Dungrange

I disagree. 00 is NOT a scale, but a scale / gauge combination. The scale is 1:76.2 or 4 mm on the model represents 1' on the prototype (often referred to as 4mm scale). 00 is the combination of a scale of 1:76.2 and a track gauge of 16.5 mm P4 is the combination of a scale of 1:76.2 (exactly the same as 00), but with a track gauge of 18.83 mm (which is a true 1:76.2 scale dimension). H0 is the combination of a scale of 1:87 and a track gauge of 16.5 mm (exactly the same as 00). Taking all of that into account, can we really call sections of track with a gauge of 16.2 mm 00-SF (which from standard nomenclature would imply that the gauge is 16.5 mm and the SF is yet another variation on the other dimensions such as the check rail gap)? The scale element of the track is 'correct' to be classed as 00 (ie it is 1:76.2 or 4 mm scale), but the gauge element is not. I agree that there is a bit of semantics with regards narrowing 16.5 mm to 16.2 mm or widening 16.2 mm to 16.5 mm, but although I have just got used to 00-SF and made a decision to work to the standard and purchased a set of gauges this year, I fully understand Martin's reasons for seeking a new name (in Templot at least). The premise of the 'standard' is that the track gauge is 16.2 mm and it is widened as required as per the prototype and for plain track it can be 'widened' to 16.5 mm and still provide satisfactory running, even if the curve geometry does not technically require gauge widening. This allows 00 flexi-track to be used. Whether 4-SF is the best choice of name, I'm not sure, but at the end of the day, it is just a name and if it stops all of the bickering, then that is a bonus.

What was wrong with EM-2? I'm not sure that 4-SF is any more informative than 00-SF, but EM-2 seems to say what the standard is based on. It doesn't really matter: all I need to do is remember that the recently purchased and still unused 00-SF gauges that I now own are for a 'new' standard.

Comptonut, I don't think that anyone (not even Dutch_Master) is criticising what you have done with regards organising an inaugural meet and offering to arrange another similar event in 2016. Especially when you also seem to be an enthusiastic participant and active module builder. However, as someone else who lives outside of the SECAG area, I can sort of understand the point that I think Dutch_Master was trying to make. How do you see the British outline modular concept moving forward in the UK? If you see it becoming a national standard, with BritMod-00 modules all over the UK, then it would be helpful to refer to the standard by the 'agreed' name, which helps to 'create a brand' for want of a better expression, which would help others from outside of the SECAG area to 'buy-in' to the modular concept and standards set out on this site. I think that the point that Dutch_Master was trying to make is that this would help to promote wider participation across the UK. However, I agree that the task of UK wide promotion does not fall on you (or any member of the SECAG area for that matter). However, whilst I understand that references to 'Dave' are intended as 'light-hearted' banter, they could be off putting to a wider audience as two different names may imply two slightly different standards and maybe 'Dave' is just a bunch of guys from the South East of England messing about with their own concept and having a laugh. Yes, they may be having fun, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I want to join them (by reason of geography). However, if they are working to promote a standard that is used elsewhere across the country and are the start of a national movement that is in its embrionic stage, then maybe I do want to become involved if I feel that others in my area will be adopting the same standards. Personally, I think it's understandable that the first meet or two should be arranged on the basis of 'just having fun' as it is uncertain at this stage whether the BritMod-00 concept will ever 'take-off', but at some point in the future, once you are passed the 'proof of concept' stage, there is perhaps a greater need to consider the promotion of the concept (or at least assist with the promotion of the concept) to help the BritMod-00 movement to grow. Keep up the good work and best of luck with whatever you arrange in 2016. May that be the second of a number of events.

Why photograph one next to a Class 66? I didn't think any survived long enough to be contemporary with a GBRf Class 66. Were the last examples not withdrawn at least a decade ago?

It looks like you've already done the weathering on that one! I was thinking of a more pristine wall with more brick red remaining and with relatively clean mortar between the bricks, hence my question as to whether I should start with the mortar or the brickwork? If it looks as little too pristine, I can always weather it a bit darker a grubbier, a look that you seem to have achieved.

