Wright writes.....

[The Johnster]

What would you rather have, though, a 94xx with a slightly wrong frame profile (but correct wheelbase) or no 94xx? I know where my preference lies...

 

ps - why do people say "Baccy", by the way - what am I missing?

 

Alastair

 

I contend that the answer lies in my post, Alastair; I would prefer a correct Bachmann 94xx if one ever materialises, but will go for a Lima bodied Bachmann 57xx chassis conversion if one is cheaply and readily available and I can see the chassis running.  I keep banging on about the Bachmann (sorry about this but Mr Isherwood has called me to task for referring to Baccy) in the hope that somebody there will take pity on me and put the model into production, a sort of war of attrition which I don't really think I could even convince myself that I am winning, never mind anyone else...

[46256]

My Lima bodied comet chassis 94 xx pannier is one of my favourite locomotives in my collection. I adapted...built it many years ago in homage to a memory from long ago. The memory was as an eleven year old train mad child hearing rumours in our village about a model train layout built in a garden. There was an access driveway which cut across this garden separating it from a garage at the rear. I picked up the courage to walk up this driveway, and was met with the sight of trestle bridges connecting the two parts of this layout. The main part in the garden was a depiction off Hatton on the GW mainline. It was 7 mm stud contact. My surprise was complete when a model 94 xx trundled out of the shed which housed the stock. It had a full train of Lima coal trucks...it traversed the bridge.......went around the garage to reappear the other side over the other bridge across the driveway and back into the main garden and Hatton station. If you have ever read the story of the magic garden...this will give you an idea of the awe and magic I felt then. The owners of this railway the Underwood family turned out to be kindly people who indulged this train mad child. Many years later when my model of our village station was published in BRM I was contacted by the youngest Underwood son, David. He now lives in Vancouver. David and his wife visited our home to see the layout when on a visit to the UK. The 94 xx is therefore very special to me and the Bachmann one might turn out superior in looks but it will never supplant my version.

Edited November 26, 2017 by 46256

[grahame]

I'm not long back from Warley where I saw Tony and had a brief chat - thanks.

 

My purchases didn't include any RTR and were limited to kits and parts (mostly brass buffers) for a wagon project (N/2mm Cemflos) I'm slowly undertaking, and some reading material. I've made the body master and have resin cast a supply of them. The chassis' are adapted Peco ones. They need etched sole-bar strengthening fillets/gussets and a catwalk which I've drawn up. Now I'm trying to find out about arranging the etching. Here's a pic of my prototype model with rather rough test strengthening fillets/gussets cut from plasticard:

 

 

As I 'threatened' when talking to Tony here's a sample of my recent 'modelling' efforts. It's a pair of Parkside kit built N gauge SR Tunny ZCV former 20t sleeper wagons. They're simple plastic kits with no soldering required and only took a couple of evening work. However, I need to source some suitable decals and sort out some weathering. These models aren't up to the standards of other's projects pictured on this thread but they are quite a bit smaller (N/2mm gauge). And most importantly I have made them - not just unpacked them from a box - which was an enjoyable time.     

 

 

G.

Edited November 26, 2017 by grahame

[Blandford1969]

Tony, please can I just express my thanks for your advice on scratch building which is a great help and I now have ideas on how to get round the problems I was having. Your controller weighed a ton and I was glad not to have to carry it back from the Hornby Double O stand.

Duncan

[Tony Teague]

Given the (obvious) restrictions modelling an actual prototype imposes, I still maintain it's by far the best way to go. After all, most of the difficult decisions have been made for you. 

 

Speaking as one of those errant modellers who has chosen not to model a real prototype location, I must say that I agree entirely with what Tony has said.

 

I have been researching the signalling requirements for my Southern Railway 1938 - 1948 layout, and not only do I need to establish where the signals should go, I have to specify what function each should perform, what type of post, bracket or gantry should support each one, how tall each signal post should be and so on.

 

Of course no-one can tell me that I have got the railway fence in the wrong position, but I can't help thinking that an actual prototype location might have been easier...!

 

(By the way, good to see you today at Warley Tony, and all good wishes to Mo for a speedy recovery).

 

Tony

[Northmoor]

Those who model the railway of today only need to go out and look, take measurements and photographs, and go and build a model. Yet, some current depictions I've seen don't make sense, either. Because the builders didn't look?

