Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Further to my 'personal' work regarding Heljan's latest O2s, I set out to see what one might be able to haul..................

 

 

 

This is the same rake of mineral empties taken by the Beyer Garratt. At number 73, I ran out of empty minerals, but this loco could have taken more. Remember, that several in the rake are built from metal kits, some (heavy) white metal.

 

 

[DenysW]

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

This is the same rake of mineral empties taken by the Beyer Garratt. At number 73, I ran out of empty minerals,

The LMS Beyer Garratts took loads of 80-90 full wagons (1500 tons loaded), but were not fast: 129.5 miles in 469 minutes running time on the poorly graded Midland line Toton->Brent. It's difficult to compare them to the LNER locomotive because it had a lot more raw grunt, but was asked to employ it up a steep bank for a short distance.

 

Summary: you may be under-stressing both locomotives with 'only' 73 empties.

[Tony Wright]

54 minutes ago, DenysW said:

The LMS Beyer Garratts took loads of 80-90 full wagons (1500 tons loaded), but were not fast: 129.5 miles in 469 minutes running time on the poorly graded Midland line Toton->Brent. It's difficult to compare them to the LNER locomotive because it had a lot more raw grunt, but was asked to employ it up a steep bank for a short distance.

 

Summary: you may be under-stressing both locomotives with 'only' 73 empties.

But I only have 73 empties, Denys.

 

As it is, the train just about fills the scenic section on Bytham.

 

I agree, both locos are under-stressed, but 80-90 wagons (full or empties) would just look ridiculous, and the leading wagons would become unstable on the 180 degree bends at both ends. I found this when testing the Accurascale Deltic - at 37 carriages, the head of the train 'imploded' on the 36" end curves! 

 

Regarding the LMS Garratts (kit-built or RTR), has anyone built a layout where 90-wagon trains can be run, without them looking rather daft?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

But I only have 73 empties, Denys.

 

As it is, the train just about fills the scenic section on Bytham.

 

I agree, both locos are under-stressed, but 80-90 wagons (full or empties) would just look ridiculous, and the leading wagons would become unstable on the 180 degree bends at both ends. I found this when testing the Accurascale Deltic - at 37 carriages, the head of the train 'imploded' on the 36" end curves! 

 

Regarding the LMS Garratts (kit-built or RTR), has anyone built a layout where 90-wagon trains can be run, without them looking rather daft?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

There is the famous long coal train at Pendon.

 

When I was a guest operator on "Gresley Beat" we used to run a 100 wagon coal train with a P1 or an ex GNR 0-8-0 on the front. It did go quite a long way round the layout but it did seem to impress folk and it didn't derail by pulling off inside on the curves. As the train appeared on scene and vanished round the bend before it went off scene, it looked OK.

 

We did once run a 125 wagon train on Tickhill and Wadworth in "silly hour" at a show. It was every goods wagon on the layout. The brake van was just ahead of the loco. We ran it with 2 converted RTR 9Fs first, then with my 0-6-0 LMS diesel shunter. Even with the train going round a complete circuit, there were no derailments. All the wagons were fairly evenly weighted and equally free running.

 

That didn't look sensible but even I was surprised and impressed when it worked as it did.

[Dunsignalling]

It's not 4mm scale, but the N gauge demonstration layout at Pecorama featured a 100 wagon rake of their PO wagons for many years, and still does TTBOMK, though it's no longer hauled by one of their Jubilee locomotives.

[PJT]

23 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

It's not 4mm scale, but the N gauge demonstration layout at Pecorama featured a 100 wagon rake of their PO wagons for many years, and still does TTBOMK, though it's no longer hauled by one of their Jubilee locomotives.

 

I remember seeing that when I was a teenager back in the 1970s.  It instilled in me a strong respect and fondness for Peco Jubilees which I still feel today, and also the exciting realisation that prototypical full length trains in N gauge were possible within a 'normal' sized room at home.

Pete T.

 

[MarkC]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Mark,

 

I've taken a further picture of the scratch-built 3P..........

 

 

Not too bad for a loco getting on for 70 years old? All hand-numbered/hand-lettered, too.

 

Apart from cleaning/oiling/tweaking to get it running well, I changed the bogie wheels and added a crew.

 

Apparently, the 3Ps were well-liked on the M&GNR

 

I also took another another shot of the ex-Midland 2P..............

