Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Speaking from a position of total ignorance, I wonder if the underframe is the wrong way round (i.e. if you try to fit it the right way round it doesn't fit but if you fit it the wrong way round it does).

 

 

I'd never thought of that, John.

 

I'll investigate, though I won't be doing anything to these coaches by way of 'upgrades' (as with the recent Hornby Thompson Pacifics) and they'll end up generating money for charities once I've reviewed them...........................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Chas Levin]

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Chas,

 

you are correct, the Hornby colour is in the cold/blue end of the colour temperature spectrum when it should be in the warm end (yellow/red) The same is true of their BR green. Fortunately, there are many paint manufactures out there that can help you along, as they have produced superior renditions of LNER and BR green. If you wish to go further, they can also be easier to customise than mixing from scratch. Think of the LNER colour in terms of a English meadow on a summers day. The LNER and GNR referred to it as Grass green but if you like apples, then few would consider an apple to be mint coloured. 

Morning Andrew, many thanks, food for thought (no pun intended with apples, mint etc!)

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Sorry Tony, I didn't explain myself very well. Unlike the LNER streamlined trains, the Coronation Scot vehicles were not purpose designed for the train, they were just examples of regular Stanier coaching stock 'blinged up' for the train. Other examples of the same diagram number were running around in other trains.

 

So my point is that, in creating the Coro Scot train, Hornby have added further diagram numbers to the pool of Stanier RTR vehicles available. But they can't easily be turned out as other 'everyday' examples of the same vehicle type because of the moulded PV roofs, except for the kitchen cars (which would then need 9 foot versus 8 foot bogies ...)

It's more my being obtuse, Graham.

 

On the 'positive' side, however (I assume), all that's needed is a repaint into carmine/cream or maroon, and all these cars can then be used on a layout depicting BR days up to their withdrawal.

 

Another assumption............... The set didn't run in the War? I know the new set was marooned (in maroon) in America for the duration.  Were the original cars used then in general trains, still painted stripey blue?

 

Returning to the (properly-streamlined) LNER equivalents, as mentioned, post-War there is no such 'just repaint, ease of use' for any putative models. Not only that, all of the types (apart from the two Observation Cars) were either twin articulated or triple articulated. As far as I know, nobody has dipped their RTR toes into that murky water (other than Hornby-Dublo, pre-War, but nobody uses those as 'scale' models). Which means that each pair will be either twice the price, or each triple three times the price of the LMS cars. Maybe that won't matter if the idea (as with you) is to sell the whole train, though post-War, when the sets no longer ran complete, it might be a barrier to sale.  Yes, I know there are fewer bogies needed, but all those bogies will have to be entirely new tooling. Nobody has ever produced (as far as I know) and RTR HD 8' 6" Gresley bogie, nor a 10' 0" one. 

 

I suppose one 'selling point' with the LNER trains is that all of the the three streamlined services could be produced by making one eight-car rake (and the Observation Cars for the 'Coronation'). When 'The Silver Jubilee' rake was out of service, the spare 'Coronation'/'West Riding' set was employed, carrying 'Silver Jubilee' roof boards. The raised tumbleholme branding for the 'Coronation' and 'West Riding' might be an issue; I don't know. At least we should be spared the total nonsense of a 'Silver Jubilee' being offered by Hornby using silver-painted LMS cars! The firm used to do it. 

 

Has the Hornby 'CS' been offered at a 'whole train price'? I wonder if Hornby will produce the cars in post-War mode. If they did, I'm sure they'd sell as individuals. 

 

Interesting times.....................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[davidw]

A bit left of field on the named trains debate and possibly daft. What of the possibility of the Thompson Flying Scotsman/Capitals/Elizabethan pressure ventilated stock. I fully appreciate that Bachmann do the non pressure ventilated Thompsons and we're still waiting for maroon versions.

But if Hornby did the pressure ventilated cars they'd have the same underframe as mentioned with the Coronation Scot vehicles and were cascaded on to other services later in life.

