Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Never worked quite as well for me, as whenever I saw it the yard and branch weren't used.

John,

 

I've mentioned this before, but, though both the yard and the mineral branch were fully-working, the operation of both (particularly linked to the Up line) meant it might be four/five minutes before another through train came along. Since the layout was 35' long, anyone by Catesby Tunnel mouth or the southern occupation bridge would only have seen 'movement' in the (relative) distance. On more than one occasion punters complained to me that 'Nothing is happening!'. 

 

What would you suggest we should have done? 

 

We ended up just shunting the yard for Down trains, always keeping something moving on the Up when this took place. I think what we have here is the paradox of creating an 'accurate' prototype location (though it was foreshortened - selective compression) but the prototype operation (in terms of the trains and the moments between them) was 'nonsense'. I had a passenger timetable for the period and (though we didn't have a WTT) assuming an average of a  couple of freights each way per hour on the real thing (?) it would have been highly-likely that anything up to 45 minutes or even an hour might pass between trains on the real thing. During those gaps, of course, shunting would have taken place. Can you imagine the outrage of running an 'accurate' exhibition layout (even a main line one) using 'accurate' time? I think not. 

[Tony Wright]

Just remembered the other lovely layout from that motley crew from Wolverhampton . It was called "Leighford". I never actually saw "Fordley Park" ,but from reading about it I wish that I had.  Can anyone put me out of my misery please, I am trying to remember the layout exhibited by Tony Geary, Roy Palmer and A.N. Other.

I seem to think it was  a name starting with K but the old brain cel! is not functioning too well.

Regards.

Derek,

 

It was called Kirkfield, and was jointly owned by Roy, Tony and Pete Lund. Rob Kinsey, Mick Peabody and I used to help exhibit it. 

 

It was originally built by Howard and Eileen Lawrence.

 

What fun it was to operate!. Tony spent at least half the time at a show with a meter and soldering iron in his hands. Such was the weird stock (owned by Roy and Pete) that only locos/stock built by the Wulfrunian members would go round anti-clockwise (the tighter radius) and by the end of the first hour most of their 'junk' was banished and our stuff used. 

 

One thing I would say is that they had the most accurate breakdown train in history, because it always broke down! It was hauled by two J10s (of very dubious parentage) and whenever it appeared, the cry went out 'Not the J10s!). Needless to say, on one occasion it actually went round (once) without fuss or failure, and there was the throwing of hats in the air in celebration. The revelry was short-lived, because the next time, very accurately, it broke down. 

 

We did have some good times. I believe Kirkfield was sold and is now an SR-based system. The mind boggles.  

[Tony Wright]

I've not long returned from a most-enjoyable weekend at the Southampton Show. My thanks to David and Alison Barker and the rest of the club for putting on such a splendid event and making Mo and me feel so welcome. My thanks also to everyone I spoke to in my capacity as a demonstrator. And particular thanks to Petrovich (Peter) who donated so generously to Cancer Research, even though I fixed nothing for him. 

 

I hope one chap wasn't too offended when he pushed a brand new RTR locomotive under my nose and proudly proclaimed, after he'd just bought it, 'This is the way forward in the hobby, don't you think?' 'Not at all, as far as I'm concerned' said I, pointing to the models I'd made from kits which were on display. 'All you've done is bought that, surely the way forward in the hobby is for people to make things rather than just buy things? I'm not saying the ones I've made are better (the prototypes weren't the same, anyway), but these are unique'. He shuffled off, though he did return later, but not with any other 'treasure'. 

 

It could be the way forward for him (and for many others in the hobby?), but the demonstration room Mo and I were in (and it was a privilege to be among such top modellers in all scales) had examples of model-making, not out-of-the-box items. Anyway, what would be the point of the latter in a demo room? You could see loads of the stuff on the trade stands. 

 

It was also my privilege to be invited to be one of a quartet of (highly-experienced) judges, picking the Chairman's Cup for the most-outstanding layout. The unanimous decision was Wickwar, in N Gauge, built by the Farnham & District MRC. Burntisland was second (it was working much better than when I saw it at Glasgow last year), but Wickwar ran perfectly - until immediately after the cup was awarded!

