DCB

Sounds like a great concept I would think the GSR would be easier to model if it had opened nearer 1895 than 1880. There would have been lots of original 1880s stock around in 1905 and little of it is available RTR. By 1895 there were a lot of small locos which had been were struggling with heavier loads and were being replaced with larger types, notably Adams Radials and Terriers were sold off by LSWR and LBSCR in this period and Beattie well tanks and other Beattie era locos were being scrapped which might well have appealed to a new company. At the same time there was a lot of pressure on UK loco manufacturers which might well have led to sourcing Electroten like locos from the continent. The London trains would surely have warranted a 4-4-0 if only for prestige, but small 4-4-0s are thin on the ground, maybe a Caley single could be kitbashed into a 4-4-0? The LBSC and SECR might have operated local passenger services to keep route knowledge, maybe reciprocal as per the GWR and Southern between Exeter and Plymouth. By 1905 overhead electricification might have been well advanced which would be interesting with overhead wires and LBSC liveries, I am seeing Triang Steeple Cab electrics and carved up Clestories! C Reginald Dalby always showed Thomas's face for much the same reason paparazzi usually photograph royalties faces and not the back of their heads. Thomas needed a driver as he couldn't see where he was going when travelling bunker first, otherwise he would only have needed a fireman

Aftervwatching video of a Super D on the NYMR in 2011 I am now working on a chart for loco wheel revolutions per minute related to wheel speed. You can check wheel speed with the the second hand on an anologue watch, counting from Nought, or a metronome or similar app. Wheel dia in feet X 3.142 divided by 3 gives distance travelled in yards A typical UK 0-8-0 or 2-8-0 (Not a 47XX) does around 5 yards per revolution, a Manor around 6 yards per revolution and a Castle 7 yards per revolution so if you can get a clear view of the motion or hear the exhaust beat clearly. Chart to follow, hoping for + or - 3% accuracy.

Good to seethe NYMR Super D footage of a goods train running at goods train speed, I make it just over 120 rpm so around the 25mph mark. A super D and most UK 8 coupled freights do around 5 yards per revolution of the wheels. By contrast the models on the load test look more like 60mph!

I feel Swanage has been just about modelled to death, how about Exmouth, Plymouth Friary, Ilfracombe or Lymington Pier? Or for added NG Barnstaple...

That sounds like a truly excessive number of screws. What form of construction are you using? I'm only using 24 screws in a 300 X 1200 mm board with traditional 2"X1" framing but a 3mm ply top, 12 long ones in the framing and 12 short to hold the top on. Long experience has led me to avoid glue and pins in permanent layouts as wood has an awkward tendency to warp and it is much easier to repair if it is screwed together. Portable layouts are different as life expectancy is not as great and strength is needed so screw, glue and pin but 9mm ply sides? Are you in the habit of standing on your baseboards?

I think Poundland sometimes has red primer which is a reasonable brick sort of colour. Don't spray it too thick or it will dissolve the plastic. Otherwise acrylic red primer safer, more expensive but always seems to go on too thick. Fine scale shunting plank types will paint each individual brick with a tiny paint brush.

Only the very earliest Triang Princesses had the motor and gearbox in one unit. I have seen pictures but not one in the flesh. The screw together chassis I have used have been pre about 1960 with the pre tension lock coupling and non see through wheels. They have two mazak spacers as standard but I often use use K's frame spacers You can bush the axle holes to 1/8th " and use Romford Markits wheels and 1/8th axles to suit a gearbox or Romford gears though the motor mounting needs adaptation to suit Romford gears which are much smaller diameter than the Triang. The Gearbox may be too wide if intended for etched Brass frames. I re drill my Triang Chassis to suit different loco wheelbases, often using Mainline or Bachmann rods with spacing washers and Triang coupling rod screws. Personally I keep the Triang Gears so I use a Markits 3/16th" knurled axle which takes the Triang gear. I quite like the standard gearing for locos running at line speed.

