Taigatrommel

I would imagine that some journalist contacted them for comment, and out of goodwill and in the interests of PR they responded.

https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/techniques/how-to-create-rust-with-hairspray/#:~:text=Hairspray rust effects are pretty,dry%2C paint the top coat.

NEM 355 specifies 6mm from buffer face to coupling pocket for close coupling. I'm curious as to which Tillig stock you have that doesn't correspond to this. All my Tillig coaches do, which includes: DB UIC-X coaches Eurofimas Halberstadts (centre door and end door) Type Y/B Third generation double deck coaches FWIW I have a selection pack of Hunt couplings, but I would much prefer to have one type across my stock. At this point coupling choices aren't my question, it's whether or not Hornby have followed established practise and NEM spec.

The traverser comes as a complete kit with a base so it joins up to other G&H boards easily. I presume the turntable would be the same

I was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to measure how far back from the corridor face the front of the coupling pocket is on the mk3s. Seeing pictures they appear to have quite a gap on straight track rather than nearly touching like my continental TT coaches do. According to Hornby technical support they conform to NEM 355, but I'm not convinced. As it stands it's the only thing that really detracts from an otherwise lovely model.

Hi Ken, In the direction they slide, the Grainge & Hodder traversers move all but 50mm of their width, in the case of a 400mm board, that's 350mm of movement. In the other direction, no movement! So in your plan layout track A can align with all fiddle yard tracks but layout track B would only only align with fiddle yard tracks labelled B. Now I realise two tracks exit the layout to fiddle yard, I think traversers may be the most sensible option, as aligning track A with a turntable might be awkward.

Hi Ken, I'm using Grainge & Hodder boards, I quite like them. In your planning, bear in mind that the traverser only slides one direction with the supplied runners, so a track coming in from the centre of a baseboard will only be able to access half of the tracks on the traverser. If a turntable board is long enough for the trains you wish to run, it will have an added benefit of reducing the handling of stock. However, I opted for traversers to be able to run as continuous or end to end and to be able to use two as one longer fiddle yard.

I presume it was scrapped, I've had one of the plaques off it in my possession for nearly two decades. Apologies for thread drift, I literally only just saw this post.

I think Photoshop, they had only just had the tooling samples which hadn't yet been assembled on April 2nd.

Freight continues to be the theme as I've also started on the Laderampe (loading dock), a high level platform which will mostly be used by vans.

I hadn't even thought about the Nohabs, they're a rather long in the tooth model now! I had a selection of BTTB examples at one point including a Belgian one. The V36 is one of the BTTB models needing least work to be presentable in my opinion. Now that's got me thinking of mixed German and British stock in North Africa and the middle East, a G12 alongside an 8F... I was only really thinking about RTR in my statements, I've seen some really good Swiss outline modelling from 3D prints - in that respect, anything is possible!

Although a lot is said about TT being available on the continent, really it's only Germany and eastwards that it's popular in. Even Austrian is only represented with types commonly seen in Germany. In terms of French, there's not even a TGV, and they operate into Germany. There's the odd relivery of a wagon, and there was a start set with a 285 in Fret colours, though IIRC it was a German registered machine actually operated by SNCF owned ITL based in Pirna (near Dresden). On the Dutch front, I've seen some stock of varying accuracy, but it's not something currently available. I think most was made by PSK. In terms of UK stock operating overseas for bulking out sales, the 56s and 86s in Hungary would seem the best bet. Would the extra sales there match that of cult types such as Westerns and Deltics though? There's a decent potential in some lineside bits though. There's all sorts of road vehicles from the late 80s on which would be useful whether modelling Prague or Peterborough. Freight complimentary buildings such as cement or stone loaders would be brilliant. The equivalent of Wills sheets ... Auhagen do some good bits and bad bits on that front, there's certainly space for more.

There's not anything I'm aware of in terms of container wagons that ran in the UK. Although my desire for a DMU hasn't yet been met, I did think that the J50 was a pretty good choice for a tank engine given that the steam locos that have already made it to customers are LNER designs. Maybe not the most numerous type, but with the additional context of having recently been researched for OO I can see the reasoning behind it. Hornby still seem fairly bullish about TT, I'm cautiously optimistic that in the not too distant future I'll be able to plan a sector era layout sharing the fiddle yard with my German TT. For now though, my only pre-orders are a 50 and mk2Fs, which in spite of many saying they don't go together certainly could be seen in one train south of Birmingham in the 80s. I do understand how at this point modellers would be reluctant to take the plunge, even though the launch announcements went far beyond what I could have imagined I was still saying to friends that I would guess five years before a really era/location coherent layout could be put together using RTR. We're not even 18 months down that road! I'm very interested in TT, but I think realistic in my expectations.

I'm already interested in what tomorrow will bring. Work means I'll be late to the foam party, so I'll throw my predictions in now and see how good a guess they were tomorrow lunchtime. Like lots of people are saying already, I think we'll see what the first small steam loco release will be. My guess is a Jinty. Further mk1 varieties make sense. The lowest hanging fruit are SKs or SOs, then BGs and RBs. The first two are already announced, the last is in the 00 range. Both the latter will sit nicely with the mk2Fs. As the VEA is planned, a vanwide could slot in nicely. I'm not very clued up on wagons, but my hazy memory suggests that the chassis could be useful for other types. Lowfit and 16t mineral wagons? Rather than being a prediction, the one thing that could push me into taking up British TT is a DMU. 101 is the most obvious, but for me any of 101/108/116/117/118 would be all the carrot I need. A 150/2 would do it too! Really though, all I'm expecting is some more detailed information on the phase 3/4 models laid out in the initial brochure.

Today I've made a start on the Ladestraße , forming cobbles and edging stones in foamboard. It's slow but relaxing work.