 

 

 

 

Another layout which was high on the judges' lists was Kitedale, modelled in P4. 

 

 

 

Both these layouts had very-effective backscenes, generated from prototype photographs. 

 

The Southampton Show is among the very best in the calendar, and certainly one to be recommended. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

I've not long returned from a most-enjoyable weekend at the Southampton Show. My thanks to David and Alison Barker and the rest of the club for putting on such a splendid event and making Mo and me feel so welcome. My thanks also to everyone I spoke to in my capacity as a demonstrator. And particular thanks to Petrovich (Peter) who donated so generously to Cancer Research, even though I fixed nothing for him. 

 

I hope one chap wasn't too offended when he pushed a brand new RTR locomotive under my nose and proudly proclaimed, after he'd just bought it, 'This is the way forward in the hobby, don't you think?' 'Not at all, as far as I'm concerned' said I, pointing to the models I'd made from kits which were on display. 'All you've done is bought that, surely the way forward in the hobby is for people to make things rather than just buy things? I'm not saying the ones I've made are better (the prototypes weren't the same, anyway), but these are unique'. He shuffled off, though he did return later, but not with any other 'treasure'. 

 

It could be the way forward for him (and for many others in the hobby?), but the demonstration room Mo and I were in (and it was a privilege to be among such top modellers in all scales) had examples of model-making, not out-of-the-box items. Anyway, what would be the point of the latter in a demo room? You could see loads of the stuff on the trade stands. 

 

It was also my privilege to be invited to be one of a quartet of (highly-experienced) judges, picking the Chairman's Cup for the most-outstanding layout. The unanimous decision was Wickwar, in N Gauge, built by the Farnham & District MRC. Burntisland was second (it was working much better than when I saw it at Glasgow last year), but Wickwar ran perfectly - until immediately after the cup was awarded!

 

Wickwar 03.jpg

 

 

Wickwar 18.jpg

 

Another layout which was high on the judges' lists was Kitedale, modelled in P4. 

 

Kitedale 01.jpg

 

Kitedale 03.jpg

 

Both these layouts had very-effective backscenes, generated from prototype photographs. 

 

The Southampton Show is among the very best in the calendar, and certainly one to be recommended. 

Tony,

 

Those back scenes look extraordinarily good in the photos .... were they as convincing in real life? Are the photos just as was or have you done anything to them as far as the back scenes are concerned?

 

Tim

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

Those back scenes look extraordinarily good in the photos .... were they as convincing in real life? Are the photos just as was or have you done anything to them as far as the back scenes are concerned?

 

Tim

Tim,

 

In answer to your two questions; yes and no.

 

 

 

This shows most of the backscene on Wickwar.................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

I've not long returned from a most-enjoyable weekend at the Southampton Show. My thanks to David and Alison Barker and the rest of the club for putting on such a splendid event and making Mo and me feel so welcome. My thanks also to everyone I spoke to in my capacity as a demonstrator. And particular thanks to Petrovich (Peter) who donated so generously to Cancer Research, even though I fixed nothing for him. 

 

I hope one chap wasn't too offended when he pushed a brand new RTR locomotive under my nose and proudly proclaimed, after he'd just bought it, 'This is the way forward in the hobby, don't you think?' 'Not at all, as far as I'm concerned' said I, pointing to the models I'd made from kits which were on display. 'All you've done is bought that, surely the way forward in the hobby is for people to make things rather than just buy things? I'm not saying the ones I've made are better (the prototypes weren't the same, anyway), but these are unique'. He shuffled off, though he did return later, but not with any other 'treasure'. 

 

It could be the way forward for him (and for many others in the hobby?), but the demonstration room Mo and I were in (and it was a privilege to be among such top modellers in all scales) had examples of model-making, not out-of-the-box items. Anyway, what would be the point of the latter in a demo room? You could see loads of the stuff on the trade stands. 

