Wright writes.....

[micklner]

Heljan O2/3

 

Secondhand buy which needed Valve gear repairing twice before it would work , a very poor design bordering on bizarre , with crazy amount of sideplay on the front drivers reduced , this was the reason for valve gear damage.

Various bits missing fell off whilst repairing, glued back on after some difficulty. Gibson B1 Chimney fitted, various mould seams rubbed down,Repainted, numbered and weathered.

 

Now fixed, at the moment she runs very well, time will tell for how long it will survive ( I have my doubts). Never pick these up anywhere the valve gear,you will pop the rivets out as soon as they are under the slightest pressure. Removing the body etc is a nightmare, be warned.

 

 

 

 

Re Humbrol problems discussed recently. This a old Slaters kit painted this week, dried without any problem , using a new tin of UK made paint. Matted with Testors Dullcote.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by micklner

[APOLLO]

My apologies if this has been posted here before, this is an interesting video showing use of buckeyes on an A4 & coaches at Kings Cross. How can you model the "atmosphere" of this wonderful place ?

 

 

Incidentally I use quite a few Kadee buckeye couplings, I couldn't really use anything else on an American layout. I occasionally have a problem with stock uncoupling whilst on the move. Investigation showed it is usually a combination of bad track (vertically) and oversprung heavy stock bouncing vertically, thus the couplings just lift apart (knuckle does not open). Track adjustments / weight reduction sorted most of it out. This only happens with Kadees, Weaver and Atlas couplings seem immune. Still this is part of the fun of Yank model railroading !!

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

Just to clear up one or two points, if I may, regarding Wickwar winning the Chairman's Cup at the Southampton Show last weekend. There appeared to be 'surprise' from one quarter as to it winning. 

 

There were several other layouts in the running, but only Wickwar was on every judge's list. The judges, by the way, were Dave Smith (ex of Cove Models), Philip Hall (a regular MRJ contributor and photographer), Mike Russell (ex of Crownline and DMR, and a professional builder) and me. 

 

Having organised competitions/judging and been a regular judge myself at shows, I think it's taken as read that any panel will be experienced, impartial and have expertise in the hobby. I also don't believe that judges need explain their choices - the attributes just listed see to that. However, I can only speak for myself and I chose Wickwar because..........

 

It's prototype-based and is very near scale. The tracks do not disappear on/off stage via ridiculously tight curves at the ends (not just common in N Gauge). All the signals (semaphores) work (uncommon in N Gauge, though not exclusively). It ran perfectly during the period(s) I observed it (until the pot was presented, then a train divided!). The overall standard of modelling was consistent (good), with a real homogeneous 'feel' to the whole presentation. Just about all the structures were scratch-built (out of necessity) and were the product of extensive research. 

 

Granted, with a few exceptions most of the stock was RTR-based, but most of it had been altered/improved/weathered. Though not all, several of the locos did display lamps (some of which were illuminated). 

 

 

 

 

I rest my case, if I may. Since it'll be appearing in BRM later this year, I'll post no more photos. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Enterprisingwestern]

The judges, by the way, were Dave Smith (ex of Cove Models), Philip Hall (a regular MRJ contributor and photographer), Mike Russell (ex of Crownline and DMR, and a professional builder) and me.

 

So a "modern image" layout isn't going to get a look in then?

What happened to a balanced panel of judges?

 

Mike.

[Bernard Lamb]

So a "modern image" layout isn't going to get a look in then?

What happened to a balanced panel of judges?

 

Mike.

 

Seeing how it would look without any locomotives visible then I don't think that the age and/or interest of the judges has any bearing on the decision.

Bernard

[Tony Teague]

So a "modern image" layout isn't going to get a look in then?

What happened to a balanced panel of judges?

 

Mike.

So are you suggesting that a modern image layout could not achieve Tony's criteria?

"prototype-based and is very near scale. The tracks do not disappear on/off stage via ridiculously tight curves at the ends (not just common in N Gauge). All the signals (semaphores) work (uncommon in N Gauge, though not exclusively). It ran perfectly during the period(s) I observed it (until the pot was presented, then a train divided!). The overall standard of modelling was consistent (good), with a real homogeneous 'feel' to the whole presentation. Just about all the structures were scratch-built (out of necessity) and were the product of extensive research."

 

Tony

[71000]

 

 

Thanks for your comprehensive post, though it leaves me slightly puzzled.

 

I'm fully aware of the two separate systems adopted (despite your assumption that I need to understand them - I do); the buckeye type by the LNER/SR/Pullman/BR and the screw-link by the LMS/GWR, but why is that you think what I've done is superfluous on at least two levels?

 

It's so long ago when I explained my system, but I find the Bachmann coupling you've illustrated pretty hopeless, particularly at the front of a (very) heavy train in being pulled and, particularly, in the same heavy train when being propelled. Because it doesn't pull/push off the headstocks (as the real things do) but via a sort of extending collar, it causes derailments in my experience (and I don't have particularly tight curves). It's inclined to 'snatch' under/over load, resulting in the bogies jumping. On all-Bachmann lightweight cars, no doubt it's fine but, having used it, at least in part (to save time), if any of the other cars in, say, a 13-car rake are heavy kit-built ones it's not suitable at all. Not only that, what a fag in coupling 10/11/12/13/14-car rakes together with it. 

