Dungrange

Please don't point me to the Exatoscale concrete sleeper track system, if you had read Colin Craig’s review in DEMU's Update you would realise it is not representative of a BR or today's NR standards.

Clive, I am not a member of DEMU and therefore have not read the article to which you refer, but another RMWebber indicated that the Exactoscale concrete Fasttrack was supposed to represent the F27 sleeper as manufactured between 1969 and 2003 (see a thread I started last year - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61828-exactoscale-concrete-sleepers/).  Did the review to which you refer make any mention of the Peco Individulay concrete sleepers?  It has nothing to do with the discussion in hand, but something I would be interested in.

Regards

David

i know this is playing devils advocate Martin but using the logic that modellers run trains of 4mm/ft scale on 4ft 1.5in track shouldnt we also be looking at shrinking the locos and stock down slightly to match a gauge of 4ft 1.5.in as well if its to be done in the way you suggest (properly uh hum as far 00 is concerned) the alternative being to big up the track to P4  

 

I see what youre saying but I am not yet convinced that the 8ft sleeper is the way this should go.  The stock will always be overscale to whatever 00 standards are adopted here so I dont see why the scale of a 4ft 1.5in gauge has to extend to the sleepers simply to stick with the maths - it will still not have the right "look" IMO.  Be interested if others feel the same or strongly disagree.

If you shrink the stock down to suit the track gauge, you end up with H0. There have been several unsuccesful attemps to move the 00 market to H0, so I think that is a 'red herring': it is not going to happen.  Sticking with a scale of 1:76.2, if you want a perfect scale representation of track with a gauge of 4' 8.5" then the only way forward is to model in S4.  However, perhaps think of the current debate this way.

Prototype track in the UK originally used a sleeper length of 9'.  It was subsequently realised (around the time of the First World War) that a cost saving could be made by reducing the sleeper length to the now standard 8' 6" on the basis that not all of the timber outside of the 'four foot' was actually required.  Now imagine if the universally adopted gauge had been 4' 1.5" rather than 4' 8.5" (and the 'four foot' a bit closer to four feet).  Under such a scenario, it is likely that 8' long sleepers would have become the norm over the UK rail network and as such, this is what we should be seeking to model.  However, all of the other dimensions like sleeper width, depth and spacing would be the same as track with a gauge of 4' 8.5".  I think on the whole that is where the greatest consensus lies.  It is all of the other options such as bullhead rail or flatbottom, 00-SF or something else, where there is greater disagreement among any prospective buyers on here.

Sleeper length is always going to be an issue with an incorrect track gauge.  When laid adjacent to a straight platform, the centreline of the track has to be a specific distance from the platform edge.  This distance is the same irrespective as to whether one is modelling in 00, EM or P4 because it is based on stock clearances.  However, the distance between the platform edge and the nearest running line will be greater for 00 than for P4.  If the sleepers are anything less than a scale 8' 6" then the same is true with regards the distance between the platform edge and the ends of the sleepers.  Therefore, when shortening the sleepers, you increase the gap between the platform and the track.  A balance has to be struck, and personally, I feel that an 8' long sleeper is the right balance.

I'm therefore in agreement with Martin's suggestions.

Regard

David

I think straight track would be of benefit to beginners and those more experienced.

Whilst I am not convinced with the need to include large radii "set-track" style curves in any range, the inclusion of straight sections in scale 60' lengths (ie 240 mm) with sleepers spaced as per full size track panels with slightly reduced spacing and scale 12" sleepers at each end are potentially a good idea.  I would certainly buy a few of these, as they would make an excellent load on a rake of 'Salmon' track panel carriers (if anyone ever makes these Ready to Run I'll be happy).  I could also see a use for these adjacent to straight sections of platform, although in such a situation, lengths that are a multiple of 240 mm would probably be preferable.  However, I think any non-straight sections need to be flexi-track.

Regards

David

Yes, I'm not sure about the safety aspects of overloading what looks like a single wall socket.

Regards

David

Hi David

 

Sorry but to say C&Ls turnout in a bag is the closest alternative to ready to lay is comparable with saying a MTK kit is the closest alternative to RTR locomotive to someone who does not have the skills to make their own kits.