 

 

I think this is 'adequate', though there are accuracy issues (one being the smaller diameter driving wheels than scale). Changing to RH drive wasn't too much of a problem - just fill in the arc in the boiler cladding on the LH side side and cut another for the reversing lever on the RH side. The SEF tender is excellent.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Hi Tony.

 

It just "looks right", doesn't it? Even the various GEM 3P/999/Compound 4-4-0s, on their own, looked like a passable replica of the real thing.

 

I've compared a Little Engines A6 with one of Arthur Kimber's models. There are definite errors in the Little Engines one (Arthur's is pretty much 'spot on'), but again, on its own, it looks like an A6. Similarly, compare a Little Engines A8 with a DJH version. There are, again, several differences, but each, on their own, looks right. (I haven't yet built a 52F/Peter Stanger A8, but I'm sure that, like Arthur's A6, it'll be more accurate).

 

I can definitely understand why the Johnson 3Ps were liked on the M & GN - powerful, simple & robust locomotives.

 

Mark

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

There is the famous long coal train at Pendon.

 

When I was a guest operator on "Gresley Beat" we used to run a 100 wagon coal train with a P1 or an ex GNR 0-8-0 on the front. It did go quite a long way round the layout but it did seem to impress folk and it didn't derail by pulling off inside on the curves. As the train appeared on scene and vanished round the bend before it went off scene, it looked OK.

 

We did once run a 125 wagon train on Tickhill and Wadworth in "silly hour" at a show. It was every goods wagon on the layout. The brake van was just ahead of the loco. We ran it with 2 converted RTR 9Fs first, then with my 0-6-0 LMS diesel shunter. Even with the train going round a complete circuit, there were no derailments. All the wagons were fairly evenly weighted and equally free running.

 

That didn't look sensible but even I was surprised and impressed when it worked as it did.

Good morning Tony,

 

I'd forgotten about Pendon and 'The Gresley Beat'. Perhaps their end curves aren't as tight as Little Bytham's. Certainly, as mentioned, a (heavy) passenger rake collapsed inwards at the leading end on a 180 degree curve as the number of cars loaded on approached 40!

 

I've often puzzled over what train lengths should be to appear 'realistic' on a layout. It's not a problem with the express passenger rakes on LB; they're as near 'correct' as makes no difference, ranging from eight cars (The Talisman) to 14 (a summer Saturday relief), and they don't look too long because they don't 'fill' the scenic section on the layout. There's space for a train to enter the scene, be in it and exit without it looking odd (or odd to me). When a train completely fills the scenic section of a layout (I mean a long layout), it's as if it reaches the horizon (which might be the case on an actual American railroad). Checking again, I reckon it would take another 20 wagons on that 73-wagon rake before the whole set filled LB's scenic section. Looking at prototype pictures, no goods train (even empties) is that long (though my sample is probably only six/seven images). Trying to count the empty wagons in a Colin Walker picture (how sad?), I estimate the train's length to be about 60 vehicles (Bytham's longest empty mineral rake is 50 - governed by the length of its road in the fiddle yard). A Gavin Morrison shot has a slightly shorter rake - probably the same number as on the model. 

 

Ultimately, I suppose it's down to the available space for a layout. The late Bob Essery said The Midland appealed to him because, in the main, its passenger trains were short and its locos small, meaning a layout could be smaller yet still have prototype-length trains running - passenger trains, at least. What is Buckingham's longest train? To have a train long enough to be in two stations at once would be visually ridiculous, I'd imagine.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 9 by Tony Wright
clumsy grammar

[Tim Rayner]

The Pecorama exhibit with the coal train was replaced in 1998 by the recreation of Seaton Junction and the branch (see the June RM of that year); this was in turn replaced by the O gauge layout called Ipford, which is pictured in the RM for May 2024, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the attraction's construction. TR

[Tony Wright]

49 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Hi Tony.

 

It just "looks right", doesn't it? Even the various GEM 3P/999/Compound 4-4-0s, on their own, looked like a passable replica of the real thing.

 

I've compared a Little Engines A6 with one of Arthur Kimber's models. There are definite errors in the Little Engines one (Arthur's is pretty much 'spot on'), but again, on its own, it looks like an A6. Similarly, compare a Little Engines A8 with a DJH version. There are, again, several differences, but each, on their own, looks right. (I haven't yet built a 52F/Peter Stanger A8, but I'm sure that, like Arthur's A6, it'll be more accurate).