Personally I would have thought that a restaurant Triplet of some description would be a good addition. But it didn't sore that highly in the poll run on Gilberts thread as I expected.

If Hornby wanted to have a flag ship LNER train, Thompsons suitable to make any three named trains including the BG, catering core, the ladies retiring rooms etc maybe a possibility?

Probably not as high a visual impact as a Coronation/West Riding, but A4 hauled and longer lived.

Edited May 30, 2021 by davidw

[Tony Wright]

10 minutes ago, davidw said:

A bit left of field on the named trains debate and possibly daft. What of the possibility of the Thompson Flying Scotsman/Capitals/Elizabethan pressure ventilated stock. I fully appreciate that Bachmann do the non pressure ventilated Thompsons and we're still waiting for maroon versions.

But if Hornby did the pressure ventilated cars they'd have the same underframe as mentioned with the Coronation Scot vehicles and were cascaded on to other services later in life.

Personally I would have thought that a restaurant Triplet of some description would be a good addition. But it didn't sore that highly in the poll run on Gilberts thread as I expected.

If Hornby wanted to have a flag ship LNER train, Thompsons suitable to make any three named trains including the BG, catering core, the ladies retiring rooms etc maybe a possibility?

Probably not as high a visual impact as a Coronation/West Riding, but A4 hauled and longer lived.

An interested thought, David.

 

Especially as one of the Buffet Cars survives in preservation.

 

It would still mean making RTR HD Gresley bogies, however. 

 

I have to say, I rather find this whole RTR debate as to what might sell a bit amusing. 'Modellers', down the generations, have always made things for themselves (in years past, everything). 

 

When WMRC built Stoke Summit, instead of 'wishing and hoping and thinking and praying' that RTR manufacturers would produce the rolling stock we needed (this was pre-Bachmann Mk.1s), we, as a group, either built the available kits or designed and produced them (via Dave Lewis of Southern Pride), the Thompson PV stock being a case in point. 

 

I agree, not everyone has access to such 'resources', but it only took some initiative, linked with some skills, of course, and the modelling world was our oyster. 

 

Jol Wilkinson suggested once to 'build a kit' (I believe he still does - good on him!). One friend was with me at the time, and immediately bleated 'What if one can't build a kit?' I immediately responded by saying two things......... 'Tough, and/or, if you can't/can, get someone else to do your modelling for you!'. Which he does.................

 

I'm not denying that the availability of such high-quality RTR stuff these days has done wonders for the hobby, and it's made it much more egalitarian. That said, I can understand how so many 'real' modellers prefer to go further and further back in time with their creations because, out of necessity, they have to make things for themselves. I commend them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[davidw]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

An interested thought, David.

 

Especially as one of the Buffet Cars survives in preservation.

 

It would still mean making RTR HD Gresley bogies, however. 

 

I have to say, I rather find this whole RTR debate as to what might sell a bit amusing. 'Modellers', down the generations, have always made things for themselves (in years past, everything). 

 

When WMRC built Stoke Summit, instead of 'wishing and hoping and thinking and praying' that RTR manufacturers would produce the rolling stock we needed (this was pre-Bachmann Mk.1s), we, as a group, either built the available kits or designed and produced them (via Dave Lewis of Southern Pride), the Thompson PV stock being a case in point. 

 

I agree, not everyone has access to such 'resources', but it only took some initiative, linked with some skills, of course, and the modelling world was our oyster. 

 

Jol Wilkinson suggested once to 'build a kit' (I believe he still does - good on him!). One friend was with me at the time, and immediately bleated 'What if one can't build a kit?' I immediately responded by saying two things......... 'Tough, and/or, if you can't/can, get someone else to do your modelling for you!'. Which he does.................