 

I do agree with you that the point work needs to be of a competitive price to the ready to use points available today. This is a major specification for any prospective manufacturer needs to consider before flat bottom or bullhead rail.

Hi Clive,

I agree that C&L's Turnout in a Bag is a kit and not a 'Ready to Lay' product.  However, my comment was in response to the suggestion that buying the sleepers from C&L and making your own common crossing switchblades with a file was a cheaper alternative (which it is if you have the skills).  The Turnout in a Bag is effectively a halfway house between building your own pointwork from scratch and a Ready to Lay product, but as far as I am aware, it is the closest alternative to Ready to Lay if you don't want H0 sleeper spacing.  If you know of a closer Ready to Lay alternative, I'd like to know.

Regards

David

9. Price - probably not commercially viable unless the cost is not any more than Peco Code 75 + 20 per cent. I'd be willing to pay a bit more insofar as they would still work out cheaper that C&L's 'Turnout in a Bag', but I doubt the turnover would be sufficient to be viable unless the pricing were similar to what Peco offer.

To be fair to the C&L Turnout in a bag, most of the cost comes from the included pre-built common crossing (£16) and filed switch rails (£10.50). If you buy the components seperately both of these items can be made up from rail lengths by hand fairly quickly and for pennies. If you have the skill to do so.

I agree that C&L's turnout in a bag is not the cheapest way to build your own track, but it is the closest alternative to ready to lay, which is what this thread is about.  Reliable running is dependent on building the various components to the required tolerance and a pre-built common crossing makes it easier for a beginner (like myself) to consider taking that step from ready to lay to handbuilt and I see myself as the target market for a better ready to lay product.  Your emphasis on the "If" is therefore what is relevant, but it's perhaps also having the time and confidence to have a go, as well as the skill.

In other words, as close to ready-to-lay as it gets is £46/turnout.  Yes we could save money by making bits ourselves, but the thread title is 'ready-to-lay' and so as far as I've been able to find out, the nearest better looking than Peco is the Exactoscale turnout in a bag, and its £46 and we'd still have to assemble it ourselves.  I wonder what the cost would be if that turnout was available ready to lay?  Another £10? 

 

Peco's code 75 large radius electrofrog is £10.50 from eHattons.... 

 

Unless the price is at least in the ball park with Peco, is the cost a deal breaker?  My desired model of Thurso would cost me £105 in Peco turnouts, or £460 for Exactoscale (and I'd still have to assemble them).  I want better looking track, but am I prepared to pay that much more?  If it was £50/turnout to have something like Exactoscale ready to lay, would I fork out £500 just for the points?  

 

I'm not sure - I might, if they looked darn good and worked straight out of the box.  But it would be a big mental shift to accept turnouts at twice the price of a carriage, and half the price of a loco.

 

Could our ideal RTL points be made to sell at around the £15 mark for a B8?

I couldn't agree more.  This is the point that I was trying to make in my post #321.  I think that cost could well be a deal breaker.  If the cost of our 'ideal' ready to lay point is about the same price as a Peco point, I think it could sell quite well if marketed properly.  However, as the price differential increases, the number of modellers who would be willing to pay a premium for the 'better' product would be smaller.  A smaller market share and lower turnover would push up production costs per unit, which would in turn put more modellers off switching from Peco.  It would become a bit of a vicous circle.  Therefore, a discussion on cost is as important as a discussion on standards and how extensive the range should be.  There is no point in an enterprising manufacturer giving us what we want at £80 per point, if few of us defining what we want are actually willing to pay that much.

My suggestion of a target cost being Peco Code 75 plus 20 percent would imply a cost of around £13 based on the price that you quote from Hattons, which is not far off the £15 that you suggest.  As I indicated earlier, I personally would be willing to pay more, but that is on that basis that the C&L Turnout in Bag (as opposed to the Exactoscale P4 version) is £38 per turnout if you omit the roller gauges (see http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=346_375_377_378 and then go to checkout to get the price without roller gauges).  However, although I'd be willing to pay around £40 for a better ready to lay point, that is driven by the fact that I wont require many: probably just four points.  If I was looking to purchase ten or more, I suspect that I would be far more price sensitive.  As such, if an enterprising manufacturer can't provide us with the specification that we would like for say £15 (on Hattons) to £20 (RRP) for a B8, they probably shouldn't take the risk.  I certainly wouldn't if I was said manufacturer.

