Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,161 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

451 profile views
  1. Who are you, and what have you done with the real Reorte?
  2. Whilst I haven't built the Connoisseur Jinty, I have built other Connoisseur kits and they've all been very well designed and quite straightforward. If you can build a wagon kit I doubt if you'll have any serious problems. As for other factors affecting choice of one over another, detail is what you make of it. I suspect the kit would have more detail as standard, but you might get bored with sticking it all on, or discouraged because a large, long lived class like the 3F will have so many minor differences between examples. With the rtr model, many of those decisions will have been made for you. You can always spend the price difference on extra bits if it turns out that you want them. Something I would take into account is potential longevity. A well constructed brass kit, with a conventional chassis, gears and motor arrangement will last, effectively, forever, all its components being easily replaceable in the event of wear or damage. All such work would obviously be within the abilities of the builder. A rtr model, OTOH, may (and, not being familiar with the running gear of Dapol rtr 0 gauge I do stress may) contain unique parts, non-replaceable bearings etc, rendering it more of a sealed for life proposition. Depending on factors like usage, what that life is may be entirely satisfactory, rendering the point moot.
  3. I have a vague, and quite possibly inaccurate, memory of a 4-wheel BR CCT or two standing on the tracks in front of the, then, Bristol Industrial Museum in the very late 70s or early 80s, although I can't think of too many (any, really) valid reasons why they might have been there.
  4. How about Filey? Adaptable as a "What if?", to any location that had/might have had a holiday camp.
  5. Whilst I'm not familiar with the Vickers case, I can think of other examples of components that will fail, even if unused. I have it on good authority, for example, that the magnesium alloy uses for the crankcase of the VW Type 1 (Beetle) engine will eventually develop cracks as it ages, even if it's spent all its life in storage and never been part of a running engine. Something that's not widely appreciated, even amongst VW enthusiasts and specialists and which contributes to the VW's reputation as an incurable leaker.
  6. One of the basic principles of fatigue is the S-N curve, where the level of stress (S) is plotted on the vertical axis of a graph, and the number of cycles to failure (N) is plotted along the horizontal. Every material has its own curve. In general, ferrous metals have a curve that slopes down steeply initially, and then levels off and never falls all the way to zero, continuing horizontal at some positive value of S. As long as the level of cyclic stress is kept below this value, a steel component will last forever or, at least, won't fail as a result of fatigue. Aluminium alloys, AFAIK, all have curves which, at some point, cross the horizontal axis. IOW, any level of cyclic stress will eventually induce failure after a finite number of cycles. This number may be very large, but is, theoretically, reachable. How critical this is depends heavily on how quickly stress cycles are accumulated. For example, relevant to the DC3 aircraft, an aircraft wing spar's most dominant stress cycle is probably the transition from flying to not flying, and so N accumulates roughly as the number of flights. On the other hand, the stress cycles of a con-rod in one of its engines accumulate as one per engine revolution, or thousands per hour, and so it scoots along the N-axis at a much greater rate. For railway rolling stock, I would expect the N for the running gear to be partly related to the number of rail joints and crossings that the wheels cross, and partly to the various vibrations and resonances that become more and more significant as speed rises.
  7. Now that I see it, I remember the article. IIRC it was built for display at a school, hence the Junior Modeller connection. A little tenuous, but maybe they were scratching for JM content that month.
  8. Minehead springs to mind, although it's admittedly a very long station. As far as LR track plans are concerned, I would think that any combination of a loop and 2 sidings is about as exciting as its likely to get. Mind you, Ian Rice has penned a few with interlaced turnouts, sidings overlapping in opposing directions and similar, should you wish to build your own pointwork.
  9. I'm afraid my Hornby Toby is packed away and inaccessible at the moment. It is, however, enormous. I wouldn't be surprised if it were at least 1:64 scale, or even bigger. Lovely smooth, powerful runner though, and so may yet donate its chassis for a Smallbrook narrow gauge shunter.
  10. One set of sidings as an engineering depot and the other as a ballast dump, with a modern liveried 08 shuttling wagons between them?
  11. Assuming the Newcastle Metro is still using its original stock, they'll be ~40 years old now. Its a bit worrying to think I rode on them when they were almost new.
  12. Wasn't some of the stock in the Charfield crash of 1880s vintage? So that would have been ~40 or more years old.
  13. Yep. That's the one. As has already been pointed out, it would need a little massaging to use current set track geometry, but I've played with it in SCARM and reckon it could still be done in a very compact space. A version appears in the Encyclopedia of Model Railways which, at a quick eyeball, has been redrawn for R2 points, and it's still pretty small. Edit: I've actually seriously contemplated building it in American O27, for which R1 (effectively) points are readily available. I might still do so if finances ever allow.
  14. There's a layout in the more recent edition of 60 Plans that consists of a very small roundy on a 4'x3' board, which is operable in isolation, with a branch to a very small 2 road terminus on an L shaped extension. The whole thing is 6 x 4 in total. If you were able to find the space to keep the 4 x 3 erected, the layout offers quite a bit of scope for terminus to terminus operation, two person operation, freight operations, and, of course, the continuous run. I have to confess that I find myself tempted every time I look at it, because, although about as far from finescale as you could get, it offers a lot of purposeful operation in a tiny package.
  15. Even without the full fume cupboard enclosure, an extractor discharging to somewhere well away from anywhere you are would be a good idea. Anything that keeps air flowing across the work area and away from you would help. Depending on how badly you're affected by stuff, and how well you're able to adapt to a half face respirator, the next step up would be a full face mask/hood with a large, remote filter on the end of a hose. Good ones, with fan assist, offer rather less restriction than the half face jobs, and, IMHO, are a bit pleasanter to wear, but they tend towards the expensive as they're generally full blown industrial gear rather than hobby stuff. I can't remember what mine cost, but I'm pretty sure it was north of $500 a decade ago, bought for a one off job.
  • 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.