 

It was also my privilege to be invited to be one of a quartet of (highly-experienced) judges, picking the Chairman's Cup for the most-outstanding layout. The unanimous decision was Wickwar, in N Gauge, built by the Farnham & District MRC. Burntisland was second (it was working much better than when I saw it at Glasgow last year), but Wickwar ran perfectly - until immediately after the cup was awarded!

 

Wickwar 03.jpg

 

 

Wickwar 18.jpg

 

Another layout which was high on the judges' lists was Kitedale, modelled in P4. 

 

Kitedale 01.jpg

 

Kitedale 03.jpg

 

Both these layouts had very-effective backscenes, generated from prototype photographs. 

 

The Southampton Show is among the very best in the calendar, and certainly one to be recommended. 

 

Goodness Me,

 

I may be out off touch with model railways these days but I don't see how the winner was chosen on this one.

[Clive Mortimore]

Goodness Me,

 

I may be out off touch with model railways these days but I don't see how the winner was chosen on this one.

Could it be because the judges viewing it thought it was good.

 

Real location and identifiable as such.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Goodness Me,

 

I may be out off touch with model railways these days but I don't see how the winner was chosen on this one.

 

Because it wasn't a diesel layout?

 

Mike.

[St Enodoc]

John,

 

I've mentioned this before, but, though both the yard and the mineral branch were fully-working, the operation of both (particularly linked to the Up line) meant it might be four/five minutes before another through train came along. Since the layout was 35' long, anyone by Catesby Tunnel mouth or the southern occupation bridge would only have seen 'movement' in the (relative) distance. On more than one occasion punters complained to me that 'Nothing is happening!'. 

 

What would you suggest we should have done? 

 

We ended up just shunting the yard for Down trains, always keeping something moving on the Up when this took place. I think what we have here is the paradox of creating an 'accurate' prototype location (though it was foreshortened - selective compression) but the prototype operation (in terms of the trains and the moments between them) was 'nonsense'. I had a passenger timetable for the period and (though we didn't have a WTT) assuming an average of a  couple of freights each way per hour on the real thing (?) it would have been highly-likely that anything up to 45 minutes or even an hour might pass between trains on the real thing. During those gaps, of course, shunting would have taken place. Can you imagine the outrage of running an 'accurate' exhibition layout (even a main line one) using 'accurate' time? I think not. 

Tony, I don't think that you could have done anything differently with the track layout on Charwelton. I think that this highlights the difficulty of building a layout that:

 

a) provides authentic operating interest;

b) satisfies the watching public; and

c) stops the operators from getting bored.

 

The only point that I was making is that Stoke Summit made a better impression on me as a spectator than did Charwelton, as it replicated the prototype operation more closely. However, given the opportunity I would have preferred to operate Charwelton rather than Stoke Summit outside the exhibition hall.

 

Others may have different views!

[Ben Alder]

Tony,

 

Those back scenes look extraordinarily good in the photos .... were they as convincing in real life? Are the photos just as was or have you done anything to them as far as the back scenes are concerned?

 

Tim

 

 

The one in Kitedale is "Hills and Dales" by ID Backscenes and has proved most effective on a number of layouts. Here is a link to their page.

 

http://www.art-printers.com/backscenes%2015%20inch%20p2.htm

 

He actually does two versions of it, a darker and lighter option, and IIR, was taken in Strathmore on the closed Caley main line to Aberdeen.

[Headstock]

Could it be because the judges viewing it thought it was good.

 

Real location and identifiable as such.

 

Great location, but I would have expected a winning layout to have more attention to the stock as regards loco lamps, crew, real coal in the tenders and wagons, perhaps working gangways. I may be wrong but some of the stock looks a little out of the box.

[bbishop]

Guys, we don't know the criteria that the judges were working to.

 

At the CMRA show, I disagreed with the judges about the award of the Denis Moore cup until they pointed out to me that their criterion was the layout that Denis would have considered to be the best scenically.

 

Bill

[t-b-g]

Tony, I don't think that you could have done anything differently with the track layout on Charwelton. I think that this highlights the difficulty of building a layout that:

 

a) provides authentic operating interest;

b) satisfies the watching public; and

c) stops the operators from getting bored.