Regards

David

David,

 

Quite a number of interesting matters raised there.

 

I think I misinterpreted Martin's post about 4ft1 1/2 gauge. He clearly did not mean it to be negative.

 

I think that I begin to see the benefit of 16.2mm gauge (OO-SF) but it does seem counter-intuitive to narrow the gauge even further.

 

Unfair to compare with the cost of the C&L kit as that includes a couple of roller gauges which is a one-off expense.

Joseph,

Martin's comment about 00 gauge track being a 4' 1.5" is not negative.  It is a simple fact: 00 gauge track is narrow gauge.  However, when we discuss a desire for better looking 00 track, we want some aspects such as sleeper spacing to be closer to scale, but at the same time, we don't really want to emphasise the narrow gauge.  Anyone that wants perfectly scaled track needs to build their own in S4: the rest of us need to face reality and compromise.  Discussions like this are discussions about finding an acceptable compromise.

Regarding the benefits of 00-SF, I agree that it seems counter-intuitive and as I said in my earlier post, I originally thought that it was lunacy.  What is wrong with 16.5 mm gauge plain track (especially if you think about SMP or C&L track)?  Answer: the track gauge is too narrow.  The obvious answer is therefore to increase the track gauge and model in either EM or P4, both of which involve re-gauging / re-wheeling / compensating stock.  A track gauge of 16.2 mm which is moving in the opposite direction doesn't seem to be a logical solution.  Surely someone that proposes a track gauge of 16.2 mm is a lunatic?

However, if I subtly change the question to what is wrong with 16.5 mm gauge point work, I would give a different answer.  The biggest problem with the point work is the flangeways, the wing rails, check rails etc, which are a bigger problem to the visual desire for better point work than the gauge per se.  How do we make these aspects of the trackwork look better?  The answer is to move the wing rails closer to the crossing vee and the check rails closer to the stock rails.  There are basically two options here.  One is that we leave the gauge at 16.5 mm and move the wing rails closer to the crossing vee and the check rails towards the stock rails.  The other option is to leave the wing rails and check rails in the same place and narrow the track gauge.  In the first instance, we need to increase the back to back dimension of our wheel sets so that the flanges clear the newly positioned wing and check rails.  If you want to adjust stock, why not go EM or P4?  In the second instance, you don't have to modify the stock and this standard is 00-SF.  I have therefore been converted from seeing this as lunacy, to a wholly sensible way forward.  As Gordon has highlighted, it is just through the pointwork that the gauge needs to be narrowed.

Regards the C&L Turnout in a bag, it is possible to purchase these without the track gauges and save £4 per kit.  However, they are still significantly more expensive than a Peco ready to lay point and whilst I'm willing to pay this for a small layout, I'm not convinced that everyone who says that they want a more realistic track will be.  The more point work someone needs to purchase, the more cost becomes a factor in deciding to switch from the established player (ie Peco).  It is mearly an observation rather than a criticism of the cost of the C&L kits.

Regards

David

Having seen P4 trackwork, I have to say that it looks so much better than Peco Streamline that I want something better.  Unfortunately I probably don't possess the skills to model in P4 and don't have the time to experiment, so I am sticking with 00 for the layout that I am building (albeit I am still on the baseboards).  Having made that decision, and since there are no ready to lay points that look anything like as good as P4 pointwork, I am planning to make a first attempt at building my own points (using the C&L components).  However, if a ready to lay alternative that looks the part were to be marketed in the not too distant future, I would gladly purchase those rather than attempt to build what I want (due to the time saving and probably better running qualities).  So, what would I like.

1. Improved sleeper spacing similar to the SMP, C&L and Exctoscale plain line track.  As Martin has highlighted earlier, something that is in effect a 1:76 scale representation of 4' 1.5" gauge track.  Sleepers that are 6" shorter than the prototype and with a closer to scale 2' 6" sleeper spacing.

