Warley 2017

Announcements, recommendations, visit reports etc. Discussion of the Society's own shows.
garethevans1986
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:18 am

Re: Warley 2017

Postby garethevans1986 » Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:59 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:I was disappointed by Mostyn.
I watched it twice for about 6 minutes each time.
On both occasions there were derailments that stopped all movements.
Also on both occasions they were running un-fitted freight trains (surprising in BR times) with no brake van.

I was so peeved by these trangressions that I didn't take notice of the signalling which seems a
shame as it got an award.


I've shown this post to Richard Oldfield, as he's unable to post on here, he has asked me to reply with the following:

Dear Paul,

I am sorry that you were disappointed by Mostyn – we try our best to present a reliable railway but, with over 630 items in intensive use throughout the weekend, it is not surprising that we suffer from the occasional gremlin (just like the real thing). We also try to keep operators available to talk to the public and make visitors welcome inside the layout.

If you do not understand the rules relating to the use of brake vans in Mostyn’s 1977 time period then myself (or one of my fellow team members) would have been happy to explain them to you. We carry the relevant Working Manual for Rail Staff (and a whole host of other BR publications) for Mostyn’s 1977 time period with us to exhibitions.

Mostyn’s trains run in fixed formations, apart from those required to call in and shunt at the yard.

The only trains running without a brake van are:-

Up Continuous Welded Rail empties – a fully fitted formation consisting of converted LMS and BR double bolsters = does not need a brake van.

Up Penmaenmawr – Manchester Hope Street stone train – consisting of 16 Dia. 1/185 MSVs (i.e. vacuum-braked iron ore tipplers) = does not need a brake van. Built by garethevans1986 from this forum.

Down Trafford Park – Holyhead Freightliners – consisting of 3 x 5-car FGA/FFA/FFA/FFA/FGA air-braked sets = does not need a brake van.

Down Anglesey Aluminium Empties – consisting of 23 vacuum-braked pipe wagons from Diagrams 1/460 and 1/462 = does not need a brake van.

Down Block Vans – consisting of 14 assorted vans from Diagrams 1/208, 1/213 and 1/224, all of which are vacuum-braked = does not need a brake van.

Up Holyhead – Willesden Freightliners – consisting of 4 x 5-car FGA/FFA/FFA/FFA/FGA air-braked sets = does not need a brake van.

Up Penmaenmawr – St Helens Ballast train – consisting of 3 Walruses, a Shark and 10 Mermaids, all of which are vacuum-braked = does not need a brake van.

All the above rakes correctly carry a tail-lamp on the last vehicle.

Furthermore it is not a surprise that BR was still running unfitted (or partially-fitted) freight trains in 1977. All the trip workings on the North Wales coast at that time were Class 8 or Class 9 for all or part of their journeys – see http://www.2d53.co.uk – and explore the trip diagrams there.
You only have to examine the coal/coke wagon fleet in 1977 (figures derived from Bartlett et al Volume 1). There were still 70000 unfitted wagons compared with 36000 vacuum-braked and 10000 air-braked examples.

I would like to think that the Mostyn team, together with that of Kettlewell, can take some satisfaction from the fact that we provided P4 entertainment to large and appreciative crowds throughout the weekend. Some might see it as odd that the only criticism I have seen (of either layout) comes on this forum. Surely landing three of the available trophies between the two P4 layouts is something to feel good about?

Cheers,
Richard
Gareth O. Evans
IT Consultant/Director of Web46 IT Solutions
 
Member of the Barrowmore Model Railway Group
Diesel Crank

RichardS
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:51 am

Re: Warley 2017

Postby RichardS » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:57 pm

Noel wrote:
.....as I had said what I wanted to say, and didn't want to cause further offence. However, I will risk it...

I have not seen the layout; I'm just working from photographs, which can be misleading, I know.



Wow! :shock:
Kind regards
Richard

I'm not always a railway modelling heretic

User avatar
LesGros
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:05 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby LesGros » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:03 pm

Noel wrote:
... I have not seen the layout; I'm just working from photographs, which can be misleading, ...


Good grief!

Seeing the layout is probably the first requirement for anyone intending to write a credible critique of it.

