Jump to content

JDW

Members
  • Content Count

    1,179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

757 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
    Aberdeen / Sheffield

Recent Profile Visitors

392 profile views
  1. Looking at your original plan (with siding along the bottom), the problem I can see is that the siding on the right is long enough for, say, 3 vans but the headshunt to the left will only take 1 small loco and 1 van. Maybe you've seen this and planned it like that, if so I'll be quiet! I think I'd try to move it to use a left hand point to replace the lower left curved section, so that the straight arm leads to the siding and the curved arm is the main line. Then if you have a right hand point, use that to give a short spur bottom left which could be a loco shed or small factory. Effectively, that would mean that the bottom siding is accessed from the opposite direction, the same as the siding above it, which (to my mind) would make shunting more interesting and workable.
  2. JDW

    APT Resurrection?

    Now you're just teasing us! Seriously though, that looks rather good, as does the HST.
  3. I have a box very similar to that - I'm convinced that one day, no matter how careful I am, I'm going to knock it off the desk and end up with the contents all over the floor...
  4. JDW

    APT Resurrection?

    Aha, yet more interesting projects to look forward to from the workbench of @Gibbo675 !!
  5. As much as I'd like to see old stock re-used, and indeed more freight on the railways, I think realistically there isn't a future for them beyond preservation of a few examples. Any parcels projects would need infrastructure which has either been lost or never existed. By the time that's been done, there are better options than converting 142s (150s, Mk3s, ex FGW Motorail vans, HSTs, etc) - chiefly things like MPVs (either new or "borrowed" like for the log trains years back). Every time things like this are brought up, they lead nowhere despite efforts in the industry to get them off the ground, simply because they don't offer enough practical benefits for the cost and complication they introduce to supply chains.
  6. JDW

    APT Resurrection?

    How would that work? You can't run an APT half-set. A 7 car set would be Driving car - intermediate trailer - inner trailer - power car - inner trailer - intermediate trailer - driving trailer or both intermediate trailers could of course be in the same "half". Buying a second 7 car set would be pointless, and selling it as two 7 car half sets (driving trailer, 4 intermediate trailers, inner trailer, power car) would be equally useless as you couldn't run one without the other. To expand it you'd need to add more intermediate trailers so something like an expansion pack, as per the Kato Eurostar, would be needed. Realistically that's the only way to do it otherwise you end up with dozens of options and end up in the mess that DJM got into over how many coaches should be in a set, how many of each, etc etc. Trying to cater for everybody all the time is impossible. Want a short one? Have 7 coaches. Want longer? Buy the extension pack and use as many as you can fit. But as has been said already, either it needs to be a lower spec model (which no doubt everyone will complain about even if it means the difference between it getting made or not) or it will be extremely expensive.
  7. I'm sure it was somewhere on RMWeb that I saw a link to a website that identifies fonts if you drag and drop a reasonably clear picture onto the upload tool on the site. I can't remember what thread the link was in now though. Not very helpful, sorry!
  8. I agree. My own thread isn't that popular, and I only post sporadically. I get occasional "Likes", I see it as a "thumbs up" when someone has found something useful or interesting in what I've said. I'd rather that than pointless posts filling every thread with "that's nice", "that's good", "that's real nice", ... ad nauseam. If you have something to add, to bring to the conversation, then do so, just like in real life. But in real life, people can generally see your reactions to something - a nod of agreement, a smile - but without that visual element, an "agree" works well. It conveys interest, without adding needless text. Imagine how dry and irritating a thread like Jim's GBRf one would be if the 20 or 30 people who often "like" his posts showed their appreciation by all posting "wow". We'd either just not bother wading through it, or if no one posted their "wow" Jim would have no idea how popular it is, and maybe stop bothering sharing his story (Sorry, just using you as an example Jim, hope you don't mind). If there's good conversation to be had, then I'm sure it will be. If someone has a pertinent point to make, they will. But making conversation for the sake of making conversation, when there's nothing that really needs to be said, is pointless. Especially on a forum where it just clutters up the site and makes it hard to read, it benefits no one.
  9. JDW

    Class 59 in 00

    Ahh I see. I wondered if it was just that people had got the wrong end of the stick and started running with it, and in reality Freightliner would be operating them but still owned by Mendip in the same way as with DB. Thanks.
  10. JDW

    Class 59 in 00

    Are they (the 59/0s and 59/1s) actually owned by DBS or still owned by Mendip and just leased to DBS to operate the trains?
  11. Thursday, 0920: Thursday, 0930: The old airbrush hose has been found, just 6 inches away.
  12. That's a very kind offer, I'm OK for bodyshells though - I'm needing chassis, motors and glazing now! I've got my eye out for complete units going cheap on Ebay etc, now I've convinced myself that I can actually construct the body! You have enough parts there for something like the 2 car demonstrator that went to Thailand/Malaysia...
  13. That's quite a nice model, and benefiting from some extra detailing. As someone else said above, I like the weathering on the front end. Without wishing to go off topic, I think that Dave/dasatcopthorne might have gotten off on the wrong foot here - your first post did read a little standoffish, it might have been better to point out the error and add the "but you could do X" or "X would be more correct" in the same post. Although I think we can see that you were trying to be helpful in the later posts, it's sometimes easy for things to be misinterpreted when reading them online, especially when it comes across as just "haha that's wrong" or gloating rather than explaining what is wrong. Royaloak is also someone who has a lot of positive contributions to make but can be rather blunt and to the point, which can have the same alienating effect sometimes. No need to detract from a good bit of modelling by having a go. Hopefully we've all learned something here.
  14. That was quick, you'll have it painted and glazed by Tuesday!
×
×
  • 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.