cp409067

* When not yet a teenager (by a few months) I was permitted to veture solo from my home in the London suburbs, and to traverse the Underground system in order to attend the Easter 1960 MRC exhibition. I recall seeing JNM - perhaps I knew it was he from a photograph previously published in MRN. My memory is of tall dignified gentleman with substantial moustache, and dressed in wing collar and tie, waistcoat, striped trousers, and black tail coat. I am saddened and surprised reading the above to learn this was shortly before his death at the age of only 68 years. CP

* Simon Agreed as to being characterful. However, if run as a single unit and (as most were) single ended, there is the problem of turning railcars in the situation of a terminal station that so many of us model. CP

* * Might I suggest that adding the post code of the venue would be a good idea? CP

* The body of the Trix-Twin 0-4-0T was (as I recall) fatter and somewhat more bulbous. CP

* Neil I very much like the look of the two VB locos. May we assume that in due course they will acquire cab steps? CP

* I am obliged for the most kind appreciation of "Portpyn" - it still exists. Over the years it has appeared at some 42 exhibitions (including twice in France, once in Utrecht, and once in Leipzig). The most recent was during 2016 in the UK. In the same 1:34 scale, "St Pierre et la Rue Perrin" has clocked up some 52 exhibitions including 5 cross-Channel appearances. The relevance to this discussion is that my experience attests to the attraction and convenience of the choice of this sort of scale/gauge combination. From the market for 1:32 and 1:35 scales there are figures and other items (animals, milk churns, vehicles, etc), whilst use of track, chassis, and locomotive mechanisms intended for "OO" or "HO" permit the whole thing to work. In addition there are items intended for "O" scale (either somewhat large or anyway looking "right") that can be used. I would also say that the resulting rolling stock has a pleasing bulk, is robust enough for repeated transport to and from exhibitions, and that a complete layout can be achieved for relatively modest cost. CP

+ Back in the last century - 1992 to be precise - I began building a layout ("Portpyn") in 1:34 scale (near as damn it 9mm/ft - *) using 16.5mm track (which scales 1ft 10ins). Whilst by no means finescale it was a very good experience and proved popular on the exhibition circuit. Not being especially skilled I found using 16.5mm track, wheel sets, and proprietary loco chassis very convenient. What also made it possible was the availability and adaptability of figures in 1:32 and 1:35 scales. The choice of 1:34 fell within that scale range and resulted in track that was a scale 2ins too narrow for British (nominal) 2ft gauge. For me that was an acceptable compromise. Later in the 1990s I built another representing 600mm gauge ("St Pierre et la Rue Perrin") in the same scale/gauge combination. This too proved successful with exhibition managers and their public. The size and bulk of the models was very satisfying, especially when compared with "O16.5". I would encourage anyone tempted to work in 1:34 (or the similar scales of 1:35 or 1:32) to go ahead. * It is my understanding that 9mm/ft scale was first used in New Zealand after WWII to facilitate the modelling of local 3ft 6ins gauge prototypes on 32mm track. CP

* If using DC buy Electrofrog points. They will be crucial for the smooth running of locomotives in general and especially of those with a short wheelbase. CP

* I speak from experience as follows. A couple of years ago I wanted a replacement bolt for these MiniTrix chassis. I will not be so bold as to state what size the threaded hole is, BUT I will say I found some bolts that fitted. They were not metric sized - BUT in fact 10BA. These are available from various suppliers including Eileen's (usual disclaimer). If the bolt is too long it can be shortened by sawing and then the thread at the new end re-established with a needle file. CP

* I would suggest the following which includes drawings to 1:43.5 scale. David Payling: Fairlie Locomotives of North Wales, The Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railways, 2017, Chapter X, pp. 97-117. CP

* Having (and since the two in 1:25 scale) built three layouts in "O9" I would also recommend that as a possibility. It of course has all the advantages of readily available 9mm gauge material. I have found that a small locos and short 4 wheel stock in "O9" will traverse curves of 145mm radii (the old EggerBahn setrack), and otherwise using standard Peco 12ins rad "OO9" pointwork and flex track work well. From this two options arise. (i) Very compact layouts can be built. (ii) In a resonable space considerable 7mm scale detail can be incorporated. However, based on my own experience and that of a friend, I would offer a warning - the charm of "O9" when representing 18ins gauge can be quite addictive. CP

* Having built two layouts in 1:25 scale on 16.5mm track (to represent 18ins gauge) I obviously opted for the easy (if undergauge) approach. That was some years ago in the 2000s, and at that time I felt the availability of suitable figures was a significant factor. I found that those theoretically sold as 1:22.5 and 1:24 could be modified for use in the slightly smaller scale of 1:25. However, this was before 3D printed figures became available. My understanding now would be that these can be printed in any scale if one is willing to pay the price. On that basis therefore, may I suggest you consider using a scale of 11mm to the foot - call it (say) 1:28 - and enjoying all the ease and ubiquity offered by 16.5mm track, wheelsets, chassis, etc? CP

* You would indeed think that George Hanan had used 5.5mm scale on 16.5mm track. However, in fact he used a scale of 5mm to the foot. Why this was the case puzzled me when I read the articles at the time they were published. I still do not know why Mr Hanan choose the scale he did. CP

* Speaking from personal experience - (i) over more than a quarter of a century, (ii) with my seven different relatively small layouts, (iii) at over two-hundred exhibitions, (iv) and covering more than three-hundred days - the answer is from the front every time. With display at a relatively high level, and an operating position to the side (in front of a fiddle yard) one has a similar view to that of the public. Discussion and the answering of questions are simply a matter of turning a little to the person - or indeed not turning if continuing to operate at that moment. It is also the case that the public enjoy seeing the operator at work, noting details of the timetable sequence, fiddle yard use, etc. For this reason the good design and presentation of the whole layout (including the said fiddle yard and operating space) are important. CP

* Please forgive the following digression. The second car I ever owned was a Renault Dauphine. I bought it second hand and should have known better. A few years earlier my father had also owned one and attempted to tame it by placing a large concrete block in the boot (= just behind the headlights and ahead of the front wheels). This was in the mid-1960s. I replaced it after a couple of years with one of the earliest Reanault 4 models to be imported into the UK. I was its 6th owner. On a good day it had 6 volt electrics and a 3 speed gearbox. It was eccentric with canvas slung across metal tubing deck chair style seats. In the late 1960s I drove it to Spain (Catalonia) thinking that if it broke down in France it could easily be repaired. It did indeed break down - at Sittingbourne in Kent en route to the Channel Ferry at Dover. However, after a repairs on an August Bank Holiday Saturday morning it made it all the way to Catalonia and a couple of weeks later back to the UK. A few months after that the canvas seat split under my backside as I was driving up a steep hill in Hampstead. A temproary repair involving a substantial leather luggage strap solved that problem. I remember that Renault 4 with great affection: motoring that was cheap, cheerful, unhurried and very relaxed. CP

* May I ask if you would please be kind enough to explain this statement? CP

* I recall in the past styrene strip that seemed to have been chopped on a guilotine so that what should have been in section rectangular was a parallelogram. I have used Evergreen strip for many years and would recommend it as not suffering from the problem. CP

* This plan is that of Andrew Knights "Yarmouth Quay" layout. It appeared (Railway Modeller, June 1988, p.275) as part of an article that had the sub-heading - "A real 'minimum-space' railway designed for 4mm scale." CP

* There were three Don Townsley Hunslet Quarry Locomotive articles as follows. "0-4-0ST Jerry M", MRN, September 1966 p.416. "0-4-0ST VELINHELI", MRN, November 1966, p.504. "0-4-0ST No 2", MRN, March 1967, pp.138-140. I think I am correct in saying that "Michael" was like No 2. CP

* If some sort of visual uniformity and compatibility is desired I would offer the following advice. You might be inclined to think that RTR items from Peco will look "right" together. As you have specifically mentioned the GVT you might be considering the carriages. They are delightful models whether in prototype or freelance liveries. The same might be said of the L&B 4 wheel vans. However, put the two together and in my opinion they look odd. The reason is simple. The prototype L&B vans are physically quite small as are the models. The result is that when the van is placed next to a GVT carriage the latter is noticeably taller and wider (and incidentally longer). CP

* I very much agree about Sculptamold. It is three years ago that I first used it. Not only is it lightweight, but is very clean in the mixing with minimal dust given off. It does take a few days to fully dry, at which time I found it could be drilled for the "planting" of trees. CP

* The idea of this alternative form of uncoupling ramp for tension locks has been around for more than half a century. CP

* I am afraid this is incorrect. 1:35 scale is 8.71mm/ft. 16.5mm track therefore scales 22.73ins. Translation: it is not far off being reasonably accurate for modelling nominal 2ft gauge (inc 1ft 11.5 ins and 600mm). [Figures above to 2 places of decimals.] CP

* As I understand it, sadly the KATO Unitrack very sharp radius points are not live frog. Larger radius are. CP

* "Sutton Wharf" - 1:25 scale on 16.5mm track representing (inaccurately) 18ins gauge. See here 12.50- 15.20. CP