RJS1977

5 hours ago, BenL said:

 

I also wonder if there's a possibility of providing cranes without the base, which looks a little thick to seat in an existing platform (tho great if one is in the process of constructing a platform and can work the base in)? 

Maybe provide them with an extension tube that can go down through a pre-drilled hole in the platform/baseboard and clip on to the spindle of an SG90 servo....

Are you sure 9017 was the first ever preserved steam locomotive?  ;-)

Maybe the first steam locomotive to be preserved by the Bluebell Railway....

15 hours ago, DCB said:

There is an old April  Railway Modeller with an article about a long straight model railway laid on a beach to replicate the line across the Nullabor Plain in Australia.  April.   Still it might provide inspiration if you could fins a copy.  the track cleaning vacuum cleaner idescribed is just like Dapol produced 30 years later.. 

I cannot over emphasise that it was the April issue....

Modelu should scan him! 

Are you thinking of something that gets put out in the morning of a nice day, and put away later in the day (effectively an indoor layout set up outdoors?), or something a little more weatherproof that can be left out for days or even weeks at a time but isn't a permanent fixture?

Just watched this video about Tower Gateway station, which almost had a more familiar name instead....

1 hour ago, Gatesheadgeek said:

I’m currently looking at creating a variation on Minories for a TT120 layout using Scale Model Scenery laser cut baseboards. I partially laid it out and I think it works fairly well in the ~20cm width of the board. I’m just working out how long I need to make it and whether I have any room to do something interesting (and vaguely prototypical in freight terms) in front of a narrow fiddle yard. 
 

As a child of the 80s I’m more of a modern image guy, but operation of a terminus always interested me with the locomotive bringing one train in taking out the next. 
 

I apologise now if I have committed any heresy in the above paragraphs…

If the platform and fiddle yard roads cross baseboard joins at 90 degrees, you can always slip extra sections in later if you want to run longer trains.

The difference is though that CJF's plan does have room for the platform between the siding and platform road - I suspect down to the geometry of that reverse curve in the platforms.

Wouldn't the loco spur be better coming off the curve by using a LH point, than coming off the short straight with a RH one? The former has two advantages:

(a) It eliminates a reverse curve; and 

(b) It allows the top platform to be lengthened.

14 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

It is tight - though most of my locos and stock run through there without any problem. My Bachmann Hall doesn't like the first radius part of the curve, but the Hornby Hall runs through there quite happily! Normally I'm not going to run anything bigger than an 0-6-0 or an autocoach though. This section of line is 'off stage' as well so doesn't have to look pretty.

 

I think the biggest loco to run on the branch (so far!) was a Bulleid Pacific in the late 1960s. (The BP had brought a railtour to Cholsey where a Pannier took over for the run to Wallingford. Unfortunately the Pannier didn't have enough power to get the heavy train back up Cholsey Bank and the Pacific had to go down to rescue it).

Castles also visited the branch occasionally as from time to time the Royal Train was stabled there overnight. There was a lineside telephone specifically for this purpose.

I've heard it said that the gas turbine APT was shunted on to the branch following a failure but have never seen photographic evidence of it.

The NRM did offer us the use of Flying Scotsman a few years ago (as they were pleased with how we'd looked after City of Truro) but we decided that was just a little bit too big....

On 12/06/2023 at 17:35, Nick Gough said:

Church Road bridge with 1466 in 1968:

Assuming that the train is heading towards Cholsey, I believe it is impossible to take a photo from that viewpoint now. The whole piece of land is full of trees with no obvious means of access. I tried to find a way on to there a couple of years ago when we first ran Polar Express (as the "North Pole" was in the field between the Bunk line and the church) but without success,

It depends how it's done.

My club's (Reading Society of Model Engineers) 00 layout converts to DCC by the simple expedient of disconnecting all the analogue controllers, plugging in a DCC Command Station, and turning all the switches on.

It's not the "purists" way of doing it, as points remain self-isolating, which means if you park a loco in a siding and change the points, sound and lights go off, but as we have very few sound-fitted locos between us, it's not a big handicap.

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Good to see this thread reviving after almost three years. Does anyone know the current status of the Borchester Market layout? Last I heard the Newhaven group who'd exhibited it (for which I am eternally grateful to them) had to sell it.

I believe it was sold to an individual who now operates it as a "Layout that never leaves home".

8 hours ago, sjrixon said:

Opening doors! That might be a step to far? Look good though wouldn't it.....

 

I think I'll start with the roof...

IIRC the Airfix/Dapol cattle wagons (actually post-War but a development of a similar pre-War design) do have opening doors, but most modellers (myself included) tend to glue them shut for rigidity and to stop them opening when they shouldn't!)

21 minutes ago, JimC said:

 

As regards classic cars, build quality is a big distorting factor in survival. 

Agreed with build quality affecting the survival of some makes of cars rather than others (though conversely some makes of car were condemned to the banger circuit because of how well they were made!).

However I was thinking more of the sub-models. An Escort Mexico for example is much more sought after than a standard model (to the point that standard models are often cannibalised to keep Mexicos etc going), despite the fact that the standard models were the ones people went to school in, learned to drive in, went on first dates in, etc....

