DCB

Great Shame, I had really outstanding service from there. I try to call in when I am in Devon  but Paignton is not on a main route so means a detour (Unlike the Buckfastleigh shop just off th main road)  I guess future prospects  for modelling with the cost of inventory  escalating have put off potential buyers.   And laziness, I'm 10 miles from a major box shifter but buy 90%of my models on line  . There is a sewing shop near Poundland in Teignmouth  which sells model railway items, they shut at 4pm today and I arrived at 10 past

If that is code 100 concrete sleeper track   I feel you would probably have a better chance gluing Set Track as their sleepers are a harder more brittle plastic than the flexi.  I would use a set track 26"  straight with the ends cropped as a basis.  Another advantage is Set Track stays dead straight unlike flexi which loves to flex slightly

3 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

I'm going to do a test track with a load of Peco 2' points forming crossovers. If anyone has seen the Keen test track over the years he done something similar with no problems on propelling on reverse curves.

 

Are you doing a pair of crossovers,  facing  and trailing or just one.  I have an old lifting section I was thinking of using for a similar test track but I'm now wondering how long it will need to be to be a fair test

2 hours ago, Wheatley said:

I'd drill them out. But then I've never sold a loco on. 

So would I , but I often sell locos on and I would say  in the ad "Super detailed chimney drilled out."

4 hours ago, JimC said:

But could it be done to the weight limits? There were a lot of changes on the Manor chassis to get the weight down. No doubt that the original draughting on the Manor was up the chuff as you might say, but once it was sorted out there wasn't a lot wrong with them. 

The weights of the original Non superheated straight running plate Saint and the Manor were very similar and the smaller driving wheels would have been lighter.  Size for size superheated boilers are superior to saturated but weight for weight?    There is absolutely no doubt the non superheated Std no 1 was a vastly better steam raiser than the Manor.  Even the Dean Goods was a better steam raiser than the pre Sam Ell modified Manor as was probably the Dukedog, but the Dukedog would have been hard pressed to haul 6 bogies up to Notgrove and the 43XX wore their leading flanges so they wanted a bogie put on the 43XX,  They should probably have just put a std no 4 boiler on the 4-6-0 chassis with a distance piece like 4700 used when it had a no1 but they tried to be too clever.   OK a Manor looked pretty but from the writings of O.S.Nock and others pre 1951 ish they were pretty hopeless,  On the other hand J.A.F Aspinall found time between overhaul was a function of wheel diameter, so maybe a bog standard 98 clone early Saint would have been a better solution still

I don't know if the affected loco  runs slowly consistently or just on a test plank.   My  lima locos take several yards to "Warm Up"  after a period of inactivity and are then fine.      I did have problems  years ago when running Lma locos on slow heavy trains.   If they didn't get a good high speed thrash they got slower and slower  the armatures ran   hot, the  brush holders came loose in the end cap and the temper went out of the brush springs.     I changed the end cap, brushes and springs to solve it.   I did have armatures fail with wear to the drive gear bit at least one eroded the commutator slots which are part of a PCB Disc.  I  went to CD Motors about 15 years ago for my garden line  but have a couple of surviving Lima DMUs which  don't give any trouble when run at scale speeds 30 +  mph .

7 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

Those Urie 4-6-0s were fine machines.

 

Eventually, they needed fettling to get them to steam freely,   I feel reason that Churchward didn't fit 5ft 8" wheels to a Saint, and they were designed to take the smaller wheels with very minor alterations, was the success of the 43XX on heavy trains.   They were still being employed on 12 coach excursions in the 1950s by which time they were past their prime but with experienced crews pre WW2 they put up some very creditable performances, their boiler has a shorter boiler and firebox than the No1 but the same diameters,  The no 4 would need very careful firing to steam well but not a very high firing rate,  
The Manor was a bit of a shame,  a non superheated Saint with 5ft 8" wheels would have been a much better loco with the same overall weight.  None of those Stanier inspired sloping throatplate boilers delivered except the LMS 2A possibly.  Manor County or the various LMS 4-6-0 / 2-8-0 iterations never seemed to perform as well as the straight ones.  The Jubilee "Rooke" which went spectacularly on the Settle and Carlisle was straight throatplate.
Its like the Gresley A1/A3  The A3 was better than an A1 but could not run to Norwich      The Court was better than no 98 but by the mid 1940s a brand new 98 clone would have been light enough to run on the Cambrian and apart from needing a bigger tender or more water stops would have been a much better tool than the lamentable pre Sam Ell Manor.  

