hayfield

Thanks for your interest, Chris.  The materials I use are 12mm ply for the trackbed, 6mm mdf for the side plates and 45 x 45 square timber for the blocks.  The side plates and blocks are all cut to length, to ensure they are all the same size and the blocks are glued and screwed onto the trackbed.  This has been cut to shape using the trackbed width feature in Templot.  The printed sheets are cut out and taped to the sheet of ply and then they are cut to shape with a jigsaw.

 

Once the blocks are firmly in place, the side plates are glued to the trackbed and held in position with quick release clamps.  They are also screwed into the blocks and once firmly screwed and glued, the clamps can be released.  The end plates are typically 110mm deep by 20 mm thick.

 

If I have a wide section as you suggest, then I would use additional bracing underneath.

 

A large curved area such as this one, can often be made up of three or four pieces that are 'biscuit joined' at the ends and then have additional 12mm ply added across the join underneath.  When produced this way, they need no additional bracing, other than the side cheeks.

 

With inclines, I have the end cheeks at various heights and cut the side plates shorter in length, but still use the full depth. This still provides a rigid structure without fouling the sides/ends of the support framework.

 

Many thanks for the link to the 25mm square tubing.  Initial thoughts are that it is possibly no more expensive than timber and would be stronger.  I would need to look at it more closely, but it really could prove advantageous to use compared to timber.

 

DSCF8564.jpg

 

DSCF6774.jpg

Gordon

A serious bit of woodworking, yesterday 3 of us were cutting circles 2" wide so we can have 3 trains running round a Christmas tree for the Parish Churches Christmas Tree Festival at the weekend. 009 on the smallest circle at the top, then H0m with 0 16.5 at the bottom. We are using the Heath Robinson style of woodwork. My old woodworking teacher Chippy Chalmers must be turning in his grave still holding a bit of 2 x 1

I think in a much earlier thread I stated when we moved house in March 2016 initially I was going to have a long thin shed for my railway/workroom, at the same time we were planning to extend the rear of the property increasing the size of both the lounge and kitchen. In the end it was decided it would cost about as much to include the room into the extension, heating it would be cheaper and security much higher, as the planning developed the downstairs was completely re-developed with only the bathroom remaining untouched

Here is my new alternative shed

.

The flooring in the kitchen/family room and hall is being laid so decorating the room has come to a halt as its a bit of a store, the kitchen bases will run down most of the left hand side and a 16' long BLT will sit on top, the rear wall and the bottom half of the right hand side will have a L shaped workbench, the bottom wall will also have 4 wall cupboards, just need to decorate, box in pipes meters etc, to finish off and get the electrics finished, plus fit skirting boards and door and flooring.

Hoping to have in a basic working order for Christmas

Judging by the time taken to reply that's some time away !!    

Good luck and enjoy the fun 

Just to be clear on this, Hayfield had to pay Blandford 26 notes to take it off his hands?  He should've asked for more.....

I bought the kit for the wheels and motor (as I noted on another thread), The person I bought it from said they tried to restore it, how the parts got broken I have no idea

As I had no interest in the body I relisted the parts showing what was left and whilst certain parts are missing/damaged and knowing chassis were available elsewhere thought someone may like a challenge, as Horestan stated both of them wanted the item. Had it been either a GWR or SR loco I would have kept it and used the best parts in a kit bash project

I think this is a contender for that restoration program on the TV, No doubt Blandford will make a good job of bringing the item back to life, and certainly will provide some challenges during the long winter building period, but there are some of us that like making things out of items others think are past it. Blue Peter has a lot to answer for

I think part of the above was repeated, John, but that's actually quite helpful in terms of understanding the method.

 

I wonder if you can still get those slide chair etchings from C&L?

 

I do like that, very much indeed.

 

I use different methods for OO and P4. 'Callow Lane' (P4) uses the dropper method, but using the P4 Track Co's own under-board sliders, attached to the Tortoise point motors.

 

For OO, I've always used a slimmed down copper clad sleeper, reduced to at least half it's width. I've just done this for the points for 'Bethesda Sidings' as well.