20 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

I suspect that model manufacturers can take a lot of the responsibility for that misconception, followed closely by photographers!.😁

I would argue that preservationists (and even the scrapmen!) had a lot to do with it as well.

Whilst a fair number of Prairie tanks were purchased by Woodham Brothers, most of the locos I've seen in photos of the site appear to be tender locos. I can't remember seeing any photos of panniers at Woodhams, so I suspect most panniers were either bought by other scrapyards, or broken up at Swindon. 

I suspect too that preservationists tended to go for the biggest locos they could afford, because of the higher perceived prestige. Much as how now it's the "high spec" modern classic cars that tend to be preserved rather than the once more numerous lower end models that are the real social history.

Several of the pannier tanks that entered preservation came via the NCB or LU, after the best locos had already left Barry.

It's interesting that apart from the County tank, there don't seem to have been any proposals to "new build" a GWR tank loco, much less a pannier or a saddle tank.

On 04/06/2023 at 19:06, Neal Ball said:

If you take a look around RMWeb at the amount of layouts inspired by / based on exact locations, I think you would be surprised…. Plus how many layouts have more than just one Pannier tank loco.

 

Plus, an 0-6-0PT over the period of time from just Churchward through to Collett, the amount of different classes of Pannier tank… they might have different windows, but they also had different wheel bases and in some cases different wheel diameters.

 

There is an awful lot of variation and as a result people would buy more than one…

 

I wasn't saying that there aren't a good number of prototype-based layouts around, however I would say that even in RMWeb, they are greatly ouitnumbered by freelance or fictional layouts, and magazines and visits to shows would tend to bear that out as well.

Whilst I am aware that there were a good number of different classes of pannier tanks, I wasn't talking about different classes. I was questioning whether it was really worth a manufacturer's while trying to cover off as many different variations within one class as possible.

Just because there are variations available doesn't necessarily mean people will buy more than one, especially in the current economic squeeze.

6 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

That’s right Phil, it was during the conversation about interior details of the Toad brake van. “Adds nothing to the cost”…. At the volumns we are talking about.

But then that is presumably one Toad interior, so only one new item to be developed and tooled.

If we consider a Pannier tank class which over the course of production may have had round and square window cabs, open or enclosed cabs, screw or lever reverse, auto-fitted or not, Belpaire or round-topped firebox, if all those variants are to be covered, then all of a sudden that's a lot of extra tooling costs, but probably won't make a big difference to total sales numbers. It might encourage a few collectors to purchase more than one, and may tick boxes for someone modelling a particular station at a particular period in time wanting the precise pannier tank that was used on that branch, but as the majority of modellers build layouts that are not based on particular locations, precisely which variation of the loco they purchase is of little consequence and they are less likely to buy a second one just because it's slightly different.

3 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

But surely that level of “make do and mend” is exactly what my poll is against.

 

I am advocating a pre-WW2 Pannier tank, which means no topfeeds…. That’s been my argument for years…. Simply dressing a GWR 0-6-0 with “Great Western” or the shirtbutton logo on the tanks when it’s got a top feed, is no longer acceptable.

 

Pays your money and take your choice.

 

I would like several pre-WW2 locos without any major compromises…. Accepting that OO is a compromise already.

I was thinking more that particularly with larger classes there are a whole load of detail differences that occur during the lifetime of construction (e.g. square windows vs round), never mind in service. It seems that these days manufacturers want to try to cover off as many of those variations as possible with alternative cabs etc which means more development costs, and more separately fitted parts that push up assembly costs. 

However I think topfeed is slightly different. Clearly it's easier to add topfeed to a model than to remove it. I have no objection to a manufacturer making the "standard" model the non top-feed one. Modellers who want top feed could either make it up themselves, or perhaps a top feed could be included loose in the box for those who wish to add it.

Yes, I would think the Hunslet would be a more accurate guide than the P Class, which is also a smaller loco (though that doesn't necessarily mean lower development and assembly costs).

I guess a lot comes down to how many "bells and whistles" and "interchangeable parts" are really needed. I'd suggest it's only a very small cachet of modellers who want a particular loco as it looked on 3rd June 1927 - most would be perfectly happy with "a GWR pannier tank".

The Rapido 16" Hunslet is £129.99 (often less than that from dealers) - I can't see why a "modern standards" Pannier tank would need to be more than that.

16 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

On the subject of building numbers, does anyone know which building is the only one in London to be numbered out of sequence?

None of those given so far.

It's the Sherlock Holmes Museum - recognised by the Royal Mail as 221b Baker Street, but in the wrong position in the street (where 221b "should" be is an office block - there never has been either a 221 or a 221b on that site).

On the subject of building numbers, does anyone know which building is the only one in London to be numbered out of sequence?

In planning Tube Challenge routes, I've been known to confuse myself by abbreviating Leytonstone High Road (used as a shortcut from the Central to Victoria lines) to LHR, which is of course the international code for London Heathrow!

But will trains stop there on Wednesdays?