 

The only point that I was making is that Stoke Summit made a better impression on me as a spectator than did Charwelton, as it replicated the prototype operation more closely. However, given the opportunity I would have preferred to operate Charwelton rather than Stoke Summit outside the exhibition hall.

 

Others may have different views!

 

My theory is that if you build an accurate model of a place where not much interesting operation went on, there is a high probability that you end up with a layout where not much interesting operation goes on.

 

It is one area where the fictitious layout comes into its own. If you want to run extra trains, or ones that terminate and/or shunt, you don't have to do it at the expense of realism and authenticity.

 

If I ever did find a prototype that had all the features I would want in a model, in a scenic setting that was pleasing to the eye, that would fit the space I would have available, I would only want to build a model of it if the variety of locos and stock and a variety of operating methods made it interesting to work.

 

I haven't found that real place yet!

 

I have just come back into the house after a 3 hour operating session on Buckingham.  I don't think a single move was done twice and we had light engines, directors saloons, through trains, terminating trains, pick up goods, a cattle train, a working slip coach, expresses and local trains, steam railmotors and push pulls, some with tail loads and some without. All offered and accepted by block instruments and signalled and all running to time using the speeded up clock.

 

Sheer modelling joy!

 

I can understand the appeal of the "parade of trains" type roundy roundy at a show or to present your trains to visitors but when it comes to pleasure from operating, there is no comparison for me.

 

It said lots to me that a good number of people came up to us at the recent Warley show and commented that our tiny little branch terminus, Leighton Buzzard, was the most interesting layout to watch because of the way it was operated. We didn't need pacifics on 12 carriages to entertain the public. We just ran the layout to the best of our ability, to Peter Denny's highly effective sequence. We shunted at scale speeds, tried to make the locos move as if they were real and made sure that whenever one move finished, as far as possible the next one was ready to start so the gaps were minimal. Some people stayed for an hour watching and then came back later for more, having been disappointed by the lack of interesting operation on most of the other layouts. Not bad when there were 90 odd others to see.

[Lecorbusier]

My theory is that if you build an accurate model of a place where not much interesting operation went on, there is a high probability that you end up with a layout where not much interesting operation goes on.

 

It is one area where the fictitious layout comes into its own. If you want to run extra trains, or ones that terminate and/or shunt, you don't have to do it at the expense of realism and authenticity.

 

If I ever did find a prototype that had all the features I would want in a model, in a scenic setting that was pleasing to the eye, that would fit the space I would have available, I would only want to build a model of it if the variety of locos and stock and a variety of operating methods made it interesting to work.

 

I haven't found that real place yet!

 

I have just come back into the house after a 3 hour operating session on Buckingham.  I don't think a single move was done twice and we had light engines, directors saloons, through trains, terminating trains, pick up goods, a cattle train, a working slip coach, expresses and local trains, steam railmotors and push pulls, some with tail loads and some without. All offered and accepted by block instruments and signalled and all running to time using the speeded up clock.

 

Sheer modelling joy!

 

I can understand the appeal of the "parade of trains" type roundy roundy at a show or to present your trains to visitors but when it comes to pleasure from operating, there is no comparison for me.

 

It said lots to me that a good number of people came up to us at the recent Warley show and commented that our tiny little branch terminus, Leighton Buzzard, was the most interesting layout to watch because of the way it was operated. We didn't need pacifics on 12 carriages to entertain the public. We just ran the layout to the best of our ability, to Peter Denny's highly effective sequence. We shunted at scale speeds, tried to make the locos move as if they were real and made sure that whenever one move finished, as far as possible the next one was ready to start so the gaps were minimal. Some people stayed for an hour watching and then came back later for more, having been disappointed by the lack of interesting operation on most of the other layouts. Not bad when there were 90 odd others to see.

Can't you to some extent meld the two? And isn't there a tendency to select according to taste?