2. I would prefer scale depth sleepers as I plan to use Exactoscale track (ie 1.6mm depth) rather than 'thin' sleepers.

3. Track standards 00-SF: I initially thought that it was lunacy to narrow the gauge to 16.2 mm, but having read more about 00-SF on RMWeb, I am convinced that is the way to go.

4. I would probably prefer Code 82 Flatbottom rail (being a privatisation era modeller), but would happily purchase Code 75 Bullhead pointwork and I think it is probably a no brainer that commercially it should be the starting point.

5. Continuous point blades.

6. Robust but better looking tie-bars.

7. Prototype geometry rather than 'toy track'.  I would refrain from trying to produce 'short' turnouts to allow modellers to cram in as much track as they can: I don't see these modellers as the target market for better looking track insofar as track tends to look better when the lengths, radii etc are closer to scale.

8. I am not convinced that an extensive range would be required at launch: I would be happy with either a B7 or B8 turnout of both hands.  I wouldn't be interested in a diamond or slip, but I can see these as the next logical step.  Personally I would prefer a tandem (asymetric B8/B8) but the diamond / slips would probably be more popular.

9. Price - probably not commercially viable unless the cost is not any more than Peco Code 75 + 20 per cent.  I'd be willing to pay a bit more insofar as they would still work out cheaper that C&L's 'Turnout in a Bag', but I doubt the turnover would be sufficient to be viable unless the pricing were similar to what Peco offer.

I think that's my two-pence worth.  Hopefully we can reach some form of concensus.

Regards

David

When the welded Seacows were introduced in 1982, since they were air braked from new, were a number of Sharks converted to air brake/piped to work with them? The only images of ZUAs I can find all seem to date from the 90s so I wonder if they were piped as ZUW in the 80s and, presumably, marshalled in the centre of the train?

 

Any help is much appreciated.

In Eric Gent's book "British Railways Brake Vans & Ballast Ploughs" there is the following information:

During 1984 a decision was made to fit a limited number of ballast ploughs with air brakes for use on the Eastern and Western Regions, for use with air-braked Sea Lion and Sea Cow bogie ballast hoppers.  The Western vehicles were concentrated in the southwest of England where all trains were to be air-braked/piped by 1984.  The Eastern vehicles were sent along the East Coast Mainline to Peterborough, Doncaster and York.  All the vehicles were fitted with just a single air pipe, fitted onto the headstock on the right hand side of the coupling.  An air gauge and control were fitted inside the cabin for the guard's use.  Twenty two ballast ploughs were so altered, and as a result three new design codes were issed as follows:

ZU501G (all formerly ZU501A) 993723/34/42/45-49/52/57/68/76/93; 993828/30/32/33/57/92; 993905

ZU501H (previously ZU501F) 993800

ZU501J (previously ZU501E) 993939

All these ballast ploughs therefore became TOPS code ZUW.  Further changes gradually took place into the 1990s, viz

993823/842 to ZUA (air brake only)

993715/18/27/38/77/95, 806/07/26/40/73/76/82, 902/08/14/19/22/24/28/29 to ZUB (air braked vacuum piped) and

993719/22/40/60/62/64/86/90/91, 817/27/34/36/45/46/50/54/84, 918/27/37 to ZUW (vacuum braked / air piped)

Many of these also went to the West Coast Main Line and the Midland Main Line.

There isn't any mention of where they were marshalled in the train, so I can't help with that part of your query.

Regards

David

.

On seeing the top image, my thought was an RNA barrier wagon as used with the FNA nuclear flask carriers (ie ex HEA with the body removed).  No idea about the other two.

Regards

David

I have emailed you with the intention of joining the long list waiting for a kit, now I must get a couple of cheaper kits to practice on.

I think I also need something cheaper to practise on.  Any ideas?

Regards

David

Hi Dave,

 

 

 I'd like to see some cranes appear in any of the three scales, a YOB 12 ton crane would be great. 

 

 Plasser & Theurer Tamper?

Dave,

I'll second these.  Any modern departmental stock would be welcome, but what I would really like is a rake of 'Salmon' track panel carriers.  Given their long lifespan, I would have though that they would be viable.  My vote would obviously be for an air braked version.

Thanks for asking.

Regards

David

Edit: I should have said my request would be for 4mm scale models.

...

