Jub45565

I obviously live in the wrong place, trying to get to the wrong places! I've frequently looked at getting from Bristol to Porthmadog, Leeds & York and even advanced tickets for a single adult are twice that of the car cost. Utterly rediculous. A weekend in London is the only time the train is remotely well priced. This is mainly due to the cross country route I believe, but isnt an excuse I buy into or accept. It should be priced so that 2 people travelling is the same cost for car or train. Train should be cheaper for 1 person, car for 3.

Maybe a geographical, or timescale thing. But the Midland shed build at Ilkley in 1892 had a 50' Cowans Sheldon turntable fitted. The original shed may have been smaller. Just found this thread, very interesting. I agree thats it's difficult balancing prototypicality with operating potential - but think the later options look good!

I also know of people who use thicker wire, and a mechanical lever to raise & lower it - designed for use on actual gradients. Otherwise, a block of foam just bearing on the top of an axle or 2?

Ah, thanks for that - is that an aluminium extrusion? I was planning on getting more Airfix/Dapol roofs. Dapol seem deaf to requests as a separate part (my email some time ago didnt even warrant a response, & I know others with similar experiences) so it does mean the cost of a whole coach, but they can be purchased relatively cheaply. They are particularly useful for earlier LMS coaches to save having to form the full length rain strips, as theyre already included.

Alan Gibson do allow card payment - either via split email or using a phone...

Interesting Tim, hopefully it comes to fruition! While looking for something else I noticed this on the Ambis website: As a scenic item an etch for fishbelly track was introduced, although it was used as working track on a 1840's layout that was abandoned due to lack of storage space. To complement this a plateway "rail" etching was introduced in 2012. Below are the 7mm and 4mm scale versions. So maybe it doesn't all need scratchbuilding...? I'm not sure how plateway complements fishbelly track, from my quarry knowledge they were used in different scenarios,but I could be wrong...

Alongside the above replies, there are many layouts which use the flip card 'next movement' which gives a short explanation - & these can be used to ask questions if people want to. As Phil points out though, there are lots of people who don't like their silence being disturbed. Probably the same ones who then go home and claim it was an 'unfriendly' show when back safely behind their keyboard. Keep the topic going though, I'm currently keeping myself happy with the amount of projects I have on the go, but I do have a concept which would fit the bill and nicely cover off a few things I want to test that my current build doesn't...

I havent yet done anything with the gangways on mine, but have fitted Kadee 714's at bufferbeam height. I initially fitted Exactoscale wheels to one of them, but swapped to Maygib ones as they are slightly larger diameter and then line up well with the Mark 1s:

I have 2 of the CWR prints, but am unlikely to build both any time soon. I have PM'd Mike for one chassis, but if anyone else would like the other body at cost (Which was £95, plus P&P) let me know. I offered it to Jeff but he is really after the GVT variant with altered cab and chimney etc I have measured some dimensions, against the drawings in E S Tonks book on the Snailbeach District Railway. I do have other drawings elsewhere, but havent yet cross referenced to see whether they all agree! Tank height 29" = 16.92mm. Measured 17.5mm Tank length 102.5" = 59.8mm. Measured 59.65mm Gap between tanks and cab 23.25" = 13.56mm. Measured 13.8mm Cab side front section length 28.5" = 16.625mm. Measured 15.8mm Cab opening (including handrails) 22" = 12.83mm. Measured 13.7mm Cab side rear section length 24.5" = 14.82mm. Measured 12mm Cab rear sidesheet height 42.5" = 24.79mm. Measured 24.62mm Chimney to sand box centres 30" = 17.5mm. Measured 17.8mm Sand box to dome centres 36" = 21mm. Measured 21mm Tank width 19" = 11.08mm. Measured 11.4mm Cab back width 78" = 45.5mm. Measured 45.5mm Rear bufferbeam height 18" = 10.5mm. Measured 10.54mm Cab roof width over eaves 83" = 48.42mm. Measured 50.1mm Cab height footplate to centre of roof 76" = 44.3mm. Measured 46.2mm. Front bufferbeam height 12" = 7mm. Measured 8.8mm Front bufferbeam width 61" = 35.58mm. Measured 35.23mm

Looking good Tom - I have a Cambrian one though I think I will convert that into an Oyster (as per Jim Smith-Wright) and have a Hornby one which came in Loadhaul black which will stay as a Shark. That has been dismantled and paint stripped and is sat in a box... I have been procrastinating over the pits inside the shed for a while. They had brick tops, and flap bottom rail clipped directly to it. I was looking at plastic option to scribe the bricks on, but it all seemed a bit too flimsy so have gone with a brass rectangular channel, rail soldered directly. The edge with have a strip of plasticard which I can then scribe for that top brick course, and use that as a packer for the horizontal courses below. Time will tell if metal expansion differences between the brass section and NS rail cause issues... I have also built 1 Masokits tiebar, and replaced the functional tiebar as per Flymo on the Scalefour forum. I am happy with this, just needs a second tie bar adding. My original method worked, but but this looks a far better solution to ensure the tiebar does move in the desired direction! Looking good Tom - I have a Cambrian one though I think I will convert that into an Oyster (as per Jim Smith-Wright) and have a Hornby one which came in Loadhaul black which will stay as a Shark. That has been dismantled and paint stripped and is sat in a box... I have been procrastinating over the pits inside the shed for a while. They had brick tops, and flap bottom rail clipped directly to it. I was looking at plastic option to scribe the bricks on, but it all seemed a bit too flimsy so have gone with a brass rectangular channel, rail soldered directly. The edge with have a strip of plasticard which I can then scribe for that top brick course, and use that as a packer for the horizontal courses below. Time will tell if metal expansion differences between the brass section and NS rail cause issues... I have also built 1 Masokits tiebar, and replaced the functional tiebar as per Flymo on the Scalefour forum. I am happy with this, just needs a second tie bar adding. My original method worked, but but this looks a far better solution to ensure the tiebar does move in the desired direction!