 

I can definitely understand why the Johnson 3Ps were liked on the M & GN - powerful, simple & robust locomotives.

 

Mark

Good morning Mark,

 

Many thanks.

 

A6s and A8s? Sadly, by the time I got to the North East they'd all gone (though the likes of J27s, Q6s and V1/3s were still around). However, I've seen a few in model form, including.............

 

 

This Little Engines professionally-built A6 example, I sold on behalf of a widow. 

 

 

Who brought this A6 (Little Engines?), I can't recall.

 

 

 

This (Little Engines, I think) A8 was also professionally-built, and from the same collection as the A6.

 

 

Andy Sparkes brought along this A8 (origins unknown).

 

 

I think Sandra Orpen brought this A8 along (origins?), but the memory crumbles!

 

I've never built an A6 or an A8, but I did build a Little Engines A7 for a friend. Unusually, I don't seem to have any pictures of it; perhaps my friend has. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

  

 

 

[MarkC]

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Mark,

 

Many thanks.

 

A6s and A8s? Sadly, by the time I got to the North East they'd all gone (though the likes of J27s, Q6s and V1/3s were still around). However, I've seen a few in model form, including.............

 

 

This Little Engines professionally-built A6 example, I sold on behalf of a widow. 

 

 

Who brought this A6 (Little Engines?), I can't recall.

 

 

 

This (Little Engines, I think) A8 was also professionally-built, and from the same collection as the A6.

 

 

Andy Sparkes brought along this A8 (origins unknown).

 

 

I think Sandra Orpen brought this A8 along (origins?), but the memory crumbles!

 

I've never built an A6 or an A8, but I did build a Little Engines A7 for a friend. Unusually, I don't seem to have any pictures of it; perhaps my friend has. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

  

 

 

All lovely models, Tony. Thanks for posting the photos.

 

There's something about these big NER (OK, LNER for the A8) tanks, isn't there? Presence is, I think, the appropriate word. The A6 is very much Edwardian in style; the A8 is imposing. (As, indeed, were the A7s & the T1s).

 

I must build my Whitby Willie (Class W) 4-6-0T at some point too.

 

Mark

[thegreenhowards]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

Andy Sparkes brought along this A8 (origins unknown).

 

 

  

 

 

The A8 is from the DJH kit built when I was at school in the early ‘80s. It was the first kit I built with a chassis - earlier attempts had been Wills bodies on Triang 0-6-0 chassis. It never ran particularly well, but I replaced the plunger pick ups more recently (maybe on instruction from you?) and it now runs quite nicely.

 

It was also me that bought that Little Engines A6, 691. It was a nice loco but always non core for me and I sold it recently as I’m thinning out my non core 00 stock to make room for O gauge.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[LNER4479]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding the LMS Garratts (kit-built or RTR), has anyone built a layout where 90-wagon trains can be run, without them looking rather daft?

I seem to remember that the MRC's Luton Hoo layout ran a long coal train (with a Garratt?) N gauge again.

 

Re your realistic train lengths question, I think you partially answered it in the same post you posed the question(!?): the rule of thirds. I seem to remember us having the conversation in the early days of Grantham and it was a deliberate planning decision to scale down the length of the station in order to give equal prominence to the north and south ends of the scene. The longest trains are thus a third of the total scenic length, allowing them to enter, be on scene and exit accordingly.

Edited October 9 by LNER4479

[DenysW]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

But I only have 73 empties, Denys.

What I was miserably failing to communicate was that checking the hauling power of a goods/mineral model against prototypical loads isn't the same as with coaches, and that both the number of wagons and loaded/empty matters much more.

 

Separately, it always surprises me that changing from external combustion (steam) to remotely generated electric power PLUS scaling at 1:87 allows models to haul prototype loads at all. So many unrelated scaling factors have to cancel out.

 

As the risk of sounding patronising, Little Bytham is wonderfully well set-up run to run its late-1950s schedule at scale speed and prototype passenger formations and not look silly or truncated. But I assume that the remaining 1950s London & Home Counties coal traffic was still moving down the ex-GE/GN Joint line (and down the ex-LNWR/GN Joint line?) and not down the ECML at Stoke Bank? And/Or the ex-LNER lines mineral trains were smaller than the ex-LMS mineral trains. I believe the latter were using permissive block signalling Toton->Brent to achieve the 80-90 wagons, so nibbling at safety factors a bit.

