Dungrange

I agree with the above post, the point being that 2 1/4" to the foot will give the least distorted or most accurate proportions. Moving up the scales to 2 1/2" to the foo, the look of the locomotive will become more like 00 model railways (ie the track gauge is too narrow but acceptable to many). In general the inaccuracy is to a certain extent hidden by the bogies / coupling rods etc. However, if you're looking to go seriously far in the other direction, then you will find it difficult to get a realistic representation of a mainline locomotive as the bogies / axles will start to be wider than the body unless you distort its dimensions. A scale of 2" to the foot (ie 1:6) would be equivalent to a track gauge of 5' 1.5", which is not far off the 5' 3" track gauge in Ireland. Given that some ex-BR stock runs there, I would have thought that 2" to the foot would have been a reasonable scale to work to, but that is still massive. If you want 1:8, then I agree you should reconsider your track gauge.

I have a few Bachmann TEAs in BP green livery and I also have a Hornby TEA acquired many years ago, which I would like to update with etched walkways and new bogies from S-Kits. The S-Kits range includes four separate types of replacement bogies for the Hornby TEA: CC2 - Gloucester Fast Freight bogies CC3 - Gloucester Mk 4 bogies CC11 - ESC1 Clasp Brake bogies CC12 - ESC1 Disc Brake bogies. The Bachmann models are equipped with Gloucester bogies (Mk 2, I believe), so for a bit of variety, I'd probably prefer fitting ESC1 bogies to the Hornby tank. However, my question is, which were more common on ESC1 bogies: clasp or disc brakes? Or, did they start off with clasp brakes in the 1960's and these were generally converted to disc brakes at a later date? My time period is circa 2007 if that makes any difference and the wagon will probably be given a BPO identity on a fictional flow out of Grangemouth.

I'm not sure that the desire to accommodate older flanges in the DCC or Peco chaired track is necessarily a bad thing. 00 will always be a compromise. The ultimate perfectionists will surely model in P4 or S4 anyway. I think the ultimate problem, as Richard has already stated earlier, is the amount of capital that is required to produce the tooling for the turnouts. It's almost a 'chicken' and 'egg' situation. Manufacturers tend to produce flexi-track first because there is less capital required to do so with higher volume sales and they then use this to test the market demand for a better product (ie the demand for something better than H0 track sold as 00). However, many consumers don't purchase the new improved flexi-track because there is no matching turnouts. This means that demand for the flexi-track is perhaps lower than expected and therefore it becomes more difficult for the manufacturer to make a business case at a later date for the significant cost of the tooling for the next stage of product development - ready to lay turnouts. Ultimately, the situation will only change when someone 'bites the bullet' and releases matching turnouts and crossings at the same time, thus producing a full track system. The original Peco announcement implied that they would consider turnouts to match their new bullhead track, but the announcement was very much about 'testing the waters', so whether they actually release a range of turnouts, we will have to wait and see. This therefore leaves DCC as the only manufacturer that appears willing to take the gamble and commit to matching turnouts without waiting to see how much flexi-track they have sold over x months. This is obviously a risk and one that I hope works out for DCC. Whether this provides the impetus for Peco to do likewise, we shall have to wait and see, but it does mean that some older products may disappear.

Whilst each product may 'fit the bill' for flexi-track, at the moment none of these track systems 'fit the bill' for a complete ready to lay track system that includes matching point and crossing work. SMP flexi-track may have been around for more than 40 years, but 40 years later and there has still been no investment in matching ready to lay point work, although a kit (something like a B6) is / was available. However, that is not what everyone is looking for. Personally I prefer thicker sleepers and therefore in my eyes, the Exactoscale product wins over C&L or SMP, but that's not to say that there is anything fundamentally wrong with either of these products. However, whilst it is possible to mix Exactoscale Fast-track with current Peco Code 75 'finescale' flat bottom turnouts, such a mix is never going to look right on the scenic part of the layout. The demands for better track generally tend to come from people not unlike myself, who would like flexi-tack with a range of better ready to lay turnouts. Such people generally have two options; stick with Peco 'finescale' streamline and moan about the issues, or switch to another brand of flexible track and build their own turnouts. Having got fed up waiting for the ready to lay turnouts that I wanted, I have decided to have a go at building them myself and now have everything I need to make a start as soon as I finalise my design in Templot. As such, I am now out of the market for new turnouts, but there are probably plenty of people who are still waiting. Hopefully the DCC Concepts products (when they hit the shops) fits with their needs.