 

I'm not denying that the availability of such high-quality RTR stuff these days has done wonders for the hobby, and it's made it much more egalitarian. That said, I can understand how so many 'real' modellers prefer to go further and further back in time with their creations because, out of necessity, they have to make things for themselves. I commend them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I  agree, particularly as I've got many/most of the stock I mention I've got. Residing building items locos and rolling stock is do-able. Mostly thanks to your aid and the Right track DVDs. But with an ever shrinking pool of prototypes to chose from, it does make one wonder what will sell be it kit or RTR?

Edited May 30, 2021 by davidw

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It's more my being obtuse, Graham.

 

On the 'positive' side, however (I assume), all that's needed is a repaint into carmine/cream or maroon, and all these cars can then be used on a layout depicting BR days up to their withdrawal.

 

Another assumption............... The set didn't run in the War? I know the new set was marooned (in maroon) in America for the duration.  Were the original cars used then in general trains, still painted stripey blue?

 

Returning to the (properly-streamlined) LNER equivalents, as mentioned, post-War there is no such 'just repaint, ease of use' for any putative models. Not only that, all of the types (apart from the two Observation Cars) were either twin articulated or triple articulated. As far as I know, nobody has dipped their RTR toes into that murky water (other than Hornby-Dublo, pre-War, but nobody uses those as 'scale' models). Which means that each pair will be either twice the price, or each triple three times the price of the LMS cars. Maybe that won't matter if the idea (as with you) is to sell the whole train, though post-War, when the sets no longer ran complete, it might be a barrier to sale.  Yes, I know there are fewer bogies needed, but all those bogies will have to be entirely new tooling. Nobody has ever produced (as far as I know) and RTR HD 8' 6" Gresley bogie, nor a 10' 0" one. 

 

I suppose one 'selling point' with the LNER trains is that all of the the three streamlined services could be produced by making one eight-car rake (and the Observation Cars for the 'Coronation'). When 'The Silver Jubilee' rake was out of service, the spare 'Coronation'/'West Riding' set was employed, carrying 'Silver Jubilee' roof boards. The raised tumbleholme branding for the 'Coronation' and 'West Riding' might be an issue; I don't know. At least we should be spared the total nonsense of a 'Silver Jubilee' being offered by Hornby using silver-painted LMS cars! The firm used to do it. 

 

Has the Hornby 'CS' been offered at a 'whole train price'? I wonder if Hornby will produce the cars in post-War mode. If they did, I'm sure they'd sell as individuals. 

 

Interesting times.....................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

Hornby have produced a Eurostar set including articulated coaches so they have broached that ‘murky water’ to modern standards. I agree there’s still the issue of price to get over.

 

Hornby would also say that they have produced a HD bogie. The one which sits under their sleeper and buffet is different to their standard one. It has the two rows of rivets above the axle box although not much else is different. I suspect that is sufficient to keep most potential buyers happy although I appreciate that those on this thread have higher standards! The 10 foot bogie is another issue. But it would be lovely if Hornby produced one RTR given the lack of a kit at present. 
 

Regards

 

Andy

[Headstock]

If Railway modelling was an Olympic sport, China would win all the medals. Team GB would trail in last again, with little to show because it had maxed out its credit card.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Headstock

[gr.king]

Grammatically, some might say that China would win its most deserved medal for aggressive cyber meddling.

[stewartingram]

15 hours ago, john new said:

But droop is not their worst problem the loops are too darn small. I very much doubt you could back a rake of those new LMS coaches over a set track reverse curve. OK most people who buy them won’t but if 2nd radius is supposed to be the acceptable minimum for modern r-t-r locomotives manufacturers need to supply a coupling across their range that can cope with it.

I did some experimentation at the time all the manufacturers had there own versions (Triang/Hornby, Mainline, Airfix, Dapol, have I missed any?).

My conclusion was that the T/Hy were probably the most reliable, but ugliest. And some mods had been published  in the mags , giving some improvements (replacing ramps with thin wire, pre-uncoupling, etc).

