velotrain

Out of curiosity, is the rollergauge something that could be reliably produced via 3D printing? Or - does it require a "more robust" material and process? This may (or not ;-) reduce development (certainly production) costs, and would eliminate the need for someone to maintain stock (potentially of multiple versions) as it could be ordered on demand. As an outsider, I'd say the basic issue is the small number of modelers who are unwilling to compromise on 16.5 gauge for their 7mm NG needs. You're also fighting the ease of using existing 16.5 gauge mechanisms, etc. to create highly individualized models, which was a major impetus behind the rise of On30 in the States before Bachmann got involved. In any battle between prototype and cuteness, I fear the latter will usually win in the end - especially with an ever-declining number of folks who may have first-hand experience/memories of that prototype.

The strapping would work well for absolutely straight segments, but would be a real bear to shape for anything else. Unless - you had some means of chopping it up into very small segments, along the lines of Power Base - but even shorter for the curves. However, I should think that the properties which make it suitable for strapping would render it difficult to work with for other applications, and rather difficult to cut. YMMV

"there's no accounting for taste" Looks like perfectly acceptable Jules Verne to me. Interestingly, Wiki describes it as both futuristic and retro! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapi:t

Not to quibble, but the NE corridor doesn't really qualify as "countryside", although it occasionally gets closer north of New Haven.

The Kato N-scale set is announced for December, with these dealers (and others) offering it. http://slist.amiami.com/top/search/list?s_keywords=10-1447&submit=Search&pagemax=40 https://www.loco1hobby.net/en/search?controller=search&orderby=position&orderway=desc&search_query=shikishima&submit_search=OK

Although the structures are to a very high quality - and far more densely packed than even Dick Elwell's, for my tastes the F&SM is a bit overblown. I remember seeing it some 15 years ago and the city streets were littered with supposed newspapers everywhere, and just in case you didn't appreciate what these were, they were about the size of circus posters. I was there again just a few years ago, and he had greatly reduced both the quantity and size of the discarded newspapers. Actually - I think it was an optional prelude to the Expo in Pittsfield, as I found about 200 photos of it while looking for the Hoosac Valley ones. Gilbert - that sounds like it was a fast-paced but most satisfying trip, with lots of great stops. I haven't done the Springfield show in about two decades, back when I went with a HO modular group, but I'm thinking of going this January.

Although depicting a very different region, one competitor that I can think of is Dick Elwell's Hoosac Valley Railroad in western Mass. I was fortunate enough to see it a few years back as part of the layout tour for a craftsman structure convention in Pittsfield. This layout has many spectacular New England mill buildings, including most of the range of South River Model Works. http://www.southrivermodelworks.com/ Overall I would say that it is less prototypical than the Allagash, mostly because it is often so jam packed with exceptional structures, with far less "open country", but still most satisfying to visit and photograph. The Hoosac Valley is well represented on the web, but this site seems to have the best collection of images - I see that it is advertising this year's version of the Expo when I visited this layout during November, 2013. http://modelersforum.com/gallery/?cat=7 Here are just a few of my own favorite images from the visit - as I recall I needed to swap out my camera battery at least once, as it felt like there was a potential photo everywhere you looked, and even this selection is less than 5% of what I shot ;-)

I chanced upon a photo of this in image search (I forget my original target), and instinctively thought it to be a model, but was impressed with the overall realism of the scene. Searching for the Allagash Railway brought up a few sites and a wealth of images. This line is set in the Northeast Kingdom area of far northeastern Vermont and nearby regions during "mud season" - the tail end of winter to very early spring, with the last of the snow still melting off. To me the most striking aspect is the effort he makes to match up the modeled scene with his custom photographic backdrops. Even a skilled observer will have a hard time determining just where 3D becomes 2D. I also enjoy the realism of his scenes - as someone quite familiar with the region they just "feel right" to me. He appears to have almost all of the track laid, and as of three years ago there are still many areas with no scenic work - but those that are complete are just spectacular. A good set of photos: http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/15291 Video of an Op Session: https://trainmasters.tv/videos/ops-live-5-op-session-mike-confalones-allagash-railway You can pay to watch the whole thing, but I found the Preview from 0:40 quite satisfying, particularly the scene from 2:00 to 2:30. Only a large model railroad can afford to devote so much territory to a single open scene, but it's well worth it here - also seen on the right side of Panorama #2. RR Line Forums - Gallery forum: http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=45876&whichpage=4 This thread was impressive enough that I signed up for this Forum, knowing that I have many month's worth of Gallery to work my way through! I love the image of the dock scene at night, and feel there is only one or two entries whose quality is not quite up to snuff - or, at least not in the same league as the others presented. The links above are just a sampling from the results of a search for "Mike Confalone Allagash Railway", and the Image results will provide many more amazing views of this masterpiece of a model railroad. I do realize it's not everyone's "cup of tea", but I trust that those who can appreciate it will agree with me. Now to find out if it will be open on any future layout tours ;-)

