sub39h

I'd like to know this too. I have 3 rakes of Lima Mk3s that need correcting. To the OP - your work is stunning. I particularly like your TEAs. When mine head to my weatherer I hope you won't mind if I give him photos of yours for inspiration.

I returned to the hobby when I'd been dating my girlfriend (now fiancee) for about a year. Despite not being into southern electrics even slightly it was the Brighton Belle that got the ball rolling and now the bug has well and truly bitten (though I have returned to my old passion of ECML c1990 and BB will probably end up for display). I have spent a considerable amount on stock since, and layout in the planning stages. We don't live together because of work commitments, so thus far I have kept it well hidden. She knows that I take an interest in engineering endeavour and she knows I want a big layout when I have more time and space. Whether I get granted that space is yet to be seen!

In the last year and a bit since I've returned to the hobby I've been to three shows, and watched numerous videos online as well as reading the write ups on here. There are really a lot of fantastic layouts that I've seen and it is difficult to shortlist three, but if I were forced I would say the top three would be (in no particular order): Glendower (featured in BRM but I came to know of it via YouTube) Everard Junction (of YouTube fame) Dorehill St. Stevens (seen at Warley 2013 Special mention would go to Everard Junction and Glebe Road Junction for their helpful instructional videos. Other layouts worth a mention that I've seen would be the under construction Rayvenscliffe (RMWeb), Gresley Beat (seen at Woking 2013) and Gainsborough MRCs ECML recreation (YouTube). Five Elms (YouTube) is a very much up and coming layout that is worth a watch as well. Eastwood Town is another that I am keeping an eye on. My time at university in Birmingham means P4 New Street is a bit of a blast from the past (albeit though it is set in the 80s when I graduated in 2010). The quality of Jim's work in capturing the atmosphere is phenomenal. All inspire me due to the sheer level of skill and volume of work as all are sizeable layouts. I am more modern image than steam which explains Everard Junction, Glebe Road Junction, Five Elms and P4NS but as a Leeds boy ECML is close to my heart and to me when I think of "railway" it is hard to not make a quick association to Flying Scotsman and Mallard - two of the most famous locomotives ever. This is where Gresley Beat and Gainsborough come in. This post has been edited three or four times to add more and more layouts. I told you keeping it to three was hard!

I agree. Purchase 2 new 150s for my 2 Bratchell 319s for £53 each. As far as I can see it's the best way to provide weight for a single car (maybe the chassis off cuts can be used in other cars), a strong all wheel drive and pick up motor, a light kit, plus some spare bodies that hopefully can be sold on and some spare under frame bits to help detail my Hornby Class 153.

Firstly thank you for the drawings. Secondly thank you for the advice. I guess it makes perfect sense, but for rookies like me it isn't obvious until pointed out. I don't think it's practical to release "handed" curved points. As I see it there are 2 solutions: 1. Leave it - I think those that are going into that level of detail may well end up building their own track anyway. 2. Considering that it is fair to assume that true 00 scale track (irrespective of market size) is a specialist product. As a specialist product maybe there could be scope to have a separate section of rail that allows the point to be given handedness. By this I mean that the framework of the point and main running lines on either side are supplied fixed, but one would drop in a section of rail with the attached frog and blade that would allow it to assume handedness. This would mean that a common frame could be mass produced, along with the two possible sections per point. Maybe someone decides at the time of purchase which section they would like so that they aren't supplied extra which would boost the cost. Maybe if the sections could be used in other circumstances (e.g. slips) then it could actually reduce the overall component variation and reduce costs. I am aware that option 2 would move it further away from "ready to lay" but if the section were "drop in" with minimal effort then I feel that it is still in spirit "ready to lay". You're just laying 2 parts instead of 1.

With due respect, if Hattons had sent the correct item in the first place then the buyer would not have needed to purchase peace of mind, as you put it. I feel that when the seller has made a mistake then the seller should pay for that mistake to rectify it. In the case of a £200 steam loco I would not send it by regular post either - I doubt many would. I say this as a very happy Hattons customer. My order from yesterday took less than 24hr by their standard postage.

