The LNER Encyclopedia

I can't look at an OO layout without its "Narrow Gauge" track spoiling the effect.At the same time I've heard "purists" rowing over OO rail profiles and using terms like "ultra-fine scale".

When I worked as a saturday-boy at Beatties in Southgate, I once saw an HO version of a UK 4-6-0 lined up against its OO equivalent. The HO won hands down.

Will the dead hand of a 1930's compromise ever lose its grip?,

421

Well now JG,

Would that HO 4-6-0 be the Rivarossi Royal Scot? If so I suspect that it wasn't to 1:87 (true HO) - many earlier HO models by continental companies were themselves to a compromise scale - 1:82 was a popular one - and for the same reason that British models were. I had a couple of W German steam locos before I saw the light and moved to British O gauge which were both oversize. The Trix British protoypes (A2 etc) were to this midway scale, more accurate than OO but not true HO.

I don't have a personal axe to grind as my models are to 7mm/1ft (although not ScaleSeven - woops). I agree that both HO and P4 look better than OO but there are a large number of OO layouts, many of which are convincing models. I watched the exhibition layout at two or three shows "Stoke Bank" and enjoyed it immensely. Convincing consists and running speeds (both so often neglected) made it a real railway for me, despite the compromised standards.
Going back a bit I watched Frank Dyer's layout at shows and have rarely seen a layout to beat his OO work.

Jingling Geordie wrote: Will the dead hand of a 1930's compromise ever lose its grip?,
421

probably not, too many people and companies are committed to OO. All models are compromises, you draw your own lines, set your own rules, if 16.5mm really worries you then there are plenty of suppliers who will sell you wheels etc to convert to EM or P4. Personally I would put two "crimes" well ahead of compromised track standards
1) No signals, or non-working signals or the death penalty for operators who can't be bothered to work the signals
2) Unweathered stock - unless you model early pre-grouping dirt is essential to realism

....but, as I said, we all make our own rules.

Chaz

Even low-cost proprietary OO has moved on immensely since the days of Beatties - top end proprietary items, other carefully detailed RTR items, and hand built OO are even better. Dead scale rolling stock requiring dead scale track geometry will never be practical for many enthusiasts whose ambitions to build a "main line" layout cannot be realised in the available space without compression of lengths and severe tightening of curves and junction angles. Save for the clash between the narrow OO "four foot way" and the usually wide OO "six foot way", which I find fairly easy to ignore, and for the exact details of relationships in complex multi-track crossings which are probably only known to a few signal and track specialists, the only howling omission from current ready-to-use OO these days is, in my opinion, pointwork more convincingly timbered in British style and spacing, with fine-section rail. That aside, I'm afraid I'm very very happy with the modern consequences of the "dead-hand of 1930s compromise", and I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to modify the lot, start again, or go over to scratchbuilding everything simply so that the manufacturers could cater instead for the "dead-scale zealot" minority.

Watto Chaz and 3279.

I agree in principle with a lot that you've both saidfor it was the pcky pedantry of some of the modelling fraternity that I was questioning.

Todays RTRs are simply fantastic. But their bodies are too wide for their track gauge and therefore also too tall.

The best compromise is N gauge whose stock runs on 4ft 6ins track. The worst was English TT whose 4ft gauge would have been ideal for the Port Dinorwic? Slate Line but little else.

Regarding Beatties, we once had a small number of Hornby ACHO USA Dock Tanks. The were quite fabulous. I've never seen them since.

421

Jingling Geordie wrote:it was the pcky pedantry of some of the modelling fraternity that I was questioning.

Next time you meet a picky pedant try asking either....
"Is that how you did it?"
or...
"Have you got any pictures of the one you did?"
something of the sort usually shuts 'em up.....

In my experience anyone who has (for instance) converted all his stock to P4, knows how much time effort and money is involved and understands why someone would choose not to.

Chacun a son gout.