:!:
LesG

The man who never made a mistake
never made anything useful

Philip Hall
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Philip Hall » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:20 pm

I remember reading that Guy Williams would always find something, however small, that he did like about someone’s model even if he was not impressed with it generally, so as not to hurt their feelings when they had spent much time and effort. That seems a very nice way of doing things to me. It may be that Kettlewell was not the greatest P4 layout in the world (I saw it briefly at Scaleforum from behind a camera lens, thought it was quite nice, and I wasn’t at Warley). But there was no need to be so blunt. Most of us have things we don’t do very well; rocks and glass houses and all that. There are ways of saying things...

Philip

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Julian Roberts » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:29 pm

In my opinion Noel Anderson 's comments about Kettlewell are a complete disgrace. To make them without even seeing it beggars belief. His assumptions on every level bear absolutely no relation to the truth. Fortunately the builder and operators of the layout do not waste their time reading this Forum still less contributing to it. If they did, probably the layout would still be at the navel gazing stage. Perhaos Noel will share with us pictures of his layout and when we may be able to experience its excellence?

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Le Corbusier » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:33 pm

I don't pretend to be either particularly knowledgable or greatly discerning, but I spent a very pleasurable half hour with Allan Goodwillie at Scaleforum who was operating the lever frame on Kettlewell and thoroughly enjoyed talking with him about the layout amongst other things. To my eyes the photos don't do it justice ... this is also true of some of the other layouts (Minories and Mount Woodville spring to mind, which were much more impressive to me in the flesh).
Tim Lee

User avatar
David Thorpe
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:13 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby David Thorpe » Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:53 pm

Noel's description of the "Kettlewell" he so severely criticises in no way accords with the P4 Kettlewell that I have seen on two occasions and liked very much. I can only think that Noel must be getting it muddled up with another layout, but in any event to level such blunt and hurtful criticism at a layout that one hasn't even seen is completely unacceptable.

DT

User avatar
John McAleely
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby John McAleely » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:05 pm

Noel wrote:
John McAleely wrote:Noel, compared to some of the other critiques offered on this thread, I think that seems quite blunt and unhelpful. I assume the layout is the work of one of our members. They don’t appear to be on the thread to ask for clarification or further thoughts. Would it be reasonable to ask for something more constructive, unless I’ve misunderstood?


Hi, John. I nearly didn't respond to this, as I had said what I wanted to say, and didn't want to cause further offence. However, I will risk it...


There is always an option to walk back from a statement. Not often something I consider online, but I try to remember it myself from time to time.

FWIW I think we should be careful to allow criticism of work, and especially the work of active participants on this forum, as an example, I suspect a lot of people are learning about brake vans around us as we conduct this thread.

When the work is more distant, I think it’s worth putting some effort in to make the critique richer in context, and easier to discuss. After all, we all are likely to have different views of any particular work.

There is a gray line somewhere between needless offence and criticism I suspect, and I don’t think we should police it to carefully. Tolerance of the sort of language that plays badly online is appropriate where we can. Whilst i’m happy to have challenged the original posting, I think the longer one can stand on its own merits.

I think the subsequent piling in on Noel is a bit unseemly, but I’m sure there is a discussion to be had for forum members about the merits of judging a work only by a set of photographs. This might not be the right thread.

Thank you for clarifying Noel. That is what I asked for. I welcome your future contributions to the forum.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1049
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Noel » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:42 pm

Julian Roberts wrote:In my opinion Noel Anderson 's comments about Kettlewell are a complete disgrace. To make them without even seeing it beggars belief. His assumptions on every level bear absolutely no relation to the truth. Fortunately the builder and operators of the layout do not waste their time reading this Forum still less contributing to it. If they did, probably the layout would still be at the navel gazing stage. Perhaos Noel will share with us pictures of his layout and when we may be able to experience its excellence?


Yes, I knew somebody would come up with that one when I wrote my explanation. Should we abolish art critics, music critics, film critics et al as well? Life is a process of making judgements on all sorts of things, most of them subjective, with no agreed criteria for the judgement, using mental tools which are largely fixed in early childhood. You don't have to agree with other peoples' judgements, but you may miss something if you reject them without consideration. I like being criticised no more than anyone else, but sometimes I have a different viewpoint to other people, and don't see why I shouldn't defend it. I have tried to be polite about it.

Philip Hall wrote:(I saw it briefly at Scaleforum from behind a camera lens, thought it was quite nice, and I wasn’t at Warley


My original comment was about the prize it was given. I did look at the Scaleforum photos, plus those from Kelly on Flickr. Certainly, on that evidence, it is a layout I would not be interested in seeing.

John McAleely wrote: I’m sure there is a discussion to be had for forum members about the merits of judging a work only by a set of photographs.


The major factor that is missing is clearly the operation of the layout, both as a model and as a representation of a real railway. That can only be seen if you view the layout itself.

John McAleely wrote:I welcome your future contributions to the forum


Thank you, John. I don't propose to make any further comment on this particular topic.
Regards
Noel

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Le Corbusier » Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:57 pm

John McAleely wrote:
There is always an option to walk back from a statement. Not often something I consider online, but I try to remember it myself from time to time.

FWIW I think we should be careful to allow criticism of work, and especially the work of active participants on this forum, as an example, I suspect a lot of people are learning about brake vans around us as we conduct this thread.

When the work is more distant, I think it’s worth putting some effort in to make the critique richer in context, and easier to discuss. After all, we all are likely to have different views of any particular work.

There is a gray line somewhere between needless offence and criticism I suspect, and I don’t think we should police it to carefully. Tolerance of the sort of language that plays badly online is appropriate where we can. Whilst i’m happy to have challenged the original posting, I think the longer one can stand on its own merits.

I think the subsequent piling in on Noel is a bit unseemly, but I’m sure there is a discussion to be had for forum members about the merits of judging a work only by a set of photographs. This might not be the right thread.

Thank you for clarifying Noel. That is what I asked for. I welcome your future contributions to the forum.


John,

I concur with the spirit of this. I for one am extremely grateful for the active and constructive input I have had on my own thread, and am keen for constructive criticism to aid both understanding and improvement. Noel's input on Monsal Dale has been extremely helpful to me and generously given.

The problem with our hobby (though not exclusive to it) is that as modellers we are a pretty passionate bunch with definite ideas and tastes. As with any creative endeavour we put our heart and soul into our pet projects. This unfortunately makes you vulnerable as an individual - you are hanging out there with very little armour ... I certainly find it difficult posting my efforts on line for scrutiny and often await reaction with a degree of trepidation ... but how else are you going to learn and improve.

Tone is very important, and even with the best intensions this can end up being misjudged. Perhaps gentleness should be the watch word here?
Tim Lee

RichardS
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:51 am

Re: Warley 2017

Postby RichardS » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:15 pm

It's got nothing to do with ideas and tastes. It's all about how you treat other people in public when they cannot respond or defend themselves immediately.

Posts on a forum are essentially emails which are broadcast publically.

If the interpretation of such a message is that of public disparagement by subjective criticism without reference, then the originator must expect to be questioned.

Whoever this Noel character is his first post was pompous his later contribution pretentious.

He may not like Kettlewell but no doubt it is the owner's pride and joy. Let's hope their feelings have not been hurt.
Kind regards
Richard

I'm not always a railway modelling heretic

User avatar
kelly
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 1:59 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby kelly » Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:46 pm

Another impressive weekend.

Spent most of Saturday on the DEMU stand talking with visitors or working on various things (as it turned out without much success but that is an entirely different story! and a learning experience).

Spent the Sunday looking more closely at the layouts.

In the case of Kineton, this is my local clubs layout (Leamington & Warwick) and has a number of innovations as pointed out previously. Another not mentioned is the mirrors to show the workings underneath (MERG CBUS/DCC). They've done a lot of research for the area and involved the local history study groups, gaining much more information (and sharing what they;ve found back). It was great to see it well recieved, even if my personal perference is 4mm.

Mostyn was as expected great (I saw it at Gaydon and got to have a go there, great fun!).

Dispite the opinion above, I find that the NEC is one of the best venues in many respects. Especially in terms of accessibility. The lighting improvements this year were very welcome too. It has its faults like any exhibition venue, but overall I think it works well enough with helpful staff generally (as opposed to others in my experience).
DEMU UPDate Editor
DEMU
Photos on Flickr

Julian Roberts
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Julian Roberts » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:35 pm

The question is how to criticise constructively. Much criticism on the Forum is by way of constructive and informative help, and that is very welcome.

I regard critics as part of the low life feeding frenzy that accompanies the creative world. Seldom in the classical music world do they spout more than a regurgitation of the programme notes; almost never do they say anything useful about an actual performance beyond a received opinion commonly held; they are for people who are too weak minded to believe their own perceptions as to what is good and bad and need to be told what to think. They can bear as little relation to reality as Noel's critique of Kettlewell. The composer Richard Strauss characterised the critics about 5 or 6 minutes into "Ein Hebdenleben" - a cacophony of frenzied, stabbing, spiteful, out of time, shrill and ugly music on the woodwind. Try listening and hear for yourself.

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Le Corbusier » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:56 am

Julian Roberts wrote:The question is how to criticise constructively. Much criticism on the Forum is by way of constructive and informative help, and that is very welcome.

I regard critics as part of the low life feeding frenzy that accompanies the creative world. Seldom in the classical music world do they spout more than a regurgitation of the programme notes; almost never do they say anything useful about an actual performance beyond a received opinion commonly held; they are for people who are too weak minded to believe their own perceptions as to what is good and bad and need to be told what to think. They can bear as little relation to reality as Noel's critique of Kettlewell. The composer Richard Strauss characterised the critics about 5 or 6 minutes into "Ein Hebdenleben" - a cacophony of frenzied, stabbing, spiteful, out of time, shrill and ugly music on the woodwind. Try listening and hear for yourself.


As far as critique is concerned, I would perhaps make a distinction here between press, learned press and academia .... though there is some overlap. My experience is the architectural world. The press tends to be simply reactive and more often than not sensationalist. It is usually both ill informed and wrong, but can scream emperor's clothes quite appositely at times. The learned press is much better informed but often has an agenda and is definitely partisan. The critiques of Academia (normally taking the form of papers or books) tend to be informed, considered and beneficial (though often uncomfortable reading) even when drafted as a polemic. All are reflective of a moment in time and more broadly of the Zeitgeist.

I have no problem with Kettlewell not being Noel's cup of tea (though my view is different). I agree with John that if such a view is to be expressed it needs some substance behind it. I thought the views as expressed were harsh and one could debate them, but not impolite or unsubstantiated and they had been requested. I for one would be interested in the reasoned counter views (should there be any) in the interests of balance and open debate.

As I said earlier Gentleness is perhaps the watchword for such debates and empathy should lie with the subject of the critique.
Tim Lee

Terry Bendall
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Terry Bendall » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:25 am

Le Corbusier wrote:It was at Scaleforum this year


Indeed it was and the invitation was issued when I first saw the then unfinished layout several years ago. Why was it invited? Firstly because it is a first attempt at building a layout to P4 standards, it represents a location and period not often modelled (the aim eventually is to model Midland Railway period and stock) and it has lots of interesting features. Read the description in the Scaleforum 2017 guide to refresh your memory.

Noel wrote:I have not seen the layout; I'm just working from photographs, which can be misleading, I know


In which case I would suggest that the comments should never have been made.

Noel wrote:I have no idea whether the owner is a member or not. I believe this is a rebuild of a layout which was previously EM, so the owner could be an EMGS member, as they also support P4.


Noel, if you had read the Scaleforum 2017 guide the history and background of the layout would have been quite clear and show that the comments above are inaccurate.

Constructive criticism - Yes, but let it be based on fact not assumption.

Terry Bendall

User avatar
Le Corbusier
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Le Corbusier » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:36 am

Terry Bendall wrote: Why was it invited? Firstly because it is a first attempt at building a layout to P4 standards, it represents a location and period not often modelled (the aim eventually is to model Midland Railway period and stock) and it has lots of interesting features.

Terry Bendall


Terry,

For my part very much appreciated ... for beginners like myself it provided a real inspiration and it was great to talk to the team.
Tim Lee

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Paul Townsend » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:54 am

This is just a test reply as two earlier and longer replies failed to arrive

garethevans1986 wrote:
Paul Townsend wrote:I was disappointed by Mostyn.
I watched it twice for about 6 minutes each time.
On both occasions there were derailments that stopped all movements.
Also on both occasions they were running un-fitted freight trains (surprising in BR times) with no brake van.

I was so peeved by these trangressions that I didn't take notice of the signalling which seems a
shame as it got an award.


I've shown this post to Richard Oldfield, as he's unable to post on here, he has asked me to reply with the following:

Dear Paul,

I am sorry that you were disappointed by Mostyn – we try our best to present a reliable railway but, with over 630 items in intensive use throughout the weekend, it is not surprising that we suffer from the occasional gremlin (just like the real thing). We also try to keep operators available to talk to the public and make visitors welcome inside the layout.

If you do not understand the rules relating to the use of brake vans in Mostyn’s 1977 time period then myself (or one of my fellow team members) would have been happy to explain them to you. We carry the relevant Working Manual for Rail Staff (and a whole host of other BR publications) for Mostyn’s 1977 time period with us to exhibitions.

Mostyn’s trains run in fixed formations, apart from those required to call in and shunt at the yard.

The only trains running without a brake van are:-

Up Continuous Welded Rail empties – a fully fitted formation consisting of converted LMS and BR double bolsters = does not need a brake van.

Up Penmaenmawr – Manchester Hope Street stone train – consisting of 16 Dia. 1/185 MSVs (i.e. vacuum-braked iron ore tipplers) = does not need a brake van. Built by garethevans1986 from this forum.

Down Trafford Park – Holyhead Freightliners – consisting of 3 x 5-car FGA/FFA/FFA/FFA/FGA air-braked sets = does not need a brake van.

Down Anglesey Aluminium Empties – consisting of 23 vacuum-braked pipe wagons from Diagrams 1/460 and 1/462 = does not need a brake van.

Down Block Vans – consisting of 14 assorted vans from Diagrams 1/208, 1/213 and 1/224, all of which are vacuum-braked = does not need a brake van.

Up Holyhead – Willesden Freightliners – consisting of 4 x 5-car FGA/FFA/FFA/FFA/FGA air-braked sets = does not need a brake van.

Up Penmaenmawr – St Helens Ballast train – consisting of 3 Walruses, a Shark and 10 Mermaids, all of which are vacuum-braked = does not need a brake van.

All the above rakes correctly carry a tail-lamp on the last vehicle.

Furthermore it is not a surprise that BR was still running unfitted (or partially-fitted) freight trains in 1977. All the trip workings on the North Wales coast at that time were Class 8 or Class 9 for all or part of their journeys – see http://www.2d53.co.uk – and explore the trip diagrams there.
You only have to examine the coal/coke wagon fleet in 1977 (figures derived from Bartlett et al Volume 1). There were still 70000 unfitted wagons compared with 36000 vacuum-braked and 10000 air-braked examples.

I would like to think that the Mostyn team, together with that of Kettlewell, can take some satisfaction from the fact that we provided P4 entertainment to large and appreciative crowds throughout the weekend. Some might see it as odd that the only criticism I have seen (of either layout) comes on this forum. Surely landing three of the available trophies between the two P4 layouts is something to feel good about?

Cheers,
Richard

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Paul Townsend » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:00 am

Paul Townsend wrote:This is just a test reply as two earlier and longer replies failed to arrive

Now edited since the above test line got through OK
Thanks for the comprehensive response below to my disappointment.
Several days on, I don't recall which unfitted freight trains I saw without brake vans.
It has been suggested by a chum that I may have seen fitted trains where the detail of vac pipes had been ommitted. That is possible, but I remain disappointed since IMHO vac pipes are as necessary as wheels on a fitted train.
Its a pity I was miffed by this as it stopped me admiring award winning signalling!

garethevans1986 wrote:
Paul Townsend wrote:I was disappointed by Mostyn.
I watched it twice for about 6 minutes each time.
On both occasions there were derailments that stopped all movements.
Also on both occasions they were running un-fitted freight trains (surprising in BR times) with no brake van.

I was so peeved by these trangressions that I didn't take notice of the signalling which seems a
shame as it got an award.


I've shown this post to Richard Oldfield, as he's unable to post on here, he has asked me to reply with the following:

Dear Paul,

I am sorry that you were disappointed by Mostyn – we try our best to present a reliable railway but, with over 630 items in intensive use throughout the weekend, it is not surprising that we suffer from the occasional gremlin (just like the real thing). We also try to keep operators available to talk to the public and make visitors welcome inside the layout.

