mightbe

Many have said that (uncoupled) diesel locos are dead-easy to convert to P4, regardless of manufacturer. Not owning any diesels myself, I can't say for certain but it stands to reason. No coupling rods, no quartering, no valve gear, etc. AG also sells the necessary back-to-back gauge for P4, labelled as "S4". Typically the two abbreviations are used to denote two different standards, but in this case S4 means regular P4.

Multiple units don't necessary fall under the purview of the conversion "kits". You'll likely have to buy coach wheels of the proper diameter for all the unpowered axles. ISTR that the 108 has a proper Ultrascale kit, but their waiting list is over 7 months long. I should add; if wanting to get something running for its own sake, take the most pedestrian little loco you have (i.e. No valve gear/external workings) and get an AG kit. Jinty, 08, Bo-Bo diesel, etc

If I buy rail or flextrack from C&L I have them cut it into 50 cm lengths, which falls within Royal Mail allowances. Certainly worth enquiring if Hattons would do that. If not, DHL is fantabulously quick. With DHL, I recommend placing a large order--it's just not worth it for small ones. On "duty free"--using US Customs' "electric train set or accessory" category, the MFN duty rate should be 0% UK to US. Failure to use the proper label or associated code can incur harsh duties if the value exceeds a certain amount ($250 IIRC). If the customs officer sees a non-standard label they must choose, from the most-similar standard labels, the one with the highest duty. I speak from personal experience as an American buying trains from the UK.* I doubt you'll run into this kind of issue with Hatton's, who seem to know their way 'round customs. Quentin *after pressing, the online retailer in question grudgingly acknowledged their costly mistake but refused any form of compensation. In a subsequent exchange I was essentially told "serves you right for not having to pay your fair share (VAT)." Very unprofessional IMHO.

I'm afraid Brio and Thomas are your only options for RTL wood-sleepered track at the moment. Seriously though, why not build it yourself with real wooden sleepers? It'll look better than a chunky plastic representation I assure you, and plain track is easier to built than pointwork (which at the time was likely still bullhead). ST baseplates are available, which are at least period-correct if perhaps improbable for your line of choice. Quentin

I would do a quick tester in P4 before committing to such a large project; a proving-ground, if you will. A modest inglenook, shelf layout, or what-have-you would give some instant gratification and help sustain interest (while moderating expenses!). I would generally suggest doing something that can be incorporated into a larger plan later-on, and the MPD seems ideal for this. Ambition is healthy; success is good for the soul. Quentin

Slight aside; what you describe is not C&L per se but an ex-Exactoscale product. More precisely, they're Exactoscale track bases--which have been sold for eons--with rail threaded through. Though I grant you it can be confusing because of the way they've chosen to list it on the website. Link to the "new" track: http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=product/product&path=346_375_377_379&product_id=12267 Edit: Both ranges are still in production, and a quick look through the site shows how each offering belongs to its own complete line of products, aesthetically and functionally Quentin

A definite improvement! Right now everything looks a bit straight and trainset-like. I would still advise a bit of 'trimming', just to add a bit more spaciousness. Termini tended to be sprawling, unseemly affairs (outside heavily urbanized areas). To which end, I might suggest removing the small platform at the bottom and using the space to put some real estate on either side of the railway property. You might be able to put the platforms in at an angle as well, or a sinuous curve into the throat, either of which would help solve the problem of track being predominantly parallel (not to mention close) to the baseboard edge. Quentin

Re: "slide chairs don't stick" They won't. Simple. Even if you somehow affix them to the sides of the stock rails with superglue, epoxy, younameit--it won't be particularly strong and I wouldn't trust them (or any other timbers) to stay firmly in place. In P4 this is absolutely critical. Unless you absolutely must, don't build functional-chaired pointwork 'loose'. Pointwork is delicate, and you should really be supporting it at all times. In-situ construction is perfectly fine most of the time (glue the templates to the baseboard and build directly on top), but another good alternative is to glue the template to a piece of ply, built it, and glue the whole thing onto the layout.. I.e., use ply the same thickness as your roadbed. Both of these methods mitigate the risk of damage and are very accurate. Quentin

And here we have the reason why the LBSCR chose Epsom Downs over... Nork. Quentin

The process went along these lines: *cork glued to baseboard *turnouts built in-situ *flextrack glued down *primed everything with gray, then a base coat of brown-gray (spray paint from Walmart) *painted the rails with enamel pens bought at Hobby Lobby *painted in undiluted white glue in small sections, dumped ballast mix on it, vacuumed excess off (catching with pantyhose in the..er..hose) *attacked everything with ground up chalk and clearcoat, working in heavy-handed layers (regrettably, it all turned out a bit too monochrome) ___________________________________ Note: the project is officially 'dead' at this point. Been playing with P4: Quentin

I reckon I could've put 4 functional chairs on each wing rail, but the dropper location prevented it. I think most of the ones I did use were slightly trimmed S chairs, IIRC. The downside is the unsupported V (I personally wouldn't use the check rail centers for holding the flangeway in P4. The Exactoscale parts are "generous", as you allude to.) Does the Exactoscale chair for the A timber firmly hold everything in place, or is it just for show?