A very long time ago I designed a small HOn30 layout set on an island, where the line wound up a small mountain from the port to the Busch castle on top. As I recall, the main reason I put it on an island was to incorporate the excellent small rail ferry from Artitec - which would also bring all the tourists over from the mainland. As far as sources for Busch, I always used Modellbahnshop-Lippe, as they provide good English language support and somewhat discounted prices. You likely have customs charges which could impact things. I wasn't aware of the Busch steam engines and went to look for them, in the process discovering that there is now an excavator - if you wish to have a clay or gravel pit. The former would tie in nicely with their brick works. A Spanish fellow had been marketing a powered version in HO and O, but his video showed it as too jerky for my tastes. https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/Busch/44-4-0-279210-025004-0-0-0-0-0-0-grp-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html I believe the Busch magnetic adhesion is so strong that you could literally build a vertical layout on a wall - the ultimate solution for lack of space ;-) I also saw a photo on a German site showing that at least one of the engines could negotiate something like a 2" radius curve. I briefly toyed with the idea of a labyrinth railway . . . I've also thought of having a small loop run around the brim of a hat. I should think the main issue with the Z-gauge track is that the ties would look too short. However, feldbahn track is often half-buried in the ground anyway, so you could camouflage this by pressing the ties into your "roadbed".

To my eyes the 3mm Society ties are quite narrow, with the unmodified track almost looking like a feldbahn line. The Peco HOm looks more like American track, and for an industrial area the ties can be left as they come. You might want to tighten the spacing if you were representing a mainline.

I'm disappointed to see that this topic/layout has apparently been abandoned.

Here are a few videos related to the Kato Portram, and tram operations in general - although much of it also applies to automating general N, 009, or On18 operations. The first shows two Kato trams on Tomix track, and using the Tomix TCS #5563 automated operation unit. This controller offers 8 pre-loaded programs, including this one (mode 7) which alternately sends two trains/trams from sidings at a station. A variation allows each train/tram to run in opposite directions. Many of the programs call for two sensors on each track, the first to initiate deceleration and the second to ensure a hard stop before the turnout is fouled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=purwCvZRlbM I discovered that it is possible to "clone" some of the programs by adding additional turnouts and sensors, so long as they follow the mandated sequence for that program. Those skilled at electronics could design their own automated controls, although it would require sourcing many individual elements and designing the required circuit. What I like about the #5563 is that it's "plug and play", with multiple options, although you do need to purchase sensors along with the basic unit and a power pack. This video shows mode 7 cloned, which I think would be quite useful for an exhibition layout with two sidings at a station in the displayed area of the loop, and the other two hidden behind the skyboard (substitute the appropriate British terms as needed ;-). If the punters ask how this is being done with your hands free whilst talking to them, you could tell them that it is all off the shelf components. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U2WyNqtTIY Here is a video showing mode 5 (cloned), which is also applicable for trams. This one only uses a single sensor on each track, and careful placement along with a judicious speed setting is required to keep the trams from running off the track. Of course, I could have installed bumpers, but what fun would that be? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOZHuzbW-N4 Mode 3 is a double switchback operation, and I can also see this being used for an exhibition layout with a longer middle section, and changes in track elevation on all levels. This could be incorporated into a (009 ?) mining operation, with the mine itself on the top level and a truck or barge dump at the bottom. Of course, unless you're quite clever, the actual transfer of material would need to be simulated. I recall a cartoon of a loaded timber car being returned to the logging area, "What's the matter Joe - the guys down at the mill didn't want those logs after all?" One other note on the 5563 that I should make here. Others have reported using it all day at shows, but I noticed some erratic behavior while running mode 3 for an extended period. Apparently it can get overheated and confused, with subsequent erratic operation. The solution is to set the delay time to a high value, say 10-15 seconds - which is actually quite reasonable for a switchback operation. Also - I believe it does expect Tomix sensors and turnouts, but there is no reason why you couldn't use flex track between the turnouts. You would likely want to camouflage the turnouts for an 009 (or On18) application. There are also not quite so obvious sensors than those shown in the videos, but some have reported less reliable operation with them - although that is not my experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQIA6fD2NLs This last video is of a tram bash I did, combining two three-segment Tomytec units (similar to the Piccolo) into a five segment tram. I used two power units, mostly for the convenience of taking advantage of the incorporated hinging sections. However, based on horror stories I've heard of the Modemo Hiroshima Green Mover, I'm also glad I did this for operational reasons. I believe the gist of the problem was that the unpowered sections wouldn't straighten out properly after going around a curve. My test loop here includes R140 turnouts, and you can see that the Tomytec power chassis handles them with ease. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B22evuRA7UQ Charles