Having sold a mint little used dull red Wrenn City which I couldn't bring myself to repaint  I now need a replacement and a Hornby Dublo Duchess of Montrose  is lurking in the loft.
The only area and era correct Duchess for my WR layout  is City of Nottingham which was at Swindon in May 1964 on Railtour duty, highly polished and it what looks like a considerably lighter shade of Crimson than most RTR stock and very shiny,  certainly not Hornby eggshell. I tend to paint gloss and then weather with matt black, grey etc.

Any suggestions for paint shade, I prefer rattle cans,  Presumably red oxide primer...  Many thanks 

On 10/01/2024 at 19:39, roythebus1 said:

I needed to cut a bit out og the bogies to clear the Kean adaptor; this is also used to "steer" the coupling round. Also remove the 2 pips from the top of the bogie to clear the Kean mounting plate. Other pics to show how they perform with Kadees. I could also use Roco/Hornby KKs.

The problem I see is propelling,  especially around reverse curves.   I prefer to shorten the buffers to get clearance, they are  always  modelled as fully extended yet ran partly compressed in service.   I always model buck eye coupled Mk1s with buffers retracted and habitually  shorten buffers on other prioritising distance between coaches, and ability to propel over exact accuracy as a static model.

The first 50, (Not 49)  73000 to 73049 had the BR1 tender  then 73050 on had the modified cab with no rear handrail and later tenders.      My big beef with my Bachmann std 5 is its's so slow,  top speed is barely a scale 60.

Very sad to see Hattons go.    I need a couple more 14XX.58XX locos      It sounds to me like demographics has triggered the run down.  We are all getting older,and it's still the same people buying (or dying)  My local model shop  has had the same proprietor for 40 odd years and has a huge pile of various era stock covering 1990 -2023   Virtually nothing  for pre group per WW2 or BR stem era, just a few niche models.
It seems everyone is chasing the 65 to dead demographic who have every single locomotive ever produced so we have to make 1825 steamers or one offs and soon I assume Neverwazzs, I can't wait for the LMS Passenger Garratt for the Highland so I think I had better bodge one myself.
The modern image (Not Post 1968) ranges seem many and varied but how many units are actually shifted  I'm not sure how many people want them, but my experience modern eras are about 5 years (4 for Highland 1985/9) and its an absolute nightmare finding compatible stock to run side by side on a modernish era layout.  

I think Hattons woke up and smelled the coffee and decided to wind down the business before it became unprofitable.  With a contracting market this will alleviate some of the pressure on competitors, but will not help manufacturers.   Hopefully someone else will take on their moulds but really it seems to me that the bottom has fallen out of the model railway mass market .

On 07/01/2024 at 15:39, ColinK said:

One three way point all wired up.

 

 

 

I don’t have a CDU yet, but when I apply 16v AC (1.25A transformer) to the wires that go to the CDU and studs, nothing happens.   Have I got the diodes the wrong way round?

I string the diodes between two of those white connector blocks (insulate the bare wires) screwed to a bit of hardboard.  My 1N400 diodes have worked for the past 30 years.   Including operating 3 way points.  I use a 6 way rotary switch with a 5 amp rated push button to energise to operate my fiddle yard where the 3 way is located.