As the 47XX used a standard 3500 or 4000 gallon tender I would use a different tender with the biggest baddest Mashima I could lay my hands on driving the loco via a U/J and driveshaft under the cab floor. I have decided to go this route with my 28XX after serious motor and gear meshing issues and after reading of Guy Williams original Pendon 28XX. We run a Cotswold 47XX with an MW005 and around 30:1 gears and the performance is most disappointing, it can't even haul the same trains as modified weighted Triang Halls without their magnadhesion as the motor lacks torque and stalls. Isn't Hornby or Heljan or someone making a 47XX

Yes you get derailing problems with Hornby points. They are 17.5" nominal radius which is somewhere around 16" radius through the point blade area and very marginal for present day RTR. The Peco Set track is similar but better engineered. I have live frogged some Hornby points with a fabricated point frog from N/S rail spliced in which helps as does shimming the check rails with thin N/S or brass sheet but for a proper non Thomas the Tank layout you would be far better off going to Peco Streamline

Try a good old British compromise go TT gauge. Otherwise you can get a decent main line layout into 14 X 2.5 in N or a middling branch line terminus or Minories in 00. Generally the cost of N is 00 squared as the prices are similar but you can get 4 limes as much N stuff into any given area!

Sounds like there may be issues with the rod length and play in the axle bearings. I find it quite normal for chassis to run freely without a motor and bind under power and it is usually the rods are fractionally too long or short. Opening up the holes in the rods improves things without motor but as soon as you put any power through it it all binds up again. You should be able to set the quartering by looking through the spokes as well as the straight edge method. RTR chassis are often out of alignment, Split chassis can be tweaked straight as can ancient screw together Triang or Ks but Hornby are pretty bad especially the keeper plate variety and the old Airfix had so much slop it was amazing that they ran at all, and unsurprising that they packed up so quickly in most cases!

Just wondering if the new axle is the same diameter. If so maybe pop the wheels off and swap the bushes and wheels onto the new axle. Carefully check the quartering and maybe make a jig before pressing the wheels off PS Many thanks for the post, it has reassured me as to the wisdom of resurrecting my Triang M7 and maybe making a new chassis with Hornby Dublo wheels and split axle bogie pick up, I can then substitute a modern Hornby body as and when someone puts a non runner on Ebay when the drive gears strip and replacements are not available..

Is that a home made gear train on the chassis or is it available commercially? If home made what components did you use please?

The Nissen Hut is not an easy thing to make a kit of. The curved roof has to be supplied flat so has to be thin. The full size Nissen hut is a great picece of kit ideal for emergencies where people lose their homes, Charities send tents which last a month or two. Nissen Huts last 70 years. The hut consists of curved ribs which support the corrugated galvanised steel sheet and the clever bit is the base of the ribs are tensioned by galvanised steel wires under the floor forming a D shape. The ends are not structural. nor does it need foundations. Totally ideal for earthquake areas. I helped preserve one a few years ago, it came from Chedworth Airfield and was used as an open ended farm store for 60 years. Maybe the Ratio roof over a proper structure of ribs made from Z gauge rail would work. Maybe the corrugated plastic from the mints we consumed in vast quantities at Christmas would work as a roof and forget involving Ratio at all.

I think the rails will outlast even the most energetic abrasive rubber user. The problems I get are on the inside f the rail head where dirt builds up and causes derailments, but that is outside with on board battery power. Indoors I seldom need to clean the rails since banishing most of the traction tyred locos to the display cabinet. I use a Relco but tru to avoid rail cleaning except on point blades where gunge builds up as trains seem to grip better on slightly dirty track unless you rub the rubber from side to side as you clean, even then the side of the rail head doesn't really get cleaned and most wheels run on the "Gauge Corner" not the flat top of the rails.