A quick question to anyone who has completed any of these LCUT buildings or structures: do you think you better results from painting the mortar or the brickwork first, or does it not really matter? I am looking to start painting my over bridge with acrylics acquired from my local model shop earlier today.

Thanks Phil, I have a few Cararama models including the Mercedes and a few others that will be usable. Of course that doesn't mean that I don't want Oxford Diecast to produce a few more 'ordinary' cars, even if I understand why other more glamorous or less common prototypes are often produced. Hopefully the Transit Connect and the Vectra will both be out before Oxford's next announcement.

That depends on the period that you are modelling. Modelling the period around 2007, I am primarily interested in vehicles from around 1992 to 2007 on the basis that at any point in time around 95% of the road fleet is less than 15 years old. To obtain a representative mix of vehicles, I require something like 18 cars, 2 taxis, 2 light goods vehicles, 1 rigid goods vehicle, 1 articulated goods vehicle and 1 bus or coach. I am rather spoiled for choice in relation to goods vehicles as multiple types, manufacturers and liveries are on offer from Oxford Diecast and finding a bus or coach is also no problem given the plethora of types and liveries available from Oxford Diecast and others. The choice of light goods vehicles has improved with the imminent release if the Transit Connect in 1:76. However, there most certainly isn't 18 different cars available to choose from in true 1:76 scale. The situation is improving, although I tend to find that releases are either too modern for my purposes (ie those produced from around 2006 onwards) or they are rather too old for anything other than the token 'old banger'. As an example, in their most recent announcement, Oxford Diecast are bringing out a Mark 2 Astra (a bit too old) and a Nissan Qashqai (a little too modern), but nothing in between. I will probably buy both the Astra and Qashqui but my station car park will potentially have rather a lot of Vauxhall Vectras, as I can see me buying one in each colour they produce simply because the range of cars available is not as big as I would like. However, from Oxford Diecast's point of view, they would rather I buy four Vectras in four different colours rather than buy four different cars (which would require four sets of tooling costs). To a certain extent by restricting choice, modellers are perhaps more likely to make multiple purchases of a single model and as such provide the demand that justifies the tooling costs of the model.

As a railway modeler, I couldn't agree more, but unfortunately railway modellers are only one of Oxford Diecast's customers. Collectors are much less interested in 'ordinary' vehicles and specialize in collecting military vehicles, emergency vehicles or goods vehicles in a range or liveries and sports cars and luxury marques are much more appealing to the collector market. A collection of Jaguars is much more appealing than a collection of Ford Escorts even if the later would be of much greater use to railway modellers who are looking for authentic variety in their station car parks. Whilst it is fair to say that railway modellers will buy many of the vehicles that collectors collect, it is much less likely that a collector of emergency service vehicles will go out and buy ordinary cars and therefore, unfortunately, I am not surprised that this seems to be the market that Oxford Diecast concentrate on.

It's probably exacerbated by the fact that this prototype is larger than some, but it's one reason why I am looking forward to more announcements from Oxford Diecast on the construction front.

That will be me then. Anything to follow on from the Vectra (from the late 1990s to the early 21st Century) will be on my shopping list. However, when I made a few suggestions to Oxford, probably late last year, I requested anything produced from around 1993 to 2003 and the response that I got was that whilst they weren't working on anything produced in that period, there would be a couple of releases that would be common on the roads during that time period. I'm guessing that the Astra Mk 2 was one of these releases.

I've never signed up to anything from Atlas before, but I am interested in some of the construction plant, especially the road-rail Unimog (and any other road-rail equipment that may follow). However, I assume that you have to sign up for a series of models and can't just purchase say models 1, 5, 7 etc and decline to purchase the others. As I'm not a collector, I'm not particularly interested in an airport fire engine, which also seems to be part of this series and I'm sure there will be as many that I don't want as those that I do. As I already have the Bachmann model of 66411, I'm not really looking for another (unless it's also £14.99 + P&P!!!). Even although the Komatsu is a little big for what I'm wanting, at £2.99 it would be a shame not to sign up.

