James Hilton Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Hi guys, I'm really excited by the 2010 challenge but I've found myself floundering a bit with in-decision. Similar to lots of people I'm restricted on time, money and space, but also have the urge to try something new. I've got myself down to 3 fairly sensible options (with a crazy fourth, which if it comes off will shelve the others). Option 1 - Paxton Road Most of you will have seen my layout develop on RMWeb3 since September 2007. Well I've only really finished the first half, and the challenge would be to finish the rest to a high standard. It fits within the area requirements and would need the least new investment. Check out my Layout or my Blog in my signature for more details. Option 2 - Birkenhead Minory Lane I grew up in Chester with the Chester to Hooton line across the field behind my house. I remember the Regional Railways Merseyrail livery, the electrification of the Chester line and the 73/0 and 73/9s. I have fancied building a minories based layout from Cyril Freezer's plans for about 6 months since talking with Andy Y at the members day. The layout would be OO, use a mixture of Peco and C&L track with third rail and be based in Birkenhead in 1994. Structures and building would be a mix from Birkenhead and Green Lane. This would be a new layout from scratch, with new stock, initially just a Pacer and a 150 (possibly the MerseyRail 150/2) - with a future desire for a 507/508 electric. I'd be aiming for wet cold gritty realism versus the green, summer dusty country side of Paxton Road. Option 3 - Rose Hill, Marple The modern day branch line terminus! A single track and platform, a park and ride carpark, the old station hotel and a fuel yard plus some trees. Built to scale, and putting my foot in the water with P4 or EM (depending on what I can convert the Pacer too). This would be an realistic attempt at modelling a prototype location. It would be based in the present, and would require very little rolling stock - just a Pacer initially, and then potentially a Bachmann 150/1 if they do a Northern livery. This would be an exercise in prototype observation, hand built track and repowering the Pacer. The crazy fourth option depends on whether my Dad wants to join in, in which case we're going GWR in 7mm! Please help. I reserve the right to change my mind on a whim though!! Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Hilton Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 Thanks for the votes so far - I'm keen to give it another day or so to make up my mind but it seems that it's quite an even spread but with a swing towards a new passenger based project.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edinburgh Junction Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Good luck with it all matey! I grew up on the coast, but didn't think of modelling it. I wish you all the best with the choosing! lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted November 18, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 18, 2009 Would certainly love to see what you manage to come up with in P4, sounds like another use for Colin Craig's flat bottom track bits as well (meaning you could really tie it down to the prototype exactly.) Certainly the Pacer is no problem to P4 (given you mention planing to re chassis anyway). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 GWR in 7mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Hilton Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 GWR in 7mm Thanks Martin!! Two horse race now - looks like Paxton Road isn't getting finished! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh993 Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Thanks Martin!! Two horse race now - looks like Paxton Road isn't getting finished! GWR for me to Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hi mate, Just added my vote for EM/P4 as i'm also considering making the move over to a (more) accurate track gauge! Would it make it all too challenging, however? Good luck anyway, John E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Hilton Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hi mate, Just added my vote for EM/P4 as i'm also considering making the move over to a (more) accurate track gauge! Would it make it all too challenging, however? Good luck anyway, John E. Cheers John - yeah it's such an unknown to me though! Rose Hill is literally a siding basically and it fills me with uncertainty... can I get it laid flat, smooth and accurate, can I get the Pacer converted (I don't really want to re-engine her as on test she's more than acceptable), will I then find PR too much of a comprimise... it could be a slippery slope but it could be a fun project. The other concern with Rose Hill is it's quite big with very little on it (I'll post up an overhead shot later with the edges of the proposed baseboard shown) so should I do a little selective compression. At least the Pacer is progressing!! Fitted handrails to one of the two cars now, and it's looking really quite nice. I'll prime it white I think which means it can end up in Northern (for Rose Hill) or early MerseyRail (for Birkenhead Minory Lane). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike W Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Hi James, I voted for Paxton Road - I think it would be a shame to see your hard work so far wasted (given you have said it won't be finished?). Also, would a SLT (Rose Hill) be enough in terms of operational value going forward after the challenge? Good luck, whatever you choose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Hilton Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 Thanks Mike - I will finish Paxton Road - I think I said I was worried that P4/EM might lead me not too, but I've too much stock for this layout not to finish. Looks like RMWeb sees the other two as neck and neck... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flymo748 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Cheers John - yeah it's such an unknown to me though! Rose Hill is literally a siding basically and it fills me with uncertainty... can I get it laid flat, smooth and accurate Speaking from a small amount of practical experience, you don't have to get P4 track *that* level to make it work. Certainly any half-way competent modeller armed with a set of gauges and some proper components can make a very good job of it. Hell! Even I can! You may have seen the individualistic style of Iain Rice, and his superb evocations of mineral railway track, and the contortions that his compensated locos had to follow to run on this. That is still P4, but it is very much the exception that proves the rule. It's not necessary to go to that extreme, and there are many examples of P4 modellers successfully running contemporary rolling stock with just a simple wheel change - no compensation or springing involved. Sure, P4 isn't just "throw the track at a board" modelling, but it is nowhere near as daunting as common perception says. HTH Flymo [edited for correction of late night typo!] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Hilton Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 Speaking from a small amount of practical experience, you don't have to get P4 track *that* level to make it work. Certainly any half-way competent modeller armed with a set of gauges and some proper components can make a very good job of it. Hell! Even I can! You may have seen the individualistic style of Iain Rice, and his superb evocations of mineral railway track, and the contortions that his compensated locos had to follow to run on this. That is still P4, but it is very much the exception that proves the rule. It's not necessary to go to that extreme, and there are many examples of P4 modellers successfully running contemporary rolling stock with just a simple wheel change - no compensation or springing involved. Sure, P4 isn't just "through the track at a board" modelling, but it is nowhere near as daunting as common perception says. HTH Flymo Thanks! Could anyone shed any light on what I think I've seen in the latest Model Railway Journal. There is an article on an LNER steam locomotive kit, in P4. It's chassis is sitting on a piece of track on the second page that looks as if it is pre-constructed flexitrack as the sleepers have a web between them... this is just the thing I'm looking for, can I get RTR (or near as damn it) bullhead and flat bottom sections in P4? If not what can I get, and what would I need to build from scratch? Can I convert the Pacer to P4 without re-motoring? Help! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
modfather Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 c&l sell bullhead flexi track s well as lots of little bits such as point components to relieve the stress of total fabrication... ultrascale is likely to do a drop in wheelset for the pacer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinkmouse Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 C&L make some P4 flexitrack, here's a pic of a piece of bullhead next to some handbuilt stuff using S4S sleepers and Exactoscale chairs: As you can see, the flexi looks a little basic compared to the handbuilt stuff, and the timbers are thicker, so you would need to use C&L point kits or PCB timbers for points, or pack everything to match. Not sure how broad their range is either. Can't help you on re-wheeling I'm afraid, I'm very much a kit man, (and kettles at that!) but a glance at the S4S forum may give you some ideas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodnok Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Could anyone shed any light on what I think I've seen in the latest Model Railway Journal. There is an article on an LNER steam locomotive kit, in P4. It's chassis is sitting on a piece of track on the second page that looks as if it is pre-constructed flexitrack as the sleepers have a web between them... this is just the thing I'm looking for, can I get RTR (or near as damn it) bullhead and flat bottom sections in P4? AFAIK, there are three sources for this kind of stuff. The P4 Track Company does "FastTrack track bases", which is not quite flex - it's a fairly short fixed set of sleepers, with integral moulded chairs. You push the rails in yourself. You can cut the web on one side to curve them, and with that done, they will flex quite happily. It's not really flex as an OO modeller would know it, but it's not far off. They come in wooden sleeper for Bullhead track and concrete sleeper for Flat Bottom. It is available in OO, EM and P4. Yes, they'll sell you the rail too, in either steel or NS. C&L do wooden sleeper bullhead flextrack in OO, EM and P4, with either steel or NS rail. They'll also sell you the base separately if you want. SMP Scaleway do wooden sleeper bullhead flextrack, again, OO, EM, and P4. I've got some of the P4 Track Company FastTrack bases (wooden sleepers for bullhead track version), but I have to admit I've never used them in anger - I have no P4 stock, so nothing has ever run over them. Also, every P4 layout I've ever planned has instantly suffered major setbacks as a result of a house move, mostly unexpected... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Hilton Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 Chaps this stuff is all inspirational. In one afternoon I've gone from being over-awed by P4 to really wanting to give this a go!! I've determined what track I need, where to get it from, how much it is, what other bits I need and costs. I've determined that Ultrascale do a drop in P4 conversion for the Pacer and it's affordable. Decision made - Rose Hill it is!!! I just hope I can do it justice. I'll show my plans tonight (NB - that doesn't mean Paxton Road won't be finished - far from it - it actually means it is more likely to be finished. Rose Hill is a completely different location, set of stock, and now scale too). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.