76FTC001 Ford Transit Connect Royal Mail 1:76

...

Can anyone confirm that this will be the original version of the Transit Connect released in 2002 rather than the current 2nd generation model released last year?  I ask because unfortunately most of the new Jaguar Land Rover models are the latest models, which make them slightly too new for my purposes.

Looking at the line drawing on Hatton's website, it looks like the earlier version to me.  Assuming it is, I'll find a place for one of these.

Regards

David

Jonathan,

I'd be interested in one of these, although there are a few points that I'd like to clarify before committing to purchase one.

If I'm correct, the prototypes entered service around 2001 (which places it within my time frame).  I'm assuming that they also operate in Scotland.

You stated in post 1 that the kit will cost £120: are the transfers that you indicated would be produced included within that price or an extra?  You also state that the kit is designed to accomodate a pair of black beetle motors (one powered and one unpowered).  Given that they would seem to cost £43.82 and £15.13 respectively from DC Kits, these are obviously not included within the kit and therefore need to be purchased separately.  Apart from paint, solder, glue etc, is there anything else that would be needed to complete the kit?

Finally, have you any idea how long it would take a professional kit builder to construct the kit?  I'm not sure that I'll be up to building the said kit and therefore that would be another cost that would need to be factored into any decision with regards purchasing one of these machines.

Regards

David

I snapped DR79274 & DR79264 at Clapham Junction in December 2006 and I do fancy a kit!

 

IMG01679.jpg

I assume that means that there are five of these on the UK network with 79261-79265 paired up with 79271-79275.  Since they seem to have been introduced in 2003, that means that one would fit my time period nicely.

I'm not so keen on a kit: I'd rather it was ready to run, but I could be persuaded to have a go, depending on price.

Regards

David

Currently postponed due to the economic climate.  Sorry.  Charlie

Well I'm glad to hear that it's "postponed" rather than "cancelled".  It may still see the light of day before I get the track laid to run them on!

Regards

David

According to Eric Gent in his book "British Railway Brakevans and Ballast Ploughs", Olive Green was offically superceded in 1983.  Dutch livery was first applied to a Shark in 1983, but only to those vehicles passing through Doncaster Wagon Works.  Other repair depots appear to have continued to use remaining stocks of olive or black.  Within five years, approximately 70 ballast ploughs received this colour scheme and ultimately 92 are known to have received this livery (although to some, Dutch livery may have been applied as late as the onset of shadow privatisation).

I don't know which ones were repainted when, although there is a photograph of ZUV DB993927 at Toton on 16th April 1984 carrying Dutch livery.

On that basis, I see no reason why you could not operate a black, olive or Dutch shark with your bauxite and olive sealions, although black would have been very rare after 1984.  993767 apparently went from Black to Dutch in 1984 and was among the last survivors in Black.

You are correct in that sealions were dual braked (air and AFI vacuum brakes).

Regards

David

The new tooled Hornby and Lima models represent vehicles built at different times, which had different bogies.  The Lima model (and also the Bachmann model) represent the batch built from 1971, which had riveted construction and were mounted on Gloucester bogies.  The newly tooled Hornby model represents the later variants, which entered service from 1981.  These are welded construction and are mounted on Y27 bogies. 

I'm not an expert on bogies, but I understand that the bogies under the Lima model are actually a European prototype, which have a passing resemblance to the Gloucester type rather than actually being the correct type.  As far as I am aware the Y27 bogies on the newly tooled Hornby model are of the correct pattern for the welded versions, as are the Gloucester type under the Bachmann model.  I'm not sure about the bogies under Hornby's reissue of the former Lima model: I don't know if Hornby corrected them or continue to use the incorrect Lima bogies.

References to Sealion and Seacow refer to the braking not the build dates.  Sealions were dual braked (air and AFI vacuum) whereas Seacows are air braked only (although originally built with a through vacuum pipe).  The article at http://www.ltsv.com/w_profile_012.php may be of interest.

Regards

David

Mike,

According to the Hornby Website 3rd radius is 505 mm; 4th radius is 572 mm.  I believe that these figures relate to the centre-line of the track.

Regards

David

Roger,

Thanks for that.  I guess that I wont be adding one of these to my wish list then, as trips north of the border must have been very rare.  I've only found one reference to 960011 making it into Scotland in 2001 /02 on a video survey. 

(see http://www.scot-rail.co.uk/page/Class+122 - half way down the page, "A former Class 121 Pressed Steel single-car 960011 (vehicle 977859) in Railtrack livery visited Scotland in 2001 and 2002, while in use as a video survey unit.")

Since Wikipedia indicates that the two Network Rail Yellow versions went into store in December 2007, my best excuse for buying one of these would probably be to imagine instead of being stored, they were transferred north of the border, although I'm not sure why.  By then, I think all sandite duties would be covered by a MPV and video surveys would be undertaken by the class 950.

Regards

David

Having notices that both Hattons and Kernow have commissioned various departmental versions of these units (class 960) suitable for the Railtrack / Network Rail era, I was wondering if anyone can advise as to how extensive their geographical operation was in the recent past.  I'm assuming that since they seem to have been based at Aylesbury, they have primarily been used for sandite / route learning / video survey duties in the south of England, in which case justifying one on a Scottish layout in 2007 would be difficult?

Regards

David

- but Vauxhall Corsa is a vague description - which one?

That's what I thought too.  Both the Corsa B (1993 - 2000) and Corsa C (2000 - 2006) are are high on my wish list and therefore I would happily buy several of either, but the current Corsa D (produced since 2006) is a little too modern (although I could justify one). Unfortunately, I can't find any details elsewhere to confirm, so I will just have to wait and see what turns up unless Oxford become more specific when they update their website.

Interestingly an earlier version of Globe indicated 50 new sets of tooling, and I don't think that many new models have been announced, so hopefully there is more to come: a Ford Focus Mk I remains top of my wish list for now.

Regards

David

Dapol Dave,

Thanks for sharing this update with us. Whilst I'm disappointed at the length of the delay indicated, at least I now know that I wont be getting a blue / grey MRA set for Christmas!

Seriously, I would much rather know that I have to wait until May 2013 rather than constantly wonder whether they may be arriving on these shores next week or the week after. Information is definately better than no information, even if the news is not what I wanted to hear: at least I can plan what I will purchase in the meantime.

Thanks

David

Obviously it's not looking like an October delivery date for the Network Rail branded Blue / Grey sets. Hopefully they will make an appearance early next month.

Out of interest, when did Network Rail start overbranding former Railtrack stock with their own logo?

Regards

David

I sympathise with kit manuafcturers who having invested in tooling for a kit, need to generate sufficient sales to cover their investment costs, generate a profit and hopefully a continuing income stream from that investment. However, I can't agree with the sentiment that if there is already a kit available none of the ready to run manufacturers should make a ready to run model available. It may be true that some modellers enjoy building kits, but personally, like many others, I'd much rather have a ready to run version. I've tried a few plastic kits, but have never been happy with the results. I'd much rather spend my time operating trains and if I have to spend time 'constructing' something, then it has to be baseboards, track, wiring etc, that are not so easy to produce in a ready to run format! I don't have enough time to also construct locomotives, wagons etc.

As for an earlier suggestion that kit makers should concentrate on prototypes that are unlikely to be produced ready to run, I can appreciate that kit designers and retailers need big sellers: I think the suggestion is that concentrating on models that are unlikely to be available ready to run reduces the risk to a kit manufacturer that the economics of a major tooling investment is suddenly changed adversely because a major manufacturer has announced a ready to run model. Therein lies the problem though: it may mean that no-one is likely to compete with the obscure kit, but it also means that the sales will be lower, the income stream will be much slower and therefore it will take considerably longer to cover the tooling investment costs. This means that more capital is tied up in the business and the return on that capital is lower.

As for the 'sharks', I'd have thought that comments on CAD drawings would have been helpful. Surely it is cheaper to have criticism before the model progresses to the tooling stage rather than when the model is actually released, reviews are critical and sales are impacted? I'm sure that much of the criticism is intended to be helpful and you can always choose to ignore it.

To return to topic, thanks Dave for updating us on when to expect these Turbots. They don't exactly fit my time period and I'd never buy a kit, but I could be tempted by a few ready to run versions.

Regards

David