Mark Laidlay

Maybe it's related, I read somewhere recently that "double compound" was a GWR term. I wonder what a GWR Way and Works manual says?

I've been working on a bit of track for a new exhibition layout. I call it a "double compound" which is what my prototype called them. Most seem to call them "double slips" but the Victorian Railways must have got double compound from somewhere, why would they just make it up? So did any early British railways use double compound as the name?

Alan McGillvray was the "sound of summer" in Australia. And wasn't Lillee, caught Willey, bowled Dilley?

I'm interested in anyone modelling broad gauge to higher standards, is there any on-line presence of this railway? Mark in Melbourne

Yes, even the Hornby P2 does a good job drifting to a stop Mark in Melbourne

Should not a short wheel base loco with outside cylinders have a waddle built in, just like the prototype?

Like this? And Lima, I think I have a H0 "scale" 4F somewhere so I have hit two topics with one loco. But maybe I just dumped it being pretty awful.

There's a snake oil salesman in New York getting into big trouble for such activities.

Has anyone been able to remove the coal load in 60103's tender? I don't like the full load look and I have some coal from the real tender that I want to add to the model.

I suspect that means no more batches of kits made for other suppliers such as those by Steam Era Models or Footplate Models in Australia (such as that NSWGR C35).

Further to the topic of GC locos and designs here's a ROD operating at Hexham in 1968, Frank Stamford photo.

I reckon the springs are only there to centre a coupler for the act of coupling so really only applies to some form of auto coupler. I wish I had looked at the Hunt magnetic option while I was in the UK, last year now... Mark in Melbourne.

I have tried exactly that with some frustration but with a few things I have learnt these past few days my enthusiasm is up for another assault which may be successful.

I see you have shortened yours in the same way as mine. I had to remove the floor on my Lima H0 coaches to get enough space above the wheels for the base plate. I suspect I am going to have to replace the moulded buffers as well , then they are probably under scale which means I'll need longer couplers! I didn't want the Roco type as my passenger trains are largely fixed consists. My reason for starting down this path is the train with the full width diaphragms, and I didn't want the extra mm as it would show badly.

I've modified some Keen kinematic couplings as they needed to be shorter for my H0 scale coaches, once I had them cut into two parts it was easy to raise them as well. Question is do any higher end modellers use them? If not why not? And why does Roger Keen just call them "Close Couplings" instead of giving them a name that differentiates them such as kinematic? Rhetorical question I guess.

They list Brexit first suggesting they see it as the biggest reason but how much would they sell into the EU anyway? Maybe there is a fixed entry cost to be able to sell anything into the EU.

Specifically light weight scenery for exhibition layouts. Wall paper paste and paper or pollyfilla seem to be options.

There's extruded foam under the embankment in the photo with chux PVAed (white glue) then paint, it's the next layer to smooth out the finish before applying grass etc. that I need next. Mark

So the UK is the home of the best exhibition layouts in the world. What's the state of the art for light weight "goop", that final layer of scenery before the flora is attached? I could use Sculptamold but that has a lot of plaster in it so is heavy. Mark in Melbourne

Yes, the "naming" of scale/gauge/standard is something I would fix after the revolution and I am in charge. Maybe (and maybe not) we need a worldwide method of indication scale, prototype gauge, model gauge and standards. Combining metric and imperial measurements is lunacy, the only way of indicating scale would be the proportion, 43.5, 48, 87.1, 76.2, 64 etc etc. Next some current names tell us the prototype gauge (H0n3 etc) but not the model gauge, others (0/16.5) tell us the opposite, my method would tell us both. Then the standard, Coarse, Medium, Fine and Prototype might work. So 00 would become 76.2-S-16.5-M and H0n3 would be 87.1-N3'-10.5-M. P4, 76.2-S-18.83-P. That would work and no beginner would ever be confused again, anyone who did not comply would be up against the wall. Of course that's gunna confuse people so maybe we stick with the current confusion, I suspect that P4 modellers know that a 00 "gauge" Skaledale building will work on their layout but just don't want to use them. Mark in Melbourne dreaming of the revolution.

So why would Germans have gone to 10mm/ft scale rather that 3/8/ft? Seems contradictory. Mark

I wonder why the US adopted 1:48 1/4" scale when Bassett-Lowke changed it so quickly, maybe it developed independently there...

I remember seeing a US reference to "H1" as an early reference to S scale, 3/16"/1' scale. No idea exactly where though.

Thanks, fascinating to see the they started with 1/4" I wonder why they changed so quickly though.

I'm going to love reading your ebook. My pedantic nature is already coming out as I must point out that Hornby (Binns Road version) did produce H0 models under the predictable name of "Hornby Acho". Unfortunately RMWEB won't allow me to link an article regarding the development of 00. You've probably seen it already on their website. "A History of OO Gauge - The Double O Gauge Association". Thanks for your interest Mark in Melbourne