£1.38

I just can't believe the vitriol that has been generated by what was intended only as a helpful suggestion to Justin. It shows the principles of how to achieve a reliable point blade without requiring an unprototypical joggle, which seemed to be what was requested. The description in the link is for (I think) a 7mm scale model which obviously requires a more engineering approach. I have always been able to reproduce mine using simple filing, which I find incredibly easy. The resulting pointwork has been very smooth running and reliable. It was never intended to be represented as the only way. It has been twisted, misrepresented and criticised. I only began contributing to Rmweb again after a several year absence. There is no way I shall contribute ever again. Goodbye.

Jim and Don, have a proper look at the link I gave. The impression I get is that you are misunderstanding the concept. What is described there is a pretty common way of doing things, even in the likes of S7 and P4. It ensures that the blades fit snugly against the stock rails just like the prototype - and in my experience is an excellent way of doing things. https://85a.co.uk/forum/view_post.php?post_id=19573 Not quite the same for modern times, where curved planing of point blades is now the norm. IIRC that only happened in the UK from the early 1960s though.

That's my theory too. Both the flange and the tyre are tapered on the wheels, so only a very small part of the wheel is ever in contact with the rail. I file the end of my point blades down to a thinnish profile, but still slightly blunt, before fixing them in place. Only then, do I file a gentle taper to the top of the tips of the point blades, getting them to merge with the top of the stock rail. That should be all you need for smooth running. The bottom of the point blade has no impact at all on the running of trains, so can be left relatively blunt. Here are some diagrams on Templot to illustrate what needs to be filed away https://85a.co.uk/forum/view_post.php?post_id=19573

I have drawings if you want to give it a try Is this ugly?

The main difference is that the Italian system was independent of the speed and strength of the cable. A relatively thin cable was run at a relatively high speed. The gearing on the 'locomotive' allowed it to use all the power whilst moving at a slower speed, controlled by the crew on the loco. Cable cars simply grip the cable so go at the same speed as the cable - unless coasting or stopping.

Another view of an Agudio locomotive. It was powered by a continuous rope. This was wrapped around the larger wheels on the left of the loco. Irrespective of the speed of the rope, the driver could control the speed of the train using gears on the loco - or stop without having to disconnect the rope. The continuous rope ran at track level to power the loco and returned above the train, as seen in the photo. The system worked, but the rope kept breaking so it was eventually converted to an electric railway.

Agudio rope-powered locomotive

Yes - delightful. The video channel this is on has a lot of others of interest, mainly Dutch. You can still walk the towpath all the way from Limehouse to Paddington - tunnels excepted, of course. It gives a very unique and sometimes surprising view of London. Particularly interesting to those motivated by industrial archaeology. The approach to Paddington, with the canal at a much higher level than the railway, for example, or Battlebridge Basin - right next to Kings Cross but completely hidden from the road. Highly recommended if anyone has the time and the energy.

Just came across this video, which shows a few street scenes around KX and elsewhere in 1924. It is a great video in its own right - a canal trip along the Regents Canal from a time long gone.

A long time ago I tried some very small diameter wheels but found it near impossible to get them to rotate in practice. Would be interested to hear how you get on. Pinpoint axles would probably help, which I could not use on the vehicle I was modelling.

Masquerading as a French train, complete with Highland 4-6-0 (in Bedfordshire)

I would concur that the driving wheels must be small. Here's a quick sketch showing how 7ft and 5ft 3in wheels compare for the drivers (4mm scale) - bogie wheels are drawn at 3ft 6in. Even allowing for large flanges, large driving wheels don't look right compared with the etched height of the cutouts for the bogie wheels. Wheelbase is 24mm + 24mm + 27mm, based on the scale in the original photo The diameters I chose were just guesses. If the bogie wheels were slightly bigger and/or set slightly lower then the driving wheels could be a bit bigger - say up to 6ft?

In the UK, the loading gauge is something of a problem...

Another option for cutting a shaft and a use for all those unwanted plastic bags. Put the motor inside a small plastic bag. Then carefully push the shaft through the side of the bag. Cut the shaft. Then turn the bag inside out to recover the motor and confine the metal shards to what is now the inside of the bag.

You have to consider 2 things 1. What the prototype looked like 2. Cutting insulation gaps whilst still giving sufficient support to the rails, a model railway problem. Longitudinal timbers will give much better support than cross-timbers but a piece of PCB sheet cut in a # shape to look like longitudinal timbers would be the most robust. Cast crossing members would often be used in a crossing like that, rather than ordinary rail - something else to consider. There are loads of photos and diagrams online if you do a google search.