Dungrange

How many were produced for the Rhymney Railway? I don't really need another GWR wagon!

I've had something similar with regards a McAfee subscription, but I couldn't replicate it. I was on an RMweb page and it was replaced by a message about an out of date McAfee subscription. Hitting the back arrow in the browser (I use Chrome) returned me to RMweb. I'm not sure of the reason and there didn't seem to be any issues afterwards. It's happened about three times over the last month, but that's only a tiny fraction of a percentage of the number of pages of RMweb that I view, so it's not common. However, I haven't had the same issue on any other website. Obviously you can't fix what you can't replicate, and I can't really help identify the cause.

Okay - and it looks like the Bachmann Dynamis can't read CVs, so unless you're willing to connect the Lenz to a programming track, then pop the decoder into the ESU 53900 Decoder Tester, connect that to your program track and then just write a new address with the Dynamis overwriting whatever the current address is. There shouldn't be a need to know the address to do that. The decoder should then respond to whatever new address you give it.

Okay - so I'm assuming you connect your ESU 53900 Decoder Tester to the Programming Track output of the LZV100. Use the LZV100 + LH90 to read CV29 and type the number into this calculator - https://www.2mm.org.uk/articles/cv29 calculator.htm and press 'BackCalc'. Bit 5 will then tell you whether the locomotive is using a long or short address (empty box = short, blue tick = long). If it's a short address (ie CV29 <=31) then read the value of CV1 and you have your locomotive address. If CV 29 indicates a long address is in use, then read the values in CV17 and CV18 and enter both of these into the second calculator at that link and then click 'Calc address' and you'll get the long address of the locomotive.

Beeching was appointed in 1961 as the chairman of the British Railways Board and part of his remit was to review and improve the profitability of British Railways, which was of course a government controlled entity (ie the government was in effect the only shareholder). The circumstances surrounding the cutbacks in the 1960s were therefore very different from 1921 where there were a large number of private companies with an even larger number of private and corporate shareholders. Basically the government couldn't have reviewed the finances of all of the pre-grouping companies and instructed various companies to close various parts of their networks - it was responsibility of the board of each company to make these sort of decisions and they were of course accountable to their shareholders for those decisions. There are plenty of instances where pre-grouping companies closed lines or stations that weren't profitable from as early as the 1840s. One of the options considered post-WW1 was full nationalisation, in which case the government could have exercised greater control over any rationalisation, but nationalisation wasn't the favoured option by the politicians of the time. Each of the Big Four did rationalise their networks over their 25 years of existence, but this wasn't all done in 'one hit' as per the conclusion of Beeching's Report. Well it did allow the fledgling road haulage industry to pick up the more profitable traffic and leave the railways with the burden of carrying everything else that the road haulage industry didn't want. Not necessarily. It appears that the average trip length in the Victorian era was quite short and most of the goods conveyed by rail were travelling over distances of just 20, 30, 40 or maybe 50 miles. On the current network, freight is often moved over 200, 300 or 400 miles and rail is usually wholly uncompetitive with road transport over the very short distances that appear to have been the norm 150 years ago. In effect, the structure of the economy has changed from being a large number of relatively self sufficient local economies to a smaller number of regional economies, to a nationwide economy and into the global economy in which we currently live. These changes didn't happen overnight - it was just a continuum of gradual changes over many decades. At one time most produce was sourced locally, with very little in the way of national distribution networks and over time, the proportion of traffic moving longer distances would have increased. There was undoubtedly some national distribution in the Victorian and Edwardian period, but I think this was something that became much more common post-1921 and continued increasing throughout the Grouping and early British Railway periods. The volume of short distance traffic would have declined over time, as the economy changed from self-sufficient local economies towards national distribution networks and this short distance traffic was also the traffic that road hauliers could target. Therefore, over the Grouping and early British Railways period, much of the local traffic which originally drove the construction of many Victorian era branch lines would have declined for both these reasons (road competition and the development of national distribution networks). I would therefore expect that there were quite a few of the branch lines closed in the 1960s that were still profitable in 1921. At what point in time they became unprofitable, is perhaps difficult to say.

Sorry - I never noticed the date on the original post. I did think Jake had mentioned ordering baseboards quite a few months ago. Yes, it would be good to see some progress photographs.

Could you not have designed it to actually fit in the car? The layout that I'll hopefully start building in a similar timescale should fit in the back of my car, but I have to say that I found it particularly challenging trying to arrange a packing sequence to make everything fit, due to the presence of wheel arches and the slope of the hatchback. Once my the baseboards have arrived and been assembled, I'll finally know whether I have all my calculations correct. However, I couldn't fit that a layout of that size in my car. If the baseboards have just been ordered but not delivered, I don't expect much progress beyond the stock on the separate Workbench thread. However, I'll be following.

So it's suitable for running 52 year old locomotives.

Table 2.3 says Minimum - 8.5V, Nominal - 15V, Maximum - 22V. I'd therefore read 15V as mid-range value, not a maximum.