On 09/01/2024 at 21:54, Paul H Vigor said:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/176168545858?hash=item290476ae42:g:fWIAAOSwskZlnafu&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAAwFtXV3ndMnKTKIr8I7bWT9ZLY2kHL0OlsBdzDVvizLkjhKcUMB3RZX3OHKQKbaIrfz0Z2qJ78BTI8lOA21%2BYAdOZSqhB8gGpNmP7NBR2iADkgSVWakMi2js1DspCBZbZEfhZUQBWycfG54zGm0QgQyiLqt%2FOwdvfOXL6ZRGZqOQc5BN05SzCDvlLCl7dWtEnOo2azjZ7BwQ3CUa65zVbHm6q9WgtsO7MKufqnAfSg1W%2FHbfsjfiH0peGSc%2F4EFuZbQ%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR5jkoYOeYw

 

Something vintage. Defo not Airfix!

It is described as a Curio.   Some guy has put a lot of work (and very little money) into it.   Looks like Hornby Dublo 3 rail wheels A4/ Duchess as suggested above, I can't see any insulated bushes but I have done some of mine and it's not obvious.  Drive gear is Triang Hornby, 3/16th bore but sleeved to fit 1/8th H/D axle so quite an able engineer's work.    I reckon the cylinders are Graham Farish 81XX, cut off, drilled through  (Early ones don't have piston Rods as standard) and mounted to spacers which attach to the chassis.  Looks like the pony truck coupling has 12 BA bolts or rivets holding the coupling on. Not easy.  I reckon the centre bolt goes through the safety valve.   It could be it started  as a Grafar replacement chassis or for a Kitmaster, both available mid late 1950s  the drive gear is about mid 50s  Coupling around 1960? may well be over 60 years old and a credit to a long dead modeller(Or flung together from scrap over Christmas)  But there was no decent RTR big Prairie until the centre axle drive Hornby circa 1990(?)  I was (am) fitting Grafar 81XX and Wills 61XX bodies to Hornby Hall chassis (with Wrenn wheels)  to replace rough running Airfix mechs in the 1980s and 90s so I understand the motivation behind an X04 powered big Prairie

On 08/01/2024 at 08:56, Michael Hodgson said:

 

The track layout and signalling at any real station would reflect the traffic on offer - you wouldn't spend money catering for routes or connections that.  Completeness of options is a mistake sometimes made when building a model based on a fictional location, and this tends to happen when we try to fit sidings, loops or branches wherever we can fit them into the particular space we have set aside for our layouts.  weren't going to be used.   If we design our track to fit wherever we can put it, we should then look at how we would work it, and that might dictate a hypothetical expantion of the traffic flow.  And if access to a branch is reached only from one end of a through stationj layout, our fiddle yard design has to be arranged so that this works.

Agree  the Middle drawing needs extra trailing crossovers  Brent, and Tiverton jct Culmstock side are not unlike it,  Moreton in Marsh is a bit similar but if you modelled it everyone would tell you it was wrong

Heathfield (pre about 1930) and Kemble Tetbury Branch bay are like the top drawing . There don't seem to have been any through trains onto the Tetbury branch at Kemble, goods seems to have gone as tail loads on Passengers . By contrast Heathfield  had mainline trains take the branch having to reverse in and out of the bay with tank locos when the Dawlish Sea wall was closed.  Obviously it was a total PITA.    A lot of junctions had direct connection to the main but if you like shunting and slow running  no direct connection makes operating more complicated/fun/tedious  delete as applicable.

There was another thread on this subject a while ago as I bought a Chinese  " Adjustable Temperature Soldering Iron Kit Electronics Welding Irons Tools 60W "  off eBay around Aug 2022 and another in Sept 2022 for about £6 and posted about the purchase.     I bought the second because the first was brilliant and wanted a second so I had one in the shed and one for the toolbox .   It's tiny about the size of a weller 15watt and the tip glows dull red in the dark, it so much better than irons costing almost 10 times as much it's silly,    I  need plenty of heat for soldering droppers to rails outside or in the shed in winter primarily.     The issue I have with big  irons is they are so clumsy  especially for building 00 chassis where you heat quickly and locally or you solder a brake hanger on and a cylinder drops off.   Been there.

