RJS1977

The blue and pink loop looks to be a difficult combination of curves and gradients to me. I'd be inclined (sorry!) to eliminate the bridge at this point by keeping the purple tracks to the front rather than having the figure 8. That way, either the entire continuous run could be on the flat, with just the line to the terminus on a gradient, or that end of the continuous run could be higher than the other end, to lessen the gradient to the terminus.

One thing that interested me in last night's episode was the difference in approach between model loco development and Scalextric car development. For the Black 5, it was very much "This will be the ultimate black 5" (at least until they do another version in 20 years or so!) - adding lots of separately-fitted parts etc, money (almost) no object. With the Scalextric car though, the emphasis was very much on keeping the number of parts to a minimum to reduce the cost.

"Almost unique" is fine, as you say, that means there are very few (possibly only two) of them. The bad usage is "very unique".

A school once had a sign outside it: "DRIVE CAREFULLY PAST SCHOOLS. DON'T KILL A CHILD" Underneath, in a childish scrawl: "Wait for a teecher"

Good plan, but just wondering if the point leading into the bay platform would be better as a right hander, forming part of the curve, rather than as a left hander immediately after it.

When I was a boy, one of my Christmas presents was "The Model Railway Constructor Annual 1984, Edited by Chris Leigh". This was one of my regular "go to" books through my teenage years and beyond, and was later joined by secondhand copies of other editions, but the 1984 issue was always my favourite. One article was entitled "A Little Hut At Savernake", which included drawings and photographs of a hut set into the cutting side at Savernake Low Level. In the late 1990s, during the reconstruction of my father's 00 layout (now known as "Templebar Junction"), it became apparent that the branch line embankment to the rear of the goods yard would be an ideal location for the Savernake hut. The idea went on the "To do" list and was eventually forgotten. A discussion of Savernake on another RMWeb thread earlier this year brought the hut to mind, and I remembered my earlier plans to model it. Out came the annual, some card, acetate, brick paper and corrugated sheet and after a few modelling sessions, the hut was complete. Now, 25 years since work started on Templebar Junction, and almost 40 years since I was given the article, the hut has been installed on the layout, helping to disguise a board join in the embankment.

Planning application now submitted for the relocation of Stoke Cannon signal box to Wallingford, and erection of a water tank. https://data.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P23%2FS0526%2FFUL&fbclid=IwAR3MOn4rfKHKBKCBrD93WNlNVYvqUEvBD6v6GyJB1Cy3Wb68vWF9dvmkXrk#exactline Submissions in support of the project would be welcomed!

So do I - albeit for the somewhat selfish reason that I want a go! At least two groups invited me on to their teams for the first series, but I was unable to take part as I had recorded an episode of "Eggheads" a year or so previously and had signed an undertaking not to make any other TV appearances until it aired. So I had to sit it out, despite the action taking place just up the road from me!

I don't think Hornby are hiding the Triang heritage particularly - the new Rocket set, for example, was made available in a box with Triang branding, and a couple of years back a version of the 9F was released in a Triang-Hornby box. I'm not sure how Hornby (re)acquired the rights to the Triang name - when Dunbee Combex-Marx bought Triang-Hornby in 1973, the rights to the Triang name remained with the parent company. Perhaps Hornby are using the name under licence (much as BMW use the Rolls Royce name under licence from the aero engine company) but that licence doesn't run to using it on TV. Or maybe they just felt the whole story of Hornby's multiple mergers, takeovers and dissolutions was too complicated for TV.

Simon Thanks for posting this - the layout is looking good. It would be nice to have it at Kenavon sometime but I'm afraid we can't run to van hire, and it sounds as if the set-up time is rather longer than we can accommodate, so sadly I don't think it's a practical proposition for us. However I'd be more than happy to help operate at other shows (I can only do Saturdays) if needed. Richard

If they're extending the Manchester Airport tram branch to the HS2 station, this will provide connectivity for the residents of Wythenshawe. Though, speaking as someone who was born there, I don't think the residents of Wythenshawe are really HS2's target market. Were they to extend the Network Rail airport branch to the HS2 station, or extend the Altrincham branch of the Metrolink to the airport HS2 station (potentially turning the existing airport line and the Altrincham line into a giant loop), that might be a different story. However, the HS2 airport station will offer good connectivity for motorists in the affluent north Cheshire area who can drive to the station.