Well, yes, if you stop a coach over the join between power districts, then having one switched on and the other switched off would result in the power district that's turned off being fed through the coach pick ups. I can see that's not desirable, but surely the issue is about the design of the power districts in the first place and operator discipline. If you make one power district the up line and another power district the down line, the only locations that these join is in the various crossovers between the up and down lines and you shouldn't really be stopping trains over these. The same would be true for the fiddle yard - you shouldn't be stopping trains half in and half out of the fiddle yard.

But surely that's just have multiple power districts and turn them on one at a time.

How much space do you have available? If it's a new road, then it would probably be 7.3m wide (two 3.65m lanes). In imperial units about 24', making something like 96mm in 00 an appropriate start point. However, if there are pedestrian facilities that result in a traffic island in the middle of the road, then the road would be wider and similarly if there is a need to accommodate traffic making a right turn. The design of junctions would involve 'swept path analysis', which is basically looking at the space required to accommodate the design vehicle - in this case a large 44 tonne articulated truck. If it's not a new road, then take your pick with regards to what standards may have been followed at the time of construction. However, assuming you're not modelling Victorian era infrastructure, and you're assuming a reasonably busy port, then I'd suggest you aim for a lane width of around 10' (ie 40mm in 00), which would make an 80mm wide road appropriate. When undertaking roadworks on the motorway, contractors can narrow the lanes to 3.3m (~11') without any restrictions, but once they get to requiring 3.0m lanes (~10'), that's when you start seeing signs for HGVs being restricted to the left lanes and the outer lane being cars only. I think you're average HGV is something like 2.7m across wing mirrors, so that becomes the point where you can't really accommodate two way goods traffic into your port/dock area.

Thanks for the suggestion. There is also a layout database on here https://www.rmweb.co.uk/exhibition-layouts/ but unfortunately not all of the layouts state where the builder is located and there doesn't appear to be any way to search the listed layouts by region - just scale. Whilst some people may be willing to travel all over the country, that doesn't mean that we can afford their expenses. ☹️ Thanks - I've just sent you a PM.

I don't know about the NER and GNR, but the GNR, GER and GCR had proposed to merge back around 1909 (but were blocked by Government at the time) and the NER and H&B had merged before grouping on commercial terms in the same way as the LNWR & L&YR did. I've never really understood the distinction between "Constituent" and "Subsidiary" Companies, beyond the fact that the Constituent Companies seemed to be represented on the Board of the new Grouped Company, whereas there was no board representation for the Subsidiary Companies. How it was decided which companies were significant enough to get Board representation, I don't know. Geography didn't matter. The issue was that there were many companies that prior to WW1 were not exactly flush with cash. The war effort had taken its toll on all companies and there was a real risk that a number of companies would go bankrupt once they left Government control in 1921. During the war companies had continued to receive payments from the Government based on their pre-war income and it wasn't clear what would happen moving back to a competitive market. The Railways Act 1921 was therefore a mechanism to force many struggling companies that were at risk of bankruptcy into the arms of their more profitable neighbours before they failed. Full nationalisation was considered as was different groupings of five, six and even seven companies. I can't remember what these all were but one or more of the suggestions had a separate Scottish company. Ultimately, the merger into four was considered the optimum way to create four profitable private companies and the Railway Act 1921 was to take forward that proposal.

Because in 1921, the LT&SR no longer existed - it was simply an integral part of the Midland Railway and had been since before WW1. MR went to the LMS. No further thought required. The question you really want to ask is why was the Great Eastern Railway not interested in purchasing the LT&SR and Midland Railway was? The Midland Railway probably had more money to offer the LT&SR shareholders and acquiring the LT&SR gave the Midland Railway access to places that they didn't have access to prior to 1912 such as Southend-on-Sea. The GER was less flush with cash and acquiring the LT&SR would have brought them less benefits - they already had a route between London and Southend-on-Sea. What are the other major population centres that the LT&SR served? Basildon is a major town now, but in 1931 it had a population of just 1,159 and didn't get it's station until 1974. Dagenham Dock didn't open until 1908 (not that long before the Midland offered to purchase the LT&SR) and Dagenham Heathway didn't open until 1932 under the LMS. In 1911 Dagenham was a relatively small town with a population of 7,930. Access to the Port at Tilbury was possibly the most valuable asset, but presumably the GER simply didn't have enough money to offer the LT&SR shareholders.

Because the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway was jointly owned by the Midland Railway (LMS) and Great Northern Railway (LNER), so it became a joint LNER/LMS line. No different from the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway (LMS/SR) or Cheshire Lines Committee (LMS/LNER), where the parent companies were placed in different groups.

