Jump to content


RMweb Gold
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,063 Excellent

About 47137

Profile Information

  • Location
    Essex, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

859 profile views
  1. Yes, it's a funny shape. There is a level strip along the centre, and two angled strips each side of this. The ends are sloping but flat across the width of the roof. Then, below all this, there is a narrow strip all round. This last strip is vertical at the ends, but sloping along the sides. Maybe you could omit this last strip in N gauge. I took this photo outdoors in brilliant sunshine, then tweaked to try to show the shape. - Richard.
  2. I have some models of these wagons by ACME in H0 scale. I could take some measurements or try for some better pics if this will help. - Richard.
  3. There is an article on the BR class 42 in Wikipedia, and here the width of the prototype is given as 8' 10". Now, I cannot verify this figure but it equates to a scale width on 30.9 mm. The Fleischmann model is a whisker under 32mm wide, so 0.5 mm too much each side. That's barely visible. The review in the 'Railway Modeller' in the 1970s claiming the model is 2mm too wide is in error. The Lima class 33 is about 2mm too wide. But if you rework the body so it is around 0.5 mm too wide (a quarter of a millimetre each side), the result drops into place on a Life Like Proto 2000 FA2 chassis. The FA2 chassis is closer to prototype than the Lima original, and it runs well too. To my mind, much of your comment is unnecessarily unhappy. Anyone making a British outline model will inspect a donor model with some care before making a purchase, so major problems should not arise. You can expect bogies to be around 1mm too wide, to make room for over-scale wheel thicknesses. This makes for 0.5 mm too little overhang below the body each side. This happened on my class 87, but truly it does not show. Many RTR H0 chassis are quite a bit narrower than the superstructure on top of them, or accept straightforward modification, and I think you will have a pleasant surprise if you look a bit more closely. It is very easy to get bogged down in closeness to scale dimensions when really, the overall effect of the train on its track is much more important for enjoyment of the layout.
  4. I think the scale is ideal for models of diesel and electric prototypes, and all British rolling stock. You have to accept restrictions on which steam locomotives you can tackle but there are enough doable prototypes to keep me happy. The chassis of models from North America and continental Europe are engineered to a far higher standard than those of modern 00 RTR. The running qualities of models from Roco, REE and Trix especially seem to be near-perfect. The only exception I can think of to mention here is the Rapido APT-E, which does run very well ... but then again, this was from a Canadian manufacturer.
  5. I don't know of such a list, but it would be a pleasant exercise to compile one. Half the fun of working in H0 is finding what you can adapt from other scales. I have a feeling, I read somewhere the Scenecraft 'Deco' station buildings are 1:87. If so they would look good with a rake of the Bulleid coaches. This could be a static diorama on a shelf as a place to display models as you buy or build them.
  6. 47137

    A sense of place

    I have found a few photos of Iain's models in his gallery here: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/album/2645-iain39s-structures-gallery/ I never saw his blog, so I suppose I shouldn't miss it but I think I already do. I wonder why he chose to remove a whole blog. I thin out Shelf Island topics from time to time, but I hope I never feel the need to wipe it all out.
  7. For clarity: you can choose Roco close couplers or Roco universal couplers, the terminology is a bit easy to confuse: The Roco close coupler is the design illustrated and referenced by Melmerby. The Roco universal coupler is their own tension lock style coupler: http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=RC40395&style=&strType=&Mcode=Roco+40395 (Edit: I discovered the "universal coupler" by accident when I bought a s/h wagon with a pair fitted. Put one of them on another wagon, and tried them out. I like them, possibly because the overall effect with cams is good and they stay together on my gradients, but I only use them within a couple of rakes. I want to convert my entire fleet to them and move away from Kadees because I like the close coupling, but I have 6 or 8 useful models with Kadees which will be difficult to convert.) - Richard.
  8. I fitted Symoba cams to a Lima coach and was sufficiently impressed to buy a few more pairs for future projects. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blogs/entry/22126-br-mk1-bsk-lima-modified/ There are two lengths of NEM pocket in the Symoba system - the short ones lock the coupler into place, the standard ones behave like a normal NEM socket. Symoba do an installation jig and this is a great help in getting the fronts of the pockets the correct distance behind the buffer heads as well as at the correct height above the rails. If you are committed to Kadees and nothing else, you might optimise the horizontal offset to suit (say) the Kadee #18, i.e. bring the socket outwards towards the buffers. If you put the NEM pockets in the NEM362 location, you find a #18 is a bit too short and a #19 is a bit too long. Then again, there is no great benefit in fitting Kadees into pockets on close coupling mechanisms. You would be better off with a pair of close couplers. When you have the pockets in the proper NEM362 locations then a pair of Fleischmann Profi heads will give a very tight coupling with the buffer heads touching on a straight track, but some bogie vehicles will not pull apart far enough on tighter curves. Some vehicles will refuse to couple up at all because there isn't enough free play. Roco close couplers will ease this by half a millimetre or so (which helps a great deal), and the Roco "universal" coupler will ease this a bit more. You need to choose a coupler with minimal horizontal play and this rules out Kadees. - Richard.
  9. 47137

