Tiptonian

Unfortunately, I have erased episode 2 now so cannot check, but I get the feeling we have been fed a few dummies. For example, I am sure at one stage the narrator referred to a C14 class, rather than a B4, and there was a large drawing of a Nellie/Polly/Connie lying on a bench. Reference has been made to the old plastic 0-4-0 chassis, but don't forget the other 0-4-0 chassis, that of Bill and Ben, and that one is adaptable to an 0-6-0, Toby. This underused chassis could be the starting point for the new 0-4-0. I sincerely hope the new 0-4-0 is not yet another stretched overscale hybrid. I am sure many five-year-olds got annoyed when Bill and Ben demolished all their lineside furniture. Also, five-year-olds are quite capable of handling small objects (it is us 60-somethings with a tremor that are not!). However, I doubt if a five-year-old will wax lyrical over wood grain planking on the cab floor! The body could be simple, low-detail, yet still dimensionally to scale, capable of fitting to two chassis, one a basic budget 33mm wheelbase, and the other a scale chassis. For the serious modeller, the body could then be detailed "to taste". The resulting model could thus cater for all markets. My suggestion for this loco would be the LMS Kitson-Stanier 47000 0-4-0ST, though I should imagine it is all too late by now.

For the 0-4-0T, a question needs to be asked. The points appear to be a relatively large radius (631mm), so what is the length of the dead section at the frog? In 00, the Peckett 0-4-0ST cannot run reliably over curved and express points. In TT120, a large 0-4-0T to scale (eg LMS Stanier /Kitson 47xxx) would have a 19.05mm wheelbase. If the dead section of the points is greater than this figure, the loco would not run reliably through any of its points or diamond crossings.

I think it is all down to the quality and power of the hardware. In theory, IR remote control does require line of sight, but my television remote control seems to be able to bounce the signal off the walls; it will operate from anywhere in the lounge pointing in almost any direction, whereas my (cheap) freesat receiver remote has to be pointed directly at the receiver itself or it will not work. @Mike Storey I would envisage any more refined IR system being basically for toys for girls and boys age 5 to 130 and older (!), or adapted to small home layouts for people who like the simplicity. The Ultima is complex, but not all that expensive as DCC goes, so maybe the remote side is where money was saved. Perhaps the remote side should have been Bluetooth, assuming a high-enough spec Bluetooth was available at that time. As it is, it shows the biggest weakness of IR without the biggest advantage, which is the simplicity, low cost and the potential for on-board power. @No Decorum I can certainly understand the instinct to point the remote controller at the loco instead of the base unit!

Please excuse me if I've missed it, but is this system infra-red? If so, it will be interesting to see (way into the future) if Hornby take the control system further and develop it for higher age groups. A few years back, I started to build an 0 gauge industrial shunting layout. Instead of using track power, I used on-board PP3 batteries and the Lego Power Functions infra red control system. Applied to railways, it worked like the most basic DCC system. 8 trains could run at the same time, but unlike DCC, as the controller was a twin unit, two locos could be controlled at the same time. There were 7 forward and 7 reverse speed steps, perfectly adequate for a shunting plank. Furthermore, the controller and receivers were very inexpensive. I do not recall serious modellers taking any notice of it at the time; I think people felt doubt about using infra red or that 7 speed steps was not enough. I thought it was absolutely brilliant! Maybe its day has finally come!

If I remember correctly, there was a Hornby diesel shunter with auto-uncoupling based on a B12 chassis (29mm+29mm) but with Jinty wheels. That is about as close as you will get, but, of course, you will not get the characteristic uneven wheelbase.

I believe, looking at service sheet 85, that the Ivatt 2-6-0 also used a version of the B12 chassis.

This is well worth a try. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU4FOlPqMu4 I have tried it with one of mine and it works, but mine hauls light loads, (about 10 vans). Under stall conditions (don't ask!), the gears did disengage, but under normal conditions, it is fine.

Beware of over-generalization! Kitpw did say WD40 Cutting Fluid. WD40 make a range of fluids, some of which may find a use in railway modelling, (e.g. silicone lubricant). Usual disclaimers etc.. https://www.screwfix.com/c/auto-cleaning/lubricants/cat810058?brand=wd_40

I do, but I still like eating salmon! Oh, dear. This could go on and on.

Toby and Bill and Ben do share the same chassis, but with different bits added. See Hornby service sheets SS 250 and SS 265 and all will become clear.

I would have thought a deliberate error to avoid copies would not achieve anything. Did "Great British Locomotives" have the original manufacturers' blessing?

.....which begs the question, who is going to be the first "basher" on here to come up with a wide-firebox GWR Atlantic?

The Yellow Pages bus is a good representation of a Northern Counties body, but going by the engine cover detail, it is a Daimler Fleetline, not a Leyland Atlantean.

Is the Peckett W4 (and most small 0-4-0Ts) a "cab forward" when going backwards? Yes, I know. Coat.

Triang TT locos used 1/8" axles, so standard Romford, Markits, and Alan Gibson are suitable.

