Ian Simpson

I like the idea of the kick back siding but it will be very hard to shunt! You'll need to use some real-world technique like rope or pole shunting (or some model-world technique like a finger) to get wagons in and out of the kick back. Of course the extra challenge might add to your enjoyment, in which case it's definitely worth considering. Otherwise you could use the kickback for an interesting cameo, e.g. a stationary wagon permanently parked there being loaded or unloaded. That extra turnout would shorten the rear siding by a couple of wagon lengths. Personally I might just park wagons over the point , if I was using it as a shunting puzzle. But if you're a stickler for prototypical operation, blocking points with wagons isn't generally considered good form. The layout looks very promising, whichever option you choose. Looking forward to following this blog!

Hi Gary, I will have to send my apologies as I'll be travelling tonight and doubt if I'll have wi-fi. Sounds a great episode, I'll watch it on YouTube as soon as I can!

I'd certainly be involved!

Just caught podcast 1 - brilliant topic, very well scripted and covered a lot of interesting material in a few minutes. Really well done, looking forward to playing the other podcasts now!

That is brilliant! Which paint did you use for the mahogany finish? (Don'r forget Etched Models do etches of early LSWR coaches as well.)

I think Chris Cox is still producing kits. Note the "Please email 5 and 9 models for the latest price list and availability" link on the page. Alternatively you could message him on RMWeb at https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/profile/25562-59models/ He's a really nice person and his RMWeb blog is interesting - he's building a model of the Bricklayers Arms station in south London in the 1840s. There's a review of some of his wagon kits here. Ian

Sorry, Gary, I'll have to send my apologies for tonight's broadcast, but I'll definitely catch up with it asap on YouTube. Hope you, and all your readers, are having a great Easter!

I know it's a bit unfair to the operators, but I'd suggest they should be placed as near the fiddle yards as possible so they don't obstruct the scenic part of the layout. It's where I always try to stand / sit if I'm operating from the front.

I'd say yes! Your own experiences of a model will usually be very useful to others. I occasionally review obscure models that match my own minority interests, and I'm always amazed at the kind comments I get from members who have read them.

I really like the Inglenook-style goods yard - it looks surprisingly spacious and uncramped for such a small corner. And the clever use of backscene sheets is very effective! [Edit: for poor typing!]

And I'm amazed and grateful in equal measure that he makes the figures available in 3.5 mm as well. I've always hoped that he's getting enough orders from Europe and the US!

Wonderful, Mikkel; I wanted to click both the Informative/useful and the Craftsmanship/clever buttons! Thanks so much for the heads-up on the pick-and-pluck foam - what a brilliant idea.

In a previous post I discussed my difficulties finding a suitable auto-coupler for early HO stock, and how I discovered DG magnetic couplers. They are excellent couplers: cheap, unobtrusive, effective. But I was very aware that any coupler that requires a jig to make it up didn't really meet my KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) criterion. I'd often wondered about using PECO OO9 couplers, which have a hook-and-loop design similar to some continental couplers. I finally decided to buy a couple of packs of PECO's GR-102 couplers and experiment with them. They arrived today and I was impressed with both the simple design and the crisp moulding of the plastic. Each coupler comes in two parts that just snap together: a plastic hook, and a plastic loop with a dropper on each side which is raised when the coupler passes over a Hornby-style uncoupling ramp. Having made a couple of sets of the couplers up, I'm sure they would work very well with an uncoupling ramp. The design appears as effective and robust as it is simple. But being completely plastic, they obviously wouldn't be any use for magnetic uncoupling. Unless ... My eye fell on a discarded staple lying on the desk. Well, sometime untidiness is the real mother of invention. I cut around 6 mm from the middle of the staple using kitchen scissors and superglued it to the outside of one of the droppers. The photo below isn't great, but the greyish bar on the right-hand coupler is the piece of staple. Moving the converted coupler near a magnet caused the loop to rise up just as the DG coupler loops do. I daresay narrow gauge modellers have known about this wheeze for years, but I was certainly delighted to have found such a cheap, quick and simple way to convert the PECO couplers to magnetic operation. I know the massive magnet in the photos makes it look as if I set my experiment up to succeed, but I have also tested the hack on smaller magnets and I've found it works with micro-magnets as well.

Fair point, @rockershovel After all, the B&GR wouldn't have bought them if it hadn't have the Lickey to contend with.