Chaz

I suppose the real answer is to lay the track so that it is rarely seen " head on" and where it cant be avoided obscure the view or divert the eye.

In the end our layouts are an attempt to capture a dream or a memory or even just a way of enjoying watching trains run about.

Off on a complete tangent I wonder why no-one to my knowledge has modelled an imaginary preserved railway, you'ld be your own prototype and could do as you wished or even a scrap-yard

421

Jingling Geordie wrote:I wonder why no-one to my knowledge has modelled an imaginary preserved railway, you'ld be your own prototype and could do as you wished or even a scrap-yard
421

I think you will find they have! I can't give you chapter and verse but model railways exist in profusion, everything from exact scale, no compromise, models of prototypes with every sleeper in the right place to complete fantasy systems with imaginary stations, locos etc.

However if an imaginary preserved railway is what appeals to you, I look forward to some snaps of the result!

Chaz

Watto Chaz,

A model of a preserved railway allows you to run what ever you like with what ever you like. I go to the occasional railway exhibition and am genuinely impressed by the workmanship that the layouts display.

My only layout of which I have no photographs had 3 running "ovals". There were two that formed a main line and one was a cross country link line. The mainline ovals were at least 35ft in length 10ft of which were not visible. The cross-country was 30ft and most of which was visible.

In addition there was a self contained branch line that went from a minimal high level terminus via the platforms of the "town" 2nd Main line station now reduced to a single branch line. The branch was about 15ft before it disappeared into the mountains. The branch line was selp operating with two time delay /reversal "switches" and one simple stop/delay/start switch.


The layout measured 14ft by 8ft and there was an operating oblong in the middle measuring 6ft by 3ft It occupied a 16ft by 12ft spare bedroom.

My greatest delight was to set the four off running and just wait for the moment when the three "oval runners ran across a short secrion of three line track. More rarely all four lined up briefly.

For a moment I could have been back on Finsbury Park Station. So what if the engines were German prototypes.

I no longer have the space, skills or determination to run and build a layouit that could match that experience.

421

Jingling Geordie wrote:A model of a preserved railway allows you to run what ever you like with what ever you like......
I no longer have the space, skills or determination to run and build a layouit that could match that experience.
421

JG - You can always run whatever you like. I do sometimes see layouts at shows where post-privatisation stock is running with steam era, but I personally won't stand and watch such layouts. Of course it's a free country but "taking liberties" like that doesn't appeal to me. If it does to you, fine.
My own layout has some anachronisms of which I am aware (and maybe some that I am not!). A green class 03 diesel shunter often appears in the same yard as an ex-GNR J52. Didn't happen I think - but it doesn't look glaringly wrong so I am happy. A couple of my wagons are out of time, a BR vacuum fitted bogie bolster of a type that didn't appear until after steam had vanished from the ECML, and a little GER van that didn't make it to LNER days let alone BR! But I accept the "error" and am content. As I said in a previous posting we all have a set of rules in our head that apply to our models.

It's a pity that you can't build and run a layout now. I am aware that I do need to get on with my many unfinished projects. I'm 60, I would guess I will be lucky if I get another ten years of active modelling. Eyesight or dexterity may well deteriorate to the point where I can't assemble or paint a plastic wagon, let alone build a compensated loco chassis. Something we all have to face and a very good reason to GET ON WITH IT while we still can!

Chaz

Chaz
You needn't fret too much about running 03s and J52s together as they overlapped by a year or two. The first four 03s were delivered new to 34A Dec 57, soon moving on to 34C. I believe there were still a few J52s around at that time.

Cheers
Simon.

By Heck, Simon, you're not wrong. Thanks for that nugget of info'. Just looked it up. My 1958 Combine shows the 03s as introduced in 57, and 11 J52s surviving, including 68824, which is the number my model carries. PHEW!
By 1960 there were apparently only two J52s, both at Ardsley. Oh, and of course Bill Smith's 1247, which escaped the torch. Hoorah!

Chaz