If you do not understand the rules relating to the use of brake vans in Mostyn’s 1977 time period then myself (or one of my fellow team members) would have been happy to explain them to you. We carry the relevant Working Manual for Rail Staff (and a whole host of other BR publications) for Mostyn’s 1977 time period with us to exhibitions.

Mostyn’s trains run in fixed formations, apart from those required to call in and shunt at the yard.

The only trains running without a brake van are:-

Up Continuous Welded Rail empties – a fully fitted formation consisting of converted LMS and BR double bolsters = does not need a brake van.

Up Penmaenmawr – Manchester Hope Street stone train – consisting of 16 Dia. 1/185 MSVs (i.e. vacuum-braked iron ore tipplers) = does not need a brake van. Built by garethevans1986 from this forum.

Down Trafford Park – Holyhead Freightliners – consisting of 3 x 5-car FGA/FFA/FFA/FFA/FGA air-braked sets = does not need a brake van.

Down Anglesey Aluminium Empties – consisting of 23 vacuum-braked pipe wagons from Diagrams 1/460 and 1/462 = does not need a brake van.

Down Block Vans – consisting of 14 assorted vans from Diagrams 1/208, 1/213 and 1/224, all of which are vacuum-braked = does not need a brake van.

Up Holyhead – Willesden Freightliners – consisting of 4 x 5-car FGA/FFA/FFA/FFA/FGA air-braked sets = does not need a brake van.

Up Penmaenmawr – St Helens Ballast train – consisting of 3 Walruses, a Shark and 10 Mermaids, all of which are vacuum-braked = does not need a brake van.

All the above rakes correctly carry a tail-lamp on the last vehicle.

Furthermore it is not a surprise that BR was still running unfitted (or partially-fitted) freight trains in 1977. All the trip workings on the North Wales coast at that time were Class 8 or Class 9 for all or part of their journeys – see http://www.2d53.co.uk – and explore the trip diagrams there.
You only have to examine the coal/coke wagon fleet in 1977 (figures derived from Bartlett et al Volume 1). There were still 70000 unfitted wagons compared with 36000 vacuum-braked and 10000 air-braked examples.

I would like to think that the Mostyn team, together with that of Kettlewell, can take some satisfaction from the fact that we provided P4 entertainment to large and appreciative crowds throughout the weekend. Some might see it as odd that the only criticism I have seen (of either layout) comes on this forum. Surely landing three of the available trophies between the two P4 layouts is something to feel good about?

Cheers,
Richard

User avatar
jjnewitt
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby jjnewitt » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:20 pm

Terry Bendall wrote:
Noel wrote:I have not seen the layout; I'm just working from photographs, which can be misleading, I know


In which case I would suggest that the comments should never have been made.


I'm sorry Terry but I have to completely disagree with you and others on this. The idea that someone can only comment on something that they have seen in the flesh is utterly ludicrous! I haven't seen, first hand, 99% of the models that appear on this forum, does that mean I shouldn't log in or make a comment where I feel appropriate? If that is the case what on earth are we all doing here?

Justin

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:25 pm

Of course, we do have the opposite problem too. The sometimes excessive processing in magazines and elsewhere of layout photos can give a very false impression to the unwary.

Some things are best seen in photos, not in the flesh ;)

nigelcliffe
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:31 am

Re: Warley 2017

Postby nigelcliffe » Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:46 pm

Armchair Modeller wrote:Of course, we do have the opposite problem too. The sometimes excessive processing in magazines and elsewhere of layout photos can give a very false impression to the unwary.

Some things are best seen in photos, not in the flesh ;)


Or as two different MRJ editors have said to me: a number of layouts and locos shown in magazines run terribly, so are best seen as static photos (with or without any post-processing of the images).




- Nigel

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 1685
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby jim s-w » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:44 pm

Armchair Modeller wrote:Of course, we do have the opposite problem too. The sometimes excessive processing in magazines and elsewhere of layout photos can give a very false impression to the unwary.

Some things are best seen in photos, not in the flesh ;)


If the layout owner is interested enough they will use different media to its best advantage. You can get angles that you can’t see in the flesh just as a simple example. I always think articles with typical ‘I can see that angle myself at a show’ type photography are kind of missing a trick.

