replacing the previous one in the courtyard (and looking like it will be similar, i.e. a set of sidings for shunting demonstrations rather than a single, longer line). It’s potentially a bit concerning that it’s less sheltered, although to be fair I’d imagine the stuff displayed outside will mainly be the wagons that were previously outside in the courtyard anyway (others have said similar in comments on the post mentioned). I can’t quite work out the logistics of how visitors move around and experience the display as a whole, given the distance to the stables where Charles will presumably stay (unless they’re constructing a new display building for it as well - but that seems a bit unlikely). The Ruston diesel seems to still be on site - was this ever stored under cover?

That’s what I found when I went there a few years ago (and also that the journey fare at that time to Whitby was disproportionately more expensive than Pickering to Grosmont - perhaps understandable though given the costs associated with running on NR to Whitby). Do they (or their subsidiary) own Snowdon Mountain Railway these days? I generally agree with that. I think a lot of lines may have lost sight of this in a way. If there are other things to do along the way, or on return to the main site (museums, miniature railways adjacent to the big one, walking routes accessible by train, play areas for children and so on) then people probably will stay on site for 4 to 5 hours (as they already do at other museums and tourist attractions), but it works a lot better (especially for families) because the day is broken up into different activities rather than essentially being on the train for the whole time. That said, I thought two of the reasons to extend to Whitby were to give the NYMR better access to the Whitby tourist market, and to provide a way for people from the area around York to get to Whitby more easily, thus also tapping into that market (which would also explain the very busy and very early departures from Pickering on some days). Also I like a trip on the Moors partly due to the scenery, which I think works in its favour (I suspect I’m not the only one, and the similarly long and scenic Welsh Highland also benefits from this).

That sounds interesting (and on the subject of wild tangents, I feel like that ship has probably already sailed on this thread). There’s probably a school of thought that says you should have different rooms restored to represent different periods,* but I tend to think it’s not worth removing the original material that doesn’t fit in with the chosen period to get that, and that it’s more interesting to see the different layers of history. *Obvious comparison with heritage railways that have different stations restored to represent different periods. The difference there though is that it’s operational rather than completely conserved, and in many cases they started with not much left and had to rebuild the stations from the ground up, so could furnish and paint them however they liked.

Are we sure that the Ruston diesel doesn’t have any links to Penrhyn? I know Dinorwic used a few diesels on their quarry lines in the last few years of operation (possibly after closure of the Padarn line actually, but that had its own older Hardy petrol loco) but wasn’t sure about their competitors over in Bethesda. I’ve always thought the demonstration line at the castle would make a good subject for a micro layout, as it’s literally a shunting puzzle in 1:1 scale, in a castle. I must admit though that I haven’t actually seen it operating and it seems an oddly cramped setting for it (though presumably they can’t have a demonstration line outside the castle walls even if they wanted to, as I think the parkland itself is listed). Some of the ex-Penrhyn wagons in the courtyard may be better off inside and under cover anyway - perhaps they will be as part of the new display? It would be a shame though to lose the shunting demonstration line, but on the other hand I don’t know how much use it gets currently. I’m mainly interested in the diesel loco as it seems to have been missed from most of the discussion on where the locos are moving to etc. Presumably the demonstration line is around 2’ gauge and not the unusual 1’ 10 3/4” originally used by Dinorwic and Penrhyn?

Perhaps not, though really, nothing truly is. The point though is that there’s a reactionary section of the media, and perhaps the public, who seem to get unreasonably outraged at any museum interpretation or historical narrative that isn’t mindlessly celebratory, nationalistic, and a bit simplistic. This sort of discourse is ripe to be co-opted for more overtly political ends by certain politicians and public figures, sometimes threatening the editorial independence of heritage organisations and, arguably, the principle of ‘arm’s length’ organisations. Indeed, and I don’t think there is either. The issue I have with some of the more hysterical attempts at “journalism” on this subject is that they don’t seem to want to actually engage in any debate on said definition, or understand why such a debate might exist. I get a similar impression from reading some of the articles opposing the reinterpretation of country houses, research into colonial links and so on - when you get to the root of it, some of this opposition just seems to be rejecting any kind of new research that complicates or challenges previous narratives, even on subjects that aren’t seen as very controversial. Historians have always ‘rewritten history’ in some way or other, and to be honest I find it quite sad that anyone who claims to care about a historic site would not wish to see it researched, explored and written about from the widest range of possible angles. Clandon Park is possibly relevant here (but bear with me) - the National Trust wanted to conserve it in its damaged state, preserving what was left of the original material and showing the underlying construction of the house. The Restore Trust wanted to try and restore it as far as possible to its condition before the fire. Perhaps not one of their more headline-grabbing or topical moments (unlike their opposition to the Colonial Countryside project, for instance), and not an especially unreasonable position to take (Uppark was restored, after all), but for me the symbolism of the Restore Trust’s take on this is interesting. Not wanting to show how (or by whom?) the country house was constructed, papering over the history and making it look nice, and prioritising giving visitors what they’ve come to expect over the conservation of the remaining original material - only in a more literal sense than usual.

Where did I say the research wasn’t relevant today? The point being made is clearly about (usually right-wing) tabloid “journalists” who don’t really seem to understand the purpose of museums, or how academic historical research works.

Having already bought the Bachmann Wickham trolley I am tempted to go with standard gauge 00 (or possibly H0, though I suspect for the purposes of this sort of thing the distinction won’t be hugely relevant, and it’s wrong for the Wickham). In 00 especially it can sort of sit half way between 3’ 6” and standard gauge, which actually works quite well (I’ve seen a UK tram layout that uses 00 in the same way). S is an interesting idea and would make 16.5mm accurate for 3’ 6” gauge, but require a lot of rebuilding of the Wickham body. While they’re not visible in the modern pictures and video I’ve seen, I did think an abandoned example of one of the American-style bogie box cars used for the original banana traffic might also make a good scenic break (with a few trees as well, as you say, and in the apparent absence of any suitably tall buildings). I’m sure I can find a suitably cheap and knackered vehicle to start off with (either Triang Transcontinental or something from a US manufacturer). When (if?) my current 009 project is ever finished and I have the time of course…

How much of this is there, and did it used to be a larger network? In some ways it’s odd that it’s run by NS as elsewhere in Europe there are similar isolated cross-border railways run by the country that the line starts in (I think I’ve seen some on a map on the borders of France, Germany and Luxembourg).