 

I have commented on more than one thread that layouts based in the present or near present day are frequently quite unlike any part of Network Rail that I've ever seen.  The builders are often fastidious in ensuring that all locomotives are accurate for the supposed location, but almost everything else about the railway and it's surroundings is unrealistic.  Just seeing the words "Small Diesel Maintenance Depot" is usually enough to know the layout will fit into this description.

[St Enodoc]

Here's a bit of non-soldering loco bashing, for those inclined:

 

94xx1.jpg

 

These two 94XXs were "fashioned" about 10 years apart using Lima bodies and Bachmann chassis. In the case of the green one, it's a

split-frame chassis (still giving reliable service) and in the BR black one, one of the more modern variants. In both instances the work is

very similar, mainly involving cutting away some plastic from the Lima moulding to accommodate the chassis, then bodging a fixing

solution. Finally, the body details can be attended to where desired. Looking at pictures on the internet, there must be dozens of

these hybrid 94xxs knocking around.

 

For a long time I kept an eye on second hand stalls and was able to gather several of the newer pannier chassis for various projects,

sometimes paying as little as thirty pounds for a complete pannier, albeit in tatty condition. With a second-hand (albeit damaged) Lima

94xx costing twenty pounds when I bought it, the total project needn't cost much more than fifty pounds, assuming one has scrap plastic,

brass wire and so on in stock. In the case of the black one, I had to rebuild one of the cabside steps which was missing, but again, nothing

that can't be done with a few bits of plastic and some quiet modelling work. The total modelling time for the black one, so far, was three

evenings of about an hour each. If you can accept some detail discrepancies below the footplate, it's a quick and easy to get a purposeful

engine that isn't (yet) available to a modern standard in RTR.

 

 

Alastair

Here's another:

 

 

See also:

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/pro94xx.html

[Clive Mortimore]

I have commented on more than one thread that layouts based in the present or near present day are frequently quite unlike any part of Network Rail that I've ever seen.  The builders are often fastidious in ensuring that all locomotives are accurate for the supposed location, but almost everything else about the railway and it's surroundings is unrealistic.  Just seeing the words "Small Diesel Maintenance Depot" is usually enough to know the layout will fit into this description.

I feel a wee bit offended by your comment. When I built my depot layouts I spent a long time researching how a depot worked, what a typical track plan was like, the correct buildings for the region I modelled. Even things like the number of staff and amount of fuel a depot of similar size would use in a week. 

 

From the article on Hanging Hill in BRM Jan and Feb 2008 is an example of my research and how I applied it.

 

Most locos entering a MPD did so for a reason, even if it was for refuelling. If a loco were coming in for servicing or examination it would be refuelled prior to anything else. Some locos coming in for unscheduled repair would be shunted into a siding while awaiting a repair berth. There would be a few locos just coming on shed for stabling normally these would be shunters and locos working ECS trains. On a model it is a fairly safe bet to run most locos on to the fuelling point on entering the shed.

 

From the Modern Railways 1967 article the amount of work done by Toton for a 4-week period was 1410 locos fuelled. A total of 748 were serviced and repaired, comprising of 260 A exams, 194 B exams, 82 C exams, 40 D exams and 17 E exams. This leaves 155 locos, which were repaired without being scheduled for servicing. The article goes on list a total of 353 repairs and modifications being done to locos but does not state how many locos had more than one repair, nor the number of faults found on examination. To fuel a loco would take sometime. The fuel pumps at Tinsley delivered fuel at 50 gallons per minute, a class 47 had a tank capacity of 850 gallons. Fuelling was normally done at the same time as the A exam, along with other servicing, including restoring the levels water, sand and oil. 

 

This was a sample taken in the 1960s but I am sure this pattern has not changed very much since then. Using these figures as a basis I built into my operating plan a means of representing these functions thus giving the shed a reason for being built. Two out of five locomotives entering the shed would be serviced; depending on the level of service the shed provides will determine how this is portrayed. Like many Eastern Region depots there is not a separate servicing shed so the A and B exams would take place on the fuel point. As there are maintenance facilities then some of the roads would be for the higher-level exams and others for repair. This is represented by more frequent exchanges of locos on two roads of the shed than the others. Every twentieth loco would have a C exam, every fortieth a D exam, and every hundredth an E exam. Every tenth loco would be an unscheduled repair and of the locos in for examination one quarter would be found to need a repair. (The maths does not work out on the repairs as some locos may have more than one item to fix). Repairs are sub divided into light and heavy and shed roads are be allocated for heavy and light repairs.

 

Apart form model locos failing for real (which never happens) how does a modeller decide which engines are due for exams, repairs etc and what level? One method would be to have a card for each loco coming on shed, using the above this would mean 100 cards, divided as follows 58 refuel only, 3 refuel needing light repair (unscheduled), 1 refuel needing heavy repair (unscheduled), 27 A/B exam, 3 A/B exam needing light repair, 6 C exam, 2 D exam, 1 D exam needing heavy repair, 1 E exam, 1 light repair not being refuelled, 1 heavy repair not being refuelled. Add to this a few stabling only cards, for shunters, locos on trip workings and ECS. Shuffle the set of cards and as each loco enters the shed turn over the top card to reveal what action you as Depot Manger/ Foreman have to take in respect to berthing the loco.

 

To me a set of over 100 cards was too unwieldy therefore for my own depot I use a pack of ordinary playing cards (see track plan). Red cards are for locos going off shed and black for those entering it. On entry the loco halts outside the shunters hut, he directs the loco to its fuel point or siding. If the card is a 2 ♠ then it is a shunting loco coming on for stabling purposes only, 2 ♣ a shunter, type 1 or type 2 on trip or ECS working for stabling only, these bypass the fuel point. 3, 4, 5 or 6 are servicing only and go to the fuel lines, 7 is for double headed locos for servicing, 8 or 9 is for an A/B exam at the fuel point. 10 and a picture card are for a loco requiring going into covered accommodation for exam or repair. A King is for the far road representing the heavy repair or E exam area. As I can never remember which locos are due to go into the shed for exam etc I always move the lead loco on the fuel point into the building or the stabling loops.  When moving locos on to the stabling loops I refer back to the last black card, a spade means the loco will be stabled on number 1 or number 3 loop, a club for 2 and 4 loops. This portrays the shed foreman preparing the locos for there next duties. Red cards are for locos going off shed, a diamond from roads 1 or 3 and a heart 2 and 4. One road out of the pair is filling up with locos and the other is emptying. A red 2 releases a loco from the dead end sidings by the staff block, I have found this necessary or these locos never get moved. Picture cards not only release a loco from one of the storage loops but a loco from the shed, again Kings are for the far road. Engines that are released from the shed building  normally berthed in the storage sidings before leaving the shed, except if a jack is turned over then they depart directly from the shed. Aces and jokers are for fuel train, stores, and BTU etc movements.

 

Depots perform a very essential role, and we as modellers to tend to forget that the locomen also needed servicing, so they need some form of accommodation as well. Larger depots would have a canteen for the staff that worked at the depot as well.  I worked out form the table below how many staff would be at Hanging Hill, how many on duty and out of those how many at the shed at lunch time, by chance the thirty seats in the canteen works out right.

 

[Tony Wright]

Many thanks for all the recent comments on the thread, about all sorts of things.

 

I haven't read the Iain Rice piece, so cannot comment personally. Iain and I have worked together in the past, and we do have differing views on many aspects of railway modelling. That said, he has been one of the most influential writers over many years in the hobby. For that, the hobby should be grateful. 

 

With regard to Little Bytham and the possibility of it ever being built in P4 (as opposed to OO or EM), it would never be in my case for three principal reasons. These are: 1. I don't have enough space. 2. I don't have enough time. 3. I don't have enough skill. Speaking of the group members who've built it (with the greatest of respect), only Norman Solomon would have the skill-level required to build the track. The space is as much as I can manage, and the time? Is running out! 

 

Another thing I'd say (and I've probably mentioned this before), though they might exist somewhere, I have never seen a P4 depiction of a Class 1 main line in steam days, in the flesh. By that, I mean the ECML, the WCML, the SR main line to Exeter or the WR main line to the West, among others. I've photographed Preston (which is very impressive), and, though it's supposed to eventually represent the BR steam era (or maybe the LMS steam era), at the time I took the pictures, it was running almost exclusively re-wheeled RTR diesel and electric-outline locos. 

 

May I please thank all those with whom I spoke at the Warley Show? May I also apologise to all those I never had a chance to chat with? What gratified me the most were the six or seven guys who said that until I'd demonstrated soldering techniques for them (exactly when, all got jumbled up!), they'd considered it way beyond them. And yet, just a year later, there was a video of a loco built by the chap, working beautifully and all soldered together! Great stuff. I did a bit of soldering, including making an N Gauge bogie. 