The idea of a "Four seasons" layout is nothing new - John Wilkes's "Life of a Line" has several scenes depicting a narrow gauge railway's life from opening, through decline to closure, with (IIRC) each scene being a different season. However I think the ultimate was a layout that was on the South of England circuit some years ago, with four identical scenes arranged around a horizontal axis, with the backscene of one scene being the underside of the baseboard of the next scene. Each scene depicted the same station, again in different seasons and different periods from opening to closure. Every few minutes, as the operating sequence came to an end, all the rolling stock ran off to the fiddle yard, the scenic section was rotated 90 degrees about the axis, and a new sequence started!

Are those shelves built-in under the layout, or can they be wheeled out on castors? If they're built in, they're going to make wiring up under the baseboards/installing point motors interesting!

To my way of thinking, it would have been better to have left the Lion footage out altogether and filmed something else instead.

Wouldn't he be asking for an R456 signalbox?

Just think .... they could have had a shot of Simon dozing in his armchair holding a framed picture of Lion, waking up, looking at the picture, and having a sudden moment of inspiration.... ;-)

Mallard ran on the Western in the 1948 locomotive exchanges - not quite in the GWR period, but close enough. Flying Scotsman was sometimes based at Southall during McAlpine and Marchington ownership (although Marchington had it rebuilt with smoke deflectors), so not a complete stranger to the Western either, albeit in a different timescale. Perhaps your six-road fiddle yard could be built as a lift-out tray, which could be replaced by another one (the other trays being kept either under the layout or on shelves on the wall), allowing a change of stock to a different period.

Is that an office desk (i.e. a workstation with a computer, monitor, etc), or a modelling desk, to hold a cutting mat, kit parts, paint, etc)? (My dining room table currently fulfils both roles, while I have my dinner on my knee!)

My querying the S&DJR livery wasn't so much about whether it was prototypical, as much as it being an odd choice from a marketing point of view (other than it looks nice) - better in terms of range consistency to have LMS and BR versions with appropriate rolling stock. Additionally, all the preserved examples are either in LMS or BR livery (or in bits!). Would I buy an 8750 to a similar standard? Not for myself, mostly because I've got several already! But for a son or nephew to foster their interest in railways - absolutely! They're not too worried about the shape of the chimney, that the wheel spacing might be a few scale inches out, or that the connecting rods are wrong (and nor am I, quite frankly!). But would I buy them a £160 tank loco? Probably not! To my mind, a Pannier is something that absolutely should be in the Railroad range. Once they've got the Holden tank, a couple of coaches and some wagons, it's the obvious next step.... (And, like the Jinty, it's a type - or at least similar enough to a type - that sees regular use on a number of preserved railways).

If I was modelling the LMS rather than the GWR, and I wanted a Jinty, I for one might well buy one. And if I had a child of modelling age that I wanted to give a present to, to encourage them on in the hobby, I almost certainly would. Plus, that sort of model at that kind of price point is the sort of thing that can be marketed to families visiting a heritage railway as a "souvenir" in a way that a full-fat version might not. (Better still if it could be offered as part of a set with a couple of Mark 1s and an oval of track for say £120). Incidentally, there is currently a Jinty in the Railroad range (in S&DJR livery for some reason), albeit that the price is £80 rather than £50 and the detail is better than on the original Triang model - but even at £80, it's still considerably cheaper than high-spec 0-6-0Ts like the Rapido Hunslet at £129 or the EFE Austerity at £149.

Yes, there are of course different types of kit building. I have built any number of Chivers/Five79 whitemetal Vale of Rheidol locos over the years, but wouldn't know where to start with a Backwoods brass one! And arguably some of the 3d printed models you can get these days are effectively kits with a very small number of parts....

I would say (certainly from the earlier pages) that it's roughly 50:50.

That's a shame, I was going to invite it to my show next year!

A search on the Hornby website shows there to be currently something like 90 items in the range (not counting spare parts and some oddities like the TT 08 and the Rivarossi Big Boy that the search also threw up! More than I've seen in the range in a long time. In terms of "brand new" items in the range, no there haven't been a lot, but in the time the range has existed we've had Tornado, the Crosti 9F, the Mark 1s, the Javelin, and the C4 on the way (and probably others I've forgotten), as well as improved mechanisms for the 0-4-0s and the ex-Lima diesels. I don't think there's necessarily a need for a lot of "brand new" items in a starter range anyway (other than a few up-to-date "modern image items"). I think one of Simon Kohler's intentions on returning to Hornby was to expand the Railroad range - in the earlier TV series, when he discovered that many of the legacy toolings had been destroyed, he said something along the lines that he had been hoping to reintroduce a good number of them. Children may not be going into model shops these days, but they are still going to heritage railways in good numbers so there is still an interest in trains. Perhaps if Hornby were to talk to the heritage railways more, they could market the range better.

Though could the top loop be pushed further into the corner, and the bottom one possibly reduced to single track, to create more room?