Jump to content

ColHut

Members
  • Content Count

    444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

194 profile views
  1. Off Topic really I suppose, but by way of explanation... Ymmv I like to mix the set track and streamline, mainly because I end up including the tight curves 2 and 3 radius around the room corners which require set track spacing to avoid 'impacts', the adjacent tracks end up for ease on the same spacing, but I like to use streamline slips and points and othe fancy point types. This enables me to get a level of operational activity I just could not get on a setup with more realistic curves, points, and associated track spacing. You certainly cannot join a set track point to SL point easily, (you need a short fiddly curved bit) but a short straight between two SL points is easier. At those short lengths, I prefer the set track type construction to cut-up flex, as they are more rigid, and have special sleepers at the ends to accomodate the fish plates. Of course you pay a premium in extra length too for the overall assembly. regards To the main topic, I am just not sure that the money stacks up. I reckon they would sell more set track slips and three way points if they could or did actually make them. Another competing geometry would mske some people very happy, and good luck to them, but I wonder what price they would have to bear just for Peco to break even? regards
  2. It seems a nice idea But to be honest I think it has no commercial prospect of success. Given space constraints for most people, I just cannot see them selling enough of these to cover design costs let alone tooling or manufacture. (A standard length set track piece to convert streamline spacing points at crossovers to to set track spacing might be a winner though.) Perhaps if focussed on the existing 12 degree range there might be more likelihood? good luck though regards
  3. Thanks for that and the link. I have indeed decided to settle on a Pagoda structure from Ratio. It seems it will fit in nicely. thankyou.
  4. Perhaps change the topic; I thought you meant sweeping and mopping
  5. Plaster bandages over any kind of former are pretty good too. Can be over some polystyrene so nice and light. regards
  6. To answer my own question, the answer was in my copy of Essery's British Goods Wagons which I was browsing for interest; 178595 is shown in a diagram as being a Toad E. So indeed Hornby had just compacted it to fit the chassis. No worries though, close enough for a short ex-NE version of 10 tons and some appropriate transfers. regards
  7. I do not think they could be readily modified for WIT. But if you need just one, why not just accept it is power operated? You could probably even cobble a switch so that whatever lever frame you currntly use can actuate the switch. regards
  8. Yes it would definitely have to be a 'repaired' NE stock of some kind. Will pass the 3' gauge with a repaint and transfers. regards
  9. G'day, Just wondering if the above old brakevan was a cut down Toad E to fit a 16' over the headstock 10' wb chassis, or supposed to be vaguely based on a NE rly. design of which the shortest I could see had a 17' over headstock and 10'wb but with wooden duckets. Someone may know from the running number? regards
  10. For sure It would be tough if they got 2 out of 3 wrong though. There is a picture of 630616 in Tatlow's Ilustrated Overview (plate 55) which I think is why they chose it, LNER livery, steel underframe, unfitted. regards
  11. Very puzzled to see Hattons has the LNER version 630616 in Bauxite. But 630616 is unfitted, so would be grey. Just Hattons assuming or has Oxford indicated it will be bauxite?
  12. It has been a while but Does anyone know if this range is still available or was updated? regards
  13. I think I count 5 point indicators there, presumably quite an old diagram?
  14. FWIW I second all those comments regarding keeping gradients to a minimum. Curve friction and gradients together are a real killer. Powerbase is not the answer for steep curving gradients either (I use it on 60' of underboard dogbone loop about on a 1 in 35). There are issues with where you can place the magnets, how visible they are, how close to the rails they need to be, striking slight obstacles and uncoupling points, having to remove brake gear, brass etch magnet holders very flimsy and retaing screws magnetic &c. Strongly suggest you do your own tests with various gradients, curves and loads, and take the worse case! Only you will know if you are content with the results. good luck.
×
×
  • 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.