Jump to content

47137

RMweb Gold
  • Posts

    2,820
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 47137

Profile Information

  • Location
    : Essex, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

2,263 profile views

47137's Achievements

4.3k

Reputation

  1. I need to do a site survey and work out whether my railway could go under the public road instead of across it ... this might need a bridge with a limited height clearance and this could look quite good on a model - a box van squeezing through, the loco with no cab and the crew almost ducking their heads. - Richard.
  2. Thanks for this. From a purely personal point of view, I am in a happy place at the moment because I have a Minerva MW K class (19 tons) and this is well below the 8 ton/axle limit. This loco is barely longer than some modern cars, and I think I can find space to build a 7mm scale micro to run it with a suitably minimal train. But clearly, most other loco prototypes will be much larger and I may be backing myself into a corner and ruling out alternative motive power in the future. - Richard.
  3. The November 2021 issue of the Railway Modeller has most of 9 (nine) pages of coverage of British H0 topics. Just sayin' :-) - Richard.
  4. This really does give me a way to let my fictional railway happen around the end of the 1880s. I don't think the scheme would have been economically viable if it had needed to fund an Act before it began; but I do have two cooperative land owners ready to host the scheme. My line would need to cross two roads - the branch line itself across a minor country lane; and an extended siding across a more important but unmade public road. I can deal with the country lane by explaining it is a private road through an estate, where the landowner lets the public use the road by grace and favour. The siding across the public road is more difficult, but the Tramways Act 1870 should help me. The local borough could grant a concession to the railway company to let them construct the track and maintain the road each side of the track. Preparing the fictional history is becoming quite fun, though I am glad I am doing it this time before designing the layout. - Richard.
  5. Please, staying with the provisions of the 1868 Act, and supposing the promoters already owned the land ... did they still need an individual Act of Parliament before obtaining their BoT license to build a light railway? I realise the answer may be "it depends ..." but it would help me to understand what the 1868 Act achieved. - Richard.
  6. I did study this topic but I still couldn't understand how the 1868 Act worked. At the root of this I was unsure whether the Licence granted by the Board of Trade was instead of an applicable Act of Parliament, or in addition to it. As far as I can see (and thanks to everyone above) the railway company still needed to obtain its Act of Parliament, and logically this would have to happen before the Licence. Re-reading clause 27, a Licence could be retrospective, for an existing railway: The Board of Trade may by Licence authorize a Company applying for it to construct and work or to work as a light Railway the whole or any Part of a Railway which the Company has Power to construct or work. I don't want to seem facetious, but I imagine the Board of Trade encountered a fair number of inadequately-built new railways or decaying existing ones, and enforced an axle limit or speed limit to let them begin or continue operations and get some income to put things right. So logically, the 1868 Act provided a formalised process to allow reduced standards of construction. These could be standards of signalling as well as track. A railway company promoting a new line could save money on construction but still had the expense of getting its Act. I am also at risk of misunderstanding the second part of clause 27: Before granting the Licence the Board of Trade shall cause due Notice of the Application to be given, and shall consider all Objections and Representations received by them, and shall make such Inquiry as they think necessary. I think, the Notice of Application here is a notice from the railway company served on the Board of Trade. Not (say) published in the London Gazette or the local press. This would explain why I cannot find examples of these Notices online. I will try some searches for the railways everyone has mentioned in the replies above. - Richard.
  7. Modelbahn Union are listing some MG TC roadsters by Busch: https://www.modellbahnunion.com/HO-OO-gauge/HO-car-MG-Midget-TC-Cabrio.htm?shop=dm-toys-en&SessionId=&a=article&ProdNr=Busch-45916&p=802 My Dad had one of these :-) From my limited knowledge of MGs, I believe if we were to scrape away the ridge along the tops of the mudguards, these models could represent the earlier TA or TB. Busch part numbers 45916 (blue) and 45917 (two-tone green) - Richard.