 

It turns out LB and its inventory of rolling stock is less successful at testing prototypical loads for models of trains that never ran through it and therefore weren't included in the original design. No shame there.

 

 

[Michael Edge]

Wentworth Junction routinely runs one 60 wagon train of coal empties (the layout isn't big enough to run a double load full train) and this causes no problems despite the front end and back end going in opposite directions at the ends of the layout. It's also more than 1/3rd of the scenic length but doesn't look out of place. Most of the 2-8-0s can pull this out of the fiddle yard on a steep gradient and round a curve, the end of the fiddle yard has to have a steep gradient to allow for the 1 in 40 descent on the scenic part.

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

I'd forgotten about Pendon and 'The Gresley Beat'. Perhaps their end curves aren't as tight as Little Bytham's. Certainly, as mentioned, a (heavy) passenger rake collapsed inwards at the leading end on a 180 degree curve as the number of cars loaded on approached 40!

 

I've often puzzled over what train lengths should be to appear 'realistic' on a layout. It's not a problem with the express passenger rakes on LB; they're as near 'correct' as makes no difference, ranging from eight cars (The Talisman) to 14 (a summer Saturday relief), and they don't look too long because they don't 'fill' the scenic section on the layout. There's space for a train to enter the scene, be in it and exit without it looking odd (or odd to me). When a train completely fills the scenic section of a layout (I mean a long layout), it's as if it reaches the horizon (which might be the case on an actual American railroad). Checking again, I reckon it would take another 20 wagons on that 73-wagon rake before the whole set filled LB's scenic section. Looking at prototype pictures, no goods train (even empties) is that long (though my sample is probably only six/seven images). Trying to count the empty wagons in a Colin Walker picture (how sad?), I estimate the train's length to be about 60 vehicles (Bytham's longest empty mineral rake is 50 - governed by the length of its road in the fiddle yard). A Gavin Morrison shot has a slightly shorter rake - probably the same number as on the model. 

 

Ultimately, I suppose it's down to the available space for a layout. The late Bob Essery said The Midland appealed to him because, in the main, its passenger trains were short and its locos small, meaning a layout could be smaller yet still have prototype-length trains running - passenger trains, at least. What is Buckingham's longest train? To have a train long enough to be in two stations at once would be visually ridiculous, I'd imagine.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

The longest passenger train on Buckingham is 5 bogie carriages, which is perfectly reasonable for a full length train on the GCR in 1907. As I have said before, when you operate at Buckingham, Grandborough Junction is behind you and out of your line of sight. When you operate at GJ, Buckingham is out of view in the same way. It is possible to turn around to see the other station and we often do because it is so nice to watch the trains but because of the scenic break between the stations, it is easy to imagine that the run between the stations is longer than it is in real life.

 

The goods trains are limited to 12 wagons but it is plenty. If we had more, all that shunting and remarshalling would take up too much time and create big gaps between the trains we run.

 

The on scene run from the buffers at Buckingham to the entrance to the fiddle yard is around 40ft, or over half a scale mile, so is longer than many layouts. I much prefer the more interesting operation possible by having 2 stations in that length, rather than longer trains and more limited operational potential of just one station but I fully appreciate that other opinions are just as valid as mine.

 

I found the operating of Gresley Beat to be very dull, although it always drew a huge crowd at shows. I don't think anybody goes to Pendon to enjoy seeing interesting operation of a layout. It comes down to a question of why you have built the layout. Is it to give you lots of fun and interesting operation or is it to entertain others? Some people "get" operating and some don't and I am fine with that. It would be a less interesting hobby if we all thought the same way about what to build.

Edited October 9 by t-b-g
typo

[Captain Kernow]

12 hours ago, t-b-g said:

We did once run a 125 wagon train on Tickhill and Wadworth in "silly hour" at a show.

The first question that came into my mind was 'how long did it take to put all the wagons away afterwards!'

 

 

[t-b-g]

22 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

The first question that came into my mind was 'how long did it take to put all the wagons away afterwards!'

 

 

 

The layout had 4 rakes of coal wagons, each 25 wagons long. Two rakes were fulls and two were empties. The other 25 were the ones we used on the pick up goods.

 

It didn't take long to set up are take down at the end of a show with a good team. Two people could have the trains off the layout and in their stock boxes in around 10 minutes. There were only 7 trains in total.

 

So it was pretty quick compared to some layouts.