Mainline became my favourite, though the above mods became difficult to do on them. The sprung hook was very good. However , I felt the radius of the loop was a shade too tight, leading to derailment. Only Hy got that right.

The smaller ones, (Airfix, Dapol), which morphed into the present "standard", also suffered from the radius problem; the hooks were loose leading to unreliability (and often fell off), but being smaller were visually better.

By the time a standard (such as it is) had arrived, I had moved on.

I should also note that all these types were offerd in different fixing, so generally it was possible to change them over.

 

Stewart

 

[ecgtheow]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It's more my being obtuse, Graham.

 

On the 'positive' side, however (I assume), all that's needed is a repaint into carmine/cream or maroon, and all these cars can then be used on a layout depicting BR days up to their withdrawal.

 

Another assumption............... The set didn't run in the War? I know the new set was marooned (in maroon) in America for the duration.  Were the original cars used then in general trains, still painted stripey blue?

 

Returning to the (properly-streamlined) LNER equivalents, as mentioned, post-War there is no such 'just repaint, ease of use' for any putative models. Not only that, all of the types (apart from the two Observation Cars) were either twin articulated or triple articulated. As far as I know, nobody has dipped their RTR toes into that murky water (other than Hornby-Dublo, pre-War, but nobody uses those as 'scale' models). Which means that each pair will be either twice the price, or each triple three times the price of the LMS cars. Maybe that won't matter if the idea (as with you) is to sell the whole train, though post-War, when the sets no longer ran complete, it might be a barrier to sale.  Yes, I know there are fewer bogies needed, but all those bogies will have to be entirely new tooling. Nobody has ever produced (as far as I know) and RTR HD 8' 6" Gresley bogie, nor a 10' 0" one. 

 

I suppose one 'selling point' with the LNER trains is that all of the the three streamlined services could be produced by making one eight-car rake (and the Observation Cars for the 'Coronation'). When 'The Silver Jubilee' rake was out of service, the spare 'Coronation'/'West Riding' set was employed, carrying 'Silver Jubilee' roof boards. The raised tumbleholme branding for the 'Coronation' and 'West Riding' might be an issue; I don't know. At least we should be spared the total nonsense of a 'Silver Jubilee' being offered by Hornby using silver-painted LMS cars! The firm used to do it. 

 

Has the Hornby 'CS' been offered at a 'whole train price'? I wonder if Hornby will produce the cars in post-War mode. If they did, I'm sure they'd sell as individuals. 

 

Interesting times.....................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

It's not quite true to state that no RTR manufacturer has produced articulated carriages, so long as one accepts that Golden Age Models is or was an RTR manufacturer. They sold a Silver Jubilee set & a Coronation set, though neither ran well without modification as described by zr2498 on rmweb. I have a Silver Jubilee set & seem to recall that you were "somewhat critical" when you reviewed it?

 

William

[PMP]

On 28/05/2021 at 14:18, john new said:

 

Re (B) I have been using some r-t-r stock on a shunting plank lately and the new thin spike t/ls are beeping useless on 2nd radius. Many on here would not go near either that track or those couplings BUT my point is they are being sold to beginners, who do use them, but because they are so unreliable they will become disillusioned with the hobby and never progress to the delights of 3ft+ radius curves etc.. This is not something I have seen magazine reviewers criticise, namely that despite being sold as suitable for 2nd radius curves the items cannot couple  on such a tight radius and hook swing derails the vehicle even if they’ve been coupled on a straight.

 

Older models may have been built more crudely as regards standards but they worked at entry level, got a newbie interested, and encouraged progression to better standards in due course. Space, currently, precludes me using the larger radius curves I desire unless I drop to 2mm. I’ve compromised and dabble with what I’ve got.
 

I have posted this in the hope that as a BRM reviewer it is something Tony might mention in future reviews - what is the minimum radius curve an item of rolling stock can go round and stay coupled with the fittings as supplied.

