47137

I was having a bit of a clear out and found my cake box entry from a few years ago. Pondered should I dismantle it to re-use the models or put the whole thing on display somehow. Well, I splashed out on a custom-made cover from LasAcryl Limited, they are at http://www.acrylicdisplaycases.co.uk. So I can put the model out on display at home, and possibly get it to the occasional show:

My cover is 3 mm thick acrylic, LasAcryl do a 5 mm option but the 3 mm is probably right for a smallish case like this. I specified custom dimensions to give me about 0.5 to 1mm clear all round the base of my model (there is an error in the squareness of my base) but the cover arrived about another mm bigger width and depth and it drops over the model without the gap being too obvious.

The cover seemed a bit of an extravagance when I ordered it (£48 including the delivery) but seems worthwhile now it has arrived. It is very well made. The cost ought to reduce if you could team up with friends or members of a club and put more than one cover on an order. I went for the ten day manufacturing and delivery option and the cover arrived after three days.

To my mind acrylic looks better than glass and the 90 degree bends happen to work with the style I aimed for in my model. I am sure there will be alternatives out there ... I found ready-made 8 inch cubes online but nothing 8 inches square but a bit shorter from top to bottom.

- Richard.

On 31/01/2020 at 19:11, Allegheny1600 said:

He also does a BR class 04 diesel shunter too!

https://i.materialise.com/en/shop/item/british-rail-class-04-ho-sclae?query=1%3A87&category=all-categories&sortBy=interesting&pageNumber=4&pageSize=18&index=5

 

It looks as though this had a local Tasmanian equal so perhaps that is how he got into British outline. I'm certainly grateful to him as the I-materialise product looks vastly superior to the Shapeways "crusty" stuff!

I am having a tidy-up and found this:

I stored the print in the bottom of a cupboard, the central heating pipes are about six inches below  the location though separated by the flooring (chipboard) and the Ikea Kallax holding everything.

Well, I'm glad it wasn't a finished model.

The tidy-up has become a major rearrangement of stuff in the hobby room so bulk scenic materials are near the floor and models are higher up. The room needed a clear out anyway!

- Richard.

On 12/10/2021 at 11:58, Allegheny1600 said:

Hi Richard,

 I had a problem with a Parkside mineral wagon kit that I built once. I’m still not sure how it happened but this particular wagon ended up being twisted across the chassis and would have definitely derailed had I run it.

My (long term) solution was to raise the low axle boxes by a couple of millimetres, weight the interior of the body considerably (probably using coins) and leave it on a bedroom window sill for several months! It was a location that wasn’t susceptible to much sunshine, I hasten to add.

Some time later, I tried it and it was perfect. It was a good job I could afford the time to do this as it’s a very slow solution.

 

So, if you wanted to emulate this, packing the interior of your wagon with appropriately sized coffee stirrers and making a temporary removable load to cover the sticks, could give you the solution you need, whilst keeping the wagon in service.

 I like the idea of building in some bodywork sagging though.

Cheers,

John

I have left the model untouched for a fortnight, and the long sides have stayed put. So what I have done now, is simply make a lift-out coal load, this is built up on a rectangle of ply sitting on a block of wood so pressing either end makes it tip to lift it out. The ply is about half a mm undersize all round but this doesn't show up unless you look for it.

A friend suggested the bowed sides were because the model had sat in a shipping container in the Suez Canal ... I think unlikely; the models are made in Chirk. I do think, the curvature is in the nature of moulding such a large part in one piece; and now I know how to put it right.

Here is a second photo to show how good these Dapol models are. This one is factory weathered, I have added a little more grime to tone in the fronts of the wheels but I still need to do something about the inside.

It's nice to see such lovely models made in Britain.

- Richard.

On 18/10/2021 at 20:35, Nearholmer said:

You might want to look at the Brill Tramway, and/or consider the possibility that the highway authority could be persuaded to allow your railway to cross the highway without having a stautory right to do so. The latter did happen, again most commonly on industrial railways, and since what you are talking about is only a siding, it oughn't to interfere too much with road traffic.

 

I'd have your chaps steer well clear of the Tramways Act of 1870 if I were you, because that was even more costly and annoying to comply with than the LR provisions of the 1868 RoR Act.

I need to do a site survey and work out whether my railway could go under the public road instead of across it ... this might need a bridge with a limited height clearance and this could look quite good on a model - a box van squeezing through, the loco with no cab and the crew almost ducking their heads.

- Richard.