 

I think you've also made the assumption that most of my corridor stock is RTR in origin (and, thus, equipped with NEM pockets). Granted, over 90% of the Mk.1 stock is, but there are well over a hundred kit-built Gresley/Thompson cars running on LB, as well as numerous Pullman cars which are adaptations using MJT cast bogies; none of which has proprietary bogies/couplings. 

 

I'm not saying that my coupling system is excellent but it works for me. It's 100% reliable (though it can only be employed in fixed rakes), cheap and easy to make and under a pair of gangways reasonably realistic. As alluded to, because it pulls/pushes off the headstocks, it gives a stable ride, doesn't cause derailments and is far more durable than bits of plastic. Hardly superfluous? 

 

Finally, if I may, please?

 

Though I concede the close-coupling you've achieved is very realistic, why leave the grossly over-scale roof ribs on the Bachmann cars? If anything is superfluous, it's those and they greatly diminish realism in my view. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

Quote "I'm fully aware of the two separate systems adopted (despite your assumption that I need to understand them - I do); the buckeye type by the LNER/SR/Pullman/BR and the screw-link by the LMS/GWR, but why is that you think what I've done is superfluous on at least two levels?" Unquote.

 

Because I'm not sure that you are aware of the interaction between the two coupling types, and their two unique Gangway systems. As each coupling is dependant on the design of the gangway connection when such are required, for basic safety reasons. Which have implications on the model. 

 

Quote "I think you've also made the assumption that most of my corridor stock is RTR in origin (and, thus, equipped with NEM pockets). Granted, over 90% of the Mk.1 stock is, but there are well over a hundred kit-built Gresley/Thompson cars running on LB, as well as numerous Pullman cars which are adaptations using MJT cast bogies; none of which has proprietary bogies/couplings." Unquote.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you run on your layout, but I will add that I wouldn't dream of using MJT cast bogies. They seriously increase drag, which has serious implications for British outline steam models. Which I'm sad to say, are well known on the International scene as gutless. And was one reason why I didn't model British outline for over 40 years. I went into German modelling back in the 1980's and became the Editor for the German Railway Society. Having produced the first German exhibition layout in Britain using British construction techniques. Its first exhibition was at the then National show in London. It included handbuilt track and signalling that worked exactly as per the German norm. A fact that rapidly increased membership to almost 2000.

 

I then moved to the more techniquely advanced Japanese ranges. Which 30 years ago were more technically advanced than anything yet made for the British market. For example Japanese 1:80 scale steam locos, reversing gear, actually moved to the forward or the reverse position, whenever you changed the direction on your controller. So I started the Japanese Railway Society and became their Editor. Having used the same formula, of building an exhibition layout, with handbuilt track, and fully functional and correctly operating Japanese signalling. And like its German predecessor got the layout straight into the next National show, again in London at that time. Which of course generated around 1500 members in about two years for my new Society. So yes I have been around the block.

 

Further its probably worth pointing out that I am also an ex BR driver, on all forms of traction. And I've also driven trains all over the world, including the island of Fiji in the Pacific. More relevant here is that I'm curently playing with Spanish Broadgauge. Inbetween building the Museum I work with, a large British outline layout to help increase the attractions here. So obviously I am quite familiar with the intracacies of couplings and their interactions with gangway connections on corridor type stock. 

 

Which brings us back to the case in point. I am not trying to criticise your modelling skills which appear to be well advanced. What I'm trying to point out is that adding cartridge paper type "Concertina" connections between the correctly sized Pullman connections provided on the model. Makes the gap between vehicles overscale and therefore unrealistic.

 

Quote "It's so long ago when I explained my system, but I find the Bachmann coupling you've illustrated pretty hopeless, particularly at the front of a (very) heavy train in being pulled and, particularly, in the same heavy train when being propelled. Because it doesn't pull/push off the headstocks (as the real things do) but via a sort of extending collar, it causes derailments in my experience (and I don't have particularly tight curves). It's inclined to 'snatch' under/over load, resulting in the bogies jumping. On all-Bachmann lightweight cars, no doubt it's fine but, having used it, at least in part (to save time), if any of the other cars in, say, a 13-car rake are heavy kit-built ones it's not suitable at all. Not only that, what a fag in coupling 10/11/12/13/14-car rakes together with it." 

 

Your problems relating to the Bachmann "brake hose" coupling are understood. I also note that as a result you have avoided using the NEM pockets because they are mounted on a "Flexi-coupling" shafts. Which is where the real problem lies, as this item becomes flexible vertically under heavy load.

However if you have over 350 loco hauled coaches as I do for a large exhibition layout. I am always looking for simpler and quicker solutions to problems.

 

The reason I don't have problems with the Bachmann brake hose coupling, are numerous. Firstly I set the minimum radii for the layout at 5ft, as I am aware of the Laws of Physics. Which in this scenario states that: The power required from a locomotive increases by the square root, with every degree of curvature. (A serious problem for British outline steam models).  Also going below real life scale minimums, is going to afflict many models in many irritating ways. Particulalry with increased derailmants. So I also handbuild all visible pointwork, and alter all the facing point blades on all the Fiddle Yard large radius Peco points, I have used. As they have known issues.