 

By that I mean as far as a real place is concerned, wouldn't one likely choose a real place which evidences the type of railway that appeals. Following this, whether one models the prototype all but exactly or uses it as a starting point will depend on available space and what the end goal is. Then, as far as operation is concerned, one could have different scenarios for different occasions? Some for personal enjoyment, some for putting on a display and perhaps some simplified for non expert/unfamiliar operation? So long as there is a realism to the schedules and the underpinning 'might have been' is believable then 'it's your railway'.

 

I enjoy parade layouts for the excitement of  ... which train is coming through next  ....which will overtake which ..... their appearance in the landscape. I enjoy terminus and goods yard layouts for the interest within the operation - the shunting ... arrivals and departure etc etc. I also enjoy a mix of the two. Maybe I am just strange?

[Bucoops]

One of the reasons I'm considering using Shenfield as my layout inspiration (don't get me wrong, I'm a LONG way from starting it!) is because it's a through station, with a decent junction, and the end of a suburban diagram so also has trains that terminate. So I can design timetables that mimic the morning rush, or a lazy sunday depending on mood!

[Chamby]

...Some people stayed for an hour watching and then came back later for more, having been disappointed by the lack of interesting operation on most of the other layouts. Not bad when there were 90 odd others to see.

Railway modelling covers a remarkably wide range of interest. It’s great that Leighton Buzzard held the interest of some for so long, and I congratulate you on this. I don’t think this necessarily means that they were ‘disappointed’ with the other layouts though. Rather, your layout coincided more with their particular interests.

 

There were many other very different layouts at Warley, built and operated on very different principles that will have had the same level of mesmerising interest for other visitors of course. One of the key things that makes a successful exhibition is the variety of layouts on view, catering for a wide range of interests and modelling styles. Even layouts that are essentially assemblages of RTR stuff have their place, when done well, and these will tend to hold the interest for the many ‘amateur enthusiasts’ who probably make up the larger proportion of the paying public.

[t-b-g]

Railway modelling covers a remarkably wide range of interest. It’s great that Leighton Buzzard held the interest of some for so long, and I congratulate you on this. I don’t think this necessarily means that they were ‘disappointed’ with the other layouts though. Rather, your layout coincided more with their particular interests.

 

There were many other very different layouts at Warley, built and operated on very different principles that will have had the same level of mesmerising interest for other visitors of course. One of the key things that makes a successful exhibition is the variety of layouts on view, catering for a wide range of interests and modelling styles. Even layouts that are essentially assemblages of RTR stuff have their place, when done well, and these will tend to hold the interest for the many ‘amateur enthusiasts’ who probably make up the larger proportion of the paying public.

 

I would never presume to guess what others were thinking. The only reason I said they were disappointed in the operating of most of the other layouts was because they told me so.

 

I am not suggesting that all layouts at a show should be like Leighton Buzzard. There should be a variety of types, periods, scales etc..I am not against layouts using lots of RTR items to show what can be achieved and encourage newcomers into the hobby. I am saying that the operation of many layouts (of all types) at exhibitions is either boring, poor quality or both.

[Jesse Sim]

Been really enjoying the building of Parkside kits lately, I think today was the first day that I walked into my local Hobby store and browsed the Parkside wagon kits instead of the Bachmann RTR. 

 

 

 

More photos and Updates on my thread Tony, everything's coming along nicely. Pretty eager to step up to some whitemetal or brass kits. 

 

Jesse 

[71000]

Recently someone asked about the couplings I use within rakes of coaches. Hopefully these two pictures are self explanatory of the wire hook and bar soldered to PCB strips which are glued to the chassis. The pipework is cosmetic and attached to one of the coaches.

 

15 replacement couplings.jpg

 

30 couplings complete.jpg

Tony,

Very nice work. Unfortunately fitting such equipment to BR Mk1 coaches (or LNER/SR/Pullman stock) is totally superfluous. The reason is the difference between the equipment used by the various railways.

 

You need to understand the difference between corridor coaching stock. From 1923 basically two seperate systems became apparant. Firstly the SR and LNER took up the Pullman system using Buckeye rigid couplings and semi-rigid Pullman type gangways. While the GWR and LMS stuck with the classic British Standard Suspension (BSS) gangway and flexible Screwlink couplings.