 

The reason why reviewers don’t mention the problem with 2nd radius set track curves is because it’s not a problem. I’ve got plenty of stock that under test works absolutely fine. To prove the point here’s a Hornby LNER long CCT vs a standard 16t Bachmann mineral. Both have ‘rigid’ end mounted couplings and represent the worst scenario, long overhang vs short overhang.

 

 

 

 

The other bigger indicators are that the issue doesn’t come up upon the hundreds of products and thousands of comments in the product section here, or elsewhere on the web. So, no, reviews don’t mention non existent issues. Of the many many RTR items (hundreds realistically) I’ve owned or had through the workshop, only a few have had hooks that have dropped off, and the same for drooping couplings.

 

One element that does need addressing in my opinion is a standard dimension and height for the TLC’s, including bar height above rail and hook size, for there are still releases today that miss the mark on height, where issues can occur. 

 

[john new]

35 minutes ago, PMP said:

The reason why reviewers don’t mention the problem with 2nd radius set track curves is because it’s not a problem. I’ve got plenty of stock that under test works absolutely fine. To prove the point here’s a Hornby LNER long CCT vs a standard 16t Bachmann mineral. Both have ‘rigid’ end mounted couplings and represent the worst scenario, long overhang vs short overhang.

 

 

 

 

The other bigger indicators are that the issue doesn’t come up upon the hundreds of products and thousands of comments in the product section here, or elsewhere on the web. So, no, reviews don’t mention non existent issues. Of the many many RTR items (hundreds realistically) I’ve owned or had through the workshop, only a few have had hooks that have dropped off, and the same for drooping couplings.

 

One element that does need addressing in my opinion is a standard dimension and height for the TLC’s, including bar height above rail and hook size, for there are still releases today that miss the mark on height, where issues can occur. 

 

We will just have to agree to differ as I am finding it an issue.

 

On the reverse curve on my shunting plank all the vehicles with old style t/ls run through ok, the new small size one’s won’t. On the whisky grain hopper I swapped couplings on for larger it didn’t run happily without derailment but now does.
 

I won’t ever lay that configuration again, it was a quick and dirty build to use up some track stuff I had, lesson learnt, but the point remains old style coupling fitted stock works, and was what I had tested it with before pinning the track down, the latest newer stock doesn’t like it when coupled. Too far into the build not to continue it as a scenic aids re-skilling  project but the restriction on stock is annoying.

Edited May 30, 2021 by john new

[30368]

14 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I think that quote sounds rather like Oscar Wilde's

 

Yes I think it does remind one of him, although dear Oscar was perhaps a man of his times a little too Fin de siècle?

Railway Modelling is a pursuit that gives much pleasure and, as many have said, during lockdown it was so therapeutic. It certainly helped to give me a sense of purpose when one was unable to do all the things that substituted for work following retirement but that is another story.

How did we get from matters LNER etc to Oscar Wilde? Life is wonderful.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

[trevor7598]

19 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Beautiful models.  I live in hope of an LNER streamliner of equal quality. 

 

How about a quiet word with Simon?

I did have a quiet word with Simon at the Folkestone show a few years back,

and suggested to him that with a Somerset & Dorset 2-8-0 coming onto the market

at the time, Hornby already had the tooling to produce a three car set of Maunsell

low window coaches as used on the S&D. I sent him some details he asked for, and

later on the Hornby S&D coach pack was born.

 

So he does listen. OK there's a world of difference using tooling already in stock,

and starting an LNER Streamliner set from scratch!.

[zr2498]

14 hours ago, Iain.d said:

We have had some very wet and stormy weather in Perth over the last day or so which has meant I had to spend more time indoors modelling, rather than outside tidying up the garden…

 

The time has allowed me to finish off part of a breakdown train that I’m putting together.  I cut down a Ratio Lavatory Brake Third bogie carriage and converted it to a 6 wheel 31ft MR Clerestory to be used as a crew coach. Its finished in dark grey (Vallejo German Tank Crew 333). The transfers I did myself, basing the wording on images I found on the internet and finished with a sprayed matt varnish.  The W irons are Bill Bedford and the chassis/underframe built from plastic sheet, brass strip and wire. It has Midland sprung buffers and screw couplings.