 

Finally the problem of the Bachmann coaches themselves and their brake hose coupling can be quickly cured by a drop of superglue placed on the inside angle just inboard of the NEM pocket, which increases this weak angles strength. This stops the NEM pocket from bending upwards or downwards under haulage or propelling loads. This saves a lot of time, and allows me to just clip in the Bachmann brake hose coupling.

 

As to the nasty ribs on Bachmann Mk1's. I'll agree they look just a tad to prominent. Curing them realisitcally also requires new roof vents. But the time required for that remedy, as I have over a 100 Mk1's, will have to wait until after the layout is up and running.   

 

As you also mentioned the problems of coupling and uncoupling long trains of coaches coupled with the "Brake hose" coupling. Again I don't have a problem there either. All my stock runs in SR "Sets". My Inter-regional formations do likelwise. So only "Loose" vehicles and the ends of sets have Kadee Buckeye couplings. Allowing hands free invisible uncoupling. As the layout will be on virtual permanent display. I'll probably only need to uncouple vehicles within "Sets"/Formations" for maintenance purposes. 

 

Its a shame the British manufacturers never attended the NEM conference in Europe 30 odd years ago. Or they could have put their "twopennyworth" into the technology that came out of that conference. Indeed the NEM system for modelling standards is still something the British seem only vaguely aware of. NEM was intended to improve sales for all manufacturing particpants by its standardisation principles, which extend to a lot more than coupling pockets !

 

I would also add that as I have an increasing number of kit and scratch built coaches, I faced the same problem that you refer too. In that heavier coaches increase the number of problems. One of the worst offending items are the metal bogies, brass axle bearings and axles usually provided by different manufacturers. Which of course increases the interface friction problems. I simply don't use them as a result. All my Kit and scratch built stock

run on RTR bogies, which means that although they tend to be heavier (by not very much actually). They run freely like RTR stock, which is just as well as my layout "Basingstoke" has long (25ft odd) 1 in 100 gradients.

 

So good luck with your layout. Possibly some of what I have explained may reduce the problems you face.......

 

Best regards

 

The Duke 71000 

Edited January 30, 2018 by 71000

[St Enodoc]

I occasionally have a problem with stock uncoupling whilst on the move. Investigation showed it is usually a combination of bad track (vertically) and oversprung heavy stock bouncing vertically, thus the couplings just lift apart (knuckle does not open).

I have observed this as well on one or two layouts over here where the baseboards have gone out of line vertically due to age.

[71000]

My apologies if this has been posted here before, this is an interesting video showing use of buckeyes on an A4 & coaches 

Brit15

Apollo

 

Interesting. Note the A4 loco seen backing down, has the Buckeye in the lowered position and someone has thrown a "Screwlink" over the coupling hook. The implication of that is that the loco had previously been coupled possibly to another loco to come down from "Top shed" in multiple. That "Screwlink" would have had to be removed by the "shunter" (person not an engine) before the loco approached the coaches. The LNER were the only railway that applied "Buckeyes" to the corridor tenders of the relevant locos.

 

However as Bulleid was Gresley's number two, and responsible for LNER coaching stock, fitted with Buckeyes and Pullman corridor connections (these items in Britain have to go together). I'm surprised Bulleid didn't add Buckeye's to his Southern Pacifics, as he seemed to love anything a bit mechanically unusual. SR Pacifics if fitted would also have required the "Pullman rubbing bar" to work in conjunction with the Buckeye (as seen on BR Class 33/1 and class 73's), but I'm sure that would have only added to Bulleids interest.

 

71000        

[New Haven Neil]

' Having produced the first German exhibition layout in Britain using British construction techniques'

 

Nothing we didn't do in South Shields club in the early 70's.  Really, such a sweeping statement I couldn't let pass.  Poor show.

[APOLLO]

I have observed this as well on one or two layouts over here where the baseboards have gone out of line vertically due to age.

 

Here is some prototype fast running on bad track. USA of course (!!!). Watch from 1min 24 sec to 2 min 20sec,  listen to the comments of an old railroader, (and pray for the photographer !!). Hair raising stuff.

 

 

I don't run my trains so fast, and they don''t bounce so much. Still, when I have trouble it's just like the prototype !!.

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

So a "modern image" layout isn't going to get a look in then?

What happened to a balanced panel of judges?

 

Mike.

Mike,

 

How do you know a 'modern image' layout didn't get a look in? 

 

Looking back, there were three non-steam systems, out of a total of 23 layouts. 

 

It might interest you to know that Banbury (which is exceptional in my opinion), also in N Gauge, with the period modelled this century, was on my list, but it wasn't on all the lists. Are you suggesting the other judges were prejudiced against anything 'modern'? If so, I think that's out of order. 

 

Without being argumentative, Mike, why not offer your services as a judge at forthcoming shows. You never know, that might then make a 'balanced panel of judges'. All you have to do is to inform the organisers of your credentials, and away you go. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jamie92208]

I have observed this as well on one or two layouts over here where the baseboards have gone out of line vertically due to age.