I'm working on that one and will e-mail you a list of 'parts' (or more correctly their specification) when I get that far. It will have to be assembled around the baseboard top, so the parapet walls will be above the baseboard with the rest below. For the above baseboard structure, I envisage using the same parapet sections from the retaining walls and tunnel portal, albeit the length will probably have to be adjusted to match the below baseboard dimensions. That is the relatively easy part. It is the section below the baseboard top that I am less clear about. The image here isn't particularly good, but it gives an idea of what I would like to create. That is, two arches, where the watercourse flows through the one on the left and the adjacent arch is used for agricultural movements (in my case a Land Rover track rather than steps). I notice in this image, the arch is in brickwork, although I was actually thinking about a stone arch more like this one which was my reason for starting with the double round door panel. However, looking at photographs like those that I have linked to, there always seems to be an angle between the wall and the arch. That is, there is not a continuous curve as there is with the doorway, which I hadn't actually realized until now. If it has merit as a potential kit, then separate arches and retaining walls would make sense as it could then be expandable to include more, or fewer, arches if required, but as a one off commission, one piece would be good. It would fit within the maximum sizes that you indicated above. I will assume that I will need some wing walls, albeit these will probably just be cut down versions of the ones in your over-bridge kit. I'll probably need to assemble the arches and parapet and then look at the subject of of wing walls once the core structure is embedded in some scenery. I'm just posting here in case anyone else can give me feedback.

Thanks for your response, which was pretty much what I was hoping for. Slight deformation is not a major issue as the brickwork would not be that visible. The image below (assuming this works) is an indication of what I would like to do. Basically I would like to create an agricultural underpass and culvert under a double track mainline. When the railway was built in the 19th Century, it would probably only have been large enough for the passage of animals from one side of the railway to the other. However, I would like that passageway to be wide enough and high enough to accommodate a land rover (sorry I only have a Network Rail version) or a small tractor (of which I don't have any at the moment). The image above uses LCC 02-09, which is a double round door panel. This is slightly too small in terms of width and therefore a slightly larger version of this panel would be useful. The obvious starting point would be to create a cross between LCC 02-09 and the larger industrial building wall panel LCC 04-18, which is approximately 9 mm (three bricks) wider than LCC 02-09 and approximately 12 mm higher. This therefore means that these panels could be used for the ends of the structure (ie the sides of the abutments). The bridge parapet could then be fabricated using a variation of LCC 00-102, but with a cut out in both brick pieces, such that two all brick panels in 0.7 mm fiberboard could be combined back to back between these to create a parapet wall with an overall thickness of approximately 4.5 mm. The ends could then be tied together using a narrow panel (half the width of LCC 00-02). I think that this would be a worthwhile variant of the retaining wall parapets as well, but that is a different conversation for now. LCC 02-09 has an opening width of 23 mm, so if this was increased by 9 mm, then the internal arch would have a radius of 16 mm. If you can make a half inch pipe, then clearly this should be possible. The principal issue is the need to join the curved inside to the archway. I'm not sure if it would be easiest to do this as per the retaining wall sections with a thicker upright either side of the arch, or whether the arch should have a cut side with the same profile as LCC 02-42 so that the 0.5 mm arched piece would connect in the same way as the two halves of LCC 02-42 are intended to mate together. I'm interested in any comments before specifying some more bespoke pieces.

Can you advise on what radius you can bend the 0.5 mm board? That is, I am looking at this for the curved roof of an agricultural underpass. Can you advise on the size limitations of the laser cutters? I am looking at specifying a few more bespoke items. I really should be gluing some of the 100 + components that I have ordered to date together, but I am still exploring a few other uses of this product (whilst I have enough pieces to play with).