I think you need to change that 'or' to an 'and'.😁 I agree that would be an excellent result, but I'd hold out more hope of both a 5 and 7 plank open than I would for either a covered goods wagon or a 10 ton goods brake. Since Oxford Rail chose the GER Diagram 72 covered goods wagon, that really only leaves Rapido with two options: a Diagram 15 or a Diagram 47. I'd happily buy either or both. However I don't think the Diagram 15 survived long enough to be of interest to the BR market and I suspect that the Diagram 47 would be perceived as too similar to the Oxford Rail model (even if the Rapido product would be better). I think the only thing in favour of Rapido tackling a Diagram 47 covered goods wagon, is that it has the same chassis as one of the cattle wagons (can't remember which diagram off hand). That sort of fits with Rapido's strategy to date. As for the goods brake, the 10 ton Diagram 1 vehicles were the most numerous type, but I suspect that the 20 ton Diagram 56 Goods brake would be more commercially viable, as these were produced until 1924 and therefore there were still quite a few of these around in BR days (which still seems to be a key market). I don't think the same can be said for the 10 ton variants which I think became extant around nationalisation. However, I'll happily buy several of whatever Rapido surprise us with. My fingers are always crossed for a GER announcement.

A factory reset should return the address to Address 3.

... and this website https://southern-railway.com/2023/08/02/Bachmann-announce-lswr-sr-diagram-1410-1406-and-1408-covered-vans-and-swr-sr-56ft-non-corridor-cross-country-four-coach-sets-as-part-of-their-efe-rail-range/ says that the tooling suite "allows for four body types across the three diagrams, four brake types (single double block, Morton Clutch, Freighter and Lift Link), two steel chassis types (D1410/06 and D1408), two axle box types (Panter and Warner) and three buffer types (tapered, ribbed and fabricated)". It therefore sounds a though EFE Rail have tooled the correct brakes for the 'as built' condition of this wagon, but haven't fitted them to the model of 11111. That could be an error, or it could be that the original brakes were replaced in late LSWR days, which would make the model correct, but only for the end of the pre-grouping period. As a Midland modeller, I don't expect you to know, but did the LSWR use the same Diagram number (1410) for both the steel and timber framed examples? The website linked to above, indicates that for the later build variants, there seemed to be different diagram numbers for timber and steel framed examples (1407 / 1406 and 1409 / 1408).

I understand that George Herriot's was a venue for a few past exhibitions, but they were more than 20-25 years ago (possibly longer). George Watson's is a new venue for us and we're not aware of a model railway exhibition having been held there before. I'll start an Exhibition thread once all the details have been confirmed and our advertising is in place, but I'm aware that there may be some privately owned layouts out there that we're not aware of, that are looking for their first outing. I've seen previous threads where posters have been seeking advice on getting their first exhibition invite, so thought I'd start this thread inviting prospective exhibitors to get in touch with us.

I like the improvements that you've made to the vents. I assume that you've just removed the model vents, filed away the uprights, so that these slope at the top, thinned down the top of the vent moulding and then refitted it. Looks like I need a prototype photograph to copy as this looks better than the of the box model, although I don't know much about the prototype. I only bought one because it was made.

Can I clarify, are you saying that in LSWR days none of the Diagram 1410 covered goods wagons had Morton brake gear, or just that it's not correct for a model with the number 11111? When the the programme of replacing Panter's brake gear with Morton Brake occurred - was this definitely post-grouping? It just it seems strange that EFE Rail chose 11111 as a running number unless there is a photograph of this particular wagon in one of the Southern books.

The Edinburgh and Lothian Miniature Railway club (ELMRC) will be hosting a new exhibition at George Watson's College on 1st/2nd June 2024. Many of our fellow Scottish clubs have exhibition layouts that we're aware of and some will be making an appearance, but are there any private individuals in the wider Edinburgh area with a layout that they'd like to exhibit? If so, can you either message me on here or e-mail secretary@elmrc.org.uk. We won't be replacing Warley, but we think Edinburgh needs a Model Railway Exhibition.

Does it encourage us to spend more money? I'd say the answer is yes. I've several Bachmann wagons where I've bought one each year over several years as they've released a new livery variant, but this means that my spending is 'slow burn'. Conversely, because many of the newer entrants are offering several models in the same or complementary livery with different numbers, I buy more (because there is no need to hope that someone offers a renumbering pack). I've just bought 24 ostensibly similar wagons from Revolution Trains simply because I can buy a whole trainload with unique number at once. That therefore means that from the manufacturers point of view, they get a larger share of my money quicker and therefore that reduces the time taken to recover the tooling costs. Yes, there is additional cost in approving additional artwork and changing the tampo printing, but I suspect that the benefits to manufacturers outweigh the drawbacks or they wouldn't follow this approach.

Quite a few of the model railway clubs in Scotland work on a similar basis with a series of reciprocal agreements to attend each other's shows without money changing hands. My own club, Edinburgh and Lothians MRC are about to launch a new Edinburgh show this year (the club hasn't held it's own show for several decades), which will be held on 1st / 2nd June 2024. We're on the lookout for layouts at the moment, but a number of layouts attending will be provided by other clubs where we're committing to attend their shows. That means that we don't have the problem of trying to man more than one of our own layouts at our own show. As you highlight, there will be a lot of other roles to be filled by the membership. Oh how I wish we could run an exhibition with that sort of budget. The deposit alone for the hall we've hired is several times that. We did consider starting with a scout hall type venue (which would be closer to that cost), but quickly realised that we'd only fit a couple of our layouts in and I think it would be difficult to promote a 3-4 layout show. I am aware that our new venture will be a challenge.