When the class 59'2's were introduced by National Power they tried using buckeye's on both the locos and wagons and exactly the same happened in colliery sidings. With the very poor track and the vertical movement of the hoppers as they were loaded with coal they had several examples of the couplers sliding out of each other vertically between the loco and the first hopper. I believe that they reverted to buffers and screwlinks for the loco to train coupling after that. Thus they had to have wagons with buffers at the end of each set but used buckeyes between wagons in each set.

 

Jamie

Edited January 30, 2018 by jamie92208

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

Quote "I'm fully aware of the two separate systems adopted (despite your assumption that I need to understand them - I do); the buckeye type by the LNER/SR/Pullman/BR and the screw-link by the LMS/GWR, but why is that you think what I've done is superfluous on at least two levels?" Unquote.

 

Because I'm not sure that you are aware of the interaction between the two coupling types, and their two unique Gangway systems. As each coupling is dependant on the design of the gangway connection when such are required, for basic safety reasons. Which have implications on the model. 

 

Quote "I think you've also made the assumption that most of my corridor stock is RTR in origin (and, thus, equipped with NEM pockets). Granted, over 90% of the Mk.1 stock is, but there are well over a hundred kit-built Gresley/Thompson cars running on LB, as well as numerous Pullman cars which are adaptations using MJT cast bogies; none of which has proprietary bogies/couplings." Unquote.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you run on your layout, but I will add that I wouldn't dream of using MJT cast bogies. They seriously increase drag, which has serious implications for British outline steam models. Which I'm sad to say, are well known on the International scene as gutless. And was one reason why I didn't model British outline for over 40 years. I went into German modelling back in the 1980's and became the Editor for the German Railway Society. Having produced the first German exhibition layout in Britain using British construction techniques. Its first exhibition was at the then National show in London. It included handbuilt track and signalling that worked exactly as per the German norm. A fact that rapidly increased membership to almost 2000.

 

I then moved to the more techniquely advanced Japanese ranges. Which 30 years ago were more technically advanced than anything yet made for the British market. For example Japanese 1:80 scale steam locos, reversing gear, actually moved to the forward or the reverse position, whenever you changed the direction on your controller. So I started the Japanese Railway Society and became their Editor. Having used the same formula, of building an exhibition layout, with handbuilt track, and fully functional and correctly operating Japanese signalling. And like its German predecessor got the layout straight into the next National show, again in London at that time. Which of course generated around 1500 members in about two years for my new Society. So yes I have been around the block.

 

Further its probably worth pointing out that I am also an ex BR driver, on all forms of traction. And I've also driven trains all over the world, including the island of Fiji in the Pacific. More relevant here is that I'm curently playing with Spanish Broadgauge. Inbetween building the Museum I work with, a large British outline layout to help increase the attractions here. So obviously I am quite familiar with the intracacies of couplings and their interactions with gangway connections on corridor type stock. 

 

Which brings us back to the case in point. I am not trying to criticise your modelling skills which appear to be well advanced. What I'm trying to point out is that adding cartridge paper type "Concertina" connections between the correctly sized Pullman connections provided on the model. Makes the gap between vehicles overscale and therefore unrealistic.

 

Quote "It's so long ago when I explained my system, but I find the Bachmann coupling you've illustrated pretty hopeless, particularly at the front of a (very) heavy train in being pulled and, particularly, in the same heavy train when being propelled. Because it doesn't pull/push off the headstocks (as the real things do) but via a sort of extending collar, it causes derailments in my experience (and I don't have particularly tight curves). It's inclined to 'snatch' under/over load, resulting in the bogies jumping. On all-Bachmann lightweight cars, no doubt it's fine but, having used it, at least in part (to save time), if any of the other cars in, say, a 13-car rake are heavy kit-built ones it's not suitable at all. Not only that, what a fag in coupling 10/11/12/13/14-car rakes together with it." 

 

Your problems relating to the Bachmann "brake hose" coupling are understood. I also note that as a result you have avoided using the NEM pockets because they are mounted on a "Flexi-coupling" shafts. Which is where the real problem lies, as this item becomes flexible vertically under heavy load.

However if you have over 350 loco hauled coaches as I do for a large exhibition layout. I am always looking for simpler and quicker solutions to problems.

 

The reason I don't have problems with the Bachmann brake hose coupling, are numerous. Firstly I set the minimum radii for the layout at 5ft, as I am aware of the Laws of Physics. Which in this scenario states that: The power required from a locomotive increases by the square root, with every degree of curvature. (A serious problem for British outline steam models).  Also going below real life scale minimums, is going to afflict many models in many irritating ways. Particulalry with increased derailmants. So I also handbuild all visible pointwork, and alter all the facing point blades on all the Fiddle Yard large radius Peco points, I have used. As they have known issues.

 

Finally the problem of the Bachmann coaches themselves and their brake hose coupling can be quickly cured by a drop of superglue placed on the inside angle just inboard of the NEM pocket, which increases this weak angles strength. This stops the NEM pocket from bending upwards or downwards under haulage or propelling loads. This saves a lot of time, and allows me to just clip in the Bachmann brake hose coupling.