Tillig manage two variants of their long point with a 10deg and a 6deg angle. The problem with doing something like this is that you'll then need two different diamond crossings. Their smaller points use 15deg iirc, so a third diamond crossing would be needed there as well. This will eat into profitability if they release all the different types of crossover, or you'd be back to needing a hand build solution if they didn't release the crossing you wanted. As I mentioned earlier whilst I would be happy with anyone entering the game I feel that we as consumers would be better of it i wasn't Peco because then Peco would probably respond with their own range which would yield one of two results: 1) they decide to release a different type of track to the one that was released before i.e. BH if the competitor is FB or vise versa or 2. they release a complimentary range which is aesthetically similar with different geometry which would then give us variety across 2 track systems.

I'm sorry but are we not complicating this slightly? Surely the price of a point to produce per unit would be between the price of a Marcway point that has been hand built before being shipped and the price of a Peco RTL mass produced point (but closer to the RTL price)? Yes there are start up costs as there are with ANY venture, and those need to be ascertained. And the price you sell a point for would be dependent on the balance between how quickly any investor wished to recoup his outlay and the elasticity of the product. But the cost of manufacture per unit is easily identifiable based on the price points of the two benchmark products listed above. As it would be a better product than Peco it is not unreasonable to charge a little more, and I don't feel it would affect overall sales. In terms of potential market I still feel the entire of Peco's Streamline customer base is up for grabs because anyone who has made the leap to Streamline has done so for improved looks and accuracy and once you've made that leap then wanting to spend proportionally a little more and get something significantly better is a very easy step to make. It is one that I would make and I'm a student and a tight fisted Yorkshireman to boot.

Slight error in your maths there. An item must be £9.17 to cost £11 once VAT is added.

But how many would stop building their own trackwork if an RTL example was available? And how many people would stick with a 00 scale track system instead of turning to hand made when their modelling needs became more sophisticated? Also a Code 82 true 00 scale track system would in effect replace both their Code 100 and Code 75 track systems so they would get bigger economies of scale from their single track system increasing the profit margin per unit sold. I am however starting to agree with other sentiments that another manufacturer might be needed as the effects above are long term and Peco would be justified in "not taking the risk". Tbh it would also be better for us if another player were to take up the reins as this would mean Peco would have to respond and competition is good for consumers. If Peco were to launch another system we'd just end up with another monopoly with which nobod else would dare compete and again we'd have our voices ignored when we wanted change.

You make a fair point about transition curves. In regards to straight sections why could they not be cut to appropriate lengths? All it would take is for there to be, say, metre lengths of straight track similar to current flex track offerings that allow straight track to be laid easily. The track can be cut to length to suit like flex track is. I would like to point out I am by no means advocating a sort of fixed geometry like Hornby's track system. All I'm suggesting is that for there to be a few pieces of fixed shape to aid layout design. I feel this would add to the potential market. If this thread has demonstrated nothing else it has demonstrated that a new track system will have to be a compromise, albeit a better compromise than we have at present. I feel that my suggestions will allow a compromise that is perhaps more financially viable by increasing its potential market. You are of course entitled to disagree with me. At the end of the day we all would like a new and better track system.

Just because a track system has some form of "set track" doesn't mean you have to use it. The benefit is it could potentially extend the market into the "train set crowd' thus potentially making it a more viable proposition overall. Either way, I think straight track would be of benefit to beginners and those more experienced.

That I want pieces of track in preformed curves (of large radii) and straights to accompany flex track and points? I didn't think it was that complicated?

Irrespective of the exact style of track one thing I would like to see is set track-esque straights and wide (30"+) curves in various radii. This would serve two functions: easier track laying for those who are experienced model builders and also to prevent scaring off those who would have otherwise gone for set track or those (like me) who don't have masses of experience with flex track.

Haha perfect! I did invest in a set of the Hornby 92 pantographs as a temporary measure but they are just so fragile!

