Armchair Modeller

I did consider something similar a while ago, but at a slightly later period. If the Millers Dale-Buxton services had survived, it might have made sense for BR to build a new through station in Buxton, on the connecting curve, to allow the Manchester-Buxton services to run through to Millers Dale, or Derby-Manchester locals to run via Buxton. I guess it would make little difference to most trains at Millers Dale, except that you might see a wider range of DMUs at Millers Dale, including Network Northwest, Merseyrail PTE and GM PTE liveried stock.

Two Wickham DMUs were sold secondhand from BR to Trinidad

I see there are working instructions for the electrified lines online here http://www.limitofshunt.org.uk/document-library/other-documents

Further to my last post, there is another archive of signalling notices here http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/archivesignals.html

No need to motorise it - just needs a smoke unit Seriously, looking very good for a first attempt. I will follow this with interest as I could do with one or two myself in the future.

Personal experience with DGs is very good. The only problem I have come across occasionally is when both loops on adjacent couplings push each other up when you are trying to couple up. The delayed action uncoupling is better than knuckle couplers as you don't normally have to set back when raising the loops over the uncoupling magnet. Regarding signals, it might depend if BR had the cash to do a complete resignalling job with colour light signals in the late 1960s or beyond unless part of a big scheme to upgrade with a PSB, or where it enabled one or more boxes to be closed and all signalling concentrated on one box locally. Doing just a few signals here or there might require a lot of disproportionate investment when compared with semaphores, especially in a remote location like Millers Dale? One source for inspiration might be Signal Notices - see http://www.signallingnotices.org.uk/notices.php. This has examples of real sites that were rationalised, by region. Only a few seem to have been scanned for browsing online, but this one is kind of in the right area (Hazel Grove) http://www.signallingnotices.org.uk/scans/2248/hazel%20grove%20chord.pdf

Fifty of the outside framed Midland 0-6-0s were sold for use in Italy before the first world war. A Webb compound 2-2-2-0 was sold to the Pennsylvania Railway in the USA and one for France

One of the Southwold Railway locos ended up in Colombia

It is really refreshing to see a project like this. Just as you finish it, Bachmann or Dapol will probably bring out the RTR version, so don't take too long about it

TBH more or less all the recent diesels from Farish and Dapol look great - especially compared to old Farish, and even compared to 4mm scale! There is more to come with the upcoming Class 25. Even I am tempted to have go at something. I do worry that maybe the Highlands have been done a bit to death though. There are plenty of other Scottish areas worthy of consideration, including the old HR lines south and east of Inverness, the old Great North of Scotland, the borders and the South West. More opportunity there for other locos like the new Farish Class 20s and the Class 101 DMUs, for example. Still, not to say that something great could not be done in the Highlands! Looking forward to more of your idea.

Hopefully, they will follow the usual Dapol pattern of starting at the beginning and working through to the end, assuming early sales are good enough

I suspect the NER ones were a development of the French ones - or at least inspired by them. The French ones were around 1900. The NER electric locomotives were built in 1905. The frames and bodies were constructed by Brush, who werr subcontractors to British Thomson-Houston Co. BTH supplied the electrical equipment. See http://www.bzt87.com/BOITES%20A%20SEL/index.htm for more info on the french ones

The Tyneside machines do look remarkably similar to these, used in Paris

Long trips wouldn't necessarily be in revenue earning service. Maybe they went on a jolly jaunt for testing when they were new, or after a major overhaul - or even for driver training? It would be nice to see one hauling an excursion or a railtour - even if only in model form

Agreed! Even RTR has an amazing level of detail - sometimes better than the 4mm equivalents. I just wish some magazine editors and photographers would resist the temptation to blow 2mm images up so they look more like 4mm or even 7mm models to the uninitiated - that does tend to show up the perfectly reasonable limitations of the scale just a little bit

The '1910 version' above is just a small part of the track plan as it existed at that date - the extreme bottom left part of the larger plan in the last post.

Ah, that makes me drool Thanks Andy

I think he was making a model of one of Massey Bromley's 4-2-2 singles, but I don't remember ever seeing a photo of it. I wonder if he ever finished it?

Having built a few FB turnouts in the past, I would agree that soldered construction is a good, sound option for 2mm scale FB pointwork. In the 1960s and onwards the overall appearance changed quite dramatically over time - even the bullhead ones. The change from straight to curved cut blades alone makes a subtle but noticeable difference. As FB pointwork developed, a huge variety of changes took place. They look nothing like old bullhead turnouts now, even from a distance. For Wayne to do a "standard" FB turnout just wouldn't reflect much at all of the immense variety out there. Far better to get hold of some accurate templates of the real thing and make your own, if you feel confident about it. DEMU and Colin Craig supply templates.