Thanks for such a full and fascinating post, @Pacific231G It really deserves a much wider audience than the handful of people reading my blog. The distance-between-towns explanation seems very reasonable to me! And I agree the atmospheric system was more successful than we often remember today. @Rockershovel, that's a good point about the weight distribution of Norris's design taking care of itself. As Pacific231G pointed out, the 4-2-0 arrangement is basically a three-legged stool if you are using a leading bogie. Norris's concept was widely copied by other US builders. I wonder if the reason British engineers didn't do the same was the poor performance of the Birmingham & Gloucester own Norrises, which as far as I can see had nothing to do with their wheel arrangement and everything to do with their inappropriate materials for British conditions and with the inexperience of the British enginemen.

I'm not sure how Norris managed to get enough weight on the bogie. But I've just read something moderately interesting about the way he distributed weight between the different wheelsets. He arranged the connecting bar between the loco and the tender at an angle, so that it rose upwards towards the loco end. This created a downwards pull at the back of the loco, putting extra weight on the driving wheels. (From P J Long and Rev W V Awdry's 1987 book The Birmingham and Gloucester Railway.)

I've used the matt black as an undercoat for white metal figures, with Humbrol enamel paint on top, and been very happy with it. I've also used the blue on Era 1 coaches - it covered well but in this case I had to use matt varnish to tone it down because it was too glossy. (I've also used the spray cans on routine jobs around the home with no problems.) So I'd recommend them as good value for money, given the price. I usually spray objects from a distance of around 12 inches, using a cardboard box as a spray booth in the back yard, and coverage with these paints is fine.

There's a couple of photos of my own low-tech traverser here. I'm not suggesting it's the best way to produce a traverser, but it was cheap, quick to build and it even works.

Thanks, Iain, glad it's useful. I bought a copy of the mag on eBay because it had plans for a loco that the LBSCR built in 1852. The mag had a cover price of 2 shillings - I guess I ought to work out whether modelling mags have got cheaper over time.

Not 1963, I'm afraid, but a couple of ads from the March 1960 Model Railway News:

No need to apologise, in my opinion. If you're in business, you shouldn't be offended if you get some negative feedback. The smarter sellers might even take it as a hint to review their pricing policies, and so shift more items. Instead of apologising, try seeing yourself as a public benefactor! (It always works for me.)

Thanks, Nearholmer and Northroader, the weight / springs / adhesion points are very interesting. A lot of the weight did fall on the Norris's driving axle, which helps explain the design's good performance on demanding gradients. So considering Pacific231G's point, were early French lines generally less demanding in their requirements than British ones, I wonder? (Other than the very steep St Germain line with Samuda's atmospheric system, of course.) I've always assumed they were pretty similar, but that's just my lazy assumption because the same engineers, like Locke, were laying them out.

Thanks, @Pacific231G you're absolutely right to see Norris's 4-2-0 design as a direct ancestor of the classic American 4-4-0. I think a couple of photos from Smith H Oliver's The First Quarter-Century of Steam Locomotives in North America, free to read or download at www.gutenberg.org/files/51976/51976-h/51976-h.htm illustrate your point nicely: The first photo is a replica of one of Norris's locos with a cab added, used in a film to represent an old-fashioned loco running during the American Civil War. It still just has the single driving wheels, but otherwise looks quite at home in an 1860s setting. The second photo is the earliest known 4-4-0, built in 1842 - apart from the extra set of driving wheels and the cab (which was a later addition, I suspect), it's very like the Norris design. I've never known why the Cramptons weren't more popular in Britain. I'd love to hear any theories.

No, you definitely were right to ask! And thank you for the interest!

@Northroader [Embarrassed cough!] Well, not a lot, I'm afraid. But I have got a work plan to do a job a week for the next three months, and as a result I will start posting again. My initial jobs are to install a working signal (a disc signal that will rotate using a coffee stirrer rod with a crude cam connection), simplify the wiring (at the moment the layout has three electrical sections, the two tracks and the traverser, but I've realised that it really only needs one section if I use the points to isolate unwanted locos), and build the world's simplest battery controller so the layout can be operated absolutely anywhere. My aim is to do everything using the KISS Principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). The more low tech the solution is, the better I'll be pleased with it. To be honest the layout is largely a test bed for experiments. Although I suppose it could double up as the world's most boring exhibition layout: