Jub45565

I've also done some etched ones. I'm happy with the look, but need to paint the finished coach to fully prove this opinion, before making them available. I'm not sure 3D printing would help, but may have missed something. A lot I have seen just plain glased, which looks wrong. Others have used cable ties to show them open, but my experiments with that method were very time consuming & didn't look great - but that isn't to say a better choice of cable tie isn't available (easier to manipulate).

If you'd left it without stating a location, I'd agree - passable for a generic MR 2 road shed. However, Ilkley it is not. (Only 1 window per sidewall bay, no central pillar between the two roads through the doorway, wrong style of vent above the doors, ...). Also, Ilkey was dressed stone - not brick. Therefore, the latter (PO337) they have put in their S&C range as that is how they sell their MR stone structures, but again it is passable as a MR stone shed.

Hi Andrew, Tom, I've gone quiet again, apologies - I generally find time to either 'do' or 'write', rather than both! Ilkley has its first proper exhibition appearance at Railwells next month (having been at Scaleforum as part of our Bristol area group demo). Lots to do in the runup! I bought Bill's latest book and read it earlier in the year too (I can't comment on postage, as I sent my parents across from Airedale for it!). I personally didn't find it as useful as his earlier 2 books - but mainly as there was so much of it already covered! The new book covers more of his later career (which does cover a lot of time at Ilkley),and is of general interest. I guess I was hoping for more minute detail of Embsay in 1958, which there wasn't. All in all worth the buy and does cover a lot about the operations & failure recovery mechanisms in the area.

That doesn't rule it out, see LMS journal no. 12

Works for me, win 10 & Firefox. Isn't the 2021 part of the 'Nucast Partners' range (joint SEF & Branchlines)? This, other than the topic covering them on RMWeb, doesn't really have a web presence.

Sounds interesting Rich. The 7mmNGA do etched FR 2T and 3T slate wagons. It is somewhere in my queue to check the actual geometries, as I expect the widths at least will have been stretched to work in 16.5mm gauge. The axlebox castings supplied with these looks very good though. Slate waggons don't use chopper couplings though, they are all link & hook (locos didn't have choppers pre preservation either). The FR England is available as a kit from Mercian - again I don't know what has been changed to make it work for 16.5mm gauge though. EDM do small England wheels, and large England wheels (Little Giant & Welsh Pony) have been in the queue. I have plans for 0-14 modelling, but it isn't near the top of the queue at present - it will be interesting to hear how you get on though.

In true Blue Peter style, Here is one I made earlier (under a Cambrian D1832A). It has progressed since these, but for some reason I have no photos! Axlebox and spring castings are also from the Rumney range, buffer castings from Lanarkshire.

Yes, Rumney B32 is the one: http://website.rumneymodels.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/B.32_RCH_9_Foot_WB_Chassis_Instructions.pdf Last page of the above instructions has a list of applicable diagrams, including the LMS D1664 (Cambrian C80).

It is, but is 4mm! The OP was requesting info on 7mm options.

I agree from the original announcement, but not from the clarification

I think the clarification is pretty clear personally - it is not intending to turn the world on its head, but aimed directly at the N gauge class 17 tooling/ownership/production issue (of which, admittedly, I have only read a small amount about as it is a prototype of no personal interest in a scale of no personal interest...).

If this means no other manufacturers can make gear driven steam locos, then that is a good thing! Otherwise, the 14xx is a good case in point. The old Airfix tooling existed, and resembles a 14xx, so that can never be updated from anyone other than the IP owners of that model (if they had registered it)? I can see why he has gone down this route, but can't see it working out as he intends...

So was it 90 minutes, or do we allow an extra 15 minutes for half time and 10 minutes added on for rolling around on the floor too?