 

As to the nasty ribs on Bachmann Mk1's. I'll agree they look just a tad to prominent. Curing them realisitcally also requires new roof vents. But the time required for that remedy, as I have over a 100 Mk1's, will have to wait until after the layout is up and running.   

 

As you also mentioned the problems of coupling and uncoupling long trains of coaches coupled with the "Brake hose" coupling. Again I don't have a problem there either. All my stock runs in SR "Sets". My Inter-regional formations do likelwise. So only "Loose" vehicles and the ends of sets have Kadee Buckeye couplings. Allowing hands free invisible uncoupling. As the layout will be on virtual permanent display. I'll probably only need to uncouple vehicles within "Sets"/Formations" for maintenance purposes. 

 

Its a shame the British manufacturers never attended the NEM conference in Europe 30 odd years ago. Or they could have put their "twopennyworth" into the technology that came out of that conference. Indeed the NEM system for modelling standards is still something the British seem only vaguely aware of. NEM was intended to improve sales for all manufacturing particpants by its standardisation principles, which extend to a lot more than coupling pockets !

 

I would also add that as I have an increasing number of kit and scratch built coaches, I faced the same problem that you refer too. In that heavier coaches increase the number of problems. One of the worst offending items are the metal bogies, brass axle bearings and axles usually provided by different manufacturers. Which of course increases the interface friction problems. I simply don't use them as a result. All my Kit and scratch built stock

run on RTR bogies, which means that although they tend to be heavier (by not very much actually). They run freely like RTR stock, which is just as well as my layout "Basingstoke" has long (25ft odd) 1 in 100 gradients.

 

So good luck with your layout. Possibly some of what I have explained may reduce the problems you face.......

 

Best regards

 

The Duke 71000 

Many thanks,

 

I'll be very brief if I may?

 

I don't really use RTR locos (I build my own), so problems of haulage capacity don't arise.

 

I've actually changed many of my RTR bogies and replaced them with cast-metal alternatives for two reasons. One, the bogie bearings don't wear and, two, it gets the centre of gravity on cars as low as possible, which aids stable running. I've had RTR plastic bogies with metal axles where the vertical wear over time has been so great as to have the flanges touch the floor pan.  

 

I've taken off all the roof ribs on over 90 Bachmann carriages and never had to change a ventilator, cowl or periscope - please see below. 

 

 

Leaving them on is far more obtrusive than a slightly wider gap between cars in my opinion. 

 

I (luckily) don't have any (many) problems to face. LB's baseboards are excellent (not my work), the track is well-made and well-laid (partly my work), the wiring is sound (substantially my work), almost all the locos have been made (mainly my work), as has a great deal of the rolling stock (mainly my work, at least with regard to the passenger stock). 

 

As I say, I know what works for me and if what you use works for you, then I'm delighted.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[John Isherwood]

Tony,

 

Quote "I'm fully aware of the two separate systems adopted (despite your assumption that I need to understand them - I do); the buckeye type by the LNER/SR/Pullman/BR and the screw-link by the LMS/GWR, but why is that you think what I've done is superfluous on at least two levels?" Unquote.

 

Because I'm not sure that you are aware of the interaction between the two coupling types, and their two unique Gangway systems. As each coupling is dependant on the design of the gangway connection when such are required, for basic safety reasons. Which have implications on the model. 

 

Quote "I think you've also made the assumption that most of my corridor stock is RTR in origin (and, thus, equipped with NEM pockets). Granted, over 90% of the Mk.1 stock is, but there are well over a hundred kit-built Gresley/Thompson cars running on LB, as well as numerous Pullman cars which are adaptations using MJT cast bogies; none of which has proprietary bogies/couplings." Unquote.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you run on your layout, but I will add that I wouldn't dream of using MJT cast bogies. They seriously increase drag, which has serious implications for British outline steam models. Which I'm sad to say, are well known on the International scene as gutless. And was one reason why I didn't model British outline for over 40 years. I went into German modelling back in the 1980's and became the Editor for the German Railway Society. Having produced the first German exhibition layout in Britain using British construction techniques. Its first exhibition was at the then National show in London. It included handbuilt track and signalling that worked exactly as per the German norm. A fact that rapidly increased membership to almost 2000.

 

I then moved to the more techniquely advanced Japanese ranges. Which 30 years ago were more technically advanced than anything yet made for the British market. For example Japanese 1:80 scale steam locos, reversing gear, actually moved to the forward or the reverse position, whenever you changed the direction on your controller. So I started the Japanese Railway Society and became their Editor. Having used the same formula, of building an exhibition layout, with handbuilt track, and fully functional and correctly operating Japanese signalling. And like its German predecessor got the layout straight into the next National show, again in London at that time. Which of course generated around 1500 members in about two years for my new Society. So yes I have been around the block.

 

Further its probably worth pointing out that I am also an ex BR driver, on all forms of traction. And I've also driven trains all over the world, including the island of Fiji in the Pacific. More relevant here is that I'm curently playing with Spanish Broadgauge. Inbetween building the Museum I work with, a large British outline layout to help increase the attractions here. So obviously I am quite familiar with the intracacies of couplings and their interactions with gangway connections on corridor type stock. 