Looking at the platform pieces that I have purchased, I can’t believe that I am the only one who has platforms that cross a baseboard join at right angles. Whilst the standard station platform internal support (LCC 00-46) appears perfectly adequate for constructing internal bracing to support the platform deck and maintain spacing between the walls, at the baseboard join, it would be useful if there was an alternative support, which was the same width as the standard support (approximately 63 mm wide) but had interlocking brickwork at either end to connect with the main platform walls, thus helping to keep everything square. This would help to give any platform structure rigidity at the baseboard edge where it is perhaps most vulnerable. They would not need to be scribed with brickwork for this purpose, but a scribed version may be more versatile: I’d like about 18 in total if it could be used as an alternative length of wall. . I would have thought that these could be included in a cross baseboard platform extension bundle, since 614 mm is rather short for a platform (as per LCC B 00-07) and anyone purchasing this bundle is likely to want to extend it without purchasing too many end slopes. I am also unsure why the platform walls come in both 99 mm (LCC 00-41) and 198 mm lengths (LCC 00-47), yet the platform pavement panels only come in a 99 mm length (LCC 00-43). Have you given any consideration to producing a longer, double length platform panel, which would reduce the number of joins required on the platform surface? With 1.6 metre long platforms (which I don’t think is unusual), I would need to have approximately 15 joins and anything to reduce this number would, in my opinion, be worthwhile. Regarding the Early 20th Century country railway station (B 00-00) this contains part LCC 00-12. The instruction leaflet included does not indicate where these are intended to be used, although I assume that they are intended to be platform level decoration. I think that I will be missing these off my station building (and using them as platform decoration strip), but perhaps the instruction leaflet should be updated to clarify. There also appears to be what looks like two lollipop sticks in the kit, which I presume are intended to be cut to form the chimney pots (LCC 00-08). Again, clarification in in the instructions may be helpful. That said I’m happy enough with the bits that I’ve purchased so far. My only criticism is that I find it difficult to remove the LCC labels from above windows and doors without damaging the top layer of bricks. I’m not sure whether a scribe or mortar line separating the panel from the label would help.

Well, I finally took the plunge and decided to order the over-bridge; station building with some extra bits to increase the footprint; and a few platform segments to see whether I can make use of these to clad my part-built platforms, which are integral with the baseboard framing. As others have said, LCUT provide a very prompt service. I placed my order online just after 9 am, had a dispatch e-mail confirmation at mid-day and this morning the postman presented me with my order approximately 24 hours after going on-line. Everything was well packaged and the order was complete. First impressions are that this will build into a nice product, since the brickwork interlocking is very fine. Of course having decided to increase the footprint of the station building, I probably should have ordered another internal roof support, but for now that can just be the first item in a follow up order. All, I need to do now, is make a start on construction. I'll post back on here how I get on.

Thanks for posting the prototype inspiration for the retaining wall unit. I'm still trying to think how I could use this given that I want a retaining structure that is curved in plan and declines in height moving from left to right. I'd also like replicate the moderate lean back found in prototypical retaining walls. I can see this being a challenge. Looking at the prototype photograph you have posted, the arches are in a vertical plane and it is only the buttresses the slope at a moderate angle. As such, to have a tapered top, I think I will need to make the arches lower down and simply vary the height of the brickwork above the arch. That is, potentially use the communication tunnel as the 'standard' arch and cut down the back piece as appropriate. This probably means some customised supports, with a modified form, ie a greater vertical area and a lesser sloping height. However, I seem to be getting into a large list of bespoke items (new over-bridge parapet and deck, a culvert head and wing-walls, customised platform wall length, station steps and now modified retaining wall parts). As such, it probably makes sense that I just order £30 worth of 'standard' bits online, see how well it goes together and then get back to you with regards bespoke items. I do have one last question on the retaining walls though. Can I confirm that the front pieces LCC 00-97 and LCC 00-100 are supplied flat and it is only when glued to the support pieces that they become curved?