I just stumbled on this thread while looking for something related. I notice two things that no one else has commented on: the track on the right (under the Gramodel wagon) is significantly raised above the work surface, so this is not a fair comparison. I won't claim that this is responsible for all of the height variance, but it does look to be a major contributor. The Parkside deck has a noticeable curve/slope downward toward the end of the wagon, which combined with the above could account for all of the deck height difference. You mention straightening the Gramodel deck, but perhaps you should also have done that to the Parkside.

81C - thanks for the Roxey Mouldings tip. I asked him about screw link couplings, and Dave recommended the Markits/Romford ones. It's quite unusual and highly commendable for one manufacturer to steer a customer to someone else's product ;-) He is also willing to receive and consolidate intra-UK shipments, so they don't have to all cross the pond separately. I hope I wasn't too sharp re: Evergreen. I wouldn't even consider undertaking this if I wasn't familiar with their range. I've decided that I should get the Bachmann wagons for now and work on the reinforcement trusses before I actually order the other bits. Perhaps as some of you, I have a tendency to start a project and then get distracted by a newer and, at the time, more exciting idea - AKA Modeler's A.D.D. Thanks again to all of you for your help - I think I'm fully "kitted out". Charles

Brian - Some of the WW1 Warflats were indeed used by the British as tank carriers during the war, most famously in the build-up for Cambrai - see the "WDLR at Battle of Cambrai" thread. Photos show Warflats, Rectanks, and Macaw B (+D?) reinforced frame wagons all being used. Genesis doesn't appear to sell their jacks as parts (perhaps because they're cast on?), and they don't have the angular splayed surround as shown on the Rail Album - Macaw B site referenced earlier.

Steve - I am planning to use the 00401a. I saw the Warflat on the Hatton's site last night, but Bachmann represents it using a photo with a WW2 tank onboard (and I believe included with the product), so took it to be a much later version than those used in WW1. Gramodels indicates a wide range of future products over many scales, but I have to wonder just how many he will actually get to. One of interest to WW1 modelers is a 7mmNG light railway workshop train (he already offers one in 009) - with interiors! I'm sure he's a much nicer fellow than I am, although he attacked me for sending an email lacking suitable British niceties, and only wish he had a more informative site.

I had thought I sent something similar to the below about 14 hours ago, but don't see it on the site. After poking around a bit, I now agree also - some influential quotes: Wiki: " The J-series was for bolster wagons . . . For example, 45 feet (14 m), 30 ton bogie vehicles were coded 'Macaw B" Connoisseur Models: " Macaw H Bogie Bolster - These light 20 ton 35 foot bogie bolster vehicles were built by the GWR from 1927 onwards" This image is my most likely destination with all this: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7266/7142791603_baeae578f3.jpg The Macaw H thread has photos of a Macaw B currently in service on the SVR - Severn Valley perhaps? I will likely source the Bachmann wagons from Hatton's, as I've had good dealings with them previously. However, I noticed some well-done cars from Weathering Works on eBay, although at a substantially higher price. I looked at the Cambrian GWR bogies, although the Bachmann ones look much better than the Hornby ones, and they seem to represent those on about half the cars shown on the Rail Album page. I noticed on Hatton's that Bachmann will be coming out with 8-spoke wheels, although with an unknown ETA. However, I'm still looking to source "the continental safety chains and screw coupling".

Paul - This is the question that I still don't feel I have an answer to - the steel plate appearance from the end vs. the top. I'm also curious as to the composition of the cross-members. Charles "I'm a bit confused over what I'm seeing for the decking. There are about 20 cross-members on the solebars of maybe 1.5" x 3", although I can't tell the material. There appears to be a thin (1/4" ?) steel plate over this, but what confuses me is that this appears to cover the entire wagon in views from above, while the end photo seems to show it as only 4-5" wide, sitting in a notch cut out of the end cross-piece."

> "I may adjust the track layout around the turntable as it's looking a bit busy there!" As opposed to where? > "To make the 12ft by 4ft, I will join together 2 x 6ft by 4ft baseboards that can be fairly easy to separate incase I need to move the layout into another room." Really? You'll have the track already cut for each baseboard and connected with rail joiners across the gap? All electrical wiring will likewise have connectors at one side of each baseboard? No turnouts will span across the baseboards? > "Access to around the layout is possible by bringing it forward from the wall to get temporary access. I may have to re-think this as well." Indeed - unless the layout base is sturdy enough that it will all move as one, and all the legs are on casters. I'm going to address this whole scheme from different perspectives than have been looked at so far, but to me are necessary before you even start to discuss trackplans. Perhaps the first thing you need to consider is your motivation. > "I used to have model railway as a child and, now that I have children, I have decided to get back into it." Are you doing this because you want your children to enjoy the same feelings that you experienced as a child? Have you discussed this with them? I gather most/many children nowadays have no/little interest in electronically operated things that they cannot fit in the palm of their hand. If you're largely doing this with the hope that it will be something to share with your children, how would you feel if you discover - after you start - that they don't have any interest in it? To what extent are you doing it for yourself, either to recapture feelings from your youth, or to experience running model trains as an adult? I have an overwhelming sense that you are rushing into this way too fast. You've got lumber and you've got track, so let's get the tools out. You say this trackplan won't work? OK, I'll have a new version by tomorrow. Besides looking realistically at how interested/involved your children might be, it would be useful to determine just what your current and future model railway interests are. When I saw the first trackplan, I had the sense that it was very much what you recalled from your youth - or ideally wanted then. Lots of trains simultaneously running around in circles at high speeds. See "Rule 1" above. Do you have a nearby model railroad club? Have you looked into their activities? Been to train shows recently? I'm in the U.S., but have gotten the impression that from pretty much anywhere in the U.K. (OK - maybe not Thurso ;-), on any given weekend, you can find a train show without excessive travel. Have you considered the possibility that the best solution might be to create one sort of layout that can be a joint enterprise between you and your children, and another one that might be more satisfying for yourself? Perhaps even a small exhibition layout that you can bring to train shows. Many adult modelers find that they prefer shunting to mindlessly (gross generalization here - nothing personal) watching trains race around small loops. "Tabletop" layouts have largely (among serious modelers) given way to around the room designs, often requiring that any train only pass through a given scene once. I don't recall the name of it, but if you search for industrial railways, you'll find info (and photos) on a quite nice O-scale layout that a fellow has been working on for 20 years - and still has a ways to go. I commend his story to you because he started by thinking about what kind of railway he wanted and how he wanted to operate it - which doesn't seem to have happened here. Perhaps it's the difference between "toy trains" and a "model railway", with all that implies - very few of the real ones run in loops. Instead of being determined to start off with a 4' x 12' layout, which might well get abandoned at some point, I think you'd be much better served by sampling the wide variety of possible types of model railroad layouts, before deciding just what you want to do. Try setting up maybe a 4' x 8' loop on the floor, and see if that is really what you want. Perhaps also try building a small "shelf" shunting layout, to experience that side of things. One benefit of starting with a small layout project and finishing it, is that you get to go through all the aspects - benchwork, roadbed, tracklaying, wiring, control, structures and scenery - within a limited scale, before deciding that you really want to do all those on a 4' x 12' layout of concentric loops. You could start even smaller - say with a Gn15 micro layout(Search for Gnatterbox) That might be a fun project to involve your children in, and if it doesn't work out, then you haven't committed yourself to a monstrous time and money eating project that you might not enjoy anyway - even if completed. I'm truly not trying to dampen your enthusiasm, only suggesting that you need to put a brake on it to step back and think about just what it is that you really want. If you are like most of us, you will make some false starts before you finally figure that out, and I'd hate to see you get discouraged by starting a huge project before you know what direction is really right for you. As Rule 1 states, "if this is really what you want . . . "

Thanks for the link Paul - that looks like the same one as at the other link, and the chassis detail shots should help me with the truss work. Somewhere I saw (perhaps on this site) images of one that was (I think) still in private service - perhaps for preservation work. Paul - would you know anything about the decking? It puzzles me - see the original post. Charles