As nice an idea as this is, the problem comes if Junior's Hornby train set has Hornby curved points (and probably express points too) which have 32mm long dead frogs, and will strand any loco travelling slowly with less than scale 7'9" wheelbase. One could consider this less of a problem with the current raft of small industrials as, being aimed at the serious modeller, they are less likely to encounter these points. Any reduction in wheelbase of a loco aimed specifically at the toy market is, for this reason, highly unlikely. The best we could hope for is a Kitson/Stanier 47000 or Peckett Y class on an overscale wheelbase. Smaller wheels and lower gearing would be welcome, but I imagine most younger owners prefer them just as they are.

According to J.H. Russell's Southern Locomotives, It is 7'4" + 8'2".

I would stay in the area of TT, but my clean-sheet choice would be 1:96, which, of course, translates to 1/8" /ft. It has the size to detail compromise of all the TT variants, but is also a pure imperial scale, and makes a slightly larger model than my very close second choice, which would be 1:120.

For what it is worth, here are my personal views. Unless one is thinking very early, (e.g., "Rocket" coaches), 4-wheel coaches were usually 4- or 5-compartments. The Hornby coach has 3 very luxurious 7' long compartments! A more common compartment length would have been 5' 6", and Hornby could have put 4 of these compartments in the same coach length. The other striking thing is the high arc of the roof. This would look better if it was more shallow, more like a wagon roof, which you have acknowledged with your very short coach. As others have said, the Hornby coach is aIso too high in the body. Initially, as you want simple kits, I would suggest using the envelope of the Triang type cattle wagon body as a basis for a 4-compartment coach, using the same roof profile as the cattle wagon. This should fit the Hornby coach chassis, the BR and GWR brake van chassis, the cattle wagon chassis, and possibly others too. With the cattle wagon chassis, you would have to provide running boards, but they could be made narrower than those of the Hornby originals so as to minimize the bulk of the Triang/Hornby type chassis. The result would, I feel, be different enough from the Hornby coach to be worthwhile, and certainly a little more realistic. Something like this.... http://www.vintagecarriagestrust.org/images/news/CIMG0780B.JPG Good Luck!

Dava, let's examine what you say. You do modelling. I'll rephrase that; you build railway models. You take on too many things. You work. You do projects for other people. You do home brewing. You probably maintain a house and garden, too. The last thing I am seeing is an "idle fellow". We all reach an age when things take longer and we need a rest. Some reach that point in their mid 60s, their 70s, or even 80s. After contracting an untreatable neurological disease to add to a lifelong chronic medical condition, I reached that stage aged just 56, though I cannot be officially classed as disabled in any way. Since then, the constant media battering telling us we are all living longer, are healthier, more active in our old age, and illnesses we do get are our own fault (wrong diet, lack of exercise, need to meet more people, napping during the day etc. etc.) seems to have been a conspiracy to get us to work until we drop, with less expectation of return, and to ask for less of society in general. "They" seem to want us all to feel that, no matter what we do, it is not enough, and we are all "idle fellows". It certainly gave me a sense of shame, guilt, and inadequacy. Yes, I fell for it, but not any more. By your casual phraseology, you seem to be in the early stages of slowing down, and should be well for a good while to come; but don't ignore it. I did because I thought I was too young to be slowing down, and it didn't half bite back. Work with it. Do what you want when you feel like it. Try not to get into the situation where you feel you can never give up work, because then, you never will. You are not an idle fellow. Be kind to yourself.

There is Marcway, still here after all these years. Study their website thoroughly. If you can't find what you want, they custom build what you need. http://www.marcway.net/point.php http://www.marcway.net/list2.php?col=head&name=Marcway+00+%26+EM+Pointwork

Don't worry. Some 3Fs had 4' 10" wheels, for which the Jinty wheels are fine, but you would need to add outside brake rods.

Refering to Service Sheet No. 282, you will see that the James chassis is a modified version of the Deeley 3F (i.e. the standard ex-Triang 0-6-0 chassis used on the Jinty, diesel shunter and Pannier). After all, if you are going to use the Deeley 3f body, it would make sense to also use its chassis, powered or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18KhqR_Xz6I Stick with it. James comes in at about 5.00 I would think it is possible to fit the parts from a late 60s Triang-Hornby 0-6-0 onto the James chassis, or if not, to fit the whole chassis to James body, though that may require some drilling and tapping. The chassis on the Ivatt 2MT is derived from that of the B12/Hall.

Looks perfectly acceptable to me:- https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/peckett-sons-works-no-1438-neschelles-no-1-0-4-0st/ https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/peckett-sons-works-no-737-daphne-0-4-0st/ If you look at industrial railway photographs and videos, you will eventually see that you can get away with almost anything. If it looks right, do it.

I would not give it a second thought as the vast majority of your comments were more than likely true! On another forum is a thread called "More ebay Nonsense". If every smirking rip-off merchant with a warped sense of humour was featured on there, it would be the longest thread in model railway forum history. You only did what I, and probably many others, often feel like doing. Don't apologize. Your actions did not result in unwanted pregnancy or hurting life-long friends and no-one has died. From someone who has not been able to touch alcohol for over ten years, you have done nothing to deserve spoiling the enjoyment of wine, rum and baileys. In a twisted way, I envy you!!! Go forth in peace with tranquil mind.