Streamliner

I use 'medium' density foam around my models similar to what is supplied with models or around technical kit, so I tend to just fill the gap or have it lightly compressed. If you use a softer foam you would probably want a tighter/more compressed fit. I also wrap the models in soft cotton, which protects the foam from sticking and it's softer and less harsh so as to protect the paint as well. As models are designed to run on their wheels, I think it is best to store them that way, and prevent any movement by ensuring they have adequate foam all around them.

Jackie, A great show, a big thank you and well done to the events team and also to all the volunteers.

Those trestles look good, great load capacity and they fold down rather neatly too, they look like a very good choice. The only negative could be that they are not height adjustable. I agree, it really is worth having a few options or features to add some focus, create a degree of problem solving and to give extra operational interest. All of which can be tough in a limited space though. Thanks

Good point... Ref layout, stock and driver in one car... Lmao, yes always gonna be a tight fit! Some planning and ingenuity required there. I will need to research points and see how others may have achieved it. I would prefer to just modify rtr points rather than build, so I will use an old one to see if it's achievable. How are you planning to set up to get the required height? Don't really want lots of legs taking up space. It looks like you have the capacity, so is there any particular reason you choose not to go for a double track? Thanks

I run predominantly 2 rail, with the majority of my rolling stock being finescale (or classic stock that has been re-wheeled to 2 rail finescale) however I also have a good selection of unaltered modern coarse scale locos. The coarse scale locos I have all seem to run fine on my peco test track, as the more modern (ie Ace Trains, Seven Mill and Bassett Lowke) wheels standards are finer these days, so do not foul the track. Obviously (as you say) points are a different matter and will have to be altered, so that they can cope with either or both modern coarse and finescale locos. I could also limit the use of points if I have to on some sections (eg inner or outer run). Set track is 40" radius, although I am not yet 'set' on that, as I'm fairly sure some of my locos will struggle or need nearer a minimum of 50" radius (possibly even more) and I don't wish to limit (or have to alter) too many of my locos. Clearly I need to check the minimum needed for all my locos, so that I fully understand what limitations/restrictions there are there and how many affected (at 40", 50" or 60" radius) and I accept a few may not be suitable. I will use the set track I have now to initially identify these issues/locos before investigating them further. I also need to check the car space (did you consider this?) as it would be nice to have the capability show a modular layout and such a shame not to be able to do that easily.

Thank you, Answer 1. It really needs to be sections that are manageable for one, so that will probably dictate section sizes. It also means if more than one then it can be put together a lot quicker. Answer 2. Primarily somewhere to run some trains, so more of a demonstration/test track. Initial outline would be a fairly simple double oval, with some additional storage sidings. So I could take over a room for running for the day or even the weekend. There needs to be some play value but as you say it really needs to be kept fairly simple. I am still at the contemplating stage, thinking of starting with 6 primary sections (like you have chosen, however that may need to be 8 given the increased radius) using peco set track and with the ability to add more (4 additional) sections later to increase the size and fill a larger space on occasion.

Watching with interest as I am thinking of creating something similar, but a more modular layout (thinking on the lines of the demonstration track used for the Leeds Stedman trust). Can I ask what overall dimensions you are working to and what size did you limit each section to? Do you plan to incorporate/add any buildings or structures? Thanks

Yes Jeff, The A3 brass components have lacquer like the A4, so will need cleaning to solder. There are a few old threads on hachette Scotsman with lots of details that should help you. Kind regards

Fred, They look awesome...

I have a couple of Exley coaches which are in terrible condition, that I am looking to refurbish. I have been trying to find some articles that may offer some advice before I dive in, but I'm not having much luck. Any pointers? Thanks Mark

... Back to toy trains..... How about this one... Mark

Thank you It was actually Len who suggested a bit of extra weight (a little while ago now), so I'm sure it (will happily take some more weight to improve traction and it) has a good drive-train, the engine just feels a little light. I might weigh it and compare to a few others. Kinda thought I wouldn't be the first to do it and maybe someone else had some direct experience.

Thanks Don, I am contemplating that as an option. I was just wondering if there are any other options, or suitable shaped weights available. Mark

Hi, I'm looking to improve the traction on a modern BL Princess, as it struggles pulling my coaches. I plan to reduce the drag on my coaches (ie half the pickups on the coaches) however, I feel some additional weight would help. Are there any weights available that can be readily fitted onto the loco? Thanks in advance

With flexible track your curves radius may not be uniform and also the track gauge can vary. Set track being more uniform also has I believe a bit more give / widened, so I think is easier to negotiate. Transition curves is likely to be the major point of stress on couplings or for buffer problems, since the straight to transition curve is the biggest change in direct and largest throw of coach ends. With many purchased rtr finescale capable of negotiating set track and the actual introduction of set track making this obvious, more people are opening up to this suggestion especially if they have limited space and 6' curves are not viable. Rtr generally have been made with more clearances when compared with kits, where the kit manufacturer has been more concerned with a representative/accurate model. Many finescale modellers wanting to build an accurate representation however a few also want to operate their models in the space available to them. It's a case of looking comparing those rtr and if building a kit, checking and adapting to your goal radius. I have a kit made Duchess (Coronation - purchased 2nd hand) which I have been inspecting & testing on set track, and using this and also other rtr to help me set up my Princess 4-6-2 chassis to also run round set track curves. The bogie movement and clearance, trailing axle throw, pivot point and clearance, coupling wheel movement, side-play, cylinder clearances, chassis spacing, motor thickness, weighting and any chassis or component interference (eg brake gear as well as a few others), all may need considering... If you want to be able to negotiate your curves successfully. As Harold (in the Nov 20 GOG gazette) in his layout has shown.... it (tight radiuses) can be achieved with compromises. We each have different limits as to what we want to compromise on...