I have no personal knowledge, but selected the Hornby over the Bachmann based on this thread - relevant bits on page 2: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/74216-wdlr-at-battle-of-cambrai/page-2?hl=+gwr +macaw PLEASE NOTE that the +macaw was not included in the link I copied over from that page, so you will need to copy that bit and paste it in after the link fails - or alternately search for Cambrai. Sorry that my link to the proto page didn't work - not sure why. Not a factor, but there were several days between writing the text and posting, as I learned I had to back out IE 11 to be able to paste into a message (thanks Andy). It's entirely possible that Hornby produces(d) a Macaw A (?) that is longer than the H I bought. If not, you will need to take your opinion to the other thread, where two (seemingly knowledgeable) folks said the Hornby was more appropriate as a base for the type B, and that the Bachmann was most likely post-WW1 - perhaps you were thinking of the other great war? Steve - I had noticed that Gramodels sold the jacks separate from the Warflat, I assumed because multiple styles were used over the years. Pity that he has only tiny photos of a tiny minority of his products - would you be able to tell which is "closer" from his product names? I've heard his quality is quite good, and saw others wishing his site ("brochure") was more up to contemporary standards - perhaps he grudgingly has a site but still prefers/relies on show sales for his income. 81C - thanks for the Cambrian bogie tip. Perhaps I'll look at the stock bogies when they arrive and decide if I can live with them. I've been realizing that I'm paying rather a lot for just a pair of wagon chassis ;-) We actually do have Evergreen over here (I had always thought they were one of "ours") - I'm trying to source the bits that are (much) more scarce. At least on the 60 cm side, it seems that manufacturers are producing lots of new stuff for the approaching WW1 Centennial - even Slater's in 16 mm, but I don't know if that's also happening on the SG side of things, although noticed elsewhere on RMweb that someone was using 3-D printing for tank flats (forget which) and a tank ramp. I was impressed that the fellow doing it actually test-printed his designs, vs. displaying a rendering and waiting for others to test for him - I won't order anything the designer isn't willing to show me a photo of. He was also sensitive to the limits of the process, and properties of the various materials - unexpected integrity for that arena. The Macaw's have a distinctive profile, and are dominant in the photos showing Mk IV females loaded for shipment to Cambrai.

I've just bought a pair of Hornby GWR Macaw H bogie bolster wagons, with hopes of converting them to type B or D, to serve as WW1 tank carriers. This page has several photographs of the prototype: http://www.railalbum.co.uk/railway-wagons/military/ww1-gwr-macaw.htm The additional truss-work is extensive, and I'll probably build it up of styrene strip - although, might try my first resin casting after I make the first one. From what I can see, some of the "flat" truss elements on the B have been replaced by angle iron on the D. I've just noticed that the Hornby bogies have the wrong wheels, and appear to have poor detail - which is no surprise. I'm also realizing that I'll need some other bits, and since I'm in Boston, U.S., would prefer to source as much as possible from one U.K. shop. I'll list what I'm interested in, and would appreciate whatever info/leads anyone could provide. The close-up end photo near the bottom of the linked page is the best reference. Quality trucks of this type with 8-spoke wheels - hopefully near as thin as shown Quality buffers to match these Screw-link couplers, and perhaps the "continental" safety chains (I have chain, but not hooks) Would anyone make screw jacks + housing anything close to this for OO? A few other general questions, if anyone has info. I'm a bit confused over what I'm seeing for the decking. There are about 20 cross-members on the solebars of maybe 1.5" x 3", although I can't tell the material. There appears to be a thin (1/4" ?) steel plate over this, but what confuses me is that this appears to cover the entire wagon in views from above, while the end photo seems to show it as only 4-5" wide, sitting in a notch cut out of the end cross-piece. The linked page has a very small copy of GWR diagram 50. Is there somewhere online that I can find a more detailed - or at least larger (pixel-wise) - drawing to help me lay out the trusses? Also, there are four lengthwise trusses, and I also see some transverse members, but they're a bit harder to make out in the photos, although it appears to be at the three lower "junction" points. I don't yet know how religious I'll be in trying to replicate all of this, and may skip the diagonal cross-braces, as I think it's the side-profile that distinguishes this car.

Mike - Regarding the duckboards - you mentioned that they were 10.5 mm x 49 mm. Trusting that to be for 43.5 scale, I make the proto size as 18.5" x 83". However, the photo you posted of them being loaded aboard a small wagon on a turntable suggests that they're about at long as the figures are tall, which would indicate somewhere around 6' - or slightly less. I suspect precut components for these were not shipped from England, but that they were instead "designed", sourced, and built as needed in each advanced area - with the actual construction carried out some ways back, as we often see them arriving by train. I believe I've read that this was often assigned to the Chinese laborers. I also noticed that your "runners" are parallel to the ends of the walkway boards, while most of the photos seem to show them angled such that there is one "narrow" and one "wide" end, to allow overlap (even while "turning") at the connecting point. I can see how your arrangement also allows this, but wonder if it was a less common standard? thanks, Charles