PeckettChap

Hello Sam, PM sent, regarding the Railway Modeller magazine. Cheers.

Perhaps you could use some of the BR standard loco fittings made by Alan Gibson ? I seem to remember these being favourably commented on in some magazine or other. (No idea on current prices, but they may be within your budget.)

Have you considered using one of the 4MT 'clone' bodies that were produced under the Great British Locomotives brand a year or so ago ?

If it helps, I have a pack of the small Branchlines all-metal gears which are very similar to the old Tenshodo ones, and the following information is taken from the packet label:- 15:1 Worm Gearset, 1.5mm worm bore, 2.0mm gear bore, 0.3 Modulus, 3.55mm between gear centres. The worm is steel and the gear wheel is brass. (I haven't checked recently whether these are still available.)

I think the plastic chairs (IL-120) made by Peco for their conductor rail have a spigot on them. But on the other hand, these chairs are designed for Peco's own code 60 FB rail, so if you need to use code 75 FB obviously they won't be relevant.

Since my octogenarian Father recently commenced building a small 'shelf' layout in O gauge, I have undertaken various lots of research (- mostly, but not exclusively, via the interweb -) on the availability of RTR models, kits and associated components (- I aspire to 4mm scale modelling -), and would agree with what has already been said on the possibilities of starting in 7mm scale now. There can't have ever been a better time to start in O gauge - frankly, the choice of rolling stock is almost bewildering ! With the likes of the imminent Dapol RTR sentinel, a small 'shunting' type of layout is really quite tempting ! And is surely true that the mass of O gauge (compared to smaller scales) really does impart a more satisfying 'feel' to wagons and such. Also, for those with less nimble digits, 7mm components are almost twice as easy to handle as 4mm !

As this thread has got on to the subject of proof reading errors and mistakes, has anyone else noticed the discrepancy between the model of the Dean Goods loco and the prototype it is based on ? That is, the model has the lower panel of cladding on the firebox overlapping the front cladding of same, whereas the prototype photo clearly shows the lower panel tucks under the front. To my mind that is more noticeable a discrepancy from the prototype than the vagaries of the boiler dome that the builder took such trouble over ! (It would have been nice to see some photos of the lathe and machining work undertaken to produce the boiler dome, as I did not quite understand the technique used.) That said, I know my modelling skills are many leagues behind that of the author's !!

Thanks, I had missed the previous comments. I don't own any Oxford wagons, but when these models are released, perhaps some physical comparisons will be instructive. As for Bachmann vans, I do own some of these, but have always felt the chassis mouldings seemed to be a bit flimsy by comparison to Hornby's in general.

Has anyone else noticed that the Hornby photos of the chassis of their 2018 four-wheeled wagons appear to show that these are newly tooled ?? Apart from the NEM coupler mounts, there are metal buffer heads and seemingly separate brake lever handles. If so, this would put these wagons' underpinnings on a par with those of the competition. If they were to make the chassis moulding available as spares, there could be quite a take-up. That said, the lack of BR steam era vans is disappointing.

I think this is quite an interesting topic, not least because I intend my next layout to use a more accurate track gauge than OO. One point which I do not think has yet been raised is that of education:- when I first started becoming active in railway modelling, I only knew about OO gauge, but after countless magazines and some exhibitions over the years since, I have become both aware of EM and P4, as well as dissatisfied with the visual appearance of OO. So, in order to entice future model makers to use a more accurate gauge, the visual benefits of EM and P4 need to be made even more clear than they perhaps already are. Then potential modellers will also need to be educated as to the options by which layouts may be built to the finer gauges. Yes, much of this information is available in many forms already, but I would suggest it needs to be in more concise yet comprehensive forms. Other posters have commented that P4 RTR will simply not happen, with EM not standing much more of a chance. But similar stances were once espoused about new-build full-size steam locomotives, and even electric cars for the masses. So I would suggest 'never' is probably putting it a bit too strongly. Education played a large part in such viewpoints changing. It has also been commented that the current set of OO gauge RTR manufacturers are producing so much RTR that they could never be persuaded to take up EM or P4. But elsewhere, folk are worried that the most well-known OO gauge produced may yet disappear from the market place, or perhaps only survive with their range much reduced in size. IF that were to happen, would the market for kit production then revitalise ? If future model makers use kit-building to get a particular loco for their layouts, would the workload be the much the same regardless of gauge ? Perhaps the best kick-start towards getting a P4 (or EM) RTR future is for some enterprising soul to start making RTR turnouts in P4 or EM (RTR EM/P4 flexi-track already being available of course), and possibly some 'set-track' pieces as well !

As others have commented, although the layout design of this partwork is perhaps a better physical shape than the 'Your Model Village' one, it would still be too large a size in many a modern house. So, I was wondering what other RMWeb viewers would think to a partwork whose aims were:- a.) an end objective of an end-to-end layout (say, a terminus to fiddleyard, with a board depth of around 45cm, so it would fit on many standalone shelving units), and; b.) where the included parts were to make the actual layout baseboard (say from laser-cut plywood, with tab and slot construction, with each set of parts making up into an open-box 'slice' of the end layout. The open-box style would allow a layout to have embankments, cuttings, and perhaps a ferry/dock scene at the terminus); I am prompted to make this suggestion, as many would-be modellers (- probably including myself ! -) are possibly less aware of how to go about building a layout board, than they are in where to get track, rolling stock and locos. So, to my mind, a partwork that provided the 'groundworks' for a model railway, along with suitable notes and references on selecting track, scenics, etc., might appeal to a different sector of the market than the 'Mill Town' or 'YMV' ones, and may result in an increase in the numbers of modellers actually running trains ! I have a few other ideas related to the above, but do not wish to bore everyone, so just to add that whilst I do not have any funding to get such a venture launched, I would be quite happy to work with others on the concept.