3 hours ago, fezza said:

From memory I think the "eight ton per pair of wheels" maximum weight restriction in the 1868 Act was a problem given the locomotive technology at the time - and the BoT could demand a lower limit if it warranted. To put it in perspective even the Hawthorne Leslie 2-4-0t of c1898 on the KESR was over 24 t. It basically limited operators to very lightweight contractors' locomotives - with all the inefficiencies that implied in districts where traffic was more significant.

Thanks for this.

From a purely personal point of view, I am in a happy place at the moment because I have a Minerva MW K class (19 tons) and this is well below the 8 ton/axle limit. This loco is barely longer than some modern cars, and I think I can find space to build a 7mm scale micro to run it with a suitably minimal train. But clearly, most other loco prototypes will be much larger and I may be backing myself into a corner and ruling out alternative motive power in the future.

- Richard.

The November 2021 issue of the Railway Modeller has most of 9 (nine) pages of coverage of British H0 topics. Just sayin' :-)

- Richard.

This really does give me a way to let my fictional railway happen around the end of the 1880s. I don't think the scheme would have been economically viable if it had needed to fund an Act before it began; but I do have two cooperative land owners ready to host the scheme.

My line would need to cross two roads - the branch line itself across a minor country lane; and an extended siding across a more important but unmade public road. I can deal with the country lane by explaining it is a private road through an estate, where the landowner lets the public use the road by grace and favour. The siding across the public road is more difficult, but the Tramways Act 1870 should help me. The local borough could grant a concession to the railway company to let them construct the track and maintain the road each side of the track.

Preparing the fictional history is becoming quite fun, though I am glad I am doing it this time before designing the layout.

- Richard.

9 hours ago, JohnR said:

My understanding is that an act of parliament was only required if Land had to be purchased. So, if all the landowners agreed, they could just apply for the licence and start building. 

 

But of course, that scenario was rare, and there were some additional benefits that meant that even then some lines sought an Act.

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

The 1868 Act required an individual Act to build the railway, plus license from the BoT to build and operate it as a LR.

Please, staying with the provisions of the 1868 Act, and supposing the promoters already owned the land ... did they  still need an individual Act of Parliament before obtaining their BoT license to build a light railway?

I realise the answer may be "it depends ..." but it would help me to understand what the 1868 Act achieved.

- Richard.

2 hours ago, Harlequin said:

There was a recent discussion about light railways here:

I did study this topic but I still couldn't understand how the 1868 Act worked.

At the root of this I was unsure whether the Licence granted by the Board of Trade was instead of an applicable Act of Parliament, or in addition to it. As far as I can see (and thanks to everyone above) the railway company still needed to obtain its Act of Parliament, and logically this would have to happen before the Licence.

Re-reading clause 27, a Licence could be retrospective, for an existing railway:

The Board of Trade may by Licence authorize a Company applying for it to construct and work or to work as a light Railway the whole or any Part of a Railway which the Company has Power to construct or work.

I don't want to seem facetious, but I imagine the Board of Trade encountered a fair number of inadequately-built new railways or decaying existing ones, and enforced an axle limit or speed limit to let them begin or continue operations and get some income to put things right. So logically, the 1868 Act provided a formalised process to allow reduced standards of construction. These could be standards of signalling as well as track. A railway company promoting a new line could save money on construction but still had the expense of getting its Act.

I am also at risk of misunderstanding the second part of clause 27:

Before granting the Licence the Board of Trade shall cause due Notice of the Application to be given, and shall consider all Objections and Representations received by them, and shall make such Inquiry as they think necessary.

I think, the Notice of Application here is a notice from the railway company served on the Board of Trade. Not (say) published in the London Gazette or the local press. This would explain why I cannot find examples of these Notices online.

I will try some searches for the railways everyone has mentioned in the replies above.

- Richard.

Modelbahn Union are listing some MG TC roadsters by Busch:

https://www.modellbahnunion.com/HO-OO-gauge/HO-car-MG-Midget-TC-Cabrio.htm?shop=dm-toys-en&SessionId=&a=article&ProdNr=Busch-45916&p=802

My Dad had one of these :-)

From my limited knowledge of MGs, I believe if we were to scrape away the ridge along the tops of the mudguards, these models could represent the earlier TA or TB.

Busch part numbers 45916 (blue) and 45917 (two-tone green)

- Richard.

I am struggling to get my head around the legal processes need to construct a light railway under the 1868 Regulation of the Railways Act. I mean, what a company needed to do to get permission to build a light railway using the 1868 Act, during the years before the more useful Act of 1896.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/119/contents/enacted

Clauses 27, 28 and 29.