 

May I also thank those who said how much they've liked my three most-recent books (despite the odd blooper)?

 

I had time this morning to take a few pictures of the 'mystery' layout, Shap, built by Graham Nicholas and friends. If ever a layout depicts its setting perfectly, this is one. There's still much to be done (and lamps to add to most of the locos!), but it proved immensely popular over the weekend. 

 

 

I hope Graham will forgive me for processing this picture among the first. You see, I built the loco (which Ian Rathbone painted) specifically for this layout, representative as it is of 1967. 

 

 

This couldn't possibly be anywhere else or any other time, could it? 

 

More comments tomorrow. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Tony, please can I just express my thanks for your advice on scratch building which is a great help and I now have ideas on how to get round the problems I was having. Your controller weighed a ton and I was glad not to have to carry it back from the Hornby Double O stand.

Duncan

My pleasure, Duncan.

 

And thank you for taking that weighty Hornby-Dublo 'Marshall' controller over to the Hornby chaps. One of them came over to thank me, saying they'd just had one give up. Great (not the one giving up), and that old controller will be put to good use. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Jesse Sim]

Morning Tony, 

 

How was Warley?

 

Did you miss me this year? 

 

Jesse

[Tony Wright]

It is not the track gauge that causes the problems. It is the closer adherence to scale adopted in the individual dimensions. I don't think Ian was saying it could not be made to work as well in P4 as in 00 but that the area required and the time needed are so much greater. A factor in the order of 2-3 in respect of area and who can guess at the amount of time needed to build it. Not to mention the extra time needed to keep things running almost perfectly. P4 has been demonstrated to work but it does impose certain disciplines that most individuals will find very difficult to adhere to.

Bernard

Thanks Bernard,

 

To reiterate, I haven't seen Iain Rice's piece, but I can guess at the 'message' of it. 

 

It must be more 'difficult' to create a Class 1 main line depiction in P4 than it is in OO or EM. Otherwise, why aren't there as many of them as there are in the cruder gauges? Someone once stated that it's a sort of mindset, where those interested in modelling in the finest gauge aren't interested in, say, building an A1 and 14 heavy cars to go behind it, then watch it fizz by at near the ton. I am. The 'production line' this autumn so far has included (with help, of course, though not with everything) the completion of two A1s, an A2, an A4, an A7, a 9F and a Gresley triplet catering set. Another A2/2 has just been started and there are three more Gresley carriages to complete and make the interiors for. I don't mention these to boast - far from it, they're definitely 'layout items', to paraphrase a Rice saying - but to illustrate that in the same couple of months how many of these items might I have built if I were a P4 modeller, assuming I had the skills?

 

Iain once called me a Luddite (I rejoice in the epithet, by the way). He has definitely advocated the 'finescale' approach through his various writings/builds, but, unless I've missed something, he's only ever built 'cameo' layouts/scenes, running minute items of locos and rolling stock. I know he once scratch-built DUKE OF GLOUCESTER (for the Duke of Gloucester?), but he didn't build anything big enough for it to run on. 

 

This thread seems to be cyclic, with the 'popular' themes (disagreements?) popping up regularly, including P4. The discussions have been done to death one might say, but, as in most things, each to their own. The building of an exquisite, tiny branch termini, depicting a time long, long ago, might be just what some wish to create, in P4. My qualification to that might be, it must work perfectly. Though perfect running is high on my list of priorities, building such a layout would never appeal to me. Though it might 'only' be in OO, LB allows me the use of my time machine to go back 60 years and underline those 'cops'. In EM it might have been possible for me, but definitely not in P4. 

 

I should also add that I have no time for vast OO systems (often built by clubs?) which have no sense of place, no sense of time and show the amazing ability to buy something, open its box and stick it on the track!

 

Finally, at a recent show, two (different-style, but similar sized, end-to-end) layouts were back-to-back, one in OO the other in P4. Neither one was a model of an actual prototype. One was a perfect example of exceptional running, proper operation and a brilliant advert for its standards. The other was not. It might surprise you which one it was.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Morning Tony, 

 

How was Warley?

 

Did you miss me this year? 

 

Jesse

Warley was wonderful, Jesse, and you were missed.

 

As I've mentioned in another post, I had a lovely time chatting to so many folk. I hardly had chance to look around, but the 'specialist' end of the trade seems to be getting smaller each year. Still, I was able to buy the wheels I wanted. At another (big) show recently, nobody was selling wheels, gearboxes, motors, chimneys, domes, etc....................... Just mainly stuff in boxes ready done. 