I didn't know that, although it wouldn't have made any difference to my decision. In my case it's a mixture of blind faith and positive feedback from others on RMWeb about both Revolution Trains and Rapido, who are more 'in the know' than I am. I'm fortunate to be in the position to be able to write off the loss of a couple of hundred pounds to experience, if the project was to fail (which I'm reasonably confident it won't - especially with tooling complete), but I am sure there are many others who can't take the risk and potentially miss out as a result. I'm therefore happy to hear that at least one retailer has also decided to order some for after sales.

The inclination of the rails in the photograph above certainly looks much better, and more realistic, than in one of the photographs a couple of pages ago, suggesting that it was indeed a damaged sample or photographic distortion. It certainly looks a nice product. It would be nice to see 'in the flesh', but unfortunately I have no immediate need for track, having stocked up on the Exactoscale equivalent earlier in the year.

Ordering more that you originally expressed an interest in is fine: the problem would be if it was the other way around. Expressions of interest had closed before I was aware of the project, so I effectively expressed an interest in zero and then ordered nine! As others have indicated, it would have been nice to be able to purchase these over time and build up a rake over a couple of years, but I accept that isn't the way crowdfunding works. I suppose the only thing that concerns me about the 'expression of interest' is the risk that the number of expressions is too low for a project to be viable, simply because some of those who might participate are not aware of the potential venture. Anyway, it may be a while before we see them, but it will take me much longer to have a layout to run them on!

I can see the attraction of a second batch at a later date, but how would Revolution Trains know if there was sufficient demand for a second batch? That is, a second batch would have a minimum production run just the same as any other model. If these are a 'big seller' - ie lots of people order before the pre-production deadline, then that may indicate that everyone that wants these tank wagons has already ordered them. It certainly doesn't indicate unmet demand for future production runs. Demand for a second batch could perhaps be gauged from the prices that some people may be willing to pay on auction sites like E-bay, but again that can be distorted by relatively short supply. A second production run needn't be as large as the initial run, as clearly there are no development and tooling costs to be met (ie they will have been written off in the current crowdfunding phase), but there are still other, material, labour and transport costs involved with any future batches. Personally, I can't see a second batch being viable unless a retailer is willing to cough up tens of thousands of pounds to make a second batch viable (ie they are willing to commit to taking say 1,000 models). If there is any retailer out there willing to take that sort of risk (given that many modellers have already ordered all the wagons they are likely to buy), they would be better taking that risk now, where they can commit to a smaller number of models for those who are unaware that this is a crowdfunded model. It is those modellers who are the potential customers of those retailers who will be stocking the N gauge version.

The only issue that you may have is the desire to build up gradually to a long rake. As a crowdfunded project, the total number produced will be the number ordered at the cut-off date later this year (a date still to be announced). I think that date will be announced as soon as Revolution Trains are content that the tooling is complete and production ready to start. As far as I am aware there is no intention that these will start appearing in your local model shop at a later date, so whatever number you order and pay for online before production starts will be the number you end up with. If you ultimately want 30, then you probably need to order all 30 within the next couple of months.

A quick bump to this topic since it's almost the end of the month and the end of the extended early bird discount period. Any more willing to jump in? I'm looking forward to these eventually arriving.

