whart57

The difference between now and ten years ago though is that we have LiPo batteries and kit from the likes of Deltang. Makes it a practical proposition. Unfortunately you still need to build the physical loco to put it in.

On 19/02/2020 at 12:41, Regularity said:

If, with your obvious expertise in the matter of BPRC, you could perhaps share with us the solution to the problem I mentioned about fitting aerials into metal bodied locos, I would be very appreciative of it.

Not so much expertise as still experimenting. My loco is a narrow gauge jobbie and my plan is to replace the safety valve pipe with plastic one and have the aerial go up the inside. I'm also trying radio control inside a 4mm scale bus. That is stuck on sorting out the steering at the moment - Faller spares are no good because they are too narrow and the wheels are too small. It has been suggested to me that the fact a bus is mostly window above the waist line means the aerial should work if placed in that space. When I get to the stage of fitting the body that will no doubt be tested. Neither solution is suitable for the sort of locos you have though.

Regarding the photo showing clean track in sidings, I'd be wary of that conclusion. Top surfaces show up lighter in photographs, especially black and white photographs. This topic usually arises when debating how white carriage roofs were in pre-Group times, but rarely reaches a conclusion

A thought here. What about converting the locos to run off battery by radio control? If the locos don't need clean track then the sidings and the rest can be given a good rust colouring which I presume they had. I wonder if the BCR mainline was as shiny as the model has to be for electrical connectivity as well. I'm experimenting with this stuff for buses and on a 1:32 scale narrow gauge engine I'm building.

21 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

This sounds right out of the loony fringe.  Why dam the English Channel; at its widest point and not its narrowest point?  Why cut off from the sea virtually every major port in Western Europe. even if lovcks were provided they have to be some pretty massive locks to take 200,000 ton ships.

 

And as a lot of coastal erosion is not just related to tides but to winds as well and storms will still occur then however many dams are built it won't stop a lot of coastal erosion.  i think the bloke is not exactly of a practical turn of mind.

Look at the context. The Netherlands has over 15 million people living in towns and cities that would be inundated if sea levels rise to the height predicted for the 22nd and 23rd centuries, and it's not just the Netherlands, London would go too as would much of Germany's Rhineland and most of Denmark. The Dutch already have plans to prepare for a 40cm rise in sea levels, but that would not be enough. This engineer is making the point that these dams would be cheaper than putting dams and dykes around every major city in NW Europe, and thus by extension, that trying to mitigate the effects of global warming is lunacy. The message is that it's time to do something about the root cause, not pretend we can engineer our way out of it.

I'm inclined to think the Scotland to Ireland bridge plan is nonsense, not least because of who first proposed it and in what context. Politicians making promises while on the campaign trail? Hmm, let me think about that.

However then I read of a Dutch engineer's ambitious plan to build two long dams, one from Cornwall to Brittany and one from Scotland to Norway. Said engineer does appear to have professional competence in this field and the Dutch do have credibility when it comes to major hydrological projects, but even so .........

This plan is different to Johnson's though. Johnson's was an off the wall political statement which is now costing us money to have people investigate its engineering feasibility. This Dutch engineer however has really produced these proposals for two massive dykes as an indication of the sort of thing that would need to be done to protect the Rhine/Meuse delta - and the Thames and Severn basins - from the predicted rise in sea levels. So instead of a politician dabbling in engineering we have an engineer contributing to a political debate.

On 06/02/2020 at 22:28, 03060 said:

The little Manning Wardle 'Bamburgh' is printed in SFD and is a fair bit smoother, it's a lovely little model but I've already managed to break off one set of steps which is why it's at an angle, should be easy to repair and strengthen though. This is not on the priority list for the moment and a bit of chassis planning will be required but I've already successfully built a couple of smaller locos (Y7 and a Peckett.

 

 

 

Bamburgh is a larger class of Manning Wardle than the I/K class ones on the Selsey Tramway. I'm not sure of the wheelbase of that but the I class wheelbase in 3mm scale is pretty damn close to a GWR Pannier in N. Might be worth a look. I have a N gauge Pannier from Dapol which would work but for the way the stub axles have been made. Longer stub axles would need to be 3D printed and I'm not sure I have the skill set for that. The Grafar pannier might be better

On 08/09/2010 at 09:17, Will Vale said:

Schaal Treinen Huis (Amsterdam) - brisk 45 minute walk from Centraal Station. Fair bit of second hand DC stuff, some quite old/ropey and to my mind a bit overpriced. Great selection of scratchbuilding materials.

 

 

Treinenhuis on the Bilderdijkstraat was gone when I tried to find it when in Amsterdam in 2018.

On 07/02/2020 at 18:21, Andy Reichert said:

 

This is the bit I don't understand. All standards, including the NMRA use the ""effective flange", which for better or worse, defines the flange width needed fit with proper clearances within the flange way.  The profile (for that standard and wheel size) either fits that or not, Once you have that determined, then the shape of the profile most on;y affects the possibility of rail climbing.

 

What am I missing?

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

The bit you are missing is that RP25 as was didn't define itself in that way. It defined itself as a set of radii, a fillet radius where the tread met the flange and then two radii for the top (or bottom) of the flange, one inside and one on the outside. What we found when trying to define a wheel profile for a turner who had no previous experience in making stuff for railway modellers is that if these radii were big enough to create an adequate flange depth the flange was too fat and if set for a maximum flange width the flange was not deep enough.

On 05/02/2020 at 19:27, Andy Reichert said:

 

I've been out of the NMRA for several years, so I'm not sure of the issue. Could you explain this a little more please.

 

TIA
Andy

It's quite arcane really, until you try to specify something for a non-railway modeller to make something.

The NMRA has standards for wheels and rail dimensions, and these are published on their website. It also has Recommended Practices or RPs which are also published. One of those RPs is RP25, which most of us will have heard of, which recommends a wheel profile. Now one might assume that the profile recommended by RP25 would fit the standards recommended elsewhere. And one would be wrong. The old RP25 described the profile in terms of radii at various points. The trouble is there were no dimensions that would fit both RP25 and the track and wheel standards. So clearly none of the manufacturers who stated their wheels were RP25 had checked.

How did this come about? Well I suspect it is because it is almost impossible to measure those radii without specialist equipment such as a shadow graph machine and until recently wheel manufacture used form tools to turn the profile. Then computer controlled lathes came along with the ability to shape metal accurately following a profile. Having tried to specify such a profile in terms of the parameters a computer requires I concluded it was impossible. And the NMRA revised RP25 shortly after though not through any action on my part.

9 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

What seems to be a much worse world wide problem is people not understanding wheel and track "standards" and altering them willy-nilly.

 

Andy

Not helped by the NMRA having proposed a wheel profile recommendation that proved impossible to manufacture to. RP25 has now been revised but the version that was up on their website for many years could not be made and still fit their own wheel standards. How many manufacturers described their wheels as RP25 during that period though.

On 01/02/2020 at 12:31, 47137 said:

On the first occasion, the model was the wrong scale. The designer disagreed with me, and I still had to pay Shapeways.

 

On the Shapeways site the overall dimensions of the item are given. Worth comparing that to what it should be

12 hours ago, The Evil Bus Driver said:

The bridge is still there (complete with road on it)  Or rather it was when I was last there.

It is but traffic no longer goes over it. The roundabout and lights are to serve the road going to Southwater Centre, something that reflects the fact that Southwater is a much larger place now than it was in 1964. I've always thought that were rails restored as far as Southwater and trains currently terminating at Horsham (currently the Thameslink trains to Peterborough) extended that far then the traffic would be there to justify it. I doubt it would justify the cost of rebuilding the line though.

On 28/01/2020 at 17:08, Ben B said:

 

And the whole process is stopped as soon as some nimby who bought a house backing onto the trackbed a few years ago, and who's extended their garden onto it and walks their dogs along it every night, makes out the proposed 4-sprinters-a-day branch line is going to be Clapham Junction and complains to their local paper, and writes to their MP...

 

What of the ones whose houses are actually on the former trackbed?

I happened to be walking along part of the Downslink footpath a few weeks ago (former Horsham - Guildford line) and noticed that the modern footpath keeps taking avoiding action to avoid buildings and businesses that weren't there fifty years ago. South of Horsham too, on the line to Shoreham, the former trackbed may well be a footpath, but that doesn't mean the track could simply be reinstated. At Southwater for example the road that formerly crossed the line by bridge now has a large roundabout at track level. There would need to be a lot of compensation paid out to reinstate these lines

4 minutes ago, Metropolitan H said:

Yes the skip wagons are a large capacity version in 1:43 - so capable of being more normal sized in 1:32 and the frames are set so that they can accomodate 3/4" gauge wheelsets (2ft gauge at 1/32)!

 

Regards

Chris H

That's good to know, thanks. Though in my case they will stay on 14mm gauge in order to represent 18" gauge.

Wim

Thanks for the information. My instructions are the ones you describe except that the diagrams 1-9 are on an A4 sheet.

I didn't realise Roy Link had made it purposely adaptable, I thought it was just pure luck and coincidence that it happened to be suitable. Are the skip wagons adaptable to 1:32 as well? I have some already made up.

Wim

That looks like the one, nicely done btw.

I have three questions really, though the first is straightforward.

1. It looks from the instructions that the valve gear is modeled in mid gear, i.e. the valve rod doesn't actually move. Is that the case?

2. The instructions are unclear about how the various links are joined together. I assume it is a brass pin loose on one piece and soldered to the other, but can you confirm?

3. Do you remember the order in which you assembled the piston rods and valve gear?

I am at the stage of having a chassis that runs freely with the connecting rods fitted so am looking to move on from there.

Wim

If so, can I ask if anyone has built a Roy Link Bagnall kit for 7mm narrow gauge? I have some questions regarding valve gear.

Though I am modifying the kit a little, stretching the funnel and making new cab sides so that it is to 1:32 scale on 14.2mm gauge track for 18" gauge. Believe it or not the 7mm scale Link kit of a 2' gauge Bagnall is in most dimensions correct for an 18" gauge version to 1:32 scale.

On 09/01/2020 at 01:34, LBRJ said:

 

But remember these were the days when the saying "better a third class ride than  a first class walk" actually was a real list of options.

And on the stage coaches the class differences were a seat inside, a seat on the roof or a ride in a carrier's cart. That's why no-one initially thought it shocking that third class passengers were attached to goods trains

On 06/01/2020 at 09:15, Hroth said:

In their 2020 range, Hornby have announced Rocket with three coaches....

 

 

 

When Triang - as it was - first released their Rocket they were constrained a lot by the fact motors smaller than the XT60 didn't exist. Presumably that is no longer a problem but the pic on the Hatton's web site (and on Hornby's) doesn't show any gear wheel on the driving axle. Does that mean its drive is via the trailing wheels?

The coaches look especially fine btw

14 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But not an in-with-the-pigs class.

Many third class coaches of the 1840s and 50s were fitted with drains for easier sloshing out though. Given that third class passengers were actually artisans or clerks this does give an idea of the mindset of the powers that be towards the lower orders

21 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Wagons too...

 

So we have Business Class and Executive class in the top train, Premium Economy and Economy in the second one. Plus ca change ......

On 06/01/2020 at 09:15, Hroth said:

In their 2020 range, Hornby have announced Rocket with three coaches....

 

 

 

Simon Kohler must have uncovered the old moulding tools

To say a kit was designed for Romford wheels is to open up a whole can of worms in 3mm scale. Originally Romford followed other manufacturers in offering products for the then new TT scale in the 1950s. Then when TT waned in popularity these wheels disappeared and people used small diameter OO scale wheels, as the TT gauge axles were still available. Later still Romfords disappeared and reappeared as Markits, one of whose products was a 16.5mm diameter wheel produced to 3mm Society specs and sold through the Society (though may also be available through 3SMR). This history means that "Romford wheels" covers a range of variations in number of spokes and crankpin throw.

Another issue with white metal kits and crankpin throw however is the basic one of white metal foot plates being vastly overscale in thickness. Even if the crankpin throw on the wheels is correct, the chances are with large wheeled locos - like 4-4-0s - that the coupling rods still foul the thick footplate. A bit of localised thinning is probably required.

If you are thinking of an airport then it might be worth seeing if you can find a copy of Issue 9 of Archive. This issue of the transport history journal appeared in 1996 and contains a piece on the earliest history of Gatwick airport and its "beehive" terminal. The "beehive" was Gatwick's passenger terminal from 1936 to 1958 so fits your period. It's also relatively small - about 12" diameter in 3mm scale (it's a circular building) - and like its successor South and North terminals had a connection with a railway station, albeit that the modern Gatwick Airport station is half a mile or so further North.

The Beehive still exists as an office building - not to be confused with the Wetherspoons pub inside the Gatwick terminals that has taken the name - so can be seen in real life, or through the many images posted on the internet. The Archive article has some drawings that could be used to inspire a model.