I dont think this is the case. The springs should sit half compressed, so that each wheel can move up or down in relation to the rest of them. This is why springing systems are preferable to compensation with a fixed axle, as the loco should never lurch if 1 wheel drops or rises.

Not necessarily, as there are other ways tp power the house during daylight hours which dont suck power from the grid. Likewise there are plenty of things to do which use no power. I'm not saying that it isnt a very real issue, which the manufacturers need to work to prevent, but there is more data out there than people have time to process & make useable for their own purposes.

Interesting project - the current/preserved layout is quite different to the original layout, which had a runround loop and siding feedjng back towards the station, & even towards the end of BR days I would think there would have been more shunting than there is in preservation. Preservation gives a wider variety in stock passing through the station though, so horses for courses! The original had quite a variety over time though.

Andy, you went to hospital to get your nail varnish removed?! After a good weekend, was it? ;-)

Where's the dribble icon! I pleasing plethora of Peaks :-)

I'd have said it was more deckchair weather today, certainly in the not quite so far south west... spotty hankerchiefs and everything. The point that one starts off in their armchair anyway, from whence they grab the book. It then inspires them to rise from said chair, and model :-)

So what if it is? In the cost of building a layout an extra £25 on a book which will help with ideas, solutions, etc (as well as help those struggling with what the concept is...) is pretty minimal. It helps us get out of our armchairs and do some modelling, it gives a realistic aim for completion (& thus helps us not retreat to our armchair at the first excuse), & it sells a few extra books to those of us who may not have otherwise have done so. Win win surely? Those who dont see it as a win don't have to take part, read the threads, or comment theirin... Happy modelling. Now at least I havent mislaid the kettle...

Agreed, but you raise an interesting point... Do entries have to be done completely from scratch, or can it be used as a goal fpr current projects which fit, or can be made to, the bill? My current project almost has the track completed, & has a goal of September 2018. I think it fits the criteria, but if the aim is to get new projects off the ground (& would be perfectly valid, I already have the targets I need really) then I know I wont have time to fit in a second one concurrently...

OT I admit, but I do have a slight issue with this - and that is that in doing so we only look at operational energy useage. I wish there was a more balanced environmental label which included manufacturing info in terms of both energy and materials. Generally speaking I agree though, we are the ones in charge (no pun intended) of our own destiny.

Correct, it wont have changed. The poont is that the suppliers could change the way they charge now they have a way of getting more detailed stats from you. For the record, I have them too. If the time comes when I need to alter useage for a balance betwen whem I want things & ecomony, I will do so. If anyone is bored enough to hack into my energy meter, feel free. I think the Chinese governments have bigger fish to fry.

Njee - did you read Apollo15's post?! Your current readings dont give any TOU stats. By the sounds of it Anthony your main issues would be solved by switching supplier regardless of the meter types! My old supplier got quote shirty as I was never in to let them take a reading during the middle of the day. How do they expect us to pay for our useage if we dont go to work to earn it... the mind boggled, so I ditched them. Edited (sorry - I dont normally feel the need to go back so much!) to say that I do think the water meter analogy is valid. None metered water bills take a random guess at your useage based on the type of house. Current energy suppliers on most tarriffs take a random guess at when you use power, even if not how much. Therefore if you give them the stats, but adjust your useage slightly, it could work in your favour.

Thanks Mike, I look forward to seeing the B16 completed once they do materialise. Incidentally, do you know John's plans as to where London Road will source them? I've always had a soft spot for J72s since one of the first locos (aside from my my own Thomas ones) which my dad let me get my hands on was one (from Mainline). I have no plans to build one myself, but will look on with interest!

Thanks - and yes I agree that could be bad, but if properly regulated would be a good thing. There are plenty of things which we could do to balance the energy useage more evenly - a blast of heating (in the winter) prior to peak time, and another blast later on, leaving energy at teatime for making tea. If the prices were regulated so that an average user would pay the same, and those who plough on regardless paid more, then thats fine. I agree that the problem is that energy suppliers would try and cash in, much like our rail operators... People hate(d) the idea of water meters, but I save money hand over fist against not having one, though I will admit that that should be the case in my circumstances. We as a country do need to do something, and there are lots of people in cloud cuckoo land not wanting nuclear, not wind farms in the back garden, but still want to use power willy nilly (this is not aimed at you Brit btw!). edited to also answer Anthony - I believe that initially the suppliers tried to enforce the line of attack of locking you in, but that they have been prevented from doing so.

While I can understand that the supposed benefits of smart meters may not be as good as claimed - what possible downsides are there to a free upgrade that does not tie you to any supplier? (Or tarriff?).

Hi Mike, Dave Bradwell does the NER tender, and list long springs as mould 36: https://traders.scalefour.org/DaveBradwell/castings/ He also has a B1 later smokebox door handle, and a J27 mechanical lubricator listed if thats anything like the same? Unfortunately all on different castings, but there we are. Cheers, Pete edited for typo