Phil does both the C&L and the Exactoscale cast metal slide chairs, quite expensive as they use a lost wax (or similar) production method using the plastic chair sprues as masters. Think Masokits do etched versions that fold up

I try and use a copperclad strip timber thinner than the timbers, just so to stop any rubbing

This is another system I developed where I sunk the copperclad tiebar into the cork track bed by soldering 2 small bits of copperclad strip under the rail both sides, then covered the gap with a strip of cardboard which had been ballasted

As can be seen the tiebar is nearly invisible but accessible, I have used a longer than usual tiebar for demonstration purposes  

Masokits etched slide chairs

This is a Masokits stretcher, which also acts as a tiebar. Very fiddly to make

In situ and as can be seen used with the Masokits chairs

Norman Solomon seems to use  some form of glass fibre rod with brass foil at both ends, so there are many differing ways of doing the same thing, limited only by ones imagination 

Firstly (if you have not dine so yet) read Gordon's Eastwood Town thread, which for large one man built layouts is keep it simple and get something running

Next is whether a loft with all the associated issues is the appropriate place to keep and use a layout in

Why do you want to bring boards down ?

Those are much easier to fit than using an under board actuator with 2 holes popping through the baseboard.

My latest favoured solution is to use the first slide chair timber as the tiebar

The timber itself is a copperclad timber gapped and filled(not filled in this set of photos)

Cut the chairs from the slide plates from 2 cast metal slide chairs

Then I solder the bases of (metal) slide chairs to the copperclad timber, might be sensible to de-laminate the foil behind the slide bases)

The switch rails are then soldered to the slide chair bases. The switch now is moved by the timber

To finish the illusion the chair part of the slide chairs are soldered to the stock rails (not the timber)

This gives a near invisible method of actuation and cosmetic stretchers can be made from plastic rod

Those are much easier to fit than using an under board actuator with 2 holes popping through the baseboard.

My latest favoured solution is to use the first slide chair timber as the tiebar

The timber itself is a copperclad timber gapped and filled(not filled in this set of photos)

Cut the chairs from the slide plates from 2 cast metal slide chairs

Then I solder the bases of (metal) slide chairs to the copperclad timber, might be sensible to de-laminate the foil behind the slide bases)

The switch rails are then soldered to the slide chair bases. The switch now is moved by the timber

To finish the illusion the chair part of the slide chairs are soldered to the stock rails (not the timber)

A demonstration piece showing both the difference of 00 handmade turnout verses H0 RTR one, also a very simple hand operated switch (for demonstration)

This gives a near invisible method of actuation and cosmetic stretchers can be made from plastic rod

One thing I have found is to cut very thin strips of masking tape and put them on the rail tops, a bit fiddly but makes cleaning up after spraying much easier

Good job the Peco nerds are unlikely visitors, your check rails only cover 4 sleepers/timbers!

Check rails covering 4 timbers is probably the correct distance for the size of turnouts being built, and with the timbers being in line with the straight road will keep the Peco herds happy as do the finer flange way gaps

Nice bit of track building, with the exception of the amount of claret being spilt

Tim

Looking very good, buy an EMGS switch blade filing jig if you intend to build more, saves stabbing yourself 

They are very basic (2 sides, 2 ends a roof and 4 buffers) however a little work and they come up nice. You will need to fit a floor, then I would fit some etched W irons as the axleboxes may not be true and square, Use the existing whitemetal springs and axle boxes to detail, then fit compartment walls and seats

Every layout I have built on this forum has used Peco Code 75 points and either C+L or SMP bullhead flexible track, all joined by standard Peco Code 75 rail joiners. However, Carrog in 00 uses Peco's new bullhead track with Code 75 flat bottom points. Convincing looking track is more about colouring than anything else.....

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/121995-carrog-in-00/page-48

Coachman

After watching your various layout incarnations, you are quite correct in that track which is well ballasted, painted and weathered does act to hide certain discrepancies. On the other hand well made trackwork can be visually ruined by poorly ballasting, painting and weathering. Most things are as good as their weakest link

The next thing is that I think we all see/remember colour differently, this is where artists come into their own, they have the gift at the same time of accentuating something, they are able to tone everything together, a true skill if not a gift

Of course looking either square on of from above 00 does look a bit narrow, I guess the trick is to take the eye away from this and good painting does create either an illusion or is it a distraction. To me the correct timbers size and nearer to scale spacing also adds to the illusion, but others may see it differently. Each to their own

I wonder if the ability to manipulate this point was a design feature by Peco or whether this benefit is coincidental? Whichever it is, and we'll probably never know, I'm sure there will soon be articles in the model press describing this procedure.....

In last months Railway Modeller there is an article where a contributor has made some dual gauge turnouts, in this case N and Z gauges. The turnout is actually where both gauges seperate. the diamond is where one gauge crosses the other, there is also a photo of the next instalment where he makes a single gauge 3 way turnout.

He states that building track is not his thing, however he is showing exceptional model making skills in splicing two or more kits together

Returning to the practical value of the actual product:

 

Viability of manually curved points, test report

 

 

Without cutting any of the supporting webs I fixed a RH and LH example of the new bullhead pints, toe to toe, on a flat sheet of 9mm plywood. Five selected timbers in each point were drilled and a miniature screw inserted to hold the points in place, with the previously straight road through each point forcibly formed into a smooth curve of approximately eight feet radius - maintaining that curve through the crossing too rather than leaving the crossing straight, simply to see whether the slightly deformed crossing would still do its job properly. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 8' radius through the straighter road makes the curve through the other road tighten to something like a 2' 9" radius. I did not want to alter any bonding at this stage, nor power the dead section through the crossing, nor trim any rail ends of the points themselves, nor solder anything directly to the points since I haven't yet decided exactly how I will finally use the points. In order to join the uneven R & L rail ends of the curved points toe to toe and accommodate a power feed I therefore introduced a very short oddment of flexible track between them. It is so short that it really wouldn't do on a layout - it would be a nightmare trying to keep the short and minimally supported lengths of rail straight and level given that things inevitably try to move on a layout when temperature changes and all sorts of other influences are brought to bear, but the short piece has done its job in this temporary application. I've used Peco SL-310 rail joiners intended for N/OO9, because I had some and because they fit, in a fashion, after some careful nipping up with pliers, but they are not ideal for joining the Peco point rails to the rail in the SMP flexible track that I also used in the test piece. As I believe has already been mentioned elsewhere, possibly by M. Wynne for one, the Peco rail section seems a little different to other code 75 bullhead interpretations, hence the rail joiners connecting one form to the other have to be adjusted to a tapered shape and even then they won't sit neat and level across the joint, gripping both rail ends correctly. Despite that, the test has worked but a different rail joining arrangement may be needed for long term use on a layout.

 

Here are some images showing the general layout of the test piece, the use of the tiny screws to fix the track in place, slips of card under the SMP track to level up the rail tops, the rail ends and point blade tips "out of parallel" but the tie bars (skewed) still working correctly, and that awful bit of fill-in track between the point toes. Some attempted final views along the line attempt to show that the curves flow nicely, without a threepenny bit effect.

 

STA70836.JPGSTA70844.JPGSTA70846.JPGSTA70847.JPGSTA70848.JPG

 

STA70850.JPGSTA70851.JPGSTA70853.JPG

 

I've run numerous items of stock through the points, in both directions, both ways round, and with the blades set in every possible combination of positions. Post 2004 Hornby wheels, 1990s Bachmann wheels, Markits wheels with RP25 flanges, Gibson wheels and the very finely flanged wheels of a Heljan O2 loco have all coped perfectly well with the abused geometry of the points. They are all set to compatible gauges of course. The locos I've tried have ranged from a modest J6 0-6-0 through a K2 2-6-0 up to a selection of pacifics, a 2-8-0, my P1 and P2 2-8-2s, and even a 4-8-2 with the same overhanging, fixed, flangeless rear carrying wheels as are present on many Hornby pacifics. There were simply no problems. A short rake of mixed four-wheel and bogie goods vehicles was propelled through in all directions without snags, as were a couple of bogie coaches.

 

Compared to building points individually and spending time fine-tuning the crossings, check rails and blades to get eventual trouble-free performance, the new Peco items are a piece of cake - and the cosmetic advantages of neatly moulded chairs and grained sleepers are very attractive.

In this formation the equalised timbering does look very good, one improvement would be to remove the last (angled) timber and replace with a length of plastic timbering and a few plastic chairs. Looks impressive though

Yes Chris I totally agree with you regarding the website and if I decide to keep the business going I will be looking at creating a brand new website. With new terms ECT to suit working around my children.

I would have been so much easier if all 4 of us were on board but unfortunately it has mot worked out that way. I did have the unfortunate opportunity to read the dreadful tread on here over the weekend and it turned so nasty which is something I never thought happened between the male population

Never the less I thank you for your comment and hope you will support any decision I make on the future of the business.

Samantha

Its not just RMweb or the internet, actors and those in the public eye have for years received criticism, some read it others just don't bother 

Whilst I read most of what was written, I think that the comments could be read two ways. I think all of us can sympathise with your situation and understand that your day job is looking after your family and this rightly comes first. I think most would be happy for the range to continue, even if this means long lead times

Thanks again for taking the time to reply and good luck with the hospital visit

Tim

I see the timbers though described as 00 are 34 mm long, which is correct for 8'6" in P4 & EM gauges. 9' for 00

Without taking this thread down the same road I'd like to make a comment about the 2 people who posted, as already posters are presuming them to be villains without seeing the thread.

 

The comments they made were not derogatory but noted that they are not really kits but poor etches, and that timescales for ordering were too long.  These were reasoned comments and a trader should be able to take note of this as customer feedback. They were then subjected to some very nasty and personal comments which have no place on any forum.  Then based upon 2 people posting negative comments a part owner of the range then said they would take the whole range down (which is a very strange business decision). 

 I thought that the behaviour of some of those posting was tantamount to bullying and was unacceptable, and quite frankly the thread belonged in the ether never to be seen again.

 

There are only a couple of items in the range that interest me but I would think twice about purchasing them.  I did note that although Retro-man posted a pic of his etches which met with positive comments, I also noted that at £70+ he has started another thread asking for instructions. Bearing in mind that you can purchase a kit such as a J6 from London Rd models for just over £100 with full and comprehensive instructions they are to my mind a little overpriced (and yes I do know what the costs of etching are) so the comments that sparked the vitriol that led to the threads deletion were not unwarranted.

From reading most of what went on over the weekend was due to lack of communication from all parties concerned. To her credit Samantha held her hands up and admitted she could have done more.

What I think annoyed Samantha so much was the fact that before posting the comments, an email to her before posting those comments would have given her the opportunity to resolve the issues

I do know another trader who had stopped reading any comments on RMweb good or bad, due to the comments of a few members. 

Hi John, that's an interesting slant on the same issue.  Perhaps my fault was going too much the other way.  I have a six coupled Bachmann chassis with Markits wheels that I have deliberately taken out nearly all the side play and checked and rechecked the B2B measurement.  Perhaps this is so perfect, it's removed from the reality of RTR stock over the years and I'd be a lot better to take a RTR loco out of the box, check the B2B and then use that as a test mule instead.

 

Certainly food for thought.

 

I do find it frustrating when you take a lot of care building something that works perfectly, only to take a RTR loco out and discover all the faults in B2B's etc.  At first I blamed myself and altered the track to suit, but now I check the loco first and make minor tweaks to the paintwork if it really is necessary to accommodate differing standards.  As I said earlier, the usual problem is coming off a curve and straight into a turnout. In this situation, the wheels are hard against the outer rail and I've discovered that I've not allowed sufficient clearance in the open point blade, so that bogie and tender wheels catch the pointed end of the blade.  East to fix, but annoying just the same.

Gordon

2 points here, I learnt from an EM gauge modeller several years ago that all the wheels are set to the same B2B with one gauge (hard to do with Romford's) the track is then built to the wheels specification/B2B's

4 mm scale is a compromise which ever gauge is used, I like to stop most of the movement with the axle the motor drives, but have sideways movement with the other(s). The issue with your loco might be there is not be enough side play in the wheels. We cannot exactly copy the prototype I could be wrong but I feel there must be some compromises, especially in situations of smaller size turnouts and crossings and where there are check rails opposite check rails rather than check rails opposite wing rails.

One thing I love telling my managers is a favourite quote from the past. "rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools" it will get me in trouble one day or a fat nose

 

Seems things are progressing, although I've had to do a bit of tweaking with some of my copper clad turnouts. More of that in a minute.....

 

Ferreted around under my workbench this morning looking for a suitable loco for a run out. To save time, I've just hooked up ET to a Gaugemaster twin DC controller, but of course many of my loco's have decoders fitted with DCC only programmed. Managed to find a couple of Hornby loco's and I must say with pick ups on all wheels (including tender wheels) they ran well over semi clean track. I still have much to do, so no point in a deep clean at this stage.

 

First problem I came across was B2B's, but more after this video of Grimsby Town out for a short run.

 

OK, back to pointwork. I like to think I take care in building pointwork, using all the right gauges and an old Bachmann chassis used as a test mule, so it really irks me when you take a selection of 00 loco's fresh out of their boxes and some bounce around when traversing pointwork. I'm not going to lay all the blame at the manufacturers as there is a wealth of difference running a test chassis through pointwork by hand and a loco that has travelled several feet before the turnout and has no hand pressure at all guiding it round. There is no need for gauge widening when you are working on a turnout on it's own, but add a few feet of curved track and the wheels are free to move away from the perfect line and seem to have a mind of their own.

 

Add to that some B2B's of less than 14.40-14.50mm and you have a morning of diagnostics. The biggest benefit of copper clad though is the ability to tweak rails a fraction of a mm once B2B's have been correctly set. I never move the wing rails or check rails as they have been set by gauges and are correct. All the minor adjustments are with the outer rails or the clearance on the end of the point blade. The usual problem is where a forward bogie wheel comes off a curve and is hard over, so much so the wheel catches the end of the open blade and you have a derailment.

 

So after much cussing and checking with a B2B gauge, the iron was turned off and another test run was undertaken. Those of you with acute hearing will hear the odd click as Grimsby Town traverses the pointwork, so I still have some minor adjustments to make. The goal is faultless running and it's man v machine....

 

Got a whole week or so with no golf, so I might get some more done. If I do, you'll be the first to know.....

Gordon

Great to see you back and working on the layout, I see you are having problems with the varying wheel standards not only between manufacturers but also between different models within ranges.

The problem as you are aware is not your track building, but the inability of the manufacturers to agree a common set of standards/the tolerances now being far to generous. Could even be wheel sets manufactured outside said tolerances.

This is one of the reasons I am going down the EM gauge route, which for me is an easy as most of my locos have Romford/Markit wheels and rolling stock is kit built where the wheels can be widened.

Sorry you are missing golf, I have not played for nearly 2 years. However with the exception of the front and back gardens the actual building work has now finished there is a bit of woodwork and final electrics to finish, both of which are dependant on the floor coverings being laid (next week) and it is paint brush time and fitting out the railway room time. There is a driving range just outside the village which I will start attending soon, plus 2 very local golf clubs which I will explore once it warms up

Back to locos, for 00 gauge I keep an old Mainline J72 where all three wheel sets have differing B2B measurements, this is my test loco. If it will go through an 00sf turnout anything will

Mark

I googled the 3mm Society and they do do plastic chairs for track building

https://sites.google.com/site/3mmpublic/getting-started-in-3mm-scale/what-track-is-available

Society also supplies plastic chairs for Code 60 rail, mainly for constructing  finescale pointwork in any gauge. The chairs are designed to be glued to either ply timbers and sleepers (provided by the Society), or plastic ones cut from Plastruct or Evergreen strip. You could also use these chairs to construct plain Fine track in 12mm gauge, or indeed other gauges such as Irish 15.75mm gauge, for which bases don't yet exist. You could even use them to construct track to Intermediate standards in 12mm scale (of finer appearance than the Code 80 rail and Ratio bases), but only if you use the Society's modern Intermediate standard wheels; older Intermediate wheels have flanges which are too deep.

No idea what they are like, cost or availability

Yes - both reports included links to this site. However, posts here are anonymous hearsay and cannot be actioned or used as evidence. It requires in person reports before anything can be done.

 

If everybody here who has lost money to Dunn reported him to Trading Standards and/or Action Fraud, his web site could be gone and nobody else would pay hard earned cash for items they will never receive. Reports to Trading Standards and Action Fraud are not difficult, the web sites are quoted above, the process is painless - and FREE.

No doubt that if those who say they have paid for goods which have not been delivered, or refunds refused can be contacted and asked for a statement

I am no expert on the law, but there must be a line between a trader not supplying goods, which I believe is a civil matter and someone obtaining money with no intention of supplying goods, the more information that can be gathered by both the police and trading standards may assist in stopping this type of trading

Brief update - I have reported Dunn/Cooper-Craft to Action Fraud at: https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/report-a-fraud-including-online-crime-questions Report made on 21 November and I have a crime number and pro forma reply that they will contact me again within 28 days with information on what action they have taken. 

 

I have also reported him to Trading Standards through the Citizens Advice web site as well as writing again to Worldpay and his web site host Sinclaire Knight: http://sinclaireknight.com/services/printing/ - in both cases quoting the crime number and suggesting, for the sake of their reputation, they should not be doing business with an alleged fraudulent trader.

 

I will keep you advise of developments (if any). 

I do hope you give action Fraud links to both (or is it three) threads on Coopercraft. Doubt if they would do much about a single transaction but when its several they may take a bit more interest, could also be worth copying in trading standards with the links as well

At first I felt sorry for him, now my view has totally altered 

Good luck

I don't know how to say this, but it appears someone at Peco has made a few mistakes with these new Bullhead points !

 

The sleepers on these points appear to be both wrongly angled, not even parallel, and spaced too far apart. And there could be an electrical issue with the "Unifrog" especially on the medium and small radius versions. Indeed these new points look more like narrow gauge crazy track. Having just seen a photo plan view of a Large radius Righthand point on the Kernow models website !!!!

 

The "Unifrog" idea is not new, and has been seen on other manufacturers points in the past. And in the past it often failed as it allowed the wheel backs to touch the opposite rail (and therefore cause a momentary short) as the wheels approached the "unifrog". Depending on the control system being used, whether 16v AC (DCC) or 12v DC this won't do your electrical equipment any good. Metal wheels on coaches and wagons will likely cause repeated momentary shorts (jerking of the train) and the worse case scenario, burn out of parts of the controller......... 

 

How it is on real life Bullhead points:

On Left or Righthand points the sleepers should be at 90 degrees to the straight track. Not as seen on these points angled halfway between the straight and curved tracks.

 

The gap between sleepers on Bullhead mainline points in early BR days (1953) should be, according to old BR documents & plans in my library, 14 and one eighth of an inch apart. That's 4.72mm in OO scale.

 

As sleepers on Bullhead points were 10 inches wide (3.34mm in OO scale) and I can't say what the Peco sleeper is, but it may be too narrow as well as being spaced too far apart. Whatever it is, it looks totally wrong, even absurd.

 

As Peco's website do not show a single solitary Bullhead track item, I am guessing, but I suspect Peco have used the same size sleeper at roughly the same spacing as on their Bullhead flexi track. I say roughly, because the sleepers on these points DON'T appear to be parallel. 

Point sleepers on mainline track were wider than on plain track, and the point sleepers spaced closer together. As they had to take a much heavier pounding.   

 

As it happens I do not need Peco's new points (as I build my own, as seen on my layout Basingstoke, in Modelling real locations) but I am interested in seeing a picture of their Bullhead flexi-track, as that may prove useful if I can find a good plan photo.... 

 

 

 

The Duke 71000        

 Peco's turnouts are generic so follow the principal rather than any one prototype. Their geometry follows their well tried and tested format which allows the construction of complex formations with ease. They are to 4 mm scale using 00 gauge principals with chair details including some (but not all) types of special chairs

As you have said, if you are following a particular prototype it is highly likely both C&L and Exactoscale between them have the correct type of chairs, perhaps with the addition of special chairs for turnouts, crossings and slips, so you can get as close to the prototype as possible

I tool a quick look at the posting for your layout, its a pity you have not come across Martin before as his Templot system would have saved you hours drawing up turnouts and crossings, as for your comments on Peco's looks here is a comment from your own layout thread

My point building method (and there are many) is not the most elaborate. I could of course spend days building each point by using real wood sleepers, chairs, and all the other complex real life parts

All I can say is unlike the vast majority of copperclad built turnouts, Peco's turnouts have chairs and no slits across the sleepers/timbers, I can understand that with such a large layout compromises have to be made, just like the ones Peco have to make so that their product is not only compatible with their existing range but also appeals to the greatest audience

Good luck with your layout and do look up Templot as it could save a bit more construction time for you

Initially my thoughts were where is the line drawn between" Kitbashing" one or more kits together and using commercially available items (wheels, chimneys, domes etc) on a model where the great percentage is made from raw materials

Them came to mind the "scratch aid" kit I have of etched sides and ends I have from Worsley Works, where basically the hardest part has been done.

Cobbling two or more kits together is I think Kitbashing

Using parts like wheels, chimneys and domes is in my mind scratch building

Using a kit of scratch aids (Worsley Works) comes more in line with kit bashing

As for the likes of MTK and Jedinco, they are in the main just poorly designed/made kits, that need a higher degree of model making ability to complete 

In the end does it matter ? to be quite honest if you are able to alter something and lift it to another level, it must be just as satisfying as building something from scratch

Another one will soon start emerging, as I have said it will be based on Bodmin General, the track plan developed to what I require plus buildings from either whats available it kit or RTR and built to EM gauge

We moved house 18 mths ago and the initial plan was to banish the railway to a purpose built shed, this changed as the cost of incorporating the railway room into the house was much the same, whilst at the same time both improving the new family room, giving better security and saving on heating costs. The room consists of most of the old (tiny) kitchen and part of the wraparound extension. It was plastered last week, and I am now finishing off the floor to the new part

At the moment being used for DIY jobs and storage until the new flooring in the main area goes down in 7 days time. The old kitchen cabinets will go down the side for storage and a support for the layouts boards. Giving a 16' run into a 6'  (portable) fiddle yard

Bit of a mess which will tidy up once the Cabinets and cupboards are fitted, L shaped work bench at the far end and right hand side of the new part (after the pillar)