 

Which brings us back to the case in point. I am not trying to criticise your modelling skills which appear to be well advanced. What I'm trying to point out is that adding cartridge paper type "Concertina" connections between the correctly sized Pullman connections provided on the model. Makes the gap between vehicles overscale and therefore unrealistic.

 

Quote "It's so long ago when I explained my system, but I find the Bachmann coupling you've illustrated pretty hopeless, particularly at the front of a (very) heavy train in being pulled and, particularly, in the same heavy train when being propelled. Because it doesn't pull/push off the headstocks (as the real things do) but via a sort of extending collar, it causes derailments in my experience (and I don't have particularly tight curves). It's inclined to 'snatch' under/over load, resulting in the bogies jumping. On all-Bachmann lightweight cars, no doubt it's fine but, having used it, at least in part (to save time), if any of the other cars in, say, a 13-car rake are heavy kit-built ones it's not suitable at all. Not only that, what a fag in coupling 10/11/12/13/14-car rakes together with it." 

 

Your problems relating to the Bachmann "brake hose" coupling are understood. I also note that as a result you have avoided using the NEM pockets because they are mounted on a "Flexi-coupling" shafts. Which is where the real problem lies, as this item becomes flexible vertically under heavy load.

However if you have over 350 loco hauled coaches as I do for a large exhibition layout. I am always looking for simpler and quicker solutions to problems.

 

The reason I don't have problems with the Bachmann brake hose coupling, are numerous. Firstly I set the minimum radii for the layout at 5ft, as I am aware of the Laws of Physics. Which in this scenario states that: The power required from a locomotive increases by the square root, with every degree of curvature. (A serious problem for British outline steam models).  Also going below real life scale minimums, is going to afflict many models in many irritating ways. Particulalry with increased derailmants. So I also handbuild all visible pointwork, and alter all the facing point blades on all the Fiddle Yard large radius Peco points, I have used. As they have known issues.

 

Finally the problem of the Bachmann coaches themselves and their brake hose coupling can be quickly cured by a drop of superglue placed on the inside angle just inboard of the NEM pocket, which increases this weak angles strength. This stops the NEM pocket from bending upwards or downwards under haulage or propelling loads. This saves a lot of time, and allows me to just clip in the Bachmann brake hose coupling.

 

As to the nasty ribs on Bachmann Mk1's. I'll agree they look just a tad to prominent. Curing them realisitcally also requires new roof vents. But the time required for that remedy, as I have over a 100 Mk1's, will have to wait until after the layout is up and running.   

 

As you also mentioned the problems of coupling and uncoupling long trains of coaches coupled with the "Brake hose" coupling. Again I don't have a problem there either. All my stock runs in SR "Sets". My Inter-regional formations do likelwise. So only "Loose" vehicles and the ends of sets have Kadee Buckeye couplings. Allowing hands free invisible uncoupling. As the layout will be on virtual permanent display. I'll probably only need to uncouple vehicles within "Sets"/Formations" for maintenance purposes. 

 

Its a shame the British manufacturers never attended the NEM conference in Europe 30 odd years ago. Or they could have put their "twopennyworth" into the technology that came out of that conference. Indeed the NEM system for modelling standards is still something the British seem only vaguely aware of. NEM was intended to improve sales for all manufacturing particpants by its standardisation principles, which extend to a lot more than coupling pockets !

 

I would also add that as I have an increasing number of kit and scratch built coaches, I faced the same problem that you refer too. In that heavier coaches increase the number of problems. One of the worst offending items are the metal bogies, brass axle bearings and axles usually provided by different manufacturers. Which of course increases the interface friction problems. I simply don't use them as a result. All my Kit and scratch built stock

run on RTR bogies, which means that although they tend to be heavier (by not very much actually). They run freely like RTR stock, which is just as well as my layout "Basingstoke" has long (25ft odd) 1 in 100 gradients.

 

So good luck with your layout. Possibly some of what I have explained may reduce the problems you face.......

 

Best regards

 

The Duke 71000 

 

71000 (I won't honour you with your self-conferred title),

 

What I have gathered from your postings is :-

 

you have a large layout;

 

you have a lot of coaches;

 

you use RTR bogies on everything;

 

you think that proprietary couplings are superior to Tony's home-brewed ones;

 

you don't like concertina corridor connections;

 

you seem to think that Tony has a problem - which Tony has told you he has not;

 

you are convinced that your experience of running long trains on a large layout is superior to Tony's;

 

you want us all to know how big a layout you have and the vast size of your stocklist.

 

Anyone in the UK modelling fraternity will know of Tony's vast store of model railway knowledge, and of his lifetime contribution to disseminating information and advice through the modelling press and on-line; the respect that he is given is well-deserved.

 

For your part, I'm not aware that I have come across you before, nor have I knowingly had the benefit of your advice before.

 

Perhaps you would care to open a new thread, in which you could acquaint us with your curriculum vitae as it concerns model railways?