I often find that people see my models very differently to how I do as well. I enjoy seeing other people’s pictures as they are quite refreshing.
Last edited by jim s-w on Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

garethevans1986
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:18 am

Re: Warley 2017

Postby garethevans1986 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:49 pm

Paul Townsend wrote:Now edited since the above test line got through OK
Thanks for the comprehensive response below to my disappointment.
Several days on, I don't recall which unfitted freight trains I saw without brake vans.
It has been suggested by a chum that I may have seen fitted trains where the detail of vac pipes had been ommitted. That is possible, but I remain disappointed since IMHO vac pipes are as necessary as wheels on a fitted train.
Its a pity I was miffed by this as it stopped me admiring award winning signalling!


Paul, again another reply from Richard Oldfield.

Dear Paul,
I am still trying to help alleviate your sense of disappointment and will try and explain further. Trust you appreciate that it is not straightforward since you cannot recall which freight formations you are questioning.

In my first posting I explained that all Mostyn freight trains without brake vans are fully-fitted vacuum- or air-braked formations running in accordance with the BR rule book at that time.

Your chum has suggested that, perhaps, what you saw were fully-fitted freight trains without brake vans where we had omitted to model the vacuum pipe hoses. At first sight this suggestion is laughable (to our stock builders at least!). There is a negligible chance that one or more wagons could get through construction, testing and acceptance onto the stock roster with this vital detail missing. The odd wagon might lose a hose through mishap but this would normally be picked up during pre-show testing.

And then I got thinking.

I wonder whether you were looking at the Freightliner formations, of which Mostyn has three - two of which do not have brake vans and one of which does have a brake van. Is it this that you noticed?

The two formations without brake vans were identified in my first posting. The third formation is the Mondays Only Holyhead- Garston Freightliner cripples conditional service requiring a brake van dependant on the number and position of vehicles with defective brakes. The two main workings are Class 4 whilst the cripple working may be Class 7, 8 or 9.

Furthermore, there are only visible brake hoses (using the two-pipe air-brake system) on the buffered ends of the outermost vehicles of each set (known as FGAs). The inner vehicles (FFAs) and the non-buffered ends of the FGAs couple together via bar couplings and the air-brake connections between these vehicles run through these hollow bar couplings. There are no visible hoses between these vehicles. Is this what caused the problem?

Again, please do not hesitate to ask questions if you see us at an exhibition.

Cheers,

Richard

Gareth O. Evans
IT Consultant/Director of Web46 IT Solutions
 
Member of the Barrowmore Model Railway Group
Diesel Crank

User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Warley 2017

Postby Paul Townsend » Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:44 am

Richard and Gareth are trying hard to alleviate my Mostyn disappointment, I appreciate these efforts. I won't waste any more of their time on the Warley post mortem as their latest suggestion about what I saw may well be true.

I believe the model will be at S4North and I will be too. I will start by noticing the award winning signals and then watch the trains. I had better ensure I have my camera at the ready in case I think I see transgressions from the true path and will certainly talk to the crew there, as I will have more time to observe and absorb compared to a frenetic Sunday at Warley.

A personal note re big busy P4 layouts: when I watch Mostyn next time I am sure I will find it more interesting than Calcutta sidings which, while I admire the objective and ability to run proper length trains, I find rather boring. This is not a criticism about the model or its builders, it simply reflects my personal taste which leans towards pre-grouping models which include shunting capers. That is what I love about Burntisland ....there are others too.

User avatar
chrisf
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:59 am

Re: Warley 2017

Postby chrisf » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:36 am

Paul has just made an important point. It is that what we think of layouts comes down to a matter of taste. I find some uninteresting and others utterly compelling, with the full range of shades in between. The crucial thing is how we convey our taste to others. Ideally it should be without causing offence but this is not an ideal world.

Warley being what it is, I got to see but a fraction of the layouts on offer. I reached Mostyn quite early on and was engaged in conversation by a friendly member of the team, saw some trouble free movements and had to move on. Much, much later I pitched up at Kettlewell fearful of how little time remained to view anything and accorded it the briefest of glances because I remembered seeing it before. My opinion is that both are fine ambassadors for the scale in their way. Others may differ. If we all had the same taste and opinion life would be sooooo duuuuull.

Chris


Return to “Exhibitions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests