Dungrange

Jakub / LCUT, Another quick question on your brick over bridge (LCC B 00-22). I understand that the road over width can be reduced by replacing part LCC 00-89 with part LCC 00-78. Can you confirm whether part LCC 00-89 is exactly twice the length of part LCC 00-78 as I can't see dimensions on your website? This may seem a strange question, but I am contemplating using one of the bridges across a baseboard join by constructing half of the bridge on one baseboard and half on the other. I'm also looking at the Country railway station (LCC B 00-00). Do you produce parts to create internal walls? Although they may not be required for strength, I am contemplating internal lighting and would prefer if only parts of the building were lit, which cuts down on the amount of internal detailing. If not, I'm sure some from of plasticard interior can be created.

I understand that this kit was produced to create a Departmental Class 950 set using the original Bachmann 150/1 units. Since then, I am aware that Bachmann retooled the chassis block on these models to make the motor less intrusive but I assume that the body shell was unchanged during this upgrade. As such, I'm looking for confirmation that this kit is still suitable for converting one of the current Class 150/1 release models? Also, are there any benefits in using the newer Bachmann model over the previous release, or do the plated over window panels on this unit help to diguise the previous motor?

Jakub / LCUT, I notice what is described as a brick overbridge on your website (LCC B 00-22). Can you confirm whether this is a road over rail or rail over road bridge? Also, do you produce the parts suitable to create a culvert headwall and wingwalls? I am thinking of a large pipe culvert under a rail line. I am assuming that the wingwalls could be fabricated from the brick overbridge wingwalls highlighted above, but am less sure about the headwall. With regards the comment earlier that some of the bricks chip off quite easily, is this something that is solved by varnishing the assembled building / structure? Finally, any chance you could add your website address to your signature strip as a hyperlink?

I was also interested in this announcement, although I was unaware of quite how large these machines actually are. The same engineering prototype was also on display at Model Rail Scotland this weekend and at first I thought it must be 1:43! It's a bit too large to sit on a railway wagon, as the caterpillar tracks are quite far apart. However, speaking to the Oxford Diecast representative, it appears that this is the start of a new range and they intend to make some smaller and possibly some larger construction plant in the future. I may therefore be buying a few items from this range over the next few years.

I spoke to the Flangeway representative at Model Rail Scotland earlier today and he confirmed that they do intend to produce various versions of the Salmon. There is no release date as yet because the project is still at the CAD approval stage, so the tooling has not yet been cut. Until then they don't intend to announce an expected release date (this is possibly why there is nothing on their website and limited information in the press). Their intention is apparently to produce models with the original short wheelbase bogies, the longer bogies and the newer / current bogies, probably in that order and a crane version is also likely to be produced. It sounds like there will be a version to suit everyone who wants a few Salmon on their layout. I just need to start saving for a rake. Regards David

Thanks Andy. I'll still try to find out what variants are likely to be produced. I'm primarily interested in the more recent air braked variants (YSA and YWA), but I'm sure that others will prefer the older YMA or even older YMO variants. Hopefully Flangeway will get around to producing all over the next few years. Regards David

I'd not heard of this, but if it's true, I'll be buying a few. It's been on my wish list for a few years. I note that Footplate are attending Model Rail Scotland this weekend, so I'll try to find the time to ask them if this is true. Regards David

Thanks Pete, Having contacted Mozzer Models, it would appear that a ready-to-run cost is potentially in the region of £500. That is around £225 for parts (as per your post #104) and an indicative ball-park build and paint cost in the region of £265. Obviously the price would be higher if lighting and DCC or DCC sound is required (both in terms of parts and fitment). It's a lot of money, so I just need to decide if that is affordable. It certainly looks like a nice model. Shame I won't be at Doncaster to have a look at Summat Colliery. Regards David

Pete, Can you let me know how much it would cost to have the kit built by someone who can actually solder well? I may be tempted to put in a pre-order? Regards David

It also appears under the 2010 era (ie current day). Nice to know that I shouldn't be considering a Bofors gun as a wagon load!

The link to the Dapol website that Newbryford posted #209 states "Due to a the incorrect deco spec being approved early in the year, the recently delivered Railtrack Blue/Grey MRA's have some innacuracies (can you spot them!)" Since I don't know what the issue is (and ignorance is bliss), I decided to buy a set a few months back. I still don't know what the issue is, but I haven't seen many of the prototypes up close enough to be truly knowlegable on the various liveries. I don't even know when they were overstickered with Network Rail logos.

Britannia Pacific already produce a model of the 07-16. It used to be available as a kit (and possibly still is), but the link below is to the ready to run version. http://www.britanniapacific.co.uk/TAMPER.htm

Dave, Any timescale for a potential announcement regarding the 'aquatic ones'. I could be very interested, particularly if it were a 'salmon'. I didn't know that Dave ever produced a Tamper. Was this a kit or ready to run and what brand was it marketed under? I'd also welcome track machines or any other on track plant: even if that won't be in your next announcement of production. Regards David

I'll hopefully be there, although I'm not sure which day. The Perth show is usually a good one and it will be nice to see some of the wagons showcased on this thread. Regards David

Apart from the 1990s which are not well represented in their range. There is a complete absence of cars from the early 1990s into the mid noughties. Regards David

That would be my interpretation, but I'm only guessing. I'm assuming when they need to be lifted off the wagon, it is the sleepers that need to be lifted rather than the rail as the weight of concrete sleepers would probably break the clips if the rails alone were grabbed. Regards David

Hi, I assume that all of these have now been withdrawn from mainline service and the only surving examples are on preservation lines? If so, I can't really justify one on a 21st century layout. Regards David

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

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

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 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