 

In the meantime, please refrain from trying to teach your granny to suck eggs !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. I write this because I know Tony to be too much of a gentleman to do so himself; I, as you may gather, am not.

[Northmoor]

There were several other layouts in the running, but only Wickwar was on every judge's list. 

 

It's prototype-based and is very near scale. The tracks do not disappear on/off stage via ridiculously tight curves at the ends (not just common in N Gauge).

The overall standard of modelling was consistent (good), with a real homogeneous 'feel' to the whole presentation.  

I was very impressed with Wickwar when I saw it, for several reasons, especially the backscene, but I will second your comment about the consistent standard being important, more than the absolute standard or one or more aspects.

 

The sharp curves issue I really should have had as my #1 on the "Things that annoy me about modelling" list, if it was about other people's layouts.  I wonder if some clubs believe the "parallel sided sausage", with the scenic breaks always at about mid-point of the 180° bend, is the only shape permitted for model railways.

[FPH 603]

Here is some prototype fast running on bad track. USA of course (!!!). Watch from 1min 24 sec to 2 min 20sec,  listen to the comments of an old railroader, (and pray for the photographer !!). Hair raising stuff.

 

 

I don't run my trains so fast, and they don''t bounce so much. Still, when I have trouble it's just like the prototype !!.

 

Brit15

That makes me wonder how many accidents they have in those areas. I've never seen trains bounce around that much before, or at least in a very long time!

[trustytrev]

Hello,

       There are 31,709 results for boxing gloves on ebay. or are the gloves already off?

ding ding round 2

trustytrev.

 

[queensquare]

The debate about judging is interesting. What must be remembered first and foremost is that whatever decision is reached, the choice is always going to be subjective, despite every attempt to be as objective as possible. Choosing the best from a wide range of layouts in a variety of scales, styles, periods etc is an almost impossible task - essentially you are comparing apples and pears to try and decide on the best fruit!

I spent the weekend demonstrating at Southampton next to Tony and all I can say regarding the judges is that all three are exceptional modellers and that once they had agreed the criteria they did their level best to apply them fairly.

Out of interest, and just for fun, I picked my three favourites out of a very strong field and compared them after the winner had been announced. All three of my choices appeared on at least one of the judges lists although, despite being a 2mm modeller I didn't pick Wickwar, indeed none of the N gauge layouts made it into my top three - though a couple were very close. The layout I would have picked as winner was all diesel but certainly not modern image.

 

At the end of the day the Southampton team had put together a superb collection of layouts and, in my opinion, there were at least half a dozen layouts that, if their name had been announced as the winner I wouldn't have been particularly surprise.

 

Jerry

[Headstock]

Andrew,

 

Please explain why, if you don't mind. 

 

Evening Tony,

 

apologies for the late reply. I must say first, and this based purely on the posted photographs, Wickwar looks a very nice model railway. Why then would I be surprised that it was judged so highly. To summarise very briefly

 

1, The photo retouching on the backsene is quite bad. I can see the joins.

 

2.The scenic brake looks very weird. like a portal into another dimension.

 

3. It is perhaps unfortunate that the posted photographs, (with the exception of a couple of Lamps on a WD, a loco along way from home) are of stock straight out of the box. For example, the factory weathered 1923 style RCH 7 plank wagons carrying a pseudo GWR livery. There is no doubt that former grouping liveries survived a long time into the BR period, how about modelling them based on photographic evidence rather than what the RTR  boys offer?

 

4. All relatively simple stuff to put right, but as a model of a real location a lack of attention to such details makes me ponder whether the trains being run are generic or to the same standard as the modelling of the location?

 

 

In this context I have a few problems with over all consistency. To my mind plastic coal loads in wagons and loco tenders, lack of lamps etc is not consistent with the quality of the scenery, or as I am informed, the running.

 

P.S.  I am unlikely to win anything or ever be invited to judge anything for that matter, in this state I am quite happy to remain. In this respect, my congratulations to Warwick, how about adding a few more cherries on to the cake.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Headstock

[petrovich]

I attended the Southampton exhibition on the Saturday and my immediate thoughts after my first walk around were that Banbury, Kitedale, Cornwallis Yard and Wickwar were very good and held my attention. After my afternoon excursion through the halls I enjoyed my revisits to Banbury, Wickwar (which had a lovely block working system) and Kitedale. As an aside, and this is only my perception, the largest gatherings of visitors were around BurntisIsland, Wickwar, Merstone and Victoria which always had people around its frontage but then was stuffed into the furthest corner of the halls.

BurntisIsland was epic and beautiful in its scale and workmanship but has so much of it that was static and unused, a few more moving items would have helped.

I was also impressed by Brixham Bay but a rather large gentleman of a residence with no shower or bath was continually viewing it whenever I got to it and so I have to admit its charm never had that long to work on me.

 

In these politically correct times I realise I am on a hiding to nothing here but why is it that a proportion of Britains model railway enthusiasts at exhibitions need to visit a barbers, wash their clothing, clean their fingernails and hands and generally could do with a visit to the local baths. 

 

Regards and apologies for the rant.

 

Peter

[Enterprisingwestern]

Mike,

 

How do you know a 'modern image' layout didn't get a look in? 

 

Looking back, there were three non-steam systems, out of a total of 23 layouts. 

 

It might interest you to know that Banbury (which is exceptional in my opinion), also in N Gauge, with the period modelled this century, was on my list, but it wasn't on all the lists. Are you suggesting the other judges were prejudiced against anything 'modern'? If so, I think that's out of order. 

 

Without being argumentative, Mike, why not offer your services as a judge at forthcoming shows. You never know, that might then make a 'balanced panel of judges'. All you have to do is to inform the organisers of your credentials, and away you go. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I don't where you are getting the prejudiced idea from, I never alluded to any such thing.

I have been asked to be a judge, but, for the very reason you seem to be suitable to be a judge, I do not consider myself so as I don't know enough about all the vast differences in eras/scale/geographical variations which occur in railway modelling. I don't know if a, say, American outline layout is any more prototypically accurate than a German or English one, so I can't make a fair judgment.

IMHO, judging is a pointless exercise as you are comparing apples with oranges due to the wide selection of layouts on offer at an exhibition, and without the judges explaining their parameters for their opinions before the inspections start any decision will be be seen by some to be purely arbitrary and shrouded in a cloak of secrecy.

When you have made your decision, do you go round the "losing", for want of a better word, layouts and offer some feedback and words of encouragement as to why they weren't successful?, the whole point of competition is to improve the breed, so without knowing what someone has done wrong how can they know what needs to be worked on, and do you make known the reasons the winning layout was picked to be so?

Whilst I'm on my soapbox, do you consider the "widows mite" possibility? A layout which may on the surface look a poor effort could have been produced by a lone modeller working at 99% of his capabilities, whereas the the more impressive layout could have been produced by a group of modellers, each with their own individual skill.

How do you compare an Inglenook shunting plank with a four track main line station layout?, as I mentioned before, without knowing the judging parameters there is always going to be an imbalance.

If we are to have "competitions" at exhibitions a level playing field is needed, and rather than the broad brush stroke of a best layout, individual awards need to be made for specific items, eg locos, coaches, scenic items, these things are equally comparable irrespective of layout size. (Yes I do know this happens, but it should be given more relevance over whole layout assessments.)

 

Mike.

[petrovich]

I don't where you are getting the prejudiced idea from, I never alluded to any such thing.

I have been asked to be a judge, but, for the very reason you seem to be suitable to be a judge, I do not consider myself so as I don't know enough about all the vast differences in eras/scale/geographical variations which occur in railway modelling. I don't know if a, say, American outline layout is any more prototypically accurate than a German or English one, so I can't make a fair judgment.

IMHO, judging is a pointless exercise as you are comparing apples with oranges due to the wide selection of layouts on offer at an exhibition, and without the judges explaining their parameters for their opinions before the inspections start any decision will be be seen by some to be purely arbitrary and shrouded in a cloak of secrecy.

When you have made your decision, do you go round the "losing", for want of a better word, layouts and offer some feedback and words of encouragement as to why they weren't successful?, the whole point of competition is to improve the breed, so without knowing what someone has done wrong how can they know what needs to be worked on, and do you make known the reasons the winning layout was picked to be so?

Whilst I'm on my soapbox, do you consider the "widows mite" possibility? A layout which may on the surface look a poor effort could have been produced by a lone modeller working at 99% of his capabilities, whereas the the more impressive layout could have been produced by a group of modellers, each with their own individual skill.

How do you compare an Inglenook shunting plank with a four track main line station layout?, as I mentioned before, without knowing the judging parameters there is always going to be an imbalance.

If we are to have "competitions" at exhibitions a level playing field is needed, and rather than the broad brush stroke of a best layout, individual awards need to be made for specific items, eg locos, coaches, scenic items, these things are equally comparable irrespective of layout size. (Yes I do know this happens, but it should be given more relevance over whole layout assessments.)

 

Mike.

Hi Mike

 

The prejudiced idea might have come from your statement

 

 So a "modern image" layout isn't going to get a look in then?

What happened to a balanced panel of judges?.

 

If that is meant in a different context then please explain as it infers all the judges were totally steam or transition period biased which without knowing them personally is a little unfair.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[Lecorbusier]

I have to admit, I didn't think exhibiting at a show was (or was considered by the exhibitors as) a competition? Is there much disappointment if an award/cup is not won ?

 

If not, then the various awards given might be considered a nice bit of fun - particularly when they are an expression of the thoughts/opinions/tastes of a respected panel - a nice fillup for the winner(s). Being invited to exhibit is surely the real benchmark of approval for a show?  

Edited January 31, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Clive Mortimore]

Model railway exhibitions should not be competitions. I personally cannot see the point of awarding a cup to the best layout. All the layouts have been invited to be exhibited surely they are there on equal merit. The punters might go home saying XYZ layout was their favorite. Favorite is not always the best. How many times has a Lego layout won best of show when the public have been allowed to vote?

 

 

Having never expected to win with Hanging Hill, despite the scratch built buildings, locos, rolling stock, figures and other odds and ends which are called modelling, it was only a "modern image" diesel depot.