DavidLong

The North Sunderland had 'The Lady Armstrong', you could have 'The Lady Clifford' 😀 I do like the '0'! David

Life is always better with photos of 'boosters' 🙂 David

The strange thing is, Chris, that I can hand saw a perfectly straight line but hand me an electric jigsaw and I'm lost. More waves than the sea! David

I should add that on the previous iteration of Minories Rationalised the old departure road was truncated to just act as a safety siding (trap) to protect the remaining main line from errant parcels stock. Later I just extended it on the basis that it might come in useful with a longer length but it is not necessarily the final determination. As I said, there have been a lot of Minories drawings . . . David

A couple of further points about the first plan, above. The station throat is just under 24"/600mm which is half the aimed for 48" in 4mm scale. This means that the ultimate length, as mentioned by Tony, is largely down to how long you wish to make the platforms. Secondly, if I was to move forward from my post-steam late-1968 period to the early 1960s I could still have DMUs and parcels trains. However it would also be possible to have a residual steam service. Using converted RTR, a Fairburn tank + 3 x Non-corridor coaches + Jinty (pilot to remove coaches) would be just under 21"/525mm which fits within the length of the platforms. Any longer formation than this would require the platforms to be lengthened. David

I must have drawn more versions of Minories in Templot than any other plan! I won't bore you with all of them but just a couple of ideas. The first is similar to Bob's shown earlier but uses the Y point function that has recently been added to the program. All crossing angles are 1:7 except for the the point which gives access to the south side of the island which is 1:6. I've found that when not using Peco geometry it can be quite difficult to get an adequate width to the island platform. The siding at the rear is the parcels platform and the one at the front is for locos/pilots. I should explain that my principal interest is in wagons and freight to but Minories is to satisfy my secondary interest in First Generation DMUs and parcels trains. Scenically this comes out at 1524mm x 230mm. For something a little smaller at 1200 x 175 there is Minories Rationalised: On the original version what is now a B6L was a double slip which was paired with a B6L on the departure road. Pondering a late 1960s/early 1970s rationalisation of a small town terminus I abolished the slip and created an almost plausible single track entry to the terminus. The old departure line has been kept as a siding although it is, in prototype terms, a tad too close to a running line. I'm not keen on the curve into the island but we are back to the problem of using prototype v Peco geometry. I haven't added traps on these plans but they would be present if built. One comment I would make is that in 2mm scale a 400mm width is really unnecessary as even my first plan doesn't need more than 250-260mm. David Edit: Sorry if the plans are a bit hazy, I just realised that I hadn't run the generator before doing the prints!

Excellent work, David, and good to have you back. I look forward to the account of other developments. I would expect that a kit for the J17 would be quite successful. It is a class much under-represented, they seem to lose out to the more popular J15. David

Meols in north Wirral is pronounced as 'Mells'. A few miles the other side of the Mersey in Southport, Meols Cop is pronounced as 'Meels Cop'. Another good one is 'Houghton'. this changes around the country and can be 'Ho-ton', Hor-ton' or How-ton. David

Hi Stu. Any more photos of Dunn Street Yard? It looks rather interesting. Is there a thread on it? David

Excellent news, Jerry! Like Mark I remember it well and still have the article from RM. The trackwork is part of the continuing tragedy that blights N gauge layouts to this day despite the change to ersatz Code 55. It was the principal reason for me joining the Association at about that time. I'd resist the urge to use rail soldered direct to pcb sleepers as the layout deserves something better. My vote would be for Finetrax turnouts along with Easitrac as a relatively easy route to an upgrade. David

Thanks, Andy. All ok now! David

Hi Andy, I've just signed up for Premium membership but I'm still getting ads. I logged out and logged back in again but it made no difference. My profile confirms my Premium membership. Is there something else that I need to do? David

Hi Simon, The LMS built these wagons as fitted (the version that you have built) or unfitted. The latter had only two brake shoes and no tie bars. This is the Morton style brake gear as found on most 16T mineral wagons. The etch to use for this one would be 2-382 in the Association list but miss off the brake shoes on the side with the plain brake lever. In the late 1950s many of these wagons were fitted with vacuum brake gear by BR. You could use the same underframe etch but add brakes on both sides and keep the tie bar. The vacuum cylinder goes on the side that has had the extra set of brake shoes added. Hope this helps. David

A small point. You need to snip the tie bars off the LMS Medfit. It has eight-shoe brakes so the brake force is equalised across both axles. Tie bars are only required on four-shoe vacuum braked wagons. David

The original review of this kit in, I think, 'Model Railways' was done by none other than Tim Watson! David

Very true. Examples from West Cornwall that I could cite are the P4 'St Merryn'* and John Greenwood's 2FS extravaganza of Padstow/Wadebridge/Wenfordbridge/Bodmin. These both show the railway as it was and how it operated. This is something which 'heritage' railways struggle with. They can be fun but just accept that they are a pastiche of the past. David * I accept that St Merryn is not a model of an actual prototype but is a skilfull reworking of Padstow. I would still maintain that in its operation, stock and buildings it demonstrates an accurate view of the past.

30+ years ago I built a chassis for a J94 with twin compensation beams from an idea by Don Boreham in 'Narrow Gauge Railway Modelling. The beams were drilled at the same time as the coupling rod blanks and the frames with the pivot hole in the centre between the axle holes. I think that the beams were from some thickish brass and the only bearings were on the rear driven axles. It had 65:1 gearing with a 1013 Sagami can in the cab and split rods. It ran like a dream and even won the Chairman's Trophy. Sadly, at an exhibition, a friend decided that the wheels needed cleaning which did for the quartering and I never got it right again! These days it's DCC + Stay-alive + coreless motor + 30:1 gearing + rigid rods = faultless running and a lot less effort. David

Just to add that I wasn't ignoring 0 scale. 0 Fine at 31.5/32mm gauge is pretty close and S7 at 33mm is correct. However, 0 was already an established scale before the rise of the commercial smaller scales in the inter-war period. H0 was already there but it was (the original) Hornby that began the bastardisation of the scale/gauge combination for the UK, something that was continued by Triang with TT3 and Peco with 'British' N. We have lived with the consequences of those decisions to this day. David

One thought. After more than a century's development in the hobby, the poor old Brits finally have a commercial scale/gauge combination which is correct. I think that at least Peco, Hornby and Heljan deserve a +1 for that. David

In the video interview, SK mentions 2017 a couple of times as the start point. If it had been Bachmann it would have needed to be ten years prior to that! David

Original Triang TT3 used tension locks. Peco even made a version called the Anita (geddit?) which could also be used in TT3. Some people in the 3mm Society still use them. Lord knows why . . . David

1:101.6. 3mm = 1 foot.

Make tension locks look almost respectable . . .

I followed the layout and its development from around when you started it and can now look forward to seeing it at Manchester in December 🙂 David

Chris, just a thought about operation. I think that you normally operate from the front. This is fine at home but what happens if you exhibit? I assume that you would be sitting at one end and can deal with that fiddle yard. Do you have some sort of glamorous assistant that you can employ at the other fiddle yard? David