I think there are 2 things to consider with buffers and curves. The first is buffer locking, where one buffer head slips behind the buffer on the next vehicle. With DGs, this is pretty well impossible as the buffing bar of the DGs blocks the possibility of it happening. The second problem is for buffer heads on the inside of a tight curve, on adjacent vehicles, to be forced hard against each other. This is really what concerned me. I have practical experience of it happening. Whatever coupler you use, I think this is possible. If the curve is too tight then one or more vehicles will be forced to derail. We get around this by allowing looseness in the couplings. With the DGs, the looseness can be adjusted by setting the coupling further away from the buffer beam - or maybe by making the loops bigger. The down side of this adjustment is that stock will be further apart when running normally in a train. You need to balance the ability to go round curves with the appearance of the train. This will vary with individual taste and the layout the train is running on. "Tight" couplings give the train a better appearance, but only looser couplings will allow trains to go around tight curves - especially reverse curves. I remember operating a layout where stock from various people was mixed together. Everyone made and set their DG couplings very slightly differently. Also, the wheelbase and end overhang varied from vehicle to vehicle. Even on minimum curves of 2ft radius, there were some combinations of stock where the buffers jammed and derailed the train.

I know from my own experience that changes in scale and gauge bring their own unique problems and opportunities, whether it be the availability of products, differences in standards, whatever. What seems like a simple transition from one scale to another quickly becomes a huge learning curve. You often have to develop very different ways of doing things and different ways of thinking. I found that moving to a smaller scale is actually more difficult than the other way around. I suspect that would be true of you, as your previous work suggests you have a great eye for detail. You may have to compromise a few of your ideals to cope with the smaller scale - but there are also many advantages, like getting more in a space, more realistic train lengths etc. A few experiments - even a quick scenic test track or two - would be a very valuable experience before you go for the big one. Knowing someone with similar interests in your local area would be a big help, if you are so lucky.

Standards are quite loose with N gauge wheels and track. The wheels can move quite a long way from side to side, increasing the risk of buffer locking if you don't use N gauge couplers to keep things well apart. Bizarre as it may sound, you would probably get away with slightly tighter curves using 2mm standards, as there is less freedom for wheels to move sideways on the track compared with OO and N gauge. 2ft radius worked fine for me. For 18" radius, then BR MK1 coaches had to be sightly further apart than I would have liked. Sharp reverse curves are the real killer - best to make those slightly easier if possible. If the length of the layout concerns you, maybe you could have a removable section somewhere in the middle - only added when you take the layout to exhibitions? - just a thought

I do appreciate your concern for as fine a scale appearance as possible, but a lot depends on how you plan to make your pointwork. Also, everything is very small in N gauge, so the differences you quote will not be quite so apparent as in 4mm scale - especially from normal viewing distances. As a rough guide I would go for an absolute minimum of 18" curves if reasonably realistic coupling distances are important. There are no Keen couplers in 2mm scale. You can do clever things with magnets on bufferless stock, but buffers are an unavoidable problem when you try to couple things close together and use tight curves. By the sound of things, you are not far off being able to get 18" radius curves at the ends of your layout. You have to weigh up the pros and cons- something will have to give!

Roller gauges for Code 40 are an issue, though you could use 9.42mm gauge roller gauges for the running rails, with home-made gauges for the checkrails on your pointwork. Assuming you are going modern image, like your OO layout, then Code 40 might be too small for main lines. Code 55 from C&L fits perfectly into some N gauge roller gauges I purchased a while back. Modern bufferless stock will be far less of a problem than stock with buffers. Modern coaches and DMUs can be got around tight curves as there will be no buffer locking.

The real issue will be how close you want your stock coupled together. To get a realistic appearance, you might want to close couple the stock, so it would not go round tight curves. The buffers would jam and force the stock off the track. With conventional N gauge couplings this would not be an issue, as the stock is normally quite a long way apart, but it looks less realistic. Which code 40 track were you planning to use - Finetrax, Easitrac, or scratchbuilt? You can get loco wheels turned down to 2mm standards, rather than buy replacement wheels. This works out significantly cheaper, but there is a very slight risk that the wheels may get damaged in the process.