Is it a penny?    

As replies seem somewhat sparse...  I don't have a Bachmann 9F but have had much hassle from various models, number one suspect is a wiper pickup touching the chassis any pickup on one side touching the wheel and another touching the chassis can cause this.   A swollen chassis from Mazak rot can exacerbate this.     Not sure if the Bachmann 9F has a layshaft but the Hornby Q1 has one and that works it's way out and fouls on a driving wheel shorting it out when it gets bored.  If the body has been off a wire can get squashed against the chassis and damage the insulation causing a short.     If all else fails take the loco apart (hopefully with a diagram of what fits where to rely on)  and if you can't fix it sell the bits separately on eBay.

It is an oddity that models in unopened packaging are a lot more valuable than ones which have been opened.   In 60 years time the loss of the film may cost you many thousands of yuan  in value.  
Seriously though I find putting models back into their packaging causes more damage than storing them on shelves,  and leaving them on the layout (in a dark near windowless room)  is safer still.
The tissue paper vs film is interesting  but should I return a loco I would  put the loco in its box and that box in a much larger box filled with bubble wrap to give it a sporting chance of arriving safely.  

9ft X 12 ft   I could run 8 coach EMUs or 8 coach Mk1 sets plus a loco in that in OO  my  loft layout was about 14ft X 9ft.    Not very obviously mine was DC so I could have hidden sidings, just set the points and out comes a train, not necessarily the right one and quite steep gradients, possible when you throw away the chips and replace with lead to get two levels. 
But curved points to get the storage round the corners  and  open storage lops one side DCC or a figure 8 in DC you could get quite a nice 2 or 4 track through station  with a small yard, lets face it a modern big yard is often only one siding and a container mover,     If watching Emus  er I mean EMUs is your thing there is loads of scope. Watch out for the door.  I currently have a properly engineered lifting flap which lets me in or out, lift, pass through, drop in under 15 seconds, Previously the lift out took 2 minutes so I crawled under on hands and knees fine in your 30s but...

 I also had a high level layout 60" to the bottom of the baseboard  62" track level more nod under than duck, and the loft had a near central hatch ( Which at my age is too difficult to get into now,) 

I wonder if it might be worth registering as self employed if HMRC come a hassling and then piling on the expenses of running a car to get my stuff 10 miles to the post office, Business use insurance and everything so I make a substantial loss every year which presumably i can offset against other tax liabilities?   My eBay sales go into a separate Bank account and purchases and expenses such as postage come from the same account,.  After about 4 years it has about £200 in it so I'm not exactly making a fortune, even if my spare stock shelf is groaning under the weight of the bargains and non runners I have acquired.  If I bought my glue and paint on the same account I wouldn't even have that much.

On 04/01/2024 at 18:00, Miss Prism said:

The problem here is that while the tracks  2 south  3 north and the platforms and goods yard relationship are similar to Kidlington the track plan is not. The Branch does not diverge at Kidlington it is the 3rd line north of the station.  The model plan has no branch run round loop and a goods lay bye, running loop what ever has been added  to make the 3rd road.    It  is not something a full size railway would have built,  the whole ethos of the real Kidlington was to keep branch trains clear of the main line.   From the NLS map around 1900  Kidlington had the road bridge much closer to the platform and three running lines north of  the road bridge for 1/2 mile maybe before the branch swung away to the West ,  Also North of the road bridge was a branch run round loop.  " At Kidlington this meant first unloading any passengers before reversing out of the station to perform the run-round. " There was a scissors crossover between Branch and Down Main.    The scissors was unusual I don't know of another example quite like it,  but the run round away from the platform made a lot of sense,  The Branch was a later addition and Kidlington was adapted to become the junction station and the Branch extended beside the main line even later to keep branch trains clear of the main line.