 

Using the Buckeye type coupling because it was much stronger, and proven in derailments to help steady stock and resist vehicles turning over (so BR took it up as standard later). In conjunction with the semi-rigid Pullman corridor connection, which itself has buffing gear hidden in the floor section (known as the Pullman rubbing bar). This system therefore required coaching stock so fitted, to have bow ends where the bodyshell extends over the coupling fitted to the chassis below by around 1ft. The older BSS and screwink coupling was fitted to traditionally flat/square ended stock. That in itself required longer buffers to accomodate the flexible BSS gangway. Which as its name implies required "Suspension" brackets from above in some form, to help steady its flexibility. THe BSS type corridor also required latches that connected the outer ends of each BSS gangway together. On the Pullman type connection NO physical connection was required, as this type being shorter and more rigid, simply rubbed and slid across the wider rubbing facia of its counterpart.

 

The use of the Buckeye also required retractable buffers to be fitted. Firstly because the coupling is rigid and therefore the gap between vehicles is fixed. So in curves and pointwork buffers in their traditional side positions become a dangerous menace, likely to cause "Buffer overide" or Buffer lock" which causes derailments. But if you move the buffing to the centre of the vehicle (in the base of the Pullman gangway connection) you obviate the problems of side buffers. Hence traditonal buffers fitted to Buckeye stock had to be in the retracted position so they could NOT touch when the Buckeye was in use. The Southern it should be noted even removed buffers within a number of its "Sets", as they were effectively superfluous.

 

When coupling the two types of stock together, which was avoided where possible, the Buckeye fitted vehicle must have the Buckeye lowered to reveal a standard coupling hook, and the Buffers must be extended.  The BSS/screwlink fitted vehicle can then be coupled. But if the Gangways are to be used, an adaptor plate must first be fitted to the outer edge of the BSS gangway, to provide it with clamps to grab the Pullman type connection.

 

These technical attributes of the two types affect modelling when understood. For example it is realistically superfluous to provided sprung buffers on Buckeye stock, as these items should normally be in the retracted unused position. Which also helps in allowing models to be brought closer together with less danger of jamming in curves.  

 

The shortness of the Pullman connection is also a modelling benefit, as although short it, stands proud of the buffers. In the case of Bachmann their Mk1's are provided with an alternative "brake hose" type coupling. When this is utilised it brings the coaches virtually together, and because the Bachmann Mk1's are also fitted with "Flexi-coupling mounts" for the NEM pocket, such closeness should not be a problem until you get down to "trainset" radii curves !    The use of "Concertina" type gangway inserts as you have shown, is therefore superfluous. As is your handiwork on providing a very nice but time consuming brass coupling hook and brakehoses. However what you have made would be a lot better suited to LMS/GWR stock as these types in reality used the BSS/Screwlink system. Which by its nature provided larger gaps between coupled corridor stock.

 

 

Above: Bachmann Mk1 stock on my large 85ft x 22ft 9in layout "Basingstoke 1958-67", in "Modelling real locations". This reveals the quick fix provided by Bachmann simply using their own "brake hose" type couplings. No concertina additions necessary, and a much closer and more realistic result.    

 

71000    

Edited January 30, 2018 by 71000

[John Isherwood]

Tony,

Very nice work. Unfortunately fitting such equipment to BR Mk1 coaches (or LNER/SR/Pullman stock) is totally superfluous. The reason is the difference between the equipment used by the various railways.

 

You need to understand the difference between corridor coaching stock. From 1923 basically two seperate systems became apparant. Firstly the SR and LNER took up the Pullman system using Buckeye rigid couplings and semi-rigid Pullman type gangways. While the GWR and LMS stuck with the classic British Standard Suspension (BSS) gangway and flexible Screwlink couplings.