The plan was to cut down most of the metal block and hide the remainder behind the toilet so it's only minimally visible. Considering 150s are available for £53 from eHattons it would be quite a bit cheaper than the Replica chassis once you factor all the spares you get left over the flog, not to mention being slightly more accurate in terms of bogie size and wheelbase. I know for some Bachmann models you can change the worm gear to improve the top speed but I don't know if this would work for the 150 and if so which worm gear would be most appropriate. May I ask which pantograph would be mos suitable?

A bit of googling and reading through the archive has come up with another member who used a Class 170 instead. Would this be a better unit to use? There is some word of the 150 being a little slow for a 319 at full scale speed but surely a 170 would be better in this respect? Is there any way of gearing the 150 bogie towers to improve the top speed?

Slightly off the beaten track but I was wondering if a Bachmann Class 150 would be suitable to use to motorise a Class 319? Are the dimensions correct? I thought this would be a good way of sourcing a DCC ready chassis and some lights for less than the cost of a Replica chassis. The intention would be to do what Jim S-W has done an cut down the metal block so it is not too visible. If the dimensions are correct, how would one go about attaching the bodyshell to the chassis? And would you just remove the 150 under frame detailing and fit the 319 detailing or is it more complicated than that? TIA

Fantastic. Kinda looks like a futuristic KGX. May I ask where the benches and departure boards are from?

Fantastic layout. Thoroughly enjoying watching its progress. I wish I had the space and the skill to do something similar!

I'd guessed 82 was going to be more accurate, but asking Peco to develop a whole new rail was probably asking a bit much. I think we'd be more likely to win if they're reusing their Code 83 rail. When you're using 16.5mm gauge I don't see much of an issue if the rail is 1/1000 of an inch too high

I was under the impression Code 83 was more accurate in terms of scale size? Is that not why C&L track is Code 82? I was under the impression Code 83 was more accurate in terms of scale size? Is that not why C&L track is Code 82?

I haven't read the full thread but here are some of my opinions: 1. Not everyone has the skill to build their own track. 2. Not everyone who has the skill wants to build their own track. Reasons for this include (but are not limited to): no time, relatively pricey set up costs if you don't have the equipment already, and simply some people don't enjoy it. We all find different aspects of the hobby enjoyable. Me personally I'd rather see trains moving than building/staring at perfectly prototypical track. 3. I would welcome proper British prototype 00 gauge track in RTR form. I don't mind tinkering with the locos/stock so if an RTR P4 option were available I would definitely consider it. 4. Marcway do fill this void to some extent but they are a little pricey so I've stuck with Peco Code 75. 5. I would love to see a range similar to Peco's Code 75 plus curved diamonds for junctions, tandem 3 ways (with both turn outs going the same way) and maybe some Tillig-esque flexi points. 6. Whilst all of the above is all well and good I read an estimate on another thread that said there is probably about 180,000 railway modellers in the country of which not all model in 4mm scale. Given the variety of prototypes that would have to be modelled (BH/FB, concrete sleepers/wooden sleepers etc) I wonder whether the market is big enough to be able to satisfy everyone. I doubt it which is why we're left with compromises. It would take a large set up cost with little promise of a long term return to set up a new track system which is probably why nobody's done it yet. 7. Maybe if enough of us got on Peco they would consider changing the sleeper spacing and rail profile on their 75 to 83 so we have a better approximation but the above regarding set up costs will still apply.

My wish list includes (in no particular order, all 4mm scale 00 gauge): British RTR track (with as wide a variety of turn outs as is feasibly possible - basically what Peco offer in their Code 75 range plus maybe a curved diamond crossing, wider radii on the diamond slips and tandem 3 way points with both turn outs in the same direction) Class 91 and Mk4 rake in Swallow Class 90 in sector liveries Class 87 Class 155 WYPTE and RR Class 156 RR Class 365 NSE with panto As I went to university in Birmingham and frequently used the trains to get on campus and to go into town I would definitely purchase a 323 in its original livery even though it would be totally incorrect for the region I wish to model. Similarly I think the 442 Wessex is a great looking thing and would buy one for display purposes.

I am returning to the hobby after some 15 years, and trying to go from train set to model railway. Whilst there has been a huge improvement in locomotives and rolling stock and accessories, I was surprised to see basically no change in the available track. Surely there is a market for true 00 gauge RTR track?