No experience of HAA's and the like but ....   One "Different" wagon or coach in a set can ruin the appearance of a uniform set..  That may be prototypical, Mk1 Buffets and Full Brakes on Mk2 coach sets, or horrible a Mainline Mk1 in a set of Hornby or Lima, a Lima in a set of Hornby.
If the buffer heights are correct / uniform that is half the battle visually,  Hornby can't even manage that across their own range , almost everything I own Hornby has been lowered to match Bachmann and Hornby Dublo,  and if the coupling heights match that's a miracle (most of mine use Peco)     If starting again I would would try to buy complete rakes from the same batch from the same manufacturer,  Different batches can vary quite dramatically en they are produced at different factories in the far east from different materials to different specifications.

18 hours ago, Bandicoot said:

I have a number of 00 scale locos which have never been unboxed. They are an LNER J15 and some 0-6-0 and 0-4-4 tank engines.

Now I learn they can deteriorate unless kept running.

I have an old office desk which is 4 foot 6 inches long and 2 feet from front to back.

Can anyone please tell me if that is sufficient room to build a basic oval track for running-in/ maintenance?

Also could you please tell me how many curves and what radius they should be and how many straight pieces I require?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

B 

Realistically you need 3ft 6"  X 3ft 6"   minimum,  Mine is 2ft X 5ft ish but only 0-4-0s and heavily modified longer locos can scrape round,  Modern RTR  locos like 3rd Radius, especially when new, bit of wear and they cope with 2nd but my Bachmann 64XX still doesn't like 2nd  radius after maybe 10 years.  A lot of kit builds from the 1980s 90s etc need 24" radius.

A circle of 3rd Radius on a clean un carpeted floor (to avoid fluff getting round the axles)  or dining table is ideal for testing.  Maybe make a circular base board 3ft 6" with a 3ft hole and hang it on a nail somewhere in the shed.    4X2 you could run up and down  I have a 4ft ish by 6" ish test plank just as a primary does it go test, and I buffer locos up to the end and leave them slipping while have a coffee....
As regards testing, its a balance, bits break off modern RTR and all kit builds when you take locos out of their packaging and they get damaged while testing.   Mazak rot is a time thing,  and plastic warp  is similar.  I think Hornby Dublo / Wrenn benefit from a regular oiling and run but not much else.   Everything benefits from dry dark UV proof storage,  Mainline plastic valve gear went brittle and if any 4mt or LMS 4-6-0s still run its a miracle and most of the Mazak rot 2000 era Hornby must be dust by now.   

22 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

The bog-standard railway station with two platforms and a goods yard is pretty boring to operate.

On the contrary,  a two platform station with no bay and a diverging branch is much more interesting to operate. Less interesting visually as you can't have branch and main line trains depart or arrive simultaneously, but a heck of a lot more interesting to operate. The Branch Auto has to vacate the platform to make room for the main line arrival and then return to pick up passengers, often lurking in a goods yard,  it's even more complicated when the loco needs to run round.  Totnes on the Dart Valley  and the Malmesbury branch junction (Little Somerford) were two.  Even two platform stations with a loop would have trains reverse, Cirencester MSWJR had several passenger trains reverse or arrive / Depart ECS back the way they came. Marlborough had most reverse (That's super weird) .   When I have a spare lifetime I will make a list but I have all 4 of the Historical Survey of GWR stations books and very  few have "Branch Bays" as in dead end, at the junction, fewer still have facing access for arriving trains.

Again pre 1900  arrival Bays needed a run round.    Railmotors and Auto trains led to some run round loops being taken out of use but usually the train arrived at a through platform, loco ran round and pushed the train into the bay ready to depart again, generally modellers have the auto train go straight into the dead end bay and then straight back out.  often on a timer!
 

I thinned down the cab footsteps and they now just clear the Hornby Rods.  I think it looks a lot better on the Hornby chassis than the Wrenn apart from the huge motor sticking up in the cab.

I tried the K's and Lima bodies on various chassis.   Plan B is a Triang Jinty with the motor lowered and driving the rear axle, Plan A the Hornby Jinty.    I quite like the 4-4-0T,Bit freelance  just needs smaller driving wheels....