[Tony Wright]

Having looked at the master scan, the Gresley stock on the right is in crimson and cream and the Thompson FK on the left is in mock teak. I believe some Thompson stock was still in that livery when maroon was introduced.

Robert,

 

There can't have been much main line passenger stock in 'teak' as late as 1956/'57 (when maroon appeared). I'd place the date of the shot as 1951/'52, with the Mk.1 just about brand new. The Thompson to the left would appear to still have its number on the LH end, hence my guess at the date. 

 

Good to talk (and laugh!) with you yesterday. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Lecorbusier]

Thanks Bernard,

 

To reiterate, I haven't seen Iain Rice's piece, but I can guess at the 'message' of it. 

 

It must be more 'difficult' to create a Class 1 main line depiction in P4 than it is in OO or EM. Otherwise, why aren't there as many of them as there are in the cruder gauges? Someone once stated that it's a sort of mindset, where those interested in modelling in the finest gauge aren't interested in, say, building an A1 and 14 heavy cars to go behind it, then watch it fizz by at near the ton. I am. The 'production line' this autumn so far has included (with help, of course, though not with everything) the completion of two A1s, an A2, an A4, an A7, a 9F and a Gresley triplet catering set. Another A2/2 has just been started and there are three more Gresley carriages to complete and make the interiors for. I don't mention these to boast - far from it, they're definitely 'layout items', to paraphrase a Rice saying - but to illustrate that in the same couple of months how many of these items might I have built if I were a P4 modeller, assuming I had the skills?

 

Iain once called me a Luddite (I rejoice in the epithet, by the way). He has definitely advocated the 'finescale' approach through his various writings/builds, but, unless I've missed something, he's only ever built 'cameo' layouts/scenes, running minute items of locos and rolling stock. I know he once scratch-built DUKE OF GLOUCESTER (for the Duke of Gloucester?), but he didn't build anything big enough for it to run on. 

 

This thread seems to be cyclic, with the 'popular' themes (disagreements?) popping up regularly, including P4. The discussions have been done to death one might say, but, as in most things, each to their own. The building of an exquisite, tiny branch termini, depicting a time long, long ago, might be just what some wish to create, in P4. My qualification to that might be, it must work perfectly. Though perfect running is high on my list of priorities, building such a layout would never appeal to me. Though it might 'only' be in OO, LB allows me the use of my time machine to go back 60 years and underline those 'cops'. In EM it might have been possible for me, but definitely not in P4. 

 

I should also add that I have no time for vast OO systems (often built by clubs?) which have no sense of place, no sense of time and show the amazing ability to buy something, open its box and stick it on the track!

 

Finally, at a recent show, two (different-style, but similar sized, end-to-end) layouts were back-to-back, one in OO the other in P4. Neither one was a model of an actual prototype. One was a perfect example of exceptional running, proper operation and a brilliant advert for its standards. The other was not. It might surprise you which one it was.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

Find attached ... I thought it was pretty complimentary which was why I posted about it. I had no intent to open up any old debates .... I suspect perhaps a little naive !

Iain Rice letter-Little Bytham.pdf

Edited November 27, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Clive Mortimore]

Reading Tony's recent post about it must be more difficult to make a class 1 mainline layout in P4 etc. I would like to express my views on all layouts and their building. Anyone can make a bad running poor layout be it a boring diesel depot, a GWR branch line where hands from high are needed to keep it running or real location on the WCML in what feels like your on the lineside on a strike day. I know that is a fact because I am guilty of such a misdemeanor.  Over the past week I have been lucky in witnessing some really well operated and good running layouts. Three that sick out are Tony's own Little Bytham, t'other Tony's Leyton Buzzard and the Barrowmore gang's Mostyn. All very different, all different gauges the only common thing is they 4mm scale but that is irrelevant. All are modelled to a high standard and discipline be it group or personal. 

 

To stop that diesel depot being boring, to make that GWR branch line run smoothly and to get that buzz a continuous flow of trains to and from Euston we as modellers need to have that core discipline in our approach to the layout. Something which many of us can lack, me included. A good working layout is one people like to watch and it has nothing to do with scale, gauge or form of traction, it is the fact it works. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by Clive Mortimore

[davefrk]

Thanks Bernard,

 

To reiterate, I haven't seen Iain Rice's piece, but I can guess at the 'message' of it. 