  8. I am struggling to get my head around the legal processes need to construct a light railway under the 1868 Regulation of the Railways Act. I mean, what a company needed to do to get permission to build a light railway using the 1868 Act, during the years before the more useful Act of 1896. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/119/contents/enacted Clauses 27, 28 and 29. Clearly, a railway built to suit the provisions of this Act was a lightweight affair, with an axle limit of 8 tons. Perhaps this dissuaded many projects. Perhaps also, some small projects found it easier (though not necessarily 'easy') to use the Tramways Act of 1870, even if they were on alignments entirely away from public roads. I have an idea for a 'might have been' scheme, where the railway really needs to open around 1889-1890 to fit in with local history. Also, this would give me opportunities to include some older wagons without dominating the scene with RCH 1887 types. I suspect I would find my investigations easier if I knew of examples of light railways built under the Acts of 1868 or 1870; and perhaps a discussion is possible based on such examples that exist ... I would welcome relevant ideas and pointers. (Hopefully, this is a fair way to try to begin a discussion without seeming to merely ask a question, which is tempting but limiting) - Richard.
  9. I have an idea. Suppose the firm T A Walker (who did much work for the Manchester Ship Canal) won the contract to build my imaginary railway. They brought with them their K class works number 1032, a standard gauge locomotive built in 1888 for export to Buenos Aires, and completed the works in 1889. The locomotive remained and worked the line until closure in 1912. The same contractor returned to dismantle the railway and took away the locomotive. The locomotive was renamed 'Thornton' and exported, as recorded in the works list. The works list stays correct and the only fictional part is a 23-year hiatus before the locomotive was exported. I haven't found any photos of Thornton, but if it looks markedly different to my own K class then I can only imagine some rebuilding happened after export. I think this will satisfy me, it is the best way I can think of to work a fiction into history. - Richard.
  10. Yes. I discovered, if I try to be too clever and have the long sides bowed outwards a little, then the short ends start to bend inwards and this looks even worse. This does get me thinking about the next wagon I build from a kit, a smidgen of styrene or filler at each corner would let the long sides bow outwards without upsetting the ends. And it is easier to have a bow (in the right direction) than a perfect straight edge. - Richard.
  11. I have success with a variation of method 2/. I jammed two blocks of softwood into the wagon, together about half a millimetre wider than what was wanted. Then three goes, progressively hotter water for longer periods until anything happened. I ended up soaking the model in near-boiling water for a full five minutes, then quenched in cold water and dried off with the blow gun. I left the model overnight and I now have one perfectly straight side and one side with a slight inward bow but I can live with this. Good. The wood makes the wagon very buoyant so a kitchen weight to hold it into the water. The printing and weathering is unchanged. The end hinge on the inside fell off but I have tacked this back into place. Regarding the heat gun I have always found this a viscous thing. I expect it would work in the right hands and not leave me with a Salvador Dali take on the model :-) Many thanks. - Richard.
  12. Yes I could, but I suspect the load would become permanent. I really would like to add a load and make it removable (I really should have mentioned this) so this would be my last-ditch solution. - Richard.
  13. I have just received a Dapol wagon for 0 gauge, bought by mail order. The sides of the body are curving inwards, not by much but just enough to look really awkward. The curvature is about 0.5 mm each side. I am wondering, suppose I push the sides outwards and flat with some pieces of wood jammed into the model and dunk the body of the model into some very hot water, would this straighten things up? And importantly, would the factory weathering and factory finish survive? I know I could send the model back for exchange or refund, and maybe this is what I ought to do, but it would be more satisfying to fix it if I can. - Richard.
  14. I am still innocent of this particular pleasure in our hobby. I suppose, I don't use my Train-Safe tubes very much. I keep some locos and wagons on the layout to provide a core service, and use the tubes to add 'specials'. Most of these have their loco at one end. I do have one tube with the five locos of the Preservation Society" inside and their reluctance to run smoothly might well be due to dirt in their tube. I am probably quite lucky because locos like my Roco S160 have so many pickups they will rarely if ever stall. Some of my tubes have only rolling stock, so I can run a 'long train' from time to time I just took a swab on the rails at the end of one tube, and retrieved two narrow black lines, one from each top corner on a rail. I'd like to try a firm but absorbent pad on the end of a long handle maybe a foot long but I haven't thought this through and as you say the middle of the tubes will be difficult. A run-through road is an interesting idea and I thought about installing a 1.2m tube as a through connection in the place of Wellwood but decided this was too limiting (I have 0.6 and 0.9m tubes as well) and a conventional baseboard was better.
  15. 47137

    Modern mess hut (Faller)

    I think Mortimer would be better as a static diorama. Perhaps build it on a chunk of extruded polystyrene or similar house insulation board. I find passenger trains rather unwieldy things. Shelf Island has its tram and the line will get a railbus one day. The line gets steam excursions too but they dominate the layout and have to be removed (via the Train-Safe) before anything else can run.
×
×
  • Create New...