The best replacement for a tired X04 that I have found is a new X04. The B12 motor is just feeble. The MW 005 lacks torque and although it runs smoothly tends to stop at the slightest up hill slope and rocket back down hill unless you change to lower gearing. The other replacements need different motor mounts.and a change of gearing. The old Romford Bulldog was powerful, but a good X04 with a good magnet should run very smoothly. I use a weird variety of motors including replacing 5 pole armatures with 3 pole Triang armatures in Ks Motors for more power, and using computer CD drive motors where X04s woud protrude into a cab, The later X03 branded plastic worm motors are a bit naff but just need oil retaining felts and a change to metal gears. If your magnet has gone limp a few cheap Chinese super neo magnets will liven it up for a couple of quid or so

8 X 6 with a well should provide a better railway experience with easier curves, but a 2ft well is a bit tight and how do you get in to the well, while 8 X 4 should provide lots of room for a model village and is darned near impossible to reach the back of. I would go for a 3ft wide well. My old spare bedroom layout in 00 was only about 18" wide at its widest, but it was 60" off the floor.

No they are rubbish. The Airfix had a nice motor with a stupidly long armature shaft with a worm massively overhung from the motor bearing and ridiculously coarse gears with masses of sideplay in the chassis which works for about the hour it takes to break the plastic slidebars. Fitting non traction tyres imporves them greatly but they are still rubbish I have had multiple attempts to improve these but resorted to using a Triang Hall chassis.. A Bachmann 93XX Chassis should fit. The 2000s Hornby is if anything worse with a stupid little motor, and pickups which are next to impossible to get to work again after being disturbed, it does however have see through pony wheels which makes it good as a static model. I hope later ones are better, ours are 2010 ish, but the running is not in the same league Bachmann 43XX, 57XX, Hornby 42XX etc or the Triang chassis Romford wheel Wills 61XX kit and Triang Chassis Hornby Dublo wheel Grafar 81XX Prairie we use as bankers which the Hornby Prairies were supposed to replace. A Bachmann 43XX or 93XX Chassis should fit, after all the chassis on real thing were virtually identical just different access holes I believe on the tanks Insulfrog points are the problem when using Bachmann and many larger Hornby locos, Points go hump backed with age and the frog becomes the top of the hump so locos with 6 wheel pick up and no springs rock on their centre wheels on the unpowered frog. For easily laid temporary dining table layouts use Dead Frogs and loco like the Hornby Jinties which have only 4 wheel pick up and undersize centre wheels or 6 wheel pick up and sprung trailing axles, [though you may need to let the trailing axle drop more than standard]. If you want to run proper realistic models instead of Perky the pug from the junior range use Live frogs and your Bachmann 64XX will run beautifuly and the Oxford 14XX better still.

I think the original plan falls somewhere between a steam era plan and an EMU era plan. The plan would work for steam era as there is a run round on the top platform for off peak workings when a station pilot probably would not be available, and it was normal to move stock between arrival and departure platforms, but by the EMU era surely the bottom platform would be out of use or used as a parcels or stabling road as arrivals can't use it. It is not easy to add an arrival facility for the bottom platform to your plan, the beauty of the Minories design is its flexibility crammed into such a short length of pointwork The main line track round the back of the signal box looks a bit odd. EMUs should be able to come and go simultaneously, that's what looks good. Even better if two trains can depart simultaneously as the GC used to do at Marylebone as a bit of theatre, or the NB did at Waverley

That 4-8-0 boiler looks horribly like the GWR Kreuger monstrosities. With cylinders angled like that they could have used the GW Castle valve gear with 4 X King size cylinders, for a decent amount of grunt. In fact they could have used a King boiler with lengthened firebox and shortened barrel, or a King boiler with a mechanical stoker No of course not, we would need to consider a streamlined 4-8-2 +2-8-4 Fairlie first, or a 4-6-2 + 2-6-4 version of the Gresley Garratt before we start hitting things with a Mallet