I agree with Kenton insofar as I think that the recess 'looks' too deep, although it may be prototypical in some parts. Looking at the image for LCC 00-97, it appears that the recess is five brick lengths deep, which I assume must mean 15 mm or approximately a scale three feet and nine inches. However, I see no reason why these parts could not be reduced in depth if required by cutting say 3 mm off one side of each part. I'm not sure whether the side supports LCC 00-98 would also have to be amended as there is not a manual for this kit on the website, but looking at the images of the assembled retaining wall, it looks as though LCC 00-97 is the only part that separates the front face (LCC 00-94) from the recessed wall (LCC 00-96). Perhaps I just need to buy one of these to test out my theory.

Thanks for the reply, With regards the steps, I was looking for something that would be around 32 mm (a scale eight feet) wide. I assume that a bespoke construction would simply be a pack of longer steps to replace those in LCC 04-42. If this is correct, then that would be great (although I'm not sure how to order bespoke products on-line). The lack of a fence is not an issue as I was originally intending building a wall (the equivalent to a platform wall above platform level and twice that height from street level, so I will probably stick with that plan. With regards the platform wall, I think that it is important to maintain the interlocking, and I think the 39 mm long wall would be better, since there will be an overhang on the platform surface. Better still would be a 90 mm long panel to save joining 51 mm and 39 mm panels. Again, unless you add this to your Catalogue, I am not sure how to order a bespoke item on-line.

Thanks for the reply, but as usual, I seem to have yet more questions about your 4 mm products. Product LCC 04-42 "stairs for goods shed office basement": what width are the stairs and would it be possible to use two or more of these products side by side to create a wider stairway? As you can probably guess, I am looking at an alternative use: a stairway from street level to platform level (street level being about the same as track level). Whilst entry to a goods shed may be one person at a time, station steps would have to allow for the movement of a crowd, so need to be wider. Also, is there a similar fence unit to extend the railings on the step? Alternatively, what height is the fence and would it tie in with LCC 00-91 (which seems to be 20 mm in height)? Also, there seems to be three lengths of brick platform wall: LCC 00-48 (51 mm); LCC 00-41 (99 mm); and LCC 00-47 (198 mm). Do you intend making any other lengths? I am looking at building a terminus with an end wall that connects the two platforms. As such, I would be looking for a section that is approximately 86 mm plus twice the thickness of the decorative facing, so about 88 mm. Unfortunately, I can't see how I could do this without either an 88 mm platform wall or alternatively a circa 37 mm platform wall that could be combined with the 51 mm section (LCC 00-48). A longer section would also be useful, but I appreciate that 198 mm may be the longest length that you can produce. I can see me making more than one order at this rate, since trying to produce a single shopping list is not easy!

Can I ask what governed the choice to make the parapet 91 mm in length? My understanding is that in 1:76 scale bridge piers (and presumably abutment walls) should be 30 mm from the centreline of the track. That is, they should be further from the track than say a bridge parapet or platform edge. (see here). Therefore, a bridge spanning a straight section of single track should have a parapet that is 60 mm in length. If the track is on a curve, then a longer parapet would be required, but I would have thought that something like 70 mm would generally have been considered acceptable. However, for double track the minimum parapet length spanning straight track should be 30 mm + 45 mm (assuming scale track centres) + 30 mm = 105 mm and if working to a 50 mm track centre (as per PECO streamline and the RMWeb Challenge), the minimum parapet length would have to be 110 mm. To accommodate a four foot radius curve under the bridge would probably necessitate increasing the parapet length to something closer to 120 mm, although it is not critical. I realise that I could splice two sets of parapets together and do the same with two sets of bridge decks, but would you consider creating longer parapet sections? Better still, would you consider something that could be extended in the same way as your building roofs with a left and right section? For my attic layout, I could be tempted by circa 170 mm parapets that would span three tracks. I'll have another look at the top of your retailing wall tunnel portal for that purpose though.

I notice that the Land Rover Defender Berlin Scheme has now been released, but although featured in the latest version of Globe, I'm still not sure when this colour scheme was introduced and whether or not vehicles in this livery have ever been seen on UK roads. Can anyone enlighten me? At least the RAF version carries an '02' plate, so I may end up purchasing that version instead, even if I am not sure where 90 Signals Unit would operate.