 

Using the Buckeye type coupling because it was much stronger, and proven in derailments to help steady stock and resist vehicles turning over (so BR took it up as standard later). In conjunction with the semi-rigid Pullman corridor connection, which itself has buffing gear hidden in the floor section (known as the Pullman rubbing bar). This system therefore required coaching stock so fitted, to have bow ends where the bodyshell extends over the coupling fitted to the chassis below by around 1ft. The older BSS and screwink coupling was fitted to traditionally flat/square ended stock. That in itself required longer buffers to accomodate the flexible BSS gangway. Which as its name implies required "Suspension" brackets from above in some form, to help steady its flexibility. THe BSS type corridor also required latches that connected the outer ends of each BSS gangway together. On the Pullman type connection NO physical connection was required, as this type being shorter and more rigid, simply rubbed and slid across the wider rubbing facia of its counterpart.

 

The use of the Buckeye also required retractable buffers to be fitted. Firstly because the coupling is rigid and therefore the gap between vehicles is fixed. So in curves and pointwork buffers in their traditional side positions become a dangerous menace, likely to cause "Buffer overide" or Buffer lock" which causes derailments. But if you move the buffing to the centre of the vehicle (in the base of the Pullman gangway connection) you obviate the problems of side buffers. Hence traditonal buffers fitted to Buckeye stock had to be in the retracted position so they could NOT touch when the Buckeye was in use. The Southern it should be noted even removed buffers within a number of its "Sets", as they were effectively superfluous.

 

When coupling the two types of stock together, which was avoided where possible, the Buckeye fitted vehicle must have the Buckeye lowered to reveal a standard coupling hook, and the Buffers must be extended.  The BSS/screwlink fitted vehicle can then be coupled. But if the Gangways are to be used, an adaptor plate must first be fitted to the outer edge of the BSS gangway, to provide it with clamps to grab the Pullman type connection.

 

These technical attributes of the two types affect modelling when understood. For example it is realistically superfluous to provided sprung buffers on Buckeye stock, as these items should normally be in the retracted unused position. Which also helps in allowing models to be brought closer together with less danger of jamming in curves.  

 

The shortness of the Pullman connection is also a modelling benefit, as although short it, stands proud of the buffers. In the case of Bachmann their Mk1's are provided with an alternative "brake hose" type coupling. When this is utilised it brings the coaches virtually together, and because the Bachmann Mk1's are also fitted with "Flexi-coupling mounts" for the NEM pocket, such closeness should not be a problem until you get down to "trainset" radii curves !    The use of "Concertina" type gangway inserts as you have shown, is therefore superfluous. As is your handiwork on providing a very nice but time consuming brass coupling hook and brakehoses. However what you have made would be a lot better suited to LMS/GWR stock as these types in reality used the BSS/Screwlink system. Which by its nature provided larger gaps between coupled corridor stock.

 

S15025 Mk1 CK Set 867 01.jpg

Above: Bachmann Mk1 stock on my large 85ft x 22ft 9in layout "Basingstoke 1958-67", in "Modelling real locations". This reveals the quick fix provided by Bachmann simply using their own "brake hose" type couplings. No concertina additions necessary, and a much closer and more realistic result.    

 

71000    

 

I don't know why, but the words 'granny', 'suck' and 'eggs' spring to mind !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[The Stationmaster]

Great location, but I would have expected a winning layout to have more attention to the stock as regards loco lamps, crew, real coal in the tenders and wagons, perhaps working gangways. I may be wrong but some of the stock looks a little out of the box.

 

It depends entirely on the judging criteria and some exhibitions vary this, and the judges, from year to year in order to highlight particular themes in railway modelling.  (and one year when i judged at a exhibition I did indeed take into account such things as the correct lamping of trains because of the criteria ('operational realism') on which i had been asked to judge 

[sulzer27jd]

The one in Kitedale is "Hills and Dales" by ID Backscenes and has proved most effective on a number of layouts. Here is a link to their page.

 

http://www.art-printers.com/backscenes%2015%20inch%20p2.htm

 

He actually does two versions of it, a darker and lighter option, and IIR, was taken in Strathmore on the closed Caley main line to Aberdeen.

 

And that is the weak spot. Having been used on other layouts, it is instantly recognisable now. Although, I am at an added disadvantage, as I see that view every day, so it is really noticeable how often it is used. The more I see photo backscenes in use the less inclined I am to utilise them.