 

It must be more 'difficult' to create a Class 1 main line depiction in P4 than it is in OO or EM. Otherwise, why aren't there as many of them as there are in the cruder gauges? Someone once stated that it's a sort of mindset, where those interested in modelling in the finest gauge aren't interested in, say, building an A1 and 14 heavy cars to go behind it, then watch it fizz by at near the ton. I am. The 'production line' this autumn so far has included (with help, of course, though not with everything) the completion of two A1s, an A2, an A4, an A7, a 9F and a Gresley triplet catering set. Another A2/2 has just been started and there are three more Gresley carriages to complete and make the interiors for. I don't mention these to boast - far from it, they're definitely 'layout items', to paraphrase a Rice saying - but to illustrate that in the same couple of months how many of these items might I have built if I were a P4 modeller, assuming I had the skills?

 

Iain once called me a Luddite (I rejoice in the epithet, by the way). He has definitely advocated the 'finescale' approach through his various writings/builds, but, unless I've missed something, he's only ever built 'cameo' layouts/scenes, running minute items of locos and rolling stock. I know he once scratch-built DUKE OF GLOUCESTER (for the Duke of Gloucester?), but he didn't build anything big enough for it to run on. 

 

This thread seems to be cyclic, with the 'popular' themes (disagreements?) popping up regularly, including P4. The discussions have been done to death one might say, but, as in most things, each to their own. The building of an exquisite, tiny branch termini, depicting a time long, long ago, might be just what some wish to create, in P4. My qualification to that might be, it must work perfectly. Though perfect running is high on my list of priorities, building such a layout would never appeal to me. Though it might 'only' be in OO, LB allows me the use of my time machine to go back 60 years and underline those 'cops'. In EM it might have been possible for me, but definitely not in P4. 

 

I should also add that I have no time for vast OO systems (often built by clubs?) which have no sense of place, no sense of time and show the amazing ability to buy something, open its box and stick it on the track!

 

Finally, at a recent show, two (different-style, but similar sized, end-to-end) layouts were back-to-back, one in OO the other in P4. Neither one was a model of an actual prototype. One was a perfect example of exceptional running, proper operation and a brilliant advert for its standards. The other was not. It might surprise you which one it was.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hi Tony, I agree with your sentiments regarding building in the different gauges. I have worked with friends in all 4mm gauges, locos, wagons and pointwork and I think everyone would agree that OO may be the easiest and quickest with EM next and then P4, I think P4 is a sort of mind set to 'get things right' as I've met a few P4 workers who have said to me 'wish I'd gone EM, looks very similar, things get done quicker, and it works. Yes some P4 layouts can and do work very well but so do some OO and EM layouts. Like you I build stuff to run well in a layout context, things mustn't fall off every five minutes even when playing running 10 coach or 40 wagon trains in reverse, which I regularly get slagged off for doing.

When working on my layout I like to have something running even if it's just 40 minerals and a 4F trundling round though it does sometimes get in the way when ballasting.

 

If working in a 'lesser' gauge and trying to get things running as perfectly as I can is being Luddish then call me a Luddite too. I overheard Mr Rice talking me down behind my back for working in EM at a finescale show in the 90s. People were commenting on the smooth stable running of my Brit, Black 5 and Standard 5 on my EM shunting test track yet to see a certain well photographed P4 Buckjumper jumping about with the coupling rods going like chevrons at each revolution did not impress me or others at the time. 

Sorry but I steer clear of people who look down on others who work in the 'lesser' gauges.

 

Dave Franks.

[LNER4479]

I had time this morning to take a few pictures of the 'mystery' layout, Shap, built by Graham Nicholas and friends. If ever a layout depicts its setting perfectly, this is one. There's still much to be done (and lamps to add to most of the locos!), but it proved immensely popular over the weekend. 

 

Shap 09.jpg

 

I hope Graham will forgive me for processing this picture among the first. You see, I built the loco (which Ian Rathbone painted) specifically for this layout, representative as it is of 1967. 

 

Shap 11.jpg

 

This couldn't possibly be anywhere else or any other time, could it? 

 

More comments tomorrow. 

Morning Tony,

 

Just landed back home safely with the layout which is no longer a mystery. Thanks for early sight of the results of yesterday morning's line-siding session and thanks for your own contribution to 'Project '67'. I shall be starting a layout thread later on today so that those who are interested can hear the full story.