 

 

[Captain Kernow]

Even so, rather brave of you, so close to the end of the show, when most people (including me) would be wanting to run the stock down, for a quicker packing-up time!

 

[stewartingram]

3 hours ago, DenysW said:

What I was miserably failing to communicate was that checking the hauling power of a goods/mineral model against prototypical loads isn't the same as with coaches, and that both the number of wagons and loaded/empty matters much more.

 

Separately, it always surprises me that changing from external combustion (steam) to remotely generated electric power PLUS scaling at 1:87 allows models to haul prototype loads at all. So many unrelated scaling factors have to cancel out.

 

As the risk of sounding patronising, Little Bytham is wonderfully well set-up run to run its late-1950s schedule at scale speed and prototype passenger formations and not look silly or truncated. But I assume that the remaining 1950s London & Home Counties coal traffic was still moving down the ex-GE/GN Joint line (and down the ex-LNWR/GN Joint line?) and not down the ECML at Stoke Bank? And/Or the ex-LNER lines mineral trains were smaller than the ex-LMS mineral trains. I believe the latter were using permissive block signalling Toton->Brent to achieve the 80-90 wagons, so nibbling at safety factors a bit.

 

It turns out LB and its inventory of rolling stock is less successful at testing prototypical loads for models of trains that never ran through it and therefore weren't included in the original design. No shame there.

 

 

Pedantic mode, sorry. Loaded coal train to London surely would travel 'up' ?

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, DenysW said:

What I was miserably failing to communicate was that checking the hauling power of a goods/mineral model against prototypical loads isn't the same as with coaches, and that both the number of wagons and loaded/empty matters much more.

 

Separately, it always surprises me that changing from external combustion (steam) to remotely generated electric power PLUS scaling at 1:87 allows models to haul prototype loads at all. So many unrelated scaling factors have to cancel out.

 

As the risk of sounding patronising, Little Bytham is wonderfully well set-up run to run its late-1950s schedule at scale speed and prototype passenger formations and not look silly or truncated. But I assume that the remaining 1950s London & Home Counties coal traffic was still moving down the ex-GE/GN Joint line (and down the ex-LNWR/GN Joint line?) and not down the ECML at Stoke Bank? And/Or the ex-LNER lines mineral trains were smaller than the ex-LMS mineral trains. I believe the latter were using permissive block signalling Toton->Brent to achieve the 80-90 wagons, so nibbling at safety factors a bit.

 

It turns out LB and its inventory of rolling stock is less successful at testing prototypical loads for models of trains that never ran through it and therefore weren't included in the original design. No shame there.

 

 

Thanks Denys,

 

Your right that a lot of coal/mineral traffic bound for the south would run down the GE/GN Joint, but that would be mainly traffic originating in Yorkshire. Coal traffic from the Notts coalfield (other than that going south via The Midland or the GC; which would be the majority) would arrive at Grantham, and then travel along the ECML through Little Bytham, at least as far as New England. There are plenty of Colin Walker's photographs showing this traffic. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

But I only have 73 empties, Denys.

 

As it is, the train just about fills the scenic section on Bytham.

 

I agree, both locos are under-stressed, but 80-90 wagons (full or empties) would just look ridiculous, and the leading wagons would become unstable on the 180 degree bends at both ends. I found this when testing the Accurascale Deltic - at 37 carriages, the head of the train 'imploded' on the 36" end curves! 

 

Regarding the LMS Garratts (kit-built or RTR), has anyone built a layout where 90-wagon trains can be run, without them looking rather daft?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony and all

 

Freight train lengths were limited by siding length, which makes sense.  According to the ER 1967 Freight Train Loads book the maximum standard wagon length train was 75 wagons on the main line between Doncaster and London, I don't suspect this would have changed in the 10 years after Little Bytham is set. A standard wagon length was 21 feet over buffers, so most four wheeled vans and wagons fell into this group.

 

The main limiting factor was how many basic wagon units a locomotive could haul over a given route. The basic wagon chart covers quite a large amount of detail. A basic wagon unit was based a 13ton (or under) wagon carrying a light load. As my copy is 1967 it only includes diesels, but I will give some examples of a class 8 (old class H) through unfitted freight train composed entirely of 16 ton mineral wagons . A fully loaded 16ton mineral was calculated to be 2 basic wagon units, same wagon when empty was 5/6 of  basic wagon unit. A single class 20 was limited to 67 basic wagon units, this equates to 33 (and a bit) fully loaded 16 ton mineral wagons or  56 empty 16 ton mineral wagons. A class 40 could manage 83 basic wagon units which comes out as 41 fully loaded 16 tonners or 69 empties. On the GN/GE joint line Doncaster to Whitemoor both classes could haul heavier trains, the maximum train length in standard wagon lengths remained the same at 75. A class 20 was 72 BWU, 36 fully loaded wagons and 60 empty. A class 40 was 44 fully loaded wagons and 72 unloaded.