 

John

[Tony Wright]

Goodness Me,

 

I may be out off touch with model railways these days but I don't see how the winner was chosen on this one.

Andrew,

 

Please explain why, if you don't mind. 

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

Very nice work. Unfortunately fitting such equipment to BR Mk1 coaches (or LNER/SR/Pullman stock) is totally superfluous. The reason is the difference between the equipment used by the various railways.

 

You need to understand the difference between corridor coaching stock. From 1923 basically two seperate systems became apparant. Firstly the SR and LNER took up the Pullman system using Buckeye rigid couplings and semi-rigid Pullman type gangways. While the GWR and LMS stuck with the classic British Standard Suspension (BSS) gangway and flexible Screwlink couplings.

 

Using the Buckeye type coupling because it was much stronger, and proven in derailments to help steady stock and resist vehicles turning over (so BR took it up as standard later). In conjunction with the semi-rigid Pullman corridor connection, which itself has buffing gear hidden in the floor section (known as the Pullman rubbing bar). This system therefore required coaching stock so fitted, to have bow ends where the bodyshell extends over the coupling fitted to the chassis below by around 1ft. The older BSS and screwink coupling was fitted to traditionally flat/square ended stock. That in itself required longer buffers to accomodate the flexible BSS gangway. Which as its name implies required "Suspension" brackets from above in some form, to help steady its flexibility. THe BSS type corridor also required latches that connected the outer ends of each BSS gangway together. On the Pullman type connection NO physical connection was required, as this type being shorter and more rigid, simply rubbed and slid across the wider rubbing facia of its counterpart.

 

The use of the Buckeye also required retractable buffers to be fitted. Firstly because the coupling is rigid and therefore the gap between vehicles is fixed. So in curves and pointwork buffers in their traditional side positions become a dangerous menace, likely to cause "Buffer overide" or Buffer lock" which causes derailments. But if you move the buffing to the centre of the vehicle (in the base of the Pullman gangway connection) you obviate the problems of side buffers. Hence traditonal buffers fitted to Buckeye stock had to be in the retracted position so they could NOT touch when the Buckeye was in use. The Southern it should be noted even removed buffers within a number of its "Sets", as they were effectively superfluous.

 

When coupling the two types of stock together, which was avoided where possible, the Buckeye fitted vehicle must have the Buckeye lowered to reveal a standard coupling hook, and the Buffers must be extended.  The BSS/screwlink fitted vehicle can then be coupled. But if the Gangways are to be used, an adaptor plate must first be fitted to the outer edge of the BSS gangway, to provide it with clamps to grab the Pullman type connection.

 

These technical attributes of the two types affect modelling when understood. For example it is realistically superfluous to provided sprung buffers on Buckeye stock, as these items should normally be in the retracted unused position. Which also helps in allowing models to be brought closer together with less danger of jamming in curves.  

 

The shortness of the Pullman connection is also a modelling benefit, as although short it, stands proud of the buffers. In the case of Bachmann their Mk1's are provided with an alternative "brake hose" type coupling. When this is utilised it brings the coaches virtually together, and because the Bachmann Mk1's are also fitted with "Flexi-coupling mounts" for the NEM pocket, such closeness should not be a problem until you get down to "trainset" radii curves !    The use of "Concertina" type gangway inserts as you have shown, is therefore superfluous. As is your handiwork on providing a very nice but time consuming brass coupling hook and brakehoses. However what you have made would be a lot better suited to LMS/GWR stock as these types in reality used the BSS/Screwlink system. Which by its nature provided larger gaps between coupled corridor stock.

 

S15025 Mk1 CK Set 867 01.jpg

Above: Bachmann Mk1 stock on my large 85ft x 22ft 9in layout "Basingstoke 1958-67", in "Modelling real locations". This reveals the quick fix provided by Bachmann simply using their own "brake hose" type couplings. No concertina additions necessary, and a much closer and more realistic result.    

 

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. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Tony Wright

[trustytrev]

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. 

Ouch:)