By reason of geography, I also won't be joining, but hope that the club idea takes off. It is however perhaps a pity that the 00 standard that you propose (12" wide boards) is not necessarily compatible with those in the SECAG area who have already built modules to the BritMod-00 standard. Tim Horn makes BritMod-00 sized baseboards (or at least that is what is laser marked on the boards I purchased from him), so it might be worth considering this standard for 00. Ultimately the success will be dependent on getting a 'critical mass' of people working to the same standard (both within your club, in the wider SECAG area and of course nationally).

I'll guess that they just haven't been added yet and that the Salmon are still very much at the drafting stage. Of course some Salmon had neither vacuum or air brakes and I understand that it is the proprietor's intention to model all variants (un-braked, vacuum and air brakes along with the different bogie types as well). Given that it looks like they are still at the drawing stage, I'll guess that Flangeway / Footplate Models won't be taking any orders until nearer the Warley show, when they will no doubt have confirmed production dates.

Well, there was an update on their Facebook page in June which shows the couplings on the wagon. I haven't heard of any issue with the couplings. When I spoke to their representative at Model Rail Scotland in February, they were hoping to have the first models released near the end of this year, but as with all things, it could take longer than that to get all of the details right. I must admit that I am looking forward to these arriving.

...and presumably the track gauge! I agree that they are not really what I would regard as compatible.

Ben, You are correct that Kadee shank length is partly dependent on the minimum radii of curves on a layout, but for those who are fortunate enough to have larger radius curves, the distance between the front of the NEM pocket and the buffers is more relevant. That is, the actual choice of coupling is dependent on the fixed distance between pocket and buffers plus a variable allowance for curve radii, which for large radius curves can be virtually zero. I'm happy to wait until you have samples available for inspection.

Ben, A quick question, the specification states that the models have NEM couplings - is there any information on where these are located relative to the buffers to determine which Kadee couplings I'll need to buy and fit? I can then make sure that I have them in stock.

I know, I'm the same. I was tempted by just a couple of grey ones to mix in with my Bachmann green TEAs to provide something different and then I learned that they weren't used on any of the Grangemouth flows in my time period. I therefore don't need these, but... having seen the model specification, price and photographs of both grey and red ones in Scotland I've ended up, like you, ordering a mixture of red and grey VTG ones before the early bird discount expires. Hopefuly they will be delivered before Christmas.

Andrew, The bottling plant that Arran linked to is at Culburnie, near Kiltarlity to the south of Beauly and therefore road transport must have been used to transport the water from the bottling plant to sidings at Millburn Yard, Inverness. This is the only local railhead, since the station at Beauly is no more than a very short passenger halt. I've no idea what type of road vehicles were used.

I think that you are correct that many of the BP logos were probably removed from the BP Oils wagon fleet as a result of the sale of the refinery and chemical works to Ineos (which probably means I need to remove the BP logos from most of the green TEA and TTA wagons that I own). However, I don't think that the rail logistics business was ever sold to Ineos and the VTG newsletter that I linked to in my previous post specifically states that the deal was with BP Oils. Although BP decided to divest its worldwide olefins and derivatives business in 2005: the sale included the Refinery and connected petrochemicals complex; the sale did not include the Kinneil Crude Oil stabilisation terminal, which BP retained and continues to operate. The Kinneil terminal is where the pipeline system from the Forties field comes ashore and this crude oil is either export to third parties via pipeline to the Dalmeny tank farm, and subsequently shipped out from the Hound Point marine terminal or it is fed into the refinery (now owned by Ineos). Since BP Oil retained ownership of the Forties pipeline system, the Kinniel terminal, Dalmeny tank farm and pipeline and the Hound Point terminal (ie the logistics side of the business), I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the rail logistics part of the business was also retained rather than sold to Ineos. However, I'm sure once BP realised the capital cost of a wagon replacement programme, they decided that they would switch to a contract with VTG. Anyway, we seem to be deviating from the type of wagon that Revolution Trains are actually producing: the 2006 built wagons, which it appears didn't actually appear on Grangemouth services until 2015. :-(