Just to note that the direct Bachmann link appears dead, and there isn't an updated equivalent listing I can find on the site. However the 2013 one is still online here: http://www.lendonsmodelshop.co.uk/pdf/Bachmann OO Past Products/Products By Item Number Rev 11.pdf

There have been comments (on the Scalefour forum) that the Hornby front footplace curve in front of the cylinders may be a bit odd, and Bachmann have this area captured better. I have yet to compare the two properly and decide which I will use - but it will be down to the basic geometries of the bodyshells, rather than the age of the tooling. Newer tooling is generally much finer, but that doesn't mean it is more accurate - there are plenty of examples of errors in modern designs.

Carrs black label flux is what I use for steel

While it may not have been headlined at the start of the article, it is pretty clear reading it. For example photo captions which say 'My solution to this...' and other descriptions of his design decisions, so it is hardly being kept a secret. Anyway, the issue looks a good one - must finish reading it properly!

I haven't looked at one - but I think what Anders is implying is that it can be hooked up to the USB-B printer port many wifi hubs have (or used to have, they are becoming less frequent) and so then available to other devices via wifi. But I agree this still wouldn't constitute wifi capability in itself. The new handset looks useful (if 10 years late). I prefer a dial/knob for speed control so stuck with the LH90 over LH100. As I personally don't buy into sound (therefore don't need loads of functions), nor route setting via a handset, I see no reason to upgrade.

If it was £99 buy it now that makes sense, and seeing as you reported them I hope it was. If it was a £99 start, then counter offering £120 sounds reasonable to me if that was the ballpark they were hoping it would achieve they what you are offering is a number they agree with to end the auction early - it is a gamble from both sides as to who else is watching and may or may not enter a bidding war towards the end. I don't use the best offer, but did on a few auctions when ebay first introduced it (or first time after than I listed) and it wasn't that clear to me it was there and auto enabled. It didn't do any harm, but did result in a few odd offers on different items from different people. I countered to where I hoped the auctions would finish. None were accepted, and all the items went for more!

Thompson teaks are down to £32.99 at TMC (not all are now in stock). At that price it is worth getting to repaint, seeing as maroon ones haven't been announced. https://www.themodelcentre.com/34-460/

Kevin, are there any plans to cover Holbeck & its sub sheds? 20A etc or 55A depending on which side of 1957 the number being used is from...

Excellent, thanks for the link. I picked up a pack at Ally Pally to assess/play with, and while they do look good - and at a good price - there are two things which went against them (for me). Firstly, the anti-gravity bob weight as discussed here, and secondly the coupling hook. This is more my intended use than bad design/assembly - as in plastic headstocks I'm sure they are fine, but to use with etched headstocks there isn't much meat to them, and I expect with any glue they could have a tendency to be pulled out. Therefore swapping out the hook for an etched option at the same time as turning the links around makes sense, and could still be worth doing for the cost/time against fully etched options. As for Stan's comment I agree round linked ones were far more common, but I'm sure I have seen steam era photos with these - not sure when they first came in though.

Agreed - the interaction with the junction gets a bit complicated and is a tangent, but as you say (and the reason I shared) is where they used ground signals. From the same source is a description of how they ran ballast empties into the quarry, and that some of the moved required a duster even though it was a routine operation. Just less than halfway down the following page (search for 'duster', and go to the third hit and read that caption). This isnt necessary for Ian as the quarry has been swapped for a shed, but as I say covers the principle that not every legitimate shunting move would have a signal. http://www.davidheyscollection.com/page94.htm

This is to do with the junction, so the starter S12 required J3 in the junction box to also be pulled. J is junction signal box, while S is station signal box. Note that at the incoming end, the home is just worked by the station box for access to the station, while the (slotted?) distant is worked from the junction box. I'm not sure why signal 15 has the symbol it does, as looking at photos this is a ground signal as 8,10 and 17.

Looking at your track layout Ian, the concept you have is similar to Embsay, so have a look at the signalling used there: That was slightly different, as Embsay junction was pretty close (in the Skipton direction) so had some interaction at that end. Otherwise, aside from a slightly busier goodsyard and swapping the quarry for a shed it should tie up nicely.