Clearly, a railway built to suit the provisions of this Act was a lightweight affair, with an axle limit of 8 tons. Perhaps this dissuaded many projects. Perhaps also, some small projects found it easier (though not necessarily 'easy') to use the Tramways Act of 1870, even if they were on alignments entirely away from public roads.

I have an idea for a 'might have been' scheme, where the railway really needs to open around 1889-1890 to fit in with local history. Also, this would give me opportunities to include some older wagons without dominating the scene with RCH 1887 types.

I suspect I would find my investigations easier if I knew of examples of light railways built under the Acts of 1868 or 1870; and perhaps a discussion is possible based on such examples that exist ... I would welcome relevant ideas and pointers.

(Hopefully, this is a fair way to try to begin a discussion without seeming to merely ask a question, which is tempting but limiting)

- Richard.

On 24/09/2021 at 09:11, doilum said:

My guess is that he got his hands on the old order book. There may well be some export orders that didn't make it to the original intended destination.

I have an idea.

Suppose the firm T A Walker (who did much work for the Manchester Ship Canal) won the contract to build my imaginary railway. They brought with them their K class works number 1032, a standard gauge locomotive built in 1888 for export to Buenos Aires, and completed the works in 1889. The locomotive remained and worked the line until closure in 1912. The same contractor returned to dismantle the railway and took away the locomotive. The locomotive was renamed 'Thornton' and exported, as recorded in the works list.

The works list stays correct and the only fictional part is a 23-year hiatus before the locomotive was exported. I haven't found any photos of Thornton, but if it looks markedly different to my own K class then I can only imagine some rebuilding happened after export.

I think this will satisfy me, it is the best way I can think of to work a fiction into history.

- Richard.

44 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

The problem is they normally bowed out due to the loads rather than bowing in like many model wagons do.

 

Even steel minerals had the problem. Usually down to overloading.

 

 

Jason

Yes.

I discovered, if I try to be too clever and have the long sides bowed outwards a little, then the short ends start to bend inwards and this looks even worse.

This does get me thinking about the next wagon I build from a kit, a smidgen of styrene or filler at each corner would let the long sides bow outwards without upsetting the ends. And it is easier to have a bow (in the right direction) than a perfect straight edge.

- Richard.

9 hours ago, cypherman said:

Hi,

Here is a couple of tips I was given a few years ago.

1/ Cut a block of balsawood or similar to the correct size. Push it in so that it pushes out the wagon sides to the correct position. Go over the wagon sides with a heat gun so the sides soften and relax to the original position. Allow to cool and the sides should be straight.

2/ Initially similar to the first method. Cut and fit a block of balsa etc. Put body in a bowl of hot water which should be hot enough to relax the sides to their correct position. The poor cold water in to set the wagons sides.

I have yet to try either method and I would advise caution with the amount of heat/hot water used. especially hot water as you do not want to scald your hand getting the wagon out.

I have success with a variation of method 2/.

I jammed two blocks of softwood into the wagon, together about half a millimetre wider than what was wanted. Then three goes, progressively hotter water for longer periods until anything happened. I ended up soaking the model in near-boiling water for a full five minutes, then quenched in cold water and dried off with the blow gun. I left the model overnight and I now have one perfectly straight side and one side with a slight inward bow but I can live with this. Good.

The wood makes the wagon very buoyant so a kitchen weight to hold it into the water.

The printing and weathering is unchanged. The end hinge on the inside fell off but I have tacked this back into place.

Regarding the heat gun I have always found this a viscous thing. I expect it would work in the right hands and not leave me with a Salvador Dali take on the model :-)

Many thanks.

- Richard.

21 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Or you could shove the straightening pieces into the wagon and just leave them there, hiding it with a coal load.

Yes I could, but I suspect the load would become permanent. I really would like to add a load and make it removable (I really should have mentioned this) so this would be my last-ditch solution.

- Richard.

I have just received a Dapol wagon for 0 gauge, bought by mail order. The sides of the body are curving inwards, not by much but just enough to look really awkward. The curvature is about 0.5 mm each side.

I am wondering, suppose I push the sides outwards and flat with some pieces of wood jammed into the model and dunk the body of the model into some very hot water, would this straighten things up? And importantly, would the factory weathering and factory finish survive?

I know I could send the model back for exchange or refund, and maybe this is what I ought to do, but it would be more satisfying to fix it if I can.