    Trackwork - Narrow Gauge

    Removal of the NG track During the summer of 2018, I adopted DCC for the standard gauge railway. I don't use DCC for my NG engines, so this left the narrow gauge section impossible to use except on analogue DC days. I accepted I could never extend the NG line into anything more than a semi-static diorama, and I lifted the tracks and rebuilt this area of the baseboard. During the early days of the project, people did try to tell me the NG line was probably a bit too much railway in the space available but my enthusiasm was too great. Taking the NG away makes space to make the standard gauge line better. I will work up the bridge here into something with a level deck, though I do hope it will still be a skew bridge.
  10. 47137

    A sense of place

    I have pretty much paused blogging and indeed modelling for the Summer. In the meantime, I want to define a sense of place for my main baseboard - something clearly identifiably British, but not overtly regional either. I envisage two palettes for the buildings and civil engineering features: 1) Present-day (modern) infrastructure: concrete and steel, occasional brickwork, and cuttings with retaining walls of concrete 2) Remnants of the past: dressed stone and timber, and cuttings in bare rock faces As I get older and I hope more observant of the railway scene around now and before, I think a freelance setting is actually the most difficult if it is going to convince. This is especially true for a modern scene, where a steel-clad shed is much the same wherever it is in the country. My scenic setting needs one or two slightly peculiar characteristics, to set it aside from much anywhere else. This might be something a simple as kerb stones painted black and white, or a name of a bus operator; I'm not sure at the moment. I ought to get some cues from the Isle of Man and indeed the island of Sodor. I am, as it happens and for once in my life, very happy with Fairport. I suspect this worked out because I defined every square inch of the baseboard before I began; I made plenty of adjustments as I went along but the only significant rework was on the crane, to let the model represent a more widespread prototype. The main baseboard is supposedly representing three intertwined micros. Three distinct locations, all separated and yet held together by the landscape around them. Possibly a bit of a tall order in one square metre, but I can only try.
  11. In the meantime - I just bought the July issue of the Railway Modeller because it features a British H0 layout :-) The layout is 'Balornock Goods' and it has a three-page write-up, this includes some details of the stock as well as the track and scenics. - Richard.
  12. Decauville and DeDietrich are confirmed on this French Wikipedia page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_6400 Please excuse me starting this on a topic about a Moyse loco, but there is a family resemblance :-) - Richard.
  13. REE have released a model of what I'll call the "Moyse Y6400", with cab doors at the rear and handrails around the sides. I stumbled upon them listed at Jura Modelisme: https://www.jura-modelisme.fr/s-5/recherche/fabricant-epm/categories_2-accueil?search_query=diesel&orderby=reference&orderway=asc I guess, these prototypes were a later design by Moyse? - Richard.
  14. I have one of these panels on the ceiling of a 3 x 3.5 m room, it is good and looks rather like a skylight. I think it would work well for any layout, as long as you can find a way to fix it - this depends really on whether you are prepared to drill holes in the ceiling. There are smaller versions 300 x 300 mm and maybe two or three of these would be better for a layout along the edge of a room. - Richard.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.