 

Back to the O2's train at Little Bytham 73 wagons is just in the length limit and as most seem to be empty 13ton coal wagons at 5/6 of a basic wagon unit comes out just under 61 BWUs is not unrealistic as a class O2 and a class 40 would have had similar haulage capacity.

 

 

Edited October 9 by Clive Mortimore
A missing e

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony and all

 

Fright train lengths were limited by siding length, which makes sense.  According to the ER 1967 Freight Train Loads book the maximum standard wagon length train was 75 wagons on the main line between Doncaster and London, I don't suspect this would have changed in the 10 years after Little Bytham is set. A standard wagon length was 21 feet over buffers, so most four wheeled vans and wagons fell into this group.

 

The main limiting factor was how many basic wagon units a locomotive could haul over a given route. The basic wagon chart covers quite a large amount of detail. A basic wagon unit was based a 13ton (or under) wagon carrying a light load. As my copy is 1967 it only includes diesels, but I will give some examples of a class 8 (old class H) through unfitted freight train composed entirely of 16 ton mineral wagons . A fully loaded 16ton mineral was calculated to be 2 basic wagon units, same wagon when empty was 5/6 of  basic wagon unit. A single class 20 was limited to 67 basic wagon units, this equates to 33 (and a bit) fully loaded 16 ton mineral wagons or  56 empty 16 ton mineral wagons. A class 40 could manage 83 basic wagon units which comes out as 41 fully loaded 16 tonners or 69 empties. On the GN/GE joint line Doncaster to Whitemoor both classes could haul heavier trains, the maximum train length in standard wagon lengths remained the same at 75. A class 20 was 72 BWU, 36 fully loaded wagons and 60 empty. A class 40 was 44 fully loaded wagons and 72 unloaded.

 

Back to the O2's train at Little Bytham 73 wagons is just in the length limit and as most seem to be empty 13ton coal wagons at 5/6 of a basic wagon unit comes out just under 61 BWUs is not unrealistic as a class O2 and a class 40 would have had similar haulage capacity.

 

 

Thanks Clive,

 

Of possible interest, when the P1 2-8-2s were introduced, the pair (individually) had the capacity to haul over 100 fully-laden mineral wagons (effectively combining two trains into one). This they could do with ease between New England and Ferme Park, but there weren't enough lay-byes/loops long enough between the two yards to accommodate such huge trains, which gave the operating authorities a real headache. It could take several hours for such a train to travel the distance, with the loco just waiting for ages for the road.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

I seem to remember that the MRC's Luton Hoo layout ran a long coal train (with a Garratt?) N gauge again.

 

Re your realistic train lengths question, I think you partially answered it in the same post you posed the question(!?): the rule of thirds. I seem to remember us having the conversation in the early days of Grantham and it was a deliberate planning decision to scale down the length of the station in order to give equal prominence to the north and south ends of the scene. The longest trains are thus a third of the total scenic length, allowing them to enter, be on scene and exit accordingly.

Good afternoon Graham,

 

We have had such a conversation - a most-interesting one. I think it also related to amateur dramatics (which we've both dabbled in) regarding the rule of thirds - space to get on, space to be 'in' and space to get off. 

 

As a layout, Stoke Summit employed it - by simple arithmetic. A 30' layout with an average train length of 10', and that's that.

 

See you later.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

The A8 is from the DJH kit built when I was at school in the early ‘80s. It was the first kit I built with a chassis - earlier attempts had been Wills bodies on Triang 0-6-0 chassis. It never ran particularly well, but I replaced the plunger pick ups more recently (maybe on instruction from you?) and it now runs quite nicely.

 

It was also me that bought that Little Engines A6, 691. It was a nice loco but always non core for me and I sold it recently as I’m thinning out my non core 00 stock to make room for O gauge.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

Good afternoon Andy,

 

Many thanks.

 

Your A8 appears to have K's drivers. If it runs well, well done!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.