John, In P4 it works but only just. I fear the wing rails might be free to slide around without their droppers. There didn't seem to be room for enough functional chairs (pic #1). The wing rails can be adjusted a smidgen in either direction, but the under-rail droppers limit travel to ~.5 mm in either direction. They're unaffected by normal operation. I suspect that this turnout may not fit P4 specs exactly. The knuckles should probably be sharper, and the ".68 mm" P4 check chairs set the rails farther apart than nominal value. Enough to notice anyway. I'll probably cut them in half and shave some plastic off next time. From a distance, it looks fine, and runs perfectly well, but it doesn't stand up to point-blank scrutiny. Quentin

I took it twice accounting for slight ambivalence. Average of 34. INTP for what it's worth, since others had been mentioning Myers-Briggs types. Quentin

Single slip is the obvious choice--right after (or with) matching turnouts. They're easily the most common "special" formation in my estimation, often used (like you said) to give trailing access. Inside makes the most sense to me--because they're far more common in the UK. An outside slip is noticeably unusual, in other words. I personally like the 'cut to suit' approach to spacing--50 mm out of the box (and cut as the modeller wishes) seems sensible enough. (especially given that the timbering won't be quite right for mainline crossovers anyway, unless you're going to offer them as their own discrete units) Quentin

Don't forget about exchanging the common crossing (frog) too. I've recently started doing P4 (from 00-SF), and am 3/4 of the way through my first P4 turnout (ply and functional chairs). Building from scratch isn't so hard--I've never bought/built a kit but the Exactoscale ones must be a breeze! (if pricy). Quentin

I hate to resurrect something that might be thoroughly dead, but were you able to fix the issues and finish the conversion? I'm considering one myself. Quentin

Apologies if I misunderstood or miswrote--I'd just woken up and was intrigued by what you'd said. I guess I sense that the prosperity and growth of the 1950s finally laid Victorian sensibilities--well past their sell-by date--to rest. Even though many promises didn't pan out, there was some sense that relics had to be let go of "in the name of progress". It's easy see how steam locomotives could've been considered 'everyday artifacts'--constant reminders of the old seemingly intruding on the new. I suppose others found a sense of stability in them--steam locomotives persisted as the world around them changed, until they too succumbed to "progress". --------------------- It's an interesting topic. Certainly emotional. I'm not sure I can pinpoint the exact cause either, but I agree with what you wrote. Quentin

Part of it for me is an attraction to dereliction; a once grand (or seemingly so) thing now almost unrecognizable. I never saw any of it of course, at least not in person. To borrow from a great quote, the nostalgia is our "polite agreement" with the past. I suppose the British transition came at a vulnerable time, both to active modelers now and the British public at the time. Between two world wars and mass modernization efforts, the Victorian world and mindset was crumbling around them. It seems appropriate that steam should take its final bow at the same time, as a relic of a bygone era and bygone aspirations. Quentin

Armchair activities Research on flickr shows decommissioned locos stored in the goods yard at Hove before being sent on to the scrap yards. It seems that side rods etc were not immediately removed. Here's a U1 in 1963: From an excellent photoset by Ian Nolan: https://www.flickr.com/photos/31890193@N08/sets/72157635467172110/ Quentin

It looks like a solid plan, but I fear it'll take a very long time to build it all and get it working reliably. Have you built turnouts before? If so, were they P4? If the answer to either of those is no, I'd try a few test runs before committing. P4 can easily become more expensive than 00, and it takes a lot of care. I'd do a really simple conversion to start with--a diesel, in other words--and build a small plank with a turnout or two. That's more or less what I'm doing. The Scalefour Society is a great resource. Their forums are accessible without membership, and there's a wealth of knowledge contained within. I'm not a member myself (yet/still debating it), but it's a good idea to join. I'll be interested to see your progress. Quentin

Are the bodies for these available separately by chance? I would be interested in doing one in P4, but it looks like the chassis and mechanism is unusable. Quentin

Or you have the option of going to 00-SF or EM, which have the same common crossing appearance and radius considerations. Quite simply, use gauge-widening. Upwards of .3 mm of it round the corners. For which there happens to be a ready-alternative if you choose 00 over EM. I think you should explore EM a bit more though--you can get down to 2'6" curves just fine (ditto with 00 of any kind*). 3' would be adequate for 4-6-0s and long coaches. Just make sure to increase the track spacing (Templot has a feature to help you work out collisions). EM also allows you to keep a decent 'front end' appearance to stock. All stock is affected by this in 00...but GWR stock all the more so because of the graceful proportions used. I think the proportion is more important than the actual size of the flange--you have to look a bit closer to see if THAT's wrong. *People tend to forget that 00-SF is no different than 00 anything else once you get below a 30" radius. 00-SF and EM work by the same principles. Just keep the radius about about 30", and make sure your locos have enough sideplay. Always build stock for the layout you intend to run them on. Quentin

Gordon, right now access is fairly poor from all platforms except one. Have you considered scrapping the current shed arrangement? I'd start by relocating the access track so as to 'catch' more platforms directly. If you move the connection further back 'round the curve (trailing access to a kickback), you could arrange the shed against the "north" wall and lay out the rest of the MPD on a roughly east-west axis. The unfinished side of the shed wouldn't matter because it would be against the wall. There's no shortage of room for everything else and you don't have to reach as far. Quentin

There is a lovely video of an ex-LMS shed (Chester) on YouTube. It follows a Standard 5 through the entire process. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fWnjd2eftY In a nutshell, the order for that (modernized, as I understand it) shed was 1. water, 2. ash, 3. cooling/move to shed, 4. examination, 5. washout, 6. disassembly/repair, 7. reassembly, 8. coal, 9. on-duty. Quentin

Butanone would almost surely do it. It would be a full-on plastic weld. Then again, that might be *too* permanent. Quentin