 

 

It’ll be paired up with this Worsley Works Caledonian Railway 45ft Full Brake masquerading as a tool van.  There’s a little modellers licence here as none of these brakes survived beyond about 1937 and my current period of interest is the 1950s, which going on recent discussions of when we base our models, is about 15 years before I was born. This kit soldered together beautifully, literally ‘falling together’. It is running on Roxey Fox bogies and has sprung buffers – these are LNWR ones as I couldn’t seem to find the right Caledonian Railway ones. I need to cut down or paint the bogie fixing/mounting screws. 

 

 

It sits much lower than the 6 wheeler; both are the right height (I think) but I suspect the Full Brake had gas lamps on the roof, where I have put the vents, and also some sort of skylight box on the roof. Certainly some of the very similar LNWR Full Brakes seemed to have this feature.

 

 

In the queue to build soon is the accompanying D&S Cowan Sheldon 15T crane and its match truck.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Superb work Iain.

Interesting that you will be constructing the D&S cane. I recently purchased a part built kit on EBay and not sure what all of the remaining parts are or even if they are all present and correct.

If you get a moment spare sometime I would certainly appreciate some photos of the parts, especially the frets with the part numbers. I reckon some parts I have do not even belong to the kit just to make it even more puzzling.

 

[Dunsignalling]

19 hours ago, john new said:

But droop is not their worst problem the loops are too darn small. I very much doubt you could back a rake of those new LMS coaches over a set track reverse curve. OK most people who buy them won’t but if 2nd radius is supposed to be the acceptable minimum for modern r-t-r locomotives manufacturers need to supply a coupling across their range that can cope with it.

Modern r-t-r coaches fitted with close-coupling units can only be reliably propelled through curves and crossovers if fitted with couplers that lock adjacent pairs of CCUs to form a rigid unit, e.g. Roco, or the similar but longer Hornby R8220.  

 

Problem is that the manufacturers and most of their customers want a single coupler type on all their models, and the tension lock, whilst being one of the least effective couplers for most purposes (at least as currently applied), happens to have "Grandfather Rights".

 

John 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, trevor7598 said:

I did have a quiet word with Simon at the Folkestone show a few years back,

and suggested to him that with a Somerset & Dorset 2-8-0 coming onto the market

at the time, Hornby already had the tooling to produce a three car set of Maunsell

low window coaches as used on the S&D. I sent him some details he asked for, and

later on the Hornby S&D coach pack was born.

 

So he does listen. OK there's a world of difference using tooling already in stock,

and starting an LNER Streamliner set from scratch!.

As you seem to have the magic touch, any chance of persuading him to do the 3-set again, but in Crimson/cream?

 

I've mentioned it a couple of times to no effect...

 

John

[Chamby]

3 hours ago, PMP said:

The reason why reviewers don’t mention the problem with 2nd radius set track curves is because it’s not a problem. I’ve got plenty of stock that under test works absolutely fine. To prove the point here’s a Hornby LNER long CCT vs a standard 16t Bachmann mineral. Both have ‘rigid’ end mounted couplings and represent the worst scenario, long overhang vs short overhang.

 

 

 

 

The other bigger indicators are that the issue doesn’t come up upon the hundreds of products and thousands of comments in the product section here, or elsewhere on the web. So, no, reviews don’t mention non existent issues. Of the many many RTR items (hundreds realistically) I’ve owned or had through the workshop, only a few have had hooks that have dropped off, and the same for drooping couplings.

 

One element that does need addressing in my opinion is a standard dimension and height for the TLC’s, including bar height above rail and hook size, for there are still releases today that miss the mark on height, where issues can occur. 