- Richard.

There was a brief discussion of the Heljan model here, in 2016:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/72723-Heljan-class-66/&do=findComment&comment=2524838

I remember I could find AC 3-rail versions on eBay, but not 2-rail ones. I have never seen one of either.

For comparison, the ESU model supports both power systems. You pull off the collector shoes and a microswitch inside sorts out the rest of the conversion. The body shell is die-cast and the DCC sound is pretty Carlos Fandango, you get flange squeal when the optics detect point blades and station platform announcements and just about everything. Performance is first class. The model came with "standard" wheels with quite deep flanges and some traction tyres. I sent off to ESU for a free pack of RP-25 profile wheels, but sadly failed to work out how to install them when they arrived.

- Richard.

This topic has encouraged me to ascend to the loft, remove two empty boxes and put two more away.

00 boxes in an empty shredder box, H0 boxes on the plastic shelves, pink sheet makes a dust cover. Better organised than the hobby room really:

I do keep my boxes because I have got to keep my collections under control and I have so many locos especially now I have a one in, one out rule. The boxes make them complete when they have to go.

But my conclusion has got to be, don't ever let anyone tell you there is no commercial support for the British outline in H0!

- Richard.

We have this thread:

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/5758-good-buy-from-ebay/

Yes there are loads of decent sellers on eBay - this is where I buy many bits and pieces.

- Richard.

I have trains running on Unitrack along the baseboard, this is long overdue for my layout as a whole.

My current thinking is to use Wellwood to represent the coastal mud flats I ran out of space for on "Shelf Marshes". I could put these and a sea wall along the right-hand part of the new baseboard (the narrowest part).

Then an occupation crossing (marked by the van) and a private road to the oil depot I also ran out of space for:

Nothing terribly special here. This board for use at home, I don't need to hide the exits of the track at the ends, but another ID Backscenes backdrop would be good. On a taller board.

Just something pleasant to watch the trains pass through.

- Richard.

5 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

No one forces you to use all the WoR stuff, so you could sign up for Gold and just ignore it. 

 

If you mean "Can I have a cheaper Gold membership" then that's a different product, which is what is being worked on. 

I want to see the RMweb survive (and not collapse under the weight of its popularity) but I thoroughly dislike advertisements. I have only ever had one "subscription TV service" (I don't like TV much either!) and this is for YouTube, to cut out their advertisements.

I would be happy to pay my £50/year for RMweb to host my blog. I want to put it somewhere, I don't have the skill set to use a Pi and my ISP would want about £50 for their entry-level hosting package. Using RMweb lets me integrate my blog with related topics and searches and you do the indexing for search engines too. I would be happy for you to limit me to (say) 200kB per image and one entry a week too.

I can lose the WoR stuff - I logged onto Exact Editions a week ago so you can see how often I look at it.

- Richard.

5 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

This is going to turn into one of those great philosophical debates held around a bonfire in the middle of nowhere at three o'clock in the morning by a group of people so drunk that any great epiphanies will be forgotten by breakfast time.

 

I've been to a few of those...

 

Well if we browse eBay -> Collectables -> Model trains, they use "gauge" as the qualifier so we can probably relax here at any rate.

- Richard

20 minutes ago, Hroth said:

Surely OO merely implies 4mm/ft, as HO does 3.5mm/ft. 

 

Logically speaking, the correct way to describe the other 4mm related gauges would be to prefix them with "OO" to  clearly indicate that they are associated with the 4mm scale.

 

But yes, it would be handbags at dawn territory...

 

Supposing

0 means 32 mm gauge and 1:43, 1:45 or 1:48

H0 means 16.5 mm gauge and 1:87 or occasionally 1:82

N means 9 mm gauge and 1:148 or 1:160

and

00 means 16.5 mm gauge and 1:76 (ignoring the USA 19 mm version)

So 0, H0 and N all specify a gauge with a regional choice of scale.

If there is to be consistency 00 also specifies a gauge, but one where there is only one scale in use.

I cannot see a sensible derivation of the phrase "00 scale" but the RTR manufacturers like this for their boxes. Perhaps it conveys prestige. Also eBay. I call it 00 gauge instead of 00 so it doesn't sound like a paint brush.

- Richard.

Lovely models :-)

I wonder ... do you have a reason for choosing the Mehano model over (say) the ESU one as the base? I have one of each. Both are excellent runners but the ESU one is I feel better-engineered. For me, both are fine because with an end-to-end layout I am not going to be wearing them out.

- Richard.