 

Graham

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

Find attached ... I thought it was pretty complimentary which was why I posted about it. I had no intent to open up any old debates .... I suspect perhaps a little naive !

Iain Rice letter-Little Bytham.pdf

Thanks Tim,

 

It is most interesting. 

 

I like Iain's point about my 'dig' at P4, but he's not told the whole story. My question about a P2 being seen on a P4 layout, running at high speed with a heavy load was in response to my being asked the question of why I used 'steam roller' wheels. And, if he reads this, he'll know that my minimum radius on the main running lines is 3', not less.

[The Johnster]

Here's another:

 

20160110 003 8412 at Porthmellyn Road.JPG

 

See also:

 

http://www.gwr.org.uk/pro94xx.html

 

 

Many thanks for this link, St Ed, a more or less complete instruction sheet for the Baccy chassis conversion, including a workaround that addresses my objection to the incorrect frame profile.  I may go down this route yet, given that B are do not seem to be particularly keen on actually producing their own 94xx.  I can always buy another one if this model ever actually does get to the shops, but after nearly 2 years there is no sign of any progress and I feel like giving up on it!

[John Isherwood]

Many thanks for this link, St Ed, a more or less complete instruction sheet for the Baccy chassis conversion, including a workaround that addresses my objection to the incorrect frame profile.  I may go down this route yet, given that B are do not seem to be particularly keen on actually producing their own 94xx.  I can always buy another one if this model ever actually does get to the shops, but after nearly 2 years there is no sign of any progress and I feel like giving up on it!

 

Two years - is that all? On that basis it's only just been announced !!

 

Lead times are WAYYYYY more than that, nowadays.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

Morning Tony,

 

Just landed back home safely with the layout which is no longer a mystery. Thanks for early sight of the results of yesterday morning's line-siding session and thanks for your own contribution to 'Project '67'. I shall be starting a layout thread later on today so that those who are interested can hear the full story.

 

Graham

Glad you got back safely Graham,

 

Just a couple more shots from yesterday (the footbridge did take ages to cut-out). I won't post any more, though when you get your disc, put them on the new thread if you wish. Not too many, though - remember it's going in RM. 

 

 

 

I think you've captured Shap perfectly, especially given the amazing lead time from cutting wood to Warley - 18 months? 

 

Let's hope in time those rather 'iffy' RTR carriages (Lima? Airfix?) are consigned to where they belong - underneath the tables of second-hand stands. I have lots of Mk.1 stock you can use with pleasure, and some LMS types in maroon. 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

 in response to my being asked the question of why I used 'steam roller' wheels. 

 

I remember that comment .... and thinking that it was either 'a bit of friendly joshing and banter' by a close friend, or just downright rude - particularly given the context.

 

I do find myself getting bemused and somewhat tired of all the angst on the 00 vrs EM vrs P4 subject - track is only one part of a much greater whole. People are entitled to model what they want and should be judged by the criteria they set themselves. I don't mind high level criticism so long as its constructive if a model is being held up as an exemplar, but this more often is not the case. People put there work out there for the enjoyment of others (often with a great deal of trepidation), and normally they have put their heart and soul into it, so they are both vulnerable and sensitive. 

 

I see so much to admire and emulate not just across the spectrum of my chosen 4mm scale, but also within the other scales, and will continue to cherry pick and copy whatever impresses me - and continue to be thankful for the generosity of the majority of people I come in to contact with. As far as I am concerned life is too short to pay any attention to the few abrasive and insensitive types who set hares running unnecessarily.

[Barry Ten]

Looks like the Shap chaps have played a blinder. I wish I'd been there to see it!

[LNER4479]

Looks like the Shap chaps have played a blinder. I wish I'd been there to see it!

Thanks.

 

A poor substitute, I know but these two pieces of video that have been uploaded today might at least give you a flavour of being there. I'll post these on the new layout thread coming shortly but thought I'd post them here as they feature two of 'Sir's locos (one of them twice!). And before someone else comments, the telegraph poles are an example of many aspects of the layout that were rather last minute and will be subject to further refinement. A fantastic amount of midnight oil was spent producing them and they were planted loose (for now), literally 5 minutes before the show opened!!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSKTnzL_QNA Layout features from 13:23

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuI6g-YpBew&app=desktop Layout features from 7:15

 

Do, of course, take in the wonderful variety of other cracking exhibits that were there, as featured on the videos.