 

 

Have you tried 2x CCT’s together?  Two vehicles both with a long overhang and body-mounted couplings, when coupled together, are where you really see the problem.   Hornby Class 50’s are also notorious for the same reason.  Reverse curves also exaggerate the effect.

[Dunsignalling]

I'd suggest the problem isn't with the couplers as such, but in expecting to be able to propel the vehicles fitted with them round curves that are scaled down 76 times from a radius that's a fraction of the tightest that would be usable on the prototype.

 

The problem can be "solved" by fitting even longer couplers, but you won't like what it looks like. The real answer is to design ones layout so that the tight curves are only on bits of it where you won't want to propel, and ensure that the curves on the bits where you will, are far gentler.

 

John   

[Dunsignalling]

Duplicated post

Edited May 30, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[2750Papyrus]

17 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

I mentioned it in a recent email with Simon. I said I hope the Coronation Scot sells really well so they consider doing an LNER Coronation.

I've actually got a Mailcoach set stashed away (for more than 25 years) but I've got too many pre-grouping brass coaches to build plus locos that I know now I'll never get around to the Coronation!

Andrew

I've also had a Mailcoach set for may years, in my case the Silber Jubilee, which I've never felt brave enough to tackle.  Maybe this autumn, if Simon hasn't saved us by then!

[john new]

48 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I'd suggest the problem isn't with the couplers as such, but in expecting to be able to propel the vehicles fitted with them round curves that are scaled down 76 times from a radius that's a fraction of the tightest that would be usable on the prototype.

 

The problem can be "solved" by fitting even longer couplers, but you won't like what it looks like. The real answer is to design ones layout so that the tight curves are only on bits of it where you won't want to propel, and ensure that the curves on the bits where you will, are far gentler.

 

John   

I am going to end my contribution to this circular debate with this - I agree entirely with @Dunsignalling's second paragraph and, yes, the fundamental problem was/is my expectations of entry level gear BUT the prime point I was trying to make is as below. 

 

The very small layout that has caused the issues was meant as a quick build* and later slightly adapted for me to try some new things (DCC is one - scenery items a 2nd and so on) and only using up lots of the accumulated bits and pieces I have to hand. ALL the problem items are recent entry level items a newbie can buy.

 

The track configuration causes a problem with the couplings on my recent purchases and I can see why from my 50+ years of experience with model trains. I am on the cusp of giving up with this layout; however, a newbie could/would be completely put off the hobby for life as they have not yet got that knowledge to determine the issue. All my older stock runs through fine, one of the latest now retro-fitted with older, larger, couplings now does too (but not the two unmodified identical models). That these newer designs should still work on the train set radius points they are supplied with in the train set box**, so are not specialist models, was, and is, my prime point.

 

* it started as a one-off, public "have a go" shunting puzzle layout on our stand at Warley 2018 and I decided to do a bit more with it after I got home as it just fits the one available space where it can be left up in the spare bedroom other than during family stop-over visits. 

 

** Bachman Whiskies Galore.

[trevor7598]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

As you seem to have the magic touch, any chance of persuading him to do the 3-set again, but in Crimson/cream?

 

I've mentioned it a couple of times to no effect...

 

John

Actually John suggesting  an S&D 3 set was partially selfishness on my part.

At the time Hornby had not produced any low window coaches in BR(S) green,

and certainly no 4 compartment low window brakes in BR green.

But yes there would be further sales if they produced a Blood and Custard set, me for one!.

The same goes for their short Bulleids, use the ' as built ' tooling for a set in B&C.

Hornby do miss a few tricks!.

[Jol Wilkinson]

"Jol Wilkinson suggested once to 'build a kit' (I believe he still does - good on him!). "

 

Tony,

 

thanks , but choosing to model the LNWR in 4mm scale on 18.83mm gauge track doesn't leave me much option. However, I enjoy the challenge and satisfaction that creating my own models provides.

 

Jol