The 2-8-4 looks good but thinking about it there is no room for inside cylinders LMS GW or BR Std style. Two outside cylinders wouldn't have been any bigger than a 9F which was at the limit of the loading gauge and the TE would probably have come down to around 34 000 lbs with 250 lbs pressure so we would have a machine capable of the same power as a Royal Scot but able to burn far more coal. I suppose they could have worked in inside cylinders with a shorter stroke to minimise length but would the resulting monster have steamed? The Caley 3 cyl 4-6-0s with dis similar valve gear inside to out did not. The problem the UK has is width over cylinders, the Yanks can go to 28" we can't exceed about 21", thats getting on for twice the volume and hence power and our need for 3 or 4 or even 6 cylinders. Only Gresley really made a neat 3 cyl arrangement, with an inclined inside cylinder. driving the middle axle The Rebuilt Bullieds were similar and might have been a better basis for a BR 4-8-2 or 4-8-4. Both 3 and 4 cyl LMS versions made the loco excessively long. The Helmholst truck, 2 bogie wheels and the leading drivers in one truck proposed by Bulied for his 2-8-0 MN proposal of around 1938 might have solved the problems but people would have shuddered at a loco without a proper bogie running at 100 mph especially after the River incidents. The G2 based LNWR 2-6-0 seems a bit pointless in view of the Whale 19" goods a 5'2" 4-6-0s which did the same job as a 2-6-0 a lot better and the LNWR built quite a few compound 2-8-0s before realising that they were better without the leading truck and outside cylinders. On the other hand the Webb 4-6-0 compounds know as Bill Baileys should have remained imaginary locos as seldom has anything quite so useless run on British Rails. The usual reason for going 2-6-0 from an 0-6-0 is either better riding or the weight of a Superheater making the front end too heavy, The Flying Pig Ivatt 4MT was planned as an 0-6-0 at one stage, and Gresley followed the Ivatt 5'8" fast freight 0-6-0 with the original K1 2-6-0 while developing the 0-6-0 as an 0-6-2T. The GW 2-6-0s were essentially 2-6-2 tanks without the tanks.

It sounds like you need a lot more LEDs wire the Green LED as per the instructions but wire a Red LED in parallel on the other track of the mimic diagram. Wire a further Greem LED as described for the RED LED and wire Red LED in parallel but on the other route of the mimic diagram. This way the route set should turn green and the other route go red. You will almost certainly have to use extra resistors on the Reds as they glow very much brighter than the greens when fed through the same value resistor. I would buy a few feet of plastic trunking to hide those straggly wires and screw connectors before your cat/dog/foot gets hooked in it and rips the lot out.

I use Evostick Pipe weld with good results on Dapol Plastic, use it sparingly! apply with a matchstick. I motorised a Dapol railbus a proper cast white metal chassis and X04 motor which was hopeless, far too much power but just slipped as the weight was over the un powered axle and the pickups dragged. I sold the chassis on Ebay and tried again with a Hornby 142 power unit but making the non powered axle pickup and not drag was difficult. Needs a split axle set up which is not easy!

I think given the space I would have gone for something like this. Mix of set track ad streamline, most visible curves 3rd radius Trains can saw past in hidden area / Fiddle yard. Interesting shunting not totally hair tearingly frustrating, and 2 coach trains look good in 4 foot platforms

Putting them on Ebay and sourcing some Bachmann wagons is probably the easy option. Using them as a static model on the layout or leaving them in a display cabinet is probably the best use if you want to keep them. Like the Hornby Tenders with the same set up the wheelsets really need separate brass bearings along those plastic guides if you want to run them, but it is a huge amount of work and then they derail on curved gradients. I long ago banned long wheelbase 4 wheelers from my layout for this reason and arranged 3 point suspension for my timber wagons on older Hornby chassis which I use in the garden. The plastic guides are fine on toy wagons which come with a loco and a circle of track for £5 but it is pretty poor on a medium price model.